I'd like to call the city council special meeting to order, please.

First item of Bennett is the Hope House Emergency Shelter.

Reason is on this rather than the committee is the third straight partnership we've been invited to join it.

We had to sign the contract by the 30th.

So we couldn't wait until uh the August meeting.

So I apologize for the rush, but Mr.

Brain, will you present?

Mr.

Mayor, if I may, real quick, I need to disclose that I'm an employee of the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, and as such, I need to recuse myself from discussion and voting on this item.

Thank you.

Sir, uh, so yeah, you've got actually the memorandum agreement before you.

It was laid at the table.

Uh so everybody could probably take a look at that and see what we're talking about here.

Uh basically, as the mayor said, uh, there is a grant process which is ongoing, uh, has different layers uh throughout the process.

Must ministries is applying or wanting to apply for this particular layer of that process.

They did not do it in the first one.

Uh the first one dealt with two of the other projects that if y'all remember um one was CFR and what they were pursuing with homeless issues, and then also Emanuel's village.

Uh so you had both of those.

Uh this one is uh the prelim uh part of the process where they have to get pre-qualified, and as the mayor said they have to submit that very shortly uh before our next meeting.

And so they need to have a government that is uh working with them on whatever project they're talking about.

And so as you can see here, it's a memorandum of understanding it will be between Must and the City.

And the key important point on this is they're not asking for any money.

Um, this is actually to formalize the existing partnership between the parties in support of their application to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs for the Georgia rehoused program under the homeless services funding category.

And so basically uh as it goes through, it talks about when you see existing partnership, they're just talking about what MUST does, but what also we do currently, uh mainly with our police department uh in trying to help individuals uh find resources uh that are out on the street, and so we do have our community response unit and other police uh that are involved in that and must also have uh their individuals that are out in the field doing the same thing.

Uh and so the key part with us is uh when you get down to uh responsibilities, it says uh must will uh operate the Hope House emergency shelter, which they currently have.

They'll provide emergency shelter to eligible individuals and families, they'll deliver housing focused case management and supportive services to try to get people into housing.

They'll coordinate referrals with city personnel, assist participants in obtaining permanent housing and increasing self-sufficiency, and maintain communication with city partners regarding collaborative efforts.

They're doing this now.

This funding would support their current efforts if they were to receive it.

And for us, the city will continue its existing partnership through the Marietta Police Department and the Community Response Unit, refer individuals experiencing homelessness to Hope House when appropriate, coordinate outreach efforts with Must Ministries and participate in collaborative planning and communication regarding homelessness within the city, and lastly, continue to provide existing staff resources that support the city's homeless response efforts.

And by that it basically means the uh individuals that we have in the police department that are doing that right now.

So as it says also the financial obligations, there are none uh for the city.

It would just be identifying the in-kind contributions we're giving to this effort currently, and so you can see that we've got a description of in-kind contribution.

Uh, that's blank right now, but you do see the different uh areas that we would be documenting.

Married to police department staff time related to homeless outreach, community response unit staff time to homeless engagement, other city staff time coordination, meeting participation and collaborative activities, which um we have through our C D BG office, uh, and currently um that takes place on a basically a daily basis.

Um, and so then we've got uh total estimated in kind contribution.

We would add all that up.

Uh we would fill this out in the next two days and go ahead and put the dollar amounts that we believe uh we're devoting to that effort right now.

And so the agreement would actually go two years uh from the signing by both parties, and uh it could be amended by modification by both parties.

Um it's a non-binding agreement, um, and so basically it is not intended to create legally enforceable financial obligations between the parties, which it says.

So basically it's something that they have to do in order to apply, uh, as we stated with the other two organizations that we brought forward, and there is no monetary obligation by the city, and we can basically just continue doing what we're doing right now.

Uh, but it documents the fact that we are doing that uh and working with them.

So assuming I have a question.

So with that, is Shady Grove Church a part of it?

It is not.

I mean, they are separate organizations, and uh they they do separate things.

Uh I don't know that Shady Grove is receiving financial uh support from the state or the federal government.

Um must does receive a lot of that money currently, and uh this would be enhancing the dollars that they have to be able to do their services.

Um I I know that they communicate back and forth, uh, but this doesn't have anything to do with their activities.

Yeah, I just wanted to get clarification.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Um Bill, if this were to be approved, um uh we uh we would essentially be directing staff to fill out the estimated annual value um uh on that on that third page yes, sir for the in kind, and then who would be doing the certification on the last page?

Uh which staff member?

Um we can we can do that however we want on that one.

I mean I can do it.

Uh um chief and I could do it.

Um but I mean we'd be the ones responsible for filling the numbers in.

So just be certifying the the in-kind contribution and uh came up with the numbers and we believe they're true, right?

Okay, but it's not uh again, it's not obligating us to additional funding.

Not at all.

Okay.

So we're looking to approve this without those numbers so yes.

Uh we were basically we would uh be just going through our budget currently and what we have and we'd be adding that up.

That's all we're doing.

Any other questions?

Someone for a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Does it need to be worded a certain way?

Um no, sir.

I think you just make a motion.

Well, it says it in here actually.

Mother authorize Mary to uh I will make a motion authorize Marietta as partner with most ministries in application for funding of Hope House emergency shelter and application for funding through Georgia's rehouse program for pre-application commitment of June commitment of July 29th, 2026.

Second discussion.

Um right now that approval doesn't include this the additional stuff of how how it's going to be filled out and stuff like that.

The is this basic uh the estimation is going to be based off the fiscal year 26 budget as opposed to the fiscal year 27?

Yes.

Because we want to use actual numbers, and that's a reason why we don't have the numbers filled in there right now.

I want to make sure they're very accurate.

Um may I make an amendment to the motion just to clear just to clear make sure that's clarified.

Um motion to amend such that the estimated annual in-kind contribution numbers be based off of the um previous the previous the fiscal year 2026 but uh budget numbers and those cut and those categories of certification being done by the city uh city manager and um any other employee he to he deems necessary for the certification.

Bill, are you good with that?

Yes, sir.

Second second, yeah.

Any discussion on the amendment?

Not so much on the amendment.

I guess I just have a problem with saying, yeah, let's do something without numbers in it.

I want to support must.

I believe in what they do.

I believe in their rehouse effort.

I've always supported must.

I don't like contracts with open blanks.

I I understand.

We we just received this yesterday, so we'll I will I want to make sure that we get it right.

I could put estimates in there, but uh I'd rather have the real numbers.

And that's and that's part of the concern is part of the reason why I want to make a motion to cut it, tied it to a specific actual um actual thing instead.

Yeah.

Because otherwise I'd normally share I'd normally also share Gerald's concern on this.

And we're gonna, I mean, to tell how we're gonna do it, we're gonna come up with the numbers we believe are accurate for 26, but then we're gonna shoot lower than that just to give us a little bit of breathing room.

So today's the 28th.

You're gonna have these tomorrow?

We've been working on it, so you can do it.

Can I ask a question of the attorney?

If we will a motion to consider, reconsider, we can't do until the next meeting.

That's problematic.

Well, one thing I can say here that may help on this situation is that uh this is a pre-application.

So if they um do receive uh the authority to fill out the full application, they're gonna have to come back to us.

And I do get that, but I also get that you know we've already done two of these applications, and one got to the bigger process, and at that time they came back and said, City, you haven't given them any funds, so this is why it didn't get approved.

True.

And so we're doing more than just saying, hey, we're standing with you in the breach.

We're saying, and we're doing it to some level of financial support, whether it is in kind or direct, and we're doing it with blanks.

Well, we're gonna it's exactly what we're currently doing, and uh even if we don't have the relationship with must, we're gonna continue to do it unless it's cut out of the budget.

I mean, it we've been doing it for years.

For years just continue to do it.

I mean question for Bill.

Do you have an estimate of how much?

I mean, we the problem got with it is um trying to figure out okay how much are we actually doing?

We've got our community response unit, so we can deal with that.

But then when you talk about how many other hours are police officers dealing with homeless situations in our city, it's pretty excessive.

And so that's what we're trying to get our arms around as far as what numbers we use there, because we're not just using police officers near must, we're using police officers on the South Loop.

We're using them uh on the east side of town.

We're we're using them everywhere uh to deal with homeless issues.

And so um, you know, that's why I was saying once we look at a large number that we think is is out there, then we're gonna back it down uh because um I I don't think it needs to be as large as we're probably gonna show um for their grant application, and we don't want to get ourselves uh tied down.

I was saying that it's this very large number, and then we have police vacancies or something, and we don't have as many people out there doing it.

But may I ask may I ask a question?

Because this might help um might help with some of the stuff.

Um instead I put forward one motion.

Instead, if you do we have an idea of what these number what maximum you might be doing on the numbers so that we can have something in there saying that it's going to be the lesser of the actual number the actual or estimated number that staff comes up with or this higher this number well I that way we actually have a number that we know we're approving is an absolute max.

Um it's it's gonna be a lot more than a hundred thousand dollars when we add it all up.

And so uh you could say um you know, for a maximum of a hundred thousand dollars if you want, and we could put those numbers in.

Like I say, when we add all the time that we're spending on homeless issues up, it's gonna be a lot more than that.

Cheryl, would that solve the again?

Don't worry about me.

I'm one vote.

I know, but I'm not gonna say I don't I don't exactly I share I normally share that concern, so I understand it.

So not giving a blank check on the stuff essentially.

But mayor this is just like the last two, where we're just saying it's a pre-application.

This is not a contract at this point, correct?

Correct.

So and the applications do what tomorrow?

Friday.

Yeah.

So we have to move forward if we want to do it, or else we end up in the same situation we were before without showing support.

So at least we're moving it along earlier in the process.

That's not exactly correct.

Okay.

Um the one that got approved, we haven't given them any money.

So it's not that we didn't show support, we supported them, we approved the zoning, we supported them, we just simply hadn't given them funds in kind or otherwise.

This one is different where we're up front front saying we give them something of value, but we can't state what that value is.

I mean, I'm sorry, for for a lawyer, that contractually is a problem.

Well, from hearing what Bill said the plan is we're gonna put this lower than what we're actually spending, so we're not locking ourselves into a higher amount than we would be because we're already spending the money.

We're not allocating any new money to this.

This is these are funds already being spent.

So what question what happens if we under if we put a number like a hundred thousand in there and it's an underestimate?

Does that affect the application?

We don't know.

Uh there's the answer.

We don't know.

Yeah, we we don't have any idea what the uh state is looking for as far as uh total contribution.

I don't think anybody's been told that.

So when I when I had a class with one of the directors from the DCA, and they they said they're they are just looking for participation.

It didn't have to be a large number.

So and that's what uh from what we've seen, that's what came back on the other two applications that were handed in.

Uh that they did get scored and were uh delivered back a response that they were told they have some participation by a local government, but they didn't say an amount.

And and this may be just going too far afield, but don't we support CFR?

Doesn't CBD don't we give C D B G dollars to Kelsey?

Don't we do that?

Yeah, we have to do the resource.

So we do have support, so that's clearly looking for more than just that because we've been doing that for years, correct, Kelsey.

Yeah, C D BG dollars to CFR.

They technically asked for the homeless alliance, not CFR.

So then that was the problem.

Okay.

And you could, if you wanted, because this is the first step of the process, you could in the motion say something like that any uh final agreement would have to come back to the city council for approval uh if the grant is uh move forward then it would have to come back in front of you with all the with everything in it.

I mean, this is just an application.

Did your motion include filling in who the contact person is?

Yes.

Is it it didn't it was Bill and or any other designee?

Um requires that bill and the chief and do it either way you prefer.

So I think some of the issue is police how we're gonna allocate it.

He's in the middle of it, that's for sure.

Yeah, to make sure what we put down what will happen, which is but we take both of you, but yeah, yeah.

Can you think about a hundred thousand is probably going to be your absolute max on that putting in?

I'm I'm very comfortable with that.

Um are we taking in fire's time as well?

That's why I'm saying it can be a lot more than that if we uh started looking at I mean if I just used as you were referencing Kelsey, if I just used the time she spends on it, I mean it would really pump the number up a lot higher than the hundred thousand dollar mark.

I do feel Cheryl's concern on that.

So um Mr.

Mary, would you like to vote on this one and me make a different motion to amend or would you like to make a motion to amend the motion to amend it just to set that the highest amount they can go was 100,000 on the in-kind?

So we have some number that we're sure of.

No, if you say you want to act when the truth, yeah, it is what it is.

Our staff will answer that charge.

If you want to make a feeling I'll probably get a second on that one, so I'll make sure once we get those numbers, I'll send them out to everybody so you're aware of what they are.

So we'll will we be able to get those numbers by tomorrow?

Yeah, because I mean, then I think we all would feel more comfortable and moving forward with it.

But but the vote would have you gotta come tonight or exactly the the vote's gotta come tonight tomorrow's too late, and we can't file do a motion to reconsider if we have a problem because we can't do Daniel until the next meeting, which is not until the 10th.

So we're either gonna live with it or die with it.

Yeah, and I as I said, you I think you can even in your motion if you wanted to to approve this, you could still I mean it does say in there that it says that it's not an obligation on that last one.

Um reflects the party's intent to continue collaborating collaborating with addressing homelessness, except as expressly provided is not intended to create legally enforceable financial obligations between the parties.

Um I think you could even include in your motion if you wanted to that um this creates no obligation on the city's behalf to continue um you know with the um funding as listed or something if you wanted to add something so technically if you want to I've just so you feel comfortable with the contract.

The way that it works is you can give the authorization to be a co-applicant tonight because they do need that authorization.

They don't need the formalized MOU until August 19th.

So you'll have another meeting before then if you want to they do need the authorization to be a co-applicant.

They did need that to apply.

But I'd make it if that's the case, I'd rather just give the authorization and get the contract over to the August committee, August council meeting with those so we can get those numbers.

The full application is due August 19th.

We meet on the 12th.

Yeah, okay.

So all we need to do they need they can put a draft in to the pre-application to show that there is a city commitment, but the final application is not due until August 19th.

We met with them yesterday and that did not come up.

They said they needed a called me, he said it was, so the pre-application is due tomorrow, but it does not have to have the final signed MOU until the 19th.

Is that just based on general knowledge with DCA?

That's how the other two have been.

That's how the other two have been as well.

We never had a formalized MOU until the full application was due.

And those were at the regular council meetings, I think, correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

Um if that being the case.

So adding a thing adds another layer of confusion until we get back down to the main motion.

We want to vote down the motion.

Or vote down the amendment.

Oh at this point, I don't want my conscience.

I mean the reason the MOU came up because we didn't have an application.

If y'all want to vote that damn, fine, but I don't want on my conscience.

That's not that's not what I was.

I was talking about the amendment, not the original motion.

How do we remove the amendment?

There's nothing wrong with them.

The amendments uh we can vote on the amendment and get back down to the main motion because most of this is on the main motion at this point now.

Can somebody remind me of either of them?

Main motion was to approve the contract.

All those in favor of the amendment.

You're gonna put on the wait, hold on.

Was there a second on the amendment?

I'm just remarkable.

There was a second.

I thought I just would like a rereading of the amendment.

If you amendment just added added in that the con um because the main mo main motion was an approval of the contract with the motion to say it on the agenda.

Mine was to add in that these estimate estimates be tied to the uh FY26 budget.

So that would put it back down to the main motion as amended or not as amended.

Okay.

So right now it's only voting on that limitation plus designating chief plus a design.

Um bill plus the design, in which case the chief police as the uh person certifying motion clear.

Yes, thank you.

I'd like to call the question.

All those in favor, please raise your right hand.

All opposed like sign.

Now we're back to the full motion.

Sherley, you want to discuss and want to try that one?

No, I thought we already had a full motion.

We are back to the full motion.

Call the question.

Yeah.

Can I get a motion?

Pressure of the the full motion or the motion on the agenda.

The motion on the agenda plus the things that Joseph had.

Um application for five.

Um trying to make sure with this thing is that this actually isn't authorizing the MOU.

This is authorizing the just that we preappled.

So the language of the MOU can still come back up in August.

Yes.

Okay.

What did you just add?

I didn't add anything.

I was clarifying it.

It wasn't an ad, believe me.

Are you comfortable with that, Cheryl?

I'd like to call it a question.

All those in favor, please write in.

All opposed like sign.

Motion carries 601.

Thank you very much.

The next item of business is we usually don't have rezoning issues because this will be a public hearing.

But this one had a deadline because it was and this is de novo.

The original motion on this was turned down.

This is a follow-up motion to that that has gone through our court system.

And this is really to be presented to the court.

What ours will be done.

So I'd like to call upon Daniel White to conduct a public hearing, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Just as a reminder to everybody, as the mayor mentioned, this is uh an update from an original uh 2024 application that was heard in 2025, April, I think of 2025.

Um, and at that time was denied, it was then appealed to the Cobb Superior Court and the parties um uh began discovery and doing uh some other you know uh preparation for a final hearing, and then uh as all court cases are required in superior court to mediate, so there was a mediation of this case earlier this year uh in uh and then uh coming out of that.

Um there you know, there were some uh changes to the site plan that uh the applicant agreed to make.

So at this time um we're gonna have the public hearing.

There's an additional public hearing that's required under the Georgia case law.

So when you when you have a zoning that gets appealed, it it can't you can't approve it uh in a mediation, it still has to have a public hearing.

And so there have been some questions about notice and all those things.

The city followed the the zoning procedures law and the case law in Georgia to make sure it was going to come back here for a hearing, came back last month.

The applicant was gracious enough to say we can push it back a couple of weeks so that the they could speak with members of the community, and they've done that, and then we have this special called meeting tonight just to give everybody a reminder of the process of how we got here.

And so this time um we're gonna call the public hearing for Z 2024 26 Wilshire Drive 720 and uh 787 horizon lane.

Um and uh I just want to remind everybody of uh the rules of procedure for these hearings.

Uh the representative of the applicant as a group will be given a total of 15 minutes uh to make uh its idea that it's case the same thing for the opposition.

Um the all those here in opposition will have an uh equal amount of time up to 15 minutes.

Um if they're uh so that and normally when we have opposition we say uh up to three people, you get five minutes each.

Um but if uh we have more than um three people to speak, which is very likely, then we'll try to divide that time up accordingly.

That time can be extended up, it's at the pleasure of the council, but the the default is 15 minutes, and so uh the first thing we'll do is we'll have the applicant come forward uh and give their presentation to the commission afternoon, Mayor and Council Brian Dodal here on behalf of Freeman Growth, the owner of the property and Piedmont Residential, the proposed developer of the property.

Uh as Daniel has stated that this is coming back from the litigation in Cobb Superior Court following the denial in April of 2025.

Since that time, the plan has been subs significantly revised downward from the originally proposed 190 units to 136 units, uh 108 of which are on the northwest end of the property, uh, and the remainder will be scattered over parsed parcels uh further south and east on the property.

The main access for the 108 units located on the northwest end will be uh through horizon lane and uh bottle um horizon lane is presently a private road.

The easement was granted back some 30 years ago to the public at large as well as to our client.

Uh it's pretty much a wide open easement.

Um we met with the I think it's Clifton Ridge, the apartment complex between us and all good uh last week.

They got back to me finally yesterday.

We proposed in writing to them all of the things that we talked about at the meeting, council member.

And haven't gotten a yay or nay from them, but we did put in writing everything that we said we would do at that meeting.

I don't know that those terms and conditions could be part of a zoning condition because you would be granting a zoning condition to benefit a specific piece of property that's private.

And I don't know whether you would trigger concerns with gratuity clause, but we have put in writing to the the apartment complex through their council the things that we're willing to do.

And I mean I can articulate them as not a secret.

We had talked about that we anticipate improving or repaving Horizon Lane all the way out out to Algood that we would make a donation to their playground improvement that we would make available once we get to the plating stage a passive recreation field.

