Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the regular uh town council meeting to order for Tuesday, January the 6. Would you please stand for the pledge? 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. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, again we invite you to attend this council meeting. We ask for your wisdom and your guidance and helping us to make the right decision decisions for all the citizens of Nashville. Amen. Amen.

The first item on our agenda is the minutes from the last uh meeting. Were there any corrections to that meeting December the 9th? Not to my If not, do I hear a motion to approve? Move to approve. Is there a second? Second. Minutes are approved. The next item on our agenda is public comments. And we have one that is signed up. Kirby Winston, that may be pertaining to backflow. What? That may be pertaining to backflow. Check and see. Is it retaining to the backflow?

Yes. then probably we just need to wait till we get to that if you don't mind Kirby. Thank you. Uh the first item on our agenda is uh the gov delivery notification system. Well, mayor, we were going to have we were going to have a demonstration by our town clerk on how to go on the town website and sign up uh to receive notifications. Um this last two weeks, we've had a lot of people missed garbage uh collection day because the routes were changed up for Christmas and New Year's. And we we have like 92 people who have already signed up for that and they were the recipients of an email or a text message from Lou telling them what days the garby routes would be changed up. Now, we we also put it in the newspaper. We also had it on the December water bill. We also have it on our website and on a couple of our other social media. Um but uh we we thought it would be a good opportunity with that still kind of fresh in people's minds to watch a demonstration on how to sign up for that. But since Lou's not here this evening, um I I ask the council that we table that to the next meeting and she'll be able to give that demonstration at the next meeting.

Do I have a motion to table this uh item? I make that motion. So move second. All those in favor? I I

We'll table that until Lou as well. The uh first item on our business under old business is the Red Oak Road water connect fees. Mayor Council, we sent letters out to the 27 property owners along Red Oak Road where our water extension is going to be between First Street and Red Oak or First Street Extension and Eastern Avenue. And we had a couple couple respond that they were interested in connecting to get the town's water. Um, so the first question was, well, what's the connection fee? Um, I know in the past I've been told that the the town has waved or reduced connection fees when we've done a project like this. The last one was Breedlove Road. I was thinking it was 2017, but u Xavier asked me to look at the minutes. It was actually 2011 a little further back. And I put an excerpt from those meeting minutes uh on on your uh desk there this evening. In that case, the connection fee was $1,300 at the time, and the council reduced it to anybody who would annex and connect uh to the water man as it was being built down to $700 if uh basically it was on the same side of the road as the water man, but if it had to be punched under Breedlove Road, then it was 850. So, um, we we have Jason Glover, our public works director here with us this evening and he and I would like to make a recommendation to the council that in lie of now the policy is it was in two but loosely enforced I believe you must annex in order to get the town water. Um, the average home out there uh has a has a taxable value that will result in them paying about $1,100 of taxes to the town of Nashville. And uh you know in in lie of getting that

per year per year the first year we'd like to recommend the council that we just wave the connection fee for anybody who would like to connect at this time and maybe have that offer out there for for a period of of maybe 3 months uh if if they if they annex if they annex. Can we send a letter to everybody and say that? Yes. Yes, we can. That's what the council and I have a question to Randy if and if they do choose not to to annex then they will be charged they can still connect but be charged the out of county fee. No cannot I in the past I think that but you know since uh well Bill since you came on

uh the council has reiterated its policy and and said no receiving of the town services without annexation. Okay. Okay. I do have one question. And so I know we talk about um where the excavation is going to be. It's tearing up, you know, next to driveways and things like that. We're going to put everything back uh the way that it was eventually. Are we doing that as we go where we really need that first person to make a decision on the earlier side or are we closing everything up all at once in May when everything is done?

They'll close it up as they go and then they'll come back and pour the driveways. We we talked to the project engineer Kevin Barnell and I and Jason. We had a conversation with Brian uh Corbett, the contractor. And uh the contractor and the engineer are going to work with those six property owners who have hard surface driveways that are going to be impacted by this project. Five of them, four of them are concrete, two of them are asphalt. and uh they're going to make plans, let them know when we're going to go through and when we plan. You know, going through is no problem. I mean, within a matter of an hour and a half, they can excavate through, put the pipe in, back, fill it with gravel, and they can use it again. But it's the reporting of the concrete. You typically like to keep traffic off freshly poured concrete till it firms up a little bit, a day, day and a half. Um, so they're going to try and see if one neighbor would allow the other to use their driveway, drive across the front yard, use the neighbor's driveway to get in and out, fix theirs, and then like like that. So, it will be coordinated.

So, I guess my question is as far as reducing our costs since we're already going to be out there and things are going to be open, when are we planning on every having whoever it is that wants to annex and receive water make that determination? Before we even start this project or by the end of it. I just don't want us to come back and have to dig through gravel and do more work.

