City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we want to welcome you to the Murfreesboro City Council meeting. We have, it's September the 3rd, and before we call to order, we have two people who've signed up for public comment. We have, and I think some of y'all are still sitting there, so it's the same rules. It's three minutes. If you'll state your name and address, if you'll keep all your questions directed to the council, we'll get, make notes of those, and then we'll answer what we can. All right, Chloe Donegan. Ms. Donegan, are you here? Okay, let's move to Matt Fee. Matt, I see you back there.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing that you know who I am, Mr. Mayor. All right. No, we've talked before. Well, I appreciate it. Hello, everyone. My name is Matt Fee. I live just south of Murfreesboro in Christiana, outside the city limits, but decisions here still affect me, and I contribute plenty of sales tax here in Murfreesboro, let me tell you. I just want to say I went back and I watched the presentation from the real-time crime center during the June 18th council meeting. You know, it does sound like they're doing a lot. But I just wanted to point out a couple of things that really bothered me from that presentation. First, it sounds like the only main guardrail is trust. I know that trust is important, but without any form of verification that the trust is not being broken by an independent audit, it is always going to leave questions from the community. This is no exception. Trust, but verify. Second, a lot of data was mentioned. I've scoured all over Murfreesboro City Police website and can't find anything that shows there has been a statistically meaningful change in crime rates or crime rates of clearance. I can find the data for the Murfreesboro Police Department on FBI Crime Data Explorer, and to tell the truth, over the last five years, the data doesn't really look that much different to me, but I'm not an expert, so I think it's important that NPD be more transparent in the crime data it is collecting. Trust, but verify. My last point is for the Murfreesboro residents who were just speaking. I know the frustration of speaking to a council and getting nothing back. I felt it for years at county government, where a public comment is often the only tool citizens have. But here in Murfreesboro, I found you have another option. I'd like to point out Charter Article 5, Section 26, initiative and referendum generally, states in part. Any ordinance may be proposed and submitted to the City Council for adoption by a petition signed by such number of the legally qualified voters of the city as equals in number 15% of the votes cast for the candidate receiving the highest number of votes in the last preceding regular election. That ordinance then gets read once and is referred to voters for approval or disapproval. Councilmember Scales-Harris, who was the top vote getter, congratulations on the last election with 8,723 votes, which means that the threshold is just 1,309 signatures to create a referendum from Riversboro. The steps, write an ordinance stating clearly what you want the city to do, take it to the election commission, gather 1,309 signatures, submit it. From there, city council can either just adopt it or send it for an election to the voters. Tennessee gives citizens almost no direct paths to force government action. Murfreesboro residents have one. I hope you use it, or maybe council does what they've been asking for already. Thank you, Matt.

Welcome to the Murfreesboro City Council meeting. It is September 3rd, 2026. Councilman Sean Wright has our prayer and our pledge.

Heavenly Father, thank you for giving us the privilege of serving the great people of Murfreesboro. Please give us wisdom as we make decisions tonight. Congratulate my fellow servants as they got sworn in this morning. Please be with those who have spoken and unspoken prayers, Lord. In your name I pray. 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.

All right, let's move to our consent agenda. You have 11 items on the consent agenda. Is there anything that needs to be removed for discussion? Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater. Aye. 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 land use matters. You have Ordinance 26-OZ-29 rezoning a property along Elam Road and Joby Jackson Parkway. This is second and final reading.

So moved.

Second.

Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. Item 13, when it's 260Z30, zoning for property along Franklin Road, Gresham Lane, and Allmar Knott Drive. This is second. Final reading.

Second.

Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye.

Ma'am McFarland?

Aye. All right, item 14, ordinance 26, OZ31, zoning for property along Sheppardville Pike. This is second and final reading. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. Ms. Mills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright?

Aye.

Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Ordinance 26-OZ-28, rezoning of property located along Rushwood Drive. And this is second and final reading. So moved. Motion. Second. Motion and a second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. Ordinance 26026 amending the zoning ordinance. This is automotive motor vehicle repair and services use. This is second and final reading. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

All right, let's move to ordinance. Ordinance 26034, this is adoption of building and codes, and this is second and final reading.

Move for approval.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye.

Mayor McFarland? Aye.

All right, we'll move to land use matters, and this is new business. Plan of services and annexation for property along Elam Road.