And that'll be in an area that we'll designate as part of the plat process.

It's got a finite amount, but the public works will be able to look at the overall project and determine where it believes that improvements might be made as far as pedestrian crossings, things like that, and there'll be funds available for it.

The we have heard other concerns from other neighbors.

Most of the concerns that we've heard, and and in fact, even the concerns about Horizon Lane are really not zoning concerns.

They're really more uh plating and land disturbance permit concerns as far as you know, there's one concern from a neighbor down on Alpine about a significant tree he's got on his property.

Um that's one of those we'll have to comply with the ordinance as far as tree protection, tree saved.

We know that that's something that when we come in for that, that'll be part of that review process, and that's just you know that that's like I commented at the meeting the other night.

I can't tell you about the stormwater for the project yet either because that hasn't been engineered.

That's part of the the land disturbance process, but it's all part of the things that we'll have to do as we go through, and there'll be additional reviews related to it.

I do want to remind y'all kind of the history of this project very briefly.

This property was originally acquired by the Freeman family in 1985.

It's been in the family and various entities of the family since 1985 and 1998 when the industrial park was being developed across the interstate.

Uh, this was was zoned light.

When the industrial park was being developed across the interstate, this was rezoned to light industrial.

At the time, it was RM8 with an eight unit per acre density.

It has stayed light industrial up until uh this current application.

Um in 2018, the Freeman started trying to actively really do something with the property.

There have been multiple iterations of projects brought in before the city.

Uh, light industrial when it was originally presented, uh, the city decided it didn't want light industrial on that property, and in fact, its comprehensive plan reflects that it wants a residential category on the property, which is kind of logical since it's bounded by 75 and nothing but residential on this side, and nobody wants to have semis coming out through the neighborhood, but that's what it's zoned for presently, and that's what's in litigation in Cobb County.

Uh, if if we had to develop it under light industrial horizon lane would be one of the main access points, and like I said, we've got an easement on that that gives us unfettered rights to use it for whatever capacity vehicles that we have to use.

We believe that this is a far better project.

The project now, as I said, has an overall density of about six units per acre, which is well below many of the developments that the city has approved in the general area.

Uh it's below the density of the units that are surrounding it.

Um it's preserving a significant amount of green space and open space.

Um there'll be all kinds of passive recreational uses across the property paths and trails.

Um, the product that's being put on there is a single family detached.

We eliminated the stack duplexes that had raised concerns previously.

Um, so we think it's a really good project.

Uh, we're very excited about bringing it.

Piedmont residential, a good group of people.

Uh, all of them are are from Cobb County, so this is is you know, local people that are developing local land.

Um as I said, most of the concerns that we've heard, we've tried to address those that we haven't addressed, it's not really right to address yet.

There's something that'll be dealt with when we get to the plating process and the land disturbance permit and all that.

And we understand that we have to comply with all the codes related to those various development requirements.

So we have to to your concern other night, uh, council member, we we have committed to the apartment complex in writing, so that issue has been addressed.

I I don't I haven't brought it forward to a stipulation of the city, but as between the attorneys, I've committed to the attorney what my client will do, and that they've agreed to do that.

So that's in writing.

They have that that's in their possession at this point.

So I I think at this point it's a good project.

Uh it would resolve the litigation between the parties.

Um it's something we sat down, we worked out with everybody.

We tried to bring to the table the the concerns that we heard, and we would ask that y'all approve it so we can move forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Doddle.

That uh just so you know you've got eight minutes left for rebuttal after we have opposition.

Um at this time I wanted at this time.

I uh we're gonna have people uh that want to speak in.

Well, I guess let me ask you is there anyone else in support of this application that wants to speak?

Okay, yep.

You want to come speak, Mr.

Frozen?

Good evening.

Uh thank you very much for letting us come up to speak about this tonight.

I apologize, I have to get my glasses out because I can't see uh my own handwriting sometimes uh later in the day.

Um so I think uh a little bit of the history was mentioned.

You know, our our family acquired this property uh starting in 1985, and uh so we've owned it over 40 years.

The like uh the our attorney had mentioned the zoning was originally RM8, I believe, at the time that we acquired it.

Um there was some disagreement about uh the access on horizon, um, but that was all settled um in 1997, and that settlement agreement that was a case that involved the city and the Kennesaw Ridge apartments who are the owners next door.

Kennesaw Ridge Apartment signed off on it.

The United States uh Department of Housing and Urban Development signed off on it, and the funding source for the property also signed off on it.

So all parties that were involved in that suit signed off on it.

My understanding was the city accepted the settlement agreement at that time, granting our family uh all rights to use Horizon without any further restrictions on our use of horizon at that time.

Um in addition to that, uh my father before he passed away, um, brought up several customers over the years, uh, but the city consistently kind of turned down those applications to utilize this property to build an industrial park like we had built across the street.

And I brought up the last um project in 2018 for that had uh uh three different customers that were gonna have buildings on this property that were within the current zoning, but our uh our application to use the property at that time was turned down by the city, um which was an industrial use, and the city council members at that time, including the person who was responsible for the ward asked us to bring a residential project back.

So starting after that, after COVID uh uh kind of shut down uh finished, we started bringing in, we had several customers, uh including a company called West Plan that we brought up that had 300 multifamily units that were designed to be a similar density to Kennesaw Village on the uh what would be the adjoining track to the current apartments at the same density and then have some additional townhouse units on it, and then uh ever since that application was brought in and um met with some resistance.

We we've consistently worked with the city and and other customers to bring in other plans, um including the last one from Piedmont Residential, which was last year, uh, which was for 190 units is now reduced down to 136 homes, um, which we uh reached in a settlement agreement with the uh representatives from the city earlier this year.

Um, in addition um to that settlement agreement, I brought up uh two letters of support from folks that could not be here tonight, which I'll be happy to give to you, mayor or whoever would like to have them so you have them for the record if that's needed.

Uh in addition, we have some other local supporters here tonight.

I'd ask um, is it okay if I ask the people to stand who are in uh support of our project here tonight?

No, no, no.

Okay, so sorry, but but we do have other people who are in support.

And uh like I said, uh, if there's any other questions, we'll be happy to answer them, but we would like to reserve the rest of our time for any clarifications.

Thank you.

So that that brings the remaining time down to four and a half minutes.

Is there is there anyone else in support that wants to speak in support of it?

So that being the case, it again the four minutes and thirty-two seconds remaining for rebuttal after the opposition speaks.

Can I get an idea uh by show of hands of the people in opposition who want to speak in opposition?

One, two, three, four, five, six, I think I've got everyone ready.

Uh so let's say uh two and a half, I s like two and a half minutes per speaker.

Uh, and then if the council wants to extend that, you can.

So uh it to we don't have our normal normally we would have uh disclosure sheets uh up front for people that want to come speak uh in opposition uh but uh just without making everybody wait around for a disclosure sheet.

If you have made a contribution to somebody that's an elected official in the city, you would need to disclose that.

You can just tell us when you get up that you would need to make a disclosure, and then you can provide that later.

But if you haven't, you just go ahead with your comments and we'll assume you don't need to make a disclosure about financial contribution.

So at this time, anyone who wants to speak, uh Jim, if you don't mind clearing off the front row, anyone that wants to speak, if you'll come down to the front and we'll we'll just move through the speakers that way.

Appreciate uh y'all taking the time to listen.

Um I'm the general partner and manager of Marriott Luxury Homes, uh, which is uh Horizon Lane.

Uh as you probably familiar, Horizon Lane uh dissects our property sort of from uh uh from left to right.

We have uh residents that use the road um to access uh their community um and uh access the the amenities, the clubhouse, the office, and the playground.

Uh so there's a significant um amount of people and children that that are there.

Um so I'm I'm concerned about uh the lack of planning in the the uh the easement access in that uh there's insufficient um uh measures to to accommodate the the additional traffic and growth.

Um I was also concerned in that uh there's supposed to be um some collaboration with neighbors and and and and and such.

I feel like uh we are certainly the the most impacted neighbor uh with with regards to this, and we we weren't approached to collaborate um uh until basically last week where we had just a few hours of notice to come into a meeting uh about six hours notice.

So um that's the first where we actually were able to dialogue and and and have some some conversation on this.

So although this has been going on for a long time, we really haven't been involved in in any of the uh the the these communications till till uh till last week.

Uh so we we feel that with the the lack of notice we had a a uh a lack of participation in the meeting um and that uh there's quite a large uh uh number of concerned residents in in the neighborhood.

Um so I I am underst uh very understanding of of Mr.

Freeman and his um concerns to develop the property and to be able to to make something from it, and I'm very willing to engage and participate further and not just roadblock everything, but come up with some time for two and a half minutes.

That's it.

That's truly collaborative.

Appreciate that.

Uh next speaker, and I I didn't say this, but if you you can go ahead and come on up if you'll give us your name and address since we didn't have a sign-in sheet, and then uh and if and let us know if you're with any particular organization.

No, my name is Cynthia McTaggart.

I live at 759 Seminole Place.

Hi guys.

I've been a part of this process for many years.

I've been to numerous city council meetings, and I have never seen a more incomplete application than this.

I was at the planning commission.

Semino Place and Bothwell Place were built over an active creek.

There are concrete culverts under Cemonade Place.

The creek that goes under Semino Place at Cobb Parkway has already created a sinkhole on all good road.

I was at the Planning Commission in 2024 when the proposal was denied.

I heard your planning commission recommend that the engineers go and examine these culverts.

Why has this not been done?

I heard their lawyer, the developer's lawyer, tell the commission that there are six streets that dead into this property.

The commission chairman offered to give them a variance where they can make this one plot instead of two.

They respectfully declined.

Why?

What they they would have gave them options.

My house was built in 57, so I know how these how old these culverts are.

They're 69 years old.

Why does this application not include a report from an engineer that says that these roads can sustain this traffic?

Why is there not a report from this proposal is on a floodplain?

We've already established that the Army Corps of Engineers is going to maintain that floodplain.

Where's the agreement with the Army Corps Engineers?

It's a floodplain.

Where's the permit from the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission that's going to protect the city's MOA?

There's no permit there for that either.

It's a floodplain.

Fine.

I have a video.

I sent it to Miss Guy.

If you would.

There was a meeting with our neighbors at all good in our community with Algan Manor.

The comment was made that there's no proof that this creek goes under all good road.

Right there, that video, if you'll play it.

That's going to show a maintenance man on Horizon Lane.

He's pressure washed in the cul de sac at Horizon Lane.

If you will look the water he's using is going into the creek behind my house.

The water.

Okay.

Well, the next video, if you would go ahead and play that.

We've got to cut you off there.

Sorry.

Oh, if you can see it though, that's where it goes under All Good Road.

And if you could see the state of it, you would know it's going to be it's not only neglectful to mess with these roads without engineer approval, it's dangerous, not only to our community, but to the commuters on All Good Road.

Thank you, Miss McTaggart.

Uh next speaker.

Let's just go down the row here.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Samuel Proctor.

I'm uh the Alpine Way owner that the attorney for the city for the developer was talking to.

Uh I decided to give a visual of the concerns that I have.

Right here, you have a, I presume about 50-foot tree.

I haven't measured it.

It's a big tree.

Uh that is at the edge of my property line.

Yeah, this other tree at the very corner of my parcel line.

I still have the surveyor markers set up on my property line itself.

These are very tall, very thick trees, at minimum about two feet thick.

The Georgia Forestry Commission dictates that for every one inch in diameter, you multiply that by a factor of 1.3, and that is the critical root zone.

Their current site plan, as you can see, is zero set off foots.

These will endanger these trees and create a significant falling hazard for our homes.

That is not the only other issue we have.

This tree right here is right here in their connection point to the phase good, uh, the phase two track.

That connection point, that tree and that connection point are right here next to city utility lines.

You can't quite see it right there, but that's the city gas line.

If that tree were to fall due to the negligence of the developer, that would not only disrupt my home city, or like the home for its utility lines, but can potentially cause a fire risk, fire or explosive risk.

And there's not a single bit of engineering that has gone into this.

When I asked and talked to the attorney on Friday, the only answer he could give me was I don't know.

That's outside of the scope of what I know.

That's an engineering question.

There has been no planning that has gone into this that I can see.

And that is really all I wanted to talk about.

This is not just affecting me.

Every single home that is affected by this plot will have the similar issues.

I just don't have the access to go and look at everyone's property lines.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Proctor.

Um next speaker.

Hi, my name is Susan Reyes, and I live at 737 Bothwell Place Road.

Thank you, Councilman Sims, for coming to our neighborhood a couple weeks ago for our uh neighborhood town hall, where we were able to raise our concerns to you directly.

Um I spoke at last year's planning commission and also last year's city council meeting regarding this now twice to multiple uh denied application.

And I'm not only here for myself, but I'm also here for a behalf on a large amount of neighbors who aren't able to be here, so I just want to make it clear that it's not just me.

Um quite frankly, I'm extremely frustrated that we're having to have to go after this again when we stated our case last year as to why this is just not conducive to the area.

And also our concerns are very valid, even though this is just for the zoning, because it's the first step into opening the door of a possible development that will negatively impact our communities.

Um I attended my first town hall uh council meeting in 2018 uh when Freeman talked about about that proposal, and a big issue was the traffic.

And I do want to just restate this again that then councilwoman Michelle Cooper Kelly um did bring up the traffic issue that a development proposal would bring through the apartments in all good manner as being something that is very valid and concerning because we do have a large amount of residents and children who use the streets to you know recreational activities to play.

And honestly, since 2018, I've lived there since 2017 in all good manner.

The traffic's gotten worse, even with all of the traffic calming um stuff that the city has implemented to try to help.

I even sent a video to Councilman Sims a couple days ago about me not being able to leave out of seminal place onto 41 because of how bad the traffic was backed up.

And so if that was a valid concern back then, I really think that that's something that we should not be playing with, considering that this is going to be adding a lot more residents to a very tightly densed area next to the highway, next to three established communities, making our communities cut through neighborhoods, which will decrease our quality of life.

I also want to talk about um, you know, city laws and ordinances require development of this size to have two access points to RDO or collector streets.

And um, we already know Horizon Lane is a private, not public road with very limited easement access.

But um, there's another access point that does not exist.

Uh this proposal incorrectly states that access will occur on Bothwell Road, with the usual reasons being that Bothwell connects to their property.

Um, but where's the evidence of this?

Because both myself and my neighbor Tony, whose property are right next to the vacant lot.

Um, we had our property surveyed last year, and we were able to show, and I showed Councilman Sims in person that the road does not dead end into his property line.

There's actually significant, there's like three old growth trees.

I have property, and um, I haven't given my access to my easement.

I actually sent in a denial of easement to the city a couple weeks ago.

Thank you.

Just please think about the traffic, the children, everything we've stated before.

This has been denied multiple times because it's just not conducive to the area.

And um, we really hope that you hear us out, and we're very valid in how we feel and our concerns.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of council.

My name is Hakeem Hilliard.

I'm with the law firm of Grubman Warner Barrie and Tusk uh Dunwoody, Georgia 3038.

Uh happy to be here with you this evening.

I'm here this evening on behalf of uh Marietta Luxury Homes, the Ridge.

You've already heard from a representative of the ridge.

Uh I actually am co-counsel to Miss Lisa Morchauer with Berman Fink Van Horn.

Uh she was originally engaged a couple days, I think, after the meeting that happened last week that uh my my client attended for the first time.

I he I guess he was involved in the meetings that happened last year.

This meeting last week was the first time he'd been re-engaged in this conversation uh with his neighbors, and they're very concerned about the impact of this development on Horizon Lane and by default footpath lane in that area.

And really, they just wanted to get that to a point where they could have a conversation about the project.

They haven't had the opportunity.

Uh Ms.

Moorshower uh reached out originally.

I happen to know counsel for the developer and reached out to him yesterday.

And so when he says that we've kind of gone back and forth, we exchanged a couple emails uh yesterday.

Um but there's still some unanswered questions, and obviously you all know the the history of regarding um horizon lane, and that is why they wanted to take some time to understand the impact and what things could be done to manage the safety and concern for the neighbors in that area in the community in that area and the children in particular.

Uh, we've already submitted through the online portal uh to all of those concerned of a letter preserving objections uh for appeal in the event that it's it becomes necessary, but we're hoping hopefully that there can be some conversations.

Mr.

Doljo has tried uh as we were driving up here to see if we could figure out what would be necessary to resolve the concerns that we have, but we just haven't had an opportunity to have those conversations, and it's very important to these community folks.

So we wanted to preserve those objections and make you aware, and hopefully, we could address those issues as a part of this process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does this plug in to project at all?

It's okay if it doesn't.

Okay.

My name is Valerie Stevens.

I live at where do I live?

761 Delta Circle.

Um I am a scientist.

You probably remember me from last time.

I'm not good at public speaking.

Um everybody's covered most of these concerns, but I want to start with.

I understand the scope of this decision, maybe isn't dealing with specifically the science I'm going to talk about.

But if you don't know about what you're walking towards, it's like you can't fall off a cliff if you don't walk towards it.

So I'm letting you know what's on the horizon because why open a door that you're just gonna fall through?

So there's some pitfalls out here that I don't think people are thinking about nearly enough.

Starting with this so-called playground.

It's playground with kids, etc.

It's well documented that Soap Creek has a serious fecal coliform bacteria problem.

The latest USGS service has shown that it has 2.4 times 10 to the 13th.

That's two four and 12 zeros after it bacteria per three drops of water.

That's disgusting.

That's dangerous.

You can't go in there and drink it if you get it in your eye.

This is dangerous.

I'm a microbiologist.

I'm here as a private citizen, but I'm telling you, I would never let my dog, my kids, anybody I care about near that water, and I don't.

So that's something to think about the biological concerns.

It is a floodplain, it's a floodplain forest.

That floodplain is there to absorb some of the impact we have on it.

The non-point source pollution from when we all fertilize our lawns and all these chemicals wash down, it has to be buffered by the environment.

That's part of the the job of the floodplain for us.

If we remove it, not only are you removing that buffer, but you are releasing what's in that sediment and it's been trapped previously.

There's a well-documented case on Pickens Industrial Road, which is right across I-75, where they have released PCE, a polyethylene.

Let me see if I can say it right.

I'm not a chemist.

Um PCE.

One second.

Tetra chloroethylene.

So it's a dry cleaning and degreasing on metal solvent.

It has been picked up in the surrounding area, soil and water.

So it's something that they're already working on from a ri um from a violation that was discovered in the area.

So now we have to deal with this for years.

It's trapped in the sediment.

It's part of this floodplain's job is to trap it.

If you release it, you're releasing that sediment.

And as everybody who can tell you who lived in an old house, sometimes you turn on the faucet and it runs red for a while, right?

Well, that's normal because those pipes settle sit there for a while and the culture comes down, you get micro fissures.

And you're getting these chemicals in your water.

Okay.

Well, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that we've got some serious environmental concerns that have not been dealt with.

Thank you.

And uh we looks like we have I'm I tried to count everybody, but I think we ended up with seven.

Yeah, you can come on up.

So actually, there were two speakers who finished with about 30 seconds each left of their time.

So we're very wheels, 60 oak mega drive.

Y'all have heard this before.

Uh plan residential developments or the least restrictive and exchange the developers have to promise to do and extra environmental considerations.

Um you approve these things next to the interstate.

I believe you should do a noise survey.

Also, the three to four foot difference between from the houses that I was already in this thing is uh causing more subdivision fires instead of house fires now.

So I think you really need to consider the proximity of the houses.

I don't know if they have firewalls or any kind of protection for that.

The sprinkler systems are probably disconnected as soon as they move into the houses.

And it looks from the limited information I could find about the property that it has a really cohesive tree canopy.

Pretty old growth.

And there's no tree survey that I can find.

Was there if there was a tree survey done?

