City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, I want to go ahead and call the Murfreesboro City Council meeting to order. It is September 16th. We have five people who are on our list for public comment. If you will, if you'll come to the podium, if you'll state your name and address, you'll have three minutes. Keep all your comments directed to the City Council and then we will move to each individual person. All right, so we have Nikhil Patel.

My name is Nikhil Patel. I'm 3434 Dutton Court. Good evening council. Today I stand here with many others to talk about previous item number 9 that got moved to item number 17 on the agenda. The wording of how you all put what is being voted on is almost kind of like you guys are hiding something. We never said that you were going to implement DFR drones. You say integration is for just viewing and avoiding switching networks. And that's all that's being done, but is that the truth? Is this not a prerequisite for possibly adding more features in the near future? If you look up DroneSense and their wide variety of partners, you'll note that Flock and Axon are some of the partner companies able to be integrated. Like a vehicle that you add accessories on, The possibility to add features on the system once linked is always possible in the near future. Sure you aren't all doing it right now, and sure you might not be planning to integrate it in the future, but it definitely makes things easier. It makes this possibility one step easier. This council was never up and honest about FLOC in the way it worked a few years back, but now that we know that it collects our data, how can we trust that you are telling the truth when the wording is so extremely confusing on this topic? I want to make it known that We will not go away or eventually get tired of showing up to oppose Flock or anything associated with Flock. Every day, more people realize what is being done and our mission will not stop until every camera is bagged and all the cameras are removed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pateau.

All right, we have Jeffrey Wegner. Jeffrey.

City Council. My name is Jeffrey Wagner. I live at 553 Agra Park Drive, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. This week I heard about an item from some colleagues that was placed in the consent agenda for tonight's meeting. This item would decide whether or not we purchase a software license with the ability to expand our software for the capability of DFRs. Now obviously from what Mayor and other people have said, this isn't necessarily y'all's intention to have DFR drones. However, I do not want to take another step closer in any direction towards mass surveillance. We already live in a police state surrounded by cameras constantly. Every moment of our life is warrantless surveillance. I would like to take a step back from that for once. The City Council may argue that this software is not going to involve DFR drones, however this software can be used for exactly that. While you may have no intention of purchasing DFR drones now, the expansion of this software inches us closer to being able to have DFR drones. We are sick and tired of inching closer to that. We are not in the worst situation yet that could happen, but our intention is to prevent it now before we get there. Additionally, the public narrative is becoming uncontrollable surrounding this issue. I know that you guys have tried to spin the narrative a lot this week, trying to show that there isn't an issue with this technology. There isn't an issue with this software. But the backlash still persists. The narrative is becoming uncontrollable is because flock is immoral, unconstitutional, and a violation of our values. We're going to continue, like my last colleague just said, because we're going to keep a very close eye on y'all because y'all are keeping a very close eye on us. We're sick and tired of this technology being used for warrantless surveillance all day, every day. Either way I leave my apartment, I pass at least four flock cameras on my way to work. For what? It's not keeping me safe, it's just more surveillance over and over again. Now the City Council has a choice. Do you want to earn back a modicum of public trust by cancelling all mass surveillance projects, or do you wish to watch our entire city continuously lose faith and trust in y'all? Do you want the remainder of your terms to be spent trying to control an uncontrollable narrative? There's nothing you can do to spin this narrative anymore. The choice is simple. End the contract or continue to lose the trust of the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeffrey. Steven Gavel?

Hi, my name is Steven Gavel. I live at 613 Butternut Trace. Is that Murfreesboro? That is La Verne, Tennessee, sir. Okay. And I am speaking today because whatever Murfreesboro does affects pretty much all of Rutherford County. There are flock cameras in all parts of Rutherford County. There's about four down the street from me, so I would like to talk about line item 17. My problem is not that you guys are trying to make automated drones, that would be a problem for me, but rather the fact that we're continuing to integrate flock into our mass surveillance systems. We shouldn't be allowing a billion dollar company to decide what to do with our data. Dozens of Cities across the United States have banned flock cameras because flockers lied to their citizens, to the city council members, and told them that the city gets to control who gets the data, usually saying, hey, it's only for local law enforcement. Lots of people have done FOIA requests. Anyone in this room can do a FOIA request. Anyone. To find out which agencies are actually looking into our flock data. We can find out whether or not they're looking into you. This is not right. It breaks Fourth Amendment rights. We should be canceling all of our contracts with FLOC and any other ALPR systems, any other mass surveillance systems. Because at the end of the day, FLOC and these other ALPR systems, just FLOC alone though, Takes over 120 billion pictures across the United States every single day of people's vehicles Makes models all that stuff It takes more than just your license plate and there have been dozens dozens of people who had been arrested had guns pointed at them by the police. One in Morristown, Tennessee, so it is pretty close to home, an old couple were pulled over by the police at gunpoint because they believed that there was somebody who was kidnapped in their vehicle. This was because of a flock error. Just imagine any of you in here today with your kids, grandkids, on your way to school, on your way to work, and you get pulled over by the police, and they believe that you are a hardcore criminal because a flat camera thought that your one on your license plate was an eye. Now, they claim to have a 94% accuracy rate.

Thank you, Mr. Gabel. Yep. Thank you. All right, let's... I want to make sure if I pronounce your name wrong, I apologize. McGonigal. James McGonigal. If you'll just put them right there, that would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yesterday, independent security researchers discovered... Can I get your name and address, please? James McGonigal, 2038 Deerwood Avenue, Riversboro, Tennessee. Thank you. Yesterday, independent security researchers discovered serious vulnerabilities with the surveillance system that is connected to the drone deployment aspect you proposed to pass today. What I want to explain today is what this Flock security disclosure is now going to cause. This isn't hypothetical anymore. Researchers physically examined the equipment and the documented security problems in this system that produces the information police use, and that changes the legal situation significantly. First, every flock-based case now has an evidence integrity problem that defense attorneys can now raise. It changed the question. Could these cameras theoretically be compromised? And two, here are the specific defects. Now demonstrate that this particular evidence maintained integrity. Given that question, and given this set of vulnerabilities, can the state demonstrate that this system produced an accurate result? If the answer to that last question is no, the officer acted because the flock said the vehicle was there. The state cannot go back in time and independently verify an arrest that already happened. This is a serious problem. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 9-01-B-9 recognizes authentication of computer-generated evidence through evidence showing that the process or system produces an accurate result. What does that mean for the drones? We will get to that soon. The Tennessee Supreme Court has also already addressed what happens when police arrests result from defective information systems. In State v. McElrath, the court suppressed evidence obtained after the police relied upon erroneous information in their own systems. The court specifically distinguished an isolated mistake from a systemic error. If these security deficiencies are ultimately established as systematic characteristics of the deployed platform by the state, which to be clear, they most certainly may be at this moment. It potentially affects many cases in which Flock itself has supplied the information necessary to initiate the seizure and police did not independently establish that information before acting. This creates a second problem with connecting Flock directly to drones. A drone does not provide independent verification when the reason the drone was sent there in the first place was the Flock alert. Second, the drone is government surveillance produced because of the challenged information. Tennessee Code 3913-609 specifically regulates law enforcement drone searches and provides exclusionary consequences when drone information is obtained in violation of its requirements. So launching a drone does not necessarily repair a defective foundation for the evidence.

