So the climate looking good.

All right, if we can assemble we will begin our committee meetings in exactly one minute.

One minute we will begin our committee meetings.

Just a moment.

I'm Randy Knighton, the city administrator, along with the Deputy City Administrator, Mr.

Joe Q Sack, and along with Michelle Miller.

The executive assistant to the council.

And also the deputy city clerk.

And we certainly welcome everybody to our meeting this evening.

The purpose of committee meetings are for the city departments to convey information to mayor and city council and discuss initiatives listed on the published agenda as well as provide updates of vital information essential for the operation of city government.

By ordinance, the committee consists of the mayor and members of the city council as well as the city administrator.

And this is a public meeting, but not a public hearing.

Therefore, while we certainly welcome members of the public who are in attendance this evening, uh we do not generally take public comments or questions during committee meetings.

Public comments and questions are of course received on the second and fourth Monday of each month in our city council meetings, as well as the fifth Monday in open form.

And we do encourage residents to reach out to our city staff for any questions or needs, concerns that you may have.

We also encourage you to view Roswell365.com for a calendar of events.

And we certainly welcome those questions and comments from the residents of Roswell and businesses at Roswell.

The first item on the agenda is the approval of the committee meeting minutes for February 24th, 2026.

Do we have a motion?

Motion by Mayor Robichot.

We have a second on the minute, second by Councilmember Brumley.

Any further discussion?

All right.

Seeing none all in favor?

All right, that passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

The first item on the regular agenda, item number two, consideration to enter into a new agreement with Brink B R I and C Brink and Motorola Solutions for a trial drone as first responder.

Initiative takeoff program, and that will be presented by our police chief, uh Mr.

James Conroy and our 911 director, John Potrabowski.

Outstanding.

That's perfect.

Got it.

All right.

Good evening.

All right, thank you.

So this is a consideration to enter into agreement with Brink and Motorola Solutions for a trial program for a drone as a first responder program.

What it would be is a six-month implementation and then one year at no charge to the city.

After that, the approximate cost would be about 249,000.

And that's an estimate.

It would be based upon what we discovered during that first year trial, if it is a solution that we want to proceed with.

Gives us an opportunity for one year to try this program.

What is a drone as a first responder?

What it is is when we get a 911 call, we would have right now three drones stationed throughout the city, one on each end, and then one towards the center of the city, and it would be dispatched automatically to certain calls for service.

Um vehicle accidents, crimes in progress, missing persons, situations, uh fires, uh, any fire call and a fire alarm call.

It would be automatically dispatched, and that's something we could adjust that list as well.

Some of our neighbors, uh City of Brookhaven police has been doing this for a number of years.

They're one of the leaders in this industry.

And Sandy Springs started a very similar drone program uh two weeks ago to where this program is.

And what it is, the drone launches immediately goes to that incident location and gives us video imagery of what's going on.

Uh, I use an example that I've told many of you when we had um the youth day parade, we were testing our drones in the parking lot showing them to the kids, and we got a call of a house fire in the area.

That drone was able to leave here at City Hall and was on scene in 22 seconds and was able to get there and give us video footage.

Fortunately, at that time, uh, there was no evidence of a fire, and we were able to update the fire department at that time.

But had there been evidence of a fire, smoke, or is well involved, that is something we would update the fire department, and they could immediately deploy additional resources to that location.

Another advantage is when you have vehicle accidents, the drone would get up there quickly and tell us exactly where the first responders need to go, exactly where the accident occurred, as you know, many people who are involved in accidents don't know exactly where they are when they call 911, and it takes us a while to figure out where they are, and then when we get there, we have to position our vehicles.

Uh so that's some of the advantages of missing persons.

Um currently are we use drones on missing persons a lot.

Uh we deploy them.

This would allow the drone to go immediately as the call is dispatched and get there and it gathers footage as it's going to the scene.

So hopefully we would catch somebody as they're walking away from their home, and we'd get a good direction of travel.

Um that is really the the basis of the program, and I would like to open it up for any of your questions.

Thank you, Chief.

Do we have any questions or comments from the council?

Yes, Councilmember Bromley.

Or excuse me.

Councilmember Philippi.

Oh, such a weird shit.

Does the can you talk about the operator a little bit?

Does the trial come with an operator?

Do you have staff that operates this?

And then how does that um feed into the costs later on?

So there's there's there's two options.

One, it automatically dispatches and goes to that location where it does not take a pilot.

Um, and then the other can be manually taken over, and we do have a number of pilots in the police department.

We currently have drones, but we do not operate them as a first responder.

So the the difference here is this is a first responder where it's automatically dispatched to the scene of a location.

Thank you.

I have a lot of questions.

Councilmember Brumpley.

Hi, I have a lot of questions.

We we already had a conversation about this, um, some of them, but um just for the public's um education, I would like to ask them again.

Um the drones that you have, so you said that the ones that you have right now are not first responders.

Is it because it has a different mechanism, or what is the difference between these ones on the trial versus what you have?

Correct.

So the the drones we have now, we use them predominantly, as I mentioned, for missing persons.

Um if we're looking for a subject uh that has run from the police.

Most our our most use case for them is for serious vehicle accident reconstructions.

So our officers respond to a scene and the the pilot will put the drone up and it'll map the scene of the vehicle accident.

Those are not for first responder purposes.

This is a first responder purpose to get some uh eyes on the scene quickly of an incident to determine exactly how we need to adjust our response.

Is it because they're faster?

Is that what they're called first responder?

Um they're they're automatically dispatched.

So we would have one just pictured on top of one on top of a fire station, one on top of the new police headquarters.

As soon as this 911 call that meets the criteria is dispatched, that drone would fly to the location of the 911 caller.

Um when you call 911, we get the geolocation of that phone, and it would go straight to that geolocation where the phone has called from, and it would go to that location.

We manually deploy the other drones, and it's just a separate drone program.

Okay.

Um the other, so we're just gonna have two drone programs basically.

You're not gonna discontinue the other ones.

Okay.

Um a second question.

Uh are these drones?

Well, you kind of mention it, deploy only during certain incidents, or will they be patrolling at all times?

And if it's only during certain indices, do you have a criteria already thought about it?

Right.

I touched on that a little bit.

So yeah, that they're they're deployed on the incidents that we determine or incidents that we deploy it on.

Um they are not a patrolling note.

The the battery life of drones, we're many years away from where that would be a reality.

But I believe these are 40 minutes, 45.

Ideal conditions.

Is the the max, and so it's got to get to the location it takes video, and then our use as soon as the first the next responder gets out there, the drone would return to base.

It's all automated, it has a shell that opens up, the drone launches, comes back, lands, it closes, and then it recharges for the next call.

Great.

Um in this question, I think we need a follow-up from the company, but um the data gathered by the drones, the video and audio, is it going to be saved by the city or in a system managed by Brinks and Motorola, or is there another company that manages the software?

And I think the answer was Motorola, but we needed more details on that.

So and there's a couple things.

So when you mention data, the the product that this delivers to us is video.

The video is what's important to us.

That's managed on the Motorola servers.

If it becomes part of a case, a criminal case, we move it over to our axon evidence.com to where it's stored, and then it's based on the Georgia State retention schedule.

If it is not part of a case, um we have to hold that for 180 days and then it's automatically deleted out of the Motorola files.

Okay, and this is with it will be in the contract for Morola.

Correct.

Now there's other data that's that's involved that uh, you know, how how long the the flight path was, the direction, how many hours, how the battery lasted.

That's data that's usable for them, but it's not specific to our incident and definitely not the videos that's recovered.

Yeah, thank you.

Um yes, that was the next question.

How long the data will be stored?

So you already went through that.

Um who can access that data at the Montorola server?

Only the Rosville Police Department, or will the Motorola internal employees use it for training or development of new features?

Um, like for example, they just get a little bit of the data and they start using it to train their employees or do some coding.

Uh so the data I mentioned was a little different than the video.

If we're let's talk about the video.

Uh the video that's that's captured is subject to open records in Georgia.

It's an open records law.

Any video that we maintain is subject to open records.

And if it is part of an active investigation, nobody can get it.

So say I took a video, we went out on a missing person, found them, came back.

That would be subject to open records.

Anybody could get a copy of that.

Any individual, any citizen could get a copy of that.

Um I was thinking more on the Motorola side, and I think that's that's what I'm saying that we probably need to have a representative to Lesis.

Um because I know they have been instances where I know Meta just did it with their glasses.

They took the video and then took people's videos that thought that they were not secure or that they were not saved, and then use that video, give it to the developers who are doing coding and they're using it.

So I just want to make sure that that situation is not going to happen, or if it's gonna happen that people's faces will be blurred.

Correct.

So that they could not do unless they obtained it through open records.

Okay, can we make sure that it's in the contract?

Because usually people forget about testing data, and I know that's it.

The reason is because I it happened to me one time.

I was working in a company and I got testing data, and it turned out to be real data.

Yeah, I I would not be comfortable with a company that used any of our official footage without our permission.

And do you remember if that was in the contract, Joe?

I believe it was.

I think that's what they're more focused on since this is a pilot program.

It was more for the training purposes side, but as far as that goes, we were okay with them not utilizing this for data accumulation.

Can you send me that that page or everybody's just curious to see how they're handling it now?

Um question that I got from the from some residents.

Um, is these data that the federal government can subpoena uh as we know DHS has been following or not following sometimes procedures, and I just want to make sure that the safety and security and privacy of our residents is um is bare amount.

Yeah, like any information we have at the police department, they can subpoena that from us, absolutely.

Okay.

That's where my questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sells.

Two questions.

One coming off council member Bromley.

Joe, talk talk a little bit about the data retention clauses in this contract.

Um and also, are we in privy with Motorola?

Are we in privity with uh the some conglomerate some entity that they formed?

What what's you just talk a little bit about that and what the data retention is?

And the second question is how large are these drones?

Just so people know what we're talking about here.

Are we talking about it?

Yeah, but for those listening on that.

Sorry.

I have an image of one that does not list the size.

You've seen it, it's it's under two feet square.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

And and we're in privity with Motorola and Brinks a subsidiary of Motorola, but the the Motorola, the agreement covers everything that has to do with the drones, but then relates back to Motorola's uh data retention, things like that.

Uh there's a uh services clause that relates back to standard Motorola verbiage on the certification on destruction of data, um audit rights, anything like that.

Yes, yes, all that's contained.

It's in the the separate link that goes to about 50 pages of fine print for sure.

Uh thanks.

It it does not show the specific size, but so this is the shell, and that shell is mountable on a vehicle.

And so that's looks to be less than two feet, absolutely.

All right.

Councilmember Hall, and then we'll go to Councilmember Zach.

Councilmember Hall?

Thank you.

I'm sorry, my jumping.

Yes, no, no, go ahead, please.

No, no, no.

Um I imagine that there are other police um departments that are using these Motorola drones.

Do we know of uh other um police organizations in other states or locally that are using this Motorola program or is that are we the first ones?

I don't know of anybody who's using the Motorola Brink program.

Sandy Springs is using a competitor and Rookhaven uses a competitor.

I was just looking for some statistics.

So if they had some stats of for uh folks that use the program or use a drone program, maybe not necessarily the Motorola, how much quicker you can get um information?

Do you have anything like that?

I don't have that.

I can get that because uh as I did mention, Brookhaven was one of the early adopters in Georgia.

They've had it for I believe at least six years they've been operating a drone program, and they absolutely love it.

They talk about the speed and how they get out to their calls very well.

No, I just think that would be helpful for the public to understand the benefits of deploying a program like this and how it could help being on the ground and get to locations faster so that you're not.

And that's one of the things that we want to determine with this one year trial is does it work for Roswell?

Is it going to be helpful in our community?

You know, we we are fortunate to have a low crime rate.

Um, but is it going to be that helpful to where it's worth the investment in the program?

Well, you shared with me the story about the uh person in the river or how you know how helpful the drones are for you know finding people in distress and yes.

We we've had a number of incidents um where we've deployed drones where they were helpful.

We had one recently where a subject um called 911 said he was going to allow the police to come and kill him, he was gonna shoot the police.

We ended up deploying our other drone.

This would have been a perfect example.

We would have had the drone on there instantly because it took us a long time to determine it where this individual was and was he indeed at that location where he said he was.

So that is something this would deploy instantly.

Um missing persons, it's very crucial when we have an Alzheimer's patient that wanders off from a facility, which we get very frequently.

This would get there quickly and hopefully capture them before they got too far away, and we would see them on the video before too long.

Right now, the officer gets there, gets the lookout, then we start looking on our cameras in the area and have officers just manually patrolling.

Thank you.

Councilmember Zet.

Hey, good evening.

Uh, kind of to tail on to Christine's question.

