City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening Stonecrest and welcome to our. Good evening Stonecrest and welcome to our City Council meeting. Today is Monday, July 27th. The time is now 617. I will now call this meeting to order. Madam City Clerk, can you be so kind and do the roll call?

Thank you. Next on the agenda is invocation by our very own Mr. Jeremy Reed.

Next on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance by... Councilman George Turner, District 4.

Let us face the flag and stand to our feet, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much.

Before we move forward, Mr. Reid, can you come back to the podium.

But what you do, not just here, but out in our community is valuable.

Thank you again mystery we appreciate you. Next on the agenda is the approval of the agenda Council. Is there any need for any adjustments. Councilman Turner.

Under. Oh, business. There are two items that we wanted to move to the next work session. First one is item B. That's the matrix for the fee study. And item C, that's the CID resolution.

And you want these items moved to the work session in August?

Yes. My chart shows item B, resolution for matrix fee study, and item E, cooperation agreement with the SLP-CID.

Any other adjustments? I would like to move executive session before public hearing. I would entertain a motion if it's no other changes. Councilman Turner.

Move for approval of the agenda, which is three stated adjustments, removing item B from old business, removing item E from old business, and executive session following public hearing. Second.

executive session following public comments before the hearing executive session following public comments second the motion has been properly moved in second by councilwoman smith are you ready for the question all those in favor of the motion please respond with yay all those opposed nay starting with district three yay district four yay district five yay district one is yay Motion carries four to zero, the agenda is now approved. First item, next item on the agenda is the approval of meeting minutes for the special call meeting for June 8th of 2026. Council, have you had a chance to review

MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING OF JUNE 8TH, 2026, 1130 A.M. I BELIEVE IT WAS.

Was it 11 a.m. or 11.30? 11.30. I did have one question. Mayor Cobble, was you on that meeting via Zoom? For June 8th at 11.30.

It said via Zoom, but I just didn't recall. So, Sonya, if you could just verify. Thank you. Did you, Councilman Turner? Is there a motion on the floor?

Was there any correction to the minutes on that date?

I'm sorry. You're just going to verify if mayor copper was in attendance. Councilman Turner.

Move for approval of the minutes may, I'm sorry, of June 28th, 2026 with any stated corrections.

At 1130. Second. The motion has been properly moved in second by Councilwoman Smith are you ready for the question. All those in favor of the motion please respond with yay all those opposed nay starting with district 3.

District 1 is yay. The special call meeting for June 8 at 1130 has been approved. based on our city clerk just verifying the information. Next on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes for our work session June 8th at 6pm. Council. Is there any need for adjustments?

Move for approval of the work session minutes of June 8, 2026. Second.

The motion has been properly moved in second by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed nay, starting with District 3. Yay. History for the district 5 in district one is yay the work session meeting minutes for June 8 has been approved. Or to 0. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes for the City Council meeting for June 22nd of 2026.

Move for approval of the City Council meeting minutes of June 22nd, 2026.

Councilman Turner, I do have some unreadiness on this one. On these minutes, it stated that I, Mayor Pro Tem, made a motion. And I did not make a motion for the approval of Modine and Jenkins. That motion came from Councilwoman Smith. And the other thing I had a question about was it stated Mayor Cabo was away from the dais during the vote, but she was absent from the meeting during that vote.

I was away from the dais, but I was absent from the meeting. I was present in the meeting and on record, and then I returned to the meeting after my brief absence.

Which is what the minutes reflect, that I was not on the dais for the vote.

And was not in attendance of the meeting. Was in attendance of the meeting.

You could not vote. You was not in the meeting. We had to contact you. I was here for the meeting on record. I was in and on camera. This is not even this is not even debatable. I literally was on. Right. It's not debatable.

She was absent for the vote. So it's not she wasn't at the dais, but she was not in the building and she was not via Zoom. So she was absent from the dais.

You was absent for the vote, so that's why we had to change the vote.

Language right now says I was not at the dais. Does it not? You was absent. You was not in the building. Would you like to change the word from not at the dais to absent from the dais? Is that what you're saying? Absent from the dais is fine, but not your original comment was I was absent from the meeting. You couldn't make a vote because you wasn't via Zoom. That's not correct. I WAS IN THE MEETING. I LEFT THE BUILDING TO RESPOND TO A FAMILY EMERGENCY AND I RETURNED TO THE MEETING. I WAS ABSENT FOR AT THE DIUS. I WILL CERTAINLY ACCEPT. BUT TO SAY THAT I WAS ABSENT FROM THE MEETING IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH.

I HAVE TO CHANGE MY MOTION TO DEFERRAL OF THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 22ND UNTIL WE CAN REPLAY WHATEVER RECORD IS NECESSARY.

Now it's my turn. I'm sorry could you repeat your motion.

I move that we defer the approval of the minutes from June 22nd until we can validate. What's in the records.

The motion has been properly moved in a second by councilwoman Smith are you ready for the question. All those in favor of the motion please respond with yay all those opposed nay starting with district 3. District 4, district 5, district 1 is nay, motion carries 3 to 1. The approval of the meeting minutes for June 22nd has been deferred until it's reviewed to the next council meeting.

Yes, Mayor Cobble. I would like the city clerk to restate the call of that vote. I believe I heard two nays. Were there two or three nays? Right. Either way, no matter what the motion was, if you will recall the vote, please. In the microphone, please. If you'll say council member district blank vote, council member district blank vote, please.

Next on the agenda is public comments. At this time, Madam City Clerk, would you please be so kind and read the rules for public comments?

It's a button if you can push it in a turn. Is the light on?

Thank you. Next on the agenda is executive session. I entertain a motion.

I move that we go into executive session for just personnel. Are you going to go all four?

I move we go into executive session for real estate personnel, cybersecurity and litigation.

The motion has been properly moved in second by Councilwoman Smith, are you ready for the question all those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay all those opposed nay starting with district three. district for your district by a district one is Jay motion carries 321. 3 to 0, I'm sorry. 3 to 0. We are now adjourned to executive session. Councilwoman Washington.

We're about to go into executive session.

I was but everybody's waiting. Thank you stonecrest Council, I would entertain a motion to come out of executive session and return to our regular work.

Move to come out of executive session to return to the regular Council meeting.

second the motion has been properly moved in second by councilwoman smith are you ready for the question all those in favor of the motion please respond with yay all those opposed nay starting with district three district three district four yay district five yay district one is yay motion carries 3, 2, 0. We are now back in our regular council meeting. Councilman Turner.

Move to approve the amendment from executive session. Second.

The motion has been properly moved and second by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed nay. Starting with District 3. District 4.

District one is Jay motion carries 3 to 0. The minutes where the executive session has been approved. Next on the agenda is public hearing. Madam city clerk can you be so kind and read the rules for public hearing yes.

Thank you. The first item on public hearing is RZ 26004, 7224 and 7226 Maddox Road by Director Q. Thank you, Mayor Fulton.

I have one question miss Cowie property owners within a a 1000 feet were email notifications. Bills actually mail mail sorry yes mail that's what I mean. About how many properties it is that I don't have that number on me okay. Map of my you.

Any other questions before we move into public hearing.

I didn't who said that me oh, yeah, the form is common thinking.

Director Covey your recommendation for this application. On July 7 was denial. Planning Commission, what is your recommend recommendation today.

