Aug 06, 2020 City Council

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:16]

CALLED TO ORDER. COUNCILMAN ERB WILL SERVE AS OUR CHAPLAIN TODAY.

COUNCILMAN HENLEY WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. COUNCILMAN ERB, TALK TO THE

KING FOR US. >> LET US PRAY. (AUDIO NOT WORKING) THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL.

>> MR. GARRETT. HERE. MR. RICHMOND.

HERE. MR. ERB. HERE.

MR. CHANDLER. HERE. MS. GUZMAN.

HERE. MS. SMITH. HERE.

MR. ALLEN. PRESENT. MR. HENLEY.

HERE. MS. STREETMAN. HERE.

MR. NORRIS. MAYOR PITTS. HERE.

ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. >> NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF ELECTRONIC MEETING, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER, REGARDING HOLDING OPEN MEETINGS RATHER THAN IN PERSON. THIS MEETING IS REQUIRED

ELECTRONICALLY >> SO MOVED >>THE CHAIRMAN: I MAKE A

MOTION TO APPROVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT MOTION?

HEARING NONE, MADAM CLERK. TAKE THE VOTE. >> MR. GARRETT.

MR. RICHMOND. MR. ERB. MR. CHANDLER.

MS. GUZMAN. MS. SMITH. MR. HOLEMAN.

MR. NORRIS. MR. BURKEHEART, MAYOR PITTS. >>THE CHAIRMAN: MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET ME JUST REMIND THOSE, SPECIFICALLY COUNCIL LADY SMITH, IF YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, PUT YOUR MICROPHONE ON MUTE.

IF YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED, LET ME KNOW AND I'LL WRITE YOU DOWN ON THE LIST.

BEFORE WE GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WE'RE COMING UP ON THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE IN OUR COUNTRY.

TENNESSEE'S SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE. THERE WILL BE AN EVENT ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 15TH, 6:00 P.M., TO UNVEIL THE STATUE THAT HAS BEEN PLACED AT PUBLIC SQUARE, THIS IS A JOINT PROCLAMATION AND I WILL NOT READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCLAMATION, BUT I DO WANT TO READ A COUPLE OF PASSAGES FROM IT, IF YOU WOULD ALLOW.

THAT SAYS WHEREAS, AFTER DECADES OF ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE, CONGRESS FINALLY PASSED THE 19TH AMENDMENT IN JUNE, 1919. 36 STATES NEEDED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT FOR IT TO BECOME LAW. WHEREAS, FEBE BURNS'S LETTER TO HER SON, REPRESENTATIVE HARRY BURN, GAVE HIM THE CONFIDENCE HE NEEDED THAT WOMEN VOTE FOR SUFFRAGE ULTIMATELY CASTING THE DECIDING VOTE. WHEREAS MS. BURNS IS THE PART OF STORIED LEGACY OF TENNESSEE WOMEN, INCLUDING THOSE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY WHO FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE. WHEREAS AFRICAN-AMERICAN ALSO PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE, HELPED REGISTER OTHER AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

THESE WOMEN RECOGNIZED THAT VOTER TURNOUT WAS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF SUFFRAGE, FOR US TO

[00:05:02]

WE ARE PROCLAIMING THAT AUGUST 18TH, 2020, TENNESSEE WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE CENTENNIAL DAY. REQUEST THAT CHURCHES AND INTERESTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY RING BELLS AT NOON ON AUGUST 18TH, TO CELEBRATE THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TENNESSEE'S STATE LEGISLATURE'S RATIFICATION OF THE 19TH AMENDMENT. THAT IS SIGNED BY MAYOR DURHAM AND MYSELF, AND WE WILL BE

[5. PLANNING COMMISSION Councilman Richard Garrett]

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

WE HAVE 11 ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLED READ THE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS.

>> ORDINANCE 5-2020-21, ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF PREWITT LANE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS REQUEST WAS HELD ON JULY 2ND. ORDINANCE 9-2020-21, APPLICATION OF CAROL STEVENS, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF WEST TOMPKINS LANE, FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ORDINANCE 10-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, IN CARE OF CHRIS BLACKWELL FOR CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH WHITFIELD ROAD. ORDINANCE 11-2020-21, FIRST READING, APPLICATION OF JOE ROBERTS, CAL MCKAY AND COMPANY AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD ASHLAND CITY ROAD FROM R-3, TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 12-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPLICATION OF SID HEDRICK, PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GREENWOOD AVENUE AND WOODMONT BOULEVARD. R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 13-2020-21. APPLICATION OF MAYOR DAVIS HOLT, BOBBY POWERS, GREEN SPACE PARTNERS AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD AND AVONDALE ROAD TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. AND R-2. ORDINANCE 14-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, BOBBY POWERS GREEN SPACE PARTNERS AGENT FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON AVONDALE DRIVE, C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 15-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, LUKE BAGGET FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 7 MILE FAIRY ROAD, R-1 SINGLE FAMILY TO R-6. ORDINANCE 16-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF RIVER CHASE MARINE TERMINAL, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ASHLAND CITY ROAD, R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY TO R 2A. ORDINANCE 17-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, 4E HOLDINGS, LLC, FOR ZONE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF FAYETTE ROAD, TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. >> COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> MAY I MOVE TO GO BACK INTO

PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED.

FIRST ITEM IS ORDINANCE 9-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF CAROL STEVENS. NO REQUEST TO SPEAK FOR AND NO

[00:10:03]

MR. POWERS, ARE YOU HERE? WE'LL NEED TO UNMUTE THE MICROPHONE.

MR. POWERS, IF YOU WILL GET CLOSE TO THE COMPUTER SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.

AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR. >> BRYCE POWERS, 46 UNION STREET, REPRESENTING MR. ROBERTS IN THIS CASE. THE PROPERTY HAD AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON IT THAT SUST SUSTAINED IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.

THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DEMOLISHED. MR. ROBERTS TRIED TO SEE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS PROPERTY, R-6 SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE, FOR SIX TO SEVEN HOUSES, MOST LIKELY SIX. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING STAFF OF THE AREA BEING PRIMARILY MULTIFAMILY. BUT MOST OF THE BLOCK IS STILL SINGLE FAMILY.

SO THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY, ALTHOUGH IT'S R-3 ZONING NOW, HAS HAD A SINGLE FAMILY USE ON IT FOR YOU KNOW, IONS. SO WE'RE RETAINING THE SINGLE FAMILY USE, LOOKING FOR MORE DENSITY TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. POWERS ABOUT THIS ZONING ORDINANCE? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, MR. POWERS.

THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE THAT HAS ASKED TO SPEAK AGAINST ORDINANCE 11.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA IS ORDINANCE 12-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF SID HEDRICK.

MR. HEDRICK, APPROACH THE COMPUTER, TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE FIVE

MINUTES, SIR. >> MY NAME IS SID HEDRICK, 2006 HIDDEN MEADOWS DRIVE.

I LIVE IN CLARKSVILLE. THE PROPERTY ON WOODMONT BOULEVARD I'VE OWNED FOR SEVERAL YEARS. I'M ASKING FOR AN R-6 SPLIT ZONING WITH R-4.

ALONG WOODMONT BOULEVARD IS ALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R-3, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A THREE-UNIT BUILDING. BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT. I FEEL LIKE MY REQUEST WOULD HELP RETAIN THE SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND THEN THE REAR PROPERTY, WHICH IS A LARGER LOT, REAL PROPERTY TOUCHES R-4 WHICH WAS ALREADY IN USE. HIGHEST AND BEST DENSITY FOR THIS PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA. THERE IS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR

THAT. >> THANK YOU. ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT FOR MR. HEDRICK. HEARING NONE.

THANK YOU. THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 12. NEXT ITEM ON OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA IS ORDINANCE 13-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF MARY DAVIS HOLT. MR. BRYCE POWERS HAS ASKED TO ADDRESS COUNCIL IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE. MR. POWERS. THERE YOU ARE AGAIN.

GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN, PLEASE SIR. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> SURE. BRYCE POWERS, 46 UNION STREET. REPRESENTING GREEN SPACE AND MRS. HOLT. THIS CURRENT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-5, ONE OF OUR MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WE'RE REQUESTING R-6 FOR REDEVELOPMENT INTO SINGLE FAMILY. YOU GUYS MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT GOING ON ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THAT, LIBERTY HILLS. WHICH IS THE LARGE SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEING GRADED.

THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT ACROSS FROM THAT. AS PART OF THE WOODLAND HILLS PROJECT, WE HAD TO INSTALL A TURN LANE ON 41A BYPASS NOT ONLY GOING UP THE HILL INTO OUR

[00:15:07]

THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE TO BENEFIT THE AREA WE WILL BE ABLE TO CAPITALIZE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT AS WELL. THAT TURN LANE COSTS US ROUGHLY $250,000. AND WE WERE HAPPY TO DO IT FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT.

THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT BENEFITS FROM THAT AS WELL.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING STAFF, HISTORICAL DENSITY THAT THEY PROVIDE WITH R-6 WAS SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 200 AND SOME ODD LOTS.

TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS SITE DOES NOT ALLOW THAT. WE HAVE PROPOSED 76 AND MAYOR PITTS, I'M GOING TO TRY TO SHOW THIS MAP A LITTLE BIT, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY HARD TO SEE.

BUT THERE'S SEVERE TOPOGRAPHY. OUR ENGINEER LAYOUT IS JUST 76 LOTS.

PROVIDE YET ANOTHER ACCESS OUT TO THE 41A BYPASS. AGAIN, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. POWERS. ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A QUESTION OF MR. POWERS ABOUT THIS CASE? HEARING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.

NO ONE THAT HAS REQUESTED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 13.

WE ARE READY FOR ORDINANCE 14-2020-21. AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF MARY DAVIS HOLT.

MR. BRYCE POWERS HAS ASKED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE 14.

MR. POWERS, PLEASE APPROACH. APPARENTLY THIS IS THE POWERS AND HEDRICK SHOW TONIGHT.

>> BRYCE POWERS, 46 UNION STREET. DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE CASE I SPOKE ON. EXTENDING THE C-2 LINE THAT EXISTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 41A BYPASS. THIS PROPERTY HAS SEVERE TOPOGRAPHY.

THIS CLEANS UP ZONE LINES AND MAKES A BIGGER BLOCK OF C-2 THAT IS PROBABLY WILL BE

DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, NOT ANY TIME SOON. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. POWERS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT ITEM ON OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA IS ORDINANCE 15-2020-21, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, APPLICATION OF LUKE BAGGET, SID HEDRICK, AGENT.

TELL US YOUR NAME. GOOD LOOK FOR YOU, SIR. >> I DO HAVE ON PANTS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE DECORUM.

YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER, SIR. OKAY. MR. HEDRICK, YOU HAVE FIVE

MINUTES. >> I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF LUKE BAGGET WHOSE WIFE JUST HAD A BABY. SO LUKE RECENTLY ALSO DID AN R-6 PROJECT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OFF CHARLOTTE STREET. WE SUCCESSFULLY SOLD THOSE FIVE HOMES.

THREE OF WHICH WENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER RESIDENTS. ONE WENT TO AN INVESTOR, HE IS RENTING IT. AND THE OTHER WENT TO A PARENT WHO BOUGHT THE HOUSE FOR HIS CHILDREN TO LIVE IN. MR. BAGGET IS NOW PURCHASING ANOTHER PORTION OF PROPERTY DOWN AT THE CONVERGENCE OF GREENWOOD AVENUE AND 7 MILE FAIRY AND INTENDS ON DOING THE SAME TYPE OF PROJECT THERE. HOMES WILL RUN IN THE 175,000 TO 185,000 RANGE.

AND WE HOPE TO OFFER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL THE MANY DAUGHTERS MOVING TO THIS AREA.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HEDRICK ABOUT THIS ZONING ORDINANCE 15. THANK YOU, SIR.

WE HAVE A QUESTION, MR. HEDRICK, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME, COUNCILMAN HOLLOMMAN, YOU

HAD A QUESTION. >> HOW MANY HOUSES DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET ON THE LOT.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S SIX OR SEVEN. >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT FOR MR. HEDRICK? OKAY. NOW YOU'RE DONE WITH THIS ONE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE ASKED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE 15. WE'RE NOW READY FOR ORDINANCE 16.

WHICH IS AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF RIVER CHASE MARINE TERMINAL, LLC. NO ONE HAS ASKED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST ORDINANCE 16. NEXT ITEM IS ORDINANCE 17. AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE APPLICATION OF 4E HOLDINGS LLC.

[00:20:07]

PLEASE APPROACH. YOU KNOW THE DRILL, SIR. FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY, I'M HERE AS A SUPPORTER OF THE R-6 ZONING.

I THINK I DID THE FIRST R-6 ZONING ON GREENWOOD AVENUE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

AND A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL LIKE R-6 IS INTENDED JUST FOR THE DOWNTOWN OR THE URBAN CORE AREA. THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ZONING IN THE ZONING CODE, IT SAYS THAT DISTRICT SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTIVE USES SUCH AS MASS TRANSIT AND RETAIL SERVICES. FRONTAGE ON A DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC POTABLE WATER. THIS DISTRICT IS LIMITED TO GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, WHERE TRACTS AND LAND EXISTS IN AREAS SUITABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR HAVE ENVIRONMENT CONSTRAINTS. MR. YAO, THE DIRECTSOR, HE IS ASKING FOR R-3 ZONING ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S NEEDED THERE.

INFILL PROPERTY. HE'S BEEN GIVEN APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS.

LAFAYETTE ROAD IS A COLLECTOR STREET WHERE IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE SO MANY FEET BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS. THE USE OF THESE LOTS IS GOING TO ENHANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I LISTENED TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND I BELIEVE THAT A COUPLE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE IN FEAR THAT THIS MIGHT ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY. R-6 IS NOT A MULTIFAMILY ZONING.

JUST A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WILL CONSIDER THIS.

IF YOU WANT TO THINK OF OTHER R-6 ZONINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE CITY LIMITS, NOT IN THE URBAN CORE, YOU CAN LOOK AT MR. KUKABURG'S PROJECT, I CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME OF THE ROAD.

AND THEN MR. POWERS, WHO WAS HERE EARLIER ALSO HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS OUT ON RINGLE ROAD.

OLD MILL STATION. NOT A FAR REACHING REQUEST. IT'S A REQUEST TO GIVE THE

PROPERTY THE BEST USE THAT IT CAN HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HEDRICK. SEEING NONE, ERIC YAU HAS ASKED

TO ADDRESS COUNCIL IN BE FAVOR. >> MY NAME IS ERIC YOW, I LIVE AT 131 RURAL ROAD, JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS. OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO REZONE R-6 PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

THE TRACT OF LAND IS 4.6 ACRES. EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THAT PROPERTY THAT IS SETTING PRETTY FAR BACK OFF OF THE ROAD. THE FAMILY LIVES THERE RIGHT NOW. THIS PROPERTY HAS 375 FEET OR THERE ABOUTS OF ROAD FRONTAGE, WITH OUR ENGINEER'S HELP, WE WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT WE WOULD PUT AS MANY AS 11 HOUSES ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT THAT IS NOT OUR PREROGATIVE. OUR PREROGATIVE IS TO UTILIZE THE MASSIVE 375 FEET ROAD FRONTAGE, TO MERELY BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THAT SECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY. USING THE THREE DRIVEWAYS THAT WE GOT APPROVAL FOR, WE ANTICIPATE REZONING JUST THAT ROAD FRONTAGE AND ONLY HAVING THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THERE. WE'VE SOUGHT R-6 REZONING INSTEAD OF STAYING R-1 SO THAT WE CAN HAVE PROXIMITY TO THE ROAD AND ALSO BECAUSE THERE A BLUE LINE STREAM THAT WE'VE GOT TO STAY FAR AWAY FROM. I BELIEVE 30 OR 40 FEET OFF OF THAT BLUE LINE STREAM.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN IS WHAT DROVE US TO THE R-6. ALSO THE SETBACK FROM THE ROAD.

ONE CONCERN THAT HAD BEEN RAISED WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS THE TRAFFIC ON LAFAYETTE, 15 YEARS AGO THE TRAFFIC DAILY COUNT HOVERED AROUND 6500 TRAFFIC COUNTS.

TODAY, AT LEAST IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IT'S HOVERED ABOUT 5000.

SO IT'S TRENDED DOWNWARD IN THE LAST 15 YEARS. SUFFICE IT TO SAY WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 11, WE'RE ASKING FOR 3. WE ONLY WANT THREE SINGLE

[00:25:01]

FAMILY RESIDENCES. REZONING R-6 THERE. >> THANK YOU, MR. YOW.

ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE A QUESTION OF MR. YOW? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. COUNCILMAN GARRETT.

>> I MOVE TO GO BACK IN REGULAR SESSION. >> MOTION BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO GO BACK IN REGULAR SESSION WITHOUT AN OBJECTION. WE ARE NOW BACK IN REGULAR

SESSION. >> AS A REMINDER, ALL MOTIONS UPON THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL SHALL BE FOR APPROVAL. ORDINANCE 5-2020-21, BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 5.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL REGARDING ORDINANCE 5. COUNCILMAN NORRIS, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED, SIR. >> LAST MONTH WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS CASE, I WAS NOT SURE I COULD VOTE FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES ON WHITFIELD AND 101ST PARKWAY.

THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE NOW, THAT THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS AND TDOT IS WORKING ON THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION, THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MAKE THE DEVELOPER DO DURING THE SITE REVIEW WILL ALLEVIATE MOST OF THESE TRAFFIC CONCERNS.

I PLAN ON VOTING FOR APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND WOULD ASK MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO

THE SAME. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. YOU KNOW, I HAVE GOTTEN TWO OR THREE DRAWINGS AND WHATNOT. AND YOU KNOW, PROPOSING TO DO THIS AND PROPOSING TO DO THAT.

AND I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING REAL QUICK, MR. NORRIS. IT'S NOT TDOT WORKING ON WHITFIELD, IT'S THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE PUTTING THAT IN. I'M TRYING TO KEEP US FROM HAVING THE SAME THING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 101ST, AND FIVE, TEN, 12 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

ALL OF THESE DRAWINGS, EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE RECEIVED, WE CAN'T PASS CONDITIONAL ZONING. SO THAT MEANS IF WE VOTE IT IN, PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND.

AND TO ME, FOR US TO HAVE TO SPEND AS MUCH MONEY AS WE'RE GOING TO SPEND ON THE OTHER END, AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO DOWN HERE A FEW MONTHS BACK, AT ABOUT 5:30 IN THE AFTERNOON, I LIKE TO NEVER GOT OUT. AND WOUND UP HAVING TO GO THE OPPOSITE WAY OF WHAT I WANTED TO GO, WOUND UP GOING OUT ON RUDOLPH TO GET BACK TO NORTH CLARK. TO ME, IT'S JUST AN AREA THAT RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE GET SOME IMPROVEMENT ALL THE WAY AROUND, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T BUT A COUPLE OF 3 MONTHS AGO, WE HAD A LITTLE SMALL PLACE DOWN ON WHITFIELD ROAD THAT WE ALLOWED TWO OR THREE HOMES.

WE'RE FILLING IT UP. THIS IS AN AWFUL BIG PROJECT. 115 HOMES.

AND TWO AND A HALF CARS AVERAGE PER HOME. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING CLOSE TO YOU KNOW, 300 CARS GETTING IN AND OUT DOWN THERE.

YOU KNOW, I CAN'T VOTE FOR IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> YES. AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, WHEN I LOOKED AT IT ORIGINALLY, I'M LIKE NO WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.

BUT AFTER LOOKING AT AND ACTUALLY SPEAKING WITH THE AGENT, AND AS I STATED ON LAST WEEK, HE WAS WILLING TO DO WHATEVER WE NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS, HE UNDERSTOOD THE TRAFFIC. HE UNDERSTOOD THE ISSUES. AND I GUESS THIS RENDERING RIGHT HERE WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US EVEN WENT A STEP FURTHER TO ADD TWO LANES COMING OUT.

AND SO I AM SATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION, WITH THE FACT THAT HE'S GOING TO DO THAT.

AND THE FACT THAT WHEN WE MENTIONED LAST WEEK THAT IT WON'T BE WHETHER HE WANTS TO OR NOT. THEY WILL REQUIRE IT. AND AS LONG AS THEY ARE REQUIRING IT, I AM SATISFIED AND I JUST THINK WE SHOULD, I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS

PROJECT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN ALLEN. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 5? HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

[00:30:02]

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> MR. GARRETT. MR. RICHMOND.

AYE. MR. ERB, NO. MR. CHANDLER, NO. MS. GUZMAN, YES.

MR. HOLEMAN, AYE. MR. ALLEN. AYE.

MR. HENLEY. AYE. MR. BURKEHEART, AYE.

MAYOR PITTS. 11 YES, 2 NO. >> ORDINANCE 5 ADOPTED.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT. STAFF AND RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL.

>> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 9.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER.

>> Y'ALL WILL GET TIRED OF ME PUSHING MY BUTTON. I LOOKED AT THIS ONE AND I LISTENED LAST WEEK. AND YOU KNOW, FIRST THING WAS WELL, THE ROAD IS NOT TOO GOOD A SHAPE. YOU KNOW, THAT IS OUR ROAD. AND I BROUGHT IT UP.

THAT'S OUR FAULT. AND THEN WELL, THERE IS NOT REALLY ANY R-3 RIGHT THERE.

YOU CROSS THE FIELD THAT IS IN FRONT OF IT, THERE IS R-3. CROSS THE FIELDS BEHIND IT, I THINK IT'S R-4. YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR, AND THIS WOULDN'T ADD ANY TRAFFIC HARDLY AT ALL TO AN AREA. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN-FIELD, TO ME, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DISAPPROVE THIS BECAUSE WE DROPPED THE BALL AND DIDN'T KEEP THE STREET UP. I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF

THIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DID RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM STEVENS, HE MAY HAVE FORWARDED IT TO MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I JUST WONDERED IF SOMEONE WAS HERE TO SPEAK TO WHAT I SEE TO BE, HE DID SUBMIT AND IF SOMEONE COULD CONFIRM, HE OUTLINED HERE SEVERAL BULLETS THAT SHARED THAT HE WAS, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A PROPOSAL, RATHER, EXCUSE ME, TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SHOWING THAT HE WOULD INCLUDE A TURN-AROUND AT HIS EXPENSE. AND THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SIGNED OFF ON IT AND SAID THEY WERE FINE WITH THAT PROPOSAL. I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT MR.

STEVENS SPOKE TO THAT SOUNDED LIKE IT CAME UP IN HIS HEARING. >> THAT WAS CONFIRMED LAST WEEK

DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> I MAY HAVE MISSED IT. OKAY.

OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO CONCERNS AFTER YOU KNOW, EMT OR EMERGENCY BEING ABLE TO GET IN.

I TOO WILL BE VOTING TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, UNIQUE POSITION HAVING BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, STUDIED IT FROM THE ADOPTED USE PLAN AND SOME OF THE OTHER FACTORS WE CONSIDER ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MY INITIAL VOTE WAS YOU KNOW, NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR ZONING ORDINANCE. ON THE COUNCIL, I HAVE MORE LIBERTIES TO APPLY DISCRETION TO IT AND LOOKING AT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE AREA, YOU KNOW, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, THAT THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO INSTALL TURN-AROUND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS OKAY WITH IT.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.

AND NOT TO MENTION THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES TO IT.

I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS READY TO GO FORWARD AND I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE MY

FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. >> COUNCILMAN HOLEMAN, HE PASSES. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON ORDINANCE 9.

SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK TAKE THE VOTE.

>> ROLL CALL. MS. GUZMAN. NO. MR. HOLEMAN.

NO. 11 YES AND 2 NO. >> ORDINANCE 9 ADOPTED >> ORDINANCE 10-2020-21, RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR DISAPPROVAL. I SO MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> ORDINANCE 10 HAS BEEN MOVED FOR APPROVAL AND PROPERLY SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HENLEY.

ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO SPEAK ON ORDINANCE 10? >> COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE

[00:35:07]

RECOGNIZED. >> I RECEIVED A CALL FROM A NEIGHBOR IN THIS AREA.

LAST WEEK WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT, THE GUYS GOING TO GIVE US THE PROPERTY FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT. BUT THE ISSUE I HAVE IS WHAT THEY BROUGHT UP. I ACTUALLY GOT IN MY TRUCK AND DROVE OVER THERE.

AND THE ZONING SIGN, I SENT EACH ONE A COPY IN YOUR E-MAIL, IT'S SO COVERED UP THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THAT THERE WAS A ZONING HEARING. FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF CITIZENS NOT BEING ABLE TO GIVE THEIR INPUT. ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS INTENTIONALLY DONE OR WHATEVER. BUT IT'S DONE.

IT'S COVERED UP, THE SIGN IS COVERED UP. YOU CAN'T TELL THAT THAT LAND WAS READY TO BE REZONED. SHE SAID ONE OF HER NEIGHBORS TOLD HER ABOUT IT.

SHE WAS LIKE SHE RODE BY THERE. AND I GOT UP AND WENT OVER THERE AND RODE BY IT.