Thank you. All right. Shelby Hunton.

Good evening, Mayor McFarland, members of city council, and city staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Shelby Hunton. I live at 1021 East Clark Boulevard, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. I'm a member of the board of the Friends of Stones River National Battlefield. I've got a couple of fellow board members here that have come to be in support. And I'm here on behalf of the battlefield regarding the mandatory referral 2026-709. It's the proposed abandonment of the connector between West College Street, Old Nashville Highway and North Thompson Lane. In no way do we oppose the closing of this connector. Our concern primarily is the timing and ensuring faultful transition and planning that's in place before the road is closed. Stones River National Battlefield welcomes approximately half a million visitors a year and contributes about $24 million to the surrounding community. It's our number one tourist place in Murfreesboro and one of the most visited national park sites in Tennessee and it's a tremendous community resource for Murfreesboro. The current route to McFadden Farm from the Battlefield Visitor Center is an important part to tell the story of the battle. That route is on our signs, our maps, our brochures, our kiosk, our website, and other digital places. So when the connector closes, the National Park Service will need to establish and communicate a new route, redesign maps, brochures, and so forth. Redesigning all that with the federal government does take quite a while. We've been told maybe upwards of a year and can cost tens of thousands of dollars. So that's mainly why we're here. And plus next year marks the 100th anniversary of the Stones River National Battlefield in Murfreesboro. so it's a significant year for 2027. So for these reasons I respectfully ask that the connector remain open to at least February 15, 2027 and that's consistent with the recommendation negotiated through the Planning Commission. Our goal is not to stand in the way of progress. We just simply want to ensure that the transition is thoughtful, coordinated, and does not unnecessarily disrupt visitors' ability to access and understand this important site. Thank you for your consideration and your continued partnership with Stones River National Battlefield.

Thank you, Shelby. Right, we're going to get ready for our prayer, our pledge, and then the group in the back that everyone is waiting to see. Welcome to the Murfreesboro City Council meeting at September 17th, 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 night, the chance that we get to come together. Lord, I thank you for each person in this room. I thank you for what they mean to the city of Murfreesboro. Lord, I'm thankful for the young men who represented Murfreesboro Little League. Lord, as they continue to grow into leaders in this community, I pray that you surround them with people that will uplift them, that will guide them, that will move them in a direction that they continue to be young men of faith and the young men of action. Lord, I'm thankful for what you continue to do for us. Give us wisdom and guidance. In Jesus' name we 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.

Thank you.

So many of us this summer, it was pretty cool to watch on ESPN. I think it was August the 7th or 8th that we were watching on ESPN and you saw Murfreesboro, Tennessee on ESPN where these young men were playing baseball. So it's my pleasure tonight to introduce you to the Murfreesboro Little League 14 U Team. They've achieved historic success through their exceptional skill, dedication, and sportsmanship during this 2026 season. By capturing the Southeast Regional Championship, these outstanding young athletes earned the prestigious honor of representing the state of Tennessee and the entire Southeast region at the Junior League Baseball World Series in Taylor, Michigan from August 9th through August 16th. Whereas the team demonstrated incredible resilience and competitive spirit on the world stage, securing thrilling victories against the Central and West regions and finishing their historic tournament run with an honorable 2-2 record. Whereas the players, coaches, and families of the Murfreesboro Little League 14U team have brought immense pride, joy, and distinction to our community, embodying the very best of Murfreesboro's athletic tradition, and community spirit. Now therefore, I, Shane McFarland, Mayor of the City of Murfreesboro, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim September 17, 2026 as Murfreesboro Little League 14-U All-Star Team in the City of Murfreesboro for their monumental achievements and I call upon all the citizens to join me in congratulating these young players in their historic World Series run and thanking them for representing our city with honor and excellence. So what we're going to do, we're going to have the coaches come up, introduce themselves, and then players one at a time. If y'all will come up, introduce yourself. It would be great for everyone who's watching to be able to meet each of you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Coach Shacklett, the rest of the council. Appreciate you guys. I'm John Hyland. I was the head coach of the team, vice president of Murfreesboro Little League.

We've got Coach Mike Fettig, Coach Dave Thomas, players Jalen Cornell. I'm Jalen Cornell.

This is Brennan Thomas.

Trust issues. Lennon Fettig.

Carson Taylor.

Frankie Hyland.

Charlie Newberry.

Guy Chastain. Asher Jung.

James Thomas.

Eli Goodman. This is Angel Narvaez.

Thank you.

Is that everybody? For those of y'all who are baseball fans, I was waiting for someone to say, my name is Big Al and I hit dingers. But nobody said that. So guys, congratulations. We appreciate y'all representing Murfreesboro. And I know many of y'all have just started your freshman year this year. So we look forward to what we see coming in high school and hopefully some state championships as y'all go to your respective schools. So let's give them a round of applause.

let's get a picture

All right, guys, ready?

I forgot, Bill.

I'm sorry.

Congratulations. All right, let's move to

We'll let the room clear real quick. All right, let's move to our consent agenda. We've had people talk. There's already been one item removed off the consent agenda and been redone.

I don't know if I've informed the council how I typically work on the consent agenda items. Every week We have a council meeting. We have these council communications that are sent to me. They go to finance, they go to legal, they go to purchasing, and then they come to me. And I review these, usually on a Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon. And I wordsmith. I may change things to get the formatting just right. What I typically look at, to put it on a consent agenda, if it's what I believe to be a unanimous decision, council, a standard item of business. So when I read, especially on the drone technology, it was an existing technology software contract that we were just adding licenses, my next major item I look at is the cost. Typically, if it's under $50,000, I'll put it on as a consent item. Some items I may go over $50,000 say for a vehicle or something to that effect, but I want it to be very clear that it's a very methodical process and that there is nothing, I do not put items on the consent agenda to avoid attention on that matter or to defer or to deter any type of dialogue or any type of a discussion. When we found out that that particular item did have a flock integration component, we immediately discussed it with MPD, pulled that integration component out of the contract, and we put that on a regular agenda item so that it could be discussed amongst the group. So I just want to make sure that Any assertion that we're doing this to hide things or to sneak things through you guys, trust me, I may not bat a thousand, but most of the time this is standard stuff that really I see as a normal item of business that doesn't really warrant full discussion from the council. But I wanted to kind of clear that up and make sure everybody understood the process that we go through for consent agenda items.

And Darren, the other thing that I think is important is anything that we see on the consent agenda, we have the right to pull it off of the consent agenda and put it into our regular agenda if any of the council feels that it's necessary to do that. Absolutely.