Yeah. By the end of it. I mean, um, the contract should have already been signed by the contractor and I believe Kevin Barnell was planning on giving the notice to proceed uh this week. They got 90 days to do it. So, they're supposed to be finished with this project uh by April 15th at the latest. So, like I said, we need to put a deadline if if you're willing to wave the fee or reduce it for a period of time and and probably to the end of April or middle of April. That's when the contractor is supposed to be done with the project. And then uh we didn't have in the contract um a pay item for the contractor to physically connect everybody to water or anybody, but I've asked uh the the engineer to get a price from Brian Corbett on that. We'll compare that with what it will cost our guys to do it. And chances are it's going to be less expensive to have Brian do it while he's constructing the project than us to come behind him and do it.

So then I think it would definitely be in our favor to have it before the end of the contract period to make sure that anyone who wants to take advantage of this is able to do it at the the lowest cost for the town. Um, right. And I I would just suggest when you send out the letter to really bold out what it would cost normally and that we will wave that um with the annexation. Yeah, definitely have a deadline on on the time. So, we're waving the contract wave or reduce. We got to talk about that, but we are going to send the letters out telling them what it would cost if we didn't wave. Okay, that's great. So, uh are there any other questions? No, we're just doing a connector. They have to they have to pay from the house. Is that right? Or we

Yes. What what what our expense or the scope of what we would do would tap the main, run a a service line to their property line, install a meter box, install a meter, and then their contractor, a plumber would have to take it from there to their house. Gotcha. Any other questions?

I'm okay with getting getting a reduced fee if they if they annex and have a date on it. I'm okay with that. In that case, do I hear a motion to wave or significantly reduce the 2,400 water connection fee for Red Oak Road property owners who choose to um annex and connect to the Red Oak Road water man as the water man is being constructed. Mayor, I make a motion that we um offer this to those customers who agree to annex and wave any fee uh because they will be annexing into the tower. Right. Is there if they agree to do it uh in this time frame? Is there a second to Zabian's motion? Second.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying I. Can we put a date on it while we're while we're making the motion? I would say April 1st. That way we know it's done before the contract is is finished. Is that enough time? Yeah, it should be. That's roughly a good 90 days. We can annex within 60 days of getting the voluntary annexation petition. Okay. Okay. In addition to the April 1st date. Okay. And all those in favor, let it be known by saying I. The next item on our agenda is the U backflow preimbursement. Randy and then I'll turn it over to you, Kirby.

So, at our uh last meeting in November, the council agreed to reimburse u the folks that installed a water backflow valve that weren't required to by statute. And uh a number have already requested that and have already received their

their uh payment for it. We we did have at that particular meeting Kirby Winstead came and asked what about removing them? He he would rather not have it in because they can be problematic as we found out here back December 15th when several of them when we had a cold snap actually froze. Um, so you wanted to take that into consideration. And there was also a request to uh two people, two two customers who put in the back of a valve that ended up having to replace their hot water heater because they began leaking afterwards, whether or not you wanted to reimburse that. So, um, you know, what what Kirby suggested is his particular plumber, uh, would take the backflow valve back and give credit, whatever the difference is between the credit and the cost of taking it out, which hopefully would be minimal, you know, maybe $50, $75, and the town would reimburse that. Otherwise, you know, if we take 50 of them out and they turn them into the town and now they're ours because we paid for them to be installed and they've been surrendered. Uh I'm I'm sure we could put them on Gov deal and get rid of them on Gov deals. But, uh quite frankly, I I think it'd be a better value for the gown if the plumbers would take them back and give their customers credit and then we just pay the difference if there is any.

Can we hear from Kirby now? Yes,

Kirby. Kirby Winston, 101 Forest View Drive. Um, again, Mayor, council members, um, basically Randy summed it up and I mean, I've already addressed you guys on this and you know, our, you know, what our concerns are. Um, we actually had to put in three uh, at three different properties. U, for each one after the buyback, it would only be $240 per location. um minus the permit fees. Uh which I'm assuming the town would more than likely wave. I don't know about the county. Uh probably not, but uh so that would really be our only additional cost. The town's already issued us a check uh refund for everything. Um I don't know if you guys still have the packets I gave you at the November meeting, but it has the breakdown. I can get you that if you need it. But, uh, it gives you a good benchmark as well to know what is a legitimate price to have this redone so that you're, you know, not being overpriced on, uh, some quotes. Um, you know, we are concerned that $240 it that's very minimal considering what it's going to cost down the road to even do preventive maintenance on them if we were to keep them in place. That's why we want to just have them removed, have the pipe put back underground like it was for the last 30 years.

