City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody, rise, please. And we'd like to welcome you to the June 2nd Tuscaloosa City Council meeting. We'll have a council prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Powerheads, please. Dear God, bless our proceedings tonight. Give us wisdom to know what is just and the strength to do what is right. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You may be seated. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Move.

Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. Voting with Councillor Eatman? Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And minutes approved. Any statements by any council member?

I will be at Jack's Saturday morning. I hadn't been there lately, but I will be there. Going back, back, back? I'm going back, back, back. I expect Kip to be there and buy everybody coffee.

Oh, goodness. All right. Agenda item comments by citizens? No, sir. Okay. Unfinished business. Council committee reports. Consent agenda, clerk.

This approves items A through G on the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion second, building would councilor fail? Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. And the consent agenda carries. Public hearings, clerk.

This orders demolition of the building located at 1721 and a half, 16th Avenue East.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion second, Virgil.

Council, this is for the condemnation of 17 1⁄2, 16th Avenue East, the eastern structure on the property. It was condemned March 10, 2026. This property has 48 housing code violations. The owner of the property has been contacted, is aware of this hearing. The owner is aware that if it's condemned and demolished, the cost of demolition will be charged back to the owner. The owner has pulled permits, but no repairs have been made to date. The owner is supposed to be here to represent.

Okay, is the owner of 1721 Sixth and a Half, 16th Avenue East here? Yes. Could you come forward, please, and give your name and address for the record, please, ma'am?

Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Joy Tambora. My address is 427 Racetrack Road, Hohokas, New Jersey, 07423. Okay.

Thank you for being here. Can you tell us what your plans are for this property?

Yes, so... This kind of started with me asking a question of the city. So there are two houses on one lot. And because they're however old, they're grandfathered in because the zone is SFR 3. And so if I tear them both down, I can only put one back. Right. Which I understood. Yes. So I called Scott Yarborough and I said, look, It would be more beneficial if I tore these down and built two houses back. There are two there. Why can't I build two new structures? Wouldn't that be more beneficial to everyone? You can charge me more taxes. Isn't that great? He said, you know, he went through and looked and he said, no, unfortunately you can't. I said, well, look, can I get a variance? And he said, it's zone SFR3, there's very little chance that you're gonna be able to get a variance. The variance to completely demolish and start over. So then I said, look, I gave him context. I said, I have a house in New Jersey. In New Jersey, if you leave a certain percentage of the house, it's still considered a renovation. So I tore down a house in New Jersey down to the foundation. I raised it to the foundation and spent another $880,000 building another house on top of it, and it was still a renovation. So I said, how much of these houses can I take down, given that context? because I want to be compliant. Like, who wouldn't want a new house rather than what's there? So he said, I'll get back to you. Next thing I know, I have a condemnation notice, a condemnation letter. And I'm like, well, what is this? So I pulled the permit and in all truthfulness, I did not like seriously read the letter. I was like, I'll just pull it because I have other things going on. I pulled the permit. I was like, I have 180 days. I can figure this out. I'm working on other houses. So Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams called me yesterday and said, hey, you got a council meeting tomorrow. And I was like, what? And so here I am. So that's pretty much what happened.

Yes, ma'am. I can understand your frustrations. You have pulled the permits. And I would like to, do you think you can, if we gave you 90 days from tonight, if you could... start to see some improvements to the house? Sure. Okay. Well, I'm going to make a motion to give you 90 days. Okay.

May I, Mr. Tyner? Yes, sir. It's my district over there, and I'd be glad for you to do something, but now there's two houses, correct?

Two houses.

Are you going to try to repair both of these houses? Yes. Both of them. And it's next.

Unless you tell me I can tear them down and build them both back up. I'd be happy to do that.

I don't think you can tear them down.

I know that. I just want to make that clear.

But you plan to repair both of these houses?

Yes, sir. But I still have the question. I still have not gotten an answer of how much I can take down. Because I would, again, prefer to take it all the way down. I still haven't gotten a response about how much I can take down.

Mr. Williams, could you address that?

Make sure I answer this correctly. I believe if it's taken down anything less than 50%, then it becomes a new renovation. So she couldn't take it no lower than 50% of today's value. Is that not correct? Right.

So the assessed value, 50% of the assessed value with non-conforming structures, if you are investing more than 50% with your renovations, then your non-conforming status would go away. OK. So the only way to have two structures on this property would be to go through the rezoning process.

So in the meantime, if you have any further questions during this 90-day period, you can exchange numbers with Mr. Pons and Mr. Williams, and hopefully we'll get something satisfactory for you. That's all I can really say.