And when you say we please elaborate on who we Yes. Along with the director probably it's your position also that the staff has no recommendation this time had a recommendation on the 7th because staff believes that it should be in the hands of the Council.

that the advisement of legal staff believes that this recommendation should be in the hands of the council. Is it not always in the hands of the council to make the final decision on planning and zoning matters? And have we not always historically listed a staff position when it has always been in the hands of the council? And repeat that question for me and we not always listed a staff recommendation and the staff report both in the planning Commission and at the Council meeting that is thing that is always in the hands of the City Council that's what makes this application different.

What would make this application different than any other when it's always in the hands of the City Council to make the final recommendation?

And has the staff not made a recommendation when the city initiated rezoning?

But we are sure that the city has initiated zoning, rezonings in the past. We're just not sure today if the staff report had a different recommendation or no recommendation. Correct. I'm going to wait for it.

Oh, no, no, that's trying to help. That one was illegal. The July 7th Planning Commission meeting, there was quite the conversation back and forth and what's the staff seeming seem to have a very Arch position on its recommendation of denial and then today. And the staff report has no recommendation and at the advice of legal is going to leave it in the hands of the City Council of which is always in the hands of the City Council and even though we've initiated reasonings in the past and the staff has made recommendations this particular application is slightly different. And the staff. Not ma

I too rely on staff recommendation for matters of this nature. And there have been times that I've looked for it and it was neutral. So to say that it always is there may not be totally true. I cannot point to a specific one, but I am one who has relied on that recommendation and there have been times that it has been neutral. So yeah, it does exist.

Council any other questions before we open it up for public hearing.

No more questions, I do have a comment. You have the floor. Director Q, I appreciate the work that the city staff has done to vet this rezoning application. Certainly we want our staff to ensure that rezoning applications meet our code of ordinances and certainly in the essence of protecting the city. So I did watch the Planning Commission meeting and do appreciate the work that the staff did. Understanding how the staff came to its recommendation of denial is clear in that meeting. If anyone watched it, it is very clear that the staff does not believe that the application meets our city stand

Council, I will entertain a motion to open up public hearing.

I move that we open public hearing. Or trying to find it. Or are the 26 dash 0047224 and 7226 med ox road.

The motion has been properly moved in second by Councilman Turner. Are you ready for the question. All those in favor of the motion please respond with yay all those opposed nay starting with district 3. district for the district five yay district one is yay motion carries three to zero, we are now. In public open for public hearing. And the applicant is here.

Thank you, is there anyone speaking in favor. Is there anyone speaking in favor. Is anyone speaking in opposition.

Anyone else in the audience speaking or opposed?

Anyone else speaking in opposition? You can read what's online. Thank you.

Thank you, can you hear me now, would you like to come up and. address any of the concerns from the people with opposition.

Excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me. Counsel, do you have any questions for the applicant, staff, or legal? After we entertain a motion to close public hearing.

I'm going to close public hearing on Aussie 26 that 0, 0, 4, 7, 2, 2, 4, and 7, 2, 2, 6 matters rule.

The motion has been properly moved in second by councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those all those in favor please reply with yay all those opposed with district 3. Starting with district 3. History for the district 5, yeah. One is yay. Public hearing is now close. Council. Do you have any questions for the applicant. And we didn't want to know.

They pretend I have questions for staff leave.

Mayor cobble you have the floor or to call me when you come to the point.

The applicant mentioned that the concerns listed in the staff report from the Planning Commission meeting had been satisfied. I believe you referred to the second major issue. I think the first one was something very general to a legality, but the second was concerns relating to the zoning. Can you either affirm or deny that those concerns concerns were met.

After you reviewed that environmental report, what was the staff general's assessment of the concerns that were related to environmental issues and post the environmental report?

but we have an environmental report and we have an explanation of its possible uses.

From the applicant, okay. Even after receiving that in reviewing that staff still obviously took a position of neutrality in this report. Did that have any effect that those items being satisfied have any effect on that neutrality?

Okay, thank you, Dr. Foley. I have a question for the applicant. I know you only had three minutes, so you went really quickly on a couple of things that were mentioned in the public comment, but I want to go back through them a little more slowly. One of the constituents mentioned a truck stop, and I don't recall a truck stop being a part of the uses or the use that you... provided to the planning director as one. Can you confirm that a truck stop is not a use that you recommended?

You stated that the nearest neighborhood was roughly between a thousand and fifteen hundred feet from this site. I get that right? In the city of Stonecrest, yes. And that in our future land use map, it shows that the city would consider those within that 1,500 feet or so to be industrial uses in our future land use and not residential as they are in our current. Is that correct?

Okay. Now I do understand that there are neighborhoods on Maddox Road, Maddox Road not being a small road by any stretch. There are neighborhoods on Maddox Road, but you're saying that what is within 1500 feet from this particular site. um is 10 to 12 parcels of which have no usage today at all don't appear to be residential by use and that our future land use doesn't even classify them as that is that correct correct so you know on that western end of maddox road in the vicinity of the site i don't think it's a formal neighborhood i think there's five or six houses on the south side of reside

But recognizing that there are neighborhoods on Maddox Road. East, away from maybe your particular site, but certainly do exist on Maddox Road.

there's no residential other than ones that i mentioned that i'm aware of okay uh in the i think it was one that the clerk was reading um someone mentioned that there would be some environmental hazards as a result of crushing materials that were hazardous but i think you mentioned in your opening that nothing hazardous was going to be crushed recycled so on and so forth um Can you kind of elaborate again on, and I know you mentioned some of the wasted material was more like construction material, plywood, shingles, things like that. Can you differentiate between what material would be environ

Last question for you, then I have another one for Director Coyle. I believe that you mentioned in your first seven minutes, a comp plan or some ordinance change, and then Mr. Marcus referred to that same thing. Can you restate what that was?

Those of us who are common can follow that. If the City Council were to approve the rezoning, then the natural next step would to also amend the comprehensive future, the comp plan, the future land use so that it reflects what was approved in the rezoning. You wouldn't rezone the application and then not subsequently make the change on the map.

Well, I do not see the comprehensive plan listed separately unless it is a part of the rezoning package.

Understood. Just restate that to make sure we all understand it. There's multiple parts to the rezoning. We want all of our documentation maps included to reflect the same information. So if the rezoning is approved and everything that the rezoning affects, which would include the future land use and the comprehensive plan would also need to reflect the change in the rezoning. So it is not any any foreign concept or any kind of a backdoor recommendation it is simply to make all of the um supporting documents match the decision um so i understand so hopefully that clears up um what you were ref

Mayor Patel. Mr. Kyle, we stay right where you are. Can you cue the site photos again. I believe it's from staff. Right there. That's good. That's good. Based on these site photos, this is actually what is on the site right now.

Okay. Keep thumbing through the rest of them and take a look at what's being used on the M1. Now, in my package, you have a lot more photographs than that.

Okay. Even looking at an area photograph, there's a lot of activity going on now in M1. And I'm trying to see how this would change on the M2 in terms of what else we might see. Because I have concerns about the crushing. And I know under the previous discussion, we talked about containing any crushing that might take place. uh to indoors and uh did i not read that in the package that uh that is a proposal that all crushing would take place indoors absolutely i'm not

And the same thing with burning. Is there any specific processes for burning?

No burning on the site. I want to make that clear because you have wood processing, yada, yada, yada. So there will be no

There was a mention of floodplain. Once you subtract the floodplain, how much acreage is left?

