Board of Mayor & Aldermen - Regular Meeting

with liberty and justice for all.

Let us pray. Eternal God, we thank you again for this day. We're so humbled to realize that this is the day that you have made and we are Rejoice and be glad in it. We invite you into this meeting, Lord. We ask you to get into our minds, get into our reasoning, Lord. Let us remember, Lord, that we're here to serve the people. Bless this town, Lord. We thank you for Springfield. We thank you for all the blessings that we do have. In God, we ask you to bless this country. We pray for peace throughout this world. We pray, Lord, we all can come together, Lord, just to make one perfect union. For it's in your name we pray. Amen.

before we get into our agenda I'd like to make everybody aware that Melissa Brown our city clerk her father passed away and she's not going to be here but Kim Rickles will be filling in for her tonight we appreciate that please keep Melissa Brown and her family in your prayers moving to item 1.3 of approval minutes from regular meeting the Board of Mayor and Alderman held June 16th 2026 we have a motion by Alderman Trotter a second by Alderman Bradley any questions or comments Hearing none, are we ready to vote? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their votes? Kim, would you tell us the votes, please?

Motion passes 7 to 0.

Item 1.4, public comment period. I believe we have someone on our list to speak tonight. You have two minutes to speak. I would like to call Brenda Allen up. Brenda, if you're here, approach the microphone, state your name. Talk loudly so we all can hear you. You have two minutes.

Brenda Allen. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Board of Aldermen. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here to ask the Board to take another look at the condition of the sidewalks throughout Springfield's historic district and the ordinance that places the responsibility for sidewalk repairs on individual homeowners. As some who regularly walk in our historic district, I have personally stumbled several times because of uneven cracked and deteriorating sidewalks. More concerning, I know of several senior citizens who have suffered injuries due to these conditions. What may seem like a small rise in a sidewalk slab can become a serious hazard for an older adult. Someone using a wheelchair, a motorized chair, a walker, or even a parent pushing a stroller. Our historic district is one of Springfield's greatest treasures. It is a source of pride for our community and one of the many attractions that draws visitors to our city. Robertson County's tourism efforts to continue to bring new people to Springfield, including retirees who are looking for a welcoming community, with walkable neighborhoods and historic charm. The Greenway connects to many of the streets within the historic district, encouraging residents and visitors alike to walk and enjoy our city. However, many sections of sidewalk are simply not safe or accessible. In some locations, wheelchair users and those in motorized chairs are forced into the street because the sidewalks are impassable. That creates a danger not only for them, but for motorists as well. I understand that there's an ordinance requiring homeowners to maintain the sidewalks in front of their property. However, I respectfully question whether that policy continues to serve the best interests of our community. These sidewalks were built as part of the city's public infrastructure and are used by everyone, not just the property owners whose homes happen to be adjacent to them. I also recognize that many homeowners, particularly seniors living on fixed incomes, may simply not have the financial means to undertake costly sidewalk repairs.

Ms. Allen? Can you wrap it up very quickly?

Yes, I'm almost there. As a result, hazards remain unaddressed for years, creating safety risk for the public. If our city can successfully pursue grants and funding opportunities to build beautiful parks and recreational spaces, perhaps there are also grants, state programs or other funding sources available to help improve pedestrian infrastructure and make our sidewalks safer and more accessible. I'm not here simply to point out a problem. I'm asking that the board consider reviewing the current ordinance, assessing the conditions of sidewalks through the historic district, and exploring options for a city-led or city-assisted sidewalk improvement program.

All right, Ms. Allen, I'm sorry to cut you off. That's okay. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Can I just leave this with y'all?

Yes, you may. Yes, you may.

Thank you, Brenda. And thank you all for your service.

Yes, ma'am. At this time, we will close our cut and comment period. We move to item 1.5, our public hearing. First item on our public hearing is ordinance 26-25, an ordinance amending the fiscal year of 2026 annual budget for the city of Springfield by amending certain general fund and utility fund operating budgets. Is there anyone here to care to speak to that item? Seeing none, we'll move to item two, ordinance 26-27 and ordinance amending sections A-203, A-306, and A-1306 of the Springfield zoning ordinance pertaining to data-related land uses. Anyone here to speak to that? Seeing none, we'll move on. We will now close the public hearing portion of our agenda, move into our legislative portion. Item 2.1, discuss and properly take action on Ordinance 26-25 on second and final reading. An ordinance amending the fiscal year of 2026 annual budget for the city of Springfield by amending certain general fund and utility fund operating budgets. We have a motion by Alderman Bradley, a second by Alderman Hubbard.

I believe city manager has something to add to this Thank You mayor this we would ask that you amend this to reflect the amended exhibit a this is our final cleanup ordinance for the FY 26 budget any questions or any comments hearing none are we ready to vote

Got it. Second. Got a second by Vice Mayor Harris. Ready to vote? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Kim would you tell her the votes please.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 2.2 discuss the property. You voted on the amendment, so now you're back to the main motion as amended. All right. OK. Sorry. Now back to item 2.1, Discussion of Public Action Orders 26-25. I'll second the final reading. An ordinance amended the fiscal budget for the city of Springfield by amending certain general fund and utility fund budgets. Motion by Alderman Bradley, second by Alderman Hubbard. Now, any questions or comments? Are we ready to vote? Let's cast our vote. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

item two point three discuss and possibly take action on ordinance twenty six dash twenty eight on first reading and ordinance rezoning enforcement of one parcel located highway forty one north from restricted industrial district or either commercial services district CS have a motion by Alderman Hubbard a second by Alderman Trotter You got a motion by Alderman Hubbard, a second by Alderman Trotter.

Point of order. I'm going to undo it.

Can I go back and pick it up now?

Yeah, I think your career, you can put the motion in the second bag. Okay. I think the mayor read, he skipped ahead to 2.3, so we'll be on 2.2, and the motion in the second should still be valid.

Okay. Any questions or comments? Who made the motion?

I don't know.

I made a second.

I believe it was Alderman Hubbard. I think it was Alderman Hubbard.

Yeah, it was Alderman Hubbard in second, but not Alderman Bradley. Hold on a second here. Okay, got a motion by Alderman Trotter, second by Alderman Bradley.

We're doing 2.3, correct? 2.2. 2.2. No, he's on 2.3. He's on 2.3. Yeah, clear up.

I'm on 2.3. Okay. Back to it.

Well, then we're on 2.3. So we're on 2.3? Okay.

Okay. That's for our workers. Yeah.

We'll have to go back and get 2.2. Okay. Okay. We're on 2.2, correct?

2.3.

You're here. 2.3. We're on 2.3. OK. Item 2.3, Discussing Public Action on Orders 26-28 on First Reading. In order to rezone a portion of the parcel located at Highway 41 North, restricted industrial to commercial services. Got a motion by Alderman Trotter, seconded by Alderman Bradley. Any questions or comments? Are we ready to vote? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their votes? Now we'll do 2.2. Could you tally the votes please?

