Board of Mayor & Aldermen - Regular Meeting

The board of mayor and all for meeting for August 18, 2026 is now in session. Would you stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing after the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Let us pray. Eternal God, this is the day that you have made, and we thank you for it. We thank you for this great city. We thank you for the occupants of this great city. We thank you again, Lord, for all these great children that we see, Lord. We pray, Lord, that you would guide the leaders, Lord, where we can leave them a legacy, Lord, where they'd be proud of Springfield. We thank you, Lord, just for being a part of this city. a part of the governing body. I pray for all of my colleagues. I pray for all the parents. I pray for all the citizens, Lord. But we thank you. We thank you for this great city. And, Lord, I end this prayer by saying, please bless America in Jesus' name. Amen.

At this time, the chair would like to recognize Parks and Recreation Director, Mr. Terry Martin. Terry Martin, the floor is yours.

Good morning. How are y'all doing?

Yes, fine. All right.

As we bring these young champions up here, y'all come on up front here, girls. And before the board comes down to get a photo op with them, I just want to take a second and say... Hey!

Hey! All that bling is making a bunch of noise.

On behalf of the City of Springfield Parks and Recreation Department, on behalf of this team, and on behalf of prior teams before them, we would like to thank this Board of Mayor and Aldermen for your commitment, your financial commitment that takes a huge burden off of these teams and these parents and these families. whenever they win a state championship and they move on to the World Series, and for you helping us out like that.

And for that, we are very, very thankful. Thank you. I don't know why the city does that.

Thank you very, very much. Y'all come on down here on the last set and come to the podium and say a few words on your accomplishments. Why don't y'all take your way down here.

Can we just stand up here? Can we just stand up here?

Yeah.

Terry, it might be better if we stand up. Good afternoon.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm Seth Owen, Programming Supervisor for the City of Springfield Works Department. We are very excited to get to honor these girls and coaches for their outstanding success in this year's Diamond Youth Softball Tournament. What began with three regular season teams turned into one all-star team put together by the three head coaches of our regular season. The first milestone was competing at the district level held in the White House where these girls went undefeated, outscoring their opponents 71-17. beating East Robertson, White House, Portland, and White House for a second time to extend their postseason play into the state tournament. At the state tournament in Rockwood, Tennessee, this team continued their hot streak and earned the title of undefeated state champions by beating Houston County, Lewis County, Pleasant View, and Greenbrier twice. This meant that they had earned their spot to represent the state of Tennessee as Team Tennessee in the DYS World Series held in Laurel, Mississippi. Facing Louisiana for their first bracket game, Louisiana came out on top 5-2. But these girls weren't going to give up that easy. They battled their way back through the losers bracket, beating North Carolina 8-6, South Carolina 13-4, Mississippi 8-7, and Texas 15-14 in extra innings to send them to the championship game against the only team that beat them in bracket play, Louisiana. Our girls fought hard against Louisiana, but finished up as runner-ups in the Diamond Youth Softball World Series. We are so very proud of them and all their accomplishments and would like to recognize them by placing a sign as you enter Springfield so that everyone can remember how great of a team this was. So I would like to introduce your 2026 AU DYS State Champions and World Series runner-ups.

Let me see your rings. Thank you all. Thank you all. Congratulations.

What are you going to do with all that bling bling?

Congratulations.

It's a great thing.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Congratulations to y'all. How exciting.

Those rings are fancy. Those rings are fancy. I don't want it. We'll go ahead and get into our agenda.

Item 1.4, approval of minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen held July 22, 2026. We have a motion by Alderman Bradley, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions or comments? 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 5-0.

Item 1.5, our public comment period. We have three registered speakers here today, and you will have two minutes when you approach the podium. Please speak loudly where everyone can hear you. I have first on my list Mr. Billy Hughes. He is speaking about the Jones Chapel Road water line upgrade. Mr. Hughes, you have the floor, sir, for two minutes.

Good evening. My name is Billy Hughes. I'm a resident of Jones Chapel Road. I'm a licensed Tennessee general contractor with a municipal utility classification, and I've laid hundreds of miles of water line over my 33-year career. I'm standing before you tonight to formally oppose the proposed water line extension along Jones Chapel Road. This project is flawed in its location, its precedent, and its execution. Jones Chapel Road sits four miles outside Springfield's urban growth boundary. Spending municipal utility funds to extend the line this far into the county sets a dangerous precedent for how this board allocates city tax dollars. Springfield taxpayers should not be subsidizing growth far beyond the city limits with the existing infrastructure demands and attention. As a contractor, I understand the infrastructure. Based on this project scope, I estimate the baseline cost of this project to be somewhere around $750,000. That is a highly conservative figure that completely excludes the massive auxiliary costs of clearing, road bores, open cut repairs, fence replacements, and final site dress. Residents have raised real and reasonable concerns, yet no one from the utility has reached out to address them. No clear plan has been shared on how tree removal, torn up fences, or damaged driveways will be repaired or compensated. The construction traffic alone will ruin the existing rural road infrastructure.

Clearly can't maintain the lines that are already in the ground.

We're asking this board to pause, protect city tax dollars, enforce proper utility oversight, and vote no on the Jones Chapel water line project.

Mr. Hughes, your time is up, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Our second speaker today, Mr. Chip Rush. Jones. Chip Rush. Speaking again on the Jones Chapel road water line upgrade.

Thank you for this opportunity. I'm opposed to it for the simple reason is I've been in construction for half my adult life, and any time you upgrade a water line to whether it's six inches or eight inches, that only means one thing. That means that there's more houses to be built on Jones Chapel Road. Granted, in the Cedar Hill area, from what I understand, you have to have two and a half acres. Well, there's a lot of two and a half acres out there. Now, if the expansion of the water line is for inadequate water pressure on Jones Chapel Road or Stroud Road, then those taps should have never been sold to the individuals in the first place. There's a rough guess. An entity could come in and build 200 homes easy, pay for the infrastructure to do that without any cost to the city. The water line is the main concern. I've lived at the end of Newberry Road for over 14 years with my wife, and there's a reason we moved out there, because it's out in the country, and we'd like to keep it that way. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Roach. Third and final speaker is Mr. Robert Green. Robert, are you here? Yes, I am, Mr. Robert.