And Bill, I think you know, I will say at every single meeting before the consent agenda, is there anything that needs to be removed from the consent agenda for discussion? So with that, is there anything that needs to be removed from the consent agenda for discussion? If there is not, I move for approval. Second. Motion to second. Please call the will.

Ms. Saverwater? Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. All right. You have the City Council meeting minutes for August 13th. August 13th, regular meeting. Excuse me. August 13th, public comment. August 13th, 2026, regular meeting. September 2nd, joint conceptual workshop. September 3rd, 2026 public comment in September 3rd regular meeting. Are there any additions or deletions to the minutes? So moved.

Second.

Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Saylor-Water. Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris. Aye. Mr. Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wade.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright.

Aye. Mayor McFarland. Aye. All right, we'll move to old business. You have under land use matters number 12, ordinance 26038. This is the fireworks permit administration update, and this is second and final reading. So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Saverwater? Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright?

Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. All right, Ordinance 13, excuse me, Item 13, Ordinance 26, OZ33, Rezoning Property, North of Indian Park Drive. This is second and final reading. So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

Aye. All right, we'll move to new business. You have sewer allocation variance along New Salem Highway for Salem Square. Mr. Gore?

Mayor, thank you for the opportunity for this. This was something, we had a joint conceptual workshop item that discussed car washes I guess earlier this month. This is a an offshoot of that or a consideration item that really falls in line with what we discussed at the Joint Conceptual Workshop. I brought one slide and if the Channel 3 folks will put that on the screen. I believe it's highlighted right. So this was a map of all the car washes that we talked about at the Joint Conceptual Workshop. We currently have 25. There's one that has been approved and under construction in blue. And you can see the one that's proposed today, the club car wash is proposed in orange. This particular site in the past had been provided a sewer variance of I believe seven additional units beyond its allocation, the sewer allocation ordinance. Today they're requesting an additional forty-five single family unit equivalents to allow the car wash to be there for the sewer capacity. So total you're looking around 52 single family units above what's been already allocated under the sewer allocation ordinance. So we discussed this as well, the automated car washes, the revenue generated from there is not subject to sales tax. The only income or revenue that's brought in by the car washes are the assessed value, the improved value of the site. We've determined, and then the ancillary sales of different items at the car wash, if you're buying arm or all wipes or if you're buying other things to clean the interior of your car, we're looking at somewhere just around $9,000 a year of revenue. with that in mind the benefit of revenue to the city we are stating that we believe it is appropriate to afford this site the original sewer allocation the additional seven units but it's not in staff's opinion a benefit to provide them the additional 45 single family units I'm open to questions or discussion on this particular. I wanted to bring the map up so you could see where it was proposed in relation to other car washes. Is there a representative from the car wash here today? I think so.

There are. Mr. Taylor, before you come up, just because this is a land use matter with no public hearing, will somebody make a motion to suspend the rules for Mr. Taylor to speak, please? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

All right, Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Matt Taylor from SEC. I've got my client and his representative with me as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I think as far as the variance request goes, we understand it's a big number. I think any of these that come through are going to be a big number. but we also believe it's a service to the residents. I understand that we have quite a few of them around town, but if you look along this particular corridor, we don't think we have the same density or provide the same service, and so that's why my client is interested in this particular location.

Do you have to be a member at Costco to use the Costco car wash? Sounds like, I'm just asking, I'm kind of taking that one out there. That's one of the things we talked about. Is it joint or just at Planning Commission where we talked about looking around to see how many there are in the area and serving the residents of that area specifically.

And I will say the property in general has been very challenging because of the substation that was condemned and is coming behind us. Not that we don't think the substation is necessary, but that has made recruiting potential tenants very challenging. My client has had several potential users including daycares and assisted living, things like that that have dropped out because of that. And so I think that I've probably shared at some point the master plan for this property currently. This car wash is part of that. Other components of the master plan that this will go along with are a retail center that has a coffee shop and a restaurant as well as a hotel and we're also doing some, we call them business condos at the back. And then we have one, all of those are spoken for. My client will actually build the retail space. He will actually build the business condos. And he will sell this piece. He would partner on the hotel. And then we have one out parcel for a, that we think is a good landing spot for a fast food location on the master plan. We had offered to do a PUD to help you see those and you can see the whole sewer picture through that. We're still happy to do that if that's what is needed, but this is a piece that is needed to help the whole Maestro plan come together.

Mr. Taylor, is what you're alluding to your belief that the rest of the planned development will have relatively low?

I think it's the, the fast, no, I'm just saying that this is one piece and so because of the challenges that the substation has put on McClott and his property, he's carried it for so long, he needs to go in and do all these almost simultaneously to be able to make the financial part work. And I understand that's not necessarily y'all's issue, but I'm willing to share the story of the property and why we have requested this. I think that some of the users could still be fairly high at sewer use. I think that when we were offering to do the PUD, we had outlined the potential sewer uses for the water and sewer department. And I don't remember what those total numbers are, but if you start to take into account the land that the substation is on, it helps that total number. but i think as we bring these individual pieces in we'll probably we would probably need to come back and ask for additional surveillance for something like the hotel or the fast food depending on who that fast food user is there can we look at the whole picture and not just the car wash then we can kind of see what the whole flat looks like yeah sure yeah we can we can look at it um i would i would say if if um

the council is leaning towards looking at approving this, I would ask that you allow the water consumer ordinance to be modified so that car washes would pay their single family unit equivalency in connection fees before we move forward or before, that that ordinance change revision would be made. Right now, the car washes, they're taking an They're taking a lot of sewer capacity and they're not paying a commensurate fee. We have them isolated in our sewer use ordinance or water use ordinance as a line item that has a much reduced fee versus the capacity that they consume. So I would say if we look at this whole package and look at all of the single family unit equivalency that we see on the site, that we look at that, at changing the sewer use ordinance so that car washes would pay their fair share for connection, if that's appropriate.

I'd be in support of that, yes.

I think since they're already in the loop, we go ahead and improve it with this master plan, but moving forward, Are you saying you don't want us to apply it to this particular... Could we approve it today and then apply it retroactively? I don't know that we could... I would suggest that we approve it contingent upon the revisions to the sewer use ordinance that they would pay their single family unit equivalency.

If I can. My client heard that at the joint workshop and was anticipating that. So that is not an objectionable. Let's do that.

We're good with that. I support that too.

I think going back over the last 15 years with this piece of property, it may be 15 years that there was several different things that were planned to be on this and there was a lot of discussion about the substation and you know the substation that was determined not through the city but Middle Tennessee Electric determined that was the site and having a large four acre substation at the corner of your development definitely put this land in a tough situation. But I do agree it makes sense that based on I think the number you showed us that the average car wash is paying $18,000 a year into the city of Murfreesboro. Does that sound... About $9,000. $9,000. Yeah. So I think anyone can say that that's and not fair with the amount. And this is in the basin that we spent, how much did we, do you remember what the total was that we spent for? Seven or eight million dollars, I think.

