[00:00:02]
EVERYBODY, WE'VE GOT A LIGHT AGENDA, SO WE'LL NEED TO GET STARTED HERE.
THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE CLARKSVILLE CITY COUNCIL, DATE, JANUARY 28TH, 2021.
IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER REGARDING HOLDING OPEN MEETINGS IN A FORUM, OTHER THAN IN THE OPEN AND IN PUBLIC, THIS GOVERNING BODY DETERMINES THAT MEETING ELECTRONICALLY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF IT'S CITIZENS DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
HAVING READ THAT, WE WILL PROCEED NOW WITH OUR AGENDA.
[1 ) PLANNING COMMISSION ]
WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT.MR. TYNDALL, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, GOOD EVENING CITY COUNCIL.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR TIME TONIGHT, I MAY GO A LITTLE QUICKER THAN NORMAL.
PLEASE FOLLOW UP WITH ANY QUESTIONS IF I DO MISS SOMETHING.
FIRST CASE TONIGHT IS ORDINANCE 65-20-2021, CASE NUMBER Z-01-2021, AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION OF MARK A. DAVIS.
SHANNON OR WILLIAM WILFORD ARE THE AGENTS.
THIS IS 0.94 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED M-2, WISHING TO GO TO C-2.
THIS IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THIS PROPERTY FRONTS WILMA RUDOLPH, 660 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WILMA RUDOLPH AND OLD TRENTON ROAD.
IT'S IN CITY WARD NUMBER NINE.
IT'S AN EXISTING TWO STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE SITTING NEAR THE ROADWAY.
THE BUILDING WILL BE RENTED OUT AS THE APPLICANT STATEMENT INTO INDIVIDUAL OFFICE SPACES, A JOINT KITCHEN AND CONFERENCE ROOM, AND RESTROOMS WILL ALSO BE ON THERE.
THAT'S THAT BUILDING THAT'S BEEN VACANT FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO REPURPOSE IT INTO OFFICE SPACES.
I'LL GO BACK TO THE ZONING MAP.
MAN: PROPERTY FRONT (INDISTINCT).
SO THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY AROUND IT RIGHT NOW IS M-2.
BUT THERE IS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BLUE, WHICH REPRESENTS COMMERCIAL ZONING C-5 AND C-2 ARE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE SAME PROPERTY.
LOOKING UP FROM THE RUDOLPH BOULEVARD.
I KNOW A LOT OF YOU DROVE PAST THIS MANY TIMES.
THERE WERE NO DEPARTMENTS OF COMMENTS OF CONCERN.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
C-2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES THAN THE CURRENT M-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES LEND ITSELF TO, DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO MOST INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS.
THIS AREA OF WILMA RUDOLPH IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND IT'S MIXED USE POTENTIAL.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE AND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL, ANY MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING ORDINANCE 65? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE, MR. TYNDALL, WE'RE READY FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, ORDINANCE 66.
MR. TYNDALL: THANK YOU, THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z-02-2021, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION OF RICHARD COLLINS, AGENT IS RICHARD GARRETT.
THIS IS 1.74 ACRES REQUESTING TO GO FROM RM-1 TO R-4.
THE RM ZONES ALLOW FOR A SINGLE, SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME TO BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS AERIAL, THREE OF THOSE FOUR PROPERTIES, AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS TAKEN, HAD MOBILE HOMES ON THEM.
THIS IS IN COUNCIL WARD NUMBER THREE.
THE R-4 IS AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THE PROPERTY IS WEST OF COLUMBIA STREET, 240 FEET SOUTH OF THE BATS LANE, COLUMBIA STREET INTERSECTION.
THE REDDISH AREA IS THE RM-1, R-4 IS IN THE ORANGE.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S BEEN TRANSITIONING OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.
LITTLE PIECES OF ACRE AT A TIME HERE AND THERE FROM DUPLEXES, OR SORRY, FROM MOBILE HOMES, TO EITHER DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES OR QUADPLEXES IN THE AREA.
THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY OWNS THE ADJACENT PARCEL AT 1909, 1911, 1903 AND 1822 COLUMBIA STREET.
THEY'RE ALREADY ZONED R-4 AND WE'RE SEEKING TO REZONE THESE ADDITIONAL PARCELS TO R-4, SO THE WHOLE AREA CAN BE DEVELOPED INTO APARTMENTS.
HERE'S THE AREA, IT'S A DEAD END ROAD.
AND THIS IS THE ADJACENT PARCEL, ONE OF THE ONES THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER ALREADY OWNS.
THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, EXCEPT FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, AS NOTED.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS 1.7 ACRES AT APPROXIMATELY 20 APARTMENT UNITS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN STATES THAT IT'S ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN A DESIRABLE MIX OF HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
AND THE REQUEST IS AN EXTENSION OF THE R-4, TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST.
MARKET CHANGES RELATIVE TO THE MOBILE HOME INDUSTRY HAVE LIMITED VIABILITY OF THE RM-1 ZONES ANYMORE.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE, AND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.
[00:05:01]
COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT, YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY? GARETT: I AM A LITTLE BIT.MAYOR: YOU RECOGNIZE IT? JUST WANT EVERYBODY KNOW I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM VOTING OR COMMENTING ON THIS ONE, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING ITEM TWO, ORDINANCE 66? SEEING NONE HEARING NONE, MR. TYNDALL, WE'RE READY FOR ITEM THREE, ORDINANCE 67.
MR. TYNDALL: THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF Z-03-2021, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION OF CHARLES NICHOLS, CREDIT SHELTER TRUST.
THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-1, R-1, AND AG, AND THEY'RE WISHING TO BRING IT ALL TO R-1A.
R1-A IS A EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THIS AREA IS JUST A SOUTHEAST OF THE OUTLAW FIELD AIRPORT.
AND I'LL SHOW YOU THIS MAP REAL BRIEFLY.
THE AREA IN BLUE THAT YOU SEE THERE IS KNOWN AS THE RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE.
THERE IS, ACCORDING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THERE SHOULD BE NO HABITATED STRUCTURES IN THIS AREA.
SO THINGS LIKE SELF STORAGE, LAY DOWN YARDS, PARKING LOTS, THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT NO HOMES, ASSEMBLY HALLS, OR OTHER CIVIC FUNCTIONS SHOULD BE IN THIS AREA.
AND NO PARKS SHOULD BE IN THAT BLUE AREA EITHER.
THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN US A PROPOSED SKETCH THAT KEEPS ALL THE HOMES OUTSIDE THE BLUE AREA, AND JUST IN THE HATCHED YELLOW AREA THAT YOU SEE THERE.
I'LL GET TO THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS IN A MINUTE, BUT I WILL SAY WE DID BOUNCE THIS OFF OF JOHN PATTERSON AT THE OUTLAW FIELD, AND THEY DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED ZONING OR THE PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE HOUSES.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THOSE THREE DIFFERENT ZONES ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND IT'S ALL GOING TO BE A R1-A, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE SOUTH.
AND THE PROPERTY WILL ACTUALLY CONNECT THROUGH THAT SUBDIVISION, WHICH HAS YET TO BE BUILT.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE ROADS COMING IN FROM THAT SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, OFF TOBACCO ROAD.
AND THE SILT FENCE THERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES, TO THE CURRENT ONE TO THE SOUTH.
AND THEN THE NEW PROPERTY BEING REQUESTED TO THE NORTH OF THE TREE LINE.
AND THEN A LOT OF OTHER PICTURES OF TOBACCO ROAD OUT THERE.
THERE'S ONE OF THE CONNECTIONS THROUGH THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
AND THEN NUSSBAUMER ROAD WOULD BE THE NORTHERN LIMIT OF THIS.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE CLEAR ZONE, THESE TREES WILL REMAIN.
BECAUSE OF THE BUFFER OUT THERE FROM NUSSBAUMER.
THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT DID SPEAK AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKING THAT QUESTION.
THIS IS IN COUNCIL WARD NUMBER FIVE.
THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT IS TO EXTEND THE ADJOINING SUBDIVISION.
THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE TWO PREVIOUS ZONING CASES.
ONE WHEN IT WAS IN THE COUNTY IN 1977 AND THEN IN 1993.
THE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OF CONCERN, THE CITY UTILITY ENGINEER SAID IT MAY REQUIRE OFFSITE SEWER UPGRADES.
AND THE STREET DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER A NUSSBAUMER ROAD REALIGNMENT AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE.
WE'LL ADDRESS THAT AT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE, CONSIDERING THE CLEAR ZONE, THEY MAY NOT EVEN BUILD OFF NUSSBAUMER ROAD, SO WE'LL LOOK AT THAT.
AND AGAIN, OUTLAW FIELD DID NOT OBJECT.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WILL PUT THIS AT 46 UNITS.
THAT'S CONSIDERING THE AREA THAT'S ENCUMBERED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THAT.
IT'S IN THE AIRPORT PLANNING AREA, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PLAN.
THE R1-A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS WITHIN THE AIRPORT CLEAR ZONE.
AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE.
NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL, ANY MEMBER HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING ITEM THREE, ORDINANCE 67? I'VE GOT ONE, I KNOW WE CAN'T DO CONTRACT OR CONDITIONAL ZONING.
YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S IN THE, I FORGOT THE TERM YOU USE, TERM OF ARCH YOU USE FOR THE AIRPORT? MR. TYNDALL: THE CLEAR ZONE? CLEAR ZONE, YOU SAID THAT THE OWNER PROPOSED DEVELOPER HAD AGREED NOT TO PUT ANY STRUCTURE THERE.
HOW DO WE REGULATE OR HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT? THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WOULD KEEP THEM FROM BUILDING HOUSES IN THERE.
BACKYARDS CAN BE IN THAT AREA, BUT NO STRUCTURES COULD BE BUILT INTO THAT AREA THAT WE SHOWED YOU.
MAYOR: OKAY, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.
MR. TYNDALL: THAT'S COVERED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 67, ITEM THREE? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM FOUR.
LET ME PUT MY TEETH IN SO I CAN TALK, ORDINANCE 68, MR. TYNDALL.
MR. TYNDALL: THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z-04-2021, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT'S THE APPLICATION OF GUERRIER DEVELOPMENT.
0.33 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED R-3, REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6.
AND IT IS AN EXTENSION OF R-6.
THE PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF BLACKMAN STREET, CHARLOTTE STREET AND LAWN STREET, JUST SOUTH OF CROSSLAND AVENUE.
THIS HAS BEEN A HOT LITTLE CORNER HERE FOR SOME TIME.
THIS IS IN COUNCIL WARD NUMBER SIX.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CREATE A SINGLE FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
[00:10:01]
THE EXISTING R-3 WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BUILD A TRIPLEX.AND OUR ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THE AMOUNT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT THREE OR FOUR.
SO YOU'RE REALLY JUST TRADING A TRIPLEX FOR THREE OR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE WERE NO DEPARTMENTS OF COMMENTS OF CONCERN.
THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET, SOME RECENT R-6 DEVELOPMENT.
SO WHEN YOU SEE R-6, THIS HAS GOT SOME GOOD POTENTIAL, AS YOU CAN SEE.
AND THEN ALSO OVER THERE ON HIGH STREET HAS ALSO BEEN SOME R-6 DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO IT.
STAFF'S ESTIMATE WOULD BE THROUGH THREE UNITS.
THE PROPOSAL ON THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
THE R-6 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA OR USES.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE.
INCLUDING SOME RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTIVE USES SUCH AS MASS TRANSIT, RETAIL.
SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED.
STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION BOTH RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.
COUNCIL PERSON READ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
READ: I'LL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS TOO, I OWN THE DUPLEX THAT ADJOINS THIS PROPERTY.
COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I TALKED TO THE PERSON THAT OWNS HIS LAND AND SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE ONE BUILDING OVER THERE.
NOW IS THAT PLAN SIMILAR TO THE HOMES THAT YOU SHOW? COULD YOU SHOW THEM AGAIN? IT'S GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO THOSE? MR. TYNDALL: IT COULD BE.
THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE OF R-6- SMITH: THEY ARE HOMES? THEY ARE HOMES, RIGHT, MR. TYNDALL? MR. TYNDALL: THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
AND R-6 IS ALWAYS AN INDIVIDUAL HOME ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT, NO APARTMENTS.
SMITH: SOUNDS GOOD, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ITEM FOUR, ORDINANCE 68? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY FOR ITEM FIVE, ORDINANCE 69, MR. TYNDALL.
THIS IS A PLANNING COMMISSION CASE Z-05-2021.
THE APPLICATION OF LAELANI LEE AND GORDON LEE, MARK HOLEMAN IS THE AGENT.
THIS IS 0.63 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED R-1, REQUESTING TO GO TO R-6.
AND IT'S AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU'VE SEEN TWICE HERE OVER THE LAST YEAR.
IT KEEPS ACQUIRING OTHER PARCELS AND REZONING THEM TO EVENTUALLY CREATE A LARGER R-6 REDEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE.
ONCE THEY GET ALL THE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT THEY WANT, THEY'LL OBVIOUSLY SUBMIT FOR A SUBDIVISION.
AND YOU'LL SEE A WHOLE NEW ROAD AND HOMES OUT THERE.
THE PROPERTY IS NORTH OF PARADISE HILL ROAD AND WEST OF THE HIGHLAND CIRCLE.
171 FEET WEST OF INTERSECTIONAL HIGHLAND CIRCLE IN PARADISE HILL ROAD, CITY COUNCIL WARD NUMBER NINE.
THE APPLICANT DIDN'T GIVE A PROPOSED USE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IT FITS WITH THE BROWN R-6, TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST.
THIS IS THE HOME IN QUESTION OUT THERE.
THE PROPERTY THAT BACKS UP TO THE LEFT AND TO THE BACK THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN REZONED TO R-6.
LOOKING BACK UP PARADISE HILL ROAD TOWARD THAT HOUSE.
THE PROPERTY YOU SEE WITH THE TREES IS REZONED, AND THEN THE HOUSE WOULD BE ALSO REZONED AS PART OF IT.
THERE WERE NO DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OF CONCERN.
THE HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT FIVE UNITS.
THE ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
THE R-6 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA OR ESTABLISHED USES.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL USES SUCH AS MASS TRANSIT AND RETAIL.
SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE R-6 DEVELOPMENT.
AND NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.
COUNCIL PERSON HOLEMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
HOLEMAN: YES, I'D JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT I WILL BE ABSTAINING DUE TO A FAMILY MEMBER BEING INVOLVED WITH THIS REZONING.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON, HOLEMAN.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
COULD YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY? DOES R-6, DOES IT REQUIRE THEM LEAVING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE OR A PATH THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT ZONING AREA? MR. TYNDALL: I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIRE PATHS OR GREEN SPACES.
DEPENDING HOW YOU SUBDIVIDED, IF YOU DO EITHER A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, YOU WOULD THEN HAVE TO RESERVE 15%.
BUT MY ANTICIPATION, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND SIZE OF THE SITE, THERE MAY NOT BE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED AND IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
REYNOLDS: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING ORDINANCE 69? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE, WE'RE READY FOR ITEM SIX, WHICH IS ORDINANCE 70, MR. TYNDALL, PLEASE.
MR. TYNDALL: WE'RE JUMPING ONE BLOCK OVER HERE.
THIS IS OUR CASE NUMBER Z-07-2021.
THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF FRANK BRYAN.
THE AGENT IS ALBATROSS PARTNERS.
[00:15:03]
THE ACREAGE IS 2.95 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED R-3 AND C-5.AND REQUESTING IT ALL TO GO TO R-4.
THIS IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
AND THERE YOU CAN SEE, WE WERE JUST SOUTH OF BLOCK IN THE LAST APPLICATION, NOW WE'RE NORTH OF BLOCK.
AND THERE, YOU CAN SEE THE C-5, WHEN THAT SIDE ROAD WAS BUILT NEXT TO LOWE'S, THEY ANTICIPATED IT, MAYBE BEING A LITTLE DEEPER.
THEY DIDN'T TAKE ALL THAT LAND WHEN THEY BUILT THOSE SMALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS OUT THERE.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS DUAL ZONED.
THE APPLICATION STATEMENT IS TO ALLOW FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS IN CITY WARD NUMBER NINE.
THERE'S THE HOUSE THAT FRONTS ON GOLF CLUB LANE.
AND THERE'S THE CORNER WHERE THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE.
AND THEN THIS IS I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED, COLONIAL COURT, IS NEXT DOOR.
WE WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT THE ENTRANCE TO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN OFF COLONIAL COURT.
BUT AS I'LL SHOW YOU, THERE'S QUITE A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE ROAD.
SO THEY MAY ULTIMATELY BE GOING FOR ACCESS OFF OF GOLF CLUB LANE.
AND THEY'LL FOLLOW ALL THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, WHEN THEY COME INTO A SITE PLAN REVIEW PHASE.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES WOULD PUT THIS AT 35 UNITS.
IT'S IN THE HILLDALE PLANNING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM C-5 TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE WEST.
THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN STATES IT'S ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN A DESIRABLE MIX OF HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE SITE.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YEAH, I MEAN, WE'RE BUILDING UP THESE AREAS AND ALL OF THIS IS BASICALLY ONE AREA.
BUT WHAT IS OUR PLAN FOR INSTANCE, ON CROSSLAND AVENUE AND GOLF CLUB LANE, TO HANDLE THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, PUT IN A SIDEWALK, AND JUST RESPECT THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME? IS THAT ADDRESSED ANYWHERE, OR DO WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION? THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS- REYNOLDS: OWN? OWN INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT AS FAR AS THE IMPACT TO THE LARGER AREA, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE STREET DEPARTMENT, THIS REALLY DOESN'T, MAYBE TIP THE SCALES, TO USE THAT WORK TERM OF REQUIRING MAYBE AN AREA WIDE.
35 UNITS OF APARTMENTS IS GOING TO BRING MAYBE 58, 60 TOTAL INDIVIDUALS TO THE AREA.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT GETS TO THE LEVEL OF NEEDING TO REDO A CORRIDOR SUCH AS GOLF CLUB LANE.
THAT WOULD REALLY FALL TO A LARGER CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT.
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE GOING ON CURRENTLY, EITHER ADDRESSING GROWTH OR POTENTIAL GROWTH AROUND THE CITY.
SO WHEN THESE PLANS COME IN, KNOWING THAT THAT AREA AND THAT ROAD IS BEING BUILT UP, ARE WE RESERVING ANY SPACE TO COME BACK AND WIDEN THAT ROAD A LITTLE BIT AND PUT SIDEWALKS IN? NOT NECESSARILY INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT GOLF CLUB LANE AND ALONG CROSSLAND AVENUE? WHENEVER AN APPLICATION COMES IN FOR SITE PLAN OR SUBDIVISION, WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ALREADY THE MINIMUM RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT OF THESE PARCELS.
AND THEN WE HAVE WITH OUR SETBACKS ON TOP OF THAT, THAT SET BACK AREA'S INTENDED TO KEEP THAT AREA UNUSED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
SO THAT IF WE DO NEED THAT IN THE FUTURE, THE CITY OR THE COUNTY OR THE STATE COULD COME BACK AND BUY THAT LAND, COMPENSATE THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHATEVER THAT SMALL PIECE OF LAND WOULD BE WORTH, AND THEN PUT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS IN, IN THE FUTURE.
SO FOR THE SMALLER, LIKE R-4 AND R-6, THOSE LOTS ARE PRETTY SMALL.
YOU'D ALMOST HAVE TO DOUBLE THAT LOT TO KEEP A SETBACK AREA, ALONG THE ROAD? DEPENDS WHAT KIND OF ROAD YOU'RE ON, SOME OF THOSE ROADS- GOLF CLUB OR I'M TALKING, NOT INSIDE, I'M TALKING IF THEY'RE FRONTAGE ALONG CROSSLAND OR GOLF CLUB.
YEAH, I'LL JUST PUT THIS OUT THERE.
R-6, WHEN THE R-6 LOTS DO GET DEVELOPED, THEY DO HAVE TO PUT SIDEWALK IN AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO EVERY R-6 DEVELOPMENT PUTS SIDEWALK ALONG THE CITY ROAD, EVEN IF IT'S AN EXISTING ROAD.
REYNOLDS: WHAT IF IT'S NOT R-6? THEN ONLY IF THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW ROAD ARE THEY REQUIRED TO PUT SIDEWALK ALONG THE NEW SUBDIVISION ROAD? WOMAN: OKAY.
OH, I DID IT AGAIN, I'M SORRY.
TYPICALLY, THE NEXT STEP OF THE PROCESS IS THE DEVELOPER OR BUILDER WILL SUBMIT A SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW.
THAT'S WHEN OUR STREET DEPARTMENT WILL GET INTRICATELY INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY NEED TO BE MADE.
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO, WHERE WE'VE REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER TO PUT IN TRAFFIC SIGNALS, WIDEN STREETS, SIDEWALKS,
[00:20:03]
THINGS LIKE THAT.SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEXT STEP.
ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE.
MR. TYNDALL, WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 7, ORDINANCE 71.
THIS IS PLANNING COMMISSION, CASE NUMBER Z8, 2021.
THE APPLICATION OF LUKE BAGOT AND SID HENDRICK IS THE AGENT.
THIS IS 0.41 ACRES CURRENTLY ZONED R3, AND PROPOSED TO GO TO R6.
IT IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THOUGH THERE IS R6 IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
THIS IS IN CITY OF WARD NUMBER 6.
THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT IS TO DIVIDE IT TO CREATE THREE OR FOUR INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE POCKETS OF THE BROWN R6 IN THE REGION TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.
THE MAJORITY OF THIS AREA IS A OLDER PART OF TOWN WHICH WOULD HAVE HAD THE BLANKET R3.
SO R3 RIGHT NOW ON THIS LOT, IF THEY HAVE THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH THEY DO THEY COULD BUILD A TRIPLEX OR THEY COULD DIVIDE IT AND BUILD TWO TRIPLEXES.
THIS WOULD JUST REPLACE THAT TRIPLEX AGAIN WITH THREE OR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
THAT'S ALREADY A CLEARED PROPERTY ON CENTRAL AVENUE THERE.
THE SMALLER HOMES TYPICALLY DOT THAT STREET OUT THERE.
AND THESE ARE THE TWO NEIGHBORS OF THAT PROPERTY.
WE RECEIVED SOME PHONE CALLS, BUT NO ONE CAME TO THE MEETING OR LEFT FORMAL COMMENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS ONE.
WE HAD NO DEPARTMENT COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.
STAFF'S ESTIMATE WOULD PUT THIS AT THREE LOTS.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN.
OUR SIX SINGLE FAMILY IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING ESTABLISHED USES.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL SERVE THE SITE, INCLUDING MASS TRANSIT AND RETAIL.
SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED IN FRONT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE R6 STANDARDS.
NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TINDALL.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED I HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME PHONE CALLS FROM SOME OF THE CITIZENS.
DID YOU ALL GET TO SPEAK TO THEM OR RETURN THEIR CALLS, OR HOW DID HANDLE THAT? OH YEAH, WE ANSWER EVERY CALL.
IF WE'RE NOT PICKING UP ON THE FIRST RING, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU AS SOON AS WE CAN.
WHEN OUR SIGNS GO UP, SOMETIMES IT GENERATES A LOT OF INTEREST, AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE ONES THIS MONTH THAT OUR SIGN WAS...
THIS IS NOT AN AREA YOU TYPICALLY SEE A LOT OF REZONING IN.
SO THERE WAS SOME ISSUES AND CONCERNS AND THEY JUST WANTED TO KNOW TYPICALLY WHAT IT IS.
"WHY DO I SEE THE SIGN?" AND THEY CALL FOR INFORMATION, BUT NO ONE LEFT...
NO ONE LEFT ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.
SO YOU DID TALK TO SOMEONE FROM OVER THERE, IS THAT CORRECT? TINDALL: OH YEAH. OKAY.
TINDALL: ON ANY GIVEN MONTH, WE GET DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PHONE CALLS ON EVERY CASE.
AND A LOT OF TIME IT'S DRIVE-BYS OR WALKED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST ASKING, "WHAT'S THIS MEAN? WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? I SAW THE SIGN." THEY DON'T ALWAYS GET A LETTER.
THE LETTER ONLY GOES OUT TO EVERYONE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET, BUT THE SIGN DOES ITS JOB LETTING THE NEIGHBORS.
WANDA SMITH: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IN CASE I GET A CALL AND THEY SAID THEY CALLING, AND YOU DIDN'T RETURN THEIR CALLS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I ASKED THAT QUESTION FOR THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA.
TINDALL: IN YOUR PACKAGE, YOU'LL OFTEN SEE THIS SHEET AFTER THE MAPS, WE LOG EVERY PHONE CALL THAT DECIDES TO LEAVE A COMMENT.
WE DON'T JUST LOG EVERY PHONE CALL IF THEY'RE JUST ASKING A QUESTION.
SO YOU WILL SOMETIMES SEE A NAME AND ADDRESS AND WE'LL TAKE THEIR COMMENT VERBATIM.
WANDA SMITH: I NEVER SEEN THAT SHEET BEFORE.
IS THAT NEW? TINDALL: THAT'S IN EVERY PACKET I BELIEVE AS WELL, AS ANY LETTERS WE RECEIVED BEFORE OUR MEETING WILL GO INTO THAT PACKET.
WANDA SMITH: OKAY. I'LL CHECK IT OUT.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING ORDINANCE 71? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE.
THIS WAS HELD AT SECOND READING BY THE MAYOR....
HE ASKED THAT IT JUST BE BRIEFLY RECAPPED FOR SOME OF THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING...
THIS IS A C5 PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THIS IS LOCATED OFF OF FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD UP TOWARD THE BASE UP THERE.
IN FACT, THE YOU'LL SEE IN THE FORT CAMPBELL IS THERE IN THE GREEN HATCHED AREAS, ALL FORT CAMPBELL PROPERTIES.
SO THE BACK HALF OF THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R4, THE FRONT HALF IS ZONED C5.
AND WHAT HAPPENED ALONG FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD WHEN ZONING WAS DEVELOPED IS THEY PRETTY MUCH TOOK A BLANKET 250 FEET, 300 FEET, AND JUST WENT DOWN THE ROAD AND SAID, "THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL." WELL, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REZONE ON THE FRONT PART OF THAT TO SEE TO R4, AND THEN DEVELOP THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY TO SOME APARTMENT UNITS.
THIS WOULD BE THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE UP THERE.
I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED LADY MARION STREET IS JUST LOCATED UP TO THE RIGHT A LITTLE BIT.
THIS IS THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED C5, AND IT'S FAIRLY FLAT GRASS
[00:25:04]
AND CONCRETED BACK THERE IN THE BACK THERE.THEN THE OF THAT TREE LINE IS FORT CAMPBELL BACK THERE.
THIS IS LOOKING FORT CAMPBELL, THE PROPERTY WOULD BE ON YOUR RIGHT, JUST OVER THE CREST OF THAT HILL THERE.
THERE'S A CAR WASH ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK.
THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT I DO BELIEVE WOULD BE REMOVED.
THE OWNERS LIVE THERE OR OWN IT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
AND THIS IS A CAR LOT THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE...
THERE'S A SIGNAL UP THERE IN THAT PICTURE WHERE LADY MARION COMES INTO FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD.
THE PROPERTIES BEHIND THIS ON THE RIGHT, BEHIND ALL THESE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
BOTH STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON THIS.
WHEN IT COMES FOR SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION, THAT'S WHERE WE'LL GET THE STREET DEPARTMENT AND TDOT INVOLVED, OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED WITH THE REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT, BUT AN EARLY SKETCH OF IT SHOWED AN ENTRANCE, AND THEN A COUPLE OF ROWS OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEHIND THIS PROPERTY, ALL EXITING OUT THAT LITTLE TAIL JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE CROSS STREET.
MAYOR: OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. TYNDALL.
ON FIRST READING OF THIS REZONING REQUEST, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC INGRESS AND EGRESS PULLING OUT ON THE FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD FROM THAT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED OR PLANNED OR BEING REVIEWED AND LOOKED AT, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PULLING OUT AT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
SO THAT GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION AND THAT'S STILL A CONCERN I HAVE.
THE OTHER TWO ISSUES WAS IT BACKS UP TO FORT CAMPBELL, TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA OF FORT CAMPBELL.
MY CONCERN WAS MAKING SURE THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE, BE IT NOISE, LIGHT, WHATEVER.
AND THE DEVELOPER REASSURED ME THAT THERE WOULD BE NONE.
THERE WOULD BE A BUFFER OF TREES PLANTED, PLUS THERE'S SUFFICIENT DISTANCE ALREADY THAT EXIST.
PLUS THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DROP-OFF TO THE CREEK BACK THERE.
AND WHICH LED TO MY THIRD CONCERN , WHICH WAS THE FOLKS IN AND AROUND THAT AREA THAT MAY LIVE THERE, ACCESSING THE CREEK, GETTING ON THE CREEK AND GOING UP AND DOWN THE CREEK, AND THEIR ACCESS PERHAPS TO FORT CAMPBELL FROM THAT PART, AND GOOD LUCK TO THEM IF THEY WANT TO GET DOWN THERE, 'CAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD DROP-OFF THERE.
SO WHILE HE SATISFIED MY LATTER TWO CONCERNS, I'M STILL KINDA HESITANT ON THE TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THAT AREA BECAUSE IT'S NOT AT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
ALTHOUGH, HE DID SAY THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT AN EASEMENT, BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY TO GET UP TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
BUT, ANYWAY, I JUST BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS TO WHY I BUMPED IT.
COUNCILPERSONS STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I TOO WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY CONVERSATION AFTER, MAYBE THEY'D COME BACK AND SAID ANYTHING IN REGARD TO THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AND ENTERING AND EXITING FROM FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD, SEEING AS HOW THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THAT BEING JUST RIGHT UP THE ROAD FROM THE LIGHT.
TINDALL: I'LL SAY THAT THE APPLICANT HASN'T CONVERSE WITH US OVER THE LAST MONTH.
I THINK YOU ALL SAW A SIMILAR SKETCH OR HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ONE.
WE LOOKED TODAY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE SAME OWNERS THAT OWN THIS PROPERTY OWN A COUPLE OF THE PROPERTIES ON FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD, SO THERE MAY BE A WAY TO GET THROUGH ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES VIA EASEMENT OR REPLAT IT WHERE YOU COULD GET MAYBE A SAFER LOCATION TO PULL OUT INSTEAD OF ON THE BACKEND OF THE HILL.
THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, AGAIN, IF THEY'VE GOT THOSE PROPERTIES RIGHT THERE, I THINK, LIKE WHAT I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, BY TYING THAT TOGETHER, IT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT EASIER TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO THOSE BUSINESSES AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE ONE ENTRANCE IN AND OUT FOR ALL OF THAT, MAKING IT SAFER FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
TINDALL: YEAH, THERE'S ONLY TWO OR THREE TOTAL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ALL OWN ALL EIGHT OR 10 PROPERTIES RIGHT ALONG THAT SIDE OF ROAD THERE.
SOMETHING WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO WORK ON.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TINDALL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ZONING ORDINANCE 52? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE.
TINDALL: YES, THIS WAS HELD AT FIRST READING LAST MONTH.
THIS IS A SLIDE AND THERE WAS ONE ERROR LAST MONTH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BROUGHT FORTH, TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, SOME CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT'S CALLED THE "ZONING RESOLUTION AT THE COUNTY".
IN THE CITY, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF SETBACK CHANGES.
THE FIRST BULLET POINT THERE WITH THE R2, LAST MONTH THERE WAS A BIT OF A TYPO.
THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON R2 WASN'T PROPOSED TO GO TO 5 FEET.
IT WAS ONLY PROPOSED TO REDUCE THE TOTAL FROM 20 FEET TO 16 FEET.
THE SIDE SETBACK IN R2 IS 8 FEET.
SO RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE TO HAVE 8 FEET AND 12 FEET, OR YOU COULD HAVE 10 AND 10 OR 9 AND 11,
[00:30:02]
ANYTHING THAT TOTALS 20 FEET.WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE THAT JUST 8 FEET ON BOTH SIDES, WHICH OPENS UP THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR A HOUSE UP TO 34 FEET, 36 FEET, I BELIEVE OUT THERE.
34 FEET, DOING THE MATH WRONG.
34 FOOT WIDE HOUSE ON THOSE PROPERTIES, WHICH IS MUCH MORE COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S BEING BUILT INSTEAD OF A 30 FOOT HOUSE ON A 50 FOOT LOT, WHICH IS WHAT THE 20 FOOT WOULD REQUIRE.
I THINK IT'S GOOD TO KEEP USING R2.
IT'S A VERY GOOD DENSE STARTER HOMES TYPE ZONE, IT HAS TO BE GOOD FOR BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
R2A IS NOT A VERY USED ZONE ESPECIALLY SINCE R6 HAS BECOME A LITTLE MORE POPULAR.
THERE ARE SOME MORE USES FOR R2A TO TRANSITION BETWEEN HIGH DENSITY AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EXCEPT, AS A 50 FOOT LOT, WHEN YOU TAKE WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE, YOU'RE ONLY LEFT AGAIN WITH 30 FOOT BUILDING WIDTH, AND THEN YOU HAVE 20 FEET BETWEEN THE HOUSES.
THE SCALES KIND OF OFF IN THOSE SITUATIONS, SO WE'VE PROPOSED TO REDUCE IT TO 5 FEET ON EACH SIDE, WHICH MATCHES WHAT OUR CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS DO RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS A 5 FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
SO WE'VE BOUNCED THAT OFF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING AND CODE DEPARTMENT, AND THEY WERE BOTH FINE WITH THAT.
THEY ALREADY SEE BUILDINGS THAT ARE 10 FEET APART FROM EACH OTHER OR 5 FROM THE SIDES PLENTY.
AND THERE ARE CERTAIN FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS THEY HAVE TO BUILD TO WHEN THEY DO THAT.
EVERYTHING ELSE THERE, THE C2 LANGUAGE UNDER NUMBER TWO THAT WAS TO MODEL WHAT THE C2 IS BEING USED FOR RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS A LITTLE MORE ON THE MULTI-FAMILY SIDE.
AND JUST RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE CHANGES TO THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWNHOUSES THERE.
C2 HAD LIMITED IT TO EIGHT PLEXES INSTEAD OF ALLOWING YOU TO HAVE 10 OR 12 UNITS IN A ROW.
WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE SHORT-SIGHTED FOR SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE C2, AND WE'RE REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE UNDER THAT BULLET POINT.
NUMBER THREE IS ONE THAT WE'RE ALSO INTRODUCING AT THE COUNTY.
NUMBER ONE AND TWO, THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THOSE ZONES, SO THOSE WON'T BE IN THE COUNTY RESOLUTION.
NUMBER THREE IS A SETBACK EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTIES.
WHEN SOMEONE BUILDS A ROAD NEXT YEAR HOUSE OR YOUR PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT PUT THE NEW SETBACK AGAINST YOUR HOUSE, UNLESS YOU DECIDE TO FURTHER DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY.
THIS ALLEVIATES A HARDSHIP THAT SOME PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SEEN, ESPECIALLY, OUT IN THE COUNTY.
AND THEN WE'VE ALSO NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE, WE'VE AMENDED THE STAFF LEVEL REVIEW PROCESS FOR SITE PLANS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER AND A LITTLE CLEARER OF WHAT IS A STAFF LEVEL AND WHAT DOES NOT A STAFF LEVEL AND TO ALSO GIVE STAFF THREE ADDITIONAL CALENDAR DAYS, BECAUSE THIS PAST YEAR WAS AN EXAMPLE WHERE WE HAD FOUR AND A HALF DAYS CHEWED UP WITH A WEEKEND AND A HOLIDAY.
WE REALLY COULDN'T GET THINGS OUT IN SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AND THOSE TWO AND A HALF REMAINING DAYS.
SO IT JUST OPENS IT UP TO 10 CALENDAR DAYS.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING OUR PROCESS OR SLOWING UP.
IT JUST GIVES US A CUSHION FOR THOSE ODD WEEKENDS THAT HAPPEN A COUPLE OF TIMES EVERY FEW YEARS.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THESE CHANGES.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MR. TINDALL.
MR. TYNDALL, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO ME RIGHT AWAY THE VERY NEXT DAY AFTER THE POSTPONEMENT AND FOR YOU HELPING ADDRESS SOME OF MY CONCERNS AS WELL AS THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT I'VE TALKED TO SINCE THEN.
AND THEY DEFINITELY HAVE ALLEVIATED THE CONCERNS THAT I DID HAVE WITH IT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE 61? THIS IS FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE 61 FOR NEXT WEEK.
MR. TINDALL, ANYTHING ELSE? NO, WE'RE GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[2) CONSENT AGENDA]
MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WILL.MADAM CLERK: ORDINANCE 55, 2020/21: SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF RITA HOME BUILDERS INC., RITA HOME BUILDERS INC., AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROVIDENCE BOULEVARD AND SHELBY STREET FROM OUR R3 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 56, 2020/21: SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF EAGLE'S BLUFF PARTNERSHIP FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF WHITFIELD ROAD AND SOUTH OF TRACY LANE FROM R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 57, 2020/21: SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
APPLICATION OF JEFF ROBINSON, CODY DOLL, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF MCCLURE STREET, WEST OF NORTH SECOND STREET, EAST OF NORTH FIRST STREET AND NORTH OF BOGART LANE FROM R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, O1 OFFICE DISTRICT AND H1 OVERLAY TO CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT,
[00:35:02]
H1 OVERLAY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.ORDINANCE 58, 2020/21: SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
APPLICATION OF S. L. ENDEAVORS, MICAH STAIR, LUKE STAIR FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH FRONTAGE OF CALDWELL LANE AND THE EAST FRONTAGE OF ROBERT STREET FROM R2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 59, 2020/21: SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
APPLICATION OF MSI HOMES, SEAN BURNER, AGENT, FOR A ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE STREET AND EDMONDSON FERRY ROAD FROM R2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO OUR R3 THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE 16, 2020/21: SECOND READING.
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE.
APPLICATION OF BELLE C. SIMPSON AND OTHERS, NORMA S. JONES, GREEN SPACE PARTNERS, AGENT, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD RUSSELLVILLE PIKE AND FANTASY LANE AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD RUSSELLVILLE PIKE AND KENDALL WOOD DRIVE, FROM M2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND R5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND R6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE AIRPORT LIAISON COMMITTEE, AUDIT COMMITTEE, DESIGNATIONS COMMITTEE, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, ETHICS COMMISSION, POWER BOARD, PUBLIC BUILDING AUTHORITY AND TREE BOARD.
AN ADOPTION OF MINUTES, JANUARY 5TH, JANUARY 7TH, JANUARY 14TH AND JANUARY 25TH.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
ANYONE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
KAREN REYNOLDS: YES, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, WITHOUT BEATING A DEAD HORSE, FIRST, SAY THANK YOU TO MS. MARA, MS. SKINNER, MR. BAKER FOR ALL MY QUESTIONS AND PATIENTS AND ANSWERING THEM.
I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT JUST BECAUSE I REACH OUT AND ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS, I DON'T MEAN IT AS A CHALLENGE.
SO ON THIS ISSUE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT LENGTH.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP A COUPLE MORE THINGS.
I CONTINUE TO GET MESSAGES FROM RESIDENTS THAT ARE OPPOSING THIS REZONING CASE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IS TRAFFIC, SIDEWALKS AND, YOU KNOW, BEING TRANSPARENT AND ETHICAL IN APPEARANCE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME ABOUT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IN MY RESEARCH, IS THAT THE RESIDENT REACHED OUT AND IT'S IN YOUR MINUTES, BUT SHE REACHED OUT AND SHE GOT THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.
AND WHEN WE READ THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, I OUTLINED IT BRIEFLY, BUT THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT IS REALLY A CUT AND PASTE OF INFORMATION.
ON THE FIRST PAGE, IT TALKS ABOUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF MEMORIAL DRIVE EXTENSION.
THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE MEASURED BY FIRST EXISTING CAPACITY OF MEMORIAL DRIVE.
THIS ISN'T MEMORIAL DRIVE, THIS IS OLD RUSSELLVILLE PIKE.
SO WHEN IN THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS, THEY DON'T REFERENCE THE ACTUAL AREA.
