I'm going to call the city council agenda work session to order, please.

First item of business is approval of minutes for April 13th.

Make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carriage.

Mr.

Kent, BOW report.

Yes, sir.

We're gonna need some help with this one, but we'll get through it.

Today we met and just to kind of go over a few things in case you don't know everybody that's on the BLW board.

Um the board members are the mayor, um, who's the chairman, Terry Lee.

If you don't know Terry Lee, he's an accountant, CPA.

Uh Bruce Colbert, I don't know what he does.

Is he retired?

Uh Alice Summer Hour.

Uh don't know what she does either, but I know she's on quite a few around Kawanas and uh and all.

Is she wrong?

Yeah.

I understand they used to own that one twenty loop over there on the side.

But Pete Waltriff, who was form the former uh board member, and there's still one board position currently baker that we don't have to feel.

And that's a tough one because they have to have a business that uses Marietta's uh power, but they're outside the Senate.

They live outside the city, right?

Right.

I thought the business was in and they were out.

I think Jason's right.

But the vendors can be outside of them.

In the city.

And uh okay.

Moving on to the next uh item.

Next agenda item was uh they do a really nice thing each month.

They introduce different uh employees, and this month it was Ronnie Barrett's team, uh IT team.

Uh presented uh the managers from his uh the department.

Uh we have Aaron Secko, who's a service desk manager, oversees day-to-day IT operations support ticket triage and endpoint device management.

Jim Carmichael, who's a GIS supervisor, manages geographical information systems, GIS data quality control, and drone operations.

Jeremy Wade, I guess I'm pronouncing that right.

Systems manager overseas applications, development databases, business intelligence, and AI related systems, and Brian Holland, who's uh enterprise service manager, oversees infrastructure network routing, security systems, radios, and the fiber network.

Bruce Bishop, who's also the uh deputy director of IT, assist with IT budgeting department technology coordination, project management, and technology implementation.

Uh so those were the employees, and they range from two years to I think was Bruce that had 35 years of service.

40.

Oh, okay.

You said 35, but we don't want to cheat them out of five years of service, but anyway, that's a long time.

Um and we thank them for their service.

Next we had Kim Holland, who's the director of water and sewer operations.

Uh, who was there to uh uh talk about the national drinking water week, which was May 3rd through the 9th, 2026.

Uh she showed a presentation which was uh recognizing National Drinking Water Week and some of the employees uh actually performing their jobs throughout the city.

Uh do you want to play it?

Yeah, I think it'd be nice.

Very nice.

All right.

Very good.

They do an excellent job, and as the mayor mentioned, he went out to Coca-Cola and they use a lot of our water out there at the ball in plant.

I think you said they were the second largest.

Um third largest.

Yeah, this stock is doing good too.

Next we had um Eric Patterson, who's electrical uh director gave an update.

Uh where uh there are several groups that participated in Marietta's and the annual annual Georgia Lyman's rodeo.

This event was held May the first through the second uh at Camp John Hope at Port Valley, Georgia.

BLW teams and apprentices participated in multiple events.

They swept the team podium for municipalities.

Um three Marietta teams finished within the top twenty overall rankings out of thirty-seven teams.

So that was excellent.

Um status.

Um next we'll have a water report from Chef.

Sheffield heard this bill and thunder and Stephanie um anyway the water sales for the month oh I was gonna tell you before I started but the um uh over at the Water Authority the drought is very big in there over there but a lot of people ask me while I'm running different places they said well doesn't this five inches do a lot of good you know is that is for for we still in a drought and um like a five inches in one day doesn't do anything you know for that for you got to have a lot of a lot of water consistently over a period of time because that just goes right over the top so water sales for the month averaged 71 nine 71.9 million gallons compared with a budget of sixty nine million gallons a day with the revenue of eight point four million and exceeded the budget by one hundred and sixty two thousand um net income for the month uh three point six million fair short short of the budget expectation by a hundred and nineteen thousand um year to date operating income seven point eight million exceeded the budget expectation by two hundred and ninety thousand these things are so close but it's all mostly to do with market what what happens with the the money that the water authority has which is a lot so year to date spending on capital projects totaled 18 million on the date of the report with a remaining annual CIP budget commitment of 65.9 that's what I'm talking about that money that you get to use and if it uh cash reserved for CIP spending total 57.8 million at the end of March so uh okay we had um our linear pipeline or linear projects or pipeline projects we got seven of those going on one uh on Mars Hill and Pine Mountain is complete it just got completed and it's uh a year ahead of schedule so that's a pretty good look that just about never happens so um then we've got um seven of those total projects got five facilities projects but especially the big one uh corals plant replacement project which I think is still about three months behind but they're talking about adding some crews to help that one through uh got three in design projects um and a whole host of EPA unfunded mandates so you got about 15 of those so any questions thank you uh next we'll have the BLW finance report afternoon good evening I should so this month I'll be presenting both the financials and the supplementals for the BLW looking at our MiAG monthly um year to date for our supplemental the total power costs were under budget by three hundred and eighty thousand Q1 for the MiAG um versus our actuals was over budget by two point one million dollars majority of that um was this the miss in the supplemental forecast by 31 percent um in our MiAG budget it was front loaded for the um first quarter where majority our supplementals would be recouped and unfortunately that did not happen so that resulted in two million um dollars um worth of additional cost for the city looking at um page two so this is our internal budget and it reflects 2.35 million of lower power costs the fiscal year to date budget is on target with a variance of point six seven percent which equates to about three hundred and sixty thousand dollars looking at our gas price comparison our March gas prices were below budget

So this is our internal budget, and it reflects 2.35 million of lower power costs.67%, which equates to about $360,000.

Looking at our gas price comparison, our March gas prices were below budget, hitting a low of three dollars per MMBTU, and the forecast continues to be lower versus the budget for the remainder of the year, and looking to catch up to the budget around the December time frame, and that is on calendar year.

Look at um at page four on our spot market comparison.

The spot market pricing fell from ten dollars per megawatt hour in January down to I'm sorry, seventy-five dollars in January down to $35 in March, just below $35.

So the spot market has had an influence on the amount of sales that we have as well.

So that is having a fairly large impact.

On page six, hatch one was had a forced outage, and that required the commitment of both share units to cover the load.

Marietta was selling at 74 megawatts on this particular day between the hours of two and just after four.

The bulk of the load was to the other Miag participants, and that was to cover the additional energy needed for um because Bogle Unit three was out, and so they needed additional um energy, and that was being pulled from the surplus uh participants, and it was Bogle three was out for refueling, so it'll be out for short period of time.

Um question.

Yes, sir.

Or the uh share unit is that been turned, is that still running or is that back off at this point?

That one um is off right now because of the energy requirements.

I don't think it had a commitment until I didn't see a commitment um schedule for it currently.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

When that year came online, did our costs go up, down, or it would go up compared to um if hatch were running, hatch as a lower cost unit.

So shear one and two is more costly than the hatch unit, yes, sir.

Well do you know what we were selling it for?

I seven it's I do not know the exact um pricing for uh that um particular time frame because it is uh it varies by hour.

Um like the stock market exactly exactly for that with the share.

I can see on this one, share one wasn't running, but share two was based off the uh things on eight.

It looks like it was running 4.13 cents, so about 41 megawatt dollars per megawatt hours like that.

And the market price at that time was 44.74 with next hour being 49.

So we were at least so covering our cost, we're at least covering the cost, I guess, is about the budget.

Maybe potentially um there are some additional fixed costs that goes along with that, but um, from a market price point, then yes, but not necessarily including the adder that we have for the fixed costs.

And this was supplemental, so it's within the MiAG family, so they were paying they were paying us back our cost of that then.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

Um looking at page 10, our non-coincidental peak.

So we'll can continue to see that.

We have not reached a new high for that particular month, but we are getting close.

Last month, and I'm sorry, the prior month in February, we did see a new peak.

Looking at the energy requirements, um, follow suit with um the NCP, but we did see a new peak for the um new energy requirement peak for the month of March.

And so that is two months in a row that we've um reached new peaks for our energy requirements.

For our wholesale water purchases, um water was extremely water usage was extremely high for the month of April, and that has to do a lot with the drought that we're seeing, and so we're seeing um a huge spike in irrigation when we don't have any um uh drought um stipulations or uh restraint restrictions currently, so um that may change even though um right now we're in a level one that may change so that in the current in the next few months, even though we'll see higher usage if restrictions are implied that that could pull that back as well.

And that is my report for the supplementals, and I'll move on to the financials if there's no questions on that.

So taking a look at our financials, this is our um internal revenue versus budget year to date.

Um our revenues are on target, they're exceeding the budget by 550,000 dollars.

Our non-operating revenues are under, and that's due to um the lack of um use of reserves, which um which will um account for about three percent of the revenue, it's just over four million dollars that we have not utilized in the budget.

And then looking at our PLs, our actuals versus budget.

So our cost of sales are up by 2.8 million dollars, and that's driving down our margins by two percent.

Our property and casualty um is presenting a more favorable view this year due to the uh self-insurance fund covering those costs, but we will see those costs um back in FY27.

