Okay.

So whenever you're uh ready, Mr.

Hanlin, if you could just go ahead and read Bill 53.

Bill 53 amends the 2026 general fund budget to provide for a supplemental appropriation of $50,000 from community action value and repayment of the Ms.

Kissler.

This is actually the repayment of an advance.

CALV was awarded a contract.

The contract was a reimbursement contract for whole home repair for bless you for seniors.

And it was basically for roofs.

And we had all the uh individual homeowners who were income qualified in the queue and ready to go.

When the roofers collectively, I think, due to information on uh budget freezes and the lack of a past budget decided that they needed money down to start the jobs, and CALV wasn't in a position to put that money down.

So we had approval from HUD to advance the money to them so that they could put partial payments down to the roofers that they could start the jobs, um, order the shingles or the equipment, and then uh after they did quite a few roofs, they were able to just pay us back that advance and go on a case by case basis.

So the only reason this is on the agenda is because their repayment needs to go back on a line, and we didn't have a revenue line for the grant since the grant was going to be a payout pass through only.

So this is establishing the revenue repayment and putting it in the appropriate place to pass an audit.

Gotcha.

Um and as I was reading through, I saw the reinvent.

How does this relate to the reinvestment money?

We had reinvestment money, we also had HUD money that was going into roobs.

People who got approved during the reinvestment days, once that money kind of both pots could work simultaneously based on how you qualified.

So we didn't we didn't differentiate.

We just said basically do the roofs of the people in the queue who are approved.

Here's the money to start the process, just pay us back when you're actually paid at the end of the job.

Okay, cool.

Uh any questions from anyone.

And there are no members of the public.

So unless there's anything else, is there a motion to move this forward?

Uh motion to move this forward.

All right, I'll second all in favor.

Aye.

So this will move forward to the regular council meeting.

Uh next up is Bill 56.

Bill 56 means part two, general legislation, chapter 4 and review section for six sound levels by receiving uh loud use to add regulations for continuously operating uses in section four, 107 regulations to add a compliance verification.

All righty, uh Ms.

Kissler, Ms.

Gomez.

Ms.

Gomez is going to handle um this tonight this evening.

Okay.

This ordinance addresses two primary things.

One, it adds an independent um compliance and verification system for all noise violations.

Um it allows the city to require a property owner to go out and do their own noise assessment, pay for that own noise assessment, have a third-party independent provider, provide that noise assessment and bring back the report to the city with recommendations on compliance and an appropriate time schedule.

This is, I think, a good idea for all noise complaints, and it takes the burden, the administrative burden of enforcing the code off of the city and onto the private applicant.

That way we don't bear those costs.

Um the second aspect that it does uh that this ordinance achieves is to add a uh a standard that starts to get at a at a hum.

And um the way that it defines that hum is uh it's called a uh DBC versus DBA differential.

And uh so DBA is essentially the sound that you can hear.

DBC is the sound that you can feel, and then once you subtract those numbers, if the difference is more than 15 decibels, you know that there is some sort of a low frequency hum.

So as this applies, it would apply to all continuously operating noise sources and um including any existing uses as written.

And also if there's a new use that's going to operate on a 24-7 basis or continuous basis, they'll have to do a a pre-and-post sound study to ensure that their new contributions to noise are not exceeding those existing noise levels or creating unnecessary hums.

Um we have received some comments on this from AADC who is concerned about the impacts of this on existing lawfully established uses that may or may not be creating um noise disturbances out there in the world.

Um, when you do an amendment, uh most of the time when I'm here before you're amending zoning codes or land use codes.

This is a little different.

Um, typically, actually, um, we're not typically involved with chapter 400, it's it's enforced through the health department.

But in this instance, since it has relation to some of the other work that we're doing, we we took this one on ourselves.

Um but with um with changes to the noise ordinance, unlike changes to a zoning code, um, these are immediately unenforceable across the board.

Okay.

Now with the AEDC's concerns, did they like point to specific without naming them publicly, maybe were they specific there were specific places at Do you want to talk to a uh frozen food storage facility that would run a generator continually.

And does, I mean, like have they done noise studies?

Maybe it is annoying to the neighbors.

I don't know.