AND THEN AS YOU READ ON, IT TALKS ABOUT THE GAP IN THE, WHEN THEY DID THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE GAP, THEY DID IT AT FIVE, JANUARY 2015 IS THE DATE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS SHARED HAS THAT DATE.
AS YOU CONTINUE TO READ, OR ON A PREVIOUS PAGE IT TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY COUNTED 4:30 TO 6:30 MONDAY DECEMBER 14TH AND TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15TH 2020 BUT FURTHER ON IT TALKS ABOUT MEASURING THE A.M. AND P.M.
WHICH IN THE EARLIER DOCUMENT, THEY STATE THAT THEY DID NOT MEASURE A.M. AND P.M..
SO I'M CONCERNED WHEN I BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF OUR PLANNING AND MR. COHEN, I'M SORRY, I FORGET HIS ACTUAL...
THEY SAID, YES, WE'RE AWARE OF THE ERRORS THAT HAPPENS
[00:40:02]
BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, WE TOLERATE THIS KIND OF MISINFORMATION WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS BECAUSE IT GIVES THE APPEARANCE THAT WE ARE NOT EXERCISING THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS.
AS WE CONTINUE TO INFILL, THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR OUR CITIZENS AND OUR RESIDENTS.
WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO SAY TOO BAD, SO SAD, SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP, WE'RE GONNA PUT THESE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS, IF I BOUGHT A HOUSE 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE IT'S ON A CALL TO SAC AND NOW YOU'RE GONNA BRING 300 CARS DOWN THAT ROAD A TODAY I MEAN, THAT'S A BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW.
THE LEAST WE COULD DO IS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ESTIMATION OF OUR TRAFFIC.
SO, WE TALK ABOUT ETHICS IN OUR BUILDING COHORTS AND THEN A PERSONAL INTEREST BUT THEN, AND THEN WE SAY, YEAH, THAT'S FINE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S ON THE BOARD.
BUT THEN WE TOLERATE THIS KIND OF POOR APPLICATION INTO OUR SYSTEM.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE THAT WE MAKE SURE THE DATA IS ACCURATE BECAUSE NOW, ALL THEY DID WAS GO BACK AND CHANGE THE INFORMATION WHEN I ADDRESSED IT AND RE-SUBMIT THE INFORMATION.
SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL OF BUT NOW I PERSONALLY QUESTION THE DATA ACCURACY.
DID YOU REALLY DO THIS IN 2015? AND THEN JUST CHANGE THE DATE? OR DID YOU MAKE THE CHART AND JUST FORGET TO CHANGE THE OTHER DATE? SO I'M JUST PUTTING THE SHOUT OUT THERE THAT I'M THE GIRL THAT READS STUFF.
AND I'M THE GIRL WHO'S GOING TO COME UP AND ASK YOU WHY, WHO SAID, AND HOW.
AND I UNDERSTAND AS WE GROW, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I MEAN, WE HAVE TO PUT, IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS, IF WE'RE GONNA PASS IT NEXT WEEK THEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE'RE AFFECTING.
JUST LIKE I BROUGHT IT UP TODAY.
IF WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO INFILL, WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.
AND WE HAVE NOT, AS A COMMUNITY, DONE THAT FOR MANY YEARS AND THIS IS JUST, I THINK ONE CASE THAT SHOWS WHY OUR CITIZENS ARE FRUSTRATED WITH US.
SO, I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT OUT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS.
COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST LIKE TO THANK THE PRIOR SPEAKER.
I DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP.
I DID GET, AND I WANT THE PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO KNOW THAT I DID GET A LEGAL OPINION AND IT WAS CLEARLY OUTLINED THAT AS LONG AS THEY DID NOT VOTE, THAT THEY COULD BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
NOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT IS AT SOME POINT WE HAVE GOT TO ENSURE THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS TRUST US AND BUILD THOSE TRUSTING RELATIONSHIPS.
THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A QUESTION OF WRONGDOING WHEN WE ARE HANDLING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, OKAY? SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP AGAIN BECAUSE I WAS GONNA ACTUALLY ADDRESS THAT.
I TOO READ THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND IT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO ME.
MY FIRST QUESTION WAS HOW CAN THE AGENCY THAT IS DOING THE DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY DO THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT ALSO.
I'M GONNA MAKE IT LOOK OKAY FOR ME TOO.
SO I JUST ASKED OUR FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANNA GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING IN ANYTHING THAT WE DO.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN.
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS, BACK TO YOU.
I'M SORRY, I DID JUST WANNA ADD ONE MORE STATEMENT AND IT'S IN THE NOTES.
THE ASSESSMENT FROM THE COMPANY THAT DID THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, THEY SAID IT IS OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT OLD RUSSELLVILLE PIKE HAS THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT BY THE PROPOSED REZONING.
MR. COHEN WROTE TO MYSELF AND ONE OF THE CITIZENS, ANY IMPROVEMENT DESIGNED TO OFFSET THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS WILL BE DETERMINED ONCE A SUBDIVISION IS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF REVIEW.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO CAVE ROAD, HERITAGE OR RUSSELLVILLE PIKE AND DUNBAR CAVE WILL BE NEEDED.
SO ONCE AGAIN, WE AS A CITY ACCEPTED,
[00:45:01]
HE'S ACTUALLY ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND THEN NEGATING IT AT THE SAME TIME.SO WE HAVE TO LIKE START REALLY MAKING SOME HARD CHOICES.
AND IF WE HAVE TO FIX ROADS, THEN AGAIN, I SAID THIS BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, WE DON'T MAKE THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK PAY FOR 40 YEARS OF NEGLECT.
WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE AS WE GROW IN OUR CITIES.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS.
COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I APPRECIATE MAYOR THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION SITUATION IS BEING ADDRESSED, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.
AND WE'VE GOTTEN EMAILS OF COURSE, SO I'M JUST GONNA PUT IT OUT THERE AND ASK THE QUESTION.
I KNOW THAT TWO OF THE NOMINEES ARE LAWYERS, IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN IT COMES TO OUR LAWSUITS? NO, SIR.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCIL LADY SMITH, YOU'RE, COUNCIL PERSON, EXCUSE ME.
BASED UPON WHAT MS. BURTLER SAID, I WAS ALSO WANTED TO ASK THAT SAME QUESTION.
WOULD THERE BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF THAT'S YOUR FRIEND? IF YOU SELECT THE FRIEND TO BE ON THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
AND THAT WOULD SEEM TO ME BUT I JUST WANNA GET AN OPINION FROM AN ATTORNEY, LANCE BAKER, WOULD YOU SPEAK ON THAT KNOWING THAT THAT'S FRIENDS THAT YOU SELECT TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, WOULD THERE BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? SOLOMON: THIS IS SAUL SOLOMON, I'M ATTORNEY-- MR. SOLOMON, BEFORE YOU GET STARTED.
COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, THERE WAS AN ETHICS QUESTIONNAIRE THAT'S REQUIRED OF THE NOMINEES THAT WAS COMPLETED AND DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL.
OH, I DIDN'T GET A COPY OF THAT.
WELL, IT WAS EMAILED OUT BY MS. SKINNER.
WHAT DATE? YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE MS. SKINNER? WAS SENT OUT.
WHEN WAS THIS SENT OUT? SO YOU-- EVERYBODY, OH, OKAY.
YES, WE HAVE SOME THAT GOT IT.
OKAY, THIS IS MR. SAUL SOLOMON, HE IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM REGARDING THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND ETHICS ISSUES.
MR. SOLOMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I THINK THE MAYOR AND HIS INFINITE WISDOM HAS KIND OF ANSWERED THE QUESTION RIGHT.
TO THE EXTENT THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE MAYOR AND ANYBODY WHO APPOINTS THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN THE PROCESS AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO BEING APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION.
SMITH: I SAID FRIEND, YOU LEFT THAT.
YOU JUST SAID ANYONE HE APPOINTS.
YES, WHAT IF THAT'S YOUR FRIEND IS BUT THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE OF THAT FRIENDSHIP, THEN THAT SHOULD BE VETTED OUT IN THE PROCESS.
SMITH: THAT SHOULD BE WHAT SIR? VETTED OUT IN THE PROCESS.
SMITH: VETTED OUT, YOU SAY? OKAY.
IS THAT OKAY? SMITH: THANK YOU, I'M LISTENING.
ANYTHING ELSE? JOE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
ALLEN: YES, SIR? MR. SOLOMON, HANG ON A SECOND.
ALLEN: SO, WHO VETS THAT OUT IN THE PROCESS? WHO DETERMINES THAT PROCESS TO BE VETTED OUT? THERE'S A QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH ALL COUNCIL GETS COPY OF AND ANY QUESTIONS, EXCUSE ME? LADY: OKAY. OKAY, (CHUCKLES) OKAY.
AND THE QUESTIONS ARE INTENDED TO GENERATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BETWEEN ANYBODY WHO'S APPLYING FOR THE POSITION, ANYBODY AT THE...
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNMENT SO, THAT'S.
JOE: COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN? ALLEN: OKAY, THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SOLOMON? OKAY, HANG ON LET ME.
I'LL JUST WANNA MAKE STATEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION BUT WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THEM AS WELL? SOLOMON: ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.
IT'S APPOINTED BY THE BY THE MAYOR SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL.
YEAH, THANK YOU MR. SOLOMON. OH, YOU'RE WELCOME.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON SMITH.
MR. SOLOMON, HANG ON A MINUTE.
COUNSEL PERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
IT'S REALLY NOT A QUESTION FOR HIM.
MAYOR, LOOKING AT PAST MEETINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I DO SEE WHERE WE USUALLY JUST LOOK AT THESE NAMES AND WE SAY, OKAY, THESE PEOPLE ARE APPOINTED.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE, A LOT OF US DON'T KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING APPOINTED.
IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN REQUEST LIKE BACKGROUND INFORMATION, MAYBE A RESUME, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO THAT WE'RE BETTER INFORMED ON WHO WE'RE APPOINTING AND WHO WE'RE SAYING YES TO AND WHO WE'RE NOT? AND THE ANSWER IS YES.
I'LL BE GLAD TO PROVIDE THAT AND REGARDING THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THOSE THREE NOMINEES WILL BE PRESENT EITHER VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON NEXT WEEK.
[00:50:01]
THEY WILL INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
OH, I'M SORRY, I JUST-- OH, WOW, OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR MR. SOLOMON AND NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE 'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT BUT JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM LIKE, WITH THE LAW FIRMS THAT THEY WORK WITH AND THEM DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, DOES THAT CREATE AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT IN THAT, THEY'VE DONE BUSINESS WITH THIS CITY, BEEN HIRED BY THE CITY AND NOW THEY'RE ABLE TO SERVE ON THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
DOES THAT CREATE ANY TYPE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OR APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT IN THEM PRESIDING OVER CITY ETHICS VIOLATIONS AND THEY'VE RECEIVED COMPENSATION AS SOMEWHAT BEING A PART OF YOU KNOW, HIRED TO PERFORM SERVICES FOR US.
JOE: MR. SOLOMON? OKAY, MY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS IT WOULD NOT, DEPENDING ON THE THE EXTENT WHICH THEY REPRESENTED THE CITY IN THE PAST OR ARE CURRENTLY.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT WOULDN'T ELIMINATE THEM NECESSARILY BUT CERTAINLY IS A FACTOR THAT I WOULD ASSUME THE MAYOR AND YOU WOULD CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL THINK WILL BE A WISE APPOINTMENT.
IT'S KIND OF A SLIDING SCALE AND IF YOU HAD A LAW FIRM THAT DURING THE MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATION HAD RECEIVED $100,000 IN LEGAL FEES, IT MIGHT NOT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S THE BEST PRACTICE.
AND SO, YOU MIGHT SAY THAT'S NOT ONE THAT WE THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
SO THAT'S REALLY UP TO YOU, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC ELIMINATION OF SOMEBODY LIKE THAT BUT SOMETHING YOU CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GONNA VOTE TO PROVE.
OKAY AND THEN FOR YOU MAYOR, DO WE HAVE YOU KNOW, JUST IN CASE AS WE GET THE MULLING THIS OVER AND THINKING ON IT, IS THERE ANY BACKUP CANDIDATES SO SHOULD FOR INSTANCE, AS WE DECIDE ON IT AND THINK THAT MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANNA AVOID, THAT APPEARANCE OF, IS THERE ANOTHER LIST OR POTENTIAL ALTERNATES THAT YOU MAY HAVE OR? THE CODE REQUIRES THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT NOMINEES TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONFIRMATION.
IT'S AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON EACH CANDIDATE OR ALL THREE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANNA TAKE THE QUESTION.
THERE WOULD BE NO AMENDMENTS MADE OR SUBSTITUTIONS MADE, SHOULD ONE OR MORE NOT GET APPROVED.
WE'D BE BACK TO BRINGING YOU ANOTHER SLATE OF ONE, TWO OR THREE DEPENDING ON HOW MANY WERE NOT APPROVED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, MR. SOLOMON.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE NOW READY FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT.
[3) FINANCE COMMITTEE]
CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.FIRST ITEM ON HERE IS ORDINANCE 54-2020-21.
THIS IS THE SECOND READING WHICH WAS POSTPONED FROM JANUARY 7TH, AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF ROXY REGIONAL THEATER PROPERTY.
THE POINT OF THIS IS TO PURCHASE THE ROXY BUILDING WHICH THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO PARCELS THAT WOULD BE BEING PURCHASED.
AND THAT IS FOR THE POINT OF TAKING THAT ON WITH US AND THEN WOULD BUILD A NEW PERFORMING ARTS CENTER THERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS OF CLARKSVILLE.
I DO WANNA GO AHEAD AND CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT WAS ANNOUNCED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING BY THE ROXY.
AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN SHARED ON THE TAX ASSESSORS REPORT THAT THE MORTGAGE IS HELD BY MY EMPLOYER BUT I ALSO WANNA CLARIFY THAT I'M IN NO WAY INVOLVED WITH THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT A LENDER FOR THEM.
AND THE LOAN WAS THERE PRIOR TO MY EMPLOYMENT STARTED.
I WILL SAY THAT WE DO HAVE MS. MADA HERE TONIGHT AND SHE CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AS I'M SURE THERE'S GOING TO BE MANY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ORDINANCE 54.
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR PATIENCE WITH MY QUESTIONS AND I HAVE GOTTEN A CALL FROM ALMOST EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND SEVERAL CONCERNED CITIZENS.
SO AGAIN, I LEARN BY ASKING QUESTIONS.
I WOULD LIKE TO, AGAIN, THANK EVERYONE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT'S SITTING HERE TODAY THAT HOWEVER WE VOTE COMING NEXT WEEK IT WILL BE CRITICIZED.
YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT CENTER MADE THE NEWS FOR THE PORT GIVEAWAY AND WE WILL AGAIN, PROBABLY HIT THAT AS WE DO THIS.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I SUPPORT THE ROXY AND I HAVE SUPPORTED IT FOR MANY YEARS.
[00:55:02]
MY INITIAL CONCERN WAS FOR THE AGAIN, THE ETHICAL AND THE OPTICS OF WHAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND HOW IT'S TRANSITIONING TO A NON-PROFIT.SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE VOTED AND GAVE THEM $180,000 IN FY21.
AND THEN AT THE SALE OF THE BUILDING, THERE'LL BE AN ADDITIONAL $165,000 THAT WILL AGAIN, GO TO ROXIE INC.
AND THEN WE AGAIN, GAVE THEM A $1 LEASE TO THE BUILDING THAT WE JUST GAVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL 165 AND PAID CLOSING COSTS.
SO THE OPTICS OF THIS FROM THE OUTSIDE IN IS DAUNTING FOR ME PERSONALLY.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARTS NEED TO GET FUNDED AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE DON'T SUPPORT THE ARTS, THEY DON'T HAPPEN.
SO AGAIN, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I'M ACTUALLY FOR PURCHASING THE BUILDING.
MY CONCERN IS THE HISTORY OF THE DECISION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AND THE ADDITIONAL MONEY ON TOP OF THE MONEY THAT WE GAVE THEM AS $180,000.
AND ALSO, THE LEASE IS OKAY FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS BUT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED WHEN THEY OPEN INTO THE NEW BUILDING, THAT WE HAVE A MUCH MORE ACCOUNTABLE.
LIKE, WE ARE MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE AGGRESSIVELY FILLING THE BUILDING AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
IT'LL BE A NEW PROCESS AND NOT A GAME ON FROM BEFORE AND I DID NOT SEE THAT IN THE LEASE THAT WAS PROVIDED.
AGAIN, I DON'T EXPECT THAT DURING THE PANDEMIC AND WHILE THEY'RE CAMPING OUT DURING THE REBUILD, IT'S FOR THE FUTURE.
I DID SPEAK TO RYAN BOWIE AMONG OTHERS AND HE SAID THAT THERE IS A CONCERN FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IT WILL TAKE TO STORE AND MOVE AS A TRANSITION.
I STILL SAY IN TRANSPARENCY THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A VOTE THAT WE WOULD HAVE LIKE, WE VOTED TO DO 180,000.
IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH THEN, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, DOING TAXPAYER FUNDS THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF OUR CITY AND WE COULD HAVE VOTED NOT NECESSARILY TO SUPPORT THE NON-PROFIT BUT TO SUPPORT AN ENTITY OF OUR CITY.
SO THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT LINE HAD WE, IF WE WAITED AND NOT GRANTED.
WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED, SO, TO SUPPORT THE NON-PROFIT.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, AM I MISSING SOMETHING AS I READ AND REVIEW THINGS? WELL LET ME ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED, AND THEY'RE ALL GOOD QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU ALL FOR ASKING QUESTIONS.
THE $180,000 DOLLARS THAT THE CITY APPROPRIATED THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS WAS NOT DONE JUST AS A GIVEAWAY TO A NON-PROFIT.
WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WOULD NOT BE DOING THAT, AS A CITY, PRIOR TO ME ARRIVING, PERHAPS, IT WAS WHILE YOU WERE HERE, HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD YES.
IT WAS, THE INTENT WAS TO BRING THE ROXY IN AS A COMPONENT UNIT OF THE CITY, MUCH LIKE WE HAVE THE SENIOR CENTER, THE MUSEUM, AND TO TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
THIS IS A TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECT, NOT JUST A TRANSACTION TO BUY PROPERTY.
REGARDING THE NET PROCEEDS, IT'S LIKE, PURCHASING ANY PROPERTY.
WHETHER WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT, THE SELLER SO SOMETHING ELSE WITH THE PROCEEDS, WE REALLY DON'T, I MEAN, YOU COULD ASK THEM BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMMIT TO DOING ANYTHING.
WE FOLLOW THE PURCHASING POLICY OF THE CITY REGARDING, WE DID AN APPRAISAL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE PAYING FAIR MARKET VALUE BASED ON APPRAISED VALUE OF THE BUILDING.
FROM THE TIME WE ORIGINALLY APPRAISED IT BACK IN 2015, I BELIEVE, UNTIL IT WAS, THE APPRAISAL WAS UPDATED, THE PROPERTY APPRECIATED CONSIDERABLY, NEARLY $300,000 DOLLARS AS WE KNOW IN THIS MARKET, ANYBODY COULD TELL YOU, IN THIS MARKET, REAL ESTATE VALUES ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF, BE IT DOWNTOWN OR IN THE SUBURBS.
SO, I THINK THAT WAS, THAT DEALS WITH THE NET PROCEEDS.
REGARDING THE LEASE, WE NEGOTIATED A LEASE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THAT BY RESOLUTION.
[01:00:03]
WE WANTED TO GIVE THE ROXY TIME TO STABILIZE, EITHER IN THE NEW BUILDING OR DURING A TRANSITION PERIOD, THAT'S WHY THE DOLLAR A YEAR.BUT THEN, WE HAD THE CLAUSE IN THERE THAT AT THREE YEARS, THEY WOULD, WE WOULD BEGIN TO DO A PROFIT SHARE TO OFFSET THE EXPENSES.
WE BUDGET THE $180,000 ON A YEAR BY YEAR BASIS.
IT WAS NOT MY PLAN TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEXT FISCAL YEAR KNOWING IT WAS GOING TO BE A TRANSITION YEAR, PERHAPS, FOR THE ROXY.
SO THAT ISSUE GOES AWAY AND THE PURCHASE PRICE AGAIN WAS APPRAISED VALUE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE DID THIS IN A VERY METHODICAL, IT'S TAKEN FOREVER TO GET TO THIS POINT.
THIS STARTED, AS YOU KNOW, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, BACK IN 2011, AND WE'VE HAD STUDIES UPON STUDIES AND DID A SITE PLAN REVIEW AS TO WHERE THIS THING SHOULD GO AND IT'S LIKE WE TALK ABOUT IT BUT NOW IT'S TIME TO PULL THE TRIGGER AND MAKE THE DEAL WORK.
AND WE HAVE A WILLING PARTNER TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE A WORLD-CLASS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER FOR OUR DOWNTOWN BUT ALSO TO GIVE OUR...NON-PROFITS AND OTHERS A PLACE TO GO AND PERFORM AND BE AND HAVE RECEPTIONS, KEEPING AN EYE ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO GENERATE REVENUE IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THIS THING AND OPERATE IT.
SO THAT, SORT OF IN A NUTSHELL, WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND I GET IT, YOU ALL ARE, SOME OF YOU ARE CONCERNED OR HESITANT ABOUT IT, BUT THIS IS GONNA BE A STEP BY STEP APPROACH, PURCHASE THE PROPERTY IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS AND BEFORE WE ISSUE DEBT, THERE WILL BE A FINANCIAL PLAN LAID OUT FOR YOU, FOR YOU TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT.
SO, HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
YES, BUT AS ONE, AS ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS POINTED OUT AND JUST RESPECTFULLY SAYING THAT THE PAYEE IS THE SAME PERSON.
I MEAN, THE MONEY GOES TO THE SAME PEOPLE.
SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT, ROXY INC. IS GETTING THE $180,000 AND ROXY INC. IS GETTING THE $165,000.
SO, I GET IT, IT'S JUST, AGAIN, ETHICS AND OPTICS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED FOR, YOU KNOW, THE EQUITY AND SOME OF THE HISTORY THAT GOES ON WITH THE THEATER.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THEY HAVE ADDRESSED WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND THAT THEY'RE WORKING VERY HARD TO CHANGE IT IN THE FUTURE AND...THEY HAVE BEEN VERY FORTHCOMING AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY.
PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THIS BUT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TWO CHILDREN THAT ARE HISPANIC SO I TOTALLY RESPECT DIVERSITY.
SO I THINK THAT THEY DID TRY TO ATTEMPT AND ONCE THEY COME ON AND BECOME PART OF THE CITY THEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE EVEN MORE AFFECT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONCERNS OF OUR CITIZENS.
COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER, YOU RECOGNIZED.
I APPRECIATE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT AS WELL MAYOR.
I DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, ESPECIALLY FOR THE CITIZENS IN MY WARD, THAT, THAT I PUT OUT THERE WHAT I HAVE GATHERED.
SO, I VOTED AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT OF THIS AND I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN THAT IN THE LAST MONTH, I HAVE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE, I HAVE REACHED OUT TO MY BASE THROUGH NEWSLETTERS, THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, AND, I WILL SAY THAT, OF EVERY FIVE PEOPLE THAT TOLD ME, SORRY, FOR EVERY ONE PERSON THAT TOLD ME THAT THEY SUPPORT THIS, FIVE TOLD ME THAT THEY DID NOT AND THAT'S ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE WITHIN MY WARD.
I ALSO GOT THE FLURRY OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS OF...APSU, THE APSU THEATER DEPARTMENT AND THE BOARD MEMBERS, AND I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, I MADE ONE PROMISE WHEN I WAS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND THAT WAS THAT I WAS GONNA LISTEN.
I DID LISTEN, I DO CARE ABOUT THESE, THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE SAYING.
I AM A HUGE SUPPORTER OF THE ARTS AND I MYSELF CONSIDER MYSELF A THESPIAN.
MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC AND WE HAVE A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE STRUGGLING, AND, WHEN YOU SAY THE OPTICS, THE OPTICS OF MAKING A BAILOUT RIGHT NOW
[01:05:02]
JUST DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.I SPOKE TO A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND HE LIVES IN MY WARD, HE OWNS A SHOP ON TINY TOWN ROAD, AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IT DID FEEL PERSONAL TO HIM, IN THE REGARD.
I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS LOOKING LIKE A CHARITABLE EXPENSE.
AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT $810,000 FOR A HISTORIC BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN IS AN EXCELLENT INVESTMENT, I DO.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M IN A POSITION AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, I'M NOT A REALTOR AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN REAL ESTATE LIKE THAT.
SO, THAT'S MY BIGGEST ISSUE IS THAT I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN AND, I WILL PERSONALLY HELP IF WE FIND A WAY TO MAKE THE ROXY WORK.
I WILL GET DOWN AND HELP BUSINESS-WISE, I WILL MAKE FUNDRAISING PHONE CALLS.
I DO WANNA SEE THE ROXY SURVIVE.
I JUST ABSOLUTELY DO NOT THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT.
MY BIGGEST ISSUE IS THAT, I SAID THAT A LOT OF TIMES.
I GUESS I JUST HAVE A LOT OF BIG ISSUES.
I WAS ELECTED TO BE A STEWARD OF THE PEOPLE'S MONEY AND TO ME, THE RISK THAT WE RUN, THE RISK IN THIS PURCHASE AND IN THIS ENTIRE PROJECT, IT JUST DOESN'T OUTWEIGH IT FOR ME.
I HAVE TO LOOK TOWARDS THE PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT AND THE FACT THAT I'M A STEWARD OF THEIR MONEY.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
I'LL AGAIN SAY WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE MESSAGE WE ARE SENDING TO OTHER SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND I ALSO HAPPEN TO THINK THAT, PERHAPS IF WE WEREN'T SUBSIDIZING EVERYTHING, WE WOULD HAVE A HEALTHIER ARTS AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION OR WE WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, A BETTER HISTORICAL SOCIETY THAT COULD COME TOGETHER AND COULD DO THIS WITH THE COMMUNITY RATHER THAN WITH A GOVERNMENTAL ELEMENT.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER.
COUNCIL PERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO I TOO HAVE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE WITH MY CONSTITUENTS AND, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE PRESENTATION AT THE ROXY, AND, I APPRECIATE ALL THE DIVERSITY AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS PRESENTED.
IT WAS AN AMAZING PRESENTATION.
I'VE SPOKEN TO...MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS WHO, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, ACTUALLY WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN.
ON THE SAME NOTE, AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED BY COUNCILMAN BUTLER, I HAVE TO BE A GOOD STEWARD TO MY CONSTITUENTS.
WE WANT OVERSIGHT, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAINTAINING FULL TRANSPARENCY OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
WELL, THAT CAN HAPPEN ONCE WE PULL THIS IN.
SO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PERSON KNIGHT.
COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO, IF ANYONE KNOWS ME, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT I AM A DANCER.
I DID RUN MY OWN NON-PROFIT HERE IN CLARKSVILLE.
I AM VERY MUCH FOR OUR COMMUNITY HAVING A PERFORMANCE, A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, OKAY? I HAVE TWO BIG CONCERNS WITH THIS THOUGH.
THE FIRST ONE IS, HAS ANYBODY BEEN TO THE T-BACK? I HAVE.
IF WE WANT TO GROW CLARKSVILLE, WE CANNOT MAKE A BUILDING THAT IS GOING TO SUSTAIN US FOR FIVE MINUTES.
WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE A BUILDING THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE LANDLOCK LIKE THIS PROPERTY WILL BE IF WE BUILD WHERE THE ROXY IS CURRENTLY AT, OKAY? I LOOKED AT IT, I WENT DOWN THERE, I WALKED AROUND THERE AND I WAS JUST LIKE, I'VE DANCED IN PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS AND I CAN'T SEE IT.
I CAN SEE US BUILDING SOMETHING THERE, BUT WE HAVE TO REPLACE THE MONEY THAT WE ARE SPENDING ON THIS.
WE ARE LOOKING AT A PROJECTED $36 MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT WE SPEND, OKAY? SO, WE HAVE GOT TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON.
I BELIEVE IN BEING A GOOD STEWARD OF OUR MONEY AND AT THIS POINT, IN THIS AREA, I CAN'T SEE US BUILDING A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER RIGHT THERE.
THE SECOND MAJOR CONCERN THAT I HAD IS, BEING A PERSON THAT HAD A NON-PROFIT MYSELF,
[01:10:01]
IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE ROXY IS A NON-PROFIT, THE ROXY IS STRUGGLING, AND NOW LET'S EVERYBODY GET BEHIND THE ROXY AND, GET THIS DONE.WELL, MY NON-PROFIT FAILED, WE CLOSED CAME COVID, AND WE MOVED FORWARD.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUILDING IS ICONIC.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE ROXY, WE NEED TO PRESERVE IT IN THE WAY THAT IT IS BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER THEN THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN.
COUNCIL PERSON EVANS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YES, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT BEARS SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN PRESERVING ARTS AND CULTURES AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS INNOVATIVE OR NEW.
MANY CITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES HAVE INVESTED IN THEIR PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS AND, THE ROXY HAS COME A VERY LONG WAY SINCE RYAN BUOY HAS TAKEN OVER.
IN THINGS LIKE INCLUSION AND BUILDING UP THERE...
SCHOOL OF THE ARTS, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S CALLED.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A BAILOUT BUT RATHER AN INVESTMENT TO THE CITY AND, IT'LL BRING OTHER REVENUES TO THE COMMUNITY SUCH AS FOOD, DRINK, LODGING, ET CETERA THROUGH TAXES WITH PEOPLE COMING DOWNTOWN AND FROLICKING, SEEING SHOWS, AND PARTICIPATING IN THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.
BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DO AGREE WITH COUNCIL PERSON ALLEN'S STATEMENT AND HER CONCERNS REGARDING THE SIZE, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PERSON EVANS.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
LISTENING TO ALL OF WHAT HAS BEEN WAIT.
CAN I ASK YOU TO PULL YOUR MICROPHONE JUST A LITTLE CLOSER.
MAYOR: WELL I CAN HEAR YOU, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HEARS.
BUT ANYWAY, LISTENING TO WHAT ALL HAS BEEN SAID? CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME, CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? WE GOT YOU. OKAY.
I STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PURCHASING A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND CONFERENCE CENTER.
I KNOW THAT IT'S HISTORICAL, I KNOW THAT, AS WHAT MR. BOYD SAID THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THERE, THEY HAD OVER 7,000 PEOPLE, HE GAVE A GREAT LAYOUT ABOUT THE ROXY.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR LANES ON THIS PROPERTY AND I KNOW THAT MS. TURNER SAID, STACEY TURNER SAID THAT ONE OF THE LANES WAS FOR A MORTGAGE.
NOW, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE A MORTGAGE ON THE ROXY, OLD AS IT IS? WHY DO WE STILL HAVE THREE LEANS? SHE DID EXPLAIN TO ME WHEN SHE CALLED ME, THAT ONE WAS FOR EXPENSES WHERE, THE PREVIOUS, I GUESS, OWNER, PERSON THAT RAN IT, MADE SOME BAD DECISIONS, BUT SHE DIDN'T SAY HE BROKE ANY LAWS.
BUT I LET HER KNOW THAT HE BROKE LAWS IF HE DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND POLICIES OF THE ROXY'S BOARD.
SO, HE SPENT MONEY WITHOUT PERMISSION.
THAT'S BREAKING A RULE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANNA CALL IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I SEE.
ALSO, THESE LEANS LET US KNOW THAT THIS BUILDING RIGHT NOW IS NOT IN GOOD STANDING.
IT IS NOT CAUGHT UP, PAYING THEIR BILLS, IT'S LIKE THERE'S BEEN A MISMANAGEMENT OF MONEY AND IF WE BUY IT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE GONNA STILL LEAVE IT IN THE SAME HANDS OF THE SAME PEOPLE THAT'S RUNNING IT NOW.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT SOMEBODY STOLE ANYTHING, LET'S GET THAT CORRECT.
LET'S MAKE SURE I'M STRAIGHT ON THAT, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, IT SEEMS, IT APPEARS, LET ME SAY, THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME MISMANAGEMENT OF MONEY TO STILL HAVE FOUR LEANS ON THIS BUILDING.
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO GET THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THE DUNGEON.
I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO PURCHASE THIS BUILDING, IT NEEDS TO BE IN GOOD STANDINGS.
AND...WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN, AND THE MAYOR SAID HE DIDN'T WANNA DO ANYMORE ANYTHING
[01:15:04]
AS FAR AS TRYING TO GET THIS DONE, THAT DONE, HE KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS.IF HE DOESN'T WANNA DO ANYTHING ABOUT GETTING ANY MORE SITE PLANS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I NEED TO SEE A FLOOR PLAN, I NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS ROXY WILL SEAT.
IF THIS IS GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THE POPULATION OF CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE, AND THE LAST THING THAT MR. BOYD HAD TOLD US AT THE MEETING WAS, HE USED THE SAME PLAN WE SPOKE ABOUT IT FROM SOME YEARS AGO, WHEN THE FORMER MAYOR WAS HERE.
THAT IT WOULD SEAT 500 PEOPLE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH BUYING IF IT'S GOING TO SEAT 500 PEOPLE AND IT CANNOT BE ANY ADDITIONAL SEATING ADDED TO THE BUILDING.
I'M SORRY, BUT I CANNOT VOTE FOR THIS.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLAN IN PLACE.
I NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY OFFICE SPACES IS GONNA BE THERE.
HOW MANY CHURCHES CAN COME IN OR, OR BUSINESSES CAN COME IN AND DO A CONFERENCE? I NEED TO SEE A PLAN AND I DON'T LIKE TO GO INTO NOTHING BLINDED.
I NEED TO SEE SOMETHING, IN WRITING, BECAUSE, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT IN WRITING, PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
SO IF THERE'S NO PLAN, THERE'S NO VOTE FOR ME.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PERSON SMITH.
TO CATCH YOU UP, I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO LEANS ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER OUTSTANDING LOANS, OBLIGATIONS, BUT THEY ARE NOT LEANS.
SHE ALSO SPOKE AT THE ROXY, AND YOU WERE THERE, SHE SAID THERE WERE FOUR LEANS, BECAUSE I ASKED HOW MANY LEANS WAS ONE THE BUILDING, SHE SAID FOUR.
THEN SHE CALLED ME AGAIN YESTERDAY, AND I ASKED AGAIN, SHE SAID YEAH, THERE ARE FOUR LEANS ON THE BUILDING, AND THIS COME FROM AN ATTORNEY.
AS FAR AS PLANNING GOES, WE'VE HAD STUDIES, WE'VE HAD...OTHER THINGS DONE IN THE NAME OF A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AS A CITY-- MY INTEREST IS NOT IN DOING MORE STUDIES, MY INTEREST IS MOVING THIS TRANSACTION FORWARD.
BUT BEFORE WE CAN EVEN START DESIGNING IT, WE NEED TO CONTROL THE PROPERTY.
SO I CAN'T FORECAST HOW MANY SEATS IT SHOULD HAVE OR ANYTHING UNTIL WE KNOW WE CONTROL THE PROPERTY.
BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
RICHMOND: MAYOR I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL? LIKE I SAID, OH.
OH, I GOT YOU ON THE LIST, SIR.
RICHMOND: SORRY COUNCILOR PERSON SMITH.
OH, THAT'S OKAY, VONDELL, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T MEAN TO BUTT IN.
BUT LIKE I SAID, WE DO NEED A PLAN, WE NEED TO KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S NOT ONLY, HE SAID IT WON'T ONLY BE A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, IT WOULD BE A CONFERENCE, SOME CONFERENCES ROOMS IN THE BUILDING AS WELL.
THE STUDIES THAT THEY HAD, I MEAN THOSE WERE, AS HE SAID THEY WILL NOT BE USING THOSE STUDIES.
HE MADE IT KNOWN TO ME WHEN I ASKED.
AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND THAT.
WELL, I NEED TO SEE A NEW PLAN.
THERE IS NO NEW PLAN IN PLACE, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A SITE PLAN, I'M TALKING ABOUT FLOOR PLAN.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL BE SEATED? THAT WE CAN SEAT.
IF WE CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THE POPULATION, OF CLARKESVILLE, TENNESSEE.
WE CAN'T HAVE 1000 SEATS, IT'S NOT WORTH IT.
COUNCIL PERSON HOLLEMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A QUICK STATEMENT ABOUT THIS.
THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR WHAT, 10 YEARS NOW.
WE'VE DONE SITE PLAN, ALL KINDS OF STUDIES ON DOING THIS.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT WE PULL THE TRIGGER ON IT.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE IMPACT CENTER COMING UP.
DOWNTOWN HAS GOT A LOT GOING FOR IT.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE A PIECE OF CLARKESVILLE'S CULTURE.
WE'RE TRYING TO BOOST THE ARTS, THEATER, CLARKESVILLE'S CULTURE.
I THINK WE COULD SEE RETURN ON INVESTMENT ON IT ULTIMATELY.
JUST BECAUSE OF ALL THE TRAFFIC IT COULD BRING DOWNTOWN.
I THINK WE'VE WAITED ON THIS LONG ENOUGH AND I'M FOR THIS, I SUPPORT THE ROXY AND I'M FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.
HOLLEMAN, COUNCILPERSON LITTLE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S CONVERSATION ON THE MATTER.
MY ONLY THING ON IT IS, WHEN WE HAD HAD A LITTLE MEETING AND A PRESENTATION, COUPLE THINGS THAT STUCK OUT TO ME WERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LEASE AGREEMENT.
[01:20:02]
I DON'T AGREE WITH THE LEASE AGREEMENT OF $1.ONE THING THAT I ASK ABOUT THEM WAS HOW MUCH ARE YOU PAYING IN MORTGAGE.
AND THEN NOT ONLY THAT, I DON'T, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN THE PROCESS OF IT, YOU SAID THEY ARE SELF SUSTAINING ALREADY.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW US TAKING A LOT OF DEBT OFF THEIR HANDS, AND GIVING THEM A FREE RANGE OF THAT, THEN NOT ONLY THAT, BUILDING A RAND NEW BUILDING AND SAYING, YOU'LL CONTROL THIS ALSO FOR ONLY $1 A MONTH.
IF WE WERE TO REARRANGE ON THE LEASE, I'M FINE FOR PURCHASING THE BUILDING, IT'S A PART OF, I FEEL LIKE ROXY IS A PART OF CLARKESVILLE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHE'LL ALWAYS BE MEMORIALIZED AND TREASURED.
BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE PLACED INTO THE- I GUESS JUST THE LEASE IS BOTHERING ME AND THEN BUILDING THE NEW PERFORMING ARTS AND HAND THAT OVER TO THEM TOO.
AND I'M A MAN WHERE I LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST SOME SORT OF, I LIKE TO PUT MY EYES ON SOMETHING TO KNOW THAT I CAN AT LEAST FEEL A LITTLE MORE EASE, MY CONSTITUENCY CAN FEEL A LITTLE MORE EASE BECAUSE WE SEE SOMETHING BEFORE WE PULL THE TRIGGER.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON LITTLE.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SHARE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD.
I'M SURE SOME OF YOU HAD AS WELL.
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT SIZE OF THE BUILDING, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE THE IMPACT CENTER AND DO WE REALLY NEED TO COMPETE WITH THEM? WE NEED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT NICHE IN THIS BUILDING.
I WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT PLANNING THE BUILDING AND THE SIZE.
I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE RESPONSES IN OUR LONG EMAIL TRAIN WAS WE HAVE IN-HOUSE THE PROJECT MANAGER WHO WILL MANAGE THIS, AND WE WILL HAVE CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT OF WHAT ACTUAL PLAN IS CHOSEN AND WHY, IS THAT CORRECT, MAYOR.
IT WILL BE A CITY PROJECT SO YEAH, WE'LL HAVE ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF IT.
SO WE COULD SPEND MONEY TO SPEND MONEY, BUT IF WE WAIT TO SPEND MONEY, WE, WE HAVE TO, MY THOUGHT IS WE VOTE TO BUY THE BUILDING.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS ON THE TABLE AND CAN BE CHANGED.
EITHER WE BUY THE BUILDING OR WE DON'T.
THE LEASE AND WHAT'S BUILT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONTROL AFTER WE PURCHASE IT.
TO GO OUT NOW, THEN ACTUALLY, THE BOARD GETS TO DECIDE, I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THAT WE WAIT.