Uh the cost of sales also increased, and that created a 9% decrease in our operations from income.

So that's where the bulk of the difference with our operations of income.

Because we're no longer using our reserves to pay for it, it'll go back into the out of the BLW fund versus the self-insurance fund.

What is bad debt?

Um write-offs where we have accounts that do not um have not paid for an extended period.

Um question alone of bad debt actually this year is much higher than previous years.

Is that a reason or uh the economy?

Yeah, so the um whenever there is um a potential downturn or um increase of job losses, things of that nature, we'll see that um bad debt increase.

So I guess when we bring on a new client, some people may have to pay a deposit, I guess, and some people don't, right?

Depending on credit.

So typically I wonder how our upfront underwriting is now in terms of the deposit.

And then when do they when does it get cut off when they haven't paid?

So they can only go two months unpaid um before we um initiate a turn off uh cutoff, and so when they cut it off, they don't I'm sorry, when they get a cutoff, they don't get the deposit back, and then um once if they come back to get it turned back on, then they have to pay the additional fees, or um if with if it's within a time frame, they'll be able to um pay the back plus the um additional fees and get it turned back on.

And then once if they come back to get it turned back on, then they have to pay the additional fees, or um, if with if it's within a time frame, they'll be able to um pay the back plus the um additional fees and get it turned back.

So these folks are to become bad debt, I guess they're not even here anymore.

Is that right?

Say that again.

For it to be bad debt, I assume they've moved on and they're not even yes.

These are ones that have um we've turned over to our creditors.

It's been an extended period of time.

We haven't um been able to collect.

Typically, so then um looking again at our um BLW profit and loss year to date.

And if you're following along, you'll notice that you have the actuals, and then you'll have um the budget, and then you'll have the prior year.

So I'm kind of going along that pathway, looking at both the revenue and the profit and loss for both.

So the cost of sales for our PN for our year to date actuals versus budget um is up 2.8 million.

And again, as I mentioned, those are our drivers for that.

And then as we move forward, just jump to our reserves, our reserves decrease this month.

Um that was due to an adjustment to our encumbrances.

Um, as we mentioned, we'd like um to monitor on a monthly basis, um, our profitability um to ensure that we are operating in the black, and in doing so, um we have had a tremendous increase in our cost of sales that was not um forecasted or budgeted for this year, and in order to offset that, we have um reduced some of our encumbrances for this fiscal year, um, anticipating that we will pick those projects up in the coming FY27 fiscal year.

And that concludes my report.

There's no further questions.

All right, um moving on.

Do we need to take it in?

Do we need to take any action on it?

Sorry.

Okay.

So this is Roma need your help, Mayor to help guide through this.

The the budget and rate committee committee presented two items for consideration in fiscal year 2027.

There was a discussion that included a previous 2022 recommendation related to BLW board members' compensation.

Um this was approved by the BLW and the mayor and council with no action taken in 2022.

So it was an increase from 350 dollars to 500, 150 increase.

So what the um the uh budget and rate committee, since that wasn't acted on, the mayor suggested that they propose a recommendation that the mayor and council would approve that rate increase and make it effective July the first, 202 this year.

So next fiscal year.

Yeah, the next physical year.

Um then the the this would um would increase the budget by approximately twelve thousand and six hundred dollars.

Well, it wouldn't actually, because the mayor and I myself would not be able to have an increase.

We couldn't vote on an increase within the term that we're serving, is what I'm told.

So it would be five members that would actually get an increase affected July the first.

If the mayor and council voted to approve that okay.

You want no let me finish because there's a lot of people.

We want to take these one.

There are two items.

One was a uh an increase for all BLW employees affected uh July first, but we can take that separately if you have questions on this.

So I just have a question.

You said something about 2022.

Did we vote on that in 22?

We approved the minutes and it was on consent according to uh the vice chairman, Mr.

Lee.

But it was just a recommendation to council to take a look at.

It was a recommendation change.

Yeah, council never uh never approved that.

Okay.

It was just a recommendation made by the board.

Okay.

So I'm not so their complaint was we didn't give them an answer.

I think the fact that we should I think the fact that we didn't approve it sounds like an answer.

Yes.

I mean no is an answer.

Yes.

Okay.

I mean, I feel like no's an answer.

They understand that body understands it.

I don't think that we have any other board that tries to set their own compensation.

All of the boards, we look at them generally from up here, which I know we did when was the last time.

Um did it last year.

Did it last year?

And so we re we relook it up here and um I I don't not say that 350 is the right or the wrong, but I don't see how that gets put in by BLW into their budget.

If we're gonna look at board compensations, I think we need to look at them across the board and decide.

But we're already talking about BLW having to cut back on capital expenses because their budget is so tight.

Now granted it is $12,000, but where does that $12,000 come from?

We were cutting back on capital expenses.

So where does that come from well if we didn't have another place in the budget to pull it from, uh it would come from capital, uh the capital expenditures?

So we're cutting capital expenditures for that.

I don't that seems weird to me.

Um but I think if we're gonna look at boards, we gotta look at all the boards and decide whether or not this is a time.

I mean, our um what is it 125 for the civil service board, seventy-five for the construction board?

Um BZA is one fifty.

BZA is what one fifteen?

One twenty-five.

Okay, that was two.

BCA's one twenty-five.

I mean, this is and granted this board is extremely important, but it is also one of our highest paid boards currently.

Well the board of um is the highest I heard, I don't know.

Okay, the that's not just that's not decided.

Yeah.

Four um we have a member on it, but uh it's not paid by the city.

It's a separate entity.

Oh, for the ones controlled by the city council and ordinance number one, ten, six, one twenty seventy-five dollars, the board of cons board of appeals and construction.

125 for the board of zoning appeals and the civil service board.

Okay.

175 for planning commission, three fifty for BLW.

And again, I think if we're looking at one, we've got to look at them all.

Um again, no other of our boards come back and in their minutes try to set their compensation.

Well, no other board generates revenue, right?

And that was his way.

That was his cut.

So I mean, I see where it's coming from because if they're creating a budget, no other the BCA doesn't have a budget that they're creating.

So I can see where that comes from.

It the timing seems a little off considering cutting at the same time.

Yeah.

But if a board if any board members are gonna get a raise, it seems like this would be this is by the board, right?

Not everything's not vital, but it's a lot of revenue that comes through this.

So I'm not saying it should or so is the court, the court produces revenue and we don't even pay our judges and our solicitors.

What what are we paying judges right now?

Can't remember what it is for uh per session.

We don't have our court here right now.

It's not five hundred.

So our judges don't get that, our solicitors don't get that.

And again, I'm not saying not to do it, but I don't think it gets put in minutes that then either get approved or not approved, and it kind of just slides through.

I think that's a separate discussion, and it ought to be all boards, all commissions, all committees at one time.

So that's actually a concern I had as well, to be honest.

Well, it just seems like it's a better report.

Yeah, I'm and I'm just explaining my concern with it is that let's pull them all together.

If we're going to look at it, I mean, as we're 450.

450 for our judges.

Okay.

That was just changed uh in February.

In February.

I think we look at them across the board.

How much of an increase is uh that's probably the thirty percent increase in three fifty to um one well.

Basically it's five hundred divided by that.

It adds thirty thirty percent of that.

Yeah, so more than that, but yeah.

Often does the BLW meet?

Once a month, once a month?

Once a month, unless there's special call meetings three times a month, but we end up meeting a lot more.

And then they also have a training budget because they go to the MIAG conferences.

Uh I've had 42 percent.

So forty 42.8.

So that would be what 12,600.

So we don't have take any action, we can deal with that um you want to bring up a point order?

Uh if you know, we have to approve the minutes, right?

And you have the right to approve any portion of it there, too.

You could pull this one out and send it back to them.

Right.

Also, the other one, I mean, we haven't discussed the other before we get can we pull it out and send it to a committee, or does it have to go back to BLW?

Can we pull it out to be discussed in a committee and again look at all the boards together?

I think for fishes, you say we send it back so they can they can't write minutes until we approve it.

Go ahead and put it in bed and say we thank you for your recommendation.

We're sending to personnel committee.

They understand that they are not in a vacuum.

Right.

They're uh but we could not not approve, but really that motion is gonna dub tail into one that's just as interesting.

Yeah, there's two more to go.

Yeah, yeah.

All the same thing.

It this was not a rebellious motion.

They they're an advocate for their 200 people.

Yeah, and well, they should be.

So the other item that they had was uh vice chair, Mr.

Lee requested consideration for an additional four percent increase for BLW employees.

Now we had a discussion on that, and the mayor and and all said that it thought that was a lot.

Um given this year's budget is tight, and we've already cut back on uh the capital, so it was suggested we consider a one percent employee bonus would be effective July the first, but it would be a one time uh bonus, not a uh one percent increase.

A one percent one time bonus for BLW employees similar to the COVID.

Yeah, similar to the COVID, which but the COVID equate to about 165,000 dollars.

Let me find it.

I know I'm just raising my hands.

Don't shoot the messenger there.

I'm just raising my hand for whenever you're ready for questions.

I mean, I think they deserve it, but this is a business who running it have to be looking whether it's sustainable because you're not only giving a raise this year, next year you you know you can't give well, I don't think you can't.

