Mayor and Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

I'm now calling this meeting to order. Please stand with us. We'll be led in prayer by Alderman Gallagher. Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance after that. And Alderman Jerome, will you lead us in that, please, sir?

Heavenly Father, we're so thankful for your goodness and your mercies that you give us each and every day, Lord. Lord, we thank you for the peace treaty that's going on in the... Middle East, Lord. Lord, we love you and we thank you and we ask you to be a part of our meeting, Lord Jesus, and to influence every decision that's made here. In your name we pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

First on the agenda this evening is the approval of minutes for the June 2nd, 2026 meeting. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Jerome. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Payne did not call in, correct?

No. He did not.

Okay, thank you. Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman who?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome?

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries. He can make himself available if needed, he told me so. Thank you. Next on our agenda is Mr. Jim Flanagan with the DeSoto County Economic Development Council.

It looks like a navy blue coat brigade, so this is not our uniform. But tonight, first off, I'd like to thank the city of South Haven for the privilege of serving you for 40 years. It's been a blessing. This is a job of a lifetime. And it doesn't come along too often, but I had the privilege of being here and serving you and just enjoying every minute of it. But I can tell you and reassure you that you've got a new team coming, and this is one of the best economic development teams in the state of Mississippi. I'd like to introduce you to Billy Clouser, the new president and CEO, and Tripp Gortz, the vice president of business development. You're going to find him to be the most capable team in the state. And I can tell you, you're going to see a couple of exciting economic development projects coming your way here real soon. And again, thank you again for this privilege and for this honor to serve you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Jim, if you'll stay, if you'll stay, I have a few words I'd like to share. I just want to share this with everyone. I've worked closely with Jim for 13 years. It's a long time. I know you've been here much longer than me, but you and I worked on many key projects together, and we were successful in that. And I just want to just relay to everyone that may not know Jim personally or may not have understood his role in the county, but Jim is the guy who is responsible for being the first contact with large industrial developments. So a lot of the huge, really all the huge developments that have come to DeSoto County over the years, you're looking at the man who brought them here. He was the one, and they don't just drop in. I always kind of chuckle. Sometimes I hear people say that developments just show up here because of where we're located, and I'm here to tell you that's not true. Location does matter. Workforce matters. So many things matter. Cities matter. But Jim has done a great job marketing DeSoto County, and he is the reason that many of these are really all these are here. But he's highly respected by countless companies throughout the United States and is the key person who put DeSoto County on the map with industrial developments. His work has created economic benefits that go beyond just industrial. They've stabilized the cost of living for every resident of DeSoto County. Because when these large developments come in, the tax revenue takes the pressure off the residential areas. So it's been a benefit to every person who lives. His work has been a benefit to everyone, regardless of where you live in DeSoto County. But we all owe Jim our gratitude for that. His fingerprints will always remain here and we will continue to reap the rewards of his work in the future. Jim is a man of integrity. He's a gentleman and a consummate professional. I've been in many stressful situations with Jim. Just can't even name all the difficult situations we've been in. And Jim is the same Jim. You know, it doesn't matter how the temperature in the room gets. Jim is always going to be a man of integrity. He's a gentleman and he's always going to be professional. But I just want to personally tell you that I will always treasure my time working with you and our friendship. And I just thank you and congratulate you on your retirement. And we're going to all miss you, but we understand that it's that time, and we're going to wish you all the best.

Mayor, I notice it's going to take two to replace you, though.

What's the old saying? Everybody's replaceable, but it may take five to ten. Okay, next on our agenda is the termination of a court contract with Regents Bank. Basically, this is simple. We entered this agreement years ago before we opened our new court. We had limited parking at the other, so we had a contract with Regents Bank to lease parking space from them. We no longer need that, so the recommendation is to terminate that contract.

So moved. Second.

We've got a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Jerome. Any other discussion?

You just note that it was done by a pre-existing board, or a board, a predecessor to this board, so that's why we'll have that in a minute. That's it.

Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoot?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher?

Yes.

Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a request to seek bids for the Mill Branch Roundabout. Is there a motion?

