- I'm going to call this work session to order. Katz, are you ready? Sorry. TSD, are you ready?
- Thank you. Sorry. I'm going to call this work session to order. It is January 15th, 2026. And we will
- begin. I'm going to make a motion to approve an addendum to the Anthem Stop Loss Agreement. Can I get
- a second? Yes, I will second that motion.
- I was just looking good afternoon I think it is yeah so this is an amendment to the stop loss agreement
- so stop loss is the like a separate insurance that we have that helps us control
- cost for high claims on our insurance plan. And so this, and I will tell you, I'm gonna fumble through
- this as best I can, because this is the first time I am experiencing whatever this.
- reduction in commission situation is, but my understanding after talking with Apex yesterday about it
- is that it's a reduction to the commission that they receive for being the third party administrator
- of our self-insured plan. So it's going from, and I think that that commission is typically between
- one and 15%. Ours is going from 15% down to 10%, which basically just lowers the premium for the stop
- loss insurance.
- if you need more than that. Don't ask. Do you have any questions? I don't have any questions, actually.
- It makes a lot of sense and anything that reduces our costs is a win-win. Let's see if there's any public
- comment on this item. Can you raise your hand on teams or come to the podium?
- Well, let me say it this way. It's not going to impact employees at all. Nope. There you go. All right.
- I don't see any public comment. All those in favor of approving the Anthem Addendum for the Stop Loss
- Agreement signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries 2-0. Thank you. All right. All right. So do you
- mind if we go ahead and do planning next?
- Is that okay with everyone? Great. Richard has something too, right? I don't think it's on there. It's
- not on here. Yeah. It was added late last night. Okay. So we'll do that next. Yeah. Is that okay?
- All right. Thank you.
- Good afternoon. So this is just a work session item. This will come back at the regular meeting at a
- date that you all would agree to. This is a preview of ordinance 2026-01. This is an amendment to the
- county development ordinance regarding the sliding scale subdivision. And this amendment came out of
- the county development ordinance hearings. It was tabled as item number one due to its
- amount of times it came up by the public and there was a discussion by the Plan Commission to review
- this after the adoption. So they kept the CDO the same primarily as what it was as the prior ordinance
- and then this text amendment was to discuss if there were going to be changes specifically to the 25-year
- reservation of the parent parcel.
- Text that you have before you in the packet was forwarded by the plan commission by a vote of five to
- four on December 18th, 2025. And this text amendment has been discussed at length. I have in here a
- cover sheet for you all. I'll update the date on here since this will be heard at a later date at the
- regular session.
- But I just want to point out that the Ordinance Review Committee, the Planning Commission Administrative,
- and the Planning Commission Regular, they have all heard this several times. So it's not for lack of
- discussion that we are here today.
- So I do have some key takeaways that are in the cover sheet just in regards to the Ordinance Review
- Committee. It had a little bit of an interesting timeline on it, whereas it went to the Plan Commission
- and was sent back to the Ordinance Review Committee and then sent back to the Plan Commission. So that's
- why there's a little bit of back and forth on those key dates.
- but the text amendment itself is listed as exhibit one. And the majority of the amendment has to deal
- with the addition of photos of the examples of subdivisions that we have in the county development ordinance,
- as well as some additions to the purpose statement, and then also a reference to the original ordinance
- that created the sliding scale. So I'll walk through just the red text
- that is being added to the amendment. So first one is an example of a minor subdivision, four lots or
- less in a rural area, and each of these lots are 10 acres or greater because they're connected to a
- septic system. The next example is a minor subdivision, same subdivision type, but this one is connected
- to a sewer system, so they're able to meet a smaller minimum lot size that fits the zoning district.
- And then we have an example of a sliding scale subdivision, which is only available in the rural area
- zones. And it's an example where you have the parent parcel that equals the 55% or greater, which would
- be subject to the 25 year reservation without being able to be resubdivided for that time period in
- return for the creation of three lots that are two and a half acres in size exactly here with a septic system.
- And then I have an example just on the screen of a major subdivision. This is area that's connected
- with sewer. We do have major subdivisions in the county and this is just an example of one. So the two
- text changes to the purpose statement came out of discussions by the ordinance review committee and
- the plan commission regarding why we
- have the sliding scale option. So number seven, we added to allow the flexibility to create smaller
- residential lots served by private sewage disposal systems, i.e. septics, while also preserving a majority
- of the track for agricultural conservation purposes. And eight, the black text is existing, the red
- text is new, so permit development in rural areas that will not overburden existing infrastructure and
- services and not adversely impact low traffic
- roadways, police and fire coverage, emergency service response times, and other governmental services.
