City Council - Regular Meeting

City Council meeting, it is August 13th. We have three people registered for public comment. I'm going to go ahead and invite those individuals to come to the podium. As always, you'll have three minutes at the podium if you'll keep all of your comments directed towards the council. When you come to the podium, state your name and your address and we will listen to those comments and take notes. So first, Isaiah Sanders, 2707 South Rutherford Boulevard.

Mr. Sanders. You want me to restate that too? Sure. Isaiah Sanders, 2707 South Rutherford Boulevard. I just wanted to give thanks. I wanted to give thanks to the mayor under his leadership. The city has been getting stronger, growing. So I appreciate your service. Also, Ms. Harris, I appreciate your testimony. It has given me strength. So I really appreciate it. That's really what I wanted to do. I didn't realize this was going to be about block cameras. But I appreciate everything the council does. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sanders. No round of applause for that. So I appreciate that. Pamela Jones, 3383 Manson Pike.

My name is Pamela Jones. I live at 3833 Manson Pike, Murfreesboro resident. Yeah, I'm just yet another person here to put your nose to the dirt about what you're doing. We don't like it. We'll keep coming back to tell you. You can talk about decorum while not displaying it yourself. And we're still going to come back and tell you how we don't like this. We don't like surveillance. We don't like surveillance we don't even consent to. We don't like a city council that doesn't seem to care about what we think, who likes to joke more than they like to actually listen to us. or even look at us, really. Yeah, this isn't going to end. We're going to keep coming back. You're going to keep having to deal with it. So why not just do the right and easy thing and end the contract? It could be very simple. It could be very, very simple. You know this is wrong. I know this is wrong. You know that we're not going to shut up about it. So why? Why do it? Who's paying you? What's the deal? Why is this allowed? I seriously ask because if this is your strategy to get re-elected, I don't think it's going to work. Not even a little bit. Yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say.

Ms. Jones, thank you for coming. You're welcome to come back any time. The election was a week ago today and four people were re-elected. So thank you for coming. Good luck next time. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome to go if you'd like.

Thank you.

You're out of order. Please leave. Thank you. Alright, we'll have Zoe McDowell, 805 Bradyville Pike.

Ms. McDowell.

Zoe McDowell, 805 Bradyville Pike. I'm an MTSU student. I've been really proud to call Murphysboro my home for over four years now, but I do have concerns. I bet you can't guess what they're about. The flock devices in Murphysboro track license plates and human movements. I know a lot of people don't like to say they track human movements, but as you all know, humans generally are operating cars, so, you know. Many people around the country have been pulled out of their cars at gunpoint, arrested, detained because these flock cameras have read license plates incorrectly. Dozens of police officers have been arrested and fired around the country for stalking women with these cameras. And my question is when one of these incidents inevitably happens in Murphysboro, who is going to be held accountable? And how many times is something going to have to go wrong before we get these cameras removed? I don't really care that it's only stored for 30 days and I really don't care that it's only been able to see by eight different people. It's not important to me that our constitutional rights in Murfreesboro can be impeded a little bit less than in other places. It's not important to me because I know when the time comes, you will all vote as you did a few weeks ago to expand this contract and impede on us more. At the June meeting, Councilman Shacklett said that the City Council and the public are not adversaries but partners. However, there was no public vote or cost-benefit analysis for these cameras. The employees of the real-time crime center who have access to the data from these cameras are not elected officials. And a lot of people in Murfreesboro don't even know that they are being tracked. It's $517,000 of taxpayer money so that a private tank company can track our movement and it's dystopian and it does not belong in Murfreesboro. I'm not going to ask you to cancel the contract. I'm going to ask you if you guys really believe that it's so good for us, express and show that benefit to us and convince us and then leave it up to a public vote and let us decide. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McDowell. And y'all are welcome to come back anytime for public comment. You're welcome to that. All right. Now we need about 30 seconds to be able to get the meeting ready. And then we will move into our prayer and pledge. Welcome to the Murfreesboro City Council meeting. It is August 13th, 2026. If you will, if you'll bow with me and then we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Father God, I thank you for this day, for the opportunity that we had to serve the residents of Murfreesboro. Lord, I thank you for all those opinions, those that we all agree with or we don't agree with, that we have the right to be able to come to our our city and be able to state our opinion. Father God, I thank you for the chance that we all get to represent the residents. I thank you for our employees, for our emergency service providers, that you continue to give us grace, that you continue to give us wisdom, and we ask all these things in your name. Amen.

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.

Alright, let's move to our, we've got one comment I want to make before we get started. You know, on the times that we've all been up here, we've had people who have served the city, they've come and they've gone, and today, with no pomp and circumstance, today was Chris Griffith's last day with the City of Murfreesboro. Chris is not here. But Chris set the example for many. Many of y'all know that when you got a pothole complaint or a road complaint, a traffic complaint, a bump on a bridge complaint, a drainage complaint, Chris was always there to serve and Chris really set the example for all of us on how that we're supposed to respond and how we help our residents and so Chris retired today and so we want to give thanks to Chris and for his family for loaning Chris to us for all these years so Chris if you're watching we'll give you a round of applause. Alright let's move to our consent agenda. You have 11 items on your consent agenda. Is there anything that needs to be taken off or that someone wants to discuss on the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion to second. All those, please call the roll. Ms. Coe-Sanders?

Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Ms. Mary Shaflett?

Aye.

Mr. O'Neill?

Aye. Mr. Wright?

Aye. Mary McFarland? Aye. All right, you have the minutes of the July 23rd, 2025. Any additions or deletions to the minutes? So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gelsaris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. All right, let's move to land use matters. We have item 13, amending the zoning ordinance for automotive motor vehicle repair and services uses. Mr. Bromley?

Thank you and good evening Mr. Mayor and members of City Council. Our first land use matter for tonight is for an amendment to the zoning ordinance, a pretty short zoning ordinance amendment really, meant to address some negative secondary impacts from automotive repair uses and automotive service uses but sometimes if not managed correctly those types of uses can have some negative secondary impacts aesthetically and otherwise. So what we are proposing are a couple of design standards for these types of uses. The first one would be to put a location restriction so that no automotive or motor vehicle repair use or service use such as the principal use of the property shall be located less than 300 feet from any other automotive repair or service use and b all repair work or service work associated with an automotive or motor vehicle repair or service use shall occur inside of a building enclosed by a permanent roof and on all sides by solid exterior walls The reason for that is we had received several inquiries about folks wanting to locate in automotive repair businesses and buildings that were not originally designed for them. In some instances when that happens, those uses, because the buildings are not designed for them, tend to spill out into the parking lot. And so we have on the exterior of the building the automotive repair activities occurring in the parking lot or other areas. So we took this zoning ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission on June the 3rd and at that meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. Happy to answer any questions before or after the public hearing.

Any questions for Mr. Romney? All right, we'll need to hold a public hearing on this item. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, if you'll come to the podium. If you'll state your name, address. You'll have three minutes if you're representing as an individual or five minutes representing a group like an HOA. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. We'll now consider on first reading ordinance 26026. Move for approval. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gales-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell.

Aye.

Ms. Mayor Shacklett.

Aye.

Mr. Wade.

Aye.

Mr. Wright.

Aye.

Mayor McFarland.

Aye. All right, let's move to item 14, rezoning of property located along Rushwood Drive. Mr. Balmy.

