Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Good evening.

This July the 21st, 2026 board meeting is hereby called to order. Our invocation will be led by Pastor Ryan Vanderford of Hope Chapel, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which I will lead. Please stand. Pastor, come forward.

Lord, we thank you for the day and the opportunity we have to gather. I thank you for those that lead and serve and protect our community. And your word declares and Romans that you're the God of hope and you fill us with all hope. And I pray that the hope will not only fill this meeting, but fill our community. I pray you give us hope for today and tomorrow. I pray for those that are leading, serving and protecting our community even tonight, that your hand would be upon their lives. Pray for our teachers and staff that are preparing for a new year, that you'd give them wisdom and direction and protection. Pray tonight for those that are putting their life out in front of us and protecting us and even in harm's way at time, that you would give them strength and peace and blessings on them. their families I pray for our entire city I pray for our hearts to be turned to you for blessings to be upon us those that are struggling tonight I pray that you give them comfort and direction let our city be a place of hope let it be a place of peace and may your favor be upon this meeting and the weeks ahead for our community in Jesus name Thank You pastor

Salute. 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. Be seated. Ms. Stewart, would you conduct roll call?

Aldridge, Collins, Dickerson, Earhart, Gammage, Hamilton, Wallace.

All present, so obviously a quorum is established. Just as a reminder, if you wish to speak tonight on a public comment item, if you complete one of the blue cards with your basic information on it and get that to the clerk, Ms. Stewart, to my right, in order to be called for the public comments. Also, this meeting is streamed live on the city's YouTube channel, and it's archived for playback as well. And board members, please remember to have the microphone on green when you're speaking so that people can hear what's being discussed. Board, you have the minutes from the record meeting on July the 7th. Any questions, comments, or motion to approve those?

Motion to approve.

Ms. Hamilton, motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Collins second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. For one of the better parts of the meetings, the things that I enjoy the most, or one of them, is to recognize our employees that have gone above and beyond. Serving the citizens of Ollie Branch, I take recommendations from department heads, from coworkers, from individuals that have received exceptional customer service from different people with the city, and reward them with a $250 cash award. It's not paid for by tax dollars. It's donated by local businesses. And if you'd like to support that, I'm certainly available for you to do so. But people really want cold, hard cash, as I say. They don't want a gift certificate to Starbucks or don't want lunch with the mayor. They want some greenbacks, right? So with that being said, Logan White, please come forward. This nomination was submitted by his supervisor, Nikki Biffle. She said, I am nominating Logan White, Animal Control Officer, for the Mayor's Award. Logan has proven himself to be an irreplaceable asset to the Ollie Branch Animal Control Department through his ability to interact with his fellow employees, the people of the community, and the animals that reside in the city. In addition, Logan has taken upon himself to create videos for the shelter's Facebook page featuring the current shelter residents, i.e., the fur babies, to help them find their forever home he works tirelessly between calls and during any opportunity he has to put together these videos which have had enormous positive feedback from the public i've received that positive feedback as well great videos cool videos he goes above and beyond his record duties with the best attitude is always ready to help others in any way so mr logan Mr. Logan White, here's your $250. Thank you so much. Thank you, Nicky, for recommending him as well. board you have the consent agenda these items that are purely administrative in nature consent agenda items one through 17. if there are no questions on on these items if there are questions we'll take them if there are no questions uh is there a motion to approve the consent agenda so moved mr gamage motions there a second second mr dickerson's second any discussion all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Next item is planning Commission consent items a B and C. Those 3 items are here basically to set the public hearing date for August the 18th August 18th if anyone's here to speak on these items always 18th will be the date that you need to come back for the board and give you public comments, but a couple of them should be one of deals with amending the zoning ordinance. by placing various definitions, restricting indoor and outdoor smoking in public place establishments within 500 feet of public parks, specifying criteria for a data center, conditional use in M1 light industrial, M2 heavy industrial districts, and limiting the height of freestanding monument signs in the office, district and the neighborhood commercial see one districts to 8 feet and the sea to highway commercial and general commercial and see for planned commercial districts that set for August 18th if the board so inclined the 2nd public hearing date is on the 18th as well for project text from our Pete manner at Robinson cross and submitted by Bobby Britain dabs cannabis dispensary on behalf of the property owner man beer saying Marquis matter is that robertson crossing and it's a song to be a plan unit development and the request is to add a medical can was used to that plan unit development at that location again several of us 18. last year for us 18th is that consideration of application for zoning map amendments made about great great Smith of civil League on behalf of Diane Stovall James Allen Stovall. Provocable living trust property owner requested to resolve 50.8 7 plus or minus acres from a are agricultural residential to are one single family residential district. So that will be heard on the 18th as well is your motion. in second from the board to set these items on August the 18th for public comments. Mr Wallace motion. Second miss Aldridge all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Item to consideration of application for 5th revision to build Huey comma commercial and 3rd revision of bill Huey commercial phase 2 subdivision submitted by Luke Matthias Morrell engineering on behalf of property owner Patsy Christian very the request is to combine lots 5, 6, a bill Huey commercial along with a portion of lot 14 of bill Huey commercial phase 2 to create a new lot 5 total of 3.0 for 7 plus or minus acres and reducing lot 14 to 1.235 acres subject properties on see to how a commercial district is located on the southeast corner of Huey road and Goodman road staff report please.