- And then at the end of the section that's being edited, there's the section about the designated parent
- parcel remainder shall not be further subdivided for a period of 25 years. That is not changing, but
- we did add after as a matter of legislative policy in parentheses ordinance 2015-02, which is in the
- packet and is the original
- commissioners that created the science scale option under the prior ordinance. And that summarizes the
- text changes for this one. Thank you so much. I will just add a couple things, if I might, as somebody
- who's been through this process. I think a lot of the reason that
- this question kept coming up about the moratorium was because somehow there was a conflation and then
- it was publicized and then repeated of the 25-year moratorium and somehow that relates to everything
- in planning, and it does not. It's just the sliding scale. And so I think that's the reason why this
- was a hot topic, as it were. And so we still pursued it to look at it.
- I think that there are questions about this is like another option. And what I like about the way this
- is written now is that it clearly outlines what the options are, which we didn't have before. And I
- think that's a real benefit to the residents. Here's what a minor looks like. Here's what a major looks like.
- Here's what a sliding scale looks like. So that they see it all in one place. And so I think that's
- the benefit here to revising the sliding scale ordinance is providing that information. So do you have
- questions or comments? No. OK. So when do you want to hear this? Do you want to wait till the 29th?
- I think we can. Do you want to wait until next? Do you want to do this? We can do it any time, I think.
- OK. Can we do this on the 29th of January? That should work. That will work for us. Thank you so much.
- All right. Appreciate it. In the meantime, if we have questions, we'll reach out to you. That's good.
- All right. Thank you. I've already asked my questions 100 times. I did all of it, so. Yeah, yeah. OK, so.
- Mr. Crider, what do you have for us? Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for working this in.
- As Ms. Purdy mentioned, I didn't receive all the necessary information until late yesterday afternoon.
- This is an election central renovation change order. This is change order number two for concrete slab repair.
- Strouser Construction Company at Showers North. This is election central. And when we began the project
- and evaluating the space, it was full of meeting rooms, offices, suites, walls, cubicles, and you couldn't
- really, the floor all looked level and flat.
- However, during the demolition process, they uncovered many areas of the floor that will require leveling.
- And so I am requesting approval of a change order to repair damaged concrete subfloor areas uncovered
- during demolition using a floor leveling compound. These conditions were not visible prior to demo and
- must be corrected to provide a smooth, stable, and level substrate for the new flooring system.
- Completing this work will also allow the installation to fall within the flooring manufacturer's warranty
- specifications, which is very important. Yes. Okay, so this is a change order. Yes. And what is the
- total amount? I didn't tell you the dollar amount. $30,332. And what fund is this being paid out of?
- 20-25 G.O. Bond. G.O. Bond, 4820, Showers Building Repair. Great. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and
- make a motion to accept this change order with Strouser for $30,332. It's fund number 4820 for the 20-25 G.O.
- Bond. I can second that. Thank you. And we do obviously have the funding to cover this. Yes.
- Excellent. All right. Any public comment on this item? You raise your hand in teams, you come to the
- podium. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the change order for Strouser construction signify
- by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries 3-0. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So we've been, we were supposed to have
- we're going to have a conversation with Council, and they're not. Coming today, and so we're just waiting
- for Mr King. Um but in the meantime, um, since we're on the topic of. All things related to.
- Justice Center. Um. Mr Cockrell. Can you? Provide some information for the
- I'll do my best. I think the reason he wrote the letter was that in 2008-2009, the county was sued for
- our jail for an unconstitutional level of care claim. And so as part of that process, we had an agreed
- order. And that agreed order lasted a period of time. I think it was a year. But in any event, it wasn't until
- it was a short period of time. And we've extended that on an annual basis, probably for the last 15
- years or so at least. And in 2019, he added something to the agreed order in order for him to agree
- to it, which was we have to do these jail studies because he did not believe that our current facility
- was getting better and that we were doing a good job. And so we did that.
- We had some reports, and then we did another study. That study was done by Ken Ray, and then we also
- had an attorney group out of Washington, D.C. that had some justice attorneys who had dealt with these
- kind of issues through that lens, put together a complimentary report about our assets in the community.
- And so then after that, we had RQAW do a second study of our facility to kind of
- look at it and confirm that the building was not being able to meet the level of care that we required
- and the inability to expand that current facility to meet some of those, or to meet those requirements.