Mayor McFarland and members of council. Our first of two public hearings tonight is for the plan of services and annexation for about 10.97 acres located along the east side of Elam Road. It's in the area colored in blue on the map before you. You can tell it is bordered by the city limits on really all four sides. So we're closing in part of a donut hole right here. This property It was previously developed with a single-family home, but I think fire destroyed that single-family home, so there are just a few outbuildings on it right now. It's currently zoned EAC in the unincorporated county, and that stands for Employment Activity Center, which is a variety of industrial, commercial, office, and residential uses. The applicants are requesting its annexation. As you can understand, there would be relatively little issue providing services to the subject property, considering our rolling services are already in the area. Directly surrounding the area, of course, are Schwann Cosmetics to the east. There's an apartment complex directly to the south. To the north is the Seventh Day Adventist Church and School, which was annexed earlier this year. We anticipate them moving forward with an expansion of their school facility here soon. Staff is supportive of this rezoning, excuse me, of this annexation request because the development of this property will see the extension of distribution drive. You see that distribution drive is directly to the east of the subject property and stubs into it. Distribution Drive connects with Elam Farms Parkway. Elam Farms Parkway then goes south to a signalized intersection at Joby Jackson Parkway. The intersection of Elam Road and Joby Jackson Parkway is very close to the interstate on-ramp. And so this will get traffic on Elam Road to a signalized intersection and away from this less than ideal intersection of Elam Road and Joby Jackson Parkway. So the applicants are ready to move forward with the development of this property and when that property moves forward, if annexation is approved, The extension of distribution drive, a public street would be required as a function of their development. And so this will support the city's transportation goals in getting that traffic on Elam Road down to a signalized intersection. There is no simultaneous zoning request with this annexation since the property is already zoned EAC in the unincorporated county and as the EAC zoning district in the unincorporated county permits industrial uses, it would come into the city automatically with a light industrial zoning classification. There is no need for them to request rezoning simultaneous with annexation. The plan of services has been included in your agenda materials. As I mentioned, services can be extended to the property upon annexation. Sewer is to the north and the developer would have to extend sewer from the north to serve this property. We need to conduct a public hearing on this matter tonight and then vote on the plan of services and the annexation. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Oh, and just as a note, the conceptual site plan was included in the agenda materials. That's just for informational purposes. No site plan has formally been submitted to our office or taken to the Planning Commission. We do expect the applicants to submit a site plan should the property be annexed, but that's just for informational purposes in your packets.

Okay. All right. We need to... Any questions for Mr. Baumle? All right, we need to hold a public hearing for this plan of services, and this is just for the annexation. There is no zoning companion. 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 Resolution 26R, PSA 32. So moved. Motion to sign. Please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. 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 19, rezoning for property north of Indian Park Drive.

Thank you, Mayor McFarland. The property is located on the Hutchinson Development Tract, which is, Mr. Hutchinson has been developing the Glenview Farms subdivision along Indian Park Drive for a number of years now. It's really the last remaining portion of the development tract that's inside the city limits. It's currently zoned RS-12 single family residential with minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet. The request has been made by Mr. Hutchinson and SCC to rezone it to RS-10 single family residential district, minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. It's surrounded by a variety of single-family residential zoning types. You'll see directly to the east there is a PRD, that's the Cottage Glen Townhomes, which is a single-family residential attached product. Further to the east is an apartment complex that used to be called Indian Park Apartments. I don't recall what it's called right now. To the west is the Glenview Farm subdivision zoned RS-12 and to the south also the Glenview Farm subdivision but zoned RS-A1 as well as the Oxford Hall subdivision which is zoned RS-A1. So there's a variety of lot sizes and housing types in the immediate area. So the intent would be to develop this with an additional section of Glenview Farms. The difference in yield would be probably about five or six lots. Just a rough calculation at the existing RS-12 zoning would be about 31 lots and a rough calculation at the existing or at the proposed RS-10 would be about 37 lots, I believe. So an increase of about five or six lots total. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on July the 1st and then voted to make a recommendation of approval to the City Council. I'm happy to answer any questions and Mr. Rob Molchan with SEC is here representing the applicant.

Any questions? Alright, seeing none, we need to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this 11.4 acre Rezoning request, or excuse me, yes, the rezoning for 11.44 acres, please come to the podium.

