9.A Resolution 2026-12 - A Resolution to Amend the FY 2026 General Fund, Drug Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, and Capital Investment Program (CIP) Budgets

[9.A Resolution 2026-12 - A Resolution to Amend the FY 2026 General Fund, Drug Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, and Capital Investment Program (CIP) Budgets]

AGENDA ITEMS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. WE'LL MOVE TO THE BUSINESS ITEMS, AND WE HAVE RESOLUTION 2026-12. IT'S A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FY 2026 GENERAL FUND, DRUG FUND, WATER AND SEWER FUND AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM BUDGET WITH MR. J. P SPAR, OUR AMAZING BUDGET OFFICER. THANK YOU MAYOR. GOOD EVENING MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CBD IS REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE A $19,295 DONATION TO COVER THE COST RELATED TO PROCURING A REPLACEMENT. K-9 ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE $3,641,403.43 OF GENERAL FUND UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE FOR THE LIBRARY EXPANSION CIP PROJECT TO COVER THE COST OF THE ACCEPTED BID. THIS WILL BRING THE TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TO $12,299,177.23. CPD IS ALSO REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE $16,675 OF INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT REVENUE, AND TO TRANSFER $61,943.38 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE DRUG FUND, FOR A TOTAL OF $78,618.38. FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT K-9 UNIT VEHICLE, PUBLIC UTILITIES IS REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE $280,000 OF WATER AND SEWER FUND, UNRESTRICTED CASH FOR THE LEAD AND COPPER RULE IMPROVEMENT SERVICE LINE INSPECTIONS, BRINGING THE TOTAL INSPECTION BUDGET TO $850,000.

AND PUBLIC UTILITIES IS ALSO REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE $50,000 OF WATER AND SEWER FUND UNRESTRICTED CASH TO COVER THE COST OF CHANGE. ORDER NUMBER ONE FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. NUMBER THREE, CLEARWELL, BRINGING THE TOTAL BUDGET TO $155,000. IF THE AMENDMENTS ARE APPROVED, THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE AND REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL $3,000,641. I'M SORRY, $3,641,403.43 IN THE CIP STAFF IS ON HAND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IN. A SAMPLE MOTION IS PROVIDED ON SCREEN. THANK YOU, MR. SPORES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JP? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION PLEASE? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2026-12. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MISS DIAMOND? IF YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MISS MARSHALL. YES. MR. STAMPS. YES. MR. ROBBINS. YES. MR. HALL. YES. MAYOR FRAZIER. YES. THANK

[9.B Review of Bids and Award of Contract for the Collierville Burch Library Expansion and Renovation Project]

YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS REVIEW A BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE COLLIERVILLE LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT. MISS KATRINA AMOS ATKINS, OUR DEPUTY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR, HAS OUR PRESENTATION. MISS ATKINS, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND BOARD. YES.

THIS ITEM REQUESTS APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO ALLIANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE COLLIERVILLE BIRCH LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT. THE LIBRARY,

[00:20:01]

ORIGINALLY BUILT IN 2001 AND ACQUIRED BY THE TOWN IN 2004, HAS SEEN MINIMAL UPDATES AND NO LONGER MEETS THE GROWING NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. DEMANDS FOR MEETING ROOMS, STUDY SPACE AND EXPANDED PROGRAM AREAS HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE. THE NEEDS AT THE LIBRARY AND ASSESSMENT CONFIRMED THE NEED FOR ENHANCED CHILDREN'S AND TEEN SPACES, IMPROVED ADULT SERVICES AND A FLEXIBLE EVENT SPACE WITH DIRECTION FROM THE BMA DESIGN EFFORTS RESULTED IN A REFINED, BETTER OPTION THAT FOCUSES ON CORE NEEDS WHILE REMAINING COST CONSCIOUS. I CAN FLIP MY SHEET OVER. THE PROJECT WAS COMPETITIVELY BUILT MARCH IN MARCH 2026, WITH 67 VENDORS NOTIFIED AND EIGHT BIDS RECEIVED. ALTHOUGH PHIFER AND ASSOCIATES SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BASED BID, THEY LATER ACKNOWLEDGED ERRORS IN THEIR ALTERNATE PRICING AND AN INABILITY TO COMPLETE THE WORK REQUIRED WITH THE BID AS SUBMITTED. AS A RESULT, STAFF RECOMMENDS AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO ALLIANT CONSTRUCTION, WHICH SUBMITTED A COMPLETE, RESPONSIVE AND QUALIFIED BID. THE BASE BID IS $10,636,000. THERE ARE THREE ALTERNATES FOR CONSIDERATION. ALTERNATE ONE IS $16,452 FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING.

