Everybody on the second day of December, if you look around the room, uh we already started celebrating Christmas with our green.

That's we won't wear our red.

So if y'all want to join us on next week, you may.

All right.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're not in the hands of our capable city clerk, Ms.

Lisa Carroll.

This is the pre-meeting of the Mobile City Council Tuesday, December the 2nd.

We have appeals.

We have requests for wave of the noise ordinance on December the 4th from 5:30 p.m.

until 7 30 p.m.

on downtown or loop.

January 17th from 7 p.m.

until 11 p.m.

on Myrtlewood Lane.

Any issues, uh Councilman Fleming or Gregory.

Uh no.

Okay.

Public hearing today.

It's a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend appendix A, Downtown Development District, the City of Mobile Unified Development Code, Chapter 64, the Mobile City Code.

Public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning of property located at 2243, 2245, 2345, and 2509 Hallsmill Road from B3 to B5.

Public hearing to consider the proposed conditional use permit for property located at 2574, 2664 Sally Road to allow expansion of a religious facility in an R1.

Presentation of petitions and other communications to the council.

Mary Pettit uh will express her concerns that enough isn't being done to protect citizens from dangerous dogs.

To the administration, will we have someone from animal control here present?

Okay, all right, thank you.

Ordinance is held over 11056, amend chapter 11, Article 3, Section 11 of the City Code to include subsection title, Alabama Construction Trade Academy Fund Fees.

Mr.

President.

As we've discussed in previous meetings, uh we'll table this uh for approximately six months.

We'll just go ahead and table this completely, but in six to eight months time, we should expect uh a similar ordinance to come on our agenda so we can revise our uh our uh permit fees and we can forward some of that to the home builders, and then there is this later performance contract to temporarily fund the training academy.

All right.

Resolution is held over 471471.

Consider vacation of all rights of way located within lot one of MAACDC subdivision 471472 is considering a vacation fee as a condition of the vacation of the rights of way.

Mr.

Anderson.

Good morning.

Uh here again Airbus.

MAA is the uh owner of this.

Thank you.

And um of this lot one 40 acres that they lease uh MAA is the owner, Airbus has leased the 40 acres, paid 9 million dollars just for a long-term lease.

They don't even own the land.

Um several reasons we're asking for a waiver.

Uh I think the final number was 470,000.

Um at a dollar 56 a square foot.

When Airbus first came to Mobile, there was an agreement that certain fees would be waived.

Uh these don't come under that agreement from understanding because it's not on the Brooklyn main campus.

It's not on MAA's main campus.

This is outside.

Um we've already paid 357,000 dollars to the city in fees for the demolition and other permits we've received uh for this project.

Uh adding on this fee would mean we've got another 800, a total of 800,000 in fees before we even break ground.

Um money's tight.

Y'all about I think a month ago approved the grant, uh signed off on the grant that we received from the city, Airbus, MAA, the chamber, the IDB, all went to Montgomery and obtained uh uh applied for a $4 million grant to build the new entrance uh access road from Michigan Avenue uh to this site.

It will also bring the traffic access to the remainder that the MAA will develop in the future.

This is gonna be a 250 to 300 million dollar project.

Uh at this point in time, Airbus has a five million dollar economic impact in this community.

Uh that will only grow uh this property, this project will uh put some taxes on on the on the tax roll.

Uh not real property because MAA does not take real property tax, but the personal property that uh air bus will have on this site will be taxed.

So the city will see will receive a benefit of that.

So just because just due to the everything Airbus has done and is continuing to do uh for this community, uh we respectfully ask that uh this fee be waived so it can be used in better better uh things.

And the comments from this council, Mr.

Reynolds and to Mr.

Penn.

I just want to make sure uh procedurally we're correct here.

There's an amendment needs to be offered, or we're gonna reintroduce another uh item to the agenda for the vacation.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

I I did after last meeting.

We've got a revised response.

Yeah, we've got a revival revised resolution resolution that I sent to uh your council.

Yeah, uh that that amendment just removes the part of J Drive that's in lot one.

It was like five hundred square feet.

I'll I'll offer Mr.

Penn.

Hey, Mr.

President, I'll thank you, Doug, for coming out.

Can you all tell what's the timeline for this project?

When when a year ago, I mean it is they're really they were anticipating starting construction this past February.

Uh but the delay between MAA and uh the uh housing board uh was just the the time it took MAA to get this property under control, it uh threw our schedule back by a year.

Okay.

