Now in the hands of our capable city clerk, Ms.

Lisa Carroll.

This is the pre-meeting of the Mobile City Council.

Tuesday, September the 30th.

We have appeals.

Request for a wave of the noise ordinance on October the 4th from 7 a.m.

until 10 p.m.

on Old Canal Street.

October the 18th, 10 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

on Adam Street.

October the 4th, 11 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

on Virginia Street.

November 15th, 11 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

on Virginia Street.

January 31st, 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

on Virginia Street.

October the 12th, 3 p.m.

until 9 p.m.

on Westminster Way.

Any issues, Councilman uh P and Carol Days.

Public hearing.

No issues.

Oh, no issue.

Okay.

Carol.

Public hearings.

Okay.

Today is the public hearing to consider rezoning property located at 813 Lakeside Drive from B3 and I1 to B3.

Public hearing to fix costs for demolition of structures at 2002 Good Street and 1416 O Shell Road.

That's not in my district.

Good street is district one.

Yeah.

Presentation of petitions and other communications to the council.

Carrie Lewis um Pride recognized Miss Juneteenth.

America Scholarship Queens.

Catherine Odom concerns about overages on city projects and glitches in city in recent elections.

Sabrina Mass change.

Ms.

Woods.

This concerns about overages on city projects.

I kind of can tell where this is starting to kind of come up based on some social media stuff.

Just for clarification, can we can we get just a real quick update where we are on the on the civic center as far as budget?

I mean, we are not over budget whatsoever.

No, council.

We are not over budget.

We are on budget right now.

On budget on time.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all I think we need to hear.

Heck, Josh.

I haven't seen those.

What?

Is there anything in particular or is it just a general comment?

I think it's just a I think it's just a rehash of some stuff that's occurred over the last six months.

I think there's a podcast out now.

There's so I just think it's a myriad of stuff just bubbling back up, but I do know that the primary thing of discussion, the primary topic discussion was the civic center being over budget from the get-go, which is not the case.

I mean, we we've we've taken care of that as a council as far as making sure you know everything that we've approved, everything we passed.

Uh it's yeah, it's just I think it's just uh I think there's there's some statements being made and people are taking it for gospel.

Yeah, I think maybe there is some confusion when they see other contracts being let along with what we're already doing, and they just add those up and decide that we're over.

Maybe okay.

Mr.

President, yes.

Um, Sam, can you um I know you say we're on time?

Can you just let the public know exactly where we at right now with the mobile arena?

Yeah, at the present moment we're erecting the structural steel.

Uh we're moving in a clockwise manner.

We've got the building divided into quadrants, but we've got uh probably about 30 percent of the structural steel erected already.

Uh and we're getting ready to start pouring some of the elevated slab concrete.

Uh so here in the next few weeks, you're gonna start seeing floors at the different levels in there.

Uh Mr.

President.

Yes, Sam.

When you say on time, we're talking about on time of delivery of what date approximately or certain.

January of 27th.

All right.

February 27th.

Look forward to it.

Okay.

Councilman Renel just worry about Martigras.

Madam Clerk.

Public hearing to fix um no Sabrina Mass.

Uh change of governance and welcome new council members and mayor.

Resolutions held over 21 1212, authorized contractor Kimley Horn and Associates for design of signalized intersection improvements citywide.

21 1213.

It's authorized and contractor Kimley Horn for design of signalized intersection improvements on OSHO Road.

081214 award item-based bid for medical oxygen for mobile fire and rescue.

081216 approved purchase order environmental systems research institute for annual renewal of software and support services for geographic information system.

For for pickup truck with dump body.

Approval purchase order to send some equipment for dump trailer for public services.

Authorized contract with Anderson Delaney for Racket Stringer Services.

Authorized contract with McCarron services for parking shuttle services for the cruise terminal.

And the questions, comments and one.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that we are up to speed on everything and all the agreements are in place.

No problems any longer with um pension.

Um everything good.

And the drivers are back driving.

Yes, ma'am.

Um specific to the drivers, we did speak with via transportation last week when we had the conversation.

I know Councilman Woods and I followed up on that.

There were only two drivers that were in discussion there.

And I believe that was some confusion or conversations between the union and transdev management as they were as they were going out.

We didn't experience anything that were substantive that will cause any disruptions.

Specific to the pension, you do have on your agenda today.

Item 34047.

Uh, I'm sorry, that's business license, my apologies.

Um, there's an item on the agenda for the adoption of the pension um program that we know.

We we're asking that the council suspend the rules and approve that as we discussed last week.

Um, I can go to the details of that with you, but obviously, pension um is important to the transit operators and to the employees.

They're going to be operational tomorrow, October 1, and we look forward to making sure that that is the final piece of the component to bring all those employees on board.

There was also a question about whether or not via was going to authorize um any sort of agreement or continuation of agreement with the union.

The job offer letters that the employees get specifically state that all um obligations specific to the union, unionized workers, and the labor agreement will be be adopted by excuse me, be adopted by via uh upon the employment of those employees.

Mr.

President, Mr.

Rose.

This this pension arrangement we have here.

Uh I mean it changing employer.

I mean, the the pension benefit would stop typically, and then a new retirement offering would be made, correct?

In a in a typical typically, yes, sir.

Okay, we're saying we're not gonna do that.

We're gonna continue to be obligated to pay the pension amount throughout the course of this employee's career.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, sir.

I don't understand why we're doing that.

So I'll ask last week.

No, I watched last week's we we can we can explain.

So in 2002, when we transitioned from the employees who were city employees for transit until and when we transitioned over to private, those employees have been members of the RSA retirement systems of Alabama during that transition.

The um decision was made that there'll be a defined benefit retirement plan that would be privately managed but funded in part by the city of Mobile.

That agreement has been in place since 2002 and existed throughout those employees' tenure.

As we get to via operates on a 401k.

Um, however, the operation of a 401k presents some complications as it relates to those ongoing employees.

They are um participants in that pension plan.

We also have retirees here on the pension plan with the agreement that was signed in 2002 that allow for really perpetual funding by the city into a defined benefit plan.