Good evening. Members of the Council, my name is Ioana Fauzi and I live at 2505 Swinney Place. We chose our room specifically for the quiet, low traffic environment this neighborhood offers. If this area is rezoned, that peaceful character will be permanently lost. Replaced by significant traffic congestion and safety concerns. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Hey, and those of you who are in the audience, y'all are welcome if you have any other conversations. Y'all can have those out there, but we need to show respect to the people who are speaking. Thank you.

Thanks.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll consider on first reading when it's 26LZ33.

Move for approval.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye.

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

Alright, let's move to on resolution. You have 26R28 that is mux property for an interchange in a school site. Mr. Gore.

Excuse me for loading this. I've been debating on whether or not to show illustrations, but I... The picture says a thousand words, so maybe it will keep me from rambling so much if we get up here and just look at this particular item. why are we putting this resolution before you tonight i think in short answer that is to try to find a to put into writing or put into a commitment format those things that we've been talking about with the weatherford county school board for the past year, eight to nine months I think at the beginning of the year was the first correspondence I could find regarding Stones Rattle Parkway and the Dismukes property. So looking at the history and kind of moving forward, when we adopted the 2040 major thoroughfare plan in March of 2018, we actually showed two interchanges between 840 and M of a Road. That Turned out, when we met with the TDOT in early 2024 and the choice lanes were rolled out, we actually were informed that we did not meet the distance requirements between 840 and this, what I'm showing is a red diamond here, of that first interchange. That first interchange was shown on the southern part of the Dismukes property. The Region 3 chief engineer said we needed two miles between 840 and the interchange and that there really was little to no hope that we would get two interchanges between 840 and Amable Road. At that time when they brought up the choice lanes that's when really everything did change. This was early 2024. They said that TDOT, there may be no opportunity for an interchange. They were going to be looking at developing choice lanes which are tow roads effectively or lanes that you have to pay to utilize between, really they were talking about Smyrna and downtown Nashville. They have later come back and they are looking at taking it all the way to 840. It was originally shown as a phase two of the choice lanes, but now it's shown as part of the overall project. That choice lane developer was just selected a couple of weeks ago. I think the mayor has engaged with him or he's engaged with some part of that team. While this was going on at the time as well back in 2018, we were talking about the Sazerac property and how we would at some point get to I-24 with Sazerac's development on an arterial road. You can kind of see we just have a proposed interchange and you can see this is the, this new property under question. So when we met in 2024 with TDOT and they told us that we did meet the separation criteria, We needed to move it farther north. It really broke into a much larger discussion of, are we even going to give in to change? We need to start planning a corridor study, an area plan that shows land use, that shows trip generation, car traffic modeling, and really develop this plan as a cell, somewhat of a carrot, to this future Joyce Lane developer to demonstrate the need for an interchange at this location. So this is kind of the plan. It's a truncated illustration of the plan that we started in April of 2025 and really we concluded it in May of 2026. But now you can see that the interchange has moved farther into the property At that time, I think there was some correspondence in January of 2025, I'm sorry, earlier this year, January, where we let, we understood that there was interest in the dispute's property for a school site. So we kind of sent an email and said, hey, we were doing this corridor study. We really had also an interest in that property with an interchange. We were working a plan. When we got the plan done, I think in May, we sat down with some members of the school board and tried to discuss could we come up with a mutually beneficial solution where a school site could be developed there, an interchange could be developed there, Mr. De Smooks could be satisfied with the sale of his property and basically create a win-win-win. There was no intent to be underhanded or to try to go around anybody's back, meeting with the school board initially. They brought up a very good point that said if you were interested in interchange, if this is real, that you would have made an offer on this property for that right-of-way interchange. We took that to heart. We sent a letter to Mr. DeSmukes stating our interest in, it wasn't an offer, it was an intent to develop an offer for 15 or so acres, 12 to 15 acres for the interchange and that we We had that interest and we were also trying to work a joint solution where there could still be a school on the property. The only way these things work is if the city provides sanitary sewer to the school site. We also talked about a 35 acre step. fields there in the blue you can see that potentially could be we could take that subdivision off of the STEP system and put them on sanitary sewer service and capture those 35 acres to incorporate into the school site so we have been We've been trying to develop a solution to competing interests and obviously some of that has not been well received but there's no ill intent on the city's behalf. Even at the offer that was made to Mr. Dismukes there was an assertion that we tried to offer a little bit more than what the school board had offered and really we did not. I looked at the it was 86 acres less than acre and a half of the disnuke's homestead so it was 84 and a half acres divided by 8.5 million or 85.5 million divided by 84 and a half it came out to be a hundred thousand five hundred dollars per acre uh i did not intend to try to up the hundred thousand dollar acre that the school board had put together i was just trying to to maintain the math and give an equivalent offer so All this resolution, and you can read the whereases, I won't go through all the different, trying to lay out the history and the benefits to all and what we're trying to achieve. But at the end of the day, we do need, if we don't get an interchange, we still need a flyover bridge. So there's still some portion of right of way that will be needed. I will go into the fact that the resolution does commit the city to pay for the full purchase price of the dismissed property, $8.5 million. It states in that resolution that we would reserve The 63 or so acres or 60 acres or so for a school site, we would put a deed restriction on the property for that purpose. We would supply sanitary sewer service to the site to avoid a significant area that would be needed for a decentralized system or a drip field system. It does state that we are working with CUD about those 35 acres. I did meet with CUD on Tuesday to discuss it. There's no promises there, but there is a potential there that would get 35 more acres on top of that. The school board will not have to pay for the property. The county would not have to incur debt to pay for the property. We would pay for it and hold it and work through the benefits of that for all parties involved to come up with a solution that was, again, achieve that win-win-win status. So I'm open for questions. You guys have seen a lot of correspondence on this topic, and we're just trying to act in good faith and put our cards on the table and be a good partner.