I mean they're ready to go.

They've already uh they've done some demolition of all the old uh cabins or houses uh that were there.

Um, and they've actually torn up some of the the roads is my understanding in anticipation of these being vacated.

Okay.

I'll just make the point just because we've made it in the past that typically when we consider these uh right-of-way fees, there must it's gotta be a good a good deal for the taxpayer.

And in this case, we're taking a highly blighted property and and bringing it back, you know, from a bad condition.

I think it makes sense that waiving the vacation or the right-of-way fee, uh, you know, makes absolute sense for the taxpayer.

Thank you for your consideration.

Anyone else?

All right, Madam Clerk.

081490 approved purchase order to emergency equipment professional for engine replacement for fire pumper truck.

081494, approved purchase order to grade bar electric forest street light luminaries.

081500, approved purchase order precision delta corp for cases of Winchester Ammunition 21 1501 authorized contract with advisory council for South Alabama Home Building Academy for work first forest development.

21 1502 authorized contract with boundary medical for medical gloves.

21 1503 authorized contract with Midwestern commercial roofers for Harmon Recreation Center re-roofing 60 1504 and 1505 authorized and settlement agreement and release of claims ordinances being introduced 64058.

Uh yes.

We'll go back to 211502.

On your agenda, uh, not to exceed 3 million dollars.

Yes, yeah, yeah.

That that we have no intention of buying medical gloves at three million dollars over the next three years.

The so I followed up with Don Rose yesterday.

That's an item-based bid.

It was a low bidder on a and it got put on here erroneously.

I thought we were gonna have it corrected, but we haven't corrected it.

But the um we'll see if Don't here.

What is it?

300,000.

It's it's really as needed.

So we're we're buying gloves as needed, and you're really awarding.

So we're we're agreeing to a unit price for a box of surgical gloves, not uh not to exceed amount.

Well, you're not gonna exceed it anyway, right?

No, we're we're not gonna we're not gonna exceed it, but Don Rose was out of town when this got put on the agenda, and I think they calculated not more than a million dollars a year.

That's not what this is.

It's really an as needed type item, and it's just been bid out so that we have a unit price.

That's all it is.

I think you award the item-based bid.

Um, maybe you uh just amend John, and I'm not sure.

Do they just amend to say toward the item base bid?

And I'm not sure if the contract mentions three million.

I just wanted to tell you there is it does not.

It does.

I thought it did something.

We need a cost on there.

We need some sort of cost on the present.

Oh, Mr.

Penn.

I agree with um council on one Gregory.

Um, I believe we need to put a price on it.

Um, of course, we know that hopefully we're not gonna spend a million dollars on glove, but do we have well this in the past with our past procedures with this situation where we just buy an irregular or we did we have a contract?

Well, they they for these particular items uh or any medical supplies is bid out, then that that bid sheet is opened up, and those that are responsive to the bid are awarded, and that award is given by the city council.

You can leave the three million.

I just wanted to make sure that y'all understood that is not what we intend to spend on it, it's just based on an as-needed basis.

Okay, uh, mainly for the fire department.

And tip typically it does, it shows up as an approval item-based bid for medical gloves.

That's right, not to exceed and then the dollar amount.

I think it's important that we continue to put the not to exceed amount on here so it doesn't get lumped into a um a consent item that we're approving, say less than $50,000.

I can remember the chairs we bought at the convention center, you know, $50 a chair times how many chairs is ended up being a whole lot of money, half a million dollars or something like that.

So if the not to exceed amount on the contract is incorrect at three million dollars, and we need to amend that amount to be less than three million dollars.

You don't really need to amend it because there's no way we're gonna hit the not to exceed.

I was just trying to be clear bring some clarity that that's an as needed.

Now, if we hit a pandemic over the next three years, then maybe it's possible, but but we don't anticipate anything like that.

Okay, council one.

Not on this item.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

So we're just gonna leave this.

Yes, all right.

Just leave it.

Yeah, I think probably part of the reason is when people see three million dollars on there, it kind of like sends off a in a red flag.

So explaining that I think is is important, and I guess we could go back and change it if you thought it was really needed, or otherwise we'd just leave it.

I mean, it's not needed if the not to exceed amount was less than what we thought we would spend, then we would change it.

What I'm saying is they put that as a placeholder on there just out of abundance of caution, right?

But we'd have to order, I don't know how many boxes of gloves in order.

All right.

Uh Mr.

President, I do want to go back to 21-1503.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Um, I'm I would like to know.