Motion passes 7-0.

Now we're going to go back to item 2.2. Discuss and possibly take action on ordinance 26-27 on second and final reading and ordinance amending sections A-203, A-306, and A-1306 of the Springfield ordinance pertaining to data related land uses. A motion by Alderman Bradley, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions or comments? If not, are we ready to vote? Cast our votes, please. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes 7 to 0.

Now item 2.4, discuss and probably take action on ordinance 26-29 on first reading and ordinance amending section 801 of Springfield zoning ordinance pertaining to temporary use permits. I have a motion by Alderman Hubbard and a second by Vice Mayor Harris. Ryan Martin, City Manager, I believe you have something to add to this.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is an amendment that was unanimously recommended to you all by the Planning Commission to modify our temporary use permits. It's an issue that came up with regard to one of the new developments. We do not have the ability currently in our zoning ordinance to allow them to set up a model home and an office in the development for the purposes of Showing the homes and conducting the sale, that's generally accepted in other jurisdictions. We don't have such a provision. That's just, frankly, something that I don't think has ever been asked here. So the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed amendment and recommended unanimously to you all to approve allowing that as one of our temporary uses. Again, we generally don't allow commercial use, particularly in a residential zoning district, so it would be a temporary use permit that would have an expiration on it.

glad to answer any questions if you have any questions city manager Ryan Morton any comments ready to cast our vote that's the vote anyone care to change their vote would you tally the votes please motion passes seven to zero Item 2.5, discuss and probably take action on Orders 26-30 on first reading and Orders amending the fiscal year 2027 annual budget for the City of Springfield by amending certain general fund and utility fund operating budgets. I have a motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Alderman Gregg. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, are we ready to vote? Let's cast our vote. Anyone care to change their vote? Could you tally the votes please?

Motion passes 7 to 0.

Item 2.6, discuss and properly take action on ordinance 26-31 on first reading and ordinance amending title 5 of chapter 6 of the Springfield Municipal Code relative to developer credits for system development charges. We have a motion by Alderman Coleman, second by Alderman Hubbard. City Manager Ryan Martin, I believe you have something to add to this.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a proposed ordinance. We have our first discussion about developer credits as it pertains to our system development charges, which are allowed when there are contributions made towards the particular system, whether it be transportation system or a fire or whatever the case may be. And so in reviewing that, the city engineer and I and the city attorney, the language, it was probably not written as clearly as it could have been or should have been. And it's one of those things we really don't know until a situation comes up, right? So what we're proposing to you all tonight is to add, make it complete, the language that's in there. That's highlighted on the first paragraph in your packet in the exhibit. as well as adding credit or reimbursement. A credit would come first, a reimbursement would come later. Our previous language did not account for the fact that the improvements might not be made at the time of the permit being issued. So that would require a reimbursement to be made. So we're adding that language just to make sure it's clear and understandable by all who interpret and apply the ordinance.

Any questions? Any comments?

Mayor, if I may, I would like to kind of address the board as well. I have been approached, I'm sure many of you have also spoken with some developers who have raised some concerns on the commercial impact fees. And I'm not sure if this modification of language was intended to solve that problem or if we still need to have that conversation.

It solves a different issue.

It solves a different issue. OK. So I did want to bring to the board kind of the conversation and taking a look at our impact fees as it pertains specifically to commercial properties. I believe Ryan passed out the copy of the ordinance 22-10 to everyone. And as an example, if you look on page five, The current impact fees for commercial space is pretty high and it's based on your size. So how I understand this, and Ryan I know you can explain things more eloquently than me so feel free to correct me or clarify. But for a larger box store, maybe a Publix or even a TJ Maxx or some kind of store that's basically just a box holding space and selling goods, it's pretty cost prohibitive for them to develop existing buildings here with our current impact fee schedule. So, and given kind of the situation with our economy and also the goal of developing business here, I wanted to propose the board discussing a modification or maybe a reduction or elimination of the fees on the commercial property specifically. I will note that the fees we're talking about are general government, fire, police, transportation. They are not water. So, for example, if you have unit that that's all based on use and so that's separately tabulated on here and I just think that this is something that we should kind of consider because I know everyone has an interest in seeing good development in the city and I don't want our impact fees to be inhibiting that and I think that from my discussion with mr. Martin we have to do this by group so we can't make exceptions it has to apply to all commercial or all residential and so my proposal would be just to take a look at the commercial specifically now please clarify one thing it's

One thing that I want to make, on page five of the ordinance, most of you were here when we conducted the system development charge study. That was the maximum allowable charges on page five. So that's not what we have in place. That's the maximum allowable that the study said that you all could institute if you so chose. You did not choose to do that. What you chose to do on page six is phase that in on September 1st, 2022 with 25% of those totals. And then on page seven, you'll see the, uh, the final effective adoption of one, one 2023, which was 50% of the maximum. So, uh, the commercial fee, you can see those categories. Alderman Holloman was pointing out. So the total of the general government, just so we're following the same categories, 512, fires 1147, police 748, transportation 3529 for a total non-utility system development fee of $5,935 per 1,000 square feet. So I wanted to make sure everybody was looking at the same page as you all discussed. And Mayor, that's the only clarification I had to add.

Any questions? Any comments?

I do have, I'm trying to understand what Ordinance 2210 that you just brought up has to do with the ordinance that we have in front of us.

The ordinance we have in front of us is modifying a portion of this. Okay, so this is the old, I see this is the old ordinance.

And that's the whole thing. What you have in your packet is a portion of that that's being modified. This is the whole thing in context. Okay.

And just to kind of thank you, Ryan, for directing me more clearly to the correct page on this. But as you can see, for a commercial office space, if it's per 1,000 square feet, the number gets a lot bigger the larger the box store would be. And so that can kind of put a damper on development. So I think it's worth our board reconsidering that and taking a look at it.

I can't quite hear. Sir, you're talking about reducing the impact fees? I know what you're asking.

Yes, sir. First, specifically commercial properties. So as I understand, I think, I mean, I'm sure there would be those who would love to see a reduction on the residential, but I think that the reasons of this board discussed and voted on a couple years ago those things still stand I think that the impact on the commercial is just we're seeing it play out a little bit more and it's I think a hampering growth of it and I think that with an adjustment to those fees we can still accomplish what we're needing to in order to offset some of the development that we're attracting but still attract development that the city wouldn't like

So I've been approached also about maybe reduce some impact fees on residential fees.

Most of the builders that I have been associated with have not complained about the residential. They're just passing it along in the sale of the property. Mr. Mohler has talked to me about the commercial side of it and I have understood some of what he's saying when we're talking about a public sized store but in what you're saying are you asking for this to be included in 2.6 or is this a total different

I'm not seeing where they're in relation to one another.