If you're waiting for the uh flat uh layout thing, I think that's really the wrong time to uh do the tree survey.

I think the tree survey needs to be doing now to uh to look at this and see what the expense is gonna be if you enforce it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

And that's the end of the 15 minutes for the opposition.

So if uh the applicant or or Ms.

Freeman want to come up, they have four minutes and thirty-two seconds remaining to respond.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Miller and with Pete Mutt Residential.

We're the proposed developer of the site.

I just want to address real quick some of the issues that have been raised, perhaps more for public consumption than for you as the council because I think you are aware of this.

Um first of all, just let me state that we as a developer will be required to.

I don't even have to agree to because we're required to abide by all state and federal city ordinances as it relates to wetlands, uh setbacks, every other thing.

Uh we know that there will be, as was just mentioned, a tree survey, and we will have to do recompense for trees.

We will have to consider all of that.

Perhaps what most people aren't aware is there is a process.

And at this point in the process, there has only been a limited amount of site planning that's done.

We will go through full engineering and are required to do that to get a land disturbance permit.

That will require state, federal, local uh review of our plans and will require us to abide by every part of that.

We will not get the permit if we do not.

So that will address wetlands, floodplain, the streams, the buffers, the setbacks.

All of these questions of engineering get addressed in that part of the process.

That does not happen at this point, it happens then.

When your wonderful staff will review this in great detail and provide all the comments.

So I just want to say, as a developer, we're aware that we have to abide by all of that, and we're fully prepared to do that.

Thank you.

So three minutes for me.

Uh what was said.

I don't want it to be lost in the conversation.

This is a down zoning.

And down zonings are almost a unique, certainly an unusual creature that we're you're asking to come down from a category that's far more intense to a far less intense category.

When I hear concerns about traffic, when I hear concerns about the viability of roads, when I hear concerns about the viability of culverts under roads, all of that is less impacted by a down zoning than it is by the existing zoning.

If we come in and develop under the existing zoning, we have the right, and I want to read to you from the easement that was granted some 30 years ago by the apartment complex.

It grants for the benefit of freedmen and the public at large, and freemen and the public at large shall hereafter have all such rights they would have if Horizon and the Easement area were public streets dedicated to and accepted by the city of Marietta.

All right.

That was granted 30 years ago.

That's part of the bundle of rights that exist with the Freeman property.

It's part of the encumbrance on the apartment complex.

Nevertheless, we've agreed in a private agreement of things that we're willing to do with that apartment complex to ameliorate the concerns that they've expressed to us.

They expressed them to us yesterday, and we responded to them promptly and got a written agreement back to them of what we were willing to do yesterday.

So we've been very responsive on it.

But what we have, if we develop that property as light industrial, is the right to come out over that road with no restrictions whatsoever.

No requirement to improve it, no requirement to put in traffic combing devices, nothing.

This is a down zoning.

It is a benefit.

The neighbor that expressed concern about the number of times that she's come back.

That's because you have a piece of property that has to eventually be developed.

You cannot sit here and hold that property into perpetuity undeveloped.

That is unfair to the property owner.

It's an unconstitutional taking.

That's why we're in court presently.

We are proposing something that is a downzoning.

It is beneficial to the residential neighborhood.

It is beneficial to the roads that will accept a lower volume and lower quantity and type of traffic coming out.

In every way possible, this project has been downsized and downzoned to fit what is around.

It's been a more than 30% reduction in density over the course of life of this proposal.

We've eliminated the Stax Town Home project that a project that gave people concern.

In every way we've could, we have addressed this project to make this project more compatible with the surrounding areas.

But this property must be developed.

That's not fair to the Freemans, and that's something that this application addresses, and we would ask that y'all approve it.

That's all the time.

So at this point, the public hearing portion of the zoning hearing is closed, and can't remember if I'm always default to my planning commission duties, but I don't know.

I it's good at this point.

We'll hand back over to council, and if I don't know if we have staff come address it or how you want to handle it here, but turn it back over to you, Mr.

Mayor.

All right, public hearing closed.

We'll take it from there.

All right.

Thank you.

I would like to ask the people.

I mean, the discussion now goes within this body, but if any of you want to have a question, if y'all could stay, you know, stand by just for a question or two.

Uh including the applicant.

Uh we did start with a motion.

I'd like to call recognize the councilman from Ward 6 to make a motion.

So I have a couple questions first.

That's okay.

Um first of all, I'll just tell you that my concern has always been for the kids.

Okay.

Um, and I've shared that vision with everyone I've spoken with.

So there are no sidewalks in the community.

And so what happens with the kids, and I've driven through there many, many times, when they're getting off the bus, they're walking in the streets.

There are no sidewalks.

So with that said, uh, there's some other things that that I have written down, but for me, uh my motion is to deny the uh application.

That would be my motion uh to not accept um what's been presented before us.

Second.

Discussion.

Um I have some questions.

Yes, sir.

Um this is going to go partially to public works, partially to the applicant.

So if you y'all please be stand ready on the stuff.

And then yeah, it'll also come down to the planning zoning.

So Daniel, if you'll probably want to come down to the uh for the public works portion of the stuff.

There was a traffic study done with the proposed proposed recommendations included um certain improvements we made on certain roads and then also a cash bond, correct?

Yes.

Can you explain the can you claim those recommendations?

Well, public works um accepted the traffic study from the applicant's traffic engineer.

That was back in um March of 25, I believe.

And the recommendations for that there were 10 recommendations.

Uh I can read those or I can summarize them, but um the first one was to put in a westbound approach lane on Seminole Place.

Also re-time the traffic signals at all good and cob parkway.

And developers should provide an access agreement with the owner of Horizon Lane to the public works department prior to the issuance of any construction related permits.

And improvements on Seminole Place.

No parking on both sides, four-way stop, seminole, both well, intersection, three-way stop, seminole and marry, three-way stop, seminole and argula.

And the following improvements on Tom Reed, four-way stop, Tom Reed and Rita, four-way stop, Tom Reed and Mary.

The recommended street improvements should be made prior to the issuance of any construction related permits and should be paid for by the developer.

This is where the bonds comes in.

Maintenance or cash bonds should be posted, provided by the developer for any damage caused by construction related traffic on Seminole Place and Wheelshire Avenue in the following amounts.

Wheelshire Avenue 67,911 and 98 cents.

Maintenance or cash bonds will be held by the City of Marietta Public Works Department until the final CO is issued.

The project applic applicable streets have been resurfaced and repaired, and the applicable streets have been properly inspected and approved by the public works director.

Any damage to the existing streets, paving sidewalks, curves, gutters will require to be replaced to the existing condition as determined and approved by the public works director.

And this should be done by the developer prior to the issuance of the COK.

You heard the thing, you've seen the stuff with the thing there with the stuff for public.

You've you've seen the stuff for the public works stuff.

Yes, the recommendations for public works, including the cash bonds and the repair cash bonds are a part and parcel of almost every subdivision I've ever participated in.

That's there's maintenance bond, there's a completion bond, that there's a whole series of bonds.

That's pretty standard.

That's separate apart from the stipulation about the contribution for traffic calming devices.

But yeah, I mean, we're that's pretty standard.

If there had if there have been a motion to approve that you would you'd be under the same thing about doing those bonds and stuff like that.

And they're gonna require them.

I I do y'all ever allow subdivision without them?

No.

Yeah, I mean they're gonna require them.

It's built into the process.

It's not part of zoning, but it's it's built into the plating process.

Okay.

Um Daniel Cummings.

We were submitted in a uh architectural drawings.

Um with some stuff that didn't that had pretty blank blank face in some of the stuff.

Did that meet foresight architecture per R code?

It would not.

And they've agreed in per the PRDSF zoning regulations, foresight architecture is required on stuff.

Right.

That's correct, and their stipulation letter also references that as well.

References, I'm sorry.

Four-sided architecture.

So they reference it, but their drawings don't reflect it.

Those submitted this afternoon do not, yes, ma'am.

Mr.

Tony for the applicants.

I'm sorry, I don't yes, sir.

And you realize if there was any emotion to approve as well that that those designs wouldn't meet the requirements, correct?

That's correct.

So they would have to be redesigned and resubmitted for that.

That was just uh uh a rough rendering, those weren't final architectural on anything.

So but yes, we understand.

That's part of our stipulations, and additionally, anything dealing with the floodplain and stuff like that.

That's that there's still other processes, yes, go through, including stuff that might come up for the body.

We are not that we're not being nothing about this process or this vote tonight.

Changes anything about floodplain obligations, tree saves, anything else.

That that is all part of the development process.

And your plan shows 125 homes, not 136.

That that's correct, but there is space that may be able to develop for additional.

They they wanted it capped at 136 units.

Okay.

Um, and then the space between the homes.

Is there any take a look at again that any further what things you want to do with regard to I know fire concern was brought up by one of by one of the by someone on this?

Yeah, and and there's the the standard codes on that is any time a I think a structure, and I'm not the developer, but any time a structure I think is located within 10 feet of another structure, the walls have to be rated to a certain level.

Um I I want to say they have to be fire rated for like two hours or something.

If I may um this is uh this is we have built this uh type of product and with this uh side setback in multiple jurisdictions.

Um there are fire codes, there's international fire code, you have your own fire marshal and fire code, which will be required to meet um these houses will be uh sprinkled, and by the way, those sprinklers are have to be reviewed every year, they're not turned off right away.

Um there is uh a whole host of uh uh fire code that governs that and uh we understand we'll have to abide by that a hundred percent.

But we have done this successfully amongst other places in Kennesaw, Holly Springs, Milton.

Um, so it is it's not new, and it's kind of been run through the ringer.

Okay, and and that has it even apart from the plating process, that's when you come in for building permits, those permits are reviewed.

So it it's it is yet another tier of review and approvals.

Yes, the fire marshal is involved in the the planning and the the development permit process, which establishes the lot sizes and the setbacks, and then they're also uh review of the uh the building permits and the uh specifically the the fire uh sprinkler systems.

Um have other questions while I know there are other people, I know there are the council members want to speak.

Question This is uh engineering.

Are are you aware of any issues with uh the culverts and uh any of those streets that were mentioned?

Uh thank you, councilman.

So staff has not entered or inspected any of those culverts yet.

Uh as has been mentioned, we certainly have opportunity to do that during the development process or if those streets that are now private become public, they would of course become maintenance obligation for us, and we would look into that at that time.

So it would be the developer's responsibility to correct or improve if they're correct.

If they're gonna put a public street over an existing culvert, we're gonna want to see the condition of that culvert before we would approve any development permits.

Okay.

That'd be again part of the development process.

Aren't the streets currently public?

If they are currently public, then we will investigate them as a part of our normal.

Is Horizon?

So all the other streets already are public, but we haven't looked at them for issues with culverts.

I haven't or my staff has not personally been in the culverts in question, but we can certainly look into those if that's a concern.

I'd be happy to take that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Mr.

Mayor.

Um Mr.

Cummings, question about zoning.

What is this what is this property currently zoned?

It's currently zoned light industrial.

Light industrial.

Okay.

So I'm looking at the light industrial code, and it's got fifty-three different allowable uses.

That's correct.

So that means that on these any of these uses, if they met the code, they wouldn't have to come before us, they could just build by right.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

I'm just gonna read a couple of these light industrial permitted uses because I think that it's interesting.

Car maintenance facilities such as brake repair, installation of tires, tune-up shops, services, emission stations, and the like.

Um car washes, coliseums, stadiums, and amusement parks, minimum five-acre lot size.

Drive-in movie theaters, dry cleaning plants, exterminating facilities, funeral homes, and then warehousing, including commercial mini warehouses.

Those are some highly impactful uses that are allowed by right.

No, no more questions.

I have question.

Do you want to go?

Uh one.

No, I'll just go after you.

Okay.

So I have a question of both the attorney for the development and the attorney for I think it's the luxury homes, Atlanta luxury homes.

The attorney for the development, you said that it was an agreed.

You said that there was an agreement on Horizon Lane.

That it came yesterday.

I don't see that anywhere in any of our packages.

Did we get a copy of that?

No, ma'am, you didn't.

And that was what I referenced when I said that the agreement with the apartment complex isn't really appropriate as a zoning condition because that would be y'all imposing a zoning condition for the benefit of the public or private property owner.

Um and so we sent an agreement.

It is a commitment on by us in writing to them as to what we would do.

Um, but that that isn't a zoning condition, and so I didn't send it to the city.

I did send it to Hakeem yesterday.

Um it's not that I'm trying to hide it from you.

I'm happy to recite it to you.

I've got a copy if you want to read it.

Well, I I mean, so we're looking, we've got the easement, right?

Yes, ma'am.

So we have that.

So that was something that somebody thought we needed, but the agreement that will state what everyone's terms are under co-maintenance everything.

We don't need that.

I I it's all more was a concern.

I I'm happy to provide you a copy.

I I'm not trying to keep it from you.

Like I said, it wasn't something that that I believed and Hakane didn't suggest that he thought um that it could be a zoning condition.

And so I I wasn't I'm happy to give you a copy.

There's no matter so you're saying that you don't believe that Mr.

Hilliard um thought that that was a zoning commission, uh zoning stipulation that needed to be in here, but in his requested actions on his letter dated today, the repaving and maintenance commitments discussed on July 24st are reduced to a definitive recordable agreement running with the respective properties, addressing responsibility for her, and are made express enforceable conditions of any zoning approval rather than informal undertakings collateral to it.

So I don't think he agrees with you that that isn't that doesn't need to happen.

And he hasn't provided me a copy of that letter, so I I haven't seen it.

Okay.

Um thank you.

So Mr.

Hilliard, for you, my question is have you seen the easement?

I I have seen the uh easement.

Okay.

So easement number six, in addition to the easement area, Kennesaw Village, which I guess was predecessor in interest, bank HUD grant Freeman the right and option, but not the obligation to expand and pave the surface of Horizon Street within the easement area to reorient and realign the paved area within the easement area, and to otherwise improve modify and repair.

It grant it to the applicant the right and option, but not obligation, which means that obligation remains with your client.

So you're looking for them to give you the co-maintenance, but this easement, which is still good as far as I can see, already said, hey, whatever they agree to, that's cool because we will have the obligation to repair.

Do you agree that that's what that says?

Absolutely.

Yeah, yes.

So then there isn't an issue about co-maintenance, because if he doesn't do it, you're gonna do it, right?

Your client.

We would have to, but the I mean, again, my client got into this conversation, my understanding it was last Monday at a meeting he didn't know what was happening, and so I got engaged yesterday.

So I'm looking at everything, and we're asking questions.

So but this is a recorded easement.

I understand.

So it has been standing since 1997, a recorded easement that said that the Freeman property could maintain and repair, expand, but they have no obligation to do so.

Are you looking for an obligation from them?

Looking for an obligation, looking for some some some kind of consideration on this.

This is the issue that was most important to the folks that I'm representing.

So thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Can I follow up with that?

Because the it also states that the Freeman has the right to and and could be required by uh the developer could be required to improve that land to meet the city's standards and actually turn it over to the city.

Am I interpreting well once it's improved?

Well, did it say that?

I think it it does say that.

I think it says if they purchased it.

Then they would have the opportunity if they wanted to, but again, not the obligation.

Right.

The purchase was $10.

Yes.

But it also said for a period of 20 years from the date of execution.

And 1997.

I mean, yeah.

It's out.

It's gone.

It's gone.

Plus the city wouldn't have to accept.

Yeah, meet ethics.

Right, that's what I'm saying.

So again, so that that one, I mean, I keep reading this thing, but that one was died nine years ago.

That's gone.

Um try and finish off on last two, one of the last questions.

Um the other part too is this thing is talks about being a detached community, but in the site plan.

Okay, um, so we'll need you up and sorry, if you're going to speak, make sure to speak into the microphone, because this is all being recorded.

Um the uh on the site plan, it shows in the southern portion.

Is that attached or detached?

I believe everything in it is detached at this point.

I I don't believe there's any attached product anymore.

Okay.

Is it possible to pull that plan up on the screen and zoom in on it?

What are we pulling up?

Uh the southern half part phase two.

Down at the bottom.

Because that I can see those are all de uh detached, just these go right up next to it, like on the other ones.

Is that meant to be attached or detached?

That that is not those everything's intended to be detached.

And I believe the stipulation layer says detached.

Yes, yes, yes.

I was gonna say we we had stipulated everything was detached.

So that's stipulation letter is going to override the site, the proposed site plan in this case.

I I don't think that's calling for I I am not gonna tell you that I can say with certainty, but I don't believe that's calling for attached, but the stipulation letter, yes, that would be a zoning condition.

That's that's so that would control.

And where were the where are the 11 11 homes where you would you'd be looking at it's different the difference between the 125 versus the 136?

He's asking the difference between the 125 that's shown on the site plan and the 136 condition.

Where were you where would you even looking to add those?

If they were added, I think the answer to that falls within uh we all have the experience of as you go through uh the process of engineering uh things move a little bit.

Um sometimes you lose lots, sometimes you see the opportunity to gain lots, and so it would just that would fall out of the process of applying for a land disturbance permit.

What I uh what I can say, and um I um I will I I think uh the law the landowner is uh agreeable to this is we would agree that in that northwest section that it would be limited to the number that's there, which I believe is a hundred and eight hundred and eight is the highest.

Yes, so it's 1080.

And I I believe that uh I I believe the language that was just zoomed in on about uh town homes was unfortunately left over from the earlier version.

If as part of this process you were to say that you know that reference right there is struck, then that would be acceptable.

That that just I I will answer and say that that we would expect the language in the uh stipulation letter that they are all detached to uh you know control that that issue.

Yeah, they'll always have to ask those because the the letter repres uh letter references the site plans.

I I I I realize there's and so if we if there is a motion to approve this and you want to clarify that we would be uh 100% acceptable to that.

Yeah, just be glad I'm not correcting the split the uh some of the stuff in number seven the some of the grammar stuff in number seven because there's a missing parentheses and an extra period Joseph to review your paper.

Those are most of my questions, Mr.

Turning.

Isn't this I mean the easement is just not too mister as for the the public is uh I mean good of the public I think it's a public street I don't I mean this is this is a contract within a court order is it not it's an agreement resulting yeah that it's an agreement resulting in the from the settlement of a legation um and so it's it's part of a court order can it clearly says this is I mean you mean are we a party to this we'd be the natural guard in that lightum for the community I'd have to look I'd have to re-look at the language again but when this did I did look at this in the context of the mediation but my understanding is that they um it is public access has this like it's maintained for the benefit of the public access as well as the the developers access the owner's access uh but I didn't I I didn't necessarily read it as as being a public street but I would say to the extent that that this project ties into a public right of way on all good and then and then improvements uh along that uh affect that tie into another public right of way then I think that's another way to sort of attach it just to say you know the you know you're you might be you might be using this private easement uh for for this access but it's uh it's for that private easement is also for the benefit of the public by its express terms and it also ties into the public right away on all goods so those are some things that you if they're the city wants to consider stipulations around those two things yes I I think those are okay I want to know is it a public street or is it not I I don't think it's I don't think under the technical terms it's a public street uh because that has been it hasn't been this agreement as if dedicated accepted by the city where's that at how that word areas were public streets dedicated would have if horizon were public streets where's that mayor that was best by a cop county superior court judge I don't know how about item three the last three lines of item three on page five easement here in shall it's one ninety three men one ninety three of the public at large just everyone knows what reading the easement rights afforded herein shall extend for the benefit of freemen and for the public at large and freemen and the public at large shall here and after have all such rights as if they would have as the um as they would have if Horizon Street and the easement area were public streets dedicated to and accepted by the city of Marietta by order of the judge all the right so it sounds like all the rights require us to do maintenance but then five I don't know if you're I'm arguing for the side of who needs to do it.

Yes we do and so I'm not sure there's a right or run side but yeah I mean this sounds like again if you're gonna read that as it's a public street then it sounds like we need to be doing the maintenance.