I LOOKED AT IT. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT NEEDS TO BE VISIBLE.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE POSTPONE THIS FOR 30 DAYS

>> MOTION BEEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN ALLEN TO POSTPONE ORDINANCE 10 TO THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL. DO I HEAR A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GARRETT.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE MOTION TO POSTPONE? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE.

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? WE ARE READY, WE ARE VOTING ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL

THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION. MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> MR. GARRETT.

AYE. MR. RICHMOND. AYE.

MR. ERB. YES. MS. SMITH.

YES. MR. HOLEMAN. AYE.

MR. HENLEY. AYE. MR. NORRIS.

MAYOR PITTS. 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 10 IS POSTPONED.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

I KNOW HE'S LISTENING OR WHATEVER, BUT IN THE FUTURE, CAN WE JUST MAKE SURE THAT THOSE SIGNS ARE VISIBLE. ALTHOUGH I KNOW IT'S NOT INTENTIONAL, IT GIVES THE PERCEPTION THAT MAYBE THE PURPOSE OF THE SIGN IS TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT IT IS UP FOR

REZONING. >> WE WILL DEFINITELY, I MADE A NOTE OF THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT

THEY PLACE IT SO IT'S VISIBLE. >> COUNCIL LADY SMITH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK IT CAN THEY TURN UP THE MIC A LITTLE BIT.

I CAN'T HARDLY HEAR THE COUNCILMAN SPEAK. I COULDN'T HEAR THE SPEAKERS

SPEAK AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. WE'LL ADDRESS THAT.

TREY AND VINCE AND THEN WE'LL ASK COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET CLOSER TO THEIR MICROPHONE WHEN THEY SPEAK. MAYBE THAT WILL HELP SOME. THANK YOU.

WE WILL DO THAT. OKAY. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> ORDINANCE 11-2020-21, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR

DISAPPROVAL. THE MOTION WAS FOR APPROVAL. >> ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON ORDINANCE 11, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAVE QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO

VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> MR. GARRETT.

AYE. MR. RICHMOND AYE. MR. ERB, AYE.

MS. GUZMAN. YES. MS. SMITH.

YES. MR. ALLEN, AYE. MR. HENLEY.

AYE. MR. NORRIS. AYE.

13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 11 ADOPTED FIRST READING.

THANK YOU COUNCILMAN GARRETT. ORDINANCE 12-2020, BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL. I SO MOVED.

>> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED ON ORDINANCE 12.

ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO ASK A QUESTION OR BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 12?

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES.

>> ORDINANCE 12 ADOPTED FIRST READING. >> ORDINANCE 13-2020-21, BOTH

[00:40:08]

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN GARRETT IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 13 AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 13. SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE ADOPTED FIRST

READING. COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> ORDINANCE 14-2020-21, BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 14. ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 14? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

>> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 14 ADOPTED, FIRST READING.

>> ORDINANCE 15-2020-21, BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL

AND I SO MOVE >> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 15. ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 15? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) >> 13 YES.

>> ORDINANCE ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> ORDINANCE 16-2020-21, BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND I SO MOVE.

>> ANY MEMBER WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 16 ADOPTED, FIRST

READING. COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ORDINANCE 17-2020-21, BOTH THE STAFF AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR APPROVAL

AND I SO MOVE. >> SECOND. >> ORDINANCE 17 HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED IN FAVOR. ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 17?

COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AS I STATED LAST WEEK, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER WHEN THEY PUT THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT SHOWED ALL OF THE DIFFERENT LOTS AND EVERYTHING, THIS IS AN OVERLY DEVELOPED AREA.

AND YOU KNOW, THE SPEAKER SAID 6500 TO 5000 CARS A DAY. I JUST ALL GOOD FAITH, THIS IS IN MY WARD, I CANNOT VOTE TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE TRAFFIC. THERE IS A BIG DEVELOPMENT DOWN AT CUNNINGHAM AND LAFAYETTE ROAD THAT IS GOING ON. AND WE JUST CAN'T KEEP SQUEEZING THINGS IN THESE SMALL AREAS. AND THAT WHAT ALL OF THIS WILL

DO IS. I WILL HAVE TO VOTE NO ON THIS. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MADE AS FAR AS DECLINE IN TRAFFIC COUNT, SHOWING THAT TRAFFIC VOLUME IS ON A DECREASE IN THE AREA. GIVES RISE TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AREA OF OPPORTUNITY TO DO A GOOD IN-FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN AN AREA WHERE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS NOT YOU KNOW, BURSTING AT THE SEAMS AND SUFFERING FROM OVERCROWDING.

THIS IS MEETING A NEED IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AN AREA

[00:45:04]

COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VOTE IN FAVOR. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN BURKEHEART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, THREE HOUSES ON LAFAYETTE ROAD I DON'T THINK IS A GAME CHANGER.

I TRAVEL THAT ROAD QUITE FREQUENTLY. I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING OVERRUN WITH TRAFFIC. I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. COUNCIL LADY SMITH, CAN YOU

HEAR US BETTER NOW THAT WE'RE SPEAKING UP? >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 17? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE. ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

>> VOTE TAKEN) MR. CHANDLER, NO. 12 YES. 1 NO.

>> ORDINANCE 17 ADOPTED. FIRST READING. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN GARRETT. I WILL ASK YOU TO TAKE UP THE LAND REGULATION ADVISORY COMMISSION ITEM THAT CAME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET

IT BEFORE US. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR RESOLUTION 12-2020-21, REPEALING RESOLUTION 60-1992-93, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND APPROVING THE FORMATION OF THE LAND

REGULATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. >> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION 12. ANYBODY WISH TO BE RECOGNIZE ON RESOLUTION 12? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

>> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> RESOLUTION 12 ADOPTED. WE ARE NOW READY FOR THE

[6. CONSENT AGENDA City Clerk]

SO CAN YOU READ THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> ALL ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL BY THE COUNCIL, MAY BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION. HOWEVER A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. ORDINANCE 2-2020-21, SECOND READING. AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PARKWAY, TO R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 3-2020-21, MAP OF THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, DANIEL CHAMBERS, QUICK TRIP CORPORATION AGENT, AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 24 AND ROSS VIEW ROAD, R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, C-4 HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE DISTRICT. ORDINANCE 4-2020-21, SECOND READING, ZONE CHANGE ON EDMONDSON FAIRY ROAD, TO R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. RESOLUTION 14-2020-21, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR RETAIL LIQUOR SALES FOR BILL'S PACKAGE STORE. RESOLUTION 15-2020-21,

APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE LAND. >> I'LL NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANYBODY WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE. ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

[00:50:02]

>> (VOTE TAKEN) >> 13 YES. >> CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED.

[7. FINANCE COMMITTEE Chairman Jeff Burkhart]

AND THAT WOULD BE CHAIRMAN BURKEHEART, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I HAVE THREE SMALL ITEMS HERE THAT WE'LL BLOW RIGHT THROUGH I'M SURE.

ORDINANCE 1-202021, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CODE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO

SHORT-TERM RENTALS, MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECOND FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 1. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN'S ORDINANCE THAT SHE PROPOSED. I'LL CALL ON HER FIRST. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THAT.

AS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, THIS ORDINANCE IS FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE BUT ALSO THOSE THAT ARE CHOOSING TO VISIT OUR CITY. BY HAVING THESE INSPECTIONS AS YOU HEARD CHIEF MONTGOMERY SPEAK LAST WEEK, THIS WILL ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING IS SAFE, JUST AS HOTELS ARE INSPECTED FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR GUESTS, ALSO BY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT GUESTS, WHERE IT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WILL DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF GUESTS ABLE TO STAY THERE OVERNIGHT. AS WELL AS HOW MANY CAN BE ADVERTISED TO STAY THERE.

WHICH IS DONE BASED ON THE SIZE AND ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS INSURES IT DOES NOT CREATE AN UNSAFE PLACE FOR THOSE STAYING THERE OR LIVING AROUND THE PROPERTY. BY VERIFYING THE PROPERTY SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS IN THE HOME, NO FIRE HAZARDS, IT HELPS TO PREVENT THE RESIDENTS AROUND THEM FROM GETTING BURNED OUT OF THEIR HOMES. BY NOT ALLOWING THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL USES, IT PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM HAVING A CONSTANT STREAM IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO US TRYING TO PLAN HOW WE NEED TO DO THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY, IF WE'RE BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITIES, THAT CHANGES HOW THOSE ROADS ARE GOING TO BE USED. ALSO, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORS TO HAVE A WAY TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DEALING WITH.

AS WE HEARD MR. REYNOLDS DISCUSS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HE'S FACED AS WELL AS THE E-MAIL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE ISSUES THAT HE'S BEEN DEALING WITH AS WELL.

THERE IS NO PROPER WAY FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS, WHEN YOU'VE GOT A RENTER THAT IS A PROBLEM, THEY GET CITED FOR VIOLATING LOCAL LAWS. DIFFERENT RENTER COMES IN, THEY GET CITED FOR VIOLATING LOCAL LAWS. IT'S A CONTINUAL PATTERN THAT WE HAVE THERE. THIS IS A WAY THAT NEIGHBORS CAN DEAL WITH THE NUISANCES WITHOUT OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS BEING USED TO DEAL WITH THEM. THE POLICE CAN CONTINUE TO BE CALLED UPON FOR LARGE PARTIES, PARKING ISSUES, AS WE HEARD THE LEWD, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE HEARD WHAT MR. REYNOLDS CHILDREN WERE HAVING TO WITNESS.

IT'S ONLY EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE NEXT GUEST ARRIVES. I KNOW THAT I HAVE RECEIVED MANY E-MAILS TODAY FROM SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED IT. I RESPECT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATORS. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS NOT THE CASE. AS REFERENCED IN THE ORDINANCE, CURRENT OPERATORS ARE GRANDFATHERED IN BY THE STATE. IF THEIR PROPERTIES ARE NOT THE ONES CAUSING THESE LOCAL VIOLATIONS, THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE EXACTLY AS THEY HAVE.

I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE BENEFICIAL TO OUR COMMUNITY, AS THEY ARE A PLACE FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO TOUR OUR COMMUNITY, THERE IS A PLACE FOR THEM TO STAY.

I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT IN THE SEMINAR THAT BOTH CHIEF MONTGOMERY AND I WATCHED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT IN THAT IS DUE TO EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE CORONAVIRUS, ACTUALLY THERE IS A RISE IN PEOPLE WANTING TO STAY IN AN AIR BNB. I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN A LARGE FACILITY HAVING TO SHARE ELEVATORS, THIS IS A WAY FOR THEM TO PRIVATELY PROTECT THEMSELVES. BUT IN RESPECT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD LAST MONTH IN BOTH SESSIONS, AS WELL AS CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH OTHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THEN ALSO AGAIN MEETING WITH ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN CREATING THIS ORDINANCE, WITH A LOT OF HARD WORK DONE ESPECIALLY BY MR. STAFFORD AND MR. BAKER, APPRECIATING MR. DAVID SMITH, CHIEF MONTGOMERY, LORI MATTA,

[00:55:03]

>> ARE THEY LABELED 1, 2, 3. >> YES, SIR, THEY ARE. DIRECTLY AT THE TOP.

MAYOR MAYOR >> THANK YOU. >> AMEND SECTION 5304.A3.

THIS WOULD BE IN REFERENCE REGARDING THE LOCAL CONTACT PERSON.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS AMEND IT TO REPLACE IT WHERE IT SAYS FIRST OF ALL, LOCAL CONTACT PERSONS. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE LOCAL CONTACT PERSON. IN THE EVENT THAT SOMEONE IS NEEDED, THERE WOULD BE MORE THAN ONE PERSON THAT COULD REPORT. SHOULD THE LOCAL CONTACT PERSON BE OUT OF TOWN, ON A TRIP OR UNAVAILABLE, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO

REPORT. >> LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. PROPERLY BEFORE US.

NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 1. MOTION BEEN MADE BY COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN. AND PROPERLY SECONDED. NOW, I'M SORRY, PLEASE PROCEED.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AS I WAS GOING OVER HERE, THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE FOR AGAIN, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MULTIPLE CONTACT PERSONS.

SO IN THE EVENT THAT THEY WERE, THAT ONE OF THE OWNER OR ONE OF THE CONTACT PERSONS COULDN'T MAKE IT, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE THAT COULD. YOU'LL SEE THAT IT HAS BEEN STRICKEN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PHYSICALLY RESPOND. BY OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE WAS A NEED FOR THEM TO PHYSICALLY RESPOND, THE POLICE WOULD DETAIL THAT WITH THEM.

BUT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A COMPLAINT, IT IS NECESSARY THAT SOMEONE IS ABLE TO RESPOND AND DEAL WITH THE ISSUE. OTHERWISE, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHO WOULD BE THE ONE THAT NEEDED TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. THIS IS A WAY THAT THEY CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON, AGAIN, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PHYSICALLY RESPOND UNLESS IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PERTINENT THAT REQUIRED THEM. BUT AS FAR AS THE ORDINANCE IS

CONCERNED, AS LONG AS THEY WERE ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT. >> OKAY.

MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 1, ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENT 1? I'VE GOT THREE FOLKS ON THE BOARD CURRENTLY, I IMAGINE THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENT 1.

YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO APPLAUD THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER FOR TAKING THE TIME TO KIND OF REVISIT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND SEEING WHAT CONCESSIONS COULD BE MADE TO MAKE IT MORE REASONABLE FOR AIR BNB OWNERS.

AS I LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IT CLOSELY RESEMBLES ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT I INTENDED TO MAKE, GREAT MINDS THINK A LOT. AND OUR AMENDMENT 1S.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, THOUGH, WITH IT IS, IT'S STILL SOMEWHAT THE LANGUAGE OF IT SETS AN OWNER OR A POTENTIAL CONTACT PERSON UP FOR FAILURE, WE'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE 24 HOURS A DAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO RESPOND. SO THEY'RE OUT TO EAT, EATING DINNER WITH THEIR FAMILY.

THEY MAY HAVE A POLICY WHERE THEY DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE. THEY'RE OUT EATING FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, AT A RESTAURANT. WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT INSTANCE? THEY WEREN'T AVAILABLE 24/7 TO RESPOND TO THAT PARTICULAR INQUIRY.

CHANCES OF MAYBE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR WHOEVER IS REPORTING THE ISSUE, KIND OF WAITING AN HOUR AND A HALF BEFORE THEY MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PERTINENT MATTER THAT OCCURS, DOES THE OWNER GET CITED BECAUSE SOMEBODY DIDN'T RESPOND WITHIN AN HOUR? I THINK IT JUST KIND OF SETS UP THAT OWNER AGAIN FOR MORE LIABILITY TO HAVE TO ADHERE TO A RULE OR REGULATION THAT ISN'T REALISTIC. 24/7 MEANS 24/7.

SO I DON'T KNOW, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE WE HAD THIS COME UP BEFORE ABOUT MAKING THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. MR. BAKER, I'LL DEFER TO YOUR JUDGMENT BECAUSE I HAVE MY AMENDMENT ONE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THIS BUT IT'S DELETING THIS WHOLE SECTION FOR THOSE REASONS OF BEING NOT REALLY REALISTIC TO HOLD

[01:00:04]

CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? >> IF YOU'LL TURN ON YOUR

MICROPHONE, MR. BAKER. >> I THINK PROCEDURALLY UNDER ROBERTS RULES, PROBABLY THE BEST WAY, I'M NOT CERTAIN IT'S THE ONLY WAY, BUT THE BEST WAY IS TO VOTE ON HER AMENDMENT AND THEN WHETHER THAT PASSES OR FAILS, YOU CAN THEN OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE WHOLE

THING. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT?

>> NOT TO THE AMENDMENT, MAYOR, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK FOR THIS AMENDMENT?

>> YES, I DO, MAYOR. >> OKAY. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU. I'M HAVING TROUBLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF I OWN A $250,000 HOUSE AND I PUT IT IN THE BUSINESS OF RENTAL, I'VE GOT A PROBLEM IF THEY'RE TEARING IT UP, I'VE GOT A PROBLEM IF THE POLICE IS OUT THERE GETTING TO MY HOUSE.

I MEAN, IF I CHOOSE TO PUT THIS HOUSE OUT THERE FOR A RENTAL, THEN LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS, I HAVE TO TAKE ON SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER WHEN I'VE GOT A PROBLEM AT MY BUSINESS. AND YOU KNOW, 24/7, YOU KNOW, TO ME, LIKE I SAID, IF I OWN $300,000 HOME, I HAVE GOT IT OUT FOR AIR BNB, I WANT TO BE THERE WITHIN 45 MINUTES, IF THE POLICE ARE OUT THERE. I CAN'T SEE WHERE HAVING A DESIGNATED GROUP OF PEOPLE TO SHOW UP IS A PROBLEM. I THINK THAT WE NEED THIS IN THERE.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T KEEP THIS IN THERE, WE'RE GOING RIGHT BACK UP THE SAME PLACE WE WERE BEFORE, THE POLICE SHOW UP, GO THROUGH AIR BNB. THEY'RE IN CALIFORNIA.

WHAT IS OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPOSED TO DO? YOU KNOW, IF THEY WIND UP ARRESTING SOME PEOPLE AND THEY CAN'T SECURE THE HOUSE, WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? AND I JUST THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO, YOU GO INTO BUSINESS, TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, DID YOU WISH

TO SPEAK TO AMENDMENT 1 >> I WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT, BUT OF COURSE A LOT OF IT IS THE WHOLE ORDINANCE ITSELF. THIS AMENDMENT, IF THIS WERE A RENTAL HOUSE, I'VE HAD RENTAL HOUSES, IF THIS WERE A RENTAL HOUSE, THERE WOULD BE NO TYPE OF, THIS TYPE OF RESTRICTION WOULD NOT BE THERE. I RENT MY HOUSE OUT, IF THE PEOPLE OVER ARE BEING DESTRUCTIVE, THE POLICE ARE GOING TO COME AND DEAL WITH IT.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. I JUST SEE THIS AS OVER-REACHING, THE GOVERNMENT IS REACHING IN AND DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS TAKING CARE OF ITSELF.

THIS STILL WILL NOT STOP A WILD PARTY. THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS A WILD PARTY IS THE POLICE. ONCE THEY'RE CITED, GUESS WHAT, THE SAME WAY IF I RENT A HOUSE, IF I RENT MY HOUSE OUT, THE POLICE ARE GOING TO COME AND CITE THEM.

THEY GET CITED. PRETTY SOON THEY'LL GET IT IN THEIR HEAD, DON'T RENT THAT PLACE OUT BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE WILL CALL THE POLICE ON YOU. I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE AS INVOLVED IN. IT'S OVER-REACHING FOR GOVERNMENT. WE DON'T DO IT TO RENTERS. IF I RENTED A HOUSE, FOR ME TO SAY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE 24/7 AND GET THERE WITHIN 45 MINUTES, WHAT IF THEY'RE TEARING UP MY HOUSE, WHAT IF THEY'RE HAVING A WILD PARTY AT MY RENTAL HOUSE? THEY'RE STILL DISTURBING THE SAME NEIGHBORS. STILL CAUSING RUCKUS.

JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. SO I'M DEFINITELY NOT IN FAVOR. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN ALLEN.

COUNCIL LADY GUZMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON

[01:05:03]

AMENDMENT 1. >> AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT. >> WE HAVEN'T AMENDED THE

AMENDMENT. WE'RE TAKING UP HER AMENDMENT. >> THEN I'LL WAIT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HENLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENT 1

>> YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST SAY I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE INITIAL LANGUAGE AND DELETING IT ALTOGETHER. I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS PERSONALLY, WHEN YOU GO TO THE BEACH, THERE IS A CONTACT ON THE WALL, SOMEBODY TO CALL. WITH THE PLACE YOU RENT AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD THING. SO I DON'T SEE HOW LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS A BAD THING. IT CAN BE AN AGENT, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

IT CAN BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.

SO I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMAN BURKEHEART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO PHYSICALLY SHOW UP. YOU JUST HAVE TO ANSWER THE PHONE. SO I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE IN THIS BUSINESS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SOMEBODY, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE OWNER, OR A DESIGNEE, SO SOMEBODY FROM YOUR PARTNERS, YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, YOUR RENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, SOMEBODY CAN BE ON CALL TO ANSWER THAT. I DON'T HAVE AS BIG A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I WASN'T WILD ABOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO COME PHYSICALLY TO THE SITE.

I WASN'T IN FAVOR OF THAT. BUT TO ANSWER THE PHONE AND SAY OKAY, I GOT TROUBLE.

FROM SOMEONE WHOSE PHONE RINGS, 24/7, YOU KNOW, I PRETTY MUCH UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE, THEY WANT TO TALK TO SOMEONE, YOU KNOW THE POLICE OFFICER BUILDING CODES, WHOEVER IS CALLING, THEY JUST WANT TO TALK TO SOMEBODY, WHETHER IT'S THE OWNER OR SOMEBODY WHO CAN GET TO THE OWNER, THEY JUST WANT TO TALK TO SOMEBODY SO THEY CAN TURN IT OVER TO THEM.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. TURNING IT OVER, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT, THEY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE UNSECURED, THEY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WINDOWS BROKE OUT OR WHATEVER.

BUT HEY, YOU GOT DAMAGE OVER HERE, YOU NEED TO COME SEE ABOUT IT.

WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE, SO IT'S YOURS. I THINK THAT ASKING THEM TO ANSWER THE PHONE IS NOT TOO MUCH. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN BURKEHEART, COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M SEEKING CLARITY FROM THE SPONSOR OF THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AIR BNB ITSELF ALREADY HAS CERTAIN POLICIES IN PLACE, I KNOW I WAS IN MADISON AT AN AIR BNB. RIGHT THERE, MAYBE EVERY OWNER DOESN'T PROVIDE IT. BUT THERE WAS A BINDER ON THE COUNTER WITH LOCAL RESTAURANTS, THERE WAS A BINDER ON THE COUNTER WITH EMERGENCY, THEY TOLD ME WHERE THE FIRE EXTINGUISHER WAS LOCATED AND THAT SORT OF THING. I'M SEEKING A POINT OF CLARITY.

SO PAINT A PICTURE HERE. NEIGHBOR, SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THEY'RE HAVING A WILD PARTY.

I GET A CALL. WHAT ARE WE AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY LOOKING TO DO WITH THAT CALL, GO OUT AND STOP THE PARTY? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT POLICE POWER ARE WE IMPLEMENTING WITH THIS AMENDMENT? WHAT IS THE OUT COME? IS THAT SEPARATE FROM AS A PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID BEFORE, COUNCILMAN ALLEN, THERE IS A WILD PARTY, CPD GETS A CALL, WHETHER IT'S A RENTER OR THERE IS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WILD PARTY, CPD GETS A CALL. I'M LOOKING FOR A POINT OF CLARITY, WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING THIS AMENDMENT IN? SO FAR, A WILD PARTY IS A WILD PARTY AND CPD IS GOING TO GET CALLED NO MATTER WHO GOT NOTIFIED. IN THE EVENT OF WINDOW BEING BROKEN OUT, TO ME THAT WOULD BE CAPTURED ON, THAT IS BETWEEN THE OWNER, SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER AND THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OCCUPANT TO RECONCILE. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A POINT OF CLARITY AS TO WHAT IS THE OUT

COME ON THE OTHER END OF ALL OF THIS? >> THE POINT OF CLARITY.

>> GO AHEAD >> THE POINT OF CLARITY THERE WOULD BE IN THE EVENT THAT THE POLICE NEEDED TO REACH OUT AND NEEDED TO HAVE, IN THAT INSTANCE, NEEDED THEM TO COME THERE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH AN ISSUE TO KICK THEM OFF THE PROPERTY, TO TELL THEM THAT THEY NEEDED TO GO AND THE POLICE NEEDED THEM THERE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, OR NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH THEM ON THE PHONE TO DEAL WITH A COMPLAINT SO THAT THEY COULD TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE WITH THE RENTERS THAT ARE THERE. BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT TO RENT THE PROPERTY IS NOT BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY OF CLARKSVILLE, AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RENTING IT. THE AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN THE AIR BNB OPERATOR AND THE

[01:10:05]

RATHER THAN IT'S PEOPLE HAVING TO STAND AROUND UNTIL IT'S 8:00 A.M., IN THE MORNING.

IT'S IMPORTANT, THIS IS VERY COMMON LANGUAGE WITHIN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCES THAT WE LOOKED AT THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND OTHER AREAS AS WELL.