Um, and I I trust you'll do this, but I just want to make sure as we go into this trial you develop KPIs that if we go, this is what would be successful or not, because ultimately it would probably lead to recommendation.

Um the other two questions I have are really out of curiosity, so you could kind of give me short answers.

Uh the first is how if it's on uh the summit headquarters, and that this is like half joking, half serious.

Are we gonna have issues with the attack hawks there?

So we do have some aggressive hawks at the summit.

And they are I I see them on a on a daily basis.

I've not seen them go after any other drones, so we haven't deployed our drone in that area, and I've not seen them go after the drones.

Um they win.

I don't the the hawk is very impulsive.

So there's three of them that we've seen.

Um and then to to kind of double up on that question, John reminded me.

One of the stories that we talked about, there's a feature in this that uh there's a help button and also the new radios can determine if there's an officer or a firefighter down and it automatically dispatches the drone when that incident occurs.

And uh we did have a similar incident last year where that would have been helpful prior to us getting 911 calls about an officer being down, it would have sensed it and been dispatched at the time.

And uh last question is uh is the deployment going to be integrated with like our CAT system?

So when a certain code comes up, it'll automatically go no human required?

Correct, that's exactly how it works.

It will go based on a system that we have a predetermined, and it can be manually launched as well.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peason.

Like many others before me, I have several questions.

Um Councilmember Brumley alluded to, do you have examples of specific criteria that would be utilized to deploy the drones?

Like what types of responses would they be used for?

So we've got six months of a pre-deployment process.

We would meet with our the neighbors at Brookhaven, Sandy Springs, but just off the top of my head, I listed those fires because fire is crucial, our timing and getting there, accidents with injury, certain crimes in progress, not all, but uh you would see a certain crime in progress if it's a carjacking, absolutely, but if it's a domestic violence incident, no, because everything that we're gonna capture is gonna be indoors, there's no need to deploy it on that.

So we would go down the list of all of our calls for service and determine which ones it should be automatically deployed on.

Got it.

And then that's part of that six-month pre-deployment where we determine those.

So we're really only getting six months of use.

No, no, six months pre-deployment.

Okay.

Then we have one year of the service.

Then it starts.

And then the specific ways that the drones can improve response times.

I know that you mentioned fire, but a lot of the times fire is not visible from the exterior of the building.

It's especially once it starts inside.

Um, or for example, if it's happening inside a building, or if you're establishing that there's a carjacking, like thumbs up, it's a carjacking.

We know that because the call said that.

How would we improve the response for the call itself?

So, and and you hear me, we've talked many times about response time, you and I have where in my world, fire and EMS is my priority for response times.

I care about how fast they get there.

Your fire chief will tell you how fast that fire will double in size before they get there.

So response time for fire to me is the number one top priority.

So fire and EMS.

That's critical.

Um crimes in progress, absolutely.

You almost went down the one of the paths that I talk about when people talk about police response time is yeah, we got here, yeah, there's where the car was when it was stolen.

That doesn't help.

Carjacking, yeah, we're hopefully gonna be able to find the car as it's leaving a scene.

If we get called instantly, the faster we get there, and you have that higher vantage point, you're gonna see more from an aerial perspective for a crime like that.

But a lot of it is to just capture what's going on prior to us arriving.

If we get we do get a number of calls, we call them trouble unknown.

We don't know what's going on, we get a 9-1-1 call with people screaming.

You might hear gunshots in the background.

We don't know what's going on.

Getting more eyes above us is gonna be helpful in that situation.

Understood.

Um based off the fact that you said some surrounding cities use competitors, maybe not the exact same program, uh, or other places in the country.

Do you have any documented instances of the drones crashing or compromising a response?

I've not heard of any.

Not locally today.

Okay, so there's no safety concerns or liability concerns from y'all's perspective?

No, and I'm I'm trying to think because we would respond if there's a any type of drone accident in the city.

We've not responded to any since I've been in private drones as well.

Got it.

Um, and then my last question.

I realize that this is a new technology, and this may be a question for legal.

I understand you guys also enforce the law.

Is there any case law in place that explains how this does not compromise the Fourth Amendment?

An unreasonable search and seizures or having establishing probable cause.

Look at you ready to go with the case.

We'll go down some fourth amendment jurisprudence right now.

Joe's excited.

Um so the drones are doing anything exterior.

The only thing you get in trouble with is curdilage.

Uh, but however, the the viewpoint here, you're not gonna have a fourth amendment search and seizure right because it's not the property like within your home.

So these are this is in public space and public viewpoints.

It's like an airplane could actually view the same thing, call in or report, the police would have probable costs to go out and you know, see if there's a crime being committed at the time.

So there wouldn't be any Fourth Amendment claims here that would probably have any merit.

So even if it's potentially for a call is responding to a call in the neighboring area, and it oh, this person might be doing something else, it could be breaking the law, so we're going to respond.

I understand that they're not always patrolling uh to Council Member Brunley's point.

But if I assume the camera's running from the time it deploys, correct?

Not just once it gets there.

It is, and but what it's capturing is it's speeding there is probably not visible to the eye.

But and just to expand on if we're responding to a 911 call to a location, then the police have a right to be in certain parts of that private property to investigate that 911 call.

Got it.

So depending exactly what it is, police have a right to go to a certain point, and then whatever's under the case law is the plain view doctrine.

If I am legally somewhere and I observe something that's illegal, as long as I'm in a legal place, then that does not compromise the fourth amendment.

And for basically placing the sky.

What?

For most of these calls, you're probably gonna have like an exigency uh exception, the exigent circumstances where there's an emergency going on, you have if police witness or can hear somebody gunshots in a home, they can go on, they don't need a fourth or a uh search warrantation.

Yeah, they can do it on an exigent circumstances.

So that's that's something that probably applies here.

You just gotta really know your exceptions and have a prosecutor who knows their exceptions that can justify uh a Fourth Amendment incurred incursion.

Got it.

Yeah, I admittedly, I was public safety liaison for several years.

I am all about approving response times, safety for the officers, and as well as the um firefighters.

My major concern, probably because I read way too much dystopian novels, is the whole eye in the sky approach and essentially having that at government use um unabated, and there's not a whole lot of um established time that something like this has been used.

Uh so I do realize that it's uh potentially a logical fallacy of slippery slope, but I do have my concerns, especially for long-term use.

Not to mention the long-term budget if it's 250 a year.

Yeah, that's an estimate.

So part of our evaluation that is a cost that would if we utilize three drones, that's something we need to determine is does the city our size above our call volume necessitate three.

Got it.

Understood.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Yes, Councilmember Sells.

All right.

Uh I do have y'all raised a couple of points that I want to follow up on.

You talked about the accuracy and specifically that you know it would follow the cell phone.

Is this using cell tower data or is it using cell phone data?

Which have how so if you're talking about how the 911 call comes in, and that's one of the reasons I brought our 911 director here.

Yeah.

Oh, John.

We get that.

So the 911 call comes in.

Well, specifically what I'm asking is is it you said that this is accurate.

It knows where to go.

Like you gave the example of uh Okay.

Sorry.

How is it geolocated?

Well, specifically, yeah, because it's one thing for cell tower data.

It's another thing if it's zeroing in on the cell location specifically.

So which is it?

Um it could be either.

Um kind of going for it.

So when somebody calls 911, there's a couple different options in which we can get an address.

One, they just actually verbally tell us the address because they might not be at the location.

Uh example, my daughter called me, someone's breaking into the house, I live at this address.

So there's that option of how we get that address, manually enter it, it's verified in our system through our GIS data in the background.

The other option is when they call in, we can get the cell tower location, and it does like a uh triangulation and kind of gives us an estimate.

Um, and more recently, what we've been getting is only when somebody calls 911 we actually get the GPS data off their phone.

Umly when they call 911, and that's the data that we historically use when somebody's calling, they'll tell us where they're coming from, but we can actually confirm it with that GPS data when they're calling 911.

Um, and that would be the address that we would historically use to send to that location.

To your dystopian novel.

I'm reading we by you beginning.

How might not right now we can't type in your phone number and get your location.

It is only when you call 911 that it is sent to us.

Okay.

That that was uh so it's clear that we can use cell phone data, and this will be tied into that system.

So we're talking about pretty darn accurate and pretty darn comprehensive.

Let's see.

It should be.

Yes.

It gives you a percentage of accuracy.

Yeah, it will tell us like it.

We we can see on there it says we're 90% confident that this is within sometimes 15 feet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's pretty good accuracy.

Okay.

You talk about fire specifically.

Is it have infrared cameras or no?

I do not believe they do.

Uh that might be a good idea.

I think it's an option, and I don't remember if that was in this contract.

It's not in this package.

Yeah.

And then the last thing is uh Joe, back to you.

Um, did you can you talk a little bit about the liability uh language and who bears risk of loss, and yeah, this is a pilot program, you know, the early Christians get the best law in, so I just want to make sure that we're thoughtful about how we're protecting ourselves and and uh being this early adopter of this cool new technology.

No, we are uh there are some exclusions in here, but we are in the indemnified um from any drone malfunctions that may happen.

Um there is maintenance that they have to do, uh, but we are protected.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Yes, Councilmember Beaston.

I'm gonna couch it before she makes the motion.

I am currently a no, but it's because I don't have enough information.

But if this moves forward to council, I will we'll be spending some time together so that I can uh drill down on this a little bit more uh to get more comfortable with it.

All right.

All right.

Well, we'll entertain a motion of moving this item forward.

Thank you.

Um motion to move item number two, the consideration to end that enter into the agreement with VRINC and Motorola Solutions for a trial drone as for responder initiative takeoff program.

All right, we have a motion.

Do we have a second moving it forward because I also want to hear a little bit more while I second that?

Alright, we have a motion and a second.

We have any further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor.

All right.

Okay.

All right, all in for we've we're unanimous then moving this item forward and uh understand the uh thoughts and uh concerns about uh additional information, so we'll provide that prior to the council meeting on March 23rd.

All right, thank you.

All right, the next item, item number three, consideration of an ordinance to amend the unified development code, the city of Roswell, Georgia, by amending Article 2 Rules of Interpretation, Section 2.2.20, residential parking location initiation.

Let me also say at the outset that items three through nine are all related to initiations of text amendments to the unified development code or the code of ordinances pertaining to some code enforcement items that we have recognized, um, our team has recognized uh that are in need of modification and or change to provide clarity and or uh additional enforcement mechanisms for code enforcement.

So I believe the presentation will be all encompassing.

However, uh we want to make sure that um each specific item is given it to do uh justice and time to um either be discussed or understood.

And Michelle Alexander, our community development director will walk us through all of these items.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to be able to walk through this as one presentation.

Um just talking a little bit about the mechanics before we get into the content of what the request is.

If you um ever wish to make any changes to your unified development code, the code itself sets up a specific process for that.

Um, and the first step in that is to initiate the process.

So the your request this evening is is very limited.

It's just to be allowed to permission to move forward.

So you don't have to decide on the specifics of any language tonight or a resolution on it.

It is real just requesting the permission to move forward.

So we're bringing to you the case for um bring um initiating the process.

Once we get move forward, we work with legal, and if we need any external experts, we bring that in to craft the best um legal language possible to amend your codes.

There's a public hearing that's required by the planning commission, and planning commission also makes a recommendation on the topic, and then it'll come to you in the future.

So you'll get it a few times this item as part of first read and a public hearing, and then any changes you might direct.

So after first hearing, that's the whole point of it is having a hearing, you might get in additional information you would like to direct staff to make any changes, and then we come to you for second read, and then it would be for adoption.

Now that's for the unified development code.

You also have another part of the code, the code of ordinances, and a couple of um text amendments are also being proposed for that.

But we're coming to you today.

Why are we here?

We're um talking to you about small changes throughout both the code of ordinances as well as the unified development code on areas where we've been handicapped, where your code enforcement team has worked to maintain property and have proper high quality of community design and quality community um standards, and has been handicapped because of some tiny language in the code that has been a barrier, and we've either not been able to enforce it, or we haven't um persuaded the municipal judge, or where we wind up having conversations, extended conversations with residents, and we want to make language clear.

So we're really seeking clarity.

Um want to make it the code easier to explain to the public and also to defend in court if we have to, and so we can maintain the high standards that you demand.

Um a total of five amendments are coming to you from the unified development code.

So that's your agenda items three through seven.

They have to do with front parking in the front yards and on grass, parking on grass and commercial areas, um real estate signs, and um also defining real est um occupied as it relates to real estate signs.

And then we're also talking to you about storefront windows where there's um LED lighting right now, it's not addressed at all.

The code is silent on LED.

And then there's in a separate section of your code, the code of ordinances, there's two additional ones.