Okay. I think I have Mr. Pond. I've communicated with him on email before. I will stay in touch and try to get somewhere.

Again, we'll give, I'm going to still ask the council to grant 90 more days and then, and by the way, you have to go through this second one too. It comes right after this one and I think the recommendation is to do the same for that house as well.

Yes, sir.

So if you'll just, since you'll be up again, you can just stand there. And so there's recommendation for 90 days. So moved.

Mr. Tyner, I need a second for that motion.

Second. And since this is a, also when we get before the vote, this is a public hearing, so if anyone's here to speak for or against the property, now's the time to do it. Nobody? Okay, voting then with Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. And 90 days is granted. Clerk?

This order is demolition of the building located at 1721 16th Avenue East.

They hear a motion. Some of them have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams?

It's for the condemnation of 1721 16th Avenue East, the western structure on the property. House was also condemned March 10, 2026. This property also has 48 housing code violations. The owner has been contacted as aware of this hearing. The owner is aware that if it's condemned to demolish, the cost of demolition will be charged back to the owner. Once again, she's pulled permits, and she is here.

Okay. And Ms. Johnson, we have the name and address for the record.

Name and address for the record.

So any comments from council?

Yes, I have a question. So if we're voting to give her 90 days, so now once we vote to give her 90 days, there are no more options for her to come back and say that she wants to rezone this property. Is that correct? How does that work?

I mean, the 90 days gives her options to move forward with her repairs. I don't think it would stop her from getting a rezoning within that 90 days. That would be a tough job, a tough hurdle to overcome with the rezoning.

Within 90 days. We could do it now. It's the application process that you would have to.

I don't think it would probably since it would be approved because

Okay, yeah. I just, that was just my question. I'm good on it.

All right, so the recommendation here is, again, for 90 days.

Okay.

I'll second that motion. Okay, and voting with Councilor Feil?

Yes. Mr. Turner, this also is a public hearing.

Yes, I know it. I got it right the first time. Anyone here wishing to speak on this house for or against? Okay, so I'm sorry. Let's start voting over. Councillor Fell?

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. And 90 days granted. I wish you the best of luck.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Okay.

Clerk? This order is demolition of the building located at 30 Eastwood.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion. Second. Mr. Williams?

This is for the condemnation of 30 Eastwood, the southeast structure on the property. This is an accessory building. Condemned March 10, 2026. This property has 22 housing code violations. The owner has been contacted, is aware of this hearing. The owner is aware that if it's condemned and demolished, the cost of demolition will be charged back to the owner. The owner's pulled a permit and has started making some repairs. He is here to represent.

Yes, the owner, please come forward.

30 Eastwood.

Give your name and address for the record.

Marvin Lally, 30 Eastwood, Tuscaloosa.

We spoke before the meeting, Marvin. Of course, we've known each other for a lot of years. What are your plans?

I'm in the process of new roofs, new siding, the lean-to on the side, the sensory building will be taken down. May consider leaving the treated post and just put a carport roof over that. But I have diligently started work like the next week.

Well, the recommendation from inspections is to give you 90 days, and then 90 days you can come back and see what progress you made, and then if you need more time, we can certainly consider granting you more time. Okay? Thank you, Marvin. All right, this is a public hearing. Anybody like to speak for or against this condemnation?

Do we need a second for the motion?

We need to table it.

Oh, we need to table it, a motion to table for 90 days?

Motion.

Table?

We're tabling this for 90 days? Oh, yes.

Yes. I'm sorry. I got you. I thought you were voting demolition. Okay, we've got a motion, second voting with Councillor Eatman.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And 90 days granted. Clerk?

This authorizes zoning amendment number 35. So moved.

Second.

Mr. Pons? All right, thank you. I was going to say mayor and council, but... Council, Longleaf Engineering is petitioning to rezone approximately 1.25 acres located west of Lavera Drive at 2093 Veterans Memorial Parkway from SFR 1 to GC. This is in Council District 6. Here's the location of the property, the current zoning, the aerial showing the property is vacant today. They're requesting to rezone from SFR 1 to GC to build a contractor's office with small retail associated with that primary use. So this is again showing the aerial. Now north is to your left, which lines up with the site plan that they're showing here. So you can see that access is off Lavera Drive, the parking, the detention, and the building itself. And then here are some elevations of what that might look like. So Framework has identified this location as limited commercial, and this request does conform to that plan in the use as well as the zoning. And you can see the future Laney's character map showing limited commercial. and Planning and Zoning Commission did unanimously recommend to approve this rezoning request.