thank you mayor mcfarland our second public hearing tonight is a rezoning request located along the north side of rushwood drive the bulk of it 1.3 acres is currently zoned og office general district and there is a small sliver which is about 0.07 acres in the red which is currently zoned rs8 The property that is zoned OG was originally intended to be developed as the final phase of the Jefferson Square office condominium development. However, it was determined by the Jefferson Square Owners Association that it was not... desirous to have access from this final phase go through the existing Jefferson Square development and so because of that Mr. Belt has submitted this rezoning request which includes that finger going out to Rushwood Drive so that he can develop it with essentially the same office development that was proposed as the final phase of Jefferson Square but as a separate office development self-contained and with access only to Rushwood Drive so that it does not have vehicular access through the existing Jefferson Square development. The surrounding land uses, as I mentioned, to the north is the Jefferson Square office development, and to the north of that is the Belmont Park office development. Directly to the west is an existing office building that I believe Griggs and Maloney has recently purchased. And to the east is an apartment complex. To the south, along Rushwood Drive, is zoned RS-8 and is developed with single-family residential detached dwellings. At the Planning Commission public hearing in April, the Planning Commission heard testimony from neighbors along Rushwood Drive concerned about traffic, and at that meeting the Planning Commission deferred action and requested that the applicant submit a traffic study, or a traffic analysis rather, to the Public Infrastructure Division for their review. The traffic analysis that was generated by Huddleston Steel and reviewed by our public infrastructure division indicated that the amount of trips generated by this proposed development, which contains six office buildings, less than 13,000 square feet, would be 209 average daily trips per day, which would include approximately 30 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The conclusion of the traffic analysis was that both Rushwood Drive and South Church Street could handle the additional traffic with minimal impact. The Public Infrastructure Division concurred with the results of Mr. Huddleston's traffic analysis and agreed that this development would have minimal impact on the surrounding roadways. So after that analysis was provided to Planning Commission, the Planning Commission then voted at the June 3rd meeting to recommend approval to the City Council of this rezoning request. I'd like to invite Mr. Clyde Roundtree Mr. Bill Huddleston, I'm sorry. Pinch hitting for Mr. Roundtree, I suppose, to give a brief PowerPoint presentation. And I did want to mention, just to get on the record, that there were two emails that I forwarded you earlier today from interested parties who were unable to attend the meeting. And so those have been made part of the record. One was from Mr. Chad Molitor, who is with the Jefferson Square Condo Owners Association to the north. And the other one was from Dr. Billy McElrath, who is a resident of Rushwood Drive adjacent to the property. So wanted to state for the record that those have been made part of the public hearing record. And so now I'll pull up Mr. Huddleston's. Okay. And be happy to answer any questions before or after the public hearing.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. I'm Bill Huddleston with Huddleston Steel Engineering. We've been working on this project for quite some time. I've been to Planning Commission and got favorable reviews and we're happy to be here at Council tonight. I'll remain available to answer any questions that you may have. As Matthew said, we're looking at six small office buildings that are shown on the screen. Two of those buildings are about 2,500 square feet. Four of the buildings are about 1,950 square feet which totals up to less than 13,000 square feet. I want to point out that the future land use map of the city does show this area as a business park. That's what we're proposing. Most of the property is zoned office general and we're zoning, we're looking for a planned commercial development zoning tonight. As Matthew alluded to, the traffic study, our traffic numbers are very low, both daily and peak hour. We also looked at accident data in the area and found that to be very low. There were only five trips, excuse me, five accidents over a three-year period, and none of those were fatal. I'll be happy to answer any questions right now or after the public hearing. Mr. Wayne Belt, the developer, is here also.

Any questions for Mr. Huddleston? All right, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this rezoning of approximately 1.37 acres, please come to the podium. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll now consider on first reading ordinance 26-OZ-28. So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gales-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell.

Aye.

Ms. Mayor Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wade. Aye. Mr. Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland.

Aye. All right, let's move to item 15, rezoning a property located along Elam Road and Joby Jackson Parkway.

Transition to Ms. Stevens for this next one.

Ms. Stevens.

Good evening, Maylor McFarland City Council. I'm Theresa Stevens, the site administrator for the City of Murfreesboro. The item before you is a rezoning request for a planned sign overlay for Buc-ee's. The property is approximately 30.17 acres located at the southeast corner of Elam Road and Joby Jackson Parkway. A planned sign overlay is to allow the use of new and innovative signs on large atypical developments to be eligible for a planned sign overlay excuse me, to be eligible for a plant sign overlay, the development must consist of 20 acres or more and be zoned appropriately. Bucky's is currently zoned general industrial and meets a minimum of 20 acres, therefore is eligible to apply for the plant sign overlay. The applicant is required to present to the city a planned sign book that shows a cohesive plan for the entire project that addresses everything from current building signs to temporary signs the design book is including in your agenda packet also in your packet you will see listing of proposed signs with comparisons with what is currently allowed by the sign ordinance and what bucky's has proposed What did you say?

I'm sorry.

Sorry about that.

I prepared a

PowerPoint to review is there's a lot of changes for a lot of proposed signs and I wanted you to be able to see clearly what is planned and what is allowed. The subject property is located at 3355 Elam Road, the corner of Joby Jackson and Elam. The property consists of 30.17 acres. The proposed PSO will allow three attached building signs. And this has been revised to four, which we'll show you a little bit later. Attached canopy signs for each gas canopy, an interstate ground sign, and painted roof signs, as well as directional, as well as directional enter and exit signs, and temporary signs, including a number of grand opening temporary signs. The following signs provide information as it pertains to the current sign ordinance. Allowed by the sign ordinance is three attached signs per building. You may install two square feet per liter foot of building front with a maximum of 150 square feet. Signs may be internally illuminated and externally illuminated or non-illuminated. Bucky's has proposed four attached signs. Each sign measures per the sign ordinance at 575 square feet. And I emphasize per the sign ordinance because we require an entire square around the whole sign to count it as one sign. I mentioned that they were going to add a forced sign. This is different than what we presented to Planning Commission. The sign was left off inadvertently. It's on the back of the sign where the green arrows, on the back of the building where the green arrow is pointing. They're also proposing a ground sign that's larger than what we typically see by sign ordinance. They're allowed a 50 foot tall an overall height or an interstate sign and a maximum of 200 square feet. The proposed sign is 125 square feet in height and 750 square feet in overall sign face area with internal illumination. Roof signs are not allowed by the sign ordinance. Bucky's is proposing one painted sign on the flat top roof at 5,674 square feet. This sign is for aerial view only. Canopy signs, we do allow canopy signs. These are the type of signs you see on a canopy gas station. The sign ordinance allows three canopy signs at 50 square feet each and a maximum of 25 feet in height. They're proposing one sign on the north, east, and west elevations for a total of three signs per canopy at 64 square feet. And there's also two fuel description signs on the north elevation of Canopy 1 and on the south elevation of Canopy 2. These are 11 square feet each, which are just directional in nature. Their height is 30 feet in overall height, which is about 5 feet higher than we typically see. They also have various equipment machinery signs. They'll have some EV chargers, the ICE machines that they have, and these can be found on pages 30, 40, 51, and 53 of your PSO. These are in keeping with what we typically see for equipment machinery signs. Convenient signs are also allowed by the sign ordinance at three square feet or less in surface area. They're exempt from requiring a permit but shall be in compliance. Illumination is allowed with an electric permit. Bucky's has proposed various of these signs throughout the property and all of them are five square feet or less. And I've listed the pages that these can be found on specifically. Temporary signs allowed by the sign ordinance are defined as any sign by which a reason construction to be used for a limited period of time. Bucky's has proposed other temporary signs less than the allowable 16 square feet. Their signs are 12 square feet and three feet in overall height. They are proposing a banner that's gonna be temporary over the interstate onsite sign that'll say opening soon, which will be removed after they open. They also have part of the package of their temporary grand opening signs. We don't typically allow or we don't have a specific ordinance for grand opening. What's allowed by the temporary sign ordinance is what is allowed. They have proposed streamers which are allowed by our sign ordinance. They've been proposed inflatables which are allowed by permit. Those are larger than what we typically allow. They are proposing one 25-foot tall mascot at approximately 700 square feet and one 12-foot tall mascot at approximately 175 square feet. These will be displayed for 30 days beginning at the grand opening. After this time they will not be allowed at Buc-ee's in the future. The Planning Commission, after a public hearing, recommended approval for the PSO on June 3rd, 2026. Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions for Ms. Stevens on this?

President, did you say a banner over the interstate?

Over the interstate sign. So there's the round Bucky sign. And then underneath it will say Murfreesboro after it opens. But they just want to put an opening soon sign on that.

I was thinking like a banner.

I'm sorry, yeah. No, it's not on there. It's on their permanent sign, yeah, after it's installed.

Is that 125-foot sign exception? Are there other 125-foot signs in that area?

In Murfreesboro? Yes, we do have some signs that are, I don't know their exact height, but We have two that are 119 feet in height. I know two others that are over 80 feet in height. They're all non-conforming signs currently because our current sign ordinance does not allow that. Those were here prior to the sign ordinance having that restriction. But there are a couple of signs in town.

So if we do this 125 foot sign, is that basically anybody going forward could do this?

If you're eligible for a PSO, they can present it to the city and you get to make a decision.

Okay. That acreage is 20... 20 plus acres, yeah. Any questions before we hold... public hearing on this.

Also I'd like to let you know that there's a Buc-ee's representative here if you have any questions for them as well.

Would it allow us I just say it's going to be such a heavily trafficked area the ability to put even you know we put up these signs on panhandling and I'm just wondering would we have the opportunity to put that up to discourage you know panhandling because I could see where people could park it out there all day long panhandling interrupting the traffic flow.

So the signs that are currently that you see around Murfreesboro right now were They're in the right-of-way, which the city can put those signs there, their city signs. I don't know that Bucky's has any plans to do that. If they wanted to do something like that, it would be covered under their convenient signs.