But then that makes five useless so five five and five exists is saying that basically that Freeman could um uh buy um buy the easement area for ten dollars which means it probably would not be a government that has that it would be a private owner so uh with five I'm not sure it's been dedicated to the dedicated as a public street it's just a the public basically has a by right easement over the area city stop people from using it over the years well I would think yeah don't know the answer to that one looking at the attorney and public works on that one if they're if that's been the case you know I think I think the challenge with it is it it's it's a weird pseudo uh grant of a public right away because it says it it I mean why are they using the term as if it were it it it does both it's saying it's it's kind of creating this legal fiction that it's not a public right of way but we're gonna treat it as if it were so there are you're trying to look at the on either side of the agreement as to why they're wording it that way and they had their reasons in 1997 for doing that um but you know I absent the apps the absent the the dedication that's what uh you know kind of helped me back from fully come in and say this is definitely a you know a public right of way but it it but it has all the rights of a public street you know they're grant that and uh so it it is it's not it's it's and definitely not something you see that this has been unchallenged right if it looks like the duck walks like the duck is I'm looking at the street but they do have sidewalks I mean it is going into horizon lane I'm actually talking about all good matter oh okay and that's coming off 41 right 41 and all it comes off all 41 yeah

Right.

Looks like the duck walks like the duck.

I'm looking at the street, but they do have sidewalks.

I mean, it is going into horizon lane.

I'm actually talking about all good matter.

Oh, okay.

And that's coming off 41, right?

41 in all of the it comes off all 41, yeah.

I was looking at horizon and talking about the kids in the playground.

Um, mayor, may I ask one more question?

Public works.

Sure.

The amount that's been described in the uh stipulation letter.

Do you think that would cover all the stuff public works is asking for outside the bonds issue?

Can you restate that question?

The stipulation letter has it they're putting they're paying in a hundred thousand correct ones of stuff.

Right.

Would that cover everything that public works is asking for on likely cover everything that public works asking for outside the cash bonds, which they have to do separately.

I um on most of the items, they're pretty small.

Uh the first two I am not sure what the cost on that would be for the um the approach lane, the westbound approach lane and timing the traffic signals.

Those two I'm not sure on.

The others are pretty small amount.

Um each one in the each of them are under a thousand dollars.

So that would be no issue on those.

But uh the other two we'd have to look into on the cost on those.

But it it the hundred thousand should be pretty close, depending on the cost of those two for the applicant, Mr.

Doddle.

I apologize to it's okay.

I talk in a low, I talk in a low tone.

I usually do too, but um you saw the stuff with from public works.

You understand all the stuff?

Yes.

The bonds, you're it's bonds, you would is something you would agree to match you'd have you have to agree to because of the stuff it built in.

And then the rest of the cost uh you just wanted to put a number on there so you had a uh we were stipulating to a fixed amount.

I I mean obviously I can't give you a stipulation that it's open-ended uh to councilwoman's concerns.

Uh so i i it was a number that that we believe was sufficient to cover everything.

Okay.

So I have a question for you.

I guess so.

If there was a motion to approve this the issue with horizon line, that could not be part of the stipulation that so I do uh I don't know that I agree completely with Mr.

Chaldrill that that's uh um you know uh gratuity to you know or granting the uh that an improper condition, but the condition any condition would need to be tied to the city's rights in terms of it the city's right to use the you know to have public access through that right away, and also to the extent it ties into another city right there, all good.

So to the extent those zoning conditions were related to access to roads that this city and the and the public in general have a right, but I do I I do have you know to the extent it would call for like uh a stipulation that they have to do certain improvements in the neighborhood that aren't right related to the easement or anything like that.

And they may have had that in their agreement.

I don't want to I wouldn't want to make that to say you got to benefit this property owner in order to get our zoning, but to the extent it affects up a right uh uh easement that the city public uses and that ties into another right of way as long as the stipulation is framed around that, then I think it could be.

But uh, but I'll also just want to correct a couple of if you don't mind a couple of things that have been said.

The applicant earlier mentioned that there's a settlement agreement, and I just want to make clear is a settlement framework that came out of mediation because this is a zoning hearing, and so we came up with the zoning framework that said this this looks like an application that's a big improvement uh and something that could be supported in front of council, and so we thought it was at a good point to bring it up.

It's not it's not an agreement you can't contract zone, and so that's why we're here for this hearing.

So just want to correct that.

But also uh, you know, I I I just want to point out that uh you know the this is this is part of the process, and you can consider you know the motion stipulations and things that aren't in the letter, but uh this is all part of the that coming out of that mediation process.

Um and so I just want to make that there was some indication that people didn't get noticed or things like that.

This has been posted since mid-June.

So I know people might not have heard about the meeting that happened later, but uh you know, there there uh now been two meetings where this has been on the agenda, and so I I want to make sure to the extent there's an implication on the record from somebody that they didn't have notice of uh a meeting or this this meeting.

There were some meetings that weren't required to be advertised, but I just want to correct the record to say that this we followed the ZPL, we followed the city's posting requirements within the ordinance, and so I just I know that's kind of jumping in here on going off your other question, but those are two items I wanted to correct on the record.

So, my follow-up question for the attorney representing the apartment complex.

If there was a motion to approve this, is that agreement acceptable as far as the maintenance of horizon lane?

Is that what you were taxing for?

But I mean, we don't have an agreement.

I mean, we we had a conversation, he sent me an email and having confirmed.

Yeah, is that yeah, is that acceptable, I guess, is one of things.

I have to defer to my thinking.

Is the uh proposed uh is what was proposed acceptable?

No, it's not it's a starting point, it's an open, it's the opening of a dialogue that we can build on, and I'd like to have the dialogue, and I'd like some more time to have that.

Can I ask a question?

What about it is it acceptable?

Uh for example um to the this is a again right now it's a private road.

I'm I'm maintained we've maintained the road for 14 years.

Um right now they're proposing approximately one-third of the maintenance cost, and that's just on that one road.

There's an ag uh another road called footpath lane that would be another access point, and we have to maintain footpath lane as well.

So just the fact that um you know we have to we we have to put um uh uh pay for two-thirds of the maintenance uh to me is isn't fair.

So that is one aspect of what was presented, and again, I I'm not uh very familiar with all of the aspects because the it was just um I just read it yesterday, but that's an example.

So Mr.

Hilliard, for you, because I I want to be fair to everyone that lives over there, and this was a problem that I had last time was I felt additional conversation needed to be happened, but do you understand that this easement says that the obligation is not on freeman?

Yes to maintain so I understand what's being said is that well, we've had to maintain it, we're gonna have to do two-thirds of that maintenance.

They're only talking about doing a third, but you fully understand that that easement says that he can improve and repair, but the obligation is not his.

That's right, and that's I mean, that they got in this conversation last week, uh my understanding, and they were trying to have the conversation with the applicant.

So we understand all that.

Okay, yeah.

I'm usually on the other side, and people ask all the time.

Okay.

For the um the department uh owner.

You have 152 units.

Yes.

Okay.

Um I have a question regarding on the easements.

Does the easement include footpath lane, or is that not part of the easement area?

Not even discussed.

I'm looking at one of you three.

Not even discussed in the easement.

I don't believe it's included.

I bring I bring it up because when the bus stops on Horizon Lane, the traffic is going to take footpath lane.

That that's I know to my knowledge, it's not part of the easement.

Yes.

It is not part of the easement area, and not something that that we were taking on, or something that that we anticipate using.

It's not part of our plan.

Um, I do want to address two points that were just raised and and kind of go to your question.

The 14 years that they've been maintaining Horizon Lane, there's been no traffic to the back to our property.

So we've contributed nothing to its demise.

That said, one of the things that hasn't been talked about was we said that we would repave it all the way out to Owl Good.

So at that point, it is a new road, and any previous maintenance is gone away.

We did not ask them to incur the cost of the repaving.

We simply said that once it's repaved, that they would be responsible for two-thirds because they outnumber us, and we have a second entrance.

Um that we would be responsible for up to a third of a presented cost, and they would be responsible for two-thirds.

But we were saying we would pave it, and and you have a new road at that point.

So uh it's it's not exactly accurate to say they've borne the the burden of this for 14 years.

And with that usement area, you understand then also since it's only on horizon lane, that does not cover access for anyone that might be live might be living in a new development to footpath or anything like that.

I I understand, and and they have every right of enforcement on their property that everybody, every other private property owner has if if if our people are using that, they have the right to either notify the HOA to put up no trespassing signs, any of the things that they would do.

It's not something that's part of our plan.

Uh you know, that they are looking for in in this undefined agreement um the right to have a recreational field on our property.

Um so I I'm there's good neighbors, and and then there's uh we're gonna get fussy about whether or not kids run down a path that that's not on a plan I can't speak to, but if if they need to enforce it, they can enforce it.

One last question.

Um if this were to be approved, um can someone explain to me what a linear park is it's a bunch of green space that you can't build on anyway.

Is that what it is?

It's gonna be under the high tension lines, right?

It could be a walking path, yes.

So it's just undeveloped passive recreation.

It's a bunch of green space if you're going to speak to comes the thing.

It it's a passive recreation area, there'll be walking paths, things like that.

There's not a whole lot of vertical construction you can do under power lines.

So um, but it it is in fact the power line easement.

So okay.

So while while you're there, let's just stand there because I have quite a few different questions.

Okay.

Well, I may not be able to answer all of them, but I'll get somebody up who can I think I think you probably with your team and everybody else here can answer it.

So you understand my concern, which is you know, the children playing in the streets, okay.

Um let's talk about if this were approved.

What kind of privacy will go on the back of the neighborhood because there's gonna be a lot of movement, there's gonna be a lot of everything going on.

Is there a possibility for um trees to be put at the base or at the end of their uh property that abuts your property because what this is doing is disrupting the whole neighborhood, right?

Uh I understand about profitability and developing and all of that, but you have neighbors that are gonna be looking right into this, okay, during this whole process.

So is that a possibility to have some very nice trees that are uh in the backyards of those properties, giving them some privacy.

My name is JDS Bonya Jr.

I live at 4648 Steinhauer Road in Cobb County.

Um I am the president of Peanut Residential.

Yes, that is something we will do.

We will do screening, and we'll say trees because it would be better if it was some other type of screening material, would which would be like a cypress or some other tree that has the would grow thicker and create something tall and white?

Yes.

Okay.

We'd we'd we do that all the time.

Yeah, we do that all the time.

That's not a problem.

All right, and the other question that I have based on the meeting that we had with the neighbors there at Horizon.

Um, I guess uh we all kind of talked about the possibility of putting in a soccer field.

We would do a we and that what we were looking at is in the um linear park creating a more of a multi-use field where we would grade it out so that it would be flat, they could play soccer, they could play whatever else they wanted.

And so, yes, we will commit to that.

That's not now.

Is that on I thought I understood that there was a soccer area on Horizon Lane.

Right now, with the plan, that's gonna be a house.

So it'd have to be moved.

Oh, okay.

That's on the Freeman property.

That's not a form that has been informally used by the residents for recreation out there.

It's not a like a formal field or anything, it's part of the area that would be developed, but they've agreed and committed that they will make a passive recreation field somewhere on on that front end of the property.

Yeah, right now it they're using Mr.

Freeman's property for recreation that's not intended for that.

Okay, so I I think we're talking about two different things.

One, we're talking about Horizon, and then we also are talking about all good manner, right?

So the commitment was based on what my understanding was is that there would be a playground uh installed on the all good manner side, and then separately on the horizon side, they already have a playground, right?

And we had talked about a soccer field of some sorts where there was access.

And I think when we went through that, I remember that council member, is that we said we would have to look at the plan as it was developed because we needed to make sure that it was in a location that worked and that we didn't commit to exactly where that location was, but we would do something that the public could use in general, not just the horizon, but the public in general could use that, and so we would that would be definitely done, and we would commit to creating a recreation area.

One of the things that we did offer, um, and we can look at the playground, but we don't know who's gonna maintain that and who would be liable for it.

So we started thinking about that, but we offered to um donate some money to Horizon in this the um proposal that we made to help improve their private playground within their um community, so that is something that was new that we offered and what we offered yesterday was to donate some money to help improve their playground because I know that there are a lot of children in that neighborhood and the um horizon apartments.

Okay, so is it possible to do a soccer field on that horizon side?

That's what I don't know that there's room for it.

So that's the at this point, and that's what that's why we I said when we were talking in there we'd have to look at the whole plan and see where we could put something.

Okay, all right, and then the other question that I had was um so this is not gonna be a situation where uh you know it's gonna be blocked off from uh the different communities from accessing uh what may be in the potential uh development.

So will neighbors have access to be able to participate in whatever's connected to them when you you mean like park area, yeah.

Are you guys gonna have a playground and all of that on the new the potential property that you guys are bringing before us?

Um we had not anticipated that, so if that's um properties probably okay, so if we can pull up the plan, we can show what we're talking about here.

Okay, that'll be helpful.

Thank you.

So what we're talking about is um where those units that are right near the apartments, you can see those that right there that's where the the use of Freeman's property is being used now.

That's where the the use of Freeman's property is being used now.

So we were looking at something in the um where it says future linear park.

And we would, yes, our development will have sidewalks probably on both sides.

Because we don't we're not gating this or anything.

This is not that's not just not intended.

We don't we don't do gated communities.

So for y'all that don't know us, we we focus on the first time home buyer.

That is 80% of our buyers.

Um so that's what this would be focused toward.

And you know that that's not a gated community by um we wouldn't do that anyway.

But is the hoa responsible for mowing the linear park?

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know the answer of how that is working to because there's a a vague stipulation that it'll be done, so I don't know the the detail of how that's gonna work with with everyone in the in the city, to be honest with you.

But these covenants are something that get written again as part of the final process, it's all part they just haven't been written yet very briefly with regard to being what's being talked about.

Is there something that you might be willing to stipulate to or condition zoning upon with regard to the recreation area, the field, stuff like the possible playgrounds, stuff like that in that north area or the south area and stuff that's kind of what we're trying to understand.

Yeah, I would be willing to because I've committed to it to you that we would absolutely create, and I don't want to stripe a field, but I think having a nice, and we've done this in other communities where there's a nice graded site so that people can play all types of sports.

It can be soccer, it can be you know, neighborhood near my house, they they play frisbee on one.

They have the frisbee golf.

And so to me, that's what we would we would absolutely make it so that it is a usable area for people to use it as a park as they want to in that as the public.

They can come in, picnic on it, they can play soccer on it.

On which side what's that?

On which side on the we would be looking mainly, I think on the south side here where it's where the smaller grouping of houses are.

Um kind of that should be kind of coming down the this way.

Okay, yeah, somewhere in there.

Staff have a c have a flight thing or a pointer.

To your question, you can certainly make a stipulation that says that the uh preliminary plat slash final plat will designate uh uh absolutely on the plat, there will be something Stephanie was outlining that area.

Okay.

So that's out there.

So right, so I will say this.

We're talking about the that being in the future linear park that is public use, and so look, I'm I'm just gonna if it's in that area where it says future linear park.

And here we can create an access for someone to walk through here, and I'm fine with that.

Um look, I said this in the community meeting.

We're here to be part of the community.

We're not here to be outside the community.

We're not part we're we want to develop houses, but we also want to.

We heard the gentleman about the soccer field.

I played soccer at Georgia State.

It's a great thing.

So I'm um I don't think that's a bad thing to do.

And if we're talking about access, do these will you can see these are sidewalks on both sides of the streets.

There's sidewalks on horizon now.

They will tie in and we can make it so that there's some we're making a trail system through here anyway.

And so if there's a way to get right through here to where they can get down to it, that's fine with us.

I'm not trying to exclude the current residents from using that.

It's more so if motion to approve was made, there are certain I'm guessing that that would be a stipul uh a version of a stipulation as part of that.

Yes, that would if it were that we would do it in this area right in here.

Absolutely.

And you have control of that future linear park area.

Mr.

Freeman does.

And he has agreed with me that we would do that.

I'm trying to help me, so I I yield back to my colleague.

Okay.

So I guess the final question I have is uh we talked about 124 homes, town homes.

Um then we went up to the 136, and so if this were to be approved.

Are you guys willing to do the 124?

Isn't it 125?

125.

125.

My understanding was the agreement that was done in the um in the arbitration, the the mediation was that what it capped it at 136, and I believe that Mr.

Freeman wants to keep it there, and that's his his property were zoning on his behalf.

I have a question.

Uh this is back to the horizon lane.

Yes.

Did you guys come up with that percentage based on the number of units that you would have on that end?

That's correct.

So if I divide the total number of units, they have 108, it comes up to that they would have about 71%.

If they got 152 residents, you have 108.

I thought they had 200 this were, but if they don't have 152, we can 152.

We can we can how you came up with that.

In part we we apportioned it roughly at about a 60, 40 out of the 108 because we've got the second entrance.

Right.

Not everybody is going to go out of horizon line.

Right.

Okay.

That's all I had.

Can I ask one of I'm still hung up on these, but oh no.

If we're saying it's not open to all people, which is contrary to what the language says.

I mean, could we could we set speed limits?

Could we arrest drunk drivers on that portion?

I mean would that be considered as private property?

So I I it is open to the public and uh on all the rights, the way I read these, you know, it's and it is to be treated as if it were dedicated.

That's and that's the way I'm reconciling that language.

So I don't know uh but it but if we don't treat it as such, is it private property and we couldn't put speed humps on it, we couldn't put stop and I mean you know under our charter is a school board and getting children to and from school it's from the front door to the um to the school no matter what the bus place is if we can't guarantee the safety of that street.

I don't think the city could turn us back on it.

We have to contribute to the I think uh yeah, I think it says that you have the right to treat it as a public street.

So if that's what we would do for public street, then I think you can make those stipulations.

And then that would make the question, then if we determine our public court said we ought to have speed on stop signs, 15 degree, 50 mile an hour.

Who would pay for the same Carlisle?

Carlisle.

But we're using your money.

He hadn't spent any of his money.

Well, I'm just concerned about safety.

Absolutely.

60 years from now.

So so when we were there, Mr.

Mayor, we said that we would work with public works to make sure that that street was safe, and we would look at speed um deterrent measures, which could be, but that's gonna be done with the with public works because that's really what will determine how this looks and then when I say looks engineered.

I mean the like so we develop neighborhoods all over metro area, and we we we you know my main thing is you you don't want kids hit in any of our neighborhoods, so it's not like we're out here doing um things that would cause people to get hurt.

So I mean if we were to when we improve horizon, we would look at and we would discuss this in the meeting that Mr.

Sims was kind enough to put together that we would look at and work with public works what we what they felt was the safest and best way to deal with horizon lane and traffic calming measures.

And we're we're okay with doing that.

That's not a issue for us.

I mean, we're like I said, I don't I don't know.

It seems like we're being we're trying to create a a raceway and we're not trying to trade a neighborhood.

I'll tell you that, but unless you don't get out very much, people do go over the speed limit.

People have a lot of concern recurring it and I think that duty lists with us.

Um I'm actually arguing with you.

Okay, I got you.

I'm I'm just making sure I just want to make sure you understand.

We're we're we'll work with you.

We're we're not trying to work against the city on this work with the city.

I mean, we're talking about yeah, we'll fix those two streets where they have holes in them.

Oh, but if they're private, we won't.

I mean, yeah, the same they transfer our cities more than the bill to get from A to B, it's get A to B safely.

Just because we say, well, it's your problem.

I think it's our problem.

Okay, then I appreciate it.

I think you know, I want that settled now, and it's just yeah, I appreciate that.

Y'all show nothing but a willingness to do it.

So I'm just being the conscience with this side of the old but I just wanted to know we will work with the city anyway on that.

That's not we're not opposing that.

Um I might have a question through the chair to my colleague on something.