One concerns um bulky items in your dumpsters, and also when we see um inoperable vehicles.

So we have a few images just to prompts and explain the purpose of that, where we've had encounters where residents will call and complain about somebody parking on their grass or leaving their trailer equipment on their grass or boats in the front yard.

Um, and because of the way the definition is of the location, it winds up being a debate or a discussion.

So we want to clarify the front yard is the location that you're not allowed to be parking on your grass in the front yard.

Um similarly, we have issues with um several commercial uh business owners who are habitually parking on the grass, parking in uh also even in the um streetscape where we can't even get access to mow the lawn or where they are parking on different parts and turning into mud on their own properties.

So we want to address that and specify that you're not allowed to park on grass.

So that's what the code change would work to remedy.

There is a current situation where a resident was concerned about the number of signs and real estate signs.

Um currently, when a commercial use or a tenant is the is open, it's for lease, it's a vacancy.

The code allows you to have a sign one sign up that um with a temporary sign and says for lease, and that's what we want.

We want to make sure they can advertise that they are for lease or that there's vacant space.

Um there is a def there is not a definition of occupied in the code, so we want to clarify that when we talk about it's if it's occupied, they have to take down the sign, but we mean fully occupied.

So if you have a building, you have one tenant, but you have four other tenants.

The intention is to allow, because there's four other empty spaces to allow a sign until it's fully leased so that they still have that.

So there was a concern by residents, and we wanted to make sure we clarified that um intention and walk through with you all and make sure that it isn't your intention.

We mentioned the LEDs.

We don't have a definition for LED, we don't prohibit LED signage in windows.

We allow one neon sign that says open.

We allow one sign, um, but since we don't define LED or um neon very well, the um windows are cluttered and it's a little bit car like a carnival in some of our um convenience stores, vapes, shops, some of these different shops where they have it cluttered, and we aren't able to enforce the code because we don't have a prohibition of the specific kinds of lighting.

And then the last two are in your code of ordinances.

Um currently there we have vehicles that are inoperable because they don't have tags.

So once you don't have a tag and you don't have your license, that renders your vehicle inoperable.

We need to just put that into the code.

We don't have the language.

We want it to be as strict as your international property maintenance code and to say what it's it can't be if it's inoperable, um, it can't you it is considered um improperly parked.

So for example, uh um you'll see the truck that's there without any tags, and it sits and clutters um for as if it were parking storage.

Um so when they're when they do not have tags, this change to the code we're proposing will allow us to to site them and and clean up the clutter so that they don't have inoperable vehicles improperly um parked.

And then finally, this um issue has come up for your code enforcement officer and also for sanitation.

So we work with other departments on this matters.

Um whereby bins that the city has to pick up can often become cluttered with large bulky items, mattresses, appliances, furniture, and not only that, that it's difficult then for your sanitation workers to click to empty those.

One problem, but they become overfull and then they they overflow because guard the regular garbage that's supposed to be in there has no space to go in there.

Um so we have cleanup areas and several different commercial properties that have a kind of routine problem with this.

So we want to clarify that um bulky items are not allowed in the city dumpsters.

So that runs through the list of um codes of the I say four here, it's actually five, excuse me, amendments to the UDC related to parking, grass, um uh real estate signs, the LED lighting, and then also for the code of ordinances, um bulky items and dumpsters and also inoperable vehicles.

Um we would like to have permission to move forward um to repair language to amend your code so that we can enforce as as your intent and keep our city at the high quality you want.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle, for capturing this uh concisely.

However, we do want to make sure that there's ample time uh for discussion on each individual item if needed.

So we'll certainly open up the uh conversation.

Yes, Councilmember Beson.

Um the dumpsters, because those are city dumpsters, correct?

Correct.

So will the signage on those dumpsters all be updated to reflect that no bulky items are permitted under this new ordinance?

I'd have we'd have to work with sanitation, but that would be a logical way to announce and educate about the change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilmember Zette.

I think I'm good with everything.

Uh one thing I do want to explore is uh item 6 10.3.22, which is I believe the lease signage.

Um I'm not sure what there's temperature on the room for this, but I think I'd be more okay with more restrictive languaging.

Um I do think just the way that businesses have evolved, uh like I I'd speak from personal uh perspective, like when I'm looking for a storefront.

Um I'm going online, I'm not driving around.

So I'm I'm at least putting out there.

I I'm more willing to have more restriction on this than what you're currently proposing.

And I'll see if the rest of the room feels differently.

Yeah, so right, like I I think I'd be okay with like up to a year, and then if after a year it still hasn't been leased, the sign has to come down or something along that line.

I don't know the exact language, but just something more restrictive.

So if there's a spot that hasn't been leased in I don't know how many years that there isn't just constantly a sign.

Thank you.

Councilmember sales.

So, you know, we said vacancy, so we uh do we want to type tie this to vacancy is what you're doing.

Yeah, occupancy to define occupying.

Right, and but they can put it up once vacant.

The problem is once it's occupied, you have to you don't get your temporary sign anymore.

That sign has to come down.

Right.

But there are you're saying that if there's a vacancy, they can put a sign up for that one particular storefront.

Unit, yes, yes.

That's what that was.

I think vacancy is too late, right?

It's got to be in advance of the actual vacancy.

And so this is going to be hard to enforce because they're putting it on the market, you know, in anticipation of the end of a lease, which may be six months in advance, and these commercial leases take longer than six minutes to let.

So I I would say they're gonna need more time than just vacancy because that means they're gonna absorb that lease up time, however long that may be.

Um not a real drone, don't play one on TV, but that would be uh that would be a problem for me.

Yeah, yeah.

We'll look into that both with um owners and with um code enforcement or what what's reasonable and and helpful.

All right, thank you.

Yes, council member Hall.

Just to follow up on that, what what prompted this?

It's because um real the the signs are staying up after the place is leased up and just not coming down.

Is that or could can you just elaborate on that, please?

This this is um actually it has it was the reverse.

Um there was there's residents who was complaining about existing signs, even though there were still vacancies, and we we so a building would have vacancies and uh a resident was concerned about having the sign up saying it's for lease, even though they had say one occupant already occupied, they didn't want to cease as many signs.

So this is coming in.

I'm missing the point on that.

Yeah, it would so the the resident thought we have too many signs and so wanted to restrict the our interpretation, our interpretation is that if you have any um vacancy, we you are considered unoccupied, that you can have the sign.

The code reads if you're occupied, you have to take the lease the sign down.

And so there was a debate with resident about that, and it escalated, and so we thought let's just clear it up and um make sure we're interpreting it correctly that once that you can be partially occupied and still have a sign as long as you have the tenants.

It was it was what one occupancy with three other units vacant, right?

Or something to along those lines along those lines.

Right.

So if the code said you it was occupied, the principal building was occupied, then the sign would have to come down.

Right.

They were arguing that we didn't have a definition of occup of occupied and it doesn't say fully occupied.

Right.

Um or partially, and they weren't accepting staff's uh explanation of the reason so we are coming to y'all and confirming that's what you intend and want to avoid that debate.

We're a very responsive government, yeah.

A lot of what's saying did you have any council member?

Oh, sorry, council member sales and then be some.

I just yeah, I want to keep I want to stay on this because uh you so we're not we're not particularizing the word occupancy, we're generalizing the word occupancy.

In other words, if there's one unit leased, the sign must come down, or are we saying if there is one unit vacant, the sign may stay up?

Which are we saying we're saying it may stay up.

We're saying until you are if you are fully occupied.

Then your sign comes down.

Right.

So if I am not fully occupied, and we now have a definition, thank you, legal of occupied.

Um since we have like virtually everything is a brown field in Ross.

Well, that's you know, we have very little that is new.

We're talking about it.

Sorry.

Okay.

We have we have no fields.

Yeah, exactly.

No horse farms.

I mean, so everything is basically a release.

It's not, you know, so it was occupied and it's not.

So this is I'm I'm afraid we're chasing a ball down the hill here.

I guess I'm not catching on.

It's just my problem.

In a way, protecting the right to have a sign up if you have vacancies.

Right.

Derelict property is not in the city's interest.

And so getting an occupant in that is in the city's interest.

Councilmember Beeson to piggyback on that.

And this situation, and I understand that it came from a resident complaint.

It seems like they are mad at the symptoms, but not the diagnosis.

Um, exactly.

Uh I understand their frustration with the number of signage doesn't mean I necessarily agree in the sense that in my mind it's private property and they're trying to market said private property.

Also to Councilmember Cell's point, I don't understand how the property owner would incentivize turning over those units or renting them out if they're not given proper notice.

Um I'm I'm on board with the update to the language with the understanding that it's the clarification you just provided to council member cells, which is instead of the complaining residents' very myopic interpretation that one rented unit therefore constitutes all rented units.

Instead, it's the opposite, which is if you have availability, you're within your legal rights to advertise that.

Correct.

Thank you.

I'm gonna I think that's the clarification that's it was amb ambiguous in the code.

Okay.

Councilmember Bromley, I'm sorry.

Um did you have the definition of occupied on these slides?

I I do not have a infrastructure.

I have a I think if we just you know interesting.

See, yes, yes, yes.

Yes, ma'am.

It's pretty short.

Okay.

Um occupied the state or condition of legally holding, possessing, utilizing or residing in a building or portion thereof.

That's the current that's our new we the new proposed.

We don't have a definition currently, so we're remedying that.

We didn't have a definition.

And then in the text, it would say um refer to fully occupied.

Once fully occupied, you have to remove your temporary sign.

And and just to clear up what was going on here, staff's interpretation was the interpretation we were talking about that if you have one unit available for rent, you can have a sign.

And so that that is what the interpretation was.

This just goes to make that clearer and make that more code.

Yeah, make it clearer and easier to enforce for code enforcement.

Council member oh you have one more council.

Just remember on the same vein since we are adding a definition of occupied for the neon LED.

Do we need to also have a separate definition?

Just I mean, I don't know all the different types of signage.

I don't know if there's signages that will not be included in either or something.

Like if it uses a halogen light, you know, that's not neon, that's not in the LED defined currently in the code.

Is LED defined?

No.

So we can add that to our consideration to bring language.

Like make it any illuminated some sort of illuminated side because a halogen bow or a fluorescence, you know, that's not neon or LED explorescent.

Umber Hall.

Just a few points.

And I think Sarah, Councilmember to this.

If they if um a tenant gives notice that they're going to be vacating or their lease is coming up and they're not renewing, we would consider that as a vacancy, isn't it?

I I it makes sense too, and we'll work to make the right language for it.

Because I hear I hear that um consensus.

So as we do our research to modify this, clarify that.

And the real estate report.

And then also um just on council member Brumley's um question.

I I recall that, and maybe this is just in the historic district, that there were a lot there was a lot of conversation about um lumens and the other measurement of light.

Um is that just historic district, or is that I remember a very robust conversation on the historic district.

Yeah, about limits.

I don't know if that can apply to the LED if they if they operate in those um spheres.

I don't know that much about the mechanics of lighting, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

Yes.

If we can pull from another part of our code to assist.

Thank you.

Yes.

We'll note that one as well.

Councilmember Philippi.

Um since Councilmember Brumley pointed out the definition, at the end of the definition, it says or portion thereof, which seems to me to contradict what you're trying to do at my reading that one.

It's supporting it saying if it's just a portion thereof, you it's occupied the state or condition of legally holding possession.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Joe, what do you think?

That would that's a good point.

Let's clean that up.

Yeah.

I think that's up and we'll probably need to clean up some of the language on this.

And I think yes, we'll clean up some of the language after this.

I think there's a better way to look at occupied and make it clear that if you have one unit for red open, you are allowed to sign.

I think it's easier to just make it explicit like that.

Councilmember Bson.

Can the easy fix just be switching out building for unit?

The state or condition of legally holding, possessing, utilizing residing uh unit or portion thereof.

Because typically your sub leases are divided by unit or defined by unit.

Yeah.

So would that solve the remedy the issue?

All right.

Let's go back and take a look at that as well.

Uh council member Z.

I think I'm generally good on this, although I'd like to respectfully make a request.

Um my intuition is that the amount of signage might have the opposite effect to driving occupancy.

And I don't have any way to validate that.

So my respectful request is don't spend too much time, but is it possible for you to try to validate or invalidate that intuition that if there's any study that says a restriction of signs might help occupancy, which is kind of allowing them to be up?

Because I do think we have a lot of lease signs, and my intuition is that it has the inverse effect of what it's hoping to achieve.

Yeah.

See what we can find.

Um thank you all.

Good comments.

All um, any further questions or comments at this time?

These are all initiations.

And um let me ask a question.

Uh a general question is would you like these to move forward?

It are there any individual items who would not want to move forward.

You ready to move?