Mayor Adaman, before you say request to consider reply to basically two subdivisions. In terms of the property area, this is Highway 302 Goodman Road, this is Davidson Road, and this is Huey Road. Quality landscaping is to the west, and the subject property is directly across the street from quality landscaping on Huey Road. You have a church further down to the south. This is Lot 5, Lot 6, existing Lot 5, Lot 6, and Lot 14 of the adjacent subdivision. The request before you submitted on the plot is essentially to combine Lot 5 and Lot 6 into a single Lot 5 and then replot Lot 14, adding part of its current area to the land area of the new Lot 5. This particular area will be used for storm water management for a new timber retail, outdoor sporting goods retail that a developer intends to construct on this lot five. There's a plot as proposed not 5 to be 3.0 for 7 acres not 14 with the one point 2, 3, 5 acres. The property is going to see 2 highway commercial district. There is no minimum lot size requirement in this particular district search the lots can be of the sizes that are proposed as a lead out the agenda. Formal in shape regular in shape. And I search we do not expect that your development would require With regard to transportation access, MDOT controls access on Goodman Road. So in the development on this particular lot five, needing to construct a driveway from Goodman Road, we need a permit from MDOT. Huey Road is a city street. It's not in the very best of condition, because historically we have quality landscaping and some parking out there. There is a condition of approval which may allow the subdivider or the developer of lot five and lot 14 in future to do any improvements on Huey Road as may be necessary. development on that particular side in terms of utilities water is readily available on huey road and along goodman road that can service those two lots seawater is also available this green line that's a sewer line that can service those two lots city gas is not available in this area at most most likely services this particular area The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its meeting on July 14, determined that it meets both the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations of the city. Recommended approver subject to a number of conditions one through seven. Conditions number three and five are worth pointing out. Condition number three being that the developer of each lot shall construct sidewalks along the Huey Road right-of-way of each concerned lot. Any utility easement within the subject lot that does not have an existing utility line within it is hereby vacated and should be eliminated from the plan that applies especially in this particular area. It shows an easement, utility easement, but as viewed or Category A surveys may actually reveal that there are no utilities there. The intended building will basically stand where that old lot line currently exists. And lastly, the developer of any of the proposed lots is authorized to make improvements to Huey Road as may be necessary upon consultation with and as such standard as may be approved by the city engineer. This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you doctor song board any questions regarding the staff report.

That the curb that has to go through and that is that is that in the fact that I couldn't find them.

No, sir. The plans are still under review. The civil set of plans will be reviewed and approved administratively. So the city engineer is still looking at the concept. All right, thank you.

Dr. Osong, too, I'm not familiar with winter timber. Is that a sticks and bricks building retail?