Yes, sir.

You you'd mention that a playground or something like that?

And was that also in that north phase one?

Uh the playground.

Or is it in phase two on the south side?

Would be not on the horizon side because they already have a playground there.

Sort of.

Yeah, the on the so it's gonna be on the all good manner side.

Which is going off of Bothwell there.

Closer down there.

Um I know we briefly went into that, but is there anything with that that y'all might think might consider on someone wanting both of y'all just get up to the mic?

Stay down front, it's easier.

Well, I'm I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

The question uh council member Sims asked about the playground or something like that closer to the Bothwell Circle area.

Anything on that that y'all might be willing to stipulate to I'm just asking for that.

Yeah, I I think that when it's gonna have public access and to rely on the HOA to maintain a playground that's used by everyone in this in that area is a lot for an HOA to just maintain on its own.

So I would ask that if we do something like that, that the city consider helping in the maintenance of the playground.

We can't contract zone, so I can't probably the as far as a zoning thing, city can't do that unless it the only way that happens if it's a public park.

And I don't know what uh playground in the horizon.

Yes, there is.

Yeah, but be amenable to a 25,000 dollar donation to we offered 15 to them yesterday.

So we can up it to fit 25.

But that can't be included in zoning because that's y'all can concept.

Y'all can hear that, but I don't want you to make that a zoning consideration.

Yeah, I mean, I mean that's I think that's the the only issue that with a play with with the with the a park that can be mowed, I can understand, but when the playground, when we got to thinking about it, if it has access by everyone in that vicinity, it's going to get damaged, it's going to need a lot of repairs, and to have 108 homeowners maintaining a public park, it would be outrageous.

I'd have HOA dues that my homeowners can't afford.

I wouldn't be able to sell houses.

And and so because we're not selling million dollar homes here, we're selling they'll be in the threes more than likely.

Then at the very least, could you make sure there's an active recreation amenity in the area there down there rather than just passive?

I don't understand what active means.

So that I don't uh Daniel yes, we have definition for active and passive within our code, and were this to be approved and coming back to you in a plating phase of exact uses would have to be described so you would know what those are.

Yeah, yes, we have definition for active and passive within our code, and were this to be approved and coming back to you in a plating phase of exact uses would have to be described so you would know what those are.

So there will have to be per our regulations, active and passive components to whatever they submit.

What what can they ask?

I don't I don't know what active is for y'all.

And so I don't I'm just wondering.

Yeah, the there's a list of different actives, and so some of them may be um walking trails, um, you know, certain aspects and other things are considered more passive, uh, gazebos, things things along those lines, okay.

So that's what I'm in mind.

Trying to say act active for our code.

Yeah, we had planned on doing a trail system through there.

So yes, we can meet some of those needs.

And you said that along the lines, except for where the street the streets are that you'd be doing vegetative screening basically between you you and the all your neighboring properties.

Yeah, yes, sir.

And you said what kind of vegetative, what kind of vegetative screening?

Uh uh that would be there's all kinds, but you've seen the Leland Cypress, it would be something like that.

I don't, I mean, there are other types that I think are prettier, and I can't think of the name to be honest with you right now.

But you know, there are that type of screening that is like a Leland Cypress that grows tall and wide and creates a nice screen.

That's what we would do.

Is Rich Steckman here?

Yes.

I can't remember our code full uh fully on what type of trees are allowed.

Is that one of the trees allowed?

Yes, it is.

And that does and that and you agree that's one that would do the purpose do the screening purpose?

Yeah.

Yes.

And there are like I said, there are other types.

All types of uh flat leaf and evergreens and hollies that can provide the same.

Yeah.

So that's what we would so if if there was going to be screening, how would you how would you phrase the uh thing?

Um basically uh I think we may have it in the code, but it's be a uh do based on spacing and the type of tree, whether it's uh uh landless cypress or uh um uh Arbovites, um there's a list of trees in our in our tree list that it suggests this is for screening.

If we said if we said you have to work with the city arborist finding screen um vegetative screening and go with his his list, would that be accept would that be yes, absolutely?

And Daniel White, is that even a acceptable thing?

Yes.

So some of this again we we will agree to that with no problem.

It's code some of it, and so we have to do it anyway.

But we will we will make sure it's not that we're like opposed to it.

We're just I'm just saying that like we it's not something it's something we would do anyway, but it's it's there's some code written that will we have to apply comply with certain things, and that's really gets into when we start just getting ready to go for the LDP.

There's a tree, there's a tree plan which will include all of that information, which staff has to approve.

If we're looking at trying to get the zone uh looking at a zoning thing, if you're willing to accept it though, be willing to live with that as a condition of zoning.

Yes.

It can be a even if it's an act extra or duplicative of whatever our code is.

Right.

Just it comes up in the site plan approval.

Yep.

To the issue.

I can attempt to substitute a um a motion if you'd like.

I know I know it basically is basically if it's not germane to zone in, I'm not gonna recognize you.

If you're talking about the site plan.

Then someone else want to make try and make a motion then because I thought that would be something to be important.

Please please make it.

I'm making a motion to approve to approve the uh are you missing?

There's a motion that you're doing a substitute motion.

Uh substitute motion, or it's a motion to amend technically.

It's because it a substitute motion is essentially a motion to amend.

Depending on how you want to look at it.

Essentially, it's trying it's trying to give a replacement from the denial to make it an approval.

Um to rezone the properties as scribed on the agenda from LI to PRDSF with um with the with the stipulations listed in the May 20th, 2026 letter.

Off the shown plan to line it to a linear field, there'll be a multi-use field.

I believe that was something y'all agreed to.

And it's uh you shall comply with foresight architecture.

I'm just saying that this is not foresight architecture.

That's my motion.

Is it all right if we can classify that as a substitute?

That's fine.

If you want to call a substitute, call a substitute.

I think it's pretty inclusive.

Second.

Then a motion is second.

Before we start discussion, does everybody understand the motion?

Any further discussion on the subteeth motion.

And um just remember again the letter controls that it's detached on that southern side.

Therefore, I'd like to call it a question.

Please indicate that working.

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

All opposed like sign.

Motion carries 6-1.

And none.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments and your thoughts.

And we'll keep making welcome to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The regular motion dies.

Yes.

You want to go ahead and get lined up.

So good evening, council.

Um I'm bringing forth the Marietta City School Board millage rate before you as part of the city charter.

The school board um must uh vote on their millage rate, and the city must ratify it.

The school board has conducted three public hearings in compliance with the state.

Those hearings were um conducted on Tuesday, July 7th.

Um they had two hearings that day, one at one p.m.

and another at 6 p.m.

And then again, another on Tuesday, July 14th, and that was held at 545 p.m.

just um immediately prior to their um board meeting that was held at six o'clock to vote on the millage rate.

The millage rate um that was proposed is 17.97 mils, and this is the same as the prior year.

The board did vote to um approve the proposed hearing and bring it forth to the council for final ratification.

So I bring forth the millage rate to you for a vote that would be um part of our 20 FY27 um billing that we would use to levy for property taxes.

Would you like a motion, Mr.

Mayor?

I'd like to chair the former chair of the mayor of the board of education.

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please raise your right in.

Motion carries seven mo.

Adoption of the 2002 tax levels.

Yes, sir.

So this is for the city of Marietta.

We also conducted three public hearings in regards to our proposed billage rates in compliance with the state.

Those hearings were held on July 8th at 9 a.m.

July 9th at 6 p.m.

And this morning at 9 a.m.

We had no objections from the public.

The redevelopment bond at 1.3, the read of parks bond and redevelopment month bond has a total debt service of 1.825, and then the cemetery of 0.079 mils for a total millage rate of 4.62 mils for fiscal year 2027.

Question 62 or 692.

692.

692, I'm sorry.

Yes.

And is that an increase on the rate from the rate from last year?

No, sir.

It's the same as prior year.

And for home set of properties that have the freeze, there is from last year, their taxes shouldn't see a dollar increase from the city side of it, not from the school side, but the city side, correct?

Correct.

And also with this year, we will have the state's credit that will be applied as well for the bills that has an eighteen thousand dollar credit towards the valuation for the billing.

How much credits?

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

Further discussion.

Motion carry seven mo.

Thank you.

Motion carry.

Yeah, that was my fault.

I'm sorry.

Separate.

What do you need for an executive session?

Not at this point, sir.

Meeting adjourned.

Yay.

At this time, I'd like to call the order to finance committee meeting.

First item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from June to 23rd.

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

Motion has been made and second.

Any questions?

All those in favor, raise your right hand.

Motion carries 3-0.

The next items we'll take in sequence, the hotel motel tax, auto rental tax, and the finance update.

Thank you, Chairman.

So taking a look initially at the hotel motel tax.

Looking at our 3% auto rental, the auto rental tax revenue was 124,835.

We had a rolling average of 103,000.

Uh we had a rolling average of 103,000, and um the last uh from April to June, we have been averaging approximately 125,000 per month.

So um our revenue collections exceeded the allotment um by approximately 229,000 for the fiscal year.

Looking at um the general fund fiscal year to date the revenues totaled 85.5 million, representing 102 percent of the adjusted annual budget of 83.45 million for the fiscal year.

And then our up uh operationally, the city can um continues to remain strong in our financial position.

Our expenditures uh were well below the adopted budget and prior year spending levels, um, even though um our revenues exceeded our um expenditures by approximately 5.8 million um over budget.

Uh I'm sorry, the revenues exceeded the expenditures um by 7.8 million, and we were 5.8 million over budget for our revenues.

So we had it a very good year.

However, this doesn't include any of the year-in capital that we would need to expend and allocate as you are where we use our surplus um after we have closed out the year to determine what our capital spend will be.

We have 5.8 um 7.8 million um revenues over expenditures.

However, um we do have um in our self-insurance fund, we allocated two million of reserves.

Currently, we're um closer to three million um where we are there's a shortfall, so we'll uh potentially have to split that remaining 800,000 between the BLW and the general fund in order to cover those costs.

Um and in doing so, we would then um be able to allocate um the uh remaining um surplus to capital expenditures.

We have in excess of seven million dollars of general fund capital requests that we would not be able to completely fulfill based on our surplus, but we would um do our best to um allocate as much as we can to uh the capital request that we have and that concludes my report question about the whole hotel multi tax.

Yes, sir.

This is just under the the center column, the convention center.

Just want to find out that amount's gonna be the the next item on the agenda to talk about.

Yes, sir.

And then this is good history.

The convention center goes part of our agreement 25 about a 25 plus year contract with the gallery.

The council before us voted not to extend it.

It's gonna belong to us, but October the first um I believe the anticipated time frame, yes.

It'll go through revenues.

Uh I believe it's they're they're thinking that the last payment would be in August, but it could be in September, and then the agreement would end, and so then it would be the revenues that we would have achieved the month before.

Would so it would be this if if we're making the last payment in September, then uh the actual money we'll be paying with would be the August money.

So it would be a month to the good if you want to look at it that way.

Yeah, this is money collected in Marietta that went to a capital project for 25 years and a good deal at the time.

It created like we're gonna have a chance and thank you for is there any uncollected funds that we might have to collect later any past years or no sir.

No, there's all properties now.

Yes, there's no um outstanding balance.

Um the percentages that we've collected have been distributed um and they're up and are up to date.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

So that money that we don't have to pay to the Cumlin uh is the CID to the gallery, right?

Where does that money go?

That's your next gentleman.

General fund, uh that general no, it has to be spent on tourism.

It has to be spent on tourism.

Yeah, what's this should just a preview, but not towards I'm not talking about we need to do some work on the golf course.

Uh as far as the sand traps are concerned.

I mean you're not supposed to be in the sand, you're not supposed to know that much about it.

That's why, but if you notice too on uh we we're already keeping the general fund anyway.

When you look at those numbers together, yeah.

So we want to go into Galleria, we're not sending them that 37 and a half percent to them now.

So it that won't change.

Okay.

But it's but it's not so we're using that in the general fund.

Yeah.

So all of the percentages will stay the same as just that one particular column, it depending on how council votes will be reallocated.

Right, yeah.

Basically we have to figure out either or current project or or new project and figure out a group that's going through in order to get it done, which is what's on for later.

Yeah, we had to go by Georgia law of capital.

Pretty nice chunk.

57%.

That's pretty nice.

You know, that's that's how you pay us.

And we're one of the biggest collectors of hotel motel.

Which is surprising because we are not one of the highest ADRs.

We are second from the bottom on ADR, falling behind like Mapleton, Powder Springs, Austell.

ADR ADRB.

Annual daily rate.

So what what our hotels are charging right now is about sixty-four dollars.

Um average not annual.

So they charge about sixty-four dollars room, and that's the average throughout the city.

So we've got the Hilton that's probably obviously way up here, but then we have a lot of um extended stays or other types of hotels that are lower.

So we do not have the highest ADR, but we collect our volume and consistency.

Yes.

Yes.

And we collecting more, but we had they converted over to extended stays.

And that's the problem.

Extended stays.

If I'm Bill, if I'm right, extended stays don't pay hotel motel tax.

If you don't if it's a stay over 30 days, right, 30 days, yeah.

That was the reason that they pulled out, they didn't want to pay that eight percent.

Right.

Is that based on state law that they don't have to pay that?

Yes.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of those or partial, some that are partial, not necessarily called extended stays, but they're hotels and we've got people in extended stay status, so they don't pay on that.

Um that's also true for the auto rental over the 30-day time frame.

They just became rentals.

We've actually we've had some audits we've had to do of different properties because of that to determine the 30-day or not, and we even had a couple of lawsuits uh because of it.

Trying to individual groups trying to say that they were not uh having to pay because of the 30 days, but then when we did the audit, we found that that was not necessarily the case, and so had to go to court.

So against that, if you looked at what Cumberland's ADR is, it's almost double ours.

Because if you look at the hotels in the Cumberland area, you've got the you know Radison, you've got all those big guys over there down in the battery.

And so their ADR is large compared to us.

Yeah, we had we were best of 75 and 41 in that traffic for years.

Lost a lot of good hotels.

Okay.

Second any questions, any comments or motion that has been uh made to receive and file.

Property second.

All those in favor, raise your right hand.

Motion passes three O next item on the gym is the Sunday sales for specialty beer and wine markets.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um so this item comes back before you.

It was also heard at the June committees, um, and at that time staff was directed to work with council on draft language that would um accomplish essentially what was um what was requested, which would be to allow craft beer and wine markets to sell for consumption on premises on Sunday.

So we have within your packet uh draft amendment changes to 8 8 2 2 8 and then also 2 9, which are the ancillary um consumption on premises license for malt beverage and uh wine package stores, and then we also have a draft change to hours and days of sale of purchase as well for your consideration.

So my question is to um back to you.

Glad you're here tonight.

Yeah, well, I was here last time, might as well get it this time too.

Is your opinion change as far as it hasn't?

You know, I went back and I I reread the state code, I reread the other city's ordinances, and I you know I still think I think what we had previously is uh uh combined with state code, but it does appear.

I mean, it does look like this you know the questions are then like if if it doesn't comply with state code who has the standing to enforce it, and that's just a question for you guys in terms of your comfort level, but legal opinion is still the same.

Now the state code did have a section that says uh unless the city is ordinance.

Uh not for that one, I think.

There were other parts of a parts of it.

And I think you um there are also requirements for that around like uh when your referendum was adopted and that all those kind of things.

You it's a you have to connect all the dots to the previous it's it's a mess.

So does any of the other members first, I guess on the committee have any comments or I mean in general I don't know how many people are gonna use it or this affects one or a couple two businesses that are all square.

So I mean that's I mean I like it from that standpoint from our community.

Uh I don't think it's gonna still get a negatively attract from the community.

I mean we're not saying you know, we're pouring shots out here is beer and wine, but I don't want to run a foul of the law either.

And so um, but it sounds like no one else is running a foul of the law, even though they do it.

So my question is this three out of the I guess the ones that were checked.

I think the there was uh Roswell, Melton, and John's Creek would adapt adopted similar language.

Five hundred and thirty-six cities, that's not a good number.

No, it's not so my question is if we did adopt this or moved it on for the count full council and this passed, who bears the legal and the negative legal consequences.

Is it the owner of the establishment or is it the city council for passing a law that may not be within law, but the DO department of revenue says it I don't because it is within law, so I'm a little confused on it all.

Uh we got three lawyers, uh well the state code references you don't want you don't want mine either, so that's two out of three.

I'll just I'll just really quickly disclose that uh the marital wine markets located in space owned by a member of my family, and you probably don't want my opinion either.

That's three down.

I I would say that the the the it would not be the shop owner because they're governed by reference to the city.

The city has the authority to regulate it at this level, and so they have to go by what's there.

So they're doing what the city says, then I think they would be safe.

But I also you know, but yes, the city it's depending on who it would have standing to challenge it, might be the consequences for so you mentioned lawyers, so I'm gonna step in on this, and I'm just gonna say that what protects us the greatest individually from liability is relying on experts relying on information that we get.

And when we're being told by our expert, not by the three of the extra lawyers, um not a good idea.

When you step outside of that, you open yourself up to liability.

I'm not willing to go there.

So well, we'll just we need to call our state legislators and convince the cop delegation and a bunch of other people to change that law, but to just do it on our own.

So if we don't want to take consensus, we don't take an action and just let it die.

I mean, what's the you can you can take a vote if you think you got it?

Nothing's point in it.

So it would just die.

Yeah, I mean, you know how I feel on it, but it's gonna go it's gonna die anyway.

Um I got a feeling but um third legislature take another look at it.

Right.

I th I think that's in a way it doesn't make much of difference.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make any sense, but you know, we got Clover Park sells beer and they got a food truck out there, they don't sell but that was an a team they're complying by selling food, right?

And we are doing a more comprehensive update working on it right now with with staff uh to address some gaps like the food trucks and the uh uh things that aren't in our code currently, like microbreweries and things like that.

Isn't Glover Park considered differently because they're brewery?

They are so it's not even that they fall under this one part that you're looking at, and that they're they've got oh, they got 50% food.

It's that the Georgia Code actually and our code looks at breweries differently from markets, just pouring mine market pouring places.

So that makes it different right there.

Okay, who's got the best love?

Well, yeah, try so moving on to the next item on the agenda.

We don't have to take any action on it.

Uh convention center funding allocation asked for uh this to be uh looked at.

Mayor, I don't know if you want to preface the issue.

I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the city.

We you know, just give the history when the if it's a you know, we we partnered, we didn't even have a hotel motel tax when this county took the lead to do it in the city just because we had the most motels, we cut out a part for ourselves.

You know, every other city put in everything they goes to this.

Ours is so major, we uh we voted to have the opportunity to look at at ourselves, and we're in the you know what I'm suggesting is what the crux of the motion is change the heading under convention center and have this as a local project and at the same time the motion we come make sure that we keep the eight percent, which it it is in our name, I'm sure it is, and also whether or not if we chose to have this, I mean I think it would be more prudent to have a capital project.

Have what a capital project.

I mean because we're not the United Boy.

I mean we I mean that that was the reason the um car rental tax came, was so that we could give grants.

Is that like a downtown parking lot, parking deck?

No, that's what the DMDA was formed for.

It'd be more for parks or things that attract people to our town, yeah.

Soccer stadium uh just civic center and the theater.

So yes, I mean you could set up a you could do it as the conference centers worked.

I'd like to leave it I'm not I'm not suggesting that stirred.

I mean I'm just giving the example there.

I'm not trying to say disturb it.

The I guess really what I'm saying that we set this money aside with with long term aspects, and and also and this would be for Daniel, you have to spend just in case you have to spend the money every year, which we want to make sure we would would be a I don't want to jump into one too quick and spend the money until we you know work at least a year on the plan.

Do you have to spend just in case you have to spend the money every year, which we want to make sure we would would it be I don't want to jump into one too quick and spend the money until we you know work at least a year on the plan you know what would be good and hopefully be able to balance that it would be where the hotels are, which is really who the hotel motel takes was for to promote their business, and and we got between the Braves and two soccer teams, you know, if sports is a thing that these side of the city would be good, have a balance have the best conference center, and then have a second project second.

I think you give community input what they would like and what we say them.

Mr.

Mayor, um you're talking about something that the code calls tourism product development TPD, that physical creation, and you can secure you can use those funds to secure debt for larger projects.

So if you want to do a larger capital project, you can use those funds, but you you look at the hotel motel.

I mean that brought in the intergovernmental agreements.

I mean I'm very proud of Caleb County what we and this is this is just going with it.

And in Title 48, where it shows what you can spend it on.

And the size size of our city, we qualify to be in the highest bracket, which is eight percent.

Mr.

Mayor just a few questions there.

I can remember I'm trying I'm trying to make sure I'm remembering everything correctly.

So this might be questions submit to Bill, Daniel, and Daniel.

Oh Daniel Cummings and Daniel White.

Um for these funds, generally they have to be flow they have to be flowed through, not through the city, but through another organization too.

I believe you 501c6, something like that, or am I or am I mixing that up with the auto rental?

No.

It at least 50% of the total taxes collected uh uh have to be expended for the references paragraph B and it says amount so it's spending shall be extended only through a contract or contracts with the state, a department of state government, a state authority, convention and a visitors bureau authority created by local act, a local coliseaman exhibit hall authority, a downtown development authority or private sector nonprofit organization, or through contract and contracts with some combination of such entities.

That's your list.

Okay, so we have a we have a limited list of what we can basically contract with for that.

So that's something we probably and the other 50.

That's our general fund and local tourism, I believe, correct?

Daniel.

Well, local tourism was come from the other bucket.

Well, that makes up 50 percent.

The other 50 percent was conference center and the convention center, because those are the two that add up to being 50.

Yeah, it's a we have to read it a few times because uh the other portion above says you you have to you shall expend you know at least 62 percent, but yes, that and so 50 percent of the taxes collected have to be expended through subparagraph B, and then yes, the other it's part of the reason why I have 12.5 percent is the local tourism and the 37.5 into the general fund.

Um just one thing we need to take a look at between between now and the decision made is which or what group can handle the money so that it can be flowed through whenever we do get a project going.

Um making sure that whatever group we're choosing can has the authority to do it as well.

Because I know the conference center was flowed through the DMDA while the convention center was throwed through the Coliseum Authority.

So just stuff we need to think about as we're going through this process.

So but the again yeah, all this motion is just to clarify that we're gonna use that money, you know, now that that contract and then work out the details, whether it's DMDA or any part of it.

The only the only thing I would do want to, you know, and I think it was raised if we had to expend it this this year and and there's something beside if you want to do something aside from something that's already established, and it's gotta be a 501 C6, and you're working with an a pri you know, a D they call it a DMO direct marketing organization.

You know, you want to give yourself time.

That takes like six to seven months.

Yeah, I'd refer to you, you know how long it better than I do about how long the IRS takes to approve those kind of things.

That's right.

I mean it enabling motion that we set it up it it for transparency.

I just you know, we I think it ought to be used.

I mean, I like to separate I think that there ought to be far the money go for the historical med or square area.

And then find a second need.

I don't think it ought to be all I mean that was my why I was glad we vote from the gallery.

Send money to one place for 50 years just didn't seem very prudent for government money.

And that's that's what would happen.

So but options I'm not talking about closing options, I'm talking just opening them up.

So I would also like to ask that we as we're looking at not in this motion, obviously, but as we're looking at what we're gonna do and how we're gonna spend it, that we also look at including as a separate item an amount that goes to Cobb tourism, because if you look at all they do for us in the marketing sector, they enhance everything that Brittany does with Marietta, and they get paid through the galleria authority or whatever that thing is called now, which then they no longer are getting money to market for us because us and ACWorth are now out of that.

And I think we need that next level of marketing.

They we've got a great reach, and but we've got a great partnership between what Brittany does and what pop tourism does.

So that's a 12 point five.

Yeah, the well, that's how the gallery gives their money over.

It's not in it.

Yeah, it's not in the near specifically though.

Yeah, so it's at 19.75, and as it gets the gallery of authority, they have an agreement which they just actually signed today again, um, to continue their funding um to cob tourism and travel, but that agreement now is all cities less us in Ackworth.

So I think that if we want to continue a relationship for that continued marketing support, we should look at us sending direct to them, not through the authority.

Because now they've lost that.

And you bring up a good point.

If I wouldn't agree if we spend all the money in the square area.

But if we move out and harvest 750, or even by Borough's park to make Hooverville.

But you know, we already own that.

So but the world's open and the more money and the more promotions we need, yes.

In fact, the gallery was made when they moved the chamber moved them.

Yeah.

But eight million dollars, that's it's a big chunk of money.

That by agreement that was part of the deal.

Because it is for tourism, and that's something that's a that's a conversation we can have later after we get this part done.

Yeah, my only question, do we have to put a time frame on it?

But you know, if you're gonna do a continuation use that money, do we have to say all right, it's gonna be for X amount of years?

I was on waves and means and I knew the law better, but like our car rental tax is you have to spend the money in the clear.

Right.

And I just want to make your ironically most people have used this to pay down debt.

You know, and I think that's the big decision to go into debt, how big the clause is.

Um but the main thing is to make the our goal for this money is it is not to be a I think we we give a way as a good after a while the grants would become gratuitous transfers, and I don't think that's it that's right to tax a hotels to subsidize a 501c.

Um more of a question back over to you with regard to the fun the use of the funds and everything, uh can you look into to see because with the final payment coming up quickly, if we need to have anything else quickly designated, or when do we have to have stuff designated by what happens with the funds during that time where we don't have a designation?

Yeah, we could look at it.

It just uh my quick and not thorough reading is that it it does say you shall expend parentheses in each fiscal year during which the taxes collected under this paragraph an amount equal to at least sixty two and a half percent of the taxes collected for the purposes of and then let's so there is some but it doesn't say I haven't read anything yet.

This is you have to set it up ahead of time, but you would need to.

I think the limits on when you need to expend it on for at least two-thirds of it.

Okay, well and for the nineteen point seven five percent after the final payment is done.

Would that just is that held in escrow or does that need to be going to another project immediately?

Yeah, we'll uh we'll look at it.

Okay, yeah.

I haven't that's when I haven't looked at.

Yeah, we just kept it.

Yeah, yeah.

No, I I know I'm doing uh Mayor, I have the same concern as you try to make sure we're getting this thing going and go.

And also we don't need to we hear a lot about fear in this room I mean they're talking about governmental accounting basically you can encumber it.

That is an expenditure.

But but we have to say we're encumbered so we you it might the project might be talking about funding a capital project and and encumber it in the budget.

So but just like Mr.

Carlo just went through we'd like to attorney's blessing.

Yeah I could say there's a CPA and other and there's a lawyer in somebody certain ways and means I have no doubt.

Right.

But I'm not the war.

That sounds right to me.

No, well, sometimes we ask our CPAs.

That's how you understand it, but yes.

So do we need a motion on this or to need to move it to does it have to be vote voted on at our regular wood?

I think council.

I think we have to come up with an enablement motion.

Right.

The money coming from the unexpired contract will be using the same purpose, but under our hat.

Mayor, would you like for us to come up with that language for the Monday meeting?

Can we move this forward and make a motion to finance to move it to Monday?

To move it to the Monday meeting.

Would that be that we think because that's we've had 20 million dollars on our lamp?

Yeah, it it you know, I think in the planning period is but yes, if you could pass or forward it to forward it to Monday.

Yeah, and it'd be enough for y'all to have yes, sir.

And Mr.

Mayor, or Mr.

Chair, sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Uh with that, just making sure we're getting that working through that list of what organizations we can work with to pass the funds on through since we this is goes beyond term of counseling that we have to have that.

So it has to be the one of those listed organizations of what eligible organizations we have as our options as well.

Yeah, I think first we'll we can have that authorization to go ahead and take the money and put it in a separate account for the city so that we can hold it and then we can come back with uh the actual organization after talking with the council and the organizations themselves.

Yeah, because uh just want to make sure we're doting our eyes crossing our teeth as we prepare for the prepare for a project.

Okay, so what's the appropriate next step on this?

Is it a motion to move it forward or it just moves forward?

Yes, sir.

I think if you just move the item forward and ask for the city attorney and city manager to come up with the language uh for the appropriate authorization.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, can I make a motion?

Yes.

Go ahead and designate it.

DMO.

Well, we may not have all that right.

Because the DMO is just what spending the money on marketing but not capital.

My confidence we have to follow the law.

As you just read, you have to spend it through the DMO.

Well, so it to me that to encumber it, you'd have to have a designated mark in an organization.

I think you probably would, yes, sir, but I think we've got until the summer of 27 to actually expend it.

So uh before then we would have to have a DMO or organization, absolutely, yes, sir.

If we're gonna get money on October the first and okay, for the year it's collected, we have to spend it within that fiscal year.

So by June by July 1st.

June 30th.

June 30.

But yeah.

Before July 1st.

Okay.

You're gonna make the most well it was.

I'm trying to forget what the motion is now.

Um the the TPD does not have to be expended by DMO.

It could be expended by local government.

If you spend a dime more than you're supposed to out of the industry general, we don't want it to become general fund money.

And if we do that, we lose to breach of the contract.

Right.

But we do have we don't have to spend that TPD money, doesn't have to contract with the DMO.

That's the other tourism.

We're basically just talking about that 700,000, that middle record.

Yeah, 700,000.

That's part of the formula, but everything else goes to the general fund, not alone.

The motion.

Yeah, we're not we want to relook at the other of it.

I'd rather not take this one on it and keep the other one going as is absolutely.

Yeah, I I'm thinking that you know, with the motion and how it was crafted and if it gets approved, uh, we'd basically take the the extra money that we're talking about here, we'd put it in a separate account.

So it would be held separately, uh, and then it could be expended through an organization, or it could be expended through this group through an obligation.

Um and as long as we did that by June 30th, then we'd be we should be good, I would think.

Obviously, that gives the council a little bit of time to figure out what you want to use the money for, and then we could obligate it in time.

That's what yeah, my service.

It's a long-term thing, and uh a lot of good.

I don't have a feel where to go from there, but the folks that have a longer future than I do.

I don't get to say a okay for old people, but uh you could pick up Mr.

Mayor.

I can't well actually, Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Mayor, I guess.

If you're going to make a motion, I'd probably uh I would probably suggest making it just move to AWS, have the city attorney, city manager work on the to work on the language we repaired for that Monday meeting, and to include include I guess a blank for DMO with the list and look through what can be appropriately be the DMO uh DMO or if it's for the city or city government to the TPL.

Just give basically give us a list of options with the blank so we can keep we can start taking a look at the stuff.

Then I would move the convention center funding allocation to so I'd like to make a motion to move the convention convention center funding allocation discussion to agenda work session and direct city council and city attorney to draft appropriate language in terms of future uses of such funds with the city manager, did I not say that?

I meant I meant council here.

So sorry, I'm saying I called you twice.

City attorney and city manager.

So just for clarity, you said the agenda work session for August 10th.

Okay.

Motion to May, probably second.

All those in favor.

Yay.

All right.

One more item.

We're we slowly getting along.

Mr.

Chairman, this is a follow-up to the JL committee that took place last month.

There was a pretty robust discussion when it came to tree recompense and looking at the tree fund and what's paid into that.

And so we've outlined in the memo uh what our current formula is in order for uh developers when they have what is called a um density factor deficit uh to pay into the tree fund, and and so the way that operates is that number is divided by a number that is equal to the density value of the two-inch tree caliper, which is point four, and then it's multiplied uh by a resulting value, which is the unit replacement value, which is found on the city's fee chart.

That number is two hundred and twenty dollars.

Um, as was remarked last month.

That number has been the same since this calculation was put into the city's code back in 2004.

And so we're bringing forward um an analysis of what that would look like today for committee and council's consideration as to whether to make any changes in that regard.

Uh so the first thing we did is that our city arborist, Mr.

Deckman took a look at what the replacement value of 220 was back in 04 and what that value would be today.

And so he is um looking at the different costs, including shipping costs, things along those lines, have come has come up with a number of 400.

Um that would be roughly equivalent.

Um, just as an exercise, it's not the number he used.

We staff also looked at general inflation during that time, um, and we have identified that that's pretty close, somewhere in the 390 range is what general inflation of that 220 dollars would be.

So just to express um a little bit of conformity with the numbers that the city arborists has come up with.

Uh we also uh looked at a variety of metro communities and how they handle this.

Um initially the intempt was to come up with some standardization uh about you know how we exactly match up.

It becomes extremely difficult because all of the formulas or many of the formulas are very different from one another.

Some look at canopy, some have different districts that have different allowances, some have different density measures, um, some require payment by the tree, others require uh you know, three different uh proposals from landscaping companies in order to value what that tree replacement is.

So it does become very difficult to come up with an apples to apples comparison.

What we were able to ascertain uh between Shelby um Savannah uh Rich and I was that we think that currently we're on the lower end, especially when you consider some of those comparable governments that we typically uh compare ourselves to.

And so uh, you know, could try to look more closely at that, but once again, it becomes very difficult.

And so uh that's the information we have uh to present before you.

Rich is here to answer any questions about how he came up with his calculation, and certainly I'm here as well if you have any questions for me.

This is my question is Is this something that we need to change at uh vote on at council?

Uh it's an ordinance change, so we need to it's it's not an ordinance change, it's it within the city's fee chart.

It used to would have required two readings and would go forward that way.

Um was conferring with the finance director before this meeting.

At this point, it is a vote of city council that would change that number in the fee chart from 220 to whatever number was decided.

Are there any discussion questions?

Go ahead.

Yeah.

So just current rate before the staff is recommending 400 essentially.

That's about the rate the city arbors came up, and the inflation rate looked like the overall inflation rate for the past 22 years, is what you said?

That's correct.

So 400 would be the parking essentially.

Yes, sir.

And and this rate is a rate to determine what companies pay if they're unable to meet our tree regulation.

That's exactly right.

So we close to doubling it, but not exactly just slightly under 100, it's 180 dollar increase per calculation.

Correct.

And this will go in effect.

Probably upon passage.

Right.

And Mr.

Attorney.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair, I may ask a question to the attorney.

Sure.

You agree with the statement that if the city council passes, let's say August 12th, the August 12th meeting, it goes into effect at that time, doesn't require a second reading.

Or does it require chart?

Yeah, I mean, that to the extent they asked for any other changes you want to make, that might be have to be in the ordinance, but the fee change is just a one vote.

I guess my other question I totally understand the inflation part and looking up how much trees have gone up.

You said how long has it been this way?

22 years.

So 22 years ago, I wonder if we were low then or high then.

So if we inflate the number that we were at, try I still don't get a good feeling for where we are.

Does that make sense?

Because if we were abnormally low then, then we're not doing enough.

If we were abnormally high, then we're doing too much.

Sure.

So I don't know where the answer is, just based on I'm not trying to make it complicated.

I'm just saying based on just inflating a number that we none of us in this room were part of.

I don't know what that means without knowing what the market is.

Like I don't want to 100% want to I think we need to increase it.

I just don't know what that number is, even with the data that you showed.

And it sounds like other places are all over the place.

I mean I know that oh no go ahead.

Please please.

So my question is kind of on that same uh line of uh communication.

It says here this amount closely aligns with general inflationary increases during the same time frame, which averaged the two point six four percent.

So when we're saying closely aligned, we compare that to it's about a ten to fifteen dollar difference.

And so if you look at overall inflation of what 220 would have been against all product types at that time, it would be somewhere in the three, I believe three eighty-seven to three ninety range.

So a little bit lower.

Okay.

But that's just all products, whereas what Mr.

Deckman was looking at was actual plant material and the cost of that.

Right.

Okay.

Um I would say, you know, kind of to your question, Jason, is that the way uh Mr.

Deckman looked at it was he looked at actual cost.

So whether we were above or below before what we're setting it on right now.

So you're saying you're close to the number that Mr.

Deckman had, and he didn't do it by looking at inflation.

He looked at it simply by if we had to have a replacement, the cost would be so again, so that's kind of a different so it's not whether we're high or low.

We're looking at kind of just the replacement costs, the actual replacement cost.

Of the tree.

Of the tree.

Yeah.

What but back to it, and I don't want to be the dead horse on inflation.

What was the replacement cost of the tree then versus replacement cost of the tree now?

But it's some of which we'll never know, but right now the world will never know.

The you know, there are two people who were probably here back then.

One of them's in the room and one of them's related to somebody in the room.

Um for any of us sitting here.

Um but the reality is when you look at it just simply by to replace a tree would cost this today versus oh, we upped it based on inflation.

I I think that method works for me.

I'm good with because of the cost.

And you're looking at math, and that's making my head hurt worse than it already hurts.

Always look at math.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I enjoy it, but I know she hasn't.

To the extent that George Law says your fees not to be tied to they're doing it the right way by starting with the cost, which is which is the reality, like you want your c your fees to match what your costs are whatever you're and then but there's he's supporting it with the inflation.

So I think that that's the right way to do it.

Okay, okay.

Mr.

Chair, if I may, as you guys know, I've gotten a lot of emails about the tree canopy in Marietta.

I did a presentation a couple months ago.

Being that it's been 22 years since we've revisited it, would would you guys be open to maybe going a little bit further in the knowing that we probably won't revisit this fee chart in the case?

Well, another 22 years.

I'm not saying it's no.

Uh it's been it's been borrowed for loose.

I'll be under a tree in 22 years.

All these are the things I'm gonna have to worry about.

Um revisited this whenever we want to, but I was about to I was going to suggest if we want to try and do something, I'd say just put it on a regular rotation or review a review each year.

So the staff always has that ready to go to review the cost.

I agree with you.

So that that way it we're taking a look at it every year as opposed to once every 22 years.

So and it allows us to analyze it and put in a specific amount within the fee chart each year as to what I keep or even once a every four years.

I mean, something besides 22 years is better.

Well, could we not if we wanted to move forward with it now, use the four hundred dollar number and say it increases by three percent every year?

I think we need to tie it to cost, not to just a percentage.

That's the reason why I say it's part of a fee chart.

Tie the CPI and never touch it again.

Right?

I mean, I don't I'm not a lawyer.

But you stayed in a holiday and express last line in some other sixty-four dollars tonight.

May I ask a question through the chair to the you mentioned the fact that they've gone through with the prec process of doing it at cost and then using the CPI to supplement the cost.

That's the reason I said take a look at as opposed to pie uh tying it to a rate increase at inflation rate since this is slightly different than the general uh stuff.

I mean, I think as long as the original thing is is based on the cost, you know, they're they're I think you could find some way to tie it to market.

And I I think I don't I'm just gonna ask it, looks like you noted that three cities specifically reference market rates.

Is that a reference to are they doing the same thing, but they're just saying we're gonna tie it to market rates for the tree replacement costs, or is that some other what are the or they're just saying the other market rates of other cities or what are they so it varies?

Uh I believe in the case of Norcross, they have their arborists look at the cost every year and make that determination.

Alpha Red is the one that requires the three um essentially quotes from the different landscapers to come up with the cost.

And then I think Atlanta's is more just a general statement, it should align with actual cost.

So I was trying to understand what the other cities might be doing the same.

I would think that we want to take our Arbut's recommendation of the $400 and look at it on an annual basis.

We can look at inflation and also look at what actual cost is, and then they can make a decision and come back before whatever council is in office at that time.

Yeah, I agree.

I think because it's you're just altering the fee schedule, it makes it a lot easier to approach and change.

Can I get a motion to move this to the uh council meeting on three?

Second.

Second, yeah.

Any more discussion?