It would be appreciated because, I mean, if they're here, they should consider that because it's going to be a magnet. I mean, if somebody would rather not be on Church Street and be there and get more and more traffic, I'm just saying that may discourage it is what I'm getting at.

I believe their temporary sign, the convenience section would cover those provided they didn't exceed that five square feet.

Okay. Also, if they're on that private property they would have to be in the public right of way to avoid being trespassed. Okay. Okay.

All right, any other questions? All right, we need to hold a public hearing for the rezoning of this 30.17 acres. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, if you please come to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. We'll now consider on first reading ordinance 260Z29. So moved.

Second.

Motion and second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gales-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell. Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wade. Aye. Mr. Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland.

Aye. Ms. Stevens, thank you for your hard work on this. Appreciate you. All right, let's move to item 16, the plan of services annexation and zoning for property along Franklin Road, Gresham Lane, and Allmore Knot Drive. Mr. Barnley.

You're stuck with me again. Our next public hearing, if I can get through the gigantic buckies. All right, there we go. So our next public hearing is for the annexation of the Franklin Road Baptist Church campus, which is located on the north side of Franklin Road. You can see three of the parcels owned by Franklin Road Baptist Church are already in the city limits. The one here, here, and here. So they are requesting annexation for the balance of their property. It's the area colored in blue. Also included in the annexation study area is the right-of-way of Almonaut Drive. The county road board granted its consent for the city to annex that segment of Almonaut Drive. and this segment of franklin road right-of-way which is of course state route 96 tdot highway and tdot granted its consent to for the city to annex that segment of right-of-way as well and that that including those rights of way closes two gaps in the in the city limits on those two two streets which makes the provision of services more predictable. And so anytime that we have a gap that we can close in, that we can fill in with an adjacent annexation, a gap in the right of way, that we try to do that at the same time as we study the private property. So the church has requested annexation for the balance of its campus. They are already served as an outside the city sewer customer. But they do have plans for expansion in the future of both the school and the church, I believe. And so they will be needing additional sewer for additional buildings. And they also would like to take advantage of considering their the location of the church basically surrounded by the existing city limits. They'd like to take advantage of the other complement of city services offered if the property were to be annexed into the city. The plan of services has been provided in your agenda materials which shows that as you would expect considering its proximity to the existing city limits that the city can provide services to the subject property relatively easily. And so we would ask you to conduct a public hearing on this annexation request. At which time I'll be available for questions before or after if you have any. Mr. Sam Huddleston representing Franklin Road Baptist Church is here today. I believe he would like to say a couple of words before the council conducts its public hearing. This annexation was voted on at the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting at which time the Planning Commission voted to recommend its approval.

Thank you, Mr. Blomley. Sam Huddleston, Franklin Road Baptist Church. Good evening, Mayor McFarland, members of council. First of all, thanks for your service to our community. Secondly, congratulations to our good friend Chris Griffith on his retirement. And then I would just like to give you a little insight into our thoughts on annexation. Franklin Road has long desired to be annexed into the city and about 20 years ago we thought that that was going to happen and as some of you may recall that annexation was tied up in a legal issue for some time and then eventually settle out of court. And so we saw that as a benefit to our campus and to our needs there and we're certainly consensual to the annexation at that time. Since that time we haven't had a significant project really to drive the question on annexation, but in the last several months as we looked at our campus and our master plan, we do have some growth needs in the school and in the church and this would give us an opportunity to be under one jurisdiction. As Mr. Blomley pointed out, we do have split campus, a portion of our campus is served and within the city limits a portion is outside the city limits but covered under an outside the city sewer agreement and so when we take on a project especially if it includes something on the educational side we deal with Rutherford County, we deal with the city of Murfreesboro and we also deal with the state fire marshal and so it would help us somewhat to consolidate all of that under one umbrella of review and oversight for development. And then the other thing I'd like to mention is just as Mr. Blumley alluded to the availability of other services. We're certainly excited about the opportunity for emergency services provided by the police and fire department and making those services available to our campus and then working with our school community and also our church community to provide those services. We have also requested commercial fringe zoning for this property. That would be consistent, we think, with the community and the neighborhood and also it would be permissible zoning that would allow us to do our expansions for church and school without additional special use permits through the BZA. Again, appreciate your consideration of the annexation. and the follow-up zoning. I'm available either before or after the public hearing to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Huddleston? Alright, we need to hold a public hearing for the plan of services and the annexation for 35.3 acres. This again is the plan of services and the annexation. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. We'll now consider on first reading, Resolution 26, RPSA 30. So moved. Second. Person second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gale-Sarris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell.

Aye.

Ms. Mayor Shacklett.

Aye. Mr. Wade. Aye. Mr. Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland. Aye. All right, we now need to consider the zoning of 27 acres.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the companion zoning request, which is kind of a two-part zoning request. So see the area in green is an area that the church did a land swap with the Hillwood development to the west. It's currently zoned PUD, which is the zoning classification of the Hillwood planned development, but it is owned by the church. And so they're requesting to rezone that to commercial fringe. And then the area in the kind of beige, orange color. They are requesting to have zone CF commercial fringe simultaneous with annexation. And just as a matter of information, the area in blue would come into the city limits with an interim RS-15 zoning classification. The church has indicated that they Intend to have some future plans for that area to the north of Almarnot Drive, but they're not ready to move forward with those. So that area would come in with the interim RS-15 zoning classification. As Mr. Huddleston mentioned, the church is anticipating some future church expansions and future school expansions. Now, most school expansions, if you'll recall, with the ordinance amendment that was adopted about a year ago, are allowed to move forward by right, but church uses in residential zoning districts still require a special use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, zoning the property to commercial fringe allows the church to move forward directly to the site plan review process and bypass the special use permit process. With the fact that it is on a major arterial road, Franklin Road, staff views the commercial fringe zone as an appropriate zoning classification. The future land use map of the Murfreesboro 2035 comprehensive plan recommends that the property develop as public institutional, and that public institutional classification was largely shaped by the existing church and school use on the property, which is an institutional use. Institutional uses are allowed in commercial fringe zoning by right, so staff views the request as generally consistent with the recommendations of the future land use map. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on June the 3rd, at which time it voted to recommend approval to the City Council. I'll be happy to answer any questions before or after the public hearing, and Mr. Huddleston is here if you have any questions for him representing the church.

Any questions? All right, seeing none, we need to start having a public hearing for the zoning of this 27 acres. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll now consider on first reading ordinance 260Z30. So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. All right, thank you. All right, let's move to item 17. This is the plan of services annexation and zoning for property along Shelbyville Pike.

Thank you, Mayor McFarland. This is for the annexation of 16.78 acres located along the east side of Shelbyville Pike, directly to the south of the Tiger Hill townhomes development, as well as some commercial out parcels there, which there's a Pep Boys and a racetrack gas station, I believe, developed just to the north. You see on the map before you that Kristi Knobway which is a public street stubs directly into the subject property. Also to the west across Shelbyville Pike is the location of the Murfreesboro Medical Clinic Shelbyville Pike satellite office. The owner of the property has requested annexation of the front half of his property, that's Mr. Curtis' property, for the proposed Lowe's development, which will be the subject of the subsequent public hearing after the annexation. The subject property is contiguous with the existing city limits, and it's within the urban growth boundary. However, it is not within the service infill boundary that was adopted with the Murfreesboro 2035 comprehensive plan update back in 2023. However, the 2035 comprehensive plan did recommend that These areas that were identified as future study area could be added to the to the service infill area with a small area study to determine what additional property needed to be brought in. This was a similar situation to what you voted on a month or two ago on Halls Hill Pike, property that was outside of the service infill boundary. So we are currently working on bringing forth a, studying this and then subsequently bringing forth an amendment to the to the future land use map but that would not preclude you from voting on this annexation tonight. The plan of services has been included in your agenda package and services can be provided to the subject property upon annexation. Sewer is not immediately available to the property in question but can be extended from the north to serve the property and the applicants have been working with the Water Resources Department on the preferred method of doing so. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on June the 3rd after which it voted to recommend approval to the City Council. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have before or after the public hearing. Who would pay for the sewer to be extended? The developer, the applicant Lowe's would.

Any questions? All right, we need to hold a public hearing on the plan of services and annexation for 16.78 acres. Anyone wishing to speak for or against, please come to the podium.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Todd Simmons. I'm with Freeland & Kaufman. We're the civil engineering firm for Lowe's. I know this is just the annexation, so I assume any presentation probably needs to hold for the other part. So I will just stay here to answer any questions you might have.

Alright, any other comments? Alright, if there are none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll now consider on first reading resolution 26R PSA 30 and this is for the plan of services and annexation.

So moved.