Councillor Fell, do you have any comments?

I think this will be fine.

Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Whoa, whoa, petitions here. Come on up and... See us again.

Tom Sounds for Longleaf Engineering. Good evening. I'm just here really to field questions if you have any.

I'm just curious, what's the use?

Do they have a business? It's a little bit speculative commercial, but he's targeting, like Zach had mentioned, some potential showroom contractor type businesses.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody like to speak for or against this rezoning? Okay, seeing none, voting with councilor Feil.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. And measure carries. Clerk.

This authorizes zoning amendment number 36. So moved. Second.

We have a motion to second. Mr. Pons.

All right, so this is Spectrum Properties LLC petitioning to rezone approximately .58 acres located at 620 to 634 25th Avenue East from SFR 4 to MR2, and this is Council District 5. Here's the location of the property, how it sits today, and then the zoning of the property. So the applicant's requesting to rezone from SFR 4 to MR2 to allow the construction of six townhomes and one duplex, which is eight units total. Here's the preliminary site plan that they're providing as to what they wanna do. It does conform to framework. Framework identifies this as traditional neighborhood core, so the zoning as well as the intended use conform to the plan. Future land use character map is shown here as traditional neighborhood core. Planning and zoning voted to unanimously recommend approval at their April meeting. Do you have any questions for me?

Okay, any questions for Zach? Is the petitioner here or a representative? Please give your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Chris Sintel, Sintel Engineering. I answer any questions, but townhomes are allowed, but we needed the upper side for two instead of three together, so.

Well, I've met, of course, with you and Mr. Hudson, and I'm excited about it. We're ready to get moving forward. Yes, because we continue to need more heads and beds in the Alberta area especially, and you well know Clay does an amazing job. Yes, sir. We're happy that you and him have worked so hard on this and happy to see it moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody like to speak for or against? Seeing none, vote with Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And motion carries. Resolutions and ordinances not of a general nature, permanent operation. Clerk?

This authorizes contract amendment number one with Duncan Coker Associates.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and second. Vote with Councillor Phail. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Motion carries. Clerk.

This authorizes execution of a supplemental reimbursable agreement with Aldot.

So moved.

Second.

Motion second. Voted by Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. Clerk.

This authorizes a contract for professional engineering services with TTL. So moved.

Second. Motion second. Voted by Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. Clerk.

This tentatively awards a public works contract to NC Morgan Construction Company Incorporated.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Votes from Councillor Phail?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Motion carries. Clerk?

This authorizes a professional services agreement with ICC Community Development Solutions LLC for Laserfish server upgrades.

So moved.

Second.

Motion and a second. Votes from Councillor Phail? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Motion carries. Clerk?

This authorizes a professional services agreement with ICC Community Development Solutions LLC for the annual renewal of the LaserFISH software. So moved.

Second. Motion second. Voting with Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And motion carries. Clerk?

This authorizes a professional services contract with ESB Group Incorporated.

So moved.

Second.

Motion second. Voting with Councillor Fayol. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Motion carries. Clerk.

This authorizes the purchase of equipment, supplies, or services from Mohawk lifts.

So moved.

Second.

Motion second. Vote from Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. Clerk.

This authorizes amendment number 12 to the fiscal year 2026 general fund reserve for future improvements fund budget. So moved.

Second. Motion second. Vote from Councillor Fayol. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Motion carries. Clerk?

This introduces zoning amendment number 40.

Do we have a motion?

So moved.

There is a second? Second. Motion second, vote of the councillor fail.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

I'm going to vote no. establish my intent to vote no on this. This isn't my district. I think this is two town homes on one single family residential lot. And I think that's just a lot for this area. And I know this is just for introduction, but I want to establish my intent to vote no tonight. Thank you, Councilor Eatman.

Clerk? Nope, you're good. This introduces zoning amendment number 41.

Is there a motion? Motion.

Second.

Motion and second. Voting for Councillor Phelps.

I'm confused. Did we ever vote on what you said no on?

No, it's just for... This is it?

No, this is just for introduction.

He was the last vote on that last one.

Oh, I got you.

I got you.

I was confused.

Okay, yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Motion carries. All right. Now I can say auditing accounts, right? No, you can say for adoption. For adoption. Oh, for adoption.

This sets July 14th.

I've got my mind on home.

This sets July 14th as a date for a public hearing to consider adoption of zoning amendment number 40.

So move. Motion. Second. In a second, vote of the councillor fail. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

No. No. All right, motion carries. Clerk.

