I didn't know if you were gonna do it first.

I'd like to call it a special call city council meeting to order.

Mr.

Mut the first item of Minnesota's request for the World Cup.

Will you take it and run with it?

Yes, sir.

Be happy to.

Um we're real excited about the fact that the United States uh team men's team is already in the round of 32.

Yes.

So uh doesn't matter what happens on this next game.

They're they're they've won their bracket, and so uh their group and uh are gonna be moving forward.

So uh that game is actually gonna be on Wednesday, July 1st, and it'll be at 6.

It's the game's actually at 8 p.m.

So what we were gonna do is if council gives a blessing to it, is go ahead and repeat what we did on the watch party previously that we did on the Friday night uh for their first game.

So we'd have a watch party on the square set up the exact same way.

We'd have the two screens uh that would be basically where the strand is uh in that intersection.

So you'd be able to use um either East Park Square or North Park to sit, and people bring their chairs and do that.

There really wouldn't be that much that we have to do for it uh other than just renting the screens, getting them there.

We'd close off uh the parking spaces at six o'clock, get get everybody out at that point, and uh we've got the DMDA considering the possibility of co-sponsoring it with us as far as paying for the screens, and so they're gonna be meeting on that this week to see if they want to do that.

Um, and there really isn't anything else that we would do other than have trash cans out there and just provide security uh for what's going on.

Uh, we wouldn't have to organize any events or activities.

Uh we might have a we probably would have a city table there uh with some of our different gear and different things we've got.

We do have some stuff left over from uh the prior events that we did that we could have out there uh as far as uh things people could buy or have giveaways.

Um so what we would need though to do this is the city's authority through the council to block off the street, uh the two streets for that event, and also by having the city vote on it as a sponsor, then that allows the restaurants to be able to come out, and so then they would be able to sell uh to all the folks that are there's your motion, I'll make sorry.

Uh mayor'd like to make a motion to approve as presented.

Yes, sir.

Please do ask presenting your second, second.

Just as a conversation, it's gonna be could cost us as much as seven thousand for the rentals.

It's I think it's seventy-three hundred is what we've got, and we do for the city portion of that.

If we do half of it, we do have money left in the allocation that council did uh for uh the FIFA World Cup events this year.

So we do have money left in that account to pay for that half, and if DMDA picks up the other half, that'd be great.

And DMDA did agree to have a they already got a quorum set for Thursday night at 5 30.

And it's a good deal for them because we won't be competing with them.

Like like the other festivals do.

I mean, I mean the merchant, excuse me.

It'll just be our own people that are there.

Any further discussion?

Mr.

Mayor, I'm probably just going to I'm gonna have a stand on this particular item.

Okay.

Okay, well that I mean this is tying us in with Frank and Row, which is good too.

I mean, that's Murietta gets mentioned a lot because of the two soccer teams.

That halo to the square is awful good.

Thank y'all for doing that.

And you all have a lot of hours during the summertime, don't you?

Staff has a lot of work they have to do during the summer, especially this summer.

So I want to commend all of them.

So we we've got a lot of people that you know, whether it's last weekend, the week before that, um, they're here all three days uh doing things.

So really uh really got a great great group of people that are working for us.

Yeah, first game.

Oh, that for the game, yeah.

That we had we know we know we at least had two thousand people there for that game.

Wow.

I had a front row seat.

Yes, sir.

Any further discussion?

Here we know I'd like to call to question.

Uh all in favor, please raise your right hand.

All opposed, like son.

Motion carries 70 601.

I abstain.

Excuse me.

Motion carries 601.

And if any reason for executive session, no sir.

Not at this point because we'll have them on that at the end.

At the very end, yes, sir.

I'd like to join this adjourn this meeting and spare the word about the watch party next Wednesday night, Wednesday week.

Wednesday week.

Thank you very much.

Carla.

All right.

I'd like to call the finance committee meeting to order the first item on the agenda of the meeting minutes for May the 26th.

Can I get a motion?

Okay.

Okay, this is a correction to the minutes.

So can I get a motion to approve with the corrected minutes?

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Motion has been made and second.

All those in favor.

The next couple of items we'll take together hotel motel tax, auto rental tax, and the finance of the good afternoon.

So I'll take the first three together.

Hotel motel, our hotel collections for the month of April total $330,611.

And that was representing the second highest collection in the past four years.

Revenue levels are projected to meet the annual budget.

And so fiscal year to date, the hotel collections surpassed the FY25 fiscal year to date by $36,000 with collections totaling just over four point three point four six two million for the year for the um through the month of May.

Auto rental revenues did rebound this month, and they're reaching a new fiscal year high of 125,831 dollars for the month.

But both April and May exceeded the monthly average by over 20,000.

And reserve levels are projected to reach an excess of 200,000, and the funds will be anticipated.

The funds collected above the anticipated budget will roll over for use for the upcoming budget and be reallocated out prior to the end of FY27 fiscal year.

Now taking a look at our general fund, the F fiscal year to date revenue collections reached 80 million seven hundred and sixty-three thousand, which is ninety-seven percent of the full year adjusted budget of eighty-three thousand eighty-three million four hundred and thirty-one thousand, and that's a five percent increase year over year.

And for our um operations, the city continues to perform well.

Um expenditures remain below the budget and prior fiscal year-to-date levels.

Um we've reached ninety-seven percent on our revenues and eighty-four percent through the month of May for our um expenditures the four point five million prior year surplus revenue budget um to support the year-end FY25.

We've utilized four point one million of that, so we still have um just a little bit left over to utilize on that front.

Taking a look at the golf, the operating revenue is up by 280,000 dollars year over year, and that directly correlates to our profit um for the year thus far, and that is inclusive of the transfer that um for a general fund.

There is um one remaining transfer for the month of June, and that will conclude that um profit transfer from golf to uh the general fund for the year.

Um taking a look at our grant fund, the um ARPA.

The December will mark the deadline to utilize all of the ARPA funds last December marked the deadline in order to allocate and um encumber those funds.

We only have a couple of projects that still remain that with um fund balances.

Um last time, as of end of May, we had a total of 829,000 thirty-eight dollars uh remaining that still needed to be expensed.

Uh we do have um plans to expend those um funds prior to the deadline.

One of those the primary um expense that is still outstanding is the $750,000 for the ladder truck.

We're just waiting to receive that.

We have made arrangements in order to receive the invoice and make payment by the end of the year.

So all of those funds will be closed out prior to the December 31st deadline.

And then I wanted to also talk to bring up the fact that we have our property tax the digest advertisements.

And we'll have our advertisements in advance of our hearings.

The hearings will take place on July 8th at 9 a.m.

We'll have three of them.

We'll have July 9th at 6 p.m.

And then July 28th, which is the morning prior to our committee meetings at 9 a.m.

And the council will vote on the digest millage rates during the July committee meetings.

Can you repeat those dates again?

I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am, certainly.

So that's July 8th at 9 a.m.

July 9th at 6 p.m.

And July 28th at 9 a.m.

For a vote that same evening.

Okay.

And with the digest, we did receive higher than anticipated assessments on some of our commercial.

So we did have a higher than anticipated assessment rate for our commercial properties and some of our real properties.

And then lastly, on from a departmental level, you'll see a listing of some of the projects that the finance department has ongoing.

There are a number of them.

We're happy to say that we've been able to get through some of the migrations as far as the banking and our IT projects.

So those have been completed.

Two of those have been completed as of to yesterday.

And that concludes my report.

Just to receive and file.

Yep, good evening.

As you know, the opioid settlement fund is monies that we've received.

Lots of agencies receive them.

And we have an opportunity to acquire a piece of property that we can switch over to a public pavilion that creates a positive space for children.

In addition, one of the ideas that we could do to make it compliant with those without the reasoning would be to fund our umarcan requirement with any rental fees that we have, just a small portion, because as you know, the law says that we have to have Narcan in every every government building, and that requires funding.

Another thing that we can do is we can reserve one day a month for any drug youth program that wants to come in free of charge to give them a space to come and play.

So I have so questions there's a building on there now.

Is this amount including tearing down the building and building the pavilion?

Or is it yes, sir?

We would be able to do both with the funds.

With with um this particular amount right here, that would be just recouping the money that was spent out of the general fund.

Right.

So it would be taking this money and putting it where the general fund money was being used for the purchase of the property, and then we would have to use additional funds to come in and do the renovation of that area that we wanted to do.

And I know there are a couple different designs that have been put forward for council to look at.

Um one of them did have uh a pavilion going there with and a walkway, and it tied it all in with the park itself.

Um I can have you know um Rich Stackman talk about that if you want.

He's got all the details on exactly what we would do there.

But this money would not be used directly for it.

It would just go ahead and allow our general fund to get the six hundred thousand back that we could use for other things, and uh then uh we would be able to go in and allocate money for the renovation and what we're gonna do on the park.

So I have a question, so then can we use that general fund money for part of this construction?

Uh you could you could use that general fund money for whatever uh purpose uh the council would want to do.

Um there's also another uh another about 300,000, which is in the fund we're talking about today, uh, that you could use that extra three hundred thousand for pavilion or for renovation or whatever you would like to do on that site.

So that money's there, and then we do have obviously the tourism residual funds that we were gonna allocate to some projects going forward.

Would a hundred thousand be enough?

Um yes, I mean it I don't think we could decide what to do tonight.

Yeah.

But we could go ahead and set up an allowance and hundred, hundred and fifty.

The the actual the estimate that our folks have on redoing the whole entire location and tying it in with the park is about four hundred and five thousand total.

Uh but the pavilion itself is a hundred and eighteen.

So, yeah, you could definitely use this money to fund the pavilion portion itself, and then we've got other funds we could use to actually do the work.

I'm so confused here.

So we're looking at using five hundred and nineteen thousand to buy some property.

Well, it would be to re yes, I mean, in essence, yes.

It's it'd basically be uh reimbursing the city because we had to with that piece of property, the building that is there now, uh the city has acquired it.

Um we had to use general funds to acquire it.

We didn't have that allocated anywhere.

Um so and that was part of the whole issue that we do.

When did we acquire that?

I'm oh that's what okay.

So it's he addresses what was confusing me.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Thank you.

It was a good random bill.

Yeah, I I guess I didn't realize that was on all good.

It is I think of all good, I think of your part of all good.

I'm sorry, I that was what confused me.

I should have said the last name.

That's all right.

I was trying to figure out what building we acquired.

Got it.

Okay.

I'm there now.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Um with the use of this fund with use of these funds, there's additional there are restrictions that we'll have to make sure we apply and that go that's in perpetuity essentially.

Yeah, it um it actually uh you know do we have to do that?

Probably not, but by doing it, I think it ties more closely with the actual purpose of the fund.

Um the the money and and through great research that was registered did, um, found out that there are other jurisdictions that have used this particular money to go in and acquire particular properties that have had a troubled past, I guess is a good way to put it.

Um, and so uh this is the situation with this particular piece of property.

So um I think it qualifies just because of that, but what we were thinking is that we could also do some programming uh that would go along with it.

Okay, just oh yeah, this you roll back to club 15 to 30 years ago.

That was an unfortunate spot.

I'm gonna call it Page Street to confuse your money.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

Just a note to staff to if this does pass our plan doing that program to make sure that that the reason why and the re and that gets for forward and pass along so that future members of staff will have that is the reason why those programs are being done at this location.

Okay, would that be written into the ordinance to um we wouldn't need that uh it added in anywhere?

That's something that we would do as as part of our staff.

Um but basically we're just asking tonight for the budget amendment to allow that money to go from that fund into the general fund.

And then I have a question.

So then it on the next step, if we want to take more of the opioid settlement money for the construction or demolition or whatever that is, that would be a separate budget amendment to move it from that fund again.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Um you could allocate some more of it right now if you wanted to.

Um, but if you didn't, then we'd come back later and ask that.

Okay.

I think it'd be given what we did to get this property and the causation.

Yeah, I like to go ahead and have a use of reserve re reserve for future construction, right?

Estimated, the uh total work, including the pavilion is 405.

The 519 includes the ability to improve the property.

No, it it just isn't no sir.

It's just the um the purchase of the property, that's all it's doing.

And then out of the rest of it, that 405 is demo and going in and doing the work that we need to do with it.

So I mean, you could you could allocate the rest of the money that's there, and then we could subsidize that with the tourism funds that we have or some general fund.

So what's the rest?

What's the balance after the 519690?

Um it's gonna be about 300,000.

Um we would we'd need another another hundred and hundred and ten or so.

Which we could use the rollover for the 110.

Yes, sir.

How's everyone feel about allocating the rest of the opioid money to the specific project so it's all tied in neatly together?

I'm good with that as long as I mean we haven't talked about using that opioid money for anything else, have we?

No.

So if it's not going to anything else, we have before we stop, but we have used it for narcans and um supplement the co-responder program as well.

We've used it some for that, and we've used some with the Narcan purchases.

I am okay with the building purchase.

I don't think that I'm fully on board with using all of what's in that opioid settlement money tonight.

I I understand the concept of being able to rent out a pavilion and use that money to go back into Narcan purchase to use to allow people to come there and use that for different things.

I'm just not sure that we are fully looking at what those funds can do and address.

I know at one time we thought about or we discussed um something with Davis Directional, and I'm I totally applaud what you're looking at doing here and this being a good use.

I'm just not on board to, and this is just me, a hundred percent of that money remaining.

Um I think there might be other programs that we need to seriously consider we currently have Narcan in every building, every public building.

Yes, yeah, it's a state requirement.

And the police carry it in the fire, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

Just because you'd mentioned it also.

I remember asking about this earlier, the uh police the mental the mental health uh program, stuff like that.

Have we found a permanent funding source for that already?

Or is that I'm assuming that program's continuing?

We don't have a permanent going forward source for it.

We used um again some of these funds to assist to keep it going.

So we'll have to move forward with it with budget.

Yeah, it'd have to be the general budget.

Okay.

So I I have a quick question.

So um how would this be managed?

I guess is the employees and the the model that we talked about, um, is the s simplest model that we can think of.

Right now, all of the Narcan uh funding goes through my department.

Um I work very closely with the fire department to make sure that we have a whole list of every everywhere narc Narcan is when it expires, um they purchase it through the fund and then they go out and they exchange it.

So that's pretty pretty easily covered.

Um as far as the programming, the city wouldn't be responsible for the programming, they would just have uh set day available for places like Davis Direction and other organizations that want to come.

So we don't want to put a lot of burden on on staff, but we want to make sure that it is serving the correct purpose.

Right.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Okay.

So do we can I can we do a motion just to move this 519 forward and uh is that agreeable to a majority of the people?

I mean, I'm fine to do that now.

I'd like to take a look at the other sooner rather than later.

Okay.

Unless while we're talking about it, we just want to address the pavilion part and then deal with the rest later just to do part of it.

Which is I think what originally 118.

What's that?

118 118.

Yeah.

Councilman Richardson, how does that sound to you?

Um that's fine.

So that still leaves about 200,000, 200,000.

Okay.

So can I get a motion to move this to Monday to Monday?

Do we need a motion now?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll make a motion um that we approve the land acquisition funding request um, along with um, I guess earmarking 118,000 for the pavilion on this property.

Second.

Okay.

Any more discussion or questions?

This will be heading to the Wednesday agenda, correct?

Based off the motion.

Yes.

Okay.

All those in favor?

Thank you.

What year would it go to, Bill?

Um the actual money would go to this year.

So it would uh it would go to our fund balance for this year.

Even though the vote won't be on until seven eight.

Oh, yeah, you got a good point.

No, I sit there getting ahead of myself.

No, actually, since the uh since the motion would be made and it would be approved next year as of July, it would go to the new budget year.

You're right.

Um, Mr.

Chair.

I think I heard uh Madam Clerk say something about consent.

Yes.

Any objections?

Any objections to consent?

Yes, yes, um good with consum.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is the tree replacement fund for 278 and off the parkway.

This was tabled uh and I guess we've got two different items in front of you tonight that kind of deal with the same thing.

So we've got this portion right here, and then we've got on on a later agenda on judicial legislative.

We've got uh any changes that would council would want to discuss being made with the tree fund itself or with the uh uh tree replacement issues that we've got in our code um or with uh anything dealing with uh demolition of city property, um anything along those lines.

So two different parts of the discussion, but the first is the um actual dollar amount that was uh paid by the property that uh had the problem so Ms.

Richison This isn't on me.

This is this is a finance payment.

This is just the payment part, right?

But you didn't want to I thought you no, I what I want is the one that's on JL to discuss what we do.

I mean the payments actually already been made.

Am I correct?

Yes, and so we have already said it's this much.

They paid it.

So this is going along with policy as it currently stands and allocating um a fee for the um replacement of the trees and as they were taken down.

And so we have received the funds, and this would just allow us from a budgetary standpoint to um receive those funds and balance the budget out.

That would go to July as well.

I mean go to next physical year as well.

Yes, it will be on um next FY27 budget because it would be approved in July.

So moved.

We need to move it forward.

Yes, sir.

Just confirm that.

That's with the change from FY26 FY27 on the agenda item.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

I can't make an amendment.

No, just I was just clarifying what did the motion include that?

Okay.

All right.

All those in favor?

All right.

No objection.

No objections.

No objection.

The next next item on the agenda are the Sunday sales for specialty beer and wine market.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

This was an item that was discussed at last month's committee.

Um, and just to refresh everyone's memory, uh, the city of Marietta a couple of years ago began to allow uh ancillary consumption on premises licenses for specialty wine and um malt beverage markets.

And um uh the question was raised last month as to why other governments, namely Roswell uh allow those operations to occur on Sundays when it comes to the on uh premises consumption, uh whereas Marietta uh restricts it.

And so uh we had a discussion about state code, which uh essentially limits any Sunday sales for on com on consumption on premises consumption to eating establishments, which is defined as at least 50 percent of your gross boot food and beverage um revenue being comprised of of non-alcoholic food or beverage, and um the government that was talked about last month was Roswell, who also has um this same kind of concept, uh and they allow uh their wine markets and beer markets to do that.

And so we were able to do some research alongside the city attorney.

We had a meeting with the Roswell city attorney, and he clarified that this code section that we presented last month that we've included in the packet this month uh was put into play, uh put into um law back in 2018 for the purpose of allowing them to operate for consumption on premises on Sundays.

Um he mentioned that they have not had any issues with it, not necessarily um any challenges or been challenged to do it, and that they maintain close conversation with the Department of Revenue, and so they feel comfortable doing that going forward.

Uh staff was able to uh look up some additional research of just other local governments within the metro.

We found that John's Creek and Milton also allow Sunday sales for on-premises consumption by these concepts as well.

Um and we've included their language within this packet also.

Um and so uh I will say on the other side of the coin, we did look at about 20 other local governments, and their language and practice uh we believe reflects what ours is, which is restricting it per the state state law section to just eating establishments.

Um and so with that I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Yep.

My question is, and I guess this is the state law.

It says any government authority um desiring to permit and regulate Sunday sales pursuant to paragraph one of this subsection, so provide by proper resolution or ordinance.

So does that mean we can uh uh I guess change our ordinance to allow it?

I need to look to Mr.

White for that.

I think that it's saying if you want to if you want to uh authorize it for the establishments that are the 50 percent and above, not Roswell and the other two jurisdictions Daniel mentioned are the are the are the outliers, they allow it.

Despite ever the 20 other jurisdictions and Marietta reading it a different way that you can't that maybe you're not allowed to do it.

And so uh after talking with their attorney, the the answer and uh we sort of understood was we're not totally sure it's allowed or it's not allowed, but this the department of revenue doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

So it doesn't that didn't seem comforting to us.

I mean I think we uh Doug read it and I read after talking with Daniel today on about it too, I re I read it too, and I read it the same way as Doug, is it it it's not allowed?

No.

You know, that that's it's a I guess it becomes a policy comfort the whole issue for the council as to whether you want to consider it, but the count your legal counsel is saying uh that the state law doesn't allow it as we read it.

For me, I think uh in my opinion, you should.

I mean you sell in uh in this case deep roots is right next door to seven tequilas and and then the craft beer places on the other side that they're selling by the drink on Sunday.

And it seems like we're punishing you know the the wine market for the butt that's my opinion.

I would just say we're not punishing them state law as state.

State law is punishing them, yeah.

So how how do they allow the craft beers to pour on Sunday if uh that this is interpretation?

Yeah, so a couple of different things.

Um one, I think that they would be doing it under this same method if it was a craft beer market, they would essentially be operating at risk under the assumption that it won't be challenged, there'll be no issues with it, those kinds of things.

Um and then there's the other factor, which are are breweries and wineries and distilleries, and they're under a whole different legal structure, and they're specifically allowed to operate outside of those hours.

So some of the breweries you will notice have Sunday hours, it's because of that reason.

Any uh other uh thoughts?

I think we're all thinking.

Silence.

Scary.

So the silence is go.

Yeah.

Same colors with draft beer.

We disagreed with Roswell before.

Especially on the rental ordinance, wasn't that about 10 years?

Yeah.

Rolls of went ahead.

20 years ago.

We went with state law.

And then Athens, Clark County had to get sued, so on that particular one we got sued on it.

Um Roswell did not.

And so they kept their law in place and uh we had to change ourselves.

Yeah, I mean, I I think if if Roswell and Milton and Johns Creek are all doing it, why can't we come up with a resolution to allow Marietta to do it until somebody at the state or department of revenue comes in and tells us we can't anymore?

Or has needs to be addressed at that point.

Um that that's fair enough to say.

I mean, that's a that's a that's a comfort level of the council.

What are how comfortable are you uh taking a novel position from best of the jurisdictions and your legal counsel?

But I'm just telling you if I'm looking at looking at but you're you guys this council is the client, so if that's what you're comfortable with, and you say, look, there's there's another jurisdictions that are reading that we'll help you we'll help you get one in place.

But or you can convince these pla my dad when he was a judge had these places uh we get around Sunday sales by selling a pack of crackers for 75 cents and charge you a quarter for the beer, and that's that so that's how they could put the 35 percent, but that's a recommendation to the wine market, but that's not something you guys could do.

They do sell snacks.

Not 50% of their revenue though.

Expensive snacks.

Yeah.

So I'm comfortable moving this forward to council, but I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with it yet.

Um is that a motion or was that no just discussion?

Um I wouldn't wear on consent because I just think you want to bring one back.

Do you want to bring because the way Roswell did it is they adopted a specific section allowing it in their ordinance, and nobody's challenged it yet.

So if you would if you want to do it the way Roswell's doing doing it, then I guess you'd pass that.

So you might want would you like us to come back with the proposed ordinance?

Yeah, yes.

So we table this now and come back with the proposed ordinance.

Sure, we can do that.

You want to buy the July meeting?

Yeah.

We'll work on it.

We don't have to work over time.

There's a holiday in there, but we'll get it on.

So do Robbs will use the magic language not withstanding any other.

Yeah, the their language actually gives me the most pause in this in terms of their them and our council.

That you know we have a good relationship with the revenue department.

That's not does that's not the same as saying we're not doing anything wrong.

We're not doing anything wrong.

So that's my concern with it.

So I don't I'm not for wanting to kill discussion on it, but I just feel like I need more.

I would hate for your daughter to have to arrest you, T.

What's that?

I would hate for your daughter to have to arrest you.

Oh state agents will never find me.

One point of context I'll give, and Ms.

Brown can likely speak more closely to this than I could.

Frequently when it comes to areas of ambiguity and uh you know other related things related to alcohol law, the Department of Revenues not necessarily going to come alongside you and give you the okay.

So it is it's more of kind of this fluid conversation as opposed to some special allowance that they provided.

They usually try to keep that pressure on the local governments.

Yes, so I have a question for the attorney, and I don't know if this is an answerable question.

If we were to do this, I mean the Department of Revenue could only come in and go you weren't supposed to do it as long as they're getting their money, we haven't deprived them of anything.

So any suit against us would be just to stop it because they're gaining, not losing.

Right, I mean the questions are that's probably what's going on is something they've looked at each other and said, Well, who has standing to challenge this is probably yeah, and if revenue challenged it, what do you think I can do?

We're getting our we're getting more money than we would have if you weren't doing this.

I'm still not a hundred percent there, but you know, the whole law breaking thing.

Yes, what other municipalities are any in cob that that you that you looked at?

No, we um the only three we found were in Fulton.

Right, but the ones that don't any all the ones in cob.

Yeah.

Yeah, we can get you the full list of those, but it would include several in cob.

20 20 different to three.

Well, Danny, if they don't enforce it, could that be promulgate rules?

Waiver.

I mean propagate, I mean it's not on the river.

If they don't enforce it, we take a position that they promulgated the rules, which I doubt I doubt if this is in the statute.

Well, I guess Sunday sales work.

Yeah, Sunday cell.

You know, it's there's a uh as Daniel mentioned, there's there's a separate category.

This we're talking about what the tasting uh or what's the category for this wine market?

Is this like there's it's separate from the craft beer the breweries and things, so they have their own.

So there's some gray area where people may be saying, well, if we're gonna allow it for this, this this is similar enough use.

We're gonna qualify that we're gonna clarify in our ordinance that these qualify for the same one.

So that's probably what they're doing, and the department of revenue doesn't feel interested in coming in and stepping into that enforcement issue.

Looks like from Cobb County, Smyrna is the one that's on our list of 20 that we included.

Do you make a motion to move it?

I haven't made a motion.

Are you asking for a motion?

Yes.

I think T was making the motion.

I'll make a motion to move it forward to our uh second Wednesday meeting.

Wait, to the big meeting or the agenda work session?

Uh just clarifying.

I would say in the big meeting because we gotta have a uh it's an ordinance, don't you?

That you have to have a public hearing.

But we won't have read it before then.

Okay.

Right now it's on the agenda as a review of Sunday sales regulations, and there's no ordinance to move forward at this point, but you could ask.

How about I make a motion to ask council to generate a draft ordinance in terms of what this would look like?

Should we choose to adopt um similar Sunday sales in Marietta?

Would that be appropriate motion?

Sure.

Second.

Any more discussion?

And you want that for this July?

I think that my opinion that would be that would need to go to the next committee meeting.

Committee meeting.

Okay.

All right.

Motion is made in the second.

All those in favor.

Any other business to come before the finance committee?

If not, we adjourn.

I know I lost parks and rec in all this paper here.

All right.

Like to call the parks and rec meeting to order.

First item of business is approval of the minutes from May 26th.

Do we have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

The motion do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor, right?

Raise your hand.

Motion carries 30.

First on my business is a 2009 parks bond report.

Thanks for being here.

Good evening.

Uh right now.

So I'm just gonna be bringing some simple things, hopefully, here.

The financial financial stuff is uh our interest earnings from last month were 150 dollars and sixty-four cents, which brings up the uh current balance to 78,000 dollars two hundred and ninety-one dollars and eight cents in the bank for f future appropriations.

Um Parks Mont Projects, we have uh Larry Seminsky's still out there.

We are we're waiting for our uh walkway lights.

Um, and as well, we just got some minor signage that we're putting in.

We're transferring you know our our uh signage that said West Ixy Park over to Larry Seminsky, and we've got a couple wayfinding signs that we're uh setting up to get people from the park up to the cemetery trail.

Um Burris Park, we have uh completed our survey of the area um of that we are going to be replacing um some failed drainage structures, and we have started engineering on that.

Um that's it.

All right, thank you.

Appreciate you.

All right, next item of business.

Um Councilman Richardson has asked for a discussion on establishing a committee for the development of the new Franklin Road Gateway Park.

So I'd like to ask Councilman Richardson to talk a little bit about what's on her mind.

So similar to what we did um for those people who were either I guess none of us were um for um Elizabeth Porter, there was a committee set up that included both um citizens interested parties and council members, and I believe it was chaired by Michelle Cooper Kelly if I am not.

Um I think we need to do the same.

You know, the other side of the street, they've already started throwing dirt.

We need to start looking at what is going to happen with that 10 acres, and I'd like to see that move forward sooner than later.

So I would ask that we could set up a committee that included you if you would like to serve as chair um myself and councilman Goldstein, because we sit on either side of Franklin Gateway, like to have some committee members from Yells CID.

Um residents as well.

Definitely some residents.

I'm sure there's several residents who would like to sit on that committee.

So I'm looking for to do something similar to what we did for Elizabeth Porter Park.

Thank you.

I think it's a good suggestion.

Any other comments on that?

I don't know.

There's all the mechanics to work out on how we set up committee and who's appointed and how they're appointed and all those things, but um just from the uh looking to you on this one.

How was the previous how was the Elizabeth Porter committee set up?

And then if I remember it's a right, it was a recommending body of the council committees and body slows make the final determination, correct?

Absolutely.

Yeah, this this body would still make the final determination if it was under the same way we did the other uh committee.

Um, but the council did appoint the committee and uh go ahead and appointed a member as chair, uh which has been suggested.

Um so uh then we could we could go through and get other names of different groups and individuals.

Um and you know, you could could put it out there even if uh you know, as far as who wants to volunteer to assist, I guess.

So and for clarifications for this particular part of the item.

This is the establishment of the committee and maybe a few initial names and the probably the initial size to guess of the committee.

Um not all the names we put on for this particular item.

We'll uh probably appoint those through parks of personnel over the next month or two or the next month or two if I had to guess.

For me, my thought was that we would have stakeholders.

So again, when you look at Franklin Gateway, you think of Yells, um, you think of the CID.

Um, and there may be more stakeholders.

I think that we also need to look at citizen to put on there, you know, somewhere five-ish.

Um, and I know there'll be a lot of people who want to do that.

And that doesn't preclude people from coming to committee meetings and contributing, but to just set up a committee that that makes the recommendations.

I mean, I would even, and this is kind of probably going a little far, but would love to have somebody from fire on there because as we're looking at it, we can look at whether or not 55 moves onto that site or somewhere else, and what that would need to look like.

So I think somebody from FIRE would be good on there as well.

Not that I spoke to Chief about that, sorry about that.

Um just throwing that out there with him sitting there.

I nominate the chief.

We agree with that tomorrow too.

Okay, see, so I I I just think that we need to get that so we can start those discussions.

Okay, and five um final question for me for right now.

Um with us being a council created committee, this is going to be subject to open meetings law, correct?

And open markets.

Okay.

So how many people were on the Elizabeth Porter committee?

Oh we nine or twelve, wonder.

Yeah, I think it yeah, it was a long time.

Yeah, it was it was pretty big, and then we had a lot of folks that showed up at the meetings continually that were not on the committee but wanted to contribute.

So you had a certain amount that were the recommending body, but then you had a lot of community members that were there too.

And in that, they also came up with their own nonprofit.

They came up with a nonprofit to raise money, and part of that is how they one did that wall, but two, that's the money that was just used to repair the wall.

So they came up with a nonprofit that was very interested in donating money to add more to what's over there at Elizabeth Porter.

Yeah, that's great.

That's how they got the MRC money.

Yeah.

They wouldn't have gotten it.

Right.

I think it's a good idea.

See, like did didn't they work with budgets for each?

I mean, the parks.

We passed Pacific Parks.

In this case, there would be Pacific disciplines like recreation, no, you know, whether or not you put the fire department in it.

Yeah, that was a little bit more specific, I guess, with that committee.

We said one and a half for this part, two million for that part.

Right.

So we we did have a budget we started with, and that's where the fundraising came in is that uh we were able to get more out of the park itself if the uh community gave for the you know the statue and some of the other things that went in there in the wall and and all that.

So that uh allowed us to add a lot of amenities that it wouldn't have had otherwise, but we did have a budget that was pretty strict, and uh there was a lot a lot of discussion over how to use that money in the best way, and um so that there were really we had we had two different committees.

You had the before the parks bomb was established, you had the parks bond committee, and that's the one that went out and decided all the different projects that were gonna go on in the city, and uh then put that forward for the to the voters, and then this committee came in specifically just on that Elizabeth Porter site once it was decided that that was gonna go there because at first it was gonna be an indoor facility that was gonna be sitting on the Elizabeth Porter site, but then when we got uh the custer site, uh then the everything changed and we were able to go ahead and put money into Custer and rehab it, and so then that opened up the space for Elizabeth Porter to be something different.

Um we had a decent amount of our meetings uh they were either over at the fire department or upstairs, and so in thinking about that to your number about 1215, that's probably about right because we would were able to sit in the room upstairs and it was okay size-wise.

So if it was more than that, we wouldn't have been able to fit.

Quick, maybe ward one and ward seven appoint three members, the CID appoint three members.

Yales and maybe a business appointment three members.

I I could be recommending three members and then approval by full council, I think to for the delay decision, correct, Daniel.

Yeah, I mean, we could sketch this out for six months.

We can't trust ward one and seven to make three choices.

No, no.

What I meant was just we recommend and then the council approve the approve it, uh, give the final approvals while I was saying that's why we do everything else.

Yeah.

I was just confirming that.

I'd be very confident one in seven in the CID.

Yeah, we don't have to get I mean, do you appoint a Cam Grace more than seven of one if you live somewhere else?

Let them decide.

Yeah.

Right.

Because they got a five mil tax.

We want them happy.

Exactly.

Yeah, and I can only think of at least one person to start asking with uh FRCA president.

I think she lives in my ward.

So yeah.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I got a suggestion.

Cheryl come up with a format and present it next Monday.

Well, I was gonna ask for I was gonna ask for a motion to move this toward forward toward next.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion if I can, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I'll make a motion that uh we create um a new committee for the Franklin Gateway Park with you being the chairman.

I think that was your suggestion.

I'm not on the committee, so that's just some words that I said.

You're the T whisperer.

All right.

We have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

All in favor.

Do I have to abstain since I'm being voted as chairman?

Okay.

And and I'll come up with a straw horse of what I think ought to happen.

Sounds great.

Is the intent for this to go to Monday or Wednesday?

I think Monday, and I'll come back with something.

Sorry, I should have put that in the motion.

That's right.

I'll come back with something on Monday.

Sit next to him because he abuses me.

Well, I accused you from over here.

Yeah, well, that's true.

Um with no further business before the parks, recreation, and tourism committee.

Our committee is adjourned.

Uh first item of business of the meeting minutes on Monday, Mayor.

Not from Monday from May 26, 2026.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

Hearing none questions called.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion passes 3-0.

First item of business, next item of business is item 20260557, preliminary plat 1440 Sumter Drive.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh this is a request.

Can I make can I make a disclosure, please?

Oh, sorry about that.

Yes.

Um, just want to disclose that my home, my primary residence, actually, my only residence, I don't have more than one.

Um, is adjacent to this development.

And so make that disclosure here.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so this is a request by Monsor Properties for uh two properties located off of Sumter Drive 1409 and 1440 for preliminary plat approval for a um uh a subdivision that will have 18 units zoned R2.

It's a 13.16 acre total track size.

Uh staff has provided a memo um laying out an analysis of the plan as it's been presented.

Uh the first kind of large topic is the tree plan.

They provided a tree plan uh which uh has the required density calculations.

They're unable to make the full required tree density, and so as a result, they've had an arborous sign-off that they are unable to do that based on certain site factors and topography, um, and they would uh be then um attempting to and requesting to pay into the tree fund to the tune of 21,846 dollars.

Uh they have provided elevations.

There is no requirement for four-sided architecture within the R2 zoning category, uh but they are required to provide those elevations, and those are within your packet as well.

And then lastly, there was a tree uh uh traffic study, rather, um, which has been reviewed by our public works department with recommendations for different steps that they should take along the way when it comes to the construction of the development and also um factors related to the traffic as it flows uh in and around the development as well.

Uh but staff's available to answer any questions you may have.

Okay.

Um what else is the committee or council at large?

I do know that there I do know that we receive uh received some emails and other stuff from residents about this, and I know there were some requests regarding some kind of public comment as well.

Um that is up to the will of the committee, or if we're trying to recommend it out to the full council, that would also be up to the committee in part as part of any motion that might come out of the committee.

Can I make one comment?

Yes, you may.

Um not I know I'm not on the committee, but I do want to acknowledge that there are a lot of quite a few residents here from board two.

I mean, we're not just board two, but adjacent to that development, just so you know that they're here, whether or not we do a hearing tonight or next time, or it's up to the committee, obviously, but I just want to point out there are some folks here.

So thank you.

Thank you for pointing.

Thank you for letting us know.

At this time, are there any questions for right now to begin?

Yes, I see uh I have a bunch of.

Oh, the council uh council member Richardson go, then the code of the council for Gaza.

Okay.

Okay.

So I keep seeing a lot of non-exclusive easements.

Um, is this just a use thing, or is there actually a recorded easement, or is it a prescriptive because it's landlocked?

I don't understand non-exclusive easement.

Yes, so um staff has received an easement that would be for the main drive.

So as you look onto the map, the entrance off Sumter Drive.

Right way up there.

Correct.

That shaded area, it's shaded uh within this development.

Let's see, the center Shelby, can you put your cursor over the easement area?

Thank you.

Yep, so that um that easement is a drive that enters into several properties also located on Sumter, which are just off of this site to the left.

So you'll see some boxes there.

So not included within this 18-unit development, but where she now has her cursor.

So staffers uh does have uh possession of an easement from the early 80s that reflects that.

Uh to my knowledge, that's the only easements that staff has been made aware of related to this development.

Whose property is that easement?

That's I'm confused.

Yeah.

So uh with regards to the easement, this pro this particular property is the subservient property, then it uh basically it serves the other properties down there down below.

That's correct.

So they and assuming this and based off the written easement, is this does this um have you taken a look at this and make sure this all complies with that re written easement so that we're not messing with anything with that or looking like we're messing with anything with property rights on that one?

I haven't seen a copy.

Did you provide a copy of the easement?

It's not within the packet.

Yeah, I I don't know I I haven't reviewed it, but that's not for these older tracks.

That's not um uh that's not unusual to have a shared easement that's like a non-exclusive easement.

It means you're not excluding that there's multiple people, multiple properties that easement serves, and so it's because it's running through this proposed development, they're calling a non-exclusive easement because the there's it serves people multiple properties going down.

And whose property is it?

What do you mean who who's whose property does the easement run over?

Somebody's got to own that easement.

That easement to grant the obviously to grant an easement, somebody owned it.

But I think the easement is already existing, is what they're saying, is that it there's an easement that's already existing there.

So the easement serves those properties to the south, and it it tra it traverses across the current proposed development property.

And and I do get that it's already existing, but who owns that property going forward?

Who owns it currently?

Is it a road already?

I mean, is it a paved road or paper road?

Yeah, one second.

Okay.

May I may I ask one question on this based off the who owns question?

In this case, this parcel here is the subser should be is would be the subservient property.

This is the one serving the other properties at the easement.

Yes.

And then who is the pro who are the pro the properties below?

Are they the ones that have the right to use the easement?

They were granted the right, basically the can't remember the exact legal term, but those will be the ones that are.

Basically, are they the grant who the grantee properties in this case?

Is the main property as a grantor?

Yes.

So who's the grantor or grantee?

Well, the grantees are the are the properties below it, but again, okay.

Okay, there we go.

Well, well, yeah, I was gonna say probably it was a larger track, and then when those were split off, the the easement was probably reserved for those properties to the south.

I don't know.

I haven't looked at this, but that's typically how those things arise.

Okay.

So that you're not landlocking the properties.

Undersigned here by grant until Shalif King?

That would be the grant T.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Hereby grants under she was the grantee.

Yes, so grantor is the undersigned, so that'd be the first one.

Who's the undersigned?

Uh next page.

Whoever's on the signature page.

Right.

And she was the one that was contingent to the to the property.

Yeah, but so all of these.

That's where the group came from.

All these people were grantors.

The SBs, the Callaways, and Montgomery.

So that means that's the owners.

At least the owners that's they're the ones who are uh who have right to use.

Have a right to well, let's see.

Um yeah, go back up to the top.

So shall we?

You know, uh that those owners granted Ms.

King the right to use to use that easement.

Right.

So who has the right now to grant that to the people who want to use it on some for the new development?

It was granted to Ms.

King.

Right.

Well, the the subsequent the successor and interests.

To the SB's Callaways and No, to well, yes.

No non-exclusive easement.

Got that.

So Miss King can allow other people to use it.

But again, the person who granted the right.

Well, no, no.

That just means they can't.

The person who who then acquires the larger tract that's serving uh the easement, they can't they have to continue the ease to allow the successors to the serving uh the the dominant estate, which is the one that the easement is serving, the dominant estate gets to continue to use it.

Uh so uh to the extent, expanding that to allow a subdivision.

It's a non-exclusive easement.

It doesn't apply uh doesn't mean that the person granted this easement is the only one that can use it.

Use the area, I don't believe, correct, Daniel?

For non-exclusive easements?

Yeah, well, I mean it just depends on what the terms say, but yeah, for non exclusive means can you exclude somebody from using it?

And that's so yeah, yeah.

For purposes of ingress and egress through and across, I cannot read that anymore.

Right.

Can we make that big again?

Okay.

All right.

And then scroll down to the bottom because that's the uh beaten bounds.

Scroll down.

Okay.

Can we page down or scroll down?

Yeah, scroll down to the bottom of this page.

This is the benefit of the grantee.

I mean, non-exclusive also be used to serve other the other properties shown on the plat referred to in the legal hearing.

So the plat there can also use the easement.

Yeah, the other parcels that were on the plat.

So if this land here is the same is the same land, same plot, they also have right to use the same area theoretically, correct, Daniel?

Yeah, it's like a shared driveway.

Basically, they all the other plots plots have a right to use it, but you have to preserve the right for the lower properties to to access it going forward.

So they can't block it, basically.

That's right.

They can't block it, but are they allowed to expand it?

Yes.

I mean, they're not expanding it.

They're they're it's an access easement, so if it's being used for access, then that's what that's its purpose.

I mean, I get what you're saying, that you're saying that it's not being expanded, but it's going to be used by other properties that are not currently on this plat and this.

Yeah, but they're as long as those people, as long as Ms.

King's successors and interests continue to re to as long as they have the same rights under the future development across that easement, their estate is not being affected.

This is a great law school bar exam question.

And whatever they do with the rest of it, because it's not exclusive, if it were exclusive, then the other person could sort of step in at veto and say, no, no, you have to keep it depending on what the terms of the easement were.

We we have we said we're only going to use it for these things, but but it's not exclusive, so whatever they end up doing going forward, as long as the dominant estate continues to be able to access it as a shared drive, then the Serbian estates can whoever whoever the successors to the Servian estate can therein lies my question again.

Who are the successors to the subservient estate?

I don't know who I haven't done a title search on it, so I don't know.

Um I don't know that I think that is the attorney here for Adam's here.

Yes.

I I'll yield for right now.

I'm gonna have I'll come, I'll come back to you, Mr.

Gaddis.

You have some questions.

Sure.

Yeah, I'm gonna get in the weeds pun intended.

Tell me exactly how this $21,000, how the city expends those funds, the tree replacement, it goes into a fund.

That's right.

Typically, what are some activities that we use for those?

Yep, so um the tree fund as it were is utilized by our parks and rec department when it comes to public spaces, so it would go back in on city properties with different uh planting projects they would do in coordination with the tree keeper group.

Um so the Marietta tree keepers have been very active in that as well.

So they utilize those funds uh oftentimes in park projects where we need trees that are purchased.

Um tree replacement even in Glover Park, I believe tree funds have been utilized for that as well.

Now from Ariadna Park.

And the reasons they cited of to not be able to meet the ordinance was because of topographical concerns.

Yeah, they listed uh several of them, so they've got grading constraints, utility conflicts, access requirements, and live limited uh suitable planting areas.

Uh was the reason their arboris gave and Shelby has up the specific arborist statement that's on the tree plan that they submitted.

That's a question while you're thinking, Daniel.

We had um some residents concerned about the arborist.

I haven't seen the arborist uh report, but thinking that the number of trees that were counted that should have been counted versus weren't counted, weren't counted appropriately.

I know that was clear as mud, but like trying to figure that out in terms of exactly and I know you put this in the memo, so I understand what the Arbor says versus what the resident says.

So repeat that last piece.

Sorry about that.

So when it says um resident who wrote on February 19th argues the existing tree credit was inflated, claims 97.9 units claim versus approximately 19.3 healthy and at the on-site planning of 164.8 RDF can't actually be planted to alternative compliance blows past 75%.

What's the how does that fit with the Arborist study?

Okay.

Um I'm not an arborist.

Sure.

And neither am I.

Um but I will say staff reviewed the arborist plan and looked at the calculations and had several versions of these that went back and forth.

Um ultimately Rich Deckman is the city's arborist, and so he took a look at both the plan and the comments made by the arborists as well.

Um, if during the process of doing any of this, it's either they're not unable to keep the plants that they said they were able to keep or um unable to put back the plants that they say that they're going to be able to put in.

Yeah, he's right there.

Front row.

Rich, you have any comments on this.

Do I have any comments on this?

Yes.

Yes.

Well, I do we did with review it, and um I found the the the comments by the arborists in regards to allowable space to plant and what they were putting in.

Um to be correct.

I mean, they were trying to plant as much as they could.

If you look at the the bottom of that plan that's on the on the uh on the screen now, you can see they they just filled that up with as much as they can.

That area is uh probably maintainable enough that they could support that that kind of canopy over there on the north.

I'll say sheet north side.

It's much steeper.

Um and and you can see an area where they haven't planted, that's probably the area where they well, that is the area where they felt it was to pop uh topographic challenge, and it's very steep there.

They have met um all the requirements for street tree tree street skate trees, I believe.

They're still, I mean, they did back then, so um I because I can see a few differences, I think, between what I looked at first.

So I would agree that they've they've done as much as they can.

Um another, I mean, I could go out there and look at the property a little bit more closely once they start development, and there could be some changes then, but um looking at it on paper, I would agree with what they've said.

How can you tell on paper uh trees that are being planted versus trees that are remaining?

Uh on the upper question.

Sheet la upper sheet left and right, you'll see the existing trees that are being protected and and saved.

And those are those are generally uh inventoried on uh as this the submission.

You saw a sheet here, maybe that had a big long list of yeah, there you go.

That actually tree by tree identifies condition, size, value, density-wise.

So somebody's gone through and identified all those.

And on this particular plan, like I said, on the upper left hand, the upper right hand, those are the existing trees, and the new trees are the fuzzy looking pretty ones that you see that are all over the streets.

So there's no trees saved on the other sides.

If you don't see if you don't see the red and blue, there are no trees.

Yeah, if you don't see the the smaller, uh, yeah, I guess they are red and blue.

Then that's another way to look at it there.

Um everything within that, the but you can see they've all got red X's on them, those are being removed.

Um, and then once again, upper left, upper right, you'll see ones that are there saved, and some along the top.

Any other questions on this topic or other topics at this time?

Not on this topic.

Not on this topic, yes, Mr.

Gaddis.

So Daniel, there are no variances requested.

This property is zoned for residential development, it has been zoned that way for quite some time.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So they these property owners have the right to develop this property according to our zoning ordinance, and our purview is to uh approve to only according if they meet the city ordinances.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Flood plan.

I see here that this is reference to flood plan for FEMA flood maps throughout the I guess right side of this.

What's the plan for water diversion to protect the properties that are already out there?

Uh well, uh I think for the purposes of this, it's showing that all the development has to be outside of any uh floodplain and stream, and so I think that's what the intention of this is showing.

Um at this time, staff doesn't have full site development plans, which would show what the exact plans are for you know the specifics of the stormwater.

I will say there are specific locations as you get towards the bottom of the property that um show where they will be doing some some detention.

Oh, and right there as well, pond lot at the top.

Okay.

What are the requirements in this case for this for an R2 for this property for regarding the water detention?

Have to defer uh pulled pull Mr.

Rice down here to answer that question specifically.

What was the question, Mr.

Culcy?

Well uh water that water detention, water watershed management essentially on the property, the requirements regarding the R2, the R2 zoning this property has they will have to meet all of our uh storm water detention as well as water quality.

Um but as Mr.

Cummings said, right now we we have not seen any full site development plans to know what all that's going to entail, but they will have to meet all of that uh on site.

When in the process is that usually seen?

This is preliminary plat, correct?

It's after preliminary plat, yeah.

When they usually start submitting those plans.

Okay.

And the applicants and the applicant uh uh the property owners aware that they'd need their one there need to meet and meet all those requirements so that you don't have the meet all meet all of our requirements regarding watershed management.

I see shaking heads.

Yeah, because I know we have some properties that are downhill that are very concerned about what's going to happen with the the water.

So you're saying that on the next round, that's when that comes up.

Correct.

There's like a is there a hydrology study?

I mean, what does that look like?

We require hydrology study on all new developments now.

So we we'll take a look at all that.

And we are aware of some properties downstream, but uh we'll make sure all of that meets engineering code as well as stormwater code, everything uh before we release any land disturbance permits on it.

Are there any other questions on this topic or any other topic again on this item?

Council Richardson and I know sorry, Councilman Waters.

I had two other questions.

I have a long list I've been working through.

So one would be sewer capacity.

Is that also come in the next phase?

Or that we already know that there's sewer capacity.

So that's part of the uh site development plan, so yes, uh, but I I believe Marietta Waters already been in contact with uh the applicant or the engineers about uh how they're going to take care of sewer, but yes, that's part of the next phase.

Sure, I know they have no how gonna take care of it.

Does the do our existing our existing system will handle the capacity, yes.

And then residents had also commented about potential blasting on the site and what that looks like.

I've not heard of anything needing to be blasted, but if if that is that is the case, they will have to go get a blasting permit, and we'll go through that process with them if that's the case.

But generally, um if for some reason there was a blasting permit, what are the general conditions of those?

We or what are usual conditions on blasting permits?

Blasting permits are issued through the fire marshal's office, and um they regulate all of those.

Okay.

Usually they can't be done in the middle of the night and stuff like that as well.

Yeah, they there's these hours of operation and all kinds of things like that, but they can't be operating.

Why can't they do it at night?

Only only next to Mr.

Anderson's house, can they have to question?

Yes, sir.

We talk about water.

Is there a water retention pond anywhere on this drawing?

There's not there's not anything.

There's a there's a creek that runs down through there.

So the water is going to drain to the creek?

Yes.

It'll all have to run to the creek somewhere, but it'll all have to go back to the creek.

So you don't have to have a separate retention pond.

They will have to have a pond somewhere.

But I don't know where that's going to be at this point.

I thought that was on the plat.

That was on the platform.

That's shown on the plat up in the right area.

Right.

They're they're showing that preliminarily right now, but that could change when they submit site development plan.

Yeah, I just couldn't pick it up.

When they start getting detailed engineer sometimes plans, sometimes those shift, depending on how things work out.

But right now that's the concept.

Was this ever planted when these six or seven people bought this?

Or did they just plant it through a deed with the easements?

I mean, they were going to build it because I know every one of them.

Yeah, the Shelby earlier had an old plat up there from likely back when the easement was first formed in 1980.

Um I think that's the extent of that information that we have related to it from a historical standpoint.

So they never had a recorder or subdivision plant?

Oh, on this property, no, sir.

Do you mind heading briefly back to the uh old platform?

So it's been partially subdivided, I guess, since the since 1980.

Yes.

Yeah, and it's still showing that way.

I mean it's showing uh Goodman SB and GBSB.

Yeah, so it's still showing a Nelson family revocable trust.

And based on last, and I guess for the easement stuff, it basically is based off that last paragraph, essentially.

Councilmember Richardson, I know you said you had some other questions.

Well, my questions were the stormwater and the flooding issues, but I from what Mark's saying is we're not going to know that until later, which gives me a little pause only because we already know that there are a couple of properties that are kind of downstream that are that have issues already.

And I feel like maybe we ought to know before, but I guess if they can't do land disturbance until we're happy.

Right.

They the whole process, they have to get a preliminary plat approval, then they submit site development plans.

We don't issue site development permit until they've met all of the requirements.

So I can't look at the details until they get preliminary plat approval.

So it comes back before us.

Or do you get to do it?

Um they will have final plat.

You'll have final plat approval that will come back, and that would be after all of the infrastructure is in and they would be ready to pull building permits.

That's when you would see it next.

Seems a little late in the process, though.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I I know that's the way that we do it.

I I again I I am bothered by a couple of things.

Um I do see the question that I had about who owns that.

I do see looking on the cob tax assessor, that it is owned by the SBs on.

So that's all, I guess if that's who's selling it, that's all good.

But I do still have problem and concern mostly about the water issue.

I mean, I I get that the tree thing has already been decided and they're saving as much as they can.

Um, but I have problems with the we are saying right now that we know that there's an issue with at least one property, if not more that have are gonna have water issues that could have water issues.

But we don't require anything to before we make the decision.

Well, this this is no different than any other preliminary plat you would you would look at.

Because we we have we have other properties that have downstream issues that we have to look at before we issue site development permits.

We are under obligation to the state as an issuing authority.

We can't issue anything that is in violation of any of the stormwater requirements for the state of Georgia.

We can't.

So if it doesn't meet those requirements, we can't issue permits, period.

So there's there's no way.

So even though we're saying yes, we could say yes to something, it could then turn into a no if they can't meet those.

That's correct.

If if they can't if they cannot meet theoretically, if they could not meet their stormwater requirements, they would not get a land disturbance permit from us.

So we just can't do that.

I want to ask this.

This isn't more of a question to the committee in this case.

Um we have not made a mo we've not had a motion on the floor at this time.

Is there anything is there any other questions you'll have or any other thing, any other any other things?

I know I said we know we have requires we know I know I've seen requests regarding possible um asking for a public comment on the thing.

Is there anything from the applicant that we need to hear anything from other things as well?

Or is it something you think needs to be done for full counseling generally?

On because it doesn't give notice to anybody else who might have wanted to speak.

But I do think that the residents need an opportunity to speak, and either tonight, and I I this isn't on me because the mayor is the owner of the council meeting, but if not tonight, I would ask that we could at least get a public hearing if this goes to the big agenda.

I feel like there are there are concerns.

I feel like there are concerns, and again, my my biggest issue about not liking saying speak.

I know there are a lot of people here who want to speak about saying speak at a committee meeting, is there may be other people who have a different view, whether that's a yes or a no, who don't have notice if we allow it tonight.

That's my only so in that um in that case if there were to be if again y'all you um if there were to be a motion to probably include a recommendation for a pup for a full for a hearing of that to guess.

Yes, Mr.

That's definite.

I guess the rest of the council.

But I don't know.

Can I make a recommendation?

I mean, that's your meeting.

That's you that gives it.

I'd say you're just on the other side of the arboridium.

We went through it on coast and road.

You know, I think I'd like to address a lot of things.

You know, he spent another million dollars on water after he got all his permits.

You know, I think it's the bandage of both sides to air this and address issues.

So do you want to table this and move it forward and quit whatever comes to council, we would have a public hearing.

We would agree together to have a public hearing, whether it was 6-1, 5-2, or I don't think we've ever turned any people down.

No, no, I just was thinking you were talking about a separate public hearing.

No, no, no.

Just so this doesn't require a public hearing.

Am I correct?

That's correct.

And so this would be adding something that isn't required in the way that we wrote whatever that that's rules of procedure with council procedures is it's on the person running the meeting, and that meeting would be the big council meeting, which is the mayor's meeting.

Right.

So that's why I'm asking if he's amenable to us moving it to that with a public hearing.

It's the chair is the chair plus the count plus the members of the committee.

Okay, but if the chair's not behind it, it's not gonna happen.

So would that be the Monday meeting?

Wednesday, Wednesday, Wednesday meeting.

Council meeting.

Yeah.