Motion.

Okay. We have a motion by Alderman Lewis. Second. A second by Alderman Hoots. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our Snowden Grove fence bid. Mr. Nick Manley?

Yes. I guess, Mayor and Board, this project went to bid, and the lowest and best bid came back from Columbus Fence Company, LLC, in the amount of $531,147.50. Authorization is needed to approve the bid and authorize the mayor to sign all documents for the bid.

I'll make that motion. Second.

We have a motion from Alderman Flores, second from Alderman Wheeler. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution for liens.

If this resolution just authorizes the liens to be placed along with the eventual assessments for those lots that were cut in accordance with Mississippi Code 21-1911.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Jerome. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hughes? Yes. Alderman Jerome?

Yes. Alderman Gallagher?

Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

That motion carries. Next on our agenda is a resolution to claim private property. Is there a motion? I make that motion. Second. We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Gallagher. Is there any discussion among the board? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience who has a financial interest in any of the properties who would like to speak? Hearing or seeing none, roll call please.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our planning agenda. Ms. Whitney Cook, Planning Director.

yes sir we have a request item number one we have a request to rezone approximately 158 acres of property on the north side of desoto road it's going to be between highway 301 and horn lake road which you see highlighted here in yellow the request is to turn this into a pud Out of the 158 acres, you have approximately 48.53 acres that will be designated for common open space. With that number of acres in conjunction with the total acres, it comes to a 2.08 dwelling units per acre, which calculates into a low density residential subdivision. which will essentially fit the comprehensive plans designation for that area. Actually, it calls for medium density, and this is actually going to qualify for low density. Ten elevations of homes were presented to the Planning Commission. Six of those were accepted. Of those six, two of them were a heated square footage of 1850, two were a heated square footage of 1950, and two were over 2000. All the elevations that were approved had the recessed garages and carriage load garages per the Planning Commission's request. In comparison to the surrounding areas, we took the adjacent three subdivisions in that area, Grandview Lakes being one of them, which is going to be to the north. larger lots, but they had a 2,000 square foot minimum. Holly's Ridge, which is just on the south side of DeSoto Road, had a 1,600 square foot minimum, and Willow Point had a 1,400 square foot minimum. The lots incorporated in this development are 10,000 square foot plus, going up to, in essence, 30,000 square feet. You do have a copy of the covenants, and in summary, they added some additional things that were not normal in the covenants being like front yard trees required matching painted garage doors to be incorporated no solid white doors unless you have white trim and things like that to match it they also have incorporated no on-street parking overnight they have added guest parking throughout the the overall layout which I think you have in your package there's a big Trailway through the whole thing but there's about five or six different areas for surplus parking not only for the guest of homeowners but also for the trail. It did propose three stub outs, two to the north and one to the east. We did request those to be removed simply because this is a larger subdivision of 330 homes. The vacant properties on the sides of them were also vacant. We didn't want to turn it into a massive development, so the Planning Commission as well as my staff requested the stub outs to be removed. So if any other subdivision comes in, it would have to hold its own. um they did submit a phasing plan to us and what we have seen in a lot of our construction of subdivisions when they start and when they finish is they like to go from easy access to the roads and then build up that does cause some conflict with residential traffic and construction traffic so we have actually changed their phasing plan to go in a counterclockwise motion to where it starts the main entrance builds up and then carries over to a second point of access at the very end that should separate that traffic we did talk to sibling who has requested 15 foot of width for an additional lane along the linear frontage of this to contain traffic they've agreed to that they did submit a rental stipulation For the subdivision, they requested 12% of the overall subdivision. And for it to be distributed through the subdivision, not concentrated in a single cluster or multiple clusters, did require no out of state investors, no hedge funds or large rental companies. And it did propose that all proposed rentals must be submitted to the HOA and approved on a case by case basis. Planning Commission discussed this and reduced the overall percentage to 10%. All in all, the site is compliant with the comprehensive plan. It does provide a positive overall design for the area and does transition well from the square footages to the north as they go to the south. With all of the comments, it was voted unanimously by the Planning Commission.