They're the same ordinance, and I had asked that it be put on the agenda. So it's not in a separate ticket item, so I was just kind of attaching it here. But if we need to ask for it to come back next month, it is the same ordinance, but it is technically a separate item.

If I may, because we're opening Title V with an ordinance here, that's the reason that the discussion, it would be an amendment to this ordinance that's proposed before you tonight if one were to be made. So the ordinance already affects the... Ordinance, Title V, as it relates to Ordinance 22-10. So anything that you all, that's why instead of creating two separate agenda items, we put it in one when Alderman Holloman said she would like for this to be placed on the agenda. It'll coincide with the proposed ordinance that you have before you tonight if one is amended, since it already affects the same section of the Municipal Code.

So are you asking for discussion or are you making an amendment?

Well I guess I'm seeking discussion because at this point I wasn't aware what the rest of the board would like. I think it's worth discussing and I kind of ran some numbers and figures and I think a significant reduction in commercial would be appropriate. And again I'm limiting it to commercial because that's really where I my discussions that I've seen the issue but I again I I haven't heard from the rest of the board to know what everyone else thinks to make it appropriate whether we want to eliminate the fees as to commercial specifically or just reduce so I don't know that I'm ready to make a motion without hearing from everyone else to kind of from what I'm hearing several commercial developers they want a reduction

They feel that it would be a wise thing, Mr. Governor, to do so.

So... Senator Manager, have you looked at the impact on this?

So the way I would look at the discussion to be framed, I would recommend you all to look at the discussion to be framed. It's kind of the way you originally did this back in 2022. We had our maximum allowable, which is our ceiling, right? And then you all decided to phase that in as a percentage basis. I would stay within, if you all have the desire or appetite to make a change, I would recommend viewing that through the same lens of a percentage of the maximum. right. Now Alderman Trotter if you're asking about the impact of what that would be from a funding standpoint I don't know that we would know because we don't know what commercial development lies ahead right so I don't know how to how to you know quantify that particular plus I don't know what if we're talking about dropping it by percent or dropping it by 40 percent right and we just it would depend on the nature of the decrease.

But according to what we did in, you said, 2022?

Yes, sir.

We could have set the fee at $11,871. Correct. But we set the fee at $5,935. Correct. Over two instances. Phased it in at 25% and then 50%. But in the commercial and in the residential part of this, was the whole design not put out there for the reason to not put the burden on current city residents that have been here for years as far as infrastructure going forward, both residential and commercial. My understanding of it is, and I may be wrong, we cannot, any impact fee that is collected, for commercial or residential has to be used in new construction. Is that correct? That's correct. We can't collect a residential impact fee on a new subdivision and take that money and go out to Stonegate and redo something out there. Is that correct? Repave the road or repair a sidewalk or anything like that. We cannot. We can do it in a new area. So that was the whole... designed behind these fees not to put all the liability on current residents that have been here for years that may not would be.

And if I may, to add to that, I, in my mind, see a distinction between, again, the residential and commercial because the commercial benefits not just the new residents but also the existing residents for a year, whereas the residential primarily, you know, having a new home built primarily benefits the resident that's going to be living in the home. so again i just that's why i bring this up because i think that when we adopted the percent basing we did it across the board so residential commercial industrial all of it is at i believe 50 of the recommendation is that correct the percentage that's correct 50 except for wastewater so and but well you're talking about just not talking about wastewater yeah wastewater was adopted at 100 but you're talking about non-utility yes sir So I think that in speaking with Ryan, what we can do that I think would be, as he said, a sound way to frame it is simply looking at it by category and then by percentage. So one could say, for example, modify the commercial percentage adopted without modifying the other ones, which is what I was proposing. you'd want that brought back down to 25% I think that I think that's a good starting place and I think that I mean I know there were some who like to go lower but I think that going back down to 25% would make a significant impact on on the bottom line and maybe encourage more commercial development so from the commercial developers that you have talked to 25% Well, I haven't talked to them about specific numbers, to be fair. I think that, of course, they're looking at, you know, if they're developing, either they're developing for speculation or developing for a specific person in mind. And, again, when we're talking about larger spaces, that's a lot of money up front that they're having to invest before they're even getting rent to come back. So I think that there's still probably a great concern on that dollar amount. But I'm hopeful that any amount of modification would be beneficial. I'm happy to bring this back to the board and have more discussion if that would be appropriate and kind of come back with a more concrete proposed number if the board would be open to that coming back on next month's agenda.

My comment would be that I'm not opposed to hearing different proposal but I don't know that I'm ready to do it tonight in this in this 2.6 I think we need some more data and some more information as to what we're looking at and the longevity of how it's going to affect us because if we on these commercial impact fees if we lower them then that's going to lower the available money going forward to keep the infrastructure up, which is going to inadvertently put it back on the everyday citizen of Springfield and property taxes and that form if we have a problem in that area. Is that right or not? Am I saying that correctly?

Yes, sir. I mean, if we're looking at it from just a baseline, the needs of the city won't change, right? The growth will be the growth and the needs won't change. The funding mechanisms we had, certainly, and that's the reason what you referenced earlier, the reason that we conducted this study, I believe we started in 2021, was because in our discussion at our strategic planning or at our work session, it was, hey, how do we take the pressure off of sewer rates, wastewater rates, or taxes and that sort of thing? And so this was the mechanism by which other jurisdictions have that we had not adopted. We had set on a path to adopt it 25 years ago and didn't, which is the reason the ceiling came back so high, right? The ceiling came back extremely high because we were – behind on that. And so you all chose, rightfully so, not to go for the ceiling there, which I think helped tremendously. But yes, that burden is going to be split between the taxpayers and the ratepayers or the development, right? And so the decision that you all have to make is how do we want that burden split?

would just for myself I would rather see some more data as far as what our surrounding communities are charging where we are in reference to them and the impact fees or the system development fees that are being charged I'm not opposed to looking at it but I don't know that I'm ready to do anything with it tonight

I'm happy to gather some data. And I don't know if the city wants to gather some data as well. Just, OK. But yeah, I think if it's agreeable, just kind of bring it back up for discussion. We can gather more information.

That's agreeable with me. It's all fair. Thank you.

And I'd like to hear from the board what specifically, what data you would like for us and my staff to gather over the next month, if you don't mind. I want to make sure that when we come back next month, we bring what's helpful, right? So other jurisdictions, one thing that I've heard is that, did I hear that correctly?

What our other areas are doing, commercial-wise.

Comparable.

Because what we're talking about now is strictly commercial, is that right? Yes. Okay. what they're comparable.

She's talking 25%. I'd like to know some numbers at that 25%.