Doesn't look good, you give a big raise this year and then no raise the next year or whatever, or lesser raise.

So anyway, um we discussed the financial impacts uh associated with that proposal.

Uh in the budget committee recommended approval of the 2027 budget, the proposed budget amount of 173,125, 125, 173, 125,144.

That's in the budget that we all had.

Plus they wanted to add the one percent one time bonus, which is equal to 165,000, and the 12,600, which would total 177,600.

If you approved all of that, I have questions.

Okay.

I don't want to sound like I'm for it, or you're not going to be able to do that.

See, that's why I raised my hand.

Let me go with Surro first.

I have one question for Doug and one question for Bill.

So I'm gonna start with Doug.

Is a 1% bonus gratuitous?

Or can we give a 1% bonus to just the BLW?

Is that two answers?

One is not gratuitous because they're working for this for the BLW.

I would actually have to defer to the labor attorney, whether you you one percent bonus to the BLW employees and not all of the city employees.

That's a labor attorney issue.

That's a read.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So my question for you is at one percent, what would this one, what would this cost the city one percent bonus across the board?

Sure.

And two, again, now we're up to 175,000, 177,000.

Where is that coming from?

Yeah, I mean the first part of what you just asked, uh it'd be about 418,000 uh to the city if the same thing was done citywide with all employees.

Now that wouldn't include the money that we just talked about for the Board of Lights and Water, the 165,000 uh for that.

We did uh were able to very quickly talk to our uh labor attorney and um basically uh he said um it would have to be phrased as a something like a retention incentive instead of a bonus.

Um that uh he felt like it would have to be for people that were actively employed at a certain date, whatever date y'all were looking at, um whether it's July 1st or not.

Um and then there are different things that would have to be said about it, workforce stability stability retention, uh dealing with labor market pressures uh and all that for the public purpose that it would have to have going in there.

Uh he did not think it should be called uh any kind of a bonus um or appreciation payment or gift or reward for service or any of that kind of stuff, he didn't think any of that should be used if the council did decide that you wanted to do that.

So again, if this is something that would go for it, I would ask that we look at it if we're going to look at it across the board, because during COVID, basically we found every one of our positions to be considered essential.

And if we're going to say to the BLW and they do yeoman's work over there, I'm not at all disregarding that.

But if all of our employees are essential, then all of them deserve that one percent retention incentive, whatever we want to call it, but if we're gonna do it, it's gotta be across the board.

I don't see how we do it for one segment of our set of employees and not the other.

We've never done that.

I didn't think we had okay and the the last time it was done, it wasn't a percent of or it wasn't like one percent, two percent anything like that, it was actually a dollar amount.

It was a dollar amount across the board.

I remember that.

So that everybody got a certain dollar amount, whatever.

I can't remember what it was that time, but I'm after Jason.

Daniel Jason.

Question number one, they're still getting the raise this year, correct?

We've got a four percent factored in uh for the budget to you.

So that's my first question.

The second one is what is the maybe that's a Ron question, I don't know.

What is the business case for the bonus?

Are we losing employees?

Like what is what's the business case for the bonus?

Because I mean to me that's what drives why we would give a bonus.

Like we need to retain people and we're losing people.

So is that what's the business case for it?

We can't keep anybody in customer service, I guess, after a couple of times of being yelled at.

Yeah, yeah.

Ron comes Ron's like, I'm not coming down there.

I'm not I'm not sure in it, too.

And I as Ron's walking down, uh to give him a little bit of a shield.

Um it wasn't proposed by staff.

So uh he him stating the business case for it is not really fair since he didn't present it.

Correct.

I'm not sure Terry presented this to the BLW.

So was it just I don't know if it was just budget and rate committee?

So this there wasn't a reason from a management perspective.

Correct.

No, we staff had nothing nothing to do with the request.

Right.

It's hard to keep customer service people.

Yeah, customer service is tough and water's tough.

What is it?

We did we did make an adjustment to the lineman pay and did a uh increase to the supervisors, foreman, and the topped-out linemen, and then put a uh incentive when they move from an apprentice lineman to a lineman, they get a pretty significant increase at that point.

That's kind of where we were losing them.

But that's that's slowed down.

I think we've got two open lineman positions now.

But we do have some openings in customer care and water.

We did that with the budget we're in now.

Right.

Thank you.

Oh, that's all right.

Any other questions while I'm down here?

I wouldn't go for it.

Um is it something that you think we need to look at for those particular I mean the the facts are the budget, but I guess maybe I mean I think the probably the two facts are employees would appreciate it, and budgets are extremely tight.

So um we you know we do look at that every year, um, and that's why we made the moves we did this current year that we're in.

Um and we looked at it again this year and did not see uh that we needed to do that at this point, but we've got four percent.

And we do have the four percent, which yeah, we just we're very happy that we've been able to keep it at four percent because we didn't used to have that, it used to be at three, and then there were some years was less than that.

Uh a couple years we didn't have any, but uh we we're one of the few around that are doing four percent every year.

I think based on what we heard from finance budget budget the other day, it just doesn't seem like the right time to be spending that much money.

And yes, sir.

Actually, I'll yield to Mr.

Gaddis, and doesn't already answer my question.

My thing is I remember the the expense reimbursement you're talking about was back during COVID.

I believe I think it was using the CARES Act funds, which itself was a federal funding mechanism.

Yeah, we did.

We used uh federal funds, and so we uh it had to be done in a different way that if if you were gonna do something now, you wouldn't have to do what we did.

But it went through payroll.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Ghosting's point is not true.

I mean that's just a source of revenue.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And it was it was totally different the way we had to handle that versus what we would do now.

Yeah, yeah.

Because the grant said what was reimbursable.

Yes, yeah, this will be different.

This really begs a different question.

Uh it's from our charter.

Well, they get to set their own budget.

I mean, if you look around where it comes from, we gave them the authority.

And then if it's all set by it has to be done contemporaneously.

We have to agree.

Right.

It doesn't have to be for calls.

Um I mean, I unlike a board that respects their staff that much.

Um asking for the old rage, that's kind of and again, you look at COVID and C that pays a hundred thousand dollars per board member.

Right?

I'm in the wrong job.

I know.

I'll see you guys later.

Um market grip.

Yeah.

But but also somebody else did we look for I've been mayor for 16 plus years too long for some folks, not long enough for others.

But not long enough.

For a few, excuse me.

Uh but I think this council, this BLW board, we have an outstanding HR, but we look every day, and we we really can't do mirror because it's it's just too hard.

We do merit overall, and everybody gets the same four percent.

And I think our we were behind in police, we were behind in fire.

Uh really in the last three years, Ron, we've made some drastic changes in other staff.

Yeah.

And like I say, everybody's assembly.

I mean, I was watching news last night.

There was a water main break in Michigan.

I mean, those folks with a shovel go make it they might not have the education, but that will save it.

But I think all they really want to ask for this is what we think we ought to be, and they're kind of and the other side of the coin is that they amended the budget that was before them to incorporate these two motions.

Well, the way the way he presented it was, and I've got it recorded, is that approved the budget that was there, but they wanted to add two if the mayor and council agreed to it.

So I don't I guess the question is whether we have to go back to them.

That is puff free and not binding.

I mean the motion is but we were concerned because we don't want the budget.

The whole I mean you got a bill's got to say on track.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And um I think I think as leadership, it might be I didn't I voted with them because I appreciate them standing up for their folks.

But but like I say, they're not in the box.

I I think the real proper address might be what they had $260,000 to the budget.

$280.

It was um a hundred and seven.

Okay, two eighty was the first one.

Then you're one seventy seven six hundred.

Yeah, that's what it is for the bill doesn't.

She gave a quick response and it went the right one.

No.

I really think the appropriate thing would be.

In fact, I've been dying to use it once, be a line-eyed veto, which I have a right to.

You do is to reduce what they amended it to zero and not make a controversial.

It it would not the only way it could have got on the agenda was through the committee.

The mayor is the only one that uh could have put it on the agenda.

I mean, it could have been requested.

It's different than ours.

Right.

And I'm a proponent that we have a city manager form of government.

I mean, everything we said is we we do the committees, and then staff really has to figure it out.

I'd like to propose that those three items I use the line item.

I can't I don't know the site, Doug.

Yeah, yeah, he does.

Okay.

It's Charlie could quote it.

Charter section set uh charter section 2.11A mayoral veto powers uh paragraph D.

The mayor may disapprove or reduce any item or items of appropriation in any ordinance, the approved parts or parts of any ordinance, making appropriations shall become law, and the parts or parts disapproved shall not become law unless subsequently passed by the city council over the mayor's veto by the affirmative vote of five members.

The reduced parts are parts, shall be presented to city council as though disapproved and shall become law unless overridden by the council by the affirmative vote of five members.

So it would come up again in June.

Um automatic motion is basically a motion to disprove that's already passed unless you override.

And then technically all this stuff passed except the dollar amounts got vetoed.

So we can move forward, Bill can do the other, but if I could ask you for those three items and that use a line I veto over the three increases.

It was two increases.