Mayor, I make a motion we approve item number one on the planning agenda as presented.

I'll second. I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Lewis. The only discussion, the question I have, and I mentioned this to you, Whitney, and I appreciate the fact that the Planning Commission already addressed the rental occupancy. And so one thing that I would suggest to this board for the protection of our city is that in addition to statistics, I understand that there's a need for incidental occupancy, changes in occupancy at certain times by non-owner occupancy. However, I would like to see or I recommend there be something in there where the initial occupancy is not tenant occupied. This specific builder has built other homes in the city. where they were built before construction was complete for the purpose of being non owner occupied. It's very dangerous for our city and I'd like to see something I recommend to this board that there be something put in there that restricts that. I don't know how we word that or Or do we need to do that now? Or is that, I know we're just changing the zoning now, but.

Well, all of this is going into the PUD text. So details like this, we add into the minutes and we'll add it into the PUD text, which actually gives us more teeth in the event that something dissolves with the HOA. It gives us more power. So whatever details we want to put in there. I also believe you and I discussed possibly putting together a registry and have the HOA or the developer until they become the HOA to provide contact information for any rental properties in there as the HOA approves them on a case-by-case basis so we can keep knowledge of where they're at.

Yeah, but you're, I get that, but you're taking away, if you don't have something there from the city, you're taking away the city's ability to regulate that.

No, I would say both of them. Yeah, I was putting it in the PUD text.

So I'm just recommending to the board that we add something in there that indicates that the initial occupancy can't be anything other than owner-occupied. Y'all understand the value of that? Yes. Is there a motion?

I'll make that motion.

Okay, we have a motion by Alderman Lewis. Second. Second by Alderman Gallagher. Any other discussion? Y'all obviously see the purpose for that. We don't want to... If we don't address, which we are addressing it, but the last thing in the world we want to do is build more rental property in the city. We're already fighting that daily. This is a situation where you do have some control of that. Federal housing laws restrict what cities can do with rental property after they're already built and after they're already in progress. However, now is the time, if you want to do something about it to help the city, now is the time to do that. Okay, any other discussion about that stipulation? Hearing none, roll call please. Well, we've got to have a hearing first. Huh? We've got to have a hearing. Oh, the zoning hearing?

Okay.

Well, I'm not voting, I'm just, what I'm asking the board to vote on is adding the stipulation first, and then we do the hearing?

Well, you would, to me, you would do the hearing, and if you vote in the stipulation, you would vote approval contingent upon that stipulation being added.

Okay, so have the hearing and then vote for the whole thing at one time? Correct. Okay. So now is there a motion to open a public hearing since it's a rezoning? Second. We have a motion from Alderman Gallagher, second from Alderman Wheeler. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no, ayes have it. The public hearing is now open. So anyone in the audience who wants to speak about the zoning, please come forward. Is there anyone that wants to speak about the change in zoning? Okay. Seeing or hearing none, is there a motion to close the hearing? Second. We've got a motion, Alderman Hoots. Second, Alderman Lewis. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. The hearing is closed. Now is there a motion? We had the motion. Do you have that down already? Yes. Okay. Is there any other discussion? about and we'll call for a roll call vote on adding the stipulation and then also approving the zoning change. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores? Yes.

He just wants clarification. He's asking for clarification.

Yeah, what the motion was made, what I'm recommending is that there not be homes that are built for the purpose of being non-owner occupied.

There's no homes going to be built for the purpose of non-owner occupied, but as a builder, the risk in an area that hasn't been developed. And then, you know, always our, our out is if we can't sell it, we may have to rent it temporarily. So, I mean, none of the homes, you know, throughout anywhere in DeSoto County, I've built specifically to rent. If I have, if a house hasn't sold, then we've rented it temporarily.

But I know you had some houses that you built at Pinewood that were for that purpose.

None, none in Pinewood.

Yes, Sir, not going to argue with you, but I'm trying to protect the city and I think that's very dangerous for the city. If you're allowing someone giving them the leeway to go ahead and build more rental houses.