Was it closer to 11 million, Valerie? I know that this is going into the interceptor, though, by the river, so it really isn't going into that other interceptor.

So does anyone have a motion subject to staff comments?

I'll make the motion subject to staff comment plus master plan by the developer.

All right. We have a motion. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye. Vice Mayor Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. All right, let's move to item 15. This is the mandatory referral for abandonment of the North Thompson Lane West College Street Connector Road right of way. Mr. Robeson? Good evening, Mayor, council members.

This is a request to allow the abandonment of right-of-way, the North Thompson Lane, West College Street connector, as well as the public utility easement located on both sides of the public right-of-way. This was brought to us by New Vision Baptist Church. They're looking to expand their parking lot, so this property will be replanted back into their lot. With the Northfield-Thompson intersection boulevard extension, it created a safer route. Let me pull the map up. So this is the route to the south here. The road here in blue, this is what we're looking to abandon. When the West Northfield Boulevard extension came through, it allowed cars to get to West College a further away from the intersection, making it a little safer. This went to Planning Commission and they did approve it with staff comments and they added a comment that the connector road would open to traffic through at least February 27th, excuse me, February 15th, 2027. Staff and Planning Commission would recommend this to the City Council to approve with the conditions that were provided to you. Are there any questions for me right now on it?

What was the Planning Committee's vote on that?

There were two dissenters. Correct.

I watched the meeting, or portion of the meeting, but what, I'm interested, what was the, and I've heard Mr. Hutton come up and speak, but what was the overall premise of making them wait until February to start any type of construction?

They had requested a longer period of time because, as he said, they have to change signage, the pamphlets they have out, apparently it's on the driving route with the Stones River Battlefield. So that was to give them time to make the changes to the literature they pass out of their website so they can make those changes before it changes over.

Is there a representative of the church here? I'm interested in what that does to the church timeline.

Good evening. Mayor, members of the council, Sam Huddleston with Greg Zamolone and I'm here along with Executive Pastor Greg Freeman of New Vision Baptist Church and we did represent this item before planning commission and we're here tonight to hopefully answer some questions and address some concerns and so During the mandatory referral issue, the church had suggested or requested an earlier closure date, November the 15th, and then as we talked through things and continue the conversation there. It was a conversation about what is the absolute latest and so that's where kind of on the fly we talked about February 15, 2027. And as the church and the design team, as we've looked at this, We're entering a tough time of year to talk about dirt work and in some of this work we really need the ability to get into that public right of way sooner rather than later and to stay on track and Mayor I think you would be in the right position here in the council to challenge us on even talking about starting dirt work in December and we know it's going to be a challenging project but we also know from the past few weeks that the church is seeing some desperate need for parking and it really gets back to them being able to serve their visitors and their guests and their congregants and One event that was shared with us and we shared this I think with the Planning Commission during one recent Sunday, folks actually drove away because they could not find parking. And so that's a difficult thing for a church and a pastor. I think we would all appreciate that. But we also understand the battlefield. And they're good neighbors. They've been good neighbors to the church, and the church has been good neighbors to them. And so as we look to do this road closure, we reached out to the battlefield as well as several other of our neighbors and talked to them about that. And so we would certainly look forward to the opportunity to do that again. And so I think what I'm asking tonight is, Could we consider some relief in that that would allow us to work as attentionally and deliberately as possible between the battlefield and the church and the city to mitigate this? The timeframes that we've heard from the battlefield, they're not going to be ready by February the 15th. And so all the parties involved are still going to have to work on a mitigation plan. We're still going to have to take some temporary measures. The question is when do we start those? And what I would offer to you tonight, that the church is willing to offer up that mitigation plan. We think we could have that turned around in a draft form that would... just bullet point action items by each party along with a completion date and then see if we can get that ready to go and everybody agree on it and I hate to offer up my former loss but I think the city manager would be a good arbitrator of that to be able to determine. The city doesn't have an interest in this per se. The battlefield has a request for us to delay and the church has a request for us to speed up and I think I've worked with with Mr. Gore for a long time and I think he has a very fair mind about him and I think he could mitigate that. And at the end of the day, the city holds the final card, and that is this takes a deed to transfer the real estate to the church. And so my proposal is that the mayor not sign the deed until and if necessary, consultation individually with the council members on the adequacy of the mitigation plan. Our offer would be to leave it open as long as practical, but to also be intentional in implementing some temporary measures to make that happen.

So can work begin, are you saying work could begin prior to February 15th if the transition, I mean developing, I guess I'm going to back up just a little bit. Developing a transition plan for that property and then reviewing that, Mr. Villaroy reviewing that and allowing that process to move forward as he is the arbiter, I would guess. Thank you very much. But we'll also be in consultant with the church and the battlefield.

Yes, and the city. And your staff, and you guys know this, your staff's already working on this. As this made its way through agendas and planning commissions and the concept was out there, the traffic staff, engineering staff, the planning staff, they were already thinking, how's this going to come together? And so your staff's already preparing for that. The church will do... anything practical that we can do. We have limited ability to do that. We don't control the public right away but we do control New Vision Baptist Church property. We've offered to help for example with printing and so I think some of those things we would like to put on paper I think there's some things that we would like to ask the battlefield to commit to, for example, updating their website, updating their media, helping identify new wayfinding signs. The essence of the mitigation program would be over-the-top public notice, using all of the resources of the federal government, the city government, and New Vision Baptist Church. And New Vision Baptist Church does have a global outreach, so we do think that we can bring a good bit to bear on that. And we do think some very creative folks on all three sides that could come up with a mitigation plan. And again, regardless of the time we start, There's going to have to be a temporary measure by several parties to make this transition happen to help with folks who use the road for access to and from battlefield facilities.

Is there a way that preparing the right-of-way, without closing the right-of-way, you can still begin to do something to prepare that ground? Sure.

So there are some things that we have talked about internally from a construction scheduling sequencing standpoint that would allow us to maybe start some limited work in the public right-of-way, especially between the north parking lot of the church and West College. That's where the critical part is for the church's plan is to get an access back to West College in the old right of way. And so there's going to have to be some intersection work, we know that. And then there's a good bit of fill and grading that's going to have to be done eventually in the paved surface itself but initially perhaps some of that work could be done on the shoulder while maintaining the travel way. And so I think the commitment you hear from the church tonight is we will work the plan as best we can to leave it open as long as possible and then we would also commit to a minimum of 15 days notice working that with city staff and the battlefield. And some of that notice city staff needs to do anyway. They need to notify the service providers. They need to notify emergency services. And also we'll use press releases and media releases and CTV and the website to let the general public in addition to visitors to the battlefield know about the changes. I anticipate there will be some sign movements early But I think there's a need for some temporary signage, some variable message boards that the city uses from time to time. In fact, they're in use today at the Manson Fortress I-24 area to notify motorists of the changing pavement conditions there. And so I envision that there will be some temporary, those variable message boards will be utilized before the closure and then after the closure to notify of the alternate route or the new route. I quickly jotted down about 18 items between the city, New Vision Baptist Church, and the battlefield staff that I think would be key parts of that mitigation plan.

