Special Council Meeting Agenda Review - November 18, 2025
Special Council Meeting Agenda Review - November 18, 2025
The City Council convened for a special meeting to review the content of the upcoming policy agenda and clarify the public hearing process for a new council member. Council members discussed various budget amendments, grant fund reallocations involving Tanglewood and Bay Vista projects, and a job training agreement. Significant time was devoted to the urgent expenditure of expiring CDBG/CV funds, with staff detailing the strict federal timeline to avoid losing approximately $300,000. The meeting concluded with the council entering executive session to discuss pending litigation with Airbnb and Me Case.
Consent Calendar
- Motion to Approve Agenda Content: Moved by Mr. Shoemaker, seconded by Mr. Tisdale. Carried unanimously to approve the content of the meeting agenda.
- Budget Amendments: Discussion regarding Item 5I (bomb team X-ray machine) and Item 5C/B (Tanglewood/Bay Vista fund shifts) clarified that amendments address overlooked budget items, federal grant reimbursements, and moving unspent ARPA/MCWI funds between projects.
- Job Training Agreement: Item B clarification confirmed an agreement with South Mississippi Planning and Development District (SMPD&D) for a City Hall Reception Assistant position, limited to 29 hours/week, with workers' comp provided by SMPD&D.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Councilman Gray: Expressed skepticism regarding the new "meeting before the meeting" format, stating that while he did not necessarily agree with it, he understood the intent to improve communication for new members. He noted that he has historically resolved issues by contacting the CAO or department directors directly rather than holding pre-meetings.
- Councilman Shoemaker: Stated that while he is not opposed to the format, it would be preferable to hold discussions before the agenda is set rather than after. He viewed the current Monday meeting as an evolution to find a communication sweet spot with new members.
- Councilman Marshall: Expressed strong support for utilizing a backup plan involving housing rehabilitation (fixing one house) to mitigate the risk of losing expiring funds. He argued that if the current two proposed projects (water fountains and signs) are disapproved, the council should immediately have a third option ready to ensure the funds are not returned to the federal government.
- Mayor: Clarified that the pre-meeting is intended to answer questions beforehand to avoid misunderstandings and ensure smoother Tuesday meetings.
Discussion Items
- Public Hearing Process (Tree Removal Appeal): Staff explained that the upcoming hearing is an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the removal of approximately 26 to 32 trees. The hearing is informational; the Council will take action during the subsequent council meeting. The scope includes 13 trees potentially cut under a public works permit and others requiring committee review.
- Tree Mitigation: Councilman Kruell noted that the applicant proposed replacing protected trees with cedar trees, which does not align with the ordinance requiring one of three specific tree species for mitigation.
- CDBG/CV Fund Expenditure Strategy: Staff presented a detailed timeline indicating that funds (approx. $300k) expire on June 1st. The process requires a public hearing (December 16), 30-day comment period, and HUD approval (potentially 45 days), leaving very little time for procurement and construction. Two specific proposals were submitted to HUD: (1) waterless water fountains citywide and (2) a digital sign at the Groch Center.
- Housing Rehabilitation Backup Plan: Councilman Marshall questioned if a single-house rehabilitation project via the Big Bay Mission could be executed within the tight timeline (approx. 20 days of available time after federal approval). Staff indicated a third program could be submitted but warned that the City Clerk (Ms. Pickage) is currently managing multiple significant mandates, and adding more processes could overwhelm the administration.
- Executive Session: The council moved to closed session to discuss potential litigation concerning Airbnb and a second unspecified case (referred to as "me case").
Key Outcomes
- Executive Session Moved: Council unanimously voted to enter executive session for litigation matters, then reconvened in open session.
- No Action in Executive Session: It was explicitly noted that no action was taken during the executive session.
- Budget Clarification: Confirmed that the $134,000 variance on Item 5F is a standard year-end reconciliation for estimated expenditures, not a deficit.
- Next Steps on Funds: Administration will submit a third proposal (housing rehabilitation) for HUD approval alongside the two existing proposals to ensure options are available if the primary submissions are denied. Council will review the HUD response and decide on the final allocation direction at the Tuesday meeting.
Meeting Transcript
I'd like to welcome everyone to this special call meeting by the mayor. Purpose of the meeting, of course, is to uh do an agenda review. So uh need a motion to approve or approve the content of the meeting. All right, move by Mr. Shoemaker. I'll say all right, second by Mr. Tisdale. Any discussion, Mr. Schumaker? Mr. Mr. Tisdale, anyone else? All in favor? Those opposed. Motion carries unanimous. Uh almost. Not quite, but almost. Um we'll go ahead and go around the room. So uh we'll start with Mr. Tisdale. Any items you want to discuss or any ideas after reviewing the initial content? Um sure, Kenny, if you if you don't mind, would you review the public hearing process because we've got a tree hearing on tomorrow's uh agenda, and that's gonna be new for the new council members. So if you could just go over the format. All right, as I understand it, uh we'll have opening remarks um by Mr. Creel. Uh there is a time uh uh Jerry Crew. Uh there is a uh time constraint on those opening remarks that he'll have uh somewhere around the 10-15 minute uh mark, then the opposing uh or or the counter uh to Jerry will have their time. It's also around 10 or 15 minutes. I'll I'll clarify that uh tomorrow, and then there's a final rebuttal that's uh five or ten minutes, and then we'll conclude that uh hearing with any other uh questions or or comments. Is that good enough? So what is the purpose of this public hearing at the council before the yeah? Good good question. So the public hearing is just that we call a public hearing to inform any informed uh concerned citizens that want to come to this hearing to to listen uh into this discussion about uh the trees. I believe that it's a tree removal, right? Is that what we're discussing? And to hear uh information to clarify exactly why we are having this uh debate on on 26 trees or 32 trees or however many it is. That's correct. This is uh this is an appeal by the individual of the planning commission's decision. But but then so once that's concluded, then we go into our policy agenda where it's the first thing on the policy agenda. That is correct. So so does anything come out of the public hearing? It's a hearing, just a hearing to listen to both sides. There's no action that's taken during the hearing per se. Any action would be taken during council during our council meeting. Yeah, nor normally had there been no appeal, this would just come on uh normally for the council to approve the recommendation of the planning commission. Since there's an appeal, it's basically an extra public hearing uh that they're afforded. So uh they filed an appeal from the planning commission's decision, and that kicked in an extra public hearing before the rule before y'all's meeting. So that was from the roll straight into it after not the tree committee, the planning commission. No, the planning commission approved the recommendation of the tree committee. So it's been through two stages.
openpublica.com