THIS IS EXCEPTIONALLY COMMON LANGUAGE. WE TRIED TO FIND A COMPROMISE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT OTHERS AROUND THE TABLE WERE SAYING AS WELL AS OTHERS THAT I HEARD FROM IN

THE COMMUNITY. >> COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. >> I APPRECIATE THAT EXPLANATION. I THINK FOR ME THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT WOULD THE OWNER BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD THAT THE CPD COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF IN TERMS OF A LEGAL MATTER? IT'S JUST DISRUPTIVE IN MY MIND THAT IF AS AN EXAMPLE, MR. BAKER WAS THE OWNER, OFFICER GILL WAS THERE, WHAT IS IT THAT MR. BAKER, IF THERE IS AN ARREST THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE, DOES CPD NEED THE PERSON'S PERMISSION? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT FROM A

POLICE POWER PERSPECTIVE AND -- SURE. >> MAY I ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THAT. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND, I THINK YOU DO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE, THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION COMES UNDER 5304 AND 5304 SIMPLY SPELL OUT WHAT INFORMATION HAS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO THE CITY. THE POLICY REASON BEHIND THIS GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS, FROM WHAT I RECALL OF OUR CONVERSATION AND OUR RESEARCH, SO IF THE POLICE GET CALLED, I THINK IT WAS COUNCILMAN ALLEN OR SOMEBODY, YOU TOO, IF THE POLICE GET CALLED, THEY, WILD PARTY, THEY CAN CITE THEM TO, CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATIONS, ARREST THEM FOR CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATIONS. ONE THING THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO DO IS ACTUALLY HAVE THEM REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES IF THEY'RE NOT COMMITTING A CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION, IF THEY DON'T ARREST THEM. WHEREAS, IF THEY HAVE, IF THE CITY HAS ON THE APPLICATION THE INFORMATION THAT THIS CALLS FOR, THEN THE POLICE, WELL, WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED THE POLICE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THIS APPLICATION DATABASE BASICALLY AND THEN THEY CAN CALL THE OWNER AND TELL THE OWNER WHAT IS GOING ON AND THE OWNER THEN CAN DEAL WITH THEIR RENTER AND TELL THEM DIRECTLY BECAUSE THEY GOT A CONTRACT WITH THAT RENTER, AND THEY CAN SAY YOU HAVE BROKEN MY CONTRACT, GET OUT. SO THE OWNER MAY ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE RENTER THAT THE POLICE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO DO.

IF THE CONDUCT OF THE RENTER DOESN'T RISE TO A CRIMINAL LEVEL, OR MAYBE IT DOESN'T EVEN VIOLATE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE OR SOME OTHER CITY ORDINANCE.

BUT YOU KNOW, THEY CAN, IT MIGHT BE A VIOLATION THAT THE OWNER DOES NOT WANT TO PERMIT.

SO WHEN THE POLICE TALK TO THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY INFORM THE OWNER WHAT IS GOING ON AND THEN

THE OWNER CAN TAKE ACTION. >> COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, DID THAT HELP?

>> YES, THAT HELPED. THE SPONSOR OF IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE A CONCERN THAT I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE HAVING WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS. BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THEY, THE ONUS FALLS ON THEM, TO SAY HEY DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LIABILITY THAT YOU LEAVE YOURSELF OPEN FOR AS OPPOSED TO US GETTING INVOLVED. MAYBE IF WE COULD WORK THIS AMENDMENT OR THIS ENTIRE ORDINANCE WITH THAT COMMUNITY, I THINK IS A BETTER PATH TO

SUCCESS IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN DO

YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT >> I DO. I RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT GOES BACK TO WHAT I SAID, YES, WE DO HAVE MANY AIR BNB OPERATORS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE.

MR. REYNOLDS, I SPOKE WITH HIM BEFOREHAND. I RAN INTO HIM OUTSIDE.

AND HE HAD A FRIEND OF HIS THAT IS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATOR REACH OUT TO HIM.

AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THIS. AND HE KNEW MR. REYNOLDS WAS IN

[01:15:05]

YEAH, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. ACTUALLY, THIS IS A BENEFIT TO THEM AS WELL. SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THEM SO IF IT'S A PROBLEM, THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF IT RATHER THAN IT CONTINUING TO BE A PROBLEM.

THOSE RESPONSIBLE ONES, THEY'RE NOT WANTING THOSE PROBLEMS TO OCCUR ON THEIR PROPERTIES.

THE ONES THAT AREN'T CONCERNED WITH THAT HAPPENING, WHICH AGAIN, HE REFERENCED A SMALL PORTION, PROBABLY ONLY A SMALL PORTION THAT IS THE ISSUE. IF THEY AREN'T CONCERNED NOW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT TRYING TO WORK WITH US AND DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ENFORCE IT, THEN THERE IS REALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT OTHER THAN YOU KNOW, ASK THEM TO HANDLE IT.

BUT IF IT'S ALREADY BEING A PROBLEM, I'M NOT SURE HOW NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT SOLVES

THE PROBLEM. >> COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. >> YEAH.

I THINK -- THANK YOU FOR THAT. MY FINAL THOUGHT, JUST SO FAR, WITH THIS ENTIRE DEAL, I HAVEN'T HEARD OTHER THAN MR. REYNOLDS THIS EVENING, WITH MUCH RESPECT TO HIS STORY, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OPPOSITION AROUND THIS ENTIRE SHORT, FROM MY RESEARCH, I THINK I CIRCULATED TO THE COUNCIL, ONLY 82 PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING TOTAL AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THIS WAS AN E-MAIL CIRCULATED BY MS. SKINNER. TALKING 82 OWNERS.

ENOUGH TO BE CONCERNED BECAUSE THAT IS A DECENT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING INTO OUR CITY, IN THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. FOR ME, IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SKIN ON BONE IN TERMS OF ENOUGH

COMPLAINTS. IN THAT RENTAL SPACE. >> MAY I ASK A QUICK QUESTION,

ARE WE REFERRING TO THE AMENDMENT OR ORDINANCE? >> I MAY BE GOING INTO THE

ORDINANCE. >> THAT IS ALL OF MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT

ITSELF. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, I HAVE YOU ON THE LIST. DO YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THE AMENDMENT?

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, SIR. >> I WANT TO BRIEFLY SAY, SO IN TERMS OF THIS AMENDMENT, I'LL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

I STILL BELIEVE, THOUGH, THAT IT DOES NEED TO GO AWAY IN ITS ENTIRETY.

WITH SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE BROUGHT FORTH IN TERMS OF WHAT AN OWNER CAN POTENTIALLY DO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CIVIL MATTER. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS KICKING SOMEBODY OFF YOUR PROPERTY WHEN YOU HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM BEING ABLE TO BE THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF Y'ALL HAVE HAD TO EVICT ANYBODY BEFORE OR STEP IN BETWEEN AND IN MY LINE OF WORK, THERE IS AN OCCASION WHERE I'M DEALING WITH A SELLER THAT HAS AN UNRULY TENANT, I'VE DEALT WITH IT ALL IN REAL ESTATE. WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT ARRIVES, THEY ADVISE YOU, IT IS A CIVIL ISSUE.

YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF INTIMIDATION FACTOR, WE'RE TALKING. I CAN TRY TO BE INTIMIDATING AND SWELL UP ON THEM. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY COULD SAY NO. I'VE GOT THIS ESSENTIALLY SOMEWHAT OF A LEASE THAT IS SAYING I CAN BE HERE UNTIL SUCH AND SUCH TIME TOMORROW. I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING NECESSARILY ILLEGAL.

YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT I'M DOING. I'M NOT LEAVING.

SO NOW WHAT HAPPENS? DOES THE HOSTILE SITUATION GET CREATED? WHEN MAYBE IT COULD BE DEESCALATED BY LETTING WHAT IS OCCURRING, BUT ALLOW CPD, WHO IS TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL IN DEALING WITH IT, VERSUS AN OWNER IS EMOTIONAL.

THE EMOTIONAL ASPECT BETWEEN A BUYER AND SELLER, LANDLORD AND TENANT.

THEY CAN'T SEE BEYOND THEIR FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS. IT ESCALATES SITUATIONS.

SOMEBODY LEVEL HEADED THAT UNDERSTANDS HOW TO NAVIGATE THAT HAS TO HANDLE IT.

>> IS THIS ON THE AMENDMENT? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> I'M SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT AS TO THAT DYNAMIC OF IN FOLLOWING UP WITH WHAT A PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, WHAT IS NOTIFYING THE OWNER WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME GOING TO ACCOMPLISH? IS IT GOOD TO LET THEM KNOW, FYI, THIS IS GOING ON IN YOUR PROPERTY.

WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING HIM TO DO? YOU KNOW, SO IT CAN ALMOST

[01:20:05]

HE GOES UP TO THE HOUSE, CPD IS GONE, NOW YOU HAVE AN INCIDENT THAT COULD GO THE OTHER WAY.

SO JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. I LIKE THIS AMENDMENT BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL, I WANT THAT ON THE RECORD. IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. SO I WANT TO GIVE YOU KUDOS FOR THAT. BUT IT'S STILL FAR OFF FROM WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE AND I

DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REGULATE THAT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN.

OKAY. I HAVE COUNCILMAN HENLEY ON THE LIST.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CALL FOR THE QUESTION. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR AND PROPERLY SECONDED. NON-DEBATABLE MOTION. TWO THIRDS OF THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS NINE OF US TO PASS A MOTION TO CEASE DISCUSSION. WE ARE NOW VOTING ON THE QUESTION, WHICH IS TO CEASE DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 12 YES, 1 NO >> MOTION PASSES.

WE ARE NOW READY TO VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1. MADAM CLERK.

TAKE THE VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 11 YES -- 10 YES AND 3 NO.

>> COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 2, THIS IS A MOTION TO AMEND SECTION 5311 OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1-2020-21. MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED ON AMENDMENT 2. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU. THIS WAS FROM LISTENING TO EVERYONE HERE AROUND THIS CIRCLE AS IN THE MEETING THAT I HAD WITH THOSE OF US THAT WORKED ON THIS.

WE DISCUSSED THAT WE COULD DELETE THE LANGUAGE BANNING GATHERINGS IN EXCESS OF 20 PEOPLE. THINKING OF EVENTS THAT MAY OCCUR.

YOU MAY HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LARGE ENOUGH WITHOUT A DOUBT ABLE TO MAINTAIN GATHERINGS IN EXCESS OF 20. AGAIN, WE'RE STRICTLY REFERRING TO GATHERINGS HERE.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OVERNIGHT GUESTS. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THOSE WHO WILL BE GATHERING TOGETHER FOR AN EVENT OF SOME SORT AT THE PROPERTY.

SO AGAIN, THIS WAY YOU'VE GOT 30, 40 PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE NOT BLOCKING THE STREET, SO THAT EMERGENCY PERSONNEL CAN'T GET THROUGH THERE. THEY'RE NOT DISRUPTING THEIR NEIGHBORS. THEY'RE MAINTAINING AND HAVING A GOOD TIME, THEN WE OBVIOUSLY WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO BE A PROBLEM. WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO DO SO. IN THAT RESPECT, I AM MAKING THIS MOTION THAT IT WOULD DELETE THE LANGUAGE IN THAT LARGE GATHERINGS ARE PROHIBITED.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 BEFORE US.

ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 2? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 2. MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

>> (VOTE TAKEN) 12 YES, 1 NO. >> AMENDMENT 2 ADOPTED. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN. THE THIRD AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR IS A MOTION TO AMEND SECTION 5311K OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1-2020-21, DELETE THE FOLLOWING

[01:25:10]

THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD CHANGE IS THAT RATHER THAN THE OWNER'S NAME AND OWNER AND LOCAL CONTACT BEING, OR THE OWNER BEING LOCATED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE EXTERIOR, NOW INSTEAD IT WOULD SAY THE OWNER SHALL POST A SIGN OR STICKER CONTAINING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT NUMBER ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT NEAR THE PRIMARY ENTRANCEWAY, THIS PROTECTS THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER OR THE LOCAL CONTACT PERSON AND KEEPS THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT STILL ALLOWS FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT INFORMATION DUE TO THE PERMIT NUMBER BEING POSTED.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 3. PROPERLY SECONDED.

ANYBODY WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 3. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF SOMEONE, IF EMERGENCY PERSONNEL NEEDED TO FIND OUT, WOULD THEIR ADDRESS NOT BE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT IT'S A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WOULD THAT NOT BE ENOUGH?

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOOK UP THE ADDRESS EVERY TIME THEY WENT TO A PROPERTY.

WITHOUT KNOWING TO LOOK TO THE DATABASE TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION.

SO IF IT WASN'T POSTED ANYWHERE, EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WENT TO A PROPERTY, THEY WOULD NEED TO VERIFY THAT THAT WAS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY.

THIS SPEEDS ALONG THE PROCESS. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CPD HAD DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR BEING ABLE TO HAVE SO THAT YOU COULD GET THAT INFORMATION AND ADDRESS IT QUICKLY.

BUT THEY ALSO AGREED THAT A PERMIT NUMBER WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.

OTHERWISE, IT WOULD RELY ON THEM HAVING TO ASK, SHORT-TERM RENTAL OR FIND IT THROUGH

ANOTHER MANNER. >> ONCE THEY PUT IN THEIR ADDRESS, DO WE NOT HAVE A WAY OF SAYING MAKING IT SHOW UP AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL? SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT VIOLATING ANYBODY'S INFORMATION, NO NUMBER IS PUT OUT THERE. THEIR ADDRESS WOULD BE ENOUGH.

THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO, BECAUSE WHETHER THEY PUT IN A NUMBER OR PUT IN A FULL ADDRESS, WOULD THAT STILL POP UP? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN. AND I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I'LL BE HONEST ON THAT. I WOULD NEED TO GET AN ANSWER, MR. BAKER MAY KNOW THAT.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN AN ADDRESS. >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND

YOUR QUESTION. >> IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION, IT'S A STATEMENT.

WHETHER THEY PUT IN A NINE DIGIT CODE OR ADDRESS, IF ONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO POP UP. IT'S GOING TO PUT IN AN ADDRESS.

IF YOU PUT IN AN ADDRESS, IT SHOULD POP UP THAT NINE DIGIT CODE SAYING IT'S A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. EITHER WAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE TYPING SOMETHING IN.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OTHER.

IF YOU PULL UP TO THE ADDRESS, TYPE IT IN, IT SHOULD SAY SHORT-TERM RENTAL IF IT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO POST ANYTHING, WE CAN PUT IN A NUMBER. I'M ASKING WOULD THAT BE THE SAME INSTEAD OF POSTING IT. THAT WAY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IF THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE A HEARTBURN. I BELIEVE IN THIS ORDINANCE, BUT I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN REMOVE TO MAKE IT NOT BE A HEARTBURN.

>> I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON WHAT THE POLICE DOES. >> SERGEANT GILL.

>> IT COULD BE ENTERED INTO THE CAD. BUT THAT IS A DECISION THAT 911

WOULD HAVE TO AUTHORIZE. >> MY RECOLLECTION FROM THE MEETING IS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO LOG IN THIS KIND OF INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE A CHANGE TO THE CAD SOFTWARE SYSTEM. BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE, I THINK YOU PROBABLY DO UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT YOU KNOW, SO THE WAY IT WAS ENVISIONED FOR THIS CHANGE IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MAKE AN APPLICATION, THEY GET THEIR PERMIT APPROVED AND IT WOULD BE THE CITY, THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPS A STICKER THAT HAS GOT A PERMIT NUMBER ON IT. THEY CAN PUT IT IN THEIR FRONT WINDOW, THE DOOR, WHEREVER.

SO WHEN THE POLICE GET CALLED AND THEY COME UP THERE, THEY CAN SEE, OH, THAT IS THE STR PERMIT AND THEN THEY CAN CALL AND CHECK SOME CITY MAINTAINED DATABASE THAT WILL GIVE THEM ALL THE INFORMATION THEY MIGHT NEED IN ORDER TO CONTACT THE C CONE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S DESIGNEE. THAT IS ALL THIS IS DESIGNED TO

DO. >> CAN WE NOT JUST GIVE THE ADDRESS?

[01:30:02]

THE SAME CITY >> HUH? >> CAN YOU NOT GIVE THE ADDRESS TO THE SAME CITY, I GET WHY WE DON'T WANT TO DO THE POLICE, BUT COULD THEY NOT CALL THE SAME CITY, CALL WITH THE ADDRESS. BECAUSE IF YOU LIVE AT 509 RED RIVER, RED COAT DRIVE, IT'S THE SAME AS SAYING 123456789. SO EITHER WAY THEY COULD CALL, IF THEY'RE GOING TO A HOUSE AND THERE IS NO ONE THERE, THEY COULD CALL IT RIGHT AWAY AND SAY IS THIS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, I'M SAYING THE LEVEL OF TIME IS THE SAME AND WE DON'T

HAVE TO POST ANYTHING. >> I DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

BECAUSE THIS WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU KNOW, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT AND COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN. AND THE EFFORT, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS NOT REQUIRE

PEOPLE TO POST THEIR NAME AND NUMBER >> RIGHT.

WE STILL DON'T HAVE TO. >> ON THE FRONT. BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE PEOPLE'S PRIVACY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF HACKERS.

AND PEOPLE COMMITTING CRIMES BECAUSE THEY GET PEOPLE'S PRIVATE INFORMATION.

OF COURSE, I DID, THIS IS THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE, THE LAST POINT.

YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY SOME BURGLAR OR SOMETHING COMES UP, THEY SEE IT'S A SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT. THAT MIGHT TIP THEM OFF, IT MIGHT BE VACANT IF THEY DON'T SEE PEOPLE IN THERE, THEY SEE THE STICKER. IT'S KIND OF BAD FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT EVERYONE, ANY CITIZEN CAN GET A COPY OF ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT DATABASE THAT THE CITY WOULD BE MAINTAINING TO INCLUDE ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS FOR EVERY OWNER WHO

MAKES AN APPLICATION. >> RIGHT. >> RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE NUMBERS POSTED? >> THE PERMIT NUMBER?

>> YEAH. >> OH. >> BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HOW WE

CALL IT IN, RIGHT? >> WELL, THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, HAVING THE PERMIT, HAVING A STICKER WITH THE PERMIT NUMBER ON IT, WOULD JUST SPEED THINGS UP SO THAT THEY WOULD, IF POLICE GET CALLED, THEY WILL KNOW RIGHT OFF THE BAT, THIS IS STR, I NEED TO CALL UP, WHOEVER IS GOING TO BE THE PERSON AT THE CITY OR MAYBE THEY'LL ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS ON THEIR COMPUTERS TO THIS DATABASE AND THEY CAN FIGURE OUT THEN WHO DO I NEED TO CALL. YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S THE OWNER. AND THERE IS, I THINK MAYBE THIS IS ONE OF YOUR POINTS. THERE IS VARIOUS WAYS THEY CAN FIND OUT WHO THE OWNER IS.

BUT ONLY THE DATABASE MIGHT TELL THEM WHO THE DESIGNEE IS, THE CONTACT PERSON.

IF IT'S NOT THE OWNER. >> I THINK WE ADDRESSED THAT IN ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS, DIDN'T WE, WHERE THEY COULD HAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE DESIGNATED AS CONTACTS SHOULD SOMEBODY NEED

TO BE CALLED? >> RIGHT. >> THIS IS ABOUT THE POSTING,

CORRECT? >> UH-HUH. >> OKAY.

>> IS THAT IT? COUNCILMAN BURKEHEART YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> HELLO, MAYOR. >> HELLO, COUNCILMAN. >> I'M SITTING HERE LOOKING AT THIS. AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE STICKERS OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE.

I DON'T LIKE THAT FOR NEIGHBORS, I DON'T LIKE THAT FOR, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE HOA ISSUES. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL KINDS OF ISSUES WITH THIS.

PERMIT NUMBERS COULD BE TRACKED. I KNOW OUR LEGAL ADVISOR SAID THAT ALL THIS INFORMATION WAS MADE, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. SO 911 SHOULD HAVE IT.

THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE IT. THIS SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS PARTICULAR THING IS GOING TO GET SPECIAL TREATMENT IF WE CALL THE POLICE OFFICER.

I WAS IN EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR A LONG TIME. SERGEANT GILL IS OVER HERE TO MY LEFT. YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THE CALL NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, WHO IT IS. AND THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A CALL OR YOU'RE NOT. BUT I'M NOT FOR ADVERTISING THAT IT'S A PERMIT NUMBER IN THE WINDOW OF A HOUSE. I THINK THAT WOULD CAUSE, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE MORE TROUBLE WITH THE PERMIT NUMBERS IN THE WINDOW THAN THEY WOULD IT BEING A RENTAL. AND I THINK THAT MR. BAKER IS CORRECT THAT YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR SOMEBODY TO GET BROKE INTO WITH THAT STICKER IN IT. SO I COULDN'T VOTE FOR THIS.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FIRST ONE, NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE LOCAL PERSON BEING INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. BUT THE LAST SENTENCE, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

SO WE CAN STRIKE THAT AND MAKE IT OKAY OR YOU KNOW, WE CAN VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE THING.

[01:35:05]

BUT THAT IS WHERE I'M AT. >> LET ME SUGGEST, IF I MAY, GIVEN HOW YOU'RE GOING, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WE TREAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING THE SAME WAY AS COUNCILMAN GARRETT, I WOULD ADVISE YOU AND SUGGEST YOU GO AHEAD AND DEAL WITH COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN'S AMENDMENT AND THEN WHEN SHE'S DONE WITH HER AMENDMENTS, LIKE COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU CAN COME BACK TO

MOVE TO DELETE K ENTIRELY OR TO DELETE THIS LAST SENTENCE OF K. >> ARE YOU FINISHED?

>> YES, SIR. >> GOOD-BYE. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> I'M ALL FOR PRIVACY. BUT YOU KNOW, ANYBODY IN THE WORLD THAT HAS INTERNET CAN GO ENTER YOUR ADDRESS, FIND OUT WHO OWNS IT, WHAT YOUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE PAID THEM. SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGY. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN BURKE HEART, THOUGH, I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO POST IT OUTSIDE. I LIKE THE IDEA WHERE COUNCILMAN RICHMOND BROUGHT UP, THERE IS A BOOK. WHEN THE POLICE GET THERE.

I MEAN, OUR POLICE ARE PRETTY SMART PEOPLE. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU KNOW, THEY WILL KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A RENTAL.

BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO TELL THEM. THE ONES WHO CALLED ARE GOING TO TELL THEM. BESIDES, WE STILL KEEP A DATABASE.

AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND YOU KNOW, POLICE OFFICER GETS THERE, THE POLICE OFFICER CAN CALL IN AND SAY HEY, THE NEIGHBORS TOLD ME THIS IS AN AIR BNB.

CAN YOU LOOK IT UP FOR ME REAL FAST AND THEN YOU'VE GOT YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION.

PRIVACY ISSUE IS NOT THAT BIG OF A THING. ANYBODY IN THE WORLD WITH INTERNET CAN GO TO MONTGOMERY.ORG AND NEXT THING THEY KNOW, THEY TELL YOU WHEN YOU BOUGHT YOUR HOUSE AND WHAT YOU PAID FOR IT AND EVERYTHING. SO THAT IS IT.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I THINK IF YOU PUT IT ON THE OUTSIDE, AND EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING, A NUMBER, EVENTUALLY EVERYBODY IS GOING TO KNOW WHAT THOSE NUMBERS MEAN. IF IT HAS THE HOUSE ON IT, IT'S AIR BNB.

IT MAY CAUSE SOME PEOPLE, THERE MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE. BUT SOME PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DON'T WANT THEM ANYWAY. AS SOON AS THEY SEE IT, IT'S LIKE OH, I'M GOING TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT PLACE. I'M GOING TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT.

THAT'S AN AIR BNB. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE REGULATING THIS THING THIS HARD. 84 AIR BNBS. AND I'M GOING TO STICK TO THIS.

I DON'T THINK THOSE NUMBERS SHOULD BE POSTED OUTSIDE. I RENTED ONE JUST JULY 15TH.

I RENTED AN AIR BNB. THE FIRST TIME RENTING ONE. WENT IN AND OF COURSE, THEY HAD ALL OF THE BOOKS AND BEFORE YOU WENT, THEY TOLD YOU, THIS IS WHO YOU CALL IF YOU ISSUES.

THERE IS SOMEBODY TO CALL. I WAS SATISFIED WITH THAT. AND I'M THINKING ABOUT IF THERE WAS, HAD TO BE A STICKER ON THE DOOR. THEN THE NEXT PERSON, I'M ASSUMING, I DIDN'T DO ALL OF THE RESEARCH ON THIS ONE, BUT I'M ASSUMING IT WAS IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE EMPTY FOR A WHILE, THEY RENT THEM OUT SO THEY CAN MAKE EXTRA MONEY SO THEY CAN GET A RENTER. IT DIDN'T LOOK TO BE A PERMANENT PLACE, LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE PERMANENT FOREVER. I THINK SOME OF THESE HOUSES ARE THE SAME WAY. IT'S ON THE MARKET, HADN'T SOLD OR WHATEVER, AND I'M GOING TO RENT IT OUT FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND SEE HOW THAT DOES. IT MAY NOT BE THE AIR BNB THE NEXT MONTH OR WHATEVER. I THINK THOSE NUMBERS OUT THERE.

I JUST REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE SINGLING OUT THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE.

AND WE'RE OVER-REACHING. OVER-REACHING WITH GOVERNMENT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN ALLEN.

I THINK JUST FOR CLARITY, AIR BNB IS A NATIONAL COMPANY, FRANCHISE.