I think it would be good to give just a quick bit of context and look, we all have, I say this routinely, the City Council is looking through a telescope, we're not looking through a microscope. Some other, depending on who you're elected to represent, you may be looking at a really small area. We're looking at an overall area. And so back, I want to say 18 months, almost two years ago, when the school board initially had a discussion at the meeting, Sam Huddleston, who had been working on this entire area when we were going through looking at the interchange, called and said, hey, can you call someone? This new property is being brought up for a school site. I called the leadership at the school board and said, hey, just a heads up, there's an interchange that is scheduled to go here. As a matter of fact, we had just gotten back from the state. Mayor Reed, Mayor Carr, several people had convened the leadership with the state and our delegation and we actually met with the commissioner of TDOT at the time because this interchange is also part of the interchange that Smyrna is trying to get. I think it's the Rocky Fork Road interchange. I can't remember what theirs is called. So it goes into this whole system. Well, this all got bogged down by the Choice Lane project. So I mean, there was notification like, hey, this is on the county's major thoroughfare plan that the Rutherford County Commission has adopted and the city council's major thoroughfare plan. So that's gone and look, I'm not gonna get personal with, I watched the school board meeting and it got pretty personal and everybody has different feelings about the situation. I hate that there's distrust with the city. That's not our intent. We wanna work well with the school board. But there was a contract written on this property August of last year before it ever came to the school board and that was notified of like hey before you write the contract know that this so it has been very upfront that there's been an interchange plan to go on here and you know a comment was made where these are just lines on papers and yes everything starts as lines on paper but you look at Memorial and the widening of Jefferson of Memorial Boulevard going from Thompson Lane all the way to West Jefferson Pike, that's a $31 million commitment, either through the city and the county, $96 million from TDOT that we hopefully are gonna get. And there's a lot of county residents who are gonna use that road that the city of Murfreesboro put, that we're talking about putting $25 million up. So we're all in this together on this network and the long Cherry Lane network that that property was built or was bought I think in the year 2002 from the Chaddick family I think is when the Cherry Lane property was built. So just so everyone understands to try to find a compromise here's what the city is offering. We're offering to fully pay for the land The county school board does not have to go into reserves to buy property. The city is going to pay for it. The city is going to deed restrict that property that it can only be used for a school and an interchange. The city is going to run sewer to that property. at the city's cost to run the sewer. The city is gonna work with CUD to get an additional 35 acres, hopefully, to be able to add to the school site that they will be able to have for additional ball fields and those different things. And the city is gonna pay for that and hold the property at no cost to the county until the county commission funds for a school to be built. Am I fair on saying that? That's it. So the county taxpayer doesn't have to buy the land, the county school board doesn't have to buy the money, and a school site is held for the county to build a county high school. So that's what we really, I didn't come up with the idea, I wish I did, but it is, I don't know of a better win-win-win for the county commission, the county school board, and the city that the interchange would be able to be built. And realistically, I think the other part, the land, We're really talking about land baking a piece of property that the funding for the school has not been allocated by the County Commission yet. So that's full transparency what we're trying to do. You also have to take into account, and this is after many discussions with TDOT, you've got Vanderbilt Hospital that has been approved, the CON has been approved, and Vanderbilt's going to build their hospital. This is an ideal interchange for people to be able to access that hospital for the community. And so there's a lot of things happening in that area that we feel pretty confident that an interchange at some point. Will it be built in the next four years while we're all sitting up here? Probably not. But there will be an interchange built there at some point. And we just want everybody to try to find a way that's a win-win for everybody.