Excuse me, this is resolution 26R PSA 31 that is for the plan of services and the annexation. So moved. Second. Motion is second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye.

Mr. Wright? Aye.

Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Alright, we'll now move to the rezoning of 16.78 acres simultaneous with annexation. Mr. Walmy.

Thank you, Mayor McFarland. Our final public hearing tonight is the companion zoning request for the same 16.78 acres located along the east side of Shelbyville Pike. went over the surrounding land uses during my last presentation. The surrounding zoning, of course, to the south and to the east is still unincorporated land in Weatherford County. To the south is, I believe, a contractor's office with some outdoor storage. You can see that on the aerial photo. There are large lot single family residences across Shelbyville Pike to the west. However, to the northwest, is the Murfreesboro Medical Clinic Zone CF and some undeveloped property Zone CH. Immediately to the north is Zone CH, as I mentioned, the Pep Boys and the racetrack, and then PRD, which is the Tiger Hill Town Homes development, which is currently under development. The request is to zone this property to PCD, planned commercial district, simultaneous with its annexation for the development of a Lowe's home center. It would include both the home center and a garden center and in a moment the applicant will go over the plan in greater detail. I will mention that The area is identified on the Future Land Use Map as Future Study Area, as I alluded to earlier, which essentially means that it's outside of the service infill boundary. Another thing that I did want to mention, a change that they are requesting the City Council consider between when it went to Planning Commission and when it's before the City Council tonight. They identified in their pattern book when they went to Planning Commission that they would like for their temporary seasonal outdoor display area a total of five months from March to July for their, I guess, the spring outdoor inventory that they wanted to keep outside At the Planning Commission meeting, they raised the issue that they wanted to also add November and December for seasonal outdoor Christmas tree sales. And so the Planning Commission heard that but did not include that in their motion to approve. So that being said, they kind of made a more formal ask and amended their pattern book to include those extra two months in their temporary outdoor display. So there would be March through July and November and December. So they're requesting for seven months. And so that would be up to the City Council as to whether or not to grant that request. But I did want to point that out. That's a difference between what went to Planning Commission and what's before you tonight.

So can you say that difference one more time?

From March to July and now it's... Now they're asking to add November and December for seasonal Christmas tree sales outside. So it was talked about, but we went back and watched the video. It was not included as a part of the motion. And so because it wasn't specifically voted on, I think what was the result of that was that the five months, which was officially what was a part of their ask at the time was what was forward to city council.

It's in the book that we have, though, before us tonight.

Yes, they have amended their book in the hopes that you will grant their additional two months. But that is totally at your discretion. Planning Commission did vote to recommend approval to you at its June 3rd meeting after a public hearing. And now Mr. Todd Simmons with Friedland Kauffman, I'd invite him to the lectern to make a presentation on the specifics of the development.

Good evening again. Todd Simmons, Freeland and Kaufman, civil engineer for Lowe's. I've got with me this evening, I've got David Yost, who's with Lowe's Engineering and Construction, and Trent Farrell, who's with Blue Ridge Architecture. If there's some questions that kind of gear more towards the operation or the architectural... side of things that I can't answer. So I appreciate the time this evening. Just kind of want to express Lowe's real excitement about the potential to come here, have another store in the city. I believe it will provide a well-needed service to the south end of town. So I appreciate you all hearing our request this evening. We'll try to make this fairly quick. I think we've got, I assume you all have seen copies of the pattern book, so we're really going to just kind of focus on the site plan unless you all want me to kind of double back on any of the other areas. I think Roughly 107,000 square foot kind of enclosed building, roughly a 30,000 square foot garden center. So basically it's fairly common. That's generally the size of all new Lowe's home centers that are built now. That is the standard size. Really enjoyed working with staff to get to this point as it relates to our request. I think from a build architecture standpoint, I think we've landed on good layout, a good mix of what we got. I think you'll note in the exceptions we did request for the use of quick brick which I guess is more of a modular unit rather than an actual brick for the north, the west, and the south sides of the building and an integrally colored CMU kind of on the east side. I think we've worked extensively with staff as it relates to outdoor sales, storage and display. Obviously a very important part of our business and kind of noted that on the plan. We've obviously got kind of the front sidewalk areas identified, grills, lawnmowers, things of that nature. We've got kind of an area right up here which would be for the sheds and utility trailers and then all these are kind of the permanent areas and then we've got a permanent area here on the side of the garden center which is really more what we would call our quick load areas. for our SKU items that are sold. So those are mostly your mulch items during springtime sales, etc. So one thing we did kind of working with staff and kind of understanding kind of what the city's looking for is we did integrate a screen wall here coming off the garden center in this location and this location to try to help screen that material from view from the parking lot. And then so as was indicated the seasonal area is a five month request which is From a site layout standpoint we think it worked out pretty well for kind of an isolated area here that would be used for those months. I think we showed starting in March through the end of July kind of enclosed in a black fencing material here to kind of help screen that but really have that area for that kind of spring rush that we have and then this is also the area that we were proposing to add the November and December for Christmas tree sales again in this area kind of separated from the general overflow or the general parking lot items here. Additional exceptions, I think the other one, just trying to hit on those. Foundation plantings, obviously with this type of big buck store, you know, worked with staff to basically relocate foundation plantings, not eliminate. So I think there was some that normally would have been required here that have been modified and really kind of added areas here on the south and then kind of worked through the areas on the front to be able to do that. Traffic-wise, I will kind of note access points because we've worked pretty extensively with DOT and city staff as it relates to that. Obviously, we've done a traffic study, got that approval. We have done basically pretty detailed off-site roadway plans that have been submitted to TDOT and city and waiting on comments for those now. But basically what that amounts to is kind of what we call a right in, right out, left in motion movement here that we do anticipate would be signalized. So it would allow motorists going southbound on Shelbyville to be able to turn in, but you would not be able to turn left out of the Lowe's to go southbound on Shelbyville. What that does also is volunteer, and like you all probably know, so volunteer and then the signalized intersection up here between Pet Boys and the racetrack, I think, pretty close here. So working with them, we came up with a similar type thing that we're doing here where we're going to eliminate the left turn out of volunteer, which we think will probably help the overall working to that intersection, but then volunteer, they can go southbound, but would eliminate that left down movement, left out movement there. And then finally, we've got an access connection to Christy Nobway, which is here, that would give us access to the signal that comes out here between Pat Boys and the racetrack. A couple other things to point out. I think as we worked here to kind of try to dress up the look along Shelbyville Pike, we are proposing a fence that's in kind with what the Wellmark development has down the road, which is kind of the pilaster with split rail fencing here supplemented with landscaping and then we do have kind of a stormwater management facility that would also provide some buffer between the roadway and the parking facility itself. I'm going to look at This just kind of shows you, probably worth noting, so the area in red is, the red and blue combined is the entire property. The blue is what we're asking for the annexation and rezoning. The red would stay in the county and would be seller's residual property. So this little section right here actually will be maintained by the seller and we would have an access easement across that. So this provides them the frontage that this would need to meet city requirements. One thing I didn't point out earlier, there is a Colonial gas transmission line that runs through here and bisects the property. We've been in constant communication with them, have met on site with Colonial, done some hydro excavating, done some kind of digging to make sure where their lines are, make sure we're not impacting those and then I think there was mention about the sewer just to kind of give you an idea of where the sewer is. There's a sewer manhole up in this area here that the plan is to extend sewer kind of along Shelbyville and then come up to serve the store this way. So kind of worked that out, worked with Colonial about crossing their line so we feel good that we've kind of got that concept pretty well nailed down at this point. landscape plan obviously will meet or exceed the current codes but this was intended to comply with that the building there's the building like I said the architect is here to answer any questions you might have on that we think obviously we believe this is a good looking building that will be an asset to the city with that I think I will stop presenting and happy to answer any questions if you guys might have any

The only question, we've had a lot of discussions, not just with Lowe's, but a lot of organizations that have used their parking lots for storage. So just for the record, the area that you guys have designated for the seven-month variance for storage, that will be the only area in your parking lot that will ever have rental equipment, trees, mulch, Anything that would be for sale would just be in that area.

Close, but not quite. So I guess it probably shows up better on the site plan. Maybe you can see it. So we've got these spaces right here. You all probably noticed, you know, sheds and utility trailers. Yeah. We would be proposing to put the sheds and utility trailers in those spaces there. And then these spaces along the garden center on both sides, those we are designating as permanent. So that's where we're planning to put the mulch. And that's why we have kind of provided the screen walls here because they are going to be more permanent in nature to try to screen that material but give that so... And we do believe it provides good service to somebody who wants to come in and buy 50 bags of mulch, right, to be able to drive through there, load them quickly and get them out.