Yes, sir. It would be brick or retail. They are very similar to Sports Academy. Okay, great.

I just had envisioned woodworks and outdoor, and I thought, is that a permitted use? And so we won't go there, but you answered my question.

It will be 25, I think the building is 25,600 square feet, but the retail activities will be taking place inside the building. They just sell outdoor sporting goods. Okay.

They're a family-owned and operated sporting goods store out of Alabama is where they come in from. It would be a real good ad. Any other questions on the staff report? Is the applicant here? Anyone representing the applicant?

He sent an email to me just 30 minutes before this meeting indicating that they have another Planning Commission meeting in Alabama, so couldn't be here.

Alabama took precedence over Olive Branch? Okay, there's another Planning Commission meeting. They're building more than one store, that's a good sign. board any additional questions or any motions. This Hamilton motion to approve second, Mister Collins in discussion all in favor all opposed motion carries.

Yeah.

I do have a couple people that have turned in cars to speak on the consent items. Those consent items, public comments will be taken on August the 18th for those. You're welcome to stay. I want you to stay, but I just want to make sure you knew that 18th, it goes on the record from 18th when all the public comments come in.

Thank you.

3 consideration of application of final plant of Williams subdivision submitted by Greg and Tammy Williams property owners, the request is to create a single family residential lot of plus or minus 2.64 acres subject properties on a are agricultural residential district and is located on the east side of Pleasant Hill Road North approximately 1175 feet north of college road known as 4204 Pleasant Hill Road North staff report. Thank you.

All right. So on the screen here, we have the subject property within the yellow outline. Currently, the property listed on the deed is showing 3.02 acres up to the roadway. But this plat request is to carve out that shape in that yellow outline, which the resulting parcel would be 2.64 acres. It's got an existing driveway access on Pleasant Hill Road North and it's about 1175 feet to College Road intersection. The next slide is showing the the submitted plat, and so it does show the right-of-way dedication that was needed as a part of the drawing of the plat. Actually, yeah. So right now we got it's our agriculture residential zoning land use characters, rural estate. This application does comply with all bulk regulations and on the So the resulting parcel is going to be the 2.64 acres that was cut out from the 3.02 acres. And it's losing the 0.37 acres from that right away. And then we have the gas, water, and hydrants present. The lot is serviced by a private septic system. on the i'll go back up here so there is some dirt work being done right now along the property line and that is for sewer access if anybody's wondering about that work but overall it's a pretty straightforward plat request it's just documenting and recording that one lot So we have the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission at its July 14th, 2026 meeting unanimously recommended approval of the plat of the Williams subdivision to the Board of Aldermen subject to the following conditions. And I'll actually read through them real quick. The final plot shall be recorded before any building improvement on the lot is inspected by staff of the city's building department. Improvement shall be the responsibility of the owner, not the responsibility of the city of Olive Branch. And individual septic tanks may be used on lots where central sewage is not available only if written approval is obtained from the DeSoto County Health Department. And they need to add current FEMA floodplain panel number to the plat and a note stating if said parcel lies within a regulatory floodplain or not. And then minor edits are applicable. to the plat as may be deemed necessary by the city engineer and or the director of planning and development for their designees. And that concludes the staff presentation. Thank you, Sir.

And welcome to the first Board of Alderman meeting. I know you've been on board a couple weeks, but I think this is your first meeting with the board. So welcome. Thank you. I did see that the applicant is here. Mr. Greg or Ms. Tammy Williams, do you wish to add anything to what was covered? Anything to answer?