So, Mr. Gregg, we could run some growth projections based on some anticipated commercial growth and then show the difference between the current 50% level and 25% level. That would be something that would be beneficial. Okay. I think so. Well, you have a motion and a second on the ordinance that's proposed, which I don't think has that word here. No one has expressed it.

It's a story. I mean, I'd be curious to see.

You'll take a vote on that.

I don't want to do any of that. You've got a discussion.

We'll come back with that. So am I supposed to discuss it later? Yeah. I'm not saying before you look at it.

So 25 seems good. Thank you very much.

This will be back in the second reading next month, I guess. We'll come back with the other information next month. It'll be back next month regardless.

Are we all aware where we are now?

Voting on 2.6 tonight, we're just voting on this wording change.

Just the wording change on the developer credits. Then we'll come back and address this other. Yes, sir. Do you, and this is the pleasure of the board, do you want this in a separate agenda item next month? Because we will be back with this particular item on second reading next month. I would rather see it in a separate item myself. Okay. Then we will separate that out next month.

We ready to vote? Yes. Let's cast our vote. Anyone care to change their vote?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Moving to our administrative portion of our agenda, item 3.1, discuss and properly take action on the adjustment of the retail electric rates due to the wholesale fuel cost adjustment by the Tennessee Valley Authority. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard, a second by Vice Mayor Harris, Electric Department Director, Mr. Terry Richner, what do you have for us, sir? Any questions or comments? If not, let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 3.2, discuss and possibly take action on the adjustment of the monthly gas rates. We have a motion by Alderman Bradley, second by Alderman Gregg. The gas department director, Mr. Benji Davis, what do you have for us?

Rates on average increase of 90%.

Any questions or comments? I heard an ouch somewhere. Hearing none, are we ready to vote? Let's cast our vote. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 3.3, discuss and possibly take action on a master services agreement with OHM Advisors for Engineering Services for the Wastewater Department. We have a motion by Alderman Holliman, a second by Alderman Trotter. Any questions or comments? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 3.4, discuss and properly take action on task order number one with OHM advisors for sewer modeling. We have a motion by Alderman Holloman, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, let's cast our vote. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 3.5, discuss and properly take action on paving contract with Crown Paving LLC of Greenbrier, Tennessee. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Alderman Holloman. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 3.6, discuss and possibly take action on a concrete contract with Justice Fans, LLC, of Pleasant View, Tennessee. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard, a second by Alderman Gregg. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

item 3.7 discuss and possibly take action on a patching contract with justin fans llc at pleasant view tennessee we have a motion by alderman holloman a second by alderman hubbard any questions or comments hearing none let's cast our votes anyone care to change their vote tally the votes please.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Item 3.8 discuss and possibly take action on an emergency purchase ratification for a sanitation refuge truck repair in the amount of forty six thousand nine hundred and eight dollars and seventy one cents. We have a motion by Alderman Trotter second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions? Comments? Hearing none, let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their votes? Would you tally the votes please?

Motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you. Item 3.9, discuss and possibly take action on an extension agreement with medical analysis for the operation and management of the employee health clinic. I have a motion by Alderman Hubbard. Second by Alderman Gregg. I think City Manager Ron Martin, you have something to add to that?

Yes, sir. So we are asking for you all to approve the renewal of the clinic agreement tonight. The Employee Health Clinic, as you know, has been wildly successful. And so that contract has expired, the original contract. And what we are asking for you all to do tonight is approve the renewal agreement contingent upon the attorneys to work out the final language. So what you have before you is essentially the terms of the renewal. There's a couple of terms that are in the air still, particularly being that of what would happen in a future renewal and any increased clauses that does not affect the agreement, the one year renewal that you all are approving today or the FY27 budget. We already knew what the FY27 cost would be, which is an increase because of the addition of a second provider, which is needed. But we are asking for you all to approve a renewal of that. I hope you all have been able to benefit from it. I know our employees have. We certainly use it organizationally for our pre-employment physicals and drug screens and workers' comp visits and that sort of thing. I say often it's probably one of the best things we've ever done for our employees. We've hit some bumps in the road over the last year or so with the clinic. I think adding a second provider will be beneficial to allowing more employees to get in and be seen. One of the unanticipated things that happened is that because of the primary care vacuum that happened here about the time we opened the clinic or shortly before we opened the clinic, A lot of our employees turned that into their primary care. And so this clinic is heavily relied upon by our employees, by many of our employees, for their day-to-day medical care.

Excellent. Any questions? Any comments? Hearing none, let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their votes? Tally the votes, please.

Motion passes 7-0.

Item 3.10, discuss and possibly take action on the city's sidewalk maintenance regulations. We have a motion.

Wait.

Can you take it verbally, Kim?

Yeah, I can do it.

Who's making the motion? I'll motion. I'll second.

Any questions? Any comments?

Well, I know I'll comment if I may. This is something that you all heard Ms. Allen speak on earlier and has come up many times in my ward. And I know Robin Bradley has heard about this as well. We have some really difficult sidewalk issues in terms of walkability in the downtown Springfield area. And I've unfortunately heard from numerous people Not just Miss Allen, but probably half a dozen people who have fallen or been injured. Currently, the sidewalk ordinance has the responsibility for maintaining sidewalks on the homeowner. Many people, I think, don't realize that. I think it's a pretty significant cost barrier to changing it. It's a concern. I don't have an answer, but I wanted to raise the issue with this board. I think that having the walkability of the sidewalks in our community is a huge benefit across the city. So I think it's something that's important to this board.

Can I ask the city manager, can you give us a little history of when we quit doing this and why we quit doing this? What time we quit maintaining sidewalks?

So best that I know, if you look in your packet, you will see that... and I've pulled the entire sidewalk regulations for you, you will see that this iteration originated prior to the 1981 code. So the legislative history there, section 16-301 was formerly 12-301 in the previous code. The city did a municipal code overhaul in 1981, and so things were renumbered and reorganized. What I can tell you, Alderman Bradley, is prior tonight, it's been around longer than 45 years.

So what was David Smith doing for the city when he was repairing sidewalks?

Now, nothing precludes the city from repairing. We still repair sidewalks. We still replace some sidewalks we do are responsible for, particularly downtown because that falls within, that is not privately owned property, right? So there are some sidewalks that we own and we are required to maintain as part of the streetscape or part of the greenway. We also do ADA crosswalks. So we do a lot of ADA work on crosswalks and intersections, and we've always done that. And the ordinance has always provided for that.

So you're telling me since 1981, we have required citizens to take care of the sidewalk in front of their home?

I'm telling you, before 1981, the cities had that in place. But in 1980, we know that this iteration... was existed prior to nineteen eighty one because this iteration was adopted in the eighty one code but there's a citation there that references this same regulation in a different organizational fashion prior to eighty one so i have i do not know frankly alderman bradley how long how far that goes back well now we have the greenways and everything's so ultra connected from downtown to garner to travis price

I see it as a public safety issue. I personally think it's the city's responsibility to keep safe sidewalks available for its citizens. It seems like there would be a natural concurrence for a city to maintain its sidewalks. That's where I'm coming from.