Yeah, the reason I I like to public hearing is learning from coast, and when a couple 10 or 20 acres of trees go down, people get tend to get upset.

You know, we saw that in coast and Breckenridge.

Right.

And then the water flew later when we started having rains in March or February.

Um those are my concerns.

My concerns are that we've got the issues of water.

I have now looked at what Daniel was talking about with the easements, and I see that again, Sumter is public up to that one point, and then the SBs are who own everything below that on both sides.

So they have the right, they granted that easement, they have the right to be a grantor in or to succeed it on, so that's on them.

Um successor in interest is getting their interest from the SBS.

So I I don't have a problem with that as much, but I do have a problem with the possibility of flooding and flood issues and water issues.

So you're gonna make a motion to move it.

I'll make a motion to move this to the council meeting without recommendation for a public hearing.

A second.

I don't think that's a proper motion, though.

Okay.

I'm just gonna make sure um this is not time.

This is not time to invite public comment.

I'm just making sure everyone understands the motion at this time.

It is a motion there's moving this moving this item for item 2026 0557 preliminary plat 1440 Sumter Drive to the Wednesday July 8th, correct?

Count uh city council meeting um at which is the 7 o'clock 7 p.m.

meeting with a recommendation this be uh this beheld for a pu for a public hearing for the rule rules and procedure of council.

Does everyone understand that?

Does the applicant uh does the per does the applicant also understand this as well?

And the p and the residents are here I see shaking heads.

Do I see a shaking head that they understand?

Okay.

That is the motion.

Is there any further discussion on said motion?

Hearing none, the question is called.

All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand.

The motion carries 30.

Due to this being a public hearing, this is recommended for non-consent.

Definitely.

Yes.

Yes.

Oh, excuse me.

Next item of business is item 2026, tree protection landscaping ordinance.

Councilmember Richardson, this is so I asked for this, and again, I don't know if this is the proper place where this needs to go.

But basically, we can't allow for another event like what we had on Cole Street at the loop in the North Loop.

The there is no way, as I've said before, to replant mature trees.

So we are going to, or we already received just under $10,000, and that will replace trees, but it's not going to replace what was destroyed.

And I'm not even gonna call it cut down, it was destroyed.

It doesn't also take into account the milling that we're gonna have to do, the grinding of those stumps, and all of the things that need to happen.

And I feel like there isn't a destruction of city property ordinance, anything.

I mean, you can't graffiti things, and we do have that somewhere.

Um so we have some things, but this was just wrong.

This was wrong in so many ways, and I and I and I we can't go backwards, it's done, but we can't allow this, in my humble opinion, to ever happen again.

So I don't know.

I don't know how we do it.

Uh I guess I'm turning to Daniel White and Daniel Cummings.

Um, I don't know, and I guess you would my arborist, and this isn't the only kind of destruction of government property that we can have.

Yeah, we we do have other situations.

Uh one that happened recently where you know a truck hits a light pole.

Right.

Uh does something like that.

We that happens fairly frequently, I hate to say it.

Unfortunately, yeah.

And so we do uh go after the individual and go after their insurance, and so uh our insurance uh folks will go after theirs and try to get compensation for that.

Um they are there are times when assignment is written uh for the individual.

Um so um that we do have different methods we could use.

In this particular case, we could have, I guess, gone and tried to write a citation and taken it to our court.

Uh but our court's got a limit of a thousand dollars.

So which is why Daniel was saying they were creative and finding ways to make us whole.

Yeah.

But we were made whole at the same level functionally as what we do to developers when we say you can't plant enough trees, so we want you to pay in for this.

This is a different situation of these trees were just removed.

Which is a good point uh in a couple different ways.

One is the the violation that occurred here, and and just that it should have been known and shouldn't have happened, obviously, with where those trees were located.

Um but the other part is uh if we wanted to try to go in and do something different with the ordinance, um, you could also deal with individuals who have other properties where you know they develop a property, and as part of that, they have to maintain a certain amount of trees on that property, but then they come in three years later and shop down trees uh on their property, not our property on their property on their property.

Um so you could have um something that's a little bit harsher uh as far as the cost uh to both of those situations.

One uh piece of this, and I do think the application of the tree ordinance in this situation was a bit creative, um that our rate by which we charge via the tree fund has not been updated in quite some time since 2004.

Uh so it's 220 um measured at the the two-inch caliper level, and that's been the number since the tree fund alternative was first constructed back then.

Gosh, I mean that seems like we had at least just adjust that for inflation.

I mean or we could have an additional charge if there was a violation involved.

If it's taken without um, I'm just suggesting.

If it's take if the trees are removed without um the city's permission, whatever.

I mean, if if you've got to have so many trees on your commercial property, and then you just go in there and you remove them but don't replace them.

I feel like that's a thing that also needs to be looked at.

We as an example, we did have uh apartment complex um out on Franklin Gateway that went in and took down virtually every tree uh that they had on the property.

Uh, we did try to take that one to court, we didn't get very far with it.

Which court?

Our court or superior?

Ours.

They're especially on this one.

There weren't that many trees to begin with.

Right.

It's so obviously bad.

Thanks.

So it doesn't quite as well.

It just looks empty now.

Looks painful.

Sign looks bad too, in my opinion.

Well, we're not going back to that.

They're all that the problem I see on that is kind of what area of law are we in because if we're in cra if we go for going into criminal law, for example, on that there's a limit as to what we can do.

We can only do uh certain misdemeanors and we can't just create something to go above.

I understand that's a thing about there versus what we're doing with the tree uh density here, and then trying to uh not the uh I'd have to see what what's being done, I guess.

It's kind of a question of what area of law are we going into to or for the authority for that.

Well, that's why we have Daniel White here, and we let him do the legal stuff.

I just come up with the good ideas.

Well, I'm responsible for the bad ideas.

Well, no, you're supposed to have turned them into good ideas.

No, I I saw this on the agenda tonight, frankly.

I didn't I did not understand it was in relation to the this is all news to me.

I've seen the that property, so um I I will I can take this as another homework project uh to look at you know ways we can strengthen it.

Yeah, and again, it's not something that has to be done by Monday.

No, yeah, because the trees gone already.

I don't think we could come up with something and then charge it with it.

I think it's too late.

But I don't think we need ever need to have this happen again.

Sure.

Uh yes, council.

Yeah, Cheryl, I was thinking back to the Sumter development.

Thirteen acres, all those trees are being removed as $21,000.

Seems I didn't realize it's 2004.

Yeah, but that seems really low.

It is for the number of hardwoods and specimen trees.

Do you have an appetite to increase that?

Oh, yeah.

I mean, that seems to be like the first thing in the ordinance that we could change.

It's just up that I definitely have an appetite for that.

We just gonna pick a number, or we're gonna staff what are other what's staff can do some research.

That would be wonderful.

Yeah, that'll be good.

I did some preliminary research before this meeting, not knowing exactly where the conversation was going, but I feel more comfortable with a month to take it.

We're just gonna do what Roswell says.

And just be clear, any change any changes to the ordinance that's for going forward is not something it'd be retroactive, basically.

So it's uh even if there wasn't you even if eventually the stuff does increase with regard to any current anything that's currently under review.

That's under the uh that's review under the current version of the ordinance correct.

Yes, that's correct.

Rather set expectations.

So yeah, I that would be my ask.

I don't think we need a motion for that.

My ask would be that the city attorney um Daniel.

We're team, we're on the same team.

Oh, that which Daniel.

We have three Daniels here.

Please use last names.

And Daniel the younger and Daniel the older.

Um the younger's here.

That's why I say please use last names.

Um, we're not saying bald.

I wasn't gonna say that.

Daniel the Folicley Town.

And no bullet jokes in there.

Um, to come up with where we need to go with this, understanding what we're kind of looking for.

Expect that to rebock back at a future JL committee.

No.

Any further discussion on this item?

Staff, you have direction.

Okay, is there anything further come before the judicial legislative committee?

Hearing none, the committee meeting is adjourned.

Let's call the public works committee to order.

First item is the meeting minutes from May 26, 2026.

We should improve the minutes.

Second.

We have a motion and second, any discussion?

Hearing none.

All in favor.

Please indicate by raising your hand.

Passes three zero.

Next item, Mr.

Rice is the twenty sixteen SPLOSS TIFF Summary.

Not a lot of information on the 2016.

We're still working with uh contractor if he's getting started on the Rottenwood Creek Trail.

Uh we're also working to identify some cost savings uh on a couple locations.

Um with um Life University and KSU, as well as having to go back through GDOT to uh do some redesign there, but it's gonna save us quite a bit of money um on the design and installation construction once we get to those phases.

But contractors not working on those areas right now.

He's starting on another end and starting to work his way back.

So um we're still we will schedule a groundbreaking here soon.

We just we had a uh some issues with KSU and um not on the location necessarily, but we have some other issues we needed to walk through with them before we had a groundbreaking.

So we about got through those and then we'll we'll get a date set so that's all I have on 2016 unless anyone has any questions.

Any questions in 2016?

All right, Mr.

Rice, 2022.

Twenty twenty-two, uh a few updates.

Um North Marietta Parkway Streetscape.

Uh we were happy to find out yesterday, I guess it was.

Um Courtney with economic development did a fantastic job of working to uh acquire us some additional funding through TILP funding through ARC uh that will allow us to actually go through the engineering design phase of this project, got us an additional four hundred thousand dollars for that project.

She'd also been working and gotten us the grant money for Rottenwood Creek uh project as well.