I'm not as eloquent as they are. But I'm Dr. Green. I live on Innistrad Road. I'm one of them that has a tap that has not gotten yet. When it was put in there too, they said, could you wait? And I said, yes. I'm not pushing for this. I'd rather go without the tap than have the eight inch line. I don't think anybody's saying we don't need a line. We just don't need an eight inch. If you build it, they will come. I mean, also do paving. We cannot handle the traffic. I've been on and off the road two or three times just with what we got out there. We're not saying we don't need taps. Some people are owed them. Like I said, I'm owed one. I'll give it up to keep the line from coming in. The problem we have is we got a petition of everyone that lives on that road. And I don't know anyone that's pushing for it. And you can't cut your phone on or cut the radio or TV on in the last two years without hearing, it's a threat to our democracy. It's a threat to our democracy. Both sides have played that. But what they're saying is they're afraid they don't have a view, they don't have a voice. Y'all are our voice. We don't feel like we have a voice. This is being shoved on us. We got no say in it. But we do have a say because we've already voted. We voted for y'all. Y'all are our voice. And so we're asking you. We've got the petition. I don't know anyone that's pushing for the 8-inch line. That's what we don't understand. We've asked around. We don't know who's wanting the 8-inch line. Four inch line. We're asking for maybe stop this. Let's look at other alternatives instead of just shoving this down our street where we live. I can tell you that the roads can't handle it. It's a danger now. But I appreciate y'all's time. Like I said, I'm not that good of a speaker, but I just want to come and talk. Thank y'all.

Thank you, Mr. Green. At this time, we will close our public comment period. We will now move into our public hearing.

Mayor, without objection, And quite a few in the room are here for this tonight. I would ask that 3.4 be brought to the beginning of the agenda.

I'll second that. Second. We've got a motion and a second to move that item to next on our agenda. That will be item 3.4. We've got a vote to move. We're ready to cast our votes to move this item up on our agenda. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We will move straight to item 3.4. Discuss and probably take action on a potential water line upgrade project in the Jones Travel Road area. We have a motion to all in favor.

I have a question. What? Can I ask a question?

We need a motion and a second to get it on the board. All right.

Motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Vice Mayor Harris. Now we have questions or comments.

What's the city's position while it's being upgraded?

Well, we're here tonight to establish the city's position because you all will establish the city's position. this originally came about this the conceptual aspects of this project originally came about last year when some folks that had purchased taps some years ago some had purchased taps decades ago some just a decade and a half ago or so and wanted to do that our previous water wastewater director mr beers wanted to try to make good on those taps that had been purchased and wanted to upsize the line of in that area there was some eight inch pipe that he had that was an inventory that he wanted to use which is where this eight inch line concept comes from it doesn't live that way now though with the the estimate that we have today he retired in december mr price comes along i think mr beers have drawn up some plans which kind of if you want to make it in plain terms because i'm not an engineer so i don't understand and we may have to get mr price to help us understand the technical aspects of it From a 2D perspective, that looked fine, right? And it looked like Mr. Beer's initial estimate was, hey, we might be able to do this. If we've got the pipe, we can do it ourselves. We might be able to do this for $50,000 to $100,000, right, and make good on the taps that were sold. Well, 2D and 3D are two different things. So when it actually comes time to do the engineering aspect and full design, you have issues like not enough right-of-way. So you have to buy easements. You have trees in the way. You have to bore underneath roads. So that's when you run into issues. And so that's what balloons the cost of the project. Also, Mr. Price was not comfortable with an 8-inch line. That 8-inch pipe has been sitting out for some time, and he wasn't comfortable using that. And frankly, that's too large of a line to put in that area. So what Mr. Price has come up with, as far as an estimate, is a six-inch line. But you have in your packet his final estimate of that. It is an unbudgeted project. So that total estimate comes out to $502,000 to perform this project. It is obviously up to you all what to do. That is a large expense for... for a handful of taps that were sold. I'm sorry. Mayor, I think you have another question.

If I may, I was just curious, how many taps are we looking at that were sold that were not able to satisfy?

The ones we know about right now are a handful.

So there were some that were sold in the 90s. There were some that were sold in the early to mid-2000s. Ms. Holloman, there are probably some we don't know about. So I think what happened, and I'm not casting blame on anybody, the way the process generally works is when you come to purchase a tap, there's a pressure test done on that line to determine whether or not you can build a house and do that. That pressure test is usually good for a year. The pressure test was done. The taps were purchased. And then that sort of happened in a vacuum because someone else came along and that tap wasn't installed. And so someone else came along and they did install. And so the people that didn't install the future purchasers, those taps that were sold, weren't taken into account for the future folks that tapped into the line. So you have the folks that own the tap say, well, you shouldn't have let people tap on the line because I had that capacity. That's not exactly what the tap contract says, but that's their position and I understand that. And so that's why Mr. Beers wanted to try to make good on that promise that the city had made initially.

I think at this point, am I correct that the pipeline is really outside of city limits, correct?

It is.

Okay. Well, I would just be really curious to know, again, I appreciate all the people who are here with having voiced their opinion. Again, I I always thank people when they are involved, because sometimes I feel like we sit up here in a vacuum not really knowing what people want. So thank you all for being here. I would be curious to know how many tax we're looking at, what the cost to refund would be. I mean, this is an exorbitantly high cost, I think, to make good on something, $50,000 versus $500,000. And again, we're hearing from constituents that this is not what they want. So I would be interested to kind of look at those numbers. Because as it stands, I'm looking at the cost is just really high. And we have a lot of people opposed.

Ms. Holliman, we solved this problem moving forward. Because if you all remember, you all passed an ordinance within the last year because of this very issue. where we don't allow this to happen anymore. I think we were in a period of time where people were buying taps because eventually they may subdivide the land they wanted their grandkids to be able to build. And that's great and noble, but it creates problems down the road. And so now our policy is if someone buys a tap, it has to be installed within C absent a subdivision agreement because those houses take a little bit longer. But if it's just a single tab, it has to be installed within 60 days or it gets refunded. The contract gets canceled. So this problem is solved moving forward. I would say you're probably right. We're looking at a dozen. In this particular pressures area, we're looking at a dozen or less tabs.

Mayor. Tim.