I would like to just give a quick bit of context that, you know, the battlefield is a huge partner in our city. Half a million visitors, 20 million, I think is what Shelby said, of income. New Vision has been a great partner. It wasn't too long ago, I think eight or ten years ago, when we had the discussion of the north field extension that, you know, the location of the current Northfield Extension is not where that was originally designed to go. It was going to go through the city property behind Kasai and align with the battlefield entrance. Unfortunately, that didn't work out. But whenever it came time that that plan didn't work out and the city had to go to the church to say, hey, we're going to have to run a road next to where y'all have your construction going, we took... With their help, about 50 of their parking spots and the church never batted an eye to say we understand the significance of Northfield. So I'm supporting this because when we were trying to do the West Northfield, the church stepped up and helped the city get that much needed connection from the Gateway. And I feel confident with the church with the battlefield and with the city there can be a mitigation plan put in place and nothing negative to the battlefield but the city has extensive work with the federal government and the federal government works on their own timeline and i would hope that it could be done quickly but there's not many things that we work with the federal government that are done quickly and so i hate to punish the church waiting on someone else not in Murfreesboro to make a decision on things that need to be done. So I feel certain with three partners like the city, the battlefield, and the church, there can be a good plan put in place that everyone wins on that.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

So Greg Smolony is volunteering to put this transition plan together? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. We'll start on that plan tomorrow. Actually, I started on it a few weeks ago when this was at Planning Commission. problem-solving nature of my experience with city government that a lot of times in my role and in staff's role, we were problem solvers. We have an issue. How do we bring the resources to bear on that? And so I've already thought through a lot of that. What I haven't been able to do is engage city staff and more particularly the battlefield because we weren't sure of the final target. I think tonight's action, and we would respect the council's wishes on this, but tonight's action gives us some finality that would allow us to move forward with that mitigation plan and share that with the other two partners and we would look to turn that around in a draft form next week.

Since the date is, we've talked about the 15th of February, we're saying no later than the 15th of February. Is that part of the...

Yes, I think our ask of you tonight is no sooner than December the 1st, because from a practical standpoint, we can't execute all of the paperwork and process that need to happen and no later than February the 15th. And then allowing the church... And the city's going to be the arbiter of that? The city would decide when... The transfer actually occurs. When the transfer actually occurs and that the mitigation strategy is appropriate and being implemented effectively.

I think that's a good plan. Anybody else have a comment? I'll make the motion.

I think it's a good plan also. It's very all-size.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion?

Mr. Huddleston, I will personally be calling you every Friday morning at 8 a.m. to ask you how that list is going.

I look forward to it, Ms. Averwater.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

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

Aye. All right, thank you all. Let's move to Resolution 26R32, Fiscal Year 27, Budget Amendment Number 1. And Dr. Duke, a lot of us got to come around to the schools on Friday, so it's cool seeing everyone.

Well, thanks. We appreciate you coming out and being a part of the Read to Succeed. It was a fun day.

We didn't do 13 schools in one day.

We did not, but you know what? I think that's a record we just let stand for a while. I agree. I'm presenting our first budget amendment tonight for the FY27 City Schools budget. Just for clarity's sake, this resolution all recognizes additional new revenue in the form of grants and the corresponding expenditures that were not included in our FY27 budget. Council has previously approved. All these amendments were approved by the school board in both August and September meetings. These amendments include $30,000 in new grant revenue for our preschool access for all program as well as $33,000 in additional funding for our voluntary pre-k program. Within our general purpose fund, we're recognizing $44,000 in public safety grant carryover funds from last year, as well as $78,000 for a new Tennessee tutoring grant to support our tutoring program. In the federal projects budget, it's approximately $132,000 in new grant revenue for our McKinney-Vento program, which supports students who are experiencing homelessness. and an additional $30,000 for our ESP tutoring program through the 21st Century Grant. Finally, it's $5,000 in new federal grants for our Title III immigrant funding program. Finally, our school nutrition department received a $3,000 grant from the Rutherford County Soil Conservation that will fund part of our Farm to School program. In total, the grant revenues that we are asking to be recognized tonight are $357,108, and it does not impact our fund balance. I appreciate the consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

If no questions, I move for approval. Second. Motion is second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Saverwater? Aye. Ms. Gels-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright?

Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. All right, let's move to on motion item 17, contract with unmanned vehicle technologies. This is amendment number one. Chief Bowen.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. So with me today I have Captain Brian Anderson. He's of our Traffic Special Services Division. And just wanted to kind of touch on our drone program at MPD before we consider this proposal. So at the police department we have 8 drones and 15 drone operators. The type of drones that we carry are all vehicle carried. We don't have any automated launching of drones. Everything is carried in a car. and then when officers arrive on a scene they will deploy those drones. We have four indoor drones and we have what we call four outdoor drones. The indoor drones are basically used for situations where you may have barricaded suspects inside a building that you don't want to send officers into because of a threat. So we have four of those and of course we have the four outside drones. None of these are launched automatically, none of these are launched by dispatch, these are all manually operated at the scene by a certified drone operator. The reason for the request tonight is whenever you launch a drone and you have a drone operator on scene, they have the ability to view the footage from the drone, but only they have that ability. So what this extension of the contract would do, it would let us allow, it would allow us to add the two additional drones to DroneSense, which will allow for remote viewing away from the scene. So if you have a command post, the crime center, individuals away from the scene would be able to see the same things that the drone operator would see. This, as proposed right now, does not include the flock integration piece. And I do not intend to bring that back to council. So the way it's proposed tonight is the way I intend to bring it to you. And I do not anticipate coming back to council with the integration component again. I know that that ability to be able to view drone footage, there's a prime example. We had a credible incident here recently. You had commanders who were off duty and not at the scene and it was a pretty severe incident and Captain Anderson being one of those individuals was able to log in and see what was going on that scene and it helped him stay informed with everything that was going on. I know that there's concerns about the slow creep towards a drone as a first responder program. I can tell you I've been here 38 years. I have a short list on my board of things I'd like to see accomplished before I leave. And bringing that to council is not one of those things on my agenda. I think there's too much for us to learn. I know we've looked into the problems. I know we've researched things. But it's something that still requires a lot of education on our part. And I don't see that as being something that I will ever bring forward. And it's probably for the next administration to consider. I just want to put that out front to let you know where our intentions were and at the end of the day our intentions were to be able to view drone footage from one source instead of going to two sources. Does it hurt us? No. It would provide optimal conditions for us to be able to view footage, but does it keep us from being inoperable to take that connectivity away? No. So we're still able to function without the connection of lock and still be able to do our job. Like I said, the other way just made it easier for people to view what was going on. It's as simple as that. And that will answer any questions you may have.