Thank you, Mayor. Just mainly here, if you had any questions, I will say I appreciate it. I got to meet with the city engineer and planner, and there was some question at one point where the section line road, and it was 80 feet, and then It changed to 106 feet. So we were able to meet, and we brought it back down to the 80 feet. And just so we'd have something on the document on the record that I provided some different alternatives. Because it's called a section line road, but if you look at the map, it's actually very curvy through where we live. And then if you took from Church Road, Pleasant Hill, and Church South, and went adjacent to the Summers Place, you'd be just west of that. You could go take Pleasant Hill Road in a long-term planning route, Straight down through just two property owners and come out at the end of the city volley branch around a lot of road And so there was some options and maybe long-range planning having a two-lane road with the option maybe To extend to make that's a new section line road And so they seemed like they had merit and I really appreciate the opportunity to meet with them one-on-one but as far as on this like to it still is kind of put it just for the record to for the property owner and We were in the county, and then when we were annexed, it's an interesting process that in order to do any improvements for your land, then you have to go through and do this plat. So then you have something on record where it costs the landowner the money to have it done, and then you end up losing a lot of your valuable frontage. So I do want to, my understanding is that long term, if we can change that section line road to go straight, we would like the opportunity, my understanding, we could come back and reduce that right-of-way requirement at that point, maybe years from now. But just south of us, around where Collier's Road comes into Pleasant Hill, from Collier's Road down, that's only about a 30-foot right-of-way with maybe a 10-foot utility easement. And even the two stores don't meet that right away. So your two historical town stores, your cemetery and your churches, and that's the reason it got postponed, because I wanted to make sure it's not just affecting us. But again, I grew up in Pleasant Hill, and I want to keep it a pleasant hill and keep it pleasant and keep the culture there. So just appreciate you, appreciate your staff, and I'm here to answer any other questions.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. Any questions, Board, on this application of staff or Mr. Williams? Any motions? If there are no questions.

Make a motion to approve as presented.

Mr. Wallace, motion to approve. Mr. Collins, second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. I'm for consideration of application for the first revision of St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church and Cemetery Subdivision submitted by Lewis McRae, civil source, LLC, on behalf of Pastor Eric Lee, St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church property owner. The request is to create the plus or minus 1.15 acre lot 3 from the existing plus or minus 5.89 acre lot one. The subject property is owned a are agricultural residential district and is located at the northwest corner of Pleasant Hill Road North and Goodman Road East known as 5960 Pleasant Hill Road North staff report, please.

The The proposed lot three will be cut out of the current lot one, so we have a 1.15 acre lot being carved out from the four point, from lot one, which is at 4.74 acres. The request is to subdivide the singular lot into two lots. The prop the subject property is owned a are agricultural residential district. Public utilities are available in the vicinity of the proposed lights. The suggested lot 3 would have frontage on Pleasant Hill Road North. The plant meets both zoning and subdivision regulation requirements. And it's got the necessary utilities as well. So we got the vicinity map here and then the utilities map on the right. um as i stated before zoned ar frontage along pleasant hill road north it met everything in the subdivision bulk requirements there's an existing parking lot with a new cross access easement and so this is something that we had to add into the the the plat after it went back for revision. So that's what the yellow highlight is for. We got where that cursor is the cross access easement and then a little bit down below. There's the the sewer easement that needed to be added in there. There's no new public infrastructure or variances proposed. This is Just a plat request for a property property line being drawn down the North to the south so that is That's essentially the request. The Planning Commission, at its July 14, 2026 meeting, unanimously recommended approval of the first revision of St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church and cemetery subdivision to the Board of Aldermen, subject to the following conditions. One, improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer and not the responsibility of the City of Olive Branch. Number two, all utilities and services, electric, telephone, cable, et cetera, shall be installed underground. All water service lines shall be installed with tracing wire at the top. and number three subdivision plat must be recorded before any building permit may be approved for any new developments designed in accordance with the proposed lots and number four minor edits are applicable to the plat as may be deemed necessary by city planning and engineering staff before recordation And that concludes the presentation. If anyone has any questions, feel free to let me know. Thank you, Andrew.

I believe Mr. Dye has a question of engineering, I believe.

Right. Could you go back to the slide, please, that shows the highlighted cross-access easement and sewer easement? I guess I did not pick up on this in our packet until I saw the highlighting on the PowerPoint. Mr. Swimms, where it shows the 15 foot sanitary sewer easement over the top of the sewer service, and it looks like a clean out down right there where the cursor is, Is that a private service line or is that a city sewer line?