ALTERNATE TWO IS $207,000 FOR AN OUTDOOR EVENT SPACE. PATIO ALTERNATE THREE IS $259,000 FOR A PORTICO SHARE WITH ALTERNATES INCLUDED. THE TOTAL COST IS $11,118,452, WHICH IS $1 MILLION BELOW EARLIER COST ESTIMATES PRESENTED. THE BUDGET IMPACT, IF AWARDED THIS CONTRACT, REQUIRES THE BMA ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL $3,641,403 TO ENSURE THE PROJECT IS FULLY FUNDED, TO HELP OFFSET COSTS AND FUND FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT. THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY ARE MANAGING A FUND RAISING CAMPAIGN WITH A GOAL OF $4 MILLION. NEARLY $400,000 HAS BEEN RAISED TO DATE. SO I HAVE A PROPOSED MOTION ON YOUR SCREEN, WHICH IS TO APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH ALLIANT CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE COLLIERVILLE BIRCH LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION, AND THE AMOUNT OF $10,636,000 AND ALL, OR A COMBINATION OF THE THREE PROPOSED ALTERNATES. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO COMPLETE THE BIRCH LIBRARY EXPANSION AND RENOVATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,636,000 AND ALL, OR A COMBINATION OF THE THREE PROPOSED ALTERNATES, ONE THROUGH THREE. THANK YOU. SO YOUR MOTION INCLUDES THE THREE ALTERNATES, THE THREE FOR DISCUSSION, FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION. THEN WE'LL HAVE TO EITHER WE'LL HAVE TO AMEND OUR MOTION TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. CORRECT. MR. ATTORNEY THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALDERMAN MARSHALL HAS A SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. NOW WE WILL DISCUSS MR. ROBIN. AM I CORRECT HERE THAT IF, AS APPROVED, WE'RE APPROVING TO DO ALL THREE AT THIS TIME OR IT SAYS AND OR A COMBINATION OF.

AND THAT'S WHAT KIND OF THREW ME OFF HERE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. IT WOULD BE ALL THREE AT THIS TIME. OR IF YOU DECIDED YOU COULD CHOOSE ONE OR 2 OR 3. GOTCHA. I SEE NOW I WAS THROWN OFF A LITTLE BIT BY THE WORDING. OKAY, SO SO THE BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS WOULD COVER ALL THREE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO IT WAS BIDDED SEPARATELY BECAUSE EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE THOSE ALTERNATES, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. SO WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. IF IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PROCEED WITH ONE OF THE OPTION ALTERNATES RIGHT NOW, WE COULD FOREGO THOSE AND CONTINUE WITH THE BASE BID. SO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW TO, TO ACCEPT THE BASE BID OR AWARD THE BASE BID. AND YOU CAN AWARD OPTION ALTERNATE ONE, ALTERNATE TWO, OR YOU COULD DECIDE TO DO ALL THREE. WHAT WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU WAS THE FLEXIBILITY TO APPROVE WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO INCLUDE IN THIS IN THE BID AT THIS TIME, OR ANY OF THESE THREE TIME SENSITIVE. THEY ARE BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING READY TO HAVE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH A CONTRACTOR. AND WHEN WE GO TO WHEN WE HAVE THAT PRE-CON MEETING, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING LINED OUT AND THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING THEM TO DO AT THAT TIME. AND SO IT'D BE MY ASSUMPTION THAT IF WE CHOSE TO

[00:25:03]

ADD THESE AT A LATER DATE, THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASED COST. YES. RELATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION. THAT IS CORRECT. IN ADDITION, THERE'S MOBILIZATION COSTS. ET CETERA.

IF YOU WERE TO DELAY ANY OF THESE TO A FUTURE DATE, THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE COST, THE THE, THE SPACE, THE EVENT SPACE PATIO WOULD BE RELATIVE TO THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION. SO I'M FINE WITH MY MOTION. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALDERMAN HALL, I DON'T WANT TO FORGET YOU OVER HERE. SO, MR. ROBBINS, ALDERMAN ROBBINS, YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND YOUR MOTION. NO MOTION AS STATED TO INCLUDE ALL ALTERNATES, ONE THROUGH THREE TO INCLUDE ALL. AND, ALDERMAN MARSHALL, ARE YOU AGREE IN AGREEING TO THAT YOU ARE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, MISS DIAMOND, IF YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MISS MARSHALL.

YES. MR. STAMPS. YES. MR. ROBBINS. YES. MR. HALL. NO. MAYOR FRAZIER. YES. THANK YOU

[9.C Review of Bids and Award of Contract for the Walnut Street Drainage Improvements ]

VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS A REVIEW OF BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR WALNUT STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. AND DALE PERRYMAN, OUR TOWN ENGINEER, HAS OUR PRESENTATION. MR. PERRYMAN. GOOD EVENING. BOARD AGAIN. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS TO CONSIDER THE REVIEW OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE WALNUT STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED ON WALNUT STREET BETWEEN MULBERRY STREET AND NORTH WALNUT STREET. WALNUT STREET WOULD BE CLOSED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT FOR APPROXIMATELY 120 DAYS. THE 120 DAYS IS ALLOWED. DUE IS ALLOWED DUE TO THE. ALL UTILITIES IS LOCATED IN WALNUT STREET. STAFF WILL ALSO COORDINATE WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO SCHEDULE EVENTS AROUND THE SQUARE SO WE KNOW SOME EVENTS COMING UP. WE CAN MAYBE ASK AND CLOSE DOWN LIKE A DAY EARLY, AND WE'LL WORK AROUND THAT. AND THEN ONCE THAT'S OVER WITH, WE'LL GO BACK. SO I KNOW DURING THE SUMMER THERE'S A LOT OF EVENTS THAT OCCUR ON THE SQUARE.