SO IF YOUR VOTE IS THAT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I THINK THAT ASKING THEM TO CREATE A PLAN AHEAD OF TIME IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF TAX DOLLARS.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE CAN CHANGE IT WHEN WE BUY IT.
WE DON'T WANT IT NOW, WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE OWN IT AND WE HAVE THE SAY.
AND I WAS CONCERNED BUT THEN IN-HOUSE WILL MANAGE THE PROJECT.
LOUIS DID TELL ME THAT THEY ARE SELF- SUSTAINING.
I DO FEEL PERSONALLY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN VERY COMING OUT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE PUT IN THE PLACE TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN AS FAR AS THE MONEY AND THE CONTROL OF THE MONEY AND THE DEBT.
THEY HAD TO BUY THE BUILDING BACK FROM THE OWNERS, BASICALLY.
SO THE DEBT MANAGEMENT THAT WE'RE TAKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY THE BOARD PURCHASING THE BUILDING.
AND THEY'VE ONLY DOING THIS FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS.
SO THE DEBT DOESN'T CONCERN ME, I STILL DON'T LIKE THE PROFIT, BUT WE'LL MOVE ON.
AND THEN AGAIN, CONTROL OF THE BUILDING, AND AS A COUNCILPERSON LITTLE SAID, I TOO AGREE WITH, NOT IN LOVE WITH THE LEASE, BUT RIGHT NOW, THE VOTE BEFORE US IS DO WE PURCHASE THE BUILDING OR NOT.
EVERYTHING ELSE, ONCE WE PURCHASE THE BUILDING, THEN WE HAVE CONTROL OF, THEN WE CAN MAKE CHANGES.
IS THAT NOT- MAYOR: THAT'S TRUE.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS.
COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND, YOU GOT TWO OTHER PEOPLE IN FRONT OF YOU, I'LL BE RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I DO WANT TO ADDRESS A FEW DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT THROUGH HERE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE WE TALK ABOUT THAT THERE IS SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD APPRECIATE A BAIL OUT.
[01:25:01]
AND I'M ALL FOR SUPPORTING OUR SMALL BUSINESSES, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT HOW MANY SMALL BUSINESSES IN OUR COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN SINCE MARCH? I MEAN, THERE HAS BEEN NO WHERE FOR THEM TO BE OPEN AND FACILITATING WITH THIS WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON WITH COVID, SO IT'S NOW REALLY LOOKING AT THIS AS A BAIL OUT.WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT'S GOING TO THEM.
THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY IS FOR.
IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR FOR US TO PAY LESS THAN THE PROPERTY IS WORTH.
THIS IS WHAT THE MAYOR DISCUSSED.
THE PROCESS WE FOLLOW, IT'S AN APPRAISED VALUE.
WE'RE NOT PAYING MORE, WE'RE NOT PAYING LESS.
WE'RE PAYING THEM FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY, THIS HAS BEEN IN THE PLAN FOR 10 YEARS.
SO IT'S NOT SUDDENLY THAT WE'RE GETTING BEHIND THE ROXY.
THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE AND ON THE BOOKS AND IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST TIME WE NEED TO GET BEHIND THIS AND GET THIS DONE FINALLY.
INSTEAD OF IT JUST CONTINUING TO SIT THERE ON THE BOOKS.
I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THEY HAD DEBT ON THE BUILDING A LONG TIME.
YOU KNOW, IN THE FINANCIAL WORLD, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT'S KIND OF PRETTY NORMAL WHEN IT COMES TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES, THEY ARE GOING TO BE CARRYING DEBT FOR A LONG AMOUNT OF TIME OR HAVE DEBT FOR GOOD.
NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T JUST GOING TO COME UP AND BUY A HUGE AMOUNT AND REDUCE THEIR CASH FLOW THAT WAY.
SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE MISMANAGING MONEY BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE DEBT ON THE BUILDING, IT'S THAT THEY'RE MANAGING THEIR MONEY WITH THE WAY THEY'RE DOING THINGS.
AND THEN ONE OTHER THING, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS AND I APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENT POINTS MADE, BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS COMPETITION WITH THE MULTI-PURPOSE EVENTS CENTER.
I DON'T BELIEVE MAYOR DURRETT, WITH THIS BEING A COUNTY PROJECT.
I DON'T BELIEVE HE DOES EITHER.
HE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE AS FAR AS HAD A RECORDED CONVERSATION, NOT CONVERSATION BUT RECORDING FOR THE MEETING THAT THE ROXY HELD FOR US.
AND HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
I LOOK AT THIS AS A COMPLEMENT TO THE MULTI-PURPOSE EVENTS CENTER.
THESE ARE THINGS TO WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME TO OUR DOWNTOWN AND THEY CAN HAVE A VARIETY OF OPTIONS TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED AT THE ROXY MEETING WAS THAT THEY HAVE A LARGE PORTION OF PEOPLE THAT COME IN FROM OUT OF TOWN.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT CAN COME IN AND LOOK AT IT.
IF WE HAVE THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, AND THE MULTI-PURPOSE EVENTS CENTER, THEY CAN COME IN, THEY CAN SPEND A WEEKEND HERE INSTEAD OF JUST COMING IN FOR ONE EVENT.
WE'VE GOT GREAT BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN THAT THEY CAN GO TO, WHICH AGAIN SUPPORT OUR SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUT OF TOWN DOLLARS COMING IN, WE'RE BRINGING TAX DOLLARS IN.
IT'S NOT JUST THE DOLLARS OF OUR COMMUNITY CITIZENS SPENDING MONEY.
ITS OUTSIDE DOLLARS COMING IN.
SO I AGREE WITH PREVIOUS SPEAKER THAT COMMENTED ON THE FACT THAT THIS INVESTMENT WOULD SEE A RETURN AND I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL AS WELL.
I ABSOLUTELY WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, AND THEN COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND YOU'RE UP AFTER COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
I HEARD ALL THE CONCERNS IN REFERENCE TO POSSIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT OR THE AMOUNT OF THE COST FOR THE $180,000 AND THE $810,000 WHOLE NINE SO I KNOW WE HAD THAT PRESENTATION LAST WEEK, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG MAYOR, BUT DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THE CONTRACT STATES OR RENEGOTIATION OF PROFIT SHARING FOR PROVIDING RETURN ON INVESTMENT? MAYOR: THE PROFIT SHARING WOULD KICK IN AFTER YEAR THREE.
WE WOULD THEN SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE TERMS OF THE DEAL EVERY FIVE YEARS.
OKAY, NOW COUNCIL PERSON RICHMOND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I TOO HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF EMAILS, A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM THE AUSTIN PEAY THEATER STAFF AND I THINK THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING.
THE FIRST THING, I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THE RECORD AT THAT MEETING THAT WE HAD AT THE ROXY, IT WAS STATED THAT I WAS HIRED BY THE ROXY.
I WAS NEVER CONTRACTED, I VOLUNTEERED MY TIME SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT PUBLICLY, FOR PUBLIC RECORD.
AND I TOO HAVE A CONCERN AROUND THE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
MAYOR, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
HOW WILL THE CITY EARN ITS FINANCIAL INVESTMENT BACK ON THIS TAXPAYER DEAL? THAT'S ONE PART OF MY QUESTION.
WAS THERE AN RFP PUT OUT? I THINK THAT'S THE TYPICAL PROCEDURE THAT WE HAVE, IN PLAIN SO MY QUESTION IS I DON'T SEE ANY RECORD OF THAT AS TO WHY THIS NEW HEART DEAL TO SOME PERCEPTION AGAIN, MANY SPEAKERS HAVE BROUGHT UP THAT PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING TO OUR TAXPAYERS.
BUT THIS SORT OF- HOW DID THIS BYPASS OUR TRADITIONAL RFP SUBMISSION PROCESS SO THAT OTHER NON PROFITS COULD PUT THEIR NAMES IN THE HAT TO ASK TO BE CONSIDERED
[01:30:03]
BY THE COUNCIL OF WHO WOULD MANAGE THIS PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.I UNDERSTAND WHY THE ROXY WAS CHOSEN BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THEY WERE A 38 YEAR, THEY HAVE A 38 YEAR TRACK RECORD IN MANAGING THEIR OWN PROPERTY, HOWEVER I FEEL THAT MOVING AN ORGANIZATION FROM ITS OWN INTEREST, TO THE INTEREST OF AN ENTIRE CITY, I THINK THAT'S A BIT MUCH TO EXPECT THEM TO JUST UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A 38 YEAR TRACK RECORD OF MAKING SURE THEIR OWN INTEREST IS COVERED.
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS HOW MANY OTHER NON-PROFITS HAS THE CITY STRUCTURED SUCH A DEAL WITH OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS AND JUST HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE PROFITABLE? I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE FORMER SPEAKERS, IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY WOULD DO A GREAT SERVICE TO THE CITY OF CLARKESVILLE AND ITS RESIDENTS TO BUILD AND OWN A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.
I AM JUST SO NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH SO MUCH RED TAPE AROUND WHO MANAGES IT.
I HAVE SOME PERSONAL ISSUES AROUND SOME NUMBERS AND DATA.
ROXY CAN'T SEEM TO PROVIDE ANY DATA.
I ONCE HEARD SOMEONE SAY PEOPLE MAKE THINGS UP, BUT NUMBERS DON'T LIE.
AND MY ONLY CONCERN IS BIG OF AN ADVOCATE OF THE ARTS THAT I AM, IS THAT I HAVE TO LOOK OUT, AND I'M STILL STRESSING MY 3 POINTS THAT I'M ALL FOR THE TAXPAYERS AND OUR INTEREST HERE AS A CITY.
WE'RE REPRESENTED TO BE EQUITABLE.
ALL SHAREHOLDERS HAVE A SHARED INTEREST AN INVESTED INTEREST THAT THERE BE SHARED PROSPERITY FOR ALL.
AND SO I WILL BE SHARING SOMETHING INFORMATION ON NEXT WEEK TO HAVE US CONSIDER THAT.
AND ALSO, I'M NOT IN NO WAY TRYING TO GET MR BUEY'S JOB I COULD CARE LESS TO BE HONEST WITH YOU ABOUT HIS JOB.
THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER DEAL THAN ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL'S JOB.
HE CAN WORK THERE AND MAKE A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
IT MAKES ME KNOW NEVER MINE AND KUDOS TO HIM IF HE CAN DO THAT.
SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME GUNNING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL OR THE ENTIRE BOARD, I'VE WROTE AND ELECTED IN TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CONSTITUENTS AND TAX PAYERS.
SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS ON IT, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SPEAKING ABOUT IT NEXT WEEK.
OKAY, THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND.
THE INFERENCE WAS THAT MR BUEY MADE A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, I HOPE.
RICHMOND: NO I'M JUST SAYING A MILLION DOESN'T GO INTO $400,000 EASILY.
REGARDING HOW ITS GOING TO PAY FOR ITSELF, UNTIL WE DESIGN A FACILITY THAT WE KNOW HOW MANY SPACES IT HAS, SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO PROJECT THAT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT VERY FEW THINGS THAT THE CITY WOULD BUILD INCLUDING ROADS WOULD HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT, A ROAD HAS AN INDIRECT AND IT'S A PROVEN STATEMENT THAT PRIVATE INVESTMENT FOLLOWS PUBLIC INVESTMENT.
YOU BUILD A ROAD, GUESS WHAT? COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ARE BUILT ALL OVER THE CITY.
YOU BUILD A SCHOOL, AS THE COUNTY IS DOING.
ROOFTOPS POP UP, THAT'S PRIVATE INVESTMENT.
SO THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION REGARDING HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT.
THAT'S IN THE NEXT STEP OF THE PLAN IS TO DESIGN IT AND THEN GENERATE REVENUE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT IT.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A FACILITY THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN USE, A MUCH LIKE WILMA RUDOLPH EVENTS CENTER, BUT ON A MUCH LESS COSTLY BASIS.
BECAUSE I HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WE'VE PRICED OURSELVES OUT OF THE MARKET FOR A LOT OF NON-PROFITS THAT USE THE WILMA RUDOLPH EVENTS CENTER.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT.
SO THIS PERFORMING ART CENTER WILL HAVE MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROUPS TO BE ABLE TO USE IT.
AND AS A CITY OWNED FACILITY, CITY CONTROLLED FACILITY, CONTRACTING WITH THE ROXY TO MANAGE IT AND LEASE SPACE THERE, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INFLUENCE THAT.
SO DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? RICHMOND: SOMEWHAT, AND THEN THE RFP, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
WE DON'T DO RFP'S FOR LEASE SPACE.
THE BANK, AS YOU KNOW OCCUPIES SPACE IN CITY HALL.
WE DIDN'T DO AN RFP ASK WHAT BANK WANTED TO LEASE SPACE IN THE CITY HALL BUILDING.
SO THERE IS NO RFP REQUIRED AND DONE AS A PART OF THIS.
ROXY HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF BEING ABLE TO MANAGE THEATERS.
AND SO WE WOULD NEED EXPERTISE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT IN CLARKESVILLE, THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR MORE THAT 35 YEARS.
COUNCILOR RICHMOND? RICHMOND: YES, THANK YOU MAYOR.
[01:35:02]
COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.I'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THIS NEXT THURSDAY, BUT I JUST HAVE TWO REAL QUICK QUESTIONS IF SOMEBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER, THEY COULD GIVE IT NOW OR EMAIL ME.
HOW MUCH DID THE ROXY APPRAISE FOR JUST CONSIDERING THE LAND ONLY? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT PART WOULD BE.
AND MAYBE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLICIZED, I PROBABLY SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT I WONDER HOW MUCH DID THEY SAY THAT THEY TOOK IN IN THE YEAR 2019 AND 2020, THEIR INCOME OVER THOSE TWO YEARS.
THE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO DO 990S AND THOSE HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS TO THE COUNCIL.
OKAY, IS THAT IT? REDD: AND THE LAND? OH, I'LL HAVE TO GET THAT FOR YOU.
IT MAY BE IN THE APPRAISAL, BUT I'LL GET THAT FOR YOU.
OKAY, COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YEAH, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A STATEMENT I MADE, REGARDING COMPETITION, COUNCILWOMAN.
I WAS REALLY REFERRING THAT WE WERE ALREADY BUILDING A LARGE SPACE AND THAT WE WERE, THAT THIS WOULD FULFILL ANOTHER NICHE AND THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO NECESSARILY LOOK TO BUILD ONE AS LARGE AS WHAT WE'RE ALREADY BUILDING IN THE COUNTY.
THAT THIS IS JUST KIND OF LIKE YOU HAD SAID, A COMPLIMENT, AND I DIDN'T SAY THIS ELOQUENTLY, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
MAYOR: THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
ALLEN: SO MAYOR, YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING THAT KIND OF MAYBE CONFUSED ME A LITTLE BIT.
SO YOU SAID THAT WITH THE RFP, WE DON'T- WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE RFP PROCESS BECAUSE WE'RE LEASING THE BUILDING, CORRECT? MAYOR: YES MA'AM.
SO IS IT TYPICAL FOR US TO DO THAT IN CITY OWNED BUILDINGS? IS IT TYPICAL FOR US TO, LIKE THE CUSTOM HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SAID THAT THEY'RE UNDERNEATH US, RIGHT? WAS THE CUSTOM HOUSE IS A PLACE OF ITS OWN AND THEN THE CITY JUST TOOK THEM UNDER THEIR WING AND GAVE THEM A RENT FOR A DOLLAR? THE CUSTOMS HOUSE MUSEUM PREDATES ME BY SEVERAL YEARS AS FAR AS SITTING IN THIS CHAIR.
I BELIEVE THE LEASE PAYMENT THEY MAKE TO US IS A DOLLAR A YEAR, YES.
WE ALSO FUND THEIR OPERATIONS, RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A VIBRANT MUSEUM, LOCAL MUSEUM AS YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.
SO MAYOR, LIKE I SAID, I'M REALLY NOT AGAINST US HAVING A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.
ACTUALLY. I REALLY DO WANT US TO HAVE ONE.
HOWEVER, I HAVE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS RFP PROCESS BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE I'M STUCK.
I AM STUCK AT IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, WHY HAVE WE ALREADY CHOSEN THE PEOPLE THAT'S GOING TO RUN IT? I DON'T GET IT.
I THINK THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO OTHER BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY, OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO PUT A BID OUT THERE TO BRING A COMPANY IN THAT CAN RUN OUR CENTER, THEN DO HAVE THE, I MEAN I UNDERSTAND THE ROXY HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR 38 YEARS BUT THEY HAVE BEEN BRINGING THEATER.
WITH A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, IT'S NOT JUST THEATER.
IT'S CONCERTS, IT'S ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAMMING COMING INTO ONE FACILITY.
AND IF THEY'RE HAVING A LEASE AND IF THEY'RE LEASING THE BUILDING AND IT'S THEIRS AT THE TIME, THE PRIORITY IS GOING TO BE THE THINGS THAT THIS ROXY WANTS TO BRING IN VERSUS THINGS FOR EVERYTHING TO BRING IN.
AND I KNOW WHAT THEY SAID IN INFORMATIONAL, BUT I JUST DON'T GET WHY WE CAN'T HAVE SOMEONE COME IN THAT'S NEUTRAL, THAT WE BID ON AND THEY CAME IN TO RUN THIS BUILDING FOR US.
WHY ARE WE DEAD SET ON MIXING BUSINESS TO MAKE IT, I MEAN, PEOPLE HAVE SPOKE ABOUT IT LOOKING LIKE IT'S WRONGDOING, IT'S LOOKING LIKE WE'RE BAILING THEM OUT.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THE CITY WANTS TO BUILD A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.
THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ATTACHED.
THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE ROXY.
IF WE NEED THAT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, IF WE WANT TO BUILD A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, WHY ARE WE ATTACHED TO THE COMPANY THAT CURRENTLY OWNS IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS TO COME AS A DEAL.
WE COULD BUILD THE BUILDING AND DECIDE TO DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH IT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY MAYOR.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANTED TO HELP TO ANSWER COUNCILMAN REDD'S QUESTION.
[01:40:01]
WE WERE SENT THE APPRAISAL REPORT HERE THIS MORNING AND IT'S 810,000 IS THE APPRAISED MARKET VALUE OF THE ROXY, THE LAND PURCHASE ANYWAY, THANK YOU.REDD: JUST THE LAND ONLY WITHOUT THE BUILDING? WE WILL CLARIFY THAT BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK IN CASE IT NEEDS TO BE.
OKAY, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE? RICHMOND: WELL, I DO AS WELL MAYOR, ONE MORE.
YES, COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
AND JUST IN AGREEMENT WITH ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS I AGREE A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND THEN MY OTHER CONCERN MAYOR, IS HOW WILL THE CITY ENSURE THAT THIS WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, THAT HISTORY WON'T REPEAT ITSELF? THAT'S REALLY ALL I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT THE CITY HAS A VESTED INTEREST AND I WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY DOESN'T INCUR ANY LAWSUITS MOVING FORWARD.
I MEAN, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF WE WERE OWNERS AND THE PREVIOUS SCENARIO HAPPENED I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK OR IF WE COULD FACE ANY LAWSUITS.
BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER IS THAT AGAIN, THE ROXY AS AN ENTITY ON IT'S OWN THEY CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, MR. BOONE SHARED WITH US LAST WEEK THAT THEY WERE ADVISED BY THE OUTSIDE AUDITOR TO ASK PEOPLE FOR THEIR DONATIONS BACK AND NOBODY PULLED FORWARD.
BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE APPEARED, THE APPEARANCE OF IT OR GOD FORBID IT DID HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
I WOULDN'T WANT THE CITY AND TAXPAYERS TO BE TIED UP IN COURT WITH THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION.
THANK YOU, I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC.
THAT'S MY FAULT, WHENEVER I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE APPRAISAL.
I KNOW THAT THE LAND AND THE BUILDING APPRAISED FOR 810, BUT OFTENTIMES THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WITH UNIMPROVED PROPERTY, JUST THE LAND ONLY PART.
AND I GUESS SINCE THE PLAN IS TO PURCHASE IT AND THEN TEAR IT DOWN.
THAT'S WHY JUST THE LAND VALUE.
AND BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUY IT FROM WERE GOING TO LEASE IT RIGHT BACK TO, THAT PERHAPS WE COULD NEGOTIATE A BETTER DEAL THAN THE 810.
THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO KNOW JUST THE LAND PART.
AND IF SOMEBODY COULD EMAIL ME HOW MUCH MONEY THEY TOOK IN 2019, 2020, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
I KNOW YOU SAID IT WAS SENT TO US, BUT THAT PART, I GUESS I'VE MISPLACED IT, SOMEWHERE IN MY IPAD. WE'LL GET THAT TO YOU.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
ARE WE BUYING IT TO TEAR IT DOWN BECAUSE THAT KIND OF CHANGES A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE'S THOUGHT PROCESS ON THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THIS? WE'RE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO SAVE THE FACADE WHICH IS ON THE HISTORIC REGISTER.
SO THERE'S SOME STEPS WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ONCE WE BEGAN LOOKING AT IT THAT THAT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, BUT WE CAN'T SPECULATE UNTIL WE GET INTO SOME DESIGN GEO-TECHNICAL WORK.
THE MARQUEE WILL BE PRESERVED, WHICH IS ICONIC TO THE BUILDING AND TO THAT CORNER OF FIRST AND FRANKLIN.
SO THERE WILL BE SOME DEMOLITION WE WILL REBUILD ON THE SITE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE VACANT LOT NEXT TO IT AS WELL AS IT'LL GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE ALLEY.
THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT I HAD HEARD IN THE LAST MONTH TOO.
THE FACADE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, DID THE CITY ALSO PAY FOR THAT? PAY FOR THE FACADE? YEAH, WHEN THEY UPDATED IT WITH THE MARQUEE AND SUCH NO, THE MARQUEE WAS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF A DELIVERY TRUCK, DOWNTOWN BACKING INTO IT.
THANKFULLY THE ROXY WAS INSURED.
NOT ONLY WAS THE ROXY INSURED BUT THE COMPANY THAT HIT IT WAS INSURED.
SO THEY HAD TO PAY TO RESTORE IT.
THAT'S WHY IT GOT RESTORED LIKE IT DID, BUT THE CITY DID NOT SPEND ANY MONEY THERE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE IT WAS EITHER A BOARD MEMBER OR AN AUSTIN P. THEATER, THEY EVEN MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION FLOATING AROUND ABOUT THIS.
SO A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT I'M ASKING ARE THINGS THAT PEOPLE COME ASK ME AND I'M LIKE, "AH, YOU KNOW," THANK YOU.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT IT DOES STATE THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE REAL ESTATE AND THE PROPERTY NAME BEING THE ROXY THEATER, ADDRESS 100 FRANKLIN STREET.
SO, IT IS MY BELIEF BASED OFF OF THIS PARTICULAR REPORT THAT IT'S THE LAND AND THE BUILDING ITSELF AS A WHOLE.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE? MAYOR, I HAD ONE OTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
[01:45:01]
THANK YOU, MAYOR.NOW, THE CITY CURRENTLY OWNS ONE OF THE PARCELS NEXT TO THE ROXY LOCATION, AT 100 FRANKLIN CURRENTLY, CORRECT? YES, SIR. THE VACANT LOT. OKAY.
RICHMOND: OKAY, AND WHETHER THIS DEAL MOVES FORWARD OR NOT, DO WE HAVE PLANS FOR THAT LOT? CURRENTLY IT'S BEING USED AS A PARKING LOT.
WE'RE LEASING SPACES TO DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND EMPLOYEES OF MERCHANTS.
SO WE OWN THE PARKING LOT AND THE LOT, IF I FOLLOWED YOU, WE OWN THE- COULD YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME MAYOR, I'M SORRY.
RICHMOND: IS IT THE PARCEL OR THE PARKING LOT, OR IS THE PARCEL THAT I'M MENTIONING IS A PARKING LOT? THE VACANT LOT IS WHAT I REFER TO AS THE MISSING TOOTH BETWEEN THE OLD RENDERS BUILDING AND THE ROXY, IS OWNED BY THE CITY CURRENTLY.
THAT IS, WE REFER TO IT AS THE ROXY LOT.
IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE ROXY, IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY.
WE LEASE SPACES TO BUSINESS OWNERS, RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES OF BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN.
AND SO THAT PIECE WOULD BE PART OF THIS PROPOSED SITE FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER WITH ALL OF THAT.
RICHMOND: OKAY, SO IT WOULD BE POTTAGE ADDED ON TO MAKE THIS, DO WE HAVE DIMENSIONS OR WE'RE NOT THAT FAR YET? HOW MANY SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALL OF THAT? WELL, WE HAVE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOTS WE OWN AND WE HAVE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE ROXY CURRENTLY OWNS.
WE DO NOT HAVE DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
AND WELL, I WANTED TO SAY, WILL IT BE THE SIZE OF THE TPAC? JUST TRYING TO- (CHUCKLES).
WELL, I WOULD RATHER NOT BE NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.
I'D RATHER BE CLARKSVILLE, MYSELF, SO.
RICHMOND: BUT I MEAN TERMS OF SCOPE OF BUILDING SIZE.
WELL, WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET UNTIL WE GET INTO THE PLANNING AND DESIGN WORK FOR THE BUILDING INCORPORATING THE ENTIRE LOT NEXT TO IT.
THE ROXY LOT AND GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE ALLEY.
RICHMOND: OKAY, THANK YOU MAYOR.
YEAH, I FIGURED THAT WAS A STRETCH WHEN YOU JUST SAID THAT.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THAT, THANK YOU.
ANYTHING ELSE COUNCIL PERSON RICHMOND? NO, SIR. OKAY, GREAT.
ALL RIGHT, BACK TO YOU CHAIRPERSON STREETMAN.
THAT WAS THE ONLY ITEM THAT WE HAD TO VOTE ON TONIGHT AND I'LL HAVE A FULL REPORT ON THE MEETING NEXT WEEK.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE GAS AND WATER COMMITTEE.
[5) HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE]
HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON SMITH.THE HOUSING COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT CALLED ME AND LET ME KNOW THAT THESE RESOLUTIONS WERE PUT ON THE AGENDA ACCIDENTALLY AND THEY ARE TO BE TAKEN OFF AND TO BE DISREGARDED AT THIS TIME FOR WE WILL BRING THEM UP AGAIN IN MARCH.
YEAH, WE'LL HAVE TO BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WILL THEY HAVE TO BE POSTPONED? WE'LL HAVE TO POSTPONE 'TIL NEXT WEEK.
I'VE GOT A LETTER FROM MS. KAY, MS. KATE. RIGHT.
WHO SAID THAT SHE WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO DISREGARD THEM.
I JUST THOUGHT, WELL, IT'S NOT AS EASY AS THAT, BUT- SAID THEY WERE OUT, I KNOW. IT WAS ACCIDENTALLY PLACED THERE. SAID THEY WERE ACCIDENTALLY POSTED ON THERE. YES.
AND I WILL HAVE A REPORT NEXT WEEK.
OKAY, THANK YOU CHAIRPERSON SMITH.
ALLEN: MR. NEWBORN? IS MR. NEWBORN HERE, BY ANY CHANCE? MR. NEWBORN, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? DENNIS, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? DENNIS: YES, I AM.
OKAY, WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
MR. NEWBORN, I KNOW THAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD, I MEAN, I GUESS THAT YOU GUYS MADE THE CALL TO SAY LET'S HOLD OFF ON THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE CARES ACT BUT YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT? IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY THAT IT CAN STAY ON THERE? WELL, TECHNICALLY, AT THIS MEETING, NO.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF STEPS THAT WE NEED TO DO COUNCILPERSON, BEFORE WE BRING IT TO COUNCIL.
AND SO TODAY IT WAS INADVERTENTLY PUT ON THE AGENDA BUT IT'S OUR HOPE THAT WE'LL BRING IT BACK IN MARCH AND HOPEFULLY BE IN A POSITION THAT YOU ALL WILL ACCEPT OUR RESOLUTION AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO WITH THAT GETTING THESE FUNDS OUT THE DOOR.
DENNIS: YES, MA'AM COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
MR. NEWBORN, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, HOW MUCH FUNDING DO WE HAVE REMAINING FROM THE ALLOCATION FOR THIS CARES ACT? DENNIS: FOR THE CARES ACT, THE ALLOCATION WAS A APPROXIMATELY $1.4 MILLION.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE'VE HAD EXPENSES ON THUS FAR
[01:50:01]
ARE A LITTLE BIT OF ADMINISTRATION AND SOME PLANNING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH A COUPLE OF ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE UNDERTAKEN.SO TRANSLATION, WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF MONEY STILL LEFT.
OKAY, AND SO THAT ROUND OF FUNDING THAT WAS THROUGH CDBG, THAT WAS TOTALLY SEPARATE.
AND THAT WAS JUST A REGULAR CDBG ALLEGATION THAT WE DO EVERY YEAR, CORRECT? SO ACTUALLY NO, SIR.
THE CARES ACT PROVIDED A SEPARATE, ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE ALLOCATIONS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
THE FIRST ONE WAS A LITTLE OVER $600,000 AND THAT CAME ABOUT I THINK, IN JULY.
AND THEN THERE WAS A SECOND ONE FOR ANOTHER $800,000.
SO THE TOTAL, APRIL'S 1.4 MILLION, APPROXIMATELY.
AND AS I SAID, A FEW MOMENTS AGO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND A LITTLE BIT OF PLANNING MONEY THAT MONEY REMAINS AVAILABLE AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED HOPEFULLY WHEN WE COME TO COUNCIL NEXT MONTH ASKING FOR THE PERMISSION TO AMEND OUR CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND TO SUBMIT THE HUD SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN SPENDING MONEY.
OKAY, AND SO THAT KIND OF GOES HAND IN HAND THEN WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN, I THINK DECEMBER OR NOVEMBER, I FORGET THE MONTH WHERE.
THE ACTIONS, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS TO APPLY FOR THE FUNDS.
AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THAT TOOK PLACE IN ACTUALLY LATE OCTOBER, EARLY NOVEMBER, CONCLUDED IN DECEMBER.
THE LAST COUNCIL GROUP ACTUALLY EVALUATED THOSE PROPOSALS.
OKAY, AND IF I REMEMBER ALSO CORRECTLY THERE WAS STILL A GOOD CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT LEFT OVER FROM WHAT THE EXISTING NON-PROFITS REQUESTED FOR THIS FUNDING.
WILL THERE BE A SECOND ROUND OR SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER NONPROFITS THAT MAY HAVE MISSED OUT ON THIS ROUND OF FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS? THAT'S GOTTA BE A CONTINGENT UPON WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CONGRESS.
THE LAST PART OF THE CARES ACT THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION CHANGED THERE, FUNDS WERE MADE AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING.
AND THOSE FUNDS WENT TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY TO MANAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE CITIES THAT HAVE POPULATIONS OF OVER $200,000, 200,000 PEOPLE, EXCUSE ME, THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO RECEIVE MONEY DIRECTLY FROM U.S. TREASURY.
FOR CITIES LIKE OURS AND FOR THE STATE VERSION OF THE PROGRAM, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE TO DEVELOP THEIR PROGRAM AND THEN WE WILL MOST LIKELY APPLY FOR THOSE FUNDS AS WELL.
OKAY, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. NEWBORN.
MAYOR: GOOD QUESTIONS. COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
I'M SORRY, COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, EXCUSE ME.
YES, AND PLEASE EXCUSE ME IF THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT QUESTION, BUT I WAS WONDERING, CAN IF WE WANTED TO, AT THE PARKS AND REC EVENTS WANTED TO DO SOME EXTRA, READING AND WRITING THROUGH THE SUMMER TO CATCH UP.
'CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEFICIT.
AND WITH THE RECENT PASSAGE OF THE STATE WHERE MANY OF OUR KIDS MIGHT GET LEFT BEHIND CAN THE CITY WITHIN THE PARKS AND REC ASK FOR SOME OF THIS MONEY OR NO? IS THAT TOTALLY SEPARATE? MAYOR: DENNIS, DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION? I DID, AND COUNCILPERSON, WERE YOU DIRECTING THAT TOWARDS ME OR TOWARDS PARKS AND RECREATION? TOWARDS YOU FOR PARKS AND RECREATION.
I MEAN, CAN THEY REQUEST IT BEFORE I EVEN LIKE FOLLOW MY LITTLE BRAIN CHILD DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE? SO YOUR IDEA IS ACTUALLY VERY FITTING AND FITS VERY MUCH WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
AND RATHER THAN TO A BELABOR THE DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO EXTEND AN INVITATION TO YOURSELF AND EVERYONE ELSE.
WE'RE BEGINNING TO KICK OFF THE 21/22 APPLICATION SEASON FOR THE CDBG PROGRAM.
AND THERE ARE TWO PUBLIC TRAININGS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE BUT THE FIRST ONE, BEGINNING THE FIFTH AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND ONE, THE FOLLOWING OR THE EIGHTH I THINK.
I WILL SEND AN EMAIL TO ALL OF YOU.
AND I'VE EXTENDED INVITATIONS FOR ALL OF YOU TO ATTEND TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT WE DO, HOW THE PROGRAM HAS EFFECTIVELY SERVED THE COMMUNITY AND TO GAIN INPUT FROM ALL OF YOU AS WELL FROM THE CITIZENRY ABOUT THINGS THAT WE COULD DO THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT INCLUDING THE IDEA THAT YOU JUST ESPOUSED.
THANK YOU, MR. NEWBURN. ABSOLUTELY.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE, THANK YOU.
ANYTHING ELSE, CHAIRPERSON SMITH?
[01:55:03]
NO, SIR, THANK YOU. WE GOOD, OKAY.I WANT TO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT.
CHAIRPERSON, RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I'LL HAVE A FULL REPORT FOR YOU NEXT THURSDAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU, PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
[7) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE]
THANK YOU, MAYOR.I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMEND THE CLARKSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON IT'S DILIGENCE TO APPREHEND THE SUSPECT FOR THE CRIMINAL HOMICIDE IN THE 2017 MURDER OF MARCELLUS FLYNN.
YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT LIFE IS A PRECIOUS COMMODITY AND IT CAN BE PAINFUL FOR THOSE LEFT BEHIND TO FIND CLOSURE WITH THE LOSS.
YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO THANK CPD ON THEIR PERSISTENCE AND I PRAY THAT THE FRIENDS AND FAMILY OF THE DECEASED ARE MAYBE ONE STEP CLOSER TO HAVING THE CLOSURE THAT THEY NEED IN THIS CASE.
I'LL HAVE A FULL REPORT NEXT THURSDAY, MAYOR.
WELL SAID CHAIRPERSON GARRETT.
THANK YOU FOR BRAGGING ON OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
OKAY, STREETS, GARAGE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, CHAIRPERSON SMITH.
THANK YOU, MAYOR, I'LL HAVE REPORT ON NEXT WEEK.
WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF NEW BUSINESS.
WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A COUPLE HOURS.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WANT TO TAKE ABOUT A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
SO WE WILL RECONVENE PRECISELY AT 6:40.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: 6:40? (LAUGHING) 6:40, WE'RE GONNA RING THE BELL AT 6:40.
THE LITTLE HAND IS NOT OR THE BIG HAND IS NOT QUITE ON THE EIGHT BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED BACK.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR NEW BUSINESS
[9)NEW BUSINESS]
WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE, ORDINANCE 62.AND I WILL CALL ON COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
I PUT THIS ORDINANCE ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT BECAUSE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THIS ORDINANCE CAME BEFORE OUR COUNCIL, BEFORE WE WERE UP HERE.
AND IT BASICALLY STATES THAT THE CITY HAD THE RIGHT TO REIMBURSE PEOPLE FOR THEIR ATTORNEY FEES.
WHEN THEY HAD ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM.
LIKE I'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES, I AM VERY ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
WE SHOULD HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THERE IS AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE CITY SHOULD HAVE TO REIMBURSE WITH THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS.
IMAGINE BEING A CONSTITUENT AND TRULY HAVING AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, YOU GO, YOU FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.
AND THEN, YOU FIND OUT THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL PERSON OR DEPARTMENT HEAD OR MAYOR COULD GET AN ATTORNEY BASICALLY AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE IF THE CITY COUNCIL SAID YES.
HOW WOULD THAT MAKE YOU FEEL AS A CONSTITUENT? IT SURE WOULD DETER ME, BEING A CITIZEN.
SO, I PUT IN THERE TO TAKE ALL THAT OUT AND TO PUT IN THERE, YEAH, YOU CAN HAVE AN ATTORNEY.
BUT IF THE CONSTITUENT CAN'T GET AN ATTORNEY, THEN NEITHER SHOULD THAT COUNCIL PERSON OR THAT MAYOR OR THAT DEPARTMENT HEAD.
SO, I WOULD ASK THAT MY FELLOW COUNCIL PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS FROM BEING A CONSTITUENT.
WE SHOULD HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR ETHICS.
AND IF WE DON'T, OUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE.
SO, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GUYS SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND TAKE ALL THAT STUFF OUT AND PUT BACK IN AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COMMENT? I DO HAVE A QUESTION, I GUESS IT WOULD BE FOR LANCER OR TO WHOMEVER AND AGAIN-- THAT WOULD BE MR. SOLOMON, SIR.
MR. SOLOMON, COUNSELOR REDD YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
IF YOU'RE IN AN ELECTED BODY AND THE ACTIONS THAT YOU TAKE HERE ON THE COUNCIL WHETHER IT BE A VOTE OR A STATEMENT DURING THE CALLED MEETING OR IN THE PRACTICE OF BEING THE ELECTED OFFICIAL.
DO WE HAVE COUNSEL AT THAT POINT THAT WOULD DEFEND US IF SOMEBODY TRIED TO NOT NECESSARILY AN ETHICS COMPLAINT BUT LET'S JUST SAY YOU SAID SOMETHING A STATEMENT DURING A COUNCIL MEETING THAT MIGHT NOT BE 100% CORRECT.
ARE WE COVERED UNDER THAT? SOLOMON: THAT'S A...
[02:00:01]
OKAY, I'LL TALK ABOUT THE ETHICS PROCEDURE FIRST.ANYBODY CAN BRING A COMPLAINT BY FILLING OUT AN AFFIDAVIT.
AND IN FACT, THERE HAS BEEN A COMPLAINT FILE THIS PAST YEAR ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID AT A COUNCIL MEETING.
AND SO, THAT COULD HAPPEN AND YOU'RE NOT...
AND IF IT'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AND YOU ARE THE PERSON ACCUSED OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT YOU HAVE IF YOU WANTED COUNSEL, THAT WOULD BE A TROUT EXPENSE.
AND NO, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NOT...
THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD NOT BE REPRESENTING YOU.
IF THAT WAS ALSO YOUR QUESTION.
BUT IS THERE A LAW THAT PROTECTS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL DURING HIS DUTY, DURING THAT MEETING FROM, LET'S SAY IF YOU HAD SOMEONE WHO HAD LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY AND WANTED TO USE ETHICS COMPLIANCE AS A SHARP STICK TO POKE AT COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MAY BE, DID NOT VOTE IN HIS WAY TO SETTLE A LAWSUIT, OR IF JUST WANTED TO BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE LAWSUIT OVER AND OVER.
I'M JUST SAYING, IS THERE SOMETHING IT, KNOWING THAT THAT PERSON OR THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL WILL NOW HAVE TO GO AND SEEK COUNSEL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE AND PERHAPS AND AS SOON AS THAT CASE IS OVER, HERE'S ANOTHER AND THEN THAT ONE IS OVER, WELL NOW HERE IS ANOTHER.
IS THERE SOMEWHERE IN THE LAW THAT PREVENTS? BECAUSE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, YOU WANT TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SPEAK YOUR MIND AND TO SPEAK IT OPENLY ON A LOTTA...
ON EVERYTHING THAT COMES UP BEFORE US.
AND THOSE THAT ARE IN DISAGREEMENT, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT CONTINUALLY HAVE LAWSUITS AGAINST US.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHERE IS THE PROTECTION.
SO, THERE IS A BODY OF LAW, GENERALLY THAT'S CALLED IMMUNITY.
AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT BE SUED FOR.
OKAY, OR YOU HAVE A DEFENSE TO A LAWSUIT.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THOUGH THAT IT DOESN'T PROTECT YOU FROM THE COSTS OF THE LAWSUIT OR THE COST IN THIS CASE OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.