Okay. Go back over to the buffer again. You have nearly 100 acres. How much buffer is built in and guaranteed for the site on all four corners?

Ms. Cowley, is there a required buffer on the M2? I mean, what is the required buffer?

With these two separate possible, will they be combined as one at some point here?

Thank you. Ms. Cowley, I'm asking you to repeat yourself on a couple of the things that are unique to M2 versus M1 that is being asked for here. I believe that were about six or seven the uses that are permitted in M2 that are not permitted in M1 that's being asked for in this application.

Yeah, it's in the package. I have it. I just wanted to emphasize it so you can come back to it, okay? And I keep hearing the word about carcinogens. How do you measure whether or not that is a potential risk? Has that been measured? Either one of you.

Although I understand, and I really wanted to see those slides about what is going on on the property right now. So can you describe what the property is being used for at this moment?

Mayor Pro Tem, I yield for this time being.

Thank you. Council, do you have any other questions?

I think I'm about to get my answers before we, okay.

Thank you. I accept because I believe we have the option if we were to choose to approve with restriction of some of those uses.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I apologize for breaking the air.

Thank you, Councilman Turner. Councilwoman Smith, you now have the floor.

Thank you, Councilman Turner snatched it from me, but it's okay. I do have a few questions, actually. On the same note as Councilman Turner, I just want to be explicit here, and this is probably for the applicant. With the current zoning and the list of things that you all are planning to do, is there anything on your list that you are planning to do that you can do within the current M-1 zoning?

Director Cowie. Don't go anywhere. Director Cowie, you heard what was just stated. Can you confirm or deny?

Okay, thank you. And from what we've heard, it is not in existence right now. There's nothing going on in the property right now.

As it relates to the number of properties that is closest applicant You stated 10 to 12 within 1000 to 1500 feet, approximately 10 to 12 in Stonecrest that stuck out to me. Are there any residential properties that are not zoned in Stonecrest that are within that 1000 to 1500 feet?

Okay, so the answer is yes, yes, okay, thank you for that. As it relates to. Mr. Turner talked about things that could possibly be done indoor, and you said that concrete crushing is not something that can be done indoor. Is there anything on your list, the seven things that you're planning to do, that can be done in a closed-in area?

Okay. In your regulatory oversight and permit renewals, the public safety and regulatory oversight section, you mentioned periodic inspections by EPD and or municipal enforcement staff. periodic as in do you guys have any any suggestions or you you'll take whatever, if this is approved, you'll take whatever the staff recommends as the the enforcement or the the frequency of inspections, pop in inspections, those type things.

Your application states that dust, noise, water, discharge, and environmental impacts, they're going to remain below regulatory thresholds due to the various mitigation options you've put together. Is there going to be any independent or third-party verification that is done prior... I mean, has there been on your different areas that you can provide proof that you've been operating under the regulatory requirements? Have you submitted any of that information?

In my research, I found that a lot of what you want to do are a number of things that you want to do with the processing piece, the concrete recycling, the asphalt plant. Those things, the dust particles can travel for a couple miles for some of those. depending on the weather conditions. And I've also did some reading that if someone has allergies or things of such, then that can impact them, their quality of life. I heard you say that you guys would have some mitigation plans in place when it comes to the concrete grinding, which is water. Can you talk about that a little bit?

You have any idea on how close the closest residential property is to you guys it's just a matter of curiosity to the the Gwinnett county facility.

Okay, so yes, there are residential properties just as close as this 1,000 to 1,500 feet near Gwinnett County.

Okay. Where people go to work, people live. That's where I'm getting to. Where people live.

Understood. My question is more on live, though. That's what I'm trying to get to.

All right. Thank you. I just want to highlight the question that I asked before about the property. We're calling out that there are residential properties, 10 to 12, within the 1,000 to 1,500 feet in Stonecrest. But I want to highlight that we have to make responsible decisions, and we need to consider that this property is, there are homes, residential properties, that may not be Stonecrest, but there are still homes near within that 1,000 to 1,500 feet near the facility that may not fall into Stonecrest. Mayor Pro Tem, I yield for now.

Thank you. Council, what is your pleasure?

I'm going to ask the question to the applicant first, and I have another one for you, Director Q. Will you help me with what your position is and the understanding of our settlement agreement and the initiated, city initiated rezoning for this project compared to the city's position on July 7th and its position today? You're asking about the staff report? Yeah, I'm asking about your understanding of both the settlement agreement and the city initiated rezoning the staff's position in their report on the 7th and then the non-recommendation today.

Thank you, Director. My question is similar. The applicant obviously feels like they have satisfied the concerns of the recommended denial from July seven. Will you clarify whether or not you believe that has been satisfied or not and what you still believe is the staff recommendation based on our code and obviously what the applicant has provided to you since July 7th and what you heard today from the applicant?

Let me just say that we've been in this predicament for quite some time with Metro Green. And this appears to be an effort to move a problem from one location to another. And I don't want to say that it is better or worse. But I think that's what we were kind of charged to evaluate. Maddox Road as a potential location for this operation would have less of an impact on citizens, but nonetheless, it will have an impact. So we have to decide between the two, whether we concur with this rezoning for a potential movement of a recycling plant. And while I love recycling, but I don't particularly und

Councilman Turner, I didn't hear what you said at the end.

I said if there are no more comments, I'll offer a motion, but I will yield for additional comments.

Council, any other questions for the applicant, staff, or legal? I entertain a motion.

Move for approval of RZ 26-004-7224 and 7226 Meadows Road.

The chair seconds. The motion has been properly moved in second by Mayor Pro Tem Graves. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed nay. Starting with District 3.

District 1 is nay. So we do have a tie vote. Two nays and two yeas. Mayor Cobble, what is your pleasure?

My pleasure is to offer a substitute motion for deferral.

Yes, you have a motion on the floor that did not receive an affirmative in either one way or another. So I am inserting parliamentary procedure to request a substitute motion because you did not achieve an affirmative on either side.

Attorney Thompson. So we do have a tie vote. So it's my understanding that Mayor Cobble would vote to break the tie. Can you offer me some content on that, please?

Before the vote actually takes place, but we're in the middle of over right now, well, you can't make a substitute motion before a vote takes place. In a tie. Would you like to reset so we can. Research Robert rules. Assuming you're the parliamentarian for the city. I'm sorry, can you repeat what you're saying? Do you think that we should recess so we can look at the parliamentary procedure under Robert's rules? You didn't answer the mayor programs question you advise me to vote, you did not answer the question about a rather I can offer a substitute motion or not you just advise me to vote. S

According to our charter, we have a tie vote. So when we have a tie vote, we're the tie-breaking vote.

Yeah, I'm well aware of the procedure for when the mayor votes. I'm just asking if the city attorney would like to take some time to review the Robert rules of order and parliamentary procedure to determine whether or not my request for a substitute motion can be honored. If not, no problem. But I'm asking for you all to take time to research that and make that decision based on fact.

All right, I will abstain. The city council is the legislative body of this city. The city council are the five voting members of this city council. The city council's legislative authority is to make decisions on behalf of the five districts that it represents. the city council should be able to come to a majority vote seeing as the city council has the majority influence so i see no reason why the city council cannot come to a majority agreement and then put it in the hands of the non-voting member i have no influence or decision making powers and any other items not only presented today, bu

according to our charter the mayor shall cast the deciding vote if there is a tie our charter trumps robert's rules so in this instance the mayor is to vote the mayor does not have the option to abstain

Why wouldn't the mayor have an option to abstain? That is a vote. You either can vote yes, vote no, or you can abstain. So you are correct. The charter does give me that authority. And so I have casted a vote. I have voted to abstain. Just as that is offered to you as a voting member, it is also offered to me. There is nowhere in the law that says that I only have two options in which everyone else has three. There are three options. You also have had the choice to abstain. You casted an affirmative vote.