IT'S LIKE REFERRING TO ALL RIDE SHARING AS UBER OR LYFT. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE

MAIN MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON

AMENDMENT NUMBER 3? >> COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU HAVE CLOSING REMARKS ON

AMENDMENT 3? >> I DON'T. I THINK EVERYBODY MADE SOME REALLY GREAT POINTS. I'M NOT GOING TO DENY THAT IN REGARD TO THE POSTING OF THE

[01:40:06]

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. GOING BACK TO MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS IN THERE SO THAT SOMEONE HAS THE INFORMATION TO REACH. BUT LIKE I SAID, I WAS TRYING TO FIND THAT COMPROMISE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE THAT MIGHT BE THE OWNER OR THE CONTACT PERSON SO IT WOULDN'T BE LOCATED OUTSIDE. SO THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE CHANGE IN REGARD TO THIS. BUT I HAVE LISTENED TO WHAT EVERYBODY SAID HERE IN REGARD

TO THAT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON AMENDMENT 3.

SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE ON AMENDMENT 3?

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 2 YES, 11 NO. >> AMENDMENT 3 FAILS.

COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, ANYTHING ELSE? >> I WILL WANT TO SPEAK AGAIN BEFORE WE END THIS. BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE COUNCILMAN GARRETT HIS OPPORTUNITY AT THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE HAS ALSO INCLUDED FOR US.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. IT'S YOUR TURN.

>> I'LL GO OUT OF ORDER AND START WITH GARRETT AMENDMENT 7, SEEING THAT WE JUST GOT DONE DISCUSSING THIS PARTICULAR SESSION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR TO

DELETE SECTION 5-311 SUBSECTION K. >> MOTION BEEN MADE ON GARRETT AMENDMENT 7. PROPERLY SECONDED. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU WANT TO

EXPLAIN IT. >> I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME DEBATING.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE REASONS WHY WE HATE IT OR LOVE IT. I WOULD JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN GETTING THIS DELETED. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CLEANEST WAY

TO DISPOSE OF THIS. THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

HOLD ON. A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR, THIS IS FOR OUR CODIFIER. WHEN WE'RE DELETING ALL OF THIS STUFF, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE IT FOR THE CODIFIER BECAUSE THERE IS COST REFERENCES, WHEN WE DELETE SOMETHING, IF WE'RE DELETING A WHOLE SECTION OR SUB-SECTION, WE WOULD DISPUTE IN ITS PLACE THE WORD RESERVED. OKAY.

THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO REJIGGER THE NUMBERING AND LETTERING.

WHAT HE WOULD BE DOING, AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO DELETE AN ENTIRE SUBSECTION, I MOVE TO DELETE SECTION 5311 K AND SUBSTITUTE THE WORD RESERVED.

>> DO WE NEED TO GO BACK AND DO THAT FOR THE OTHER ONE THAT WE DELETED.

WE DELETED SUBSECTION H. AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 FROM COUNCILMAN STREETMAN.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT IS WHAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE, RIGHT?

RESERVED? >> I THINK TO BE CONSISTENT, COUNCILMAN GARRETT AND MR.

BAKER, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. >> I STRONGLY ADVISE YOU TO DO IT. BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO THROW THINGS OFF WHEN WE SEND THIS TO

THE CODIFIER. >> AFTER WE DISPOSE OF MINE, MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THAT

RESERVED ON COUNCILMAN STREETMAN >> WE ARE ON YOUR AMENDMENT 7, WITH THE WORD RESERVED IN IT. OKAY. AND WE HAVE A LIST HERE.

COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

WELL, WHAT I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO ASK, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE IF I COULD AMEND MY OWN AMENDMENT ON THE LAST ONE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IS RATHER THAN DELETING ALL OF THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT, COULD WE AS WAS STATED, DELETE THE PORTION THAT EVERYONE WAS CONCERNED WITH, WITH THE OWNER SHALL POST A SIGN OR STICKER CONTAINING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT NUMBER ON THE EXTERIOR AND DELETE THAT LANGUAGE ALTOGETHER IN THAT, BUT DELETING THE PART ABOUT IT BEING OUTSIDE AND KEEP IT ON THE INSIDE. I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKED.

I APOLOGIZE. >> HANG ON. ONE AT A TIME.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE HERE. OKAY. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU WISH TO

[01:45:01]

SEEK CLARITY. >> I WAS GOING TO CLARIFY FOR COUNCILWOMAN STREETMAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DECIDED TO KEEP THE WATER FROM GETTING MUDDY, ANY AMENDMENTS PRESENTED, WE DISPOSED OF THEM. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, WE PRESENT IT.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT. THANK YOU SIR. >> THAT WAS EASY.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN?

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> WOULD THAT STILL BE THE SAME THING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD THEN AMEND THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS DELETED UNLESS -- BECAUSE WHAT I WAS DOING WAS

CHANGING LANGUAGE. >> OKAY. MR. BAKER.

>> YOUR AMENDMENT TO CHANGE SUBSECTION K FAILED. NOW COUNCILMAN GARRETT IS SEEKING TO DELETE THE ORIGINAL SUBSECTION K, HE WANTS TO DELETE IT ENTIRELY.

IF THAT PASSES, THEN IT'S DELETED. YOU CAN THEN COME BACK AND OFFER AN AMENDMENT AND HIS AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY TO DELETE ENTIRELY AND SUBSTITUTE THE WORD RESERVE. AND THEN YOU CAN OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO COME BACK AND ADD,

TO DELETE HIS VERSION AND CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE. >> SOUNDS LIKE A MATH PROBLEM.

>> THANKS FOR THE HELP, TO BOTH OF YOU. >> COMMON CORE.

>> ALGEBRA. OKAY. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, ANYTHING ELSE THERE? COUNCIL LADY GUZMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO SEEM REALLY REALLY SIMPLE, WE'RE DELETING SOMETHING THAT IS

ALREADY GONE. >> NO, WE ARE NOT. >> OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. SO I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING. >> OKAY.

MR. BAKER. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT, STREETMAN AMENDMENT 3 DOCUMENT, THIS TOP PART IS WHAT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE ORIGINALLY.

AND SINCE, SHE WANTED, SHE MADE AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THAT TOP PART TO THE BOTTOM PART AND THAT FAILED. SINCE THAT FAILED, NOW THIS TOP PART IS STILL THERE.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT WANTS TO DELETE ALL OF THAT. >> HE IS TERRIBLE.

I'M KIDDING. >> SUBSTITUTE THE WORD RESERVE. SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REJIGGER ALL OF THE NUMBERS. CROSS-REFERENCING MAKES THAT A PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY FOR THE

CODE CODIFICATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH >> COUNCILMAN HENLEY, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE FOR EVERYONE THAT I DO THINK THIS NEEDS A LITTLE TWEAKING. I'M A FAN OF GETTING RID OF THE POSTING OUTSIDE DEAL. I DO THINK IT SHOULD BE ON THE INSIDE.

BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE STAYING IN A PLACE, THE DISHWASHER ISN'T WORKING OR SOMETHING ISN'T RIGHT, YOU NEED TO GET AHOLD OF SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING IS GOING ON.

I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE CONTACT INFORMATION IN THERE. SO I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THE TOTAL DELETION AND I'LL BE AWAITING MS. STREETMAN'S AMENDMENT OR I COULD WRITE IT

OUT MYSELF. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HENLEY. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, ONE MORE BITE AT THE APPLE BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TO AMENDMENT 7, GARRETT AMENDMENT 7. SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE. ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 7 YES. 5 NO.

>> AMENDMENT ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I MAKE A MOTION FOR AMENDMENT 6 TO DELETE SECTION 5-311-SUBSECTION L.

AND TO SUBSTITUTE IT WITH RESERVED >> OKAY.

MOTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 BY COUNCILMAN GARRETT.

I NEED A SECOND. AND PROPERLY SECONDED. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, OKAY.

WE CAN'T SAY WELL, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO PUT A STICKER ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT IS ATTRACTING TOO MUCH ATTENTION AND THEN WE TURN AROUND AND SAY LET'S PUT A SIGN IN THE YARD. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AND ANOTHER THING TOO IS ARE WE VIOLATING SIGN

[01:50:03]

NOW WE'RE STARTING TO GO INTO IS THIS STILL RESIDENTIAL, IF YOU PUT A SIGN UP, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? I MEAN, I THINK PUTTING A SIGN IN THESE YARDS AND STUFF IS WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD ON THIS. LIKE I SAID, CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

CAN'T PUT A STICKER ON THE FRONT DOOR BECAUSE IT MIGHT CAUSE A PROBLEM.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU PUT A SIGN OUT IN THE FRONT YARD SAYING THIS IS AN AIR BNB.

>> SHORT-TERM RENTAL. >> WELL, THE ONES I LOOKED UP WERE ALL AIR BNB.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO SECOND THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER BECAUSE THAT WAS THE IDENTICAL POINT THAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE.

THAT IF OUR CONCERN WAS PUTTING IT OUT THERE, WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE AND ANYBODY DRIVING BY BEING ABLE TO SEE IT WAS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, I MEAN, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUT A SIGN IN THE FRONT YARD THAT ADVERTISES THE SAME THING? SO THAT WAS MY SOLE POINT ON

THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN. COUNCILMAN BURKE HEART, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> AGREE 100 PERCENT WITH THE PREVIOUS TWO SPEAKERS. NO SIGNAGE, TRYING TO KEEP DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TRYING TO BE NEIGHBORHOODS ALSO.

SO WE DON'T NEED SIGNS HANGING OFF AND HANGING OUT OF THE YARD.

ABSOLUTELY VOTING AGAINST THIS ONE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BU BURKEHEART. >> I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS IT'S THE OWNER'S CHOICE WHERE BEFORE IT WAS GOING TO BE MANDATORY TO PUT A SIGN ON THE WINDOW OR WHATEVER. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HENLEY.

ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER'S COMMENTS AS FAR AS EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE, IT'S NOT HYPOCRITICAL, WE'RE NOT MAKING IT MANDATORY FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER TO PUT ADVERTISING.

WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY HOW THEY WISH. ON THE FLIP SIDE OF WHAT WE JUST VOTED AGAINST WAS NOT ENFORCING THEM TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE OUTSIDE THAT DESIGNATED WHAT THEIR RESIDENCE WAS IN TERMS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL. ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THAT CALL IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ALLOWING SOME OF THE OTHER HOME BUSINESSES THAT ARE ABLE TO PUT SIGNAGE UP, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T DISCRIMINATE THOSE THAT COME IN AND THEY DO A ROOFING JOB FOR SOMEONE AND SAID I'LL CUT YOU A BREAK, PUT YOUR SIGN UP ADVERTISING IT.

CERTAINLY I MAKE MY LIVING OFF PUTTING YARD SIGNS UP, WHETHER IT'S FOR RENT OR SALE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ARE GETTING TOO FAR AND THE TERM HAS BEEN USED IN OVER-REACHING, BUT WE'RE NOT REGULATING ANY OTHER HOME BASED BUSINESS AND SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T PUT UP YARD SIGNS. IF A PARTICULAR OWNER OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING ADVERTISEMENT THAT THAT IS WHAT HE'S DOING IN HIS HOME, THAT HE PURCHASED, WHO ARE WE TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T, UNLESS THAT PARTICULAR SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER CHOSE TO LIVE IN A SUBDIVISION THAT PROHIBITS SIGNS.

SEE, I THINK THE SIGNAGE ORDINANCE IS GOING TO GET POLICED ON ITS OWN, IF HOA GUIDELINES FOR THAT AREA RESTRICTS IT, HE OR SHE CAN'T PUT A SIGN UP.

IF IT ALLOWS IT, THEN WHO ARE WE TO SAY THAT HE CAN'T PUT ONE UP, BUT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR CAN BECAUSE THEY DO DOG GROOMING IN THEIR HOUSE. OR THE NEXT PERSON THAT DOES MECHANIC WORK ON THE SIDE CAN'T HAVE A SIGN. I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO CONTROL TOO MUCH WITH THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE. IF THEY WANT TO TAKE A RISK AND PROMOTE THEIR HOUSE THAT WAY, BECAUSE THERE IS PLENTY OF OWNERS THAT RENT THEIR PROPERTIES. THEY PUT A FOR RENT SIGN UP. WE DON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THAT. I THINK WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS TRYING TO TAKE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT AND LET THE OWNER BE THE OWNER OF THEIR PROPERTY.

IF THEY WANT TO PUT A SIGN, PUT A SIGN. IF YOU DON'T, DON'T PUT A SIGN.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD YOUR HAND AND MAKE YOU DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR OWN PROPERTY AND BUSINESS. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, JUST RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF HOMEOWNER'S RIGHTS, IF THEY WANT TO ADVERTISE THEM, LET THEM DO IT.

UNLESS IT CONTRADICTS WHAT HOA GUIDELINES SAY. >> COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE

[01:55:01]

RECOGNIZED. >> I UNDERSTAND REAL ESTATE SIGNS.

I UNDERSTAND RENTAL SIGNS. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOG GROOMER, TALK ABOUT MECHANICS, THEY GET APPROVAL TO RUN THOSE BUSINESSES.

AND I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK I'M STEPPING ON TOES. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MY HOUSE. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYBODY IN HERE'S HOUSE THAT THEY LIVE IN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE INVESTED IN A BUSINESS. AND I HEARD TWICE TONIGHT WELL, GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.

THAT IS WHAT THIS BODY IS HERE FOR. WHY DON'T WE TAKE THE CITY CODE BOOK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS GOT DOWN HERE AND GO THROW IT IN THE DUMPSTER OVER HERE ON FRANKLIN STREET BECAUSE EVERY BIT OF THAT BY DEFINITION IS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.

IF WE DON'T REGULATE, I'VE GOT THOSE E-MAILS LIKE THE REST OF YOU DID.

DON'T OVER-REGULATE. DON'T OVER-REGULATE. GOT TO KEEP FROM CUSSING.

WE'RE NOT OVER-REGULATING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REGULATING. WE HAVE NO REGULATIONS.

SO HOW CAN YOU OVER-REGULATE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. >> COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, ARE YOU

ON THE AMENDMENT? >> YES, SIR. I'M ON THE AMENDMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT. KEEP GOING. >> I'M JUST ECHOING BACK OFF WHAT WAS SAID JUST BEFORE ME. THESE SIGNS, I DON'T LIKE THEM. I DON'T LIKE THEM AT ALL.

I DON'T LIKE SEEING A BUSINESS SIGN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T LIKE BUSINESSES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. I DIDN'T BUY MY HOUSE FOR SOME JERK TO COME DOWN THE STREET AND PUT IN A DOG PARLOR OR WHATEVER. AND PUT A BIG SIGN OUT IN FRONT. AND YOU KNOW, IF WE DO THIS, YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HOUSE THAT THE PERSON OWNS IT THAT HAS THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IT'S NOT THEIR HOUSE THEY'RE LIVING IN. SO THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH PRIDE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. AND THIS IS ONE SIMPLE THING WE CAN SAY LOOK, YOU GO ON AND ADVERTISE UNTIL KINGDOM COMES ON THE INTERNET, BUT DON'T BE STICKING A SIGN OUT IN YOUR

YARD FIVE HOUSES DOWN FROM ME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCILMAN BURKEHEART, YOU'RE NEXT.

>> I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE IF EVERYONE GOES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ZONING AND APPEALS. THAT WAY THE NEIGHBORS ARE AWARE.

THAT WHAT EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS HAS TO DO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO REGULATE SIGNAGE. I MEAN, EVERY BUSINESS IN TOWN, WE HAVE SIGN ORDINANCES ON MADISON STREET, EVERY STREET IN TOWN, YOU CAN BE SO BIG, SO LITTLE.

SO I DON'T THINK OVER REACH IS THE RIGHT WORD HERE. I THINK IT'S STAY INBOUNDS IS MORE PROBABLY A BETTER WORD. IF YOU WANT TO PUT A SIGN OUT, BUT YOU NEED TO GO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ZONING AND APPEALS, MAKE YOUR NEIGHBORS AWARE AND THAT IS WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES. I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT THE WAY THIS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT JUST FOR EVERYBODY PUTTING A SIGN UP. IF THEY WANT TO TAKE IT IN FRONT OF BOARD ZONING AND APPEALS SAY I'M A FOR RENT BY OWNER, I NEED TO PUT UP A TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT SIGN, I DON'T WANT TO REGULATE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I DON'T LIVE IN. I WANT THOSE NEIGHBORS TO REGULATE THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS HOW WE SHOULD DO THIS

EVERY TIME. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN BURKE HEART.

>> I'LL BE FAST. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I SEE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A FOR RENT SIGN IN YOUR YARD AS COMPARED TO HAVING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN.

>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF THOSE DOG GROOMERS OUT THERE.

IN MY BOOK Y'ALL AREN'T JERKS BY THE WAY. BUT THERE'S OTHER BUSINESSES I THINK THAT HAVE PLACES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T LIVE IN THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE. ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IS SOMETHING THAT MANY MANY RESIDENTS BENEFIT FROM, IN-HOME DAYCARES. HOW MANY IN-HOME DAYCARES DO YOU SEE WITH SIGNAGE ADVERTISING SUCH AND SUCH DAYCARE? SO I THINK BEFORE WE COME UP WITH AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS THAT IS SAYING NO SIGN ADVERTISING YOUR BUSINESS BUT WE LET THE DAYCARE, WE LET THE LAWN CARE, WE LET THIS,

[02:00:03]

WE GOT TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, ORANGES TO ORANGES. >> SIGNS TO SIGNS.

>> I WOULD ASK Y'ALL TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF DELETING THIS. IF WE WANT TO FIX SIGNS, WHICH I CHALLENGE Y'ALL TO MAYBE DRIVE AROUND AND LET ME KNOW HOW MANY SHORT-TERM RENTAL SIGNS HAVE YOU ACTUALLY EVER SEEN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE WE REGULATE IT AND SAY IT'S AN ISSUE. I KNOW I FOR ONE DRIVE AROUND ALL DAY EVERY DAY, PUTTING UP SIGNS. I HAVE YET IN MY 11, 10 YEARS OF REAL ESTATE TAKE EVEN SEE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL SIGN. BUT YET WE WANT TO TELL PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN'T DO SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY NONE OF US HAVE EVER SEEN. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN GARRETT. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON THIS AMENDMENT? ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE.

>> (VOTE TAKEN) >> AMENDMENT ADOPTED. BEFORE WE MOVE ON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF I MAY, LET'S TAKE A RECESS FOR US OVER 60 CROWD. AND WE'LL COME BACK AT 9:10 AND

RESUME. >> OKAY. WE ARE NOW BACK ON GARRETT AMENDMENTS. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED

>> YES, THANK YOU MAYOR. AMENDMENT 5, MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE SECTION 5-311 SUBSECTION

J SUBSTITUTE IS WORD RESERVE. >> THERE IS THE MOTION. DO WE HEAR A SECOND? MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR GARRETT AMENDMENT 5.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU WANT TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN IT. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION THAT KEEPS OWNERS FROM PREPARING FOOD FOR THE GUESTS.

>> I'M SORRY >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IF A GUEST WANTS TO EAT THE FOOD THAT THE OWNER PREPARES, WHY WOULD WE GET IN THE WAY WITH THAT? AND IF THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO PREPARE FOOD FOR THE GUESTS, THAT WANTS TO EAT THEIR COOKING, I'M JUST REALLY STRUGGLING WHY AS GOVERNMENT WE FEEL THAT WE NEED TO SAY NO, YOU CANNOT PREPARE FOOD FOR YOUR GUESTS. LIKE BED AND BREAKFAST.

THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. WHY ARE WE, I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT A HOTEL, WE LIKE TO EQUATE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TO A HOTEL, IT'S NOT A CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST THE HOTEL PREPARING FOOD FOR THE GUESTS? SO IF THAT IS WHAT WE'RE COMPARING, SOMEWHAT APPLES TO APPLE AND FOOD TO FOOD, WHY SHOULD WE BE RESTRICTING AN OWNER FROM DOING WHAT WE ALLOW A HOTEL TO DO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GARRETT. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> I'M GOING TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO WHAT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER WAS DISCUSSING, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOTELS AND BED AND BREAKFASTS, YES THEY ARE BOTH INSPECTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, JUST AS A RESTAURANT IS, JUST AS A CATERERS HAVE TO GET INSPECTED IN THEIR AREAS THAT THEY COOK IN.

NOWHERE ARE WE REQUIRING HEALTH INSPECTORS TO COME IN THERE TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE PREPARING THE FOOD IN A CLEAN PLACE, FOLLOW THE PROPER STANDARDS THAT YOU WOULD FOLLOW OR A BED AND BREAKFAST, HOTEL, RESTAURANT, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE REGULARLY INSPECTED TO ENSURE FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE GUESTS. AGAIN GOING BACK TO THE PARTICULAR TIME WE'RE IN, NOT HAVING FOOD LEFT OVER FROM THE ONES BEFORE OR LEAVING THERE,

[02:05:05]

HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR THAT REASON. >> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> AMAZING POINT COUNCIL LADY, MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE REGULATE THAT? WE DON'T HAVE EYES AND EARS INSIDE OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY. WHAT IS TO KEEP IT FROM BEING AN UNDER THE TABLE TYPE OF AGREEMENT, HEY, I WANT TO MAKE YOU BREAKFAST.

I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE REGULATION THAT THE CITY IMPOSED.

ASSUMING THAT THE OWNER IS THERE TO BEGIN WITH, I'M JUST AGAIN, I JUST HAVE AN ISSUE

WITH HOW DO WE UPHOLD THIS PARTICULAR SECTION? >> IS THAT A QUESTION FOR THE

COUNCIL LADY? OR ARE YOU JUST GENERALLY? >> GENERAL COUNCIL.

NOT RHETORICAL, BUT DIRECTED IF SHE HAS A RESPONSE. I JUST DON'T KNOW.

AND THEN WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS IF WE FIND THEM DOING THAT? UNLESS CONSIDERING THERE IS SOMEWHAT GOT SICK, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I'M STAYING OVERNIGHT AT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY, SOMEONE SAYS HERE I MADE SOME QUICHE AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO IT, I GOT IN LATE FROM HOPKINSVILLE OR WHEREVER I'M COMING FROM.

AT THAT MOMENT, I'M WONDERING AM I THINKING, OH, THE COUNCIL IMPLEMENTED I CAN'T TAKE THAT FOOD. BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, THESE ARE OUT OF TOWNERS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO TRACK HOW WE POLICE THAT. THAT IS ALL.

THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, DID YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THAT?

>> MY RESPONSE WOULD BE IN REGARD TO YOUR QUESTION OF HOW DOES THE GUEST KNOW THAT.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE GUEST NEEDING TO KNOW THAT. IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE OWNER NEEDING TO KNOW THAT WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE PREPARING FOOD FOR CONSIDERATION AND GIVING TO THEM. THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, HOW DO WE POLICE THAT, HOW DO WE KNOW ABOUT IT. HOW DO WE POLICE SPEEDERS? HOW DO WE POLICE ANYTHING ELSE? AGAIN, IF SOMEONE GOT SICK, I THINK WE WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT IT.

I THINK IF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOUND OUT THAT THEY WERE CONTINUALLY COOKING FOR THEM, IF THEY'RE ADVERTISING ON THEIR WEBSITE, THEY'RE DOING THESE THINGS.

AGAIN, KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN REGARD TO A BED AND BREAKFAST, MOTEL, THEY ARE INSPECTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. I WOULD THINK WE WOULD WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF THOSE GUESTS COMING IN THERE. AGAIN, THIS THING HAS BEEN WRITTEN FOR THE SAFETY OF BOTH

OUR RESIDENTS AND THE GUESTS COMING IN. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL LADY

STREETMAN. >> COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, GO AHEAD.

>> TWO PARTS TO THAT. PART A IS GREAT REBUTTAL. I THINK MY QUESTION IS, SO AS AN OWNER COULD I THEN COME BACK AND APPLY, WHAT IF I WANT TO DO THAT? JUST LIKE THE SIGNAGE AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE POLICING IT? CAN IT BE UP TO THE OWNER TO SAY I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THAT AS AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE, WHICH NOW SEPARATES ME AND MAKES ME UNIQUE FROM THE OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS AND YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY'RE AN EXCELLENT COOK AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A DIFFERENT BUSINESS OFF THE GROUND BUT THEY NEED SAMPLINGS FROM CUSTOMERS.

I MEAN, CAN THEY APPLY TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT? BECAUSE UNLIKE A HOTEL, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN THAT FULL BUSINESS. AND SO I JUST, IT'S JUST MURKY FOR ME RIGHT NOW. I'M LEANING TOWARDS IT. BUT IT'S MURKY.

THE POLICE POWER TO SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT. AND AGAIN, IN MY MIND, AS A CAVEAT, IF BY UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES SOMEONE WERE TO TAKE ILL, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT REVERTS BACK TO A CIVIL MATTER IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PLACE, FIRST OF ALL THERE IS GOING TO BE RESTRICTIONS ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. IF THE PLACE HOLDS, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SIX PEOPLE. FOUR PEOPLE. EIGHT PEOPLE.