We certainly need the road. There's no doubt. We need that northern loop. There's no doubt. I can't, I mean, I've been here four years. I'll be here another four years. It's like we're forcing another entity in government. I mean, this is a resolution. It's not an ordinance. It's a resolution. It's saying, hey, county commission, this is what we want to do. And the county commission is going to tell the school board. So we're indirectly telling the school board, this is what you should do. And we've never done that, I guess, is what I'm getting at. We've never passed a resolution to the county commission on shared pennies. And so I guess I've got a problem with the fact that we're indirectly kind of going around. They've got the money right now to buy it. They're waiting on a soil test. Mr. Dismukes, that's what he wants is a school. He can't control, we can't control. That's what TDOT said where the interchange needs to go. So I see all the good intent. Why not have a memorandum of agreement? Have we even thought about that? Here is an agreement, you guys buy it, and this is our section for the interchange, and this is your section for the school and the sewer. I guess that's why I'm asking.

I think that's what this does, because we're buying it, we're paying for it, they don't have to allocate. We put the interstate exchange or have it land banked for the interstate exchange, and then if or when they're ready to build the school, the land's there for them to build the school, and...

And Austin, I think the other part, I think Darren probably can speak to this, I don't think there was any appetite to have a memorandum of understanding to work on the property. I think the, I wasn't in those meetings, that was Mr. Peach and Mr. Gore, but I also think that the other part that, and we've heard watching the meetings that there's this distrust and so we thought the right thing to do was to put it in writing. and say here's exactly what the city council has voted on and what the city council is going to agree to besides a lot of he said, she said. It's like we're putting it in writing, letting the county commission and the school board know that we're putting our money where our mouth is and that we're going to agree to be able to do that. That was the reason why.

Austin? I'll say that it is a resolution. And it's taking a lot of what has occurred verbally and it's trying to memorialize and document what has been verbalized. And I think it is the framework for an MOU. I think it's a framework for a development agreement or partnering a contract, if you will. Because that has teeth in it at that point. And you make it into an MOU or to a contract. And I've also learned throughout my career that distrust You don't need to really trust Darren Gore. You just need to trust what's been written down and what's signed off on. That's, you know, I obviously want to be trusted, but... I trust you, Mr. Ford. Well, thank you. Well, again... Not your PowerPoint, but I trust you. Well, again, it's, you know, when you write things down and you have people sign off on it, then there's no... You trust the document that everybody has executed. And that's all we're trying to do. This was an initial... Let's put down what we've said we're going to do, kind of put our money, and obviously get the direction from council to make sure that this is something you're willing to do.

Because if we pass the resolution, we're committing to purchasing this property. Or working with the school board and the and I would say there's been several county commissioners that have discussed with and they're like, hey, this is too good to be true. Why are y'all doing this? And I think that's why I didn't want to speak for the council. Mr. Gore didn't want to speak for the council. Wanted to put in a resolution that showed everything and everyone can have that public discussion on it.

By statute, the county commission funds the school board. Right? Right. So the school board says, hey, we want to build a school. They're going to go and say we need the money to build this school. Now we're indirectly telling the commission to say, don't fund this because we're going to fund it. You see where I'm coming from?

We're not funding a school.

Yeah, we're just buying the land. I guess what I'm saying is the land. To me, it's better if it's a true memorandum of understanding, a memorandum of agreement versus a resolution. Because you're actually boxing in that school board. And you all know where I sit and where I sleep, okay?

I know where you're sleeping at night.

But the point is we're indirectly boxing in that school board. A memorandum of agreement, a memorandum of understanding to me is better. I've got one last question. Y'all sat down with Mr. Dismukes and he made an offer to the city at a price above or below $8.5 million.