Is everyone ready to move forward with all of the items as an initiation?

Understanding there's several public hearings, and obviously this will come back to you on two occasions.

All right, so um uh we don't we don't need to just do them all right.

Yeah.

All right, so you're uh what I would need is a motion um an approval to move all of the items forward, items number three through nine.

Move those forward as an initiation motion by council member Bison.

Second by council member Philippi.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor.

All right, thank you very much.

Item number 10.

And actually 10 and 11 both are connected.

Um both are considerations of ordinance to amend the unified development code.

Um different sections of the unified development code, um, and they have been generated uh essentially, or the genesis of it was one particular property, uh, but we'll explain that or Jenny Payton, uh planning and zoning uh director will explain both items.

Hi, um I have items 10 and 11.

Um the problem we had here were that we have five properties located in the city that have over 15 acres and are currently zoned RS-18.

Um RS-18 zoning requires a lot size of 18,000 square feet, and um these five properties are over 653,000 square feet.

An RS18 property does not permit a horse stable non-commercial as a limited use, no matter how large the property is.

So now we're talking about greenfields, right?

Yeah, yeah.

So a horse stable non-commercial is currently permitted as a limited use for properties over 30,000 square feet to acres that are zoned RS 30, RS87, and AG43.

Um these are the five properties and their location.

The first one happens to be the one that was brought to our attention and legal's attention.

An 18.6 acre parcel at 115 Russell Road.

It's actually accessed through the city of Mountain Park.

And the current new owner here would like to bring her horses to this property.

And so right now, with the code as it is, they cannot.

The other four parcels in the city that would also benefit from this change are located on King Road.

These three properties, um, I'll show you on a map here in a second, are actually um adjacent to each other, and then we have a 17.7 acre parcel on Spring Hollow Court, and you can see the owners of King Road are all the same.

So here's the current Russell property in question that you know the the item came before us, and you see how we enter through Mountain Park across the lake there.

Here are the King Road properties, they are adjacent to one another with one ownership north of Hard Scrabble Road on King.

And the third par third owner owns off of I think it's Spring Hollow Drive and is located there south of Crossfield Road and east of Woodstock Road.

So the proposed change would be to add a limited use for RS18 for horse stable non-commercial.

And I do have some drafted language.

It has evolved since the packet language, and I do have it here.

So we propose initiating a change that would allow to maintain the two acres for parcels in those current zoning districts of AG43, RS87, and RS-30 with no change there, but to add for parcels over 15 acres that are currently zoned RS 18 zoning.

The next language change would come related to the accessory building.

Again, maintaining the language of a minimum of 150 feet from the property line for the accessory building that would for the keeping of horses for those districts that are currently in the code, but then modifying it for this RS-18, knowing that these parcels are shaped differently, to ask for a minimum of 100 feet.

And if the applicant cannot achieve that, we give some options of a 40-foot planted buffer or a 20-foot planted buffer and a fence combination to create that visual screening from that.

So that is that item.

If you this will follow the same path as the other text amendments and go through planning commission for recommended language changes, and then back to you for first and second reading.

Do you have any questions?

Council Member Hall.

Thank you, and thank you, Jeannie.

Does this um make it any less restrictive of what we have for anybody else's rights?

I I wouldn't say no.

Um you're saying that does anybody have a use that we're gonna now restrict.

I'm by imposing these um 150 feet and 100 feet and 40 foot and 20 foot.

So no, that would that is the changes that we're proposing are just to the RS-18, which is an addition to.

We are not making any changes to the current properties that are proposed.

RS-30, 87, AG43, no changes, operate as usual.

Correct.

And RS18 if they're over two acres.

Um for RS18, you would actually have to have 15 acres.

15 acres.

Yes.

So we had too many parcels that are that two-acre in a subdivision with RS-18 that that didn't seem ideal to consider this on.

RS-18 is a very common subdivision zoning.

So we're asking for a threshold of 15 acres, and I'll go back to that language, maybe right here.

So we're gonna maintain the two acres for those larger parcels in the city and ask for 15.

So you want to have any amount of horses in RS-18, you have to have 15 acres of threshold.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember B so confirmed for Councilmember Hall, those parcels that you went over, those are the only ones that would be applicable to these rule changes at all.

Yes.

It's not that they brought something for it.

The top one did, but these are the only ones that are applicable at all.

Yeah, yeah, these are the only ones that the entire criteria, and I wanted you to know the scope of what you were deciding on.

Yeah, so in other words, you're you're not opening the watershed and here comes 50 new houses that want to have horses.

Yeah.

It's literally just limited to these.

Got it.

The alternative for these applicants would be to have to individually rezone to one of those zoning districts, which may not be the most appropriate um solution.

All right.

Yes, council member Z.

Not too much, but so and BR the differences where uh RS18 is basically the new language.

And I'm curious why RS18 doesn't mirror the previous language for AG43.

I'm sure it's all fine and right.

I was just trying to understand why.

Do you mean for number five?

Uh yes.

Um and are you speaking specific to adding the options of the buffers?

Um well that end specifically, like the hundred feet versus 150 feet.

Oh, we felt like the 100 feet would be or 150 feet would be challenging.

It would be challenging for this individual who came forward to discuss um this with the city.

So we recognize that in these situations um there might be in the in the particular situation we're dealing with, the barn exists right now, and it's about a hundred feet from the property line.

So we did some brainstorming about how can we achieve that separation from the surrounding development?

And these were um kind of screening buffer options that um we felt like fit.

The hundred feet maybe didn't um meet it for anyone for everyone, and we felt like the 40 and 20 foot could be reasonable.

All right, thank you.

Yes, council member Bromley.

And so give me because I'm new at this, but when you say um none use for non-commercial personal prop purposes, does this include like a nonprofit, like if they decide to convert their barn into a horse retirement place, and then you know, people bring their horses.

They could not collect any sort of rent for the horses, so it'd have to be personal um ownership of the horses.

I mean, uh, I'm sure you could have ownership by a different person of the horse officially, but there could be no commercial activity.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Beeson.

And to clarify the language to, even if it's just for personal use, um, not a change but existing within the code section three.

Um, we limit how many horses can be kept on acreage, and then any additional horse for every half acre, there's limited limits to that as well.

So that'll prevent any um large scale horse operation.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sales.

I I I like that that I get the half acre.

What what problem are you trying to solve with the non-commercial?

I mean, so I've got 15 acres, and someone wants to board their horse on my property.

What beef does the city no pun intended have with that?

Um, we just didn't explore that option.

Um, we only explored uh one citizen that wanted to have their personal horses on the property.

We didn't feel like this was a commercial opportunity, especially at RS18.

Right, right.

But now we're talking about, you know, up of how big is that property?

15 acres?

Is it what's 18?

15 acres.

Yeah.

And we have limitations on how many house horses they can have because of the half acre per hoof, I guess, or whatever.

Um so I guess I'm not clear on what problem we're trying to solve there and what risk we think there is and why we would give a hoot whether they are boarding horses or not, as long as they have the appropriate number of acres.

Um it just simply wouldn't fall under the non-commercial part of this use.

Yeah.

I think that I think I understand the question.

This individual property owners uh in a private property owner, residential property owner.

I think the question council member sells is posing is is boarding and/or equestrian center or whatever other form of term we would use.

Do we have allowances in the code or any zoning districts that would allow for boarding of horses on a property and or an equestrian center, for instance?

Um yes, we have language.

Um I probably couldn't answer very uh efficiently what that language is.

It's not something that's posed to me often.

It would be like a combination of livestock raising and outdoor.

Um I might even have to pull on Jackie, I see she's here.

Um, like outdoor recreation.

So for outdoor recreation to happen on the site, it would be more commercial in nature.

Umce you start talking about uh the mayor.

Here's here is Mayor Robo show.

Well, Jackie is fine, that Mayor Robushow is anxious to get into conversation here.

So I just want to be clear.

When we talk about no more than three horses for the first two acres, but then we're talking for each additional point five acre, you can keep up to three more horses per.5 acre, correct?

So on this property, two acres is three horses.

Then technically on the other thirteen, if I calculate that out, that means 26 quote unquote times three, that's 78 additional horses.

One additional it says up for each additional horse kept beyond the three.

Yes.

Okay, so another 26.

Sorry, because that's 30 29 horses could technically be kept on this property.

I I hadn't done that math.

That that is language that was currently in the I'm not disagreeing, and I'm not far or against it.

I grew up on a horse farm, so I I'm okay with it, but I'm just saying everyone needs to be clear when we this kind of language that it's not if it it would allow up to on this parcel property.

Not that they're gonna do it, but technically, so 29 horses could technically be kept on this property.

Yes, okay.

Councilmember Beeson.

I'm all for it, but uh to have the amount of money where 26 horses is my problem.

Um I don't believe that that's the concern of the current owner.

I believe they just have a few horses.

Um but to council member sells point and to clarify before Jackie gets to wow us with her amazing knowledge of the UDC.

Um this is only related to the residential code, so they only have the language for non-commercial.

If we go into the commercial code, then that's a whole entire other table that opens up the uses for commercial use for horse property.

Councilmember Sales.

I mean, Mary grew up on the horse.

I mean, it's pretty common in the horse community to keep your horse at somebody else's place and pay them a couple bucks for the for the grazing fee.

So I I guess I don't understand what problem we're solving here by by making this limitation that they can't charge somebody for so this is already existing within the code if she if they were if they were petitioning for commercial use, then it would likely be a completely different issue for us to solve.

But in this, it's just for her her own kicks and giggles that she's going to be operating a horse farm for personal use with her own personal horses.

Then otherwise it would be a completely different can of worms that we'd be opening.

Um but I think in this case we're we're trying to solve for a very specific issue in our code that is pressing for one resident but could be applicable to other residents as well.

Um a handful.

Um I understand the concern with the commercial issue, or if they wanted to board in that case, they would have to bring that forward to us through a completely different application, correct?

Yeah, they would have to rezone.

Um go ahead.

No, okay.

So technically in the code, the only thing we have under the use chart is horse stable non-commercial.

So we actually don't have anything specifically in the code that allows for commercial um uses of the boarding of horses or an equestrian center.

Um we have had an equestrian center in the past, but those are gone.

And then when this code was rewritten, um and we did um change it in 2003.

We specifically stated it for horse stable non-commercial um due to the um area and what we are looking for here at the city.

Now that doesn't mean that this mayor and council can't change that and indicate if we would like to have something for commercial, but the use is not the use is very specific, but non-commercial at this point in time.

Thank you.

It seems like uh an attractive nuisance to Ross.

Well, I mean, you think about Rosal, right?

I mean, you know, having having it it it's it's um I don't know, just a lot of restricting conversations.

We do have direction we could go.

I'm sorry.

No, no, no, please go ahead.

Um, with outdoor recreation, um livestock raising.

We could bring forward a case for rezoning to consider such a matter with um you know any kind of modifications that I'm surprised it has not uh the issue has not been raised previously in the last what 20 plus years.

That's interesting.

It has.

It has okay, all right.

Never mind.

Okay.

All right.

Um thank you very much.

Are there any further questions or comments returning to the two items items number 10 and 11?

Uh if not, um will entertain a motion to move these items forward.

Motion by council member Beeson.

We have second by council member Zach.

Any further discussion?

See none, all in favor?

All right, we'll move those items forward in initiation.

Item number 12, consideration of a blanket approval for the mayor and/or city administrator to sign an intergovernmental agreement between Fulton County, Georgia, and the City of Roswell, Georgia, for transportation projects that includes acceptance of reimbursement funds for the associate for the associated waterline.

That will be presented by Director of Transportation, Mr.

Andy Flegger, and also Deputy Director, Mr.

Greg Nicholas.

Gentlemen.

Thank you.

I have all my slides in one presentation now, so I won't get messed up, switching back and forth.

The first item, as we discussed, typically on transportation projects, Fulton County water has systems or pipes that need to be removed or moved or relocated as part of that.

And we will enter an agreement with them to move those pipes as part of the construction contract and get reimbursed by Fulton County.

What we are requesting is a blanket approval for the city administrator of the mayor to sign these agreements without coming to council for each specific one.

Although whichever construction project it's on, those will come to uh mayor and council for approval.

That is the summary of this item.

All right.

Thank you.

Um any questions or comments pertaining to this item?

Councilmember Zach?

Your brief and direct approach is very appreciated.

Thank you.

All right.

Any further comments or questions?

Councilmember Bromley.

Uh just for my education in the public, those IDAs are those documents that I store within the Fulton County website or documents that we have.

Yeah.

Both.

It'll be both.

Any any IJ that any IGA that are signed by by two parties or three parties or more would be required to be recorded in respective jurisdiction.