But if I understood Mr. Martin correctly, nothing is currently budgeted to do this. That's correct. No, sir. That's correct. And then from what we saw, It's going to be a whole lot more than what was originally thought that it would be. Yes, sir. I mean, clearly by the number of people that have signed this petition and the number of people that have come forward and asked that the tap be placed, that's a big difference in that. And it's not currently budgeted. We don't currently have the money to really spend on doing this. If anybody's willing to hear the motion, I'll make the motion that we not proceed with this expansion project and that the city staff get with the city attorney to work out the details of how the refunds might be given on the taps, if that's what's decided to do.

I'll second that. Plus, I need to make a comment. In the 90s, there was a hasty decision that was made And so, about the taps and stuff, it wasn't really, it wasn't really carried out properly out on the board then, okay. So I'm glad to, I'm glad to say no and support the citizens for getting, really getting mislead, per se, by the 1994 issue. i have to just complete with it okay mr trotter we got a motion and a second second by me we need

Tim made the motion. We need a second. I'll second. There you go. And the motion was, Tim?

That we not proceed with this expansion and that the staff get with the city attorney to see possibly how what needs to be done on the present temps are out there to get their money back to them.

So we would get with the city attorney and resolve whatever else needed to be.

But as far as at this time, I just don't think as a city we can proceed with this expense-wise and to honor what the majority of the people in that area are asking for.

Is everyone clear on that? We're not asking for it.

So if we vote yes or vote against, we're voting no, right? Is that where we're at right now? I just want to make sure I hit the right button.

If you vote yes on the motion, you're voting to not do the project. Thank you. I just want to clarify that. I'm glad you did.

Are we ready to vote? Yes. So my voting yes.

Your voting to not move forward. Correct. Everybody clear on that? That's one of the issues. All right. We're ready. Let's cast our votes.

Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes four to two. Yeah. We just said.

We voted no and we killed it.

The motion that Mr. Harris made was to not do the project. So a yes vote would be in support of his motion to not do the project. Got it. Anyway, it's passed.

We can change it. We can change it.

make a motion to reconsider second so Mr. Harris made a motion to reconsider Ms. Bradley made a second so just clear the votes I'll just change these

They were welcome to stay.

I just didn't want to have to sit through the whole meeting.

If y'all are ready to leave, you can go ahead and leave. If you kind of do it quietly. Thank you for coming.

I have a motion to move item 3.9 to the staff we have a motion and a second moving to item 3.9 Robert signify by saying aye

any opposed the chair will recognize mr. Robert Gardner ma'am ma'am

So we're bringing 3.9 up. 3.9.

3.9. Mr. Robert, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it, Alderman. And I thank you for this opportunity just to provide an update on the Bransford Community Center. I should say the long-awaited Grants for the Community Center. I think it gives Ryan Martin cold chills when I bring that name up sometimes. But I know that it has been a long ongoing project. But I just wanted to say, first of all, we really, really do appreciate not only the board's generosity in allocating these funds to this project, but also the board's patience. I know it's been kind of a long, arduous, and frustrating five years since these funds were allocated and we've had some ups and downs. Just don't want to get into all the hurdles that we've faced, but we have faced several. But what we have come to realize is that we need to build something and we need to build something soon. And, you know, so we're at the point that we are decided just to take the city's allocation and build something as a phase one that we can actually get in and begin operating some programs. We have a very active We have very active programs and we have active partners that are looking forward to a space to come and call home. Most notably is our Branstad Cubs, formerly our Branstad Pride After School Program. Our board is here and we do want them to stand and be recognized. They are here in full support of this project, as always. They've had many sleepless nights, thank you board. They've had many sleepless nights as I've had to try to bring this project to fruition. But long story short, we have a million dollar allocation from the city, and we have a partner that we have trusted, a trusted partner with Adam Arrington and Morton Buildings. Morton is a national contractor. They've done many, many hundreds of buildings, and we feel fully confident they can make this happen for us within our budget. So what we are requesting tonight, just kind of in a nutshell, is to be able, even though the wording of the original motion that was passed in May of 2021 was to provide funding for construction costs. But as you know, engineering and design has to come before construction. So to get this project a kickstart and just to get us off the ground, we're just asking not asking for any additional funding. but asking that the engineering cost that's necessary on the front end would be able to be allocated out of that $1 million, that we'd be able to take that. Again, additional funding is in this request, but just to use those funds that we have just to get the engineering done. Greater Faith Community Action has paid $8,000 for the preliminary plan, which Morton describes as phase one. I think you have a copy of that. We need funding to take the funding for the construction plans to get those out for bid so we can get this project done. That being said, if you don't have any questions, I'd like to turn it over to Adam Arrington, and he can make a presentation at this time.

Thank you, Robert. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Adam Arrington with Morton Buildings. We are 120 year old company. The local branch is based out of Murfreesboro. We've been here 40 years. We've built many buildings in the Springfield area. I was brought up to speed on what has happened in the past. We do things differently. We're very, very careful. I know a lot of people are watching this, but all of our programs, all of our buildings, the way we like to do it is phase one, which is where we are right now. How much money are you thinking you have available? And then we say, OK, we think we can build this building for that. And then we start going through to verify that kind of a feasibility study. It's very inexpensive. We don't make any money on on these. We just want to build. So they put in $88,000. We had a soils engineer come up. This is the building we're hoping that we can get. You know, budget limitations may change things, but this is kind of where we're hoping for. If you'll go down a couple. So what we did, I think, go back up one. So what we did was we had our soils engineer come out because we need to be careful. We know what we do. Once it gets above the ground, we know what things are going to cost mostly. Below the ground, we don't know. So we dug up some, you know, back originally they buried the parts of the building on site. I know it saved a lot of money. So what we did is we we took some test holes around. We found the north side and the south side have about five feet of this material, which is brick and block leftover from the original building. But in the middle, we found an area that we can put the building. It has about two feet of this debris that we'll need to remove. We can build that building or something nearby at this point with as much exploratory information that we have right now. In that area, we'll dig up the two feet in the middle of the site, and we think we can bury it. We have planned ahead for their growth, so we've got a preliminary civil design saying we don't want to interfere with the future. So we think we have an appropriately sized detention pond. We can over dig the detention pond, very about 750 to 1000 cubic yards of debris at the bottom, then fill that back out. That also gives us the added benefit of harvesting the good soil. It's got great soil out there if you can just get the debris out of the way. So we'll have that to build back. So we're hoping to cut down two feet, build back one foot. So we think we're in the in the ballpark of having a nice building, a useful building. It's a bit of a stretch right now. But for what we know right now, I think we're in range. The next phase is where we, again, are very careful. We get a full report from the civil engineer. Our architects and engineers have certified stamp plans. And then we get our mechanical, electrical, and plumbing reports. engineers to give us a design and then we have a full scope of work and then we go out and get our bids and then at the end we will know what it's going to cost. There might be a surprise or two but we limit our surprises and control our surprises. But we'll know before we get down the road like what happened last time. We'll know where we are and then we can adjust the building back down. So we build 2,500 buildings a year. We're We're confident or I wouldn't be standing here that we can make this happen.