That option to abstain has to be accompanied by a written rationale for such. And absent that, I believe the charter is clear that we cannot abstain. We are obligated to vote. I question as to whether or not we have a legitimate tie because When that was written, it was assumed that it would be a tie to approve or deny. And since we never received, it was 3-3, that's when we had six members, six voting members. And we have not achieved that. That's the only question I would have. But otherwise, the mayor is obligated to vote according to the charter.

and uh that's what we said i'd like to read the statement you're referring to in the charter section 2.10 the council member no council member should abstain from voting on a matter properly brought before the city council for official action except when the city council has a reason which is disclosed in writing prior to or at the meeting and made a part of the minutes i have disclosed here at this meeting my rationale and it is a part of the minutes it is not exclusive to at the meeting it includes or at the meeting so yes prior to obviously someone who can only vote in the event of a tie wo

So Mayor Cabo, your legitimate reason, because it has to be a legitimate reason, your legitimate reason is what?

I'm sorry. No council member should abstain from voting on any matter properly brought before the city council for official action except when the city council member, which by the way, it refers to a city council member, council member being one word. I am not a city council member. I am a part of the city council, two separate words. I am by definition not a city council member when city council member is one. However, the word legitimate one is obviously arguable and to not in the charter. The words legitimate reason is not listed here. And that is obviously the discretion of the person who

Just for clarity. Um, and abstention does not constitute as a vote.

the based on what facts does an abstention not constitute as a vote? The city has adopted Robert Rules of Order as its parliamentary procedure of which, by the way, at the last special call meeting, I believe you gave guidance and instruction to the mayor pro tem to actually read some language about the Robert's Rules of Order and being used in the city's adoption of its parliamentary procedures. So not only is abstaining a vote, The charter says that when you abstain, which means it recognizes abstention as a vote, you shall either do it in writing prior to or in the meeting with rationale. S

Under Robert's rule of order and Georgia practice, abstentions do not count as a yes or a no. A vote is a yes or a no. That's where we are right now, a yes or a no.

That is slightly correct, yes. The abstention is not a yes or a no. It is by definition its own death category. It is an abstention. It is not a yes or no. You are reading that correctly. Although your interpretation is trying to imply something else, even the charter gives instructions on how to abstain. Not only does it give instructions, other council members have abstained for a vote in the past.

By definition itself, abstention is refusing to Comply.

Where did you read that? It's too abstain to not comply. What JDs that we all of a sudden possess and don't have anything in front of us that says that an abstaining vote is now not valid, except when you all use it, then all of a sudden it becomes valid. But again, the charter clearly outlines how an abstention should be achieved, which means it recognizes abstain as an actual action allowable to be taken. I have done so.

or at the meeting and made a part of the minutes, can you state for the record your reason for it? I've already stated that for the record. The meeting is being recorded. The clerk is taking minutes. I have stated it for the record. If you'd like to go back, then maybe someone in communications can replay a said. But I have already given that. Madam Clerk, do you know the reason from the mayor's abstention? To your point, City Attorney, either way, the motion did not achieve an affirmative either in approval or denial, which then gives the Council the opportunity to offer another motion. My re

Thank you, Mayor Cobble, for your comment. We were asking you to break the tie, not offer recommendations.

Well, surely my freedom of speech allows me to offer any type of verbiage when the microphone is on. So I don't need your permission to offer a recommendation. You said you weren't asking me for what I said. Yeah, but I mean, I don't need your permission. You don't have to.

It says the mayor shall only vote in the event of a tie. I voted. It doesn't say the mayor shall and must break the tie by saying yay or nay. I am allowed to abstain like you are. And so I have casted a vote.

considering we only have four seating council members until December, possibly. Elections in November, runoff will be in December if there should be one. So this matter could be unresolved until January is what we are possibly looking at. I'm just perplexed.

No, the council with the four of you, as you have passed many other items and have more today on the agenda and have voted with four members of the council prior to today, can achieve three votes, either in the affirmative or in the decline. You can. So you're... Your assimilation that from now to December, every item will go to a vote. Well, we obviously know it's not true. You voted in the special call meeting, you voted in other meetings since the resignation of District 2, and you have achieved three. votes either to defer to deny or to approve so no there's no there's nothing that says th

wonderful you should as you're a voting member of the city council mayor of the city of stonecrest i vote in the event of a tie i vote difference i vote in the event of a tie There is no language that says I must vote only in yay or nay. There's no language that says I am a tie-breaking vote of which I have to vote yay or nay. It says the mayor only votes in the event of a tie. In the event of a tie, I voted. The same rights you have, so do I.

So, um, the it's clear the mayor has decided not to vote. We had a tie in the past and she voted in that instance. So it's clear that she's choosing not to fulfill that is untrue.

I have voted today as I voted any other day of this particular tie.

She chooses not to vote. No, I chose this particular tie. So we must, I think I have the floor.

You do. And I'm going to correct you every time you make an association that is untrue with what I said or what I need. We need order. We do. So don't lie on the microphone. That works both ways. I have voted as I have in every other. It is not considered a vote. It is a vote.

We should determine what it is that we need to do to move forward in the event that we have a tie and there is a choice made not to break the tie. That's where we are.

A president has been set. We've had this to happen in the past when we failed to get three votes. And three votes are required to deny or approve the item rolled to the next council meeting for a decision. That's how it has been handled in the past. We've been here before, but for different reasons, but we've been here before. When we didn't get the charter required three votes, the item neither failed nor passed. and it rolled to the next council meeting. That's been a precedent that has been set.

I guess we have a failed motion due to the mayor not breaking the tie. Is that correct? Attorney Thompson.

So that motion failed. Council, I will entertain a motion.

The previous motion failed, so I will entertain a motion. or deferment. The chair moved to defer RZ26004, 7224 and 7226 Maddox Road to the next council meeting.

The motion has been properly moved in second by Councilman Turner. Are you ready for the question?

Question. Again, I don't know what it was said as a matter of procedure, but when they vote fails to get to requisite, a motion failed to get to requisite three votes. In the past, it has rolled to the next meeting. to the next meeting automatically. So I'm not sure whether we want to follow that or just go ahead and vote to put it on the next meeting, just for consideration.

So I would recommend to move it to the next council meeting, but I think we will have the same problem because I know my vote is not going to change.

All those in favor of the motion, please respond. Yeah. Oh, it's starting with me. No, no, no. I'll say District three. No, four. Yeah. District 5. District 1 is nay. We have a tie. Mayor Cobble.

City Clerk, would you please restate the motion?

Considering that it was my recommendation to defer the motion, I will agree and vote yay to defer to the next council meeting.

Motion carries with two yays, two nays and the mayor breaking the tie to defer this to the next council meeting in August. Next on the agenda is the discussion for supplemental pay by Ms. Robin Jackson. Good evening.

Okay, so i'm sorry back to your first question, I mean your first statement, so the policy itself. says a minimum. Of 5% yes. Okay. And you're saying that the standard is not typically 5%, although the policy says a minimum of 5% or two level of responsibility.