That's the reason for the 10% is not doing it where because I mean, like I said, if for some reason. If we start a phase and we do 40 lots and then they can't sell, we can only rent four of those houses. Now, we may start 15 or 20 at a time, but we can stop if we have an investment in the city of South Haven that won't sell at that time, then we have the flexibility to rent them. But none of them will be built just to rent.

Well, again, I think the city needs safeguards in there. But hey, if y'all want to give that to him, then you do it. But I'm telling you, you're putting the last shot of morphine in the city's arms. You're letting people build rental properties. And I think the stipulation in there has already given you some leniency. But what that tells me, and I know y'all build the homes fast, but what it tells me is that maybe you shouldn't build them as fast if you don't have an owner, if you don't have a contract in place. And I think that protects the city.

Well, we're spec builders. We don't go out there and build not all of our homes. And I think anybody that's built before, nobody goes out there and builds all custom houses.

I'm not saying custom houses. I'm saying...

Building houses before you have a contract well if they were all pre-sold that would be great But unfortunately in today's time and that's the way we make our living is by doing spec houses not necessarily all pre-sales Yeah, and that may be good for you, but it's not good for the city long term.

I'm reading the crime reports every night And I know that for the city's benefit.

We don't need to be building houses are used for rental houses So is this something that we can if you know we approve this tonight like it is if He comes back with a hardship.

If there's a legitimate hardship, but I think you're giving him a green light. They like to build houses fast. It's lucrative for him. But when they build these houses, they're gone. They've made their profits and they're gone. And so I'm just trying to put safeguards in place for the city. And so, yeah, I think there's a legitimate hardship. It's something that we come back and we hear at a later time. but giving him the green light to build houses that don't have a sales contract where he can rent them, you're hurting your city.

Well, I think that's, you know, it says a lot for the city that, you know, we want to build in this neighborhood because they do it so fast. You know, they do sell fast. I mean, that's part of the reason we want to be in South Avon. You know, so, I mean, I think it's a flip side to both. We're able to build them as fast in there, and we're able to get finished construction and be out. I mean, so I think it's a, you know, it's kind of a, double-edged sword, so to speak. I mean, we want to go in there and we have the market, but who knows what's going to happen as far as interest rates or the market.

And I respect that. That's a smart thing to do as a businessman, but it's not good for the city. So we know it's not going to be that extreme. But to your point, if market conditions change and you can't sell any of these houses, we're I know you got a 10% limitation, but you're still allowing you to build rental.

There are also other stipulations that were in there as well that safeguard against that to make sure that they are properly managed, that they're not a nuisance.

Yeah, but we, yeah, you're talking to the expert on that. I know we have things like that and we're doing that, but it's a big challenge for the city. I'm just telling you that I'm telling you what I know. If we allow people to build rental houses, then the efforts that we're already doing to fight the crime and the problems that come with rental property, it's a counterproductive effort if you're allowing them to do that. But to your point, I think that's fair if you want to listen to a future hardship. If market conditions do change and you want to do that, but before you rezone this and give them the green light, I think you need to stay with what you voted upon.

I think he understands what we want, but I don't want to... I don't want to have him lock where he, you know.

Well, but the thing is, I mean, we're not always going to be here. Like, I'm doing my job today for the city of South Haven, but I may not be here when that condition happens. Y'all may not be here. So that's what I'm saying. What I'm suggesting is we do something that safeguards the city.

if we do this is that is that going to be something that would jeopardize this development happening because it's a good thing for you know that side well i mean it's just a bigger risk for me i mean that's that's the reality of it and part of the reason we put the stipulations in there is i know that that city has a problem with rentals i understand that i mean that's part of the reason we put that together was to have more checks in place so that when those stipulations comes because i mean we're kind of leaving it on the hoa in in general to govern, you know, these rental problems anyway. And, you know, just for instance, and I may understand the way, what he put in there, but for instance, if I can't sell a home, I'm stuck with it. And, you know, and I mean, that's, you know, that's the end of it. If he didn't come back to us then and say, hey, look, I guess, you know, it's tough. But it's still not a guarantee. I mean, he said that. Right. And I mean, that's the risk, you know, that I'm taking, especially in an undeveloped area. How many homes have you built in South Haven? I don't have the exact numbers, 1,200.