SO WE, WE WILL WORK AROUND, WORK AROUND THAT. THE WALNUT STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WAS FIRST INCLUDED IN TOWN'S FY 2324 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN, WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING PROVIDED IN FY 2425. CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT PROCEED UNTIL COMPLETION OF DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE PHASE FOUR, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE FLOW FROM THE WALNUT STREET SYSTEM. WITH PHASE FOUR COMPLETED IN DECEMBER OF 2025, THE WALNUT STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WAS ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, SO WE HAD TO DO SOME WORK DOWNSTREAM BEFORE WE COULD ACTUALLY START THIS. THIS GOES UNDER THE RAILROAD, GOES DOWN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE POST OFFICE AND GOES ON DOWN AND EMPTIES INTO THE THE LATERAL THAT WE JUST GOT THROUGH WITH THE BIG BOX CULVERT ON. SO THIS THAT'S WHERE THIS WILL END UP FLOWING TO. THE WORK FOR THIS PROJECT WILL INCLUDE 450FT OF DRAINAGE PIPE, 18 TO 42 INCH IN DIAMETER, EIGHT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, ASPHALT PATCHING, TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND ALL THE OTHER ITEMS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. TO HAVE WALNUT STREET BACK OPEN. SEVEN VENDORS REQUESTED COPIES OF THE PLANS, AND ON APRIL 1ST, FOUR BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS. THE BID CONSISTS OF A BASE BID WITH NO ALTERNATIVES. AT THE EVALUATION BIDS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IN SCORE WAS THE LOWEST AND MOST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WITH A BID AMOUNT OF $303,645.40. THIS IS LOWER THAN THE SECOND LOWEST BID BY $21,955. THE BOARD THE BOARD REPORT SHOWS THE THREE LOWEST BIDS. THIS IS A UNIT PRICE CONTRACT WITH 120 DAYS CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE WORK, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ARE SET AT $600 PER DAY. ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED, ANY REMAINING FUNDS WILL BE RETURNED BACK TO ITS RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT. THIS IS A COUPLE OF PICTURES. THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT OLDER NOW. THESE WERE TAKEN APRIL 27TH, 2011. AND YOU KIND OF SEE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAPPENED THEN. SO AND WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OTHER FLOODINGS AT THIS INTERSECTION EVEN SINCE SINCE THEN. SO, SO THE WHOLE IDEA IS TRY TO FIX THIS WHERE IT WON'T FLOOD AND WE CAN WORK OUR WAY UP WALNUT AND TIE IN UP THERE AT MULBERRY AND TRY TO HELP EVEN RELIEVE SOME OF THE FLOODING UP THERE. SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND WE RECOMMEND THIS FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU, MR. FRIEDMAN. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WILL YOU JUST. YES. SORRY. DID YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO. IT'LL TAKE SIX MONTHS. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? 120 DAYS? THREE AND FOUR. ABOUT THREE MONTHS. OH, THREE MONTHS. OKAY.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THIS SUMMER? YEAH. THE SUMMER IS KIND OF LONGER DAYS AND STUFF.

AND LIKE I SAID, IT MAY BE PLUS OR -120, DEPENDING ON IF WE ASK THEM TO SHUT DOWN LIKE A DAY IN ADVANCE FOR EVENTS ON THE SQUARE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO DO THIS IN 120 DAYS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? PLEASE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, MISS DIAMOND, IF YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. STAMPS. YES. MR. ROBBINS. YES. MR. HALL. YES, MISS. MARSHALL.

YES. MAYOR FRAZIER. YES. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS A

[9.D Review of Bids and Award of Contract for Service Line Investigation]

REVIEW OF BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICE LINE INVESTIGATION. AND MR. JOHN FOX, OUR PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR, HAS OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM IS TO REQUEST APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF

[00:30:06]

MAYOR AND ALDERMEN TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SUPERIOR HYDROVAC FOR THE SERVICE LINE INVESTIGATION PROJECT. THIS PROJECT IS PART OF THE TOWN'S ONGOING COMPLIANCE EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EPA'S LEAD AND COPPER RULE IMPROVEMENTS, OR LCRI, AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION. THESE NEW REGULATIONS REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN A COMPLETE INVENTORY OF SERVICE LINE MATERIALS ON BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIDES OF EACH WATER SERVICE CONNECTION. WHILE THE TOWN COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED ITS INITIAL INVENTORY TO THE STATE IN OCTOBER OF 2024, USING AVAILABLE RECORDS, A PORTION OF SERVICE LINES REMAINED CLASSIFIED AS UNKNOWN DUE TO INCOMPLETE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION. THESE UNKNOWNS ARE PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1987, BEFORE LEAD MATERIALS WERE PROHIBITED. THIS PROJECT WILL INCLUDE THE PHYSICAL INVESTIGATION OF UP TO 2677 SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS TO VERIFY REMAINING UNKNOWN MATERIALS AND SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE'S NOVEMBER 1ST, 2027 DEADLINE. BIDS WERE OPEN ON APRIL 1ST, 2026. THE PROCUREMENT DIVISION NOTIFIED EIGHT VENDORS OF BID OPPORTUNITY. ALL EIGHT REQUESTED BID DOCUMENTS, THREE BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND SUPERIOR HIRED. HYDROVAC SUBMITTED THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID AT $832,575. A SUMMARY OF THE BIDS RECEIVED IS INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET AND DISPLAYED ON THE SCREEN. BASED ON STAFF'S EVALUATION, THE BID SUBMISSIONS, QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. SUPERIOR HYDROVAC IS CONSIDERED THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT BUDGET WAS 570,000 BASED ON OUR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ESTIMATE. FOLLOWING BID RESULTS, A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF 280,000 WAS REQUESTED AND APPROVED EARLIER. UNDER RESOLUTION 2026-12, INCREASING THE TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET TO $850,000.