So, if you guys have any questions for me, do do you think the plumber or do you maybe don't know this, but is there I think I've asked this before, but is there a demand demand for those? I mean, an average plumber can get rid of them pretty easy, you think? I I can't really answer that question. mine can because he has connections with uh a lot of uh anyone that installs pools or irrigation is going to be required to do this. He has uh colleagues that does that kind of stuff

that that will use them. So that's why this is a very legitimate, you know, estimate of what he's given me and very fair estimate on and but the longer it drags out, the more the price goes down because it they're considered lightly used. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you.

Any Robertson, 509 court. My concern from the beginning was freezing and I've got five customers on one meter and they probably expect me to compensate them for what they're going to earn or should have earned and someone is already backed into ours. So, I'm all for removing them. So,

okay. Thank you. Any questions for Randy or any comments from the council? How many was there again? Um, there there was like I could have told you this morning. Let let me look it up here. It's like 30 or 40, right? It's not like hundreds. No, we're hund. Yeah, I think you said 40,

mayor. And I And if I may, I do I do think it's it's better for us to pursue getting the model removed. That way you don't that's not a potential for anything to happen further on down the road. And I think at the same time back the way it was from the beginning and I think it lets our citizens know that we want to do the right thing. You know, we don't want to hurt any of them. We really want to do the right thing. Bill 58. 58. I think we need to remove the ones that people want to remove and we have a deadline to have it done and then either ours or they or they give us we give them credit for if they get get bought out. I think that way the only thing that they're to do,

right? So, what what day would would you like to put out there for, you know, how long do we give them to put them in the first time? Well, those that put them in jumped on it pretty quick. I mean, this list would be a lot longer if everybody would have done it. um you know thankfully for us they they didn't in the long run but um I I I would suggest not going beyond June this year. So 120 days 150 days I think that's way too far. What is your recommendation? If they're going to do it, they need to go ahead and do it. I I I would suggest 90 days. 90 days. Mhm. Give them 90 days to do it. And Kirby said the sooner they do it, the more value.

So they have a deadline. They're going to move them fast. Let's do 90 day. Do I Does that agree to I think 90 days is fair. Yeah, I think 90 days is fair. If you sitting on the other side, hadn't done yours already, wouldn't you think 90 days would have been enough time for you? Yes. Yes, sir. I uh I I I'd move that we give 90 days to do it and that be the cut off date. E either they bring them back to us or or they get credit and get the difference back, right? Mhm. Preferably they call Kirby's plumber. That's my motion. Okay. Second. Uh, all those in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Motion carries. The next item on our agenda is Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want to have discussion about reimbursement of the water heaters? That's right.

There were two. Oh, that's right. We How old were the water heaters? Do you know? I was wondering about that when I read it. Well, I I don't have firsthand information on that, but Lou reached out to the two that were requested. I think one was 15 and the other was 12 years. And the I I think Xavier at the last meeting, didn't you Google the average life of a hot water heater? Yeah, we did. One one it was a certain amount of years for the electrical was another uh certain amount of years for um

the gas one. But now my my question to that if I could the follow-up question would certainly be um does that go beyond the scope of what we require? because when you get into that, it appears to me that that may be something that a plumber should have advised a customer uh that they needed with putting in this particular new device, this backflow device. So, you you you got to weigh all of that out before you you know, you start taking on that because that may that may be beyond the scope of what we requested that was mandated by the state at the time as we knew it. And I think we need to be clear about that. Having seen, you know, the receipts of the installation of these, a number of the plumbers, uh, had in their description of work, in addition to installing the check valve, putting in an expansion tank and the piping, the plumbing inside the building itself, cuz when you put that check valve in, you know, now the hot water heats up, that creates more pressure. It can't go back out into the water main out at the street. It's trapped in the building. And especially if you have a commercial hot water heater uh such as a restaurant where you your water temperature is set beyond 120 145 for your dishwasher and work good. It's going to create a lot more pressure and yeah it'll probably if you don't have an expansion tank it's going to pop the over the relief valve on that water heater and cause it to leak spew water. So, I was really surprised that the two customers who had their water heaters go out, um, one of which, the new one they put in has since gone out, that their plumber didn't put in an expansion tank.

So, my next question is, just before you do that, Kate, uh, Randy, to your previous point, um, the gas was a range of 8 to 10 years, the electrical was 12 to 15 years. Thank you. Um, when we sent out the original letter, did we include a list of suggested plumbers to use? Suggested? Yes, I recommend it. Okay. Walt hold around cuz I told him when you send these letters out, the first question you get, who who do I contact? Yeah. So he he did his homework and he put in the letter um a list of plumbers in the area that install backers.

So this might be a RAZ question. At the end of the day, is the plumber the responsible party to have informed the customer that they needed to have this or are we the responsible party for any and all things that happen? We have to pop around you. Well, that's the other thing. If we were going to do this, I was going to suggest we do some sort of depreciation. Exactly. But we don't know if the if they were installed by permit or code the first time, the second time. I mean, a lot of questions. That's true. Yeah.