That is a private service line.

Why do we need an easement over a private service line?

When they separated these two tracks, we made aware I guess that there was a way for this property owner to get, that's their only way to have access to sewer. unless they were going to relocate it in another direction. So if the property's sold, there was not some type of an easement to protect the homeowner or whoever bought it. That may be retained by the church. It might be sold to another individual. And there ended up being an expansion of the church. There ended up being some type of anything in the future where that was disturbed. That would put this homeowner at a disadvantage where they would not be able to connect the city sewer.

You're treating it like a cross-access where it's an easement between the potentially two private property owners, not an easement running to the benefit of the city.

That is correct.

You might want to clarify that in the notes, either on the plat or in the conditions of approval, because if it just says easement, then the owner's certificate where easements are dedicated to the public use would imply that that's a city easement. We don't need a city easement over a private service line. Because if there were a malfunction on that line, it would be a private responsibility to fix it, not the city.

Yeah, we struggled with that a bit as far as exactly how to label that, but I was just looking at future issues and problems that could come up with that, and I felt like there needed to be some type of protection for that property.

No, I think your point's well taken, and I think you'd treat it like a cross-access, which is an easement that's reciprocal between the private property owners if they wind up not under common ownership. Okay. We just need something that clarifies that it's not an easement running to the benefit of the city.

Okay.

Because if that line clogs in the future, that's private responsibility.

we will we will look at that and try to get that corrected so that it's clearer i guess yeah that sounds good thank you is that clean out like a standard size clean out at a home or is it a clean out like a city-sized sewer system i'm i'm not sure but i think it's i think it's just for a clean out like it would be for a home

couldn't we just require the applicant to move it that way there's no problems in the future about trespassing it's not really an issue of where the clean out is it's really more of an issue of where the line runs from point A to point B Mr. Swims has it accounted for appropriately in my opinion

needs to clarify that it's private is not probably where there's never a that's a complete you have no issue you really in my opinion with where the clean ideas are where the line is just making sure the city's not improperly doing work on private improvements right okay.

Mister down with that apply to the one in the middle as well where it says clean out

in the yellow is one of their their clarification would address that also okay. I think Mister Swinton says I think he's answered and he says that my concerns with it but that is not a city.

Any additional questions board.

May I do have a question do we know what the intended use is for lot 3.

As far as I know, the planning department has not been made aware of the the future land use of that lot. We just got the request to subdivide it.

Is the applicant or applicant rep here? The question, sir, is the intended use of this, is it for a parking lot or do you know it at this point?

They haven't let me know. I just asked it to be divided up. Greg Russell. 2, 6, 9, 6, Donwood Circle North and South Haven.

Thank you.

I don't have anything else to add.

Anything bored out of the applicant? Just don't know at this point what their plans are. Right. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Additional questions or motions?

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Does anything need to be included in my motion to clarify?

No, ma'am. That last condition about minor edits, they can take care of it under that language.

Okay.

Then I'll make a motion to approve.

Second. Mr. Hamilton, motion to approve. Second. Second. Mr. Gammage, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you I'm 5 consideration of application for the final plant of hope lane and good Monroe travel center submitted by Adam McCracken Houston engineering on behalf of property owner Yasa Yasser sailor the request is to create a single lot of 7.0 plus or minus acres. The subject property is on C 2 highway commercial district is located at the southwest corner of good Monroe and polk Lane staff report please.