So the six drones that we already have, do they have the capability of this integration of screens?

So right now the six drones that we have currently do not integrate with Flock.

Is the Flock integration not in this proposal? It's not in this proposal.

It has been removed.

So is the software affecting the six that we already got or the two new ones?

So we have six that are currently licensed and we want to add the two more that we just acquired.

So it's basically adding the same capability that we have with the six to the two new drones that we purchased.

Yes sir. When we removed the flock piece it was basically where we're at now.

Chief, thank you so much for your explanation on all that and Darren for the clarification on how things get onto the consent agenda. That helps a lot with making this decision and explaining and being completely transparent to the public as well about how things get on the consent agenda, that there's no hard feelings as well as this is an expansion of a product we already have that doesn't have this capability now. We're just adding two more of a program we already do.

And just for the record, I think all these technology pieces, I think we've always tried to take the public's privacy into consideration. I think we've been pretty open and transparent. If you look at our track record with our documents, our presentations, news stories, just speaking about openly at events, I think that we're not trying to hide anything. I think that we've been pretty open and transparent about what our intentions are. and have invited people to ask us questions and have provided that web page for people to be able to go and look at some of the frequently asked questions. So I think that the transparency part is something that we're committed to and I think that we've done in the past. I think our track record shows that.

With the increase in population now, and we are adding two more in the future, In the future do you see us, in the near future, adding more? Are we sufficient right now with what we have?

So I think our goal ultimately was to get enough coverage with drones to where We wouldn't have to call on other resources to come if we ran into a critical instance. Our goal was to have enough resources, enough operators to cover our shifts. And so I think, and I don't know if you have any proposals coming up to add any additional drones. I think we added the two last budget year and going into budget year, I don't anticipate adding any more.

But to be clear, and look, I know With all the debate that's been going on about all this other stuff, I can't imagine y'all would have brought us something to expand the program knowing the debate that's been out there. Our current drones are manned, I wouldn't say they're manned, they're manned operated so we don't have people flying around in drones. If you go for the DFR Are our drones capable of doing that? And then also how much are the DFR drones?

So it's a huge expense and you're talking about a significant infrastructure. You're talking about a significant amount of money. I've seen it estimated anywhere between $4,000 and $8,000 a square mile of coverage. So it's pretty expensive, especially when you start considering the amount of area that you'd potentially want to cover. So it's nothing that you would be able to ease into. It would have to be a full open discussion.

With that, I've had a lot of conversations with, I've learned a lot, but Have we ever had that discussion about going to the DFR program? So we have researched it. We've looked at it. But I'm saying the council. No. Okay. I don't remember that ever being presented to us. I don't remember us talking about that. So when the consent agenda came out and we started looking at it, I don't think any of us even anticipated that was a discussion.

I think maybe could be helpful in this is that this is like if you licensed a police car and you bought two new police cars and you said, but we need two more licenses for those police cars. We haven't increased our capability other than just numbers. The software doesn't access more surveillance or more, other than in fact the numbers, and I'm troubled that we brought this up in a time that's so controversial it is, because we're still as a culture trying to sort out what is the proper and right balance between safety and liberty. And we're still trying to figure that out. And this is a request from the same licenses for the equipment that we already have. It really hasn't increased our capacity, our capability to do something that we haven't. I just wish it was enough. I think I'd ask them one time, does this change us operationally? And you said it didn't change us operationally to be, you know, because of what we already have, six that we already have.

Right. So... And I understand totally, absolutely. And hindsight, the flock component should have been eliminated from the get-go and just the additional license asked for. And that would have probably made things, well, it would have made things a lot clearer.

Well, if anything, you know, the people that are concerned about the use of flock cameras, it removed that from this contract. So something was accomplished by raising that concern.

The last question I have is, as you've directed, we're not involved in police operations. I mean, elected officials are not on crime scenes or incident scenes, but it's my understanding you use these for active shooters? barricade situations, large crowd situations, a mass casualty situation. I hope that we don't see those, but my question is, does this make the manned portion, not the DFR, does this make your job easier and protect our officers in situations and emergency service providers where they could be in harm's way?

Absolutely, especially when you start looking at the smaller drone platforms and the ability to use those in and around structures where we have high risk for officers. We don't have to send officers in those situations. We can send that drone in, even the larger drones on the outside, and they can go up, approach those structures, and give us footage of what's going on without having to expose people unnecessarily. Okay.

Any other questions?

Move for approval. Second. First and second, please call the roll.

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

Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Captain. All right, let's move to 18, purchase and installation agreement for replacement of Rogers Park playground equipment.

Good evening, Mayor, members of Council. I'm seeking approval to purchase an installation agreement with Recreational Concepts for the replacement of the Rogers Park playground equipment. The playground there has reached the end of its useful life. This project will replace the playground within the existing footprint with new landscape structures, equipment, swings, border timbers, and accessible ramps. Parks and Recreation staff will remove the current playground, and the equipment and installation will be purchased through a source well contract. The total contract amount is $216,544, with funding available through community development block grant funds. I'm happy to answer any questions.

So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Averwater? Aye. Ms. Gelseris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wayne? Aye. Ms. Mayor Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Solid waste purchase of rollout carts. Mr. Gossett?

Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Before you is a request to consider the purchase of 2,808 rollout carts from Reread Pacifica. Solid Waste Department requires these new carts for deliveries and replacements of damaged carts. Last year, Solid Waste delivered 782 new carts, replaced 441 irreparable carts, and sold 242 additional carts for services. Year-to-date, the department has delivered an additional 329 new carts, replaced 150 damaged carts, sold 113 for additional services. We, Reed Pacifica Company, has provided these 96-gallon rollout carts with Citi since 2017. These are the carts that are consistent with quality and reliability that the citizens have learned to trust. The carts will be purchased under a cooperative OMNI contract. The price will be $191,278 and it is budgeted in a solid waste FY27 operational budget. And I'm available for any questions. How many cans are we picking up a week now? We're right over 60,000 a week now.

You're doing a great job.

Thank you, Ms. Gilles. So moved.

Second.

Ms. Averwater?

Aye. Ms. Gilles-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade? Aye. Mr. Wright? Aye. Mr. McFarland?

Aye. Let's move to TDEC ARPA grant contract amendment number one. Ms. Smith.

Yes. A couple weeks ago, staff found ourselves in a phone call with TDEC and their grant administration for the ARPA funds, trying to find candidates that had completed their projects and met all the requirements, but that their contract hadn't completely closed yet. They were looking for candidates that could accept additional grant funds. Our contract extends, ends within September 30th and they are requesting that we extend that contract to be sometime in November to end in order for us to receive additional grant funds and those grant funds are in the amount of $4.95 million. So I would request approval of the amendment to extend the contract so that the department can receive the additional funds.

