I call to order this meeting of the Appalachial College City Commission. Today is Tuesday, August 6. Please stand for the invocation and the pleasure of allegiance. For gracious Father, we thank you for the opportunity to come before you. We give you glory, give you honor, God. We ask that you will grant us wisdom, knowledge, understanding. We ask that you would provide us a piece of God, a piece of you God that we can share with your people, God. Lord, we thank you for who you are. We thank you for your grace and your mercy. We thank you for this city we call home God. We thank you for this commission and we ask that you will bless us Oh God grant us the knowledge that we need to do your will for the will of your people Lord We thank you. Thank you for blessing us and keeping us safe from the storm of God We thank you for doing it once again and we again God we give you glory honor and praise and Jesus name we pray amen I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. May I have a motion to adopt the agenda? I make that motion. I have a motion by Commissioner George, a second by commission, I'm sorry. So second. Motion by Commissioner Grove, Second by Commissioner George. The question. Commissioner George. Yes. There was a agenda amendments. Wait on Wednesday after the packet had gone out the Friday before and our rules of procedure were just amended last month to amplify the wording and rule 26 prohibiting agenda additions that are not an emergency. I believe that the addition, new business item 9 is probably an emergency item as it's a grant request with a deadline. I would like to see removed unfinished business number 2, green application approval policy as there's not an emergency to inhatch that. So are you making a motion to, well there's a motion on the floor. So what is your request regarding the motion that's on the floor? Mr. Hartman, can you help with this? Sure, and tell me if this jives with what you like is, I guess it would be to not approve the agenda, but then I guess entertain another motion to amend the agenda, but to amend it only to include item 9 on new business, but not to include item 2 under unfinished business. I don't know Commissioner George. What are you asking? There's a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. So motion and a first. I do have an additional discussion on this as well before we carry out with the motion. My question would be considering that these are both grant applications. If we do not approve them at this meeting and we wait until the next regular, excuse me, or waiting to the next regular meeting to do so does that mean that the deadline application would be passed and we cannot place these grants? Because I would say if we lose the grant or cannot submit an application if we do not take action upon it tonight, I would consider that an emergency. I think the confusion, the what you're saying, Commissioner Elliott. Commissioner George is saying that new business number nine, she's okay with that being added. She is not okay with unfinished business number two being added. So Commissioner Grove, for the sake of moving forward and getting it. Will you rescind your motion? Yes. Commissioner George, would you rescind your second? I will rescind my second. In there, can I? I need to add one thing to the agenda. I forgot to mention it just now, but we're trying to get the Leslie Street project underway and I've been trying to get CEI, which is inspection services. Duberry is the engineer of record on that. DOT will not let Duberry use their own inspectors so they had to go out to find, we have to go out and find another inspector. So we went through all of our continuing services engineers so we don't have to do the go out and find another inspector. So we went through all of our continuing services engineers so we don't have to do the go out for 21 days from RFP if we already have a little contract. So I contacted all of them. We had one that came in with a bid that was way out of the budget. And one just came in about 30 minutes, 45 minutes ago. That is within the budget, it's urban catalyst. I didn't have time to do a board action request I was going to get that back. If I could add that to the agenda for approval for the C.E.I. Services and that would be I would consider that emergency. So we can get that street underway as soon as possible. Okay, let's try this again. underway as soon as possible. Okay, let's try this again. So we have an amended agenda before us. So there is the addition to our new business number 11 at approval for CER services. Strike, unfinished business, grant application approval policy draft. What say you? You want a motion to, I'll make a motion that we approve that agenda? That works, are we accepting the bid by CEI? I mean by, let's talk about that. When we, so right now we just need to adopt the agenda. All right, so I have a motion by Commissioner Grove to adopt the agenda, adding item number 11 under new business approval for C.E.I. services and striking item number two under unfinished business. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove. Now have a second have a second by Commissioner George in a discussion. Here in nine, Arlen favor? I'm fine. In your pose motion carried. Thank you public comment Pardon me I apologize for the name Rivera So she so she Thank you Good afternoon, and I have just little packets better to Is the mic on it looks on yeah do I me hand them out to you now or after yeah Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon. I sound loud on this. Mayor commissioners and staff. My name is Svocchile Bervard. I'm the coordinator of your Applachicala Community Garden. I work with a committee, our treasure, Cliff Buell is not here today, but we have a few members of our committee, our full committee is to raise the best story, Diane Peck, John, Lingman, Shan, Rites, Love, and Susan Lam. And really we realized that we hadn't come before you to even say thank you for the incredible support over the last couple years. We've been the committee leading the garden and really investing in improvements in the garden. Hopefully you all have been able to see some of that. We've been there for almost two years making good use of the city funds. We think we hope and never had come to say thank you for the funding, but also for the incredible support the city provides to make sure the grass is cut, that the weeds are wet, that the water gets fixed. So thank you for that we could definitely not be doing it without that incredible support. And we wanted to come and also we know it's budget season and we're looking to do a few more exciting things, improvements and expansions in the garden and we wanted to come and put before you an official request for funding for the next year. And give you updates. One of the great things we've been able to do is just update our mission. Make sure we have application forms, put a sliding scale fee, schedule into place so that the garden is truly accessible to all of our community members and that mission is to be a place where neighbors representing the full diversity of our community can connect, collaborate and grow delicious, healthy and beautiful food in medicine. As an organic garden, we support our members to grow vegetables, fruits, flowers, and herbs in a sustainable and diverse friendly way that protects the land and the lands of our Bay. We encourage gardening as a way to increase food security, improve health and well-being, and strengthen our special community. So that's really what we've been doing. We spent a lot of time this year doing things like fixing the fence and building new beds, which we do now with all volunteer labor. We built a half-urb bed on the east side of the garden. We put up picnic bed on the east side of the garden. We put up picnic tables on the east side. Tonight you can come each a lunch anytime when it's not so cold. On either side of the garden we raised up our, we have a pollinator's garden that's been on the ground for a long time. We raised it up so that it's easier to read. We planted some blueberry bushes in the orchard. If you haven't been through there, it's a great place to walk through. And we started compost bins on both sides of the garden. We also have really moved to share what we want is to integrate the community more into the garden and the garden more into the wider community. And so we've done that by having things like seedlings, hails, maybe all our common thoughts. We bring our extra veggies to each repul scene whenever possible to contribute to the food there. And we're really proud of our community veggie stand. Our community share veggie stand. If you've seen it, this time of the year, it's not as full. But and many times the year, if you go by, it's full of the excess produce that folks have that they want to share with community and we've received beautiful thank you notes over and over again, people who come by and picked up that food. And lastly, we're really proud that we've been able to partner with Moving Education Institute and with new futures projects on the Uselad Garden of Eden that's behind City Hall. futures projects on the U.S.-led garden of Eden, that's behind City Hall, and we were able to donate seedlings and also just human power expertise to get that garden above the ground and that young people growing. So we are looking forward to this next year, saying the kind of things we want compost. We want to build more beds. We have a very long wait list because people love gardening so much they stay. And so the turnover is not so much every year. So we want to build more beds so that we can have more members in the garden. We also want to have events in the garden. People who thought of a couple of different ways we could bring music to the garden, be open to the community, have their be food, and have people try fresh food that is growing there. So that ends in new science. I don't know if you've done bi-recently, but the signs are old and peeling. So those are some of the things we want to do with funding in the next year. And we're really open to any questions that folks may have. Like I said, I always an open invitation to come down to the garden, appreciate how beautiful it is. I always want to thank the staff for their support. I want to thank the staff for supporting the staff. I want to thank the staff for supporting the staff. I want to thank the staff for supporting the staff. I want to thank the staff for supporting the staff. I want to thank the staff for supporting the staff. I want to thank the staff for supporting the staff. Mr. Wienzester? The commissioners, thank you for having me. I'm going to respect for the request of a grace period to seek consideration of the new proposed alternative from my golf card cover, perhaps at the September meeting. There are some outstanding circumstances as well. Due to the fact that we just got the letter that was August 1st, we delivered to us on the 5th and we were being out of town from the 8th to the 12th. So those kind of extend when you surface is also, I'm a build a guy, I can't really do a lot of physical things. So taking it down might be a challenge getting some assistance to do so, as well if, after September you decide that it still needs to be demolished. Thank you. It is not only agenda, so we can't take that up. I did see your email and I will ask Attorney Hartman to address during his report. Thank you for answering the question. Thank you. We have the 2425 budget calendar in your packet. We have workshop scheduled for the 20th and the 27th of August at 6 p.m. I do think that we probably do need to add another workshop to discuss strictly the fee schedule. It seems like by the time we discuss fee schedule. We really don't have a whole lot of time to talk about the... that we can add another workshop date in there. That would be good. Well, on the essay next week, we have the mayor and city manager is out at a meeting. So the 19th, we have a B.O.A meeting, the 21st we have tree committee, so the 22nd, 3rd day, the 22nd or 3rd day, the 29th, but there's no meetings in here. And with our meetings being pushed back to 6 p.m., Thursdays are no longer a day that can work for me on meetings. It's going to have to be Tuesday. One day's Tuesdays are Wednesdays. Monday Tuesdays are Wednesdays. Okay. They're, yeah, they to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. 28th. 28th. the we need to have the data from the fee schedule for the budget workshops or no. It's that won't be too late to have that meeting. Can you just the and it just being combined with either the August 20th or the August 27th and why and why again is there a need to have a separate Yes, let's do that. Yes. Just could we add it to both August 20th and August 27th? Just add it to both of those workshops. Is your microphone only? Yes. Is your microphone only? I'm day. So, you all just want to leave it on the 20th and the 27th? Yes, please. Okay. We'll go from there. If we're not ready, but if we're not done by the 27th, we can just schedule one other one. Thank you. You see the calendar before you? The budget calendar, what say you? Commission, we adopt the budget calendar. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner George, a second by Commissioner Grove, to adopt the budget calendar as presented. Discussion? Here and none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Incroachment agreement? A dendum? Miss Banks? Hello, commissioners. My name is Christy Banks. I represent David Drew. Is it on? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Drew acquired the property at 48 Avenue H in July of 2023. And if you will, you should have in your package. I don't know if you all are familiar with this, but it's really a lovely property and there's not a lot of development back over in this area but it's 48 Avenue H and in your packet you should have a copy of an encroachment, City of Appleticolla encroachment slash Variance Agreement that was entered into with the prior honor Mr. Clifford Allen back in 1998. Mr. Drew subsequently there was rotten wood on this deck. This is right outside of the west door, and you can see the house itself is actually encroaching into the alleyway. It's a very old structure, a store structure. And he took it upon himself. He didn't realize he needed to go to the city first for approval. He took it upon himself to replace rotten wood here and rotten wood on what was in the lean to sort of shed. And then the city during its regular due diligence came out and inspected the water main line that was in that area and realized that hey there's new construction. So they reported that to code enforcement. Code enforcement sent a notice to my client at the end of May, I think on May 27th and May 28th, advising him that he had some items, then a violation of code, and that his current encroachment agreement did not allow him to make those repairs without the consent of the city. And in addition to the debt that he reconstructed and the move went on the shed, the prior owner had actually installed a propane tank over here in the city, completely city alleyway. So Mr. Drew contacted me, and as soon as I could in the month of June, I met with PJR Winco enforcement. I met with City Manager Wade and City Attorney Mr. Hartman was on the phone and discussed with him what the city was asking my client to do. They were asking him to remove the propane take. They were asking him suggesting that it would require the city's authorization to amend the prior encroachment agreement for him to be allowed to have the the deck in the existing part of footprint and that that's should should be removed in its entirety. So since then Mr. Dury has removed the propane tank. He has eliminated any excess that he added on to that deck so that the footprint for the deck is identical to the previously approved footprint and he has completely moved this shed and at some point in the future I will come back with him and on his behalf to request for reconstructing the shed someplace else on the property. So he took care of all of that before the end of the month of July. He wants to be a good steward with the city. And what we're asking for is language that I had previously drafted, sent to the city to review. And it recognizes that it doesn't make reference to the propane tank because it was never approved before the propane tank. It does make reference to the fact that he's completely removed the shed that was encroaching into the alleyway and allows him to continue to have the footprint for that deck as it has appeared since this. Attorney Hartman? 