Well those are three items.

But we increased the budget.

The budget's on the three items, yeah.

So to me, that would be the cleanest, and it won't be the councils.

Uh except the items that were the three items that were vetoed.

We approved them, except by vetoed the amounts.

Right.

Which brings them down to zero.

Right.

So the motion motion assumes that the veto is going to happen essentially, basically.

Okay.

Or I just voted out of term.

Do we need to make a motion is what I'm asking?

Approve the minutes.

The actions are already on the Wednesday night agenda.

Okay.

You could the mo there you can decide to put on consent and you could hold you could do the council hold off of the two and then the approve the budget, but it would be subject, but with the mayor vetoing the two items on a line item gate basis right then and there.

Since that act that's an action of the city council, basically.

He vetoed you vetoes line item that those line items immediately.

I think I can exercise that now, and then we send it to Wednesday.

And then the city council would approve it as a veto.

Right.

Yeah.

And so it and I guess it would take five five votes in.

It would take five votes override, but I got a feeling just based off of mine, Cheryl's and Jason's, you're not going to get five to try and override that.

You might.

You never know.

Based on what's already been said.

So the on the BLW report that makes us any comments you have about the BAC meeting in the grains.

That drained all the blood in my head.

So let me take the that's you know, there's nothing more important than our feeful, and that was but it I mean the overlining thing is it it should have gone through the process and you it's lobbied and not voting.

And it's also just respect for the system.

But but I respect their right.

But if you're gonna let us have control over the budget, here's what we think.

And Mayor, I'm glad you said that though, about our people, that that is the most important asset we have.

Absolutely.

Certainly is and I mean in this budget, I think we've got two million extra dollars that are going to our people as far as salary increases uh with the four percent.

So um when you look at benefits and salary together.

So we we definitely uh value everything everybody does, and I appreciate I know they appreciate even the discussion, you know, about uh how much can we do.

Um this is a tight year, very tight year on the budget.

Um we've you know the department heads have done a great job of being able to go in and cut back in different areas in order to make the budget work.

Um as we said before, we've only got a million dollars in capital for the city this year, uh, which is one of our leanest.

Um we paired the BLW back from you know near 18 million to nine million uh as far as their capital, which is one of their leanest years, also.

But there is good news on the horizon.

Um we do have uh our very large customer that's gonna come on uh within the next 24 months uh and fully is gonna come on before that in increments, and so that is gonna create a lot of uh additional revenue uh for the BLW and for the city uh that you know dependent on how that's worked, that would make it uh a whole lot easier to have those discussions uh in the future.

So we're looking forward to that for the bill deb report, just basically Ms.

Brown said it up.

Can you ask Ms.

Brown one question?

Well, the girls' track team, who's gonna win the state championship tomorrow.

Well, I can I can honestly tell you I have tallied.

Um we it'll be close, but we got a shot.

We got a shot.

So I'm hoping that uh tomorrow night we come back with a with a win and another ring.

So if she wins, will she upgrade and go to Georgia?

Um Georgia a lot.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

That's a household.

Thank you.

But the main thing, Bill talked about the new you know, the market is still with the with the big low customers, I think is Ron would tell you.

I mean, the I mean that's what it's heard.

So they make promises and hadn't always bought, especially the BitCon.

Bitcoin, excuse me.

And but the good news is when y'all were talking about share.

You know, we wisely the you know that they did away with the cock has uh two sites where they could build two 600 megawatt uh facilities out of gas, which you saw on the market was the lowest, you know, rather than the code we used to have.

So we could we could buy whether or not we do.

We at least would have the option to replace what we lost with the code, but it much cheaper price.

And I mean that wouldn't buy it today, but it's the world keeps when they folks really start using it, we might need to look at it.

And then we got 64 megawatts coming every year from a Vogel three and four.

About 14 years from now.

Trying to capture hey, it's worth that increase that $500.

You don't get it.

That hurt when we brought that up.

But I wouldn't get it anyway, so would the V three line add is line added veto a good enough reference?

Yes.

A line item veto of an ordinance, and so long as the actions are concerned, an ordinance, yeah.

That would that would reduce it down, that would reduce those down.

And it gives and it gives an answer to the BLW as to what our discussion was.

Yeah.

Would you like to move the BOW report forward with those three?

Yes, sir.

The vetoes?

Yeah.

Do we need it's already on there?

We just need consent.

All right.

Consent, everybody.

Good.

In this scenario.

You can put it on consent tonight.

The coast consent would be the vote wouldn't.

Yeah.

You're tonight.

Okay.

I thought it was we've done an action on technical since so up to you, Mayor.

Final vote would be Wednesday.

You can put it on consent tonight.

Okay.

Just I think we good.

Some move.

Civil Service Board.

We have a nomination.

Oh, this is just a consultant overtime.

Anybody like to make the motion?

Make a motion to authorize staff to advertise the civil service board open position.

Second.

All those in favor, please write in.

Like to put it on consent.

Consent.

That's good.

Good evening.

This is just the action plan that was presented in the committee meetings.

The public review ended at 5 o'clock today, and there were no comments added, so it's the same plan that was presented at committees.

I have a question.

So the two funds, the 400 and what is it?

418.

418.

591.

So this first page is how that administrative and plan capital 20%.

How's that spent 83,000?

Is that that covers myself, and we have a community development specialist that oversees the rehab, and that also covers all of our supplies, like pens and paper.

Then the rest is divvyed up between the nonprofits that benefit from that.

And the HOPWA are these are these funds for people that are already in housing that will continue, or is it uh funds available for new people that may apply?

Both.

So there's separate types of programs that can be funded.

So short-term, the STRMU, that's to keep people from becoming homeless that are already in housing within these five counties.

And then the TIBRA is tenant-based rental assistance.

It's all for people who are already living here but might need rental assistance.

So that one would help people be placed in housing and they pay a percentage of their rent, kind of like the uh section eight program.

Okay.

Um throughout the report, I saw mention the COP collaborative.

But on their I I think they no longer uh I guess are responsible for finding housing or funds for housing for people.

They don't.

We just collaborate with them to get the word out to potential nonprofits since they convene all of the nonprofits in the area.

We also use their input when developing the plan on needs or gaps in services.

Okay.

In your opinion, is it anything else that we can do as far as the homeless is concerned?

We still get num a number of calls, emails about the the growing population of homeless in the city.

And I know what you're going to say, more funds.

We're pretty limited, unfortunately.

So the only part of the CDBG money that can be used towards homelessness is our public services, and that's capped at 15% of our budget, which is a whopping $60,000.

We could put all of it towards homelessness and still not make a dent in anything.

If we and that is up to the discretion of the council if that's the direction you would like to see future funds go is specifically towards homelessness.

But unfortunately, that's the only funds we get specifically that can target that.

The Hopel funds can kind of indirectly as well, because it'll prevent future homelessness, and it can serve homeless individuals who have aids already.

But the county gets the bulk of the funds that are directly targeted towards homelessness because they're larger and it's a larger area.

Sarah Familia.

Sir Familia is a it's a nonprofit that serves primarily Hispanic individuals.

We fund a domestic violence specific program.

That's what this is, but they provide a lot of wraparound supports for families and counseling and pretty much any type of social service you can get, they provide.

Correct.

Kelsey, this 1.7 million, that has to be dispersed throughout a five county service area?

We have to prove that the five county service area has access to services in some way.

It doesn't mean we have to fund a sponsor in every county because it's probably not realistic.

But they have to show and we have to show that if someone from Harrelson County wanted a service in this area that they could receive it, they would not be turned away for not living in the county that the nonprofit is in.

With regard to the uh OPA funds, um with the administration that's capped at 3%.

Our staff can handle being able to administer that across the five-county area.

Yeah, we've discussed that, and uh thankfully Kelsey's very able to do this.

Um there's a lot of similarity between what she's currently doing and what this grant would be and the way you file paperwork and keep track of everything.

So uh she believes that she's up to it.

So if I remember correctly from committees, we're basically taking over from City of Atlanta.

This five county area that use City of Atlanta used to have it on its own because we were designated because there was a need to have an additional city taking a look at this to take the load off.

Correct.

We have a meeting tomorrow with the City of Atlanta to discuss all of that transfer.

The feds in the state believe that that need to be pulled out, and they believe that we were the ones that were most capable to handle it.

And staff's and staff's good and be able to handle it.

So okay.

Thanks.

And these funds are specifically for people who have HIV AIDS diagnosis.

Correct.

Someone or if it's a child, someone in the household.

Right.

Okay.

And the key point, the services will be provided all over the county regions, um, and it'll be to people who are currently most likely already receiving services.

Um we'll just take over the administration of that and be able to direct the money to make sure that it's getting spent in a in a way that is uh accountable uh with uh the documentation and everything else.

And so this is fiscal year 26.

Is it mean just the next seven months?

We're always a year behind.

Our our number is always a year behind the city's fiscal date.

It's the same time period, but they're numbered one year behind, which me and Patina love to recognize.

Starts in June or July 1st of 2026 and goes through June of 27.

But they're not on that from the documents they use.

Can you encumber it if you don't spend it all in 14 months?

We have three years.