What about... The neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks.

I knew you were going to say that, and we don't have any sidewalks. They need sidewalks, too. I think everybody ought to have sidewalks. I don't think it's a this or that.

We've never had sidewalks.

Well, and I think that's sad, and I'm sorry for that. But in the meantime, the sidewalks that we do have are crumbling, and people are falling.

And I'm for repairing sidewalks, but people at Ward 2 have been asking for sidewalks at South Manchester MLK for years before I became Alderman.

understand I vote yes for that bring that to the board yeah we have to take care of our citizens but under this present structure that it's under is that not what most cities and counties operate under the same thing there are so quite a few cities in and I'm

And I have a little bit of a list here. So of the cities that we kind of cursorily searched, and this is from when it came up before, and we kind of glanced at it again because I think we had this discussion a few years ago. Lebanon, Columbia, Gallatin, Murfreesboro, Portland, Memphis. Memphis does a huge, used to do at least a big awareness campaign for their ordinance. Germantown. Quite a few cities have almost the exact same language, so what I suspect, back to your point, is that there was a model ordinance written at some point in time, maybe in the 60s, and a lot of cities adopted it. Now, there are some cities that do have either a sidewalk fund that residents pay into or do fund it through property taxes. Hendersonville, Brentwood, Franklin, those three I know for sure, but when we check, I believe they take care of their own, the city takes care of, the city government takes care of the sidewalks out of the budget as far as maintenance and repair. But a lot of the cities, particularly the older county seat cities in Middle Tennessee, have the same exact, or at least at one point in time, had the same exact language that we do.

But we don't think they still have them, though.

I'm sorry.

You said they did still have them. They still do.

They still do. Most of these still do as of today.

I mean, I'm amicable for a compromise whether we have a – this is the city. We currently have an X amount of dollars we spend for demolition. And when that money is gone, we quit for that year, my understanding. We have dollars, and when we run out, we quit.

Are you talking about for, like, slum clearance or condemned property? Yeah, correct. We do. We generally have a placeholder in the budget in case we need to do. Now, it's generally just that, and we haven't used it in a few years, but it's about $20,000, I think. And whenever we've had to demolish something, generally we have to do a budget amendment because it costs more than $20,000. Right. But it's more of a placeholder in case we had to do something on an emergency basis.

Even if the city set up a fund, and for the most damaged ones where citizens could pay maybe potential, they pay $20,000. Throwing this out there, I'm spitballing here. We pay half, the city pays half, the resident pays half. It has to be something more amicable than putting it straight on all of the citizens. Particularly, I want to reemphasize this, because of how everything connects on the Greenway now and in the historic district, it goes all the way over. I mean, it'd be like not taking care of the sidewalks going to the park. It's a similar situation.

Mayor, I have two questions, I guess, and I don't know that the answer is readily apparent, but I am curious if the city were to consider taking on responsibility, what that cost would be, right? Because obviously that's a cost, so I don't know what it would be. The second question I would have is assuming that we don't significantly change the existing ordinance, how can we address this? Because it is getting to a point there are some sidewalks that are particularly worse than others. And again, I have had multiple people contact me about having falls or having issues with this. So I think that I don't love being the bad guy of trying to beat on people and make them fix the sidewalk, but I think that the issue's there and we need to figure out a way to address it, if not by having the city repair them ourselves and we need to figure out a way to effectively address the issue. And I don't know what that is, but I'm just curious.

Yeah, so a couple of things. I do have a number for you. So we have approximately 39, just shy of 40 miles of sidewalk in the city. The last update, and I'm not sure how recent this update from Mr. Moore is, 2019. pre-COVID, maybe one time when it came up before. The estimate to get everything up to ADA, existing sidewalks, ramps, obstructions, crosswalks, everything, was $16 million. I didn't say we had to do it all in one night.

I'm just saying.

That was a 2019 estimate, so Ms. Hallman, you can probably assume that's gone up. We all know the wastewater. 50% at this point. So I would say you're safely looking between $20 and $25 million. So then the question becomes, and of course, as a staff, we'll do whatever the will of the board is as far as you tell us what you want to do with sidewalks, and that's what we'll carry out. How much would you then want to bite off, if you will, in a year if there's about $20 million across the city? Now, the flip side of that is, on the enforcement side, yes, we have done some enforcement, I think, a couple of years ago. That might have been the last time this came up and we did some enforcement. Quite a few property owners fix their sidewalks and fix those. There's some enforcement that needs to be done again. I would encourage folks to, we do not have a sidewalk patrolman or patrol person. I don't have anyone that goes out and specifically inspects. sidewalks in residential areas. So we do appreciate the tips that come along when someone lets us know where there is an issue so we can go address it with that property owner.

It is difficult. I spoke with someone who did have a fall and she did not want to disclose where because it feels like tattling on her neighbors. I'm just throwing that out there. I wish there was an easier situation.

I understand. It's a legitimate expense. I mean, you take off Especially if you get a young couple that's bought a house and they're doing all they can do to pay a monthly mortgage. And then the sidewalk's got to be fixed. But then on the same note, it will be a very expensive thing for the city to take.

I feel we've been remiss by letting us go this far.

I would be curious, and I don't know if this is an easy number to, but assuming hypothetically that sidewalks were fixed, what does annual maintenance look like? Because I understand that they're in such a, perhaps, disarray at this point. There's a lot of work to be done. But if you had them in a pretty good working order, I mean, what would the cost be to kind of keep them that way? And that's probably not something you know offhand.

Just an estimate. I would say if you magically replaced all of the sidewalk in the city that needed to be replaced overnight and fixed everything, you're still probably looking at... $250,000 to $300,000. We already budget, I believe, $50,000 a year for the work that we do, the ADA crosswalks, because that's something that we do evaluate frequently are the crosswalks, where the intersections happen, and make sure that when those tear up leading into the crosswalk and the intersection that we do fix that. We do not, in which the ordinance... that the board passed however many years ago provides for, does not preclude the city from solving those problems. And that's where we do, when it's particularly leading out into the right of way, we view that as a safety issue that we just take care of, right? And we budget about $50,000 annually for that expense. So if you're talking about regular sidewalk maintenance, you're probably, $250,000 to $500,000 a year might take care of it. but that might not get everything done in a year, right? You're talking about 40 miles of sidewalk and you're talking about tree roots and you're talking about, um, car, you know, people, you know, or cars hitting curbs that crack and think a lot of things that can happen to a sidewalk and deterioration over time.