The city has no other obligation or opportunity except to continue participation in that plan.

Um, as we go forward, what we'll do is via transportation, their match that would have gone to the 401k will come to the city.

The employees deductions will come to the city, and the city will then remit those funds and a matching amount of funds to the independently managed defined benefit plan.

We will not be responsible for the management of the plan, any fiduciary responsibility for the plan, simply putting forth the match as we currently do today, and yes, or it would be in perpetuity.

So, what about new employees that are brought on that were not originally part of the 2002 agreement?

They would still be a part of the pension plan.

So why are we doing that?

I guess I don't understand that.

Why I mean, if if we're obligated to, I mean, we are obligated to those pensioners that we signed up to support and they agreed to work for the city of Mobile and Transit Service.

I mean, we have an obligation to them, but any new employee that wasn't a part of that agreement, they should be able to participate, say in a 401k program so that you eventually get to a point where the city is not obligated.

Yes, sir.

We agree.

The the hurdle with that is the agreement that was signed in 2002 that creates the pension plan that we have today is created in perpetuity.

We don't have the ability for those employees to not participate in that pension plan.

The pension plan itself is the City Mobile Transit Workers Pension Plan.

Period end of it.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, so period end of it.

That's correct.

That again, the transition was done in 2002.

The documents were signed by Mayor Mike Dowell, and that would have been a part of the standard customary transition.

Obviously, no one envisioned at the time that we would be 23 years later having this conversation today, but 23 years ago, that agreement was in fact exercised, and that's a part of the city's responsibility.

Yeah, but I'd say no nobody else envisioned that we'd have this great technology and this new company who is you know great at doing all this.

Nobody envisioned that either.

I just think that if if we're gonna make it a change to this plan going forward, now's the chance to do it rather than continuing to push down the road of you know, it's defined benefits plan that we're on the hook for forever.

Right.

Um, and and if the city of Mobile created that plan uh all those years ago, 23 years ago, then the city can undo or modify it today as well.

It's not like it's a mandate from the state.

Yeah, so with the language of the pension itself, when it was originally installed, um, the city did provide those funds as it's morphed over time, that the management of that plan and the distributions from the city have remained unchanged.

So as we go through this process, the union labor agreement clearly specifies that there would be agreements for the pension plan via transit would not be responsible for that.

There would still be a responsibility of the city to contribute some of those matching funds.

The contract itself, through the uh agreement with the pension and through via and through transdev, identify those costs as operational cost, and those costs are um required to be compensated by the city in all of those agreements.

We agree that it's not preferable.

That in a practical sense, there will be a way to transfer out or transition away from the defined benefit to the defined contribution.

We just simply don't have the legal capacity to make that transfer.

This is a legacy um transfer, it's a legacy pension plan of again, funded uh through the city by the employees, but we don't have the legal provision to go back and unwind that.

Um, we are not a decision maker in the pension plan at all, other than we are bound to provide that funding as a part of operational costs.

So, what you're saying is that the city council doesn't have the ability to pass an order or a resolution that says all pensioners we're gonna take responsibility for as we should here forward throughout the course of their life.

We but we but the city is handing off the responsibility of public transportation to this new operator where they're going to take care of it here forward, and we're gonna be obligated to paying $8 million a year for the terms that we laid out in the comments.

No, so no.

No, that's that's not exactly okay.

So, Ms.

President, um, Mr.

Reynolds' question and not only timely, but a really good question, right?

Um asking this question now at this date is is is key.

Uh everything Mr.

Collins said is 100% accurate.

Um, but out to the question, you all do have the power to be able to look at this and make a decision one way or another.

It it will be very complicated to do so.

Um, but you know, the the short question that you ask is do you have the power to do it?

Yes.

Do we have um a long-standing agreement that has been operational that is changing at this pivotal time?

Also, yes.

But the reason that we're asking you all to look at the amendment is to make sure the current employees are consistently made whole.

The reason for that is the federal funding that comes along with those um obligations that we've stepped into uh are intrinsically tied to it.

So, in order to have the ability for via or Transdev in the past to go after and seek those federal funds, we have to have this type of operation.

But back to Mr.

Reynolds' question is what does it look like if the employees who exist now and the retirees stay in the pension plan and new people going to a 401k?

That's a much more complicated answer.

Not one we can answer for you today, but we can definitely take a look at it and get you an answer on that.

So one of the implications of us passing this by consent today, uh, and subscribing to this old way.

I mean, undoing that you know, once they onboard all these new employees, just signs us up for a you know, a new group of pensioners.

So it's gonna be even more difficult to undo at that point.

So one caveat, it does not sign you up for a new group of pensioners.

These people are already pensioners, okay.

That's that's the distinction.

Everybody that's employed now.

If they hire somebody tomorrow, different question that is that was not part of trans dev or the city of Mobile previously, aren't they?

That's they now gonna be new pensioners to the plan.

That's a different question.

The answer is yes.

So the people who are going from trans dev to via now are current pensioners.

But to your question, secondary question is yes, somebody who's brand new who has not been a part of current employment coming on, that's creating a new pensioner.

Okay, uh, I I'm gonna withhold consent today.

I don't, I mean, there may be votes to pass this.

I'm not trying to just be disruptive to be disruptive, but I just think that this is not this is not the in the best interest of public transportation by us.

It's not gonna buy us any sense.

Yeah, we have six votes to pass it today.

Let's let's pass it.

Six focus.

We got six votes.

Let's go ahead and bring it up today.

You can vote against it.

Um, you know, in my mind, all I can remember remember is the police fire and pension fund.

You know, we have sort of the same quagmire that he's describing now with uh older firemen and policemen under the retirement plan of the old pension with the new ones under RSA.

I mean, is that right?

Correct.

It's not that it's still under, but we don't the insurance is different, and we don't want to create uh that type of atmosphere.

I wouldn't want to see that credit again.

So I think that we need to just go ahead and push this along today.

I mean, I think we have the votes to do it.

I think we've been through it and we've heard all the details.

I think we have the best possible solution.

So let's move forward.

Yes, president.

We we discussed it last week when we had the same questions about wouldn't you employees go into the 401k?

And so we went round and round with the same questions.

Another issue that Scott had brought up would be two plans going on at the same time, which is difficult to manage.

So that was another issue.

But even if after some years we change management companies again, the same pension plan would be the same, it would roll over into the new company, and we would we would be bound by the same laws and policies that we instituted years ago.

Wouldn't put Mayor Dow signed the pension plan agreement.

So that wouldn't change.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, that is correct.

Also, the pension plan is self-managed, the transit workers' pension.

So um dissimilarly from the police and fire pension fund, which the city has some obligation to, the city of Mobile in this instance is only um funding an employee match.

That's correct.

There is no Ford um obligation of the city to make up any shortfall, unfunded liability or other thing, all of those things are managed by the transit pension trust.

Right.

Mr.

Days and Mr.

Penn.

Uh Mr.

Penn.

No, I just want to say I I agree with my colleagues, um, Councilman Carroll Days and Gregory.

We shouldn't hold this over for a week, it's not gonna hold anything.

The votes is here is gonna, I mean, you can vote it down if you decide to, but um, when you look at the situation from a legal perspective from moving forward from the standpoint of having two different plans that's gonna create an issue, and at the same time, you want workers that are happy.

You want workers that are that has a desire to come to work and do their job.

This is the best way to move forward.

October the first is is when October the first day is tomorrow.

Tomorrow, let's move forward.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um not just be disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.

But I I will vote to waive the rules, but uh I'm just gonna I'd like to reserve the right to vote.

No, that's fine, Mr.

President.

Uh Ms.

Woods, um, I fully agree with you.

Uh I'm with you on there.

Um, and uh, but I in this situation, this is uh this is what what they were agree.

This is historically what's happened.

This is when they they signed the job offer, this is what what they got.

Um is a pension plan, the pension plan's dated.

I mean, is it um is it better than a 401k?

I mean, you know, that's I have my own personal opinion on that, but I think this is um I agree with exactly what you're saying.

But um, I think in this instance, this is this is what they what they've agreed to provide and part of their employment.

And and um, you do need if you were to transition the new employees over to a 401k style with a match, you know.

I think you'd end up with a shortfall at some point, maybe not five years, maybe not fifty uh ten years, but at some point I think because they're not they're no longer contributing to the to the the pension, the payout.

I I think you'd eventually find a shortfall somewhere.

So I'm unf uh, you know, is this the best structure?

Nah, you know, that's debatable, but I I think we we have to continue the way it is.

Yeah, I just want to uh feed back on what councilman Woods said.

Uh you know, defined benefit pension plans are on the way out, have been on the way out for some time.

And from the employer's perspective, they're not the best way to provide a retirement benefit for employees.

However, we have we have the votes to pass this.

We don't have the votes to pass something other than this.

And so the best thing for us to do right now is move ahead and pass this.

And just one more thing.

There's nothing that says that years down the road, we might not work with them to change it to when you employees come in.

We would change it to a 401k.

Just not right now, not today, not with the deadline that we're under.

I do have a question about just make sure I understand this eight million dollar commitment that we're making by way of the via contract.

Are we saying that a portion of that eight million dollars is going to cover our pension obligation to these pensioners?

Uh so we walk us through where that is.

This will this will result to the city in a net increase of a little over the eight million dollars, assuming we spend all of those dollars.

And we described this a bit last week, and I'll kind of walk us through that again.

Currently, the employees contribute five percent of their pay gross to the pension plan.

The city, if this was an RSA pension plan, we currently match about 13% in employee pay to RSA, 16.5% in employee pay to the police and fire pension fund.

In this instance, via transportation contributes up to 2% of 100% of the employees' pay to a 401k system if they were on a 401k.

So in this instance, that 2% will come to the city, the employees 5% will come to the city.

The city will then write a check to the pension for all of that.

The net cost we think to the city today, obviously, there's some working to go through.

We think that's going to be roughly $300,000.

The pension last year on the police and fire pension trust the report, we have the audit from June 30th, 24.

The net um distributions of the pension were roughly 1.6 million dollars against holdings of just over 20 million dollars.

So the pension is relatively whole.

Um, we don't see anything coming back from that.

The employees contributed 267,000 of that.

The employer contributed 600,000 of that, less the two percent that via would contribute.

So we believe as of today that our contribu our contribution is going to be about 300,000.

Um again, we all agree that this isn't preferred.

There were if there were ways that we could transition, it just feels that the transition of this would be more problematic and ultimately more cost um we're just really in a higher cost to the city if the pension were to not be fully funded operationally, and we got into the same process again.

Um so we're kind of stuck in what's kind of the best bad decision we can make as if there's a bad decision.

And this seems to be the best decision on behalf of the pensioners, the transit system, and the city who are ultimately paying paying the cost.

Yes, sir.

All right.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Sky.

Yes, sir.

Madam Clerk.

Ordinance is being introduced.

34047 ordinance to levy a local excise tax and require business licenses for the sale of consumable consumable vapor products in the corporate limits and police jurisdiction of the city of Mobile.

Yeah, also to weigh the rules.

Yeah, Ms.

President, yeah, can I can you kind of give up talk about exactly what this ordinance presents?

Yes, sir.

So the Alabama legislature earlier this year um adopted legislation that would increase the tax on um vaping products at a at an amount of 10 cents per milliliter sold.

Um that law states that that 10 cents will go into effect on October 1 of 2026.

The law also provides that municipalities has the have the ability to go in and adopt that same or higher um taxation on vaping products, and it would also be in effect October 1, 2026.

And it would also be in effect October 1, 2026.

That legislation requires that if municipalities enact their own ordinance to do this, then that must be done on or before October 1 of 2025.

We don't like the language of that.

Obviously, this has been pushed out fairly quickly, but it is a language that was adopted in the legislation, of which I have a copy here.

The difficulty for the cities in this, and I believe as of last week, there are maybe five cities that had adopted this local legislation or local act via ordinance.