Move for approval.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

all right thank you all right let's move to item 21 the final change order with hawkins and price llc for blackman manson burnt knob road intersection improvements miss emerson good evening mayor council um tonight i bring forward the final change order for the blackman burton on manson pike intersection it is an amount of sixty one thousand five hundred eighty six dollars That's within the staff's goal of the 5% of the original contract. That brings our contract from $4,865,978 to $4,927,564. This is funded for the project allocated for the FY26 CIP. Second. Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Saverwater? Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye.

All right, let's move to task order number one with Eli LLC for Broad and South Church Street intersection signal improvements. Mr. Fazing? Oh, no, it's Ms. Emerson.

Sorry Matt couldn't make it tonight so I am replacing him. So staff requested a proposal from Land Energy Infrastructure LLC for the survey and design of roadways and signal improvements at the Broad Street and South Church Street intersection. The proposed project includes widening and reconstruction to add turn lanes, replacement of existing traffic signal and mast arm signals, signal and fiber improvements, and pedestrian improvements. The contract includes utility coordination and design right-of-way and construction plans permitting and bid-face services. The estimate cost of these professional services is $166,400, which is funded from the FY22 CIP.

So moved.

Second.

Motion to second, please call the roll.

Ms. Saverwater? Aye. Ms. Gelserius? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright? Aye. Mayor McFarland?

Aye. Alright, let's move to Professional Services Contract with Kimberly Horn for Front and Vine Street realignment at Northwest Brawl.

Staff requested a proposal from Kenley Horne & Associates for the preliminary and final design and improvements of Front Street and Vine Street at Northwest Broad Street. The proposed project will realign Front Street and Vine Street and add a traffic signal to improve intersection geometry at Northwest Broad Street. The project also includes access management improvements, right-of-way design and acquisition support, utility coordination, roadway lighting, and final design and bid phase services. The estimated cost of these professional services is $358,400, which is funded from the FY22 CIP and MED proceeds.

Any questions? Second. Motion to second, please call the roll. No, that's... We just had a motion. Okay, motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Aberwater. Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris. Aye. Mr. Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wade. Aye. Vice Mayor Wright. Aye. Mayor McFarland. Aye. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, the Golf Commission recommending Brad Newberry. He is taking Witt Turnbow's position. So moved. Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Abelwater? Aye. Ms. Phils-Harris? Aye. Mr. Shacklett? Aye. Mr. Wade?

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright?

Aye. Mayor McFarland? Aye. All right, let's move to licensing. You have a special event, the City Schools Foundation Pickleball Tournament Fundraiser.

May I come in for approval? So moved.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to take... You stole my thunder on it.

It's okay then.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

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

All right, let's move to payment of statements. You have legal expenses.

So moved.

Second. Motion to second. Please call the roll.

Ms. Aberwater. Aye. Ms. Gills-Harris. Aye. Mr. Shacklett. Aye. Mr. Wade.

Aye.

Vice Mayor Wright.

Aye. Mayor McFarland. Aye. All right. Let's move to other business public infrastructure project update presentation. Mr. Kerr. Aye.

Thank you, Mayor and members of council. Let's see if I can get this.

Let me tee you up just a little bit. With our upcoming retreat in October, I really wanted this to kind of be a preview and give you all some time to... The road projects are our biggest CIP item that we talk about at the retreat. And I really just wanted staff to give you their presentation of timing, estimates, of these road projects, so you had some opportunity to kind of digest that before our retreat. So, sorry, Jim. Take it away. Thank you for teeing it up.

Don't let Erin do it. She'll get mad at you. That's what I'm worried about, to be honest with you. You can do it anytime. Good evening. This is an information item. No action item is requested tonight. The presentation covers the major roadway capital projects, current status, estimated cost, right-of-way impacts, and the fiscal years in which funding may be needed. It is intended as reference for upcoming CIP discussions. The purpose of today's update, we have three parts, basically. Part one is project updates, status, benefits, cost, and right-of-way impacts. Part two is a funding picture, right-of-way and construction dollars by fiscal years. Part three is priority considerations for the CIP process. Each project slide contains more detail than can be covered tonight verbally. Looking ahead, the forecast in this presentation shows what could advance into right-of-way or construction over the next several fiscal years if funding were available. It is not a committed schedule and it is not a ranking. Cherry Lane is the established first priority. All other projects are subject to funding availability and council direction. Let's see. Sorry. Cherry Lake consists of four phases shown from the interstate on the west to the east end of the corridor. The corridor carries federal and state funding. That funding requires delivery of the corridor on schedule with a local match. Deferral of any federal funded phases places the outside funding at risk. On the chart, yellow is federal and state funding and green is the local share. The remaining projects are presented roughly north-west to south-east. These projects are considered as other projects in this presentation. Aspen Lane currently operates as a right-in, right-out on the Mead Center Parkway. That configuration was an interim measure. The project career lines Asbury into the Conference Center and Medical Center Parkway signalizer intersection and connects to Wilkinson Pike. Current status is that we're finalizing right-of-way appraisals with the Williamson Farm. Design of the east and west tie-in is being finalized. A developer agreement is being formulated. The funding is $9.5 million FY29, $7.5 million FY31, a total of $18.5 million. Army Drive. Sorry. Existing Armory Drive intersection with Thompson Lane is too close to 04 Parkway intersection. The project relocates Armory Drive to Sam Walton signalized intersection and closes existing Thompson Lane connection. This is recommended for TDOT's future interchange improvements. A section was built through a council-approved developer's agreement funding $1.6 million in FY27 for right-of-way and construction, $3 million in FY29, total $4.6. The adjacent property owner requests a review of an alternative alignment that would retain the existing Thompson Lane access. Kimmy Horn, the design engineer, reviewed it and provided staff with a memo dated August 14, 2026. Finding of the memo, the alternative does not provide a continuous connection, does not meet the 30 mph curve standard, and creates significant drainage, parking, and corridor width impacts. Also, the recent development in the area has not made that alternative connection feasible. Staff recommends maintaining the approved alignment. No action is required to date. Medical Center Parkway Phase 3. Phase 3 addresses the skewed intersection of Medical Center Parkway and Broad Street. The scope is to realign the intersection to reduce the skew at second left turn lanes onto MCP for Broad, at right turn lanes off of Medical Center onto Broad, signalize the Ridgely Access Road, and improve access management along the corridor. The project also closes the westbound connection at College Street And we've got some connection to Hanson here that will only tie into Rosebank under Medical Center Parkway. Let's see. Funding is $6 million in FY27 for right-of-way and construction, $5.2 million in FY29, $5 million in FY31, a total of $16.2 million. This is the medical center right-of-way impact. The realignment requires property acquisition for businesses or potentially full takes. The right-of-way estimate of $6 million is at concept level that was based on previous cost of Town Creek project. Values will be refined through the appraisal process during the right-of-way phase. Southeast Broad Street widening. The scope of work for this corridor is widening on Southeast Broad Street in the area of Academy Street to Bellwood Drive slash Braidable Pike. It includes additional through lanes, turn lane upgrades, median, sidewalks, and curb and gutter. The current status of this project, the preliminary plans are being finalized, public outreach and TDOT coordination are underway, the funding is $1.4 million in FY27 to begin right away, and complete design $10 million in FY29, $11 million in FY31, total $22.4 million. Southeast Broad Street, Rutherford Boulevard. The scope of work is from Kensington Drive to Elam Road. It includes dual left turn lanes from South Rutherford, new and extended right turn lanes, two through lanes on each approach of Southeast Broad, updating traffic signal and timings with sidewalk connection. The project improves level of service and reduces delay in queuing at the intersection. Funding, $1.5 million in FY27 for right of way, $5.1 million in FY29, and $2 million in FY31 for a total of $8.9 million. Rutherford Boulevard Extension. I've seen this several times. It's a new connection from Borger Drive to Rutherford, including the bridge over I-24. Currently, Southside traffic is routed through the South Church Street corridor. Its intersection is in the South Church Interchange. The extension provides a bypass to New Salem Highway and the New Salem Interchange. The T-DOT recently widened. The relief applied to the full South Church Corridor and the improvement overall operations at the intersection of Church Street. We're finalizing the plans in right of way, coordinating with TDOT on the interchange crossing and working with adjacent developers. Funding is 8.4 million NED money FY27, 22.2 million FY29, totaling 30.6 million. This is the Broad Street Pedestrian Bridge. This is a pedestrian bridge over Broad Street connecting downtown to the historic bottoms in Town Creek. This is a pedestrian project. It is one component of the downtown program that includes Town Creek Keystone and the Broad and Front Vine intersection and Broad and Church intersection that you guys just approved the designs on. Funding is $1.3 million in prior years for design, $10 million in FY29 for construction, of which $1.7 million is federally funded. Total $11.3 million. Broad and Vine, Broadfront, Vine and Broad and Church. These two intersections are keyed as one line item in the CIP. Broadfront, in fact Michelle just went through the scope, Broadfront and Vine scope with new signals, turn lanes, box cover replacement, realignment associated with the Town Creek as well as utility relocations including the city's traffic fiber optic head in every bit of our fiber comes through every bit of fiber that operates our traffic signals run through that that corridor so we'll be relocating everything that we have online funding is 7.1 million from any proceeds for design and construction 5 million in fy29 totaling 12.1 these numbers include right away already purchased for property in this area St. Andrews Drive. The scope of work is to widen St. Andrews Drive from Veterans Parkway north to New Salem Highway to a three-lane cross section with curb and gutter and sidewalks and a multi-use path on the school side of the roadway. Since there is a school on the corridor, the primary purchase is pedestrian safety and traffic calming by implementing roundabouts along this corridor. Funding is $900,000 FY27 for design and right-of-way, $5 million in FY29, and $5 million in FY31 total, $10.9 million.