THAT IS LIKE 6, 4 AND 8 PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT A RESTAURANT. THIS IS SIX OR EIGHT PEOPLE OR WHATEVER. AND THERE ARE STILL LOOP HOLES BECAUSE IT SAYS THE OWNER CAN'T PREPARE FOOD. SO GUESS WHAT, I OWN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

AND SINCE I CAN'T PREPARE THE FOOD, LET MY BROTHER COOK, SO WHEN THEY DECIDE TO RENT IT HEY, IF Y'ALL ARE HUNGRY, MY BROTHER BARBECUES EVERY FRIDAY, FOR THIS MUCH, HE CAN BRING Y'ALL SOME FOOD. WELL, THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. ACCORDING TO THIS.

BECAUSE HE'S NOT THE OWNER. AND IF THEY GET SICK, GUESS WHAT, THEY JUST GET SICK.

[02:10:04]

IF I GET SICK, THAT IS THE CHANCE I TAKE. YOU KNOW, I'M AT THE CHURCH ALL OF THE TIME. PEOPLE BRING ME FOOD, THEY'RE NOT INSPECTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. I HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER I WANT TO EAT IT OR NOT.

IF I EAT IT AND GET SICK, THAT IS ON ME. THIS IS A SMALL GROUP, A SMALL, THIS IS SOMETHING SO SMALL AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO OVER-REACH, THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO STEP IN. IF THEY RENT THE HOUSE AND YOU WANTED TO PROVIDE FOOD FOR THEM EVERY DAY, IT'S OKAY. THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST THAT. I COULD BRING YOU FOOD EVERY DAY AND CHARGE YOU FOR IT. AND THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST IT.

BUT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, NOW THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM. LIKE I SAID, I THINK THE WHOLE

THING IS OVER-REACHING. THAT IS JUST MY THOUGHTS. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> WRAPPING UP EXCELLENT POINTS. THE LACK OF ENFORCEABILITY ON WHAT I VIEW AS A FRIVOLOUS ORDINANCE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF TEETH TO HOLD ANYBODY ACCOUNTABLE AND THEN WE'RE STILL GETTING AWAY FROM IS THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. LIKE JUST BECAUSE AN OWNER PREPARES A MEAL, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SOME AIR BNBS WHERE THE OWNER DOESN'T LEAVE, THE OWNER STAYS IN HIS MASTER BEDROOM OR HER MASTER BEDROOM AND RENTS OUT TWO SPARE BEDROOMS THAT THEY'RE NOT NEEDING. THEY WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AND THEY GOT GRITS, EGGS, BACON

>> YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER, IT'S 9:20. >> YOU KNOW, YOU MEAN TO TELL ME YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WAKE UP, HEY, AND THEN NOW YOU'RE IN THE AWKWARD POSITION, I'M SORRY THE CITY PROHIBITS ME FROM SHARING THIS. BUT YOU KNOW, THERE IS A MCDONALD'S DOWN THE ROAD OR SOMETHING HERE. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO MAKE YOUR OWN AFTER I FINISH COOKING. I MEAN I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME TRYING TO REGULATE SOMETHING THAT IS SIMPLE AS HEY, WOULD YOU LIKE SOME OF THIS COOKING? SURE. NO I'M ON A DIET, I'M GOOD. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INSPECTED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, I THINK YOU'RE REALLY MORE IN DANGER OF FOOD POISONING FROM A POTLUCK AT WORK THAN YOU ARE SOMEBODY COOKING IN AIR BNB THAT YOU'RE STAYING AT.

AT LEAST YOU CAN WATCH THEM MAKE IT. POTLUCK, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN IT. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK FROM THIS ONE AND JUST LET

IT GO. >> THANK YOU, WERE YOU THROUGH? THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO BRING UP AGAIN IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BED AND BREAKFASTS.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY ZONING REGULATIONS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR BED AND BREAKFASTS, SECTION 517 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ACTUALLY REGULATES BED AND BREAKFASTS AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW RULES THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS. IF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERESTED IN OPERATING A BED AND BREAKFAST, I THINK WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IS GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO BE A BED AND BREAKFAST. THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO. AND OFTEN YOUR BED AND BREAKFAST MAY ONLY HAVE AS FEW AS FOUR, SIX, EIGHT GUESTS STAYING THERE. SO I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. THAT IS THE AVENUE THEY'RE WANTING TO GO, THAT IS THE AVENUE THEY SHOULD BE APPLYING TO GO. RATHER THAN APPLYING TO BE A

SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL LADY

STREETMAN. >> TRYING TO GET THE MIC OFF. THERE IT IS.

GOT A GREMLIN IN MY LINE. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZEDED ON AMENDMENT 5.

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE CALLED)ON AMENDMENT 5.

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE CALLED)ON AMENDMENT 5.

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE CALLED)ON AMENDMENT 5.

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE CALLED) ON AMENDMENT .

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE CALLED) 6 YES.

AND 7 NO. >> AMENDMENT FAILS. COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 TO DELETE SECTION 5-11, EXCUSE ME 311-SUBSECTION F AND SUBSTITUTE THE WORD RESERVE.

>> THANK YOU. GOT IT. >> OKAY.

I NEED, I'VE GOT A MOTION AND I NEED A SECOND. >> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR AMENDMENT GARRETT AMENDMENT 3. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE

[02:15:02]

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I ASKED LEGAL COUNSEL SEVERAL WEEKS AGO ABOUT THIS. AND SINCE THESE ARE GOING TO BE, I THINK WE'RE GETTING OFF TRACK WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS FOR. IS IT REALLY FOR US TO SAY IT'S ALL RIGHT FOR SOMEBODY TO BE BRINGING IN A COMMERCIAL VENTURE INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? I JUST HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO RENT OUT WHAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT WHERE I LIVE, AND YOU KNOW, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH WHAT WE BROUGHT UP BEFORE, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A BUSINESS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU GOT TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND GET IT APPROVED.

IF WE SAY YOU'VE GOT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO RESTRICT YOU, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. RESIDENTIAL AREAS HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION, YOU GOT TO PRESENT YOUR CASE AND GET IT CHANGED. I WOULD HAVE TO BE AGAINST

THIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU. WE HEARD MR. REYNOLDS DISCUSSING THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN REGARD TO HAVING BUSINESSES OPERATE OUT OF THESE.

AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK ALSO TO WHAT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER JUST STATED.

THESE ARE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THAT IS WHAT THE PURPOSE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE FOR.

THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE UTILIZE AIR BNB AND THE VARIOUS COMPANIES, FOR THEM TO HAVE A PLACE TO GO TO BE ABLE TO STAY, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE COMING IN TO UTILIZE IT FOR FAMILY REUNION, FOR THEM TO HAVE OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS. NOT TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE IT TO BRING PEOPLE IN NUMEROUS INTERVIEWS, AGAIN, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AREN'T BUILT FOR THIS. OUR ROADS AREN'T BUILT FOR THIS.

LARGE FEDEX TRUCKS BLOCKING THE WAY, FOR PEOPLE UNLOADING TONS OF BOXES.

NUMEROUS STRANGERS COMING INTO THE AREA, DISRUPTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS MEANT TO BE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THEY'RE WANTING TO UTILIZE OFFICE SPACE, TO DO INTERVIEWS, WE HAVE PLENTY OF COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM. WE HAVE HOTELS THAT HAVE LARGE SPACES THAT THEY CAN RENT OUT AND BRING PEOPLE IN TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

WHY WOULD WE WANT TO BRING ALL OF THIS TRAFFIC. LET'S THINK ABOUT IT.

WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESSES CAN GO IN THERE, WOULD THIS MEAN THAT SOMEBODY CAN RENT IT OUT AND OPERATE ANY KIND OF BUSINESS THEY WANTED. COULD THEY OPERATE A STRIP CLUB? ANYTHING THAT THEY WANTED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT IN ANY WAY RESTRICTING BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL USE TO BE ABLE TO BE USED.

NO WAY AM I SAYING THAT SOMEBODY WOULD NECESSARILY DO THAT.

I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK THE WHAT IF GOES AND WHAT COULD END UP UTILIZING IT AS A BUSINESS

OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. >> THANK YOU COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE NEXT ON THE LAST. >> I GUESS TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE RECENT CONCERNS I HEARD AS FAR AS THE TYPE OF BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW, STRIP CLUB IS THROWN OUT THERE, UNSAVORY TYPE OF PRACTICE. WHAT IS TO STOP SOMEBODY FROM RENTING A HOUSE AND TURNING IT INTO A STRIP CLUB. YOU KNOW, ABOUT EIGHT TO NINE YEARS AGO, THAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN. THERE WAS A RESIDENCE THAT WAS USED, I KNOW THE PROPRIETORS PERSONALLY WHO WERE DOING IT. THEY USED THE HOUSE FOR A STRIP CLUB AND A COUPLE OF OTHER UNSAVORY TYPE OF THINGS. THAT HAPPENED RIGHT HERE AS A REGULAR RENTAL. YOU KNOW, THERE IS LAWS AGAINST IT.

WE ALREADY GOT LAWS IN PLACE. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE THAT TYPE OF CLUB. TO SAY JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO, WE NEED TO ADD THAT TO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE, I DON'T THINK THAT IS NECESSARILY THE WAY TO GO. WE GET INTO COMMERCIAL, WE ALREADY HAVE COMMERCIAL TAKING PLACE IN RESIDENTS. WE HAVE CHILD CARE, PET GROOMING, LAWN CARE A HOST OF ALREADY COMMERCIAL VENTURES HAPPENING IN RESIDENTIALS.

SO NOW TO SAY THAT A SMALL BUSINESS THAT IS LOOKING TO INTERVIEW SOME CANDIDATES,

[02:20:03]

30 VEHICLES A DAY COME IN THERE, TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE WAY MORE TRAFFIC THAN 30 VEHICLES. AND YOU KNOW, IN THEORY, ALL 30 AREN'T COMING AT THE SAME TIME.

BECAUSE NO ONE PERSON CAN INTERVIEW 30 PEOPLE AT ONE TIME.

IT WOULDN'T BE ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT TO HAVE 30 PEOPLE SITTING IN YOUR WAITING ROOM.

WITH IT BEING SPACED OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, EVEN IF YOU HAD THAT MUCH TRAFFIC ON A PARTICULAR ROAD, A LOT OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS HAVE THAT GOING IN AND OUT.

I REALLY JUST DON'T SEE WHERE THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE AND TELLING AN AIR BNB, OR EXCUSE ME, SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH SOMEBODY DOING INTERVIEWS IN YOUR PARTICULAR PROPERTY, YOU CAN ALLOW IT. BECAUSE WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD DO INTERVIEWS.

I GAVE THIS EXAMPLE LAST TIME WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS, ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR VERY OWN COUNCIL MEMBERS, ONE OF OUR OWN COUNCIL MEMBERS IS AN ACTOR IN THE VIDEO, THE FILM GONE VIRAL.

AND SO THEY HAD REACHED OUT TO ME WHEN THEY WERE INITIALLY SHOOTING IT LOOKING FOR LOCATIONS, RENOVATION CHURCHES, BUT THEY NEEDED A SPOT FOR, TO SHOOT SOME SCENES FOR THE INSIDE. SO I REACHED OUT TO A COUPLE OF BUILDERS TO SEE WHAT KIND OF RESOURCES I HAD. TO SEE IF THEY COULD STAGE IT. CONCERNS THERE.

ONE OPTION WAS AN AIR BNB, OR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. DO WE TELL THESE SMALL FILM CREWS, OPERATING ON A SLIM BUDGET, TRYING TO GET THEIR PROJECT OUT THERE, THAT NO, BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW, SHOOTING A SHORT FILM IS COMMERCIAL AND IT DOESN'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU'RE SHOOTING A RESIDENTIAL SCENE.

DOING SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AND TRYING TO PUT CLARKSVILLE ON THE MAP.

YOU KNOW, WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO GO AND UTILIZE A HOTEL WHEN A HOTEL STILL WON'T REALLY PROVIDE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN A SET. WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO GO TAKE OUT A LOAN TO MAYBE PAY FOR A WHOLE SET. WHEN YOU CAN UTILIZE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, DO YOUR PROJECT IN A DAY AND BE DONE WITH IT.

IF THE OWNER IS FINE WITH IT, WHO ARE WE TO STEP IN BETWEEN THAT.

WHEN THAT IS NOT HURTING ANYBODY FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN WITH CAMERAS AND FILM A SHOW.

AND SO AGAIN, I JUST CAUTION US ON GETTING IN THE WEEDS OF WE'VE HAD MAYBE ONE COMPLAINT, NOT TO SAY IT WASN'T JUSTIFIED ON THE TRAFFIC, BUT I CAN THINK OF SOME OF THESE NEW CONSTRUCTION NEIGHBORS THAT IF ANYTHING, THEY SHOULD BE COMPLAINING WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRUCKS GOING BACK AND FORTH, FARMINGTON BEING ONE. STEADY GOT PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THAT AREA RIDING THROUGH THERE. LIMIT THAT FOR THESE TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USES OFF ONE COMPLAINT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL SEGMENT. WE CAN'T REALLY JUST START MAKING LEGISLATION OVER ONE MINOR SMALL COMPLAINT THAT SOMEBODY IS HAVING WITH TRAFFIC. THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE REGARDLESS.

AND LIMIT SOMEBODY ELSE'S OPPORTUNITY THAT IS AFFECTING THEIR LIVELIHOOD.

SO I JUST ASK Y'ALL TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THIS PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS IT AND LET IT BE BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE GUEST WHAT THEY WILL ALLOW. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GARRETT. COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED >> THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MADE GOOD POINTS.

I WOULDN'T WANT US TO DEMONIZE EVERY BUSINESS OWN. AS A SMALL BUSINESS TRAINER, WHEN I ARRIVED IN CLARKSVILLE I HAD AN IDEA TO SAY I CAN'T AFFORD A HOTEL.

SO ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO ONE STEER CLEAR OF A HOTEL VENUE, WHICH I DIDN'T NEED THE OVERHEAD NOR THE SPACE THAT THE HOTEL PROVIDED, BUT COMPARATIVELY, TO MANAGE MY EXPENSES AND COSTS, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE REALLY SEXY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, TO INVITE A, TO HOST A TRAINING, ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M GETTING STARTED, TO HOST A TRAINING AND SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO PROHIBIT SOMEONE IN THAT SAME SPACE FINANCIALLY, AT THAT STAGE OF BUSINESS, THERE ARE PLENTY OF COACHES AND CONSULTANTS AND HEALERS AND THOSE KIND OF FOLKS, MASSAGE THERAPISTS WHO ARE LOOKING TO MAKE AN HONEST LIVING AND THEY DON'T NEED A

[02:25:03]

SO I CAN'T, AS IT STANDS SUPPORT, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE COUNCILMAN GARRETT'S AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> I HEAR SOMEONE SPEAK OF TRUCKS COMING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SIT ON THE PORCH, AMAZON, UPS AND FEDEX TRUCK, THEY'RE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD MORE, I SEE THEM MORE THAN I SEE SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS. LITERALLY.

THEY'RE COMING THROUGH LEFT AND RIGHT. YOU CAN'T STOP THE TRUCKS.

AND ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T ORDER, THEY GET MAD. I LIKE TO SEE THEM BECAUSE I ORDERED SOMETHING AND I KNOW IT'S HERE. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WHY WOULD WE, I KNEW OF A DISTRICT MANAGER THAT, IT WAS AT HOME COMPANY, WORK FROM HOME, BUT HE CAME TO TOWN, HE RENTED A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, HE RENTED A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. HE STAYED THERE. AND HE SET IT UP WHERE HE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS FROM THERE. AND I'M LIKE THAT IS SMART.

YOU DON'T CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW IN THE HOTEL ROOM. I MEAN, YOU CAN, BUT IT'S NOT TOO KOSHER. FOR THEM TO BE PREVENTED FROM DOING THIS, IT'S A BAD THING.

IT'S SHORT-TERM. THAT IS WHY I KNOW WE HAVE PLACES THEY CAN GO RENT FOR AN OFFICE. IT'S SHORT-TERM. IF THEY'RE GOING TO STAY HERE LONG, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY GO RENT A BUILDING, BUT WE'RE MISSING OUT ON THE BUSINESS AND MONEY. EVERYBODY THAT COMES AND STAYS, THEY'RE GOING TO SHOP HERE, DO WHATEVER THEY DO HERE, SPEND MONEY HERE. AND ALSO, THE RENTERS WHO ARE THE OWNERS, IT'S KIND OF HELPING THEM TO FILL THE GAP IN BETWEEN PERMANENT, IN BETWEEN SELLING IT OR RENTING IT. SO THAT IS JUST MY POINT. I'M FOR THIS.

I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO BUSINESSES OR WHATEVER.

BECAUSE IT'S SHORT-TERM. >> THANK YOU. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WITH THIS AMENDMENT REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS, I SEE A LOT OF LOOP HOLES.

FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S JUST SAY I OWN MY PROPERTY AND I WANT TO START A BUSINESS.

I START A REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. I START WITH FRIENDS. SO YOU HAVE A COMPANY.

WELL, LET'S JUST RENT IT OUT OF MY HOUSE. BECAUSE I CAN JUST TECHNICALLY ME AND MY FRIEND CAN RENT IT TO MYSELF ON A WEEK BY WEEK BASIS AS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.

AND THEN NOW I'VE GOT MY BUSINESS RUNNING OUT OF MY HOME.

I SEE LOOP HOLES WITH IT BY THE WAY IT'S WORDED. THAT IS ALL I GOT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HOLEMAN. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS SAID.

WE HAVE DOG GROOMERS, HAIR SALONS. WE HAVE PEOPLE DECIDING TO START A REAL ESTATE COMPANY WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND UTILIZING IT.

AND IN THAT EVENT, THAT GOES BACK TO SOMETHING REFERENCED EARLIER, THEY ARE ABLE TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND THEY CAN REQUEST THAT, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE ZONING CODE 5.2.7 ZONING CODE, CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL ONLY BE CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESIDING ON THE PREMISES AND CONDUCTED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DWELLING.

SO WE'RE GOING RIGHT BACK TO IF THEY ARE WANTING TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WHEN IT'S THE HOMEOWNER, THEY HAVE A WAY TO DO THAT. THERE IS NO ZONING OR ANYTHING THAT IS ALLOWING IT. IT'S ESSENTIALLY GOING TO SAYING THROWING THE ZONING OUT THE BOOKS AS FAR AS WHAT IS ALLOWED IN OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF REITERATE THAT TO THE DIFFERENT COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE AROUND

[02:30:02]

HERE. >> THANK YOU COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

COUNCILMAN BURKE HEART. LAST ONE STANDING. >> WELL, I MEAN, WHY EVEN HAVE ZONING IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

IT'S CRAZY. THIS ONE IS CRAZY. IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ZONING.

WE JUST HEARD 11 CASES TONIGHT. WHY DID WE GO THROUGH IT IF WE'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND AND LET THEM DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO ANYWAY. WE'VE GOT IT TO WHERE YOU CAN PUT ANY KIND OF SIGN YOU WANT TO IN YOUR YARD. FIVE FOOT BY SIX FOOT DIGITAL SIGN IN FRONT OF THEIR AIR BNB. SORRY, IN THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO SIGN REGULATIONS TO GO WITH IT. IT SAYS THEY CAN PUT A SIGN UP. THIS THING IS KIND OF, IT ISN'T KIND OF. IT'S A MESS. IT'S NEVER, I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT STARTED OUT DOING, BUT YEARS AGO, I WAS INVOLVED IN ANOTHER TYPE OF SITUATION THAT BECOME CITY CODE. ONCE YOU WRITE IT IN A CITY CODE, EVERYTHING ELSE GOES.

YOU CAN DO, IF IT'S NOT IN HERE AND SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT, YOU CAN DO IT.

I THINK WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE TURN PEOPLE LOOSE GOING WELL, I READ YOUR CODE, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS I CAN'T DO THIS. I THINK THERE IS A DANGER THERE. WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL. WHEN WE DO THIS, WE BETTER MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING COVERED BECAUSE WE ARE, OUR CONSTITUENTS WILL NOT UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU TELL THEM WELL, IT'S ALLOWED. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CARE.

THEY ARE GOING TO BE SOME ILL PEOPLE. SO JUST BE CAREFUL WHAT WE ALLOW. IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ZONING OUT OF IT, WE CAN SAVE US ABOUT AN HOUR EVERY MEETING BY NOT GOING THROUGH ZONING. SO I WOULD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY. IT'S NOT GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN BURKE HEART. COUNCILMAN NORRIS, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> NOT ALL KINDS OF BUSINESSES ARE ALLOWED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD EXPECT THEM TO BE PEOPLE SPENDING THE NIGHT THERE OR STAYING THERE.

THERE ARE SOME BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALLOWED. SOME HOME CLASSIFICATIONS.

THEY'RE LISTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I CAN'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM BECAUSE I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL OF THEM. BUT EACH ZONING AREA HAS CERTAIN BUSINESSES ALLOWED. WITHOUT ANY REVIEW OR ANYTHING. BUT IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE AND PUT A BUSINESS IN THAT IS NOT ALLOWED, YOU HAVE TO GO AND SEE IF IT IS A USE PERMITTED ON REVIEW. IF IT IS, YOU GO TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, YOU APPLY, YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE NOTIFIED THAT YOU'RE FIXING TO APPLY FOR THIS BUSINESS AND THEY HAVE SOME SAY SO WHEN THEY COME TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING. IF IT'S NOT PERMITTED ON REVIEW, IT MEANS IT'S NOT PERMITTED PERIOD. SO I'M SAYING THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE BUSINESSES.

BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO START SETTING PRECEDENCE. IF THIS PERSON CAN HAVE A CAR REPAIR BUSINESS IN HIS YARD, AND WHO IS TO SAY THAT THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

THEN THE GUY NEXT DOOR THAT IS NOT DOING THE RENTAL, SHORT-TERM RENTAL COULD HAVE ONE TOO. I THINK WE'RE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS IF WE ALLOW THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO HAVE BUSINESSES IN THOSE HOMES WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF REVIEW THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE THAT WE STARTED EARLIER, WHATEVER WE PASS RIGHT HERE, THOSE THAT ALREADY HAVE IT, THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN. AND SO IF THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN, AND IF I HAPPENED TO BE THE ONE THAT HAD A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, AND I'M ALREADY REGISTERED AND EVERYTHING, I'M GRANDFATHERED IN. I HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OVER ALL OF THE OTHER, ANY OTHER SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT COMES DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN. AND THESE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME.

AND I DON'T THINK WE DIDN'T STOP TO THINK ABOUT THAT. I THINK THOSE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO THEM. GUESS WHAT, THAT MAKES MY SHORT-TERM RENTAL SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE BECAUSE I CAN DO A WHOLE LOT MORE IN MINE THAN YOU CAN IN YOURS, IF YOU BRING UP A

NEW ONE. >> IS THAT IT? >> THAT'S IT, MAYOR.

[02:35:04]

>> OKAY. YOU NEED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING, MR. BAKER?

>> SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT READ ALONG WITH ME HERE, WHAT IT SAYS. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SWAY YOU ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I'M PROBABLY GOING TO END UP DISAPPOINTING BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE.

IT DOESN'T SAY OWNER. IT SAYS NO TRANSIENT GUEST MAY USE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT FOR ON-SITE BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES DURING ANY RENTAL PERIOD.

JUST EXACTLY WHAT COUNCILMAN NORRIS SAID IS CORRECT. THERE ARE ZONING LAWS THAT PERTAINS TO THE USE OF PROPERTY BY OWNERS. SO THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE IT DOES NOT AFFECT, SORRY COUNCILMAN BURKE HEART, DOES NOT AFFECT IN ANY WAY THE ZONING LAWS. SO AS AN OWNER OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT PROPERTY, IF THE ZONING LAW DOES NOT PERMIT YOU TO CONDUCT SOME PARTICULAR USE, THEN YOUR TRANSIENT GUEST CAN'T DO IT EITHER. SO IN THAT SENSE, YOU REALLY DON'T NEED THIS F.

BUT WHAT MAKES IT, I THINK LIKE COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN WANTS IT, IT MAKES IT CLEAR OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING LAW, WHICH AGAIN, THAT APPLIES TO PROPERTY OWNERS, AND BECAUSE IT APPLIES TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR USE, APPLIES TO THEIR TRANSIENT GUESTS TOO.

IT MAKES IT CLEAR IN THE STR ORDINANCE, IT PUTS A PROHIBITION NOT ON THE OWNER, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE OWNER, BUT ON THE GUEST. THAT IS ALL IT IS SPEAKING TO.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU LEAVE IT IN OR TAKE IT OUT, THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT IT DOES. AND THAT THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE DOES NOT AFFECT ZONING LAW.

>> THANK YOU, MR. BAKER. COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. TO THAT EXTENT POINT, I JUST DON'T KNOW AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOW WE, OTHER THAN WE IMPLEMENT IT, OKAY, BUT WE HAVE NO WAY TO REGULATE IF A FILM MAKER COMES IN AS A TRANSIENT GUEST, HOW DO WE MITIGATE THAT HE DIDN'T SHOOT SOME B ROLL FOOTAGE? I GET THE SPONSOR'S CONCERN ABOUT CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS. AGAIN, GOOGLE MAY HAVE ITS OWN FACILITY. GOOGLE MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RENT THE HOTEL.