In this case, Roswell and Fulton County.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh, seeing no further questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion to move this item forward.

Motion by Councilmember Zach.

Second by Councilmember Sells.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor?

All right.

That moves forward unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Item number 13 is consideration to award the 2026 citywide resurfacing contract.

And this is a unique item for a couple of different reasons.

So we've received some information here just a couple of hours ago pertaining to this item that Mr.

Flegger andor Mr.

Nicholas will apprise us of the information that we have received regarding the potential resurfacing contract.

First, I'll just uh quickly go through it.

Um the 2026 resurfacing um contract.

The list was approved in December of 2025.

Uh that went out for bidding on February the 10th, and the responses were due.

There's a little back and forth here.

Uh it was four to five o'clock today, uh, is when the responses were due from the bidders.

I do have an update on that in a minute.

Um we will be choosing the lowest cost responsible bidder from that and propose to come to council with that number, that bidder uh for approval.

The purpose of doing it this way is um Canton Street is one of the first things we want to get done, and we wanted to get this contractor under contract and working as fast as possible.

We didn't want another two or three-week delay.

Um what is on the list uh 46 roads, about 42 center line miles.

We also are uh using parks and recs funding, uh asking this uh contractor to repave uh roads and parking areas in those three um parks.

And the bids we don't have specifics, they will be opened officially tomorrow morning, but there were nine bidders, and the price range was between 5.2 and 7.1 million dollars across the set of bidders.

Um we're we know at least one is below our current budget amount.

We don't know how many others are.

Uh that will all be vetted out in the next week or two as we find this uh select the bidder to reward this to all right.

Thank you very much for that update.

Um obviously when this information uh is reviewed by the staff, it'll be brought forward.

I will um highlight again that we're trying to move this along as as quickly as we can for a couple of reasons.

One, it would help I would assume the bidder, whomever that is, uh, to start moving forward with these um resurfacing projects.

We certainly don't want to get into the fall and or winter like we did last year, which caused several challenges for us.

Also, um Kent Street, I believe, is on this as well.

We want to be able to do that hopefully between the first and second alive in Roswell between April and May.

Yes, uh, to try to get that done as well.

I will also highlight the fact that it's the lowest responsible qualified bidder.

Right.

Um, and so we want to make sure that the vendor who is chosen has the capability and the capacity to complete this project, commensurate with the quality the residents of Ross will expect.

Okay.

We we did put language in this bid that um once we sign a contract with the bidder, they have 30 days to begin work and actual start working.

They have how many days to complete all roads?

Sorry, I'm drawing a blank.

120.

120 days to complete work on all roads.

Um, they have a blackout period where they can't work in the parks during the summer, but they do have an end of September deadline to finish all work in parks.

All right.

Uh council members out.

Uh I hope this isn't a loaded question, but are we able to put um timetables um to the expected paving dates to each project?

The day to day.

No, like far the range is fine.

Um, but I just know looking at last year when we were doing paving, we had kind of the bulk list of everything being done versus like knowing this road was going to be this around that range.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, just as close as we could get, just some estimate.

And I think okay, and yeah, that's no no no, that's a very important question because of notification to, for instance, residences or people impacted by that resurfacing project within you know, day or two or prior to the resurfacing project being done in their neighborhood or on a particular road.

Yeah, I would say well, once we get the contractor on board, we'll have them develop a schedule and we'll we'll work with them and we'll be in contact with our communications department.

Councilmember Bson.

Councilmember Beeson?

I just wanted to flag too that that was a conversation you guys are aware.

These folks are not.

Um a larger conversation that we had at the retreat of um better notification for residents as it relates to paving.

Um I I was one of the many who was impacted by the wonderful repaving in front of my child school this year.

It was a delight, but now those roads are lovely.

Um, but that was something that we understand as a pressure point for a lot of residents and impacts commutes as well.

Um I have one question for you.

Given the ranges of what was provided in the proposals, um, and I realize that you haven't gotten into the nooks and crannies of how qualified they are yet.

Um, we've allocated 5.9 million to this.

That's very much on the lower range of what you just provided.

Is there a likelihood of a budget amendment or change order coming forward later for that?

Or is are we sticking to this 5.9 number?

I I will I will stick to the 5.9.

The um the method of the contract as it is done, we are gonna pay by unit price of yard of asphalt laid down.

Um so we will negotiate with them if we end up with a qualified bidder that came in higher than that, then we will start cutting some surface area out of it, and we will stick to this budget.

Got it.

Is there any way that we could request the vendor to give us a cost savings on lunching or pairing mobilization cost?

Possible.

Okay, thank you.

We can discuss that.

That'll be a part of the negotiation.

I'm assuming it'll be part of negotiation.

Okay, good.

All right.

Uh any further questions or comments regarding this item.

We will make sure that obviously we provide you with um detailed information regarding um the evaluations prior to the uh next council meeting.

All right.

Thank you.

And so do we need this to move?

We need this to move forward.

All right, we do need a we do need an affirmation to move this item forward.

Uh we'll entertain a motion.

Motion by Council Marcells.

Second by Councilmember Philippi Min Brumley.

Um in favor.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That passes unanimously.

Item number 14.

Consideration to approve a contract amendment for winter construction for the completion of the Green Street Mobility Project.

Gentlemen, all right, good evening.

Um, so similar to the resurfacing, um, this one is we're doing that one, this one a little bit like that.

Um, so we just got the number from winter construction this afternoon.

Um we will be reviewing the number and we will basically basically asking you all uh for approval to move this to a future council meeting.

Uh but just as a quick background, uh the Green Street Mobility Project.

This is phase one.

Uh, this is from State Route 9 up to Cherry Way, and also including the improvements on Plum Tree Street, um, which would construct an eight to ten foot multi-use trail, um convert plum street to pedestrian only traffic, and then uh bury the area aerial utilities as well.

Um in order to expedite the construction, uh we're just seeking approval uh to do a contract amendment with winter construction, who is the city's uh parking deck contractor.

Uh they've done a very good job so far, they've been very in tune to this project as well.

Uh this amendment will not change anything related to the parking deck.

This is only for the roadway work, uh, but we are asking for approval to move forward with them uh to construct the roadway piece as well.

And we'll answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Council, any questions or comments regarding this matter?

Councilmember Sells?

Yes, because they're there.

We we're getting the benefit of they don't have to mobilize and all that stuff.

So is this is that part of the savings?

Yeah, that that was the thought.

Um, I mean, obviously we would have liked to start the roadway piece earlier, um, but utility coordination has taken longer than expected.

Um, but the goal is to get them starting construction at least before the deck opens up.

Um the roadway piece will not be done by the time the deck is deck is open this summer.

Um, but they already have forces mobilized, and there's definitely some cost savings there.

All right, thank you.

Any further questions or comments?

Yes, Councilmember Bromley.

Um so the contract amendment is it uh a change in the amount.

Do we have the amount?

Yeah, it would be that's what we just got today.

We'll be verifying the amount um over the next week or so, and then we'll bring it to the appropriate council meeting.

One thing I do want to highlight with respect to this item to be clear.

Um winter construction is obviously um constructing the parking deck.

This is an amendment to the contract.

It was done that way based on our um legal opinion that we could do it this way as an amendment.

I do think that there will be some the unit pricing is the same, correct?

Is that am I saying that correctly?

We have independent estimate of the cost.

Okay, that is what we use to negotiate the price we got.

Okay, all right.

So you verified that that cost, okay.

All right.

Um, yes, Councilmember Brumley, and then I'll come to Council Member Hall.

Councilmember Brumley.

So is this something where is the I'm not doing that, obviously.

Where's the money coming from?

Is it like from the budget last year?

Is it if we need more money, does it come?

Do we need a budget amendment?

Yeah, so we we have 4.8 million available.

Um we do have just a little over around a million dollars in our capital fund, and then as part of the uh FY26 budget, we allocated 2.5 million for NTS PLOS funds, and then in 2025, um, there was a GDOT um local road assistance fund uh that we also allocated that money as well.

Councilmember Hall.

Thank you.

Um, just back to the other slide.

It says eight to ten eight to ten foot multi-use trail.

It where is it?

Is it gonna be specified where it's ten and where it's eight, or what is it gonna be?

It is primarily ten.

Um there is only some very minimal locations where we have to narrow down to eight.

Um I can get those specifically if you know I no that that's good as so basically it's a 10-foot trail with tapering down to eight to avoid to avoid utilities or other it's it's it's very tight out there as you may already know.

Um I know up near the townhomes we may have to narrow down to eight to avoid some of the stairs and and stuff so we don't have to reconstruct those.

And currently there's no curbs there.

This will be yeah.

So winter is already set the most of the curb on the eastern side uh basically from the parking deck going down to highway nine.

Uh they haven't done the piece right down by highway nine, but they're working on that.

Um, and then as part of this work, they will be setting the curb on the west side as well to narrow officially narrow the road.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Bromley.

Because I'm still learning all this.

When you say multi-use trails, will this one include golf carts and bikes?

And people use those, or is it just people walking?

So it'll be bikes and people.

Um Green Street's already 25 mile an hour speed limit, so golf carts are allowed on green.

So they can use this as a cut through.

Um, I mean the AG golf part by the street in those 25 right.

They'd be able to come down Green Street and then you know, something we may have to look at is maybe a crossing on the new connector road to get over highway nine, because they won't be able to take Green Street all the way to Highway 9 because then they won't be able to get anywhere.

Because they won't be able to take Green Street all the way to Highway 9 because then they won't be able to get anywhere.

But just to be clear, I just wanted more for people walking than golf cuts.

That's you know all right.

Thank you.

Any further questions or comments?

All right.

Seeing none, we will entertain a motion to move this item forward.

Motion by Councilmember Philippi, second.

Councilmember Sells.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor.

All right, that passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

In advance of the next item.

Um given the fact that it's discussing Kimley Horn, my firm for which is my employer, I has an active contract with Kimley Horn, so I'll be recusing myself on this item.

All right.

Thank you for the notification.

All right.

Item uh item number 15.

Consideration to award the Big Creek Trail design contract to Kimley Horn and execute task order number one in the amount of 1,998.

$98,630 with a total budget authorization of $1,198,630.

Gentlemen.

So this project, this is the Big Creek Trail Design Contract.

Uh, this was the uh reconnecting communities grant that was awarded to the city uh through the Federal Highway Administration to the amount of two million dollars, and this is a new trail, it's an off-system trail.

Um actually go to the next slide.

Uh so this is the map of the trail on the lower left-hand side.

Uh so the trail is highlighted in a bold yellow.

Um, so it starts at old Holcomb Bridge Road, um, follows basically follows Big Creek.

Um, not Big Creek Roadway, but the big creek itself will connect to Liberty Square Park.

Uh we'll go underneath Georgia 400 at the existing bridge, um, and then connect into Big Creek Park and the trail system with the greenway over there.

Um we'll say this this is a partnership with True North 400.

Uh, we do have Mr.

Alex Battle here uh representing True North 400 tonight.

Um so the multi-use trail is approximately two miles, it'll be 12 to 14 feet wide, and it'll be designed for pedestrians and cyclists.

Um go to the next slide.

So we did issue uh requests for call qualifications for planning and engineering design services.

We received eight uh statements of qualifications.

Uh we had a committee representing transportation finance, uh, recreation and parks and true north 400.

Um, and then ultimately uh through the qualifications-based selection, we have selected Kimley Horn.

Um since we selected Kimley Horn, we negotiated for uh we negotiated scope and fee for task one, uh which is the concept phase, which includes database preparation, um, MS4 and hydraulic analysis, uh concept report, environmental studies, and public engagement, and uh we are recommending approval uh to execute this design contract and begin work on this project, and we do have funding available, and we'll answer any questions.

All right, just quick question.

How was Kimley Horn chosen?

What was the uh process for obtaining Kimley Horn?

Um so there were eight states of qualification.

I that's all I needed.

I'm here gotcha.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much, Councilmember Brumley.

What what is the amount of the contract one?

Yes, just over a million dollars.

Okay, and then so in your last slide you have that we have three million yeah about uh available.

So is that three million for construction as well?

Or like if we used you know one point one million, then whatever the two million left is what we have to build it.

Yes, so this is just for the concept level phase.

Um if you recall at the retreat, we kind of we showed you the flow chart that's for uh projects that have federal dollars.

Um so there is a lot that goes in.

Um, you know, pretty lengthy process that we have to follow.

Uh so the one just over a million dollars is for the concept phase, and we'll move into preliminary design and then final design.

Um I don't envision us having much, if any money left over of the three million dollars once we get through design.

Um but we will be seeking construction funding, uh whether it's T sploss funding or additional federal funding.

Um, especially once we already have federal funds on this, it would be ideal to go after additional federal funding for construction.