Um, Miss Miss Burns, legally speaking, this this is the the issue is one of settling a possible claim against the town. And whenever you have that question, you've got issues of approximate cause, you know, cause and effect. Uh was there shared responsibility? Um what would be the fair measure of damages, full new replacement cost or something? You know, there it's just the settlement of a claim. I I don't know if if the if this is something that was plowed through the lead municipality shared risk insurance program and they got involved in all this. Not the hot water heater.

Not the hot water heater. Okay. And you know given the values involved it might be the kind of thing you wouldn't think it might be within your deductible and wouldn't wouldn't that wouldn't come up but these are legal issues that come up whenever you are dealing with possible settlement of a possible claim against the town. So yes, I mean you could spend as much time investigating these whatifs and you know what are the alternatives wouldn't this wouldn't go to court but just what are the what are the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of the party claiming that the town owes them compensation for damage that's the town's fault versus what the town's position is in defending against that claim. I know that's a lot of that's a lot of of of of um you know explanation, but I mean without more information it's you know staff could look into this and look into the causation question and what would what is the legal standard for what the town should be obligated to pay um and what this totals up and then you make a settlement proposal and I just suggested Randy that anytime a claim is going to be settled you'd want to get a full release of claims

exe executed by the party who's receiving compensation for damage that you know town's fault. So, so um I can't say this is what's right in terms of addressing all of these questions of you know should we pay this much or that much. I guess my concern is we only have two people talking about the hot water heaters now, but we might have 15 more come 20 days from now. So I I guess my point of view would be to do a little bit more investigation as to you know should these plumbers have done a better job with this? Um and then maybe calculate some depreciated right

prices. Well, and another thing I I think we need to take take into consideration if we do choose to uh compensate or not compensate for leaking or damaged water heaters. If we choose not to do it on the right hand, on the left hand understand is if a claim does come up later on, what would the expense be to the town to defend that if it were to go to court? So, do we do we pay it now or do we pay it later? Right. And I think there is a a factor of fairness here, too. I think people feel like it's a fair thing to do, but

I just don't know if the the total cost of a brand new one is one's that old, right? But if the B expansion tank is code and they didn't get a permit and get and didn't follow the code, then that's that's the question I want to know, too. Right. I I guess to my point, they then have to go after the plumber. Um when you put those, you got the hammer scratch, right? And they didn't do it. I mean, that's you go. We got a lot of questions here. Leave this. I think we need to table this to get more information about the hot water heaters, right? The responsibility of the plumber. Like is it common to to do the expansion tank? Is it required to do the expansion tank? Is it something that the plumber had failed to do?

Both of these were commercial. Their backflow valves were installed by the back door. The water heater was probably on the other side of the wall. Uh all the other ones are residential. They were installed most likely out on the curb and you have 30 ft of service line in between. There was a little more water line between the hot water heater and the check valve to absorb that additional pressure and that caused problems. That that's why I was really surprised for these two installations why the plumber did not put an expansion tank in knowing that the check valve and the water heater are so close together. But these weren't we we didn't require this at at a house. So that's a mute argument. We only required it at at

Well, let me mo most of the commercial ones are downtown that install and these were the ones that were downtown

like um one that was done for Napa was out by the curb. The building sets back further. uh a lane's uh building um again where the the weightlifting place is in the Harris line. It's by it's in the parking lot. Um the water heater is back in the building. That may be some of the explanation as to why we haven't had a need to find out if they're installed properly and got a permit. And if we have not had but the two, we also need to put a a cut off date cuz if the word gets out that the town is giving you a new water heater, you may get another 47 of

tonight and we don't we don't need that. Okay. So, do I hear a recommendation that we go on and reimburse people for the removal and the backflow like Kirby was talking about, but the people that request new hot water heers, we do a little more investigating. Is that my understanding? Yes. Separating those two. We voted the first part. Right. Right. Mhm. That's correct. Okay. So, we're tableabling the second part. Yeah. You need a motion for that? Yes. I make a motion we table the discussion about hot water years. I hear a second. Second. All those in favor? Let it be known by saying I. I.

Thank you very much. Uh the next item on our agenda is the development agreement for project Bailey in the uh WNCP and council. We uh previously had a at the December 9th meeting a public hearing on development agreement between the town and uh TTL development LLC which is Travis Phelps and and Tom Brendle uh for what is phase one of a develop of their Bailey project in the West Nashville Commerce Park on the south 17 acres of the mountains land. Um, we had that public hearing. It was closed. There were no comments or objections. Nobody spoke at that. And then we went into the agreement and there was some desired changes, clarifications mostly from the council on that agreement. So, I I I went ahead and put the as many of those in as as uh we talked about. I guess I I missed a couple. Um, Kate found a few more. Bill had one he wanted. Um, Raz has taken a look at that. uh revision and uh I put on your your uh on the DAS um the revised one. The changes are in red. Uh the latest changes are highlighted in yellow. And with that, I'll I'll let the council discuss the development agreement.