That's good. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Mr. Chairman.

I'll make a motion that Mr. Gardner just stated they're not asking for any additional funds, just to use a portion that we've already allocated for it to proceed. I'll make a motion that we let them do it.

I'll second it.

For purposes of clarification for those that weren't here at the time, the reason that we're doing this, when they came last time in 2021, in May of 2021, as Mr. Gardner said, The motion that was made in the vote was for construction expenses because they already had a design. And so that's the reason this was not excluded in that particular aspect. At that time, there already was a design for a building that they were pursuing. When Ms. Marti and I discussed that, looking at the May 21 vote that you all had, we thought it would be best if they came and got clarification. And so, Mayor, you have a motion to second. I think that we can proceed.

Any other questions or comments? if not we are ready to vote let's cast our votes anyone care to change their vote would you tally the votes please motion passes six to zero

now we move to our public hearing portion of our agenda

First item is Ordinance 26-28, an ordinance rezoning a portion of one parcel located at Highway 41 North from Restrictive Industrial Logistics to Commercial Services District. Anyone here to speak to that ordinance? Seeing none. Item number two, ordinance 26-29, an ordinance amending section A801 of the Springfield Zoning Ordinance pertaining to temporary use permits. Anyone here to speak to that? Seeing none, item three, ordinance 26-30, an ordinance amending the fiscal year of 2027 annual budget for the city of Springfield by amending certain general fund and utility fund operating budgets. Anyone here to speak to that ordinance? Seeing none, item four, ordinance 26-31, an ordinance amending title five, chapter six of the Springfield Municipal Code relative to developer credits system development charges. Anyone here to speak to that? Seeing none, at this time, we will close our public hearing portion and move into our legislative. Item 2.1, Discuss and Publicity Take Action on Ordinance 26-28, on second and final reading, an ordinance rezoning a portion of one parcel located on Highway 41 North from Restrictive Industrial District, RI, to Commercial Services District, CS. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Harris, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions or any comments? Seeing none, are we ready to vote? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes please?

Motion passes six to zero.

Item 2.2, discuss and possibly take action on ordinance 26-29 on second and final reading and ordinance amending section A-801 of the Springfield zoning ordinance pertaining to temporary use permits. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard and second by Alderman Trotter. Any questions or comments? hearing none are we ready to vote let's cast our votes anyone care to change their vote would you tally the votes please motion passes six to zero item 2.3 Discuss and promptly take action on 26-30 on second and final reading and ordinance amending the fiscal year 2027 annual budget for the city of Springfield by amending certain general fund and utility fund operating budgets. First, we need to pass the amendment, correct? We've got a motion. We've got a motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Alderman Holloman.

First, that's for the amendment, I believe, correct? That's to put the item on the floor for discussion.

That gets on the floor then. So we need to go ahead and vote?

No, sir. It would need to be amended to include the amended exhibit A. So you would be looking next for a motion and a second to amend.

We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard and a second by Alderman Bradley to amend. Are we ready to vote on the amendment? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their votes? Let's count the votes.

Motion passes six to zero.

Okay, now we come back. I need a motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Alderman Holloman to pass the ordinance as amended. Correct. Okay. We have a motion by Alderman Holloman. Motion by Alderman Hubbard. Second by Alderman Holloman. Any questions or comments on the amended ordinance? Hearing none, let's cast our votes. As amended. As amended. Correct. We ready to cast our votes? Yep. Let's vote. anyone care to change their votes would you tally the votes please motion passes six to zero Moving to item 2.4, discuss and possibly take action on Ordinance 26-31 on second and final reading and Ordinance amending Title V, Chapter 6 of the Springfield Municipal Code relative to developer credits or system development charges. We have a motion by Alderman Holloman, a second by Alderman Bradley. Thank you. Any questions or comments? anyone okay no questions no comments let's cast our votes anyone care to change their votes would you tally the votes please motion passes six to zero item 2.5 discuss and possibly take action on ordinance 26-32 on first reading and ordinance amending title 12 chapter 1 of the Springfield Municipal Code We have a motion by Alderman Holliman and a second by Alderman Hubbard. I believe City Manager Ryan Martin has some information to share with us.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is an update. If you remember back within the last year or two, we adopted the 2021 version of a variety of codes, including the International Building Code. The International Building Code and the ICC, the International Code Council that puts out these codes, It's all-encompassing. So usually there are some things that we don't adopt and various jurisdictions do not adopt in those codes. And one of those was missed, and this has to do with storm shelters. This will put us in line with the state of Tennessee that they omitted from their 2021 version, and it does affect the facility that we are in the process of looking at. So that's what brought this to our attention for us to bring it to you tonight.

Any questions or comments? If not, let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote?

How do you want to vote, Mr. Hunter?

Yes. Would you turn to the votes, please?

Motion passes six to zero.

Moving it to our administrative portion of our agenda, item 3.1, discuss and possibly take action on the adjustment of retail electric rates due to the wholesale fuel cost adjustment by the Tennessee Valley Authority. I have a motion by Alderman Holloman, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Mr. Terry Risha, what do you have for us, sir? Any questions or comments? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes please?

Motion passes six to zero.

Item 3.2, discuss and possibly take action on the adjustment of the monthly gas rates. A motion by Alderman Holloman, second by Alderman Hubbard. Gas Director, Mr. Benjy Davis, what you have for us. Any questions or comments? If not, let's cast our vote. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tell the votes, please?

Motion passes 6-0.