West Clark Boulevard.

The scope of work is from West Clark Boulevard between Memorial and Broad Street. The existing road is a two-lane ditch section with an S-curve. The project corrects the curve and rebuilds the road as a three-lane section with curb and gutter and sidewalks. There's also a school along this corridor. Currently, Kimmy Horn is working on alignment alternatives for the S-curves, and we hope to get those back within... Rocker Lane. Scope of work is to widen existing lanes and add shoulders and sidewalks from Marywood Boulevard to Highway 96. Phase 1 is constructed. Phase 2 right away has been purchased. Funding is $9.8 million in prior years, $1.2 million in FY27 for a total of $11 million.

So that'll start next year? That'll start fiscal year 27?

Y'all tell us. That's what this is for. Y'all tell us what you want. Whatever you fund, we'll build it.

You've spoken like a true politician.

Hey, I heard that in 1996 from Si Weiser, who appeared at the council meeting. Let's see. Potential right-of-way and construction forecast. This table shows each project by fiscal year and the phase it could be in, right-of-way or construction, if funding was not a constraint. It is not a recommended schedule by any means. It shows what is ready to advance so the council can consider prioritization. This chart shows the The previous table in annual dollars. In each bar, yellow is Cherry Lane federal and state funding, and green is the Cherry Lane local match. Those amounts are committed. Blue is all other projects. We kept talking about other projects. The list of the right shows what is included. The other for Boulevard Extension is 14.6 million of the 27 million in blue. FY28 there's no discretionary spending. The current CIP schedules no new roadway debt in FY28. FY28 activity will be funded from FY27 and FY29 issuances. Same table with FY27 and FY28 highlighted by funding source. Green is federal and state obligated funding to Cherry Lane phases. The yellow or orange, I can't decide what color it is, is local debt. In FY27 and FY28, most of the activity shown is local debt. Those are the discretionary projects. Sequencing is council's decision. Cherry Lane is committed and remains the first priority. FY27 has approximately $27 million in local discretionary projects in addition to the Cherry Lane match. FY28 has no scheduled debt. FY27 and FY29 carry the load. Nothing is requested for approval today. Staff request direction on which discretionary projects to advance toward right of way and construction in which to defer. Staff will reconcile the figures with finance and bring a prioritized funding plan back through the CIP process at a later date. Available for any questions.

And this will be ready for us to discuss at our retreat?

Yes, sir. We're going to, and Aaron and I, Aaron's gotten the CIP. There's obviously other projects besides roads that are on the docket as well. So I don't know that we'll necessarily be able to create an a la carte menu for you all and toggle on and off what you see and see how that affects our pro forma, our debt issuance. Obviously The more debt we take on, the more revenue requirement is needed, and we're going to hit a ceiling on what's available from a revenue standpoint. So we'll just have to give you guys that pro forma, that six, seven year outlook, and decide what we can build, what we can afford to build.

Okay. thank you mr kerr thank you for the entire transportation engineering team for putting that together yeah great job thank our team for our team did a great job pulling us together that's the best cip road presentation i've seen guys great job all right any other business from staff any other business from council i have two quick things um as long as the council is okay would like I got an email this week about an incident that happened at Blackmon with a kid on an e-bike darting in front of a car and we've talked about this but Nolensville has had some pretty significant discussions on e-bike and scooter ordinances on what is required because I think right now we really don't have anything in place and continually seeing these e-bikes one the other day saw going on the wrong side of the road going down the road so So I'd like to maybe for a workshop direct that to come to us for us to have discussion on that. And then the second thing Ms. Tucker wince when we start talking about the budget but we don't know the situations that our police officers and our public safety providers like our firefighters get put in and there's been a lot of discussion about having a public safety counselor that does mental health and wellness discussions after incidents, before incidents, I would like to see us find out what that position would cost and bring that to the council for us to hopefully approve something that we can put in place for our public safety providers. Okay. Does anybody have any discussion on any of that? Okay. Any other business? Seeing none, we'll stand adjourned.