1998. Encouragement agreement. Attorney Hartman? Yes. So, as Ms. Banks mentioned, because I have also been out to this property, there were a number of code enforcement violations. He's brought all of those in compliance. The big trick here is the important thing. 1998 footprint is the same footprint today. Why he was recommended, so you'd say, well, why is he even here? Well, the reason he's here is because it is arguable that he replaced over 50% of the deck. Right? So I know his older mother is there, and there's a safety issue, but I guess he saw Woodrot on that deck and what he did from the city's perspective was probably repaired or replaced more than 50% of the deck, which would have been a no-no under the 1998 agreement. So in order to bring him into full compliance, because that's the goal of code enforcement, it was recommended that he come in and get an addendum to the encroachment agreement that would recognize that those repairs were made but that it does not exceed the 1998 footprint. And that's what he did. So he is following what was recommended, but it's ultimately Eurol's decision Eurol's decision to approve the addendum or not. Thank you. So commissioners, you have before you a request, what say you? Yes, but before we get motion first, yes. I'm going to motion we approve with discussion. Second. I have a motion by commission of Grove. A second by commission of Elliot. Elliott, discussion, Commissioner Grove. So at the urging staff, I went by and booked out at a Friday I think and when you're facing West. Microphone please. When you're facing West, the House will be to your back. And see in the alley facing west, up the hill, there's another shed that's there, and some, you know, chairs and a fire pit or not, I don't know if it's a fire pit or not. But that's not allowed either because it can't have a shed or a pool or anything without a structure. And we've been through that many times. Right. And my understanding is that he is removing that shed to the property with the structure on it, the primary structure. But what we're talking about is the shed that's across the alley on the vacant lot that there's a sort of just an old shed on that but that that was. I looked at the code enforcement notes on this is that that was being removed. And that's I'm going to say this that that's part of code enforcement, not necessarily the encroachment. That was never approved. They never went to PNZ to get approval for it. And you just is in the short version. Yeah, it's pretty temporary looking. You can't put a just a shut up on an empty lot. Just wanted to make sure we were all aware of that. And PJ all over it. I mean, she's all over the code force and aspect of it. I think if I'm paying without speaking out of turn, I think P.J. was really happy that this individual and property owner was so anxious to be compliant and were so eager to make sure that he was compliant and we could get this matter on the agenda. I think this is a very old, the survey refers to it as a 9.2 by 10-inch metal shed, but I don't think it's something that means anything to him. I think for him, it was important that what was actually included in his notice was completely taken care of before we came before the city and asked for the amendment. If that's an issue, I imagine he'll be very happy to address that. Commissioner Elliott, did you have a question? Not yet. Commissioner George, did you have a question? Comment. Yes, I do. We have three encroachment agreement requests on the agenda today, and we have workshopped encroachments over a year ago and came to some general agreement what we would like to see in the encroachment agreement that hasn't moved forward so we continued a case by case address these issues. I think one thing that was clear from the workshops that we had is that we wanted to protect historic structures with and give them sort of the same treatment for encroachment, as their code currently provides for non-conforming structures that they are allowed to stay that way, you know, unless they're destroyed, but they can't extend the encroachment. And so historic structures, housing stock, couple of other exceptions that we had discussed and then otherwise we were gonna try to have some sort of transition period to bring everything else into compliance. I think that the giving away of city property to private owners is a serious matter that should there should be some public purpose to do so. I think having a historic home that has an encroachment, it should always be allowed to stay that way. I think things like decks or temporary structures, the original encroachment agreement allows only for the encroachment, the encroaching property to be only repaired and maintained. So obviously a replacement or a substantial replacement of the deck would not would violate that agreement. I personally don't see a reason why we should allow a new encroachment within that footprint if we've gone beyond repairing and maintaining the deck. I mean, I think because of the encroachment, there's probably a lot more room on the lot to build a deck within the owners property instead of one city property. What else did I have? I mean, I'm not in favor of allowing the debt to be rebuilt, but I mean, if that's what the majority of the commission wants to do, I really would like to suggest that if you have a revised encroachment agreement that the one that's proposed would allow the same thing to happen over and over again. So it seems like you would have at some point for that encroachment to be removed, either with the passage of time. Thank you for your question, Duncan. That's all I have. I have a couple of questions, so I make sure I understand. So the original deck was on the home and he replaced. For me, it's sitting here now trying to think about and hearing everything that said and agreeing, but I feel like I don't know enough about was it was it repaired and maintained versus replaced or rebuilt? I mean, people I hear that from those who are profaring, but I mean, can you tell me more about exactly what was the condition of the day? And I haven't seen before and after, but he replaced one wood and initially he expanded the deck down you know, seen before and after. But he replaced rotten wood. And initially he expanded the deck down. He had a larger deck, several feet over this way, out to the same length that this previously existing deck was. And when code enforcement brought to his attention, you can't do that without appropriate consent. He went back and physically removed the part that he had added on that extended. He had actually added on a few feet on this side as well and had installed an outdoor shower and had the plumbing and everything and had doors. And he had a really pretty little deck that when it was brought to his attention that that requires the cities approval and that frankly that the city's not likely to approve improvements beyond an existing encroachment, your best bet would be to go back to that additional footprint. And so based on advice of council and camdor and discussions with city attorney, city management and city code enforcement, Mr. Drew eliminated everything that he had added and the Democratic Vice of Council and KMDR and discussions with City Attorney, City Management and City Code Enforcement. Mr. Drew eliminated everything that he had added and we turned it to its original footprint. So it's a witness student that comes out the side door. I think Mr. Allen just hadn't maintained it. I think with regular maintenance it wouldn't have been an issue, but it had not been regularly maintained. So all that stair nails is the original stoop that was at the entrance and he dressed up the home? Yes ma'am. Well, to the dimensions that were on the 1998 approval. He's removed everything in excess, but he did put, you know, it is, it is new wood, but he's brought it back down to that original footprint and is asking the city to confirm that he can continue to have the encroachment agreement. It does have plans for other improvements that he would like to make on the property, but those will all be coming through and planning and zoning before he takes any action to do, to do anything else with the property. Thank you very much. I just have one question. Current survey reflect the removal of shed and footprint of debt is forthcoming. Do you have any idea when that will be provided? Yes, Robert, it rained pretty much every day in the past week. Robert and I associated with Crystal House in this morning. They had an on-the-air agenda to go by until today And it also has ordered a flood of aviation certification because he wants to make sure he is compliant with providing that information When it comes before planning and zoning to seek to install a shed so that should be forthcoming As soon as I have it I'll forward it to your city manager. We have a motion by Commissioner Grove, a second by Commissioner Elliott, is any further discussion? Commissioner Grove. I went by and the deck's been replaced and it's been built, it was built into the encroachment. The staff got him to cut it back. He also cut the candy cane off and made some other modifications. So I feel like if we're either going back to the encroachment agreement from the 80s and letting him proceed that way or since it's been more than 50 percent, it's been destroyed, it's been pulled up, it's gone. Now, does he come in? Does the question is, do we hold him to the encroachment agreement of 1988, or do we hold him to the new encroachment agreement? Yes, and even say simpler, one other factor is that the – this encroachment agreement? Yes, and even say simpler, one other factor is that the, this encroachment agreement, I'm going to say that this, the 1998 encroachment agreement includes a part of the house, which is something that we see a lot of, we'll see it on the next encroachment. So that one's sort of a, I want to say a no-brainer, but that one's one. We have a history of certainly historic structures, old homes. We do not require to tear off part of your home. So that is what this involves partially. And then because, well, I don't want to say it that way. So as far as this deck being essentially replaced, probably, probably from looking at it visually, that it was over 50% destroyed and then, and then repaired. But no one's made that determination yet. So that would still have to be made. Meaning, did he, did he replace it all at once? Did he, did he repaired over time? You know, like, if I was him, we could end up in that kind of argument, if you want to call it that. And again, this potential, like obviously before you, is this approval, potential approval of an addendum that just recognizes that it has been replaced. It still contains the 50% meaning moving forward, if 50% or more of that Dex destroyed, he could lose the whole deck. It could just be that he cannot do what he did again. That's there. And really why the logic behind this is why this has come before you is also that with changeover, he needs to know where he stands. I think we sort of say, look look do you need to tear it all out Not the house part, but certainly tear out the the deck completely or can you remain in the footprint of 1998 encroachment agreement that's a decision that only the commission can make and If the reason again, we recommended it come before the commission is because if four years from now We have a new code enforcement situation or a new commission or whatever else. That's why people get these encroachment agreements so that they don't have to repeatedly go through this, right, the battle. He's not getting a current encroachment agreement. He's defaulting back to the 1998 encroachment agreement. He has an encroachment agreement. So for instance, he had Clip Allen had an encroachment agreement. So for instance, he has the, he had Clip Allen had an encroachment agreement. So you're asking us to do a new one. And you're at the same time you're asking us to revert back to the old one. That's why I'm trying to figure out. Sorry, I don't want to be wrong here. I thought those in your to set applicants, their successors and assigns. So it follows with the property. So he inherited that encroachment agreement. But it's been 50% destroyed. So we're going to go with that. That's our position. And I don't know, it's crystal- Right, so you're recommending that we have him tear out the deck. He tore out the portion of the deck that was outside the 1998 footprint. And what's before you all is whether or not you will basically allow this addendum, which I'm going to say recognizes that he has substantially repaired that deck and we're going to say, okay, we're not going to hold you to the strict terms of the 1998 agreement. We're not going to get into an argument of saying, hey, is it 50% is it 80% is it 100% is it 51% destroyed. We're going to say, look, you brought all these, you brought in compliance, but we're not going to reward bad behavior. But the home encroachment would remain, meaning the 1998 agreement would still remain in effect as to the home encroachment would remain meaning the 1998 agreement would still remain in fact in effect as to the home and This a denim just kind of puts cleans up the issue of are we gonna make them tear out the deck or not? Right, but if he wants to come in and A shed the shed of that was a footprint there, but the shed has been gone and it's totally taken off I mean, it's not there anymore and he says well well this is on the, you know, on the encroachment agreement, I want to put the shed back. You would say no, right? I mean, I say you would say no. I mean, you know, I just kind of, I just kind of, you're up the line. You'd say that or not, right? And you would have to have a reason to let them do that, but and it would again, we're creating precedent. And what's the recommendation, staff? Staff's recommendation was to approve the addendum that as long as he tore everything back to the original footprint, that the addendum does not like offend the policy for these encroachments. All right. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove and a second by Commissioner Elliott to approve the encroachment variance. Addendum any further questions comments? Commissioner George. I just want to make the comment. When you say you're amending it, we're recognizing that the original encroachment agreement was violated because it goes beyond repairing, maintaining it was basically replaced. So we're basically with the amended encroachment agreement giving them a do-over, and which in my mind violates the spirit of what we discussed in the workshops of what we would like to see in encroachment ordinance. We wanted to start clowing back these temporary structures that are on city property in some equitable manner and preserve, you know, the encroaching historic structure, housing stock and some other exceptions. So I mean, I think we were at a disadvantage here because we're on a case by case basis ignoring those workshops and making decisions that are inconsistent with each other from encroachment to encroachment like the one that was just discussed in public comment we took the position that that encroached the addition to the encroachment adding the golf cart shed over the platform that it had to be removed. So now in another case we're saying we're going to give them a doover because they took off. They went beyond the original footprint and they've already gone through the expense of taking that out. So we're saying it sounds like we're saying that we would allow them a doover on that. So I just want to recognize that these are issues we'll have to discuss when we have an encroachment ordinance and we have to decide what we want as a city as far as are we going to continue to give away city property to private landowners. So we have a motion by Commissioner Grove, second by Commissioner Elliott, any further comment? I'm Commissioner Duncan. Yes, thank you. I was actually going to say that it does. It feels like a well city of Appalachicola. It's easier to ask for forgiveness. It's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission. And I get it because then my response is, well, if we deny it, then what do we do? I mean, this is an ingress and egress. I mean, you have the reality of it, a person's home or what have you, which is why I was asking the questions about, did we have, what kind of difference are we talking about between repaired and maintenance and replaced or something like that and what I wrote down was expanded. I mean, this wasn't just a replace and over 50%. I mean, he like improved upon it and made extensions to it and that's why I was asking about the facts because even if we're in a situation because I don't think that while I do agree with Commissioner George, I just don't think in reality in factual every day living life, how we're going to just have these black and white rules that that's all we adhere to when we don't look at the facts of each there's got to be some kind of hybrid between absolutely no and absolutely yes and everybody gets to do over to use her term so but but if we say no tonight then what does that mean Mr. Hartman? What I would guess how this would unfold would be if we say no tonight, then we would get in and continue with code enforcement to require the removal of the remainder of the deck, which would literally include the back, stoop and everything else. We would probably run into, I don't want to give Christy ideas, but we probably also run into, hey, was it destroyed by 50% or more? Right? I mean, looking, then we'd have to investigate. Is there still floor joys under there and things like this, under the decking that did you just replace the top of the decking with a footer, with a foundation, the footer's like everything? So we get into all that and our position is we're kind of assuming it was over 50% and they haven't really hidden the ball on that. I mean, I think that's probably the case. And again, I hate to speed this way, but from a staff perspective, which your final decision was that just as you say, they expanded it well beyond. I mean, it was like twice the size of the original encroachner grid. But then we marked it and everything. But they cut it back. They cut all that out, just like, destroying, just a waste of, and that's on them. I mean, it was he shouldn't have done it in the first place. But they cut it all out, and they're back to the original 1998 footprint of which a portion is the home, right? That won't change. So they have a valid current encroachment agreement 1998. So they're looking to, again, like we've already talked about, just an addendum saying, look, we did the 50%. It was probably over 50% destroyed from the city's perspective, and they did a lot of repair. They didn't do incremental repair and just keep it up, like they probably should have, right? If someone has one of these, their better bet is replace a board every time they see one getting rotten and whatever else, and they'll stay ahead of it, and they won't run into this problem. But sorry, am I answering your question or? They're answering my question, but I was just, you know, we can legislate and create policies till the cows come home, but if we have absolutely no teeth, then we're wasting everybody's time and not doing a service for the city at all. So we've just got to figure out the balance because it does feel like a. But that's sitting from my seat and I'm not staff and I didn't deal with the days at the day in and day out of the man taking it, taking off what he had just put on that he's spent good money on. So I get that too, so but thank you very much. Yes. Thanks one more question. Could I point out one more thing that may or may not be relevant? Just give us a minute. I'm sorry. One more question. So we're going to wrap this discussion. We're going to let you make your comment, Commissioner Groveve, attorney banks, you can make your comment and then we are calling for the vote. So attorney Hartman, you're saying that the deck was put back exactly like it was when Cliff Allen owned it? Yes. So it occupies the same footprint as the 1998 encroachment agreement. Thanks. I mean, that's, yeah, that's my understanding and that's what's been represented to us and survey will show. Yep. Is that true? That's to the best of my knowledge that is true And I tried to have a survey in hand to hand out to you all this evening But to the best of my knowledge code enforcement who has extremely thorough has gone back out and investigated the property and confirmed that She satisfied with okay One of the things I would ask the commissioners to consider. This property is in an area, there's an alleyway in place and certainly the city cannot abandon it and I would not ever suggest that they do. But there is an alleyway delineated on this map. There is no road. This is not passable. This is not driveable. Have you all been down to look at this property? Then you can see there is no road there. What this gentleman is asking is not too terribly agree just. He's just made a big investment in property in Appalachicola. He lived his elderly mother who has some disabilities. She loves it here. She takes her golf cart to the post office. They're very happy. They love this home. All they wanted to do was improve it. The minute it was brought to his attention that he was in my relation, he called me immediately and said, I need to retain you. I've got, apparently, I've done something. I needed permission to do it before I did it. I need you to meet with the city and make this right. And so I did. And it's simply, it's a deck that comes out of the door on the west side of the house. And this is not passable. This is not passable. They can't even park their vehicles here. No vehicle is driving through here. If anything, we'll Mr. Drew purchase this property and I would ask you to consult with some of the city workers they would confirm he cleared this area out. They can now get to a I don't know what you call it but the big metal thing with concrete all around it. It's right here that's been buried up for years. Mr. Drew cleared that out. So I'll just teach you I don't think the gentleman is asking for too much. It's steps outside the door that have been at that house for years. And unfortunately the prior owner was an older gentleman and if it had been regularly maintained it wouldn't have been an issue. But I would just ask you to please consider. He's been over backwards to accommodate. We were told that city staff and council manager and code enforcement would recommend approval. So I'm just asking you to please take into consideration what your staff, what your management, and what your council are recommending based on the fact that they've had conversations with me. They've had conversations with him. He wants to be a good citizen and a good constituent when he was told he did something wrong. He corrected it immediately. And he totally removed the shed, and he totally removed the propane tape. So I would ask you to please look upon this favorably, and in the future when you look upon requests as they come up, take into consideration the actual facts and circumstances of each individual application that's submitted. And in this one in particular, that's not a possible alley there's no road you can even drive through that at this time so thank you for your consideration I think you're for your patients thank you miss makes have a motion by commission grow of any second by commissioner Elliott all in favor hi hi hi any opposed opposed motion carried thank you Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. And Crouchment Agreement at Request, Penalton. And this request was made by Sean Donahoe and Sean, do you want to present this? The information, everything I know is in the packet there about this. This was an existing encroachment that was allegedly over 100 years old. Croaches 9 feet into the alley. the purchase nine feet into the alley so we don't get presentation for this item that's that's that's our lot of got on it I mean not any heartman do you want to take the lead on this one please. So certainly it's always good to hear from the applicant but if this is looks like I see the survey where it shows the actual building that is is a historic building extending nine feet. I'm looking at it correctly, nine feet into the alley. Again, we historically have had these situations where obviously if the building is destroyed or torn down, they cannot rebuild it. And the agreement always says that. They cannot rebuild it with the encroachment. But historically, we have not required people to tear down their structures that they have improperly placed where they are encroaching on an alley and sometimes well on city rights of way. So it would be consistent prior treatment to approve the encroachment. This building is for sale, so this is to clear it up before it goes to a closing. And there's an issue. Where is the, I'm looking at it where I see three feet. So we would essentially be approving the encroachment to package it up with the property so it could be sold. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . please. Make a wish. We approve. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove. May I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Duncan. Discussion. Commissioner Elliott. Yes. My discussion would really have to do with, you know, if we're granting the encroachment, the building's only listed for sale. My concerns are more so of what the possible development is going to be in this area, we have talked in circles many times about different encouragements that have been given one in particular that is sorry, one in particular that can be related to this situation would be the one that was given to the Chapman House Museum which we we did not we know did not end up becoming a museum. So I feel like this structure is historic and should remain there. I am unsure if I can grant that encroachment or I would vote to grant that encroachment without knowing what the future of that building would be and the intent of the people behind it. I know the penultons and I know they are good people and honest people. I do not know who may buy that property and I do not know how they might develop it. And if they have this to go along with it, I don't know what would happen. I think there's too many questions and not a solid plan. Any other discussion? Commissioner Duncan? I just have a quick question. Is it a pending closing? Are they're just going to list it now? I mean, timeliness is point makes a difference. Yeah. You will need to come to the microphone please. There is no contract in effect right now. At the podium we have Mr. Chandonoho, the rilzer that is listening to the property. And can you repeat that statement please? Can you repeat your statement? Shandana, realtor, there is no contract currently for the purchase of that property. But we did have a previous buyer who came, looked at the property, put it under contract, solved the encroachment, and decided that they were not going to follow through with it. So we thought we didn't know that the encroachment was reasonably backed out, but if it was, we'd get're going to be able to do that. We're going to be able to do that reasonably backed out. But if it was, we get it straight now and clean up. Commissioner Elliott, were you or your comments? I don't have any follow-up questions. Thank you. Commissioner Duncan. Just one. We're just talking about the original building right. No, no, no decks, no, I mean, so because it's the policy of this board long before me that we don't remove historic structures due to expiring or or transitioning of ownership ownership. Okay. Thank you. Now, but and when I say this to address kind of commissioner, Elliot's concern. You know, if there was no talk of a sale, it was just the current owner coming in to get kind of squared away on his title, clear up a title issue, then that would be simple. The fact that it's for sale, this is purely at your discretion, these encroachment agreements. And I understand, Chris, your George's concern, which I share. I mean, we have code provisions dealing with encroachments now, but the idea that we're dealing with these on a case by case basis, we certainly do, but it's well within your discretion to table something or ask that once it's under contract for the applicant to come in and whether it be the property owner, current property owner, which is who really is getting the encroachment agreement because it's the current owner that's getting it. But that can fact, now, yeah, I mean, it can factor into your decision. I mean, if you want that information, you certainly can ask for it. So it's not out of the ordinary, but again, historically, we haven't, which is a new owner, would make a mistake by destroying 50% of that building in renovating and or changing it's, you know, doing some redevelopment of that site. That would literally void the agreement. If it was given tonight, then they go in and destroy 50% or more of the building. They just voided their own the agreement that they got, which would be kind of mind-boggling, but they could do it. Even by accident, they could do it. What I'm saying is, when they talk about 50% or more of the building being destroyed, if you did a massive renovation of that building, you could destroy over 50% of it. Right? And then you don't have your encroach anymore. You better while you're doing that renovation, you better pull it back in nine feet. More you finish with your questions? Thanks. Thanks for trying to get not to be confused. So we can't legislate use. Use is going to come down to PNC and whether it fits what our code says or current code says. I'm going to try not to be confused. So we can't legislate use. Use is going to come down to PNC and whether it fits what our code says or current code says. But just for the record, I think the new owner needs to consider parking and other things that might have to be a part of this because we've got a good encroachment where parking might be in the future. So just all of those issues are going to come up as this moves forward. And many of them, let me point this out, like to be fair, it's the current owner coming before the city for an encroachment agreement period. The fact that there's a potential sale or it's listed probably really doesn't. Now that we know it, it matters, but if we didn't know it, it would just be making decision based on how it sits today under its current ownership. There is a current encroachment agreement, right? So what am I missing? No, that's what I just asked Travis is. I can't talk. When I see this, what's attached, right, I said, was that, that's a sample. So I'm going to attach that as a sample, like a similar situation. So that's why I was saying that. Yeah, that is not, I asked the same question. That is not, they do not have an existing crocheting agreement. That's the confusion. Are you finished commissioning a group? Commissioner grow? Yes. Commissioner George, do you have any comments? I think I drive. I again want to comment that the fact that we don't have a path to having an encroachment ordinance puts us at a disadvantage. I mean we can only we're still designing this on a case by case basis I'm sorry if I repeat myself However, I think this encroachment request This is in the spirit of what we discussed in the workshop is that we want to protect the historic structures and housing stock of the city of Applech Cola. So what we had discussed in a workshop is that once we had the ordinance in place that we would actively work towards identifying existing encroachments that would meet those requirements and encourage the property owners to enter into encroachment agreements with the city exactly like the one being requested here. I don't believe that the ownership or potential sale of the building has any effect on the request for an encroachment. The protectionist for the building, not for the applicants. So I mean, I think this is exactly what we want to do going forward to protect our historic structures. And in the event there is a sale unless a structure is considered to be a torn down, they would need an encroachment agreement to facilitate this layout. Attorney Banks did you want to say something on behalf of this client you will need to come to the podium? I just wanted to ask you all is the survey that's in the package, does it have my name in the upper left hand corner? It does. Okay. So I wanted to volunteer that I did have some knowledge directly in connection to a question that was asked by Ms. Duncan. This property was under contract. The prospective purchasers did obtain a survey. Now obviously I can't reveal any of the confidential information about the contract or why the prospective purchasers didn't close. But Mr. Donna, I was just told you it's no longer under contract. So I would suggest to you all that if someone obtains a survey and the title commitment that they are receiving, in this case title commitment, that my office issued to these prospective purchasers said, easement for encroachment into the setback. So a prospective purchaser, if you have this existing situation, and the current owner is not looking to build, repair, improve, or do anything, with this piece of property at this time other than sell it. A perspective purchaser that sees the survey and receives the title commitment is going to see that this building is encroaching. Regardless of the fact that it's over 100 years old it's encroaching and you have a title exception and no lender is going to close alone with that purchaser. So what the owners are asking you to do with this property, and I don't represent them, but I do know them. So I would say what they're asking you to do is approve, give them a parchment agreement for the existing building in the way that it is. And I close this transaction when this property was purchased. Give the encouragement agreement for the building as it exists. So when comes along, it purchases it. They no longer have a big red flag in their title commitment. They will prohibit them from obtaining no financing from a financial institution. And hopefully someone will come along with wonderful, great ideas and give it some love. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney Hartman, what is your recommendation at this point? Approval of the encroachment agreement. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove. approval of the encroachment agreement. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Grove and a second by Commissioner Duncan any further discussion? Commissioner George. Dan, are you using the sample that's in here for encroachment agreement? No, we'll use, and I said this, that Williams one that's very similar to that. So it will. Meaning I think we've updated it a little bit each time, but it will be very similar to that. I believe I drafted that one. It's in 2022, so I would have drafted that encroachment agreement, the sample that's in there. I didn't put that one in there, but it will be similar to that. Really the focus being that 50% destroyed language and that's worth. Okay. Thank you. Hello. Motion by Commissioner Grove. A second by Commissioner Duncan to approve the request for an encroachment for a hundred or nine feet into the city alley the city of So we have a motion to approve unanimously. Thank you. In quote, agreement 196, 8th Street. Mr. Richard Dagenhart and Mr. Westwarn? Hi, this is another may be complicated. I hope not. This is trying to put Hunky-Dunked back together again. This is the Cypress Building, the Warkert Groschery that most of you know about has been sitting there verifying people who have had the nerve to take it on. I looked at it with some other people with West West Warren who lives in Panama City and has some property here. I wanted to do something with the building. The progress he made so far is the planning zoning board approved a special exception for a two-unit bed and breakfast. They also approved the proposed plan with three conditions. One of them parking from the alley and that's been okay. The second is to complete the Strongwater Management Plan, which is required because it's a commercial building, even though it's a bed and breakfast. And that's underway. The third is the encroachment of the building and the improvements that we're making on City Brightethway. The encroachment of the building is about three feet. The additional encroachment was what were putting on the building, which is replicating the historic condition of the building. And that's in the photograph, one of the photographs that you have Which is a canopy The corrugated aluminum canopy that sits over what was one of the entry doors The drainage for that canopy to deal with stormwater Requirements will go into a bill, a galvanized rain bill, sitting at the bottom of that canopy. The other would be a sign which projects over the right of way. It will be about a two-foot diameter sign that replicates the original and it will be tied to the, securing to the front of the building. The galvanized pipe that holds the sign is still hanging from the building along with the chain. So it's just a way to be put back up. So basically what I do is make it back to the store that it originally was. The original building, the original store was on 7th and I. It also included a gas station. It was the regular store and gas station. What I understand to be a major institution on the hill, it was moved about 1960 to its current location, and it operated as a store for some time after that. I haven't been able to determine how long it operated, but for some time. So, it will be a bad and breakfast, but it's trying to preserve one of the important buildings on the hill and one of the important institutions of reminders of what the hill was at one time. Next door are two or three buildings one has been repaired with a new roof and then two shotgun houses that are about to have about the same frontage they're not over the property line and Mr. Pink is in the process at some point of restoring those two buildings as well. So we're asking approval for the encroachment of the building, the encroachment of the canopy, the encroachment of a water barrel, it's really temporary, and the encroachment of the sign that will be projecting over the right of way and Estimate that it's about 10 feet above the above existing elevation Any questions That's what attorney Hartman have you. What say you? I will. If everybody has it in front of the director of his attention to page 27 of the overall package, which shows the, to me that's the clearest picture of what's being asked for and Mr. Dagenhart certainly tell me if I'm wrong. So it shows the one story, historic building that extends into the right of way. And again, this one we really have all the different flavors on the menu tonight as far as encroachments because that part would be easy from the policy standpoint, precedent standpoint, that that building sits in the right away there, a little bit at an angle, but it's out there. Then the additional ask is for the can, my understanding is the canopy and the rain barrel. That's new, right? Now it's probably to restore the old look. It serves obviously landscaping, stuff like this. But that's new. That's not, that's like the deck on Mr. Drew, right? The house was in there in the right away and we give, we give encroachments on that all the time. It's whether or not we give additional encroachment area for additions, but or at modern if you want to call it even though it's retro additional improvements. So they're looking for an additional square footage of right of way to do the canopy and the rain barrel. Is that an accurate summation? Mr. Dagenhart? Because the building encroachment, again, is easy, I think. Of course, we grant those that simple. The question to the commission, I'm going to kick it back to you, is in order to make this, you know, it's a road right of way, so it's wide. We have given encroachments before for new construction that think of all the, call it balcony, not even the controversial balconies, but just regular ones. We have given them to make them consistent, architecturally, aesthetically, compatible with other construction in the area, that sort of thing. So to me, there's almost two pieces to this puzzle. One would be the existing building. That's easy. That, I don't see any reason that wouldn't be granted. But the canopy and rain barrel are add-ons to the historic building and that's where your discretion comes into play of are those necessary from your perspective. As far as we can tell, the canopy was on the bill. We don't have a photograph, there are no photographs that exist, that the canopy remained on the building, but you can see on the front of the building where the rain shed from the canopy. Now, I understand that the building itself is an encroachment as are probably almost 50% of the buildings on the hill are encroachments of some sort or non-conforming with current zoning out there everywhere. So this is simply a plea for the consideration of a historic building that is moving just the building. It includes the canopy. The rain barrel is there to satisfy the city's stone water regulations. It holds 100% of the water that rains on the 24-hour 25-year storm. So, 160 gallons to cover that canopy. So, in it means the requirement of having the canopy. So, if you prove the canopy, we've got to have the rain bill. And I don't see any reason why if something was there before, that it can't be improved as an encroachment now, because it was a historic building. If the policy of the city, and if the LBC are reach for the importance of preserving historic buildings, then I think there's enough of a rationale to approve this. And let me add one thing that, sorry, because of my absences, the canopy design and let's say it was approved by PNZ but subject to the condition upon getting an encroachment approval from the city commission. So what I would say from that is that PNZ looked at this from a compatibility perspective and said yes that's that's a aesthetically with yes we'd like to see the canopy and rain barrel from a just compatibility with the neighborhood type analysis but again contingent or conditioned upon approval of an encroachment to provide space to build it on the front of the building. And it is an encroachment in the air. It doesn't have no columns. It doesn't touch the ground. The only thing that touches the ground is the rain bill. All right, thank you. If we don't get in there, the rain bill is a problem. We'll say, OK, we don't need a rain bill. All right, thank you. We have a request before you. What say you? I have a request before you for an encroachment. For three, three, four, three, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and four, and encroachment. What say you? Make a motion that we approve the encroachment. Have a motion by commission and grove. May I have a second? Second discussion. I have a second by commission or Elliot discussion. Commissioner Elliot. Thank you, Mayor. So I just have some questions, mainly related to indiscution of the historic structure. I'm not so much as concerned about the canopy as this is being used as something to try to enhance the historical appearance of the building. And I think we can all say that there's not enough shade in this area. My question and concern is for the stormy water mitigation that's being prepared here. I'm not an expert in this. I'm certainly not a stormwater engineer, but using a chaining drain rain-barrel method doesn't seem like the safest, most secure method for stormwater mitigation, because I would personally think of things like what if it's damaged by a rock off a lawn mower or a kid goes to mess with it or there is an extreme weather event and it gets knocked over and somebody doesn't notice it. The owner is in town. The tenants that are running the property at the time may not notice it or say something. So I would be more concerned about is this the best stormwater mitigation plan not only for this property but for the entire neighborhood? It's a common way to deal with strong water for relatively small quantities and it's on a list in the city's strong water mitigation pamphlet. It's listed in, always listed as one of the alternatives. They'd be set on concrete block platforms, so it's not exactly on the ground. And it would have to be secured to the building in some way. How that's done, I don't know, but you don't need anybody to steal it. So would this be the most beneficial storm water management plan for this property? Oh. And the process is doing that because we have four other canopies. Each one of those will have a rain barrel Attached to it and will be secured to the building That's why the best way because then it's got a Releases at the bottom and what we do in the front is connected to a spreader Which is a pipe that then automatically lets water that's accumulated out to landscape to irrigate and infiltrate in the space in front of the building. So essentially there was to be any sort of failure for any of these systems, the wire would just be out there. There would be no drainage or nothing. What? Okay. Yeah. On the rest of the building, there's not enough room. We've got 15 feet on either side. There's not enough room to do a swale on the side. And this is a part of an approved storm water mitigation plan. That's already been approved. No, it has been approved. It has this process. It's preparing it. Yeah. that's already been a part of it. It has been a part of it. The process is preparing it. Thank you. That is what I was trying to figure out here. Thank you. Thank you. But the five rain bales provide 100% of the 24-hour 25-years form. If there is no failure. And that's the only change in the coverage on the site. Any other questions, Commissioner? Not at the time. the site. Any other questions, Commissioner Elliott? Not at the same. Thank you. Commissioner Duncan. If we don't have the one of the conditions of the approval is the storm water drainage, then why are we approving the easement for the drainage system if it's not even a finished plan? That's what I'm asking. We've gotten into this situation before where we have approved things, where we have contingencies, and then the contingencies are never met on the other side from P and Z, and we've already approved. So that's where my concern lies. And my concern also lies, is there going to be any kind of curb or bump or something put there? I mean, what if somebody runs off the road in the right away and we've allowed them to put a very substantial 160 gallon rain tank in the right away without any kind of, I mean, if it was a propane tank, which I know that's gas, but they would make them put bumpers. You could look at, that's also my my concern is the liability of placing such a 160 gallons of water. Not that it's going to be full, but it's going to have to be something pretty substantial. But that's my thing, too. We're putting a... There should be some safety mitigation in there, too, if I may be. I don't know. Because usually, I mean, there's curbs or something or buffers of some kind. Because I street does not have any of that protection. I turn it hard. I think that question was to break. Okay. So as far as that question, I think if we see a danger, we could condition it upon putting, putting, having the word just dropped out of my head, but you could come up with requiring, I'm not going to call it the cot ballards, like a ballard around it or something to protect it. At the same time, we have approved these, and to me, when it's a fixed structure like that, not a propane tank, not something like this, could you see those ballards around propane tanks and that it says that it is no different than, like if, as far as the home itself, like if they ran into the house, right? Someone's house that's sticking four feet out, that's not on us, meaning the encroachments there, someone built their house there. I do not see much liability for the city as long as it's not an inherently unsafe encroachment. But the structure that we're approving is not inherently unsafe. And how about destruction? Right. And right. One of the building encroaches right right right. Exclude the building right right. Right. That's how I do it. You know, I mean, I take it out of my mind. I'm like, we we are that's the post. Yeah. I'm thinking just about the right. We are not and I guess I wasn't really thinking about the building. Right, right, right. Right. But if someone ran off the road, they get hit the building, they get the rain barrel. And we are approving that. If we grant the encroachment, we are allowing it. But again, we could put conditions in if that's a concern. To say, hey, you need to put two concrete ballards in there we include that if we wanted to include that in the Ecroachment Agreement to protect the people and well I say that they might be better off hitting the rain girl than the ballards right so sometimes until it's not. Right, no, no. Are you finished? Yes, thank you. Commissioner Grove, do you have any comments? This is two units, right? Two units? Yes. Okay, so four parking spaces is gonna be enough. And they're in the back. Okay, I'm just