This sets July 14th as a date for a public hearing to consider adoption of zoning amendment number 41.

So moved.

Second.

Motion second. Votes for Councillor Eatman. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. Now can I pay my bills? Yes. This authorizes the payment of bills. Second. All right, we have a motion and second to pay my bills. Both of them, Councillor Feil.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. And bills are paid. Citizens' comments and other communications. Any citizens would like to address your city council? Ms. Smith, name and address for the record, please.

My name is Susie Smith, and I live at 17 Springbrook. In the May 12th city council meeting, Mayor Maddox said, quote, the council has the discretion at this point of whether it wants to go back to a finance committee or not. That'll be a decision they will have to make, close quote. This was regarding my request that the council finance committee hear Delaney Property Group's third proposal for receiving millions of dollars in tax incentives to subsidize a commercial development in Springbrook neighborhood. It is likely that Mr. Delaney, Delaney Property Group will submit a new request. I ask you to hear Mr. Michael Delaney's newest request for tax dollars in the Finance Committee before it comes before the City Council as a resolution for economic development assistance. The Finance Committee heard Mr. Delaney present his original proposal for tax incentives of $6 million on December 16, 2025. On January 6 this year, Mr. Delaney's colleague, Mr. John Jackson, presented the same proposal again to the Finance Committee, but changed the tax incentive ask from $6 million to $5.75 million. Ultimately, committee member, Councilor Norman Crowe, moved to send the incentive request to the City Council with no recommendation, and the Finance Committee voted to do so. On March 24, 2026, Mr. Delaney presented a modified tax incentive request to the Public Projects Committee, not the Finance Committee. Among a number of modifications to the original proposal, the most notable was reducing from six to three the number of operational businesses that would initiate sales tax rebates to Delaney Property Group. In the Public Projects Committee meeting, City Attorney Mr. Tom Bobbitt informed Mr. Delaney that his proposal was, quote, different from what the Council approved in the 7-7-2 phase. So yes, we've got to start the process over, close quote. Mr. Brendan Moore was more emphatic, saying, quote, we will require a full resubmission If the jobs do not meet the requirements in the advertising, that's a full resubmission. Corresponding sales numbers will have to be rerun. Materials will have to be redone. So the full agreement that is up for a vote will have to be resubmitted, redone, and repackaged. Close quote. According to city attorney Scott Holmes in the May 12th council meeting, quote, we have been in ongoing negotiations with Mr. Delaney and are tentatively with an agreement with him, close quote. Since the March 24 Public Projects Committee meeting, Mr. Delaney has had access to city staff to negotiate and fine tune his tax incentive proposal so that it is acceptable to the city. Undoubtedly, at least two of the ten owners of the Springbrook property, spokespersons in the past for Springbrook Investments, Mr. Richard Henry and Mr. Brock Corder, have lobbied you to look favorably on Mr. Delaney's tax incentive as well. The only opportunity for Tuscaloosa taxpayers, your constituents, to learn what is included in Mr. Delaney's current tax incentive proposal is for Mr. Delaney to present it to the appropriate city council committee, the finance committee, not the Public Projects Committee. Finally, in the May 12th council meeting, both Mr. Holmes and Mayor Maddox assured that what the law of Alabama requires will be done. That is, a legal notice of the new resolution for economic development assistance will appear in the Tuscaloosa News at least seven days prior to a hearing of that resolution before city council and the council's vote on it. Tuscaloosa taxpayers, your constituents, are entitled to more than the bare minimum required by law, especially since the Delaney Property Group tax incentive proposal will have changed twice since its first public hearing before the Finance Committee in December 2025. When Mr. Delaney submits his third proposal for taxpayer funds to subsidize the Springbrook commercial development, please follow the same procedure you did with his first proposal and include a presentation for Mr. Delaney on the Finance Committee agenda prior to the legal notice appearing in the newspaper. You owe Tuscaloosa taxpayers, your constituents, the public no less.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Mr. Conner, for the record, I'd like to say that Mr. Henry has not said one word to me about this project.

Yes, sir. Mr. Fale, I would like to put on the record that Mr. Henry, since he has been elected to city council, has not been involved in any of these conversations.

Well, I didn't specify time. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other citizens like to address your city council? Okay, all right, seeing none, is there subject to the exercise of mayoral veto or ordinances of a general nature permanent operation? All applicable departments are hereby ordered to otherwise implement council policy this day enacted. Is there a move to adjourn? I have a motion to second and adjourn vote with Councillor Eatman. Yes. Yes.

Meeting adjourned.