I just think it's good for us that, you know, we get asked these questions sometimes from competitors who will ask, well, why are they allowed to do it and we're not? So, you know, our team will be able to go back and see that we've had this discussion because sometimes what happens is after this is passed, maybe the general manager of the store slowly creeps to one aisle and into a second aisle and so it would be great to say the areas that are shaded in this site plan, that's the only places that can be used for lawn mowers, all things for rent or for sale.

I understand your concern. Obviously we do at the end we put a document together and say this is what you're allowed but obviously new store managers come in and full transparency we'll all have to help police that I think but yes I think this does kind of at least put something on paper that these are the allowed areas.

Any other questions before the public hearing?

I guess on the additional two months, is that what we're letting the Lowe's on Old Fort do in November and December for Christmas trees? Do we let Home Depot, your competitor, do that? I'm just going from a fair is fair. We're looking at two very similar businesses.

Mr. Rodman?

So it's my understanding that Mr. Newman was working closely with Lowe's at their existing location. It's my understanding that three months was what they were allowed at that location and that was brought up during the Planning Commission meeting. I think the Planning Commission's opinion was that because this site was designed with that storage in mind as opposed to the storage kind of haphazardly happening after the fact, but it was more acceptable for a longer period at this store just because it was being done purposefully as opposed to haphazardly. Home Depot, I don't know off the top of my head. I know our inspectors have been working with Home Depot and I think they've They've done quite a bit of work in getting Home Depot cleaned up. They had a lot of construction equipment and trailers and backhoes. At least as of a few months ago, I think they had moved all of those off-site and Home Depot was waiting on kind of some internal direction to determine how they wanted to proceed, but we have not had any contact with them in several months about them bringing those back.

This is much better, in my opinion, going through where you're designating and showing this on the plan as opposed to, you know, I know Kelton's just came through, or not, Ace Hardware, the new Ace Hardware Memorial, they came through, did an outdoor area, designated their area, but what you hate to see is, you know, 400 parking spots and then it turns into 200 after you're using it for outdoor storage, so.

Yes, sir. We're well aware of that. It can be kind of a constant battle. So we were very intentional with them during this process to make sure that it was done in a very thoughtful way.

So Lowe's Old Ford is three months. And this will be five months plus the months in November, December.

But to be fair though, those other stores, they don't have any designated, they would have to redo a site plan, come back with a new site plan and show this is going to be designated area.

And they've done that several times and we've worked with them but still it's kind of, it's kind of fitting a square peg into a round hole sometimes with a site that really wasn't meant for it and so we try to work with them as best we can but you know it's within reason I suppose.

All right, let's have the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak for or against the rezoning of this 16.78 acres, please come to the podium.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I'm Joey P., 1501 Cripple Creek Road. I'm also CEO of Murfreesboro Medical Clinic. I'm glad I came tonight and went first for all of the excitement earlier, but now I wanted to see how this development would improve the access to Volunteer Road and come to find out it's going to destroy the ability of getting in and out of Volunteer Road and turning left, headed back north where many of our patients may choose to come from. I think about the creation of a left turn, no left turn lane like you just did on Medical Center Parkway coming out of the fountains and you took what was a pretty safe left turn lane out of the middle, moved it closer to Broad Street and now you have a very short line of sight to turn left on Medical Center heading toward Broad. I see the same situation and what could have been a site plan that aligned with volunteer does it and created a little better intersection for both MMCs and the Lowe's traffic. But this situation where the turn lane that we had to put in a few years ago when we developed that lot is now essentially being destroyed, the ability to turn left out of that. I'm not aware of a lot of accidents that happen there now. or since we've been open. Also, the residents of Volunteer are county residents, so they don't have a voice in this when you're going to tell them they're all going to have to turn right out of their road going home and can't turn left to go into work, whatever they want to do if they want to go to Murfreesboro. It's just a pretty disappointing design in my mind and what it does to disrupt our business and our patients and the traffic that's coming out of Volunteer. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. We'll now consider on first reading ordinance 260Z31.

We had talked. Thank you for speaking, Mr. P. We had spoken, Planning Commission, about giving access to MMC on the backside where the intersection is on Tiger Hill. I don't remember where we ended up with that.

The gentleman before mentioned the gas pipeline. When we approached Colonial about building the bridge over the pipeline it was going to be basically a a federal process. They were not in favor of it. The cost that was going to be required to meet their standards to go over it, I guess Lowe's is getting across that somehow with their building the easement that he mentioned to access the existing road. That's not going to be an inexpensive endeavor to do that. And once that was learned and Colonial's objections, the city remove that requirement for us to build the bridge in conjunction with the developers that are doing the Wawa's and the McDonald's to the north of our property.

Thank you.

Thank you. We had that, that was discussed at Planning Commission about MMC's clientele losing access to come back towards town. The storage and some of the split rail fence was discussed about also that the fencing being similar to the fencing at Walmart. That was a lot of discussion. That was deemed very similar. But the MMC traffic was discussed.

To his point, is there a better way to design that? And I'm not an engineer.

I don't see anybody here from traffic, but I think this is a requirement from TDOT. TDOT was not going to let us align volunteer with an entrance into Lowe's. I don't know if the developer's engineer can speak to that, but the way this is going to be designed to work is kind of like what we did on Asbury with medicine. You've got to go down to the light, take a... a U-turn. So if you're willing to go left out of volunteer, you're gonna have to take a right and it's gonna be designed with a U-turn at the signal at the entrance into Lowe's. And that was not a, it was not anything the city, TDOT basically said, this is the way you're gonna have to do it to allow this development here.

Just to add a little bit of color to that, I mean it was obviously through a number of iterations to get where we are from an access standpoint and probably the first iteration was having access down here and having access at Lyons with Volunteer and I think If I understood TDOT's concerns correctly, it was the proximity to the existing signal and obviously Wawa and that development coming in that they didn't want another full access there. So they would not allow us to align with volunteer and kind of pushed us to really this design. So as it was mentioned, the idea would be If you're coming out of Volunteer to go northbound, you come to this. This will be signalized, so you'll have a safe movement to make this U-turn movement. So this will be a U-turn movement, either U-turn or left turn into the Lowe's, but it will be signalized.

It will be signalized? Yes. TDOT has gotten much more strict about their signalization spacing. I think they prefer somewhere around fifteen to sixteen hundred feet between signals now and if you're inside of that They call them J-turns. They look like U-turns to me. I don't know why they're called J-turns. They are starting to create that spacing between the signals so that you have that safe movement and you don't have as many left turns for those broadside potential crashes. We're having to coordinate a lot of to a much greater degree with TDOT now when we're talking about developments on state highways because they are dictating access much stricter.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say too, especially if that's going to be a signalized intersection further south, You have a lot of people who use Volunteer Road being one of those people who go to a ball tournament out at Barfield Park and you have all of the ball games that leave at the same time. You have a lot of people who will back up at Volunteer. They're trying to get across 231. to get back into Murfreesboro, because that back, that's the back entrance for Barfield that a lot of people will use to not have to go on to Veterans Parkway, I guess is what it, it's not Barfield Road anymore, it's Veterans Parkway, so. That makes me feel better if you've got, that's gonna be a signalized intersection for people to be able to get back around.

So they would get an arrow and,

And I think it is fair. TDOT, on all of their curb cuts on state roads, it's gotten extremely difficult with any, even any city project. Any questions? We've already, we did the public hearing on the rezoning, yeah.

So, and just a reminder to make sure the motion includes either the five or the seven months.

Jeff, I did close the public hearing, didn't I?

It's been so long now, I don't know.

Public hearings closed for the second time.

All right.

Any discussion?

So the motion should include five or seven months. The five is originally, or the additional two, which would make it seven that they're asking for.

I mean, I think what we have had before us is the seven month. That's what's in the plan book. So I don't think we have to have an amendment that what we've got before us is the seven month.

And the planning commission was good with seven months. I guess it just wasn't in the motion. Okay.

Well, I hate to see that this imposes a problem on Mr. P's business. They've been a valuable part of our community for a long period of time, but do we have it? We don't have a choice to say come up with another solution if TDOT, we have to approve what TDOT basically is telling us we have to do.

Correct. There's no other option. There's no other option as far as ingress, egress off of the volunteer when it comes to 231.

I'll make the motion that we approve the seven days. And this with the seven days of approval.

It's already in there, so we don't need the... We don't need it. Yeah, it's just a motion to approve.

Okay, I'll make a motion we approve.

Okay, thanks, Bill. Do we have a motion and a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell. Aye.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. All right, let's move to Resolution 26R31, Water Resources, Fiscal Year 27, Budget First Amendment.