And part of the concept will be finalizing, you know, what what is this going to cost?

Because right now we really don't have an idea how much this project will actually cost.

Okay.

So all this is just to get something that we can go and look for money to place.

Yes.

Yep.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sales.

I I may be mixing concepts or projects.

We talked about, I think we talked about this before.

Is this going to tie into the Big Creek Parkway?

Uh, because there's going to be multi-use trail or mixed-use trail on or multi-use trail on the Big Creek Parkway as well.

I mean, and I'm just thinking specifically, and I think I asked you before, drilling under 400 is a whole lot harder and more expensive than going over 400 on a bridge that somebody else is building.

So I just want to talk about that because we're here at the design phase.

And so can you just jump in that, please?

Yeah, so as part of this conceptual phase, we will be asking the consultant to look at our Big Creek Parkway project and see if it makes sense to make some connections.

Um, there still may be kind of both.

Uh, you know, and that may be we'll we'll just kind of flush that out during the conceptual phase.

Um, as far as underneath 400, we actually do have um a photo.

So it's it's not a new tunnel underneath 400.

Um it's basically utilizing the slope of the bank that's already there and the bridge of 400 that goes over Big Creek.

Um, so this trail would go underneath.

Gotcha.

Okay, so we're not boring under 400.

Correct.

Okay.

It's already occupied, I see.

That's good.

I know that actually gives me greater relief.

Um given the questions from before.

This is um very similar.

This is New Day Creek Trail going under I 575 in Cobb County.

Um those are pictures along the trail, and then cool pictures of what the I think that's the um town center CID uh let some artists go in there and and do their thing.

Thank you.

Any further questions, sir?

Yes, um, Mayor Robo show.

Looking at this, obviously it's the bridge.

Go back to where you had the topography map.

So again, everyone understanding that portion of this is going to go over within a floodplain.

Yes.

Um that floods a lot.

Yes, because I'm off of Haints Bridge, and oftentimes that whole area and that park walk, which is not built up when it floods, it's closed.

We can't walk it.

Okay, so that's possibly the cost differentiation too with the design and looking at going over basically protected flood lane, flood zones.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Brumley.

Um, yeah, so that contract that we're doing will include those environmental studies to make sure that those wetlands aren't provided.

Yes, yes.

We have to do extensive environmental studies uh because there are federal dollars, um, and then hydraulic analysis as well.

Okay.

Um that's my other concern when she brought it up.

Like if it's that trail that is always going to be flooded, and we're gonna have to repair it all the time.

And poor people are not gonna be able to use it.

Yeah, I didn't say always, but I think that's gonna be part of the design to see do you raise it.

Understanding there are times it will either be closed unless it's raised up to a certain point.

Yeah, yeah, and I think that's want to determine how much is on boardwalk, how much is off boardwalk, and that's yeah.

All right, thank you.

Any further questions or comments regarding this item?

Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion to move this item forward.

Motion by Mayor Robichot.

We have a second, second by councilmember Brumley.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor.

All right, that passes unanimously.

We can uh bring council member Beson back.

Alrighty.

And uh the last listed item on our agenda for this evening.

Item number 16, a discussion of public records that'll be presented by um uh Joseph QSAC, our assistant city attorney, and then I'll have a comment or two as well.

So we have a resolution that was adopted in March of 2023, I believe Councilmember Hall, Councilmember Beeson were on council at that point that provided for the open records requests that come through the city that we will not accept anonymous.

We will accept anonymous requests, but you would have to come to City Hall to uh ultimately pay for them or collect your documents that it needs to be an actual address or an actual person for us to fulfill those uh with uh to fulfill electronically.

I understand there's an appetite to revisit this resolution and to possibly uh put in a different procedure on how we handle open records and how those are going to be taken in by the city.

And I think Mr.

Knighton has some more information on open records, how we handle them, what the process currently looks like.

Um so we're uh having an open discussion on on how we handle these going forward.

Right.

I think it's separated into two um different um issues here pertaining to open records.

The one is is mentioned by Mr.

Cusack is um whether or not uh someone has to identify themselves or whether or not they can present an open records request anonymously.

That's the first item.

The second item pertains to uh making open records requests once they are filled, making them public, in other words, placing them on uh some type of portal where um any member of the public can view that that open records request which has been duly filled.

And so there are two separate items, and perhaps for discussion purposes, they should be taken separately.

Um just by way of information, um the city process is about 13 to 1400 open records requests per year.

That does not include fire and police.

The lease is about another 1400 or so, 1,500, maybe more than that.

Uh a little bit more than that on average per year.

Uh so um obviously um there are a number of open records requests that come forward, the bulk of which are in the police department, a large uh number, and I don't have the exact, but a large number of those are also related to to property via community development or or otherwise, uh history of property, due diligence, those types of things as well.

So just for context, um obviously a large um government like ours, fairly large, uh ninth largest, I think, in the uh state of Georgia in terms of population, um we process a number of open records requests.

Uh so uh the first um item or I guess uh point of discussion uh would be uh whether or not this body has any thoughts about um allowing for anonymous open records requests to be submitted and then filled.

Of course, people will have to uh pay for said open records requests uh as per usual, and um would have to uh um and any other um restrictions on open records requests would apply.

Yes, Councilmember Hall.

Thank you.

I have a question for um Mr.

Cusack.

What how does the state handle them?

I I I mean I we were around when we amended it, and and part of it was the advent of uh the Russian bots or bots just basically generating random requests, and and that was part of the reason that we looked at um doing that because we have limited I our staff was spending an enormo inordinate amount of time um filling these.

So we wanted to make sure that they were legitimate and cover costs, but um I'd be curious to see how the state of Georgia does it.

So everyone just adheres to the Georgia Open Records Act, and I think it's it's just a good fallback to have that as the standard operating procedure in any open records request that's over 500, we can demand prepayment.

And we probably should because of the manpower and resources that go in to compiling these open records requests.

A lot of times they can be very voluminous.

Um it is you haven't paid for an open records request, so if it's under that $500, then we can withhold open uh fulfilling another request from them.

That's normally good practice, and the state uh open records act allows us to do that just because of that staff time that we've utilized there.

Um but uh going back from my time at the state, open records requests came in, we tried to fill them, you know, in order.

Uh some were easier, some were harder.

A lot of times it was, hey, we're gonna need two weeks.

We need to talk to a vendor to compile.

I know at the ethics commission we would want our whole database because people would want political fundraising data.

And so they would take a little bit to compile data from a two-week time period, we'd have to go through our vendor.

But if you give them a time, that's perfectly within the statute.

And within that three-day time period, you say I need two weeks to fill this because I need to get with my vendor.

And that's what we do here.

So we just adhere to the open records act.

When it comes to an anonymous one, if it's under 15 minutes, there's no charge.

So it's easy, it's probably pretty easy to get out.

That was my question.

How do you handle the money when they're anonymous and you're doing the work and you don't know if you're gonna get paid or if it's just a prank or you know and that's the the push and pull we have is if if it's over that 500, I think we always demand prepayment just because of the amount of resources we're gonna expend on this.

When it's under that 500, if it starts to become an issue, I think we would probably have to be more cognizant of where they're coming from and try to get payment ahead of time on these or give quotes to people to to figure out so we're not just losing money and losing time and getting bogged down.

Uh these requests, I mean, we I remember a request last year where we had to give a quote of over $10,000 because somebody wanted every single communication between anybody in the city of Roswell government, federal government, and state government.

And it was just okay, we're this is gonna take everybody from every department to go through their emails.

If you're not gonna pay ahead of time, and of course they didn't want to pay, they just went away.

Um so there's a there's a push and pull of trying to get people the information they need, and but also us not you or us not expending resources uh and not actually recouping costs for the resources expended.

Go ahead, follow up with Council.

Yes, just one more my last follow-up.

Um so is there another way for people to get in residents to get information or the public to get information?

I mean, could they just reach out to uh one of our council members and say, hey, can you get me I've had people ask me and say, I usually get this through ORR, but can you obtain it for me?

A copy of a uh uh ordinance or I can't remember what the things are, and I I answer, yes.

Yeah, you just just ask.

I mean, I'm not an open records person, but they're generally looking for one thing like, do you have, you know, can you grab the minutes from this or something like that?

Is is there is there is that an education thing?

Is that something that we can do, educate the public if they just need something basic, just to reach out to one of us and just to ease up on the tremendous amount of volume on the staff.

I don't know if that's practical.

No, I'm just gonna do that.

I would say let me let me answer it in a couple and let me answer it in this way.

Generally, if somebody asks for something that's fairly easily easy to retrieve.

Somebody asked me for an ordinance or something, a citizen calls, I'll usually just get it and send it to them.

But however, I do want to be clear, we want to make sure that we have a record of the request.

Generally speaking, it's good practice to have a record of the request because we'll know once one that it has been submitted, and two, then it's gone through our appropriate channels, and three, then we can provide that request in an official manner back to them.

Um, because it it would be concerning to me, technically, if somebody makes that request, it is a it's a request.

It's it's a if they may even make it verbally, is that correct?

Yes.

That's a request, it falls within the open records law, and so it's it's best practice in my opinion for someone to at least send an email saying I'm requesting this particular document, that way it's on record, we can fulfill that request, et cetera.

And there's no ambiguity in what they have actually requested.

Again, and I do want to say before we go to Council Member B.

I do want to say that the essence of this, the open records law is to ensure that there is openness and transparency of public documents to residents to the public.

And obviously, we've we fulfill those uh open records requests um per law, and we'll obviously continue to do so.

And we want to have and ensure that there is an informed public.

Um, and so uh this discussion uh certainly does not in any way um hamper us from fulfilling those requests according to law.

Yes, council member Bson.

For the record, to Mr.

Kusak's point, I was on council at the time when it passed.

Um I vehemently voted against it in every single level because to use a professional word because there are preschool toys in the room, uh, it's asinine at best, and in my mind, a flagrant violation of the First Amendment rights.

It's on us as the public or the government to be able to provide public information to the public regardless of who they are.

It's not the onus is not on them to demonstrate with verifiable ID who they are.

And I think it's frustrating from my perspective, even three years later to hear that you're amenable to a concept where anybody can ask you as a council member to provide this information where you would act as a gatekeeper, which bifurcates that process.

You're allowing for anonymous request by saying, Yeah, you can come to me and ask for it and I'll get you the information because then it's not on record as to who it was and where they got the information, as opposed to the process before we you can just be anonymous and we at least have the documented request.

Because otherwise, if we act as gatekeepers, it's easy enough for us to say it to person A, sure, absolutely, I'm more than happy to get that information for you.

And person B who asked for the exact same thing, be like, nah, busy, sorry, don't like you.

I don't care.

Whatever the reasons are, and there's no documented instance of how they requested that information.

Um, I am all for being able to reinstate the ability for people to request any kind of public information.

It's public record anonymously, regardless of who they are, where they are, if they're making mouse.

Um, and I know also that one of the examples that was provided not only then but now is this mysterious Russian bot situation.

Um, but more obviously, there was also whistleblower websites that were asking for documented instances, and it became this really fun uh um wild goose chase of trying to figure out who it was, and we'll we'll announce who it is if we can just get them to come to City Hall and we can watch them on the security cameras.

Um that was also why I announced very openly to people that you're more than welcome to use my name to verify whatever it is with Hill Street as my address, and I am more than happy to sign off on it.

And I signed off on at least two of those.

So still anonymously, people can request it.

They're still getting the information.

They're still going through the public portals, so you're documenting the request.

You don't need to know who they are.

Um so yes, all on board, love it.

I'm good with moving forward with that.

Councilmember Hall.

Uh I think you misunderstood what I was saying, Councilmember Beeson.

I had residents reach out to me and they were just wondering if I could provide the information or if they needed to go through an ORR to get the simple information.

And that's what my question was to council member, or I mean to city administrator uh Knighton.

So I'm not trying to be a gatekeeper.

I was trying to help facilitate and to uh basically relieve some of the pressure off of our staff if I could assist.

So it it was the legality of it, I guess, is what I was trying to get clarification on.

I don't have a problem with anonymous.

I just want to make sure that we're compensated for the work that we do.

Mayor Robichell.

I think to Councilmember Hall's point, um, I appreciate anonymous.

I don't personally care, but I do think it is the concept of, as you said, you know, upwards of $500.

Sometimes we know it goes a lot higher.

If we calculate that on just the $1,200 you said we did last year approximately.

It was 1,402.

That does not include um fire police.

Okay, so 1,000 402 or two.

Hold on.

If we say if we let's just pretend it's all an average of $500 per request.

At $700,000, we do have to have a mechanism, in my opinion, to reimburse the city for that and staff for that effort that they're doing.