And the 10 to 15% is to determine how. How do you guys get to the, whether it's 10, whether it's 12 or?

OK, any any form that you guys complete to say that based on these criteria is you get 10 percent and you get 15 percent?

so the person who makes the determination is the manager not hr the manager makes the decision whether it's five ten so sometimes there's not a manager there so sometimes it would just be the city manager and the hr director okay um but if in the case like for example

Let's back up to your to your previous statement. Okay, so um, could you say that again? Who determines whether a director?

Okay. So for a director, then we will have to get the city manager makes the decision on whether a director receives supplemental pay or not. Okay. And there's no guidelines. We don't have any guidelines around outside of what the policy states.

So was that supplemental pay? Yes. Somebody approved or submitted a form for her to receive supplemental pay?

Oh, the handout that was on the desk that I didn't have an opportunity to look at before I sat down. Okay. And that would be exhibit the first sheet. Is that what you're speaking of?

That is approved by who recommended and approved because according to the policy, somebody has the recommended so somebody recommended right?

OK, so the city manager signed off on it. She was serving a temporary role of a uh she was the director of finance and she was serving as a manager i.t manager okay and city manager okay all right you can no no no city manager approved you said the city manager approved okay

Yeah, I think the attorney helped answer that question the last time I put the question out there, that if there's not any change or any change to the budget line, any additional budget needed, then we wouldn't typically see that.

So you just triggered something in my brain. Acting. In the policy, I thought I read, I don't have the policy right here in front of me. But I thought I read in the policy, and you can correct me where I'm wrong, that a person is put in an acting status. Is that a criteria of supplemental pay, or that's just something that could happen when one receives supplemental pay?

And my question as it relates to the minimal qualifications, you guys have a, um, a you have drop job requirements so minimum qualification mean they meet all the criteria as it relates to your job requirements if you as if you're going out to hire someone you have those requirements so i'm asking it who ensures or if you ever ensure that they're they meet those qualifications

Okay, so no standard review process. So what I'm hearing or what I heard is that a person who recommends someone for supplemental pay, they have the ability to determine whether it's 5% to 15%. Right.

Okay, I got it. So I'm just doing an overall summary of what I've heard. So a person can recommend supplemental pay between five and 15%. There's no criteria to say what is five or what is 15.

So if you have one additional, you have an outline that says if you have one additional task. Okay. So right now there's nothing documented that says how much.

Does HR give any recommendations when something comes across their desk?

Okay. Okay. Do you have any more of my questions there? Or was that it? Okay, okay. Yeah, keep going.

How is the wait wait. City manager HR director and the department head are required to execute supplemental pay yes.

So the form doesn't have an end date. Do you guys go back and take a look? Because I think in your policy, it says that supplemental pay cannot go beyond a year.

okay so 12 months at at the 12-month mark who determined who is um ensuring that at the 12-month mark there's a discussion made because 12 months or the city manager can request for it to continue so who's who has oversight for that right so at the payroll level that when i process payroll um we usually do a um

Ms. Franklin. in the form of city manager. So who approves the sub supplemental pay for a city manager?

I believe that the mayor signed off on that again, this packet that you guys threw in front of me today.

What do you know about? Wait, wait, I'll look. Give me a second to see.

Looking can actual question I just want to make sure I heard you correctly, you said that the. Policy was written in 2022 and it was changed in 2025 right um with a minimum of. 5% right, that was the only word change it at first it said 5%. It said 5% in 2022. Yes, it only said 5%.

Page two. Okay. Oh, okay. You redacted the name from this? Yes. Okay. Okay. So the director. No, Human Resources and Mayor Cobble. OK. So.

Okay, so with the supplemental pay, if I am receiving supplemental pay for a year, then my retirement benefits are based on my salary. So with that increase, I would get additional retirement benefit.

Okay. And with the two instances that went over a year, where would I find the justification? I see I have the form, but where would I find the justification?

Oh, so for this one that was that went over a year, the person in the position was not trained in over a year in order to be able to complete the duties of the role.

Question above your head, above your pay grade.

I don't know about the rumors. What I'm asking about is what's written here, like... there was somebody in place. That's what it says here. And this supplement was based on the duties being fulfilled while the person who is in the seat is being trained. Okay. Were those all my questions you had?

So I'll take a look at my list and see if there's anything missed at the time I'll, I'll let somebody ask any questions that they may have. Thank you. Mayor Pro Temayiu.

Thank you. I just have one question. I know for the supplemental pay that that was a year or longer over the 12 months, it says that something should be provided in writing to the city manager. In writing to the city manager, do you get a copy for your personnel file or for the personnel file?

And then, if they're doing two jobs they get so the percentages for both positions that they're fulfilling or is a because I see on one or on one of them, it was overlapping supporting two different departments. Was that percentage for both departments or is the percentage for each department they're filling in for.

Right. I'm just saying on one form, it has one department from April of 24 to 7 of 24 and then another department from January of 24 to 8 of 24 and then their position that they have. So technically they're doing three jobs. So I just wanted to know. The one that says 19 pay periods? I was just saying is that percentage for both jobs together or is it two separate?

Yes. With overlapping? Yes. Okay. Got it. Yes. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Council, any other questions for Ms. Jackson?

Yes, Councilman Turner. Not to belabor the subject. It probably needs to come to our finance committee because what you talk about here is very concerning. So we need to take a close look at whether or not we need to tighten up our procedures or just get a better understanding. So I don't want to belabor it at this hour, but I do say that we probably need to bring it up again Madam City Manager at one of our other meetings, and I would probably suggest personally that it goes to the Finance Committee.

Thank you. My last question. I noticed on I guess when you receive the form, are you looking for all signatures? Or because I noticed on some form, you might have one signature on another form, you might have three, right?

I just want to state that thank you, Ms. Jackson, that since I just received the packet, then I may have some additional questions later. So my question should be directed to you, Ms. Jackson. OK. All right. Are you?

Thank you, Ms. Jackson. I appreciate you. All right. Thank you. Next on the agenda is for a decision. Ordinance to amend section 2-180, authority to execute checks, written orders, and financial instruments, second read.

I have questions about page, oh, I don't know what, there's no page numbers. Section 2-180. B and C. My first question about B is I just wanted to be reminded about what the decision was from the city council on the obtaining a surety bond. I thought there was a kind of discussion back and forth that the city's government insurance would cover the those who were a part of this agreement or this ordinance rather um but i didn't see that reflected in c the c's language still states that these folks shall obtain and maintain a charity bond in the amount established by the policy so my first quest

voted to remove that out of the, for the requirements. So it is stated properly.

Okay. All right. So we will still ensure, we will still require the positions mentioned to obtain a surety bond.

Okay. C, my question is C, is, I'm going to read the sentence and then give you the question. Well, I guess it's all a C. It says it refers to the City Council temporarily suspending or permanently revoking check signing authority. And I just wanted to my question. I have a question about clarity on the language and also procedure. So in the charter, of course, we all know that there's only two positions in the charter that have check signing authority, which is the mayor and the city manager. The definition of this ordinance is, of course, changing the code of ordinances that reflect the exec

Okay, I just want to re-say that. So your legal opinion is that although the charter assigns that responsibility to only two roles, that the city council can write a code that extends that same authority to others not mentioned in the charter?

Okay, let me rephrase it for clarity. The charter, your legal opinion is that the charter lists check signing authority to two roles within it, only the mayor and, I'm sorry, within it, period, that would be to the mayor and the city manager. your legal opinion is that the city council can write an ordinance that extends that same responsibility to those not listed in the charter.

Yeah. But I'm just asking you is your legal opinion that that's obviously you wrote it. So I guess you are in agreement that the legislative body can assign the same authority listed under the city manager and the mayor in the charter to others by legislation.

right yeah that's what the ordinance says my question is and i'm assuming that you're agreeing with this but again my question is that by legislation the city council can give the authority listed to two individuals in the charter to others as well right so so to mimic those powers in a sense right So you said that what's listed in the charter is the powers of the mayor and the powers of the city manager. Again, my question is, it is proper and in order for the legislative body to take those same powers and by legislation, assign them to others.

Okay. This C specifically refers to check signing authority, but I believe the resolution is referring to more than just check signing, right? It is referring to the signing of all orders, checks, instruments, and warrants of payment of money. But in C, it specifically only calls out one type of payment, which is the check signing authority. So, would that mean that the City Council would not have the same power to temporarily suspend or permanently revoke any of the other forms of signing, seeing as we are specific to just one here?

Okay. C refers to the city council having the authority to temporarily suspend or permanently revoke check signing authority. The resolution in its entirety is amending the powers of the signer and more than just checks. It is listing orders, instruments, and warrants. My question is, is C restricting the council to simply only revoking check signing, but warrants, orders, and instruments are not included in that?

And is that the intention of, and I guess I'm asking the council now, is that the intention of the council is to only revoke one type, which is check signing authority and to leave, or check signing rather, and to leave orders, instruments and warrants open?

C, list one type of payment, which is checks. as it's the council's authority to revoke or temporarily suspend. I'm asking, is it the council's intention to only list checks or was the intention to revoke all orders, instruments and warrants to be included with checks as it's titled in the beginning of the ordinance? Certainly, if that is the intention, then you may want to modify that to say more than just checks. Otherwise, you're what reads here to me is that you're simply saying you can revoke check signing, but if it's warrants, instruments, or orders, that you would not have the same pow

Going back to see sorry. Thomas Thompson. What was.

A is stating, signed by, A is stating that all orders, checks, instruments, for payment of money may be signed by the mayor, mayor pro tem, city manager. Manager? Not the one I have.

Yes, is everything that's bold and underlined is being removed and everything that's red is being added.

On that section. X is listed in and C is revoked. Is that correct?

In that section, checks, orders, instruments, and warrants are listed. And C, checks is revoked. Right. The others are not listed. I mean, that's your intention. That's fine. I was just surprised that the intention would be just checks and not all of the other things listed for consistency.

Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree that. I mean, if that's the intent is to just only, you know, just to list what you think is most vulnerable and all the others that may not have the same vulnerability you're not as concerned with. You know, it seems like that's your position. That's fine. My that was my question is, did you was the intention of the City Council to only be concerned with revoking either permanently or temporarily check signing, but the others you feel were not important to have the ability to revoke or suspend? If so, fine. Yes. Oh, absolutely. I have a follow up question about

I realize this is a second read, but if we are not ready, I'm not opposed to a third read if I'm in order.

I mean, I'm ready. What about you, Councilwoman Smith?

Um, when it comes to orders, I think the attorney just stated we may want to provide some clarity on what on some of these things that we have in here. The orders, I mean, bonds would be of explains where I guess. But um, if we need to provide more additional clarity or better coverage and protection, then I have no objection to adding the information.

I want to go back to a and a it says I'm going to go down to the last sentence ish. However, to safeguard public funds and ensure the integrity of financial transactions, all checks, orders, instruments and warrants and payment of money in the amount of 25,000 or greater shall require the signature of two duly authorized signers. The 25,000 or greater requires two Diners again going on the interpretation of the city attorney there, although the Carter list that responsibility in the mayor and the city manager's role that the council can write legislation to mimic that same authority to other.

All right. If staff will provide that report and copies of those checks that were issued this year of anything over $25,000 with the two signatures, that would be fantastic. And my question for that related to this particular ordinance is obviously under the, again, the legal synopsis that it is not only the responsibility of the mayor and the city manager to sign checks that anyone in this ordinance can sign those checks. One would expect to see one of those one, two, three, four folks listed here to be signing it. But also I think what is the precipice of my challenge that by legislation, I

That sounds like a deferral. Am I correct on that?

Move for deferral of the ordinance to amend Section 2-180, authority to execute checks, written orders, and financial instructions. Second read.

The motion has been properly moved and seconded by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. all those opposed nay starting with district three district four yay district five yay district one is yay motion carries three is it automatic to the next uh council meeting uh do i need to specify that um we didn't state but we did state to defer so um I get what we go on with this. Work session on the council. Next on the agenda is for decision contract for auditor service by city manager Catherine Turner. Finance director, he shou

I have a question. City Manager stated that there was a change. Was that changed before or after the request for me to sign?

I'm not sure you answered the question. you all sent me a contract to sign and said that it was prepared and ready i signed that contract are you saying that there was changes to the contract after i signed it from the vendor yes the vendor provided okay so the copy i signed is not valid because there are now changes right okay can you please stay and point me to where those changes are I don't see a red line version of what's in the agenda is the one that I did sign, which apparently sounds like it's not the one that.

The very last one. Which now says versus what it said before, and I apologize, the red line version is not in the packet, so I can't. I don't know what was changed, so if you'll either provide that an email. And so I assume that the council is voting on a contract that's not in the packet?

So the one that's in the packet is the one that I signed, but you're saying that the one that I signed has been updated now? With the changes and I put in the email, Malden and Jenkins provided these updates to the contract. So help me is the is the one that I signed on the 21st reflective of the changes that you're speaking of or not know the one that you sign on the 21st did not have multiple Jenkins changes Okay, so the one that's in the packet is the one I signed on 21st we added the changes that is not you just said that is not the version that has been changed. The one that's in the pack

You said two different things. First you said no, then you said yes. The version that's in the packet that I signed on the 21st does reflect the changes from Walden and Jenkins.

Okay. Is that your understanding as well? City Manager?

OK. Lots of different things were just said, but I'm going to let y'all carry on with it. OK.

That motion was to approve the auditors and pending review of the contract. So that's why the contract is before us today.

Yeah, I remember I think you made the clarifying statement that the Council did not vote to approve the contract.

Right, so that's why the contract is here.

Yeah, I remember that. The dates and the conversation was slightly confusing. But if in fact the version that you sent me is the version that included the changes and that has been signed, then That's clear as mud. If there, if there were subsequent changes post that, then obviously I would want to have seen that. But it sounds like it sounds like it's not sounds like the one that's in here includes the changes.

Move for approval of the contract for audit services as outlined in the package before us.

The motion has been properly moved in second by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed nay. Starting with District 3. District 4. Yay. District 5. District 1 is yay. Motion carries 3 to 0. The contract for the auditor service has been approved. Next on the agenda is for discussion, Stonecrest Development Authority Update, SDA. Mayor Cobble.

Mayor Pro Tem, I saw that this item was submitted by you, but given responsibility to me to present, I was not aware that this was an expectation for today's meeting, but certainly I can get with the He cannot development director and I can get together prepare a update and a presentation and a future Council meeting. To be able to be prepared for that.

No, I don't have any emails or communication that requested a presentation for today.