AND SO, IF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT AND THE FIRST STAGE UNDER YOUR ETHICS PROCEDURE.
THE FIRST STAGE IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THE COMPLAINT AND SAY IF EVERYTHING IS TRUE HERE, THIS IS SOUNDBITE, IT CAN POSSIBLY BE A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE.
THE NEXT STEP, AND IF THAT ANSWER IS YES, OKAY? THE NEXT STEP IS BASICALLY A HEARING.
AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH PROTECTION, YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF OBVIOUSLY OR YOU CAN GET AN ATTORNEY.
WELL, NOW I UNDERSTAND OKAY. THE STEPS YOU'RE GOING TO IF THEY WOULD VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE COUNCIL WHICH WOULD ALSO POSE IN MY MIND A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM BECAUSE WHAT IF THE COUNCIL, WHAT IF YOU HAD EIGHT OR NINE MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL THAT DIDN'T LIKE YOU? SOLOMON: RIGHT.
AND WHETHER IT WAS A SUBSTANCES OR NOT OF THIS ETHICS COMPLAINT? WELL, THEY WOULD VOTE AGAINST YOU.
BUT WHAT I'M ASKING IS I'M SORRY.
DURING OUR MEETING THAT WE HAVE LIKE THE REGULAR CALLED MEETINGS, WHEN WE DEBATE BACK AND FORTH, WE ARE COVERED OR WE HAVE IMMUNITY DURING THE TIME THAT THE MEETING IS CALLED UNTIL THE TIME THE GALORE GOES DOWN AND WE HAVE ADJOURNED, IS THAT CORRECT? GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU ARE PROTECTED AS LONG AS IT'S DURING THE COURSE WITHIN THE DEBATE OR THE MEETING.
BUT SEE, THAT BRINGS UP THE NEXT PART BUT WE ARE NOT IMMUNE OR HAVING ANY TYPE OF IMMUNITY OUTSIDE OF THAT, ON THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
AND I'M JUST SAYING, CAN THE ETHICS COMPLAINT BE EXTENDED INTO SOMETHING THAT YOU DO OR SAY DURING A CALLED MEETING? SOLOMON: IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
I SHOULD'VE JUST SAID THAT UP FRONT.
AND THE WAY THE PROCEDURE LITERALLY MEANS AND THIS IS WHY YOU NEED LAWYERS TO TRY TO INTERPRET IT, BUT LITERALLY SAYS, IF THAT ON THE FACE OF WHAT YOU SAID, COULD IT POSSIBLY BE AN ETHICS VIOLATION? IF THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, YES, IT GOES TO THE NEXT STAGE.
NOW, WHAT IF THERE IS A DEFENSE LIKE IMMUNITY, THE ETHICS PROCEDURE IS SILENT ON THAT.
[02:05:02]
AND SO, WITH THE COMMISSION I THINK, I WOULD ADVISE THE COMMISSION, MAYBE BEFORE YOU GET INTO AN HEARING ON THIS, YOU MIGHT WANNA ALLOW THE EMPLOYEE OR THE COUNCIL PERSON TO RAISE A DEFENSIVE IMMUNITY.SO, THAT COULD HAPPEN BUT IT'S NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR UNDER THE ETHICS PROCEDURE AS IT'S OUTLINED IN YOUR ORDINANCES.
DOES THAT MAKES SENSE? YES, I JUST WANTED...
I'M SO SORRY THAT I'VE BEING AGAINST YOU.
THAT'S FINE, AND I UNDERSTAND ONCE YOU'RE DOING YOUR OTHER TAKEN PHONE CALLS FROM CONSTITUENTS OR DOING SOMETHING ELSE OR YOU MAY ENGAGE IN BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT TWEETING.
THAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO OR DIDN'T DISCLOSE IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE HAVE THOSE THAT WANT TO PRESENT LITIGATION AS MUCH AS THEY CAN KNOWING PROBABLY THAT WE DO HAVE SOME IMMUNITY, BUT IT'S NOT EXTENDED.
AND LIKE I SAID, THEY WANNA USE THIS AS A SHARP STICK PERHAPS TO GET AT A COUNCIL PERSON THAT THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE OR MAYBE YOU RAN AND GET SOMEBODY.
AND LO AND BEHOLD, THEY TURN AROUND JUST BRING AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.
AND OF COURSE, I TOO, I'M NOT REALLY FOR THE CITY HAVING TO PAY FOR THE ATTORNEY THAT YOU BRING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE NOT GUILTY OR YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE NOT GUILTY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I FEEL LIKE WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO SPEAK OUR MIND AND SPEAK FREELY, ESPECIALLY DURING DEBATE, WITHOUT BEING AT HOME AND BEING SERVED BECAUSE IT WAS SOME VOTE THAT YOU MADE OR SOMETHING YOU SAID AT A COUNCIL MEETING, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER YOU'RE RECOGNIZED? I WANTED TO SPEAK...
THANK YOU TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER BECAUSE YOU MAKE A LOT OF GOOD POINTS.
BUT I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS GETTING PASSED TO BEGIN WITH, THIS CAUSED QUITE THE STIR AND WE PAID A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THIS ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDST OF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE WANTED TO TALK TO US ABOUT.
I WILL SAY IN REGARD TO COUNCILMAN REDD, I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY EXACTLY WHY OUR ENTIRE ETHICS POLICY WAS PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE THINGS LIKE THAT WERE HAPPENING.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE BEING THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE USED AS THE PURPOSE FOR IT.
WELL, WE'RE GONNA PROTECT THEM.
THAT WAS A LOT OF THE ARGUMENT.
SO, I'M GLAD THAT THIS IS ON HERE BECAUSE IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY BEING THE THEM THAT WE'RE GONNA COME ON TO ON TO ALSO HAVE OUR INPUT ON IT AND VOTE OUR CONSCIENCE.
SO, I UNDERSTAND THE RISK OF SITTING UP HERE AND (LAUGHING) HAVING BEEN NOW FOR ONE MONTH IN THE EMAIL THREADS AND HAVING MY GOVERNMENT EMAIL AND UNDERSTANDING WHERE SOME OF THIS COMES FROM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SITTING UP HERE IS A RISK AND I DON'T WANNA DO SOMETHING THAT DISCOURAGES THE PUBLIC FROM HOLDING ME ACCOUNTABLE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY REAL GOOD WAY FOR US TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT THIS WILL NOT GET MUDDIED.
AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VIOLATION AND THEN GO INTO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN GOING TO A HEARING AND THEN COMING BACK HERE.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF FAITH IN THAT PROCESS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS...
NOW BEING INVOLVED IN THIS ESPECIALLY THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT ON BY A REALLY DIRTY SITUATION.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE ONE SITUATION MEANS THAT THIS WAS BROKEN.
AND I THINK IF IT'S NOT BROKEN, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE FIXED.
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS THAT THIS REALLY DOES DISCOURAGE, IN MY OPINION THE PUBLIC FROM BRINGING FORWARD ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
SO, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND I WOULD ASK THE REST OF YOU TO SUPPORT IT AS WELL, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PERSON BUTLER, COUNCIL PERSON EVANS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YES, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF REFLECT BACK TO WHEN THIS WAS VOTED ON.
I RECALL SOME STATEMENTS STATING THAT THIS WAS TO PROTECT FUTURE FUTURE COUNCIL PEOPLE FROM MAYBE COSTS THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD.
AND I WANNA STATE THAT I COME FROM A PLACE WHERE I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD
[02:10:03]
LAWYERS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.HOWEVER, I DO WANNA SAY THAT I'M ALSO FOR THIS ORDINANCE THAT COUNSEL PERSON WANDA ALLEN BROUGHT UP BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE ELECTED TO BE UP HERE AND SERVE HONESTLY AND TRANSPARENCY, SORRY, HONESTLY, AND TRANSPARENTLY.
AND THAT BURDEN SHOULD NOT BE PLACED ON THE TAXPAYER PERIOD.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON, EVANS, COUNCILPERSON LITTLE YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE MORE FOR THE ATTORNEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND I FEEL THE SAME WAY AS FAR AS ETHICS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY MIGHT BRING SOME GIFTS YOU KNOW.
AS FAR AS THE PROCESS, IS IT LIKE A TYPICAL COURT GO TO COURT OR IS IT SOME KINDA OTHER PROCESS OF THE ETHICS BEING BROUGHT UP? I GUESS IT GETS TO THE POINT OF, IF LET'S SAY, IF SOMEBODY DOES DO IT AGAINST YOU I KNOW IN THE COURT PROCESS, YOU CAN...
AND IT'S NOT, IT'S UNFOUNDED YOU CAN ASK FOR ATTORNEY FEES RETURNED FROM WHOEVER FILED AGAINST YOU? SOLOMON: SOMETIMES, CORRECT.
SOLOMON: YEAH, SOMETIMES YOU CAN.
IS THAT THE ONLY QUESTION? THAT WAS JUST MAINLY, SOLOMON: OKAY, GREAT.
SO THAT WAY, I GUESS THAT WAS MY THING IS LIKE, WELL IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ETHICALLY WRONG AND SOMEBODY BRINGS IT AGAINST YOU TO TRY TO PROMPT YOU WITH A STICK, THAT IS AN OPTION THAT THEY NEED TO, WHOEVER FILED IT AGAINST YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S TRUE AND BASED.
THAT WAY YOU CAN RETURN GET REIMBURSEMENT FOR-- I'M SORRY, YEAH IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR THAT SO.
OH THERE ISN'T? NO, NO, NO, NO.
SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON LITTLE.
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FROM HIM.
YEAH, MR SOLOMON YOU MIGHT AS WELL CAMP OUT UP HERE A MINUTE.
YOU HAD MENTIONED THE DEFENSE OF IMMUNITY IF IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN INTO OUR CHARTER OR COULD YOU EXPLAIN.
THE LAW ON GENERAL PROTECTS YOU.
OKAY? I DON'T KNOW, I SHOULD KNOW THIS BETTER.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE ARE PARTICULAR STATUTES ORDINANCES.
NOW, IN A LAWSUIT SITUATION AND I SHOULD KNOW CLARKSVILLE SITUATION BETTER BUT I DON'T.
GENERALLY YOU CAN BE INDEMNIFIED IN A LAWSUIT SITUATION.
OKAY? AND A LAWSUIT SITUATION WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT, THEY CAN BOTH, IF YOU ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THE CITY CAN CHOOSE TO INDEMNIFY YOU.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY COULD CHOOSE TO PAY FOR YOUR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND PAY FOR A JUDGMENT THAT MAY HAPPEN OR THEY MAY ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT, OKAY? OH, THAT PUTS IT BACK YEAH.
TO US DECIDING IF WE'RE GOING TO.
THE ETHICS CONTEXT, THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND THE ETHICS ORDINANCE IS MUCH DIFFERENT.
THAT THAT DOES NOT COVER THAT KIND OF SITUATION.
SO, IT IS THE ETHICS CODE ITSELF.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK TO DETERMINE WHAT THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES ARE, OKAY? AND THERE'S NO..
WHAT WAS ADDED LAST YEAR WAS AN ATTEMPT TO OFFER SOME KIND OF INDEMNIFICATION.
COUNCILPERSON PERSON REYNOLDS IS THAT TAKE CARE OF IT? YES.
COUNCIL PERSON KNIGHT YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
WELL, YOU SORT OF KINDA ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT I HAD BUT I'LL ASK IT ANYWAY.
SO, FOR THOSE THAT SERVED IN THE MILITARY UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU CONDUCT, WHAT I WOULD CALL AN INACTION THAT REQUIRES THE LAW TO GET INVOLVED, IT'S ON POST, WHERE THAT HAPPENS.
IF YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILITARY GUIDANCE AND POLICIES AND ALL THAT STUFF.
AND THEN, AS AN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICEMAN IF YOU CONDUCT AN INACTION OFF-POST THEN IT'S THE OFF-POST LEGAL SYSTEM THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT SITUATION.
SO, I WAS GONNA ASK, IN OUR CAPACITY AS COUNCILMEN WHO THEN WOULD BE PAYING FOR OUR LEGAL FEES, IF WE CONDUCT AN INACTION AS A COUNCILMAN AND WE'RE SEEN AS SUCH? OKAY, SO IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ETHICS, IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS, IT'S COMPLETELY ON YOU.
IF THE AMENDMENT DIDN'T PASS, THERE'S A PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY AND YOU ULTIMATELY PREVAIL THAT THE COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO REIMBURSE YOU.
NOW, IN THE LAWSUIT CONTEXT, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THE MAYOR WOULD WANTS TO JUMP IN HERE, I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW THIS.
MR. SOLOMON, WE'LL CONFINE YOUR REMARKS TO THE ETHICS.
WE WILL ASK MR.GIBSON TO SOLOMON: GREAT.
[02:15:01]
COME FORWARD.SO, I CAN ADDRESS THE COUNCIL-- OR MR...
SO, THERE IS A SPECIFIC STATE STATUTE THAT GOVERNS THE PAYMENT OF BOTH JUDGEMENTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES.
AND I CAN EMAIL YOU WHAT THAT SPECIFIC STATUTE IS.
THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY, A GOVERNING BODY OF A CITY, CAN MAKE A DECISION.
YOU CAN DO IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, OR YOU CAN JUST ESTABLISH A POLICY THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO INDEMNIFY OUR EMPLOYEES WHEN THERE'S A LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM AND A JUDGMENT.
AND IN ADDITION YOU CAN ALSO AGREE TO PAY THEIR, ANY ATTORNEY FEES THAT MIGHT BE ASSESSED AND PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT JUDGMENT.
ATTORNEY FEES FOR THE OTHER SIDE.
AND YOU COULD ALSO PAY THEIR OWN ATTORNEY'S FEES TO DEFEND THEM.
AND THE POLICY BEHIND THIS STATE STATUTE PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT YOUR EMPLOYEES FROM, YOU KNOW, THE FRONTLINE RANKS ALL THE WAY UP, FRANKLY, TO YOU ALL.
THE STATUTE APPLIES TO YOU ALL AS WELL.
WE DON'T WANT, THIS IS WHAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S POLICY WAS, WE DON'T WANT ALL OF OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS, SPUR OF THE MOMENT SOMETIMES, WITH SOME OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS, LIFE AND DEATH DECISIONS, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO SIT THERE AND BE HESITATING AND WONDERING, "WELL, IF I DO THIS AM I GOING TO GET SUED?" AND HOW'S THAT GOING TO PLAY OUT AND AND BEING WORRIED ABOUT LAWSUITS.
WE WANT THEM TO FEEL FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR BEST INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.
AND IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE, AS DETERMINED LATER IN HINDSIGHT, BY A COURT, WE'RE GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU MADE A MISTAKE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO PAY THE JUDGMENT.
THAT'S WHAT INDEMNIFICATION MEANS.
AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY YOUR LAWYER TO DEFEND YOU.
IT'S CALLED THE DUTY TO DEFEND.
AND IF AND THERE'S A STATUTE THAT ALLOWS THE OTHER SIDE TO GET THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES, WE'RE GOING TO PAY THOSE AS WELL.
IN MOST LAWSUITS, THERE IS NO PROVISION TO PAY THE OTHER SIDE'S ATTORNEY'S FEES.
WE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOW WHAT'S CALLED THE AMERICAN RULES.
IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN BRITAIN, CALLED THE BRITISH RULE.
THE AMERICAN RULE IS EACH SIDE ALWAYS HAS TO PAY THEIR OWN ATTORNEY'S FEES, EXCEPT IN TWO CIRCUMSTANCES.
ONE IS WHERE THERE'S A STATUTE THAT PROVIDES THAT THE WINNER GETS THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES.
THAT WOULD BE THINGS LIKE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW, CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, AND THERE'S SOME OTHERS.
THE OTHER SITUATION WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PAY THE OTHER SIDE'S ATTORNEY'S FEES IF YOU LOSE A LAWSUIT IS IN A CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE WHERE THERE'S AN ATTORNEY FEE CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT THAT SAYS, "OH, IF WE GET INTO A DISPUTE AND THERE'S A LAWSUIT AND YOU LOSE, YOU GOT TO PAY THE OTHER SIDE'S ATTORNEY'S FEES." ALL OF THAT, AGAIN, THE STATE STATUTE SAYS, "IT'S UP TO YOU ALL." TRADITIONALLY, BY CUSTOM AND PRACTICE, THE CITY HAS ALWAYS, ALWAYS INDEMNIFY, AGREED TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND PAY ANY JUDGMENT FOR ITS EMPLOYEES.
FOR THE REASONS THAT WE DON'T WANT THEM BEING WORRIED ABOUT LAWSUITS, WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE DOING THEIR JOBS.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT UNDER THE LAW.
AS I SAID, IT'S ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, OR YOU CAN JUST ESTABLISH A POLICY.
THE LAST THING ABOUT IT IS YOU MAY SAY, "WELL THAT ALL SOUNDS GOOD, BUT WHAT ABOUT, IS THERE EVER A SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT DECIDE, IN A CASE BY CASE BASIS, WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT?" AND CERTAINLY THERE IS.
THE EXAMPLE THAT I'VE ALWAYS CITED TO PEOPLE, YOU MAY REMEMBER, SOME OF YOU MAY BE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER IT, BUT SOME OF Y'ALL MAY REMEMBER YEARS AGO, I THINK IT WAS IN THE EIGHTIES OR NINETIES, WHEN THERE WERE SOME POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARRESTED A GUY NAMED ABNER LOUIMA UP IN NEW YORK CITY.
AND THEY TORTURED HIM AFTER THE ARREST.
THOSE POLICE OFFICERS WERE ACTING CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE AND COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES AS POLICE OFFICERS.
THEY WENT BEYOND THE PALE OF WHAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY A GOVERNMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WENT WAY BEYOND JUST A NEGLIGENT MISTAKE.
IF WE EVER HAVE AN EMPLOYEE THAT GOES WAY BEYOND JUST MERELY MAKING A MISTAKE,
[02:20:02]
IT WOULD BE MY ADVICE, BUT IT'D BE YOUR DECISION, BUT IT WOULD BE MY ADVICE, THAT IN THAT TYPE OF SITUATION, YOU DON'T AGREE TO PAY THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND YOU DON'T AGREE TO PAY A JUDGMENT THAT MAY BE RENDERED AGAINST THEM, BUT THAT'S THE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE.ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN WHERE OUR EMPLOYEE MAYBE MESSED UP, THEY WERE NEGLIGENT, THEY MADE A MISTAKE.
IT WOULD BE MY ADVICE TO YOU THAT YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND PAY THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES SO THAT THEY'RE NOT FEELING WORRIED ABOUT LAWSUITS EVERY TIME THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS OUT THERE ON YOUR BEHALF AND THE CITIZEN'S BEHALF.
WITH REGARD TO THE ETHICS STUFF, MR. SOLOMON WILL HAVE TO GIVE YOU ADVICE ON THE ATTORNEY FEE ISSUES ON THAT AND HE HAS-- KNIGHT: I JUST HAVE ONE MORE SO, SO WE CAN CHOOSE, PICK AND CHOOSE, WHEN WE INDEMNIFY, AND IF WE REMOVE OR MAKE THE AMENDMENT HERE THEN WE REMOVE THAT INDEMNIFICATION PROCESS.
IF YOU PASS HER AMENDMENT, IN HER AMENDMENT, ONLY DEALS WITH THE ETHICS OF SITUATION.
AND SO IN THE ETHICS SITUATION, YOU CAN EITHER AGREE TO PAY SOMEBODY'S ATTORNEY'S FEES, AS IT'S WORDED NOW, IF THEY'RE FOUND TO BE, THE CHARGES ARE FOUND TO BE UNMERITED, OR YOU CAN PASS WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ALLEN SAID, AND WHAT THE OLD VERSION OF THE ETHICS CODE SAID, WHICH IS, "WE'RE NOT PAYING ATTORNEY'S FEES, PERIOD." WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHAT I'M TALKING-- MAYOR: HE'S TALKING ABOUT, HE'S GETTING TO THE INDEMNIFICATION REGARDING EVERYTHING ETHICS.
BAKER: WITH REGARD TO THE OUTSIDE THE ETHICS CONTEXT, YOU SAID, WELL, SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, IN A LAWSUIT CONTEXT, WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, "WE CAN DECIDE ON CASE BY CASE BASIS, OR WE CAN ESTABLISH A POLICY THAT WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO DO IT. WHATEVER." WHEN YOU ASK, THOUGH, "CAN WE DO IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS?" AND THE ANSWER IS, YES, YOU CAN, BUT I WANT TO WARN YOU ABOUT SOMETHING.
IF YOU START DOWN THE PATH WHERE YOU, FOR SOME EMPLOYEES YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY THEM, YOU AGREE TO PAY THEIR LAWYER, AND THEN FOR OTHERS, YOU DON'T, AND THERE'S REALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT OF DISTINCTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, MAYBE THEY WORK IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, BUT REALLY IN BOTH CASES THEY MADE A MISTAKE, AND YOU START PICKING AND CHOOSING WHO YOU'RE GOING TO TREAT ONE WAY, AND WHO YOU'RE GOING TO TREAT ANOTHER WAY.
THEN YOU OPEN YOURSELF UP TO AN EQUAL PROTECTION LAWSUIT.
KNIGHT: I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
IF WE OPEN OURSELVES UP TO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWSUIT, WHICH, OBVIOUSLY, IF WE DO PASS THIS AMENDMENT, THAT PUTS US IN THAT POSITION WHERE WE'VE CAN GET INTO ANOTHER LAWSUIT BY ITSELF.
IS, AM I, AM I MISTAKEN? MAYOR: MR. BAKER, LET ME, LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK ON THE, ON THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED, MR. SOLOMON, IF YOU WOULD.
COUNSEL PERSON KNIGHT, DID YOU HAVE A-- KNIGHT: YES.
YOU WANT TO ASK MS. SOLOMON-- KNIGHT: GOING BACK TO THAT SAME STATEMENT.
SO IF WE PASS THIS AMENDMENT, DO WE OPEN UP UP OURSELVES TO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWSUIT, OR IS THAT EVEN PLAUSIBLE? SOLOMON: IF YOU PASS THE AMENDMENT, THEN BASICALLY THE, THE ORDINANCE WILL READ THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY THEIR OWN ATTORNEY'S FEES.
SO THAT'S, IT IS WHAT IT IS, AND THAT'S FAIR FOR EVERYBODY, I GUESS.
YEAH. OKAY. IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T PASS THE AMENDMENT, YOU DO, YOU POSSIBLE, YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR JUDGMENT, IN SOME, IN GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IF YOU, IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT REIMBURSE SOMEBODY VERSUS SOMEBODY ELSE, I THINK YOU'LL BE PROTECTED.
I THINK YOU'RE PROTECTED FROM A LAWSUIT, IN THAT SITUATION, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS, AND THAT'S THE WAY THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY READS IS THAT YOU'LL LOOK AT EVERYTHING AFTER THE FACT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD REIMBURSE SOMEBODY FOR THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES.
KNIGHT: BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING IS.
IF I CHOOSE TO SAY WHO I'M APPROVING FOR PAYING ATTORNEY'S FEES VERSUS ANOTHER PERSON WHO I'M NOT PAYING ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR, DOES THAT OPEN OUR OURSELVES UP TO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LAWSUIT? SOLOMON: IT COULD. IT COULD, BUT THE-- KNIGHT: THE POSSIBILITY IS THERE.
THE POSSIBILITY IS THERE, SO, BUT, BUT AGAIN, IF, IF, IF YOU'VE GOT IF YOU HAVE GOOD REASONS WHY YOU CHOOSE TO REIMBURSE SOMEBODY AND NOT SOMEBODY ELSE KNIGHT: SO IT'S JUST ONE POSSIBLE ISSUE COMPOUNDED UPON ANOTHER PRETTY MUCH.
MAYOR: THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
AS YOU'LL LEARN, AS WE HAVE LEARNED, IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
JUST, REAL QUICKLY, FIRST OFF, LET ME JUST INFORM EVERYBODY, SINCE WE DO HAVE SOME NEW PEOPLE, THAT WHENEVER THE LAWSUITS COME AT YOU, YOU WILL BE NAMED IN THERE BY,
[02:25:03]
YOUR PERSONAL NAME IS IN THERE.AND I NOTE THAT ON THE LAWSUITS THAT WE HAVE, YOU'RE THERE BY NAME, BUT WE KNOW THAT WE WILL BE INDEMNIFIED.
WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY THAT TAKES CARE OF THESE LAWSUITS THAT COME.
AND WE DO HAVE IMMUNITY DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE ACTIONS AND THINGS THAT WE TAKE THERE.
WE HAD A MEMBER, I THINK THAT SAID SOMETHING LIKE, "WELL, WE ALL KNOW THE RISK." YES, BUT THE THING IS WHENEVER YOU ARE IN AN ELECTED POSITION, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A RISK WITHOUT INDEMNITY, AND WITHOUT THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING INDEMNIFIED.
AND IF, AND, AND IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO SIT HERE, SPEAK YOUR MIND WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS, AND WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS, THAT IS DIFFERENT.
SOMETHING THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ME AS, I DON'T EVEN THINK THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED, EVEN, EVEN IN ANOTHER CITY BEFORE.
AND CERTAINLY IT DOESN'T GO BACK TO ALL THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS BODY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A CITIZEN THAT IS CONSTANTLY BRINGING LAWSUITS OVER AND OVER, WHO HAS CREATED HIS OWN PACK IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE ELECTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND SOMEHOW HE FOUND A LOOPHOLE, AND THE LOOPHOLE IS, NO ONE THAT, WHENEVER WE ARE ON THIS BODY, AND WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING, WE ARE INDEMNIFIED, AND WE HAVE SOME IMMUNITY, BUT THE LOOPHOLE IS, IS THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS, AND SO THE MODUS OF OPERANDI, OR WHATEVER THEY CALL IT, IS TO USE THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAIN LIKE A SHARP STICK TO POKE AT CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT HAVE VOTED WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL, MAY NOT VOTED THE CORRECT WAY FOR HIS LAWSUIT.
AND, AND I, LIKE ANOTHER PREVIOUS COUNCILPERSON THAT SAYS, "YOU KNOW, I MIGHT NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO AFFORD A LAWYER." WELL, EVEN THOSE THAT MIGHT HAVE THE FUNDS TO HIRE A LAWYER, EVEN IF IT'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, WE DON'T WANT TO FORCE ANY MEMBER OF THIS BODY TO HAVE TO GET A LAWYER ON A MONTHLY BASIS, MAYBE PERHAPS A WEEKLY BASIS.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO BE EXTENDED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN EXTENDED FOR A LONG TIME ALREADY.
THIS GOES BACK TO MAYOR PIPER, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME OUT OF POCKET, EVEN THOUGH, SOME MIGHT SAY, "WELL, WE KNEW THE RISK." AND, AND SOME WOULD SAY, "WELL, YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG", BUT IF IT'S AN ONGOING, ONGOING ITEM OF USING THIS LOOPHOLE IN THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO GET BACK AT ELECTED OFFICIALS, I BELIEVE THAT SOME MORE FORETHOUGHT MAYBE SHOULD BE PUT INTO THIS.
I THINK THIS SHOULD, THIS MOTION SHOULD BE MADE TO COMMIT, AND TO, TO PUT THIS INTO A COMMITTEE, TO STUDY THIS BECAUSE LOOK, NOBODY WANTS TO CHARGE THE TAXPAYER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S TIME, OR AN OUTSIDE LAWYER, IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
AND WE DON'T WANT THE ABUSE OF A COUNCILPERSON CONSTANTLY HAVING AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.
AND, AND, AND HE'S, WE HAVE A COUNCILPERSON THAT'S ALWAYS HAVING TO USE A LAWYER.
BUT THEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DON'T WANT COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE TO BE NAMED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A LAWSUIT, IN A COMPLAINT ALL THE TIME, BECAUSE, REMEMBER, TODAY, YOU MIGHT BE FINE WITH THE PAC FOUNDER, AND THE ONES THAT ARE CONSTANTLY HAVE LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY OVER AND OVER.
BUT THEN TOMORROW, THE SHOE MAY BE ON THE OTHER FOOT, AND SOMEBODY ELSE WILL NOW HAVE LEARNED OF THIS LOOPHOLE, AND YOU'LL BE IN THE SAD SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET AN ATTORNEY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS.
BUT I REALLY THINK IT SHOULD GO TO COMMITTEE AND BE THOUGHT OUT TO PROTECT THE COUNCILPERSON, AND, OF COURSE, TO PROTECT THE CITIZEN OF SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO BRING THIS UP OVER AND OVER.
MAYOR: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON REDD.
DOESN'T REQUIRE A RESPONSE, MR. SOLOMON.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR COUNCILPERSON ALLEN. WE RECOGNIZE.
ALLEN: OKAY. SO MR. SOLOMON, I HAVE ONE, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
[02:30:01]
WHEN IT COMES TO AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO US? BECAUSE I THINK IT GOT VERY MUDDIED IN THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION, TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAWSUIT AND AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS, VERY DIFFERENT PROCESSES, AND VERY DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES.
SO, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THE PROCESS OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT ARE, IF YOU ARE, IF THE ETHICS COMMISSION, LIKE I'M SAYING, WE, MR. BAKER WROTE THIS ETHICS LAW LONG TIME AGO, OUR ETHICS CODE LONG TIME AGO.
OKAY. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN WORKING, UNTIL IT DIDN'T WORK FOR OUR COUNCIL, AND THEN THEY CHANGED THE RULES.
OKAY. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN WORKING. SO, IF WHOEVER COMES AND PUT BACK TO BACK TO BACK TO BACK ETHICS COMPLAINTS ON OUR COUNCIL, EVERY SINGLE DAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO PRAY THAT OUR ETHICS COMMISSION SEES THROUGH THAT AND SENDS IT BACK.
SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THE PROCESS PLEASE? OKAY. YEAH. SO THE, THE, THE CITIZEN BASICALLY SWEARS OUT AN AFFIDAVIT A LIST OF COMPLAINTS THAT THEY'RE BRINGING ETHICAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES. IT'S, SORRY, IT'S CERTAIN NAMED EMPLOYEES.
IT'S BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
IT'S THE MAYOR AND CERTAIN OTHER OFFICER'S COUNCIL AS WELL, AND ONCE THAT HAPPENS, ETHICS COMMISSION, THE FIRST STEP THEY DO IS THEY MEET AND LOOK AT THE COMPLAINT AND THEY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT, IF EVERYTHING IS TRUE IN THE COMPLAINT, OKAY, THEY, THEY MEET IN PUBLIC MEETING, IF EVERYTHING IS TRUE IN THE COMPLAINT, DOES THE COMPLAINT STATE AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
AND THE ETHICS CODE EXPLAINS WHAT TYPES OF THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IF AT THAT TIME, THE, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT, IF EVERYTHING WERE TRUE, OKAY, AND IT DOES, IT DOES STATE AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
THEN THE NEXT STEP IS TO GO TO A HEARING, OKAY.
AND AT THAT HEARING, THE COMPLAINANT CAN BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IF HE OR SHE WANTS, OR HE, OR SHE CAN, CAN REPRESENT HIM OR HERSELF, APPEAR BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND BASICALLY STATE, "HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED.
HERE'S WHY I BELIEVE IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE." AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION, BUT THEY WOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN, IN WHATEVER WAY THE, THE THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, OR THE GOVERNMENT ACTOR DESIRE.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY, HE COULD PRESENT EVIDENCE.
IT'S LIKE A LITTLE MINI TRIAL, OKAY, WITHOUT THE POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF COURT.
OKAY. IT'S, IT'S INTENDED TO BE AN, AGAIN INTENDED IS THE WORD, IS INTENDED TO BE A SLIMMED DOWN PROCESS MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR THE CITIZENS.
ABSOLUTELY. BUT WHEN FACED WITH AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, MOST EMPLOYEES, MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO IT TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND, AND IF YOU READ THROUGH THE, THE PROCEDURE, IT'S VERY, VERY, LAWYER-LIKE, YOU KNOW? YOU CAN USE HERE SO YOU CAN'T USE HERE.
IT SAYS, "THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLY." VERY, VERY HARD FOR A LAY PERSON TO KIND OF NAVIGATE THEM, THEIR WAY THROUGH THAT.
NOW, SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME THAT THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE DEFENDING THEMSELVES, BUT THAT'S I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL.
AND SO A LOT OF TIMES THE, THE PERSON WHO'S ACCUSED OF THE COMPLAINT WILL WANT TO HIRE A LAWYER JUST BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THE LAWYER WILL DO THE BEST TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE IS IN, THAT CAN, IT, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY WITNESSES, IT CAN GO ON FOR A FEW HOURS, AND GO ON FOR, I'VE HAD ONE THAT WENT ON FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS.
AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE IS IN, THE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION THEN VOTES WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION, OKAY.
AND I BELIEVE THE VOTE HAS TO BE...
I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S UNANIMOUS OR FOUR TO ONE.
WHICH ONE IS IT? YEAH, IT'S FOUR TO ONE.
SO FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS HAVE TO AGREE THAT THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION.
AND THEN IF THEY FIND THIS A VIOLATION, WHAT, WHAT, COUNSEL LADY ALLEN WAS POINTING OUT, IS THAT THE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION ITSELF REALLY CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION, OKAY.
WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY DO IS THEY, THEY CAN RECOMMEND, THAT THEY CAN RECOMMEND TO THE VARIOUS...
SO THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY REPORT THEIR FINDING TO THE MAYOR AND THEN THEY CAN REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE ANY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THAT PERSON.
[02:35:02]
WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON SHOULD RESIGN, THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.IF THERE'S MONEY INVOLVED, THEY CAN RECOMMEND THE CITY ATTORNEY BRING PROCEEDINGS.
IF THERE'S A POTENTIAL CRIME THEY COULD RECOMMEND TO THE DA, DA BRING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
BUT THE COMMISSION IN AND OF ITSELF HAS NO POWER TO ENFORCE ITS FINDING.
SO IS THAT ENOUGH? YES, SIR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
SO, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LEGAL, LIKE CRIMINAL SINCE WE BROUGHT THAT UP AND ETHICS, OKAY? IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, DO YOU BY ANY CHANCE KNOW HOW MANY ETHICS COMPLAINTS WERE FOUNDED? I DO NOT, I DO NOT.
I KNOW THE COMMISSION HAD NOT MET FOR A LONG TIME WHEN I WAS APPOINTED PROTERM, BUT WE CAN GET YOU THAT INFORMATION.
OKAY, AND ONE MORE QUESTION, AS A CITIZEN, OKAY? THAT PROCESS, IF WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND WE HAVE THE ETHICS COMPLAINT.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A SITUATION RIGHT NOW GOING ON THAT PEOPLE ARE PUTTING DOWN ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S HAPPENING, HOPEFULLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
MR. SOLOMON: THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED SINCE THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED BY, I WAS JUST INFORMED BY JEFF.
OKAY, SO THERE'S NEVER BEEN ONE FOUNDED? MR. SOLOMON: NEVER ONE EVEN FILED.
OKAY, SO MY QUESTION IS, IF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, IF I'M THE CITIZEN, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS THIS DEFENDANT.
RIGHT? I HAVE TO PROVE MY POINT, I HAVE TO BRING EVIDENCE, I HAVE TO DO ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
NOW THIS CITIZEN IS GOING IN AND THEY MAY TRULY HAVE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, CORRECT? BUT THEY MAY NOT KNOW HOW TO DEFEND THEIR SELVES EITHER, BUT THEY DON'T GET THEIR LAWYER PAID FOR, RIGHT? SO, HOW IS IT EVEN FOR THE CITIZEN THAT TRULY HAS ETHICS COMPLAINT TO NOT HAVE ANYBODY TO DEFEND THEM AND HELP THEM? BUT WE, AS THE CITY COUNCIL DO.
MR. SOLOMON: YOU'RE ASKING ME? NO, I'M MAKING A POINT.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE, HOW WOULD YOU EQUAL THAT OUT? HOW WOULD YOU EQUAL OUT? WOULD WE CHANGE IT TO WHERE WE PAY FOR ALL THE ATTORNEYS OR WHOEVER WINS? BECAUSE ME AS A CITIZEN, I'M A TAXPAYER AND I'M PAYING FOR MY CITY ATTORNEY.
I MEAN, MY CITY COUNCIL'S ATTORNEY AND I DON'T GET ANY HELP.
I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
THANK YOU MR. SOLOMON FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. BAKER DID DRAFT THE ETHICS CODE, BUT THE COUNCIL APPROVED IT.
COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT FOR THE COUNCIL SO THAT THEY'RE AWARE THAT THIS IS THE WRONG LANGUAGE.
THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT LANGUAGE THAT IS IN OUR CITY CODE.
THIS WAS A PREVIOUS LANGUAGE THAT WAS ACTUALLY AMENDED.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY STATED IN OUR CITY CODE IS THAT EACH PARTY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES AND TO HAVE ASSISTANCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, BUT MAY NOT BE REPRESENTED BY NON-ATTORNEYS.
IF THE ETHICS COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT AN ETHICS VIOLATION HAS NOT OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY UPON REQUEST OF THE CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL REIMBURSE SUCH EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL FOR SUCH PERSONS LEGAL AND OTHER RELATED EXPENSES.
I DID JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL DID HAVE THE CORRECT PICTURE IN FRONT OF THEM OF WHAT WAS BEING AMENDED THERE.
OKAY, THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY IN REGARDS TO, I KNOW THIS WAS VERY WELL DEBATED, THE FIRST TIME THAT IT CAME BEFORE US AS A BODY AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS IN LOOKING AT THE PROCESS OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT BEING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM BEING ON TRIAL OR, YOU KNOW IN FRONT OF A JUDGE AND A JURY, YOU KNOW IT'S A COMMISSION, THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS, THEY'RE CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INVOLVE HIRING LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT YOU IN THE MATTER.
AND SO, IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE AT A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE UNABLE TO SPEAK FOR YOURSELF IN REFERENCE TO WHAT ALLEGATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN LODGED AGAINST YOU, THEN IT'S ON YOU TO SECURE YOU AN ATTORNEY TO SPEAK FOR YOU.
BUT THIS ISN'T A CRIMINAL MATTER, IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY A CIVIL MATTER TO WHERE AS A RESULT OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT YOU HAVE, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A RESTITUTION TO BE PAID.
IF IT WAS FINANCIAL, LIKE MAYBE IF YOU COMMITTED SOME SORT
[02:40:01]
OF FINANCIAL FRAUD AND MAYBE THEY CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO A DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO FILE CHARGES ON YOU.SO THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY SOME SORT OF RESTITUTION, BUT EVEN IN STEEL, THAT WOULD GO TO AN ACTUAL COURT WHERE A LAWYER WOULD BE COULD, OR, YOU KNOW, MAY BE REQUIRED.
BUT FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION PORTION OF IT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE AN ATTORNEY IN.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD PAY FOR OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET AND NOT RELY ON TAXPAYERS JUST FOR THAT X, 'CAUSE THERE'S NO REAL, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION, IT'S NOT GOING TO COURT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO TRIAL, NOT GOING TO THE JURY.
IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH ETHICS COMPLAINTS.
SO JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.
IT'S NOT PUTTING ANY OF US IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND STRUGGLE TO PAY FOR AN ATTORNEY.
THIS IS A DECISION THAT YOU MAKE TO BE RIGHT IN THE EYE OF PUBLIC OPINION AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON GARRETT.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GETTING EXTREMELY CONVOLUTED HERE.
THE SITUATION, THE CATALYST THAT BROUGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO APPEAL, BECAUSE BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WITHIN RESPONSE TO A CITIZEN'S ABUSE, OKAY, OF OUR ETHICS POLICY.
COUNCILMAN REDD MENTIONED THAT, I AGREE.
I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH HIM THAT AN ACTUALLY OUR COUNSEL, MR. SOLOMON, HAS ALSO SAID MULTIPLE OCCASIONS NOW, THAT OUR ETHICS POLICY IS EXTREMELY BROAD, OKAY? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT JUSTIFIES THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, OKAY? I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REPEAL THIS.
WE NEED TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE.
THIS WAS AN OVERREACTION TO A BAD SITUATION.
AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN REDD, WE NEED TO SIT DOWN WE NEED TO GET A COMMISSION, GET A COMMITTEE, WE NEED TO SIT DOWN, WE NEED TO REDO OUR ETHICS POLICY.