What was the final number?

400.

400.

No more can see them.

Yeah.

Well, we haven't got a vote.

We'll let you vote first.

All those in favor of raise right hands.

All right.

Clarify because the agenda item was to review and discuss, but you're saying move it forward as a motion to increase the fee based on that with the with the recommendation to update it annually.

All right.

I'm gonna make sure that's on the record.

Okay.

Consent.

No, if there's no other business before the finance committee, I uh finally applied.

I call to order the personnel insurance committee, uh first item of business meeting minutes of May 26th.

To approve the the minutes that's presented.

Second.

I have a motion and second, any discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor, please so signify.

Second that's three-o.

Second item business special meeting minutes on June 8th.

A motion to approve as presented.

Second.

Got a motion and a second, all in favor.

Oh, any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor, please so signify.

That's another three-o.

Okay, board of lights and water appointment.

So I have a question, because I've never figured out who's doing what here.

Is this a business outside of Marietta that receives power from the BLW, but the representative lives in Marietta?

No, it traditionally the representative has lived outside of Marietta.

But uh the way it could it could be read to say that they could live in Cobb County in general.

Okay.

Um and wherever they live is okay as long as they get service from uh from us outside the city.

Okay.

Um yeah.

So okay, so that's what this position is.

This is the position of the person whose business gets service from us, but may or may not the representative may or may not live in the city, hopefully in Cobb County, but they don't even have to do that.

They can't.

They have to have to have to live in Cobb County, yes.

Yeah.

All right.

So if that's a special, is that a special call?

I mean, is that uh executive session to discuss that?

Um as I'm loath to say that.

I mean, we do have a red cover on this.

Um we can vote without because we've only got one applicant if I it's two applicants.

I missed somebody, I'm sorry.

We held this uh open, so it's been you know continually advertised.

We've received a two application.

Well, because I'm having more than enough fun tonight.

I'd like to make a motion that we move this forward to the agenda work session for consideration, and we can have the executive session that night.

Would as we're three and a half hours in.

Would you would you want the individuals at that meeting, or do you want to just uh talk about them at that meeting and decide I'm okay looking at the resume I am too?

I feel good about the resumes.

If we have questions, should I for us to call Oh, of course, please call.

That's what I like calling.

With these recommendations from council these are applicants.

Right.

It'd be an actual appointment by council, but these are just people that are.

These are just people who said, hey, I want to do this.

Yeah.

No, I've just asked it to council.

I don't know either.

No, I don't.

Well, I don't, but we're contacted because they seem to have some interest, or your organization seemed to have some interest.

I feel like a recognized names.

So we've got a motion to move it to the agenda work session.

And we've got a second.

Any other discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor.

It's 3-0.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Jason.

3-0 and Jason.

So we're moving to agenda work session.

Okay.

We don't need an interview, no.

We'll go by um.

But again, if you want to call these people, I believe their numbers are there.

Feel free to call and talk away.

Next item of business is the workers' compensation excess and fiduciary insurance rent.

And we would like to ask that that be moved to Monday and give a presentation.

I make a motion to move this to the agenda work session on the 10th of August.

Second got a motion and second, any discussion.

Are you voting yes or do you want to discuss?

No, no.

No discussion.

Okay.

Yep.

So I yep, we're good.

3-0.

Going to agenda work session.

With nothing else coming before personnel, we are adjourned.

All right.

Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from June 23rd?

Second.

Do we have a motion?

Yeah.

Okay, I didn't hear that.

Motion second.

All in favor.

All right.

2009 park, 2009 parks bond report.

Okay.

All right, good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

So this is the first of two park spot items on the agenda.

So this item will cover the current current park spond projects.

And then the next item will cover remaining park bond uh funds and a consideration of what to do with those.

Uh for the report, uh, since the June committee report, uh interest earnings were accredited in the amount of $343.72.

Uh as such, uh $78,634.80 is available for uh future appropriations.

Uh for uh Larry Sabinsky Park, uh the last item for that uh part to be completed are the lights on the walking trail, and so we are working with uh BLW to complete that.

Um we have received the uh the second reimbursement from land the uh of the land of water conservation fund grant uh for the project.

So outstanding is the final 10 percent or 50,000, and uh that will be received once the National Park Service closes out the uh uh the grant on their side.

Um at Ayleburst Park, Nature Park, we've begun begun the process of replacing the damaged drain pipe uh along the primary maintenance road, and as I mentioned previously, that will be replaced with a bridge.

Um and just want to mention two projects that are not uh parks bond projects, but uh projects that we've done to improve our parks.

Uh first is uh we've replaced one of the bridges at Laurel Park, um, and that that project has been completed, and then uh second uh voted on uh in a previous meeting.

Uh Andrew Reed, the artist that painted the mural at the Elizabeth Porter Park has come and completed uh the restoration of the mural and did a nice job with that.

Yes, sir.

And then uh Ms.

Chairman, that uh this report is presented as informational and requires no additional action.

Thank you.

Next up we have uh Kirby Park playground submitted by Councilman Richardson.

Um again, all I'm looking at is that all of our park parts, not our specialty parts, we have some specialty parts, but all of our park parks have a play structure with the exception of Kirby Park.

And that was because when we got Kirby Park, we did it as a land swap.

And so we received it, we didn't have money to support it.

Um so I am trying to use this money to put a playground structure into Kirby Park.

Uh because it is very needed, it's a neighborhood park, and there is only um what's that game that Florida likes?

Uh bocce ibachi ball.

There's only a bocce ball, which isn't really for kids, and we have a good number of kids and grandkids in that area.

So I would like to have this money for Kirby Park to put in a place structure.

Okay, so we have 2,009 parks money of 78 and 634, right?

What is a place structure cost?

And what else do you have allocated?

So let me I can if you look at your the memo, I can I can talk through the money that's left, and if we were to rebalance uh to give money to the Warzone project, what that would look like.

Um so the column to the left it says current.

Uh we have a total of 342,186 and 70 cents uh in current uh parks bond uh funds.

Uh the next column is the uh expenses and project and and process.

So uh Ayleburst Nature Park was which is something that's in progress.

Uh Larry Siminski Park, just the final expenses that um uh we're just they're completed, but but we're uh we're we're just waiting on the invoice uh to process that, but that's the total amount for that.

Um for Wildwood Park, uh mentioned in our previous meeting.

Uh after that it was closed out, we received an additional invoice for $600.

So that will take care of that uh invoice on there.

Um so you see, and then you see the uh the projected minus the expenses if we uh that the minus expenses is 200 290,000 dollars uh five hundred two hundred and ninety five hundred fifty-six dollars and uh one cent.

Um if you were to rebalance the remaining funds to go to Kirby Park, uh there would be uh funds remaining for Atherton Square for that was previously approved to spend for historical projects uh within that park.

Um Glover Park, which was previously approved to spend for uh brick repair and and uh replacement and that type of thing.

Um that would leave 112, uh 397 and 46 cents uh to work for uh for Kirby Park towards a uh a playground on that property.

Um and we are prepared tonight if uh with a discussion on um what that could look like, uh cost and that type of thing.

So we can discuss it in this meeting.

If you'd rather meet outside of this meeting and discuss that, uh we can do that as well.

Yeah, would the next step be for you to come up with some proposals for what the playground play searches would look like?

We do have that.

We can and we could present that now, or we could pres we can meet individually with miss with uh council member Richardson, make sure she feels comfortable with it before we uh the numbers on there before we presented it.

So um do that.

I'm good to do that.

Okay, she'll meet with you.

Okay.

Okay, but we do have Rich has it ready, we we've got that ready to meet whenever you're ready on there.

And we do we do have numbers as to what it would be.

We only have 17 minutes left.

Okay.

All right.

Um so uh if really the uh the uh the action of the motion would be to re to rebalance um if you chose to do that uh based on the column to the right.

Um does everyone feel about that parks committee first.

I'm okay with that.

Okay.

Any other council members on the rebalancing?

I'm question that Cheryl puts money up out of her uh allocation to match it.

Well, the biggest problem that we have is that splots can only be used for certain things, and I can't really do that, but if I could I would he has a road he wants to.

Yeah, I got a bridge too, so we have a bridge coming up later.

Okay, all right.

Someone want to make the motion.

Um I'll make a motion that we um rebalance the um the budget for what is the 2009 uh parks fund funding?

Is that it?

Yeah, as presented as presented.

Second, second.

We have a motion second.

I'll wait.

Sorry, there is no discussion.

Okay, ahead of myself.

It's three people, not seven.

Eight.

All right, all in favor.

We have K for consent.

No objection.

No objection.

Okay.

Uh-huh.

Where's it going?

Agenda work session.

Uh new big meeting.

I thought it was August.

So I'll consented be the full meeting.

Full meeting.

Okay.

August as well.

All right, next up.

Harvest Vest additional street closure.

Okay.

Um scroll to disclosed the um myself, members of my family own property and entities owned by them, or it's a combination thereof, own property in downtown Mariota.

Area.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So this is request by staff to close additional streets for Harvest Fest on Saturday, October 17th.

Uh so uh street clos street closures were previously approved for Harvest Fest uh by council in February.

Um the closures are approved were a level two closure.

So in your packet, uh you see uh uh diagram maybe a level two closure uh as to what that look at as what that looks like.

That was that's what was approved at the February meeting.

Um those streets will close at 5 a.m.

and reopen at 8 o'clock p.m.

that that same day.

Um the day of the event includes uh a touch a truck activity on East Park Square.

Um so our touch of truck is an opportunity for kids to experience city vehicles such as fire trucks, police cars, sanitation trucks, dump dump trucks, things like that.

Um so that is not an all-day at it's not an all-day activity.

Uh generally that runs from 10 a.m.

to two uh two p.m.

Uh and when uh that activity is not uh going on uh there is uh empty space on uh East Park Square.

Um so uh staff is proposing to move the uh touch a truck activity to South Park Square instead.

Um that would open up uh East Park Square for with the absence of that for additional arts and crafts uh vendors with the events.

Um and so in addition to what we have already on uh North Park Square, this would accommodate up to 53 additional vendors uh for the city, and so at $100 a vendor, uh we would have an opportunity to generate an additional five thousand three hundred dollars uh in revenue uh through the event with that move.

Um so it caught to accommodate those changes.

Uh staff is requesting to move from a level two street closure uh which is in your packet to a level street, a level three street closure, uh, which is also included in your in your packet.

Um West Park Square would remain open uh during the event for traffic.

Um so this time staff would request a motion to approve the additional street closures of South Park of South Park Square, uh portions of Atlanta Street from Anderson to the Square, Roswell Street, uh Wadall to the Square and Winter Street and Anderson to the Square at 5 a.m.

to reopen at 3 o'clock p.m.

on Saturday, October 17th for the 2006 2026 Harvest Fest.

Thank you.

Questions from the committee first.

Being none, questions from council.

All right, seeing none, do we have a motion to approve?

Make a motion to approve this request as written.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second, all in favor.

3 0.

Next up.

Art in the park light post.

Consent.

Sorry, consent.

All right.

Ms.

Chairman, the uh next item.

Uh the Marietta Biddness Business Association is requesting the placement of art in the park light post banners around the Marietta Square to promote uh the Art in the Park event from August 19th through September the 8th.

Uh the placement of light post banners was approved by council uh last year for the 2025 Art and Park.

Uh an image of the banner is in your packet.

Uh, that is the same banner that was approved last year, so that is that is unchanged for this year.

Uh these banners would be placed in alternating locations uh similar to what we did with the FIFA World Cup banners, and so that will allow us to also to continue to uh uh have the uh 250 American banners allow those uh to remain in place.

Um so at this time, staff would recommend a motion to approve the placement of art in the park lightbow spanners uh around the square from August 19th through September 8th.

Thank you.

No, I was gonna make a motion.

Make a motion.

Uh motion to approve as presented for the arts and the light in the park light post banners.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor.

No objection.

All right.

City club.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Um so uh uh for city club renewal uh council approved a four-year independent contractor agreement uh in on uh June 8th, 2022 with uh classic golf management to operate the city club.

The 2022 agreement has a termination date of September 30th, 2026, and provides uh two additional terms of two additional terms of four years uh with the consent of both parties.

Um both parties, the city and this uh classic golf management have interest in exercising the first renewal uh of this agreement.

Uh this first uh modification agreement would extend the agreement to September 30th uh 2030.

Um with us this evening is uh Ken Dixon with Classic Golf Management, so he's available for questions.

Uh Classic Golf Management has operated the city club since the course's inception in 1991.

So they've been with us for a long time.

Um since the 2022 agreement was approved, classic golf management management has increased revenue, manage expenses below the budgeted amount, and exceeded the budgeted net amount uh at the city club each year over the over that four-year period.

Um over those four years, classic golf management has exceeded the budgeted net amount uh by combined total of over 1.5 million dollars.

So they have they've generated an additional 1.5 million dollars above the uh the budget and net amounts.

Um so in addition to the strong financials, the course has been mute uh beautifully maintained uh over that time.

Again, uh Ken Dixon with Classic Golf Management is here uh with us tonight if you have any questions um for him.

Um if no questions uh at this time staff would recommend a motion to approve the first modification to the independent contractor agreement with classic golf management uh extending the term for operations of the city club until September 30th uh 2023.

And I'll just uh point out that Mr.

Haney has uh had an opportunity to review the uh first modification.

I'm sorry, 2030, yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

And I will say there is a clause in the contract already that says that it has to be reapproved basically by the new council, the new council takes over.

So it can't continue past that without their approval.

Correct.

And really quickly, the modification doesn't change that requirement, correct, Mr.

White.

Correct.

Yes.

If it's not modifying that, I mean uh yes.

Doug has looked at it and he that was his opinion.

So I have a question.

When it says FY26 does not include finalized period 13.

What is period 13?

Um so once the month of once June 30th ends, any final uh revenue or expenses to come in through this to the city.

We have a period of 13 just for final kind of past the June 30th for anything that comes in.

This it doesn't reflect those numbers, so we don't have those.

We didn't have also for the auditors changes in the further questions.

All right, motion to approve.

Um I'll make a motion um to approve this contract renewal agreement as written.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Yep, second motion properly seconded.

All in favor, agree.

Are we okay for consent?

Yes.

Yes.

I remembered that time.

I knew you would.

What do we have next?

Sorry, I lost my customer.

Brought up by Mr.

Anderson.

It's your turn.

Um, well, thank you.

I think Mr.

Black has got more phone calls and emails on Custer Park from lacrosse moms than I have.

Um but what we have we have a group in City of Marietta, it's all Marietta kids.

It's kind of a feeder program.

So it's you know, kindergarten through eighth grade of Marietta lacrosse, and they don't have a home.

Um they've been renting um pretty much wherever is available.

That includes Mount Perrin, the Marida High School, um, Northcut, literally wherever they can.

So, you know, the perks department has done a great job of you know accommodating for them and letting them use the part when it's available, but their issues are come down to the city's uh reservation policy about the three uses per permit per team, not to exceed one use per week, and the renewal and all that.

I mean, Mr.

Blight knows more than I do.

So, what they're requesting is that to have a you know, like a fall schedule and use it for fall practices during the evenings a couple nights a week, and then to also be able to host games there against other um schools and cities that are part of this kind of youth lacrosse league, is figure out how we can get the fields into a rental program similar to how we use it on Franklin Gateway Park.

Um that's kind of uh again Mr.

Blight knows more about this and has been dealing with these people for longer than I have.

But that but that's kind of the proposals figure out what we can do to get um that satisfied to where we can rent it more long term to balance a schedule, make these schedules and use it for the weekends also and figure out how we can do that um for different age groups and the boys and the girls all within the Marietta, the Mac Lacks program here in the city.

Okay.

Um I'll just I'll just share some information on it.

So that um just in your memo, just I really just you have a brief history of the operations of the of the facility.

Um in uh September 2025, uh the city uh took back um operations of the of the uh of the facility from the YMCA who had operated that for a number of years.

Um we opened up as a city park uh with uh with two rentable fields, and so we have other uh parks that have rentable fields.

Uh we have Lewis Park that has a baseball field, and then also Tumlin Park that has uh athletics fields, and so we had a rental policy established for those uh for those fields already.

We took that uh rental policy and and just applied it to the Custer Park um sports complex.

So a copy of that uh rental policies in your packets.

Um and so is uh Councilmember Anderson mentioned uh the policy includes the organizations or individuals can reserve up to uh three dates uh once per week, and so they can uh rent during the week.

We also have opportunities on the weekends.

Uh we do allow um practices and games um at that facility.

Um if organizations uh have more than one team, they can reserve um up to three dates per team once per week.

So essentially um uh we we allow them three rentals so they can rent three dates at a time per team uh once per week.

Um and then after that second rental, they're allowed to uh to request three more dates.

And so the reason we've done this is to just make it fair to all the organizations and individuals in the community that want to rent it, um, so that one organization does does not tie up um every single rental date.

So that's that's the reason why we why we have have done that.

Um so I will point out that since we uh started reservations there in 20 in September 2025, uh we've had 23 uh different organizations um or individuals who've made reservations at that um at that facility uh for a variety of reasons.

I've got them uh listed in your memo, uh birthday parties, business picnics, business team building, church field day, flag football, football, lacrosse, soccer, spike ball, track and field, and ultimate frisbee.

Um and so we worked have worked to accommodate as many groups as we can uh with that.

Um lacrosse has uh um uh has been granted 55% of the of the rentals that we've that we've done out of that facility.

Um anyway, so that's that's our policy.

That's why we've done it.

We've just again our we want to make it fair so that everybody in the community can has an opportunity to use those fields if they want to, and that's our policy.

So and we're you know council wants to change the policy, then we will certainly follow council direction on that.

Yes, sir.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go check.

I'm done.

I'm just go ahead.

Give me a sense of how often Custer is booked up if they're hurt, just um market.

It's it's seasonal.

So so during parts of the year it's rented every single night.

So we have we have teams that practice that are practicing out there.

Um lacrosse and soccer tend to run on different cycles.

So we have um and so and so does football.

So we have different groups out there at different times of the year.

So on average, um, when we're busy, both fields are rented at least three nights, three nights a week.

And then on the weekends, we have groups out there out there playing games.

Um when the fields are not rented, it's open to the community.

Come out there and use it.

So we have fathers and sons, friends out there just playing pickup games, throwing a frisbee, throwing a football, and and that's what we've made that for.

So MacLaxis, two practices a week, and then matches on Saturday.

Matches on Saturday, and the city's been good, so they bounce around.

They've been using Mount Perrin.

Um when available, Franklin part, Franklin Gateway Park.

Um, but obviously there's you know, other institutions that have kind of the first rider refusal as far as soccer goes on those fields, but when it's available, they try to book that also.

Um so it's more about trying to morph into kind of the rental policy that we use on Franklin, just so we can establish a schedule and say, all right, this is gonna be our schedule, this is the day and the time we need this part, and well in advance to have a you know easier operating season.

Sure.

I also think this is a good economic development opportunity because I was one of those lacrosse dads who would go up to Mount Perrin and you're stuck, and you're not uh we can go down Bear Parkway, but who wants to fight that in the evening?

But I could definitely see a lot of folks patronize our square, get dinner.

Um I think it's opportunity to have weekend activities and make some economic impacts there.

Yeah, and like I said, it's it's more about you know bringing it up for discussion to figure out you know, hey, we need these two fields at this time on this date so they can make a schedule through the fall season.

Obviously, anytime they're not gonna use it, it's available for anybody else, like it always is.

But I know who is that some of the soccer that rents on Franklin.

Is it Top Hat of the girls?

They kind of contract with us, right?

We do it on a seasonal basis.

Correct.

And so uh we've got different groups and top hat is a big one, ISSA, um uh and so they'll do it where they're booking the season, so that way, like you said, they they know what they're gonna have.