I have not seen any counteroffer above or below $8.5 million. The $100,500 acre that we put in the letter to Mr. Dismukes, for the 84 1⁄2 acres, that was going to equal 8 1⁄2. I'm sorry, the initial letter was just for the 12 or 15 acres for the right-of-way. This is new in regards to putting it down as purchasing the whole thing. We've not made that offer before.

Austin, I do think there's one more important thing for the council to understand. This is just my... opinion. I think we're trying to let the county commission know here's what the city's willing to do to partner with the county commission and the county commission or the school board. The county commission is the funding body and the bottom line we're all Rutherford County taxpayers so I mean you know but the other part too if we don't find a way to work together which I think everyone's tried really hard to do we're going to be sitting across the table negotiating and advocating for TDOT or the City of Murfreesboro to condemn a piece of property that the other government own or works through to put an interchange there that has been on the plan that's been worked on for years. So I think this is a much better way to say here's a way that we can all compromise as opposed to being adverse to one another arguing why a piece of property should be condemned.

And I'll say if this is the precedent we're going to set, we need to start setting the precedent with regards to shared pennies. I'm down for that, too. You know, if this is what we're going to do, then that's the way it needs to be done. Now, we need the road. We need an interchange. I use South Rutherford all day. We need this. There's no doubt. I just don't like the fact we're kind of forcing ourselves upon another entity in this way. And I get it.

If in this property... Let's look at this maybe from another standpoint. Say the school board bought this property and they gave us a condition that they would commit that property for the interchange, which is similar to us saying we buy the property and we're going to commit a piece of the property for a school. It's just the hands on the other foot. The issue that I really think we ought to be able to resolve this, and I don't know whether we've got a new commission. Maybe we try an additional time because the issue, if there is $8.5 million in reserve that is committed for the purchase of this property, and the city's willing to pay that $8.5 million, then that $8.5 million could go towards the construction of the school. And then we're closer to getting the school on the ground If we do this, but I'm feeling similar to Austin, is do we put the proposition out there or do we say that the will of council is to purchase this so that the resources that the school board already has could be used towards the building of that school at a sooner date? And we'll purchase that ground and give them sewer and give them the property.

It needs to be stated. There's an existing contract between the school board and Mr. Dismutes. I was putting the resolution out there Well, it's stating our intent and it's an attempt to solve the issue and give everybody a mutually beneficial outcome that they desire. This by no way forces anybody into a corner because Mr. Dismukes, I know that he wants to sell it for a school. He's not happy with the city. He wants to sell it to the school board. This resolution, if it gets passed tonight, it may have zero effect. I mean, it doesn't have any real power to, other than we're trying to influence hearts and minds.

We're trying to put in writing what this, instead of sitting in these meetings and going back and forth saying, well, we'll do this, we'll do that, we are putting in writing what the city will do. And I think the other part, and this is after talking with the Choice Lane representative today, either a flyover bridge or a interchange is going to be programmed for that area to connect the West Blackmon area all the way to the east side of Murfreesboro. So what we're saying is that we don't know what that's going to be yet. And I just would hate Look, if the school board or the commission said right now, yeah, we're not opposed to an interchange going there, we ought to do that, but unless I've missed something, I don't think that has happened as of yet.

There's been no offer from the other, from the county to secure a location for a interchange.

So this is at least, Bill, an offer to say, let's start the discussion holistically.

Does it say that we will give them the land for the school or three, or we're at $100,000 an acre.

I think we said we would hold it at cost, so we would not, if it's 10 years down the road, it would still be at the purchase price that we made for it.

Honestly, I don't see the harm in, I mean, this is the best of both worlds for both entities. Speaking as a city council member and a county taxpayer, there's really no negative to this. Like Darren and the mayor both said, we can send it over to the county commission. They could tell us to kick sand, but I'll make a motion to approve. I don't see the negative from either governing body.

I will second that motion.

Motion to second. Any other discussion?

We definitely need the road. I just don't like, I guess, the manner that we're, from my view, boxing somebody, and that's my last comment. Fair enough. All right, Ms. Tucker, please call the roll.

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

Aye. All right, let's move to our next item. This is Ordinance 26038, Fireworks Permit Administration Update.

Yes, thank you. We're recommending just an administrative change to change the fireworks ordinance to allow the building and codes director to sign off on the permits instead of me. This allows us just to simplify our process. And I'm happy to answer any questions or recommend for approval. I hope it has to be you.