thinking of boats, that sort of thing. Yeah. Yeah, the parking for whoever stays there going to be enough. And they're in the back. OK. I'm just thinking of boats, that sort of thing. Yeah. The parking for whoever stays there is in the back. And the front, the plan is to landscape the front of the building so they would not be used for parking. And then there's gravel like every rail's on either side but 30 feet up to the close to the edge of the pavement would be landscaped and irrigated with the rain bill in the stormwater. Yeah, forget me, I've been married to Boatfield too long. All the bills away from here. Everywhere we travel we have a boat and a trailer so that's what I'm thinking is where where are they going to park it. We. We have a lot of people who come here for that. So that would be my only question. I think the stormwater mitigation is inventive. It is in our best management practices and I see you have gravel parking so I don't have a problem with that. Commissioner George. The complex equation, isn't it? Okay. There's three pieces. Okay. The encroachment agreement to bring in the existing historic structure. I mean, that's like the CUS building encroachment agreement. So I think that's consistent with what we want to work towards. I want to point out for the third time that we're at a disadvantage not having our encroachment ordinance. So we're deciding these things on a case by case basis. So I mean I'm in favor of bringing the original building in with an encroachment agreement. There are three feet that it extends into the city property. The next component is the canopy which adds another three feet. I think that's consistent with what we've done in the past, screening, airway encroachments, except with the rain barrel. So, an added feature here is that we're bringing new life to a historic structure that would otherwise be torn down and we have an opportunity to bring it back for the owner to bring it back close to it is original configuration. So I think that's something that's consistent with our code and with our historic regulations. The sign however I have a problem with, we have in our code in our sign regulations, a specific prohibition of signs in the public right of way. And this sign would extend 13 feet onto city property, although it's just a small sign. I think although it would be nice to return the building to its actual historic look, but is there any reason why you can't put the sign on the side of the building? So it's going, I mean 13 feet, I mean that's a large encroachment. No. Plus I think you would have to go through another step there to get, I know you don't have the signs and that has to go for separate approval through P and C. But I think this section 113-31 subsection 28 is going to prohibit that sign extending into the public right of why. And I think that could potentially create a public hazard being that close to the road. See, Mr. Hartman, what do you envision doing here having an agreement to bring back to us or just drafting an agreement that? Yes, I think the right complicate it is. I think because of the complication of this one and really bringing up the sign is important because that is I was more fixated on the other pieces of it. The sign is an issue. And I guess as the sign been before PNZ? The sign, we still have to be able to do it. And just the design and the size and all that. But the sign, we still need to go to PNZ. So I think I would certainly be bringing an encroachment agreement back to you all dealing with all these components before approval. But if you all, certainly some direction would be helpful in drafting that. As far as when I say direction, if you tell me we're inclined to grant an encroachment as to and just list the items, then I'll draft it accordingly. The sign may be premature because we don't know what is approval. You know from the code, but you may want to, it's seen that location and size of that sign. Yeah. But I think that makes sense because we have not yet designed the sign and we can't get approval from P&Z, can tell us designed, you actually see, have a lettering done and so on. We have done that. And when it says a 13 feet, that's the length of the pipe that the sign was hanging from. The sign is actually hanging about halfway. So we wouldn't have to do the whole 13 foot pipe that's held up with the chain. We could do a six-foot pipe and hangs over there. But we have it. So if that's a concern, which I understand that, then we just take the request for the sign out of our request. We go back to P&Z after we've had more discussions and maybe do alternative proposals for them. And then if we need to, we come back for the approachment agreement for the song. That would be fine. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. So I'm a little bit up up up up next. The stormwater that has not been resolved or approved. But it's before us, this matters before this commission to approve an encroachment that will hold that will contain the barrels. I too have questions about the sign. And then there is the question regarding the gravel, the landscape per se in front of the property. So it is the request a little premature attorney Hartman. The store I think the splur water requirement in the code is for the property itself. Not for the city right of way. But you're asking for an encroachment that you're using for your storm water. And the canopy is an encroachment that would take in care of 100%. So, and the storm water management plan, we would be dealing with the property itself. We've already taken care of with a 24-hour 25-year storm with a rain barrel for the canopy. The thing is the stormwater is a PNZ issue. Right. So we don't- It's the rain barrel. And then it's related to the rain barrel, but it's still seeking an encroachment area for the rain barrel, whether it's decorative, whether it's functional, whatever it may be, we know it's functional, I mean they're saying it's functional. So the question, the commission is, can a P-rain barrel sign, buildings not a non-issue? And if you guys, now it wouldn't necessarily be approved tonight, but if you gave me direction and said, you know what, we don't have a problem with the canopy, we don't have a problem with the rain barrel. We're going to need to see more information on the sign. I would bring you a draft encroachment agreement that covers the, again, the building, the canopy, the rain barrel, has some space for the sign. If you can get through P&Z or get some better feeling on that, and then you all would consider it at a follow-up meeting as to whether it be approved or not or just a little bit modified. All right, Commissioner Elliott, then Commissioner Duncan. Um, attorney Harbin just answered all the same questions. Commissioner Duncan. One other question I have and it came up from part of your explanation of what you're doing and Mayor Ash mentioned it as well but he's also talking about landscaping very close to within the right away up to the street. And we've had discussions about that very long discussions about that also. So that creates its own issues with the city that we have to address. Yeah, because people, when they put in their driveway apron and or they landscape right out to the education payment basically that's city property. I would not, I think make sure I'm saying this right, but I would not grant encroachments for vegetation, right? Because sometimes if we had to get in there or whatever else we would. Well that's what I want to make sure of that by us, not addressing it. He has presented himself before us as a board today and he mentions, oh, and we're going to be landscaping as well. I don't want this to be any kind of waiver either that if there's a problem and we have to go in there and- Right. And not purposely, but take up that gravel to repair this or take up that beautiful side to repair that we're not going to have people out there threatening our workers with their tools. The way I would draft the encroachment agreement the description of the encroachment is is just going to be the width of the building the depth of the encroachment then again describing the canopy that literally the measurements of the canopy and that obviously the portion of the rain barrel that's out from under the canopy that literally the measurements of the canopy and that obviously the portion of the rain barrel that's out from under the canopy That's it. So there wouldn't be the shrubs. All the rest of it would still be city City right of way unencumbered by an encroachment agreement. Right? Thank you. Sure. So we have a motion by commission to grow a second by commissioner Elliott for the approval of the request. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Opposed? Aye. Opposed. Right. There's too many unent—the few questions we have, we need to address first. I would be more inclined to table it, get us a draft back like we talked about and continue the discussion. I don't want to just, but if I'm in a, yay, or nay situation, then I'm going to have to vote no right now. I have a yay by Commissioner Grove, and a yay by Commissioner Elliott, a yay by Commissioner Duncan, Commissioner George, nay, or get, I didn't. I was unsure after the passage of time, what the motion was, was it to approve the request, as is or to direct. Yes. As is. As is. Okay, but I'll vote nay. So motion failed one to four. Can we make a motion now to direct attorney Hartman to draft. And agreement is that the next step? And we're not just saying. Yes. I would like to. Yes. Okay. That one's the always bring back his request. And I want to continue this discussion. I think this is going to be great. But we just want to deal with some of these. Talking about. and it doesn't even necessarily need to be in the forum ocean if you all meaning sort of by consensus direct me to prepare something I'll give it to Mr. Dagenhart he obviously can look at it and it will come up it'll come before you again probably when we have some sign some some more direction on the sign and we'll bring it yeah just as a note there is a sign direction on the sign, and we'll bring it. Yeah. Just as a note, there is a sign bracket on the building. We're exactly where they're talking about putting it. I mean, I just noticed that the bracket is there from many, many years ago, and it looks like the drawing they're proposing. So. So, Attorney Hartman, I think it's the consensus based on what I've heard to move forward with creating some type of agreement that will align with what you've heard from the commission tonight. Very good. I will do so. Thank you. Thank you. It's terrible. And at this point, I don't have no idea what we should do next. Okay, this is- So Attorney Hartman will get with you on the next step on how will we go moving forward? Well, the next- yeah, what- Attorney Hartman will draft an encroachment? A draft agreement and he will talk with you, share it with you, and we can discuss this, bring it back at another meeting. Okay, the whole thing. Yes, yes. Yes. Okay. He doesn't understand the commission. I'll get with you. I'll get with you. You and I all is the encroachment of the building itself. OK. No, we'll be included. It will be included in what attorney Hart means to ask. Yeah, because we're getting ready to invest the substantial amount of money in the building. Assuming, based on the building until we're clear that it means the building encroach but it's okay. If I'm in Mr. Dady, the reason that we are choosing to turn you back into work on some issues on this work because we have noted that the strong obligation, the sign, as in the issues, so we have discussed that these are some issues that can get worked on with staff to bring the issue to completion. So the inclusion issue agreement issue agreement came to giving and it can cover all of these things to completion, not approve one tonight and then commit next month in a line without agreement and then maybe come back a couple months later and then did again, to get all of them at once as a level four incoction agreement package. I understand that. The question is, do we delay investment in the building until us resolved? Yes, so if you would like and if this commission decides to take up another motion to approve the encroachment of the building, I would entertain that. Well, I mean, it's we've we have discussed and we've said clearly tonight and in the past that it is our policy that any historic building that has an original encroachment that has not been repaired or torn down or destroyed over 50 percent can continue with that encroachment for a lifetime of that building. There's a legitimacy of that as part of the question. So the answer is the encroachment is there. No one's going to ask you to destroy a portion of the building for that, but we're asking to do this all collectively and get all the different processes completed. I can't tell you whether to invest or not, but we want you to come forward. We want you to do these things. We want you to bring this building back. I don't know if that helps. I'll just leave the question of it. It's not my decision. It's the owner's decision. And we'll deal with that. Commissioner. The office is fine. I just want to ask Commissioner, Commissioner. The office is fine. I just want to say I can commission a grove. I would make a motion that we approve the original footprint of the building. And I'm not sure how to word that would it be a separate encroachment agreement? I just actually, this is necessary and it's very rushed. Okay, okay. So we have just one second. Commissioner Grove has to floor. Sorry, do you want to go ahead? Go ahead. Is, I mean, you can certainly, we don't want to draft multiple agreements, but you can as a commission, certainly, I guess, tell Mr. Dagenhart, if he's saying, this is the issue that you will not require him to or his client to tear off the front over many feet of the building that he will they if he came in today and said, don't worry about the canopy, don't worry about the rain barrel, don't worry about the sign. Can I have an encroachment agreement for the building? Is it sits right there? Yes. I mean, we have never denied something like this historically. Right? I mean, that is what it is. But the canopy, the rain barrel, the sign, that's what we need to work through because of, again, storm water, the different conditions of P and Z. So, and we don't need to take necessarily action on it. You can advise your, I mean, I'm speaking for the commission, but the commission, you did, I mean, the commission has said this tonight, but you could advise your client of that and he can make his investment back decision on that. All right, that's good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dagenard. I'd like to call a first-baptist Christian school pastor Strickland Pastor Strickland is requesting a waiver refund of the $1,600 fee paid by the first-baptist Christian school The school is requesting a variance for offense on the property and has requested that the fee That was paid be refunded the variance request is scheduled to be heard on Monday, August 19th at the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Strickley? Mr. Mayor, commissioners. As that spoke out, speaking on behalf of First Baptist Christian School and not for profit school, requesting the variance application fee to be refunded and for your consideration of that. Okay. So attorney Hartman. Yes. What is the what is the the issue at hand? The issue is that what we have is the school would like to put a six foot fence up basically entirely around I'm assuming a play area for the children out there which again makes all kinds of sense. However, due to the location of the church and this area, a portion of the fence would be limited to four feet under our fence ordinance. So a portion of the fence would only be four feet high, they want six feet, and it was recommended that they go to the Board of Adjustment, and they will be going to the Board of Adjustment on August 19th, believe, in order to see if they can get a variance to the fence ordinance that would allow them to go up to six feet. And the fee associated with that is $1,600. And obviously, they're here tonight seeking to have, either the fee being waived or returned to them. and obviously they're here tonight seeking to have to either the fee being waived or returned to them if that's been paid. And you're asking the fee to be waived or returned because you are not for profit. Correct. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the request minus the cost of what was invested by city staff to mail out the postage and the printing. I think that it's a reasonable request. I'd like to ask that staff include schools under a we make an exemption in fences for cell towers for transmission stations for all of these things that are safety related. This to me I've talked to Pastor Strickland a good bit and Brie a good bit. This fits in that category. However, it's not there now. School is coming up. They need to put the fence up. And it is for safety. I think that it's within our purview to refund some of the variance fee. However, since we don't want to charge other taxpayers money for this request, the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the committee. We have a discussion. I would suggest we approve based on but we were a coup cost. We have a second. Discussion? I can commission a George discussion. Commissioner Elliott? Yes. I would like to point out that in our friends' ordinance that when we discuss this, the height of these fences is not safe. If a school cannot properly secure their children, how can you properly secure your own home or your children at your own home? And I don't think that we should penalize them and make them pay for that cost. That is a cost that the city needs to continue to cover because they should not have had to come ask for this exception. This is something that you've already been written in. We should have workshopped that ordinance longer. They should not have to pay that price. A non-profit school should not have to pay that price. My comments are finished. Thank you. Commissioner Duncan, do you have any comments? No, I don't. Commissioner George. I'm in favor of the waiver and I agree with Commissioner Grave to add a pocket cost to be reimbursed. I'm not in favor in general of waiving variance fees, but I think it would with a nonprofit, especially a school. I think we have the discretion to do this. Similarly, as we did with the tree removals at the Appalachian College Bay Charter School, we waived the fees for removal of a patriarch tree. So I think it's consistent with our prior policy. the office. We have a part of the school. We wave the fees for a move of a patriarch tree. I think it's consistent with our policy. Commissioner Grove, you have come in. There were two paths to take. One was quicker, which is this way. Another path could have been taken. The fence could have been propped up. Then we could have addressed it as a change that the So we have a motion by Commissioner Grove to approve the refund minus expenses associated with the variance request and I have a second by Commissioner George any further discussion. Can I add something? I did a little research to find out what our cost was to publish the letters and everything going to write around $200 if that helps. Yeah. Can I make a comment? Sure. We have a motion on the. Let me. I would draw that. OK. So I have a motion by commission to grow in a second by commission of George to approve the refund minus the expenses associated with the recourse on favor. In your pose motion. Here. Opposed. I don't think that you should only take back $1400. You should take back $1600. Thank you. Motion carried forward one. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. River Fought. Park. Fountain. After all those talks of encouragement and going on, I want to try to keep this short This week, Riverfront Park in the volunteers Scott Bush here is one of them, Jordan and Fireman, Scott's wife He's one of the beard and other people, but since we've taken it that over, we've done a lot of things Scott and Cill have been sitting on the couch,ins, Wayne, he's rebuilt all of the benches with the flowers. Ace Hart, okay, Ace Hart, provides free a lot of the flowers. In over the years, between me and my volunteers, we spent between five and 10,000 times at that park. In last year, when it was budget time, I came before the commission agreed for more that the information was structured and with a total of accounts, how much money came through the public's. It's more understanding that it's not capable of doing that and that never happened. And I said, that time in last year, I would be coming for a reactor to figure out what was coming from the budget. So there's multiple things I've gone through, but doing the budget here is going to come back. On requesting is a 2,000 dollar budget, and you need a budget for what we're going through. The flags, the volunteers, the workers, the workers. So they just may not give us a clue. But right now we have no water, we have the darkest part, the water is not working for two. It's been a long time, so I request a light that's not like a brand of times what is the future of that family. Electrical is a problem, there are studies also in the ground, so there's not many things I don't know. But I'm going to let Scott, who's worked on that found, the design process of the time in the new time, can you explain to him about the phone, we need a decision in the found. Are we going to keep the found or fix the found? If we don't keep the found in which I'm talking to you very well, but this point is we can't keep it working, is there a parts can's going to be to keep it moving forward? And it's not what to do. Let's get that over there. But we do need a decision. Scott knows all about that, Fel. I bugged the poor Donna here. After Michael took it off. Scott, will you identify yourself please? Identify yourself for the record? Oh, I'm sorry. My first time here. Scott Bush, I don't happen to be a resident of the city. I actually lived up Bluff Road, but volunteered to be a park volunteer, my wife and I back in 21. And that was fall, of course. At that point that fountain was missing a good dozen tiles, mostly on the North East corner. There's some missing on the Northwest corner now. I have no idea where they went. But anyway, we did find a tile company in Miami, we found some replacement tiles, got them shipped up here, I put the tiles on, always intended after putting those tiles on to regret the entire fountain. And interestingly, I wouldn't do that with the water in the fountain, I would do that without the water in there. So when it stopped working I kept thinking well now it's a time to do that but my issue with that is it's a serious amount of work. If we're not going to fix the fountain obviously I'm not going to regret the tiles. So because you have to physically grind out all the old grout and all this other stuff. So my question with Donna for the last two years has been are we going to fix the fountain? And I actually don't have clue what's currently wrong with it. I guess it froze during the big freeze in December of 22. And it's been unplugged since then. We had those three nights at 20 degree temperatures. And something I'm right after that cold weather hit I remember opening up the lid to the pump house it was completely full of water which was interesting you'll have any questions for me thank you thank you thank you time it is the staff's recommendation that the fountain be removed due to the crime problems so that is what's saying your commission. This says it's a park and wreck. The staff also recommend it be torn out. How do the guys feel if They can't keep it running. I would absolutely... We don't have a pain in the way. We just... I think it definitely holds. Thank you. It's been an issue since I've been here. And we've had... There's not anybody locally that works on fountains. And apparently fountains are way different than pools. So we've had to call in people from Tallahassee, and I think once from Dothan, to get people to work on the fountain, and it's been a problem, and it's expensive to get them down here. So it's a whole day for them to travel down, work on it and go back. Thank you, Travis. Manage away. What say you? I make a motion that we accept the recommendation and remove the fountain. I have a motion by Commissioner. Do I come in? I have a second. Second. And by Commissioner Elliott to remove the fountain. Any discussion? Commissioner George. Mr. Wayne, how can the fountain be removed? Is that something public works can do? Or is there going to what's the cost associated with that? I think works can remove it. It might not be pretty, but I guess it should be water source. So let's just have one comment. Let's just have one comment in time. I'm not sure. I'd have to research how that would be removed. I will assume that, I mean, we have the equipment to do it. It's just getting all the infrastructure from underneath that it would be a pretty big job, I think. So we probably could probably be best. So it won't be that destruction is not that hard. Okay, so for the sake of this motion to remove, can we, can you have a one? I can research it and bring it back at the next meeting. What it would cost, I can get our public worst cause and look at it and I can do some research and see if there's issues getting it out because another is there's pumps there's underground stuff. If you do that can you include that having at least a water fountain or water faucet? I'll work off trying to get something. I'll see if we try to do that too but there's an issue with that because of the there's a whole issue with that. So that's operations we kind of. I'll work on that. Thank you. Any other discussion? There's a motion by Commissioner Duncan, a second by Commissioner Elliott to remove the fountain. All in favor? Aye. The opposed motion carried. Thank you. Thank you very much. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you very much. Your price of work will start with some options. We're not even going to get an echo. It's cool. Thank you. Wake ordinance. No wake ordinance. 2024. Dash 04. First reading. This, this came out, uh, when there was the building reading. This came out when there was the building accident that happened and the issue of no weight zone from the bridge up to the north end of the up into the river, the channel and the Apuch-Color River, but it also extended up into Cipio Creek. Chief Arns and I were looking at the Norway zone and we got some information from up here. FWC, where the Norway zone would end, if you're going north in Cipio Creek, they would put a sign there that says resume normal safe speed. So as you're going up the creek, it would be right adjacent to where the houseboats are, just south of Jimmy Gander's business. It would say resume normal safe speed. So it would no longer be in their way, because I'm from there all the way up CIPEO Creek. So I knew somebody at FWC called and asked them what to do. They sent me a draft of the ordinance and said that if we get this ordinance passed and I've got some other paperwork that goes along with this and he put me in contact with a lady that's going to fill me in all the paperwork done because it takes up rocket scientists to figure some of that stuff out. But they will put instead of the resume, normal safe speed sign, they'll replace that with a no-ake sign which will go up to just north of the millpind which will be beyond any docks, commercial docks right there. And then if you turn around and hit south, there'll be a no-way sign on the other side of that pole heading south. You'll see it. So there'll be no rakes on all the way from there, all the way back to the bridge. And that was just because you had water street seafood, Cepio Creek Marina, you had all the, you know, our boat yard, the bill pond and everything. And the water street hotel would all be affected by that. So, and that was the reason that I've got this in here. I turn to Hartman, I will you read the ordinance 20, the 2024-04. the attorney . This is an ordinance 24-0 for an ordinance relating to the city of applauchacola and voting restrictions regulations for the city of creek area providing for penalties, providing for codification, providing for severability and providing for effective date. And I can read the whole, I mean, it's a short ordinance, would you like me to read the body of the ordinance or just by title? No, you don't have to read the body. Thank you. I presume that everyone has read the draft ordinance. What say you? I like to make a motion that we approve. the commission. We have a motion by commission to grow. Second by commissioner Duncan discussion. Commissioner wanted to think chief Barnes for. Getting on this with FWC after the deadly accident. We lost two people right two or three two people and that Thank you for getting this done and getting getting with FWC I know it took a long time, but I appreciate your work on that Any other discussion Here and none all in favor. Hi any opposed? motion carried all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Flood plain ordinance 2024-05 first reading attorney Hartman. All right. Just quickly by way of background this is the state kind of mandated periodic update of our flood plain ordinance. We had a consultant, Rebecca Quinn, as well as planning staff that worked on this. I drafted it, but with off of the model ordinance provided to us by the state. I will read the caption and I apologize. I'm trying to be a little more detailed on these for beauty code. So I'm looking at it and I notice that I reference just a lot of sections. for the city of Apococola Florida. I notice that I reference a lot of sections. Ordnance number 24-05. The city of Apococola Florida amendment ordinance 2013-02. Also referred to as a city of Apococola floodplain management ordinance providing for amendment of sub part B. the 361, 86, 187, 251, 303, 326, 359, 361, 381, 472, 474, 475, and 107-476. And deletion of sections, 107-252, 253, 254, 284, 384,85, 3.86, 473, 474, 475, 4.80, 481, 482, and 483, providing for applicability and severability, providing for an effective date. You've heard the reading, the heading of ordinance number 2024-05, let's say you make the reading. The heading of ordinance number twenty twenty four dash oh five let's say you make a mission that we approve first reading of ordinance twenty twenty four oh five and advertised for the public hearing. Motion by commission George may have a second second by Commissioner Grove discussion. Hearing none all in favor. Hi. Any opposed? Motion carried. Where are our go grant application? Commissioner Grove. Trying to get done. Sorry, I did that. It had a question mark on that I sent that thinking Travis would fill it in. This is a rare maintenance grant. I don't think I've ever seen those words ever in the grant world. The state of Florida has approved a new process for those people who who have a park that is on the trail system, the Florida Greenways and Trails. They've approved a maintenance grant. And it wasn't even on their website yet. And we have 30 days to apply or less than 30 days. I attended a webinar and I think it was July 31st and Senate Travis and asked him if he could put this on this agenda. And it is to I was looking for another reason the research reserve has the trail up at Cipio Creek. But I noticed that Riverfront Park was on it. So I think it's an opportunity we don't want to miss. I can't tell you the amount. There are some replacements that need to be done. Travis, you want to jump in here? I've asked staff to research replacement of the board's own riverfront, the river part, and the wash-throughs, those fiberglass things that get old and they get brittle. And I've asked them to get a quote from replacing them with wood and with the tracks decking, which is expensive, but if the grant would support the tracks decking, that stuff's forever. I mean, it would be a great improvement, I don't know if we could do that, but depending on what the grant amount allows and what the quotes come back at would see. But before the meeting, I still hadn't, we still haven't gotten the quotes back from the companies. The request before this commission is to, um, it's up for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to real go grant grant to make repairs to the boardwalk and improvements at Riverfront Park and what say you? The $50,000 Well, we don't know the cost. We can request up to $200,000 per grant. So we can go for broken, put $200,000 or we can It would be up to you guys if you want to meet up. There's no match because we're already the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the grant. If we don't want to put a amount, you just want to apply for the grant. If we need to go if we talk to the staff with the grants and they say, well, 100,000 is more reasonable. With the wood repairs rather than the trucks repairs. And if the trucks comes back 600,000, we're not going to ask for that. So the request based on what I'm hearing is to apply for a grant up to 200,000 with DEP protection. I'm sorry DEP trail go grant to make repairs to the Riverfront Park boardwalk. What say you make that motion? Have a motion by Commissioner George. May I have a second? Second by Commissioner Duncan discussion. Hearing none all in favor. Aye. Any opposed motion carried? The CEEI procurement for Leslie Street Project. Just combined. Let's try this. I want to just combine this one with the street project. Just combine those drivers. I wanna just combine this one with the number 11. This one was what I was trying to take out when I get the amendment on the thing. But because the company, the Kimley Horn that was included in this did not provide the the quote that I was looking for I talked to them that thought they were gonna be the one we used but Instead of Kimley Horn it would be urban catalyst is the company that came back with a quote of $18,000 to do the C.I 18,000 even 18 Even yes, $18,000. 