Um, it's my understanding like the documentation for the um DBE subcontractors should be attached, explaining why we're not at that 15% and their efforts to reach those.

And I do not see that in this packet, and maybe I'm overlooking that.

And so I'm asking if we can provide clarity regarding that.

We can get it to you before the council meeting.

Thank you so much, ma'am.

All right, Madam Clerk.

Ordinance is being introduced.

64058 ordinance to amend uh appendix A downtown development district 640 59 considered proposed rezoning property located on Hawksmill Road 60 64 060.

Consider the proposed conditional use permit for property um on Sally Road, and we did receive the um the change.

Okay, consent resolutions being in Mr.

President, I'm sorry, yes.

Um, what is it 64-058?

I do I would like to know um the red line document to see the changes.

I was told that first of all, thank you for this, um, making it user-friendly and considering the end user, but I'm not able to track the actual changes that were made.

Um, in the uh overview, it stated that the changes were made because there were errors in addition to errors, there were you know, you eliminated ambiguities, and so I understand that because you're using tables and so forth, that's a challenge, but is there a way that we can get a comparison document that will list all of the errors that were found along with the ambiguities so that we can clearly see um the changes in addition to that?

It goes on to say that there were no citizens to show up for the uh public for the hearing.

I would ask that I can get some clarity on that because another document states that it was developed and updated, and you met with stakeholders.

So just if we can clarify those two.

Thank you.

Sure.

Good morning.

To answer answer counsel uh Ingram's first question with with regard to the red line.

We did a complete reformatting of the document.

We we recon consolidated some of the articles.

There's a lot of graphics and a lot of illustrations that have been added.

Customarily, we would be able to provide you with a red line to contrast and compare when the template is the same.

But unfortunately, we have a completely new, what we believe is a more of a user-friendly template to allow those that are accustomed to following the code a better way to graphically represent some of the requirements.

What I can probably do is provide you with a reference document so you can see where some of the specific changes have been made.

Most of those are regarding things like clarification on parking and screening requirements, adding some additional definitions for some of the uses.

I I put I would be able to provide that, but I do not have a red line of the uh of the current document because it's it would be difficult to be able to illustrate those changes for you in that format.

Okay, and I think that will work again.

The streamlining of the process is definitely, you know, um commended for that.

But could you also include in there in this document you refer to the fact that uh there were amendments, you know, like there were more than one, right?

But yet in another document, it only lists one.

So if we can get like a list of all the errors that conflicted with the building code.

There was just one, and it had to do with the transparency requirements.

That was the only building code conflict.

But I think again, that summary will probably be a better reference for you to see those changes.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

With regard to stakeholder uh engagement and input as customary with all of our code updates, whether it's building code or zoning code in nature, um, before we apply pen to paper, we do a lot of extensive sessions with folks within the industry.

Um, in this instance, we did have representation from the downtown mobile alliance as well as um representation to see a final draft before it was submitted to the planning commission with the government street collaborative.

Um, and and the the intent was to understand and hear um any concerns or comments that they've had to share, just a little bit of background.

Uh, this code was adopted back in 2014.

Um, it's a part of our rhythm on a regular basis to go back and re-evaluate all of our codes to ensure uh effectiveness.

And while we went through the exercise with the UDC in 2022, we quickly quickly realized that the downtown development district um would require its own independent study evaluation and assessment.

And so back in uh October of 2024 is when we started that process.

Just to, I will get you those um specific um edits so you can reference those within the document.

But the I think the bigger point to be made is there were very little substantive changes.

The feedback that we heard from the industry is that they they wanted the process streamlined, um, but they understood the core purpose and intent of the DDD, and that's to attempt to preserve the character and unique um heritage of our downtown through the implementation of our code.

So they didn't necessarily react to any specific items, but they did provide us with the key feedback that they liked the illustration and graphics because previously the code was very, very text-heavy, and they just wanted to see some examples to illustrate what some of those requirements included.

Um probably the most significant change with regard to streamlining was the CRC, the consolidated review committee.

Um longer will a submission have to be presented to the to this board.

Um what we found is you're you're looking for industry professionals to participate on the committee, and oftentimes either because of timing or their involvement in the project, they were having two recuse, or they just couldn't make the time commitment to participate in the committee.

So what we've are moving toward is not replacing the review process, but making it a part of our internal review process to ensure compliance with the code.

So that's just a quick summary of um some of the higher level changes to the document, but I'm happy to get that reference to you so you can see the specifics.