Yeah, I guess that's really what they're kind of asking here for Custer Park on you know, one of the two fields is say, hey, we want to book it on these days times and these dates and these Saturdays for our season, so we can put an actual schedule together for that.

We can we can do that.

It really helps them with a lot of continuity, but also keep it open for other people at other times.

Like how bad does it hurt for us to I mean I want to help these people, but I don't want to hurt these people, so how do we look at the case?

Yeah, I think that's what it comes down to is not not using all you know both fields, the upper field and the lower field.

Um obviously not using the gymnasium or anything like that at all.

And you know, having that block of time like on Saturdays, it would just be you know, morning.

We could they could make their schedule, like all right, we'll be there from nine, a game from nine to ten, you know, 1015 to 1115 and be out of there by after lunch.

So if there was another group that wanted to come in the afternoon, it would be be available, and obviously the whole other field that they're not using would would be available.

So um, I mean kind of the same way that MacLax has to stand in line for availability on on Franklin.

They're just trying to get this to where they have a home base to establish a schedule for for the season.

Sound like this is something we actually need action on.

Is this something that too you should probably talk about?

Yeah, well, we we've talked about obviously, and it it has to come in front of the city.

So we just wanted to bring it up tonight to have a discussion about it to get everybody's thoughts and then kind of come up with an action plan to say, all right, if we have a group that wants to rent it for the city, you know, we don't need to give them a discounted rate, you know, make them pay full rate, they paid an arm and a leg to rent at Mount Perrin and everywhere else, you know.

So make it financially benefit for both the city and our parks department, but also you know, uh benefit for Maclax, where it's nothing but you know City of Marietta residents trying to use one of our parks for you know um a season.

Yeah.

In the school system, this is a rapidly popular sport growing hypothesis.

That's right.

And so now obviously in the fall, you have to compete with um seventh grade, eighth grade football, JV high school, and then the whole my FL, which pretty much takes over um Northcutt Stadium and the high school, um all the fields out there.

Um and so it's it's they're literally kind of the bottom of the the food chain, go wherever they can.

And some of that's Mount Perrin.

So, you know, why are Marietta residents paying money to rent a field at Mount Perrin when we could do it here in the city for to benefit all of us?

So I don't know what's the next step is.

Obviously, you know Eric and I we've talked about it, but we just need to discuss it as a council and figure out the best way to move that forward to more of a seasonal rental, like we do on Franklin Gateway.

Any other suggestions from council members?

Mayor.

You remember what the regional restriction was from Mr.

Custer?

Wasn't it just for it's my play baseball?

It basically it was for sports.

We finally got it down to that point.

Uh but yeah, it was before it was a baseball field and uh and there was a restriction on the property, and then when we were gonna convert it over, we had to make sure that what we were doing was gonna be appropriate within that deed.

And uh it said sports, it was broad enough so we can incorporate any sport with it, but we couldn't sell it and we couldn't uh you know put something else on it that's like a Mr.

Custer knew what he was doing.

Yeah, sorry.

But really, it plays into this.

I mean, to me, it's well, I have some hesitation, but I mean, who is the we I mean, do we have a right to say you had to be a Marietta resident?

No, and I don't think you're asking for that.

It just happens to be that MacLax is at least 99% city of Marietta.

Um, we're just trying to find out.

Yeah, so you're talking about a Pacific organization.

Correct.

It has the Marietta nexus.

That's right.

Okay.

But we got out traded into 489.

We have to share our parks without fees.

We just have to charge the same fees.

It's charge same fees between county residents.

But I guess I think they were talking about discrimination between right.

So you can't treat county people different than the city.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

But but I meant it's just part of the equation, I'm not sure.

I'm for it.

I mean, especially Custer, it was can I remember when you put it in?

Great location.

Um I hit the power pole that one time.

That's true.

Can I offer a suggestion for this?

Sure.

Um we already have a we already have a policy theoretical for the Franklin Gateway side.

Um can we take a look and see what that looks like on a customer version or see or as you've seen from the discussion from Council Member Anderson, so we can get something kind of a more concrete before us in terms of what we're looking at.

I can so at Franklin Gateway we we accept uh reservations for practices quarterly.

So you can resign you could rent uh for three months at a time for your for practices uh for games and tournaments.

Uh you can reserve up to one year in advance on that.

We don't, and there's we try to balance the the teams at Franklin Gateway um just to make sure that in general uh a team will get two practices a week just to make it to make it fair, but they can have all three fields of course during that during that time.

Um I will point out that the um the fields at Franklin Gateway are turf in the fields at Custer Parks Sports Complex are our grass and are really not designed to take the level of of um of rentals that Franklin Gateway is for what that's worth, but we we certainly want to accommodate as much as we can and and also offer a beautiful park for play on some.

I just want to just you're talking about using one of the two fields, yes, definitely getting one, and if the other one would be available, you know, they would try to get that.

But as far as like a seasonal type rental, they would use either the top or the bottom.

The bottom, okay.

And I believe the bottom one has lighting, or do they both have lights?

They both have lighting.

So it doesn't matter.

Either one.

So they could accommodate if a flag football team was gonna come in on a Tuesday night also or you know, they're playing lacrosse on Saturday morning, and an ultimate frisbee team wants to come in on Saturday afternoon.

There is this is not something they're taking over and gonna be there all day.

So there's what would be the overlapping sports with the lacrosse season?

Um well as I meant there's we've had 23 different organizations and individuals rent for different reasons.

I mean, there so it could be anything that may a family may want to throw a birthday party out there and and they would you know not have the opportunity for it.

Um so lacrosse has been our most most popular um sport uh out there.

I would uh football and uh ultimate frisbee have been our second most rentals out there and spike ball spike ball.

We had one rent for spike, we had a spite ball tournament.

What is it?

It's in a little circle, four people stand around it and it's like a beach game.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um do we have fields at ALBs Park?

No, not right now, we could put them in.

I'm sure I got the turf.

We can put some turkey up in the stadium.

I I'm just looking at what if there were other locations that would work for like spike ball.

Um we Tumlin Park has a field.

Uh we we do rent that one out.

Um it's usually small teams at your youth use youth practices is what we want there.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, use soccer is big, very big at Tumlin Park.

Okay.

Um especially in the fall and the spring, it's one of the most highest demand fields to get as far as you know, very young soccer trends.

And we've got Lewis, but it's you know different because it's set up like a softball.

Like a softball.

We we generally try to just reserve that for baseball or softball.

We do kick we let kickball and birthday parties in there too, but yeah, but in general.

When when we were leasing it to the Y, the Y had it the entire time because they had maintenance responsibilities also with it.

They pay the light, stuff like that.

Um, but they would sublet to other groups like lacrosse.

And so they would go they would allow folks to rent it for you know a season and do that.

They I know they had women's soccer, older soccer on Sundays, they would lease that out for the whole season.

Um they would do it for lacrosse and some other groups.

Yeah, MacLax is not trying to do that.

They're not trying to be a management company.

This is literally volunteer moms and dads trying to get practices and schedules together to accommodate for everybody.

I like it.

I mean, if I look at the total hours rented, 360 in a year.

That's correct.

Multiplication actually.

But anyway, so if you get it six hours a day just on Saturdays at 300 hours a year, so it seems to me there's a lot of weekend time that's not used throughout the whole schedule.

Um it's it's easily it correct.

I mean, it it depends on what's going on there, Tom here.

Um if during the summer there's there's not a lot of rentals because school's not in and the same during winter time.

So we just these numbers are just in September 2025.

Oh this sir.

When we took it over back over.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

So just moving forward, I would say if you know Eric and I could sit down together and look at the policies that we use for Franklin and come and kind of present something here to see if the council would be okay with adopting that, doing more of a seasonal lease for teams.

Obviously, number one is for MacLax, that is the who we're trying to accommodate for.

But if anybody else wants to do that in a season, but just look at those policies to where Custer could be more available to something like that, like we do for Franklin.

And then we'll come back to the next committee.

Good with me.

Goodbye on Mayor.

Thank you.

And I apologize for all the lacrosse moms.

You're good.

Can I ask just get you if we expand this also long term that we're we're we have a lot of people in there, a lot of sports now?

And then we have you know, I like think long-term Anderson Road would be a good place to convert you know, not fancy places, but fields.

Sure.

Sure.

There's no lack of demand for recreational systems.

We need more fields.

We got that property right next door to um lucky.

We need more fields.

And then the field or whatever that thing is, because it they use it for different things at Victory Park.

It really, I think was meant to be volleyball, and it's got a litter sand in it.

Yeah, you don't have the sand volleyball court.

Yeah, the sand volleyball court court.

And I know sometimes people go out there, but it's not used to CEO that could see the soccer volleyball out there a good bit.

It's volleyball, but it's you don't use your hands.

It's soccer, but um you think you could ever use your hands in soccer?

Well, I'm saying it's volleyball where you have to get the ball back and forth, but you know what I mean.

Yeah, we did tennis that way too.

I've got a lot of ball games for grandchildren, and I'll ride my periform.

And it's not being used.

I mean, that I'd love for us to rent that from the county for a dollar a year.

Where's this?

Civic Center.

By the old meeting of data general uh fairground street.

Yeah, some veterans more.

It's got two or three great fields.

Yeah, it does.

Yeah, and if you look in the city limits, yeah, long term.

Look at Fair Oaks, what it used to be.

I mean, when we grew up, we had soccer, football, tennis, everything.

I know that's a county part, but that would be something you know.

If we could get some kind of a lease agreement with the county, that would be a fantastic spot to put some more rec fields, and it's right here in our backyard.

Everything is over there at Fair Oaks.

I love that place.

Yeah, they should be to control the environment too within the city side.

That's right.

But thank you.

Thank you for helping.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

The parks committee is adjourned.

All right, I call the economic community development committee.

Um first order is to um make a motion to approve the minutes from May 26, 2026.

Second, and moved and property second.

All in favor.

Motion passes uh 3-0 chair, uh before we get to this next time I'd like to disclose that I'm an employee of the Department of Community Affairs, and as such, I need to recuse myself from discussion and voting on this next item.

Okay, thank you.

So it's just you and me, Andre.

Just us.

All right, guys.

Georgia rehouse program, Emanuel Village.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh as we have already discussed, uh, the Emanuels Village application through the state housing trust fund was submitted back in May.

The council gave approval for that with an MOU in June.

We received feedback from DCA that the project was not selected, but it did score high, and the missing element on that application was noted as lack of local government investment in the project.

I did have the opportunity to speak directly with DCA staff to get feedback on the application.

And there are some items presented in the memo for possible options that would um qualify for that material partnership.

Those are inclusion of a portion of my time as a dedicated assistance if the grant is funded, a contribution of funding as well as an agreement between the city and passion with purpose to float the funds for construction that would be paid back whenever passion with purpose was reimbursed through DCA.

In addition, I think councilman Waters wanted to have a discussion on the possible use of opioid abatement funds.

Correct.

Oh go ahead.

Looking at the options they're presented, and I also know there's a chain uh change in law with the 21st century Road to Housing Act and the C D BG for something in the future on some of the stuff.

I know we've already I know we can't tap into that now, but something for the future.

Um with regards to the first two this being a pro this being a project and stuff like that.

I'm a bit worried that the contribution funding, for example, that would run afoul of the gratuities clause unless we're getting some kind of benefit or some kind of service back from it.

So with the opioid settlement, I'm going to guess there's some ties to it.

And with the final one, there's a a loan floated that comes back to us.

So I guess we're still making our money back.

Yeah, the there would be an agreement that they would be responsible for repayment whether they were reimbursed from DCA or not.

But but those first two, I'm not uh need to make sure we're not running a foul of the gratuities clause, though, because we can't just that's where that concern comes from.

Um for the opioid funds, what would be the are there any conditions that come along with that the use of those funds?

Yeah, we uh just to remind everybody we've got close to 300,000 uh that we've got in that account.

We get a little bit of money depending on uh what's going on with those settlements uh that comes in.

So I'm not saying 300,000 is gonna be the last money we get, but we probably will get some more funds going forward.

Um yeah, we would have to tie it in somehow to uh opioid education, probably uh and uh have some kind of an agreement with uh some serve, you know, that they would have a service provider that would come in and do some kind of ongoing training with the families uh that would deal with opioid abuse, and I think that would help us qualify.

And it seemed like Kelsey from when we and I talked, um the opioid settlement.

We've done the research.

It does work.

As long as it's tied to a directly to programming for prevention, so it's tied to programming for programming.

That would need to be in the MOG.

There's no gratuities clause issue with that.

And as far as what you and I understand, is it will fit for the grant.

Correct.

So to me, that's the path of least resistance without doing anything else.

And does the Emanuels Village the uh the applic the uh can't speak anymore.

Applicant understand the requirements regarding the program that they would then have to provide as part of this.

And are they okay with it?

Do they understand it all?

Yes.

They they are in full agreement to provide the programming if it's tied to it and to meet any requirements for the funding.

You could do that with an MOU just like we did earlier.

And we already have one from the previous round.

We could I could bring that back for the agenda work session with the new language.

I would suggest that, just so we can get something to look at concretely with the full council.

And it would need to be voted on and approved before the submission.

They do not have to do the pre-application process because they have already done that, but they would obviously need approval for the new MOU and to submit a new application with our name as a co-application.

Okay.

And to explain the importance of this, I think it's our application is what one or their application co-application, right?

1.8 million dollars, is that right?

Right.

I mean, that takes this project from struggling to infrastructure is getting paid for by the state, and we give the $50,000 with open money.

So then I'm not trying to kill this, I'm trying to make sure that everything's being followed, eyes dotted, um, I's dotted T's crossed, because I won we want to try and find a way that we can support this.

So that's the reason why I was even looking while I was thinking through CDBG as a possibility with the new law that passed this past month or earlier this month.

So I was I'm I was also trying to figure out some other sort other possible sources in case for some reason this didn't work out.

So that that's all I was trying to say.

Keep an eye on the stuff.

We'll put probably I'll probably make a motion to put put this forward to the agenda work session, and that is my motion.

And y'all come back with the MOU and right now, assuming that this is the funds being used and all the correct programming put in the MOU to explains what how to proper how to properly use those funds.

Okay.

And just to clarify, that's the only of the three options.

Uh I'm not sure the other two options.

We can't provide we can provide this is the direct, this is as close as we can get to direct funding on the stuff.

The other stuff, providing time debatable, I guess, Bill.

I mean, if we're putting it in the must mo you, it just the same.

Yeah, it uh right.

Just those were stuff that's or we're already doing in the community though that they're claiming is that kind versus what are the other things you referring to, Joseph?

Well, uh the other two that they're proposing is some version of contribution of funding to something, which we can't do direct contribution of funding outside of the unless it's a federal funding or some other limited fund that goes above and beyond our requirements of basically it has to override the gratuities clause of the state constitution.

Yeah.

So the opioid settlement is something in the because it's we're providing a service on our behalf.

And C D B G is federal funds, that's something that has its own requirements we have to follow.

So those federal funds, it's federal funds can generally overwhelm this also why ARPA funds could work back uh when we still had ARPA funds.

Um for the stuff necessary too.

I mean, this is a partnership.

I mean we're not contributing, we're we're participating in the project.

You're putting up one point eight, we're we're putting up 50,000.

No, no, I'm saying I'm saying the opioid thing works on that.

So just I think it does, and just make a motion.

I made a motion.

Agenda, I told agenda work session so we can get the language done.

Okay, was it seconded?

The only other committee member is the chair right now.

Well, yeah, I'll second that, but let me second Mr.

Goshen.

Any other questions that any other council members?

I have one question.

I just want to make sure this is enough.

That's my only concern.

Because I want us to get the money and I want this project to happen.

That's it.

And if there's another pot of money that we need to use or other kind of resources we need to document, or this needs to be a hundred and not fifty.

I just want to make sure we do enough to win the one to win the deal.

Kind of to Jason's point, can we document time with the police department since we're the um school resource officers?

Since these are kids that will be married at a student whose families are currently on house living in a manual village.

Um does the time spent with our SROs count as community outreach.

I think you could count that the same way we were talking about but with must.

So it would be part money, and also I think we need to look at time to kind of so we're kind of to the mayor's point.

This is a partnership, and we're not just saying money, but we're saying that you know we also have our SROs, and we kind of know what that is because we just did that current contract.

Right.

Um, and throw in Barney.

Seriously, because that's just another part of it, and we don't hundred percent fund that, but that's even more contribution.

And and to Kelsey's point, I mean, probably could count some of her time also that she spent on it.

They did recommend that.

So I think we ought to do that to Jason, kind of to your point, kind of upping what our contribution is.

It's not just the 50,000, it's also we've got we've got time, just our SROs at all of our schools.

Can I go back to one more question?

You mentioned your time.

I want to know how that works.

And then you mentioned floating money, and I'm not sure exactly what that meant.

So DCA recommended saying that I would be available for technical assistance throughout the process.

So if they were awarded funding and just to make sure from the cities in that everything was done correctly, and that's a protection for us as well.

But to just we didn't have to put a value to it, but just to document it in the MOU that if assistance was requested, I would be available to do that.

Okay, in order to apply, DCA has to consider us a partner, and so and that solves the problem.

I think because we are a partner in the project, and so that makes some sense for us to be able to document the time that strengthens that.

That's kind that yeah, if we're having to monitor the grant, that's part of it.

Then yes, that's to that's time spent, and that's the thing we have to do.

Yeah.

What about the floating of the money?

What did that mean?

That's uh kind of an internal loan.

Um we would where we would uh we would act as the cash pool for them so that they would move forward while they're waiting for the reimbursement of the money from DCA.

So they would apply, get approved, but they would have to spend the money up front and then get reimbursed, and so then they would use the city as the bank, basically for that uh just so it's an unsecured loan where the repayment comes from the state.

From interest rates.

I know I know basically you have to charge a mark a market rate interest rate to get it to make sure it's not gratuity.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean the closest we've probably had to that would be you know something like uh when we had the weed and seed program.

Yes.

Um he was doing that.

We were having to we knew we were guaranteed we'd get a million dollars a year, and we had a budget that had been approved by the feds, but we had to go out there and spend the money, and then we and floated from our own funds, and then we would be reimbursed.

Right.

So it's talking about doing that for an external organization that we're partnered with.

Which is a bit different.

Uh we also floated to the conference.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

And because they're paying market rate, we did not violate any gratuities clause issues.

If we did that route.

Yeah, if they're paying with the other two options, I think it would be sufficient.

Okay.

So I think you know what they need to bring back for agenda work session if it passes.

Um other questions.

So our motion is to, you know, push that to the agenda work session and uh tighten up whatever needs to be tightened up, and then we'll vote on it.

Thank you.

All I'm sorry, all in favor.

That's just you and me.

That's the 2-0.

Thank you.

Come back, Daniel, come down.

All right.

That uh concludes uh economic community development.

I had to call the public works committee to order.

First item is the meeting minutes from June 23rd.

Hearing none, all in favor.

That's three zero.

Next item is the 2016 SPLOSS TIP summary.

Welcome, Mr.

Ducket.

Good evening, everyone.

Mr.

Chairman, yes.

So the only update I have on the 2016 SPLOST is the um Rottenwood Creek Trail.

The work has started.

They have begun work over near Life University and um getting started on the erosion control, getting those measures set up.

That's the 2016.

Thank you, Mr.

Duckett.

2022 SPLOSS tip summary.

2022.

The only updates I have on this one is the Franklin Gateway Bridge.

The contractor has been selected.

That's good.

The South Marietta Parkway and Waverley Way, the polls for that project are at the manufacturer, they're having to be manufactured, so we're waiting on that.

And the New Hope and Wylie Road project.

It is out to bid.

I did get an update later this afternoon that that contractor has been chosen for that project.

Yes.

And that's the um updates on the 2022, unless you have any other questions on that one.

I have no other questions.

Anyone else from council?