THIS INCLUDES AN APPROXIMATE $17,425 IN CONTINGENCY FUNDING FOR POTENTIAL ASPHALT OR CONCRETE RESTORATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS. PROPOSED MOTION IS ON YOUR SCREEN. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. FOX. I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW WHY THE CONSULTANT'S ESTIMATE WAS SO WAS 280,000 BELOW? SO I THINK THEY HAD DIFFICULTY GETTING A GOOD HANDLE ON IT, BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T THAT MANY INVESTIGATIONS GOING ON AT A TIME, AND IT DEPENDED ON WHERE THE THE GROUPS WERE COMING OUT OF, BECAUSE A LARGE PORTION OF IT WAS IN MOBILIZATION. AND AT THE SAME TIME, ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE RAN INTO WITH THIS IS THE GOALPOSTS KEPT MOVING. SO AFTER AFTER THEY ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE REGULATION, THEN HOW TDEC WAS GOING TO ENFORCE IT PROBABLY CHANGED ABOUT 6 OR 7 TIMES OVER THE PAST, SAY YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF, WHERE THEY WOULD SAY, YOU JUST NEED TO CHECK 12IN IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND THE METER. AND THEN IT WENT TO FOUR, WHICH WAS POTHOLE IN THE ROAD AND IN FRONT AND BEHIND THE METER. AND THEN AT THE HOME ITSELF. AND THEN THEY CHANGED BACK. SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHY THEY HAD SOME CONFUSION ON THAT. THAT EXPLAINS IT. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THERE A MOTION. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH SUPERIOR HYDROVAC LUMP SUM BID $832,575 FOR THE SERVICE LINE INVESTIGATION PROJECT. SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, MISS DIAMOND, IF YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. ROBBINS.

YES. MR. HALL, YES, MISS MARSHALL. YES. MR. STAMPS. YES. MAYOR FRAZIER. YES. THAT'S BEEN

[9.E Review of Bids and Award of Construction Contract for Johnson Park Boardwalk Renovations]

APPROVED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MAYOR. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS A REVIEW OF BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE JOHNSON PARK BOARDWALK RENOVATIONS. AND MR. JOSH RUSSELL, OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, HAS OUR PRESENTATION. MR. RUSSELL. YES, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM IS TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE JOHNSON PARK BOARDWALK RENOVATIONS. I'VE GOT A PICTURE HERE OF THE BOARDWALK. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, I'VE GOT IT LISTED. THE ORIGINAL BOARDWALK WAS BUILT IN THE YEAR 2000. SO I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER. I WAS IN THE SEVENTH GRADE. THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. I'M NEARLY 40 YEARS OLD TODAY.

SO SO THIS BOARDWALK HAS HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE. OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE GOT A GREAT CREW OUT THERE THAT DOES MAINTENANCE TO THE BOARDWALK. AND MELVIN, HIS GUYS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB OF KEEPING AND KEEPING THIS THING GOING. BUT THEY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE ORIGINAL SECTION. SO ON THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE THE PICTURE HERE WITH THE HIGHLIGHTED IN

[00:35:03]

THE ORANGE. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL SECTION THAT WAS BUILT IN THE YEAR 2000, THE SECTION THAT TEES OFF OF IT AND GOES NORTH TO THE RIVER THAT WAS BUILT IN 2007. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING AT THIS TIME TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT. SO WHAT DOES THIS PROJECT ENTAIL? THERE WILL BE A COMPLETE RENOVATION. WE'RE GOING TO COMPLETELY TEAR THE BOARDWALK DOWN, DOWN TO THE DIRT. WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A. THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD A TEMPORARY CROSSING NEXT TO THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. THAT WILL BE THE ONLY THING THAT REMAINS THE PEDESTRIAN STEEL BRIDGE. IT'S WHEN YOU FIRST COME IN OFF THE BOARDWALK, THEY'RE GOING TO GO IN. THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A CONCRETE WALKWAY, AN ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP THAT WILL LEAD UP TO A RAISED BOARDWALK.

CURRENTLY, WHEN YOU GO IN OUT OF THE NATURE CENTER, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, SOME OF THE BOARDWALK ACTUALLY SETS ON TOP OF THE GROUND. AND WE'VE HAD TIMES OVER THE YEARS.