No, I don't have an email or any correspondence requesting an update for that either. I would see that on the cover letter. It was submitted by you and assigned to me. But again, I don't have any request to be able to be prepared for that, but certainly can in the future.

Okay, we can definitely move it to the next work session, but I was told that you spoke with one of the staff members in regards to it, and I also did for communications via text, but I do not have a problem moving it to the next work session.

Well, that's great. I did not receive your text, but that is fantastic. If the request certainly is for us to make a presentation, I will get with Lance and we'll put that together. The staff did make me aware when they submitted the cover letter the other day that you had requested me to make a presentation. But again, that was just a business day ago. And so obviously not prepared to have a presentation just one business day ago. And again, that wasn't communicated to me until the memo, the cover letter was prepared.

Okay, so I'm not gonna go back and forth, but we also talked about this at the last council meeting that we wanted to update for both the SDA and the URA. But again, I will be more than happy to move it on to the next work session. And you also received several emails from Councilwoman Smith in regards to that update. or meeting.

Yeah, I think she asked me for a meeting. Yeah, it was not an update on house meeting. But I certainly am willing to present more than happy to move it to the next work session. Yes, that's fantastic. I will be prepared.

Thank you is the contract for vendor recommendations for pouring play playground surface project by Mr. Harry.

Thank you, Mr. Harry. Council, do you have any questions? We have to go to Councilman Turner.

We have a subsurface in place now, right?

You're removing all of the wood chip and you're putting in a rubberized surface?

And we're good to go. And all goes well. We'll be dancing on rubber in 30 days, 60 days.

Okay, so we'll be in place before the summer is over.

That's almost in the summer. Okay. Okay, just wanted to get a visual. Thank you very much.

I've asked Terry a million and five questions on this already.

But I just wanted to highlight there is a picture in our packet that shows what it looks like now.

Yeah. And like Councilman Turner said, After we say yes, then, you know, we're looking at August, not September timeframe.

Yes, got it. Thank you, Mayor Bartimaeus.

Any other questions for Mr. Harry? I entertain a motion.

I move that we approve the contract for vendor recommendation for Port in Place playground surface project. Second.

The motion has been properly moved and second by Councilman Turner. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed nay, starting with District 3. District 4?

District 5? Yay. District 1 is yay. Motion carries 3-0. The contract for the vendor recommendation for poor in place playground perfect project has been approved. Next on the agenda is purchase and installation of safety equipment for city hall. By regional power our facilities. manager.

Mayor Cobble understanding that the city intends to use its own funds to acquire the equipment. It is still it is still going inside of a building owned by the URA and not the city. Would this also need to be on the agenda for an upcoming URA meeting to approve the installation of the equipment into the building owned by the URA? I'm asking legal that really now you ready? I apologize.

Okay. You said that. Let me not recite what you said. Let me ask another question. You're saying that you don't think that's required and I just I can't remember if you mentioned this or not, you are restating that from where. that you were going through its equipment to be just installed and that it's not having an effect on the building. And so thus that this description of what's happening does not require the landlord to kind of weigh in. Are you basing that on the agreement between the URA and the city? Or are you just kind of generally speaking about the installation of equipment and you

I wouldn't see why you're basing that just on the mechanical functionality of the equipment is practical and not right. So it is certainly to address a serious concern of security and to improve our safety protocols. So that's obviously an elevated risk. But you're saying it is a very light installation. So it's a high concerning issue. But it's a resolution is low level in that it's just the placement of equipment. and thus the landlord doesn't need to weigh in on the enhancements of its property or security concerns.

Yeah, I had a discussion with Mr. Powell earlier today because obviously the agenda packet list that it would be coming from the professional services line of the URA, which one, equipment is not a professional service, but two, also it was a completely different budget. Right. So for another entity. So certainly understand that the financial decision would have not been in the city's hands. It would have been in the U. R. A. But my question is not related to the financial decision. My question is related to the improvement of a building owned by another entity. And your legal opinion, which i

Yeah, I certainly understand the financial responsibility is now with the city versus what was published in the agenda packet. So that's fine. If you will, please just follow up and certainly let us know us that you are a if you intend to If the agreement leans in any way to the landlord, you know, having some input on certainly the URA would agree. I have no doubt. Just wanted to know that the agreement either has or has not been reviewed or the agreement has been reviewed and that requirement did not exist. But certainly the city taking on the financial responsibility, I don't think the URA

Yeah, whatever agreement exists between the city and the landlord. The city and the URA?

So you're going to verify the URA agreement? We have to go through the URA, I know for capital improvement, but if merchandise or equipment is purchased or placed in the building, or if anything is needed or purchased in the building, have to go through the URA. Is that correct? Is that what you're asking?

I asked her to review the agreement between the URA who's the landlord and the city who's the tenant and just determine if there's any other action post this one that the URA would need to take. Has no effect on whether or not the city will move on its item today. I'm asking for a post action that if it does require the URA to also take action, we obviously would need to know that. Again, not a reflection on the item for you today. Today your item is more financial than it is anything else.

So I would recommend we look at the agreement first, even financial or even if we have to do any improvement to see what that agreement states. and then move forward. That's just my recommendation. That we defer it, look at the agreement between URA, and then make a decision. Council, what is your pleasure?

Does this hold up the installation of the safety equipment?

No, the recommendation from the Mayor Pro Tem, will that delay the installation of the equipment?

OK. I have an opinion on that. But back to the equipment itself. Some of it is additional equipment, and some of it is a replacement of equipment. The equipment at the front gate. Is that the original that we have at the back door here? And that was bought secondhand from the state, was it not, Mayor Campbell?

I take offense to the secondhand classification as a state employee, but yes, it was obtained from the state, yes.

Okay. I'm just saying that our equipment might not be as current as it should be since we've been in operation for 10 years and that was not brand new as far as I understood it. So I'm just glad to see that we are updating and adding to, and I don't want to delay the process. If it's just a couple of questions we can get answered and

um correct things as we go along just my opinion are you thank you councilman turner so who's paying for the equipment the city the city's paying for the equipment but we don't know what the agreement states if it's the ura building would they pay for the equipment are they responsible for the safety and the equipment Or would that fall on the city? So without knowing what that agreement states, we might be paying for an item that should be the responsibility of the URA. But that's my reason for deferring, but it's up to council.

I agree. I have the same concern. But I also have the concern safety concern of constituents, staff, us, everybody on top of mine as well. Is there any, any opportunity for the URA to reimburse if it is determined that is the responsibility of the URA to reimburse the funds to the city?

Well, wouldn't the URA have to agree to said reimbursement?

Well, either you agree to the reimbursement or you got to explain to the staff why they can't get safety equipment.

Well, don't look at me. You, the city council, is the URA, by the way. So it ain't you. It will be the URA board. Yes, and it's also not my recommendation that you wait to install said equipment. I do not think that that's a requirement. And to explain further, in the URA's existence, the URA has never paid for any equipment or any renovation in this building. As a matter of fact, as you all know, or you should because you are members of the URA, every time the city has made improvements to this building, it has been with city funds. As a matter of fact, the city budgets to renovate this build

The precedent has been set that any change to the property has just simply been approved by the URA. But it wasn't approved ahead. It was approved, hey, the city said it wants to spend this kind of money on this renovation. Great, URA. We're like, hey, no problem. City wants to do it. We're here to support that. City's going to pay for it. Let's do it. I mean, this is not unique to anything. literally, we have done it the same way every single time.