THAT'S COMPLETELY TRUE, BUT THIS ISN'T THE WAY. (LAUGHS) THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT THE WAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY TO COUNCILMAN ALLEN AND JUST SAY, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.
AND YES, I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMPLAINTS AND LAWSUITS.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COMPOUND OR LOOK AT EVEN THE PLAUSIBLE FACT OF COMPOUNDING ONE ISSUE ON TOP OF THE OTHER, BECAUSE ONE PROBLEM DOESN'T NEGATE THE OTHER.
JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AND A LAWSUIT.
IF WE GET RID OF ONE PARTICULAR THING, I DON'T WANT US OPEN IT UP OURSELVES TO AN EO COMPLAINT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED THANK YOU MAYOR.
IT WAS SAID THAT WE GETTING CONFUSED WITH LAWSUITS AND THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS BUT I WOULD SAY, AFTER LISTENING TO OUR ATTORNEY HERE, THEY SHARE SOME SIMILARITIES.
AND JUST LIKE HE SAID, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A TRIAL.
IT WOULD BE THE JUDGE, FIVE PERSONS.
AND THEN HE WENT THROUGH THE, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COMPLAINTEE IT SHOULD NOT WIN.
SO IT HAS A LOT OF SIMILARITIES AND OF COURSE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO GET THEIR OWN LAWYER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR NOT.
BUT AGAIN, AND IT WAS SAID TOO, THAT THE PROCESS HAD BEEN WORKING.
WELL, I AGREE, THE PROCESS HAD BEEN WORKING UNTIL SOMEONE DECIDED TO FILE WHAT I WOULD SAY FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS AFTER ANOTHER AND MOSTLY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS ONE AFTER THE OTHER.
AND NOW WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE, AND IT'S BEEN SAID, IF A CITIZEN SUES US, SORRY.
IF A CITIZEN SUES US, WE ARE, AGAIN, WE ARE PROVIDED COUNSEL AND WE ARE PROVIDED IMMUNITY AND INDEMNITY FOR WHAT WE DO.
AND THE ANSWER I DON'T THINK IS TO JUST SAY, "WELL, YOU JUST HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN LAWYER.
AND THEN NEXT MONTH YOU MAY HAVE ANOTHER ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU DEPENDENT ON THE VOTE THAT YOU TAKE ON THE COUNCIL OR SOMETHING THAT YOU SAY ON THE COUNCIL YOU'LL HAVE AN ETHICS 12 IN A YEAR," AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
AND I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER
[02:45:03]
THAT THIS ISN'T THE ANSWER, AND WE SHOULD TAKE THIS I BELIEVE, TO A COMMITTEE TO PROTECT THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS AGAINST SOMEONE THAT EVIDENTLY JUST WANTS TO USE US AS REPERCUSSIONS AGAINST THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.NOT JUST FOR TODAY, BUT IN THE FUTURE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED.
AND YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, THE ETHICS BOARD BECAUSE THEY ALL RESIGNED BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF THE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S SUING US ALL THE TIME.
BUT THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY, MAYOR.
I JUST HOPE THAT WE MOVE TO COMMIT AND SEND IT TO COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON REDD.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANNA ECHO EXACTLY WHAT COUNCILMAN REDD STATED, AND WHAT A COUNCILMAN BUTLER STATED AND SAID THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PRETTY MUCH POSTPONE THIS AND PROBABLY ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE ON OUR ETHICS POLICY TO REVISIT THE ETHICS POLICY SO.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF THE COUNCILPERSONS SAY THAT WE SHOULD JUST POSTPONE THIS RIGHT HERE AND HAVE A COMMITTEE.
I AGREE THAT A LOT OF OUR CODE AND ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND MAYBE REVAMPED, BUT THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REPEAL TO GAIN BACK SOME TRUST WITH OUR CONSTITUENTS.
BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THEY'RE LOOKING AT US, OKAY? AND THEY'RE SAYING, "IS THIS PERSON GONNA BE A GOOD STEWARD OF MY TAX DOLLARS? IS THIS PERSON GOING TO STAND UP FOR THE LITTLE GUY." AND I AM.
AND THIS RIGHT HERE IS NOT FAIR TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
YEAH, WE CAN FORM A COMMITTEE AND LOOK AT A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CODE, BUT THIS RIGHT HERE WAS A KNEE JERK REACTION TO A PROBLEM THAT THIS COUNCIL FACED.
AND IT WAS NOT OUR CONSTITUENTS' FAULT AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
BEEN LISTENING TO EVERYBODY AND THINKING, ALL I WANNA SAY IS THIS, THAT THE ETHICS CODE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.
IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AMONG THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SOME ARE GONE NOW, BUT THE REASON WE'RE AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS PROPOSE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
AND IT WAS VOTED IN FAVOR OF, BY THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL, TO CHANGE IT SO THAT THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO JUST DID SOMETHING, MAYBE, YOU KNOW BY ERROR, MISTAKE BUT EVERYTHING IS ALLEGED UNTIL IT IS PROVEN.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS, WE HAVE HAD MUCH DISCUSSION ON THIS ETHICS CODE.
SO, PEOPLE SAYING WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT.
GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RECORDS, GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE VIDEOS, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS ONE COUNCILPERSON THAT BROUGHT UP SOMETHING TO CHANGE THIS, AND IT WAS VOTED ON BY THIS COUNCIL.
AND THAT'S THE VERY REASON WE AT THE SITUATION WE IN RIGHT NOW, TODAY.
SO I AGREE THAT IT DOES NEED TO BE CHANGED.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT I DO NOT WANT TO SEE TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULTS OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S BEHAVIOR THAT VIOLATED THE LAW.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF POSTPONING THIS, WE NEED TO VOTE THIS DOWN.
THIS WAS A BAD PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
AND THEN WE NEED TO WORK ON OUR ETHICS CODE, WHICH AGAIN, AS MR. SOLOMON HAS SAID, HAS A LOT OF GENERALIZATIONS AND BROAD DESCRIPTIONS IN IT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.
COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS TALK ABOUT THE CITIZENS HAVE TO PAY FOR ATTORNEYS.
THEY ARE ALREADY IN LAWSUITS, PAYING FOR THE ATTORNEYS IN WHICH ALL OF US, WELL, NOT ALL OF US YET, BUT WE WILL BE NAMED.
THE ATTORNEYS ARE ALREADY PROVIDED BY THE CITY.
[02:50:02]
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON REDD.COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT, I AGREE WITH YOU.
AND IF YOU VIOLATED A LAW, THEN YOU MUST, IF YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU MUST PAY THE TIME.
IF YOU VIOLATE THE LAW, THEN YOU OUGHT TO PAY FOR YOUR VIOLATIONS, NOT THE CITIZENS.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YEAH, I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IF THERE'S A LAWSUIT, THEN WE'RE COVERED, CORRECT? EVEN IF WE'RE NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT, WE'RE COVERED.
IT'S THE ETHICS VIOLATION IN WHERE WE'RE NOT COVERED.
SO THAT'S ONE, NUMBER TWO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE PACK.
AND I'D LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE HERE THAT A PACK CAN SUPPORT WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, WITH OR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CANDIDATE.
SO I WOULD LIKE THAT COMMENT NEVER TO BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN, BECAUSE MANY OF US WERE JUST CHOSEN AND IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS IMPLYING THAT WE WILL VOTE A CERTAIN WAY BASED ON THAT SUPPORT OF THE PACK, WHICH WE DID NOT TAKE MONEY AND WE DID NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
AND WE ALL KNOW HOW CAMPAIGN PACKS WORK AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD GO AWAY.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT I PERSONALLY DON'T APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
WITH WHAT KAREN SAID ABOUT THAT COMMENT.
YES, WAIT, I SAID KAREN DIDN'T I? I'M SO SORRY. (LAUGHS) MAYOR: THAT'S OKAY.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS SAID ABOUT THE PACK.
I ALSO DIDN'T APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.
(CLEARS THROAT) PERSONALLY, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT PUBLICLY KNOWN BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO A BIG THING THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DONATION FROM THAT PACK.
AND I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE IT IF IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON EVANS.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I WILL SAY THOUGH, THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT HAVE TAKEN ANY MONEY AND I'LL BE THE ONE TO SAY IT NOW.
MAYOR: AND THEN? I WANNA SAY ONE THING, MAYOR.
IS IT ON THE ETHICS, IS IT ON THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE US? I WILL SAY, I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT IT BROUGHT UP, BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU COULD PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU DON'T WANNA TAKE SOMETHING FROM SOMEBODY YOU COULD LET IT BE KNOWN, I DON'T WANT THIS.
LET'S GET BACK ON THE MATTER AT HAND.
COUNCILPERSON EVANS, ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS LEGISLATION BEFORE US? OKAY, THANK YOU.
NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE SPONSOR OF THE ORDINANCE, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
SO, THERE'S A LOT THAT CAME OUT TONIGHT AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I PUT THIS OUT THERE BECAUSE I REALLY DO WANNA SEE US BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR TAXPAYERS' MONEY.
WE HAVE ALL SEEN OUR TAXPAYERS SAY, "WHAT ARE WE PAYING THIS FOR?" ONE OF OUR PRIOR COUNSEL SAID, "WE'RE PAYING MONEY FOR LAWSUITS.
OH, THAT'S MY NEXT STOP." NO, WE SHOULD NOT BE PAYING ALL THESE FEES, OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS AND ALL THAT IN THESE LAWSUITS, NO, WE SHOULD NOT.
THEY'RE MONEY PITS, AND THEY'RE A WASTE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS.
I HAVE BEEN ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS TOO.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, IS IT ON YOUR ORDINANCE? OKAY, PLEASE STICK TO YOUR WORD.
SO THIS IS FOR THE ETHICS ORDINANCE.
FOR THIS ONE, OKAY? JUST KNOW THAT.
ANY FINAL WORDS ON YOUR ORDINANCE BEFORE WE MOVE ON? NOPE.
WE ARE NOW READY, THANK YOU, MR. SOLOMON.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, ORDINANCE 63.
THE SPONSOR IS COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE.
AGAIN, IT'S BASICALLY A REPEAL OF A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT I JUST CONSIDER BAD LEGISLATION.
BUTLER: TO CAVEAT THAT; I KNOW THAT THIS THIS IS AN ENTIRE CHAPTER IN OUR CODE.
I KNOW THAT THIS WAS WORKED ON VERY HARD BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL.
AND I APOLOGIZE THAT THIS MIGHT LOOK THAT I'M TRYING TO STEP ON THAT.
I KNOW A LOT OF WORK AND EFFORT AND THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION WENT INTO THIS, BUT JUST IN GENERAL I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE CODE TO REMOVE THE ENTIRE THIRD CHAPTER THAT PERTAINS TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
AND IT IS BECAUSE THE THINGS THAT ARE COVERED IN THERE
[02:55:04]
IT'S IT, THIS IS DILATORY.THE THINGS THAT ARE COVERED IN THIS ORDINANCE ARE ALREADY ADDRESSED IN OTHER PLACES. TAXES- IF YOU RUN AN AIRBNB, YOU'VE GOT TO PAY YOUR TAXES.
PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOING THAT ALREADY. ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE HOUSE OR THE NOISE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE ORDINANCES AND POLICE OFFICERS THAT ALREADY COVER ALL OF THAT.
SO I JUST WANT TO, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, YOU KNOW OUR LAWS ARE IN OUR CODE AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT REMOVING THIS HELPS ACCOMPLISH THAT.
PITTS: OKAY COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAY BE SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH, BUT I DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THIS WAS BAD LEGISLATION.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS WORKED VERY HARD ON AND IT WASN'T JUST WORKED ON HARD BY THE COUNCIL.
THIS WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT I SPONSORED AND I WORKED WITH MR. NEIL STAUFFER OUT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
BUT ALSO WORKED WITH BUILDING AND CODES, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
AND THIS ISN'T STUFF THAT'S JUST COVERED EVERYWHERE ELSE.
BECAUSE YES, YOU MAY HAVE NOISE ORDINANCES, BUT IF THIS GROUP IS VIOLATING A NOISE ORDINANCE ONE WEEKEND AND IT'S A DIFFERENT GROUP THE NEXT WEEKEND, ONE REALLY HAS NO BEARING ON THE OTHER.
BUT IT WASN'T JUST ABOUT THE NOISE ORDINANCES.
IT WAS TO HELP PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT WAS TO HELP PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE STAYING IN THE FACILITIES.
THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY WENT INTO THIS AND YOU KNOW, THERE WERE CITIZENS THAT BROUGHT THIS TO ME THAT MADE ME LOOK AT IT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE SPENT A YEAR WORKING ON IT; LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER CITIES WERE DOING, LOOKING AT WHAT WAS OUT THERE, AND LOOKING AT HOW WE COULD BEST HELP OUR COMMUNITY WITH THESE ISSUES THAT THEY WERE DEALING WITH.
IT DOESN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN AIRBNB BECAUSE THEY ARE A GREAT THING FOR US TO HAVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'S PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO STAY.
BUT YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THE ISSUES THAT COME ALONG WITH IT.
I KNOW IT'S GOTTEN REALLY LATE, SO I HOPE THEY ARE STILL ON THE LINE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. DAVID SMITH FROM BUILDING AND CODES TO MAYBE TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE WORKED ON IN REGARD TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE.
MR. SMITH, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? SMITH: I AM, SIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? PITTS: OKAY. THIS IS DAVID SMITH, DIRECTOR OF OUR BILLING AND CODES DEPARTMENT.
MR. SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
SMITH: GOOD EVENING ALL. THIS ORDINANCE, AS DESCRIBED, WAS VERY WELL INVESTIGATED BY OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL OF OUR SISTER COMMUNITIES AND LOOKED AT THE PROCESSES THAT THEY HAD PUT IN PLACE TO CHASE THIS TRENDING AIRBNB, OR BRBO, YOU KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
AND FROM A BUILDING AND CODES PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE DONE ABOUT A HALF DOZEN OF THESE INSPECTIONS SO FAR. THEY'VE BEEN VERY WELL RECEIVED BY THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES AND WE DO THEM IN CONCERT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
LARGELY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR LIFE SAFETY ITEMS, SMOKE DETECTORS.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR EGRESS PLANS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THIS STRUCTURE BEFORE.
TO KNOW THE PROPER ROUTE AWAY FROM THE HOME.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPERABLE WINDOWS IN BEDROOMS SO THAT IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY, THE PARTIES- I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN ASSUMPTION COMING INTO THESE HOMES, THAT CERTAIN THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK.
THE DECKS ON THE PROPERTIES, FOR EXAMPLE; THAT THE RAILING IS COMPLIANT AND THAT IT CAN HANDLE THE LOAD. THAT THINGS AREN'T ROTTEN AND SOMEBODY IS NOT GOING TO WALK OUT THERE WITH A CHILD AND FALL THROUGH, YOU KNOW, SOME ROTTEN DECK BOARDS.
SO THAT, AGAIN, OUR FOCUS FROM BUILDING AND CODES- AND CERTAINLY I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF MONTGOMERY CAN, BUT IT IS A FOCUS OF LIFE SAFETY.
PITTS: COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
STREETMAN: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT, MAYOR.
CHIEF MONTGOMERY, ARE YOU STILL ONLINE TO WHERE YOU COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RESEARCH THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN AND THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH? PITTS: CHIEF MONTGOMERY, CHIEF FREDDY MONTGOMERY WITH CLARKSVILLE FIRE AND RESCUE. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
MONTGOMERY: YES SIR, I AM ON THE LINE.
SO, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION ON THIS IS BASICALLY LIFE SAFETY, LIKE DAVID SMITH MENTIONED.
SO WHEN WE CAME INTO THIS, WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY IN JULY TO BE A PART OF A VIRTUAL SEMINAR DISCUSSING THIS VERY THING.
SO, OUR STANCE IS: WE'RE AN ADVOCATE OF THIS BUT IT GIVES US OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS SOME SAFETY ISSUES.
SO WE RELY ON NFPA AND INTERNATIONAL FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION THAT THEY RECOMMEND THAT WE LOOK AT THESE SAFETY
[03:00:03]
ISSUES BECAUSE OF CASE STUDIES AND INCIDENTS.THEY'VE HAD SOME MAJOR COLLAPSES IN SOME, YOU KNOW, PARTIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, WE TRY TO USE THE CHAPTER THREE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE TO GET IN THERE AND LOOK AT THOSE SAFETY ISSUES AND MAKE IT SAFER.
AND WE'RE AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT WHEN ITS A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY OR A CHANGE OF USE, WE DON'T DO THAT IN RESIDENTIAL.
WE DON'T IMPOSE THAT ON PEOPLES' RESIDENCE, BUT WHEN THEY CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY, WE TRY TO GO IN THERE AND DO THAT.
PITTS: COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
THANK YOU, CHIEF MONTGOMERY, I APPRECIATE THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO KEEP THINGS GOING, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT FOR EVERYBODY ALREADY TONIGHT AND I CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THIS NEXT WEEK.
BUT AGAIN THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE FOR ONE REASON, BEING THAT STATE LAW THAT WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO PUT ANY LEGISLATION THAT WOULD AFFECT PREVIOUS SHORT TERM RENTAL OPERATORS.
WE TAKE THIS OFF THE BOOKS THEN IT'S GOING TO GO RIGHT BACK INTO PLACE WITH THAT.
AND THAT THOSE THAT HAVE GOTTEN INSPECTIONS, ANYBODY DURING THAT TIME, THEN WE CAN'T APPLY THESE RULES TO THEM, NOT UNLESS THEY HAVE SEVERAL VIOLATIONS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK UNDERNEATH IT.
THIS AGAIN WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT A LOT, A LOT OF HARD WORK WENT INTO.
AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF, COME NEXT WEEK, EVERYBODY VOTES AGAINST REMOVING THIS FROM THE BOOKS.
PITTS: THANK YOU. COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YEAH, I AGREE THAT A LOT OF WORK DID GO INTO IT AND I DON'T TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM IT BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE GOT IT WRONG IN OVERREACHING FOR THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF IT, THERE PROBABLY IS SOME GOOD THAT HAS CAME OUT OF IT.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE IMPACT FISCALLY, I THINK WE SPENT $10,000 TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY WITH PERMIT AND FEES, I THINK THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REVENUE THAT WE WERE GOING TO GENERATE OFF OF THE PERMITS WAS MAYBE $2,000 AT BEST.
SO WE SPENT $10,000 TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE $2,000 WORTH OF REVENUE.
I JUST DON'T SEE THE VALUE ADD FOR TAXPAYERS IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
TO WHERE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE PROVISIONS I CAN REMEMBER THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAD AND DEBATES OVER IT.
LIKE A PERSON THAT IS AN AIRBNB OPERATOR THAT'S IN THE RESIDENCE, CAN'T COOK FOR THEIR OTHER TENANTS THAT ARE LEASING THERE.
AND AN ARGUMENT WAS MADE, "WELL, IT'S NOT A BED AND BREAKFAST." I THOUGHT AIRBNB WAS AIR, BED, AND BREAKFAST.
SO I MEAN, IT'S A LOT OF STUFF LIKE THAT THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BUT I WAS IN THE MINORITY THEN AND HOPEFULLY THIS TIME AROUND, I'LL BE A PART OF THE MAJORITY IN REPEALING THIS.
PITTS: THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON GARRETT.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
KNIGHT: WELL, WITH ALL THE HARD WORK PUT INTO THIS, WELL, THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE AND WITH THE CONCERNS RAISED TODAY, I WOULD SAY, "IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN GET THE ENTIRE COUNCIL TO HAVE COPIES OF THE DATA PUT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO CREATE THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND EVEN MAYBE POSTPONING THIS NEW ORDINANCE SO THAT THE COUNCIL, THIS BODY HAS AMPLE TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE DATA PRESENTED SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A FULL AND INFORMED DECISION?" WHAT SPECIFIC DATA ARE YOU- THE FIRE DATA. THERE'S ISSUES WITH NOISE.
THERE'S, I HEARD, ISSUES WITH SAFETY.
THERE'S, WHAT IS IT, THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT? THEY SAID THAT, THEY STATED THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER SOME DATA.
SO I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, AND I'M SURE THIS ENTIRE GOVERNING BODY WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY AS WELL.
TRY TO PULL THAT TOGETHER FOR THE COUNCIL.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
ALLEN: I JUST NEED TO SAY ABOUT THIS, THAT I THINK THAT IT'S AN OVERREACH OF GOVERNMENT.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE PUT, HERE WE GO AGAIN COLLECTING MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS THE TAXPAYER'S HOME.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR HOME.
I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST AN OVERREACH OF GOVERNMENT AND IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT IN.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, BACK TO YOU.
YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY, JUST KIND OF ADDRESSING THE DATA THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE IN ENFORCING AIRBNB, AS IT RELATES TO CODES INFRACTIONS, I GUARANTEE THERE'S WAY MORE ISSUES THAT CLARKSVILLE HAS RELATED TO JUST PEOPLE THAT RENT HOUSES OR EVEN HOME OWNERS THAT DON'T MAYBE CONDUCT THEMSELVES OR YOU KNOW, MAINTAIN THEIR HOUSE IN A SAFE WAY.
[03:05:01]
SO TO PICK ON A DEMOGRAPHIC THAT, I THINK IT'S MAYBE LESS THAN A HUNDRED AIRBNB OPERATORS, AND EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT NOISE AND SAFETY WHEN IT'S PLENTY OF REGULAR PROPERTY MANAGERS THAT HAVE RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NOISE AND SAFETY ISSUES.SO, I MEAN IF WE LOOK AT THE DATA THE DATA IS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S PER CAPITA PROBABLY LESS ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE WITH AIRBNB PROBLEMS THAN YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE WITH REGULAR RENTERS.
YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER THE DAYS WHEN I WAS YOUNG AND DUMB AND THANKFULLY I'VE GROWN TO MATURE JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU KNOW- PITTS: YOU WANT TO PUT THAT TO A VOTE? (LAUGHTER) BUT YOU KNOW- I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. YOU LEFT THE DOOR OPEN.
YOU DUNKED IT ON THAT ONE, BUT YOU KNOW IT'S JUST, COME ON GUYS.
WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE REGULATIONS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT WE DON'T IMPOSE ON REGULAR RENTALS.
AND THERE'S STATISTICALLY, I GUARANTEE, MORE ISSUES WITH REGULAR RENTALS THAN THERE ARE WITH AIRBNB RENTALS.
AND IT REALLY, THIS WAS PRIMARILY BASED ABOUT AN ISOLATED ISSUE THAT HAPPENED IN THE COUNTY THAT OUR CITY ORDINANCE DOESN'T COVER.
SO CURRENTLY AIRBNBS OUT IN THE COUNTY ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE AS USUAL.
THE SAME INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN THE COUNTY CAN HAPPEN AGAIN OUT THERE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT HAPPEN HERE IN THE CITY LIKE THAT.
SO, I JUST THINK WE GOT IT WRONG.
THE INTENT WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE BUT IT WAS STILL AN OVERREACH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON GARRETT.
COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
WELL, IN REFERENCE TO TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS OUT IN THE COUNTY, WE'RE ONLY ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CITY BECAUSE WE REPRESENT THE CITY.
ALSO STATING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT "SHORT TERM RENTALS VERSUS RENTALS" WHERE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RENTALS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING; YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE RESIDING.
AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS YOU'RE TALKING MORE SIMILARITY TO WHAT A HOTEL OR A MOTEL WOULD BE; WHICH HOTELS AND MOTELS HAVE INSPECTIONS BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THEY HAVE TO BE INSPECTED BY BUILDING AND CODES.
THEY'VE GOT A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT INSPECTIONS THEY HAVE TO HAVE, EVEN MORE SO THAN WHAT THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS DO.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MS. LORI MATA, JUST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE WAS ADDRESSED, WOULD YOU MIND COMING UP HERE AND ADDRESSING IT DIRECTLY PLEASE? THANK YOU.
PITTS: WE'LL ALLOW IT. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
MATA: HEY, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE DIDN'T GO INTO THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE INTENTION OF GENERATING REVENUE. THAT'S NEVER OUR INTENT.
THE INTENT TO GO INTO THIS WAS SAFETY.
THAT WAS 100. REVENUE IS THE NEXT THING.
IT IS NOT TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR US. IT'S COST RECOVERY.
THE RATES THAT WE SET WERE COME UP, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBERS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND BUILDING AND CODES.
AND WENT OVER HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE THEM TO ACTUALLY DO THE INSPECTIONS.
WHAT THE RATE OF PAYS WERE, WHAT THE BENEFITS WERE TO COME UP WITH THE RATES.
IT IS NOT ABOUT A REVENUE GENERATOR.
THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE ABOUT REVENUES IS IF THESE ENTITIES WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING WHICH MEANS PAYING SALES TAX AND HOTEL/MOTEL TAX: THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS.
SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY IF THEY'RE DOING IT RIGHT.
IT'S THOSE ONES WHO ARE NOT DOING IT THAT NEED TO COMPLY WITH THIS.
AND THEN THEY WILL BE PAYING SALES TAX.
THEN THEY WILL BE PAYING HOTEL/MOTEL TAX AND THEY'LL PAY THE PERMIT AND WE'LL MAKE SURE IT'S SAFE.
COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN, BACK TO YOU.
LAST THING I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW I KNOW IT WAS REFERENCED THAT "THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING WITH THEIR HOME." I CONSIDER MY HOME WHERE I LIVE, BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF AIRBNB OR SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS THAT ARE UTILIZING PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN, OR THAT THEY ARE PUTTING OUT THERE TO BE ABLE TO USE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
THEY'RE NOT JUST USING THOSE THAT COME IN AND THAT ARE STAYING WITH THEM, THAT TYPE OF THING.
WHILE THERE ARE SOME IN THAT INSTANCE, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE, THEY'RE BUYING THESE HOMES AND THEY'RE UTILIZING THAT OR THEY'RE BUYING THESE HOUSES SO THAT THEY CAN UTILIZE THEM FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE LOOK AT THAT AND WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO STAY IN THE APARTMENT OVER THEIR GARAGE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON STREETMAN.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE WE GO BACK TO THE SPONSOR? BACK TO YOU SPONSOR.
[03:10:04]
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.BUTLER: I WANT TO ADDRESS A FEW THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. FIRST OF ALL, I DO AGAIN, APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WENT INTO THIS.
I APPRECIATE THE OPINIONS OF BUILDING AND CODES AND OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SAFETY IS THEIR THING. I EXPECT NOTHING LESS THAN FOR THAT TO BE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO THEM.
THE FIRST THING THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS HOWEVER, IS THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS REALLY INORDINATELY AFFECTING OUR SERVICE MEMBERS WHO SAY, BUY A HOUSE HERE AND THEN THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK, BUT THEY'RE NOT SURE IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK.
SO THEY'RE RENTING IT OUT LIKE THIS BECAUSE THIS MAKES MORE MONEY THAN SAY A LONG-TERM RENTAL. RIGHT? AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T REALLY SAY WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM RENTAL WISE, OKAY? BECAUSE AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE MILITARY.
A FAMILY OF, I HAVE FOUR KIDS AND A SISTER THAT LIVES WITH ME.
THAT'S SEVEN PEOPLE IN MY HOUSEHOLD.
FOR US TO GET A HOTEL, IF I WAS PCSING HERE FOR A MONTH.
SAY WE CAN'T GET ON POST HOUSING FOR A MONTH, OR WE ARE NOT CLOSING ON OUR HOUSE FOR 60 DAYS.
FOR US TO GET A HOTEL ROOM AND STICK ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE IN ONE, OR TWO, OR THREE HOTEL ROOMS, YOU KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE OUTRAGEOUS.
IN COMPARISON TO MAYBE SPENDING A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS IN AN AIRBNB.
SO I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
THAT WE ARE A MILITARY TRANSITIONAL TOWN AND THAT THIS IS A HUGE ASSET TO US.
I ACTUALLY DID NOT KNOW THE CATALYST FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
SO THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS TIME.
I DON'T WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE AND GIVE ANYONE SOME GREAT IDEAS.
BUT IF WE CONSIDER THIS ALMOST LIKE THE UBER COMPANY, AND REGULATING UBER, I THINK THAT PUTS IT INTO A MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BETTER PERSPECTIVE.
ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR BEING INNOVATIVE AND FINDING, YOU KNOW, A GOOD WAY TO DEAL WITH A DIFFICULT SITUATION.
AND IN THIS CASE, I'VE BROUGHT IT UP TWICE NOW AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN OUR TRANSIENT MILITARY POPULATION.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS IS IN KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE.
I SAID THAT ALREADY IN REGARD TO BUILDING CODES AND THE FIRE CHIEF, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS TRYING TO REGULATE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
AND THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES NEED TO BE BEING PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE.
AND HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE THAT EVEN WITH AN AMOUNT OF REGULATION THAT WE CAN EVER FULLY CONFIRM THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS BUT I DO STILL HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU.
OKAY, THANK YOU MADAM SPONSOR.
WE ARE NOW READY TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, ORDINANCE 64 TO THE SPONSOR; COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
ALLEN: OKAY. SO, I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE, YOU KNOW LAST YEAR WE WENT THROUGH A LOT AS A CITY.
WE HAD BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTS.
WE HAD A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON AND OUR COUNTERPART- DID GO HEAD ON AND MAKE JUNETEENTH A HOLIDAY.
I WAITED FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN IN THE COUNCIL AND I DIDN'T SEE IT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COUNCIL GO HEAD ON AND MAKE JUNETEENTH A CELEBRATED CITY HOLIDAY IN OUR CITY SO THAT WE CAN SHOW THAT WE ARE THE DIVERSE CITY THAT WE SAY WE ARE.
AND WE ACCEPT PEOPLE FROM ALL RACES, ALL SHADES, ALL GENDERS, ALL EVERYTHING, LET THIS BE A DAY FOR CELEBRATION IN OUR CITY.
OKAY, THANK YOU, WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
NO QUESTION, I'LL JUST SAY THAT I WAS PART OF THE GOVERNING BODY THAT APPROVED AND PASSED THAT PARTICULAR RESOLUTION.
AND I HONESTLY, I THINK WE SHOULD DO THE SAME THING HERE.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT GESTURE AND I SUPPORT IT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YES, SO I'M GOING TO SPEAK ON THE BEHALF OF SUPPORT IN THIS ORDINANCE.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE INTENTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND JUNETEENTH IS THE MOST PROMINENT DAY OF EMANCIPATION WHERE IT REACHED FOLKS IN THE DEEPEST PART OF THE CONFEDERACY IN TEXAS.
[03:15:05]
AND IN A LOT OF WAYS, JUNETEENTH REPRESENTS THE DELAYED FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR BLACK FOLKS.AND BEING IN 2021 WHERE WE ARE NOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADOPT THIS AS A CITY HOLIDAY BECAUSE, FOR ME, IT'S ALMOST, I'M TRYING TO GET MY WORDS, I'M SO SORRY.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO WHITEWASH MY EXPLAINING BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE BE INTENTIONAL IN OUR FIGHT FOR REPRESENTATION AND CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, NOT, APPRECIATION, SORRY, OH MY GOODNESS.
THIS IS LIKE THE FIRST DAY I'VE SAID ANYTHING ON COUNCIL AND I'M TRYING TO FIND MY VOICE HERE GUYS, I'M SO SORRY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON EVANS.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I DO APOLOGIZE THAT IT'S SO LATE BUT WE STILL GOT THINGS TO SAY, MAN.
I AM SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND NOW THAT I GOT A MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF ME, I HAVE TO SAY I WAS ON WILMA RUDOLPH THE NIGHT IT WAS SHUT DOWN AND I WAS HONORED TO BE OUT THERE WITH YOU MAYOR, COMING DOWN IN YOUR BLACK T-SHIRT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CROWD AND DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ASKING AND THAT WAS TO LISTEN.
AND I THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE, AND GIVING THE CORRECT APPRECIATION TO JUNETEENTH IS ONLY THE NATURAL MOVE FOR THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE THAT HAS DONE SO WELL DURING THE LAST YEAR IN THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU, AND I SUPPORT WHAT'S BEEN SAID BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AND JUST A REMINDER, DIVERSITY DOESN'T HAPPEN, WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER AND STRIVE FOR DIVERSITY.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR VOICING YOUR OPINION THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS.
I TOO SUPPORT THIS, BUT HOWEVER, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY SO YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT EXACT DATE TO SUPPORT FOR TENNESSEE, OKAY? WE KNOW THAT, I DID SOME RESEARCH AND I KINDA KNOW ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I WAS ON A COMMITTEE THAT PRACTICED A CERTAIN DAY THAT WE CONSIDERED TO CELEBRATE FOR EMANCIPATION DAY.
WE KNOW THAT ON JANUARY THE 1ST OF 1863, ABRAHAM LINCOLN SIGNED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION TO FREE SLAVES STILL REBELLING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
TENNESSEE, ALTHOUGH, WAS AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND DID NOT FALL UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE PROCLAMATION.
TENNESSEE WAS UNDER UNION CONTROL, AND ANDREW JOHNSON WAS SERVING AS MILITARY GOVERNOR.
NOW, WE KNOW THAT WHEN THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION WAS SIGNED, IT DID NOT, THE INFORMATION DID NOT GET TO EVERY STATE THE SAME DAY, THE SAME TIME.
SO THE MILITARY GOVERNOR ANDREW JOHNSON FREED HIS PERSONAL SLAVES ON AUGUST THE 8TH OF 1863.
NOW, THE REASON YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT JUNETEENTH, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SLAVES BEING FREE HAPPENED, OR WAS, IT REALLY HAPPENED IN 1863, BUT THE NEWS DID NOT GET TO GALVESTON, TEXAS UNTIL JUNE 19TH, Y'ALL FOLLOWING? SO AT THAT TIME, THIS IS WHY HISTORY SAYS THAT THE UNION SOLDIERS ARRIVE IN GALVESTON, TEXAS WITH THE NEWS THAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER AND SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES IS ABOLISHED.
BUT WE KNOW IT WAS IN JANUARY THE 1ST OF 1863.
THE NEWS GOT TO TEXAS AT THAT TIME.
WELL FOR TENNESSEE, WE DIDN'T GET THAT NEWS
[03:20:02]
UNTIL AUGUST THE 8TH, OKAY, AROUND THAT TIME.AND DURING THIS TIME, THE REASON WHY I WOULD SUGGEST AUGUST THE 8TH AS BEING A HOLIDAY FOR TENNESSEE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN TENNESSEE RECOGNIZED THE NEWS AND WE RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF AUGUST THE 8TH.
THIS WAS A DAY THAT THE MILITARY GOVERNOR, ANDREW JOHNSON, FREED HIS PERSONAL SLAVES ON AUGUST THE 8TH.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, AUGUST THE 8TH HAS CONTINUED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A HOLIDAY IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY IN TENNESSEE AND SURROUNDING STATES.
AND IN 2007, TENNESSEE GOVERNOR PHIL BREDESEN SIGNED LEGISLATION ACKNOWLEDGING AUGUST THE 8TH AS EMANCIPATION DAY IN THAT STATE.
TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE THE CELEBRATION OF THE ACTIONS OF ANDREW JOHNSON, THE 17TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN MILITARY GOVERNOR, IN FREEING HIS PERSONAL SLAVES ON AUGUST THE 8TH OF 1863.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EMANCIPATION IN THE HISTORY OF TENNESSEE.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS, IT'S GOOD TO KNOW HISTORY BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE PUTTING SOMEBODY ELSE'S HISTORY IN TENNESSEE'S HISTORY IT DOESN'T LINE UP.
THIS HAPPENED IN, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE HISTORY, I'LL PASS THIS AROUND.
THE REASON THEY CELEBRATED BECAUSE THE NEWS GOT TO THEM ON THAT TIME, JUNETEENTH.
BUT AUGUST THE 8TH HAS BEEN PUT IN LEGISLATION FOR TENNESSEE, THAT IS THE DAY WE CELEBRATE, AND HONOR, AND RECOGNIZE EMANCIPATION DAY.
I HAVE BEEN ON COMMITTEES AND WORKED WITH SOME ORGANIZATIONS WHERE WE SET UP AND HAD PLANS AND DONE A LOT OF FUNCTIONS ON AUGUST THE 8TH.
THAT IS A DAY THAT IS VERY RECOGNIZED HERE IN CLARKSVILLE, TENNESSEE.
SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAKING JUNE 19TH A DAY FOR US TO POST AS A DAY FOR US TO CELEBRATE, I MEAN, I'M NOT AGAINST TRYING TO DO SOMETHING FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS BUT LET'S GET THE RIGHT DATE.
LET'S DON'T JUST VOTE ANYTHING, LET'S VOTE FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN TENNESSEE.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
COUNCILPERSON LITTLE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS AND THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON SMITH, THAT WAS AMAZING, HISTORY IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT.
I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN HISTORY AND I'M GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT BECAUSE I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO PAIR UP AND CELEBRATE JUNE 19TH WITH THE COUNTY, WITH THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CELEBRATING THAT ONE DAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO BE THAT DAY BUT I FEEL AS THOUGH IF WE'RE CELEBRATING THIS AS A UNITY AND ALL THE COUNTRY TOGETHER, I WOULD PREFER THAT IT FALL ON THAT DATE.
AND THEN NOT ONLY THAT, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE OBSERVE IT ON A WEEKDAY AND NOT A WEEKEND SO WE CAN ALL HAVE SOME FUN, THREE DAY.
YOU GONE FROM PREACHING TO MEDDLING THERE, SIR.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO I DID KNOW THE HISTORY JUNETEENTH AS COUNCILWOMAN SMITH ANNOUNCED IT, HOWEVER THE REASON WHY WHEN I SUBMITTED THIS FOR APPROVAL, SO AUGUST 8TH WAS THE SAME YEAR.
WHEN ALL ENSLAVED PEOPLE WERE FREED, NOT JUST HERE IN TENNESSEE.
IT FINALLY GOT THE WORD OUT, EVERYBODY KNEW THAT WE WERE FREE, THAT ENSLAVED PEOPLE WERE FREE.
I'D LIKE TO CELEBRATE THIS IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE REST OF OUR NATION.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I PROMISE I ONLY HAVE A QUESTION THIS TIME.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SAID THAT THE, THERE WAS STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED, THE EMANCIPATION DAY, I WAS JUST WONDERING IS, YOU SAID AUGUST 8TH, IS THAT ALREADY A CITY HOLIDAY? WELL IT IS, IN TENNESSEE.
TRISHA BUTLER: BUT I MEAN, HAVE WE RECOGNIZED IT AS A CITY YET? IT'S RECOGNIZED AS A HOLIDAY IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY, INTO THE CITY AND SURROUNDING STATES.
AND ON 2007, TENNESSEE GOVERNOR PHIL BREDESEN SIGNED LEGISLATION ACKNOWLEDGING AUGUST THE 8TH AS EMANCIPATION DAY IN THE STATE
[03:25:03]
TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE THE CELEBRATION OF THE ACTION OF ANDREW JOHNSON, 17TH PRESIDENT, WHO FREED HIS SLAVES ON AUGUST THE 8TH AS WELL IN 1863.SO MAYBE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT IS NOT A STATE PAID HOLIDAY FOR STATE EMPLOYEES.
NO, IT IS COMMEMORATED, MUCH LIKE SEPTEMBER 18TH, EVERY YEAR IS CARBON MONOXIDE AWARENESS DAY IN OUR STATE BECAUSE OF THE BWC 5 WHO WERE TRAGICALLY KILLED IN THAT CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING ACCIDENT.
SO DOES THAT GET TO YOUR QUESTION? I WAS JUST CURIOUS, IF WE'RE CONSIDERING THE 19TH OF JUNE, AND WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER, AND I'M GONNA GO HOME AND CONSIDER NOW AUGUST THE 8TH AS WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T ALREADY A CITY HOLIDAY, THANK YOU.
THE CITY CODE GIVES THE CITY COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH OFFICIAL CITY HOLIDAYS, AND NEITHER DAY, JUNE 19TH OR AUGUST 8TH, NEITHER DAY IS ESTABLISHED IN CITY CODE RIGHT NOW AS A HOLIDAY BUT YOU CAN ESTABLISH WHATEVER DAYS YOU WANT TO.
TRISHA BUTLER: OR BOTH OF THEME EVEN.
IT'S POSSIBLE IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT.