Item 3.3, discuss and possibly take action on STBG Citywide Paving Contract for Sessions Paving of Nashville, Tennessee. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Vice Mayor Harris. City Manager Ryan Martin, I believe you have something to add.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a long-awaited citywide paving contract project that we've been waiting on for quite some time. Took a while to get through the approval process because the STBG is surface transportation block grant. So it is primarily funded by grants. You can see that breakdown. There's a small local match there in your packet of what that funding looks like. We're excited for this project to get underway. We hope that you all will approve this contract tonight. Just to give you a heads up, for not only your awareness, but also the public's awareness. Some of the streets that are involved in this resurfacing and paving project include 22nd Avenue. 22nd Avenue is one of the, it's pretty rough from South Main to Tom Austin. John L. Patterson, there's a section of 10th Avenue. Roy Pitt Road, a portion of Industrial 17th, and a portion of Bill Jones. Those are just some of the streets that are included that need some attention, and those are part of this project.

Thank you, Ryan. Any questions or comments? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes please?

Motion passes six to zero.

Moving to item 3.5, discussion of property to take action on the donation to the fire department from Grills for Guardians. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard, second by Alderman Bradley. Any questions or comments? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Did you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes 6-0.

Item 3.6, discuss and possibly take action on Title 5, Chapter 6 of Springfield Municipal Code relative to commercial system development charges. We have a motion by Alderman Hubbard and a second by Alderman Holloman. Any questions or comments?

Mayor, if I may, I was one of the ones who asked for this. So thank you so much to the city for pulling all this information together. I know just kind of looking at the impact fees as we are presently, we are a little on the higher end compared to, I would say, comparable cities for commercial non-utility impact fees. So I would love to see the city move to maybe the 25% of allowable. I know that will not completely offset some of that burden that's on the developers, but I'm hoping that that will be enough to help maximize growth opportunities that could benefit the citizens of Springfield.

Any other questions or comments?

What is the Alderman considering being comparable cities, what are you considering comparable cities to us?

Well, I'm looking here. I mean, I don't even know if comparable might be an iffy thing to say. But, you know, we have Dixon with no impact fees. Goodlatte still has no impact fees. Hendersonville, which again, not quite comparable, but they only adopted residential impact fees. There was no adoption of commercial impact fees there. You know, the other ones kind of around that do have the impact fees, obviously Franklin and Brentwood, a bit of a different scenario there. White House has pretty high impact fees, but they're right there on the interstate. I don't know. I wouldn't necessarily compare them to our city, so... portland's lower but they do have impact fees for commercial and same with 11 11 is significantly lower but they do have some so you requested we lower these yes i guess i guess you know if no one else has any comments i would make a motion to lower the impact fees for commercial to 25%. I think in speaking with the city attorney, we have to do these things in a certain way. We can't cherry pick. So commercial as a whole, reduce it to 25% of the allowable impact fees under the study.

Any questions or comments? I could live with the 25%.

Oh, yes, ma'am. Sorry.

It won't let me. Someone pushed it.

Yes, someone pushed it. Can you kick it out, Melissa?

Yeah.

Okay, we have a motion.

Okay, it lets you.

You made the motion.

Yes, you made the motion. Now we need a second by Alderman Bradley. No. Oh, yes, you did. Any other questions or comments?

What was the primary reason for asking that they be lowered? Is it because they felt?

Yeah, just hearing from developers in the commercial area, just kind of looking at, you know, the cost of the impact fees when they're starting to build up, particularly larger, larger businesses. The way that they're structured, it's based on square foot. So, for example, a big box store might not really... I'll use the example of transportation. Right now, the transportation cost is pretty high, but a big box store really is not necessarily going to have that much of an impact on transportation. But because it's based on the size of the square footage, it becomes a really high dollar amount when you're trying to get in certain commercial providers like... I'm afraid to say TJ Maxx or Publix, but those are things that we know people would love to have in Springfield, but it's kind of cost prohibitive to develop the space for them to come in and do it because the impact fees are so high on the front end for the developers. So I think trying to find a bit of a sweet spot where we are incentivizing developers to get these folks in the door while also still trying to recoup some of the money for the development of these spaces.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Is it for Mr. Moore? Would you like to? Join in this conversation, please, sir. Give us an insight from your position.

Thank you, Jim Moore with G.S. Moore & Son. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Yes, sir. If you just want my insight, I think...

OK, I would help.

Yeah, yeah, sure. Miss Miss Holloman did a great job kind of breaking down the impact fee. Some of the other municipalities that do have impact fees, a lot of them would be based on the use. So like a restaurant, a 2500 square foot restaurant would have a higher per square foot impact fee. than per se, like a public's who might be a 75,000 square foot or 100,000 square foot building. And on a 2500 square foot building, you can recoup that through rent that that may rent just round numbers, say $30 per square foot. and then you go rent to a Publix and they may pay $10 a square foot. And it just doesn't translate with the I guess the economy of scale would be the best way to put it. It's like buying a house. The smaller the house, the higher the per square foot price. And it's the same same here. And just as you get into larger boxes, the rent number goes down and you're paying the same system development charge. And then I think it differentiates itself from residential in that these are creating jobs. They're creating sales tax. And so just like Ms. Holloman said, compared to our peer cities, when you look at our peer cities by population, our peer cities by income, You know, most of them, a lot of them are zero. Some of them may be a dollar or two dollars. And I certainly recognize the need. You know, obviously the city is absorbing new sewer facility. We've got a fire station You know, we I just me personally, how it hits me, I love putting the money back into the buildings. And I hope you all recognize that and see what we've been building and the quality of work and, you know, sustainable long term materials. And we hope that's appreciated. And we want to continue putting the money back into the buildings. So thank you for the consider. Oh, yeah.

Why are you there? I keep getting earfuls of. Are you considering bringing in Another major sit down restaurant.

I might have known that question was coming. I will tell you there is one. There is a sit down restaurant touring on the 19th looking for a location. They need about an acre, acre and a half. They will do a ground lease, build a suit, national sit-down chain. So if anybody has any ideas. I think somewhere around the corner, it would be hugely successful. I'm open for business, and every year I recruit them. It's just everything seems to still be kind of of the to-go nature, unfortunately.

I see two lucky spots. The one decides that the open field decides that big million dollar mansion I'm pretty sure you already tore the water of the car wash down you're probably going to tear Wits down Wits is coming down as well we could absolutely do a sit down restaurant

I don't know to what level the board would get involved. There have been municipalities to pay a restaurant operator to open a business. If they say open for, I don't, you know, I'm not getting into that subject. It doesn't have anything to do with me. I'm just saying it's been done. Maybe the board could look, you know, because they're going to put up some numbers. They may do two, three million dollars a year in sales. Look at that tax revenue. How can we give that back to the chain to open? And then when you're doing that, Pick the chain you want, I guess. That's something you all should look into. I'm with you, yeah.