You want to go first? Sure. Yeah, I can just go through what I had um found and wanted to do. So, in on the first page, um we Which first page? I'm sorry. page number one in the book of of uh yeah go to the book

um we define the property as the 17 acres on Cook Road and then on the very next page and all throughout the document we say that we're we are conveying the property which if it's a defined term of 17 acres then we are conveying all 17 acres. So then we specify on page two what we intend to convey which is the the three 1.5 acre lots. So my suggestion was to instead of saying that we're conveying the property in that first paragraph or or paragraph one of page two do a lowercase property there so it's not the defined property. And then at the end of that sentence after we describe exactly what we're doing which is the um phase one exhibit one lots one two and uh one two and 10 define that as phase one property and then anywhere in the document that we're talking about the 17 acres we can say the property or when we're talking about just the three 1.5 acre lots we can say the phase one property. So we differentiate between the two. Um let's see. Um when we talk about commencement,

page five. Page five.

Um sorry, I'm flip-flopping between all of the agreements right now.

Okay. Uh when we talked about com commencement, um we said that the company would begin construction of the project improvements no later than one year after obtaining the required permits. Um I was still concerned that we didn't have a date that they needed to actually make that application for the permits. Um so that we can see progress. I was thinking, you know, they must apply for the permit within however much from the execution of this contract so that we're not just waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, and they haven't even applied for the permit for 3 years. Um, and and we can't do anything with the property. Um, then there was a couple of typos. Um, missing the word on develop should be development. There's it's just tiny little things.

Um seven. So page seven. Okay. Um shell buildings on lot one and two. Then um on the next paragraph develop should be development. Um then when we are talking about the phases in the exhibit on page seven

on page seven we talk about phase one and what we plan to do there. And then we jump right into phase two and phase three talking about conveyance. So I just wanted a simple sentence basically saying should the parties mutually agree to enter into additional agreements after the completion of phase one then phase two and phase three would have the following scopes. Um those were my comments. Um I don't think I had any more. Oh there was one more clarification comment. Sorry. In the phase three portion of it, we say that we're conveying both the lots and the street right ofway. So, I just wanted to say that we were only conveying the lots. Um, so just add said lots and page to that.

That one's page seven as well. So, it's that last paragraph. There you go. Um, so the street will belong to us the whole time. Is it correctly once it's paved?

Right. They've corrected the agreement so that everywhere in there it just talks about us separating the lots, subdivating the lots, conveying the lots and only having separated the street right ofway, not conveyance of the street right ofway. Um but Raz, you had additional comments and language in there. Ju just one um mayor but members council this this the miss burns comments I received this morning draft I all the issues that she raised were very well taken and I concur with all the points she raised I had prepared this page and a half sheet with my responses to her um comments in red but most of it is technical it's not it really does not represent any substantive change I hadn't reviewed the agreement since last December and this was all um you know coming coming along strong this morning but but I think I think with the suggestions that I had incorporated in red and my followup um everything is fine nothing has changed from what was put together that's in your agenda packages I did recommend one um standalone change it's in red on the second page of the um comment sheet that I generated today. It just simply says that in the event the the trigger for reconveyance of the property, that is if the facilities on the phase one lots aren't completed within 5 years as required by statute, the reconveyance of the property has to be made to the town and it would be without monetary compensation for the land, without monetary compensation for any improvements that had been installed on the phase one lots. and without compensation for any other improvements to the 17 acres that were within the scope of the greater project

um that might have been installed and paid for by by TTL just to make it very clear that the reconveyance would be unequivocal and there'd be no compensation for u any of the developers undertakings um at that point I think that's probably been understood all along but just clarifies that one could read it to say that there was no conversation for the land, but it really didn't specifically address all the investments otherwise made in the properties. But there's no time triggers on phase two or three, is there? No. That really is going to require a supplemental Oh, absolutely. Later once once we get that and that was more language that Raz had added in there in that portion of red on uh number six. Mhm.

Um, so I had basically wanted to just clarify with a one sentence. He added um, very clearly that it would have to be in a separate agreement, not included here. Thank you. And Kate, we appreciate your expertise in this area. You say the same thing. I It's always nice to have an attorney that could focus on that area. Know sit quiet because once you get to the wherefors and I know I do, too. I yield the floor. I yield. But thank you so much. So are there any other questions? Randy, I did want to just point out one thing. I see um where you you changed the definition. You took out the definition of property in the very beginning where we had defined it.

Um I guess my question is throughout the rest of this document, is there ever a time that we're talking about the entire 17 acres or are we only ever addressing in in the term project, you talk about the 17 acres. the property, you know, was struck in that very first. And then later on in exhibit three also in the scope, it says that uh the property is lots 1, 2, and 10. Okay. And that is what's being conveyed.

Okay. I I guess my original suggestion was to leave that the property. So if we are talking about the entire 17 acres, we can say the property. But then in the first paragraph of part one conveyance to do the phase one property. But if we're only ever talking about the the 3 acres and we never really reference the the 17 acres and can do that clearly, then that's fine to do it the way that that you did it. Um I would just suggest at the last where uh whereas we still have a capital property. So just lower case that property.

It's on the first the first page. Yeah. But the entire 17 acres is um is part of the project. Right. That's why I thought that we and and we might want to go back and do that original suggestion where we talk about the property being the 17 acres and then we say phase one property and that's specifically the the three lots.

Okay. Okay. We concur. Okay. Are there any other questions? If not, do I hear a motion to approve a development agreement between the town of Nashville and TTL Development LLC Travis Felts and Tom Brinley for the phase one of project Bailey and the West Nashville Commerce Park, the south 17 acres on Cook Road with the changes discussed with the changes discussed tonight. Um, and in red I mean yellow and black. Yeah. Yeah. And if you'd like, I can take a look at the final draft and I'm sure Raz will too, just to make sure that. Um, did I get a second? Second. Did you get

All those in favor, let it be known by saying I. Great. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is Regency Sewer Extension. I think you may. Okay. Well, Sean Oh, Sean, I sure did. I'm so sorry. No worries. Sean, it's your turn. I'm sorry.

Good evening once again, Mayor Council. Thank you for having me this evening. If you notice back in 2024, we presented maybe roughly eight properties within the town of Nashville that either were no zoned or had been zoned through reszoning process in years to pass by previous council administrations. They just were not updated on the Dash County GIS zoning atlas. We have discovered two more that we knew about that we sent in information on. But according to Nash County, there's certain things that we have to send to them far as an ordinance amendment with the minutes standard has been done. These two were done back in 2017. It is 290 Eastern Avenue, 2122 Eastern Avenue. The council back in 2017 on September 5th resone both of those properties from A1 to O and I. We just need the council to adopt orders amendment 202601 stating that we do accept that reszoning to send the Nash County so they could update the Dash County GIS zone at So do I hear a recommendation to approve ordinance 2026-01 reszoning 2090 Eastern Avenue and 2122 Eastern Avenue from agricultural A1 to office and institutional O and T or O and I and authorizing the ordinance be submitted to Ash County GIS zoning

motion made. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I carries. Now we have the region regency sewer extension.

Well, Sean, I know I know you found these and you and you weren't here back when the problems are, but are we actively looking for other mistakes? Possibly. We are. We me and Randy myself have been going around checking the GIS portal on a frequent basis to see if there any still not matching. I think and I want to say I believe this may be the last two. Now we're just waiting for Nash County to go in and do the updates which we've been seeing correspondence to their staff let them know that we need these done in a timely manner so that when realtors and investors look at these properties they see the accurate zoning and not have to call the town and we have to explain why it's not up there. May,

if I may, unrelated to what we just discussed here. Yes, sir. You trigger my memory on something. During the past during the past election that Kate and I were involved in, uh we had a voter to come out to vote and lived in Harvest Creek.

Harvest in the Harvest Creek subdivision. And they were they were told that they could not vote because they were not in the city. And my mind I got the shuffle in my mind. I know I forget a lot, but I thought we had already annexed them in and I I contacted Randy and he said that yes, they had been uh annexed in. Would you follow up and make sure that the county knows or has has notified the elections board that that Harvest Creek is a part of Nashville now?

Yes, sir. Council Taylor, I can send an email out to the election director, Mr. Kernney, to let them know that was annexed in and I can send the minutes and paperwork for the night we annexed in to him. He hadn't got anything from the county. So, we need to make sure that doesn't fall through the cracks. We'll take care of that. I'm going to get on that first thing in the morning for you, sir. Thank you. Okay, Randy.

So, the Regency sewer extension, you know, at the last meeting we had uh uh Mike Tolson with M here talking about uh going ahead and letting bid on this particular project and the Essex Road sewer extension project and uh the council gave him authorization to do that. Those bids are due January 22nd from the contractors. Um the Regency estates sewer extension project has a small lift station or grinder pump in it and the placement of which is proposed for a vacant lot in the far northeast corner of that subdivision. Um 6 months ago I contacted the property owner of that property uh to inquire about getting an easement on that property for this project. she was agreeable to it. Um, she is not the owner of record per se. She created a corporation in 1955 that own owns that property today. The corporation has ceased to exist since 2012. Same time the property tax has stopped being paid on it. She said that she would be more than willing to convey an easement or sell the whole property to the town, but she first wanted an opportunity to work with her attorney to to clean up and properly terminate the phone uh corporation. Well, that that was back in June. I've called her every month since. Left a message on her phone. My messages have been getting more and more urgent every month as we get closer to starting this project. And I still haven't heard from her. So, I reached out to Raz and talked about what we could do as as far as, you know, acquiring the property. And Raz, I'll let you take it from there.