So Mayor Pro Tem, I think I still have the floor.

With the history and the background, thank you. I've requested a URA meeting twice since the month of June, and I think one has been requested by the city manager as well. So this type of discussion is what you have in a URA meeting. As it relates to us, and we still don't have a URA meeting on the calendar requested of the chair to give us some dates. Still not on the calendar at this point. But as it relates to the item at hand, if there is not anything that the URA has to approve other than the placement, and typically the URA approves from what I'm hearing, then I don't see why we should w

And Mayor Pro Tem, if you need another amen, we've done this before where we approve funds to be taken from one source, found out that we couldn't do it that way. And between the city manager and the finance director, we were able to put them in the right category. So that can be done. I remember you all, I mean, a lot of money had been spent on projects that we couldn't use it for and we had to come back and correct it and vice versa. Moving forward, I don't think present any risk whatsoever.

The URA cannot vote in the city council meeting. No, two separate entities. But if the State Council would send dates that the URA members are available for a meeting, we'll certainly get one on the calendar. And we have to advertise it like any other meeting, correct?

Councilman Turner. Move for approval of the purchase and installation of safety equipment for City Hall.

Can I add something to your motion? And that is, it's the piece on determining where the funding comes from post our approval.

We'll accept a friendly amendment. Thank you. Second.

Motion has been properly moved and second by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question?

Mayor Pro Tem, can you restate the motion, please?

The motion was to approve the purchasing and installation of the safety equipment for City Hall with an amendment to verify where the funds were going to be drafted from or transferred from.

I believe this is the city's recommendation for the city to pay for. The installation, right? So I imagine that. Without you doing that, you wouldn't be able to move forward. So then the motion is empty in a sense. So, are we, or is the city not an agreement to pay for the purchase and installation of the equipment? And I'm asking the city council, obviously, I know you all are recommending that, but. because if the if the if the city council is okay with the city as it always has and budgets for this purchase and equipment then it pending the payment source would leave the staff still not bei

The amendment is if that said funding source, if this could come from a different said funding source or needs to come from a different source that you guys do some research and the money be moved from that source. That is the intent of the amendment. Not that the URA will pay for anything. The city is still going to pay for it. It's just the funding source ensuring it's coming from the correct source.

Is there a question about the funding source today from the city? If we're not considering that the URA would pay for it, then is there a question of the city's funding source? It didn't sound like it was. It sounded like you were taking it from the facility's budget and the repairs and other equipment line. So is there a question about the city's funding source?

Okay. Well, if you're good, then we can drop the amendment. Okay. No consent.

You would need to restate the motion without the amendment.

I will entertain a motion, but in this motion, are we going to say reviewing of the operation agreement?

I move that we approve the purchase and installation of safety equipment for City Hall. Second.

The motion has been properly moved and seconded by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed, nay. Starting with District 3. 4. Yay. District 5.

District one is yay motion carries three to zero. Purchase for the installation of the safety equipment for city all has been approved. Thanks on the agenda. Resolution for the mid year budget adjustment by director Franklin. Miss Franklin.

I do have a presentation if they could pull it up. Mr. Grace, do you have the presentation? Ms. Franklin, is it possible you could share your screen?

Is it possible you can share your screen?

Yes, Ms. Franklin, we can see your screen.

I have some questions. Do we the council or the public have what's being presented on the screen? It's not in the packet. So I apologize. Let me restate that. presented is not in the packet. So the public obviously does not have it. Do we, the council, mayor, do we have what is being presented on the screen?

Thank you. I have a question for legal. Understanding that there are two changes to what was put in the packet. Obviously, the resolution in the packet refers to an exhibit, which is exhibit A, which is the posted amendment. which of course the posted amendment is now being amended to reflect two changes. So doing a mid-year budget amendment with the resolution that reflects an exhibit of which the exhibit does not have all the current information, although I understand it's just simply two, it does not reflect all of the amendments. I would imagine that if we are going to refer to an exhibit

Okay, yeah, I think what you're I think what you're saying is slightly the same thing I was saying, but nonetheless, I think a budget amendment should be public. I think the budget amendment should be all inclusive. Understanding that there's a zero impact to the final number is fantastic, but the details should be public. And I think that the council should have it in writing what those changes are and not just make a vote in the public by just a verbal explanation and not being able to, one, reconcile those changes, obviously just to put more eyes on it, but two, to ensure that you can say t

Oh, Council, do you have any other questions? Mayor Cobb, you stated you had two. Do you have another question before we move on?

additions or corrections, whatever you want to call it, has zero impact on the adjustment. I am satisfied with the immediate budget proposal. And I will await any questions while I make a motion. Mayor Pro Tem. move for approval of the resolution for mid-year budget adjustment with the two stated correction that has zero impact.

Point of order. Is that before or after you declare the motion null and void?

You second and turn the motion. I am someone reading it.

Councilman Turner's motion is to approve it with the two changes. Um, could we get I just want to add and with the, um, the documents being updated, we've already discussed that But miss Franklin is there any way that we can get with your changes are that one slide that you share can you send it to us tonight if that is doable.

Let me make sure I'm clear with the most. If someone speaking I can't hear. Yes, it's a resolution.

The motion has been properly moved and seconded by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question?

Mayor Persim, I do have just one comment.

explanation said that there was no, there was zero financial impact. And I just I do want to make sure that there's clarity on there may have been no impact to the budget being balanced. But there is a financial impact when you move $2 million from one line to another. and obviously move an expense, which is listed in the current packet as an expense coming out of one fund, which was the URA, and now coming out of a different fund, which is the general fund. So although the changes may have still reflected a balanced budget, there is an impact to the budget when you're moving any amount, but c

Let me be clear. I was referring to the two items that were modified or added, had zero impact.

Those are the items I'm also clearing up is that they do have a financial impact where you're moving $2 million from budget line 230 to another, which the financial impact because you're moving multiple millions of dollars and moving the equipment from one fund to another. So yes, I am referring to the exact same two items you are as well, but clarifying that no impact is different than a balanced budget.

Motion has been properly moved in second by Councilwoman Smith. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of the motion, please respond with yay. All those opposed nay, starting with District 3. District 4?

District 1 is yay. Resolution for the mid-year budget adjustment has been approved 3-0. Next on the agenda is city attorney comment.

District. Actually, I skipped one. Updates from the city manager, manager.

Perhaps I should have our engineer. Harry to give us an update, but I'll do it. We're getting the streets paved in District 4, Hunter's Pace in particular, and also they've built a nice gazebo at Salem Park. We'll stop by and take a look at it. It really, really, really looks good, and they are making improvements at Brown's Mill uh as well in terms of the parking lot and uh we're hoping to get to the restroom before too long but uh that improvements have taken place so uh take a tour of your city look at what's going on and give us feedback I know uh District 3 is not here but Barrington Park

Thank you. Next is comments from District 5.

Good evening, Stonecrest. Thank you for those who stayed late along with us this evening. I would like to highlight that we do have paving that's going on in District 5. We've completed a subdivision at this point. And also, I would like to give kudos to the staff for the event that was put on on Saturday. as it relates to the back to school backpack giveaway we had some good community participation it was good to be out talking with our constituents and our neighbors and they were provided some health information so it was a high spirited event and again hats off to the staff for putting on a

District 1, no comments. We have exhausted this agenda. And so this meeting is now adjourned. Have a great night.