In what you stated, though, are you saying that your major concern is in the larger square footage buildings? Because if we lower this down to 25% as she's made the motion, then that's going to be across the board, whether it's 2,500 square foot, whether it's 10,000, whether it's 25, whether it's 50 or above. Sure. But is your concern mainly with the larger square footage?

you know, or the overall how deep you want it like. So let's say somebody wants to build a commercial building on a road. Somebody mentions paving 17th Avenue. So we're going to go build a commercial building on 17th Avenue and they're going to pay the same rate as a Tom Austin or memorial fronted business. So how you divide it up.

I mean, I'm happy to answer any questions, but Mr. Harris, if I can, I believe in speaking with the city attorney and she and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that legally we can't kind of narrow it down by like, okay, if you're over the square footage, here's your percent rate. I think it has to be across the board with commercial as a whole. Now, if I am wrong, that would be wonderful to consider.

That is my understanding of how it works. It's been a little bit so I am perfectly fine to go back and look at that more specifically. Generally we refer to categories which would be commercial, residential, industrial. But it is possible that that could be altered in some way.

If I can help Mayor to shed light on that. I think from the within the confines of our study, because that's the way our study was performed. So the study is performed and arrives at figures based on projected growth. Right. And it was done per 1000 square foot across the board. So it's not I don't think it's necessarily it's not it's not illegal. Other cities, White House, for instance, they their study was done by use. Right. And so they did theirs by uses a little bit different take on a little bit different angle. Our study was done per 1,000 square foot for any commercial use. So within the confines of our study, I don't think we could divide up uses. I think we would, if that were the case, the board would need to commission another study to be done to make sure that the numbers that you chose could not be accused of being arbitrary.

Yeah, perhaps that's something the board may want to, you know... Consider this motion today and then look down the road. Maybe we want to look at dividing up by use. I know other White House, like Mr. Martin said, White House does that, and they hammer the restaurants. But the restaurants, the small single-tenant restaurants, they are the highest users of the public infrastructure and the systems. And our initial conversations with some of you and with Mr. Martin and the mayor, I mean, that's that's kind of where I was going with it was to still capture that high impact user. But it seemed like this study provided some difficulty. So certainly something to consider down the road.

Ryan, if I could, I don't know what it would cost to do a new study. It seems intimidating, lengthy, and costly. Insight on that?

$60,000 to $70,000 probably nine to 10 months maybe. Well. Probably not. Nine to 10 months usually is, I think that's how long the study, is that how long the study took last time or was it longer than that? The process, by the time you put out the solicitation for a firm, that's a 30 day and then you go through that, it could be, it'll be a year. It would be.

And then do we typically do new studies periodically anyway?

So our study that we did requires it to be reviewed every three years and kind of matched up with the, and this is the information you don't want to know, but I'll tell you. I call him our system internally. I refer to him as our system development fee czar. But Mr. Brewer, the city engineer, oversees that process, and that study required it to be reviewed internally every three years. His review that he performed after the first three-year period said we've got more growth coming than the study projected, so we should be charging more. Which currently we are half of what we could be charging. Correct, and we're already half. So if we were to perform that same study today, it would be higher because that study was conducted prior to Vesper Village being in the equation. So that's... I'm sorry?

And Blackwood.

And Blackwood Farms, yeah. So that would be, it would not be good news, right?

Any other questions, comments?

I was just going to mention, I think it's such a balancing act because you're right, these institutions, commercial institutions, are bringing in lots of tax revenue, which we want. That's a huge part of our budget. So it's a tough, tough balance.

Thank you. We're voting on the amendment that you added, correct? Taking the impact fee from 80% to 25%, correct?

Commercial only.

Commercial only. Anyone clear on that? Are we ready to vote? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes five to one.

Item 3.7, discuss and possibly take action on an application for a certificate.

On the motion. The original motion was to put it on the floor. So you're good. We're good to move on.

All right.

So you're ready to move on to 3.7.

So now we've got to move on to the motion.

You're ready to move on to 3.7. You're good.

We haven't done 3.7 yet. Yeah, that's what you're reporting that. Okay, that's what I was saying. Item 3.7, discuss and possibly take action on an application for a certificate of compliance for retail food store wine for sudden service number 36, located at 501 Memorial Boulevard. We have a motion by Alderman Bradley, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions or comments?

Mayor, if I may, this has nothing to do with 3.7. I need to clarify 3.6 so everyone knows what has happened and what will need to happen. What you all have done is voted administratively and signaled your intent to amend the municipal code relative to commercial system development fees. What will need to happen is beginning in September, you all will have an ordinance that reflects that. It will need to be passed in September and in October to become effective. Thank you. Nothing to do with the certificate of compliance. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. So we're back on item 3.7. Any questions or comments?

Which location is this? Which is located at? It's at 501.

It says on 501 Memorial.

Yeah, it's the one at Fifth Avenue. 501. Everyone clear on that?

Are we ready to vote?

Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their votes?

Would you tally the votes, please?

Motion passes 6-0.