MY HEART STILL GOES OUT TO JUST THAT FILM MAKER. THAT PHOTOGRAPHER.

THAT IS THE ONLY BUSINESS I CAN COME UP WITH. OR THAT BAKER WHO SAYS I'M CONSIDERING TO GO LIVE IN CLARKSVILLE AND I WANT TO DO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, MAYBE I DO A TASTING PARTY OR SOMETHING. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FOOD THERE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD POLICE IT. I THINK THAT IS MY CONCERN, WE GET A SLAP ON THE HAND, GET A FINE. UNDER THE RADAR, HOW DO WE CATCH THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHO JUST WANTS A FEW SHOTS. THAT'S ALL.

>> THANK YOU. >> CALL FOR QUESTION. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR AND PROPERLY SECONDED. NON-DEBATABLE. TWO-THIRDS.

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. VOTING ON CEASING DISCUSSION. (VOTE TAKEN) 12 YES.

1 NO. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR.

WE ARE NOW ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT, GARRETT AMENDMENT NUMBER 3, RESERVED IN

THERE. SO MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> VOTE TAKEN) 4 YES.

[02:40:17]

>> AMENDMENT FAILS. COUNCILMAN GARRETT >> I MAKE A MOTION FOR AMENDMENT 2 TO DELETE SECTION 5-304-SUBSECTION 7. I'LL EXPLAIN IT ONCE I GET THE

SECOND. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECOND ON GARRETT AMENDMENT 2. COUNCILMAN GARRETT.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE REASON, RATIONALE BEHIND THIS, THIS PARTICULAR SUBSECTION 7 REQUIRES THE OWNER OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO EACH CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNER AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SUCH NOTICE.

AS IT STANDS NOW, WE DON'T REQUIRE LANDLORDS TO NOTIFY OTHER OWNERS WHEN THEY RENT.

PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO INCUR UNNECESSARY COSTS FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND PROOF OF NOTIFICATION FOR OPERATING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IN MY OPINION. SO I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THIS

TO DELETE IT. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GARRETT.

COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LEAVE THIS IN HERE.

FOR ONE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LONG-TERM RENTER, THEY'RE LIVING THERE.

THIS IS NOT GUESTS THAT ARE CHANGING IN AND OUT ON A DAILY OR A WEEKEND OR A WEEKLY BASIS.

OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN THERE. THEY'RE RENTING THAT TO STAY THERE. THE NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THEM FOR WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY'RE RENTING TO STAY THERE.

GOING BACK AGAIN TO TALKING ABOUT IN THE EVENT THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO START A SALON IN THEIR HOME. THEY AGAIN, THEY'VE GOT TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND PART OF THAT PROCESS INCLUDES LETTER BEING SENT OUT TO ALL OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE AWARE THERE IS GOING TO BE A BUSINESS THAT IS GOING ON THERE. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT A DIFFERENT RESIDENT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. AND IN REFERENCE TO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT IS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY KIND OF DID A LITTLE BIT OF LOOKING AROUND AND REALLY THINKING ABOUT WHO LIVES AROUND THIS PARTICULAR SHORT-TERM RENTAL. EIGHT KIDS THAT LIVE IN THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SIX OF WHICH ARE UNDER THE AGE OF TEN.

THEIR CONCERN WAS THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THAT IS WHAT IS THERE.

THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO STOP THAT FROM OCCURRING, BUT THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE TRANSIENT GUESTS THAT COULD BE GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT PROPERTY THAT COULD BE ACROSS THE STREET, THAT COULD BE NEXT DOOR TO THEM. THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHO THAT COULD BE. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT COULD BE ANY KIND OF SEX OFFENDER OR ANYBODY THAT COULD COMMIT ANY TYPE OF CRIME AGAINST THE KIDS. SO THOSE PARENTS ARE AWARE, THEY KNOW NOT TO HAVE THEIR KIDS PLAYING OUT IN THE FRONT YARD.

THEY KNOW TO KEEP A BETTER EYE ON THOSE CHILDREN. I MEAN, YOU COULD LOOK AT THE FACT OF A SENIOR CITIZEN WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT SO THAT THEY CAN BE MORE AWARE OF WHAT MIGHT BE OCCURRING AROUND THEM. SOMEONE THAT LIVES ALONE. ANY TYPE OF PERSON TO KNOW TO KEEP A BETTER EYE ON THEIR PROPERTY, THAT THEY HAVE. BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW THEIR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE TRANSIENT. BUT I WANT YOU TO THINK THE MOST ABOUT THE FAMILIES WITH KIDS AND THE CONCERNS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.

IT DOESN'T RESTRICT THEIR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IT THERE BUT THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT

TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND THEM. >> WELL, THE NOTICES THAT ARE SENT WHEN A BEAUTY SHOP OPENS UP OR EVEN A ZONING CASE OR WHATEVER, THE NOTICES ARE SENT THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HAVE INPUT WHICH MAY AFFECT THE DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON CAN OPEN UP THAT SHOP OR THAT LAND CAN BE REZONED. THERE IS A PURPOSE BEHIND THEM BEING NOTIFIED, SO THAT THEY CAN SPEAK OUT. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF NOTIFYING SOMEBODY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT? THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO YOU'RE JUST BASICALLY SAYING YOU GOT TO TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS THAT THIS IS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT ME RENTING IT OUT. IF I'M THE BEST NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE WORLD, I MOVE OUT. THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OF WHO I RENT MY HOUSE OUT TO.

AND ANYBODY CAN MOVE IN THERE. JUST LIKE THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

ONCE AGAIN, I THINK IT'S OVER REACHING. WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO TELL THE

[02:45:03]

>> OKAY. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN ALLEN. COUNCILMAN LADY STREETMAN,

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THEY CAN PROTECT THEIR KIDS. THAT IS WHAT THEY CAN DO.

THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TO GARRETT AMENDMENT 2.

THAT WOULD BE COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> POINT OF CLARITY MAYBE FROM THE SPONSOR OR THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT.

I'M JUST STILL MENTALLY IN A FOG. I WANT TO BREAK THIS DOWN TO LAYPERSON'S TERMS BECAUSE OF THE HOUR AND MY COMPREHENSION. AS IT STANDS OUT THE AMENDMENT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IN SECTION 7, THAT IF I HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT I NOW NEED TO NOTIFY ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS IN WRITING WITH A RECEIPT?

FOR MY COMPREHENSION. >> WE'LL ALLOW IT. IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME, I WANT TO GET DIRECTLY TO THE PART WHERE IT ADDRESSES EXACTLY HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO NOTIFY THEM.

THEY CAN NOTIFY THEM, I BELIEVE IT'S REGISTERED MAIL. THEY HAVE TO SHOW PROOF SO IT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE IN WRITING TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE NOTIFIED THEIR NEIGHBORS.

BUT IF YOU BEAR WITH ME, I WILL FIND THE EXACT VERBIAGE AND I CAN READ IT TO YOU, UNLESS MR.

BAKER IS ABLE TO DO IT QUICKER THAN I CAN. >> SUBSECTION 5-304A7.

WHAT IT SAYS IS THE OWNER SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT >> I WOULD LIKE TO FIND IT SO I

CAN FOLLOW ALONG. >> 5-304-SUBSECTION A7. >> APPLICATION AND THEN

>> AND WHAT THIS 5304 DEALS WITH IS WHAT HAS TO BE A PART OF THE APPLICATION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF WITH THEIR APPLICATION THAT THEY HAVE NOTIFIED THEIR NEIGHBORS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT. THE OWNER OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT SHALL PROVIDE PROOF TO THE CITY AT THE TIME THEY SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION, SHALL PROVIDE PROOF TO THE CITY OF SUCH WRITTEN NOTIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING THE OPERATING PERMIT APPLICATION.

PROOF OF WRITTEN NOTIFICATION SHALL BE, THERE IS ALTERNATIVE METHODS THEY CAN DO.

PROOF OF WRITTEN NOTIFICATION SHALL BE THE DATED SIGNATURE OF EACH CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNER ON A WRITTEN NOTICE. C, NOTICE FROM THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE THAT REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL TO A CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNER WAS REFUSED. OR NOT TIMELY ACCEPTED.

>> SO IF I'M TRACKING, THAT MEANS IF I GO REGISTER MY SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITH THE CITY, I HAVE TO NOTIFY MY NEIGHBORS? IS THERE A RADIUS?

I'M TRYING TO JUSTIFY THIS CONTIGUOUS. >> IF I'M ON MY STREET AND I START A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OPERATION, I NEED TO SUBMIT IT TO EVERYBODY IN THE CUL-DE-SAC?

EVERYBODY ON THE NEXT BLOCK OVER. >> CONTIGUOUS MEANS ADJACENT.

ANY PROPERTY THAT HAS A COMMON BORDER, WITH YOUR PROPERTY, COMMON BOUNDARY LINE, I SHOULDN'T SAY BORDER. THE TECHNICAL TERM IS A BOUNDARY LINE, FOR ANY PART.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY THAT NEIGHBOR. >> AT LEAST FOUR NEIGHBORS.

MY NEIGHBOR BEHIND ME, IF HE OR SHE IS CLOSE ENOUGH. THE RESIDENT.

>> I MISSPOKE. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. YOU SEE THAT IS CAPITALIZED.

[02:50:01]

AND THE DEFINITIONS, DEFINED TERMS ARE ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 5-302.

5-302 C DEFINES CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THAT SAYS ANY PROPERTY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ON WHICH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT IS LOCATED OR WHICH IS ACROSS ANY STREET, ROAD, HIGHWAY OR ALLEY, FROM ANY PROPERTY, ON WHICH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT IS LOCATED AND WHICH IS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE NEAREST PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE OF ANY PROPERTY. SO I MISSPOKE. ANYBODY WHOSE BOUNDARY LINE AT ANY POINT, COMES WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE STR PROPERTY. IT INCLUDES ANY PROPERTIES WHICH ARE ACROSS THE STREET, ROAD, HIGHWAY OR ALLEY FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT IF IT'S IN WITHIN 100 FEET.

>> THANK YOU, I TRACK WITH THAT. OKAY.

SO THAT IS QUITE A TASK. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

>> OKAY. >> ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON GARRETT AMENDMENT NUMBER 2. SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE >> (VOTE TAKEN) 8 YES. 5 NO.

>> AMENDMENT 2 ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN GARRETT. >> LAST BUT, WE'LL SEE IF IT'S LEAST. AMENDMENT NUMBER 1, I MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE SECTION 5-304 SUBSECTION 3. WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN THAT AFTER THE SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT GARRETT AMENDMENT 1, IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT. >> I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS ONE. BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DEBATED THIS ONE.

THIS WAS THE VERY FIRST AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILWOMAN STREETMAN HAD PRESENTED TO US.

IN WHICH CASE I ADVISED Y'ALL THAT I LIKE THE AMENDMENT A LOT BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL.

SO I SUPPORTED HER AMENDMENT AND AGAIN, APPLAUD HER EFFORTS AND DISSECTING WHAT SHE PRESENTED ORIGINALLY AND I DO APPRECIATE IT. WHILE THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS BETTER, I THINK THERE IS STILL LIES THE PROBLEM OF IT NOT BEING REALISTIC AS FAR AS EXPECTATIONS ON SOMEBODY BEING AROUND 24/7 TO ANSWER A PHONE.

THE EXPECTATION, I DON'T KNOW ANY THAT PROVIDE 24/7 AROUND THE CLOCK.

SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP. THE COMMUNITY UP FOR FAILED EXPECTATIONS IF WE THINK THAT SOMEBODY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO PICK UP THE PHONE 24/7, ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. I MEAN, HOW MUCH ARE YOU PAYING SOMEBODY TO BE AVAILABLE FROM 10:00 P.M. TO 3:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE. IT'S NOT REALISTIC IN THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN EVEN WITH THE AMENDED PROCESS. AND IT GOES BACK TO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAD WHAT IS THE PERSON GOING TO DO? WITHIN 45 MINUTES AWAY AND THE POLICE WANT THEM TO COME. COME TO DO WHAT? AT THE HEART OF IT IT'S A CIVIL ISSUE. WHAT IS CPD GOING TO ENFORCE OR WHAT IS THAT PARTICULAR OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO ENFORCE? THERE HAS BEEN TIMES WHEN I'VE BEEN CALLED OUT TO DEAL WITH THESE SITUATIONS, LAST WEEK I HAD TO DEAL WITH A SITUATION HELPING SOMEBODY OUT WITH THEIR RENTAL AND DOING A FINAL WALK-THROUGH BECAUSE THE TENANT

[02:55:01]

GETTING DEPOSITS BACK. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING.

I WAS THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. I WAS ABLE TO TALK SOME SENSE INTO HER. BUT IF THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN REASONABLE, THAT PARTICULAR, CPD WAS THERE. WE HAD THREE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

THE OWNER HAD TWO FRIENDS. TENANT HAD TWO FRIENDS AND ME IN THE MIDDLE TRYING TO MITIGATE IT. LUCKILY I WAS ABLE TO GET EVERYBODY TO FINALLY BE REASONABLE AND RESOLVE IT PEACEFULLY. BUT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WOULD I HAVE HAD THAT SAME OUTCOME? WOULD I HAVE BEEN THAT EFFECTIVE? I DON'T SEE HOW HAVING PUTTING IN THIS UNREALISTIC EXPECTATION OF SOMEBODY BEING AVAILABLE TO ANSWER A PHONE 24/7, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES IT ACCOMPLISH? WHAT DOES IT SERVE? I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT. BUT THE INTENT DOESN'T IS NOT REALISTIC. SO I WOULD ASK FOR Y'ALL TO SUPPORT ME IN HAVING THIS PARTICULAR SUBSECTION DELETED AND REMOVED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN GARRETT. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I MADE THE ARGUMENT A BIT AGO IN REGARDS TO THIS AND WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT. OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT WORKS 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK. OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT WORKS 24 HOURS PER DAY, SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK. COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED HE'S GETTING CALLED 24/7. I KNOW THAT IN A ROLE THAT I'VE SERVED IN WORKING IN MY EMPLOYMENT, THAT THERE WERE TIMES THAT THE ALARM WOULD GO OFF, IF I GOT A PHONE CALL AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, I HAD TO ANSWER THE PHONE CALL AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN TIMES WHERE OTHER PEOPLE THAT I'VE WORKED WITH, THEY HAD TO REPORT SO THAT THEY COULD LET THE POLICE THERE AND ENSURE THERE WASN'T A PROBLEM.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

THERE ARE OWNERS OR MANAGERS THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES 24/7.

SO I DON'T SEE WHY THIS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. AGAIN, AS SOME OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED, THEY WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT IS GOING ON AT ONE, TWO, THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, SO THAT MAY VERY WELL THEMSELVES DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS SHUT DOWN. REFERENCING THE FACT THAT IT COULD CREATE A PROBLEM WITH THAT OWNER COMING THERE AND GETTING IN IT WITH THE TRANSIENT GUESTS.

IF THE POLICE ARE THE ONES ASKING THEM TO BE THERE, MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THE POLICE WOULD STAY TO HELP THEM DEAL. MY REQUEST WOULD VOTE AGAINST TAKING THIS VERBIAGE OUT OF THE

ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> I'M TRYING TO STAY AWAKE AND LISTEN. BUT I THINK MR. GARRETT SHOT HIS OWN AMENDMENT IN THE FOOT.

BECAUSE HE MADE THE STATEMENT WELL, THREE POLICE OFFICERS, TENANT HAD TWO FRIENDS, OWNER HAD TWO FRIENDS AND I WAS ABLE TO GET IT RESOLVED. WELL, THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT THIS COVERS. AND THE PROBLEM IS, YOU HAD THE POLICE THERE, EVIDENTLY THEY COULDN'T GET IT RESOLVED. AND SO THE OWNER BROUGHT MR. GARRETT IN AND THAT WAS THE CONTACT PERSON. AND GOT IT RESOLVED. SO IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT.

AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE, IF WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE POLICE OUT, IF WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT THEN THE OWNER NEEDS TO GET UP AND GO OUT TOO. AND TRY TO HELP OUT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN CHANDLER. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> I DON'T KNOW. LIKE I STATED EARLIER, FOR US TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO THIS, IT'S LIKE WE'RE TAKING SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, SOMEBODY TRYING TO MAKE ENDS MEET WITH THEIR STUFF, THROWING ALL OF THESE REGULATIONS ON THEM.

IT'S LIKE UNREAL. IF THE POLICE COME, IF THERE IS NO CRIME, NOBODY IS BREAKING THE LAW, THEN THEY'RE GOING ON THEIR MERRY WAY. WHY WOULD THEY, AND IF YOU SAY WELL, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THIS. THE THING SAYS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO EAT AND YOU SERVED THEM FOOD. THAT IS SOMETHING Y'ALL NEED TO TAKE UP IN CIVIL COURT OR WHATEVER. I THINK THEY NEED TO LEAVE.

WELL, THE FIRST THING THE POLICE WILL SAY, MA'AM, SIR, CIVIL ISSUE.

THEY'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. IF THEY'RE DOING ANY OF THIS STUFF, THEY'RE NOT BREAKING THE

[03:00:07]

OKAY. IT'S THEIR PORCH. THEY WANT TO SMOKE ON IT THEY CAN SMOKE ON IT. IF THE POLICE COMES, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? WHY EVERY TIME THE POLICE IS CALLED THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SHOW UP. BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU WHAT HAPPENS IS, THERE ARE SOME WHO DO NOT WANT SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD PERIOD. AND THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WILL WEAR THE POLICE OUT. IF THE OWNER HAS TO COME EVERY TIME THE POLICE IS CALLED, THAT

IS SO UNFAIR. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN ALLEN. MR. BAKER.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THE STR APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IN THEIR APPLICATION. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE POLICE CALL THE OWNER EVERY TIME THEY MIGHT GET THERE OR IF THERE IS A FIRE, OR THERE IS A GAS LEAK OR WATER LEAK OR YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT NOT INVOLVE THE POLICE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER BE CALLED. IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO PROVIDE THE

CONTACT INFORMATION IN THE APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCILMAN GARRETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED >> YEAH.

I WANTED TO CLEAN SOMETHING UP THAT A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER MISSPOKE IN HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION. THE SITUATION THAT I DESCRIBED THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN WAS A SCHEDULED FINAL WALK-THROUGH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS BEING TURNED OVER TO THE OWNER, CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION AND NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR.

THIS WASN'T ME GETTING A RANDOM CALL WHERE THE POLICE WERE CALLED, THIS PERSON WERE CALLED. NO. WE KNEW THREE DAYS IN ADVANCE THAT WE WERE ALL MEETING. THEY BROUGHT THEIR PEOPLE. THE OWNER BROUGHT THEIR PEOPLE.

THEY HAD VIDEO CAMERAS RECORDING THE WHOLE THING. I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF I'M ON THE INTERNET SOMEWHERE TRYING TO MITIGATE THIS THING. BUT THAT WAS A SCHEDULED THING.

WHAT I'M CAUTIONING AGAINST IS THE VERBIAGE IN HERE THAT ALLUDES TO THAT SOMEBODY, I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, IF I WOULD HAVE GOT THAT CALL, HEY, WE NEED TO MITIGATE THIS AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, I'M NOT SHOWING UP. YOU GOT CPD THERE.

I WAS DOING ABOVE AND BEYOND MITIGATING THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT.

I WAS THE LEASING AGENT. NOT THE PROPERTY MANAGER. SO THAT WAS ME DOING A FAVOR.

I THINK WHEN WE GO BACK TO THESE BEING SHORT-TERM RENTALS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, TO PAY SOMEBODY THAT IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO HANDLE, TO BE AVAILABLE 24/7, DO WE REALLY WANT TO PUT THAT ON SOMEBODY TO HAVE TO PAY SOMEBODY THAT IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE 24/7.

THAT IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT AND THE REASON I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO HAVE THAT SERVICE AND THEY WANT TO PAY FOR IT, FINE. IT'S ON THEM. BUT SOMEBODY ELSE THAT MAY NOT HAVE THAT TYPE OF BUDGET, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE THEM.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REGULATING TO MAKE ANY LANDLORDS DO IT. I CHOOSE TO.

I RENT OUT THREE PROPERTIES. I CAN LOOK AT MY PHONE RIGHT NOW AND IF I GET A CALL AT 12, I'LL DEAL WITH THEM IN THE MORNING, WHATEVER IT IS. SOMEBODY AIN'T DIE, I'LL DEAL WITH IT IN THE MORNING. SIMPLE AS THAT. I OWN IT.

I DECIDE HOW I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO MY PROPERTY WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE.

THIS LOCAL BODY SHOULDN'T REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO BE AVAILABLE FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT WE AIN'T GOING TO TURN AROUND AND MAKE A LONG-TERM RENTAL.

SO THAT IS MY THOUGHT ON IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN GARRETT. COUNCILMAN RICHMOND, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MAYBE MR. BAKER POINT OF CLARIFICATION BETWEEN WHAT IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN IN CLAUSE THREE AND COUNCILMAN GARRETT'S AMENDED, ORIGINAL SPONSOR'S WORDING. I'M NOT SEEING A POINT OF

DIFFERENCE. >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS COUNCILMAN GARRETT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COUNCILMAN GARRETT, HE IS WANTING TO DELETE SUBPARAGRAPH 5304A3.

[03:05:12]

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ATTORNEY BAKER.

>> IT'S LATE. >> I SEE. I TOTALLY LOOKED OVER DELETE

THE WHOLE SECTION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN RICHMOND. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED

>> THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF THINGS IN REGARD TO THAT.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY A LOCAL CONTACT PERSON TO BE THE MANAGER OF THEIR PROPERTY, OR IT DOESN'T FIT IN THEIR BUDGET, THEY ARE WELCOME TO USE THEMSELVES.

THEY CAN BE THE PERSON THAT IS CALLED. THEY DON'T HAVE TO LIST A LOCAL CONTACT PERSON. THEY CAN BE THE ONE TO DO IT THEMSELVES.

I HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH SAYING IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. WELL, WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT? I MEAN, IS IT THE TAXPAYERS'S PROBLEM? IS IT THE CITY'S PROBLEM? I MEAN, I JUST HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION? WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE AT THAT POINT THEN? THANK YOU COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN.

>> I CALL FOR THE QUESTION. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR.

WOW EVERYBODY. AND SECOND >> NON-DEBATABLE MOTION.

TAKES TWO-THIRDS. MADAM CLERK, WE ARE VOTING TO CEASE DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT

NUMBER 1. TAKE THE VOTE, PLEASE >> (VOTE TAKEN) 11 YES, ONE

ABSOLUTELY. AND ONE PLEASE. >> WE ARE CEASING DISCUSSION.

WE ARE NOW READY TO VOTE ON GARRETT AMENDMENT NUMBER 1. MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

>> (VOTE TAKEN) 4 YES AND 9 NO. >> AMENDMENT 1 FAILS. COUNCILMAN GARRETT.

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? >> MAYOR, THIS CONCLUDES MY AMENDMENT.

>> I HAVE TWO MORE AMENDMENTS. ONE OF THEM THE STREETMAN AMENDMENT 2, HOPEFULLY I DON'T HAVE TO REWRITE THIS. I MEAN, I CAN. I CAN CROSS THROUGH THE WORD DELETE AND CHANGE IT TO RESERVE. ISN'T THAT WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE

LANCE? >> MR. BAKER, CAN YOU LEAD US THROUGH THE PARLIAMENTARY

PROCEDURE ON THIS >> REMEMBER YOU SAID THAT WE HAD TO FIX THIS.

>> WE HAD TO ADD THE WORD RESERVE. >> IT NEEDED TO BE RESERVE.

NOT DELETE. >> MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO ADD THE WORD RESERVE.

>> CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO, I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO RESERVE

>> ADD THE WORD RESERVE TO WHATEVER THE SECTION AND SUBSECTION IS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO STREETMAN AMENDMENT 2 TO STRIKE THE WORD DELETE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE

WORD RESERVE. >> THAT IS A MOTION. DO WE HEAR A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? >> YES, SIR.

>> POINT OF CLARITY. >> YES, SIR. >> I THOUGHT WE ALREADY DELETED

THAT PART. >> RESERVE. >> WE'RE ADDING THE WORD

RESERVE. >> TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN GARRETT

PROPOSED. >> RESERVE >> KEEP IT IN ORDER.

>> SO IT'S ALREADY DELETED. >> IT'S DELETED. WE'RE ADDING THE WORD RESERVE.

SO THAT SECTION, IT DOESN'T CONFUSE. >> SO WE'RE NOT TAKING OUT

DELETE. WE'RE PUTTING RESERVE THERE. >> OKAY.

WE'RE GOLD. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENT OR

[03:10:02]

YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES.

>> MOTION IS ADOPTED, THANK YOU. COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> NOW I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE STREETMAN AMENDMENT 3.1.