Um, mayor, uh, the item uh, relates to authorization for condemnation resolution to acquire the property through imminent domain.

I would just want to ask for one clarification. I think manager report well the manager's report in the last paragraph says that the attorney advises that the town needs to pursue condemnation just from experience in other towns you know we can we can give you options and make recommendations but I don't want to go down on record as being the sponsor of a condemnation action by the town because it is can be controversial in small towns but under the facts of this situation I understand the property owner would be very interested to have the property as a whole conveyed I prepared a resolution of condemn commendation. That kind of thing needs to be formalized to some degree degree in most towns authorized condemnation actions to be filed in the spirit court of the county by resolution. Um the process first the authorization is required. Um, in the authorizing resolution, you need to decide first and foremost whether you would choose to acquire the entire lot or whether you would acquire just an easement interest to accommodate the 20x20 pump station. I mentioned to Randy that well, you got to have an access way. So, you'll need to define an easement with some legally sufficient description of where on the property there will be vehicular access to the pump station. And in light of that and in light of the fact that it's a pump station, that probably isn't a great improvement to have on a lot.

Um the statute authorizes a municipality to decide that for three criteria in statute, you can choose to take an entire parcel even though not all of the property is needed expressly for the public purpose. This may be the kind of case where you would be reasonable in doing that. and I drafted the resolution. I didn't see it in the agenda, but

Oh, okay. Okay. Um, they say you have you have to describe the property that you're condemning. So, a threshold issue is does the town feel it's appropriate to acquire the entire lot rather than just a discrete easement for the pump station plus an access way. you don't have descriptions, legal descriptions for these select components at this point in time. Um, you also have to make a determination of what the town's position will be on fair compensation. Uh, when you file these condemnation cases, you must allege and and and deposit with the clerk of court a sum of money that you maintain is just compensation for the taking of the property interest. Um so there may be one number that's the number you agree upon is proper number if you take the whole property there may be another number if you decide to take just an easement but those two things do need to be decided um generally if you want to take the entire property tax value is a good starting point um you know Mr. Lump might have some input on whether you know what a residential lot of in this neighborhood um of this size and location so forth what the fair value would be if the tax value generally seems to be a fair in

well there's not a house there so there's a good chance it wasn't buildable without without the system from the town it was notable yeah and that obviously has a that could be that could have been factored into the tax assessor's number u obviously and and it you take it you value it as is not as it would be improved by this taking in this project. So um again if if you're inclined to approve seeking to acquire this through condemnation that would be a first determination. Second would be um would you want to take the entire property as we have suggested in the resolution that that I drafted based on the criteria that would be in the public interest to go ahead and just take it all

and you need to give the staff some guidance um because we have to send out a notice of intent to initiate condemnation proceedings letter by certified mail to all record owners or claimants and you got to have some of that information in the in the notice letter. So, need a number, need a decision on what you would like to acquire. Well, we've got to come up with one because these people out in the regency have been waiting for this for a long, long, long time.

Well, mayor, I was I I I had spoke with Randy and and with Sean concerning this cuz I am a firm believer or disbeliever of of imminent domain taking taking people's property. But I went out there and looked at it and and my first thing was, well, the taxes have not been paid on it. Right. That was my first question. How long have they not been paid? So, what do they owe us? It has not been paid in 12 13 years. 589. Can we deduct that from the uh the value of the property? Let that be the value. We got 800 now. Oh, it's 800 now.

800 now. But and also I went out and physically looked at it. Uh, and my question to Randy was now the the portion that we needed for the 20 by 20, are we going to be smack dab in the middle of the the lot or we going to be on the outer outer boundaries? Cuz I asked that question because I want to make sure that if we took the outer boundaries, would the property still be bit large enough for home construction to come on it? I didn't want to take the corner and the lot be not be large enough to to to accommodate a home being built on it because they could come back up and say, "Well, you took it and this." But I went out and took took a look I took a look at it and

it has not anything been done to it. It's it's growed up uh and it's about a 20ft drop off at the at the back of the lot back there. So, I don't think any it would cost somebody too much to regrade it and bring it back up to I guess it's why it's still sitting there. But I have another question in it. Where where does where does this property owner live? Do you have any idea? Hill Road. Oh, she lives local. Mhm. Local. And we still haven't got a response. Has she passed away? I don't think so. I didn't mean that. That may be a reason she can't respond. Uh, has she passed away? And that Uh I I looked and I didn't see obituary, but that's

Well, you look at all the No, but I looked quickly. Okay. Uh well, based on what I what I went up with, I was totally against the domain, but based on what I saw, uh I'm I'm inclined to go along with us going forward with it. But Randy, I would like give me that lady's name and let me let me see it. Dela Edwards. Name sounds familiar. Okay. Dela. D E L A Edwards. So, do you want do you want the 20 by 20 or you want the whole lot? I want the whole lot.