Have we in the cities that do have some maintenance of their sidewalks, are they doing the entire city? Are they taking certain parts of the city?

they're targeting to maintain themselves my understanding is they budget a certain amount per year right so so so that doesn't again that doesn't alleviate the phone calls that you would get because then the phone calls that you get are why are they fixing over on that side of town instead of this side of town and and you know yeah i think the concern primarily that we're having is that right now nothing's really getting done because most people are not correct

Well, I am open to what the board would consider and perhaps the guidance that you and Clayton can provide from just your experience handling this. I think that personally and on behalf of my ward, I would like to see the city put maybe more effort into it. If we can't fix all of it, which I understand, perhaps we can target and set aside some money each year to be more aggressive. with correcting some of the worse offenders so that we can kind of get these things in line. And also encouraging homeowners, again, and particularly where there are bad sidewalks, to get those fixed.

I empathize with your argument. But suppose you live in a subdivision that was cut out and no sidewalks. and you have to watch your people walk in the streets. And it was safe until five or six or seven years ago. Now we got speeders, so it's really not safe for those folks who have to walk in the streets. I'm talking about Rose Hill.

Are you talking about South Main?

No, I'm talking about Rose Hill.

Okay.

And, you know, it bothers me. So I empathize with what you're saying, but I kind of have an older neighborhood, too.

Well, to be clear, I don't have any sidewalks in my neighborhood, either. So, I mean, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about safety. I know what you're saying. I have a question, because I'm now on the newest board member, and I'm learning every time we have a meeting. We have impact fees that we just talked about, and we just talked about tweaking them. We can't use impact fees to fix sidewalks.

No, ma'am.

Why not? They're all tagged to specific things on growing and growth.

So it used to be on new sidewalks? I'm sorry? That's what we're doing. We're building a new sidewalk.

Impact fees by law are allowed to only be used for growth-related expense, and so you can't repair anything essentially with an impact fee. That's kind of one of those. For instance, just to give you an example, on the wastewater treatment plant, we had a 3.4 million gallon per day plant. We're building a 7 million gallon per day plant, so we're doubling the size. We can basically essentially use our impact fees if we had enough, which we don't. But say we had... impact fees that would cover the whole thing, we could only use it for 50% of the cost because it's the growth-related aspects of the new plant, not the original three. We couldn't use it for the original 3.4 million gallons per day. Same with the sidewalk. You can't use impact fees to repair a sidewalk. You could, however, use impact fees to install a new one.

Does the Greenway fall under that category? Does the Greenway not fall under the impact fee to maintain this? To do that?

You can't use impact fees for maintenance of your current infrastructure. It's for new infrastructure and debt-related expenses.

I'm going to play semantics here. I know y'all are both the attorneys, but if we're tearing up an old sidewalk and putting a new sidewalk in, that's new construction. I mean...

New construction would be if you went into Indian Hills and put in sidewalks.

That's correct. We're talking semantics now.

That part would be new construction, but to go down on Walnut Street and take up a piece and replace that, that's repair.

New construction, if you would go from Josephine Street all the way back to Industrial Drive on Rose Hill, you'd have to put some sidewalks. It really bothers me, okay, when we get to talking about sidewalks, and I've been living without sidewalks for 54 years.

I'm just going to give an opinion of mine that if we change this from the present way that it's laid out, we're going to open up a floodgate that we're not going to be able to handle financially. So I would rather maybe just look at some type of funding put into the budget each year that would be somewhat of a city assistance to the homeowner where some of that cost is shared but yet again it's going to be a certain amount like you talked about that if it goes above that each year then you know we're out of money for that year some type of assistance program to help them i mean i totally see where you're coming from it's it's not cheap to do anything anymore And I imagine by placing a sidewalk in front of somebody's house, I would think that would be several thousands of dollars. I don't know that, but I don't know what it would be, but maybe if we had some funding in the budget that they would apply and there would be some type of city assistance.

If you lowered that commercial impact fee to 25%, could you designate 2% for a sidewalk fund? But it's just new construction structure.

But not if we change the wording, though, right? Is it written in some law that we can't ever go back to change it?

It's a state law. It's a statute? Yes. That would be your friend's question.

My best friend.

Mayor, I ran a calculation. If, say, you wanted to set aside around a million dollars or so for sidewalk maintenance and repair, you would be looking at about, on a $300,000 home, you'd be looking at about $112.50 in a property tax increase on a $300,000 home. So, Mayor, I think some of the repairs that we've seen, and the repairs vary. Obviously, in the historic district, you're talking about the oldest sidewalks for miles, right? I mean, because of the old nature of those homes and when those sidewalks are put in. That being the exception, right, rather than the rule, well, let's just talk about that for a second. Because they're not all created equally, right? All sidewalk issues aren't created equally. You have the historic district, which has sidewalks that needed repair 40 years ago, right? At least 40 years ago to try to salvage anything. Now you're basically having to go in because you're way out of, you have to go in and redo everything. Then you have sidewalks where maybe a tree root has bucked it up and it needs to be sanded down, right? Or you have cracks that need to be filled, right? Where it's crumbling, right? So you reseal it and fill in cracks. You're talking about most of our sidewalk repairs in the city For a homeowner, I would say would be a couple of hundred to a few hundred dollars, right? Which is expensive. Don't get me wrong. I mean, I'm not diminishing the significance of the expense. Except for folks in the historic district, which probably have to put in a whole new sidewalk, right? Exactly. Because there's no recovering there. But aside from that, that being the exception, because also the other issue you're going to have is we have right out our front door here on North Main, you have sidewalks that are going down the street that have utility poles sitting in the middle of them. And so you have utility relocation expense, which is wildly expensive, to get those in compliance if we were responsible for it. So a lot of issues that existed because of our historic nature, a lot of issues that existed prior to almost any regulation, certainly before something like ADA or before anything else municipal code-wise existed. Really, the issue before the board, if you're talking about $112.50 for a $300,000 home, a tax-assessed home, do you want every homeowner to pay $112.50 for everybody else's sidewalks? or do you want the individuals to pay a few hundred dollars once, or in the extreme cases, a couple of thousand dollars once, right, for their sidewalk, right? So that's really, just to help frame the discussion of kind of the fork in the road that I hear from the board is how do you, do you want the collective to pay for, do you want everybody to share in the cost for everybody's sidewalks, for the sidewalks collectively, which is what I heard from Alderman Bradley, the collective being responsible. Because it's not, just to be clear, we're not talking about the city, we're not talking about the city paying for anything, right? Taxpayers are paying for it. They're either paying for their own or they're paying for everybody else's, right? It's not a, we don't, there's not a bucket of money. You all know we just passed a very thinly balanced budget, right? And that was, and so... to add an additional expense of this nature, we're not talking about the homeowners are now off the hook from repairing sidewalks. They're still on the hook. They're still, because they're going to be on the hook now through their property taxes versus through their own hiring of someone to repair sidewalks. So as I said earlier, the staff will execute whatever the will of the board is, and we're good. I just want to make sure we understand that it's still going to affect the citizens and property owners regardless of the route that we choose. Sure.