MELVIN HAS TOLD ME THAT THAT BOARDWALK IS ACTUALLY FLOATED AND SHIFTED. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO A 20 INCH RAISED BOARDWALK THAT WILL LEAD TO THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND THEN GO BACK TO THE GAZEBO. THE GAZEBO WILL BE REBUILT AS WELL. ONE ONE THING WITH THE GAZEBO WILL BE DIFFERENT IS WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY PUT IT ON HELICAL PIERS, BECAUSE THAT AREA STAYS KIND OF WET IN THE BACK. SO 36 VENDORS WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. 12 OF WHICH ASKED FOR COPIES. AND WE RECEIVED FIVE BIDS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, NABHOLZ CONSTRUCTION, I HOPE I PRONOUNCED THAT CORRECTLY, IS THE LOWEST APPARENT BIDDER. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH NABHOLZ, BUT I REACHED OUT TO THE CITY OF GERMANTOWN. THEY APPARENTLY HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK FOR GERMANTOWN, A SMALLER COMPANY IN GERMANTOWN SAYS THEY. THEY DID WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITHIN THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO IT WITHIN THE COST IN WHICH THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO IT. SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE BRINGING THIS BID TO YOU FOR APPROVAL. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS PROJECT WAS ACTUALLY FY 24 PROJECT FOR THE CIP. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S FY 26. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE BOOKS WHEN WE WE ABSORBED PARKS MAINTENANCE. SO I'M BRINGING IT TO YOU HERE TODAY. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DID HAVE TO PULL $8,678 OUT OF THE CIP CONTINGENCY FUND. BUT I WILL SAY THAT I THINK DEREK DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF PROJECTING THE COST ON THIS, BECAUSE HE'S STILL PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING IT WAS TWO YEARS BEHIND SCHEDULE. SO I HAVE A PROPOSED MOTION ON THE SCREEN AND YOU. SURELY YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU, MR. RUSSELL. WE APPRECIATE IT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DID HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND I'M SURE I CAN DEDUCE THE ANSWER OUT OF THIS, BUT THE COST OF A A MORE PERMANENT TYPE MATERIAL VERSUS WOOD WAS THAT EVALUATED. IT WAS CONSIDERED. YEAH. TRACK WOOD. I THINK THE THE INTENTION AND, AND MOLLY CAN BACK ME UP HERE IS TO KEEP IT MORE OF A NATURE ORIGINAL WOOD. LOOK, YOU WANT TO ELABORATE? YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, ALDERMAN ROBBINS. WE DID CONSIDER THE THE ALTERNATE MATERIAL, BUT AS JOSH INDICATED, WE WERE LOOKING FOR THAT MORE NATURAL LOOK. AND WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE SLIPPERY AS WELL. IT'S OFTEN MOIST OUT THERE. SO WE CHOSE TO STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL. WELL, AND WE GOT 26 YEARS OUT OF IT, WHICH IS NOT BAD REALLY. I MEAN, MORE MORE YEARS THAN I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE LASTED.

SO THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. YEAH. AND THIS IS THIS SECTION, LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE GET READY TO DO THE OTHER SECTION, THAT'S ALMOST A THOUSAND LINEAR FEET. SO YOU CAN SEE THE PRICE OF A THIRD OF THAT. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE. SO WE'LL HAVE TO PROJECT, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS OUT. JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN YOU WERE SEVEN? SO, SO BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I ACTUALLY TOOK MY SENIOR PICTURES UP. I CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE I'VE GOT PICTURES. THEY WEREN'T THERE WHEN I TOOK MY SENIOR PICTURE BECAUSE THE BRIDGE WASN'T THERE. SO. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? NO. DO NOT. OKAY. JUST THREW ME OFF. SORRY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND AND A SECOND FROM VICE MAYOR STAMPS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THIS TIME? IF YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. HALL. YES, MISS MARSHALL. YES. MR. STAMPS. YES. MR. ROBBINS. YES. MAYOR FRAZIER. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT

[10.A Ordinance 2026-05 - Second Reading and Public Hearing - An Ordinance to Amend Section §91.25 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Collierville Regarding False Alarm Fees]

AGENDA ITEM. IT'S A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING. OUR POLICE CHIEF, DALE LANE, HAS A PRESENTATION, AND THIS IS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 91-25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE TOWN OF COLLIERVILLE REGARDING FALSE ALARM FEES. CHIEF LANE. THANK YOU, MAYOR BOARD. BEFORE I GET IN, I WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE OUR TOWN ADMINISTRATOR MOLLY MANER, THE ASSISTANT TOWN ADMINISTRATOR, ADAM HAMRICK, AND OUR TOWN LEGAL COUNSEL, MR. BIGGS, FOR HELPING US WITH THIS, BECAUSE THIS HAS BECOME A QUITE A PROCESS WITH US, WITH THE

[00:40:02]

RESEARCH, THE DATA THAT WE LOOKED AT GOING BACK TO. BUT JUST FOR SOME BACKGROUND, BEFORE I GET INTO THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF IT, THIS THIS WAS THIS ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED IN AUGUST OF 2002, AND IT WAS LAST AMENDED IN 2012. WHAT I'M BEING TOLD IS THAT ORIGINALLY IT WAS THE SAME AMOUNT, $25. SO IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR THAT MANY YEARS. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR REPEATED FALSE ALARMS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT RAISES THE PENALTY TO $50 PER OCCURRENCE FOR ALARM USERS WHO EXPERIENCE THREE OR MORE FALSE ALARMS WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND ON THIS, THE TOWN OF COLLIERVILLE EXPERIENCES A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS FOR SERVICE, REQUIRING BOTH THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS.

THESE CALLS REQUIRE PERSONNEL TO RESPOND AND INVESTIGATE, TAKING RESOURCES AWAY FROM PRIORITY CALLS AND OTHER PROACTIVE ACTIVITIES. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE THE YEARS, BUT BASICALLY THE LAST FOUR YEARS WE'VE AVERAGED OVER 2000 FALSE ALARMS A YEAR. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE PROVIDES A PROGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE WITH PENALTIES BEGINNING AFTER MULTIPLE FALSE ALARMS WITHIN THE 12 MONTH PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE EXISTING PENALTY HAS HAD LIMITED IMPACT ON REDUCING REPEAT FALSE ALARM ACTIVITY. FALSE ALARM CALLS FOR SERVICE CONTINUE TO PLACE DEMAND ON BOTH POLICE AND FIRE RESOURCES. EACH RESPONSE REQUIRES PERSONNEL TO BE DISPATCHED, RESPOND TO THE SCENE. ENSURE THAT NO ACTIVE EMERGENCY FOR POLICE RESPONSE IS. THIS MEANS TWO OFFICERS ARE TYPICALLY DISPATCHED TO AN ALARM FOR FIRE RESPONSE DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF ALARM. IT'S. TWO OR MORE STATIONS MAY BE DISPATCHED. WHILE NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, THESE RESPONSES REDUCES AVAILABILITY OF OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS FOR PRIORITY CALLS AND OTHER PROACTIVE EFFORTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA SHOWS RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF USERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF THESE CALLS. THESE FALSE ALARMS, THE CURRENT PENALTY STRUCTURE, WHICH BEGINS AFTER MULTIPLE FALSE ALARMS, HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR AMONG THE REPEAT OFFENDERS. THE PROPOSED INCREASE TO $50 PER OCCURRENCE FOR ALARM USERS WITH THREE OR MORE FALSE ALARMS WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, REFLECTS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY ALLOWED UNDER TENNESSEE CODE. THIS ENSURES THE TOWN IS UTILIZING THE FULL EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS REPEAT ALARMS, WHILE REMAINING IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY, NATHAN BIGGS.

THIS ITEM IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN ORDINANCE AND WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL THROUGH THREE READINGS BY THE BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN FOR FINAL ADOPTION. INCREASING THE PENALTY IS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF ALARMS AND RESPONSIBLE USE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MAINTAINS THE EXISTING PROGRESSIVE WARNING STRUCTURE, ENSURING ALARM USERS ARE PROVIDED NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE ISSUES BEFORE PENALTIES ARE ASSESSED. THIS APPROACH BALANCES ACCOUNTABILITY WITH FAIRNESS WHILE SUPPORTING EFFICIENT USE OF PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES. THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND PREVIOUSLY WAS PRESENTED ON CONSENT AGENDA ON APRIL 27TH, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY YOU ALL AT THAT POINT. AND JUST IT'S NOT IN HERE, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, LOOKING AT THE REPORT TODAY, THE TOP OFFENDER FOR 25 HAD OVER 80 FALSE ALARMS FOR ONE YEAR. SO THAT'S ONE ONE PERSON THAT'S A RESIDENCE. YEAH. THE THE TOP ONE, THE NEXT 4 OR 5 WERE BUSINESSES. SO THAT WAS NOT ME. JUST SO YOU KNOW. NO, IT WAS NOT IT WAS NOT ANYBODY THAT I KNOW. AND IT WOULDN'T MATTER. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS THIS IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE. AND THE WAY WE ALLOCATE, WE'RE DATA DRIVEN AND EVERYTHING WE DO, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AT THE MAXIMUM TIME BASED ON OUR DATA, AND THIS IS JUST TAKEN AWAY OF OUR FINITE RESOURCES. SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING AND ASKING YOU TO DO. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHIEF. ANY QUESTIONS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD THIS EVENING REGARDING THE FALSE ALARM FINES? SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. AND ANY QUESTIONS OF ALDERMEN? OKAY. SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? PLEASE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY ALDERMAN SECOND AND A SECOND BY ALDERMAN ROBBINS.

MISS DIAMOND, IF YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MISS MARSHALL. YES. MR. STAMPS. YES. MR.

[00:45:02]

ROBBINS. YES. MR. HALL. YES. MAYOR FRAZIER. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HARD

[11.A Ordinance 2026-01 - Third and Final Reading - An Ordinance to Amend Title XV, Chapter 151, of the Town of Collierville Code of Ordinances by Amending §151.003 Definitions; §151.006(C) Fences, Walls and Hedges; §151.008 Traffic Impact Analysis; §151.021 Uses Permitted in Each Zoning District; §151.024 Specific Provisions for Conditional Uses; §151.025 Accessory Uses Permitted in Each Zoning District; §151.026 Temporary Uses, Activities, and Structures; §151.027(D) Site Development Standards for Traditional Zoning Districts; §151.049(A) TN: Traditional Neighborhood District; §151.050(A) MU: Mixed Use District; §151.115 Accessory Off-Street Parking Regulations; §151.116 Accessory Off- Street Loading Regulations; §151.160 Procedures for Planned Development Approval; §151.190 Exterior Lighting; §151.210 Single Family Design Standards; §§151.248 - 151.249 Design Review Commission; §151.268 Tree Planting Specifications; §151.308 Board of Zoning Appeals; §151.310 Conditional Use Permits; §151.311 Site Plan Review; §151.312 Amendments; §151.313 Vesting; and §151.314 Public Notice, Related to a Variety of Development Standards and Processes ]

WORK ON THIS. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE THIRD AND FINAL READING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 151 OF THE TOWN OF COLLIERVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH A LIST OF DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON JAMIE GROSS, OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR. AS FOR THE PRESENTATION, THANK YOU, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS THE THIRD AND FINAL READING. I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE WHOLE PRESENTATION THAT WE DID AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL JUST SUM UP SOME OF THE THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE SECOND READING. BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I WANTED TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE'VE RECEIVED SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS.