Anonymously, that's fine.

But to me, I guess the minute we are seeking payment, unless uh and again, if if people want to use my name and then want to pay me for it, I'm not paying, you know, gift cards.

I'm not joking.

That's how people can get around to the anonymous request, because I asked them.

I mean, if we get paid.

That I mean, and I know that sounds horrible, but I'm I'm being very realistic.

I anonymous, non-anonymous, I I understand that, but I do think there has to be a payment mechanism involved, and more often than not, there's gonna be a percentage of that that's gonna be we're gonna know who you are.

We got your credit card, or we have a gift card.

If that's choice.

Just pre-card.

Okay.

Well, but cash is not the same thing because then who's gonna where do you send it?

And you can't earn mark it.

You can come into the building.

Yeah, you can take it.

Uh council member Zach and then Councilmember Brumley.

Councilmember Zedd.

Uh I would like to make a recommendation for the framework.

Um I'm I know the devils are in the details.

Uh, but my recommendation is that if the request is anonymous, we provide a quote, and then the quote has to be paid before it's fulfilled.

And if it's fulfilled uh and it's less than that, then we reverse what way we can, and elsewhere we ask to collect the extra before releasing the document.

So I think that would be the framework I'd recommend to handle to allow people to be anonymous, but still make sure that we are collecting the funds from those anonymous people.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Brumley.

Uh so we already asking them to pay.

I mean, I know because two people have asked me to pay.

Oh, sorry.

We're already asking them to pay because I know two people have asked me, hey, do I do I have to and the amounts one was like $86, and then another one was $120.

So we don't we don't I don't know where these 500 limit came from.

We are already requesting payments.

So for to fulfill a yeah, it it's a pro if you have a request and we know it's gonna be over $500, that's when we can insist on prepayment before we fill it.

But if if we do the open records request and then it cost $86 or $112, that gets billed after and has to be paid, or else you can't submit.

You can submit another open records request, but the city can then insist on payment of that prior open records request bill uh before it fulfills the the next open records request.

So we can collect it like taxes, basically.

So you're saying that that these residents requested, so this is what I was told they requested something.

The answer was yes, we have it, it's gonna be this much.

But it wasn't they didn't send the information, they were waiting for payment.

That's what it's happening right now.

So they have to be they have to pay for the right.

Yeah, they have to do that.

We have the city clerk and the deputy city clerk, so let's make sure we get some clarification here on that.

I mean, we can I think yeah, they have to approve it.

Go ahead.

Here she is.

Yeah, so so basically um council member Bromley, the the way it works is somebody requests the documents, we are required to respond to them within three days.

And when we respond to them, we say, hey, it might take two weeks, and it's gonna cost $86.

You agree to pay the $86.

And if they say yes, I agree to pay the $86, then we go through all the work to get everything ready and send it to them, and then they're supposed to pay.

Yeah, so those we are already requiring the case.

But if they don't pay, if they don't pay, they could still have the I mean they're we would send the records and expect them to pay, but if they don't pay, they would still have the records, and we didn't get the payment.

You just said that you the approved pay the approved that they're gonna pay.

Right, but some people are not honest, and they don't pay.

We don't get the payment.

Right.

Click pay.

Right.

Why isn't that click paid?

No, sorry.

How is it not approved means click pay?

You mean payment up front?

Yes, but we're not allowed to require payment up front under the state law unless it's over $500.

Oh, so that's where that $500.

Okay.

All right.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay, so pinky promise under for $500.

That helps my my train of thought.

Okay.

Because when I was little, some kids had a lot of time broke their pinky promise.

So we make sure um okay.

But but so that's those, I guess it's like different issues, right?

There's a payment, there's also the issue of the anonymous part, which I also concur with Ms.

Bison, that we should not have anonymous, we should allow anonymous request, you know, because in some cases it will be you know whistleblowers or people who fear retaliation.

The press also needs it, and in fact, I have also done, I have done more than three.

I think I have done like 10 requests on behalf of residents who did not want to come forward.

Um this was before I was elected.

They haven't asked me after after I elected, but I was part of that process, and it's just you know, like I said, like the law says is open records, so it doesn't matter if it's Mickey Mouse.

You have to be, you know, that requirement of having a name and an address that can be verified, it's just not I don't I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.

Okay, Councilmember Zach, and then we'll click Council Peace.

Councilmember Zach?

So I I think there's kind of two things here.

The first is do we allow people to anonymously submit?

And then second is can we control the situation where somebody who's anonymous makes a request, the work is done, they we don't pay, they don't pay, and can we hold them accountable in some way?

I'll say doing the little research I did.

I I didn't I didn't think there was anything that would prevent us from uh making it so we could force prepayment on anonymous, no matter what the dollar limit is.

If that's not true, I could be mistaken.

But if I am paying them understood, and in my research, I did not see that as a problem.

Um but if it is I I recognize that.

Um so I guess I would say to that.

To that, I think we're I mean, I'm I'm good to motion for allowing anonymous.

Um, but what do we need to discuss the mechanisms?

Is it really gonna be a challenge?

And I guess I'm okay to say I'm fine to move forward with making anonymous available, because I think that brings us in compliance with what I would interpret the GMA to say we need to be doing, and then not necessarily work worry about the mechanism because it's the problem everyone faces, but if we can't address the mechanism of the anonymous people not paying, that'd be awesome.

But I still think I would motion to move this forward anyway.

Okay.

All right, Councilmember Beeson.

Keep in mind it's a discussion item too, so we don't have to carry anything.

But in terms of rectifying what you're discussing with the $500, Nancy's been she's been doing this long enough that she would be able to look at the request and know pretty quickly if this is going to be um a lot of hours or time or manpower that goes into trying to get an ORR.

So for example, if some I think the OR example was um requesting all um interactions between a council member and members of the local, state and federal government.

Well, that's gonna take an extensive amount of time, and we know that's going to exceed $500.

We would be able to make that request up front fairly easily, um, as opposed to something that's like I want um all text messages between Nancy Long and Councilmember Cells.

There might not be any.

I don't think they hang out a whole lot, but I could be wrong.

But that's something that's gonna take five seconds for them to pull up their phones and be like, how many times do we text each other?

It all has to do with the parameters.

I think based off of staff pulling these together, they could give you a pretty quick estimate if it's going to be a burden and if it's going to be a significant cost that we can require that prepayment as you suggested based off state law.

Um and to uh some of the points that were made previously.

There are situations where um folks were requesting um ORRs anonymously previously and they were using um prepaid visa gift cards to pay for them online.

Um and then that stopped when the requirement was that they had to provide a verified ID under our city law.

Um so that's what I'm trying to avoid.

As like pre-mate payment, it's fine if it's an onerous burden to staff.

Um I just want to be able to have the option of anonymity.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Yes, Council Member Sales.

So maybe this is a Bill Godshaw.

If he's uh if he's still awake.

I mean, uh so how much how much did we get stiffed last year?

How much or how many?

Um how much?

How many?

I actually don't know.

So but we did get stiffed.

We have some that don't pay.

Okay, so it's a collection problem, right?

To some degree.

I don't know how much how big it is, or if it's worth talking about.

But how would we enforce collection without the absence of anonymity without specificity, pray till that's how this was approached?

It was basically the state law allows us to collect if somebody doesn't pay the same manner in which we would collect taxes.

At the point of a gun, essentially.

Right.

Because if you don't know who it is, you can't collect like this is totally a policy decision.

It is not, I mean, from legal perspective, it's you know, we can do either way.

Um but yes, to collect the way that you would collect taxes, you kind of have to know who it is.

Right.

And the second question, but you've sort of answered it is is there any law banning us from prohibiting anonymity?

We violating some law uh uh or uh ethics open records.

Is there something that says that we have to, we must do this with a with the provision where they can do it anonymously?

No, there's we can go either way.

It's it's purely like Davidson said it's a policy decision of either requiring it it's one of those things if it becomes an issue where payment is not being made and people are gaming the system, then you maybe take the the harder tack that we have right now where anonymity isn't allowed, or they have to we have to have a address, a real address, real person that we know so that we could go after them like the taxes.

Or if it's not an issue, then sort of do it with allowing to be anonymous.

Okay, so yeah, and I uh it doesn't sound like the collections problem is big enough to read about, and I'm not so so I'm not worrying about that.

But I do think that you know we we are we are doing ourselves a disservice to the extent that we aren't at least assuring ourselves that it is a person on the other end of that request.

And that is not an empty problem at this moment, as a guy who, as people are currently at this moment probably developing AI bots to do these kinds of things for business.

So I I don't know how we could fix that problem, but you know, I mean it certainly can be uh a substantial and and it's probably a waxing problem, not a waning problem.

Any thoughts on that, gentlemen?

And lady?

Well, at least lady, I don't know about the other gentleman.

I can't say it's it's certainly trending in a I'll use the police department as an example.

You have influencers who are taking police videos and throwing them up on YouTube, right?

And that is our police records department is getting bogged down, having to answer not serious open records requests that have any public purpose.

It's YouTubers who want to embarrass people and put things on YouTube.

The mugshot guy, the people who put mugshots on, they harvest those, and and frankly, I mean, you know, my partner has a business, my partner has a uh is in partnership with another guy who's in business to do just that.

I mean, they they have uh bond farms that harvest information from third parties cities and municipalities are one of those, but others for the purpose of business or whatever they want to use it for, and this is getting easier, cheaper, and faster, and so you know I hear you on anonymity, but we do need to know that it is a you know uh DNA real person, you know, and that that I don't know how to resolve, but I don't think that we should be blind to that in this conversation about anonymity.

And and I honestly think it's it's at the state level, there needs to be uh a look at all right how the open records act it's a good thing, but how do you prevent abuses of the open records act?

And that's currently a question that hasn't been answered or tried to be an answer because all the police departments are getting inundated with requests like that, and we get frivolous complaints like that or frivolous record requests like that as well.

Yeah, so it's it's it's a balancing act, and I don't know if there's a a great answer.

It's a challenge for open societies, and we are an open society, and and you know, our enemies literally can harvest information because we'll give it to them all day every day, and I get that, right?

So this that's the reasonable question is we at least need to think about how we could prove that they're real people.

Yeah, I can't.

Air Robish go ahead.

Sorry, I was just gonna add that.

I haven't identified anything like that in the general records request realm.

But I would think that anything was generated.

Yeah, I think a couple things related to that, and one is body cam videos.

Um from around the country is some of the most interesting things you could ever watch.

And um there are companies who just they specialize in body cam videos for police departments across the country.

I have randomly seen a couple of hours.

Um Roswell, uh, you know, and and other body cam videos from across across the country for several reasons.

Um, and so you know, you get a lot of that, and that's why I think um the police department, and they're legitimate ones.

Don't don't get me wrong, I think the vast majority are legitimate, of course, but there are people who utilize um uh uh this method for entertainment purposes as well.

Mayor Robo show and then council member Philippi.

I think two points um to Councilmember Sell's point, it's not just AI people who grab the information.

We know now technology is becoming more and more advanced that they can alter the information.

So what looks like is going to be what would happen in a body cam is not what I mean hate to say that anyone would be nefarious enough to do that, but let's all be honest, there are people out there doing that.

Um so I do think we need to be very, very careful, and not just I appreciate the concept of um you know videos and stuff, but we also know lots of people can alter email.

I mean, you know, but the second point, and I think it's a little very specific.

So over $500 estimation, we can require prepayment before we even do the work.

But after that, we can estimate how much it's going to cost, get a verbal agreement that they can will pay it, we do the work.

Do we release can we hold it until we receive payment for under 500?

Or do you have to release it if it's under 500 and then seek payment?

We send an invoice.

This is how how we do it.

We send an invoice automatically through the system.

And to whatever email is associated, and you can create email accounts very easily too.

I don't I don't get anonymous request.

I'm aware that they're anonymous.

Right now, okay.

But so I appreciate you send the invoice.

But if once we have completed the work, if the invoice is $300, whatever we want to call it, do we release it before you receive payment?

You've invoiced them.

They know the money is that they owe us that.

Do we are we required by state law to release the information after they have verbally agreed to payment?

We've invoiced them.

They have not paid yet.

So they know they will have to pay for this information before we release it.

Is that against the state law or I understand we can't say you have to pay 500 or more before we even start the work?

So I mean I know.

So we can require the payment for the release of the documents.

Okay.

We'll know the program.

I know I know right now that might not be our process.

But but the problem still is all the work that's gone into getting those records, they just sit in Nancy's office then in a corner waiting.

And then we know that person or whoever, whatever it was, or whatever it was.

And and I understand that, but I think you know, if we're talking about, you know, we're talking about multiple problems that could occur here.