YOU JUST PERKED THE EARS OF CITY EMPLOYEES EVERYWHERE.
OKAY THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON BUTLER.
COUNCILPERSON REDD, AND THEN I'LL- THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I TOO AM IN SUPPORT OF JUNETEENTH.
I'M IN FAVOR OF FREEDOM AND I BELIEVE IT'S A GOOD THING.
MY MOTHER WAS BORN IN PENNSYLVANIA, SHE WAS BORN IN THE HOUSE THAT IS IN THE BOOK CALLED, "RESISTANCE AT CHRISTIANA" AND WAS TOLD BY FOREFATHERS TO GO BACK TO THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, A LOT OF PEOPLE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HISTORY, THEY DON'T REALIZE THIS, THERE WAS SOME WAR FOR SOME FREEDOM WITH FREDERICK DOUGLASS TAKING THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.
AND THERE WERE CLASHES THERE IN CHRISTIANA, PENNSYLVANIA.
SO I DO SUPPORT JUNETEENTH AND I DO KNOW THAT THE COUNTY HAS ALSO, HAS THE SAME PROCLAMATION BUT MY QUESTION IS TOO, AND I LOVE OUR CITY EMPLOYEES, DON'T GET ME WRONG, I THINK THAT, OF COURSE I'M NOT THEIR DAY TO DAY MANAGER, YOU ARE MAYOR, SO I CAN'T SAY WHOLLY, BUT I THINK THEY ARE GREAT PEOPLE.
WILL THEY BE OFF, WILL IT BE LIKE THE COUNTY WHERE THEY GET A PAID HOLIDAY? I THINK THE WAY THIS IS PROPOSED IT WILL BE A PAID HOLIDAY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE OFFICERS, AND OTHERS WHO WORK 24/7, THEY WOULD BE PAID HOLIDAY PAY AS WELL AS OVERTIME BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE PAY FOR OUR CITY HOLIDAYS.
SO THERE IS A FINANCIAL COST, A HIT TO THE BUDGET OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS, MUCH LIKE EVERY OTHER PAID HOLIDAY WEEKEND.
RIGHT, WELL THAT MAY BE AN AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT WHERE, BECAUSE THE CITIZENS IN CLARKSVILLE, THEY ARE NOT GETTING A PAID HOLIDAY AND THEY STILL GOT TO GO TO WORK, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT SHOULD BE AN OBSERVED HOLIDAY.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON REDD, IF YOU BRING AN AMENDMENT, MAKE SURE IT'S IN WRITING, PLEASE SIR.
COUNCILPERSON KNIGHT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
KNIGHT: CLARIFICATION'S ALREADY MADE IN REGARDS TO ALL THE DATES THAT WAS PRESENTED.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, BACK TO YOU.
AND TO CONCLUDE ON THIS PARTICULAR, WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS OPINION, IS THIS IS NOTHING AGAINST JUNE 19TH, HOWEVER IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO DO BOTH OF THEM.
WHY NOT JUST DO BOTH OF THEM? YOU KNOW? LET'S MAKE IT GRAND.
LET'S DO SOMETHING BIG HERE IN CLARKSVILLE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS OR MINORITIES.
NOT AGAINST JUNE 19TH, BUT I DO NOT RECOGNIZE JUNE 19TH, NEVER HAVE CELEBRATED IT, I'VE ALWAYS CELEBRATED JUNE 8TH ALONG WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HERE IN CLARKSVILLE.
DR. JERRY JERKINS ALONG WITH HELEN LONG, I WAS ON COMMITTEES WITH THEM AS WELL AS OTHERS WHO ARE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, ME BEING ONE OF THEM, SO WE KNOW THE HISTORY AND WE DID DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THIS A GREAT DAY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS.
SO AUGUST THE 8TH, KNOW YOUR HISTORY, IT'S GOOD TO KNOW HISTORY.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR HISTORY, READ ABOUT IT.
SOME PEOPLE JUST JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON AND DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY.
THEY'LL JUST SAY, "I WANT TO GO ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE IT'S A BLACK THING." NO, THAT AIN'T THE REASON TO GO ALONG WITH IT.
GO ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE TRUE HISTORY.
STOP JUST GOING ALONG JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON AND DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON.
I'M A BIT DISAPPOINTED THAT WE WANT TO SAY
[03:30:03]
JUNE 19TH IS THE DAY EVERYBODY GOT, NO, THAT'S NOT WHEN WE WERE FREED.IT WAS SIGNED ON JANUARY THE 1ST OF 1863.
AS I SAID, THE NEWS TRAVELED AND SOME OF THE SLAVE OWNERS DID NOT EVEN WANT THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE SLAVES.
SO THAT WAS ONE REASON IT WASN'T MADE ACTIVE.
SO WE NEED TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE MAKE A DECISION WE'RE NOT JUST JUMPING ON BANDWAGONS, "WELL IT'S THE 19TH AND WE'RE GONNA DO IT." NO, THAT AIN'T THE WAY YOU DO THINGS.
YOU NEED TO INVESTIGATE, EXAMINE, RESEARCH, BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION SO WE WON'T LOOK LIKE WE DON'T KNOW HISTORY.
SOME OF US DON'T, BUT I DO STUDY, THAT'S ONE THING I DO DO.
AND LOVE TO READ AND I LOVE TO LEARN.
SO, I WILL END WITH THAT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
WE'RE BACK TO THE SPONSOR, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
OKAY, SO I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU GUYS TO SUPPORT THIS.
MISS WANDA MADE HER POINT, I'M SORRY, COUNCILPERSON SMITH MADE HER POINT TO, TO TELL US THE HISTORY OF TENNESSEE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AUGUST 8TH, 1963 WAS TENNESSEE.
I GET IT, AND SOME SURROUNDING AREAS THAT THEY WERE, THAT THEY FOUND OUT THAT SLAVERY HAD ENDED.
BUT WE WANT TO CELEBRATE SLAVERY FROM THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AT THAT POINT ON JUNE 19TH, 20- NOT 20.
1965 EVERY ENSLAVED PERSON KNEW THAT THEY WERE FREE.
THIS, TENNESSEE IS A DIVERSE PLACE AND I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE IN TENNESSEE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOREVER BUT I A TRANSPLANT AND THERE ARE MANY OF US THAT ARE.
SO THIS IS A MELTING POT HERE IN CLARKSVILLE, WE KNOW THAT.
WE WANT TO CELEBRATE WHEN ALL PEOPLE WERE FREE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, MAYOR.
THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON ALLEN.
I THINK COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU WANTED TO BE RECOGNIZED? MISS ALLEN, I MEAN, COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, BUT ANYWAY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT ALL PEOPLE WERE NOT FREE ON THE DAY ON JUNE 19TH.
IT SAID ONLY 47 STATES KNEW ABOUT IT BY THEN, BUT ALL PEOPLE WERE NOT FREE.
IF YOU READ THE HISTORY IT WILL TELL YOU THAT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THIS SHEET, I'D BE GLAD TO LET YOU SEE IT.
ALL PEOPLE WERE NOT FREE, THAT WAS THE DAY THAT GALVESTON, TEXAS RECEIVED THE INFORMATION AND AT THAT TIME HISTORY SAID THAT 47 STATES HAD ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED.
SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE STILL NEED TO READ OUR HISTORY.
JOE PITTS: THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON SMITH.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
KAREN REYNOLDS: I'M SORRY, I'M DYING, CAN WE TURN THE- JOE: I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT POINT.
YES, MR.GOODSON TOOK CARE OF THAT.
THANK YOU, MR.GOODSON, AND A LITTLE, SOME EXTRA IN YOUR PAYCHECK FOR THAT.
OKAY, ANY CLOSING WORDS, COUNCIL PERSON ALLAN ON THE ORDINANCE? ALLAN: NO.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE NEXT READY FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 72, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
THE SPONSOR IS COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT.
SO THIS ORDINANCE IS TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO DELETE THE FUNDING.
ACTUALLY, THIS ISN'T PARTICIPANT: OPERATING NOT PURCHASING.
OPERATING EXPENSE NOT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT WE CHANGED IT TO, IT'S JUST THAT'S NOT THE VERSION THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR DELETING THE OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE ROXY REGIONAL THEATER WITHOUT REHASHING.
I KNOW WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING ROUND AND ROUND DISCUSSING WITH THE PURCHASE.
AND A LOT OF THINGS CAME UP WITH THE LEASE AND THEN ALSO WITH THE AMOUNTS THAT WAS ALLOCATED TO.
AND THEN THE MAIN REASON BEHIND THIS IS AS WE DIVE IN QUESTIONS WERE BEING ASKED AND ANSWERED IN REFERENCE TO IT.
I JUST FELT THAT, IN BEING FAIR TO SOME OF THE OTHER NONPROFITS THAT IN 2017 WE CUT OFF FROM RECEIVING NONPROFIT FUNDING.
TO ME, A MORE EQUITABLE PROCESS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR US TO HAVE SUBMITTED AN RFP TO ALLOW OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO SUBMIT THEIR BUDGETS TO THE CITY VERSUS JUST ALLOWING ONE TO SUBMIT A BUDGET AND RECEIVE $180,000 TO ONE ENTITY ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT HISTORICALLY, WE'D HAVE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 12 TO MAYBE 15 NONPROFITS
[03:35:01]
THAT'D BE SHARING MUCH LESS THAN $180,000.AND SO I'LL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON IT NEXT WEEK.
I KNOW THE MEETING HAS BEEN LONG AND LIKE I SAID A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE INVOLVING THE PURCHASE OF THE ROXY THEATER.
JOE: THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE? OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR THE ITEM.
I COULDN'T FIND MY MUTE BUTTON.
COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I LOST A LOT OF WHAT COUNCILMAN GARRETT WAS SHARING OR THE SPONSOR WAS SHARING.
COULD HE REPEAT THE BEGINNING PART? THERE'S A LOT OF PAPER FLIPPING GOING ON.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LIVE, BUT IT'S IT'S DEFINITELY GOING OVER HERE AND THAT TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER.
I LOST WHAT THE SPONSOR WAS SHARING ABOUT THE FIRST PORTION.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A TYPO OR SOMETHING WAS WRITTEN WRONG.
JOE: OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERBIAGE ON THE AGENDA? YES, SIR.
THE VERBIAGE ON THE AGENDA SAYS, DELETE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE WHEN IT SHOULD BE DELETE FUNDING FOR THE OPERATION EXPENSES.
IS THAT CORRECT? RICHMOND: SO IT'S NOT ON ABOUT THE 180? I THINK I HEARD COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT MENTIONING.
JOE: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
AND THEN COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT, THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER WAS SAYING, HE'S GOING TO SPEAK MORE ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE NIGHT IS ALL LONG, HE'S GOING TO SPEAK MORE ABOUT IT ON NEXT WEEK? CORRECT.
RICHMOND: OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR.
ANYBODY ELSE? NOW WE'RE READY FOR ITEM FIVE.
RESOLUTION 49 TERMINATING THE LEASE AGREEMENT.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT? COUNCIL PERSON GARRET, EXCUSE ME.
YEAH, SO AGAIN, MY REMARKS WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
WE'VE ASKED AND ANSWERED THIS ONE AS WELL AS FAR AS THOSE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THOSE THAT MAY BE IN OPPOSITION OF IT.
I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO REVISIT IT AT THIS TIME.
THERE'S NOT AN URGENT RUSH TO MOVE FORWARD AND EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TERMINATE IT AND REVIEW IT AND MAYBE REACH OUT TO SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN THE ARTS AND SEE WHAT KIND OF EQUITABLE PLAN THAT WE CAN HAVE AND DEVELOP FOR A TRUE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER VERSUS KIND OF HOW THINGS ARE STRUCTURED NOW, AND SO I'LL SPEAK ON THAT.
BAKER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COUNCIL CLEAR THAT TECHNICALLY, WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING HERE, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WHICH IS NOT JUST A LEASE OF A BUILDING IT ALSO HAS PROVISIONS ABOUT OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT THAT WAS PASSED IN A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION.
WHAT THIS RESOLUTION DOES IS SIMPLY REPEAL THAT PRIOR RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED.
TECHNICALLY THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS NOT IN EFFECT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN SIGNED BY EITHER PARTY.
SO WHAT YOU TECHNICALLY WOULD BE DOING WITH THIS IS SIMPLY REPEALING THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF A PRIOR COUNCIL OF THE LEASE SLASH OPERATING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.
COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN ONE OF THE BUTTON PUSHERS AND ASKING LOTS OF QUESTIONS, BUT I'VE ALSO RECEIVED A LOT OF PHONE CALLS AND I MAY NOT PHRASE THIS EXACTLY CORRECT.
AND PLEASE, TELL ME, MAYOR, IF I DON'T.
BUT I DO WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ROXY, WHICH I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND UNTIL I STARTED ASKING MY QUESTIONS.
THEY ARE SELLING THEIR BUILDING AND RELINQUISHING THEIR SPACE.
AND IF WE NOT GUARANTEE THEM A SPACE AS A NONPROFIT AND AS SOMEBODY THAT HAS BEEN IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR 35 YEARS IN THIS LEASE WHY WOULD THEY SELL US THEIR BUILDING? I DON'T APPRECIATE.
SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THIS, ARE MORE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR IN LEGAL TERMS. SOME LONGEVITY, OTHERWISE IT COULD BE THREE YEARS DOWN THE LINE.
WE TAKE THEIR BUILDING, WE BUILD A NEW ONE AND THEN THEY'RE OUT AND THAT'S NOT QUITE EQUITABLE.
SO I THINK WE COULD MAYBE CHANGE UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE ONCE WE MOVE INTO THE NEW BUILDING AND HAVE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY BUT NOT GUARANTEEING THEM A SPACE AS THEY SELL THEIR BUILDING.
SO WE CAN BUILD ON THAT SITE, A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
[03:40:02]
IF THAT IS OUR CHOICE, BECAUSE REALLY THAT'S THE VOTE.I WOULD NOT GIVE YOU MY BUILDING.
I MEAN, DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? I WOULD STAY IN IT UNTIL IT FELL DOWN.
SO I DO HAVE SOME MIXED FEELINGS AND I THINK THAT WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL AND WE HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT WE DO OWE THEM SOME GUARANTEES.
JOE: THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON REYNOLDS.
COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT, YOU RECOGNIZED.
MR. BAKER: CAN I JUST ADD ONE THING? JOE: IT'S OKAY MR. BAKER IF THAT'S OKAY COUNCIL PERSON GARRET.
MR. BAKER: I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU.
I FORGOT TO SAY THIS, OBVIOUSLY THIS RESOLUTION 49 WHICH WOULD REPEAL THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LEASE IS INTRICATELY TIED TO THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE.
THE REASON WHY I SAID, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY GO TOGETHER BECAUSE THE WAY THIS LEASE IS WRITTEN WE ARE ACTUALLY THE LESS SORE, MEANING WE'RE THE OWNER.
WELL, WE KNOW THAT THAT HASN'T OCCURRED YET BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU GOT TO DECIDE NEXT WEEK ON FIRST READING.
SO JUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE COULD BE IN ANILITY OF ILLEGAL CONUNDRUM IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD SITUATION FOR US TO STILL HAVE AN APPROVAL OF THE LEASE WHERE WE'RE THE OWNER BUT YET WE DON'T ACTUALLY PURCHASE THE BUILDING.
SO JUST KEEP IN MIND THEY GO TOGETHER AND YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT ON HOW YOU VOTE ON THEM.
BACK TO YOU COUNCIL PERSON GARRETT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO IS THAT I GUESS, INTENT BEHIND THE LEGISLATION ISN'T FOR US TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING AND THEN POTENTIALLY RENT IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
IN THEORY, THIS IS BASED ON HOPEFULLY AS VOTING DOWN THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING AND THEN THAT'S NULLIFYING THE LEASE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MOVE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AT THIS TIME.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S ON THERE LIKE THAT AS ONCE THE IF IT DOES IN FACT GET VOTED DOWN COME NEXT WEEK, I BELIEVE THAT THE LEASE WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED BECAUSE IT'S AN UNENFORCEABLE LEASE AT THAT POINT.
HOWEVER, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THE LEGISLATION IN THERE JUST TO SUPPORT IT.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS MATTER? I'M SEEING NONE.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX RESOLUTION 50, COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, THE SPONSOR.
AND I'M GOING TO BE REAL QUICK BECAUSE I'M HUNGRY AND I'M READY TO GO.
ALL RIGHT, LET THE CHURCH SAY AMEN.
THE REASON I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA IS THAT AFTER THE PRESENTATION ABOUT MR. RYAN, I THINK HIS NAME IS RYAN BOWIE.
I WAS CALLING HIM KENNY ALL THE TIME I WAS TALKING TO HIM BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T HEAR HIM.
I JUST KEPT CALLING HIM KENNY AND HE JUST KEPT ANSWERING AND I APPRECIATE HIM HE DIDN'T MAKE ME LOOK TOO BAD, BUT LIKE I SAID I COULDN'T HARDLY HEAR HIM SO I CALLED HIM A NAME BASED ON WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD.
SO ANYWAY, IN ALL DUE RESPECT AND HE TALKED ABOUT HOW HE WAS FOR DIVERSITY AND HE WAS ABOUT BEING INCLUSIVE.
SO MY QUESTION TO HIM WAS HOW MANY BLACKS ARE ON THE BOARDS, THE INFLUENTIAL BOARDS.
AND IT TOOK HIM A MINUTE TO COUNT THEM UP.
I GUESS HE WAS LOOKING FOR THEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE KNEW WHO THEY WERE OR WHAT BUT HIS OUTCOME WAS, THERE WAS ONE.
ONE AND THEN HE NAMED ONE MEXICAN AND SOME OTHER RACE.
SO I BROUGHT THIS UP BECAUSE ALL OF THE BOARDS THAT THEY HAVE THERE AT THE ROXY OR COMMITTEES, BOARDS WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.
I DIDN'T SEE IT BEING A DIVERSE BOARD.
I DIDN'T SEE IT BEING INCLUSIVE.
WE KNOW THE CLASS FOR POPULATION IS VERY DIVERSE AND SO I WAS LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESS IS ADDED IN THE CONTRACT PROCESS.
AND MR. BAKER TOLD ME AT THE TIME, WHEN I WROTE UP THIS AMENDMENT, I TYPED UP THIS AMENDMENT THAT IT LOOKS GOOD BUT I WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CAN BE INCLUDE BUT HE SAID IT COULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT BUT I WAS TRYING TO PUT IT IN THERE.
BUT HE SAID THAT IT COULD BE AMENDED IN THE, I THINK THE
[03:45:03]
JOE: LEASE.NO, HE DIDN'T SAY LEASE, HE SAID OF THE OPERATIONAL.
OPERATIONAL PROCESS, AM I RIGHT MR. BAKER? MR. BAKER: YES.
AND SO WHAT IT READS IS JUST VERY PLAIN.
IT JUST SAYS THAT IT IS PERMANENT THAT THE ROXIE LEADERS OR DIRECTORS OR SUPERVISORS PRACTICE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESS IN THEIR SEARCH FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS TALENT, FOR HER IN PLAYS AND MOVIES OR WHATEVER THEY MAY HAVE.
AND FOR HIRING JOBS, ESPECIALLY WHITE COLLAR JOBS, AS WELL AS PARTICIPANTS ON ALL BULLETS OF INFLUENCE WITHIN THE ROXY.
SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
IT'S JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE BEING INCLUSIVE AND ARE PRACTICING DIVERSITY WITHIN THEIR BOARDS AND IN HIRING FOR TALENT.
COUNCIL PERSON STREETMAN, YOU WISH TO BE RECOMMENDED? STACEY: YES, SIR.
JOE: I GOT YOU ON THE LIST, COUNCIL RICHMOND.
I DO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DID SAY YOU WERE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING, WHICH IS WHY YOU WEREN'T SURE THAT HIS NAME WAS RYAN.
WHEN YOU ASKED HIM THE QUESTION HE ANSWERED FOUR, NOT ONE.
HE HAD SAID THERE WAS FOUR BLACK MEMBERS ON THE BOARD AS WELL AS THERE WAS ONE HISPANIC, AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE TWO LGBT MEMBERS.
SMITH: HE SAID FOUR BLACKS? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? FOUR BLACKS, YES, MA'AM.
SMITH: OKAY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
ONE HISPANIC AND THEY ALSO HAVE ONE NATIVE AMERICAN.
I KNOW YOU MISHEARD SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT.
SMITH: I COULD HEAR, I THOUGHT THAT HE SAID ONE.
I NOTICED THAT ONE WAS READINGS, BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO RESPOND WITH A FOUR IS NOT ENOUGH.
IF THERE'S 20 PEOPLE ON THE BOARD, FOUR IS NOT ENOUGH.
IT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST 10 TO BE A DIVERSE BOARD FOR ME.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT NOBODY ELSE BUT INCLUSIVENESS NEEDS TO SHOW AN EQUAL BALANCE.
JOE: THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON SMITH.
COUNCIL PERSON RICHMOND, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND THE AMENDMENT THAT THE SPONSOR WAS JUST REFERRING TO.
I THINK SHE HAD IT IN HER HAND.
IS IT IN OUR PACKET OR IS THAT JUST FOR THOSE THAT WERE PRESENT TONIGHT OR WHICH OF MY FILE? JOE: IT IS IN YOUR PACKET, IT'S RESOLUTION 50 AND IT'S ON PAGE 218 OF I DON'T IF I CAN GET THAT NUMBER, 218 OF 260.
RICHMOND: OKAY, THANK YOU. MAYOR.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS RESOLUTION? HEARING NONE, SEEING NOW WE'RE NOW READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS RESOLUTION 51.
AND THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL PERSON EVANS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YES, SO SINCE IT'S BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT THE CITY IS MR. BAKER'S CLIENT, HE IS OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE US WITH ADVICE THAT'S COMMUNICATED IN A WAY IN WHICH WE CAN UNDERSTAND, AND THAT ISN'T DEMEANING.
SO I WANTED TO INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION TO CALM THAT MY CONCERN OF THE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY REGARDING MR. BAKER.
I'D LIKE TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE THING THAT TRIGGERED MY THOUGHT WAS A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO.
I FORGET IF IT WAS THE REGULAR OR FIRST EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT WE HAD COUNCIL PERSON ALLAN HAD ASKED FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE MONEY SPENT ON LAWSUITS.
AND WHEN I WAS PACKING UP, I OVERHEARD MR. BAKER SAY THAT SHE WANTED THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE SHE WAS WORKING WITH MR. ROBINSON.
THAT KIND OF PRECONCEIVED NOTION IS NOT OBJECTIVE, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE.
SO I PUT THIS RESOLUTION ON THE AGENDA TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION IN REGARDS TO THE OBJECTIVITY OF MR. BAKER.
JOE: THANK YOU, COUNCIL PERSON EVANS.
COUNCIL PERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
AND RELATION TO WHAT MS. ASHLEY HAS JUST SAID, JOE: COUNCIL PERSON EVANS.
COUNCIL PERSON EVAN, I'M SO SORRY FOR THAT, PLEASE FORGIVE ME.
PARTICIPANT: I HEARD THE SAME THING.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GIVE SOME INSIGHT ON WHAT SHE HAS SPOKEN.
AND I FOUND OUT THAT THE WAY THAT YOU REALLY GET TO KNOW A PERSON, A PERSON'S BEHAVIOR, ATTITUDE AND ACTIONS IS THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS OR INTERACTIONS SUCH AS A FRIENDSHIP AS A COLLEAGUE IN YOUR WORK
[03:50:05]
OR SCHOOL OR IN A MARRIAGE AND SO ON.AS A COUNCIL WOMAN AND ONE OF ATTORNEY BAKER'S BOSSES, I HAVE LEARNED MUCH ABOUT HIS PERSONALITY AND WORK ETHICS.
THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT YOU ARE KNOWN BY THE FRUIT THAT YOU BEAR.
WITH THIS I HAVE DISCOVERED IN MY INTERACTIONS WITH ATTORNEY BAKER FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, I'M GOING ON SEVEN YEARS TODAY.
HIS ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN DISRESPECTFUL TO SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY ME.
ALSO, HE USED PERSUASIVE WORDS AND MANIPULATIVE TERMS IN A SKILLFUL MANNER TO SUPPORT HIS AGENDA.
AND SOMETIMES HE FAILS TO DO WHAT IS ASKED OF HIM IN A TIMELY MANNER FOR SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS.
ONE OF THE LAST EXAMPLES HAPPEN ON FRIDAY, JANUARY THE 22ND.
EARLY THAT MORNING, I CALLED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SPEAK WITH THE ATTORNEY BAKER.
THE SECRETARY SAID TO ME THAT HE'S IN A MEETING AND THINK THEY ARE ABOUT TO LEAVE.
SHORTLY AFTER I SENT HIM AN EMAIL APPROXIMATELY 12:44 PM ON JANUARY THE 22ND, ASKING HIM TO CALL ME AND THAT I HAD LEFT HIM A MESSAGE TO CALL.
MR. BAKER SENT AN EMAIL APPROXIMATELY 1:16 PM THAT READ, "YES, MAIN, CALLING NOW." NOW, SHOWING POOR WRITING SKILLS AND BAD ENGLISH.
I HAVE A COPY OF AN EXAMPLE OF HOW HE WROTE THAT IT.
THE BEGINNING OF THE MESSAGE TO ME WAS YES SPELL WITH A SMALL Y.
AND THEN HE SAID, MAIN, M-A-I-N CALLING NOW.
MAIN MEANS CRIPPLED, MUTILATED, OR INJURED.
I HAVE AND MY PHONE HISTORY SHOWS THE OFFICE NUMBER BUT IT MUST'VE RUNG ONE TIME AND HUNG UP.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO PHONE CONTACT BETWEEN MR. BAKER AND I.
SO I DECIDED TO GO TO HIS OFFICE WITH MY AMENDMENT IN HAND ON FEBRUARY THAT THE SAME DAY, APPROXIMATELY 1:30 PM.
ON JANUARY THE 22ND, I WENT TO MR. BAKER'S OFFICE, AND KNOCKED ON HIS DOOR, AND FOUND MR. BAKER SITTING IN HIS LARGE CHAIR, SLUMPED DOWN WITH HIS FEET PROPPED UP HIGH ON THE DESK, TALKING ON THE PHONE.
HE TURNED AND SAW ME AND KEPT TALKING ON THE PHONE, SO I CLOSED THE DOOR AND SAT OUTSIDE, AND WAITED 15 MORE MINUTES, APPROXIMATELY 15 MORE MINUTES, BEFORE HE OPENED HIS DOOR TO INVITE ME IN.
WE GREETED EACH OTHER, AND I GAVE HIM A COPY OF MY TYPE AMENDMENT, AND ASKED HIM TO REVIEW IT, TO PLACE IT ON THE EXECUTIVE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
MR. BAKER SAID IT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE PURCHASING CONTRACT, BUT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE OPERATIONAL CONTRACT, AND THAT HE WOULD FIX IT TO MEET THE GOVERNING LAWS.
AS I WAS GETTING READY TO LEAVE, MR. BAKER ASSURED ME HE WOULD GET THE AMENDMENT TAKEN CARE OF AND GIVE IT TO SYLVIA IMMEDIATELY.
ON THE 25TH OF JANUARY, 2021, I EMAILED SYLVIA TO INFORM HER THAT MR. BAKER IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE HER A COPY OF MY AMENDMENT.
AND SYLVIA SAID, THANK YOU, I WILL FOLLOW UP.
YESTERDAY, WHICH WAS A VERY BUSY DAY FOR ME, ON JANUARY THE 27TH, APPROXIMATELY 3:55 PM, I WAS READY TO CHAIR THE TSG MEETING ON ZOOM.
TSG IS TRANSPORTATION, STREET AND GARAGE.
AT 4:00 PM, SYLVIA CALLED AND SAID, MS. WANDA, LANCE NEED YOU TO CALL HIM.
HE IS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH YOUR AMENDMENT.
I SHARED WITH SYLVIA I COULD NOT CALL HIM BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO START A MEETING.
LANCE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM AND HE WOULD GET IT DONE, AND NOW THIS.
I SAID, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T CALL HIM NOW, BUT I CAN AFTER THE MEETING.
SYLVIA SAID, I NEED TO FINISH THE AGENDA TODAY, AND HE IS HAVING PROBLEMS PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA.
I SAID, HE SHOULD'VE CALLED ME BEFORE NOW, THE LAST MINUTE, AND HE COULD HAVE EMAILED ME.
HE COULD'VE JUST PICKED UP THE PHONE.
THIS WAS ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY THAT EXEMPLIFIES MR. BAKER'S UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE.
IT TAKES ONE THROUGH MANY CHANGES, UNNECESSARY CHANGES, JUST TO GET ONE AMENDMENT REVIEWED TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA BY THE CLERK.
AS A COUNCILPERSON, I TAKE THE CITY'S BUSINESS, AND THE CITIZENS' CONCERNS SERIOUSLY, WITH HOPES OF A GREAT OUTCOME FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.
[03:55:02]
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.SO, I WANNA REFER TO WHAT MS. ASHLEE, SORRY, MS. COUNCILWOMAN EVANS SAID.
I WAS STANDING HERE AND I WAS TALKING TO MR. BAKER, AND I ASKED THAT, WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I ASKED HIM, I SAID, DO YOU KNOW WHY I WANT THE PAPERWORK? AND HE SAID, IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE IN WITH ROBINSON.
AND MS. COUNCILWOMAN EVANS WERE THERE, AND COUNCILMAN KNIGHT WAS STANDING BEHIND US AT THAT POINT.
I WANNA SAY THAT I'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. BAKER.
ME AND MR. BAKER HAD BEEN THROUGH SOME HURDLES.
I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF ME ALREADY.
AND IT CAME OUT IN OUR INITIAL INTERACTIONS.
WHEN I CAME ONTO THE COUNCIL, I ASKED FOR VERY MANY THINGS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WERE THE FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE ATTORNEY FEES THAT ARE BEING PAID OUT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY.
AT THIS POINT, I EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, AND I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
I ASKED HOW WE COULD SAVE MONEY.
I ASKED WOULD IT BE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY, TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY FOR THE OFFICE VERSUS OUTSOURCING.
I ASKED HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
THE ANSWER THAT HE GAVE ME, AFTER WE HASHED OUT OUR DIFFERENCES, THE ANSWER THAT HE GAVE ME PER MY QUESTIONS THAT I STILL HAVE NOT HAD ANSWERED, IS THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.
NOW, WE HASHED OUT THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE HAD.
HOWEVER, THESE ARE ANSWERS THAT I'M STILL WAITING FOR WITH THE ATTORNEY FEES THAT WE'VE BEEN PAYING OUT.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN A HARD ROAD THIS LAST MONTH WITH MR. BAKER AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
I DO NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE IN HIM TO GIVE ME, AS A COUNCILPERSON, WHAT I NEED MOVING FORWARD.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS COUNCIL, I HAVE FOUR YEARS TO MAKE THE THINGS HAPPEN THAT MY CONSTITUENTS ASKED ME TO MAKE HAPPEN.
AND I DO NOT FEEL LIKE I HAVE THE CONFIDENCE IN THIS CITY ATTORNEY TO HELP ME MAKE THAT HAPPEN, TO ADVISE ME IN THE PROPER MANNER.
OH, I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS NEXT.
(COUNCILPERSON BUTLER GROANS) OH, THIS IS SO DIFFICULT.
I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE DURATION OF MR. BAKER'S TENURE HERE.
I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO A FEW THINGS THAT I CAN, AND THAT'S OVER THE LAST MONTH.
I HAVE AT TIMES BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY EMAILS ARE ADDRESSED TO CERTAIN CITY COUNCILPEOPLE.
I CANNOT PRETEND THAT THAT'S NOT TRUE.
HOWEVER, I HAVE SAT DOWN AND TALKED TO MR. BAKER ABOUT THAT, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER THINGS.
AND I CAN SAY THAT WITH THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF LAWSUITS, AND THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH THE ETHICS, AND WITH THE THE BLACK HORSE AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THAT HIS CASELOAD, BETWEEN THAT AND THIS CITY COUNCIL, AND SEVEN PEOPLE ON THE CITY COUNCIL FLIPPING, AND NONE OF US REALLY GETTING THE FULL ORIENTATION THAT WE SHOULD'VE HAD, THANKS TO COVID, I THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
I HAVE A HUGE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT SOME SMALLER CITIES AROUND US HAVE A MUCH HIGHER AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS ON STAFF THAN WE DO.
I AM FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, SO FOR ME TO SAY THAT, I THINK THAT IT'S BECOME PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT MAYBE THREE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH.
I DO AGREE WITH WHAT PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE SAID THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT ABOUT PREDETERMINATIONS THAT WERE MADE PRIOR TO THIS COUNCIL COMING ON, THE SPECIFICALLY THE SEVEN OF US.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS, I CAN'T SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS.
AND AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN HERE FOR SEVEN YEARS, BUT I CAN SAY THAT AFTER SEEING THIS AGENDA, I CAME IN HERE TONIGHT WITH THE, UNDER THE OPINION THAT ONE MONTH IS JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR ME TO HAVE MADE THAT DECISION YET.
[04:00:01]
AND TRUTHFULLY, BEFORE I SAT DOWN WITH MR. BAKER, I WOULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER OPINION, BUT THAT I AM WILLING TO GIVE AN AMOUNT OF GRACE, BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GONE ON IN THE LAST MONTH.(LAUGHS) AND AS MUCH AS I HATE POSTPONEMENTS, I MIGHT SUPPORT A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS ONE.
SO, THANK YOU COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT LANCE BAKER, HE HAS SAVED OUR BACON MORE THAN ONCE.
PROBABLY SAVED OUR CITY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE YEARS.
I WAS HERE WHEN HE GOT HERE, AND LANCE AND I, WE SERVED ON THE CODE REVISION, AND THE CHARTER REVISION THAT WE GOT PASSED.
THERE ARE TIMES THAT HE WOULD BE IN THIS OFFICE SEVEN OR EIGHT O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, WORKING FOR THIS CITY, ESPECIALLY AT A TIME, WE HAD A LAWYER JUST BEFORE LANCE, CAN'T RECALL HIS NAME.
AND BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE CONTROVERSY, HE'S A YOUNG FELLOW, I'LL ADMIT THAT, THAT HE JUST LEFT.
AND WE HAD PROBLEMS GETTING AN ATTORNEY, AND WE GOT LANCE.
AND I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY, LANCE BAKER DOES NOT MAKE THE LAWS THAT ARE HERE.
BUT HE HAS TO, AND HE DIDN'T WRITE THE CODE, BUT HE HAS SERVED WITH THE UTMOST INTEGRITY AND HONESTY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT HE HAS BEEN THE MOST ABUSED, EVEN BEFORE THIS COUNCIL GOT HERE, THE MOST ABUSED EMPLOYEE OVER THOSE YEARS THAT HE HAS BEEN HERE, BECAUSE HE'S BEEN LIKE, MORE LIKE A WHIPPING POST THAN ANYTHING ELSE FROM MUCH OF THE COUNCIL, EVEN BEFORE.
AND PERHAPS WE GET OUR FEELINGS HURT FROM THOSE THAT HAVE THE JOB OF TELLING US STRAIGHT UP, YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS ARE.
AND IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANNA HEAR ALL THE TIME FROM COUNCIL.
I ONLY LIKE TO HEAR GOOD NEWS.
I'M THE BIGGEST ONE ABOUT THAT.
AND, BUT THINGS LIKE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS, OR HE'S GOT HIS FEET UP ON THE DESK, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MAYBE LANCE DOES NOT HAVE THE POLITICIAN PERSONALITY.
MAYBE HE'S NOT THERE TO BE A FEEL-GOOD, GOOEY PERSONALITY TYPE, BUT HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB, MAYBE TOO GOOD.
AND THAT IS, HE HAS WON LAWSUIT AFTER LAWSUIT, PERHAPS HE'S WON THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WRONG PERSON.
AND THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY HE SEES HIMSELF IN THIS SITUATION.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU AGAIN, THERE IS NOBODY'S GOT THE MOST UTMOST INTEGRITY AND HONESTY THAT I'VE SEEN MY YEARS ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON REDD.
WE ARE AT COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO, I HAD THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SERVED WITH MR. BAKER FOR, AS ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS MENTIONED, FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS NOW.
AND I'VE SEEN THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE UGLY.
USUALLY THE BAD AND UGLY GETS KINDA SHADED MY WAY.
I'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF BIAS TREATMENT OVER THE YEARS.
WE TALK ABOUT PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS, AND AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME, SO I'M NOT GONNA HIT Y'ALL WITH EVERYTHING.
I'LL BE READY TO NEXT THURSDAY WITH THE SPECIFICS.
I'VE GOT DATES, I'VE GOT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT I'VE REQUESTED YEARS AGO FOR HIM TO ASSIST ME WITH THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN COMPLETED.
AND I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WRITE THEM FOR ME, BUT THEN I'LL HEAR OUT OF HIS MOUTH THAT YOU'RE ONE OF MY 13 BOSSES, AND I'M HERE TO, WELL, I FOR YOU.
BUT THE THINGS THAT I ASKED FOR, YOU KNOW, WE MENTIONED THE AGENDA TODAY.
I HAD STUFF ON THE TABLE THAT I HAD REQUESTED THREE WEEKS AGO.
I SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS REQUESTED TO SUPPLY, SO THAT IT COULD BE ON HERE.
LIKE I SAID, THIS HAS BEEN, THIS ISN'T JUST A RIGHT NOW THING, JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON THING.
MS. SKINNER CAN ATTEST TO IT THAT JUST LAST YEAR I HAD A VERY SIMILAR MOTION READY TO GO
[04:05:01]
ON THE TABLE TO DISCUSS LANCE'S, EXCUSE ME, MR. BAKER'S EMPLOYMENT.AND AT THE BEHEST OF SOMEONE, I ENDED UP TAKING IT OFF OF THE AGENDA, BECAUSE A MEETING WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE BETWEEN MR. BAKER AND I TO KIND OF GET HIM TO TONE DOWN HIS RHETORIC, AND THE WAY THAT HE WAS MISTREATING ME ON THE COUNCIL.
THE MEETING DIDN'T TAKE PLACE, HOWEVER, HE DID TONE DOWN HIS ACTIONS AND HIS COMMENTS A LITTLE.
STILL DIDN'T RESPOND VERY WELL TO REQUESTS FOR THINGS TO BE DONE IN WRITING, BUT AT LEAST HE DIDN'T TARGET ME AS MUCH WHEN HE WOULD COME AND SPEAK.
AND SO, LIKE I SAID, I'VE GOT EMAILS WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCES THAT I CAN BRING TO THE TABLE, AND I'LL HAVE THEM READY FOR THURSDAY.
COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YES, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT DIRECT COMMUNICATION IS NOT AN ATTACK, AND THE EMAILS I THINK THAT COUNCILPERSON BUTLER WAS REFERRING TO EARLIER WERE SOME WORDS THAT WERE COMMUNICATED BETWEEN MYSELF AND MR. BAKER.
AND I STATED IN THAT CONTACT WITH MR. BAKER THAT SINCE WE WEREN'T TO ASSUME BASED ON ONE-SIDED ALLEGATIONS, WHEN WOULD WE BRIEFED ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND THEN I ASKED, GENUINELY, IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE NEEDED TO PUT ON AN AGENDA FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SO THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT AND BE BRIEFED.
AND THEN I ALSO ASKED THAT WE NOT BE LEFT IN THE DARK AFTER HAVING HEARD WHAT COUNCILPERSON GARRETT SAID IN THE COUPLE SESSIONS BEFORE I HAD SENT THIS EMAIL.
AND MR. BAKER HAD RESPONDED AND SAID THAT I WAS BEING DISRESPECTFUL AND ACCUSATORY, WHICH I PERSONALLY BELIEVE I WASN'T, BECAUSE I WAS REACHING OUT IN GENUINE CONCERN.
AND THEN HE PROCEEDED TO, SORRY, SAY THAT CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY BE GETTING THEIR LEGAL ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE SUING THE CITY.
AND THEN HE ALSO SAID THAT HE TOOK MY CONCERNS AT FACE VALUE.
AND THAT'S NOT IN ANY WAY OBJECTIVE.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID BY PREVIOUS SPEAKER, THAT LANCE HAS BEEN GOOD, HE'S SAVED THAT BUTTS.