We have a budget amendment tonight for water resources. This budget reduces total expenditures by $5.7 million and brings their budget in compliance with the state's requirements regarding depreciation expense. I'm happy to answer any questions and recommend for approval. Any questions for Mr. Tucker?

So that's a reduction in basically wages, primarily?

They spread it around several things, wages, contractual services, I think repairs and maintenance as well. Doug, do you remember if there were any additional? I believe wages were the primary area. And they're seeing the same thing we're seeing, which is payroll slippage.

Payroll slippage. So moved. Seconded.

First and second, please call the roll.

Ms. Gales-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye.

All right, let's move to Ordinance 26034, Adoption of the Building and Codes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. The Building and Codes Department currently maintains exemptions from the state of Tennessee that allow the city to perform commercial plan reviews and inspections, as well as residential building inspections and permitting. To maintain these exemptions, the City must adopt building codes that are within seven years of the most recently published code additions, which will soon be the 2027 code. We currently are under the 2018 codes. To satisfy this requirement, the City is proposing to adopt the 2024 additions of the International Building Codes and the 2023 National Electric Code. Rutherford County and the cities of Smyrna and La Verne have recently adopted the 2024 international code series as well. Updating the city codes will provide greater consistency and predictability for builders, contractors, developers, and design professionals working throughout Middle Tennessee. City staff have met with the Rutherford County Codes Association, members of the Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee, and the city's Electric Board of Examiners. to review the proposed code updates, discuss potential impacts, and evaluate local code amendments. Adoption of the 2024 International Code Series will maintain the city's state exemptions while promoting consistency with neighboring jurisdictions and current industry standards. Glad to answer any questions. So moved.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gales-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Thank you, Kevin. Let's move to the purchase of a combination sewer street cleaner.

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Carson Elder, Assistant Director for the Street Department. We are requesting your approval to purchase a new combination sewer cleaner. This truck will be utilized by our stormwater crew to clean and remove sediment and debris from catch basins, drainage structures, culverts, and other stormwater infrastructure. This truck will be purchased from Jet Vac Equipment through the Source Well Cooperative Contract in the amount of $664,993. This is a budgeted expense paid from the fiscal year 27 stormwater fund. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. So moved.

Second. Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Gales-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell. Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland. Aye.

All right, let's move to the purchase of a service truck. And you have a revised communication that is on our desk. Mr. Miller.

Yes, sir. Good evening, Mayor and Council. For your consideration is the purchase of a Chevrolet four-wheel drive medium-duty service truck from Donahue Chevrolet. The expense of $149,700 is funded from the FY27 CIP fund.

Any questions for Mr. Miller?

24 below market value. So moved.

Second.

First and second, please call the roll.

Ms. Giles-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Alright, let's move to an agreement with HMB Professional Engineers. Mr. Miller?

So for your consideration, the approval for an agreement with HMB Professional Engineers LLC for engineering services for the fleet service parking lot expansion and site improvement. The engineering service fees are $60,000 and is included in the FY26 CIP. The proposed improvements are estimated at $503,421 and has been approved in the CDCIP. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions for Ms. Schmiller? Move for approval.

Second. First and second.

Ms. Gale-Sayers? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett?

Aye.

Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright?

Aye.

Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Thank you, Ms. Schmiller. All right, let's move to Item 23, Water Resources, CDD Boundary Amendment Number 12. Ms. Smith?

Good evening, Council, Mayor. Let's get this started. Okay. Periodically, we have boundary amendments between Murfreesboro and Consolidated Utility District, which typically would amend the boundary to assist the developer. In this case, the Consolidated Utility District currently can't serve phase one of the development. So I'll go ahead to the next slide. As you can see, the Rutherford Boulevard is on the far left and the blue area that is shaded is Murfreesboro's current water service area. The area highlighted in pink is within our area right now and we are proposing to, I guess, change the boundary for that to become served by a consolidated utility district. However, right now it will be with phase one of this development which we have been working with, staff has been working with CUD, Murfreesboro, SCC and Mr. Berryman who is the development of the proposed middle max subdivision here to service phase one of his development with Murfreesboro water even though we are proposing to give up some of our service area to Consolidated Utility District. Phase two of the project goes from left to right across the page up to Elam Road which is in the top far right corner and Consolidated Utility District has a large enough line along Elam Road to serve the phase two of the development. So they wished not to turn over any of their area to us to serve knowing that they can serve the majority of the area with their line with phase two. So CUD would gain approximately two and a half acres. It would serve three of the lots that are on the cul-de-sac Pointing to the southern part of this exhibit, those lots will face the cul-de-sac and so we will work out with Consolidated Utility District how to best serve those three lots with Murfreesboro Water but they would be Consolidated Utility District customers. Staff was in agreement with this. The Water Resources Board also recommended approval at the July meeting, so we would request for the area in pink to be dedicated to Consolidated Utility District's service area.

Any questions? So moved. Second. Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell.

Aye.

Ms. Mary Shaflett. Aye. Mr. Wade. Aye. Mr. Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland.

Aye. All right, let's move to Water Resource Recovery Facility Biosolids Dryer, SSR Task Order Amendment Number 3.

Yes, this task order tonight is I guess SSR was bringing to us hat in hand. A lot of this amendment was not of things that they may have missed during design or issues that they had during construction with their design. Part of these are, and the majority of these are, them trying to move the project forward and work through issues that the contractor had with non-conformance on their construction, changes with Comline Sanderson who is the dryer manufacturer, design changes, changes in the process with and RFIs from the contractor. So SSR basically has had to I guess do quality control on the design changes, review RFIs in addition to what they normally would and are in all of these areas instrumentation and controls, structural process and then electrical as well. So the amendment tonight is $196,240. We have talked with the legal department knowing that some of these were out of our control and out of SSR's control but we feel like to move the project forward we need to actually keep the project moving forward. We're about 21 million in to a 33 million dollar project and we can look at through the contract documents, you know, if these costs and the city feels like that the city shouldn't be responsible for them, we can look at the contract and request these to be come from the contractor. But for tonight we request that amendment three for SSR's task order be amendment to include this amount. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Ms. Smith? Move for approval. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Ms. Mayor Shaflett?

Aye.

Mr. Wade?

Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. All right, let's move to Water Resource Recovery Facility. What weather upgrades SSR to Amendment No. 3? Ms. Smith?

Similar to the drier project, there have also been discrepancies with the wet weather upgrade project that have been beyond what SSR's original scope is. Some of those are structural discrepancies. There were six in total. And some of these we found during construction that were you know of nobody's fault. Cracks in the existing filter walls we had SSR evaluate those and decide if they were going to be an issue moving forward and whether they needed to be repaired with this project. SSR did review bypass pump alternatives so the contractor during the construction is going to have to completely bypass one or two of the processes at the plant so they can work on a particular area and then one thing that was not known by the contractor or SSR because it was not divulged by our UV supplier is that the cabling for our new UV channels were planned to be routed with the existing cabling for the existing UV channels and the UV manufacturer came back and said that you shouldn't route the cabling and the wiring for those in the same conduits because of the fear of overheating and so we've had to redesign the route of that cabling. and SSR has been involved in that as well. We will be bringing back for that UV cabling design in particular a change order for additional time for the contractor to install the cabling. The extra expense for that will come back to you all through the use of the contingency fund. But for now, we request that Amendment Number 3 be approved in the amount of $110,000. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

If there are no questions, I move for approval.

Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris. Aye. Mr. Maxwell.

Aye.

Ms. Mayor Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wade. Aye. Mr. Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland.

Aye. We're also going to try to see if we can recruit this money as well.

Yes, if that is the wishes of the council.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. All right, let's move to item 26, Funding TDOT Statewide Partnership Program Memorial Boulevard Widening.

Mayor, Councilman, thank you for the opportunity to present this tonight. This is TDOT's statewide partnership program. It's Memorial Boulevard. We applied for this last year and were unsuccessful to get on the TDOT's five-year plan, so this is a second swing at trying to put some local money into a project that would get a two-lane road from Thompson Lane to Jefferson Pike into a five-lane cross-section. We know that when Cherry Lane is built over the next two to three years, putting a five-lane road into a two-lane road is not good. That's going to create a real traffic congestion problem. So we are asking again. We've already got $3.9 million in MED proceeds allocated to this project. But we're asking council to approve a future $21.1 million borrow, bringing the total commitment to a $25 million local match on a proposed $62.9 million project. So our $25 million would represent about 40% of the total the total project cost.

What was it last time there when they said no? Are we going up in terms of our commitment? We have not. We stayed at 25.