But to clarify, you say their sidewalk, like it's theirs, and once they fix it, nobody else can walk on it. So when you choose that terminology, their sidewalk, you're acting like nobody else is going to get to use that sidewalk once they repair it. I want to make it abundantly clear that these are for everybody, especially with the connection of the greenways through the historic district.

Sure, and I was framing that through the lens of the current ordinance, which talks about the abutting property owner being responsible for the immediate adjacent sidewalk.

I was going to just kind of piggyback a little bit on that to say, you know, part of the issue is that these sidewalks do benefit everyone. And I know people who come from farther out and they drive in and park in the historic districts where they can walk and use the sidewalks, which is wonderful. Happy to have them. I had another person when I explained that the sidewalks were their responsibility, they said, well, I'm just going to take my sidewalk up so no one can walk across my yard. And I think that that's, I mean, this is a problem that no one's going to see 100% eye to eye on, but I do think that For my two sons, I think it's a benefit to everyone to have them. I would love us to figure out a way. I liked your suggestion, Alderman Harris, of maybe setting aside some funds where people could apply and maybe it's needs-based where those who actually do have more need for assistance could have that. But I don't want to put a huge burden on taxpayers. I think sometimes maybe starting small and meeting in the middle. Absolutely. I think it's a benefit to our whole community to have these sidewalks. That's my two cents.

Mayor, if I can clarify, I did not mean, intend to, no one could use another sidewalk. What I was trying to convey there is that you're, right now, property owners are financially responsible for this section of sidewalk in front of their home, right? Sure.

And there have been some other residents who have taken that, this is my sidewalk, and have extended their yard and put a fence up. And there are several places in the historic district that it's my sidewalk I'm responsible for. and here's how I'm going to be responsible for it. I'm going to make you have to walk out in the street and go around.

The inconsistency is... Again, I empathize with your argument, but we are being victimized by poor planning for how they laid this city out. And like I said, with the Rose Hill subdivision, they just threw houses up there. Forget about sidewalks. South Main, I hear your brother say, and a few other portions of, well, Southside, Southside.

Absolutely.

You know, and so, you know, it's, we're suffering from neglect and poor planning years ago.

Well, now we have a chance to address it and remedy it.

And that's what we've got to be sensitive to, because we're correcting something that happened years ago with poor planning.

Thanks, y'all, for at least listening to the conversation and taking this under advisement. I mean, I think I would like to have some money come back.

Sir?

Some information about the cost. I mean, you've got the cost numbers. Maybe we can get together and see if there is a program we could put together that would help subsidize, if nothing else, start small, or see what that fund, if there's any will on the board to even have a fund to help repair some of these, if that's even the will of the board, or if they want to do where we, I mean, I'm not hearing any besides us.

I have a question for Clayton. How long should a sidewalk last?

Really? Because it's concrete. But really, I don't think it does.

You have just trees growing and ice forms and weather and accidents.

Kind of like streets.

Yeah.

I'd say 50 is probably more. But sometimes they don't. What's going on and what's the weather and what's around it? how well it was poured in the first place absolutely i'm sure there's a lot of people there that probably cannot afford to do their sidewalks but i'm also sure that there's a lot of people that could go out there in that 50 foot most of those lots are 50 foot wide that could fix and i'm not saying tear them all up fix the problem patch do whatever they have to do in order to make it usable if they would be willing to do that and the mention of enforcement some people aren't going to do anything until they're forced to do that so where are we i would be in favor of

trying to set aside a certain amount of money i don't know not a million dollars but something that we could possibly live with to do some sidewalk maintenance i think that would be fair and maybe eliminate the problems that make the sidewalks fail to begin with the trees and the water runoff and all those things or people backing trucks over them or all those kind of things. There's a lot of things that happen to sidewalks. They catch it, you know. It's a hard life. But then some of them, you know, you have a little foot traffic and that's it. Back in the day, people walked a whole lot more. And the sidewalks were much more necessary. You walk to the store, you walk to school, you walk down to see your neighbor. Now everybody's not as much, but people are certainly walking the greenways. So your sidewalks and your greenways, I think we need to kind of look at those possibilities, what kind of condition they're in.

So there's nothing we're voting on tonight about this.

Your greenway is in good shape. Because I've policed them about three or four times a week. So the greenways are in good shape. Thank you, brother.

I haven't heard of a motion, Vice Mayor Harris. So to your question, I don't think there's anything to... Do we need to make a motion to request that the city come back?

Or is that something we can ask without a motion?

Sure. No, we can come back. I would ask for a little more guidance on some parameters surrounding that sort of what the, I mean, are we, would we be looking at setting aside a fund? And I'm not sure I'm going to think out loud. I'm looking at the city attorney, so I hope I don't get in trouble for this. Something along the lines of an assistance, a sidewalk repair and maintenance assistance fund that is need-based. So maybe with an income-based limit and maybe for elderly folks over a certain age, like that qualify? Or are you talking about just at large? Kind of give us some direction there. Can I ask a question?

Are we legal to, let's say if... John Doe's living on Walnut Street, and his sidewalk needs to be repaired, and it's been determined that it needs to be repaired, that he cannot receive some type of property tax refund to help repair that, just on that certain piece of property. We'd be allowed to do something like that?

Who would refund that?

Well, I mean, or a discount of their property tax to cover that cost. I don't think that, I mean, because we're going to get into this situation that we've got a lot of places in the historic district that needs to be repaired, but yet it's going to be used with the whole city's taxpayer money to do that, if the city puts anything into it. So there's going to be some problems with other residents, I would think. I'm just thinking out loud, but I would think.

James Sullivan would argue, king's drive, no sidewalks, period. That's where I live. So if we go spend some taxpayer money about rebuilding, Look at Kings Drive. I empathize with the historic district, but there's a lot of subdivisions in this town, okay, that don't have sidewalks.

I understand that.

And see, so, you know, if we're going to consider a fund to patch up what's in the historic district, I also consider... putting some sidewalks in those other places, okay? Kind of share the wealth.

I've been here a year and a half and I've never heard you bring up one thing about sidewalks. Not since I've been here.

I would add just that the sidewalk, I don't think it's limited to historic.

I'm just saying, you can do it too. You're crying about one section of town So I'm letting you know about the other section of the towns who have been putting up with this for a long time. It's called neglect.

But in the other sections that do not presently have sidewalks.

That's what I'm saying.

If sidewalks were to be put in, impact fee money could be used for that. Yes. Because that's new development. So that is two totally separate issues. They could be used if you decided to do it. So what guidance do you need, Mr. Marks? Yes.