So we had that money uh coming in also.

Um then she had uh another project that I yeah, I put back here on my back page.

Um one that we hadn't got started on yet, but we had talked to council about several months ago about when we applied for uh the grant opportunity was uh Rod will Roswell Road Corridor study.

We also got funded for that.

So that will go from Call Parkway on out to allow us to start looking at that corridor to see what improvements need to be made along section of Roswell Road.

So we also got funded for that as well.

So very happy.

Courtney did a fantastic job of writing those grants and getting us those up, getting us a money coming in to help us fund those.

So very happy to be moving those two forward.

I know for the North Manor Parkour Streetscape, we'll eventually see plans on those that get final approval right there.

Yes, yeah, we're but we're long ways out from that yet.

Got it.

Um we're still they what was in what was shown at the public input meeting was just very high-level conceptual plans to get input.

Now the next phase is actually developing the engineer detail plans.

Okay.

Once I have those, that'll be what I'll bring back mayor and council for your approval.

Uh next project, um, the traffic signal replacement, traffic signal pole replacements over on South Marida Parkway at uh Powder Springs and Waverley Way, those have now been moved into production.

So hopefully here in the next few weeks, we'll actually take delivery of those polls, and then we can move to bidding uh those projects out, get those under construction soon.

Um McDonald Street stormwater.

You see a picture there.

That is the final um pipe uh replacement there.

You see the stormwater actually running through there.

That was actually one of our heavy rains and the improvements that was made there on McDonald's Street.

Um then we've repaved McDonald's Street as well through there.

So that's all I have on the 2022, unless anyone has any questions.

You know, I'm gonna ask Herbert Drive.

Herbert Drive, the uh engineer is still working on the plans.

Thank you.

I have a question on the ward money.

Does that a cure interest?

No.

No, it does not.

Wow.

Any other questions?

2022.

All right, Mr.

Rice, the public works departmental report.

Yes, before we get into that, we do have uh uh Rachel put out the notice uh for the Polk Street crosswalk installation.

I think I mentioned that a couple weeks ago at the council meeting.

So this Thursday, Friday, we will actually close Polk Street there, but right between Cleburn and Up that little section there is we actually install the crosswalk and the lighting that goes across the road there.

So detours will be put in place.

They should have it back open Friday afternoon after lunch, but uh that's just in case.

Question will the work that's being done on Witlock be finished?

The uh other utility work.

I don't know what it was, it was just fully backed up on Whitlock.

Yeah, that's thinking if Polk went down at the same time.

No, no, yeah, that's ATT, and so yes, they're okay.

Yeah, they're just they're just doing their other work that they've been approved to do.

So, yeah, it's just spotty work.

Okay, thank you.

So the other performance information you have there uh in front of you, normal uh performance stuff uh for us.

Um permits are still staying strong right now, um, as well as all of our other activities throughout this past month.

Um the agenda is very light for this month, as you've seen.

All we have is our updates.

Um we will be at the um state public works conference first week in July.

Um the annual conference that we attend for training and continuing education, so we'll be at that conference.

Um we'll also be becoming our regular routine.

We're picking up some awards for projects as well as two of the top, the two top awards for one of our managers of the year as well as for the elected official of the year for the mayor.

Call it green.

The mayor was uh chosen as the uh public works elected official of the year for the state of Georgia.

So you gotta climb a poll fire ladder.

So that means I have to miss next week, we know that is not what that means.

Can I take that response?

I think the mayor pro team may have to run that meeting for you.

Okay.

So I have a question for you.

And I know that I sent something to Bill and you and Ronnie.

But there were some people who reached out, I don't know why to me, but I don't mind.

Regarding Friday pickup.

Yes.

Is there any way to allow for additional pickup this Friday?

If they've got two weeks worth of trash.

We'll take everything they have out this week.

So whatever they have out, and there won't be no additional charges.

We'll get whatever they have out this week.

Yesterday, does that apply to next week?

I'm just kidding.

Everybody but you.

Um we we don't know what happened.

Um I know you had contacted Mr.

Goldstein contacted.

I Carlisle had contacted.

I had phone calls.

This that's all I've done yesterday and today is talk about trash for people.

Um not even my ward.

So sorry.

Well, the people you had contacted wasn't in your ward, Mr.

Goldstein had people wasn't in his ward.

We had people all over the place.

Um the app, I tested the app multiple times last week because anytime we have days off like that, I'll I'll go in and I start putting addresses in on the days to make sure that the app was correct.

Every street, every house I checked, it was correct.

But obviously, some people weren't getting the notification on the app.

We don't know what happened.

Um app shows everything went out.

We don't know.

We we had gremlins in there.

I don't know what the problem is.

Um we are this coming week, not this week, but the next week, yeah, this coming week for the fourth.

We will uh we're gonna start running notifications Sunday evening, and we will run notifications through Thursday for everybody.

We're gonna be notifying everybody this time.

We are also going to be rolling message boards out into those areas that for that'll be picked up Wednesday and picked up Thursday again, just kind of help remind everybody again that they're picked up on a different day this time.

Um Rachel is gonna be blasting everything out again on social media extra this time.

So hopefully we'll get the message out again.

With the what we call the floating holidays, these holidays that move, so not like Labor Day Memorial Day that stay set.

Um we consistently at least once a year, we seem like we have a one of those that catches worse than others.

It just happened to be this one this past week.

No excuse, but it it hit us.

And um people are still just getting used to that being a holiday.

We we think that's part of the problem, but uh it's we've had we've had it hit other times too.

We we've had it hit on Good Friday, we've had it hit on Veterans Day, we we've had it hit on other times, so that's not always the case, but that may play part into it this time.

But um we're gonna roll out a lot more messages this coming week and try to make sure we get them all.

But whatever's out this week, we're gonna pick it all up.

No extra charge, obviously.

Whatever's out there, we're gonna grab it and go.

So it's on Saturday.

Yeah, but it's observed on the third.

Except for Mr.

Kent, and we're picking his up next next week sometime.

So is the is that the week that you're going to pick up early, the week or the fourth?

Yes.

Yeah.

City celebrates the Friday off.

That's correct.

Okay.

Which means trash will be Wednesday, Thursday, Wednesday, Thursday, no brush pickup next week or no special pickups.

Yeah, the fire.

Everybody's we're we're all running trash next week.

Trash recycling.

Yeah, the fun thing is this year we had the two Fridays close together next year because of the way uh way the holidays are going to fall.

Um uh it's going to be we'll start up to the June two.

Yeah, Juneteenth will be observed, I guess for the city wise on the fry on the Friday the 18th.

Whereas July 4th, until be on a Sunday.

That's right.

Yep.

So next year will be fun too.

Yeah, won't be as bad, hopefully.

But the public works committee.

I have a real question.

I'm looking at the uh question.

Trash app right now.

So this is correct.

Is that what we're saying?

It better be.

All right.

Much as much as what we've been into it this week.

It better be.

Yeah, it says Carlisle's house will not be.

I I stated that earlier.

His house would not have.

Well, the guys want the guys are not real sure which house he lives in, so they just ignore his his block right there.

It's a whole block, right?

That's good.

And it it was widespread.

I mean, if if it was just one area of town, then okay, we we we can say something.

But all in all seriousness, we did we were picking up about 60, 65 percent of normal pickup.

So we we were getting trash up.

We just weren't getting all the trash up.

So we we knew that there was a disconnect somewhere, but then as the guys all came in, it's all over town.

It wasn't just one area.

Right.

Um I talked to a lady day on Atwood, so it was down at wood.

We've had Carlisle's neighborhood, we've had um out Scott Drive out in that area that was affected, and we've had Grambling West Dixie.

We we've had it all over the place.

I mean it's just been all over town.

So um rhyme or reason.

It was it was everywhere.

Another person, no the person I talked to the uh told about the trash talk app.

Apparently they had not known about it.

They now don't they downloaded it to my knowledge, and then also told all their neighbors.

Right.

It's time I'll adjourn the public works committee.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Ma.

I'd like to call the special call council meeting work session together.

First item to order May 26 minutes.

Next motion to approve.

Second.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

Motion carries seven over.

Executive session.

Yes, sir.

We have uh two matters, I think it is.

Um and they're both legal matters.

Uh yes, two pending litigation.

Pending litigation.

Does that include the quasi?

What was four?

Oh, well, yeah, that also I got all three.

Yeah.

Okay.

Can we also the legal opinion that I asked?

Is that for can I we do that in executive session?

Can we discuss it there?

Because it's legal opinion.

Well, it's a legal opinion, but it's not really tied to any threatened litigation that I'm aware of.

Okay, so it's got to be tied to litigation.

No, we can't you can ask your attorney for legal opinion.

Title 50, 50-14.

If let me just say this, if we address the thing that you asked about, there will be potential litigation, so we could probably say that yes, that legal sounds perfect.

Okay.

So four things.

Well, just some four things.

We're up to four.

I'm still here.

You can ask your attorney executive session.

One would hope you could.

Yeah.

I mean, that's that's what it's for.

Just so long as you too.

Because I have a point I want to bring up too.

So yeah, and so you you're good with the you're good with all topics going into executive session.

Yes.

The four that I'm aware of, yes.

Okay.

Motion to go into executive session for legal advice, opinion, and pending litigation.

Second.

Pending or potential litigation.

Pending or potential.

Yeah, whatever you second that.

Second.

Motion carries.

We stay in here.

Yes, sir.