Again, thank you for you know sharing that you know, the purpose and the streamlining.

But I do want to go back to there were no comments um received prior to the uh meeting and no one spoke at the uh against it nor for it at that meeting.

I would like to slow this down so that I can get an opportunity.

I'm going to be meeting with downtown businessmen this week along with um some residents, and so that we can really make sure that they've had an opportunity to give us some input so that when this goes out, because it's so important that we can say that we have the names, we have the dates of who participated and had an opportunity for input.

Thank you so much for that.

Um happy to do that, and I will I can share that information to you.

Um, I would also add um we have a dedicated uh page on our on our website.

Um, we always try to go the extra mile beyond what we are legally required to do as far as advertising is concerned.

Um, so there is a public comment portal.

I believe it's still open.

And so if you'd like to share that link, um if should we receive comments, we always pass that along to our either our planning commission representation or to the city council.

Transparency is very important to us in this process because the last thing we want to do is develop a code that no one understands or didn't have the opportunity to participate in.

So um those channels are still open.

Again, I want to commend you for um you and your team for taking on this challenge.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

President.

Since this is a first read on this, and I know you have your meetings this week.

Um, you can let us know how that goes and whether you're ready to move forward next week or if you need more time, especially since you're presenting all of this, you know, to these folks, they may have some other comments or questions.

If you need more time, just let us know.

Thank you so much.

Madam Clerk.

Consent resolutions being introduced 37 1510.

Recommend approval to the ABC board for issuance of a retail beer table wine off-premises only license to Murphy USA.

581511 fixed cost for removal weeds, repeat, repeat weedling group 95 resolutions being introduced, 25 1512, except a temporary construction easement for miscellaneous drainage repairs for Tolman's Spring Branch east of Wilson Avenue.

Announcements.

Uh council, Mr.

President.

Um I want to go back to one of the appeals on the noise on Myrtlewood.

We can just take that to 10 o'clock.

I think that'd be better rather than 11.

And I don't see um really anything in here to waive consent on unless you all see something that we need to waive consent other than the normal.

Oh anything?

Yeah.

Okay.

And I do want to give a little shout out and welcome back home to Government Plaza to Joe Snowden.

Good to see you back again.

Okay.

All right.

Councilwoman Eagle.

Yes, um, if we can just make sure we put um who's sponsoring 64-058, it can be my name.

I I'm thinking it's the mayor, is what the um attorney share with me.

Maybe that's just a clerical era, but if we can add that for sure.

64-058, it doesn't show who's answered that.

Okay.

All right, the mayor's are your sponsor.

Um Barbara.

Yeah, just uh again as a point of clarity, going back 2115.02, the three million dollars.

Uh if y'all could amend that resolution to include the words item-based bid for cases of gloves, um, and not to exceed the three million is fine with us, but that way it's a little more clear to the public that we're not buying three million dollars worth of surgical gloves.

Ben, you want to offer that?

I don't think this is required to be amended, but I mean, just for clarity's sake, I think we can modify our agenda summary to say that in there, but it's not required for that.

What do you think, Lisa?

Okay, okay.

All right, anything else from this council.

Vice President.

In case you all did not hear, um, Ann Bedsole passed away over the weekend.

Um, yeah, for many of us in this room, um, we have known Ann for decades and have watched her, and she's been a role model for many of us.

So um at the regular meeting, we'll do a moment of silence for for Ann Betson.

All right.

Anything else from this council?

Anything from administration.

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

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, we're all getting everyone attention, please.

One second, one second.

Hey, and can we get everyone attention, please for one minute, please?

Hello.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So, Mr.

President, um, at this time I'm going to ask uh once I make this declaration, ask the Madam Clerk to um take a roll call vote.

Um, my name is Ricardo Woods.

I'm the city attorney.

I'm licensed to practice in the state of Alabama.

And at this point in time, I'm gonna ask us to go in executive session and convene again at 10:30.

Um stated purpose for going in executive session is anticipated litigation going forward that involves the city.

Um, if you would uh this president ask for that roll call vote now.

I need a motion.

So moved, second.

Proper move and second in discussion.

Uh Madam Clerk.

President Small.

Yes, Vice President Gregory, yes, Councilmember Penn.

Yes, Councilmember Ingram, yes, Councilmember Reynolds, Councilmember Fleming, yes, Councilmember Woods.

Okay, we see each other downstairs at 10 30.

Completely forgotten.