18. Even? Yes, $18,000 even. Our budget for that was $46,000. Oh. Been a weird project because we got $660,000. Our contractor came in at $330,000. And this came in under the first time I've dealt with anything that's actually coming under twice. So I have a request to approve urban catalyst. Is it an engineering firm? Yes. Engineering firm for $18,000 for the CTI procurement for Leslie Street Project. What say you? That motion. and I'm going to see when they're going to start working on Leslie Street. So I'll be calling them tomorrow. Thank you. We're moving on to unfinished business. Wait a second. We got a election contractor or something. That's, um, we combined those two. that's a good question. Election of contractors. That's. We combine those two. That's under. Gotcha. Gotcha. Miss Clark. Mayor commissioners. Thank you. For. Mayor commissioners thank you for entertaining me. The city received up 2.4 million in grant money from DEP recently to design and complete repairs to city storm water infrastructure and in accordance with the procurement requirements we advertised that and we reached out to a list of qualified firms and advertised it both in the Apple at the time and the telehazard Democrat. We had three engineering firms respond to the request, basketball, Donovan, engineers, Anovia and urban catalyst. The big packages were reviewed and scored by city staff in accordance with the request criteria and the scoring results ranked basketball Donovan at the top. And so the recommended motion is to authorize staff to begin negotiations with basketball Donovan for the engineering and construction management of this project, which is going to alleviate a lot of our storm water problems that were identified in our phase one, drainage basin analysis, along with a number of nuisance flooding issues that have been documented over the last couple years. Thank you for the request from Ms. Clark regarding the selection of the contract for the storm water mitigation and repair project. It's a motion to author our staff to begin negotiations with basketball. Donovan have a motion by commissioner Grove may have a second. Second by commissioner George discussion. Here are none. All in favor. Any opposed motion. Carrie. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And that completes our unfinished business. We'll move on to a mayor and commissioner comments. At this point, just want to thank manager Wade and staff for their diligence along with the chief during the storm. You were very proactive and I appreciate that. Your team coming together and making sure that everyone knew what needed to be done where they needed to be at what time. So thank you so much for all that you did. That's all I have at this point. Commissioner Grove? Oh, have anything do you? No, no thing. I have a thing. Oh, I think so. Quickly, I'm quick, quick, quick. I feel like we're letting a lot of issues that we had on the forefront and I know they're in the works, but I feel like we need to schedule the encroachment agreement. We need to get that. Maybe we put it on the schedule, we can get it done, and another thing is'd like to see those come back up to be discussed. Is that doable? Yes, so what we'll do is, and I know I promised this for months and months, a draft encroachment ordinance to be kind of reviewed if necessary, workshopped, right, again, just to, and so, but I will get you and the management of the community. And I think that's the approach to the management ordinance to be reviewed if necessary workshoped. Right again. And so I will get you a draft encroachment ordinance. As far as parking. I know the. I know the. Director staff maybe we can just put that on the agenda of. and see where work left and all that, but there's parking issues are only gonna increase. And I feel like, yeah. We need to get ahead of it. And I'll talk to Maria. Rather than making five different encroachment agreements that'd be great to have a finished. The other thing is, I noticed there's a lot of, we used to have a problem with this, we had a little problem over the time. There's a lot of, we used to have a problem with this. We had a little problem over the time. There's a lot of out of town realtors who put their sign on 98 with an arrow pointing five blocks away or two blocks away that they have a piece of property. That's not allowed. You don't do offsite advertising. And I think the reason they're doing it is because there's several properties on 98 for sale. So there are several properties on 98 for sale. So there are legitimate signs, but I'm wondering if staff can just call them and say, look, this is not allowed. Just hit them off 98. We don't need, we don't have to fill out a complaint. If staff can go by and tell this guy to move his thing, we don't have to fill out a complaint. Just call the owners of the sign and say, look, off from the sign is not, not something that's done here. So they just don't know the ordinances because they're mainly functioning off-singed georgial and they happen to get one property in Applach cola and they're going to put five signs on every major right away to say, one thing I want to see move forward is, can we add schools in the exception of fencing? Can we not drop that and can we put that on the list of if a communications tower and a hospital or whatever is permitted to have a fence this high for safety reasons, school should be in that too. And totally understand, one thing to just bear in mind is the reason for that height limit is visibility on corners. Yeah, you're right. And understanding was the church was on an unopened corner, so we have to be cognizant of that. Yeah, yeah, I totally. But I think if a tower was there, we'd have the same issue. But if we could not drop it and just get it into the hopper of directing. The other thing is, and the LMS meeting in July and nobody from the city came except for me. So that needs to be somebody's duty is to go to that meeting because that's how we got millions or a million dollars downtown was because we attended those meetings. So if it's not going to be you, can you designate somebody? Because they were very frustrated that you know you wasn't alone. A lot of county people didn't show up either but one other thing. Lafayette Park, I was there during the storm and was costed by a neighbor about the grass. The grass is on a child almost hip height there in the playground. This is, and then the benches, that it has not been cut underneath the benches, it's just really high. They're not maintaining the beds at all. I mean, can they at least just weed whack the grass? It's the kids can't even get in there because it's got so much grass. And I know that stuff grows within a week. However, if they clearly didn't weed whack, and it's just been getting worse and worse and worse. The bricks are now covered up. There are several brick walkways that you can't even tell the walkways there. So I just feel like we need to pour some effort into this park and I know some things are going to happen by the parts committee but we have the duty to maintain that park. We've not been doing a very good job for a long time. So this person's right, it needs to be addressed. And I didn't want to let it go on any further if we can get staff down there to cut all of the grass and then come up with a solution for playground because it's nothing but grass at this call. I noticed that this morning myself, I read by, then I've got a note to talk to Greg, but I was on a call and Greg becomes in the mornings and I didn't get a chance to see him today, but I have a note to talk about it. I'll be happy to meet you and Greg down there because we need to take a positive track down there and get that lower road is now grown up. It's getting trees grown in it. There's vines that are growing all up and down the boardwalk. They're spilling over into the boardwalk too. So it looks like nobody's in attendance at that park. So thank you very much. George, in the comments. Commissioner Elliott. No comments, thank you Mayor. Commissioner Duncan. Very briefly, chief, I wanted to come in Kevin Schuman. I'm not sure if you can see that. No comments. Thank you, Mayor. Mission. Very briefly. Chief, I wanted to come in. Kevin Schumann. I was able to work around him recently in the last month in a situation that was high stress for me for sure, but he was incredible with whatever thing he had to do whether he was dealing with other law enforcement or funeral home or the family. He really just, I was impressed. He just kept his cool and did, I know we expect law enforcement officers to do that. You know what I mean, but it was a really challenging situation and I appreciated his lead. Manager, why? My report's in the file and I don't really have anything to add to it. So can we talk about the nest? Yeah, sure. I'm still waiting to get the agreement back from them. But the skinny on that is that, you know, the positive impact loss they're funding, they were not, I should say, they were not refunded for this year. They, we all looked for, you know, I know everybody was trying to find a solution. And the solution presented itself with the NEST, another program, which is a not for profit program through the United Methodist Church. It came about the, I think it was the East Point, United Methodist Church, or maybe Caraville. Caraville, anyway, the Stephanie House, and her group got the approval to take over the nest, which actually took care of all the affected children, the affected families, and the affected employees of the project impact were all placed. It might not be the same salary or the same benefits, but they were all placed. And so we had the agreement with about the room, they're trying to get the agreement back about the room and about the funding, they're trying to get the agreement back about the room and about the funding and everything. So that's the good news. Adams and her response was, of course, we'd obtain the grant and the NAS is born a 21st century program. So, with that being in the community, in the county that was mitigating or an issue as well. So, but on source short, we were able to come together and work with the NANDS to get that after school program continued. So, we were able. One more thing I was like to add, Lee and Commissioner George and I met last Thursday, was last week, and I had a good meeting about, went through a whole bunch of budget stuff, and we're meeting Friday to kind of get a better picture for Arpa to bring something back to you guys, and something that we can start working from. And so that's a good thing. We're getting moving forwards on those issues. Budget's coming up and it's kind of a stressful time. So I'm happy to be getting ahead already. So thank you to Commissioner George. Commissioner Bob has a question, comment? Just wanted to make a comment. I called the Mayor and Travis and Panic about Project Impact and she was all over and also Travis. They got it and Nadine and Barbara. They pulled it together. Project Impact is an integral part of this county working. It's everything will ground to halt if we don't have that program. So I appreciate the many hours that were spent on that and glad that it came. Any other comments, questions for our manager? We're Commissioner George. The project impact grant for the past fiscal year. Do we have remaining issues closing out that grant and clearing up any remaining obligations on the city's part? Nadine said that they had been funded up through the point of closeout. So they're all still under under salary until they get that closed out and she said she was handling all the close out. She did that every year. So as far as I know, that's all on her right. But we can check whether and make sure she was going to handle it. She is handling that just to echo that. She and Barbara and thanks Cindy Summer Hill, they're all working to close out that grant and to satisfy any the and requirements and and also and also has been working like a gazillion hours on trying to get our bayonets stuff together and trying to get a good balance for our camera so everything she's put in. I don't know how many hours on the weekends and after after working everything.. I want to come in to own our hard work. Appreciate it. Thank you. No really appreciate it. Do you have any comments? I know your report is in the packet. Do you have any comments? Thank you for all that you're doing. It relies you is coming back to such a great place and everything is in order and yeah, appreciate you. Thank you. Attorney Hartman. Yes I just have I have one item in Lynch or lie here the county approach the city both cities in Franklin County regarding the small county surtax which is really for health care in the in the county and requested a meeting with the mayor and my self and manager Wade. And the purpose of it was that the county wanted to fund the ambulance service countywide, which is in the upper $700,000 range out of that small county surtax. So of the city was always funded just from Advalorum out of the county budget. They wanted to move that to be paid out of the certacks. And in order to do so, they needed the approval of both cities. Because back in 07, when this was a certacks was put into place, they entered into what were called interlocal agreements with both cities. the city's. And so, the city's was in the city's because back in 07 when this was Sirtax was put into place, they entered into what we're called interlocal agreements with both cities and what they were seeking or are seeking is a amendment of those interlocals and basically are approval to allow the Sirtax money to pay for ambulance service. So that, generally speaking, during our meeting was not objectionable. It serves certainly all the citizens of Franklin County, however, from the city of Apatricola's perspective, when this was talked about in our interlocal agreement or in the interlocal agreement, it provides two things, and it was two kind of basically benefits to the two things. It was two kind of, basically, benefits to the two cities. One was that Carabell was to get this urgent care facility with diagnostic radiology. And then once, and that was for the first tax monies were to go to that. And then after that was achieved, which it has in part, meaning a facility has been built in Carabell there's still a little bit of dispute about weekend hours and some of the scope of it but it's been done so there's a facility there on the east side of the county then the focus of the fund was to renovate or rebuild the Wienes Memorial Hospital and this is an O7 agreement and there really hasn't been any movement towards that at this point. Certainly no renovating or rebuilding. The surf tax has been used to fund services throughout the county, but in a large part the weems facility any losses are usually covered by this surf tax fund. And during the meeting what we talked about was the county mentioned that they are hiring a consultant that's going to come up with options for the basically what to do with the what to do with the with the weaves hospital. And that they said that could take a year that they're negotiating with them right now, and that will take a year. And during our discussion, what we suggested was a deadline, basically, that they get the study