That's a lot of houses in it. How many have you not been able to sell?

Maybe 15.

You get my point.

Well, it's also an undeveloped area. Everything else we've done has been in an area that's grown.

Yeah. Well, I think you wouldn't be building there because you're a smart businessman. You've done your market research. You wouldn't be building houses there if you didn't know you could sell them, so... Anyway, but to your point, I think that's something, if there is a true hardship that comes back, you reconsider that. But I would put the safeguards in place tonight. That's what I'm asking the board to do.

I guess to follow up on my question, is this a deal breaker? If we do this, is this going to?

popping you too much where you you don't do it or you think it's i mean it's work it's still working under contract i mean no it's just it's more risk for me i mean it's a good it's a good risk assessment for me that to have that option that if something were to happen i could get i wouldn't have to sit on them for a year until they could say i mean look at 0708 how many houses were on the market how many houses how many builders went out and at least be able to recoup my interest every month because two thousand dollars And rent doesn't cover anything but interest on a construction loan.

But in all fairness, I mean, there's not a shortage of people wanting to build houses in South Haven, Mississippi, okay? And again, they build a good house. They're smart business people. But there are a lot of wealthy home builders that have built houses in this city, and they're long gone. And they have plenty of money, and they're leaving it to these men in blue every night to face the challenges that we have in these neighborhoods from the rental. So...

Well, I think it's good development where it's at. It's phenomenal. That area needs something like that. And I think the mayor's right and I think you're right. I understand both of them. And I think we can, if it comes down to it and you have to have hardship and you're not selling out, I think this board would be pretty lenient for somebody bringing that much to that side of the county. I believe so. We appreciate what you're doing. Yeah.

We don't want you to take this, nothing against you, it's just, you know.

Well, I mean, but, you know, you got to realize, I mean, the mayor said it, you know, you don't want to, you don't want to, you don't want us building in here if it's not a, you know, don't take the risk in South Haven if you don't want to. I mean, you know, everybody wants to come to South Haven. I mean, to his point, I mean, South Haven's been a great market for us. And I mean, I do think that South Haven is where everybody wants to be. And I do think it's a good project. And I think that it will I think it will sell, but having that safeguard in place because there's been nothing over there new in the last that I know of other than on 301, and that's a totally different market, really, when you hit 301. But as long as it's in there, and I mean, another thought process is it's just a timeline of it being on the market, possibly.

Well, I think that would be something you could bring back to us, and we'd be happy to... I mean, I think the board is in agreement that, you know, we want to work with you, but we want you to work with us, too. Right. Well, and I thought that's what this was.

Are we talking 12% or 10%? 10% is what it's 10%. We're good at 10%.

Yeah. And that is a good measure in place. That does restrict it, but again, there have been many HOAs that go defunct, too.

Yeah, and not clusters. I agree. And I guarantee you, this HOA, no HOA is going to approve. If somebody buys this house from you, they're not going to approve of that house. They're just not going to do it.

Well, they may not in year one, but the thing, as we all know, HOAs lose interest after a while. We face that struggle every day. There are neighborhoods that were built in the city.

You're right, and they didn't have them at all, and they're in terrible shape.

And there are some that had them, and everybody had great intentions, just like everybody here does tonight. And then they all have gone away, and then there are some people, again, around the room in blue that are holding the crap back. for these rental houses. And I can't stand up here with a good conscience and not tell the people of this city that you should not allow there to be new rental homes built. And I know that they've come a long way with the stipulation with the 10% restriction, but we need to stop people from building new rental houses with that purpose. And that has been done in this city. So I think what you're saying is fair. You want to give them a chance to come back and appeal that at a later time, but I do think the stipulation needs to stay in there to send the message, not just to his development, but for all builders, that if you're going to come in and build residential homes, you're building those for owner occupancy. And we know that things happen, incidental things happen. People change jobs. They have family emergencies. And so there's a reason for that. But you don't want to bend over backwards. And I mean, we obviously are a pro-business community. But you don't want to bend over backwards for the people that are building the houses and making a ton of money. Then they hit the road, and then we're left holding the problem.