I'm just kidding. You don't like fireworks, Erin? Come on. I mean, I love them. Second. Second.

Motion to second, please call the roll.

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

Aye. All right, let's move on to motion, the purchase and sale agreement with the Journey Home. Mr. Giller?

Yes, sir. Thank you, counsel, writer and counsel. This is a purchase and sale agreement. It's on the city-owned property that's adjacent to the existing Journey Home. We presented this at a workshop. I think back in July or June. And we had a, I think about a two and a half or three dollar per square foot price. The council determined that they would like to sell this property to the Journey Home for a dollar. This purchase and sale agreement is consistent with that ask. And so we would request your approval. And I'm available for questions if you have any.

Move for approval.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. All right, let's talk about the Hangar Construction Contract Award. Mr. Durkee, and I think you have several members of your airport commission here tonight.

Yes, ma'am. members of the city council. Joining us tonight are Ken and Laurie, our vice chair for our airport commission, and also with him is Shelby Hunton. And also in the audience is Joe Nye with Barge Design Solutions who helped us through this big process along with our purchasing department. Thanks for flying over. Yeah, exactly. So in July 30th we took bids. We received 10 bids for the construction of an 18,000 square foot hangar. That's 15,000 square feet of hangar bay and 3,000 square feet of office space. The total contract price provided by Barron Construction, Barge Design Solutions reviewed all 10 of those bids and determined that the lowest responsive and responsible bidder that met all requirements stated in the invitation to the bid to be Barron Construction. The total contract price provided by Barron Construction is $4,350,196. The contract price includes $4,143,044 based on the bid submitted as well as 5% owner contingency to be solely at the owner's discretion, the city. This will be paid for through the general fund and the airport fund, and the airport fund is covered by the hangar rents, ramp fees, and fuel sales for both our base customers and the visitors that come through our airport every day. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to take them at this time.

There are no questions. I'll move for approval.

Second.

Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. And Shelby and Cannon, thank you all for y'all's hard work. We appreciate the service y'all have for the airport. All right, let's move to Motlow Paramedic Program. Chief McCluskey.

I thought you was going to support this turnout purchase. I need it. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I come for you tonight to ask for approval to send seven of our AEMTs to a paramedic class that is taught by Milo State Community College. The total cost of this is $63,800, which that covers the tuition cost, textbooks, required uniforms, and testing and licensing fees. Staff recommends approval for this situation. Chief, do you need more than seven or seven and a half? We at TOC, that's probably about as many as we can send in a year's time with them being off work and the funding of it. But over the years, we've gotten our paramedics up to, we're almost right at 40 now. So if we get this seven, that'd be 47, which is a pretty good ratio. Okay. Any questions?

Second. First and second, please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. Ms. Gales-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Ms. Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright?

Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. Next item is the purchase of turnout gear.

See, you leaned back and you wouldn't lean forward. Hey, I've got a video of Terry Spence if you want to see that. Really? That's another one I won't live down, so...

Staff saw it though, officer. Tonight we come for you to purchase some turnout gear, 40 sets. It's for our new trainees and replacement gear for our firefighters that gear has expired. This request will go through a source well contract purchased through NAFCO and the expense of this is $174,960 which is funded under our operational budget. All right, let's move to the purchase of body armor from Galls.

Chief Bellman.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council, for your consideration. This evening is a request to purchase body armor from Galls. MPD officers are equipped with body armor, which is recommended to be replaced every five years. Currently, we have about 100 sets of body armor approaching their expiration date. This is part of our normal rotating process, and the total cost of this purchase is $180,000, and it's funded by the department's FY. 27 operating budget.

Thank you, Chief. Move for approval.

Second.

First and second, please call the roll.

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

Aye. All right, Statewood School Resource Officer Grant Program.

Yes, sir. For your consideration is a request to approve a grant contract for funding that has been awarded to the City of Mercerville Police Department. This is for the School Resources Officer Program. The total award is $1,050,000, which will be used to offset the FY27 salaries and benefits of 14 SROs assigned to our qualifying schools. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.

She's added one to our agenda. Yeah.

So moved. Second.

I was just saying, let's go to the room.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Ms. Mary Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wayne? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. All right, let's look at item 28, sewer rehabilitation, CSX permitting for 2025. Ms. Smith?