SO THOSE WERE EMAILED OUT AND PUT AT YOUR CHAIR, AND THOSE WOULD BE EXHIBITS FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN TO TO THE REPORT. SO SOME SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND IF YOU NEED US TO EXPAND UPON THOSE, WE'RE WE'RE PLEASED TO DO THAT, BUT WANTED TO ALSO MENTION ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THE COVER ORDINANCE. IT SAYS IT DOESN'T APPLY. NONE OF THESE CHANGES WOULD APPLY TO A PENDING APPLICATION. SO I KNOW THERE'S AT LEAST ONE COFFEE SHOP THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW THAT THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO. AND IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THERE ARE SOME PROTECTIONS FOR PROPERTIES UNDER STATE LAW. THEY WE CALL IT VESTING. THERE WERE SOME LAWS ADOPTED IN 2015 FOR PROJECTS THAT GET APPROVED. THEY MIGHT HAVE A LARGER PLAN APPROVED. THEY MAY INVEST IN THE PROPERTY AND START CONSTRUCTION. AND IF THEY ARE A VESTED PROPERTY, SOME OF THESE STANDARDS MAY NOT APPLY EITHER. BUT THAT'S A PRETTY GRANULAR ANALYSIS. WE ALMOST HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND SITE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES IN TOWN THAT THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO, BUT THERE ARE PLENTY THAT WOULD VACANT PROPERTIES, PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE A PLAN APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY.

THESE THESE STANDARDS COULD COULD APPLY TO. SO WITH THAT PREFACE, THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD READING TO TRY TO ADDRESS COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND ALSO A WORK SESSION THAT YOU HAD ON APRIL 30TH CAN BE SUMMARIZED IN THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ONE IS WE CHANGE THE APPROACH TO THE DRIVE THROUGH REGULATIONS AND THE ORIGINAL OR THE SECOND READING VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE. WE WERE APPLYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE DRY CLEANERS OR DRUGSTORES AND PHARMACIES THAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH. AND SO WE'VE PARED THAT BACK. AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT WILL ONLY APPLY TO COFFEE SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS, AND WOULD NOT APPLY TO OTHER USES UNLESS, FOR SOME REASON, THEY ALREADY HAD A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS REQUIRED. SO THAT WAS ONE CHANGE. ANOTHER IS THE THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE HAD SITE CIRCULATION STANDARDS IN THE CONDITIONAL USE SECTION, AND WE'VE MOVED THAT TO THE TO A SECTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL SITES THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. AND SO IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT MAYBE IF THERE IS A DRY CLEANER THAT THAT ADDS A DRIVE THROUGH THESE STANDARDS WOULD HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AMPLE STACKING AND THAT THEY WOULDN'T BACK CARS OUT INTO THE STREET.

AND THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY OR WOULD NOT BE REVIEWED TO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, UNLESS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS REQUIRED TO SOME OTHER STANDARD.

THE SECOND AREA HAD TO DO WITH PROCESSES AND DECISIONS AND HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE. WE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN DELETED. SO THE VERSION THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU DOES NOT ADD ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. WE ALSO REVISITED THE TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS AND WHEN, WHEN WE GET THE DRAFT STUDY AND WHEN WE GET THE WE'LL GET THE FINAL STUDY AND THE, THE SECOND VERSION, SECOND READING VERSION SAID THAT WE WOULD NEED THE FINAL VERSION OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, AND IT'S BEEN CHANGED TO, SAY, THE DRAFT VERSION OF THE STUDY IS NEEDED 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE. BUT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE STUDY WOULD BE NEEDED WITH A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, SO THAT THAT REDUCES SOME OF THE TIME FRAME. AND ALSO WE ADDED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND ADDED SOME LANGUAGE TO SAY AN INACTIVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXPIRE BETWEEN 3 TO 5 YEARS.

TRACKING ALONG WITH THE STATE VOTING LAWS. BUT BY INACTIVE, I MEAN THEY MAYBE HAVE A PLAN APPROVED AND THEY'VE HAD THEY'VE DONE NOTHING. NO, THERE ARE NO PLANS APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S THAT'S OCCURRED ON THE PROPERTY. AND SO IT WOULD THOSE PLANS WOULD THOSE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE AFTER 3 TO 5 YEARS, DEPENDING ON WHAT LEVEL OF WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE THIRD AND FINAL CHANGE RELATES TO EMERGING TRENDS. AT THE WORK SESSION, WE DISCUSSED COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY AND HOW HOW THERE'S AN INTEREST TO BRING THAT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THE BOARD EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN WITH THAT. SO WE ADDED LANGUAGE SAYING THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL SITE THAT WOULD A RETAILER THAT WOULD DO THAT, OR

[00:50:04]

EVEN IF IT WAS WITHIN OUR AIRSPACE, MAYBE AN ADJACENT COMMUNITY PROVIDES THAT SERVICE, THAT THAT DRONES WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO COME INTO THE TOWN OF COLLIERVILLE. SO LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO TO ADDRESS THAT. SO IF THE THE RECOMMENDATION IS STILL TO APPROVE THESE, THESE CHANGES WITH WITH THESE REVISIONS AND THAT SOME OF THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE THE THE ORDINANCE WOULD WOULD BE TODAY. AND WE WOULD REVISE CHECKLISTS AND FORMS TO TRY TO PUT INTO PLACE LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENT AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES TONIGHT. AND THERE'S THE PROPOSED MOTION ON YOUR SCREEN. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. GROSS. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF, VICE MAYOR, JUST JUST A POINT FOR CLARIFICATION. IT SAYS INACTIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS TO EXPIRE. SO WITHIN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED AND TO SAY THEIR OWN PHASE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT TAKING 30 YEARS TO DO IT. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THEM AT ALL. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THEM. OKAY, OKAY. JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION. QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN YOU SAY 3 TO 5 YEARS, IF IT'S BEEN ACTIVE, HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHETHER IT'S THREE YEARS OR FIVE YEARS? THE TO USE SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY IN THE, IN THE VESTING LAW THAT TALKS ABOUT A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEN A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO LET'S SAY THAT THEY GET THE PRELIMINARY THEY GET THE PD APPROVED AND THEY MIGHT THEIR TIMELINE WOULD BE THREE YEARS. LET'S SAY THAT THEY SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BUILD ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THAT PLUS ACTUALLY STARTING WORK ON THAT. SOME SITE PREPARATION COULD BUY THEM TWO MORE YEARS. BUT AFTER THAT FIFTH YEAR, THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY DO REAL CONSTRUCTION, PUT WATER AND SEWER PIPES IN THE GROUND, DO VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION, BUILD IN RELIANCE UPON THOSE PLANS. SO THOSE, THOSE ARE KIND OF THE MILESTONES IN THERE. SO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO, DO REAL WORK. BUT IF THEY DO NO WORK, IT COULD EXPIRE AFTER THREE, THREE YEARS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I DO HAVE TWO CITIZEN COMMENT CARDS. IF WE'LL LISTEN, WE'LL HAVE THEM COME UP. THE FIRST CARD IS STEVEN WILLIAMS. MR. WILLIAMS, DO YOU REMEMBER THE RULES? THANK YOU. YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, MARGARET STEVEN WILLIAMS, 185 VALLEY VIEW COVE, HERE IN COLLIERVILLE AND BOARD. I'M. I OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE THE TIME THAT I HAD LAST TIME. YOU STILL HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME AND SMILE ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, FOR THOSE IN THE ROOM WHO DON'T KNOW, I AM THE MOUTHPIECE THAT DEFERRED YOU GUYS. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY, WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME, YOU DID A WORK SESSION, YOU WORKED WITH ME BECAUSE IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ASKED OF ME. HOW DID IT GO? WHAT DID THEY SAY? WHAT WERE THEIR THOUGHTS? WHAT WERE THE DRIVERS BEHIND SOME OF THESE THINGS? AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU. I THINK WE'RE AT A GOOD SPOT IN CARNIVAL THAT THE BOARD AND DEVELOPERS AND CITIZENS CAN ALL COME TOGETHER AND WORK ON THESE ORDINANCES FOR THE BETTER OF EVERYONE. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME EXHIBITS THAT YOU HAVE OF OTHER DEVELOPERS. I'M EVEN COMING TO YOU AS A CITIZEN, NOT A DEVELOPER. THAT STILL EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN OVER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE DRIVE THROUGH, JUST IN THE THE REALM OF NOT NECESSARILY TRAFFIC, BUT, YOU KNOW, DOES IT DISCOURAGE MORE BUSINESS FROM COMING TO TOWN? AND I WON'T LIE TO YOU, WE HAVE THOSE CONCERNS AS WELL. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN PERSONALLY DO TO HELP WORK ON ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO CONTACT ME. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU TO STAFF AND THIS BOARD. SO THAT'S IT. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. WILLIAMS. THE NEXT COMMENT CARD IS MARK ALLEN. MR. ALLEN, YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. AND YOU DO HAVE THREE MINUTES. FIRST, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS ABOUT A SWIMMING POOL. IS THAT PART OF THIS ORDINANCE? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SWIMMING POOL IS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE. MR. ROSE. YES, YES, YES, THERE IS A SECTION FOR SWIMMING POOLS. MY NAME IS MARK ALLEN. 177 NORTH CROSS PLACE WEST. I AM THE OWNER OF MID-SOUTH PERFECT POOLS. WE INSTALL FIBERGLASS SWIMMING POOLS THROUGHOUT SHELBY COUNTY, INCLUDING MANY RIGHT HERE IN COLLIERVILLE. I AM BOTH A COLLIERVILLE RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNER WHO HAS INTENTIONALLY CHOSEN TO PUT MY BUSINESS HERE. I TRULY ENJOY BUILDING POOLS HERE IN COLLIERVILLE AND SERVING ITS RESIDENTS. HOWEVER, THIS MORNING I BECAME AWARE OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT. SPECIFICALLY, REQUIREMENT FOUND IN EXHIBIT FOUR, ITEM 22 WHICH STATES SWIMMING POOL PERMIT APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A PLOT PLAN OF THE LOT PREPARED BY A TENNESSEE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SEAL SIGNED AND DATED THAT DEPICTS ALL STRUCTURES ON THE PREMISES SETBACKS, EASEMENTS, ANY FLOOD HAZARD ZONES ON THE PROPERTY REQUIRED FENCING, UTILITIES, STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE FEATURES SUCH AS SWALES, HARDSCAPE FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, POOL DECK