Number one, people who gave this game the session the system, I'm gonna just keep sending in ORRs for 499 dollars.

Right.

You're gonna give me the information, I'm not gonna pay you a dime.

I'm gonna do it anonymously, so yeah, I can keep doing it.

Verse, I mean, um versus I'm gonna go ahead and still request it anonymously, you tell me it's 499 dollars, you invoice me, yes, you do do the work, but you're not giving it to me till I pay for it.

So I'm probably not gonna keep trying to get something for free.

I believe we're assistant does that like you send it through the system and then we'll have the bandwidth of documents.

They pay and the records are automatically released.

So I think our process is doing exactly what you're recommending.

But but because right now it's not anonymous.

If you go to an anonymity, how do you do it's a it's a very different how is it?

Because it just goes still work that way.

If it's an electronic documents that she's putting into the system, they would still have to pay it.

However, they pay.

And we don't we don't release till they pay.

Even anonymous.

We know it's John Smith, and he's asking we know that it's John Smith and that they've requested $2,000 worth of work or whatever it will use if you're $499, $499 worth of work.

There's nothing you can do about it in the sense that if you've already done it, to Councilmember Sells's point, I you're trying to say how much that they stuffed us in the last year.

Last year they couldn't request anonymously, and they're still not paying.

So how are you solving an issue?

It makes no sense.

That was Council Member Philippi.

I'm sorry.

Okay, tribute that to Councilmember Philippi.

All right.

All right.

Um discussion.

Any further comments or questions regarding this component of uh ORR?

Yes, Councilmember Brumley.

I mean, it sounds like we could charge for less than 500, just make it for, but you're saying that in order to charge, we need we cannot use gift cards.

So we can charge, like we send them an estimate to whoever it is, even if it's anonymous, right?

We send them an estimate, they agree to pay that, we do all the work, get everything ready, and then it's in the system, and when they pay, however they pay, it doesn't matter how they it could be a gift card, it could be or we accept payments.

When they hit pay and they pay it, then that that goes to them.

And it doesn't matter whether it's Allen Cells or Bunny Bugs Bunny, right?

Okay, it gets paid, right?

Payment portal.

Right.

I don't have to do that.

Oh, so you don't have to pay third party.

Okay.

Right.

So is the only issue is when we have done all the work, they said they're gonna pay, and then they just disappear.

But this just happens even if if it's not anonymous, right?

I mean, that's that's the thing.

Because I'm right.

So yeah, I I just don't understand why the anonymous it's a different.

Why can't we just go back to that?

That I don't I don't see so because if it's not anonymous and that person requests documents again, we can refuse to do it until they pay for the previous documents.

You're trying to wait repeat about this.

Yeah.

Council I'm sorry.

Okay.

Councilmember Zach, no worries.

So uh I was hoping that the anonymous repeater under 500 could be solved, but it sounds like state law makes it open at the moment.

But I'll say I'm still willing to bite the bullet and say like I I think it is better to deal with that problem than prevent people from anonymously submitting.

So that's my recommendation to staff.

I don't know if you need a motion or consensus.

Yeah, this is a discussion, and so what I think the intent is if we if we have a fairly general consensus, we can fashion a uh resolution around what uh that looks like based on this conversation, then bring it back to you for uh another discussion in a formal fashion at committee.

Um so that is one component, which I think we've heard several comments regarding, and some things I think that we perhaps can resolve.

Um the second component of it is the public display or um public release of open records uh requests once a request has been filled with the okay.

Your your question is if we're good with the public repository of essentially you're just preempting an ORR of the ORR, so to speak.

So you're creating a list of this is what was requested for the open records.

Either it would be somebody would already ask for that information, because I know there's times where people have open record requests the same exact thing that you're just repeating, so you're putting it out there, or you can have an idea of what people are asking for anonymous or not, correct?

I think that I think yes, I think the the part of the discussion is once an open records request is filled, that let's say five-page document is then placed on a public portal, and uh anyone can access it or view it.

Okay.

Council or Mayor Robichau.

So again, it um unless we are going to be very specific about categories that can be placed on this public portal, i.e., if an ORR comes into our police department about a legal situation.

More often than not, they will ask for things such as the policeman's personnel records.

They will ask for other types of things that can be used in a court of law, and they have to go through an ORR request per se to get it or and or a subpoena model, but a lot of them go through the ORR to see if they're even gonna go forward with a court case, including the body cams model.

I am not comfortable putting that kind of information out on some public open portal.

Um so I don't know if there could be differentiations of categories, you know, ordinance, every ordinance that we've ever created in the history of it.

Sure, although you can find it on the website too.

This might make, but you're still gonna have to be searching through ORR records.

And how are we 100, you know?

So I don't know how that could be differentiated because I'm very I am not comfortable putting out what what technically they get through an ORR, but in a lot of ways is very should be kept very confidential and inclusive, and that could also include some things such as some of the real estate information and stuff we're working through even as we complete it.

And I understand people don't think that that might be it, but some of that might be such that you know how much out of uh attorney client privilege is gonna you know becomes ORR.

I know some of it is stays, but there's also some of those gray categories.

So but that's I'm saying who decides that and it would there be a category, or are we talking every time someone asks for any ORR?

Or not if it's a police department or not.

I mean, that's what I'm trying to say.

Councilmember Philippi, I think was trying to get in there.

Council Yeah, I would just say it's so I I had a couple questions for you, Nancy, but to to that point, I think filing standards are difficult as it is.

So um, and and I don't know how much work that would be asking for for the staff to create something that is easily searchable that it would actually fulfill the goal that is is implied here.

And so to to that question uh or to that point, how often are you finding that you're getting ORRs?

Like, is there a five percent of the time that it's a duplicate, or is it a greater percent of the time that the same type of records are being requested?

Very low percentage.

Yeah, so we maybe there's a hot topic in the city, we're gonna get a lot.

So maybe we uh and maybe that's what we should address.

If there's a hot topic within the city and we start getting these, how do we put out better communication instead of creating something that can be an administrative nightmare that doesn't necessarily solve for anything?

Councilmember Zek or Bson, did you Councilmember Zach?

Or B.

It was just to answer uh Mayor Robicher's question about um the categorization of what could be included and not included.

I my understanding was police has their own open records processes exempt from the cities, and then things that have sensitive information, the same way we have closure, personnel, pending litigation, real estate would all be exempt as well.

Anything but attorney client privilege would be exempt from those.

Um but I could also be wrong.

I'm also amenable to exactly what uh council member Philippi just said as well.

I think there's standard redactions of information, social security numbers, home addresses, things of that nature.

But um police would still be subject to a personnel file, for instance.

Um would still be something that would be uh fall under the auspices of an open records request that it would need to that would have to be released.

Yeah, and sometimes the problem is not the answer to the open records request, it's the actual request provides so much information that it's actually dangerous to the person that re did the request.

Council member Zach.

It's um my impression at Asian that the software we use for open records has this feature already and it's just a configuration.

So this isn't really a new development, it's just something we could put the switch on.

Obviously, that's something we haven't done before and would need to be tested and understood.

But yeah, at least my understanding is this is not a new development, this is just using a configuration that our software already has.

Is that true?

I can tell you that um there's no way built into the program that they can that we can go in and just tell all of those ORRs to go out to the portal.

That's not possible.

But we can select which ones we want to put on the board.

We can do that.

So and we can tag them, you can give them like you were talking about categories.

You can create um an identifier um trees, for instance.

Um I I didn't say that.

Um but you could do that.

People could search just that category or you know, whatever category you wanted it to be.

Um it would be the description and the request number that's released onto the portal and nothing else.

You can also choose name and address, but I would not recommend doing that.

So I would with that configuration, I would like to recommend that we go down that path.

And to your point, I do think it would be good for the citizens to kind of tree a little bit of the hot topics.

Um kind of brought up earlier too, is uh I I hope and see this making it open uh in this way that it will help reduce the efforts of staff that people could look up request for information and find things on their own without having to either do an OR or even to uh halt point reach out to someone individually and ask for it.

So but that's the direction I would like to go down.

All right.

Can I ask, are you suggesting that you want all of the future ones to go to the portal or selective?

Um I would say in an idealistic world, I would want it all, because I think you know, part of the reason why OR exists is it is in the public domain and they should have access to it.

Um but I would accept your recommendation if you thought you know you kind of recognize like these things cover broad subjects and are of general interest and may have repeatability and those go open and you know have some system that you thought was reasonable.

Um but I think my inclination is everything, but I'm amenable to like a more efficient process.

Some descriptions within the request itself has information that cannot be public, people with data burst and that sort of thing in their description.

So we would have to be somewhat selective.

Okay.

All right, yes, council member sells.

I was trying to find the uh Latin phrase that my my daughter has tattooed on herself, which is I can't even say it in Latin, but it is it is who guards the guardians, right?

Who guards the guardians?

Uh what what uh what savant, what angel is going to sit there, read through these things and decide which things go.

I mean, uh uh we're talking about unfortunately I understand what you're doing.

Yeah, yeah, you're out sick for a week, okay.

Well, you know, uh Larry Daryl and Daryl are filling in for you.

That's the problem with this kind of stuff.

I mean, we're talking about uh uh uh a level of discretion when you start talking about the things that go out there on that site that uh who guards the guardian?

That's the real challenge for this kind of stuff.

I mean, uh I I uh I'm not saying we shouldn't respond to residents, but we're now making this uh uh all all of these, and like I I don't know if you said you would put the actual request out there under that uh system or would not.

This is the description, these are the options that you have.

The description, the request number.

It could also be the name and the address.

Those are the choices that you get to put out on the portal.

That's uh the documents that are plus the documents, yeah.

But but those may have to be redacted for the purposes of putting them out.

So it should already be red.

Yes.

Uh right.

That's one last question.

Yes, sir.

That is uh is there any duty of care with the transference of this information to the to the recipient?

In other words, I mean, let's just do they have any obligation whatsoever to protect or use it in any certain way or a prohibition.

So it is okay, so it is absolutely public domain the minute it goes over the law.

Mr.

Davidson, and then we'll go back to Councilman.

So I think from a general perspective, these are all public records, right?

So it's not anything that we're hiding from anybody, but if you're doing 1,300 city records, 1400 public uh public safety records, you've got 2700 records that people aren't going to be able to sort through anyway, so it's just easier for them to ask for what they want from Nancy.

And that's just in one year.

So you're looking at 2700 things going out on a portal that somebody's not going to be able to look through and go, uh just ask her.

Because the first 15 minutes is free.

So if we already have the document, she knows what it is, she got it, and she sends it out, and it's free.

So it's almost self-defeating to try to put every document, every open record request out there.

I I agree for ones where it's a hot topic.

Put it out there.

I mean, but we we can do that just with communications.

Um yeah, I'm I'll I'm it's almost like all or nothing because I do I do become concerned about trying to be an arbiter between what should or should not, even though it may be subtle or even though it may be distinct.

And so I think you know, as we think through this a little bit more, that's that certainly should be a consideration.

Um just would not want to put anybody in this in the position of having to try to decide and and discern and decipher, although I'm sure judgment is sharp and good and all of discerning and all of that.

It's just it's just virtually impossible because what is important to one person may not be to another, etc.

etc.

Councilmember Zach, do you have another okay?

Sorry.

I think I'm good.

I guess just final statement is I do want to go down that path of intentions for it, and obviously there'll be you know considerations on that effort as but um okay mayor Robusho?

And I I guess I'm just and again I know I'm being overly cautious, but I guess because of my background in health care, all it takes is one honest mistake.

Um it's not intentional, right?

It's not purposeful.

All it takes is one honest mistake that information can get out and harm a person in various ways.

So I I'm just gonna be overly overly cautious, and maybe that's my background in that what we were taught, you know, it is first do no harm.

And I appreciate people want the information.

I think there are ways we could adjust communicating out.

I'm just concerned we all are human and we can make easily make one mistake.

All right, thank you.

Any further comments regarding this item?

Very good conversation.

Uh there's a lot for us to chew on here as staff.

And uh we'll take these comments and uh perhaps fashion uh resolution around them.

Obviously, we would have conversations with you prior to any anything.

Oh we'll address, I'm sorry, go ahead, please.

When you create the resolution, I mean we're having one about the unronomist records, maybe another one about the payment, maybe another one about this.

I don't want all of it together because they're different things that people may or may not agree on each one.

Right, we can take that under consideration, and if we fashion something, we'll bring that back in two different buckets if that's um advisable from the legal department, and then uh obviously provide that to you for further review uh before having a formal discussion.

All right, thank you.

All right.

That that can be that concludes that concludes our meeting.

Adjournment uh by council member sells, second by council member Zach, all in favor of adjournment.

Thank you very much.

Have a wonderful evening.

So far, I don't see.