completed, but then action be taken on one of the options in the study by a date certain. in the study by a date certain, the suggestion was October 1, 2026 to construct a new hospital or repair remodel and renovate the existing facility or convert to a rural emergency hospital. But so that was what I think the scope of the consultant's analysis would be. They also generally talked about us being able to meet with the consultant to kind of have no say in it necessarily but kept informed of the process. What I envision, they want to complete this as part of their budget process because it's going to take a large chunk of money off of their budget, move it to the surtax. So what I'll do is I'm going to circulate the proposed language, some of the financial backup information to everyone, and certainly get me any comments. Everything else I will pass those along to the county. See if we need to adjust anything and possibly coordinate with, I guess I'm pointing way we're able to do that. So, I think that's the way we're able to do that. So, I think that's the way we're able to do that. So, I think that's the way we're able to do that. So, I think that's the way we're able to do that. So, I think that's the way we're able to do that. I'll push all this out to everyone so they can comment on it and whatnot. So certainly, it would be any questions, but once I get you all this information, I'll send you a copy of the interlocal, all this, hit me with questions and we'll address it with the county. May I ask a question now? Of course. So you have an injection date about October 1st, I think you said. October 1, 2026. And that is for hospital as selecting one of the programs. But sorry, sorry. I should read the whole paragraph. Sorry. It says, by October, this is the proposed language from the county. And with the input from that meeting, by October 1, 2026, by October, this is the proposed language from the county, and with the input from that meeting. By October 1, 2026, Franklin County will select one of the healthcare options proposed by its consultant to construct a new hospital or repair remodel and renovate the existing facility or convert to a rural emergency hospital and begin implementation thereof. So it does require action. What define implementation? Well that's a big lawyer word or get moving on. Okay. But this is the problem. I mean really the county is the final say here as far as it's the final say however there is obviously some, you know, we're all in it together, but the cities, the promises made under the interlocals haven't been met. So the idea is how can we work together but also put some language in that gives us to where we can apply, we can say, we can have a little more pressure than this is a little more specific promise rather than just the vague promise that's since 2007 and really last seven eight years. My concern is that there, I mean there's what do we do if they don't meet that deadline? I mean they still, we still, the agreement has been altered. And don't get me wrong, I mean, the ambulance service is key, it's ideal, we need it, and I'm all for it. But at the same time, the agreement has been in effect since 2007. And there still have not been any movement momentum at this hospital. So what is it? How do I guess I'm looking for some assurance that after the 26 deadline, what happens then? Yeah, this is my, I'm going to try to answer that, is number one, when you're doing something like this, because they are, they need to come to us in order to get the ambulance service funded, because it is a change to the interlocal, because the interlocal does say no funds derived from the sales tax shall be used for any other purpose and they list a bunch of purposes Ameland services in one of them so they need to add that in right So what I the way I would look at this is it is a little bit different but but similar to private is we want to improve our position We want a little more we want not a little more we want more teeth we want more teeth, we want more specificity, we want to move our ball farther down the road towards improving healthcare and appluch cola. This kind of language, whether it's this language or similar language does that. So it moves the ball forward. It gives us more of a negotiating position politically and legally than we would have under the existing language. So that's kind of one thing that's a check, I think, a good thing. If they simply, this language does have a deadline, it has implementation, talk about implementation language by a hard deadline based on a report that a consultant's going to put together. And I'm open certainly to suggestions, lawyers don't know, you know, is, but that probably is as, even though it's still a little bit loose, it's a good step forward, it's better than what we have. And I don't want to talk big here But I mean if we had to legally enforce it This is more legally enforceable than what we have because they just so it's coming it's coming it's coming When we talk to them they had done a lot of they've done some architectural plans that just nothing's come from that the money's just was spent and No result and doesn't know result. You know, this is not the kind of thing that I would hope would ever end in any sort of going to court and saying what does a judge think about what implementation means, but that doesn't worry me necessarily. I mean, implementation means I could look up at definition, but it means the consultant had these ideas, they pick one, they need to move forward on it, period. And if they're not, if they cannot demonstrate real action moving forward on it, then to me it's still a political matter, right? I mean, I hopefully are, I say are, but the county commissioners for our districts would see this as a priority and implement. Anyone else have any questions regarding this matter? would see this as a priority and implement. Anyone else have any questions regarding this matter? At this point, commissioners George. Okay, what exactly, they want the interlocal agreement amended now before they complete their budget cycle so they can spend money from that fund for the ambulance service. Correct. Okay, so that's, I mean to me it's not just an administrative issue. I mean this is a pretty hot issue. I think if people on the public knew about this that we know that things haven't, the money hasn't gone towards a fund to rebuild or the hospital. I mean, it's been spent on other things. So now there's a trade off is for to take use of the ambulance service through this fund instead of an adjustment to the county-wide have a warm taxes to the county-wide Evalorum taxes for the county, which everybody pays, not just the people at App Watch Colors. So we're having funds that could go towards Wings Memorial. They're now going to be spread across the county. So that's the downside. The upside is that our residents wouldn't have an increase in county at the same time taxes. But you know if you're saying until 10126 in the meantime the ambulance service is going to be funded from this fund instead of building up that fund towards a solution for weaves. I think this is more than just a dry administrative matter. I mean, I think it's something that needs to be debated in a meeting that isn't tacked on to what's going to be an arduous budget workshops. I mean, we've got a lot of work to do on the budgets. I don't think this is something that can just be tacked on for a five minute discussion. I mean, you've sent me some materials, and I haven't had a chance to read them. But I think there's a lot to consider here. And I really, I mean, I think we need to know what the county wants us to do and what our options are as a city. to know what the county wants us to do and what our options are as a city. And we make changes. I mean, they're making a proposal as a proposal. Wanna go along with? The question is yes. No, I think you're exactly right. It is a negotiation with the county. Yep. I mean, they are reopening this interlocal because they needed amended. So they, so they could, if it's not amended, they can, my understanding is they cannot shift ambulance service over to be paid from it. So. to get the one meeting to hash this out for the city? Yes, I think we absolutely have to have a meeting on this before we certainly we're gonna have, we need to absolutely, any amendment to the interlocal needs to be approved by the commission. So a meeting for that, when I say a meeting for that purpose, but yes, we need to have it a public notice meeting and discuss it. And if we don't resolve it at that purpose, but yes, we need to have it a public notice meeting and discuss it. And if we don't resolve it at that meeting, then we'll have another meeting where we finish our discussion if we can't get through it. But that's something we need to schedule as soon as possible. Please, as soon as possible. I'll get the exact timeline from the county, but we're all pushing on budget right now. That's the rub. And again, I know I'm being, I don't want to mess up everybody's schedule because I like to avoid budget matters myself. But it is a budget this is related, kind of financial related to budget, certainly for the county. And, well, I guess certainly for the county. So, but if certainly pleasure of county and, well, I guess, certainly for the county. So, but if certainly pleasure of the commission, if we want to set literally a separate time and date, but again, I know I heard the discussion at the very beginning of the meeting. We have a lot of budget matters to get through and like you say, it's an arduous process. So I'm not familiar with it enough to know which budget meetings we want a lot of, we want time and attention to be paid to this. So if we have a lighter budget meeting, we'll be the one to attach it to if unless or do a separate meeting do an hour before or after and notice it and discuss it. Commissioner Grove, the Commissioner Duncan. So when you are talking about scheduling a meeting, are you talking about scheduling county commissioners and city commissioners to have a meeting to ask these questions? That seems like we can ask for representative of the county to come, I would say, right? It's not so much. It's when I say this, um, I think that's what we're going to do. That seems like we can ask for representative of the county to come. I would say. It's not so much. It's when I say this. I need to come with some options. I feel like we're going to go around and around and around. If we say no, then what's the next step? We need to decide what we want. Right? And so at the meeting, what we just discussed was we want action. We want you to live up to the original intent of the agreement, which was rebuild, renovate, the healthcare facilities and apply to COLA period. So then again, the county proposed this language that I read that I'll circulate. We can certainly tweak it. We can make changes, all that. But if there's a different direction, then it would be good to know that ahead of the meeting, so it can be explored, discussed, all that. So when I say this, I'm gonna, everybody, I'm gonna send everybody more information, get back to me with your ideas, everything else. I'm gonna pass those right along to Michael Morone, City Commission. I think Michael Schuhler, they will, I'm sure work with their commissioners the same way I'm working with you all. So in that, can you also give us the current, what currently the money can be used for? I've forgotten it's been so long. Yes, so I'll give you the agreement but that's all laid out. Well, just in whatever you send to us, it can include that. And just to remind the commission that the sales tax was implemented to also help pay for some of the indigent care that we have in the county, which is something we've always wanted to do, county level and the city level. And then also, because it's the sales tax, the tourists do pay into that sales tax when they buy something, which I'm sure per percentage of the tourists use the ambulance system you know on occasion. So I'm feeling that way it has a multi-pronged purpose, but it's complicated for sure. Commissioner Duncan? Yes, they were a balance in this sales tax fund. I'm going to use the term targeted. Is there a balance in this sales tax fund? There is. This is what's going on. The reason that it is, I don't want to use the term targeted, but why they have come up with this idea to pay for ambulance service out of it is the revenue in 2000s. This is just an idea and I'll send you all this information. 2007 eight, the surtax proceeds were $1.18 million. Today, I say this will today, but 20, basically it's upwards of $3.4 million now. So, it's, and there's a, and, why these numbers look, but basically there's a $10, $11 million balance in the trust fund. So, it's doing very well. It's generating a lot of money. Well, because it's not a small ask. You're talking about ambulance service, not you, like you're asking about. Right, right, right. We're talking about continuing ambulance service, which is absolutely an necessity, no doubt. But this is something that is going to be exponential and continuous. And I just afraid or worried that if it doesn't do as well in the future, that we're just pushing weams out even further and we're just spreading the money that was promised, even though we need it, even though they need it quote unquote, but if it's that kind of money that's in that account, why in the world wasn't something done sooner? So I just, and I know that there's all the kind of questions that can be asked, but I want to ask. I mean, it just seems like, okay, well, you were supposed to build CareBell and there were other things in there, but they built CareBell a long time ago. And like I said, in weaves, it's still sitting there. And not to mention, you've got to have people and pay them and give them insurance and you hope, give them benefits to even get them to work there. But I just don't want to go into something thinking how wonderful and altruistic it is. We're sharing this money for this great need. But then we turn back around. It's, oh, there goes weems again. I want to hear about how there's going to be assurances because yeah, I mean, like you said, you and I both could take this one word, say it again, I keep forgetting it. Implementation. Implementation, you and I both know that we could argue for hours in front of the same judge about what that means and be within reasonable argument and could be making completely different arguments. So we don't need implementation, we need finished. And this is the thing. I totally agree. But think of where we are now. That's the other thing. I always forget, not forget, but I always have to go back and say, I have this conversation with folks all the time, and we're advancing the ball. You want to touch down, but we're at our own 20 yard line right now. Yeah, true. Are you better off being at their 20 yard line? Right. And that just, we'll have this, I'm sure we'll have more discussion about it because I agree with you, but if we say no, the interlocal doesn't change, we're right where we've been for 18 years. You know how I like it. you know, however, true, but I just have a real, but at the same time, we're right where we've been for 18 years, a whole lot of money and a right to push them forward. Not something that has then been gutted and not negatively, but you know, what is the price of ambulance service for Franklin County? It's, it's upwards of $800,000 so it's high 700. Now and we get busier and busier and need more trucks and more. I mean, I won't belabor it tonight. I'll belabor it another time, but that's my concern. I mean, we won't be in the same place. We'll be renegotiated, but we'll have given money away. I already promised money. Commissioner Elliott. I look forward to I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have a motion by commission or Elliot. May I have a second? Second. Second by commission or grove discussion. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. The department reports are included in the origin of packets. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, please reach out to Manager Wait or the department head. May I have a motion to adjourn? Aye, sir move. I have a motion by Commissioner Ellison. May I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Grove. Paul in favor? Aye. Meeting adjourned. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, see you soon. Now we'll shut them up.