You can encumber it.

Yeah, I think get away if that there's a need for it.

Yeah, we have we always have three years, and HUD's fully aware that we likely will not spend all of this in the first year because we're behind the ball in terms of putting out a request for applications.

Correct.

Um I'll make a motion to uh move forward to um Wednesday.

Recommending approval.

I do recommend an approval, yes.

I'll second.

All those of Glaiver, you go to run in.

Any objection to consent?

No objection.

Thank you.

Everything.

She's staying.

You must have a manual village, okay.

Yeah.

If you remember last month you tentatively approved us to serve as the co-applicant with passion with purpose, which is the Emmanuel's Village product uh project for the State Housing Trust Fund grant application.

They were recommended to submit a full application, which is due on Wednesday evening by 5 p.m.

Uh they gave about two weeks to fill out the full application.

So you have before you a required MOU between the city and Passion with Purpose.

It's relatively bare bones because we're simply serving as the co-applicant.

We're not providing any fiscal responsibility or really any additional services with that, but just meets the requirement of the grant.

Mr.

Haney has reviewed it and approved it from his end, as have uh the city manager.

Mr.

Mayor I need to disclose that my employer is the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, and as such I'm going to refuse myself a discussion and voting on this item.

And I have a question.

My question is, I guess to Doug.

If this is something that is due by five o'clock on Wednesday, and we don't formally vote until seven.

We have the same problem we had a month ago in that it's not been approved.

Can you get a two-hour extension?

Daniel.

I'm just kidding.

We can grant our sales two hours.

Yeah.

That would be my concern.

I mean, do we have to try to fit in a special call?

What do we have to do here?

I think you're fine to do it retroactively.

Won't they be fine with that at seven?

I will I will give them the draft that shows that it's on the agenda.

Yeah.

I do have one question on it though.

Um, the city hereby commits to supporting the project through the following actions permitting and zoning.

Processing land use approval, zoning variances, and building permits necessary for the project and providing technical assistance is needed consistent with normal operations.

Um Doug, that again that doesn't for that doesn't that language doesn't force us to say that we're going to approve any zoning thing that comes before us.

That still gives us our discretion, yes?

That is correct.

Yeah.

Just want to make sure of that.

Plus, since we've actually already approved.

It has already been approved.

Yeah, the only reason that the only reason is if it they had to come back for some kind of plan change or a uh zoning variance of some sort.

So just uh first state law, we we still have to take it in a in a semi-judicial quasi-judicial um uh action essentially.

So we still need we'd be key we'd be taking a look at it and then voting on that from there.

So just long as that's clear, I'm good.

Is there a motion to move it forward?

I make a motion to move it forward to um Wednesday.

With approval second.

All those in favor, right hand.

Motion carries is consent all right.

No objection.

No objection.

Thank you.

The sitter of a family recent or the Cobb Homeless Alliance was not invited.

They got some feedback and may or may not choose to go through the second round.

They're gonna open two more rounds of funding.

Okay.

Um so we'll see if anybody else pops up.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Just because uh because I can remember.

Does I have to do this whenever I have the never mind.

I'll talk I'll talk to Daniel later.

Very confused me.

Cobb.

Thank you, Mayor, and good evening.

This item was moved forward from the judicial legislative committee.

At the time, there were some outstanding comments noted and concerns noted by city staff.

And the developer, Mr.

Will Cassidy was working on addressing those different changes.

He has been able to provide some materials to address those changes, and I'll just touch on them very briefly.

One, there was a comment about the included uh recreation component.

At the time, there was a kind of a very small trail included on one of the sites, whereas previous discussions had something a little bit more robust.

And so he has now included a playground and the recreation component comment has been satisfied.

Two, there was a comment about parking, street parking that was shown in city right-of-way.

Uh he has worked with public works and adjusted the lines so that that parking is now showing not on city right-of-way and and rather on uh subdivision property.

Three, there were comments about trees.

Uh one was a spacing issue related to the street trees, and another was trees that we've had an ongoing issue where trees have been impacted.

Uh sewer lines.

Both of those comments have been addressed with what has been submitted as well.

Uh four, there was a comment about screening and some ambiguity related to some screening.

Um that comment was there was a call out for screening, but it didn't describe what type of screening.

That comment was actually intended to address some concerns that Cobb County had with some of their proposed stipulations, which did not move forward, and so um that has been removed.

And then lastly, there were comments about the elevations and some uh potential improvements that could be made to them to make them a little bit more robust.

So they have uh provided new elevations that would include some um some additional features, namely uh shutters on the side of the the windows that would add some additional value there as well.

Um but beyond that uh I'm happy to answer any questions, and Mr.

Cassidy is here as well.

Okay.

Um the new the new architectural elevations has complied for side architecture since it's carrying everything around.

Yes, and they actually complied with four-sided architecture last time, but the new ones do as well, yes sir.

And the only one that's wasn't resolved, but because it's being removed because it was based off of something else was the screening.

That's correct.

And for what was passed and everything, it complies with what was passed now.

That's right.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

Um Mr.

Cummings, I have on this memorandum says all departments have reviewed the plans except for fire and public works.

This was dated April 22nd.

Um is that is that outdated information?

I know that public works has had some engagement on the site, um, but I'll need to follow up with you as far as what fire and what additional comments may have been created since this time.

Um I don't offhand know.

Another question.

Um looking at these sidewalks, they're five foot, which fits the minimum requirement with the two foot landscaping buffer.

Am I reading that correctly?

Tiny tiny very small yes, that's correct.

Okay, wondering um, do you know if the two foot landscaping buffer is part of the calculation for green space at all on this plan?

I don't offhand thinking about an opportunity to widen these sidewalks um to move and even take the the buffer landscape buffer to provide more room beyond the five foot.

I guess that'd be a question of the applicant chief.

Also came down for fire, probably.

Good evening.

Uh so with the two-foot landscape bear, please bear in mind we are having a coordinate with G dot on that frontage.

So the to answer your first question, the green space is not calculated based on that buffer.

So the green space is just the recreational area that is accessible and and useful in the plan.

But the two-foot landscape buffer, like I said, is also in coordination with the street frontage, the city's streetscape requirements as well as coordination with G DOT.

And it appears that Marietta Fire may have had an opportunity to review if you'd like to hear from DC or Acting Chief Pacico.

Thank you.

It was a question about the hydrants, and uh it's been resolved and addressed.

It's been corrected.

Mr.

Mayor.

Just want to ask about Mark Rice to come down about the thing with the sidewalks that uh Mr.

Giattis was talking about.

Mark.

Did you hear uh here what Mr.

Guidis was talking about?

I thought that was answered.

No, I know the G dot one was answered.

I don't think they have much choice on that, but it was the internal one.

What was the question, Mr.

Goldsmith?

It was so moving the sidewalk beyond the five, widening it beyond the five feet to six feet.

Would we have to have a variance to do that to remove the landscape buffer just to extend the sidewalk all the way to the road?

The road the part that faces on uh powder springs, that's a G dot requirement.

You you can't waive that part.

The internal requirement that is our standard five foot then on the two-foot beauty strip, which is a safety issue.

So if if council wanted to move that two-foot or lessen it, then it would have to be a variance you'd have to consider.

You see that'd be a great place for bicyclers.

I mean only one entrance if you made it seven foot.

I'm just thinking out loud.

Well we we we we would have no dis disagreement with that from public work.

So then I think the challenge we would have is that would that would drastically impact all the setbacks and would would it be a restart on the plan effectively.

I mean this site, as you is as you might remember, is is very tight and and challenging from a grading standpoint and everything.

So we're working really hard to fit everything within the context of what you see on this plan now.

So changing from a five foot to a seven foot would impact the setbacks because the city's requirement for driveway links and everything else is impacted by that as well, because based on where the driveway length is measured from.

So it's either measured from back of sidewalk or back of curve, depending on where that falls.

So changing from a five to a seven foot would also have a cascading effect on that.

You're saying oh removing the landscape buffer.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said moving the landscape buffer.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

Okay.

I'm sorry, what was sorry, I missed that.

What was the question?

But don't we still have then the problem of because I'm not seeing like a male kiosk?

So everyone has their own.

No, the the kiosk is located in that top corner.

And apologies.

Wait, there's a lot of stuff that got put on the plan to try to address.

All the comments, yeah.

And I can try to point some of these out if that's helpful.

See if they're um I do have a quick question regarding bicycle use on sidewalks.

Usually those usually have to be eight foot rate for it to get to trail length to use bicycles on the sidewalk.

Multi multi-use trails, eight foot at a minimum.

Yeah.

So I'm not sure it'll allow sidewalks.

I just thought bicycles on the sidewalks technically because it's not considered a trail.

That's only that's only we get larger sidewalk, which would be which may in turn be good, but uh without that additional foot, it's not considered a trail, so I'm not sure bicycles can go around on them.

Most of the people are children.

Yes.

They're children, which are legally allowed to correct under the age of twelve.

Yeah.

And so you can have walkers, runners at the same time a child is riding their bike on a seven-foot sidewalk and have some comfort.

And uh no variances were grant no variances were done with the zoning correct, so this is entirely separate from the uh entirely separate from the thing the uh zoning action essentially.

Uh that's correct.

There were no variances associated with the remote.

Yeah.

Only we're going to know there was a state law change.

It said any variances that were done with zoning, it'll be changed because you have to go back through the zoning process.

So I believe, and Mr.

Rice can correct me.

This would be a zoning from our standards of sidewalks, not a zoning variance as such.

Okay.

Yeah.

Correct.

Are you okay with that, Mr.

Cassaday?

So just so I'm clear, so we're talking about removing the beauty strip and changing the sidewalks from five foot as shown to seven feet, thereby just pushing it all the way out to the curb.

Um we haven't had a chance to study that, I guess.

But the one thing I will just mention is there are handicap ramps along these sidewalks.

So the uh elevation of the sidewalk does change as crosswalks and stuff happens.

So it it wouldn't necessarily be like a continuous loop or anything you could ride without you know, crosswalks and that kind of stuff.

So I do just want to mention that.

I mean, I would say we would probably prefer to stay with the five foot, given that this is a closed subdivision.

There shouldn't be a lot of through traffic anyway, and so we're part of our thought process is that the internal loop actually kind of helps serve that purpose.

Um but I mean if if this is a a major issue, we're certainly happy to to look into this and study it further.

Um I think you know that doesn't give you a lot of room for for landscaping.

That's another thing we're kind of trying to coordinate now with street trees and all that kind of stuff too.

So if you remove the landscape strip in between the curb and the sidewalk, that makes it a little tougher for landscaping along the street.

But um again, we just haven't had a chance to study this.

So your plans are to put trees in the that two-foot.

Um if we go to that landscape plan, I'm not sure if they all fall within that or some of them do.

No, it looks like they're behind it.

So no.

I mean, so I guess uh again, I think I I I'm apologize, you're kind of catching me off guard.

I don't I don't really know exactly exactly how we would address that.

But um, you know, if if if the council would like to see that, I think we can certainly study it.

Um would you in two days?

I'm sorry, can we study it in two days?

We we we can certainly try to, yeah.

Um we can certainly try to.

Um calls I get about bicycles and just three other halves is other than your subdivision.

I'm sorry to say that again.

Well, for does do our drive come through this isn't a uh does already one in and one out of that subdivision, wouldn't it?

Of dura drive?

Yeah.

I I presume so.

If you don't mind waiting to win, you just see it.

If we can assess that.

We can say, I mean, I just I hesitate to answer because I just don't know what the what the impact would be.

I'd need to coordinate with our engineers and just find out what what other things might have to adjust with that.

Um I'm not trying to blow the I mean I don't ask you to change your setbacks.

So I I may I understand the question, yeah.

A lot more about excuse me, a lot better now.

Um so let us look into that if if that's you know what you guys would like, and we'll come back with an answer.

And you'll come back on Wednesday?

Correct.

Okay.

But they do call it a two-foot beautification strip because it looks so much better than having seven feet of a sidewalk going to the back of a curb.

And now we're getting into the safety issue.

And as we all know, in reality, kids aren't gonna ride their bikes on the sidewalk inside of the neighborhood.

They're gonna be on the street 99% of the time.

I feel like I I will say just from an aesthetic standpoint, we do try to avoid continuous concrete, asphalt concrete.

I mean, it it does really help break it up aesthetically.

But um again, I mean we're we're we're trying to serve the city in any way we can.

So we're we really want to do that.

But uh again, I I think our preference would be to leave the the beauty strip simply because to the point that was just made, the aesthetics.

Yeah, it looks I mean the beauty strip looks great.

Yeah, right so and they're you know, but uh again, we we want to serve the city in any way we can.

So but I think our preference would be to leave it as shown.

If we're gonna start taking the approach of the wider sidewalks, and probably need to do that, I would say earlier in the development process before we get to the point of the.

We told them this is what we wanted, this is what they did, and then two days before we're like, actually, no, we we'd like to see it change.

I don't I don't like that at all.

It's my point.

Um, they checked all the boxes that we asked them to, and here we are.

I think it's a good thing, but not necessarily timing-wise.

Or the kids used to ride a bike, and what I see recently is people that are walking are on the sidewalk and kids on bikes and everything else are in the street.

So um again, this is kind of what we asked for, and it would look a lot better than having a seven-foot sidewalk in this case.

Just my opinion.

Sure.

So uh based on the uh information that you've received.

So would it be appropriate to bring in both again?

That way we can look at them both and kind of consider based on that.

When you say both, do you mean this one?

And the one that you can going to look into between now and Wednesday.

Well, so again, to be fair, I think the the in a two-day period to redraw, redesign, and re-engineer this entire plan to accommodate a seven-foot sidewalk would be a would be an undertaking.

I don't it's not as easy as just drawing it on the plan because there are impacts that that go beyond just I mean there's utilities and there's there's other things that that will impact.

So I we I will have to walk out of this room and immediately start making phone calls.

So I think we can bring in a plan that shows that, but my concern is what that means for the down the line vetting process of any other ripple impacts that may have.

And I can't stand here and speak to that right this moment.

Okay, that's fair.

So I I again I I'll reiterate we we do want to serve the city, but I think at this stage that could create a lot of other impacts that we're that I am currently unaware of.

This came out of jail, but I think the detail plan it's in word two.

The location is inward two, if I remember correctly.

Is this your your board?

You want to make a motion to move it forward as is?

I make a motion to move it for it as is.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

All opposed like sign.

Motion carries six point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And and just on that last item, I did have the chance to uh have a sidebar with Mr.

Rice, and he said public works had the opportunity to review and had no other concerns.

Thank you.

Uh but related to Hope Creek, uh, this was a similar situation.

It came before JL and there were a couple of outstanding issues of one of which was uh proscriptive, which was a stipulation that needed to be met that was included within the zoning, and another was prescriptive, uh which was just a comment by staff, which was look for additional connection points to the um to the uh the trail that extends along the creek to the south of the property.

Um the developer has provided uh and met the the proscriptive one, which would be for the always stops at all the intersections.

So they've provided that.

As far as the the prescriptive one, they have indicated to staff as of today that they would be interested or uh able to include two additional connection points.

They have not provided those um to us in plan form at this point, but they have indicated a willingness to do that.

Um it'd probably be good just to see what those are.

I know that wasn't part of the in part of the motion initially, but it'd be good to see what those are so we can get get an idea of where this connection point is going to be for the future.

Um but since the main one, the main one, which is the the one that went back to the zoning has been fulfilled, it seems like this is ripe for uh for a vote vote, which is ask if they can get by Wednesday those two connections in so we can get that for the final vote.

Um I would make a motion to move this forward to Wednesday recommending approval with that ask to see the two the uh two connections they've indicated they're willing to do.

I second that.

I just have one question and it's um Bill, is there um a link to these online that we can look at?

Because these are so small, I mean I mean I'm probably not the only one to uh who has trouble reading but uh so we do include all of anything that comes before a board, so any zoning or BZA case are automatically posted online.

Those we can make sure to send you a digital copy so that you'll be able to zoom in and have it a little bit more easily seen.

Yeah.

Okay.

Which ones thinking if we have a place to just go to the website and actually uh pull them up and just be able to zoom in.

They actually are on there, aren't they?

Oh, that's a good point.

Yeah, that's right.

Actually, yeah, that's a good point, which is where we have all our agendas in the agenda sheet.

There's a link that goes to a PDF page and it gives you the link so you can click and open all of these things up.

So to that point, not necessarily on planning and zonings website, but on the general city agenda website, you can find those links.

Okay.

We have Sam or 800?

Is that what you're talking about?

The number of homes that are no, I'm saying that just hard to read.

Access is hard to read these.

It's so small to cut them down.

I was uh be able to look at them before we get to council meeting online would be helpful too.

Not everybody has a magnifying glass.

It came with Apple.

I've got four of them.

Um Mr.

Mayor Wyatt.

I want to ask one more question.

Okay.

Um Daniel.

All other sorry.

All other departments have looked through.

There are no other comments outside those two, and the response is given back.

That's correct.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ward, do you want to make a motion to move it forward?

I've already made the motion.

I believe it was second.

Second it.

Yeah.

My apologies.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carries.

I didn't ask on Cobb Farm.

Is it okay to put that on consent?

Can you do that?

Yes, you can.

You can put something on consent, and if you're against it, you can sit and you want to be shown as being against.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And hope creek hard to put that on consent.

Um objection.

Um cancel wait, no, no jack.

Uh jacks because of the the tra the trails part of it.

Yeah, I you know, they're only showing one.

We've asked for multiple, and it says that you haven't received anything as of May 11th today.

Um so let's hope we have something by Wednesday.

Well, they they said they got the stuff in indicated.

They said that they wouldn't this is not yours.

Not yours.

They said that they would try to do it.

Um, but we don't have anything that indicates it.

So it's not beyond consent.

I agree.

I agree.

Hope Creek.

No.

Oh, wait, what's his thing called?

It's called Hope Creek.

Hope Creek, not Cole Farm.

That's why I came down.

Springs eternal.

Correct.