I DON'T HAVE IT FOR US TO PUT ON THE SCREEN. I DO HAVE IT WRITTEN AND PASSED

AROUND TO EVERYBODY. >> LET'S GET THAT PROPERLY BEFORE US.

STREETMAN AMENDMENT 3.1 HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED.

PLEASE PROCEED. >> ALL RIGHT. BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND NOW.

I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHERE WE HAD THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE. TOTALLY DELETED, YOU'RE CORRECT. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT THAT THE CONTACT INFORMATION SHALL BE POSTED, THE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE LOCAL CONTACT PERSONS SHALL BE CONSPICUOUSLY POSTED WITHIN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNIT.

>> COUNCIL LADY SMITH, WE ARE SENDING YOU A TEXT OF THIS AMENDMENT SO THAT YOU'LL HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU LIKE THE REST OF US DO. IT'S ON ITS WAY.

WE WILL GIVE IT A MOMENT. COUNCIL LADY SMITH, IF YOU'LL LET US KNOW WHEN YOU RECEIVED

THAT TEXT. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> DID YOU GET IT?

>> AWESOME. OKAY. NOW THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED FOR THIS AMENDMENT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

>> LET'S VOTE. >> MADAM CLERK. (VOTE TAKEN)

>> 12 YES. ONE NO. >> STREETMAN AMENDMENT 3.1 IS ADOPTED. WHERE ARE WE? ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANYTHING ON ANY ORDINANCE, ANY AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE? COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION, DOES ANYBODY HAVE STATISTICS OR ANYTHING TO LIKE POLICE COMING OUT TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY STATS ON THAT?

>> COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL? WE DON'T HAVE IT AT HER DISPOSAL. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, DID YOU

WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? >> MR. REYNOLDS, I SPOKE WITH HIM, WE GO WAY BACK.

HE CALLED ME AND HE EXPLAINED TO ME THE SITUATION. GOD KNOWS MY HEART WENT OUT TO HIM. WOW. THAT IS PRETTY BAD.

BUT WHAT I SHARED WITH HIM IS WHAT I'M GOING TO SHARE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THIS WON'T FIX THAT. THAT STILL CAN HAPPEN. THIS WILL NOT FIX THAT.

SOMEONE CAN STILL RENT IT AND GO OUT IN THE FRONT YARD AND WHATEVER AND THIS WON'T STOP IT. YOU CAN NEVER STOP, YOU CAN NEVER POLICE ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO BE I WANT TO SAY REBELS IF YOU WILL. IF THEY GET CAUGHT, THEN THEY GET PUNISHED. I WAS IN WALMART, EVEN WITH ALL OF THOSE CAMERAS, ALL OF THE BATHROOMS, I WAS SITTING IN THE TRUCK, AND A GUY OPENED UP HIS DOOR, GOT OUT OF HIS TRUCK AND YOU KNOW HOW YOU STAND BETWEEN YOUR DOOR, URINATING IN THE PARKING LOT.

WOW. I LOOKED UP AT THE CAMERAS, I AM LIKE I KNOW YOU'RE ON CAMERA. APPARENTLY HE DIDN'T CARE. OKAY.

SO NOW WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, WALMART NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE WHAT I SAW SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN THIS CITY. IT DID. IF THE POLICE WOULD HAVE BEEN

[03:15:01]

I TOLD HIM, I SAID THIS WILL NOT STOP A PARTY. THE ONLY THING THAT IS GOING TO STOP A WILD PARTY IS THE POLICE. 84 NOW IN THE CITY.

THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. SO EVEN THE ONES THAT IS CAUSING ALL OF THE TROUBLE, THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO STOP WON'T STOP THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN. SO WE ARE JUST KIND OF GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS PUNISHING THE 84 RENTAL, PUNISHING THE OTHERS THAT MAY COME ALONG. THE 84, THEY'RE COVERED.

THEY'RE GOOD TO GO. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE FAIR, NOT THE GRANDFATHERING IN PART.

IF IT GOES FOR ONE, IT GOES FOR EVERYBODY. YOU DON'T GET A FREE PASS BECAUSE YOU HAPPENED TO HAVE ONE ALREADY. I THINK THIS IS TOO FAR REACHING. THERE IS NOT A NEED FOR THIS. I KNOW THERE ARE ISSUES.

BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS TRY TO ENCOURAGE SMALL BUSINESSES. AND TO GET MORE PEOPLE TO COME. A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PLACE IS A GREAT PLACE FOR THEM TO COME, LOOK, SEE IF THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.

SEE IF THEY WANT TO BE HERE OR NOT. AND I JUST THINK WE SHOULD NOT TRY TO PUNISH THESE PEOPLE. SOME OF THOSE OWNERS ARE STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW.

AND THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE HOW THEY MAKE ENDS MEET. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU

VOTE THIS DOWN COMPLETELY. I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED IT. >> THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> CALL FOR QUESTION.

>> NON-DEBATABLE MOTION. MADAM CLERK, WE ARE VOTING TO CEASE DISCUSSION.

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE >> (VOTE TAKEN) 12 YES. 1 NO.

>> MOTION TO CEASE DISCUSSION PASSES. WE ARE NOW ON THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 1, AS AMENDED. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS TIME TO VOTE.

MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 9 YES AND 4 NO.

>> ORDINANCE 1 IS ADOPTED FIRST READING. CHAIRMAN BURKE HEART.

>> I'M GOING TO JUMP ON THE NEXT ORDINANCE HERE, ORDINANCE 7, REPEALING ORDINANCE 52-2006-2007, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND, FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL MAKE A

MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 7.

ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE. ARE YOU READY TO VOTE?

>> MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 7 ADOPTED FIRST

READING. >> RESOLUTION 16-2020-21, APPROVING THE WAIVER OF THE CITY'S SUBROGATION CLAIM RELATED TO THE OJI DEATHS OF JEFFREY PROSECKY

>> MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR RESOLUTION 16. ANY COUNSEL MEMBERS HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ABOUT RESOLUTION 16? SEEING NONE OR HEARING NONE,

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES.

>> RESOLUTION 16 ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, LADIES AND

[03:20:05]

GENTLEMEN. >> THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. >> ALL RIGHT.

STANDING OVATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT I THINK COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN, YOU HAD AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT A PARTICULAR RACE AND THE

ELECTION WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. >> YES, SIR.

>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED A NEW PERSON TO WORK OVER IN OUR STREET DEPARTMENT BECAUSE JEFF BRYANT HAS WON FOR THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY HIGHWAY SUPERVISOR.

>> WELL, CONGRATULATIONS, JEFF. AND WE ARE HIRING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

[8. GAS & WATER COMMITTEE Chairlady Valerie Guzman]

GUZMAN, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE ORDINANCE 6-2020-21, FIRST READING AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF UTILITIES SERVICES TO 1551 WOODLAWN ROAD.

REQUEST PATRICIA MURPHY. NO MEETING, NO RECOMMENDATION. BUT I MAKE A MOTION FOR

APPROVAL >> MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR ORDINANCE 6.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT ORDINANCE 6? HEARING NONE.

SEEING NONE. ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, LET'S VOTE,

PLEASE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 6 ADOPTED FOR

FIRST READING. CHAIR LADY GUZMAN. >> WE HAVE A REALLY GREAT ACTIVE REPORT. BUT IT'S 10:30. IT WAS JUST REAL GOOD, THEY DID

REAL GOOD AND THAT IS ALL FOR MY REPORT, SIR. >> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT REAL GOOD. HEARING NONE. CHAIRMAN ALLEN, YOU'RE

[9. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Chairman David Allen]

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE FIRST THING ON MY REPORT, THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME DENNIS NEWBERG AS OUR NEW DIRECTOR. JULY 27TH, GOT A CHANCE TO TALK TO HIM ON A ZOOM CALL.

DENNIS COMES TO US FROM MESA, ARIZONA. I WANT THE WHOLE COUNCIL TO JOIN ME IN WELCOMING HIM. SECONDLY, THE 2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN WAS SUBMITTED TO HUD FOR APPROVAL ON AUGUST 4TH. AND THEN THE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE 2019-2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO INCLUDE THE CARES ACT FUNDING WAS SUBMITTED TO HUD FOR APPROVAL.

ALMOST YESTERDAY. THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN ALLEN.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT COMMITTEE REPORT? SEEING NONE, WE ARE NOW READY

[10. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE Chairlady Valerie Guzman]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE PARKS AND RECS COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 10TH. 3:00 P.M. YOU GUYS CAN VISIT US WITH ZOOM. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ANYMORE OF OUR UPCOMING EVENTS

>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE.

[11. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Chairman Jeff Henley]

RECOGNIZED. >> I WILL KEEP THIS BRIEF AS WELL.

BUILDING AND CODES ISSUED A RECORD SINGLE FAMILY PERMITS OF 133.

I THINK OUR NORMAL AVERAGE WAS 80 A MONTH. GOOD JOB CPD AND CFD.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS AUGUST 19TH. FOUR O'CLOCK ON THE FOURTH

FLOOR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE,

[12. STREETS & GARAGE COMMITTEE Chairman Tim Chandler]

RECOGNIZED. >> QUICK TOO. THE STREET DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN BUSY PAVING ROADS ALL OVER TOWN. NORTH CLARKSVILLE HAS BEEN HIT GOOD. THE SIDEWALKS ARE ALMOST THROUGH IN ST. BETHLEHEM.

WE'RE STILL ON TRACK TO GET THE SIDEWALKS ON FORT CAMPBELL BOULEVARD.

A FEW MORE TDOT THINGS HOLDING THAT UP. GOOD JOB OVER THERE AND CONGRATULATIONS, MR. BRYANT. GARAGE REPORT, I'LL MAKE IT SHORT, SIMPLE AND SWEET.

THEY'RE STILL RUNNING ABOUT AVERAGE ABOUT $40,000 A MONTH LESS ON THEIR EXPENSES.

IT'S ALL DUE TO PRICE OF GASOLINE. >> GOOD REPORT.

AND YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION TOO CHAIRMAN CHANDLER. >> YES.

EXCUSE ME. >> QUITE ALL RIGHT. >> EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL

[03:25:04]

EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE STREET WORKER THAT WE LOST. STREET DEPARTMENT HAD CONTACTED TDOT AND GOT INPUT. IF YOU'RE GOING NORTHBOUND ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE, GOING TO PROHIBIT A RIGHT HAND TURN. THEY GOT THE BLESSING FROM TDOT.

BIG COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, NOT OUR LOCAL SMALLER TRAFFIC. WE WILL HAVE SIGNAGE UP, AND AGAIN, EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE HAS BEEN RUN THROUGH TDOT WITH TDOT APPROVAL.

AND THE COMMITTEE WAS FOR APPROVAL AND I MAKE A MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED FOR RESOLUTION 13.

COUNCIL LADY GUZMAN, DID YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED. >> YES.

I GOT A TEXT THROUGH THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE STUFF THE BUS THIS WEEKEND AT THE FARMER'S MARKET. SO FOR ALL OF YOU WHO WANT TO HELP CONTRIBUTE, ESPECIALLY DURING THESE HARD TIMES, STUFF THE BUS WILL BE AT THE FARMER'S MARKET AND WE APPRECIATE YOU

ALL COMING OUT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WORTHY EVENT.

OKAY. WE HAVE BEFORE US RESOLUTION 13.

ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT RESOLUTION 13? HEARING NONE, SEEING NONE.

ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE

>> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> RESOLUTION 13 ADOPTED. >> WE'RE NOW READY FOR THE

[13. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Chairlady Wanda Smith]

>> YES, SIR. I'VE BEEN NODDING, MAYOR, I'M SORRY.

>> I UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REPORT SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE NO UPDATES ON THE NEW LOCATION FOR THE TRANSIT CENTER.

ALSO CTS TRANSPORTED 37,261 PASSENGERS FOR THE MONTH OF JULY.

SENIOR CITIZENS TOTAL FOR THE MONTH WAS 6,369. THE DEMAND RESPONSE TOTAL FOR THE MONTH WAS 2,113. A NEW SHELTER WAS PLACED AT TED BOULEVARD, ACROSS FROM WEBERLY DRIVE. AUGUST 8TH, CTS, ASKING EVERYONE TO COME OUT AND SUPPORT THEM AS THEY SUPPORT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FILL THE BUS.

EVENT THIS SATURDAY AUGUST 8TH AT THE DOWNTOWN MARKET. HELP US FILL A CTS BUS FULL OF DONATIONS TO SUPPORT THE NUTRITION PROGRAM. ALSO ON AUGUST 8TH, HOLIDAY IS RECOGNIZED IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY IN TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY ON 2007, TENNESSEE GOVERNOR, SIGNED LEGISLATION ACKNOWLEDGING AUGUST 8TH AS EMANCIPATION DAY IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. ALSO, THE FIRST CELEBRATION WAS ESTAB ESTABLISHED THAT WAS A SLAVE OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON.

THAT IS A DATE TO ALSO RECOGNIZE A HOLIDAY FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS WHO OBSERVED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. THE NEXT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26TH. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE VIRTUAL AT THAT TIME.

BUT I HOPE SO. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR LADY SMITH. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT? HEARING NONE, WE ARE NOW READY FOR DESIGNATIONS COMMITTEE.

[14. DESIGNATIONS COMMITTEE]

CHAIRMAN CHANDLER, YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

RESOLUTION 17-2020-21, APPROVING THE HONORARY DESIGNATION OF WALKER STREET AS SHAR ROAN HORTON MEMORIAL DRIVE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND

THEN TURN IT OVER TO THE MAYOR FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE

ACCEPT THIS. >> THANK YOU, PROPERLY SECONDED.

RESOLUTION 17 WOULD DESIGNATE THAT STREET NOT RENAME IT, BUT DESIGNATE IT IN MEMORY.

SHARRONIESE HORTON, WONDERFUL PERSON. SHE PASSED AWAY SUDDENLY A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO. HER FAMILY AND FRIENDS APPROACHED US ABOUT DOING THAT

[03:30:02]

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. HEARING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO

VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES.

>> RESOLUTION 17 ADOPTED. THANK YOU. UNDER NEW BUSINESS, ORDINANCE

[15. NEW BUSINESS]

RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 8. >> THANK YOU MAYOR. THIS ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT WERE RECEIVED TO THE 911 CENTER ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH FIREWORKS SINCE BEGINNING MAY 15TH AND ENDING JULY 11TH, WHICH ALMOST DOUBLED THE CALLS TOTALED LAST YEAR. AS I SAID ON JUNE 29TH, 2020, A HOUSE IN THE 700 BLOCK OF FOREST STREET WAS DESTROYED BY A DRIVE-BY FIREWORKS. THE INDIVIDUALS DRIVE BY AND THROW FIREWORKS OUT OF THE VEHICLE AMONG NEIGHBORHOODS, PERSONS VACANT LOTS.

IT CAUSED CATASTROPHES AND NEAR DEATH. SO ALSO LAST YEAR, THERE WAS A DRIVE-BY, SAME TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FROM YOUNG PEOPLE, AND THEY THREW FIREWORKS AT A HOUSE THAT BURNED DOWN. AND BECAUSE OF THIS, I'M PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODES, SECTION 10-217-10-218 ON FIREWORKS, WHICH FIREWORKS WARS, INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS AND ACCOMPLICES THAT DRIVE BY AND THROW LIT FIREWORKS OUTSIDE OF A VEHICLE, AT A PERSON HOME OR PROPERTY, WHETHER VACANT OR NOT, IS PROHIBITED AND A

SERIOUS OFFENSE. ANY QUESTIONS? >> COUNCIL LADY SMITH MAKES THE MOTION FOR ORDINANCE 8. DO I HEAR A SECOND? PROPERLY SECONDED.

ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN ALLEN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT?

>> I WANT TO COMMEND COUNCIL LADY SMITH FOR TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO TRY TO DETER. I WAS AFRAID WHEN I FIRST SAW FIREWORKS IT WAS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY TRYING TO BAN THEM ALL. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM. BUT I DO THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING.

SO I JUST ASK THAT WE SUPPORT IT. >> OKAY.

>> MAYOR >> THANK YOU, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT CELEBRATION WITH FIREWORKS. IT JUST KIND OF DIRECT HOW FIREWORKS ARE SHOT.

BECAUSE I LOVE SHOOTING FIREWORKS MYSELF, AS OLD AS I AM.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL LADY SMITH. COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THIS, OF COURSE, IF YOU KNOW WHAT MY BACKGROUND, MY BACKGROUND WAS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AGAIN, I COMMEND COUNCIL LADY SMITH FOR THE WORK THAT SHE PUT INTO THIS.

AT MY REQUEST, COUNCIL BAKER SENT OUT A COPY OF ALL OF THE STATE LAWS THAT IN AN E-MAIL TODAY IN ALL OF THE COUNCIL THAT PERTAINS TO EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS.

AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT, I WASN'T TRYING TO BELITTLE THIS ORDINANCE AT ALL. BUT THEN I WENT BACK AND I HAD CITY COURT PULL FOR ME THE NUMBER OF CITATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR FIREWORKS, SINCE JANUARY 1ST, TO JULY 31ST OF THIS YEAR, THERE WERE THREE CITATIONS ISSUED. THAT IS IT.

WELL, THE STATISTICS WE'RE GETTING, ON MAY 15TH, TO A CERTAIN DATE, WE HAD 600 CALLS.

WELL, MAY 15TH WAS ILLEGAL ANYWAY, WHETHER THEY WERE THROWING THEM OUT OF THE CARS OR WHATEVER. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT PUTTING IN A CITY ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TIP MY WHOLE HAND HERE, BUT $50 FINE. AND A SMALL COURT COST.

BUT IF YOU GO IN TO THE STATE COURT WITH IT, IT IS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR AND YOU CAN BE FINED IN SEVERAL CASES UP TO FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PLUS COURT COSTS.

[03:35:07]

EVENTUALLY, SERGEANT GILL WILL HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME ON THIS. IF I GO OUT AND WRITE YOU A STATE TICKET FOR VIOLATING THROWING FIREWORKS IN A CAR, OR OUT OF A CAR, AND YOU DON'T QUIT AND I COME BACK OUT THERE, THAT TIME YOU GO TO JAIL. AND BECAUSE YOU ONLY ISSUE A STATE CITATION ONCE AND IF THEY DON'T STOP, THEN YOU CAN CARRY THEM ON TO JAIL.

TO ME, AGAIN, I COMMEND COUNCIL LADY SMITH FOR DOING THIS. BECAUSE IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS THING. AND SO I JUST KIND OF WONDER DO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND PASS ANOTHER CITY ORDINANCE WHEN WE'VE ALREADY GOT STATE LAWS AND NOBODY IS ENFORCING THEM.

I'M THROUGH. >> MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> YES. HANG ON A SECOND. CERTAINLY IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER CRIME, THE POLICE HAS TO WITNESS IT. SO GETTING A CALL DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE THERE AND SEEING IT. COUNCILMAN ERBAND THEN I'LL COME TO YOU COUNCIL SMITH.

>> A BOTTLE ROCKET WENT THROUGH MY GLASS WINDOWS AND EXPLODED ON THE INSIDE OF MY HOUSE.

THIS WAS MANY YEARS AGO. IT SET MY HOUSE ON FIRE. SO I BOUGHT ONE OF THOSE BIG FIREWORKS ON A STICK, YAY BIG AND I MEASURED THE POWDER, 38 REVOLVE WORTH OF POWDER.

OKAY. THAT IS NOTHING TO BE PLAYING WITH.

AND I SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO COME DOWN TO WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO BE A CITY OR A SMALL TOWN. BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WHETHER HAVING FIREWORKS LIKE THEY ARE NOW, IS REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR A CITY OUR SIZE.

THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL HATE MY GUTS FOR THIS. BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. THERE IS A LOT OF SOLDERS OUT THERE WITH PTSD.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAVING BEEN IN THE MEDICAL FIELD IN THE ARMY, IT'S REAL.

THOSE PEOPLE ARE LIVING. THEY RE-LIVE THAT BATTLE FIELD EXPERIENCE.

AND I WOULDN'T DO THAT, I MEAN, BEING IN THE ARMY, I PLAYED WITH THE REAL THINGS, I DON'T LIKE FIREWORKS. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE, COUNCIL LADY

SMITH? >> YOU ARE MUTED. >> I'M SORRY.

>> IT'S OKAY. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM A LADY WHO ASKED ME TO BAN FIREWORKS.

SHOOTING FIREWORKS. SHE SAID SHE HAD TALKED TO A COUNCILMAN AND HE REFUSED TO BAN THEM. I SAID WELL, MA'AM, THIS WILL KIND OF PROTECT YOU.

WE DON'T HAVE NOTHING ON THE LOCAL BOOKS TO FIGHT AGAINST SOMETHING OF THIS SORT.

WE DO HAVE A STATE LAW. BUT WE DON'T HAVE NOTHING LOCALLY ORDINANCE HERE IN CLARKSVILLE. WE DON'T. SO WE ARE MIMICKING THE STATE LAW, BUT WE DO NEED SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS HERE LOCALLY. BECAUSE I SAID THAT PUNISHMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE THAT ALL PERSONS WOULD PAY A THOUSAND DOLLARS FINE IN COURT COSTS. THAT WAS THE FIRST OFFENSE. SECOND OFFENSE, ALL PERSONS INVOLVED WOULD PAY A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND COURT COSTS AND DO 500 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE.

I SAID THIRD OFFENSE, ALL INVOLVED WILL PAY $1,500 FINE AND SPEND THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS IN JAIL. THE REASON I SAID THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE THE LAW WHERE IT'S SO TOUGH THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT AGAIN. BUT MR. LANCE, HE SAID THAT WE ONLY HAVE A $50 LAW FINE FOR CIVIL. SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO GO WITH

[03:40:01]

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THE BOOKS HERE. AS I SAID, THIS WILL NOT STOP ANYBODY FROM SHOOTING FIREWORKS, BUT I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL LADY SMITH.

ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ORDINANCE 8? SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE.

COUNCILMAN HENLEY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION, GEARED TOWARDS COUNCILMAN CHANDLER, I THINK, WERE YOU SAYING THAT IF WE PASSED THE

LOCAL ORDINANCE, THEN YOU CAN'T ISSUE A STATE CITATION THEN? >> IS THAT THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION THEN IF WE HAVE BOTH? $50 OR STATE?

>> WE NEED SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS HERE. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN HENLEY.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ANYBODY ELSE? HEARING NONE OR SEEING NONE, ARE YOU READY TO VOTE? MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE.

>> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> ORDINANCE 8 ADOPTED. FIRST READING.

WE ARE NOW READY FOR RESOLUTION 18. COUNCILMAN ALLEN, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> COUNCIL LADY SMITH, COULD I ASK YOU TO MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE FEEDBACK. THANK YOU.

>> I'M GOING TO YIELD, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW THIS WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? ACCUSATION OF THE VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE LAW.

SO AM I TO FIRST START MY STATEMENT? AND THEN GO INTO WHATEVER IT

IS. >> OKAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK IT AGAIN.

>> CAN YOU SPEAK UP, MAYOR? >> WE'RE GETTING THERE, COUNCIL LADY SMITH.

>> WE'LL NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON RESOLUTION 18. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND PROPERLY SECONDED.

NOW. >> MAYOR, THERE IS, INSTRUCTED BY -- COUNCIL LADY

SMITH COULD I ASK YOU TO MUTE ONE MORE TIME. >> OKAY.

GO AHEAD COUNCILMAN ALLEN. >> I RECEIVED THE E-MAIL, LIKE WE ALL DID.

BY ATTORNEY BAKER. STATING THAT I HAD BEEN ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE SUNSHINE LAW AND HE HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE. ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. HE JUST AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED. I ASKED HIM ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT DEALING WITH THAT. AND HE HAD SAID HOW WE COULD CURE IT.

I HEARD THAT BEFORE. I NEVER LOOKED IT UP. WHEN I LOOKED IT UP, I DIDN'T FIND THAT. WHAT I DID FIND WAS THAT THERE IS A NIECE VERSUS PAIRS, SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLATE CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGE SAYS, I'M GOING TO READ, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT LEGISLATURE INTENT OF THIS STATUTE WAS FOREVER TO BAR A GOVERNING BODY FROM PROPERLY RATIFYING THIS DECISION MADE IN A PRIOR VIOLATIVE MANNER.

HOWEVER, NEITHER WAS IT THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT TO ALLOW A BODY OF A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, WE HOLD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT IS SATISFIED IF THE ULTIMATE DECISION IS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING ACT AND IF IT IS A NEW AND SUBSTANTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN WHICH THE PUBLIC IS AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE FACTS AND REFERENCED TO THE MATTERS AT ISSUE. THEN IT SAYS, THUS, EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION, THE PUBLIC BODY ACTION WOULD NOT BE VOIDED IF AFTER THE VIOLATIVE CONDUCT OCCURRED, THERE WAS A NEW AND SUBSTANTIAL CONSIDERATION AT THE ISSUE INVOLVED AT WHICH THE PUBLIC COULD BE PRESENT. THIS IS WHAT I'M READING.

IT DEALS WITH THAT. THAT IS THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT WAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THIS OTHER WAY. BUT I'M GOING TO OBLIGE HIM.