We actually had a meeting with them today and we are meeting with some county representatives next Tuesday again to try to see if the county can put some we really would like to see the county go help fund the section between the East Fork river bridge up to the intersection at Walter Hill. That's about 20% of the length of the project. If they could put $5 or $6 million into that as well so we could get to that $30 to $31 million. Based on the meeting we had today, that looked... Jim Kerr and I talked afterwards and we thought it was a very good meeting. So we think that if we get to that $30, $31 million mark, we think that we could have a real shot at getting on the five-year plan.

Any questions for Mr. Gore? Motion to second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Mr. Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell?

Aye.

Mr. Shacklett?

Aye.

Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. I have one Boarding Commission appointment recommendation. After many, many years, Jeff Davis is asking to roll off the Historical Zoning Commission. Mr. Dayton Brown is a downtown resident but also recommended he is a contractor and Mr. Davis had thought it would be very beneficial with a lot of the things that come to the Historical Zoning Commission if they had someone living downtown that had construction experience to be able to provide insight. So that's the recommendation. I move. Second. Motion to second. Let's call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. You have several bill permits. Ms. Tucker?

We do. One is for an ownership change for a bar at 225 River Rock Boulevard. We also have an ownership change for a grocery at 1159 Northwest Broad. We have two new gas station locations, one at 3355 Elam Road and the other at 5208 Veterans Parkway. And then we have a special event permit for the Ascension St. Thomas Rutherford Foundation on October 24th for wine around the square. All applicants submit our requirements and we recommend approval pending any final building and codes inspections.

Any questions? Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. All right. We'll move to two statements for legal fees that need to be paid. Any questions for Ms. Tucker?

No questions. So moved. Second.

Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gail Sears? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. You now have, under other business, Fountains Phase 2 TIF Reimbursement Review.

Mr. Core? Yes, sir. Mayor and council members, thank you. This was normally, we normally have our workshop on the second Thursday of the month, so this is really more of a workshop item. It's not for your full consideration, but this is a preview of a upcoming ask that we will be bringing to you for consideration. But I wanted, Mr. Scott Grabey is here. This is a TIF reimbursement proposal for the fountains, phase two. And it really does deal with the structured parking. And I've actually learned a lot through this process, even though I've spent two years on Keystone and their TIF issues. This one, I wanted to really, I'd talk to you all one-on-one about this. And I wanted to go through a real quick presentation on it. The deal with the TIF is this but-for test. So I think a lot of the downtown TIFs we were talking about, we were really centering and focusing it around the public need for parking and that these parking decks would provide a public improvement or public amenity for parking. That really isn't the question. The question is structured parking creates an extraordinary cost that makes the TIF reimbursement eligible. And assistance is justified only through the statutory but-for test. And you may ask, why is structure parking eligible? Well, it's because... I'm just going to bring these two up. If you have surface parking, it's the lowest cost option, developer, it's the lowest capital option, but it does provide for the least density on a piece of property. Structured parking adds millions in value to cost, and they're not easily paid for. You can't really pay back the parking deck. with parking fees. So it does create an extraordinary cost but it allows for a significantly more dense development that creates more property tax and it creates more sales tax potential. This is a rendering of what it would look like with and without structured parking. You can see scheme A. You can see the different amenities. Now we really are talking about building 2A which is a 200 you know with structured parking you get a 212,000 square foot five-story building. With surface parking you're only looking at a 40,000 square foot two-story building and you can see the difference there. It's a 35 million dollar asset that's built versus 115 million dollar. So that that is about a 350 percent increase on property tax valuation. But for analysis, so if you don't allow, if we don't give the TIF, Scheme A doesn't occur. You just can't get that kind of density without structured parking. Scheme B occurs, but it's a much smaller scale. Scheme B shifts to that lower density development. Tax base is smaller as more land is consumed by the surface parking. And Scheme A fails to secure the financing on the commercially reasonable terms through the gap, right, that extraordinary cost in a multi-million dollar structured parking. So this is kind of the different city annual. I didn't factor in the county tax revenues. If you allowed for no TIF, surface parking, 40,000 square foot building, you're looking at about two and a half million dollars in sales tax and property tax revenue over 30 years. If you look at the TIF structured parking with the 212,000 square foot building, you do get 3.5 million over 30 years. There's a pretty good increase there, but where you really hit the, I'm saying the accelerant, is if you allow that hotel, that structured parking allows a hotel to get there. Now that's not factored into the TIF reimbursement right now because it is speculative, but it is planned and it can only be done with the structured parking. So the TIF outcomes, this is without the TIF. I won't go through these numbers. I just kind of went through them. They're in the presentation that you have here, but you can just see, you're looking at a 40% increase city revenue with the TIF, 65 for the county, but you're looking with the hotel, if the hotel does come to fruition, you're looking at a 600% increase for the city and a 480% increase for the county revenue. So again, the statement in short, the TIF really isn't based on the public benefit of parking. Structured parking creates that extraordinary financing gap. Without assistance, we go to a lower density surface park development. Instead of the $115 million investment, it's $32 million. And so the TIF really does help enable the higher density mixed use project for that substantial increase in property values. This is kind of a timeline that Mr. Graby provided showing kind of the construction is on the bottom of the white blocks and the ownership is on the red blocks or the burnt orange blocks on top. And you're seeing these mass timber erection, the atrium level construction and the condo finishes somewhere in the middle of 2028 if all goes well. So that's really it. And I'm open for questions or comments or Mr. Grabe, I'm sure, would be happy to chime in if he has anything to add. Again, this is just for information only at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Gore.

I would rename it instead of calling it Scheme A, I'd call it Plan A. Plan A instead of Scheme? Yeah. Okay. We can do this. I saw Bill's eyebrows go up when you said Scheme. That's all.

Understood. That sounds a little too nefarious, I guess, right?

Any other business from staff?

Yes, sir. One other thing. I'm sorry. I do want to address... I tried to kind of put the back and forth down when we notified the county that a sewer variance was going to be required for them to put a criminal or a justice center complex on the 52 acres off South Church Street. We let them know that based on the current discharge of sewer from the jail, the existing jail, It would be more, the 52 acres, the allocation for sewer, it would not be enough to support a gel, not only that gel, but a gel that's going to be bigger in size. So they came back in response a couple of days later trying to aggregate tracks, talk about low flow fixtures. They talked about maybe even doing a hybrid system. We could put so much in the sewer and put so much into a step system drip field. and I wanted your direction. I didn't respond back to that. I prepared a response, but I want to make sure that you all are okay and for me to respond back to them at this point to let them know that we do indeed see that Justice Center exceeding the allocation for that property, that they are going to, they can't aggregate properties or transfer credits from one site to another and that they will not be allowed sewer unless they come forward with the variance request and receive approval from this body and they are invited to do so.

Can I ask a question? Sure. What would we require you know I think the council has been pretty straightforward that whatever is required of others, we require the same for government. We don't put rules in place and then say that's for they, not for So if it was any other developer or government, what would we require?

We would require them to solicit a sewer allocation variance from this body. The sewer allocation city code, the ordinance does not designate a free pass for any entity. So if it was ourselves, if it was private development, if it was a state agency.

So for example, MTSU has got, they're going to be building a hotel on the corner of Greenland and Middle Tennessee Boulevard and they will be coming for a sewer variance.

Yes, they will. They actually had, if you remember, they had to come for a sewer variance for the student housing complex that they're currently constructing out there as well.

Haven't they come for that before for like the schools where they've gotten access? I would assume they have.

Mostly, well the last time the schools came it was, I think it was an outside city service request. So I don't know that they had to, I don't think they actually had to ask for a variance. I think it was approving a development agreement to provide sewer to them outside the city limits.

My whole view is if you got a low flush toilet, guess what happens? You flush it two or three times. I mean, you can say we're going to put in all this, but at the end of the day, you're going to need a variance. And it's, I'll just say this, shouldn't say it, that's our busiest street. in the city. We've got the Regal Inn. Welcome to Murfreesboro. Look at the Regal Inn. And now let's look at the new jail. That's my two cents on it.

Thanks, Austin. That's actually where I was going, too. I mean, you've got the busy street in Murfreesboro that we would all like to see revitalized. You put a jail on that road? Yeah. Revitalization. Gone. So, 77,000 cars a day driving by the Regal Inn in the new jail. And the jail.