Before you request to consider a final plot for the one lot subdivision, the property in question, which would be seven acre in size, lies at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 302 Goodman Road and Pork Lane. I think the FedEx facility is to the west of this particular site. The property is Zone C2, Highway Commercial District, Although it kind of adjoins the legacy industrial park at that particular corner, it's actually zoned for commercial development. Early this year, the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a conditional use permit for the truck stop at that particular location. Water is available, shown here in blue. Gas is also available, shown here in yellow line. Sewer is not immediately available to this particular proposed lot. There is a sewer line for that to the south, and the city's just installing new lines to the north of Goodman Road. I think the intent of the applicant and the development of this site is to bore down on Highway 302 and extend that line from the north southward. With regard to transportation, as approved in that particular development, there will not be any direct access to Goodman Road. Any access on this lot will be from Pork Lane. The applicant is also required to construct sidewalks along Pork Lane. This warehouse currently has a sidewalk right up to this location. The animal shelter also constructed a sidewalk. So eventually, Pork Lane should have sidewalks along its entire length. at least south of Highway 302. Now public infrastructure in terms of utilities and involved sidewalks of course are public and if the developer intends to record this plot, those infrastructure may need to provide a letter of credit for any public infrastructure that may be warranted before recordation of the plot. No variances, waivers or deviation from the requirements of the subdivision regulations are applicable to this particular plot. This is the plot before you. It shows the easements, the setbacks. So essentially just building setbacks 50 feet along Goodman Road, 50 feet along Pork Lane. The lot being seven acre in size total. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its meeting on July 14 and unanimously recommended approval subject to these standard conditions one through four. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you doctor song. Board any questions. Motion to approve a Mister Dickerson is your second. Second, Mister Wallace. Any discussion. All in favor. All opposed motion carries. Consideration of application to reinstate the 78 detached single-family residential lots, preliminary plat for Carson Creek, submitted by Martin Carradine, property owner, 38.6 plus or minus acres. Subject property is zoned R1, single-family residential district, and is located on the east side of Davidson Road, just over 400 feet north of Tranquil Drive. Report, please.

Mayor Adman, the subject property, as you did mention, is 38.6 acres. This is Tranquil Drive. This is Davidson Road. Stonecrest subdivision is just to the northwest of the property. This is Villages and South Branch subdivision under construction, kind of heading eastward towards Davidson Road. The property is a zoned R01 single family residential district. The application before you does not involve any change in the zoning of the property. So there's no zoning action involved. So what is this application before you? On October 19, 2021, this piece of property was re-zoned from ARL Agricultural Residential to R01 Single Family Residential District. That R01 Single Family Residential District, that is a current zoning of the property. It has not been changed. The rezoning application was accompanied by the Carson Creek preliminary plot. That plot was also approved at that meeting to create 78 detached single-family residential lots. On September 26, 2022, almost a year later, the civil set of construction plans were approved by the city engineer for the construction of the 78 lots. In March of this year, The property owner at the time, Mr. Marion Treat, requested that the plot to be revised, the Carson Creek plot to be revised from 78 lots to 25 lots, minimum one acre in size. The Board of Adamant approved that plot on March 17th. On May 21st, Mr. Martin Carrodan acquired the property in its entirety. His intent is to develop the property according to the 78 lots that were approved in 2021 as opposed to the change that Mr. Marion Tripp requested in March of this year. That's why this application is before you. It's basically to reinstate what you earlier approved in 2021. So this is the plot that was approved in 2021. The layout, 78 lots. There's a creek running through the subdivision. Improvements along the full length of Davidson Road. You had a 50 feet wide buffer to the south and to the east of the property, including a fence. So that was a six feet high wood fence, 40 feet wide buffer. This is six feet high wood fence that was required by the board to be constructed as part of that subdivision. All of these improvements, all the approval conditions are basically maintained. Nothing is... changing as far as that is concerned. This is the plot that the board approved March this year which the applicant is requesting that you annul and reinstate what was approved in 2021. So I did indicate there is no change in the zoning. The property is T-Zone R01 single family residential district. All the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R01 single family residential district as it were in 2021. The extension of Davidson Road expansion, when the construction plans were submitted, the expansion was proposed to end about this point. The civil engineer has indicated that it would be necessary to fully construct or expand Davidson Road along the entire street frontage of the property without need to expand the size of the culvert. or the pipe that you have under the road. It just needs to be extended across the area that will be expanded. This is the plot that is requested for reinstatement. Nothing has changed. The same plot that was approved in 2021. In fact, if things didn't go wrong, at some point, this probably would have been constructed already. So he's just asking that this be fully reinstated. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its meeting on July 14, and unanimously recommended that the Board of Adamant nullify the preliminary plan for Carson Creek, which sought to create 25 single-family residential lots, as was approved by the Board on March 17, 2026, and reinstate the preliminary plan for Carson Creek, which sought to create 78 single-family residential lots, as was approved by the Board on October 19, 2021, subject to these two conditions. All conditions of approval of the preliminary plan for Carson Creek that sought to create the 78 single-family residential lots, that includes the buffer, the fence, the improvements along Davidson Road, the requirement for sidewalks, curb gutter, all those conditions, as were imposed by the Board of Aldermen at that meeting on October 19, are maintained. Secondly, the set of civil construction plans for the development of Carson Creek as a 78-lot single-family residential subdivision, which was approved by the city engineer on September 26, 2022, is revalidated, subject to the developer of Carson Creek widening Davidson Road along the full length of the property's street frontage and extending the drainage pipe under Davidson Road without upgrading in size. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Sump. Board, any questions?

I got a question.

I don't see this. I know we voted on it and approved it, but what was the square footage and what was the requirement on the houses? I know that was all included, but I just don't see it here.

Do you know? The minimum requirement on the house was 2,000 square feet. And that is the same that was maintained in the one minimum, one acre lot.

Is it to remain the same in this particular application?

It will remain the same. I just didn't see it here. I was trying to put it public since we moved it. You know, we did change it, and now we're going back. I was just trying to figure out.

George, we did 70% hard surface of brick.

I remember some of that, but I didn't see it in the end. But that will all stay the same. Okay.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here, or the applicant's representative here?

The song I get, I would assume, based on Mr. Collins' question, that the building requirements would meet the original approval of the Platte and subdivision as well.

Yes, sir. The condition number seven, which these Platte reading statement, as you mentioned there, all those conditions are maintained. Condition number seven as approved, as was imposed by the board in 2021 reads, for final Platte submitted a draft declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, we need to be customized for the Carson Creek subdivision. The declaration language should include the intent to impose a 2,000-heater square-feet minimum house size and design requirements for two-tenth brick . So that was on all sides. That is being maintained.

I see it. It is in there. I just overlooked it.

And all garage will not face the street. So all garage will have to be siloed. OK.

In addition, there's no further discussion by the board. I'll make a motion to approve.

Thank you.

Thank you all. Mayor Hart, motion to approve. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Alderman Collins, second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. I'm 7 this is a public hearing date for consideration action on a motion to clear the condition of the following properties to be minutes to the public health and safety and direct any of the city staff or contract labor to clean the property forthwith.

Well, this piece of property at 10473 Stevenson Cove, this was already cleaned as shown, particularly on this picture, at the time that the staff report was sent to you. So that is on this A. List B, this particular property at 8313 Regerburn Drive, this has been cleaned since the staff report was sent out to the board, as shown on these particular pictures. There are two other lots that have not been attended to by the property owners. The one owned by Mr. Jarvis by a nomad, 6284 McNair Drive, that has not been cut. These pictures were taken today, this morning. And that at 6580 Renner Drive, that has also not been cut. The lot is still in unsanitary conditions. As such, those two properties are maintained on list B. Staffs recommend that the condition of these 2 properties. He declared a menace to the public head on safety and that the Board of Admin direct either city staff or contract level to clean the properties of 4th week that concludes starts presentation. Thank you.

Thank you is there a property owner for 6284 McNeil drive or 6580 Rene drive is your property owner in the meeting tonight. Are there any residents that wish to give public comments on these properties? Hearing none, public comments are hereby closed. Board, any questions or motions on these two properties? Mr. Dickerson, motion to declare minutes. Is there a second? Second, Ms. Aldridge. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. following the agenda of a new business consideration of recommendation to approve change order number one on the contract with Phillips construction company in the additive amount of $11,250 increase in the contract amount from 5, 934,665 dollars to 5, 945,915 dollars for the project referred to as taxiway rehabilitation phase 2.

Yes, sir. This change order is basically to rename taxiways at five locations at the airport locations. So there's backlit electrical panels, I think, that will be a part of the project, and that's a part of the cost. So we do recommend that we approve this change order.

Thank you. Questions or motions?

Motion to approve. Second.

Ms. Hamilton, motion and second. Mr. Wallace, all in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Item 2, consideration of recommendation to approve change order number 4 on contract with Onscore LLC in the additive amount of $4,279.08, increasing the contract amount from $7,682,690 $6.14 to $7,686,975.22 for the project referred to as Annexation Water Sewer East Area Project 1. Mr. Swims.

This project is getting close to completion. This is our third annexation water and sewer project. This particular issue that we had was just a house outfall that we did not realize until we got in there that it was actually deeper than what was expected. Unfortunately, we already had a wet well that was only 48 inches deep was not actually going to work. So the only way was to go back in and change that out to a 78 72 inch wet. Well, so we're requesting approval for this work to correct this issue.

Thank you. Questions or motions. Mr Dickerson motion to approve. Is there a second? second miss aldridge on favor all opposed motion carries consideration of accepting and approving the annual audit report for fiscal year ending september thirty two thousand twenty five city has done a great job staying current on our external audits and this is one of these items i know i've mentioned to the board in the past Nobody cares as long as it's a good external audit and it was no deficiencies found up in the material value was found. So hats off to CFO may in the finance staff and the men and women that work finances for all year round. Any information Mister May on on this report to accept the audit. And if there's no other questions on the commission to approve the audit set your Mr. Hart motion second miss Hamilton discussion all in favor. All opposed motion carries. I'm for consideration of recommendation to approve change order number 3 on the contract with W and T contract incorporation and the additive amount of $14,090.37, increasing the contract amount from $5,672,180.50 to $5,686,270.87 for the project referred to as Ollie Branch Fire Station No. 6.

The fire station number six is moving along well. We've had very good success with the contractor we've had there. One issue that we had was where the gas meter location ended up being was in the corner, was too tight for the public works department to get in there. They had requested that it be more accessible. So we basically are taking some conduit, moving it out to where it's outside of an area where they could easily access it. And we are requesting that this change over be approved in the amount shown.

Mr Wallace motion to approve your second. Second, Mr damage in discussion all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Consideration of recommendation to approve change order number one on the contract with Phillips contracting company. In the amount of $18,600 increase in the contract amount from 2 million 841,345 dollars to 2 million 859,945 dollars for the project referred to as the apron rehabilitation phase 2.

um this this change order i guess is is part of a i guess an issue from some old electrical lines um the the lines were very shallow i think that was unexpected by today's standard uh they did cause some damage and so um it impacted i think um number of hangers I don't see the number on here but the request is that that that the Phillips contract contracting would be allowed to move forward with making that correction and get these hangers back in the condition where they have electrical power thank you mayor I did have a couple of questions on this one

Mr. Swims, if I understand you right, was that a legacy line, so to speak, that was not marked properly, or could this have been avoided? I guess my question is, $18,000 is a pretty substantial amount of change. Could it have been avoided, and who was responsible?

Let me redirect that to COO Reichert. I know he's worked this day in and day out for a while. Okay.

Okay.

So basically because we were modernizing or upgrading, we kind of got into a north central issue where they preferred lines so they could repair and fix if needed be. Okay. Okay.

Lost the grandfather type issues, grandfathering in. And I will share with the board, Phillip's contracting is on time and doing a good job with this. I know we had issues on Pleasant Hill Road and brought them in, but so far this has been a good project and good performance by Phillip's.

Thank you Sir.

Questions or motions on this item. Mr Collins motion to approve their second a second second Mister Hart all in favor. All opposed motion carries is your motion to leave record session with intent to point an executive session for Adams one through 7. Well this motion. Second missile for John favor. I oppose motion cares their motion go into executive session to discuss personal matter and administration department and airport department and the dispatch department and the parks department and the police department and the sanitation department and the water maintenance departments are motion to go in executive session for those items. Collins motion is there second second Mister Hart all in favor. All opposed we are in executive session.