Item 3.8, discuss and possibly take action on a water leak insurance protection program for customers of the water system. We have a motion by Alderman Holloman. Second by Alderman Bradley. City Manager Ryan Martin has something to add for this.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is something that we've never done before. A lot of water utilities in the state do this, and I'm highly recommending that we pursue this. We actually began this research about seven or eight years ago prior to me becoming city manager. The previous city manager, Ms. Holt, was looking at this as well. It is a leak protection program that results in the customers paying a small dollar amount premium per month that protects them. And so you build your plan with the company. It's called ServLine. It's usually about $2 to $3 a month, and that will provide generally about $2,500 in protection up to two leaks in a calendar year period. I believe it's either a calendar year or a rolling 12-month period. Why is that necessary? We're actually... It is... when we see these leaks happen to our customers. Ms. Holloman has one in her ward right now that we're dealing with, with a lady, their limited income, husband with an illness, and had not one, but two leaks that resulted in about a $2,500 water bill over the course of two months. What are we currently authorized to do? We're currently authorized, and I'm just going to use that, because this is kind of what sent this, I said we need to bring the leak protection program back up again. What are we authorized to do? The current conditions of service that you all put into place allow us to issue a 25% leak adjustment and then put them on a maximum of a six-month payment plan. The 25% leak adjustment, what does that do? That's great, except that's 25% of $2,500, right? So she's still up against a lot of money. What happens to the 25%? Again, it's kind of like when we talk about sidewalks. The city doesn't absorb that. That's shared by the other customers. We've all heard the, what about people that go to the emergency room and don't pay? Well, that cost gets passed on to everybody. Well, it's the same thing with a water leak. That water was produced and transported, and that water has to be accounted for. And that's shared by the rest of the customers. And so the utility never receives that revenue. It's built into the rate structure for the rest of the customers. What would the leak protection program do? The leak protection program, and maybe it would be cheaper. We don't know exactly. We've got the company working on it, but before they went too far, I wanted to make sure that you all were interested in seeing something before we did a whole lot of research and got a lot of things together. If so, we'll bring it back in September and hopefully have an agreement, a proposed agreement for you all to approve. We're looking at about $2 to $3 a month to provide about $2,500 in protection. At $2 a month, it would take 1,000 months for that $2 to amount to $2,500, right? It would take a long time. So it's definitely a wise investment for the customer to protect against the leaks. I saw it with my own grandmother four or five years ago when she had a $1,500 water bill on a limited income. That hurts badly, right? And so what's the benefit to the other customers who aren't the victims of a leak? Well, they no longer have to subsidize that 25% leak adjustment. Right? Because now the insurance program is going to pay 100% of the bill. So it's a win for everyone. It's a win for the customer that's a victim of the leak. It's a win for the other customers who've been subsidizing the 25% leak adjustment. It's a win internally, operationally, because we're no longer administering payment plans and leak adjustments because that's all going to be taken care of by the ServLine program. This program was adopted and formulated for Tennessee. The Tennessee Association of Utility Districts actually from my understanding, put this together. And a lot of utility districts in the state have adopted this program. I believe there was one, Mr. Price, that you mentioned. Who did you mention?

Portland looked at this, and the one local to us was Castallion Springs. Castallion Springs.

Ashland City also, I believe, has adopted it. There are several in Middle Tennessee that have adopted it. And so I would highly recommend us to pursue that as well. It's no cost to the utility whatsoever. I've used that terminology on purpose because I could say no cost to the city, but really it's the utility and it's the customers because that's who's bearing the cost right now. So I'll be glad to answer any questions you have about it.

So that monthly fee to the customer, is that mandatory or elective?

They can opt out. But it is that we were told that the program is an auto opt-in. So all customers, we would put out in their notice period where you would have 60, 90 days to opt out if you want to. They said they usually do see about a 1% opt-out because some people are just, I don't want to pay $2. I want to take my chances. And that's okay. But 99% of the customers, I believe, usually stay in. So everyone would have the opportunity to opt out at any time. And I think within the first 30 days, you could even opt out and get refunded if you missed the first window. I think it's the way they explained it to us. But opt out at any time. It's purely voluntary, but it is an auto opt-in on the front end. So you're just trying $1 or $2 a month on a bill? That's right. To protect against a $2,500 leak. I think it's a great deal. We talk to these customers regularly. and how they stress about having a $1,200, $1,300 water bill when the pipe breaks.

Any other questions or comments?

I don't think we need a vote this month. I think we just, I wanted to make sure you all were okay with us pursuing this and bringing you back an agreement. I'm hearing that, I'm not hearing any objection to it. So we'll bring you back something later. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. Item 3.10, discuss and properly take action on Title 16, Chapter 3 of the Springfield Municipal Code relative to the city's sidewalk maintenance regulations. We have a motion by Alderman Holloman, a second by Alderman Hubbard. Questions, comments?

Well, I would like to thank the city attorney for the research and kind of looking at our codes. And, you know, this I think is just it's hard because I think that it's very hard for all the people that I've talked to, citizens, to understand that that sidewalk they didn't choose is their responsibility. But then we all benefit from it. It's tough, but I think that just kind of talking through what we talked through last time, the cost is too astronomical for the city to absorb. And, of course, we have the issue of there are places in the city that don't have the benefit of sidewalks. So I think that my thoughts at this point are to how do we ensure and preserve the sidewalks that we do have, perhaps, We need to do a little bit better on enforcement of those that are really bad off and then just educating continually people because they just don't they don't they don't understand. They don't know. And I I'm I wanted to talk to the board about whether and I don't know how you fund this, but having some sort of potential sidewalk maintenance fund for those who are truly indigent and need assistance and cannot do it themselves. I think in speaking with the city attorney, there was mentioned that some other places have done that and had like you know based on the income apply I'm not aware of that being a particularly pressing issue right now I think it's more of just we need to maybe start I want to say policing it because that sounds kind of more intimidating but making sure that people do I do also want to request that we modify our current ordinance because it currently says that the homeowner would have to correct the sidewalk within five days. And I don't think that anyone would have really the ability to do that unless they themselves could fix it. So I think that there's other cities that allow 30 to 60 days, which I personally think 60 days is more reasonable because finding someone to do it, getting them to look at it and follow through the process. I think we just need to give people more time to fix the sidewalks after they're notified. That's just my two cents.

Thank you. Mayor, may I address? I'd like to address things that Alderman Holliman brought up. Great points. I will share with the board, with regard to enforcement, you all funded, I requested, and you all were gracious enough to fund a position in this year's budget, a dedicated property maintenance inspector that we have never had. Property maintenance has formerly been kind of put under the umbrella of our building and codes inspectors, and that is tough in a high-growth environment because when we have 1,000 units under construction right now or dirt's been turned on 1,000 units, there's a lot going on for those codes inspectors. So we had an opportunity, based on some personnel transition, to do that this year in the budget, and you all have funded that, and we are excited about that person. That position has been filled as of last Monday. And I have told him that he's my new best friend because we're going to tackle property maintenance. So sidewalk enforcement is something that would be able to fall within and underneath the property maintenance inspector. I'm really excited about the fact that we finally have someone dedicated. to ensure that the city's clean up. And it's not that our codes inspectors were lazy. It's that they didn't have time to do property maintenance because when you have so many inspections to do, property maintenance falls by the wayside. And unless a complaint comes in, you could see the self-initiated aspects of property maintenance drop off and then they could pick back up when inspections weren't high. And so it was always an ebb and flow. Having that dedicated person to do that is going to be extremely beneficial. And I think we've got someone who's really good to do that and be able to do it in a positive way, rather than just, what I say, beating people over the head and shoulders. With regard to five days, That is what the ordinance says. In practicality and from a due process standpoint, it doesn't play out that way because they would get served notice first. We can't cite them until we provide notice. So in theory, they would have a lot longer than five days, but I understand we can clean up the language. I have no issue doing that. And with regard to the sidewalk fund that you mentioned earlier, What we have heard other folks do, and I'm not just through the grapevine, we have heard criteria, you know, the city government will provide up to 25% of the sidewalk repair, up to a $500 maximum. if you meet certain income eligibility limits, which may be, say, 125% of the federal poverty level or something like that. And if that's something you all would like to see brought back in the form of a proposal or see that in writing, we could certainly bring that back next month.

For what it's worth, I would like that. Just to kind of, again, I think that Alderman Gregg made a good point, which is that I think there are a lot of people that can do it and just don't know. And that comes in with education and making people aware of what they need to do. But for those who can't, in the interest of preserving what we already have, given the high cost of putting it all back, I would love to see that as just for those who may not have the financial ability to completely fix it.

This did not make me happy, by the way. I did not enjoy that memo.

Mayor, if I could clarify. He started last Monday, so I need some time. He needs to get trained. So I don't want to set the expectations too high that we'll be doing full sidewalk enforcement tomorrow. Well, I mean, we can't go all Barney Fife over there. Right. I mean, he's got to have some time to get acclimated. That's right. Understand city regulations. Understand property maintenance code and be trained in processes. So it'll take a little bit, but we finally have that position. We just see that he'll be here in September. They'll be right.

We will not take any action on this tonight, correct?

Well, we would need some direction from the board. I've heard from Alderman Holloman that she would like to see a proposal for a sidewalk fund. I have not heard from anyone else. As I would also. Okay.

What are your thoughts about a sidewalk?

I'm fine if they want to look at it and see what we can do. Does anybody have any idea of like an average house on Walnut Street, if the sidewalk had to be fully replaced, what that cost would be?

Mr. Moore could probably answer that.

Like if you had an average house on Walnut Street that the entire sidewalk in front of their house needed to be replaced, what cost?

Estimate. Say if it was 75 or 80 linear feet.

And I know a lot of them could probably just be repaired instead of fully replaced.

Oh, yeah, there's plenty of those.

Yeah, and also, I'm thinking, is there a historic...

Aspects of it.

$5,200 would just be a start from scratch.

Mr. Trump?

Would this sidewalk fund be used citywide, correct? Correct. Not just for one particular area. That would be up to you all. That is my request.

Citywide, if it's a sidewalk that exists, preserve it. Have this option for those who can't afford it.

And also explore putting sidewalks in the sections of town that don't have sidewalks.

That's also up to you. If you wanted to put in sidewalks everywhere in the city tomorrow, you could. Make sure there's a balance there.

I'm tired of people walking on the road.

I've heard a consensus. I will bring back a proposal in September.

We'll move on to our consent agenda. Item 4.1, the gas department has a request for approval to purchase a Caterpillar mini excavator with trailer in the amount of $84,952.00. from Thompson Machinery of La Verne, Tennessee, utilizing SWC number 2525, budget amount $90,000. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Harris, second by Alderman Hubbard. Any questions or comments? Are we ready to vote? Let's cast our votes. Anyone care to change their vote? Would you tell the folks, please?

Motion passes 6-0.

At this time, City Manager Ron Martin has his report.

Thank you, Mayor. First, I want to recognize our Police Chief, Jason Head. He was recently sworn in as the Vice President of the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police. That is a phenomenal accomplishment. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. And it's quite an accomplishment to have somebody from our city representing on a statewide. He's also very active and involved in the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I was going to cover the property maintenance inspector and share my excitement there. But we've already done that. I need to update you on our fuel situation. What we've had, we had a malfunction. Some of you may not know. We have always provided our own fuel. We've had our own fuel tanks and our own fuel system to fuel city vehicles and city equipment. We had a malfunction there. The fuel system and those pumps were decades and decades old. We have pivoted away from doing that fully internally now. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair a 40-year-old system was not what we thought was a wise investment. We've negotiated a deal with a company to provide a deep discount on fuel that will give us a little bit more flexibility. And so we've implemented that. We do intend to maintain some fuel storage in the event of emergencies and potentially a ethanol-free aspect of that. If not, we'll work out an arrangement. But just to let you know, that's a strategic shift in our business operations, and it doesn't change your life or anything like that, but I always want to keep you informed when we have a strategic shift in our business operations because now instead of buying loads of fuel, we will be purchasing it at the pump. Frankly, at a better rate than we were getting it in the loads. First Friday night market, or first Fridays coming up, the next one is in September the 4th, so in a couple of weeks. As far as the economy so far in FY27, sales tax receipts are kind of how we gauge that, and those are promising for the first two months of the fiscal year. Both months have been ahead of budget in July and in August, and so that lets us know how well our economy is performing locally. It has nothing to do with, you know, grabbing tax revenue it has to do with that's a great bellwether to know if people are shopping local and how well the economy is doing so it's a very promising sign as far as the fire station and that's the last thing I have on my list tonight we expect our the IDB the industrial development board expects their guaranteed maximum price to be delivered by the end of this week or early next week I think the bids are out for the subcontractors and I think that bid deadline was today so So we should know something by the end of the week. What I expect to happen, being very realistic with you, is that we're going to need more money. Like I told you this last month, I think we're going to need more money. We had originally had a $7 million budget, and you issued $500,000 of that was cash to get us started in a $6.5 million bond issue. I think we're going to need... a little bit more money. I just don't know how much. We'll hopefully know in the next week or so. What I anticipate happening is the Industrial Development Board, they meet in early September. If they approve, if they're satisfied with the result, what they're going to do is approve that guaranteed maximum price subject to the additional funding that you all give them. Ms. Sanford and I are working on a plan to figure out where that money might come from. So I hope to have that for you sometime soon. And if you've got any to spare that you want to share, we'll take that too. I say it come out of Parks and Rec.

There we go.

Mayor, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Brian.

Any other questions, comments? Thank you, everyone, for joining us.

Have a good week.

Hey, you too. Taking the boy around town.

That's the boy around town.