So anyway. Well, I guess the main thing I just wanted is if they would be in there, that there is a hardship. For some reason, that house sits on the market for a year. is that that is an option to come back. I think the way I understood it, the reason I wanted clarification, was the way that it was presented was that if I sat on it for three years, I wouldn't ever be able to do anything but let it rot. And that's the way I understood it when you presented it.

That could be added in language, but the Board of Aldermen has ultimate authority in the city, so whatever we do tonight, if there were a situation that was worthy of that, that was not what I'm talking about, then you could bring that back before the Board. They have the authority to change that.

My goal is to build them. That's what we've done everywhere else. I don't want there to be any We're not trying to build, obviously, four houses a phase is not enough for a rental community. Yeah.

I mean, that's not, that wasn't our... Did you not set up an LLC for rental property at Pinewood? I did not. Okay, we're not holding court here, but I think you did. But anyway, we don't have to get down that path. I'm just trying to do my job.

Now, I do think there was talks of it at one time.

Yeah, there was a lot of discussion about it.

But it never happened, and I was a company out of town.

Okay, I may have been a part of stopping that. But anyway, there was an intent there. You will admit to that.

That I asked the city about, and they said no, and I'll stop. Yes, absolutely.

So that's relevant to the discussion is what I'm just telling you. There's other reasons that people want to build rental houses for their protection and also for another business venture. But it's just, anyway, we've talked about it enough, but I would like to see that stay. So there's no other discussion. Did you have, y'all have anything else? Okay, roll call, please. I've already voted. Oh, so he came up after we've already voted? No, we didn't finish the roll call, did we?

Yeah, we did. He wanted the clarification on the hardship stuff.

Okay, we're good. Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda.

Well, I do have one more. Yeah, we have the task order, and I apologize, everybody. I did get the MDOT permissions after Friday's submittal stuff, so I'm going to take it real quick. It's the task order. We have a master contract with Quality Landscape. And we have a task order to do the beautification enhancement project right here at the exit and entrance ramps along State Line and 55. Basically, the mayor and I talked for several years about trying to either replace the chain link fence that goes all the way up and down the interstate system right here, or enhance it with some shrub lines and things like that. So we did opt to do the landscaping side of it as opposed to the fencing side that got really pricey. But we have a task order in front of you tonight in the amount of $102,456 that we would like permission to have approved so we can move forward with the landscape enhancement project right here.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Wheeler. Is there any discussion? And this is money from the tree bank that has to be spent on?

Yes, this is in the tree bank. Anytime somebody does tree removals and it's not considered necessity, they have to put money in our tree bank. And we do have this money in there from a project that did remove the trees.

Okay. Any other discussion?

So Whitney, is that going to, I noticed coming in the other day, we got a lot of tall grass that butts up against the stuff. That will take care of all that kind of stuff?

I'm going to take care of all of it. So this is just going to immediately line the fence.

You're having the nasty looking chain link fence.

Yeah.

It's on all the ramps.

Yeah. The goal is to just block the fence.

But we couldn't, don't we? Yeah. We could, I mean, because I was noticing that, you know, that. they're not cutting this far over to the tree line. They're leaving probably about four or five feet. So you got high grass in front of the tree line. They're not getting up again. So it doesn't look clean.

No, they definitely need to be doing that. So like this is just going to be planted in front of the chain link fence. But yeah, the, the maintenance of the, um, of the interchange should include going all the way up to this shrub line.

Okay.

Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Hoots.

Yes.

Alderman Jerome. Yes. Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Alderman Flores. Yes.