BUT I DO WANT US TO LOOK INTO THAT. I THINK THAT IS, WE'VE BEEN

[03:45:03]

I NEVER GOT IT. I WAS TOLD BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THIS, I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THE STRATEGY. LIKE REALLY? SO I'M GOING TO READ MY

STATEMENT, MAYOR. >> OKAY. PROCEED, PLEASE, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. ON JULY 31ST, 2020, THE DAY AFTER OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, I CALLED COUNCILMAN RON ERB, I ASKED HIM IF EVERYTHING IS OKAY BECAUSE HE MISSED THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING AND THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THE NIGHT BEFORE.

HE SHARED WITH ME THAT HE WAS IN THE MEETING LAST NIGHT, BUT VIRTUALLY BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN DOING OUTSIDE WORK. AND I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION, WHICH HE STATED NO. HE SAID THAT PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER THE GOOD. THEY ONLY CONTACT YOU WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE. I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS ENDORSING ANYBODY FROM HIS WARD.

HE SAID NO. HE WASN'T SURE WHO ALL HAD PICKED UP TO RUN. I TOLD HIM THAT I DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD HOW HE FELT ABOUT PEOPLE, WHAT PEOPLE PERCEIVE WHAT WE DO.

I STATED IT'S CLEAR THAT SOME, WHAT SEEMS CLEAR TO SOME DOESN'T SEEM CLEAR TO OTHERS.

LIKE OUR MEETING FOR TWO AND A HALF HOURS OVER THE SAME STUFF. I SAID THIS WHOLE LAWSUIT HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A BIG LOSS FOR TAXPAYERS. HE SAID I TOTALLY AGREE.

OUR CONVERSATION LASTED FOUR MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS, ACCORDING TO MY TIME LOG.

SECONDLY, ON AUGUST 3RD, AT 1:35 P.M., I CALLED COUNCILMAN CHANDLER AND THE FIRST PART OF OUR CONVERSATION WENT AS FOLLOWS, I ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS EYE.

HE WANTED TO TELL ME THAT THE SCAR TISSUE, THAT HE STATED HE WAS DOING MUCH BETTER.

I SAID TO HIM, TIM, YOU'RE ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND YOU'RE PRIVY TO INFORMATION THAT WE AREN'T. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL KNOW THAT WE DON'T.

WE'VE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT, WHICH WE HAVE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, WE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT AND YOU'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO SETTLE IT.

AND THEN HE SAYS COUNCILMAN CHANDLER SAID TO ME, THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED IF JEFF ROBERTSON WOULD KEEP HIS BIG MOUTH SHUT. HE SAID HE KEEPS SENDING ALL OF THOSE E-MAILS. I STOPPED HIM AND I STATED TO HIM.

YOU SEE, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, TIM. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT TAXPAYER DOLLARS WE'RE WASTING BECAUSE OF PENARSONALITIES. I SAID I ONLY LOOK IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT TAXPAYERS WHO ELECTED US. HE SAID ROBINSON RUNS HIS MOUTH AND NOBODY LIKES HIM. OUR CONVERSATION ENDED BECAUSE TIM SAID HE HAD TO GO, COUNCILMAN CHANDLER SAID HE HAD TO GO BECAUSE OF HIS GRANDDAUGHTER'S BIRTHDAY.

HE SAID WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT IT LATER. TELL HER HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

THE LENGTH OF OUR CONVERSATION WAS 22 MINUTES AND FIVE SECONDS.

THERE WAS A DIALOG. IN BOTH OF THESE SITUATIONS, I DIDN'T ASK THEM HOW THEY WERE GOING TO VOTE. I DIDN'T TRY TO BULLY THEM TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY.

I STATED WHAT I'VE BEEN STATING THE WHOLE TIME. I'LL STATE IT UNTIL I DIE.

THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT, I FEEL, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SILENCE ME. AND I'VE GOT REASON AND I'M GOING TO PASS THIS OUT. I WILL NOT BE BULLIED. I WILL NOT BE QUIET.

I WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT MY CONSTITUENTS AND I WILL DO THAT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

I'VE BEEN GOING ON 12 YEARS AND CONTINUE TO DO IT UNTIL MY TERM IS UP.

NOW, I WANT TO PASS THIS OUT, MAYOR. >> COUNCILMAN ALLEN, IS THIS ON

YOUR RESOLUTION? >> YES. NO IT'S ON THE VIOLATION OF MY SUNSHINE LAW. AND I NEED TO STATE THIS BEFORE WE LEAD TO THAT.

>> WE'LL ALLOW IT. WE'LL ALLOW IT TO A POINT. >> IT WON'T BE TOO MUCH LONGER.

I PROMISE YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. >> MAYOR, CAN IT BE PUT UP ON

THE SCREEN FOR US TO SEE? >> WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A PICTURE AND GIVE IT TO YOU.

>> I'M SORRY. IT'S TWO PAGES. IT'S TWO DIFFERENT ONES.

[03:50:10]

ME? >> CAN YOU E-MAIL ME ONE LATER? IT WOULDN'T BREAK THE SUNSHINE

LAW, WOULD IT? >> THE ONE THAT I'M LOOKING AT, IT'S THURSDAY, JULY 2ND.

>> OKAY. >> AND IT'S FROM MR. BAKER. >> I READ THAT ONE.

>> HERE IS MY ISSUE. I'M READING THIS. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY BE CONTACTING IN PERSON OR THROUGH PHONE CALLS OR PERSONAL E-MAILS OR TEXTS OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATIVE ITEMS, YOU MUST STOP DOING THIS. THIS IS ILLEGAL.

YOU'VE TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW. YOU MUST TAKE YOUR OATH AND DUTIES IN REGARDS TO THE LAW TO INCLUDE SUNSHINE LAWS SERIOUSLY AND BE CAREFUL NOT TO VIOLATE THE LAW OR YOUR OATH. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT DIRECTED TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNCIL MEMBER.

I UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE NOT TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION OF SOME GENERAL LAW, YOU COULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO TAKING ACTION.

ACCORDING TO THIS, IT SAYS IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION. IF THIS WAS THE CASE, E-MAILED OUT, IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION. IF IT WAS BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION, WHY WAS NOT THE ISSUE BROUGHT UP AND THE PEOPLE WHO TALKED ABOUT IT.

I DID SOME INQUIRING. AND I DID FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL ISSUE WAS. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THERE WAS A PERSON ON THE COUNCIL THAT SAID IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS GIVE ME A CALL ABOUT A PARTICULAR THING WE WERE DEALING WITH. WELL, WHEN THE PERSON CALLED

THEM, THEY WENT TO TELL LANCE LIKE HE IS OUR DADDY. >> COUNCILMAN ALLEN.

>> LIKE HE IS OVER US. >> HE IS OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. AND WE PAY HIM TO PROVIDE LEGAL EXPERTISE TO US. AND WHEN WE DISAGREE WITH HIS LEGAL EXPERTISE, IT DOESN'T

MEAN HE'S WRONG. LET'S STICK TO THE FACTS >> HIS JOB IS TO PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL AND NOT TRY TO DICTATE HOW PEOPLE VOTE. WE HAVE CASES WHERE HE FLAT SAID, HE SENDS OUT A GENERAL NOTICE. BUT THEN APPARENTLY WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE CALLS, NOW LET'S SEND THIS BIG THING, GUESS WHAT, HE VIOLATED THE SUNSHINE

LAW. >> AGAIN, COUNCILMAN ALLEN, BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD REACHED OUT TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING A PHONE CALL AND THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED THE

E-MAIL. >> BUT HE SAYS IN THIS ONE, IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY BE CONTACTING. IF YOU'RE THE OFFICER AND IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, JUST LIKE WITH ME, WHY WAS IT NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND THEN BEFORE THIS VOTE TOOK PLACE, BECAUSE THERE WERE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED, THEN THIS WHOLE SPIEL SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. I STILL NEED THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO PROCURE IT THIS WAY BECAUSE I HAVE JUDGMENTS THAT SAYS THAT WE DON'T.

>> LET'S GET TO THE POINT. >> THAT'S MY POINT, MAYOR. SO I FEEL, I FEEL THAT I DIDN'T VIOLATE THE SUNSHINE LAW. AND THEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN GOD KNOWS, I MEAN, TO COME AFTER ME AND MY CHURCH, HE REPRESENTS YOU. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED. I WILL NOT BE SILENCED. I WILL SPEAK.

THE ONLY THING THAT VIOLATES IT, THE UPSETTING PART IS THAT WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS NOT A SUNSHINE VIOLATION. IT'S THE FACT THAT WHAT IS DONE IN THE DARK IS NOW COMING TO

THE LIGHT. >> I'M HAVING TROUBLE >> THE WHOLE LAWSUIT.

>> I HAD ISSUES, MAYOR, YOU KNOW IT. I'VE HAD ISSUES GETTING HIM TO TYPE MY RESOLUTION. HE TOLD ME I'M UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE MAYOR.

I HAD TO CALL THE MAYOR AND ASK THE MAYOR TO GET HIM TO DO A RESOLUTION FOR ME AND HE WORKS

FOR THE COUNCIL >> I NEED YOU TO STICK TO THE POINT HERE.

YOU MENTIONED SUNSHINE LAW. >> I'M BEING TARGETED. >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

[03:55:04]

>> HE IS TRYING TO SAY I GOT TO READ THIS TO THE PUBLIC. SO WHY CAN'T I SPEAK WHAT I

NEED TO SAY ABOUT HIM TO THE PUBLIC. >> HE DIDN'T SEND THAT E-MAIL TO THE PUBLIC. HE SENT IT TO THE COUNCIL TO ADVISE US ON OTHER MEMBERS OF

COUNCIL WHO HAD CALLED ABOUT CONVERSATIONS. >> THE FIRST ONE.

>> PEOPLE HAD CALLED HIM, RIGHT? >> RIGHT.

>> WHY WAS IT NOT DEALT WITH THE SAME WAY? >> IT WAS NO RESOLUTION BEFORE

US AT THAT TIME. >> WHICH RESOLUTION WAS IT? >> AIR BNB.

>> SINCE YOU WANT TO KNOW. IT WAS THE AIR BNB AND COUNCIL LADY STREETMAN ASKED, YOU CAN GO BACK AND PLAY THE VIDEO, GIVE ME A CALL. AND WHEN ANOTHER COUNCIL PERSON CALLED HER AND ASKED ABOUT IT, NEXT THING YOU KNOW WE GET THIS E-MAIL FROM LANCE.

I KNOW WHO IT WAS. THE TRUTH BE TOLD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH UNDER

OATH. >> OKAY. SO

>> SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN THAT HAPPENED, HE IS SHAKING HIS HEAD.

BUT NOBODY GOT CALLED ON THE CARPET. IT WAS NOT HEY, Y'ALL VIOLATED THE SUNSHINE LAW SO WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT. AND THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO FIX IT BECAUSE IF WE VOTE ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL THING IT WOULD BE NULL AND VOID BECAUSE

Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT IT AND YOU VIOLATED THE SUNSHINE LAW. >> OKAY.

YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

BUT THEY HAVE TOLD OUR LEGAL COUNSEL SOMETHING DIFFERENT. OTHERS HAVE TOLD OUR LEGAL COUNSEL SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED THE E-MAIL, GENERALLY REGARDING THE SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATION AND HOW TO CURE IT. AND YOU HAVE DONE THAT.

YOU HAVE TOLD US THE NATURE OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS. >> WHY DID THE FIRST SITUATION NOT HAVE TO BE CURED? WHEN YOU BLATANTLY SAID THAT YOU'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY

COUNCIL PEOPLE. >> CALL TO ORDER MAYOR. >> HANG ON.

>> I HAVE THE FLOOR. >> OKAY. LET'S GET THIS.

>> MY POINT OF ORDER IS THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT WAS PROPERLY SET.

HE IS NOT DISCUSSING THAT MOTION. >> I'M DISCUSSING WHAT LEGAL

COUNSEL SAID I HAD TO DO BEFORE THE MOTION. >> PROPER QUESTION.

IT IS THE MOTION BEFORE US IS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION THAT HE'S PROPOSED, RESOLUTION 18.

THERE HAS BEEN A LEGAL QUESTION RAISED REGARDING THE SUNSHINE LAW.

AND HOW TO CURE IT. COUNCILMAN ALLEN IS GIVING US THE NATURE OF THE CONVERSATIONS HE'S HAD REGARDING THAT. AND I THINK WE HAVE HEARD THAT. SO ANYTHING ELSE COUNCILMAN ALLEN REGARDING THE CURING THE VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW THAT HAS BEEN ADVISED TO US BY

LEGAL COUNSEL? >> YES. I WANT TO CHALLENGE HOW WE CURE IT. AND I ALSO WANT TO HAVE A COMPLAINT ON WHY THE OTHER WAS

NOT CURED. >> OKAY. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE

CAN DO TONIGHT IN TERMS OF GETTING ADVICE. >> IT CAN'T COME FROM HIM, MAYOR. BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE THAT DID IT.

HE IS THE ONE THAT IS GIVING US THE BAD ADVICE. >> LET'S BE CAREFUL BY SAYING

BAD ADVICE. >> OKAY. HE IS NOT PROVING, WHEN I SENT AN E-MAIL TODAY, I SENT AN E-MAIL, I ASKED HIM SHOW ME THE CASE LAW WHERE IT SAYS THAT THIS IS HOW YOU CURE IT. NEVER GOT IT. THEN I GOT A RESPONSE SAYING WELL, SINCE THIS IS AND SUCH, I WON'T DISCLOSE TO YOU WHERE MY CASE LAW COMES FROM.

REALLY? BUT YOU'RE ACCUSING ME OF IT AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS IS

WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. >> AGAIN, WE'VE HIRED HIM TO GIVE US THE BEST LEGAL ADVICE POSSIBLE. HE'S GIVEN US HIS ADVICE, BASED ON HIS YEARS OF WORKING IN MUNICIPAL LAW. YOU HAVE NOW TOLD US THE NATURE OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS.

I CANNOT, WE CANNOT TONIGHT AT THIS HOUR OR EVEN IF IT WERE SEVEN O'CLOCK, WE COULDN'T GO INTO THE LEGALITIES OF WHY THE OTHER ISSUE WAS NOT TREATED THE SAME.

THAT IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO. >> HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT

THEN? >> AFTER THIS MEETING. I CAN ASSURE YOU.

>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE PUBLIC. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING, WHAT IS DONE IN THE DARK, THIS WASN'T DONE IN THE DARK. HE IS NOT ASKING ME TO SAY WHAT I SAID IN THE DARK. HE DIDN'T EVEN ASK ME WHAT I SAID.

[04:00:04]

>> AGAIN, HE IS HIRED TO GIVE US LEGAL ADVICE. HE GAVE US LEGAL ADVICE ON HOW BASED ON INFORMATION THAT HE RECEIVED, HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH IT.

WHETHER IT WAS YOU, ME, OR ANY OTHER MEMBER SITTING AROUND THIS HORSESHOE, WE WOULD DO THAT. SO YOU HAVE DONE THAT. HAVE YOU DONE IT TO YOUR

SATISFACTION? >> NO. BUT GO AHEAD. BECAUSE IT'S ALL BEING SWEPT

UNDER THE RUG. >> WE ARE NOT SWEEPING ANYTHING UNDER THE RUG.

WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO US TONIGHT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

>> SO THE NEXT MEETING WE WILL ADDRESS IT? >> WE WILL GET INFORMATION AND

WE WILL HAVE A FULL HEARING ON THIS >> DOES THAT SATISFY YOU?

>> OKAY. WE'LL TAKE UP COUNCIL TIME AND WE'LL DO IT.

>> IT'S WORTH TAKING UP THE TIME FOR ME TO READ SOMETHING. >> I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT.

I'M SAYING WE WILL MAKE SURE THE COUNCIL ADDRESSES THAT >> I HAVE A QUESTION, MAYOR.

>> ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILMAN ALLEN >> BACK TO MY ORDINANCE.

>> MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION. >> I WILL PUT YOU ON THE LIST, COUNCIL LADY SMITH.

>> BEFORE WE GO TO THE RESOLUTION, IT'S PERTAINING TO WHAT WAS SAID.

>> IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I UNDERSTAND HIS FRUSTRATIONS. BECAUSE WE ALL RECEIVED TWO DIFFERENT E-MAILS CONCERNING SOMEONE BREAKING THE SUNSHINE LAW AND I'M NEUTRAL IN THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS, ATTORNEY LANCE DID SEND OUT THAT ONE THAT DID NOT PRONOUNCE THE PERSON'S NAME. HE TALKED ABOUT THE SUNSHINE LAW WAS BEING BROKEN BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS SAID YOU KNOW, A COUNCILMAN CALLED TO ASK A CERTAIN PERSON WHAT IT WAS. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND MYSELF WHY WAS DAVID ALLEN'S NAME POSTED ON OUR IPAD TO EVERYBODY ABOUT BREAKING THE SUNSHINE LAW.

WHEN HE DIDN'T DO THAT WITH THE OTHERS. SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AS WELL. I'M NOT TAKING SIDES. I WANT TO KNOW WHY IS ONE PERSON TREATED DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER. I THINK THERE IS BIAS GOING ON

WITHIN OUR SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. >> WE HAVE ADDRESSED THAT AND WE SAID THAT WE WOULD LOOK INTO IT AND PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH INFORMATION AND BRING THAT TO

THE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY. >> TONIGHT I NOTICED SOMETHING THAT YOU STOPPED ME LAST WEEK FROM PRONOUNCING COUNCILMAN'S NAME.

I RESPECTFULLY TOOK YOUR ADVICE. HOWEVER, TONIGHT, I WROTE DOWN, I'VE BEEN VERY QUIET FOR A REASON. I WROTE DOWN FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO CALLED OTHER PEOPLE'S NAMES WHEN THEY WERE ADDRESSING THE ISSUES WITH THEIR CASE. I WANT TO KNOW WHY THIS BIAS IS GOING ON.

AND I'M NOT MAD AT NOBODY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE TREATED BETTER THAN OTHERS AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ALLOW SOME COUNCILMANS TO CALL OTHER COUNCILMAN'S NAME. WHEN I SAY ONE PERSON'S NAME, MS. SMITH, LET'S NOT CALL NOBODY'S NAME. TONIGHT I WROTE EVERYBODY WHO CALL WHO NAME OUT.

WE CAN'T ADDRESS THEIR NAME. BUT YOU NEVER STOPPED ANYBODY. >> COUNCIL LADY SMITH, I WILL

BE GLAD TO HAVE A>> CACONVERSA WITH YOU. >> LOOK BACK AT THE TAPE.

FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, TONIGHT ON THE TAPE CALLED EVERYBODY'S NAME THAT THEY WAS ADDRESSING AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD. I DON'T THINK THAT IS RIGHT. I'M SORRY MAYOR, BUT WRONG IS

WRONG. >> I GOT YOU. I WILL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS THAT WITH YOU INDIVIDUALLY. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. I WILL CALL YOU TOMORROW IF I

MAY. >> THANK YOU SIR. >> BACK ON THE RESOLUTION,

COUNCILMAN ALLEN. >> SAME RESOLUTION. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF, I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE TAXPAYER.

THAT IS WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. WE'VE TAKEN OUR CHANCES AND WE LOST. WE'VE TAKEN OUR CHANCES BY SAYING HEY, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO ON. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIGHT THIS THING.

WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT IT. WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT IT. SINCE THE END OF THE TRIAL, NOT INCLUDING, IT ENDED IN MAY, JUNE, MAY AND JUNE, THEY ALREADY BILLED US OVER

[04:05:02]

BEFORE IT'S DONE, I CAN SEE US EASILY SPENDING 5 OR 600,000 TO FIGHT THE 800,000.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT IS BAD BUSINESS. THERE IS A TERM, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE BIBLICAL, I DON'T WANT TO BRING THE BIBLE IN, BUT IT FITS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE TO COUNT THE COSTS BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING, WE HAVE TO COUNT THE COSTS. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IF WE HAD COUNTED THE COSTS EARLIER AND KNEW WHAT THE COSTS WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE, OR CLOSE TO ITSE, I GUARANTEE YOU WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE DEALING WITH THIS. BUT WE TOOK A CRAP SHOOT, TOOK A CHANCE, ANY TIME YOU GO TO COURT, FIGHT LITIGATION, THERE IS TAKING A CHANCE.

CHANCE THAT YOU COULD LOSE BIG. BUT WHAT I WOULD ALWAYS ASK IS OF COUNCIL, IS HOW MUCH COULD THIS POSSIBLY COST ME. HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST ME TO FIGHT THIS.

I KNOW WHAT IT'S TAKING TO SETTLE IT. BUT HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST? WE HAVE WENT OVER AND BEYOND WHAT ANYBODY DREAMED WE WOULD SPEND. IT'S TIME FOR US TO PUT THIS TO REST.

IT'S TIME TO THROW PERSONALITIES OUT. IT'S TIME FOR US TO PUT IT TO REST. WE CANNOT CONTINUE. WE SHOULDN'T CONTINUE TO SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EVERYBODY AGREES THAT IF WE DON'T SETTLE IT, THE POSSIBILITY OF IT GOING TWO OR THREE MORE YEARS IS VERY PROBABLE. AT WHAT COST? I UNDERSTAND REALISTICALLY, I'M TOLD THAT IF WE HAVE TO FIGHT IT IN THE FEDERAL COURT, THAT WE WOULD USE OUR OWN ATTORNEYS.

AND FOR THE APPEALS. WELL, I REMEMBER HEARING WHEN WE FIRST GOT THIS STARTED THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IN-HOUSE. WHEN WE ASKED WHY WAS IT NOT IN-HOUSE, THEY SAID WE GOT BOMBARDED. LOOK AT THE TRACK RECORD AND LET'S DO RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS.

LET'S SETTLE THIS LAWSUIT. WE DON'T WANT TO BURDEN ANOTHER COUNCIL WITH THIS SAME LAWSUIT.

AND THEN BY THAT TIME, THE COST IS GOING TO BE 3, 5 MILLION MAYBE.

WHO KNOWS WHAT IT WILL BE. BUT IT CONTINUES TO CLIMB. I PERSONALLY SAT HERE AND ASK THAT WE SETTLE STUFF AND IT'S DOUBLING AND DOUBLING. IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BIGGER.

ALL I KEEP HEARING IS A LOT OF THE HISTORY BEHIND WHATEVER. BUT THE POINT IS, IT'S TAXPAYER DOLLARS. IF IT WAS MY DOLLARS, GUESS WHAT, I WOULD BE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY WHETHER I DISLIKED THE PERSON OR WHATEVER.

IT WOULDN'T HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT'S ALL ABOUT DOLLARS AND CENTS. WE CANNOT HONESTLY SAY WE'RE BEING GOOD STEWARDS WHEN WE HAVE WASTED, I CALL IT WASTED BECAUSE ANY TIME YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW FOR SOMETHING, YOU SPEND THAT TYPE OF MONEY, I CALL IT A WASTE WHEN WE COULD HAVE SETTLED IT.

A LOT OF IT HASN'T BEEN COME OUT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

IT'S PUBLIC NOW. EVERYBODY GETS THEIR CHANCE TO TAKE THEIR SHOT AT IT.

THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW WE SPEND THEIR MONEY.

SO MANY SAY I'M FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. I'M GOING TO WATCH HOW YOU SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS. THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN SAY YOU'RE A GOOD STEWARD WHEN YOU ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AND YOU DON'T STOP IT. I ASK THAT WE VOTE FOR THIS AND END THIS. THIS WILL END ALL LAWSUITS. THEY'VE WORKED OUT AN AGREEMENT AS FAR AS THE ISSUE AFTER THE LAWSUIT. THEF WORKED IT OUT.

THEY AGREED TO IT. IT'S TIME TO PUT IT TO REST. 1.2 MILLION.

YES, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY. WELL, YOU'VE ALREADY SPENT $200,000 SINCE MAY.

DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THAT MONEY? DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THE 1.5 MILLION THAT WE'VE SPENT ALMOST ALREADY? DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THAT? I'VE GOT PEOPLE THAT ASK ME FOR SIDEWALKS AND A LOT OF TIMES, IT'S WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THE MONEY FOR THAT. I HAVE HEARTBURN TRYING TO TELL THEM THAT WE WASTED $1.5 MILLION. DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE COULD HAVE DID WITH IT? I WAS, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON YOUR WATCH, MAYOR, BUT SINCE I'VE

[04:10:03]

AND TO HAVE THE AUDACITY TO SAY WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT. IT'S TIME FOR US TO PUT THIS TO

REST. THAT'S IT, MAYOR FOR RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN ALLEN.

COUNCILMAN NORRIS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR

QUESTION. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR.

WE ARE VOTING TO CEASE DISCUSSION. MADAM CLERK.

TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) 13 YES. >> MOTION TO CEASE DISCUSSION ADOPTED. WE ARE NOW ON THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US, RESOLUTION 18.

MADAM CLERK, TAKE THE VOTE. >> (VOTE TAKEN) >> 9 YES.

8 NO. >> RESOLUTION 18 FAILS. WE ARE NOW READY FOR MAYOR AND

[16. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS]