I'm not called a special call city council meeting to order, please.

The first item of business is revised MOU for the SRO program for Mayor City Schools.

Please come forward, please, ma'am.

Evening.

I am very pleased to present to you the revised MOU.

This as I've kept you abreast for the over the last couple of months.

This particular contract has gone before the school board.

They have reviewed it, agreed with the terms.

This is a signed version from the school board that I am presenting to you.

So if you look at pages 11, page 11 is going to have the breakdown of the cost over the next five years, and that is per SRO.

And the subsequent pages for 12 and 13 just show a breakdown of all of the costs that are associated with that annual allocation for cost to the school board.

And this is at 70%.

So they do pay based on the time that they are in session for the schools, so they pay 70% versus our 30%.

It's when we last discussed this, I meant just something about some capitalization.

That uh that was all fixed in that level of paragraph.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions or comments.

Has the school board already passed as uh passed this?

Yes, sir.

That was um even signed it.

Yes.

It was done on the 17th at their last board meeting and is signed.

Okay.

Ms.

Mayor, would you like a motion?

Yes, please.

A motion to approve.

Second.

Any further discussion.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Good job.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any need for the executive session?

At the end, yes, sir, but not now.

Right.

There's a second special call meeting at the very end.

Doesn't deal with this issue.

Yes, sir.

Meeting adjourned.

Finance.

I'd like to call the finance committee to order.

First item on agenda is approved the minutes for August 26, 2025.

Second.

It's been motions of May, probably second.

All those in favor.

Passes 3-0.

The next, I guess, three items we'll take together.

The hotel motel tax, auto rental tax, and finance update.

Yes.

The first item, which is the hotel motel, you will notice that the collections are down.

The total $390,690 for the month of August.

This is the lowest that we've seen in the last five years, so since August of 2020.

We have reviewed the payments and to determine that there wasn't any major lapses in payment or where there were particular hotels that didn't pay for the month or anything along those lines.

So we are having at this point to just assume that there's a change in spending habits currently, and that may be attributable to the economy and some of the things that we'll see also in auto rental that I'll talk about in just a moment.

We'll continue to monitor as we go along, especially going into the holidays, to see if any of those projections change based on what we have allotted or if there's any changes that we need to foresee for the upcoming budget.

As it pertains to the auto rental, the collections again are down at 103,000 for the month.

And this although both the hotel motel and the auto rental revenues are down, they were sufficient to pay out our distribution for the month.

So we um sufficiently covered the allotment and it also had enough to contribute towards the reserve.

So going into the finance update, you should have received a copy of the FY26 budget book.

This is a requirement that we have for our financial officers association each year.

It also is part of the state requirements in order for us to have a print in and uh and make our budget um accessible to the public.

So it is available on the website.

We do have the full budget book printed and we do have on the website a summary version as well as a full copy electronic version that is accessible to the public and can be downloaded if necessary.

So I just wanted to make sure that you all had a copy of that.

You might want to peruse through and may even see a couple of pictures of yourselves and others that you may know.

We did our team did a tremendous um update to the budget book with as far as some of the graphics, and we are um increasing some of the analytics that are included in the budget book, and so I want to give them kudos for that as well as our um photographer Kelly Huff, he helped um with the graphics as well.

So I appreciate that.

And as we are talking about financials, we are in the midst of our audit.

We are moving closer and closer to finalizing that.

Um so far there have been no delays.

We're a little ahead of schedule, and um, so that has um progressed very smoothly.

So um with that being said, I would like to talk briefly about the revenues and expenditures for the month.

Um we have commercial building permits and court fines, they are up year over year.

The real estate tax deadline is um approaching, it'll be at the end of next month, October 31st.

Um, and our collections so far are on par, so we haven't seen any anomalies or dip in collections there.

The total revenues are up seven percent compared to fiscal year to date last year, but that and and that does exclude rollovers, which is um the revenue that we um attribute to match any capital expenditure that we approved a year in prior for our expenditures.

The general fund expenditures are running on target um they're at seven percent 17 percent expense through the month of August.

Personnel services are at 86 percent of their operating budget levels, um, and that includes the salary savings, so that is on par as well, and the capital expenditures are within budget, so there was no um major changes to that or any um major unforeseen capital items that we had to expense that were not in budget.

We'll have a full quarterly report for Q1 next month, and that concludes my update, and we ask that you receive and file.

Receive and file.

Can I just so I was at um COP tourism travel tourism today, and the hotel years are all seeing kind of an August slowdown.

So it was it's across the board.

Yes, um, it's not just here.

So yes, and that is reflected in the numbers because all of the hotels um were saw lower numbers than typical for the month of August.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next item on agenda is the fee structure for road races and walks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and good afternoon, everyone.

I've sure as you will recall a couple of months ago, City Council modified the ordinance language, which related to road races and walks.

And at that time, staff was directed to go back and look at the uh fee structure for those different events.

And so I have for you within the memo an outline of what the current free fee structure um uh states, and so I want to point that out to you that uh currently parades and road races are included under the same uh category line, and there is an application fee for either type of event for $1,500.

And then as you'll see there um on the line it says for it's stated exactly this way $5K or less, $3,500, 10K or less, $4,500.

Um but nowhere does that designate um what those funds are actually for, which is for the reimbursement of officers who operate um during those events.

Um but also applicants also have the uh ability to pay the officers directly and forego those fees, and so it lacks a little bit of explanation.

And so uh what staff has proposed uh would do two things.

Um one it would clarify that the $35 and $4,500 expenses are for police officers and that they might um might be waived if those officers are paid directly.

Uh and then it also um attempts to approach a uh a different issue um which looks at the impact and purpose of the parades, which is more of kind of a community event, versus the road races and walks, which uh have a community element but are really focused largely on fundraising.

And um, and so because of that um we have an example proposal for council um and committee to consider uh that would separate those fees.

And so for parade it would be 1500, we would keep that the same.

Uh for a 5K event, we would have a fee of 2,000, and then for a 10K event, we would have a fee of 2500.

Um and so Mr.

Chairman, I'm happy to answer any questions about how we got to that point, um, but did want to bring this forward for discussion.

Yep.

They're not being paid by the city.

Do they do they have full police powers?

Covered by insurance and the whole shabby.

Yes, sir, they'd still be covered.

Um we have all sorts of work part-time jobs for um private businesses and sometimes at people's residences if they have a party and want security.

And they um they as long as they're acting in a law enforcement capacity within uh within the wall, yes, sir.

There have been some cases uh in the state and others where uh individuals are being hired as security for large events, and then something goes wrong at that event, um the city that they work for get sued also on that as long as well as the uh event organizers and uh in some cases the city ends up having to pay um chairman?

Can I ask a question?

Mr.

Chairman?

Yes, a question?

Thank you.

Um for the uh additional fees in two thousand, two thousand five hundred, that's trying to basically cut cut make sure we're covering our costs for this thing considering the fact that those are a bit more intensive events compared to just a parade.

Is that the logic basically?

That's right.

They're less well known by the community from an announcement standpoint.

They have uh different routes, it's the use of public right-of-way along the way, and and therefore different impacts upon traffic patterns and things of that nature.

Yeah, so it's just that's the reason for the change in fees and the increase compared to a parade.

Yes, sir.

So what are we currently charging, let's say for a parade?

So for a parade that would not be of city parade or city schools parade, something like that, which I'm not aware of a whole lot that extended in that direction, it would be fifteen hundred dollars.

So now it's gonna go from that's still gonna be fifteen.

All right.

So five K we're charging 35.

For a 5K, we're charging $1,500 for just a application fee, and then the $3,500 is if they choose to pay the city for the officers.

So we didn't just add okay.

So now we're going that $15 going to two, and the 35 is still what they were paying already.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So Daniel, do who determines how many offices that they need?

Is that a set amount for a parade or I mean a 5K or 10K?

So that would be Marietta PD.

Okay.

And a lot of that will have to do on routes and length and a number of other factors.

And what about the amount that they pay them?

Is that set by Marietta PD or yes, sir?

There's generally a um an amount set by us that they agree to.

Okay.

And that money is a check that comes directly to the officers or comes to the PD?

To the officers.

To the office.

Yes, sir.

Um if this were to move forward, is this going um this would be amending the fee chart, correct?

Is that um since that's being referenced as part of an ordinance, is that an ordinance change technically or it is modified when you approve the uh change in fees.

Okay.

Um do you think you can have a red line ready to go uh of the fee chart ready to go?

And uh for the work session with the numbers as presented.

Absolutely.

Um session um I make a motion to move this forward to the agenda work session.

Second motion's been made and probably second.

All those in favor raise your right hand.

All right.

There's nothing else to come before the finance committee.

We adjourn.

We are adjourned.

Or the personnel committee, and I'd like to uh get a motion about the uh previous amendment.

Make a motion to approve the minutes of August 26th.

Second.

All in favor.

All right.

Uh first one is um yeah.

This one's in revised uh Board of Appeals appointment.

That's uh David Hunter.

I don't guess we have any nothing to present, but um is anybody got a problem with that?

No, is he okay with continuing to serve Ward 4?

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, well I was okay.

No, I got sorry.

You're good with it.

Okay.

Okay.

All in favor of David Hunter.

I make a motion to reap to approve his reappointment for three years expiring on September 10th, 2028.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay.

Historic preservation commission appointment.

Um Martin Kendall.

First uh consent on the previous item.

Okay.

Consent.

Yeah.

No objection.

On the ward seven item, I've spoken with Mr.

Kendall, and he is indicated that he would be willing to be reappointed.

So I would ask that he be reappointed for a three-year term expiring September 10th, 2028.

Okay.

Motion for the reappointment of Martin C.

Kendall to the Historic Preservation Commission representing Ward 7 for a three-year term expiring September 10th, 2028.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay.

No objection to consent.

No objection.

No.

And do I do these?

Nope.

No more.

That's it.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Um is there any more business before the personnel committee?

See none, I adjourn.

Call to order the parks recreation and tourism committee.

Uh first order business is to approve the minutes for August 26th.

Motion to approve.

The minutes.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

All in favor.

Motion passes 3-0.

Rich.

How are you, sir?

I'm fine, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good.

Evening, everyone.

Good evening.

We'll have the 2,000, well, 2009 parks bond report.

Thank you.

Um we continue to earn some interest on some money that we still have in the bank.

So we had almost $880 in interest last month.

See will change for next month.

We did get the final bills in.

I think our last invoice on Wildwood Park today.

So that $80,000 number will reduce to 76, and the 28,000 will go up just a little over 31.

So we'll bring that back to you next month in terms of uh balancing out those appropriations for the Wildwood Park project.

As far as West Dixie Park goes, uh things are actively moving on over there.

Uh in fact, they were actually uh framing for the sidewalk today to get concrete poured.

Um we have a water quality structure we're waiting on, as I indicated in the memo.

So I wrote this last week.

So we have about three more weeks before that can be delivered.

So we can't do all of the concrete work until we get that in place because we have to be able to get the trucks in and out to pour.

But uh they're agreed to do that in two phases, so we'll be able to get about half of the concrete poured for the sidewalks and the walking trail.

Umce we get the water quality structure in, we'll be able to do that.

Then they'll be able to come back and pour the additional concrete uh playgrounds on order.

The restroom building is in progress, so things are moving along.

And do we have a an update at rendering?

I know that we had we're waiting on that.

Uh yes, we do.

In fact, we have it posted over at the park, and did it go on the website?

No, I'm sure that's make sure, yeah.

Mr.

Deckman was handling that, so I you know I didn't look to see if it was there.

I I know it's done, and I know we're there, but I've never gotten a copy since I can send it out to the okay.

Yeah, we'll be we'll email you one.

Yeah, yeah, we have a posted on the fence over there at the park and everything so the neighbors can see it.

Um that's kind of where we are with the park over there, just kind of getting the site work done and moving along.

Good.

Thank you.

Any questions from the committee?

All right.

Next up is going to be uh meeting uh Marietta the Gathering, the street closures.

Yes, sir.

This is a request to close the streets in March 7th for the uh Marietta the Gathering.

Uh as you know, we usually bring all the street closures to you.

That first meeting and uh committee meetings in January to adopt in February, which is much too close to an event in order to approve it and and know you can go ahead and solicit your vendors and get everything in place.

So this is kind of a set aside from the other street closures, and we brought it to you at this time last year uh so that we can feel secure that we have the appropriate streets that we need.

This request would be for the exact same streets that you approved last year and for the same times of day.

Um it was very successful for us last year, as you can see from the memo.

We were able to bring quite a few more vendors in.

We were able to then bring in some additional revenue, and also brought in a lot more visitors to the event because of the expanded event.

So we would ask your approval of a motion to um implement the street closures listed on the memorandum for those times.

Okay.

Um do we have any questions from the committee?

I'm sorry, good organization, the gatherings.

It's our our event.

Oh, it's ours.

Yeah, yeah, our staff puts it on and organizes it.

Right.

Right.

So is that something we're going to move to the agenda work session?

Yes.

Okay.

So we have a motion to uh move that to the agenda work session.

They'll move.

Work session or straight to the meeting.

Councilman.

City council agenda.

What do you want, Mr.

Bush?

Where do you want it to go?

I'm I'm fine with it going straight to the council.

Uh, if that's if everyone's fine with it on consent, we could go right to there.

No.

Oh.

Okay.

Second.

It's been moved and second.

All in favor?

All right.

So now they'll go on consent.

Consent?

Yes.

Just show me I'm saying consent.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Uh the next one up is um the motion to rename West Dixie Park.

And we'll have um Cheryl requested that.

So we'll turn it over to Cheryl.

So again, as we see from the policy naming.

Larry uh Siminski was very instrumental in Marietta with the parts.

Um lived in that neighborhood.

And West Dixie Park currently is just a locational name.

Like Victory or one of the our other parts that has a significance that changing it might be problematic.

And I think that this should be changed to Larry Siminski.

If you ever want to look him up, you can look up his obituary and all the things he did and all the companies he opened in Marietta and all the work he did at Kirby Park and Victory Park and even at West Dixie Park.

He was on keep Marietta Beautiful Kowanian and he did the flags.

He did a lot for the City of Marietta, and I think that this is an honor that's deserved.

I make a motion to approve the renaming.

Larry Seminsky.

Did I have a second?

I'd like to like to make a comment or ask a question.

I mean I'm not Joe Kirby.

Um actually more recently than that.

We named um Ron Francis Park.

Uh for Grambling Street Park, we named Ron Francis Park.

I think that came first and then Kirby.

Okay.

I I may be wrong.

I'm thinking that came after uh Kirby, but one of the one or the other.

Yeah.

And then I think we've also done the Lawrence Street Recreation Center into the Hue, the Hugh L.

Grogan community center.

Also, yeah, the Hugh Grogan.

Yeah.

Yeah, there did a you know, was very involved in the community.

Good guy now.

So I'll I'll second that motion.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

All in favor.

Motion passes 3-0.

Um consent.

Yeah, okay.

Yep.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

And uh financially, I assign I put on their uh impact on that.

We don't expect it to be over three thousand dollars, and we should be able to absorb that in the park spond in the project.

If not, we'll come and get an additional appropriation of that remaining park spond money that we have.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Uh if there's no other business before uh parks and rec, we are adjourned.

All right, I call to order the judicial legislative committee.

Do I have a motion on the minutes?

Motion to approve.

Second.

The motion is second.

Any comments, questions, revisions.

Hearing none, all in favor, please so signify.

Passes three.

Oh, the next item is the final plat for greenhouse phase one.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, so as mentioned, uh, this is a request for final plat approval for greenhouse phase one.

Um, as you'll recall, greenhouse is the development off of Bells Ferry Road that was um annexed and rezoned in January of 2023.

And uh the preliminary plat for this project was approved approved in July of 2023.

Uh they've completed all of that initial site construction and are ready to build.

Um staff has evaluated the plat um and has uh seen no issues.

I will point out the comment that's made there related to the fence, which encroaches on the to um city right-of-way.

Uh they have since agreed to modify that to move the fence out of city right of way and back onto their property solely.

Um, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about that.

Sorry, please.

On the uh so on the plat, does it still show the incorrect one?

So will it need to be a no a note as part of the motion that that's going to be moved still?

I think it would be appropriate to make that note as a part of the motion.

Okay, thank you.

And it says here that there's already a note that's been added to the plat.

That was the previous note that if they did not get BZA approval that they would remove it at this time, they're not even gonna seek that BZA report approved.

Any other questions on this?

I have a question.

I can't read this uh Carlisle.

So are all the driveways 20 feet and uh couple?

I think I'm believe that they should it should be.

That would have been evaluated in the preliminary plat.

Right.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I think on this phase they all are okay.

All right, do I have a motion on the final plot?

Make a motion to approve.

All right, so it's approved with adding the language about fence.

In addition to yeah, moving the fence out of the right-of-way.

Yes, that's appropriate.

All right, so you're okay with your second.

Okay.

So we've got a motion and a second approving the final plat with a note that states that the fence will be relocated.

All in favor, please signify.

3-0, is this good for consent?

All right.

All right.

So our next item of business is public gathering expression ordinance.

Madam Chair, Mr.

White will present that on behalf of our firm.

All right.

I haven't updated version to pass out.

I got a few comments from Deputy Chief Swaddell and also from uh municipal court.

So and I and I also corrected some typos that I some hang up some hangover uh ordinance references that need to be updated, so I will hand that out.

Yeah.

So you think so thank you.

Um I want to be uh clear that this is an early draft and this is just something we're bringing to the council to get your input on and just try to get your you know um desire to pursue this.

Um it's it's certain the primary person purpose of this ordinance is to address um public gatherings and protests and those type of things.

Cities have really been seeing an uptick in those the last year or two, um and it puts a strain on you know police resources and other city resources.

Um candidly, it also uh we used it as an opportunity to address some of the issues we are dealing with on the public square uh uh or on the Marietta Square on weekends, but I want to be clear the primary purpose of this ordinance is just a overall regulating of protests and and public expressions and events within the city.