Well, based based off of the legal counsel, right? we would prefer the whole lot because the legal council has done the research and I too agree that we don't prefer to do im imminent domain on anyone but in this particular case looking at the uh activity that town staff have did to reach out um looking at the fact that the back taxes have not been paid and I'm also looking at the overall good of that neighborhood which means there's a certain percentage of homes that will need this lift station for the benefit going forward With all of that in concern, uh yes, I'm I'm for taking the whole lot based off the research that has been done by legal counsel and and that being the only reason.

Mayor, if I may just add one more one more um uh comment when you have property where a defunct corporate entity is the only record owner. It's not uncommon that imminent domain is used in order to acquire property where you have an inability to ascertain who owns the property. You don't have a party that actually is in a position to sell the property or to negotiate for the sale of the property. A tax foreclosure action is an alternative, but it takes longer.

I was going to ask you what the length was for either. it it takes longer and and it's it's a little more convoluted than imminent domain. In any event, the town would have to join in a condemnation action the town as a holder of tax leans and the county as a holder of tax leans. So the county, it's just an alternative means you can look at this as an alternative way of settling the title question and resolving the outstanding taxes issue. And should the town decide in the future that it really doesn't need to own the entire lot, one conceivable future option would be to, you know, draw an easement, reserve an easement to accommodate the pump station,

sell the balance of the property as surplus, um because it still may have some usability in market value depending upon where you locate the pump station and you know if if at that point the property can be developed. So that's all of those things enter into our recommendation that the condemnation alternative may be the best. So based on all based on all the conversation, I would offer a motion that we move forward with the imminent domain to get the property and for us to acquire the entire lot. We need to set the price. Huh? We need to set the price. Tax value. What's tax value? Tax 5180. 518 minus 800 in back taxes. I'm serious. I am too.

It out. We'll get it back eventually. Yes. And do I hear a second to Larry's motion? Second. All those in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Okay. Motion carries. And I think that's everything on our agenda tonight. Randy, do you have anything else to say?

Just wanted to let the council know we did get some good news today. Um, we've worked with Ben and Jones, the consultant, and submitted a CDC housing rehab uh application. And, uh, we were notified today that we were awarded $950,000. That will help us to hopefully rehab and rebuild about five new five homes for low to moderate income homeowners in Nashville. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. That's great. That's great. Council, do any of you have any comments?

May, before we adjourn, I if if I may, uh I'm quite sure everybody in Nashville by this time has has seen the Nashville graphic where it says uh remembering a legend in town. For those that have moved here and and have not lived in Nashville quite a while, you may not know who Mr. Bobby Dunn was, but he uh he's been a trailblazer in Nashville and in Nash County. and we just uh he was just buried this last Saturday and I would propose that we offer and and as a matter of fact he he was given the long the long pine long leaf pine by our former governor Roy Cooper because he was also Roy Cooper's coach and if if the governor thought enough of him to give him the longleaf pine award that I think Nasser should step up and do something in recognition. I've got his obituary page and I would like to for the council to endorse giving Lou an opportunity to create either a proclamation or a certificate of appreciation for his contribution to Nashville, the Nashville youth and as well as Nash County if I may.

And I attended uh they honored him at his birthday. Was it last year? Two years ago. and I would had the honor of speaking and it was amazing all the young people that gave testimonies of how he had influenced their lives and so that was just a a real So I agree with you 100% on doing that. So do I hear a second to Larry's motion? Second. All those in favor let it be known by saying I. Any other comments from the council? You know and everybody everybody had a everybody had a story to tell about coach Dunn. I was not the athletic part to run football, do all that other stuff. I I I was a water boy on the sideline. But, uh, everybody needs a water boy. Everybody needs Everybody needs a water.

Everybody's got a gift. But, you know, he he was the type of person that he looked at me and said, "You just ain't going to make the team, but I'll let you be my water boy." He he made provisions for everybody. Uh, and I I I do have a personal story that I can tell about him. It's not sports related, but I have to tell it individually. I can't tell it openly, but uh he he was a great he was a great man. He was a great man. So, at this time, do I hear a motion to adjourn? So, move second. All those in favor, let me know by saying I. I. And thanks to all of you that came out tonight. That was a quick