As we talk about those, I think that all sort of ties into infrastructure and what we would require of any other entity or developer that, you know, we passed that sewer capacity ordinance back 10 years ago to be able to say the city council has the opportunity to either give extra capacity or deny extra capacity. And so I think the thing that's important, and I don't want this to come off as any negative as the county and the city not working together, but this body put an ordinance in place We have stuck to that ordinance and the process of that ordinance for almost 10 years now. 2019. Yeah, so seven years now. And we don't bypass that even for ourselves. And so I think it's important, you know, I'm disappointed to some extent that You see, I thought your letter that you sent was just letting everyone know, hey, your job is to enforce the ordinances that this body passes. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you don't enforce. I guess you could do that, but you probably won't be doing it for very long. I wouldn't be in this position for very long. I hope the county understands that there's a process to go through, and if they want that process, they have to come through. I'm just concerned that... And I appreciate Darren bringing this. What you don't want to happen is they go through that whole process and then the fingers pointed back at the city saying, well, y'all are not giving us sewer. I think being transparent and open, letting everyone know this is the process that lets the commissioners know what's going on. It lets incoming administration know what's coming on. And then we can be very transparent on how that works.

The sewer allocation ordinance was set in place to protect the public welfare, to protect the sewer system, protect the treatment plant capacity. It's our, probably one of our, if not our highest valued commodity. And we have to, you know, we put that in place so that we would distribute it in a proportionate manner that would not allow large developments to come in and take a disproportionate share.

I think it's important for this body, if everybody, everyone agrees, we are not saying that we will not give the county capacity, but what we are saying, you have to go through the same process. They are welcome to come make application to the Water Resources Department, go through that process, and then that can come to this body to either grant that capacity or not grant the capacity but there is a process to follow and I mean is anyone on council wanting to bypass that process or or amend the ordinance for this process?

I mean if it was a 13-story Marriott hotel we'd ask them to do the same thing go through the process.

We have asked everyone to do that so yeah. I mean, all the bifurcation that's taken part at MTSU with all of the apartment complexes for everyone to know, you know, when these complexes have gone from four rooms down to two, they've all had to come through and ask for that. MTSU has had to come and ask for it. We've asked everyone to come and ask for it. Yes.

If this development goes anywhere, it's the level of the development that we're talking about. So it would probably require a request for additional capacity if it was at another location.

Their current site the New Salem Highway location. I know it was considered as an option to construct another jail. That was really the two options that were looked at was Church Street and the New Salem Highway. They would likely have to ask for if they're going to expand and create a new facility and expand the bed count we would have to look at that acreage i think the same way and how many acres and if it's zoned light industrial uh they they will have to i'm going to go out on a limb here and say they're likely to have to come to to to do it to do it on that side as well

and it's important to stress too the rate payer of murfreesboro expects us to maintain that system because you know all of these expansions that we're we're doing the rate payer has to pay for that so i think we're not asking Keeping the county aside, we're not asking anyone else to not follow the process that has not been followed for seven years now. Correct. I don't think it would be fair for any organization to come and put the city council in a spot to say we don't want to go through the process. It's like, hey, you cannot go through the process, but you also proceed at your peril if you start a project and you don't have...

utilities. Right. Okay. I think I received the direction I need.

All right. Any other business from staff? Council?

I have two things. I was recognizing a new face when you were talking to the mayor before the meeting. I didn't. Are you our new recorder? Are you the new recorder?

Ms. Breckenridge.

Ms. Breckenridge. I want to welcome you. And also I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the citizens of Murfreesboro for re-electing me to another four-year term. And I promise you that I'll continue to serve you to the best of my ability for the next four years. Thank you so much. It's over.

Congratulations, Austin. Congratulations, Jamie. Jamie couldn't be here tonight, but I want to make one comment.

I've got one, too.

I think we've all done this a long time, and I don't know that I can remember that I have ever had to ask people to leave our council chambers during the meeting. I think that is a first for me. So I think the residents of Murfreesboro expect anything to happen in this chamber to happen with respect. And I think you can go back and watch every meeting that this council has had. I think we always try to treat people with respect. I apologize if someone got offended that I opened my Diet Coke while they were speaking. I apologize for that. But one thing that we cannot have and we will not have And I feel very certain the residents of Murfreesboro demand this. We're not going to have people who are going to call people names for speaking an opposing view. We're not going to have people who are going to call police officers in this room names and throw obscenities at them. That's not going to happen here. It can happen in other municipalities and you can watch it on TV, but it is not going to happen here. That's not what the residents of Murfreesboro expect. We will treat people with respect and we expect people to treat others with that same exact respect. So moving forward as we go through, if you come in this council chambers, you can get your point across to the council. Every single one of us will listen, but every other person that's in here has the right to do the exact same thing.

I agree. You know, I had a statement. I'm going to kind of shorten it a little bit because it's been a long meeting, but I do want to thank everybody who came tonight to speak about flat cameras. You know, I appreciate them exercising their First Amendment right to speak. And, you know, I do respect their concerns even when we disagree. And we're not always going to agree on everything. But, you know, we saw this during the campaign. We saw it on social media. We saw name calling. We saw memes. We saw a little bit of that tonight. Some name calling. Somebody called somebody a bootlicker just because they disagreed. Somebody cursed at one of our police officers. Dialogue creates change and better solutions. At the end of the day, I took a lot of notes. I've got some questions to ask. But I do think... In a way, the dialogue will help make this system better, safer for everybody in Murfreesboro. And I think we're already doing a lot of the right things to make sure that the system is in place and protecting people and allowing the police and detectives that need to use it to use it appropriately. We already have those in place. So I thank them for coming. I thank them for sharing their concerns and comments. I don't thank them for some of the name calling and the rudeness. That's not appropriate. I don't call them names. I'm not going to call them names. I would simply ask if they come back, be respectful because I'll be just as respectful.

Yes, sir. Just a reminder, very conceptually, it kind of fits the mood anyway. Our Citizens Academy is going to take the 2000, we're going to start the 2026 class. So we take applications until August the 20th. So if you'll go to the city's website. And it'll be Monday night starting at September the 14th through November the 2nd. And there are eight sessions. And you kind of pull back the curtain of how city is run. But I think what I saw as encouraging as anything, and it was kind of a reminder of what tonight is about. You know, the thing with human beings is, And there's an old movie that I remember that said, what we have here is a failure to communicate. We need to learn how to respectfully dialogue with each other and not necessarily assume the worst in someone else. And if we do that and contribute to the process and not assume the worst in the person that I'm talking to and really listen to what they're saying, We're not necessarily going to come to the same conclusion and agree, but hopefully, and I hope the culture of Murfreesboro will generate this, we can find a path forward that is in the best interest of all of our citizens. No one's trying to stuff something down somebody's throat. We're trying to figure this out. This is new technology, what we heard about today, new technology after having spoken to a lot of different people on both sides of this issue. And I encourage you all, if you're on one side of the issue, come to speak to the council in general, but pick up the phone and call us and talk to us. I can't, I don't know a single one of my colleagues here that would not be willing to talk to you about these issues that are on your heart. Again, we either have a lack of information or maybe don't have proper information. But if you'll respectfully dialogue with us, we can find a path forward. And I can promise you that the six and seven of us that are up here are trying to do what is in the best interest of our community. I thought there was some very well-spoken that set up the dialogue Quite honestly, public safety versus privacy. That's basically what we're talking about. Public safety versus privacy. And both of those goals should be something that every single one of us in Murfreesboro should be striving for. To have a safe community that we live in and protect the privacy of our citizens. But if we listen to each other, and we'll commit ourselves to the process, I think we'll find a path forward. And I again want to encourage you to, if you want to get more involved and more knowledgeable about how the city runs, make application to the Citizen Academy. We'll take applications up through the 20th and then 25 people will be chosen to be the class of 2026. And like I say, you might only get to know a little bit better the people that are serving you in a staff position as an employee of the city or as a representative, elected representative. But you'll get to know some of the other citizens. I saw some of the neatest conversations happen after the meeting had broken up, after we'd finished our sessions. Citizens were talking to each other, finding ways to represent their particular positions on an issue that we were discussing that evening. So I'll shut up and say amen. Two quick things.

I said congratulations to Chris Griffith, but also Bart Fite. After 49 years, retired from Sportscom. Bart is a living legend in Sportscom. And then also the Murfreesboro Little League team, I think we're going to do our best to have them to City Council, but the 14-U Murfreesboro Little League team competed in the World Series this week and represented Murfreesboro well. Ended up going 2-2, but they had an escort out of Murfreesboro. Our MPD escorted them from Sports Comm to the city limits. So we want to say thank you to those young men for representing Murfreesboro. They were on ESPN Plus all four games, so it was pretty cool watching and seeing Murfreesboro, Tennessee there. So lots of good stuff.

And one note, the passing of Larry Kirk, our longtime director of our Murfreesboro Electric Department. Larry was not only a an avid Blue Raider fan, but he was a longtime public servant to our community and I want to offer our condolences to his family and particularly to Kathy's wife.

Also, real quick, I want to congratulate Jim Kerr for his promotion in the Executive Director of Public Infrastructure position. He's replacing Chris.

Awesome. All right. The Board of the Business will stand adjourned.