Just because they said they were gonna do multiple entrances to the walk-in, and they've got one.

So once they can show that, I'm cool.

And the mo and the motion included asked for them to show it by Wednesday.

So yeah.

So is there representative here?

Well, I think Kevin Moore is up here, but I know he's not he he was there for the original rezoning.

So I can probably get that back to the developer.

Thank you.

Now we go up to the draft of the city council.

Do you still need to get the prayer?

Yeah, I need a lot of planning.

I mean, I think it was a I didn't think critically, I'm sorry.

There's a correction by a motion.

The distinguished service award.

I'm part of the problem on this one too.

That is a council decision, and we don't have that permission yet, so Miss Richardson has a motion to address that.

All right.

So where's my Robert's people?

Since it's on this agenda, and this is what we're discussing.

Do I need a motion to suspend the rules?

Suspend the rules.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion is suspend the rules and add an item.

Second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carries.

Motion to a to approve a distinguished service award for Robert W.

Kenny, um, who was the ward six planning commissioner since 2023.

2003.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

That move forward to the Wednesday agenda right?

Well, it's already on the Wednesday agenda.

That's why we're doing it now.

Yeah.

So I don't really need to afford it, I don't think.

Uh next item.

Motion to suspend the rules and add an item.

So those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carries 70.

Motion to add an item for the presentation of a distinguished service award to Miss Wandita Carmichael.

Ms.

Carmichael has been on the Board of Zoning Appeals since 2020 for what representing Ward 5.

Uh she's also a graduate of the historic Lemon Street High School.

Second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carries.

All right.

Motion to suspend the rules and add an item.

Seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion to add an item for the presentation of the Distinguished Service Award to Mr.

Jim Martin, who served on the Civil Service Board.

I don't have the date of when he started service, but he's been on the civil service board and recently retired from that board.

This one on here, right?

Yeah, I'm adding this one.

She's adding it.

Yeah.

What's the name?

Jim Martin.

Jim Martin.

He's at least been on it 20 years, aren't you reckon?

Been on a long time, I guess.

Because you used to take pictures with a camera.

It was so long ago.

Black and white.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

That will be shown separate, are you to put that on consent?

Even though he won't he won't be presented until I have no problem with consent.

No problem with consent to get that on.

The other one.

But but he won't be added to this agenda.

It'll be to the next month.

Yeah.

Because we don't have time to even make it up.

Yeah, and then these, I guess we just vote on quickly before the presentations on Wednesday.

Since final action isn't this isn't at this meeting, it's at the Wednesday meeting.

So we just need to finish off the vote Wednesday early in the meeting.

I didn't understand what he said.

I was just saying that final actions at the Wednesday meeting.

So to finalize the f finalize the service awards, we just need to do a quick vote, probably right at the top of the meeting on these two items.

Just to finalize it and then do the presentations.

Okay.

To consider final action.

Correct, Doug?

Okay.

So that's that.

So they're on there.

Yeah.

Okay.

On there we vote, we'll vote and then the presentation.

So we'll vote before we give them the presentation.

I assume so.

That's Mr.

Mayor.

Are you okay with that?

Yeah, of course.

So will that will he fall right before right under the uh Ms.

Carmichael's distinguished service award?

Actually, I didn't put it on this meeting because I don't know that we'll have Mr.

Martin available for that date.

Oh, okay.

Um if we can get them, that would be great.

We do have him, it is approved.

Oh, it it would have to be on there.

Uh in order to play that quick.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking.

We can't do the plaque, but we have to approve him getting yes.

So that could be on there.

Yes.

Yeah, we can approve we can approve the award Wednesday and then the presentation we done in June.

Oh, okay.

So the the point is getting the motion the full motion and action finished off and then do the presentation.

All right.

Okay, okay.

Perfect.

A little confused there.

So that's the reason why the additional motions were needed.

Yeah.

Got it.

Citizen Government Academy Bill, you all ready for that?

Yes, sir.

We're gonna have the reception before that.

Uh y'all should have gotten notice on it.

I would be over in the fire museum uh right before the six o'clock meeting.

Okay.

All of them graduate.

Final exam, sir.

Or a couple close, but I think they I think they all made it.

Okay, can modem in there.

Building safety month.

Political crowd.

Who's gonna present public works?

Public works chair is Daniel Gaddis.

Sorry.

You mind presenting building safety months?

Don't mind at all.

Next page, we have three scheduled appearances.

We have two newcomers.

As far as minutes for April 15th and April, April 15th regular meeting.

I'd like to put that on consent.

I think there are revisions.

As amended.

As amended.

No objection as amended.

Any objection as amended?

No.

No objection.

April 28 special meeting.

No objection.

Both of those on consent.

Mayor development authorities on consent.

Four Borne's owner appeals appointment ward six or to lead then on consent.

And now claim it's anyone else to then on consent.

Yes, sir.

Please.

Okay.

I was going to ask because of the thing got split because part of it was part of it was to get update the state code, part of it was an additional ask by the five by the five by fire, and we had held off the fire part because these are two parts.

No, sir, they can be split.

Okay.

And the the motion was for that first part, so the second part is going to come back to jail.

Is that uh correct?

And the ordinance, the final ordinance approval is just that first part of updating it, so we're in com in compliance with the state code.

Yep.

Then the second part will be back to jail.

Sound good.

And this is a two-reading thing.

Yep.

Yes, it does.

This would be the first one.

If the council be happy to wave the second reading on the amendment to the state code, that would be helpful.

Wave it.

If we forget, just come up.

If we forget, just come up in unscheduled appearances and let us know.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Or just wave from the back, that'll work too.

Public hearing for Marietta Reserve.

Yes, sir.

This is a um public hearing that will be for the revised detailed plan approval for Marietta Reserve, which is the uh development off of Dura Drive off of Powder Springs Road.

And so this was came to council last month, and council asked that we advertise uh for a public hearing and post the property, so we've done that.

Um and the the changes just to remind you from the previous detail plan to this one.

Um one is to reduce the the building differential in between the detached homes from 10 feet down to six feet.

Um they would like to include two additional building elevations in their uh list of elevations that they're gonna use, and then also the lots at the end of the town homes or the the yeah, the lots at the end of the townhomes would be widened from 24 feet to 24 feet uh and uh 24.7575 feet and 25 feet.

So those would be the three changes um that they'll be requesting in the public hearing, and uh Mr.

Kevin Moore will be representing them on Wednesday.

He's also here tonight if you have any questions for him.

Oh, he moved.

Yeah.

Any questions for tonight?

No.

Thank you.

What's the second public hearing amount?

Yes, sir.

This is the for the final plat for the exact development.

Yes, sir.

Nothing has changed from that final plat, um, but this was directed to to both come together before you on Wednesday.

That'll be two separate public hearings.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Life university trail memorandum.

All right, uh good evening.

Uh so at the uh April Parks Recreation and Tourism Committee meeting, uh, Councilman Goldstein requested uh we speak to Life University about some additional language regarding negligence, and then Councilman Sims also agree with that request.

Uh we did speak with Life University uh regarding the additional language.

Uh they did not approve the additional language that asked that the uh mo you uh be presented as was presented at the at the committee meeting uh and uh and and move forward with that one.

So at this time we would request uh motion to approve the memorandum of understanding as presented uh at the uh uh April Parks Recreation Tourism Committee meeting uh with an associated closure uh or associated associated related installation of our related gate at the AL Burris uh nature parking lot.

So I don't think I followed that.

So they didn't agree to what we asked for.

That's right.

So their uh comments were that the uh the negligence language uh move the MOU more into an area of a binding agreement than an MOU.

Was our concern so what is our recourse if they this was about signage and it said that we would replace all signs at our cost.

move forward despite them not agreeing what we asked for so their uh comments were that the uh the negligence language uh move the mo you more into an area of a binding agreement than an MOU was our concern so what is our recourse if they this was about signage and it said that we would replace all signs at our cost so if they destroyed a sign either negligently intentionally unintentionally so that's money on us correct and we have no recourse correct like in that a lot of in theory you could file a claim against them but I'm not they've removed it so uh filing a claim would not work what are our risks in signing it firmly that it it just as councilwoman Richardson said if a sign is destroyed we have to replace it or the chance the sign gets destroyed you know maintenance accidents happen all the time again it can be unintentional they could be going through to maintain something if a sign gets destroyed by them we pay for it and what we what Joseph had won it was that if it's on them they pay for it again chances may be slim but it could happen and all the liabilities on us the re the Mr Mayor may I the risk is on us if we do accept the thing as presented and something happens that we disagree with it would take a what's how long to terminate the agreement at that point.

But um are we gonna make these signs ourselves?

We would sir I mean we've got our signs shop there we're gonna make them so it's just minimal cost.

Again the cost is minimal it was just saying look hey if your guys do it why aren't you gonna pay for it and basically they're saying we're not doing that.

And to my knowledge I think I'm most of the stuff is stuff we've been asking for or so asking for basically and not something that life has been asking for correct everything else that we asked for they agree to except for that this is coming from us not them correct you have to link our two parks together.

And this is minimal cost if something does happen?

Yes.

Yes sir I think the biggest plus on this is it closes down that parking lot.