If there's a desire, I've heard from many board members that there's maybe a desire to look at something, particularly from Alderman Holloman. She's asking to bring back a proposal for a fund of some sort, but I'm also hearing that from this end that there may not be an appetite for a fund because that's inequitable to for the taxpayers to fix sidewalks for folks that already had sidewalks when there's a lot of folks that don't have sidewalks. So really, Vice Mayor Harris, we may need to vote on something because we've got to have a clear direction from the board one way or the other for us to be able to do something.

There may be some legal in this also as to what we can do and not do. Mayor, it just so happens our city attorney is raising her hand to be recognized.

Oh, Christy?

So one thing that I would say is, A, we probably need to do a little research to see if we can use tax dollars to make these repairs through a through a subsidy. Okay, that would be the first thing. The next item that is going off in my brain is let's say that we a sidewalk is beyond repair and let's say that it's in the historic district and it's a brick sidewalk and that's what we want to put back but that doesn't necessarily comply with what we're doing we're going to need some parameters of what we're going at what we're going to do and some things along those lines. One of the phrases that you all will hear me say over the years is disparaging treatment. And we want to make sure that we don't do follow that or be accused of such treatment. So maybe the first step is for us to look into the legality of a fund, of allocating tax dollars and whether or not we are authorized to have a subsidy. The next step is, do we put it back the way we want it? Do we put it back the way the city wants it? Do we put it back to its current condition if it is beyond repair? I mean, I'm not sure that's ADA. And I can think of one on North Main that's beautiful. Brick. But it's brick. I don't know how ADA complies. So just just some things to think about, because once we get involved, are we how how far are we going to be required to go?

I would love to see your research on that. And I was saying just kind of glancing at the ordinance as it's written now, I think there there already is some teeth in that for the city to be able to go in and force some of these sidewalks to be corrected. We haven't. that's kind of another component of this i mean part of this we've been talking about money but the other component is i think for safety reasons we need to actually do some enforcement on some of this i'd love to figure out the funding side of it first if that's even an option but beyond that again i think i would love to kind of hear your perspective on what would help us to approach this from a legal standpoint if we do start having to go about enforcing some of this there is currently no fine or no penalty other than you get a letter in the mail correct no

There is a fine. There is a fine.

There is a whole process.

Yeah, there is. It's a violation. I got you. We did not, I think the last round of enforcement did not actually issue any citations because I believe that's the last time the issue landed back here and we sort of pressed pause on the enforcement aspects of that ordinance because there was some discussion about, I think there was some discussion We have a lot of new people in Springfield, a lot of people that have moved to Springfield over the last few years that were unaware. I don't know if Tennessee is unique in this approach, but we have a lot of new residents that weren't aware. So when they received a letter from Mr. Moore that said, you need to repair your sidewalk, or you're in violation of city ordinance and you may get a citation, then that created some consternation among some folks. And so we did get a lot of compliance out of the last round, but that didn't solve the problem, right? And Ms. Holliman is correct. There is still a lot of enforcement to be done. And so absolutely some direction on where, you know, we don't want to, We don't want to have someone spend $2,000 replacing their sidewalk if in two months you all are going to remove that requirement and they could have gotten the city government to pay for it or subsidize it or whatever the case is. But we are happy to begin enforcement immediately. Can I make a motion that 3.10 be deferred to another meeting?

I think he wants some instruction. Can we give guidance that the city attorney find out what we can do legally as far as establishing a fund and then go from there?

I would ask that as well, to get some guidance from the attorney.

And since we crossed the impact fee, I was just going to say, why can't we build streets there? Let me finish. Since we opened up about the impact fee, Let's look at these other neighborhoods. We're sitting up here and our audience is listening to us and other neighborhoods in Springfield. Well, they don't care about me. I still got to walk on the grass and the ditch out in the highway, okay? If we're going to make it on this, if we're going to make something, OK, let's spread it around.

I have a motion that the city attorney establish a legal opinion on this and bring it back to this board. I second.

Mayor, there's already, Mr. Trotter made a motion.

Right, I made a motion. So you have a motion, too. All right.

Does anybody got a second on Mr. Trotter's motion?

Unless he retracts his motion.

Of course. Unless he retracts his motion.

impact are you deferring on her getting an opinion is that what your deferral is yeah are you just deferring it totally very told you get some information on it yeah you want some information with your deferment right i mean i don't think i don't want to vote on it tonight what i'm saying but

If I may, Mayor, if we just want to sit tight on what we've got, I think the city attorney has the direction she needs. So, Mr. Trotter, I don't know that there's a need for a motion. That would require a vote. So if you want to rescind your motion, I think that would be in order. Am I right on that? I think we've got the verbal direction we need. Before we leave that topic, Mayor, one thing, just as a food for thought over the next month, To put in perspective what we've collected from a system development charge perspective, our transportation system development charge balance currently sits just a hair less than a million dollars. That's how much in system development fees that we have collected in the transportation category. To put that in perspective, when we're talking about installing sidewalks, the estimate that Mr. Moore provided for installing sidewalks down on South Main Street was a little north of $4.3 million. Is that correct? Yes, sir. One side. That's one side. One side.

How long is that stretch that you estimate?

It is, I went all the way to Tom Lawson. Okay. Okay.

Formerly how?

So just so we know that because we're also simultaneously having the discussion of reducing impact fees. So I don't want us to over rely on how much system development charges can actually pay for installation of new sidewalks, considering how much we've collected now. We've got 1,000 units under construction right now, so we're going to collect quite a bit more residential transportation system development fees and then permits that haven't been pulled, but dirt has been turned. So there will be some more that comes into that fund. It will not be enough just over the course of that to be able to even fund that project. I understand my motion.

I was just making the point that it could be used. I didn't say it was there. Sure. It can be used. Yes, I know it's not there. So we'll move on now to... Mayor, without objection, I move taking consent as one. All right.

Second. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Harris. We have a second by Alderman Trotter. to change their vote. Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes 7-0.

I think it's time for Mr. Martin. City Manager's report.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very brief tonight. Give you a quick fire station update for the third fire station. We continue our meetings. We were at a 50% stage of construction drawings. We have seen the cost. trend in a good direction. I won't say that it's anywhere close to being under budget or what we had originally anticipated. Remember that budget number was set three and a half years ago or so. So I think we are at a point where the market is the market. And so We will likely be coming to you all with a final plan that's likely going to require more funding. I'll know more in the next few weeks. I don't know how much additional funding we will need, but we're working on that now and hopefully be able to finalize those things within the next six weeks or so, six to eight weeks, and we'll come to you all with an update. We still want to get that fire station under construction this fall. So, Mayor, that's all I have to say.

Before we leave, happy birthday, Vice Mayor Tim Harris. Happy birthday, Kim. Yes. Any other questions, any comments? We will stand adjourned. Thank you.