Um we uh used a model that's been successfully defended from Franklin, Tennessee, where they were dealing with a lot of protests, and so we feel like it it holds up well on free speech grounds and other first amendment grounds and things like that, uh, but also you know squarely addresses the public safety concerns and and the concerns with um you know uh sort of these unannounced gatherings or these unofficial gatherings that we seem to have.

Um and so uh there's absolutely gonna need to be some changes made probably to make it fit better with our uh parades and demonstration or our parades and uh you know racist ordinance.

Um we originally drafted this, uh Bill Pinto in our office work on it, and he slotted it behind the noise ordinance, but then we moved it um really it bonds more, I think, in that same area with the parades and demonstrations.

So there were a couple of hangover references to the when it was uh put in chapter 10.

And it and it the very first change you'll notice is a is a recommendation that we just change that entire chapter, that part of the ordinance.

Um because even though right now it's called um I think it's called traffic and motor vehicles, it really deals primarily with streets and other things.

And so I I would just would recommend you know changing that overall to say traffic streets, sidewalks, and public spaces.

Um and uh you know, there are other places that overlaps with, like, you know, there are elements of the noise ordinance, there are elements of the you know, parks issues, but I think it it fits best within that and would make sense to retitle that chapter um that or that part of the ordinance to part nine uh with the new name, and then to adopt um in the there's a there's a space that's really conveniently there between 9-8 and 912 for 910, and so that was where we um recommended putting this in.

And this is just um mostly adopted from the framework from this Franklin Tennessee ordinance that's been successfully defended, but it handles where I really want you to think about it is this is not just about the Merriadow Square.

This is about a protest that would happen anywhere in the city.

And if if someone just decided this business need, you know, I want to protest against this business or this particular medical facility.

Um Franklin was dealing with like abortion clinic protests and those kind of things, but there were other other or other issues they were dealing with, and so this is really to address citywide.

Um if a protest sort of sprung up and people were coming out and demonstrating every day, or saying we're gonna demonstrate here every Tuesday at this time, uh, or every you know, whatever that they want to do.

Um, this is putting some time, space, and manner uh regulations around that.

This is just a beginning framework.

We we know it needs some cleanup, but we want to bring it to you tonight and get your feedback.

Um in you know, we know there's some things that are gonna need to be matched up uh with other parts of the quote, the city code and with some of our um it may there were some things that overlap between the parades and demonstrations ordinance and we'll we'll try to iron those out um before we get to a final version, but that's the larger picture here, and it it the basic structure is that you would require um it defines what a public gathering event is, and that's in um the upfront section, and it's we sets out your purpose and then it sets out the definition of a public gathering event.

Um, we know there's some things that are gonna need to be matched up uh with other parts of the quote code, the city code and with some of our um it may there are some things that overlap between the parades and demonstrations ordinance, and what we'll try to iron those out before we get to a final version, but that's the larger picture here, and it it the basic structure is that you would require it defines what a public gathering event is, and that's in the upfront section, and it's we sets out your purpose and then it sets out the definition of a public gathering event.

Um what we have done, you know, the Franklin one just dealt with larger gatherings, but we also wanted to include just recurring public expression events so that we can sort of define, you know, it there's really for people uh if you have 20 people marching past your business or one person standing outside with a megaphone, it's it's not you know, it's still as disruptive, you know, in some cases more if it's a regular thing.

So we wanna we have to regulate it in a content neutral time space and manner fashion, and so that's what this attempts to do is to say we're not gonna regulate what you can say or you know uh you know what you can protest or what you can demonstrate against or what uh what other free whatever speech you're wanting to, we're not gonna get into the content of your speech, we're just gonna talk about time, place, and manner regulations.

And so this is an attempt to say if you're gonna have a regular, if you're gonna have a planned gathering over with a certain meets certain of these criteria, or if you're if you even if you're just an individual, but you meet a couple of these require uh you know criteria where you're amplifying and you're coming to the same place every week or something like that.

We're gonna treat that as a public gathering or public expression event.

And so that applies generally everywhere within the city, you would need to get a permit for that type of event.

There are some exceptions for things uh in uh 910 30 for things that aren't covered by it.

Um, but you know, 910 20 is what says you have to have a permit for these things.

Um but with also within 910 20, there's uh some you'll see you'll notice the framework talks about um we're not gonna allow these events after dark any place within the city or on Fridays uh overnight or on Saturdays overnight in the downtown Marietta Historic District.

That's just the that was just the first Marietta Square map that I came across that's already adopted, but you could you could expand or you could change you could adopt a specific map for this, or you could expand it or adopt a different map that's already applies to the downtown area.

And I would I'd I just up front will say yes, that would address the issue that the city has to deal with uh regularly on Friday nights.

This is we're not you can't have you know an event where you're coming every Friday and amplifying uh on the public square.

Uh it's not and you're not gonna get a permit for that.

Like that's that's a time that's a reasonable time space and manner regulation to say during these hours this the square is being used for other purposes, and there are other places within the city you can express, you know, you exercise your free speech rights.

And honestly, frankly, if we use the map that's that I've plugged in here, that doesn't cover the courthouse.

So they could walk over to the courthouse square and still exercise their free speech rights from the county property.

Um, but that's up front, that's what's in um 910 20, is to say you have to have a permit, but you're not gonna get a permit for events after dark, and you're not gonna get a permit for the square between five and seven on Saturday, Fridays and Saturdays.

Um and that can be that this is just placeholders that I put in here if the council wants to say every weeknight or every different hours on weeknights versus weekends and change.

Look at that.

These are just kind of something I plugged in that addresses the the current issue.

Um, but uh if or if there's other areas in the city that the council wants to consider, um he's saying we're not gonna grant permits for this particular space uh because it's dedicated to a different purpose either all the time or other at this particular time, that's uh acceptable.

Then 910 30 has some additional exceptions, um 91040.

Um, you know, just basically saying you have to apply for your permit.

910 50 sets out what needs to be in the application.

Um you can see I've we've made some changes um based on some comments from the police department and from the courts.

Um I do there are some additional questions that um Deputy Chief Waddell had, and so I want to answer those either here or at another time.

I just didn't include those out to the side because a lot of them are really about um what comes in 910 50 and 91060, which is that what's what's got to be um put in the permit information in the permit application and what the what the organizer and the the participants' responsibilities are and that this is really set up more as a framework for the council to adopt and then the it gives the city manager or his design discretion on specifically what um uh what additional information or what um uh what services will be crossed.

And that this is really set up more as a framework for the council to adopt, and then the it gives the city manager or his designee discretion on specifically what additional information or what um uh what services will be crossed.

Like if if is there if you have an event that's only 20 people and it's gonna be for about an hour and a half, you know, you don't necessarily need toilet services or police, and depending on what you know where it is and what you're doing, it might not require, but if you're gonna have something that's a you know 500 person to march through the this part of town and is gonna we're gonna need police resources, then that there's some discretion from the city on the city manager on what to require in terms of from the permit.

So I know some of that needs to be more um clearly defined, but which I try to leave some discretion to make it flexible um to allow for different size events and different size because you don't you know you can't require every demonstration or every public gathering to have the same uh you know police and other service requirements.

Um that's in 910 um uh 910 70 says that the the you know the city manager will consult with other departments about what the needs might be or the concerns, and then 910 80 says um there can you that they can uh put certain conditions on it based on the information that was in the application and the concerns expressed by the city departments.

Um 910 90 uh lists the grounds for denial and and the reasons that it it you know can be denied.

There's some later references that actually refer back to this that I that referred to 10790, and so I've updated those as say nine teny, and it basically is those are the provisions that allow for appeal.

So I've changed that, but 910 90 deals with the grounds for appeal.

Um 910 100 um talks about how you know how quickly it'll be processed, and we'll we'll work with staff to make sure they're comfortable with the time frames in there, or if the council has input on that as well, we'll listen to that.

Um and then there's uh there's an exception uh for um you know a lot of protests may just pop up because something happened, and so you're gonna you want to be able to respond to those, but the reality is there's not a um there's not always sufficient time uh on the calendar to deal with those, so there's some discretion and some other uh ways that they can expedite consideration if there's you know someone a group wants to come out and protest uh over something that happened in the news yesterday or the next day, day before or whatever.

So uh and then there's 910120 sets up the appeal provisions.

Um 910-130 uh talks about the violations and what the what's considered uh an infraction under this ordinance.

There was a question I think from the police department about uh I think under number six it says this will be cited as a public nuisance, and well, the question was well, does that mean it's cited under the city's public nuisance section or is it cited under this one?

I think it would just be that's really just a name and you cite this section because this is what the the violation the violation violation would be issued under 910-130, and it would generally appear as you know public nuisance under 910 30 subsection six, and so this is its own form of this is the council declaring this is its special a special type of public nuisance if you're you know out demonstrating without a permit.

Um and it's not one of the accepted types of demonstrations.

Uh and then uh 910-140 uh grants um uh it just talks about revocation and the the right the city's right to revoke it if if there's an emergency or if there's um a violation and 910-150 says the reasons for the revocation have to be stated, and then the um permit the then the appeal process for the revocation is there in 910-160.

And uh and the 910-170 talks about the like if basically if things get out of hand, you know, at a public demonstration, um, then there's the right to revoke it then, and that goes over the the framework for that and the reasons for that.

Um 910-180 covers emergency revocations for public gathering uh events, and then there's a hold harmless provision saying you know, basically on your application you agreed to to indemnify and hold the city harmless.

Um if you're you know gonna be doing your demonstrating at a city park or on city right-of-way, um, and then just general boilerplate compatibility and severability provisions at the end here.

So this is just something that we had actually looked at separately from the issue on the square.

Um when this came, we heard about it at a city and county attorney seminar a year or two ago, and I thought that's uh there were some protests around that time, uh maybe two or three years ago.

And I thought, well, do we have something in place for for things like this?

And it was kind of one of those placehold things got in the back of my head, like we ought to go back and look at that Franklin ordinance.

And then when some of the issues started arising on the square, and honestly, there was that issue separately, and then there were some anti-ICE protests and some other type of protests over the last few months that you said, okay, well, this is this is something that we can look at to recommend the council for this situation, it'll give the police and city staff some guidance on how to enforce these type of events, and but also we could sort of also address the issue that's been coming up on the square uh regularly through this process.

And so this is uh again a starting point if you have questions tonight.

If you want to come maybe come back in a month after you time had some time to digest it and ask questions, that's also fine.

But we just wanted to get that conversation started, and I know that I know the staff in Merida Police are probably ready to get something in place sooner rather than later so that they can uh require two public hearings.

So we can move as fast or as slow as the council wants to move on it.

What is the penalty and enforcement for say you got a pop-up demonstration is a hundred people there.

What what is well this this talks about?

I mean, if you are you know viol if you're supposed to have a permit for that and you know, for that gather if it falls under this ordinance, then you know it it says it's a uh think you're guilty of a misdemeanor.

So I mean if you're gonna sit out with our police over there handing out tickets or what?

It's an option.

Um it's not that's not the only uh, you know, and uh uh you can if you know if you know who the organizer is, you can just cite the one person, you know, that kind of thing.

That's sometimes that's pretty hard to find out.

That's true.

Then also if they didn't know they needed to get a permit and doing it too.

I think the the ordinance doesn't have a knowledge requirement for that particular for that particular one under 910-131.

We said if you yeah.

So without uh they could do it without knowing, it might be better to put things like it after after being asked to dispersed if they didn't know about the thing and they don't disperse, that might be that might be a better way to make it.

That's what the knowledge that's what he was saying.

Like if you if you know you're supposed to have a permit and you come out and demonstrate, then that's that's a that that would be an issue just right now.

I don't I'm not sure the knowledge is and every single one of those ones.

So and it could be one of like like we're saying, if you go up and tell these people, hey, you have to have a permit and then they don't disperse, then you could say, okay, well now they know, and then they didn't disperse.

So like depending on people to act nice.

All right.

I've requested this.

Nice thing.

Councilman Kent.

So would this affect like there's some people that protest on the square single person saying stop the war, you know, it's a wall.

Would that affect that person if they're they're not making noise, they're just holding up signs.

Um that I my understanding is that that would probably fall under the exceptions.

We tried to address that, and we want to clarify that.

You know, you would have to for it to be a public expression event, you've got to meet these requirements one of these six requirements, including like a there's a like a minimum minimum of five.

Minimum of five people.

Okay.

Um but uh we could say um, you know, there's also um you know, saying like if you don't like if you're not amplifying, that's one of the conditions, like if you're then and you're just standing out there, that's not necessarily something and we could we'll make sure we clean that out.

We you know, people should be able to stand on the square with a sign if they're not you know on a work day and that kind of thing.

But there are some times, and and honestly, that you could even right now you could get a permit, or depending on whether you're amplifying or not, you could go out on a Thursday night and stand on the square and talk loudly about your whatever your cause is.

Um but uh that's at least the way it's set up now because the only two nights are we say we say Friday and Saturday night, but that can be tweaked as the council desires.

They would be able to stand on the courthouse side without any of this.

Right.

And and you could uh as long as you're not doing one of the things you you is you can still talk to people on the square on a weekend night.

It's just if you're gonna use amplification or if you can be in the same spot every you know, it's a regular recurring event.

Um, because we don't, you know, people are allowed to hand out literature and talk to people and uh so we that we're not we're we're trying to when you have a time, place and manner restriction, it has to be narrowly tailored to the safety and other concerns you have.

So that's what I'm trying to help the council find is like what's the narrowly tailored solution to citywide, anywhere protests, gatherings, things like that, uh for specifically for the square, some specific time place and manner requirements that you can say, okay, or during this time period, this this this area is going to be dedicated for this purpose, and if you want to demonstrate if you want to if you want your if you want to exercise your first amendment rights, there's a you can go right over there.

You know, it's uh that's uh that's an area that's not covered, but um that's that's the sort of the goal here.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, did you have something?

Yeah, I want to ask uh portion of a sidewalk that's rented.

Is that a sidewalk?

Well, if there's a if there's an agreement, if there's an agreement with the city that for that period of time, let's say let's say there's a restaurant that rents a that rents a sidewalk and uh they want to have a band out there, you know.

That that's that in theory is a per that's uh that's an agre a city sanctioned event essentially saying like we have a lease and under your terms of your lease you're allowed now, it would need to be covered under whatever the agreement is the city has with the business.

Uh but if that business wants to have a you know uh somebody out there with an acoustic guitar or an amp or something, as long as that like you allowed for public performances during that time period under that agreement, then I think that would that would be allowed.

Um because it that restaurant would in theory have a right to exclude those people from that area.

Like if the restaurant is saying we're gonna use this area for tables and for performances, in theory, the you couldn't just everybody couldn't just crowd in into that portion while they're you know using it for that purpose.

Kind of what I was asking, though somebody was being obnoxious and wouldn't get out of the table.

Would that be trespass or would that be under this would would the owner have to yes?

I I think it would both.

I think it would be trespassed because the owner could say that I have access, this is under this agreement.

I have you know, sort of the control over this space for the for this period for this purpose, or because it is city right away, it's still we you could still you know the call on the police and say this is this is not a this the person that's demonstrating in this area is covered by the public uh uh expression ordinance, uh public gathering ordinance, and is the city right away, and they're not permitted to be here.

I have the permit.

That's the other thing is like if there's two permits, and you can almost look at it that way, that you can't have two permits for the same area at the same time.

So if somebody else is permitted to be doing their activity there, we're not gonna grant someone else a permit.

Just like if somebody if we had permit if we had a concert going on on the stage on on a you know, one of our uh Glover Park concert chairs, we're not gonna let somebody else get up there and play during it, because the city can say during this time that stage is but the rest of the week you could get up there and play your guitar on the stage, you know what I mean?

So it's the same kind of concept where if you if the city's allowed you to use your that portion of the right-of-way, whether it's an alley or the sidewalk during that time, then you can say, well, this area is already the city's permitted us to use it, and you can't have you can't be permitted for this.

You can't be allowed to be in this space at the same time.

Do we need uh Mr.

E to take an action or do you just I mean we don't need a table to come back, we just take no action.

Well, you you ought to say you want to see it on the uh committee meetings next month.

You want to have the first public hearing in uh October?

There has to be two public hearings, October, November.

You could wait to November, December.

However, you want to proceed and however you want to do it is in your discretion.

Right, you have a motion.

I make a motion for public gathering expression ordinance to uh be pushed to October.

Is that what to next months?

Um committee meeting.

Is that where we need yeah, or you can put it on the uh agenda for the first public hearing in October?

You could it's up to y'all.

How has how quickly the council wants a move?

If you want to go ahead and start the reason you can't change it after the first public hearing, so if you want to get the process started, have a public reading in October, then make some more changes between October and November.

Okay.

So just move it forward.

We'll move this to the first public meeting in October.

Actually, it's gotta go to the agenda work session to then move forward, which would then call public hearing.

Okay.

Is that what you're you want to do?

Well, the motion would be to move to the agenda work session.

Okay.

Um sorry.

Yes.

I yield you need any kind of posting requirement.

You know, like we have no smoke and we have no skateboarding.

Um we probably that's not a bad idea.

I mean, I had it's not in there now, but um yeah, you might you want during those events where there's nothing, you know, permitted during this area, it might not be a bad idea to have some public notice that this this area during these hours is uh outside of the public gathering.

But you have to come up with the right language so people understand what it means.

Yes, yes.

Of course, going on through it, I've noticed a few grammatical errors and have um also probably asked one of the things, make sure we check.

I know this is an ordinance, I think, from Tennessee.

Double check to make sure uh we're in compliance with some of the Georgia laws in there, whether it's regarding overgards or regulations that Georgia might have more be more restrictive over the Tennessee might be.

Yes.

Uh I we did an initial screening, both of Tennessee and Georgia um statutes and also case law that don't seem that different um on these things.

I mean, it's really um a lot of this is U.S.

constitutional you know, first amendment issues.

But as for as for grammatical stuff, I've noticed would you prefer I do this now or too far I just give them a call at this point?

I'll give you a call later this week.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Okay.

And I yeah, that goes for anybody that anybody that wants to call, ask questions about this.

I can even I'm happy to do a zoom if we want to just go through and be careful on the zoom because if we get more than two no, I don't mean with everybody, I just mean like with the individual.

Yeah, no, I don't want to do no quorums.

All right, so we've got a motion and a second to move this forward to the agenda work session.

All in favor, and I stand opposed.

So it moves forward to the agenda work session.

Please take a minute and read it because we're moving this train pretty quickly.

All right, next item is Roswell Street 462 480 stipulations.

Thank you again, Chair.

Um, so as you'll recall just a couple of months ago, City Council approved the rezoning of 462 and 480 Roswell Street uh for summit heating in air, um, so that they could utilize that space for their contractor's office.

Uh there were a couple of stipulations as a part of that approval.

Um one of uh which was that city council would then have the ability to be presented with and to approve the uh fencing that would be on the front of the property and also the front architectural elements as well.

And so they have those and have provided them to the city in your packet.

Um and you'll notice those as you um go through.

I will point out they have three different uh fence exhibits that they're demonstrating on the plan.

Uh and they do have a associated map which labels which exhibit goes to which area on their property.

Madam Chair, may I just make sure I'm reading the map correctly?

Please um just make sure I'm reading the map correctly for the fences.

That one that's a bit more open, see through exhibit one.

That's only going to go in front of uh the tract that tract one the tract with the actual building on it, and then in front of where the Marietta property is, it looks like the city owned uh section.

Uh the city owned tract.

That's correct.

That is what it is showing.

Um then the the green, which is the exhibit two would be showing in front of the other parcel, which is used for parking.

Okay, and then and that one's gotten much less of a gap so we can actually shield the uh cars from the right of way so that people wouldn't see it wouldn't see that as much.

That's more of a fence.

And then exhibit the exhibit three fence, which is just the straight up, you can't see anything through it is around along the back to make sure the residential can't it helps shield the residential side of it from the commercial activity.

That's correct.

Some shielding at least in the from the it's not gonna do much.

Um it is showing the fence across the city portion.

Uh is that an easement that must be granted?

Yes.

Is does it cross over to city property?

Yes.

No.

That's that's what it is currently showing.

Um in this situation, um, it's more about the aesthetic of the fence that you're approving as opposed to the location.

So as they come back through plan review, city staff will flag that, and if there needs to be some type of easement granted, we'll bring that before you at a separate time.

Yeah.

All right.

Um for time.

Please.

So, for example, for that one fence along the along the front of tract one there.

The part that we might be approving is the aesthetics of a fence that goes across tract one.

We're not talking about something going in front of the we're not approving the location on the city property part of it, just the just the parts they're private property.

That's right, the general location, but really the materiality and the the wood and then the brick columns in between.

Yeah, so if there was a motion, it'd be kind of exhibit one for this general area, exhibit two for this general area, exhibit three for this general area for the fence, and then the architectural drawings as submitted for the building, would be kind of what the motion would be saying.

Yes, that could be that could be it.

And I will point out in the back of the packet, there's a little bit more detail related to lighting, and so it shows some of the different uh lighting features and uh Shelby's put it up on the screen as well, and then also the roll-up doors, um, which are modeled similarly after uh two birds, and so they're gonna have glass in between and then um essentially function as roll-up doors, but also function as that window element as well.

Yes.

This is a little bit off the subject, but not totally wasn't there some conversation about the city not needing that property.

Uh those conversations I think are still ongoing.

Yes, sir.

Um is there a motion?

Let's start there.

And we need to move this to the agenda work session.

Uh we can move all the way to the uh what's that council meeting?

To the council meeting.

Um if that is what you'd like your motion to be.

Okay.

So I will make a motion to move it to um our meeting.

Is this with approval?

I was about to ask them.

Approval and moving.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So now with a motion and a second.

Doug.

Yes, ma'am.

Can you help us frame this in the right language where we are not saying yes, granting at this point the specific location across city property?

You would move it forward as uh submitted, referring to the street addresses in the Z number.

But such approval does not grant an easement and does not approve the location on city property.

Right.

We'll go with Doug's.

Yeah.

I'll second that.

And again, it's the same motion, it's just clarified, okay.

Because we're not there yet.

Okay.

So we've got a motion and a second to approve, move forward to the council meeting on the eighth, but the approval does not include an easement or specification on location across the city property.

Perfect.

Correct.

Yeah.

So now it's on the parcel.

Right.

Right.

That's right.

Any other comments, questions, concerns?

All in favor, please signify.

Consent.

Good.

Yes.

Yes.

Um is there any other business coming before judicial legislative?

Hearing none, we stand adjourned.

Call the public works committee to order the first item is the minutes of August 26th.

All second the motion.

All in favor.

Right here.

Next item is the 2016 splash.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The only update I have is we're still awaiting a start date from the contractor and uh final approval from GDOT to move forward, get that project started.

So it's all have on the 2016 unless anyone has any questions.

22 splots.

We have a few uh projects that have gotten underway uh since our last meeting.

Um I think I mentioned at the last council meeting we were getting ready to start the White Avenue sidewalk project.

Uh that contractor has been working on that as well.

So that project is underway.

Um Waverley and Atlanta intersection.

Uh that contractor started work yesterday.

Uh he got mobilized last week.

He actually started digging dirt and moving things around yesterday, so that project now is also underway.

Uh the East Dixie Trail.

Uh that contractors schedule to start next Monday.

Uh putting trail down out there.

So that project is on the way or will be underway then.

That's all I have on the 2022 unless anyone has any specific questions.

Any questions?

Yes, sir.

What's the approximate?

How much time will that roundabout at Burnt Hickory and Pope?

How long will that take?

I mean once once we get ready to go to for construction.

Right.

Six months.

Um, it depends on which method that the mayor council allows me to proceed with.

Um there is a there is a expedited way, and then there is a normal path.

So I as I stated before, I'll be when we get a little closer, I'll be bringing that back before Mayor and Council to have you consider which method you would like me to proceed with.

I'm going to guess I'll be in 2026 then probably.

Um we won't be ready to move construction for that project until the summer of 2027.

So we we've still got time.

I was asking that because I wanted to know who I would be able to complain to once.

Call the mayor.

That guy right there.

We will we'll have a uh number or a board up with a phone number you can call it'll be your number, but don't worry about it.

Um I I have a question going back to East Dixie Trail if I might.

Um so we are, and this may not be something you can fully answer, but we're happy that all the water issues that were going on with people having the backups and all that is completely taken care of.

My understanding, all of the water issues with Mary Alta Water and uh customers out there, everything's been taken care of this morning.

I'd hate to start putting in that trail in that back out.

You and me both, but we have been told that all of those have been taken care of, so we're ready to move forward.

Thank you.

Any other questions from anybody?

I have a question.

Yes, sir.

You related to the 2022 splotch, but on Lemon Street, the manhole covers uh they resurfaced the street and did a lot of work on the sidewalks, but a manhole covers are still there they're still on the list to be done.

We we've still got several of them to be done across town.

Will they be done this year?

They'll be done soon.

Contractors working on them, but he he just has to move through the whole list throughout the county.

They're still down.

That's uh yeah, I know that's state highway.

A little little more discussion for that one.

Anyone else?

Next item is the budget uh reallocation 2022.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman.

This next item is uh somewhat of our semi-annual uh reallocation for the 2022 splosh.

Um as we move money around between projects uh to get as we gear up moving forward on some of these projects, we have to get money moved in to the accounts to account for them as we're moving forward.

So, what you see is us taking about eight million dollars out of our cash reserves in order to move into these other accounts in order to get these projects ready to move forward to construction, so you see them being rebalanced out uh across the respective accounts.

Um we currently have about 28 million dollars sitting in reserve, so um we do this again about twice a year as we rebalance these accounts.

So that's you see the accounts and be happy to answer any questions.

No question, you have a motion to approve this move forward.

Quick question I actually want the eight I think it's right now it's just balancing the eight million.

We still have other stuff that's unencumbered that can be rebalanced later, I believe.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

Uh that's 28 million unencumbered.

So, yes, we we still have other things.

Yes.

I make a motion to approve the budget allocate reallocation.

I'll second the motion.

All in favor.

Okay.

It's right, it's my own.

It's just uh what's an MU trail?

Multi-use.

Thank you.

That was my only question.

Is that okay for consent?

Well, I guess I probably need a vote.

Yeah.

Okay, for consent.

No.

Consent.

Uh is that all the ad on that?

I'm sorry.

You have anything else on that?

No, sir.

Next item is the uh August Public Report.

Yes.

Uh these next two items are the our performance reports.

Uh I would do one for August.

Um, so you see the one for August and the one for September.

Um data is pretty standard uh steady for each month, uh considering uh summer months if we're coming out of summer for August, and then as we're gearing up for school season and starting back in September.

So I'll be happy to answer any specific questions on either one of those if anybody has any questions on the performance report.

Anywhere else.

Um on the September report, which reports back for August.

So we had a you guess a large building come on up or something like that compared to the other two months.

So just more building activity, which should hopefully be a good sign.

I guess yeah, they did one when we ran the report.

The numbers added up a little bit.

So the September report is accurate for those numbers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Next item is Kinshaw Avenue utility variants.

This is a request by Comcast Communications for consideration for uh variants from the Underground Utility Ordinance for the installation of uh fiber to be overlashed uh along Kennesaw Avenue.

Approximately 118 feet of overlashing uh beginning uh at the utility pole at 1004 Park Manor Terrace to the utility pole at 776 Kennesaw Avenue.

Once a fiber optic line reaches a pole at 776 Kennesaw Avenue, it will be installed in an underground conduit to serve the property at 776 Kennesaw Avenue.

This is in wards 4A and 5B.

Um other lines along that stretch through there is above above ground.

Um, and there have been other overlashing in that area in the past.

Public works has no issues with this being overlashed.

Any question from five ward five?

No question.

Any question from anybody else on the committee?

No, no, motion.

Um approved.

I'll second the motion.

All in favor, uh next item is uh West Dixie Avenue.

No objection to consent.

No objection to consent.

No objection to consent.

No objection, no objection.

West Dixie Avenue and Raymond Street.

This is a request that we'd received to evaluate the installation of a three-way stop sign at West Dixie Avenue and Raymond Street with the associated pedestrian improvements for crosswalks at this intersection.

We did complete the this evaluation.

We do not find any issues with installation or three-way stop condition with pedestrian crosswalks.

These improvements will require the installation of pedestrian crosswalks and improvements to the sidewalk access points currently already there.

Estimated cost for these items is $2,500.

This is located in ward 1A.

This will require a public hearing.

1A, you okay with it?

Yes.

Um it's a public hearing too.

So for the the reason why uh part of the reason why is the sidewalks on both sides of the road, so that creates a good location for a crosswalk crossing motions.

That's correct.

There are sidewalks on both sides of the roads, and plus with the renovation of the West part.

Uh this gives a safe passage from one side over to the other in order to better access the park.

This is a safest point in order to make that cross there.

Um I'll make a motion to move this forward without recommendation due to the public hearing require requirements.

Second, all in favor, right here.

Next item is uh Whitlock Avenue.

City Marriott and the Department of Public Works have recently invested a substantial capital in the Whitlock Avenue corridor between North Marida Parkway and John Ward Road.

This corridor is currently under the control for right-of-way maintenance of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

GDOT must approve all improvements to this corridor, including utility work, right-of-way improvements, traffic signal upgrades, and or additions, pedestrian improvements and sidewalks, driveway access points, intersection improvements, etc.

This corridor is approximately 3.17 miles in length.

In November 2024, the mayor and council authorized a resolution for the removal of the Whitlock Avenue from the state route system.

Since that time, public works have been working with GDOT on a solution that would benefit all parties, including G DOT and the Cobb County Department of Transportation.

We have finalized a memorandum of understanding with GDOT that will allow for the City of Marietta to assume control of Whitlock Avenue from North Marietta Parkway to John Ward Road.

This control would include assuming full maintenance responsibilities for the right-of-way, maintaining and replacing pavement markings and race pavement markers, curb pedestrian and sidewalk maintenance, mowing routine, routine maintenance, pavement maintenance, utility coordination, traffic signals, and access management and control.

Whitlock Avenue will continue to be a state route owned by G DOT, but the City of Marietta will have full control of this roadway under the MOU.

Any questions?

Yes.

Yes.

So they'll still have full control, so they could, you know, at any moment they could still come to us and say we're going to widen the no sir.

Not according to this agreement.

If they if they want to propose any improvements, that we have to approve it according to the MOU.

How about where?

Where where could we place uh red lights where we want them?

Yes, sir.

Along that route.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All the way to John Moore.

All the way to John Moore.

We can put one at every intersection if Mayor and Council so decides.

Through the park.

We don't have to get their approval.

We do not have to get G DOT's approval as long as we don't get on park property.

Good news.

Yes, sir.

What does this actually change from what we have right now?

I mean, don't we already maintain it?

No, no, ma'am.

So when we have something grass cutting, whatever, they come out and do that.

They're they're responsible for everything.

All right.

So we're taking on liability.

And with this current court case, we would be worse off than they would be.

What's the upside?

The upside to this is we have full control over it.

So we we've had some issues in the past to where GDOT was proposing to make some changes along this corridor that did not make any sense whatsoever.

Uh and even under the current right now, today, G DOT can come in and say we want to I want to make this extreme.

G DOT could come in and say we want to make that section of Whitlock one way.

There's nothing the City of Marietta can do about it.

So the last time we had an issue with uh them proposing it was almost to that extreme.

They were proposing to install some roundabouts on three intersections that made absolutely no sense.

And um luckily I was able to intervene and stop that.

But we had to pay for we they were going to ask us to help pay for that, yes.

Um but then we had no we had no say in it other than they were going to send us a bill.

So we're responsible for paying for any maintenance on that road.

Maintenance, yeah.

Now to go back to your question, uh Ms.

Richard, they are responsible for the maintenance.

Do they always get out and do it in a timely manner?

No.

Are we having to go out and do it in order to get it fixed?

So we're not having to respond to our citizens who's complaining.

Yes, we are doing a lot of the maintenance right now.

But it technically it is their responsibility to do that, but they are not performing.

But do they pay us if we do it?

No, ma'am.

We we're having to go out and do it.

It's out of our cost right now, but because we have to take care of it.

Just briefly uh disclose that uh an entity owned by myself and member and member of my family on property at 47 Whitlock Avenue.

Um just disclosure for information purposes only.

Mayor, do you have a question?

The sidewalks west of Windsor are they county sidewalks?

They go all the way down to John Moore.

I mean those lines.

Uh that's part of the monthly the multi-use trail.

Uh so they were built by the county.

Uh so yes, technically they are a part, they are owned by the county, yes.

That part would still be maintained by Cobb DOT.

So we won't maintain the easement.

Right.

Right.

But that part of the trail will still be part of Cobb DOT.

Sidewalk in so that the kids could run.

High school kids could run out of the way.

Better think it went just to Windsor.

Just to Windsor.

Yeah, just to Windsor, and then they cut back.

And then the county took it to John Windsor.

And the county takes it the rest of the way too.

Right.

I just remember doing that.

Any other questions?

I have a request since I'm not gonna be here.

Can you make sure that once all this is done that y'all create a safe place to cross on Whitlock?

You know, closer to when and no comment, huh?

We Mr.

Walker, we we we've had that request.

We've and we have proposed that to GDOT, and G DOT has refused to take any action.

So we have it on our list.

Uh we we think we have a couple of potential locations, but G DOT would refuse to right now to approve it.

Um I'm sorry.

No, that they're a couple of places that it could potentially be done in coordination with more the school traffic is located and it'd be safe.

Um but it it's it's tricky, but there is a couple potential locations for it.

G dusters refused to look at it because of basically financial reasons.

They they just don't want to participate with it.

But again, this is one of those it being under local control.

We understand what the needs are on that corridor and how best to suit those needs, and they do not.

So um for me, I still have probably the same concerns I had back and back when we did we originally did the vote.

I know it's now shifting uh with us taking on the liability.

So um I'll just reiterate the same concerns I had back then.

Okay.

You need a motion with this.

Please.

If so that's a will of mayor and council, yes.

This has been through the proper legal reviews at uh GDOT and with our legal council, so it's ready for council.

I make a motion to bring it forward to approve the memorandum of understanding.

Isn't there a second?

Well, I'll knock on a second.

I'll second it.

All in favor, reading refugee raise your yes again.

It's two one.

Um voting against I vote against taking it off the state route a few months ago for similar reasons.

It moves forward to meeting next item is uh under the seventy.

If y'all want to do consent, I'm not opposed to paying on consent, just show me against.

Okay.

Everybody else okay with that?

Put on consent joining the coast ease.

Okay, understanding Winlock Avenue.

The downtown solid waste.

Solid waste management.

Um disclose that my family owns property in the downtown salt place district.

Oh boy.

It's the um downtown solid waste management district service.

Oh, okay.

Is downtown sound waste management district.

So we've been working with uh First Baptist Church on after our last uh discussion we're in council um the best solution and what would be okay or approved by the church.

And uh we we've come to a agreement with the church on what they would uh be happy with and and some dollar amounts as to what would work.

Um yeah, go to the next there, one more.

There you go.

This is um was one that we discussed before with the installation along Root Street heading back to the square, the installation of angle parking with the dumpster enclosure at that angle part there of route and handsell.

Um with Dobbs becoming one way up that from Cherokee to route route, then one way up to Hansel, and then of course Hansel's already one way back over to Cherokee.

This would allow the best flow of traffic safety-wise uh through there, uh, especially with the uh daycare there at the church.

Um we've also had some discussions about the possible closure of the Dobbs Street entrance at church street, uh, being that there is some significant site distance issues there with the parking uh along that street.

The only way to resolve that parking or that site distance issue is either to close that entrance uh or that exit part of Dobbs on to church, or to remove the on-street parking.

We all know how valuable parking is in the downtown, so it seems like the best solution would be to close that access point and leave the parking that's on the street and allow that flow of traffic then to circulate around uh to get back over to Cherokee Street.

Um proposal, uh this would be a net cost.

Um we have been going back and forth for a long time with the church, so this would be uh a net after we would exchange right away with the church, they would exchange, give us right away or uh everything we need, then for the dumpster enclosure.

Uh we would end up paying the church about five hundred dollars.

So we would get the own street parking and the dumpster enclosure, but they're I mean they're giving up a significant amount of property, but um between the two, swapping everything out that's they would own those parking spaces?

No, it would become City Radway, City Ride of the City.

It would become City Broadway spaces.

We would just extend over into their parking area.

Okay, would they is that including closing Dodge Street up at the all that is is just a closure up at the street.

I mean you are they okay with that?

The churches.

Churches, yes.

And that's in here, closing that street.

That you you don't see it on that uh on that drawing right there because that's just it's only agenda.

It's it's in there.

But which end of Dobbs Street?

Are you I'm sorry?

Which end of Dobbs Street?

On church street, yeah, on church street.

One you have to it's up at an angle like the top of the hill.

It's hard to see out there.

There's a lot of traffic people coming down church street and then pulling out in front of them.

Pretty tough.

Any question?

I've got questions.

Okay.

So looking on the I guess it's along root street.

All of those angled parking, those are city, those aren't church, so it's not it's two hour parking, not using the pay system.

That's correct.

Okay, and then these four down here, is that the same?

Yes.

Okay, so we we pick those up.

But if we were to close off Dobbs, don't we lose five spots?

The there are there are four or five spots along Dobbs that are currently accessible.

Those would still be there.

Uh we're not closing the entire street off.

The street would still be there now.

As far as the back up, yeah.

Yeah, and we would probably have to reconfigure those those parts of the city.

But there are five.

Yeah, they're fine.

Five.

Yeah.

They're fine.

Yeah.

If we remove three off of church, instead of losing five, you could see down church.

Could so that would be three versus five.

We're not losing those five.

They're still there.

It depends on where the reconfiguration goes at this point.

I think it's almost like we don't have really enough.

But like you're in the very first spot to get out because now you can't go out Dobbs, you gotta back down the street to get out.

Unless they can figure a different way to reconfigure that spot of land somehow.

Right.

That that's that's what I'm thinking is I'm all good with the closures, I'm all good with all of it until we look at the fact that we're gonna lose those five spots, because I mean, even if you kept them, people would literally have to back out to be able to use them back down the street.

But if we lost three on church, then Dobbs would be safer to pull out.

The church, the church is wanting to close that, I think.

And so that would be the people that go to that church would have to be the ones backing down.

And I don't know if there's more spaces though, it could be a net a net negative on the thing.

So it's kind of a do we have enough information to vote on the Dobbs Street part of this?

Yeah, I just want to look at the Dobbs Street part.

I'm I'm concerned about I I hear what you're saying, Andy, that that's what they want, but those are public spots.

It's not like the church parking where I understand that's theirs.

These are public spots, and what we're saying is yes, we'll still have those five, but in order to use them, you gotta back out on to back out to get to route and then turn down route.

But in order to use them, you gotta back out on to back out to get to route and then turn down route.

If you close Dobbs, how many do you pick up where you close dobs on that?

That's several right there.

What do you I'm sorry, I missed where you close DOMs.

That's gonna be a couple.

Oh, this way areas, but I'm talking about where you where you're talking about taking away the three.

Oh, yeah, yeah, in front of the adding.

You check out and two, probably.

Take out this, there'd be at least two spaces that you'd add parallel spaces on church street.

Right now we have bull belts though, so not sure what the cost is.

And could you make the parking on the other side of the road where it's on the right side to where it's not they're not having to pull up and park, you know.

We we could now if if it helps clear that up.

We I can bring back the Dobbs Street closure as a separate item.

What give me give me a little bit more time to analyze what yeah, and not tie it to this because that really is gonna be a separate item.

And I can do that and show those options.

Now with with what we're showing right here, uh we're picking up uh a net of about uh somewhere around 18 parking spaces.

That new parking spaces.

Um above and beyond what we have now.

Just just what you see right there.

That's including the angles, that's including the additional ones that were where the current dumpsters are sitting along Hansel, which those will be converted over into parking as well.

So we're picking up a significant amount of parking just with that layout right there.

So I'll be happy to draw that up where we can see exactly what the best options are and bring that back as a separate item for discussion.

Um October committee meeting.

Give me time to get that done.

I think that'll probably be better.

So have we I'm not in favor of one-way streets.

Uh have we done a traffic study to see how much traffic flows and when it flows through um we know the church has the daycare and a lot of traffic flows in the morning and evening during the week.

But what about the weekend traffic?

Um that to exit the square or I'm looking for a parking space.

We we we did look at that sometime back.

Yeah.

Several years ago.

So I have I don't have an up-to-date number.

But when we did look at that before, there was less than 200 cars using that strip of road a day.

Yeah, it it's bad in the morning in the afternoon, and about one o'clock when they let out the daycare.

That was not taken into account the the school.

That was just regular traffic going through.

Um it was not a significant amount of uh volume uh along that road.

And yes, sir.

If I remember correctly from the last time we discussed going into this, the general concept of the angular parking and then the uh dumpsters being where they were located was in general agreement with the council already.

It was just kind of the direction of route street.

I I'm I'll admit I'm still in favor of root street continuing on north instead.

Um for the key keep up with the grid to try to get stuff off the square like that.

Um that's just my opinion on that.

But the general concept of the angled parking and the dumps are there, I'm still in agreement with as well.

You're right, Mr.

Goldsing, and then we did go back, and the one thing we had to finalize with the church, even though that was a general concept of approval was making sure they were okay with swapping the right of way necessary to make all this work, and they were that that's what I'm bringing back for you today.

Um so they they are in agreement if council now is an oh final agreement with it, and then we can now this is this is also incorporating taking and putting the church in a trash district where they don't have to have a dumpster there.

They have indicated that if if this is approved, then yes, they would apply to become part of the solid waste downtown solid waste district where they would lose their dumpster and then they would participate.

Uh that takes two spaces.

That's what two of them are.

Well actually, quick question on that one.

Is the church loses their dumpster?

Does that mean we just gain an extra space for a dumpster for the area, given the fact that we have all the new restaurants on the side?

Their dumpsters located on their private property.

Okay.

It it's actually located where those four angled parking there, that's where one of theirs is.

So uh it actually takes up two right there in that general area.

Uh trying to remember back to what we we were talking about previously because I thought we were going to have like one of the the church dumpsters when we put in along with the rest of the dumpsters in the shortcut.

Yes, and that would free up.

Yes, and that would free up so in that this case it switches it basically from being a church dumpster to just being a stall voice management district dumpster since they're joining.

Those dumpsters, by the way, I think are back to back, aren't they?

They are in those spaces there.

Yeah, they are again that that concept I don't have there's there's it it makes sense.

And it doesn't frees up all those other ones, right?

That's correct.

So we don't have any of the little barrels, and we don't have any of the dumpsters.

There will be there will be no dumpsters, there will be no row carts in the downtown if this is approved.

They will all be dumpsters in the enclosure.

Yeah, but the one difference probably have for me on is just I think the route I think the streets to go north as opposed to south.

Yeah, so that that's that goes with the church, the school system and everything.

That means going all the way down that street, no dumpsters towards the Mexican place.

No dump yeah, that's right.

Yeah, Chinese and it and it basically doubles our capacity than what we have right now, which we're in desperate need of extra capacity.

I'm I mean, I'm almost to the point now.

I need to add two more dumpsters somewhere along that street, and that's not going to be a popular thing because I'm out of capacity with the businesses that are coming in right now.

We're is it possible to do three in three deep no, but we are looking at another option on possibly putting a compactor in there which will increase the capacity significantly instead of putting dumpsters in there.

Okay.

So if the enclosure is approved, then we will make a final decision whether or not we go with a compactor versus uh dumpsters.

Oh yes.

Go ahead, so I yield I yield.

So parents dropping off their kids would have to if they're well, depending on where they're coming from, they would only be able to enter Dobbs Street from Church Street.

From from Cherokee.

Which is which is how they're flowing now.

Dobbs and Hansel, I think, are already one-way streets at this point.

That's correct.

Which route roots only one that's uh two-way.

Okay, and they they they cue them up in their parking lot, the church parking lot there and circle them back through.

Right.

The far lane right there is cute.

One more question about uh I know today there were two large trucks that were parked on Root Street, and they have to come down and I don't know what their normal route is, but I guess make a right turn.

There's enough room for almost track to trailer size trucks to actual well that's it'll they'll have the same amount of room even with people parking there versus what they have now with the dumpsters are sitting there.

So that that's not going to change.

If anything, it will improve site distance as they're coming out there, even though but it'll it will help them make that turn.

Okay.

I make the motion to move it forward.

Um second.

And when we say move it forward, is this to the council meeting, the agenda work session?

I I've I've defer to the council on what they want to do with that, whether they want to go in and put it on consent or not.

But we're gonna do Dobbs Street next time.

Yeah, that's separate.

So this is just this you second it.

Uh because of the because of the street, the direction of the street for Root Street.

I'm not going to second everything else I uh in general agreement with, though.

I'll second it.

All in favor.

Sorry, I'm voting against uh are you okay with consent if you're not?

I'm not because I'm not in okay.

So I don't agree with the direct another one, please.

Okay.

So we'll just hash that out Monday and Wednesday.

Right.

I know folks in it.

If we're not gonna tie up the whole thing.

I mean I'd hate for them to give up their parking lot and then not get what they want.

Oh I mean, if nine way on that other end, I think it'd be very unfair.

What do you think that they want?

Other than what this lock off the street is what it is, you talking about get the whole of Root Street.

Yeah, you talk about Dobbs too.

Dobbs too.

I mean, I think it'd be egregious for us for them to take our trash, they furnish prop parking for 50 years, and then not get the concessions that they need on.

Could I offer a possible solution?

Um if you moved it to the work session, I will I as far as the Dobbs closure, I can have something for you at the work session for you to discuss if if that would help.

Instead of waiting till the October committee meeting, if that will help the mayor's concerns.

Yeah, that'd be good.

Yeah, I mean, I just I mean I'd like to agree with me to definitive with it passes or not.

I mean, with a bow tie.

I'll I'll have it for you for the work session and then mayor and council can decide what they want to do.

Okay.

I think it's just an item to be added to the agenda.

It's you'll just be on the agenda for work session, basically.

That's right.

So and at this point, this item's already been moved forward to the city council for discussion non-consent, I believe.

That's right.

So you okay with that?

See it on Monday night.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That sounds good.

Uh 28.

28 SPLOSS uh before the meeting I passed out uh because we we had some minor changes we had to make and it did not get in your packet.

But you have the 2028 SPLOSS list that I passed out before the meeting.

So um not expecting any discussion really tonight, but I wanted you to have it so you can start digesting this.

Um we can have discussion next month at the committee meeting.

Um as you can tell, we've we spent a lot of time with this.

We you know, when we started putting this list together, we had like 230 something million dollars in request.

And so um we had to start narrowing that down to even get before you for your consideration for you to start looking at some of your priorities as well.

So what you have there, and then these are nowhere near set in stone, obviously, mayor council need to make final decisions on it.

But what we're proposing for tier one uh shows um sixty-nine million dollars uh in request.

Our budget is fifty-eight million, so we still got to make some adjustments on that.

And then what we've had left, we rolled over into a tier two list, and those are in no order of ranking other than they're listed and most expensive to least expensive.

So um, and those total 156 million dollars in request.

So um now there's no really limit uh far budget wise going to tier two, other than we really need to stay close to the original budget in case we start running, we do get to a tier two project list um at some point.

So um these are tier two for the next blossomed.

Next blossom.

Okay, yes.

So uh just as your timeline, uh we have to have this list approved, final vote and approved no later than the February mayor and council meeting.

It has to go to the can uh Cobb County so they can do their we have to have the uh IGA approved at that point.

So just you've got plenty of time, but we wanted to get it before you, so you've got time to look at this, digest it.

I know we'll have a switch of council that will have to get brought up to speed, but you still need to have input as we're moving forward on this.

Okay, so we'll work with it.

Was there a original purpose?

I mean the that that is correct, Mr.

Mayor.

That's correct.

Uh it's still working with their large uh upfront projects taken off the top and leaving us about 14 million dollars short.

Um there was there was some discussion held today among staff uh to try to see if there is another option on that.

Um we're gonna wait and get the input of the county uh on that, but uh county staff was participating in that discussion.

That would fund more money to the cities.

Um at this point, this is a kind of discussion.

I'd expect this to basically be on every single public works committee meet committee meeting going forward uh going forward until we're done with the item in January, February of next year.

Yes, sir.

Um if we have any additional projects projects we might been thinking of, even if they're to try and get them onto a list if they were not already on here.

Yes.

Just talk with you talk with you in between or at the meetings.

Yes, if if you see something that we've missed or something you thought of that we haven't put on there, if you'll let me know, and then I'll make sure it gets added before the next meeting, um, then I'll bring it, make sure we bring it up in front of everybody so everybody's aware of what's what's been added.

Um but yeah, if you just let me know because we need to do some analysis to make sure we get correct numbers put together uh going forward.

Yeah, I'm still digesting this, so I'll like to do and again.

I did not expect any uh discussion tonight per se, you could it's gonna be quite a bit for you need to take some time and look at this.

We would consider making two lists.

I mean, one it ain't over to the fat lady sayings that we that we asked for that additional 14 meetings.

I I think from the staff side, yes, sir.

I think absolutely from staff side, we thought that you would have a list that would fit the number that the county's given us, and then you would have a larger list uh that would be able to be used if it was going to be expanded.

Um the other way they can expand it besides just dealing with those two projects they have is to just look at the estimate for what they think they're gonna bring in during that six-year period, because we definitely believe it's a lot higher than uh the number that is being put out there right now, as it was this one that we're in the middle of right now, and y'all see that with the extra money that we're bringing in.

So they could up that estimate number, and that would give additional dollars off the bat for the cities to be able to use.

And sorry, Mr.

Chair, may I with with regard to with regard to that too?

I mean it's a good thing that it shows that we have a good ac good economic driver of this county.

The fact that it's that we've had the had the overdues we've had.

Um making sure we have a re a reasonable estimate, it'd be a good thing, especially if they're really projecting that really thinking that we're going to have that much economic activity.

I think it's a good sign for the county if uh it's going to be if it's going to be higher than what they might be currently saying.

And it just means that we're doing well.

Yes, yes, sir.

Was it 2006 where we borrowed the money up front?

We had that in place to be able to do it.

Uh I think the money started coming in quick enough where we really didn't need to go out and borrow the money.

Yes.

But we had it in place, council authorized it, so it was in place to do it.

It was in place for the 2005 and Mayor and Council authorized for 2022, but the money started coming in quick enough.

We did not have to do that even for this current one.

There were two spots where interest rates were next to nothing.

And also inflation was compared to today.

But if inflation keeps up, nothing.

Yeah.

That's a big thing.

We have to take a have a component part of considering definitely good.

One or two years ahead of time.

Yeah.

That's that's perfectly allowable.

I mean, to examine.

I mean, we yes, sir.

Yeah, to probably save money that way.

Doing it in today's dollars is usually going to be cheaper than doing it in tomorrow's.

Yeah, we rented supply side issues.

Demand, yeah, or could some of the surgery demand for all we know, too.

What a good example is that fire, the fire trucks.

Absolutely.

Yeah, so some of the large equipment purchases, you know, fire and some of those quicker we place those orders.

Yeah, cheaper it is.

So 1.2 million dollar garbage truck.

That's for several garbage trucks.

That's not just that's just for meanings I can buy under one for those amount.

That's expensive.

Anything else from public works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not called a special call council meeting work session to order.

First item is August of 26 minutes.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

Motion carries.

Because it's shown to agenda.

I have one.

I'm like to ask it under the guise of the executive session, a non-executive session legal question from a previous committee.

Sure.

If I think it goes back to J.

I think there's I know there are a lot of technicalities on zoning laws, you know, Matt.

Yeah, that we approve or not approve.

Motion is is there no limit to how many times you can submit an application and keep going?

Well, there's the 12-month uh reapplication, but after that, that uh otherwise there's no limit.

The state legislature would have to do that limit, or you could just well, it it would have to be done by the state legislature.

But we have to accept their as long as they do it with over 48 hours, we have to accept it.

Yes, sir.

And we're not causing any kind of liability by leading them on, so to speak.

No, sir.

Where's something that might not pass?

That's their decision.

Okay.

But okay.

Well a second part of that.

If it's amended so much where they finally think they could anybody could bring it forward, and you have the component part that the county could complain against it, you know, for an annexation.

Did can the county do it a second time?

Would it be just on the because they complain against the final plan?

Now that's uh restate that.

Uh it on a wait when's it you submit a plan and the county did not object.

Right.

But after six six months of changing the plan, would the county have another chance to object?

I would the answer is yes and no, which is a bad answer, but if it changes so much that it generates a county objection, they could.

And then that we could fight that, or the developer could object to their new objection, but it it in the initial application, it either meets or doesn't meet uh the 489 criteria.

And the state law criteria, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Food for thought.

Thank you.

Is there a need to go in executive session?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir, for a pending legal matter.

Legal.

Motion to go into executive session for pending legal.

I'll second.

Could I request for a possible purchase of property?

Absolutely.

You can add that without a contract.

I mean, just it there'd be no vote, but if you just to hear I'll make a motion to amend the motion to go into executive session to add property acquisition as a reason for going into executive session, along with pending legal.

An additional reason.

Yeah.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

We're now getting ready to enter executive session.

Well, Ms.

Mayor, that was an amendment, so we need to vote on the main now.

Right.

Okay, we voted on the amendment.

Yeah, so it's been it's been been amended.

So all those in favor of the motion has amended, please raise your hand.

Motion carries.