Good evening, Council. And... I am presenting to you tonight something that our department has been working with legal on. It is an agreement with CSX. We have found in our rehab project that a portion of the project is underneath CSX Railroad and there is no existing permit on file. The Superman portion of it to the right, to your right, my right, if you're looking at your screens has been installed since 1975 along with the portion under the track and the portion to the left which goes over to lanes trains and automobiles was installed in 2009. So the portion under the track is what needs to be rehabilitated is corroding underneath the tracks it's a 12-inch sewer main and so we need to move forward with the agreement with CSX. So legal has had some changes to the contract that has been sent to CSX for their review and we have not heard back. But we wanted to request approval for the agreement subject to legal's approval of the agreement language. The fee for and also approve the fee for the permit which CSX has assessed at $117,620. This fee was not included in our sewer rehabilitation costs, so we're bringing that back for approval. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Ms. Smith? Move off rule. Second. Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. Ms. Gels-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Shacklett?

Aye.

Mr. Wayne? Aye.

Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. All right, let's move down to 29, United Systems Cellular Equipment Purchase.

So the equipment we're wanting to purchase are called ERTs. They help the water meter readings report through cellular service to our Temetra software that's housed on the cloud. And our customers can use the Temetra to log in and see what their usage is. And that usage is also reported to our billing system. Okay. It also will, these ERTs, new ERTs that we're replacing will also work with our mobile units to see when people move in, move out and whether they're able to use the water or not. We need to replace the ERTs in stages or we want to do it in stages so it's not just a huge purchase. We're trying to do the installations of these ERTs that go on the water meters in-house by ourselves. So we are trying to do a five-year implementation knowing that it may take longer than five years trying to do it with our in-house staff. So year one total for the purchase of the ERTs is $685,000. The existing ERTs that we have will be sunset in 2035, so we want to get a start on that knowing that we will have over 25,000 customers that need to be changed out. So we request approval for the first 5,000 ERTs. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Motion to approve. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. All right, let's move to the disciplinary review board, excuse me, board and commission appointments, and this is for the disciplinary review board. It's a reappointment of Rachel Windrow Ayers, and I believe Rachel fulfills the attorney requirement. Move for approval. Second. Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Saverwater? Aye. Ms. Gales-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Ms. Mary Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Madam McFarland?

Aye. All right, let's move to beer permits.

We have two regular permits tonight. One is for a new gas station located at 1593 New Salem Highway. And we also have an ownership change for a restaurant located at 3053 Medical Center Parkway, Suite D. And then we have two special event permits. One is for Read to Succeed on November 6th at the View at the Fountains. And the other is for St. Rose on September 13th at 1601 North Tennessee Boulevard. All applicants submit our requirements and we recommend for approval pending any final building and codes inspections.

They promise to serve cold beer. I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion to second.

Miss Averwater? I like warm beer. I don't know. Aye. Miss Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. All right. You have one statement to be paid.

Aye. Yes, we have one tonight payable to the Circuit Court for $100,000. Move for approval.

Second. I wish to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. We do this after every election. It's the election of the Vice Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion. Councilman Shacklett, you've done a great job the last four years. I've learned a lot from you. I hope you're okay with this. I would like to nominate my good friend who came in first last time during your old cycle, Mr. Sean Wright.

I will second that motion. He's not my good friend, though. He's just my friend.

He's just a friend. Okay.

I get it.

Are there any other nominations?

You okay, Mr. Shackler, with that?

Yeah.

All right. Seeing none, we'll close the floor and call the roll.

Miss Averwater? Aye. Miss Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Maxwell? Aye. Vice Mayor Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Abstain. Mayor McFarland?

Aye.

All right. Any other business from staff? Any other business from council?

No, sir.

We have a I'll just say this. Next council meeting, can we have some sort of an executive session to discuss some of the public comments and issues that have been raised surrounding flock? That would be Jeff. There's been a lot of discussion and there's been some good information. I just think as a council we just need some time to discuss it in private.

particularly as it pertains to potential litigation.

Yeah, I just need to make sure that litigation that we've had, it'll just be more informational, obviously, and questions that you can ask of me. Yes, we'll get that scheduled.

Bill, I want to publicly just say thank you for all you do for this council.

You're a voice of reason, Bill. I learned a lot from you, so thank you.

I would like to second that, Bill. You've been an inspiration, and I look forward to following your footsteps.

And I mean, hopefully I'm not going anywhere, but I don't know. Pretty rough comments earlier in the meeting. Any other business? We'll stay adjourned.