Under the Alabama Act, if the state of Alabama collects these funds on behalf of the cities, they will redistribute those funds similar to the manner in which they redistribute SSUT, the specified sellers use tax.

Obviously, cities across the state believe that they receive lower amounts of money to them based on SSUT than what is collected in the municipality.

So it's in the best interest of the city if we adopt this ordinance on ourselves, we manage the ordinance ourselves, enforce the ordinance of ourselves by ourselves, then we get to keep 100% of the 10 cents per milliliter rather than it going to the state and the state redistributing those funds at a lower rate.

Um this is not something that the city has proposed.

This is not something that we've brought to the city council as a preference to adopt on its own.

It's just an opportunity for the city to manage its own revenue revenue source and make sure that we see the greatest benefit of this if there's going to be a financial benefit.

So if we don't approve this today, what happens?

If we don't approve this today under the under the act, then this no municipality in the state, including the City Mobile, would be able to go and increase any taxes on vaping products.

Um this legislation is written to where we can adopt an increase of any amount that we want.

We've chosen to present to you the a mirrored increase from the state, the simple 10 cents per milliliter.

We're not doing anything greater than that, although municipalities have the authority to do that.

We're just simply proposing that we mirror the state's increases that would go in effect October 1, manage it ourselves and receive 100% of those funds rather than them being redistributed.

Thank you.

I'm I'm very disappointed that this has landed on our desk that you know the the week before, and then we're now being asked to take it by consent.

I mean, it it seems like we should have known about this a long time ago.

I don't know when the Department of Revenue came back with their ruling or the way that they saw it, but we should have known known about this for some time, you know, so that we could at least get it out to our constituents and everybody can have a more clear understanding of what it is.

Um, but I think our hands are tied here.

Uh it sounds like that this is uh a great example of how the debacle with simplified sellers use tax happened.

That um we you know took our eye off the ball and our money is redistributed amongst other cities and counties throughout the state rather than coming back the line share to the people who are paying the tax in the city.

So I'm glad that we this was caught.

I don't know who caught it, but I'm glad it was caught so that we can uh do this, but very disappointed that we're finding about out about it on the ninth hour.

Yeah, it's it just should not have happened this way.

Yes, right.

I completely understand that.

And we we feel the same way internally.

The the issue of this has been every city across the state has grappled with this, as I stated earlier.

I think five cities across the state as of last week had adopted this.

I think there were several questions that came into play.

We also have an opportunity with this, which is rare, that this won't go into effect until October 1 of 26.

There is some activity now.

I know there's some uh participants that are going to go back to petition the legislature about changes to this as it relates to the additional fee for the licensing and the rates.

This will be one of those that there may be some changes that go through the legislature in the spring session that amend the action that was taken last year.

This is simply an opportunity for the city to go back and make sure that we, to the extent that we can get control of something that is going to go into effect regardless.

Um, we don't like the date.

We just know that if this is going to happen, it seems to be in the city's best interest to make it happen under anything that we can't control.

Yes, sir.

Question two, just for clarifying clarification, Scott.

The 10 cents is going into effect one way or the other, but the state would manage the money and then distribute it to us in some fashion, correct?

That is correct.

This this change in the 10 cents is going to take effect on October 126, regardless of any action that the city council take today.

So this is just an opportunity for the city council to do this so that we would realize 100% of that 10 cents per milliliter rather than it being redistributed likely at a lower rate.

So us doing this then means that we will get the full amount, the 10 cents.

That is correct.

Okay.

Well, yeah.

I'll just read this for clarity if you don't mind, Ms.

President.

Says any county or municipality that does not levy tax on consumable vapor products will receive a portion of the state vapor products tax based upon the ratio of the population of county or municipality to the total population of all counties and municipalities.

So it's not based on a dollar amount, it's just a ratio of population, which you know we'll we'd lose a lot.

That's right.

The primary difference between this and SSUT is SSUT distributes 75% of half to the municipalities.

This would redistribute 25%.

Um this language on the state states that for all of these revenues, 50% would go to the state, 25% to the counties, 25% to the cities, distributed on a prorate of share, municipal uh population, county population.

So in this instance, we would see less than we get.

It's it mirrors um SSUT, but it is a lower rate that we would have even gotten at SSUT.

It's kind of odd that the state even gives us this opportunity to do this.

You know, they do the same with cigarette tax and the cities adopted the cigarette tax the same.

So occasionally they do give us these these um opportunities.

I think for us, it makes sense to do if we were a smaller municipality, depending on what your population is.

It could see that you benefit you to go with the state.

Um, so there's gonna be a case by case.

Now, obviously, every city that adopts this reduces the amount of funding that that 25% would be.

Um, but it certainly benefits us from a financial perspective to adopt this ordinance.

I understand it's the 11th hour, um, but again, no one across the state satisfied with the timeline.

Okay, what else?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Ordinance is being introduced 64048 is the rezoning on Lakeside Drive.

Consent resolution is being introduced.

31 1232 authorize the mayor to apply, accept and receive a grant from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, $60,000, no local match.

31 1233 authorized the mayor to apply, accept and receive a grant from the U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance in support of the fiscal year 2025 students, teachers, and officers preventing school violence program up to $1 million, no local match.

371234, 1235, 1236, 1237, and 1238, or recommending approval to the ABC Board for issuance of a lounge retail liquor class one license to rear pocket on Sage Avenue.

Recommending approval to the ABC Board for issuance of a special events retail liquor license to Mobile County Wildlife and Conservation Association Oyster Bar on Monroe Street.

Recommended approval to the ABC Board for issuance of a retail beer table wine off-premises only license to hop in food mart Dauphin Island Parkway.

For issuance of a restaurant retail liquor license to Bamboo Japanese Steakhouse Restaurant on Cody Road South.

For issuance of a restaurant retail liquor license to Thai Chile on Museum Drive.

40, 1239 and 1240 are fixing the cost of demolition of structures.

46 1241 honorarily renamed Holt Road to Honorary Albert Petway, second way.

Yeah.

Okay.