Okay. Next on our agenda is our mayor's report. This seems to be the month of retirement, and I have a lot more to talk about this person in the next two weeks, so I'm going to save those comments for the appropriate time, but I do want to acknowledge that our Fire Chief, Danny Scallions, this is his last board meeting after 34 years with the city. He's been the fire chief since 2018. So anyway, like I said, we're going to do a lot more to celebrate you in the next two weeks, but I just want to thank you for an incredible career and your outstanding service to the city for 34 years. few other announcements um dizzy dean tournament starts on june 25 we project to have about 140 teams in that tournament again it's a great tournament for our youth and for tourism in the city uh fireworks tradition to celebrate our independence day celebration on july 4th it's on saturday this year so uh expecting a great show like we always have it's a great tradition um and uh west brown and the The team that we hired to do it, it seems like, just based on the citizens reaching out to me, the fireworks show has gotten better. I mean, every year, the last few years, it's gotten better and better. So anyway, I encourage everyone to go check that out and have a special celebration on July 4th. Budget time coming up. Can you all believe it? I thought we just set the budget. It seems like we just finished. Doesn't it roll around in a hurry? Mm-hmm. So anyway, budget time is coming around soon. As we all know, the next fiscal year starts on October 1, but we have to have a lot of work to do between now and then. So we'll start that. It's in progress now. We'll start having department heads submit their needs and requests to Caleb and myself for the next budget year. Then if you go ahead and mark your calendar, Thursday, August 6th at 10 a.m., we'll have our workshop here. And that, again, is when we have all the department heads come up. Pardon me? 9.30, not 10, 9.30. And you'll get an email about that. But we'll have all our department heads come forward, address the board, explain the needs of their budget. We'll go ahead and do our proper advertising for the actual budget. So our official budget hearing with the public will be on September 1st, and then the adoption of the budget will be on September 15th, and both of those are regularly scheduled board meetings. That's all I have tonight on the mayor's report. Next on our agenda is a donation docket.

Mayor, make a motion that we accept the donation docket as presented tonight. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores. Second by Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Second by Alderman Wheeler. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Hoops. Yes. Alderman Jerome. Yes. Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Alderman Flores.

Yes. That motion carries and we appreciate all the donations. Next on our agenda is our personnel docket.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve the personnel docket as presented tonight. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Hoots. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis. Yes. Alderman Hoots. Yes. Alderman Jerome.

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher. Yes. Alderman Wheeler. Yes. Alderman Flores.

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our city attorney's legal update. Mr. Nick Manley again.

yes just have uh two odd or one item for two approvals for vehicles for hire they're required to come in front of the board for approval one is for motins transportation llc and the other one was for willis transportation they have provided the information needed by the clerk's office as per as required by statute so authorization to approve both of those Vehicles for hire.

There's three.

The other one didn't have a letter. I sent an email. Okay. They didn't say the letter was from. Okay. I got you. Sorry. Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Wheeler. Is there any discussion?

So this is like a taxi cab service?

Yeah, they're vehicles for hires. There may not be taxi cabs, but they're either transportation for medical patients, transportation for individuals. But, yeah, so it's up. We hadn't had one in a long time, but under the statutes, we have to approve them. Any other discussion?

Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hood?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome? Yes. Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. That motion carries. Next on our agenda is our utilities billing leak adjustment docket.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the utilities bill leak adjustment docket in an amount of $3,946.10.

I'll second.

We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Jerome. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hughes? Yes. Alderman Jerome?

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Forrest?

Yes. And that motion carries. Next on our agenda is our one claims docket.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to re-approve the claims docket, including demand checks in the amount of $2,538,972. I'm sorry, $2,538,972.20. Second?

We have a motion by Alderman Flores, second by Alderman Hoots. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Alderman Lewis? Yes. Alderman Hoots?

Yes.

Alderman Jerome?

Yes.

Alderman Gallagher? Yes. Alderman Wheeler? Yes. Alderman Flores?

Yes. And that motion carries. Next on the agenda is the purpose of determining the need for executive session. So moved.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Jerome. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. The needs this evening are economic development in the city, planning and development personnel, interdepartmental personnel with no action, and city litigation. Is there now a motion to declare executive session? So moved.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Hoots, second by Alderman Jerome. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion carries. The mayor and board will now enter executive session.