Absolutely yeah now in the end wanted to ask what to ask and see on that one but it seems like the benefits outweigh the risk on that on this particular one.

It closes the parking lot and if we've run in if we run into an issue we can always terminate at that point.

If for some reason there's constant sign breaking or something like that we can discuss that at that point so I'm okay with this going on consent as it was originally presented to the committee consent.

Okay is this amended or does it go back to where it was originally as presented at the committee meeting yes sir yeah and that's and that's the copy that's in your packet also yeah congratulations you've got one more where are you going?

Yeah you're next I'm next land of water conservation fund affidavit where are you going?

Uh so the next one was the land of water conservation fund affidavit so I don't recall any specific comments or questions regarding that and so there's no changes from when it was presented at the committee meeting so at this time we would recommend a motion to approve the limitation of use affidavit for Larry Seminski Park as part of the closeout of documents for the land of water conservation fund grant.

You object to the consent no objection let me just add while we're here even though we'll do this again well I won't be here on Wednesday but I just want to say thank you and everybody at Parks and Rec, everybody at um public works everyone who had any hand in getting Seminci Park by Joe some people by it yesterday and they're like oh my god that park is gorgeous.

Thank you.

It was absolutely a great job and thank you very much.

Our staff did a wonderful job thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah he does the chair in the whole thing onto Kirby Park.

So that's on consent?

Yes.

Like post banners on consent all right and those are the correct dates right yes okay the next four items on consent and we can't wait right and then proposed solid waste first reading yes Mr.

Mayor this is the first reading uh for the ordinance update and um we would ask for consideration at the appropriate time to waive the second reading okay this would be a public hearing yes sir no sir I'm sorry it's just the first reading.

Okay.

This would be a public hearing.

Yes, sir.

No, sir.

I'm sorry.

It's just the first reading.

Yeah, just a reading.

It can go on the first time.

This is first reading design of public hearing.

It it actually should be since it's an ordinance, it should have first reading and public hearing both.

Yes, please.

Wait a second.

I thought that I know very I know zoning ones have to have public hearings, but I didn't think regular ordinances or have to have them.

You have been doing that in the past.

It doesn't it's not required where the first ring came from.

It's a big deal.

Yep.

Well that's gonna make it harder to waive the second because there hasn't been any notice that there's going to be a public hearing.

And I think I agree with that by having just the first reading that you could waive the second and solve it all Wednesday night if you so choose.

This is also an updated ordinance, which means the first one had the public hearings and followed that process.

So this is just an update.

Yeah.

This is just telling people to put their trash can in their own yard.

And the only changes on page three of the ordinance.

Yeah, it's just it's just updating the one section about uh proper placement of roll carts.

Yeah, no, just the backup includes the entire section.

The entire ordinance thing, not just that one code section.

Correct.

So we're technically reapproving the entire thing based off the way it's presented in the thing.

You are, but I wanted to make sure you had the entire ordinance there, but it's it's just the memo has the one section there that's changing.

So question for you.

May I so the roll card is saying it has to go to the rear or the side after it's used?

Correct.

What if that's not an option?

Hmm.

I think my house, for example, like to go all the way, like there's not enough lot line on one side, and then the other side, yeah, you could, but that's not near the driveway.

I mean, I'm just trying to think of some people that's not as feasible.

I just put mine in the garage, which is not the rear or the side.

Well, that's as long as it's not visible from the street.

So we we've worked with other places or other residents where whether it's a town home or a situation like that, as long as it is hidden or not visible from the street, then that's fine.

And there are some places like I know in my neighborhood that have some I don't know places in the front that it's hidden behind.

That's correct.

That's fine, but I just didn't see that on here because it just said rear side.

That's correct.

And I don't believe you were here during the committee meeting.

So though the issue what we're having or code enforcement's having, um, we we have some people that are not placing roll carts on their property.

They're placing it on either the HOA property or on the neighbor's property because they don't want to keep it on their property for whatever the reason may be.

And code enforcement um doesn't have the proper language in the current ordinance to enforce it.

So that's that's the reason they asked for this clarification.

Just for some clarity on the public hearing portion.

Um we're not required to do that.

Obviously, council can do that anytime you want, but uh there's no requirement in our code that says that we have to do that on an ordinance.

It's not tied to the uh zoning ordinance budget.

All right.

So it's just for zoning.

Zoning and budget, yeah.

And the other thing that I would say is if we are gonna do a public hearing, which I can't imagine anybody having a problem with this, but they might be.

Um, then I don't see how we can waive the second reading because people now don't have notice that there's going to be a public hearing because it's Monday.

Yeah.

So if we're gonna do it, I think that we can't waive the second, or we shouldn't.

That would be my opinion.

I know.

And I like being obstinate.

You can beat the bag down that yes, sir, Mr.

Mayor.

So this will be a public hearing uh on the 2028 SPLOSS.

Um we'll go through the list as it's been presented to Mayor and Council and allow for public input.

The um I'll go through the comments that we received from the three public input meetings that we've had as well.

The uh June council meeting, we hope to have um the intergovernmental agreement from Cobb County that you will vote on after the public hearing.

It'll be a separate agenda item to adopt the uh intergovernmental agreement to move forward with the SPLOS.

So that's where we stand on that.

But we'll be ready for that public hearing on Wednesday.

I remember correctly, the reason it has to be after the item is because we attend we basically append the R SPLOSS to that air governmental agreement is an appendix, I believe, to send their own.

Yeah, it goes it goes in as an exhibit in there.

Okay.

Not for this one.

We will in June.

We will in June.

Okay.

I've already prepared the draft, waiting on the IGA to come in.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Mayor.

Uh this will be an item that will come before you as a public hearing on Wednesday evening.

Uh and it's a request by Trayton LLC for four variances associated with uh two residential lots off Jordan and uh Burnap Street.

As you'll recall back in January, uh you all uh re approved the rezoning um of nineteen different lots and reconfiguration of properties uh along those two streets.

Uh you can see on the map provided on the screen above.

Um note about that was that the the um uh different variances that were required um were noted as being largely applicable to the infill residential overlay, and so that the standards of the infill residential overlay were applied to that development and agreed upon by the developer.

And so just to remind you that there's some different development conditions that are uh required as a result of that, they would include architectural requirements uh that would need to meet four-sided architecture, they would include sidewalks and also trees as well, um, as long as some others.

And so this request um are for two additional lots that they've been able to acquire since the time of that rezoning, as you can see, they're highlighted above.

They show 22 and 20.

Um they are historically residential properties that had their uh residences demoed some time ago.

Um and so once again, this will be a public hearing.

Mr.

Kevin Moore will present.

He is here tonight to answer any questions as well.

Um but the one note I will say is that uh because of the conformance with the residential overlay of the previous rezoning and the uh I guess similarities with the requests that are being made related to setbacks with these two variant uh these two properties and their variances as well.

Staff would recommend including a stipulation that applied those infill residential overlay standards to these as well.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, sir.

Um I can see on the on the uh the backup, the file uh with uh in our packets, uh four variances regarding the setbacks.

But I saw in the exhibit C attachment to application reverence by the applicant, there were only three uh variances requested.

Um what was the reason for the fourth one, which I think is the variance from 10 to 3 on the eastern property line of 104 burnout?

Yeah, that so that fourth one would have been added by staff evaluation, and it has to do with that property on the low end on the burnout side.

Uh that side setback is three feet there, which they um articulate that is meant to um to accommodate some architectural features that they have that will impede an additional two feet.

And so that's why we've outlined the four variances.

So which uh which one of those lots is it 20 or 2022?

It would be 20.

Um question.

I know Mark is looking at cross street.

Um street up there is uh I I guess uh undeveloped street that's right away owned by the city yes, sir.

Yeah.

So question for you, Mark.

And uh I'm just wondering how this will be evaluated to sale or what's the status uh on that?

You talking about the northern street on up that is still going through the process.

That is a separate process above and beyond this.

Right, I understand it.

But once it's completed, it will be I guess uh brought back to the council and uh uh to advertise and have a uh a bidding process for it or it'll have to go through the proper disposition process, which is a public advertisement and sealed bids.

Yep.

And that's and that's that's all of it right there, that street.

Correct.

It's not shown on this map, but it's the next one north.

Well, isn't that the top part of the oh yeah?

I'm sorry.

I was thinking that was Jordan on up there, but yes, it's it's that next line up there.

Just wonder how would that affect this uh do you see properties are on the if somebody else buys it or something or bids on it?

That that it doesn't affect this at all.

Not wide enough to put some houses on uh in the middle of the street?

That'd be a thin house a row of tiny homes for uh yeah that's that's that was uh my question.

How did it affect what they're asking for now?

Okay don't think I have anything else for tonight.

Thank you.

He doesn't have it yet.

Don't have it yet.

And I have to get through the badwork.

Thank you.

We have uh I think it's four property acquisition matters.

Okay.

No legal.

You got 40 minutes?

No legal, yes, sir.

Nine.

Probably it's just property acquisition.

Yes.

Uh make a motion to go in executive session for property acquisition.

Second.

Motion carries.

We're now entering executive session.