AND WE KNOW THAT IN THIS LIFE AND IN THIS WORLD, THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE TREATED BETTER THAN OTHERS, THAT'S JUST REAL.
I'VE EXPERIENCED IT FROM LANCE.
HE HAS SOME BIASED WAYS THAT I'VE NOTICED, BUT YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO OVERLOOK THEM.
SO I'M OVERLOOKED A LOT OF BIASED WAYS, AND I'VE OVERLOOKED SOME THINGS HE HAS SAID TO ME.
BUT SOMETIMES, IT COMES TO A POINT, A BREAKING POINT, THEN SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE ON A JOB FOR A LONG TIME, YOU TEND TO BECOME SO COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY YOU ARE, THAT YOU BEGIN TO DISRESPECT PEOPLE, YOU BEGIN TO BECOME UNPROFESSIONAL.
AND YOU BEGIN TO NOT CARE ABOUT WHO YOUR BOSS IS.
SO, I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS, AND I'M GONNA SPEAK UP BECAUSE THAT'S WHO I AM.
AND THIS IS NOT, I DON'T HATE YOU, I STILL LOVE YOU, BUT IT IS A TIME AND A SEASON FOR EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN.
AND IT IS TIME FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.
DON'T WANNA FIRE NOBODY BECAUSE TIMES ARE HARD, BUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A ORDINANCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO GET RID OF LANCE.
BUT THE MAYOR SAID, DON'T GO WITH IT, LET'S HOLD OUT.
THE MAYOR KNOWS, THIS IS NOTHING NEW, LANCE KNOW.
BUT I WANT Y'ALL TO KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN TREATED WITH BIASED BEHAVIOR, AND I'M STANDING HERE TO SAY IT.
[04:10:03]
'CAUSE THAT'S WHO I AM.STILL LOVE YOU, NO HATE IN MY HEART FOR NOBODY, BUT I DO NOT LIKE BEING MISTREATED BECAUSE MAYBE I'M NOT THE SAME AS SOMEBODY ELSE.
AND I'VE DEALT WITH LANCE, SOME OF YOU HAVE NOT DEALT WITH LANCE, AND HE'LL PUT STUFF OFF.
HE ACT LIKE, YOU KNOW, HE'LL USE HIS SKILLFUL LITTLE WAYS TO TURN THINGS AROUND.
AND I KNOW HE'S AN ATTORNEY, THEY GOT THAT IN THEIR, UNDER THEIR BELTS.
BUT IT'S TIME AND A SEASON FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, BUT I PRAY THAT WE MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS AROUND HERE.
I'M SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED, FANNIE LOU HAMER.
I'M JUST GONNA JUST TELL YOU ABOUT MY TIME WORKING WITH LANCE.
LANCE HAS A PRETTY ABRASIVE PERSONALITY, BUT THAT'S JUST HOW HE IS.
I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, I MEAN, HE WORKS HIS TAIL OFF, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, IF HE WILL SPEND 10, 11 HOURS A DAY IN HIS OFFICE, HE PUTS HIS FEET ON HIS DESK, I MEAN, I WOULDN'T BLAME HIM FOR THAT, YOU KNOW? AND YOU TALK ABOUT TYPOS IN EMAILS, WHO HASN'T PUT TYPOS IN EMAILS OR TEXT MESSAGES, YOU KNOW? IT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BLAME HIM FOR THAT.
YOU KNOW, ANOTHER THING FOR THE FRESHMEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, I MEAN, Y'ALL HAVE ONLY BEEN ON THE COUNCIL FOR 28 DAYS, AND YOU KNOW, DURING THAT 28 DAYS, YOU'VE ALREADY DECIDED TO FIRE SOMEBODY, WHICH I THINK'S PRETTY UNFOUNDED, AND PRETTY EXTREME IN MY OPINION, AND- I THINK LANCE IS PRETTY GOOD FOR THE CITY AND HE'S PROVEN LOYALTY, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, BEING THE PUNCHING BAG.
I MEAN, HE JUST GETS ATTACKED FROM ALL SIDES.
I JUST THINK THIS IS SILLY AND YEAH, I THINK IT'S SILLY.
ALL RIGHT, HANG ON, HANG ON. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU, COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN.
COUNCILPERSON REDD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MAYOR, THESE STATEMENT OF I FEEL LIKE AND I MAY HAVE BEEN MISTREATED IN A TYPO WITH AN EMAIL.
(SCOFFS) I DON'T KNOW THE, WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT THE SPECK HUNTING? NOTICE THE BOARD THAT'S IN YOUR OWN APP BEFORE YOU GO OUT AND TRY TO REMOVE THE SPECK OUT OF YOUR BROTHER'S EYE.
AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STILL.
AND ONE THING THAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT, I GUESS, THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE DOING CURRENTLY IN AMERICA, YOU ARE USUALLY ABLE TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERS AND YOU CAN STAND UP AND DEFEND YOURSELF OR SOMETHING.
AND I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU, MAYOR, AFTER WE GET THROUGH WITH FILLETING LANCE'S FEET AND POURING HOT PEPPERS ON THE LAW'S SOUL, WILL HE BE ABLE TO COME UP AND TALK TO US OR CAN HE ANSWER SOME OF THESE...
ACCUSATIONS OF I FEEL LIKE, OR HIS PERSONALITY'S BAD, OR HE HURT MY FEELINGS, AT SOME POINT? MAYOR: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN REDD.
NOT TONIGHT, HE WON'T, THANK YOU.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
SO WE'VE BEEN DANCING AROUND THIS ALL NIGHT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T WANNA GET TOO CONTROVERSIAL, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE ISSUES, THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, CENTER AROUND ONE PERSON WHO IS PERSISTENTLY CAUSING A RUCKUS WITHIN THIS BODY, OKAY? AND I CANNOT LISTEN...
TO ONE MORE TIME SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS PACK OKAY? AND I'M GONNA TELL YOU WHY.
BECAUSE THAT PACK ENDORSED MY OPPONENT, OKAY? AND I STILL AM NOT SITTING UP HERE, POINTING PEOPLE OUT ABOUT THE PACK.
AND I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE TO DO WITH THE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ON THIS BODY, AND WITH MR. BAKER.
IT HAS HAD AN EFFECT ON THAT, ALL RIGHT? THE PACK, THE LAWSUITS, THE EMAILS, THE PERSISTENT BARRAGE OF EMAILS, ALL RIGHT? AND WHO KNOWS? MAYBE I'LL HAVE AN ETHICS VIOLATION ON ME AFTER SAYING THIS, BUT I'M TELLING YOU THIS PERSON CANNOT HAVE THIS KIND OF POWER WITHIN THIS BODY, WITHIN EACH OF US AS COUNCIL PEOPLE AND WITH US AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
SO WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY STEP BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THIS THAT'S GOING ON.
AND I REALLY JUST, BESEECH; I'M GONNA USE THAT WORD, IT'S SO ARCHAIC; I BESEECH YOU, PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT THESE PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE, OUR PEERS, OKAY?
[04:15:08]
THAT THEY WERE SOMEHOW BOUGHT INTO THESE POSITIONS AND THAT THEY'RE DOING SOMEONE'S BIDDING BECAUSE I KNOW FROM PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, WAY BEFORE WE GOT SWORN IN, THAT THAT'S NOT TRUE.AND THAT'S ME DEFENDING A PACK THAT ENDORSED SOMEONE AGAINST ME, ALL RIGHT? LET'S FOCUS ON WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE, AND LET'S STOP LETTING A THIRD PARTY HAVE THIS MUCH INFLUENCE ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS CHAMBER.
SORRY, I GOT REALLY EXCITED RIGHT THERE, BUT THANK YOU.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
YES, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I JOINED THE ARMY IN 1980 AND IT IS NOW 19, IT IS NOW 2022 AND I'M SITTING HERE WITH ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE WOMEN BEING CALLED SILLY AND SENSITIVE BY MEN.
I'M SORRY, I JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE.
LOOK UP AT WHAT'S BEING SAID, AND WHO IT'S BEING SAID BY.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I AGREE WITH THE LAST SPEAKER.
NOBODY'S SILLY ON THIS COUNCIL, WE WERE VOTED IN BECAUSE WE HAD SOME SMARTS TO RUN AND WE KNOW HOW TO HANDLE SITUATIONS.
NOBODY IS SILLY AND ALSO, I WANNA ADDRESS THOSE WHO SAID THAT PUTTING HIS FOOT UP ON THE DESK, SLUMPED DOWN IN HIS CHAIR WAS A PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHAT I SAW, AND THAT TELLS ME THAT YOU BEEN HERE TOO LONG, DOING WRONG THINGS.
AND THEN, IT'S NOT BASED ON MY FEELINGS.
IT'S BASED ON WHAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED, LEARNED THAT.
IT'S NOT BASED ON FEELINGS, IT'S WHAT I ENCOUNTER, MY EXPERIENCE, I'M SORRY THAT YOU THINK THAT EVERYTHING'S BASED ON A FEELING.
I DON'T DEAL WITH MY CITY COUNCIL WORK BASED ON FEELINGS BECAUSE IF I DID, IT WOULDA BEEN A LOT OF THINGS I DIDN'T VOTE FOR, BUT I VOTED FOR 'EM 'CAUSE I DON'T VOTE BASED ON EMOTIONS.
AND SO I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO SAID THAT, IT'S NOT BASED ON FEELINGS.
IT'S BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, AND MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPERIENCE THAT BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE, BUT WHAT I EXPERIENCE, I WILL SHARE IT.
IF IT'S WRONG, YOU WILL KNOW ABOUT IT.
SO IT'S NOT FEELINGS, LET'S GET THAT STRAIGHT.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH BOTH THE FORMER SPEAKERS.
I WILL NOT TOLERATE BEING CALLED SILLY BECAUSE OF WHAT-- (CHATTER ERUPTS) HOLD ON. WAIT A MINUTE.
WAIT A MINUTE. BECAUSE OF WHAT I HAVE SAID.
I HAVE THE EMAILS TO SHOW THE CONVERSATION.
IF ANY OF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THEM, I CAN FORWARD THEM TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, SO THAT YOU CAN READ THE CONVERSATION THAT I HAD TO HAVE WITH MY CITY ATTORNEY, SO THAT I CAN GET THE INFORMATION THAT I STILL HAVE NOT GOT.
THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED ABOUT COST-EFFECTIVENESS.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE ASKED ABOUT WHY ARE WE SPENDING TAXPAYERS MONEY THE WAY THAT WE ARE, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SILLY.
THE QUESTION ABOUT ASKING IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO HIRE ANOTHER ATTORNEY, SO THAT WE'RE NOT OUTSOURCING ATTORNEY FEES LIKE WE ARE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S SILLY, AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED.
THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION IS THE ANSWER THAT I GOT, AND THIS WAS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
NEVER ANOTHER MENTION, NEVER A QUESTION ANSWERED.
SO IF HE HAS THE BEST INTEREST FOR OUR COUNCIL, KNOWING THAT WE HAD ALMOST AN HOUR CONVERSATION ON EMAIL, TRYING FOR HIM TO CLARIFY WHERE I WAS COMING FROM, TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER OR NOT I WAS IN WITH ROBINSON.
WHEN I FINALLY HAD TO SAY, "THIS IS MY PLAN.
I WANT TO TRY TO GET SOME MONEY SAVED IN DIFFERENT BUDGETS, SO THAT WE CAN DO SOME PROJECTS AND GET THIS SAVED MONEY EARMARKED FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT OUR CITY IS ASKING FOR." THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE A QUESTION THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO ASK, AND I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE ANSWERS.
SORRY, MY GLASSES CAME OFF THE BACK.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I AM NOT ATTACKING THE JOB OF MR. BAKER, I'M ATTACKING THE LACK OF OBJECTIVITY AND MY LACK OF CONFIDENCE.
AND THIS HAS BEEN A THEME FOR BEFORE THE FRESHMEN ON THE COUNCIL WERE ELECTED.
[04:20:02]
WE HAVE ALL WITNESSED PRIOR COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND HAVE SEEN THE TYPE OF VERBIAGE AND DEMEANOR THAT HAS BEEN USED.I'M NOT GONNA WAIT UNTIL I'M COMFORTABLE AND COMPLACENT TO DO ANYTHING.
AND YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.
COUNCILPERSON HOLLEMAN, YOU'RE NEXT ON THE LIST.
ALRIGHTY, SO I'M JUST GONNA MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.
FIRST OFF, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GENDER AND ALSO, I NEVER CALLED ANYONE SPECIFICALLY SILLY.
WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS IF SOMEONE'S ON COUNCIL FOR ONLY 28 DAYS AND ONLY KNOWS THE PERSON FOR 28 DAYS, AND THEN TURNS AROUND AND TRIES TO GET THEM FIRED, THEN YES, I DO FIND THAT SILLY.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, NO ONE IS BEING CALLED SILLY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
I'M SIMPLY MAKING A STATEMENT UPON THE IDEA OF THE RESOLUTION, THANK YOU.
COUNCILPERSON REDD, BACK TO YOU.
ABOUT THE SILLY THING, I'D NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THAT ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS HERE WERE SILLY.
I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT THE RESOLUTION, IN THEIR OPINION, WAS SILLY AND IF YOU'RE READING INTO THINGS BY TAKING THAT PERSONALLY, ON THE RESOLUTION, WHEN YOU DO TALK TO LANCE, YOU MIGHT BE READING INTO THINGS THERE AND HEARING THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE TO HEAR OR TAKING THINGS MAY BE THE WRONG WAY.
BUT IN ANY CASE, YOU MENTIONED, MAYOR, "NOT TONIGHT." SO IS THERE A TIME, WILL THERE BE A FORMAT WHERE LANCE CAN COME AND ANSWER SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS? MR. GOODSON, DO YOU WANNA EXPLAIN THE PROCESS THAT'S IN CITY CODE REGARDING THESE MATTERS? YES, MAYOR.
WELCOME TO THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET MANY OF YOU, LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.
SOME FUNDAMENTAL POINTS, OKAY, NEED TO BE MADE ABOUT OUR CITY CODE AND THE EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE PROCESS THAT'S CODIFIED.
SO IT'S OUR LAW, ALL RIGHT, OUR LOCAL LAW.
ONE, AND I'M TURNING TO, BY THE WAY, THIS IS SECTION 1.5, IT'S 1.5-1001 IN OUR CITY CODE THAT'S TITLED, "1.5 HUMAN RESOURCES CHAPTER 10." SO 1.5 DASH-1001, IT SAYS AMONG OTHER THINGS IN SUB-PART B, "WHEN IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO DISCIPLINE...
AN EMPLOYEE, SUCH DISCIPLINE WILL BE APPLIED AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE." IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE.
SUBSECTION C GOES ON TO SAY, "ALL REGULAR, NON-PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES WILL BE AFFORDED THE BENEFIT OF DUE PROCESS FOR ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN THE FORM OF REDUCTION IN PAY, SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY, DEMOTION AND DISMISSAL," WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DISMISSAL.
THEN THAT SAME SUBSECTION GOES ON TO SAY, "DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT ESTABLISHED RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION ARE FOLLOWED, AND THAT EMPLOYEES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CHARGES MADE AGAINST THEM, PRIOR TO THE DECISION ON THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO BE TAKEN." SO ALL THAT TOGETHER, JUST IS INITIAL FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF WHAT THE CODE SAYS IN RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION, ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY BEG THE QUESTION, YOU MIGHT SAY, "WELL IF YOU HAVE TO DISCIPLINE AN EMPLOYEE TO INCLUDE A DEPARTMENT HEAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE AND THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, WELL, WHAT ARE THOSE, WELL, WHAT ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY?" AND IT'S SET FORTH IN THE SAME SUBSECTION.
OR IN THE SAME SECTION, IT'S 1.5-1001 F2.
NOW, THAT'S THE DISCIPLINARY SECTION OF OUR CODE, DEALING WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS, SPECIFICALLY, OR CITY OFFICIALS.
1.5-1001 F1 DEALS WITH DISCIPLINING SOMEONE WHO'S NOT A DEPARTMENT HEAD, OKAY? SO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC CODE PROVISION ON THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS FOR A DEPARTMENT HEAD OF A MAJOR DEPARTMENT OR A CITY OFFICIAL.
IT'S SIGNIFICANT COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SUBPART A OF THAT PARTICULAR SECTION, RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, SAYS EXPRESSLY THAT IT APPLIES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
ALSO TO THE CITY CLERK, TO THE CITY ENGINEER,
[04:25:02]
AND SOME SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES OR OFFICIALS.SO THE PROCESS, RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, IS IDENTIFIED AS BEING APPLICABLE EXPRESSLY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, OKAY? AND I THINK MAYBE THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER MAY MEET THE ROAD, THIS EVENING AND OTHERWISE.
THE VERY NEXT SUB-PART, WHICH IS B SO AGAIN, I'M AT IT'S 1.5-1001 F2B, QUOTE, "THE MAYOR WILL PRESENT THE CHARGES AND PROVIDE DUE PROCESS." TWO COMPONENTS THERE.
"THE MAYOR WILL PRESENT THE CHARGES AND PROVIDE DUE PROCESS, AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CITY OFFICIALS WILL BE AFFORDED THE SAME PROCESS AS OTHER EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT THAT THEY MAY APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL INSTEAD OF THE MAYOR." SUB-PART B THEN GOES ON TO SAY, AND AGAIN, THIS IS HOW TO DISCIPLINE A DEPARTMENT HEAD.
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE MAYOR OR MAY REINSTATE THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR A CITY OFFICIAL.
SO ALL OF THAT TO SAY, IN RESPONSE TO, "WHAT'S THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE, WHAT IS IT ABOUT, WHAT'S OUR CODE SAY," ALL OF THAT COLLECTIVELY SAYS TO US THAT OUR LOCAL LAW SAYS THE MAYOR IS, IF YOU WILL, THE INITIATOR OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
UNDER OUR CODE, PERIOD, END QUOTE, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
HE'S THE INITIATOR, OR TO USE THE EXACT LANGUAGE, HE WILL PRESENT THE CHARGES, AND OF COURSE, THEN IT WENT ON TO SAY, "REMEMBER THAT THE MAYOR WILL ALSO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS, AND HE'S GOT TO GIVE THE SAME PROCESS." HE OR SHE, DEPENDING ON WHO THE MAYOR IS, HE'S GOTTA GIVE THE SAME DUE PROCESS TO A DEPARTMENT HEAD OR A CITY OFFICIAL THAT ALL OTHER REGULAR EMPLOYEES GET WHO ARE NON PROBATIONARY." AND SO THAT BEGS ONE FINAL QUESTION.
AND I'LL SPEED THIS ALONG, THE HOUR IS LATE AND TIME IS A PRECIOUS COMMODITY.
BUT WHAT DOES THE NOTIFICATION LOOK LIKE, OR WHAT DOES THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE? IF THE MAYOR'S GOT TO FOLLOW IT, IF HE'S THE ONE WHO DOES THE BRINGING OF THE CHARGES, IF HE'S THE INITIATOR AND THEN HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DUE PROCESS, MAKING SURE THE EMPLOYEE, IN THIS CASE THE CITY ATTORNEY, GETS DUE PROCESS, WELL WHAT IS THAT PROCESS THEN? AND I CAN JUST RATTLE IT OFF QUICKLY.
THERE'VE BEEN SOME REFERENCES TO IT ALREADY, BUT ONE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTIFICATION COMING FROM THE MAYOR, INITIATING FROM THE MAYOR OF THE INTENTION TO DISCIPLINE THE EMPLOYEE, RIGHT? THE NOTIFICATION MUST DETAIL WHY THE DISCIPLINE IS PROPOSED AND IT HAS TO IDENTIFY JUST CAUSE.
WE CAN'T JUST, AS A CITY, TERMINATE EMPLOYEES FOR WHIMSICAL THINGS OR JUST ANYTHING YOU WANT TO.
WE HAVE A CODIFIED PROCEDURE AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE A WHOLE SEPARATE DISCUSSION THAT IT'S IN A SEPARATE SECTION, 1.5-1002, THAT CODIFIES WHAT JUST CALLS MEANS, IT DEFINES IT.
SO THAT NOTIFICATION FROM THE MAYOR HAS TO SHOW AN INTENTION TO DISCIPLINE THE EMPLOYEE, EXPLAIN WHY, IDENTIFY JUST CAUSE AND GIVE THE EMPLOYEE A REASONABLE TIME TO RESPOND.
SO THEN, THE NEXT STEP AFTER THAT, WILL BE A PRE-DECISION MEETING.
IT'S CALLED PRECISION DISCUSSION IN OUR CODE, AND THE EMPLOYEE APPEARS INFORMALLY.
IT'S AN INFORMAL PROCEEDING, BUT WITH THE MAYOR.
AND HE, AT THAT TIME, OR SHE, THE EMPLOYEE, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR CITY OFFICIAL CAN BRING WITNESSES WHO CAN MAKE ORAL STATEMENTS AND THAT GOES TO, COUNCILMAN REDD, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WOULD HE HAVE A SAY.
AT THE VERY LEAST, HE'D HAVE A SAY THEN IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE CODE, AND I SUSPECT THAT OUR COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THAT, TO FOLLOW OUR LOCAL LAW.
BUT HE WOULD COME IN AT THAT TIME IN THE PRE-DECISION DISCUSSION AND BRING DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, WHATEVER TO TELL HIS SIDE OF THE STORY, OR HER SIDE OF THE STORY, WHOEVER THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE.
THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR CITY OFFICIAL MAY BE.
THEN, THE MAYOR AT THAT POINT COULD IMPOSE DISCIPLINE AFTER HEARING THE SIDE OF THE STORY, OR ELECT TO CHANGE HIS OR HER MIND AND NOT IMPOSE ANY TYPE OF DISCIPLINE AT ALL, OR TWEAK THE INITIALLY PROPOSED DISCIPLINE TO BE SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT, AND IF YOU'RE TRACKING ME, THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING A MINUTE AGO ABOUT THE CITY COUNCIL'S ROLE IN ALL THIS, AS CODIFIED.
AT THAT POINT WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE MAYOR'S FINAL DECISION AS TO DISCIPLINE, THEN THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS TO BE DISCIPLINED, IF HE OR SHE SO CHOOSES TO, CAN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THAT, AGAIN, TRIGGERS THE APPELLATE ROLE
[04:30:01]
OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND I'LL SAY RESPECTFULLY, UNDER OUR CODE, THAT'S THE CITY COUNCIL'S FIRST INVOLVEMENT IN THE MATTER, AS FAR AS THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, IS AS AN APPELLATE BODY THAT THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE WHOEVER HE OR SHE IS, ELECTS TO BRING FORTH HIS OR HER APPEAL TO.AFTER THE MAYOR'S DECISION, AFTER THE MAYOR HAS INITIATED IT AND AFTER THE MAYOR, AGAIN, HAS PROVIDED DUE PROCESS AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCESS TO INCLUDE THE PRE-DECISION DISCUSSION AND THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT I'VE NAMED OFF.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE, THE BOTTOM LINE BEING, AND I SAY THIS JUST AS RESPECTFULLY AS I CAN, IS THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION HERE IS ILLEGAL.
AND I HAVE A DUTY HERE AS THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, ADVISING MY CLIENT TO ADVISE YOU AS SUCH, AND BECAUSE OUR LOCAL LAW IS WHAT IT IS.
AND IT IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH OUR CODE.
I STARTED OFF THE DISCUSSION BY MENTIONING THAT WE'VE GOT TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO THE CODE, THAT'S WHAT OUR CODE SAYS.
THE LAST THING I WILL SAY AND OBVIOUSLY, I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS AND BE HERE FOR YOU, THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AGAIN, I'M GIVING ADVICE TO MY CLIENT, OKAY? THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS, DEPRIVING A CITY EMPLOYEE, FORGET MR. BAKER, ANYBODY, ANY DEPARTMENT HEAD, ANY CITY OFFICIAL ANY EMPLOYEE PERIOD, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, DEPRIVING THEM OF DUE PROCESS THAT WE'VE PROMISED TO GIVE THEM IN THE CODE, CAN LEAD TO VERY SERIOUS AND FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES TO INCLUDE OBVIOUSLY, A LAWSUIT, A LAWSUIT TO WHICH QUITE FRANKLY, WE MAY NOT HAVE ANY VIABLE DEFENSES.
A LAWSUIT WHERE A DEFENDANT COULD BE THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, OBVIOUSLY, BUT IN ADDITION, INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SO I HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE YOU, I THINK, OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF STEPPING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS AND IN FACT EXPRESSLY CONFLICTING WHAT OUR LOCAL LAW SAYS.
SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE, BUT I THINK THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, EVEN IF WERE VOTED ON WOULD BE VOID AB INITIO, WHICH MEANS VOID AT THE VERY OUTSET.
THANK YOU, MR. GOODSON, HANG ON, MAN, WE GOT SOME QUESTIONS.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
ATTORNEY GOODSON, I THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION, BUT IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT TENNESSEE IS A STATE THAT CAN FIRE WITHOUT CAUSE IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS GENERALLY TRUE, BUT ONE SAY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY OR AN EMPLOYER LIKE US OPS INTO IT, IF YOU WILL, INTO A DUE PROCESS SYSTEM THAT WE'VE PROMISED TO OFFER, YOU'VE GOT TO ABIDE BY IT.
OF COURSE, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY EMPLOYEES FIRED FROM THE CITY, AND I'M SURE THAT THEY GOT- ATTORNEY: I'M SORRY, FROM WHOM? MANY EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM THE CITY.
AND I JUST WANNA KNOW, DID THEY GET THEIR DUE PROCESS? EACH AND EVERY TIME, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THE CITY IS ALWAYS DRIVEN TO DO.
AND THEY WERE STILL FIRED, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY STILL DIDN'T GET THE JOB BACK, MANY OF THEM DID NOT GET THE JOB BACK, FROM THE ONES THAT I'VE TALKED TO, OKAY? I'M SURE SOME DO AND SOME DON'T.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M SORRY, I'VE NEVER SEEN THE GOOD IN IT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT WE WRITE UP, WE WRITE ABOUT OUR COMPLAINTS.
THE ONLY WAY THE MAYOR WOULD KNOW WHAT OUR PROBLEMS IS WE HAVE TO GET HIM A WRITTEN COMPLAINT, AM I CORRECT? THAT'S NOWHERE IN THE CODE, IT'S THE MAYOR INITIATES THE PROCESS.
BUT HOW ARE WE GONNA GET COMPLAINTS TO STAND UP, IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW HIM TO COME UP HERE AND MAKE HIS STAND BASED WHAT HE THINKS, THEN HOW ARE YOU GONNA GET THE MAYOR TO SAY SOMETHING, IF WE DON'T HAVE OUR WRITTEN COMPLAINTS? DON'T MAKE SENSE, SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS JUST MANIPULATIVE.
WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY NOW 'CAUSE WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE.
YOU DO NOT UNDER THE CODE, NO, MA'AM, UNDER WHAT I JUST SAID.
OF COURSE, HE WILL BE GETTING DUE PROCESS, BUT HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE LAST SAY AS THE COUNCIL.
EVEN IF THE MAYOR PRESENTS IT, IT STILL HAS TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL.
IN THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT INITIALLY STARTED WITH THE MAYOR, YES, YOU WOULD HAVE AN APPELLATE ROLE.
YEAH, BUT THE MAYOR WOULDN'T HAVE NO REASON TO PRESENT ANYTHING IF HE DON'T HAVE OUR COMPLAINTS, DON'T MAKE SENSE.
SO WHAT IS THE MAYOR GONNA PRESENT IF HE DOESN'T HAVE OUR COMPLAINTS?
[04:35:01]
I WOULD SUSPECT THAT HE CAN CONCERNING ANY DEPARTMENT, HE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM WHATEVER SOURCE HE DEEMS REASONABLE OR FROM WHATEVER SOURCES IS EVEN UNREASONABLE, JUST ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER AND INVESTIGATE MATTERS APPROPRIATELY, CERTAINLY.IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IF I GO TO COURT AND THEY ARE CHARGING ME WITH SOMETHING, THEN THERE HAS TO BE SOME POLICE REPORT SAYING WHAT I'VE DONE SO THAT THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT AND TO PRESENT TO ME BASED UPON WHAT HE WOULD READ TO ME AS MY CHARGES, AM I RIGHT? I MEAN, I'VE BEEN TO COURT BEFORE, I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENED.
I SUSPECT IT'S RIGHT, IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU EXPERIENCED IT.
OKAY, THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY, I GOT YOU.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU SAID THE MAYOR HAS TO ALLOW HIM DUE PROCESS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT'S GOOD BUT IF THE MAYOR ALLOW HIM DUE PROCESS, HE STILL HAS TO HEAR OUR, WHICH WE PRESENTED TONIGHT AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT TO HIM WRITTEN, AND I'M SURE WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT TO HIM WRITTEN AND I KNOW THE MAYOR LOOKING AT YOU LIKE Y'ALL GOT SOME GOING ON, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO LET YOU KNOW- OH WAIT A MINUTE.
WHOA, WAIT A MINUTE! OH, WAIT A MINUTE.
WAIT A MINUTE. YOU'RE HARSH, DON'T YOU COME TO SAY TO ME NOTHING.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, PLEASE. I'M TALKING, I HAVE THE FLOOR. PLEASE DON'T- I HAVE THE FLOOR.
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF PEOPLE.
THEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER.
I GOT A POINT OF ORDER- EXCUSE ME, I DO HAVE THE FLOOR.
THERE IS A POINT OF ORDER, A POINT OF PRIVILEGED AND I'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
IT'S JUST THAT I HAVE AN ACT 30 APPOINTMENT I HAVE TO GO- BUT THAT AINT NO POINT OF ORDER OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
COULD YOU PLEASE MOVE ON? COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, BUT I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU GO BEFORE THE JUDGE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING, THE POLICE GAVE THE JUDGE SOMETHING TO SAY THAT I VIOLATED THE LAW OR SOMETHING, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GIVE THE MAYOR OUR COMPLAINTS? I DIDN'T SAY SUCH A THING. SO WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? ATTORNEY: AND THE CODE DOESN'T SAY SUCH A THING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE CLARITY. I NEED SOME CLARITY.
THE PROCESS INITIATES WITH THE MAYOR.
IF IT HAPPENS TO INITIATE BASED ON INFORMATION HE GETS FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER, SO BE IT.
SMITH: OKAY, THAT'S HOW WE WANT TO DO IT.
OR FROM AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS- YOU WAS MAKING IT KINDA VAGUE THERE.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE SHOULD GIVE OUR WRITTEN COMPLAINTS TO THE MAYOR SO HE CAN PRESENT THEM BASED UP ON WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT HIM.
AND THAT IS THE START OF THE PROCESS AND THEN HE SHOULD HAVE A TIME TO RESPOND, THAT'S PART OF THE DUE PROCESS, AM I RIGHT? A REASONABLE TIME, OPPORTUNITY AFTER HE RECEIVES IT, AFTER HE HAD. OKAY, YOU SAY HOW MANY DAYS? IT'S NOT IN THE CODE, I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT IT SHOULD BE SEVERAL DAYS, A REASONABLE TIME TO RESPOND.
OF COURSE, THAT'S TO THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DISCIPLINE LETTER, THAT WOULD COME FROM THE MAYOR.
BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DISCIPLINE, YOU GAVE US INFORMATION ON DISCIPLINE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRING.
WELL, TERMINATION IS A FORM OF DISCIPLINE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I'M JUST SAYING WHAT HE GAVE US INFORMATION ON, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU FIRING.
HE SAID TERMINATION. WHEN I LAID OFF, I ACTUALLY DID, I WENT THROUGH THE LIST OF THINGS TO INCLUDE FIRING. OH HE SAID TERMINATION, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU, I'M SORRY. IT'S OKAY, IT'S OKAY.
IT'S GETTING LATE, I UNDERSTAND.
'CAUSE THEN I WANT THE PEOPLE OUT HERE, WHO'S LISTENING TO THIS TAPE HEARING YOU SAY WHAT YOU SAY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE TELLING US CORRECTLY.
CAN YOU GIVE US A COPY OF THAT AS WELL, GIVE IT TO ALL THE COUNCILORS SO WE CAN READ IT? I CERTAINLY CAN.
I BROUGHT A COPY OF THE ENTIRE CODE SECTION FOR EVERYONE, AS MATTER OF FACT, I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT.
MAYOR: COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
I HAVE A QUESTION, SIR? YES. MA'AM.
WHO, OKAY, SO IN ME READING THE CODE, I READ THERE'S TWO POSITIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, AS A COUNCIL APPOINTS AND LET'S GO, THAT IS THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, RIGHT? IN THE CHARTER. IN THE CHARTER, RIGHT? IN THE CHARTER.
SO IN THE CHARTER, IT GIVES US THE POWER AS CITY COUNCIL, AND LANCE TOLD ME PERSONALLY THAT THE CHARTER TRUMPS THE CODE, SO IT GIVES US THE POWER...
LANCE IS NOT CONSIDERED A DEPARTMENT HEAD IN THIS SYSTEM, HE IS CONSIDERED THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THE CHARTER GIVES THE CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, IT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VISION HERE IS, WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT, THAT'S NOT US, THAT'S ALL THE MAYOR, BUT WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT.
SO I WOULD LIKE FURTHER CLARIFICATION, IF WE HAVE TO GET AN OUTSIDE OPINION, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BECAUSE I READ THE CHARTER VERY WELL BEFORE COMING IN HERE AND IT DOES SAY THAT IT IS A CITY COUNCIL THING, NOT A MAYOR THING.
SO WE CAN TAKE IT AND PUT HIM IN A DEPARTMENT HEAD SITUATION,
[04:40:02]
BUT OUR POWER AS THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH INCLUDES THE MAYOR, IS THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THAT WAY.SO LET'S GO BACK AND REVISIT THAT.
MAY I REVISIT IT NOW? NO. ARTICLE SIX, SECTION THREE OF THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT THE CITY ATTORNEY.
IT DOESN'T SAY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE HIM.
AND THE NEXT SUBSECTION, THAT'S ACTUALLY AN A, SO IT'S ARTICLE SIX, SECTION THREE SUBSECTION A, THAT I JUST MENTIONED.
THEN SUBSECTION B SAYS THAT HE MANAGES THE LITIGATION AS THE CITY ATTORNEY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COUNCIL, RIGHT? ALLEN: YES, AND NONE OF THAT, NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS THAT THE CITY HAS CODIFIED.
I WOULD LIKE AN OUTSIDE OPINION.
I WOULD LIKE AN OUTSIDE OPINION ON THIS TO KNOW WHAT OUR RIGHTS REALLY ARE BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY, THERE IS NO WAY THAT ONE MINUTE HE FALLS UNDER, WE APPOINT HIM, WE DON'T HAVE NO SAY SO OVER WHO THE MAYOR HIRES WHEN IT COMES TO DEPARTMENT HEADS.
BUT WE HAVE TO SAY SO OVER WHO THE MAYOR HIRES AS OUR ATTORNEY, WHO WE HIRE AS OUR ATTORNEY AND WHO WE HIRE AS OUR CITY CLERK.
I WOULD LIKE ANOTHER OPINION FROM SOME OTHER ATTORNEY, I REALLY WOULD, BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IN READING AND NO, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I CAN READ.
THERE'S NO WAY THAT THAT SHIT ALL THE WAY FALL BACK TO THE MAYOR, JUST FALL BACK TO THE MAYOR AND US 13 PEOPLE, THE MAYOR IS ONE OF 13 PEOPLE THAT A CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTS AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY SAY SO? NO.
I DON'T THINK OUR LAW IS SET UP LIKE THAT AND IF IT IS, WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT TOO.
AND IF HE'S NOT REPRESENTING US TO OUR FULLEST POTENTIAL ONLY THE MAYOR CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT? I DON'T SEE THAT AS GOOD LAW. WE NEED TO CHANGE IT.
AND I'D LIKE A SECOND OPINION.
I'D LIKE ANOTHER OPINION, PLEASE.
MAYBE WE NEED TO HIRE ANOTHER ATTORNEY (INDISTINCT), I DON'T KNOW.
COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
MR. GOODSON, SO THERE'S TWO ITEMS THAT REALLY STOOD OUT TO ME AS FAR AS CONFLICTS FROM PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED.
THE FIRST ITEM, I'LL START THERE BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED IN THIS VERY SESSION, MAYBE THREE OR FOUR HOURS AGO, AS MR. SOLOMON MENTIONED WHEN WE GOT ON THE TOPIC OF LAWSUITS AND ETHICS, EVEN THOUGH THE TOPIC WAS ETHICS, SHE SPOKE ON LAWSUITS, AND SPOKE ON INDEMNITY AND HOW AS A COUNCIL BODY IN DOING OUR DUTY UP HERE, WE CAN NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS THAT WE TAKE AS A BODY.
AND SO IN CONTRADICTION OF WHAT MR. SOLOMON JUST ADVISED US, YOUR LEGAL ADVICE BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHARTER IS THAT LANCE COULD COME AFTER US INDIVIDUALLY SO- I SAID, THE NAME TO DEFENDANTS COULD BE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE CITY, YES, SIR.
ONE MINUTE. I DIDN'T GET INTO INDEMNIFICATION AND WHO PAYS OR WHETHER YOU'D BE LIABLE FOR A JUDGMENT BUT YOU COULD BE A NAMED DEFENDANT, MORE CERTAINLY.
THAT'S REALLY NOT THE CONTEST THOUGH THAT IT WAS GIVEN IN, YOU SAID THAT IT WASN'T A MATTER OF BEING NAMED, I MEAN, COUNCILMAN REDD MENTIONED THAT WE GET NAMED IN LAWSUITS ALL THE TIME BUT THE WAY THAT YOU PORTRAYED IT IS WE'RE HELD LIABLE PERSONALLY, AND WE'RE NOT, WE CAN'T BE HELD LIABLE PERSONALLY FOR ANYTHING THAT OCCURS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, ACCORDING TO MR. SOLOMON.
SO SOMEBODY MAY SUE US BUT THE CITY IS DESIGNED TO VIGOROUSLY DEFEND US IN ANY LAWSUITS THAT COME WHILE WE'RE SERVING IN THIS CAPACITY THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS COUNCILMAN TO YOUR IMMUNITY AND THAT IS THE ISSUE.
OUR CITY ENJOYS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT BUT THAT IMMUNITY CAN BE LIFTED BY A NUMBER OF THINGS UNDER THE LAW.
THE GTLA FOR EXAMPLE, THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT LIABILITY ACT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS LAID OUT THERE WHERE AT THE OUTSET YOU DO ENJOY THE CLOAK OF IMMUNITY BUT IT CAN BE LIFTED.
YES, SOMETIMES FOR INTENTIONAL ACTS, SOMETIMES FOR MALICIOUS ACTS, SOMETIMES FOR CRIMINAL ACTS, YES.
[04:45:01]
FOR SOMETHING YOU SAY ON THE COUNCIL FLOOR WHILE DELIBERATING PUBLIC BUSINESS, NOW THAT WOULD CLOAK YOU AND PROTECT YOU THERE.SO THERE PROBABLY ARE SOME DISTINCTIONS THAT MAYBE MR. SOLOMON DIDN'T MAKE, AND I ALSO HEARD HIM SAY THAT MAYBE HE NEEDED TO BRUSH UP A POMO SERIES OF LAW A LITTLE BIT, SO AS WE ALL DO, SOMETIMES, WE'RE LAWYERS, WE DON'T PROMISE TO KNOW THE MILLIONS OF LAWS BUT I CAN TELL YOU, THERE ARE MOST DEFINITELY EXCEPTIONS TO IMMUNITY, WHETHER THAT'S PERSONAL OR GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FOR THE ENTITY ITSELF, YES, SIR.
ALL RIGHT, AND IF I MAY, WHILE WE'RE STILL ON THIS TOPIC, HAVE MR. SOLOMON COME UP HERE AND MAYBE EXPOUND UPON WHAT THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT HE PROVIDED US AS THE PRO-TEM ATTORNEY EARLIER.
DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ETHICS? 'CAUSE THAT'S MR. SOLOMON'S ROLE.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION REGARDING DUE PROCESS, CITY CODE- HIS ROLE WAS ETHICS, HOWEVER, HE DID PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE IN THE CAPACITY OF LAWSUITS AND OUR ABILITY TO NOT BE SUED.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AND THAT WE'RE HEARING, 'CAUSE NONE OF US FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, ARE LAWYERS, HAVE A LEGAL BACKGROUND, AND SO WE JUST RECEIVE CONFLICTING INFORMATION FROM TWO ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENT US.
AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM THE INFORMATION AS TO BE ACCURATE.
I'M REALLY RELUCTANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD JUST PRIMARILY BECAUSE MR. SOLOMON'S ROLE IS TO ADVISE US AS CITY ATTORNEY PRO-TEM ON THE ETHICS, CODE AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION, MR. GOODSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVISING US ON THE CITY CODE, REGARDING EVERYTHING ELSE TO INCLUDE THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND ETHICS CODE.
SO I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT HESITANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD AND GET DUELING LAWYERS 'CAUSE IT'S 9:30.
SO I WOULD PREFER YOU PUT IT IN WRITING AND WE CAN GET A WRITTEN RESPONSE.
WOULD YOU MIND DOING THAT? I'M FINE WITH IT.
MY SECOND CONCERN IS, SO I SPOKE WITH OUR INTASC CONSULTANT IN REGARDS TO THIS, ALICIA HODGES, AND SHE REVIEWED OUR CHARTER AND INFORMATION AND WE DISCUSSED SEVERAL ITEMS. AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS THE ABILITY OF A COUNCIL MEMBER TO TERMINATE THE CITY ATTORNEY, AT WHICH CASE I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME, IT'S IN MY LAPTOP, WHICH IS IN THE CAR, HOWEVER, I MEAN, IF I NEED TO RUN OUT THERE AND GET IT, SHE GAVE ME THE CODE WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO STATE THAT AS A COUNCIL, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THAT'S ONE OF THE POSITIONS THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO AND IT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE BY RESOLUTION OR BY ORDINANCE, ACCORDING TO MS. HODGES, IT COULD JUST BE BY PURE MOTION TO TERMINATE.
AND IN THAT WITH THE MAJORITY, NOT A SUPER MAJORITY, NOT TWO THIRDS, THREE FOURTHS, BUT BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY, IF THE BODY OF THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO END LANCE'S EMPLOYMENT THAT WE HAD THAT OPTION.
AND SO THAT'S COMING FROM OUR INTASC CONSULTANT WHO REVIEWED EVERYTHING.
SO AGAIN, WHERE WE SEE A CONFLICT IN INFORMATION FROM ATTORNEYS, I'M JUST HESITANT AND I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF ANYTHING, I KNOW YOU'D BE A GOOD- I WOULD HOPE NOT.
YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN A FAIR GOOD DUDE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO, BUT JUST HAVE- CAN I RESPOND TO THE- I JUST HAVE FEW RESERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS.
LIKE I SAID, I LITERALLY WAS JUST TOLD THIS TWO DAYS AGO SO TO HEAR THIS, IT'S LIKE- ATTORNEY: I WOULD SAY THAT, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
YES, I WAS GONNA SAY, ON ONE, WE REGARD INTASC AS ALMOST THE AUTHORITY ON UNDERSTANDING HOW ALL THESE INTRICACIES WORK FOR OTHER INTERPRETATIONS WHEN THERE'S GRAY AREAS BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE CONFLICTS WITH WHAT INTASC SAYS, DOES IT SUPERSEDE BECAUSE MAYBE, I GET IT, YOU WANNA PROTECT YOUR OWN BUT- THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY COMMENTS TODAY, I CAN TELL YOU.
THE CITY CODE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AND IT SAYS, AND I READ IT TO YOU THAT IT APPLIES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
THAT'S AGAIN, SECTION 1.5, THAT'S 1001, F2 OR THAT'S ACTUALLY EARLIER, BUT F2 GOES ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS HAPPENS AS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
WE WILL, MR. GOODSON, IF I MAY, WE WILL DISTRIBUTE THAT INFORMATION TO THE COUNCIL.
IF YOU WILL SUBMIT YOUR INFORMATION FROM MS. HODGE OR OTHER SOURCES, THAT'LL BE IN WRITING SO WE CAN ALL SEE IT
[04:50:02]
VERSUS TRYING TO REMEMBER IT THIS HOUR AND DELIBERATE 'CAUSE WE'VE GOT A WEEK BEFORE WE HAVE TO VOTE.OKAY, AND SHE ALSO REFERENCED EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ACROSS THE STATE ARE GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MEETINGS WHERE WE CALL THEM LIKE WE'RE IN TONIGHT, INFORMAL.
SO THERE ARE SUBTLE DIFFERENCES.
WE'VE HAD OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. GOODSON.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
WELL, THIS IS RICH A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS ARGUING WITH A LAWYER.
ALL RIGHT, SO, I HAVE A QUESTION, WHEN WE ADD SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA DOES THE AGENDA GET A LOOK OVER BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE IT'S SENT OUT? NO, SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY.
'CAUSE I WAS JUST WONDERING, 'CAUSE, OKAY.
TO CONFIRM, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE DO NOT HAVE, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE MR. LANCE BAKER AS THE CITY ATTORNEY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS FROM OUR CITY CODE, FROM THE SECTION I READ FROM EARLIER, THAT THE PROCESS MUST INITIATE WITH THE MAYOR, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE A ROLE POTENTIALLY.
BUT IT WOULD BE THAT OF AN... AFFILIATE.
YES, I UNDERSTAND. AN AFFILIATE ROLE AND A AFFILIATE TYPE OF FUNCTION RIGHT.
DOES THAT WHEN YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT HIM AND I HEARD EVERYTHING WITH COUNCIL WOMAN ALLEN TOO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S ALSO A THING, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT.
DOES THAT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE, SINCE WE HAVE TO GO TO HIM FOR ADVICE AND INFORMATION, DOES THAT NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN'T REMOVE HIM AS OUR, 'CAUSE THERE'S THREE OF YOU, COULD WE REMOVE HIM AS OUR LIAISON, OR DOES THAT, THAT NOT HOW THAT WORKS? THAT WOULD NOT BE HOW THAT WORKS, BUT UNDER THE CHARTER HE ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL OBVIOUSLY DIRECTLY.
THE SECTION I JUST READ TO YOU EARLIER TALKS ABOUT HOW HE IS TO BE REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION.
NO, MA'AM I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY, SO, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
THIS KINDA GOES BACK TO WHAT A COUPLE OF PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD THAT WE'RE THE BOSSES, AND THAT WE DO HAVE THIS LIBERTY TO EXERCISE.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT BY MR. BAKER HIMSELF.
SO, I GUESS I KINDA WANNA KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT'S CHANGED? I HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR 28 DAYS, BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST FOUR HOURS, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION.
RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD.
ALL I KNOW IS THE CODE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AND I READ DIRECTLY FROM IT MOSTLY IN QUOTATIONS THIS EVENING.
AND WE WILL DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF THAT TO THE COUNCIL, SO YOU HAVE IT IN WRITING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST ANYTHING WE'VE SAID, OR HE, MR. GOODSON SAID, BUT YOU'LL HAVE IT IN WRITING.
AND LEMME SAY, I DIDN'T RENDER AN OPINION THERE, I READ THE CODE.
ARE WE GONNA GET AN ANSWER FROM WHAT COUNCIL WOMAN ALLEN ASKED ABOUT GETTING I GUESS AT THIS POINT OF VIEW, IT'D BE ALMOST A TERTIARY OPINION ON THIS.
WELL, WE HAVE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE WE HAVE TO RECONVENE TO CONSIDER THIS RESOLUTION.
WE WILL DO OUR BEST, BUT I WILL NOT GUARANTEE IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WORKLOADS FOR ATTORNEYS.
AND WE WANNA FIND ONE THAT IS, CAN PROVIDE GOOD COUNSEL TO THIS CITY COUNCIL.
COUNCILPERSON REYNOLDS, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT FIRST I RESPECT, YOU KNOW HAVING GROWN UP, BEEN A BOSS, BEEN A 18 YEAR-OLD IN THE ARMY THROUGH THE YEARS AND TRULY TOLERATED MY OWN STORY.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT BEFORE I, BUT I'VE ALSO GROWN UP AS A SUPERVISOR AND A MEMBER OF THE UNION.
AND I DO BELIEVE IN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHANGE AND LIKE WE OWE IT TO SOMEBODY THAT WE WORK WITH TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW WE FEEL OR WHAT'S GOING ON.
SO, I WOULD JUST SAY AS A NEW PERSON I DON'T, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW THINGS THAT I HAVE NOT APPRECIATED,
[04:55:02]
BUT I'M PERSONALLY NOT READY TO SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.I'M NOT SAYING THAT IN THE FUTURE I WOULDN'T, I DON'T.
I WOULD SAY TO EVERYBODY THAT'S SITTING IN HERE, WHO HAS GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE, WHERE ARE THE IN-WRITING COMPLAINTS OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS? WHERE HAVE YOU ADDRESSED ANY OF YOUR, OF OUR ISSUES DIRECTLY TO THE MAYOR FOR RESOLUTION? I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE ANYWHERE THAT YOU WORK.
I MEAN, THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE A TRAIL IT CAN'T BE AND IF WE CAN, I MEAN, WHETHER WE CAN OR NOT, BUT HOW EQUITABLE IS IT ON EITHER SIDE.
IF WE WALK IN WITHOUT PROCESS AND DELIBERATION AND GIVING OF THE SPACE, MAYBE IT'S THERE AND I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CHANNELS AND I RESPECT THAT AND I JUST DON'T KNOW.
COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
COUNCILPERSON BUTLER ALREADY ASKED MY QUESTION.
I JUST FORGOT TO TURN THIS OFF, I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY.
MAYOR, I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN FRONT OF YOU.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
I AM GOING TO GO SPEAK TO, I GUESS, I'M GONNA GO HAVE TO GO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY MYSELF BECAUSE I WILL FIND THE ANSWER TO THIS.
THE THING ABOUT IT IS IS THAT WE'RE SITTING UP HERE AND WE ARE LITERALLY SAYING, NOW WHAT WE JUST HAVE SAID IS THAT MR. BAKER HE WORKS FOR ALL OF US, HOWEVER, ONLY IT COULD BE INITIATED BY THE MAYOR.
I HEARD ONE OF MY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS SAY, "WHERE'S THE WRITING FOR ALL THESE YEARS? HAS IT BEEN TURNED INTO THE MAYOR?" WE SIT HERE.
YES, HE'S THE MAYOR, RESPECTFULLY, BUT WE SIT HERE AS EQUALS.
AND THAT IS WHY I'M SAYING I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GONNA GET THIS OPINION, BUT I KNOW THAT THE MAYOR GOT AN OPINION LETTER DONE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND I'D LIKE ONE DONE TOO.
WE'VE GOT TO GO TO MTS, IF THIS THING GOT TO BE PUT ON HOLD OR POSTPONED UNTIL WE GET ONE, I'D LIKE ONE TOO.
COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, BACK TO YOU.
JUST TWO MORE POINTS, ONE IS IN ADDRESSING THEIR CONCERNS, IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AS PREVIOUSLY, JUST SO THE COUNCIL IS FULLY AWARE.
YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, A YEAR AGO, I REACHED OUT TO MS. SKINNER BECAUSE ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH.
I'D BEEN PUTTING UP, I'D PUT UP WITH IT FOR LONG ENOUGH.
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THEY OBSERVED IT, THEY'VE SEEN IT.
SO, I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND AFTER A DISCUSSION WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT IT, I WAS TOLD, "WELL, GIVE ME A CHANCE, I'LL SCHEDULE A MEETING, GET YOU TWO TOGETHER, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT." I PULLED IT OFF THE AGENDA.
I SAID, THE MEETING DIDN'T TAKE PLACE WITH ALL OF US.
HOWEVER, THEIR BEHAVIOR TO THE MAYOR'S CREDIT.
I BELIEVE HE DID AT LEAST TALK TO LANCE BECAUSE THE BEHAVIOR TONED DOWN FOR A COUPLE MONTHS, I'LL GIVE HIM THAT.
HE TONE DOWN FOR A COUPLE MONTHS IN THE WAY HE WAS DISRESPECTING ME ON HERE.
BUT AS FAR AS IF THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO, FROM A COUNCIL IS TO PETITION THE MAYOR WITH OUR CONCERNS INDIVIDUALLY, IT'S STILL UP TO HIS DISCRETION ULTIMATELY.
AND SO A PARTICULAR COUNCIL MEMBER CAN CONTINUE TO BE ALIENATED, CONTINUE TO BE LIKE, "I GOT A CHARTER REVISION THREE WEEKS AGO." I SENT HIM EVERYTHING HE ASKED ME HE NEEDED FOR THE CHARTER REVISION BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ON THIS AGENDA.
I REQUESTED TO START THE CHARTER REVISION BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT DONE.
SO, MY NEXT POINT AND THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE MAYOR.
SO, GRANTED, IF WE'RE UNDER THE PREMISE THAT ACCORDING TO MR GOODSON AND THE CHARTER THAT AS A BODY WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR TERMINATION.
IF THE RESOLUTION WAS AMENDED NEXT WEEK REQUESTING YOU AS THE MAYOR TO INITIATE IT.
AND IF THAT RESOLUTION PASSED WITH A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE, HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO IT? WELL, I'M NOT GONNA SPECULATE, COUNCILPERSON GARRETT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE IT IN WRITING.
[05:00:01]
I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.IF YOU'VE GOT CONCERNS YOU NEED TO GET THEM TO ME IN WRITING.
I CAN APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BUT I WANNA SEE IT IN WRITING BUT I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA SIT HERE AND SAY I'M GONNA GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, UNTIL I SEE IT.
OKAY, SO IF THE AMENDMENT, I'M ALSO THINKING OF LIKE IF WE HAVE MEN IN THIS RESOLUTION ON THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK, AND WE AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO SAY, WE ARE IMPLORING YOU AS THE MAYOR TO INITIATE THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY OF US THAT FEEL THIS WAY, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? WELL, IF YOU HEARD MR. GOODSON, AND I KNOW WE ALL DID 'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE A GOOD WHILE.
HE SAID, THE PERSON WHO IS TO BE DISCIPLINED IS DUE WHAT THEIR ISSUES ARE IN WRITING.
GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE AND PRESENT THEIR SIDE.
TO ME AS THE SUPERVISOR IN A PRE-DETERMINATION MEETING, THEN I WOULD RENDER A DECISION.
AND IF THE PERSON, DEPARTMENT HEAD, WHOMEVER, DISAGREES THEY CAN APPEAL TO THIS BODY.
DID I EVEN COME CLOSE? I MEAN, YOU DESCRIBED THE DISSIMILAR PROCESS.
I GUESS IT ANSWERED. YEAH, I WOULD NEED IT IN WRITING.
I MEAN, TO IMPLORE ME TO REMOVE OR TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE.
A DEPARTMENT HEAD OR A CITY ATTORNEY OR WHOMEVER, I WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THEM JUST TO HAVE A RESOLUTION TO DO IT.
I WOULD NEED TO SEE SOMETHING IN WRITING.
IF THE CHARGES ARE EGREGIOUS ENOUGH, THEN I WOULD EVALUATE THOSE AND MAKE A DECISION, YES.
I HAVE MY AMENDMENT READY WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF WHEREASES ITEMIZING DATES, TIMES.
I'LL SPEND THE TIME ON IT AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MAYBE HAVE YOUR WHEREASES PREPARED TO MAYBE AMEND THE AMENDMENT.
THAT WAY THERE'S NO DELIBERATION COMBINING WHEREASES PRIOR TO THE MEETING, WE'LL DESCRIBE THE WHEREASES AS WE WANT TO PRESENT IT.
WE'LL HAVE OUR LONG LAUNDRY LIST, IT'LL BE IN WRITING.
WE CAN PASS A RESOLUTION IMPLORING THE MAYOR TO REVIEW IT, POSSIBLY, INITIATE THE ACTION AT HIS DISCRETION, THE BALL WOULD BE AT YOUR COURT, MAYOR.
COUNCILPERSON EVANS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
YES, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. GOODSON.
WHAT WOULD THE LEGALITY BE ON THE AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILPERSON GARRETT, HYPOTHETICALLY PROPOSED? I MIGHT HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU.
ON IT'S FACE IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE COULD DO, AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND TO MAKE BASICALLY A RECOMMENDATION, I SUPPOSE TO THE MAYOR.
SOMETIMES THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL.
YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BEYOND THAT I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU, BUT ON ITS FACE, LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE PROBABLY COULD DO THAT, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN, OKAY? OKAY, THANK YOU.
OKAY, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE ON THE LIST.
OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND, COUNCILPERSON, RICHMOND, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU... AND THANK YOU TO MY FELLOW MEMBERS WHO REMINDED THE MAYOR.
THIS IS RELATED, BUT IT MIGHT BE A SEPARATE ISSUE.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR MYSELF, I KNOW I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF BUT IT ALSO MAY HELP OUR NEWER MEMBERS.
IF WE COULD SPEND SOME TIME MAYOR AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, HELPING US AS A COUNCIL UNDERSTAND OUR LEGAL TEAM.
I GET TO SPEND TIME WITH NEIL STAMFORD, EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, I STOP UP AND SPEAK.
BUT I THINK FROM A COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE, MEET THE LEGAL TEAM, UNDERSTAND WHAT EACH LEGAL TEAM MEMBER'S ROLE IS WITHIN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I KNOW WE HAVE LOTS OF LITIGATION AND YOU KNOW, JUST TO KINDA BE AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON MAY HELP US JUST GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND FEEL WHETHER THEY'D BE SYMPATHETIC OR EMPATHETIC IN WHAT THEY DO.
AND THEN ALSO IT MIGHT BE A TIME TO MAYBE LOOK AT SINCE WE'RE GROWING AS A CITY, MAYOR IT MIGHT BE TIME TO LOOK AT BRINGING ON OTHER, SOME HELP FOR THE LEGAL TEAM.
I DEFINITELY KNOW THAT WE ALL CAN GET STRESSED, SO, WE JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO BUILD UP SOME MORE AIDS OR SOMEONE WHO COULD HELP WRITE SOME OF THESE RESOLUTIONS
[05:05:03]
SO THAT WE DO GET THEM ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE I DO THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT BUT ALSO THINK THAT MR. BAKER AND OTHER ATTORNEYS, ALL OF US ONLY CAN MANAGE SO MUCH.AND SO IF THERE'S A NEED FOR HELP, I THINK WE SHOULD SUPPORT OUR WORKERS AND BRING THAT FORWARD.
COUNCILPERSON... THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I'M SORRY, WERE YOU THROUGH COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND? YES, SIR MAYOR, I'M SORRY. OKAY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, MY APOLOGY.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT COUNCILPERSON RICHMOND'S SUGGESTION IN MAYBE PROVIDING RELIEF TO OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I KNOW A COUPLE OF OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE HAD MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THAT MAY BE A SOLUTION TO RELIEVING THAT TASK LOAD.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS RESOLUTION? BACK TO YOU TO THE SPONSOR.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILPERSON, EVANS.
OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT AND I WAS NOT EXPECTING THIS LONG OF A DISCUSSION BUT I DO APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT WE HAVE A LOT TO THINK ABOUT FOR THE NEXT WEEK.
I WILL GET IN CONTACT WITH YOU LATER SYLVIA ABOUT, AND PROBABLY EACH OF YOU AS WELL, ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION AND THE LEGALITY.
EACH OF YOU CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY , ATTORNEY OR DEPUTY ATTORNEY. ATTORNEY.
YEAH, DON'T DON'T VIOLATE (MUMBLES) LAW. DON'T REACH OUT...
OH, OKAY, YEAH, SORRY. DELIBERATE CONCERNING LEGISLATION. YES.
IT COMPLETELY X'ED IN WHEN YOU SAID THAT IT WAS NOT LEGAL RIGHT NOW, SO, SORRY.
WE ARE NOW READY FOR NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN IS THE SPONSOR, TO YOU PLEASE.
SO I THINK WE HAVE BEAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION THING UP.
IN THE DISCUSSION I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DISCUSS US LOOKING AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION, LOOKING AT OUR ETHICS CODE AND HAVING IT REVAMPED.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN AMENDMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A MOTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ORDINANCE, BUT WE DO NEED TO SIT DOWN AND REALLY LOOK AT OUR ETHICS BECAUSE WHAT IS HAPPENING IS EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THINGS IN OUR ETHICS THAT SAY, THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, THERE IS STILL AN APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING.
THE F CLEARLY SAYS APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
FIRST EXAMPLE IS WE HIRED AN ATTORNEY PRO TEMP, WHO APPROVED IT? CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER ME THAT QUESTION? WHO APPROVED AN ATTORNEY PRO TEMP TO BE HIRED FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL? MR. GOODSON? CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION NOW? OKAY. I CAN'T, YEAH.
IS THAT THE APPROVAL? JUST LIKE WE APPROVE OUR CITY COUNCIL, IS THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHO HIRES OUR ATTORNEY PRO TEMP? BECAUSE ALL I SEEN WHEN I WATCHED THE MEETING WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS THE MAYOR SAID, "THIS IS OUR ATTORNEY PRO TEMP.
IF WE HAVE TO APPOINT EVERYBODY ELSE, WHY DID WE NOT APPOINT AN ATTORNEY PRO TEMP? WHY WAS IT NOT VOTED ON? THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR ETHICS COMMISSION.
OUR ETHICS IN WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IN THIS CITY.
IT IS A PROBLEM AND WE HAVE GOT TO FIX IT.
WE HAVE GOT TO FIX IT WITHOUT A DOUBT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO BUT I'M LIKE, "WELL, SHOULDN'T Y'ALL, OR SHOULDN'T WE HAVE VOTED ON THAT? SHOULDN'T SOMEBODY HAVE VOTED ON THAT?" AND THERE WAS A COUNCIL BEFORE US THAT HAD BEEN HERE FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS AND LET IT WALK.
THAT IS THE EPITOMY OF WRONG DOING, OF APPEARING TO DO WRONG.
WE HAVE GOT TO GAIN THE TRUST OF OUR CITIZENS.
AND YOU WILL HEAR IT FROM ME EVERY WEEK UNTIL WE START DOING THE RIGHT THING ETHICALLY.
[05:10:02]
MAYOR, NO OFFENSE, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR ETHICS COMMISSION, YEAH, YOU GOT AN OPINION LETTER THAT SAID, "YEAH, IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO APPOINT," BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WE HAVE A CITY THAT DOES NOT TRUST US.WE HAVE A CITY THAT IS LOOKING AT THINGS AND SAYING, "THIS IS THE APPEARANCE OF WRONG DOING." AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS EASY, INSTEAD OF SPENDING $16,000 ON AN OPINION LETTER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS EASY TO ALLOW YOUR MAYOR PRO TEM TO APPOINT THAT ELECTION, THAT ETHICS COMMISSION SO THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING.
THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY RIGHT NOW.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. GOODSON IN REFERENCE TO THAT.
YES, SIR. SO THIS KIND OF GOES BACK TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO INITIATE WITH THE LEGISLATION THAT FAILED TO MAKE IT TO THE MEETING FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT IT WAS TO START THE DIALOGUE AND THE PROCESS FOR US TO EVALUATE THE CHARTER TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE CONCERNS, ETHICS POLICIES BEING ONE OF THEM.
SO IF YOU CAN WALK ME THROUGH THE PROCESS- MR. GOODSON: WHAT PROCESS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? IN REQUESTING A CHARTER REVISION THAT ADDRESSES ETHICS AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS LIKE WE DID IN 2015.
I SPOKE WITH MR. BAKER ABOUT INITIATING THE PROCESS.
I SENT EMAILS, I'VE GOT A PAPER TRAIL, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MTAS AND MTAS HAS ALSO TOLD ME THE PROCESS BUT MY REQUESTS ARE BEING IGNORED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO REPRESENT ME.
WHAT DO I DO AS A CITY COUNCILMAN THAT'S TRYING TO AMEND THE CHARTER, REVISE THE CHARTER, ETHICS, SOME OF THE CODE AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT? WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TO DO? I'M CLUELESS.
YOU KNOW, IF I'VE CALLED, I'VE EMAILED, I'VE SPOKEN TO MTAS, AND I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF 13 BOSSES, BUT I GET IGNORED, AND THEN WE HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT'S LIKE, "MAN, WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT ARE Y'ALL DOING?" I DON'T KNOW, WHAT AM I DOING? I MEAN, I'M CLEARLY DOING SOMETHING WRONG OR MAYBE I JUST DON'T LOOK RIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT I PUT MY STUFF IN WRITING, I CALL IN.
I DON'T KNOW, DO I NEED TO DONATE A KIDNEY OR SOMETHING? WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET MY LEGISLATION ON THE AGENDA SO THAT WE CAN START THE PROCESS ON WORKING ON REVISING IT? BECAUSE AS FAR AS I KNOW, I'VE DONE WHAT EVERY OTHER COUNCILPERSON DOES TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA.
WELL WITHIN THREE WEEKS IS ENOUGH TIME.
AND FOR IT NOT TO BE DONE, THAT'S A SLAP IN MY FACE WHEN WE SAY EVERYBODY GETS THE SAME TREATMENT.
YOU KNOW, TO BE FAIR, YOU GOT TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT AND NEXT WEEK.
I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT BUT I CAN SAY YOU DID NOT GET ANYTHING.
YOU GOT A COUPLE ON HERE BUT IT'S NOW A MATTER OF GOING BACK AND SORTING THROUGH WHAT YOU ASKED FOR, AND THE PROCESS, 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW COMPLICATED IT IS.
YEAH, AND BECAUSE I DID KNOW HOW COMPLICATED IT WAS AND I WAS STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY I WASN'T RECEIVING A RESPONSE FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT APPARENTLY WORKS FOR ME, I HAD TO REACH OUT TO MTAS.
AND MTAS ADVISED ME IT'S NOT REALLY ALL THAT COMPLICATED, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THEM PUTTING MY RESOLUTION ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN YOU CAN DIRECT THE PROCESS IF YOU WANT TO, TO HAVE US EXPLORE MAYBE A DEPARTMENT OR A COUPLE OF DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE RELATED, LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO DO STREET AND TRANSPORTATION AND HOW WE GOT THE COMMITTEES, AND WE EVALUATE CODES THAT WORK WITH EACH ONE AND WE TAKE OUR TIME THROUGH IT OVER A EIGHT-MONTH SPAN, OR IF WE GOT OUR STUFF TOGETHER IN THREE MONTHS.
WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE IT READY TO GO AND CARRIED BY OUR STATE LEGISLATORS BY THE BEGINNING OF THE JANUARY SESSION, YOU KNOW? AND I'VE ALREADY DONE THAT DUE DILIGENCE AND REACHED OUT TO OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES.
AND THEY WERE MORE THAN WILLING TO CARRY THE RESOLUTION FOR US AND PRESENT THE BILL.
SO WHATEVER WE PUT TOGETHER AS A CHARTER REVISION, WE PUT TOGETHER, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE PERFECT TONIGHT.
ALL IT HAD TO DO IS BEEN ON THE AGENDA AND THEN WE CAN START WORKING ON IT.
THE RESOLUTION FOR US TO BEGIN WORKING ON THE CHARTER WAS ALL I WAS ASKING FOR.
AND I EVEN SENT THREE, FOUR CHARTER REVISIONS
[05:15:01]
AND ADVISED THEM THAT, "HEY, THERE'S PROBABLY GONNA BE MORE, BUT HERE'S THREE.THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE THREE THAT I PRESENTED FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO." SO I MEAN, THEY WERE ALL...
MAN, THEY HAD THE COLORS, THE RED, THE GREEN, THE BLUE, ALL THE MARKUPS WAS ON IT.
WHAT NOTHING TO DO BUT COPY AND PASTE.
IT WAS A COPY-PASTE JOB, BUT IT DIDN'T GET DONE.
THAT WOULD HAVE GOT US STARTED ON BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE AS IT RELATES TO ETHICS, SOME OF THE CODE, THE CHARTER, BUT IT WASN'T DONE.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION OF ME HAVING BEEN ON THE COUNCIL FOR SIX, SEVEN YEARS AND THIS IS A LOT OF WHAT I GET.
AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT.
IT'S JUST FRUSTRATING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU AND A FEW OTHERS, FOR YEARS, HAVE BEEN THE ONE SINGLED OUT AND A LOT OF OTHER STUFF RIDES.
THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY FOR NOW.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE JUST MAYBE, WE CAN FIND ITS WAY ON THE AGENDA WITH THE 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE 'CAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING MR. GOODMAN, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG- GOODSON, I'M SORRY. YEAH, GOODSON.
WITH A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE, SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ON EXECUTIVE SESSION CAN BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR A REGULAR SESSION FOR US TO VOTE ON.
MR. GOODSON: THAT'S CORRECT, 3/4.
SO IF- 2/3 TO BRING BACK TO...
THAT'S THE WALLACE RED RULE THAT WE USED TO CALL IT.
2/3 TO BRING BACK SOMETHING THAT WAS VOTED DOWN WITHIN ONE YEAR, BUT GO AHEAD.
SO IF MAGICALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO EMPLOY SOME SANTA'S ELVES, COME TO CHRISTMAS EARLY, IF IT COULD JUST GET COPIED AND PASTED AND STARTED FOR US TO LOOK AT, TO INITIATE THE CHARTER REVISION PROCESS, AND YOU KNOW, IF 3/4 OF THE MAJORITY, HOPEFULLY THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT.
AS WE CAN SEE, WE HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE WAY LANGUAGE IS WORDED RIGHT NOW.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET STARTED ON IN JANUARY.
IT WAS BENEFICIAL FOR MY PROCESS 'CAUSE IT HAPPENED MY FIRST YEAR ON THE COUNCIL.
I HAD TO TACKLE A CHARTER REVISION AND IT TOOK ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS FOR US TO GET THROUGH IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON AND HOW WE WERE TRYING TO BRING THINGS UP TO SPEED.
SO IDEALLY I'D LIKE TO START IT HERE IN JANUARY SO WE HAVE AMPLE TIME.
SO THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, OUR STATE LEGISLATORS CAN CARRY THIS TO THE HOUSE AND TO THE SENATE.
IF YOU COULD PRETTY PLEASE MAKE IT HAPPEN FOR ME, I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
JOE: COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
AND THAT'S HOW DUDES SUPPORT, THAT YOU JUST SAID, MY BROTHER.
BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT MS. ALLEN SAID AND SHE MAKES A GOOD POINT.
HOW DID WE GET A MAYOR PRO TEM WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COUNCIL.
(PEOPLE SPEAK INDISTINCTLY)| A MAYOR, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.
I'M SORRY, IT IS BUT MY BEDTIME.
BUT ANYWAY, HOW DID WE GET A LAWYER TO WORK FOR US WITHOUT THE COUNCIL KNOWING? I JUST WANT TO SAY TO YOU THAT WE WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.
I WASN'T AWARE OF IT UNTIL IT CAME OUT IN THE PAPER THAT THE MAYOR HAD HIRED A MAYOR...
ATTORNEY PRO TEM TO REPRESENT HIM ON THIS ETHICS THING.
I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER COUNCILMEN.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT 'CAUSE YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT CAME ABOUT.
BUT EVIDENTLY IT WAS STARTED BECAUSE OF THE ETHICS VIOLATIONS.
AND I PRAY THAT THE MAYOR WOULD LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID TONIGHT ABOUT OUR ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS THIS COUNCIL.
I PRAY THAT HE WOULD TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
IT'S TIME FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN, YOU KNOW? BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE CAN BE IN A POSITION TOO LONG AND THEY THINK THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
SO I HOPE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TONIGHT WILL STIR THE MIND OF OUR MAYOR
[05:20:05]
AND MAKE HIM DO WHAT IS RIGHT.I'M NOT TELLING HIM WHICH WAY TO VOTE.
I DO WHAT'S RIGHT EVERY DAY. THANK YOU.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
MR. SAUL, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? JOE: MR. SOLOMON, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, SIR.
I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
HOW WERE YOU HIRED FOR THIS POSITION? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CODE SAYS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO THE COMMISSION AND MAY SELECT OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO PROVIDE ADVICE IN CASE WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY DETERMINES HE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.
SO I THINK THAT'S, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED.
AND I SENT A ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND THE MAYOR SIGNED IT.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF WE HAVE TO HIRE, IF WE HAVE TO APPOINT OUR CITY ATTORNEY, RIGHT? IF WE HAVE TO APPOINT OUR CITY ATTORNEY, THE PERSON THAT IS ONE OF HIS 13 BOSSES, AND YOU ARE LANCE BARKER ATTORNEY PRO TEM, OKAY? SO YOU ARE FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION ALRIGHT? CORRECT.
WHY IS IT THAT WE DIDN'T APPOINT YOU? BECAUSE THE ETHICS CODE SAYS IT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY CHOOSES THE PERSON.
WHY WOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY CHOOSE THE PERSON AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM.
JOE: THAT'S WHY MR. SOLOMON'S HERE.
DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THE CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTED YOU? THE CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED TO ME, THE HIRING OF MR. SOLOMON AND HIS FIRM AND I AGREED AND THAT'S WHY I SIGNED THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER.
WE REALLY HAVE TO START USING THE APPEARANCE OF WRONGDOING.
IT IS VERY CLEARLY IN OUR CODE, IN OUR ETHICS CODE.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE'S A SENTENCE IN THE ETHICS CODE THAT SPECIFICALLY HAS A PROCESS FOR APPOINTING ANOTHER ATTORNEY WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS THAT CONFLICT.
THANK YOU, MR. SOLOMON. YOU'RE WELCOME.
JOE: ANYTHING ELSE? I GOT ONE FOR YOU. OH YEAH, I KNOW.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I'M GOOD.
JOE: OKAY COUNCILPERSON, GARRETT.
JUST IN YOUR EXPERT LEGAL OPINION, 'CAUSE I'M SURE THAT YOU WERE RECOMMENDED BECAUSE THIS IS A AREA OF THE LAW THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERED A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, CORRECT? SAUL: YES.
ALL RIGHT, SO IF A CITY ATTORNEY IS THE SUBJECT OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, DOES IT NOT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF AN ETHICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THAT CITY ATTORNEY TO PICK THE ETHICS COMMISSION OFFICER? ULTIMATELY THE CHOICE WAS MINE BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEW OF WHO WAS AVAILABLE.
AND MR. SOLOMON HAS AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND.
HE WAS METRO LAW DIRECTOR FOR THE METRO NASHVILLE GOVERNMENT FOR A LONG TIME.
HE WAS IN CORPORATE LAW AND NOW HE'S IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.
MR. BAKER: IF I MAY ADDRESS IT, MAYOR.
BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, I'M SORRY.
COUNCILMAN GARRETT, IS THAT OKAY IF MR. BAKER? OR DO YOU WANT MR. SOLOMON TO ANSWER? WELL, I WAS JUST WANTING TO HEAR FROM MR. SOLOMON JUST BECAUSE FROM, I MEAN, MAYBE I HEARD IT INCORRECTLY, BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE MR. SOLOMON INDICATED EARLIER THAT IT WAS...
I MEAN, GRANTED, YOU SIGNED THE CHECKS OR WHATEVER AND YOU APPROVED IT BUT HE WAS PICKED BY MR. BAKER AND THEN YOU SIGNED OFF ON IT.
THE OPTICS OF IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE UNDER INVESTIGATION AND YOU PICK THE THE ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MAY BE IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER IF IT MAYBE HAD CAME FROM MR. GOODSON OR ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE, YOU KNOW, OR REACHING OUT TO MTAS FOR A RECOMMENDATION VERSUS JUST THAT WHOLE APPEARANCE.
JOE: I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE MADE A BETTER CHOICE THAN MR. SOLOMON RIGHT, I'M NOT DISPUTING HIS CREDENTIALS AT ALL.
I'M JUST SAYING, AGAIN, BECAUSE ONE THING THAT MR. BAKER HAS BEEN CONSISTENT ABOUT FOR YEARS IS TALKING ABOUT THE APPEARANCE.
IT'S ALL ABOUT, HE STRESSES THAT GRAY AREA OF IT COULD JUST BE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND WE GOT PROBLEMS.
[05:25:02]
SAUL: IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE CODE.I'M SORRY. SO IN HIS LEGAL ADVICE TO US, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT, BUT WHEN THE ROLE IS REVERSED AND THERE'S APPEARANCES OF A CONFLICT, I GUESS IT'S ALL GOOD.
SO YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
EITHER IT'S A CONFLICT OR IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW? EITHER YOU CAN INVESTIGATE ONE OF YOUR 13 BOSSES OR YOU CAN'T.
THAT'S ONE OF THE DISCREPANCIES, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I'LL BRING A WHOLE LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID AND APPLIED TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BUT THEN WHEN IT'S WITH SOMEBODY ELSE, IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.
BLACK AND WHITE, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR.
DON'T SHIFT TO GRAY AND LEAN WHEN YOU WANT IT TO LEAN AND IT FITS WITH THE NARRATIVE YOU WANT TO SPIN.
AND THAT'S MY DEAL. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GARRETT.
MR. BAKER, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK.
SO I DID NOT KNOW SAUL SOLOMON FROM ADAM.
WHEN WE GOT THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS AND THE EMAILS THAT MR. ROBINSON WAS SENDING OUT, PART OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS, "HEY, YOU NEED TO GET SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY THAT DOESN'T KNOW THE CITY ATTORNEY, DOESN'T KNOW ANYBODY INVOLVED IN ALL THIS." SO I GOT A RECOMMENDATION FROM JIM MURPHY WHO USED TO BE THE METRO LEGAL DIRECTOR, LAW DIRECTOR, AND KNOWS ABOUT ETHICS LAWS AND ALL THAT.
AND HE'S THE ONE THAT RECOMMENDED MR. SOLOMON, BECAUSE HE KNEW MR. SOLOMON WAS AN EXPERT IN THESE AREAS AND HAD SERVED AS METRO LAW DIRECTOR.
AND I SIMPLY PASSED THE NAME TO YOU AND- JOE: AND I APPROVED IT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BAKER.
COUNCILPERSON SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT STILL, MR. BAKER WAS INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION OF THIS ATTORNEY BECAUSE HE WENT OUT AND ASKED QUESTIONS AND BROUGHT YOU BACK A IDEA PERSON TO REPRESENT.
SO I'M JUST SAYING HE WAS STILL INVOLVED AND YOU DID RECEIVE, AS YOU SAID, MAYOR, MR. BAKER TOLD YOU ABOUT HIM, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, TOLD YOU ABOUT HIM.
HE WENT OUT AND FOUND THE PERSON THROUGH SOMEBODY ELSE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER, HE WAS STILL INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION.
WANDA: OKAY, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WHOLE PROCESS.
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DIDN'T COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO BE APPROVED.
OKAY, BUT EVERYONE ELSE IS, EVERYONE ELSE THAT YOU APPOINT, MAYOR.
SEE HOW WE CAN APPLY IT DIFFERENT? WE APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT CAME TO THE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS OF A PERSON, BUT NOW IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR THE ATTORNEY PRO TEM BUT IT'S REQUIRED FOR US TO APPROVE EVERYBODY ELSE THAT YOU APPOINT.
YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IT DOES NOT GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF DOING THE RIGHT THING.
I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ADMIT IT AND I GET IT, BUT I PROMISE YOU, EVERY TIME I'M IN THIS CHAMBER, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR IT FROM ME.
YOU HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING OR YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE...
GIVING THE APPEARANCE TO THE PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THING, THAT THEY CAN SEE THAT MY MAYOR STEPPED BACK AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE APPOINT, LET SOMEBODY APPROVE THIS APPOINTMENT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME 'CAUSE THAT IS WHAT MY CONSTITUENTS ARE CALLING ME AND SAYING.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? IN TWO YEARS, THEY GOTTA VOTE FOR YOU AGAIN.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS MATTER? WE'RE NOW READY FOR ITEM NINE, DISCUSSION REGARDING ROBINSON V CITY AMENDED COMPLAINTS.
COUNCILPERSON ALLEN, YOU'RE THE SPONSOR.
I THINK THAT, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO POSTPONE THIS ONE UNTIL NEXT MEETING? WELL, WE'RE NOT VOTING.
IF YOU DON'T WISH TO DISCUSS IT, WE'LL TAKE IT UP NEXT WEEK.
WANDA: I DON'T WISH TO DISCUSS IT RIGHT NOW, I'M TIRED.
ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE ARE NOW READY FOR MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS.
ANY MEMBER WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? OKAY. NO COMMENTS.
WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.