58 1242 and 1243 are declaring we're not just in assessing cost removal weeds.

Group 1669 and group 93.

601244 approval order special bonus to administrative services employee of the month.

27 1267 certify the results of the municipal runoff election.

Resolutions being introduced.

For emergency generator at Mobile Police Department, third precinct, 53,680.

011246 authorized franchise agreement with fiber utility network doing business as Alabama Fiber Network.

011247 authorized amendment to Port City Transit Pension Plan Agreement.

081248 approved purchase order to Bobcat of Mobile for a compact loader with accessories for urban forestry, 97,133.80 cents.

081249 approved purchase order to Cheryl T.

Holyfield for Federal Transit Administration Grant Reporting Services 22,000 081250 approved purchase order to Dana Safety Supply for motorcycle technology mounts 27,781 dollars and 20 cents.

For compaction roller 116,402.52 approved purchase order to long Lewis Ford for Ford Bronco 39,278.

081253 approved purchase order to primary arms LLC for body armor 33,1260 cents.

08 1254 approved purchase order to Thompson Tractor for emergency generator for the cruise terminal 188,923.

08 1255 approved purchase order tractor and equipment company for dozer for public services department 189,600 09 1256 authorized revision to a DECA community development block grant coronavirus response budget allocation, Mr.

President, Ms.

Penn.

Um can I get some um information about this revision to a DECA community development grant?

What what is being transitioned?

How much money one more?

Uh so yeah, let me get the numbers up for you.

It's uh it's gonna settle the budget with uh the the remaining administrative money and then the remnants of all the other line items going to uh fire protection equipment.

So the total is 543,000, a little bit over that.

How much a little over a little over 543,000?

543,000.

This is uh recommendation from a DECA to get the grant closed out.

So the uh initial funding was set up to acquire uh real estate for the uh food banks that was prior to the market taking off and the decay restriction of you can't rehab buildings, so it really it's not functional in the current format where you you'd go buy a building, it's moving ready for the food banks.

We did get the credit union out in uh Africa Town, that's Africa Town Hall now, but the remaining money is not really not usable in the format it's set up in so we only can use this money to purchase real estate for food.

In the current approval, it's it's set up for purchasing real estate.

Where we're proposing is to put it in fire protection to get the uh striker lucid CPR machines for the fire department.

So um we're gonna move money that was dealing with for for food banks to help the community.

It was to acquire a building for them to be in.

They've been working on the rec centers that's actually been functioning very well.

Gotcha.

Um, but I'm just saying the the funds were there was kind of focused on food getting a building to help with managing bringing food into the community, right?

And then we're moving it to which I appreciate what of course everything the fire department does.

Um, but it seemed like the block grant was focused more on on that community.

Is anything that we can move that money to help more of the community standpoint?

This is the DECA has recommended this strongly, uh, because they're trying to get these grants closed out.

There's a six-year overall timeline to spend the money.

Um, like I said, the it was set up in 21, I believe.

And as we get further away from COVID, it has been declared not a major issue.

Uh it's harder to tie back to the city.

Yeah, I think I might want to it's harder to tie back to the COVID eligible categories.

And I understand they recommend, but the does the recommendation mean that that's the only thing that we can utilize it for because I understand that from their standpoint, they think it's over.

But um, from in my community, um, and and and you can go um out of fact.

We just had a food drive um this past Saturday, and boxes of food.

Um, we didn't have enough.

Um people was lined up um around the corner.

So that's a different category we do find I know and yeah, the actual providing of food, we fund that separately through our annual grant.

Okay, we've transitioned it from the COVID grant to the annual.

So what can't so my question is what could we use?

We only can use that for purchase in real estate, but we can move it to fire department.

We can't move it to do anything else for the community.

Not really because the timing is running.

We have about 11, 12 months to spend it, and we've already gone through the procurement process in anticipation of this.

Uh, to buy that equipment.

Uh, so to change it somewhere else, you have to negotiate a contract, it'd be a public service category, probably.

It's there's not enough time, but we can look at that for the annual allocation.

So I I get this my this is my thing.

Um, when we we say not really when we say recommendations, I think this is something that from a conversation, like we need to ask people like what's the other options.

Well, we we did a 30-day comment period and received no comments on it.

We published a newspaper, published with the newspaper put on the website that nobody commented.

So I think what he said is you didn't ask the council.

I mean, we didn't know anything about it.

We didn't know anything about it, you know.

Uh I've been kind of quiet lately.

I don't want to kind of go out of here in a storm, but this was uh this is one of those things where I catch an all when I taught to you about you know what happened to the council.

Uh, how much time?

How much time is left?

Oh, I appreciate you giving me an Amen.

I I totally agree with William's saying, like that that post to the public, we are directly dealing with the public.

We're dealing with our constituents.

I yeah, I understand that.

Yeah, oh look.

Okay, so I think it would have been better to continue to do that post.

That's great, but send it to the council.

So now we could have had a community mean, or we already have our community mean we could have put out for that suggestions.

What I'm saying is there's not really a whole lot of options.

We're not driving this train.

And the grant that will expire sometime next year.

There's not any place else to put it with a time allowed.

So then I but this one had options already come to you guys.

There's not really an options.

But then you did put you posted.

So that means that it was something you were looking for suggestions.

That's a HUD requirement.

We we have to take comments, it doesn't mean we accept them or take the recommendations either.

So we're saying we just posted it and we didn't care what nobody's a technical, it's a technical requirement.

And that's not hard.

I mean, I'm just saying, I mean, that sounds like super horrible that we're gonna post something and we don't even care what people saying.

Like if I'm no, no, I'm not saying you're doing that, and I and what I'm saying is whatever that small segment is, I want to know what that small segment is, and whatever that time frame is, I would rather us figure out if we can't do it, then that's fine.

But whatever that small segment is, let's let's let's see what that small segment is.

So I think it's probably good to lay this over.

I mean, it's first read anyway, but you may want to lay it over.

I think it's a good idea for you all to do the outreach.

We didn't get any comments.

Um, and so it's not that we don't care what people say, it's not what we don't care what you all say, it's just the constraints and the time frame there.

But there's no problem for you all to do the outreach and say, Look, community, what do you think we should do here in the parameters, and then us go back to the table and look at it.

Um, but remember you're dealing with a very, very narrow issue of constraints when you're talking about this money and what we can and can't do.

And so the original idea of dealing with the the food banks, I mean, that came from this department.

That was a community and and council led initiative, us trying to do that together.

There's nothing wrong with us being able to say, look, is there another option here?

Um, and then allowing people to look at the options and give give you all input.

Um there's there's no problem doing that.

Um normally a DECA has a uh a binder of recommendations and outlines and where these monies and things can go with uh their programs.

Uh do you still have that binder for this program?

It's not so much a binder, this one it's it's C D BG eligible activities, except there's a COVID tie back, and the further we get away from that, the harder just to tie it back, and they're gonna say something's not eligible.

How much time do we have left to spend this money?

I have to look, uh, I believe it's May of next year.

So six nine months, so nine months.

How much time would it take to uh look at a different venue, put a proposal out and request if we had to do it?

Say it again, stay on how much time would it take us to go through a different proposal if we wanted to put money somewhere else for facility?

We'd have to do another 30-day comment period.

That's the requirements.

The deck is overlaid on this.

Uh, we'd have to do depending on what it is, uh, some kind of procurement.

So RFP or a bid process, if it's a bid that may be a little difficult year end, so we'd be delayed on that, unless the state has a bid contract out already.

Um 60, 90 days, probably a little longer than that.

And is there a list of opportunities that we could possibly put in places we could possibly use the money?

That list is that's not a functional list you can look at of here's the activity.

So DECA's left it open-ended, but with the HUD requirements of DECA crimes are tied back to COVID, that is very narrow.

Could you general CDBG eligible categories, but time to COVID is the hard part?

Could you possibly make a list for this council to see if they were interested in placing money in if different options to do that they could review right quick?

So rather than us do that, the this is what we're thinking is possibly have the council members are interested.

Actually go back to the original purpose and see if there is a building, you know, that you all want to use.

I mean, that would be I think the first thing is say, hey, look, let's take public comment on what those options are.

Same time we would give you what the constraints are.

Um, and so I'm saying both end.

So first is have the council members actively say in the community, is there a building that we could use that falls in this area?

I mean, go back to the original script, right?

And then secondarily, let's give you a very short list of constrained things we could use the funds for and try to move quickly within that 30-day time period.

The reason why I was asking those questions in that way is is that as I look around the city, it seems like the food banks and distribution centers are starting to slow down because the sources of funding are changing.

That's correct.

So some of them are going away.

So the need for the facilities are becoming smaller and smaller.

So uh I was hoping you would let me finish that line so there'll be a clearer uh understanding for not just this council, but also for the public.

The question is is will the need be there for a facility in the future or in the near future, a far future.

And if we purchase a building, would what would it's in use be if we were to discontinue the program or the funding for those programs would stop?

That part's dictated by a deck of that.

I understand that.

So, but what I'm saying is is that is it is it really needed is the question.

And if it is needed, then how long would it be the purpose be?

And at what point would it run out?

We just have a building that's sitting there, you know, just mouthballing.

And if it's now if it's downtown somewhere and it's empty, then we got another problem.

And I will say if it doesn't finish the uh eligible activity, it's a payback requirement.

That's correct.

So that's that's all I'm saying.

I mean, I kind of know those rules inside and out.

I I understand what you're saying, and I wish the council would have had the chance to see it too.

But just are we truly gonna need it based on the need that we had in 2020.

Yeah, I think having the constraints, you know, knowing exactly what we can and cannot use the money for will help.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, because maybe we don't need a facility for the food distribution program, but maybe something else could be used where there is a great need.

I mean, I'm seeing Africa Town and all the needs that we have there, but I don't know what the constraints are leading back to the you know, to the um that the part of it is that HUD has still not clearly defined the constraints.

They're saying COVID tie back, right?

Unless you get it directly in writing of exact exactly.

Yeah, so we so we may really be limited, it'd be subject to payback at some point if you're off on that.

Mr.

President, Ms.

Ronald.

We do know for a fact that this fire rescue equipment is something that we do need.

Yes, they were uh they're actively looking for funding for that, and they're looking at trading in the difference to get a full set.

This would finish that balance.

And if we don't pay for it out of this money, then the money's got to come from somewhere.

Right.

And that's what the recommendation really is shifting it to fire.

We can use regular CBG funding to look for a building if you want to next year.

Uh, or if the city wants to, if they have money they're setting aside for that for the fire equipment, but it wasn't ready yet.

That could shift over to find a building.

We could look at that kind of stuff.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

President.

And the councilman Carroll's point, uh, so we let's say we go out and we we purchase an asset.

Um, what's the uh number one?

Are we gonna have to stand up a new food program somewhere?

And number two is what's the length of time that we have to operate just generally that we'd have to operate the food program in order to have to not have to stroke a check back.

And then third thing is um uh just so just so everyone understands um regardless of what we do, um, there is a time frame, there's there's a process that we have to get it.

Um, I just don't want us to have to end up stroking a check nine months from now back to the federal government.

Yeah.

Well, if we do nothing, then we the grant just ends and that funding goes back, it's not something we spend.

We don't want to lose the money, right?

Um, if we do spend it, there's a five-year use requirement on public facilities.

That's the HUD standard.

A DECA might actually lay a little more on top of that.

That's what when we initially set this up in 2021.

Five years is only 25%.

Having the food bank funded in the same fund made that it was gonna happen.

The further we get away from that, the more this goes in the regular CBG grant, the harder that is to do.

And then um, and just you you did state and I'll I'll I'll close.

You did state that um it has to be kind of there's some there's some other little ancillary things, it's got to be a new building.

It's a new building, but it has to be up to codes, there's no rehab needed.

A DECA does not want to do the environmental review required for rehabs.

And that's one of the other constraints with dealing with uh a building and what we've been looking for, but yeah, we we're not opposed to looking for some other option.

And I can say the the nonprofits themselves, so it's the district one, two, three food banks, which we initially set up in COVID.

Uh they look for buildings themselves, they've had three, four years to find one, hadn't found one.

We've had two realtors looking at it and haven't found one that's ready to go in in their footprint.

That's where we've come to this.

Ms.

President, Ms.

Again, I I agree with my colleagues.

I I don't have nothing, I I support the fire department to the to the to the T.

And if that resources is needed, then I support that.

The point what I'm saying is the council need to know these things.

We shouldn't receive the information and then we say, Oh, we got 11 months.

It's nine months.

We won't make we don't make a decision right now, then we got to go with this, you know, or it's October the first.

You know, or it's October the first.

We don't vote today.

We lose.

And I'm not saying it's not, and I'm not saying is the administration certain like with that.

Y'all thought that the last minute, I understand that.

But when that information was put to the public, I would have wished that we would have got the information as well.

Just can we do a better job in sharing that information and let us know so we can share that with our constituents.

We see them on a regular basis, and we want to be able to be very knowledgeable of what's taking place.

We don't have to vote on something and say, Well, we just moved it, and I don't know why.

We just had 11 months.

So just being able to share that information, I think would be great.

And if I know all those things up front, then that will help.

So just share the information and that will I'm requesting just share that information.

And I think that will be move the council forward.

Thank you.

I think that's that's more than an appropriate ask.

And that and you know, I think it's uh we have some time to move through this process.

And so to the extent um we want to let you all know these things well in advance.

Um, we'd also ask that if there are questions about it before we get to this state.

Let's go ahead and put those questions out there and ask them so we can not only inform the public but move the ball forward together.

So Clerk 09, 1257 reallocate funds from Capital Project IT technical and infrastructure upgrades to Capital.

So what did we end up deciding?

We're gonna do with zero nine.

Yeah, it's gonna lay over anyway.

So have a week or what two weeks, really to uh come up with something else too.

Okay 09, 1257, reallocate funds from Capital Project IT technical and infrastructure upgrades to Capital Project IT fiber expansions upgrades for fiber optic expansions and upgrades at city facilities, $60,000.

211258, authorized contract with all red architectural group for Dolphin Island Parkway New Community Center, 515,472.

21, 1259, authorized contract with George Glasser for provide professional services for the Office of Professional Responsibility, 80,000 per year.

21, 1260, authorized contract, National Maritime Museum, the Gulf of Mexico to create a Jimmy Buffett tribute exhibit 500,000.

21, 1261, authorized contract with P.O.

Russell for upgrades to the Mobile Riverfront redevelopment, Cooper Riverside Park and Great Lawn, 2,757,500.

And of course, all right, Mr.

Penn and Vice President Gregory.

Now I just want to what's the time frame for this brother?

So this is the third part of a project, right?

So we're doing the copper cell and the bulk cut improvements that should be complete in November.

Once we get that complete, in fact, we're trying to work with the contractors to be working both at the same time if this gets approved.

And so we'll be able to start this project to complete you know all of the renovations to the park which have been damaged during this process, and it'll be about nine months to get that completed.

So in um nine months, the park will be open after is it nine months after November?

Yes, correct.

All right.

Is this yeah?

Jen, can you just sorry go back over?

Sorry, what we're doing out there, what what the details are of this renovation and work.

So Cooper Riverside Park is a heavily used park, especially for events.

All of the work that's taking place down there to recreate the bulkheads and address the coffer cell issue, have obviously damaged the park.

So this is the hardscape and a landscaping project that's going on here.

So it'll be completely renovated for safety, ADA accessibility and the ability to have events back down there.

An additional project that you're gonna see coming forward is renovations of the bathroom.

The bathroom was built pre-Catrina, although it still is a nice bathroom, but it doesn't have the proper ADA accessibility, and so you'll see that coming up.

We're working on that design right now.

Reynolds.

This is go Mesa funding.

Correct, with a little bit of TIFF money covering an additional part.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you, Mr.

21 1262.

Authorized contract with Thomson Engineering for access management and signal upgrades on Dolphin Street from Sage Avenue to West I-65 at Spring Hill Memorial Hospital, 1,132,641 dollars.

21, 1263, authorized contract with Back Ben Russell Electric Company for security camera maintenance, one million dollars per year.

25, 1264, except temporary construction easements for miscellaneous drainage repairs for Halls Mill Road at Spring Branch.

21 1266 authorized contract with Macalaney Construction for construction of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Avenue complete streets project northwest of Butchers Lane to Bourregard Street, 11 million 257,346 and 43 cents.

I'm sorry, could you repeat your question?

Can you tell the um public the weather funds for this project?

Absolutely.

So this is 11.2 million dollar contract.

We have three funding sources.

The first one is Restore Act funding, so that's bucket three federal council.

That's 2.1 million dollars.

We have an MPO allocation to this project, which comes through out, which is 6.6 million.

And Maz is also contributing a little over 3 million dollars to cover the rest.

They've already done their work.

So that's utility work is not part of this contract.

We and our department, we've been moving all the utilities ahead of the project so we don't have any delays during construction.

How long is um project um expected to last?

This is a two-year project.

It is block to block, just like St.

Louis Street will be starting all the way down where the connection to the new Greenway Trail is gonna be.

Um, and then it's gonna move that way back towards Broad Street.

So it will not impact Mardi Gras this year.

That's a question that's gonna come up.

All right.

This has been a long awaited project.

I mean, we're talking project going back what six, seven years now on this project.

Uh this is a project that's gonna totally revamp the cap brown in the bottom with access and beautification.

It's gonna be hand in hand with every project that's going on there from the cultural and heritage district to the housing revitalization project.

This is another transformative project that's gonna help revitalize not one neighborhood but two on both sides of the avenue.

So I've been asking about it now for about three years.

We finally got it to the point that we get we can actually get a start on it.

I'm happy to see it start.

Uh and hopefully we can get it started sometime in what December, maybe.

That's right.

So the next step in this does have to go back to the federal council for the third approval of the executed contract.

That's when we get our notice to commence construction, just like we just did on St.

Louis Street.

So I anticipate a notice to proceed could be out in eight to ten weeks, just because we know that takes about six weeks to get that completed.

We'll be going through our communications with the community, like we did with our community groups that we've been working with um during this project to communicate about it starting.

We are not on the time frame because this is gonna probably lay over two weeks, are we?

I I'm aware, yep.

So we were aware that the approval will be October 14th if you choose to vote.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Vice President.

Oh, all right.

Anyone else?

All right, thank you, Ms.

Marine.

Call for public hearings 41 1265 call for public hearing to consider the modification of a previously approved put for property located at 600, 700, and 800 West I-65 Service Road South, scheduled November the 4th.

Announcements.

All right, thank you for this council.

Ms.

President, don't we have an administrative services committee meeting?

Yes, yeah, one o'clock.

One o'clock.

And that's for the um vacant buildings.

And was that table last week or just held over?

Just held over to the 14th.

Uh, I did.

I have received uh quite a few phone calls about it, uh, a bunch of concerns.

Uh there was one individual that really really had uh quite a few.

I think he's one of the owners of the Hoffman building.

Uh uh told him to last night or yesterday afternoon that I would grant him three, four or five minutes today to voice his opinions, but I also believe that in most of the things that he's going to voice.

We've already addressed in a positive way.

So I think it'll be beneficial to hear what he has to say and move on from that.

Ms.

President and Woods.

Um Scott, did you get that um email that I sent uh regarding about the vacant building from a constituent?

Yeah, oh, you didn't he did.

I don't know if he did or not.

I think he didn't hear you.

He can't hear me.

Okay.

Uh did you receive that email from the constituent about the vacant buildings, all the questions, one of the owners.

I did not.

Okay, you did.

Okay.

You got recording.

Okay.

Miss Okay, yeah, able to respond to those concerns.

So, Ms.

President, so those those comments are about about the TIFF.

Like they don't really don't address the vacant building order.

This is a bunch of good suggestions, actually.

This is about that's about the TIFF and confusing the two.

Um I looked at them, and actually some of them have been addressed already.

Some of them are safeguards.

We can explain them in that meeting if you want us to.

But those are primarily focused on the TIFF and the uh the facade program and not necessarily.

And some of them, like I said, some of them are good suggestions, some of them are not tenable.

I'm glad to address those issues.

All right, Mr.

Woods, Mr.

Carroll.

I was just gonna say we talked last week, Councilman Reynolds.

You're limited to five questions.

I believe uh all the amendments that I had we worked out, and they're they're prepared, so we'll we can look at a fresh version tomorrow.

They were very innocuous in nature.

You mean to this afternoon?

I'm sorry to that, yeah.

Um Mr.

President, uh, this is uh asking the administration to do something.

Um there was a commitment made by me for uh Hannah, McGill, and Contas Streets in this last paving cycle to make sure that those streets were done.

Uh I was told last week that those streets would not be done because after additional uh financing was added to that bucket to get those streets done.

The budget has now come back an additional $700,000 higher than what was projected after we added additional funds to it.

So uh in essence, I've been made to look like a liar because I've committed so hard to these people for the last two and a half years that we would get those three those those three streets done.

Uh I would like to find a way to honor that commitment from both me and this administration to make sure that those streets are done.

I'm aware that there is a serious drainage problem, and it has always been at the corner of McGill and Hannon.

Matter of fact, it's flooded there since I was a kid in 75 when that was a park there when we used to play baseball there, up until it was changed in 76 when the McGill sisters actually done it there, donate that property to uh little sisters of the poor, and it still floods and been flooding ever since.

So if I'm talking about from 1975 to today, so I would like to see that project completed, finished, and done, whether it's done in the next year's cycle, because most of that money is already there or done uh as quickly as possible between now and the next year's cycle to make sure that that project's done.

So that's a request.

I'm gonna send it again in writing.

Uh if we have to get out and explain to the people in in my district in that area why the project is is on hold or didn't move or hasn't gone so well, and I think that we owe them an explanation as to why the project is not moving forward.

Well, yeah, Mr.

Carroll, there's some confusion there.

What you heard was the um $700,000 is what's needed to improve the drainage.

The um the streets are still gonna be resurfaced.

It's under contract now, it will be resurfaced in a couple months, but the drainage will require additional $700,000.

Uh we made a commitment to do both the drainage and the streets.

I mean, I understand, and and when we did our investigation, did a little bit more thorough thorough investigation.

There's multiple utility conflicts that we weren't aware of, and it's the dropped cost stuff.

We just don't have the current budget to handle the drainage, but we will we have a set of plans ready to go on that.

We just need additional funding for the coffee here for this.

Yeah, I look as a as a you know, as an avid person on on horizontal repairs and things like that.

It doesn't feel good to put a band-aid on top of a broken leg if you understand what I mean.

I mean, why are we gonna pay the streets and then we gotta come back and cut them and jack them up and take all the piping out to fix the drainage?

But I would just like you guys to reach out to the community, explaining them why we haven't moved forward and to make sure that they know that we're going to move forward on correcting the drainage.

That's a pretty bad spot there.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

All right, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Reynolds.

No, no, I'm not all right.

Anything else from this council?

Let's do our rules waiving, y'all on uh ordinance 34-047, and then consent obviously.

Uh go to resolutions 01 1247 49.

I want to do that separately, please.

47 separately, okay, separately, but we'll still vote on it.

Um 50, 52, 53, and I think that's it.

Okay.

Anything else from this council?

Anything from the administration.

And we'd like to welcome you to your mayor elect that uh we don't usually take this long.

Usually uh usually we move along fairly quickly.

I'd like to say though, without councilman Davis here, that may not always be true.

I'm not yeah, we'd like to welcome the mayor elect on to his first council meeting as mayor and elect um pre-council meeting.

And remember, council, we do have to recess at 12 o'clock 12 noon to cavist the vote.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

All right, we see each other 10:30 downstairs.