- And so essentially what Mr. Falk's letter does is sum all that up. He went through those reports, he
- pulled out the areas that they found were in compliance,
- we're not in compliance with the level of cares and the things that our experts had said, hey, here
- are things that need to be remediated. Here are the problems with our current facility. And the second
- part, I want to be clear that he's not saying we violated the current agreed judgment because our current
- agreed judgment revolves a lot around population numbers and
- that's actually a capacity functional capacity is different and that it is important because of how
- we classify people and make sure that people are. Classified in a way in our house in a way that that
- maintain safety and meets a a level of care right and so.
- The standard of that, kind of the rule of thumb is 80%. I know our people would argue that might be
- high for this facility given how it's designed, but the general national standard is between 80 and
- 85%. And so he points out the days over the last few weeks before he wrote that letter that showed when
- our male population was out of that 80% functional capacity. So that's essentially what his letter
- that he was willing to extend the current agreement just for another 90 days, and I think that had a
- lot to do with how he has to give notice to his clients, which is a class. It's a class action case,
- and the class is all those individuals who are currently housed in the jail and basically all the ones
- that were housed in the jail during the period of this litigation, which again goes back to 2008-2009.
- this lawsuit goes away, that class goes away, and so then we are exposed to new claims from individuals
- that are either currently or would be part of that class if this was extended, but we would be subject
- to new claims and I'm
- I don't want to comment on what those claims would be or how we would handle them for obvious reasons,
- right? So that's essentially what the letter states is that, you know, we've held on and he's been fairly,
- I think starting in 2019, he was basically fairly clear that, you know, he did not think that their
- goal of this agreed order was being met at the time. He felt that we were using the population caps as a
- crutch in order to not, uh, create a new facility. I think he said a couple of meetings in the last
- few years, you know, essentially you guys all know that this facility is not adequate. You know, why
- don't you guys just take care of it? You know, this should be your community decision. It shouldn't
- be left to the courts. I mean, you guys, you guys know what the right thing to do is that that was,
- that was what he was stating in summary.
- and paraphrasing at those meetings. And so that's kind of where we're at. I think he left the door open
- that if we did come as a county and had a viable path forward and could demonstrate that we were actively
- working towards that, that he would revisit that decision. But he would have to be convinced in time
- that we could agree to extend it
- to April 15th because that's when this ends. And so that's kind of what, in summary, all the letter
- and the interactions with Mr. Faulk in the last couple of weeks has indicated. Do you have any questions?
- A thousand, but I will. Commissioner, do you already have questions? I don't. Okay, so is Molly in earlier?
- I just received a note that she's
- So I'll go backtrack a little bit here and after the council. So in 2024. The council agreed to a purchase
- agreement for North Park and then in 2025. When we actually
- At that point in November, we asked five questions. The first about constitutional care and safety standards.
- Do you believe our current facility is meeting constitutional care requirements and providing the safest
- possible working environment for Monroe County jail personnel? And our answer to that is no, we are
- not meeting constitutional care and it's not safe for our staff.
- The second question, so we've answered that question, right? Our community values alignment, are the
- accommodations in the jail consistent with our community's values regarding humane treatment
- and rehabilitation opportunities? And our answer to that is no, because we can do so much better. We
- have one room allocated for all of the programming
- which is ridiculous to say the least. There's insufficient care for mental health and substance use
- disorder. We just don't have the space. And we all know that building is not in great shape. Renovation
- feasibility, speaking of the building not being in great shape, given the completed studies by RJS and
- RQAW, do you agree the current facility cannot be renovated to be made larger or to meet constitutional
- requirements?
- we agree that we cannot renovate that facility. So then we get to the questions for the county council
- and and I will tell you our answers are very clear because we came back in October of 25 with the North
- Park purchase with DLZ having completed design work and we're getting that number for how much
- money was spent specifically designing for that space based on the council's approval the year before.
- We believe there has to be co-location and we believe that a single floor facility is safest and we
- believe the best place to do this is at the North Park property that the council agreed in 2024 we should
- purchase. That's where we left it off. So the council's questions are
- Is the new jail one or multiple floors? Should this be co-located with the remainder of the justice
- departments, prosecutor, public defender, et cetera, clerk? Should that co-location, if it's co-located,
- should it be phased or not phased? Or is there no co-location? And then where? We answered that question because
- We've done the work. We used DLZs, studies and information all the way along. We looked at Fullerton.
- We considered Hopewell. We looked at Vernal Pike. Obviously, we looked at North Park. We've been looking
- at locations. Thompson, we did that too. We looked at all of this. And so having looked at all of this,
- ah, having looked at all of this,
- We came to the conclusion that North Park is the best site to build. Now, so DLZ spent of the approximately
- $8 million they have expended so far, some of that was related to, oh, check out this property, check
- out Fullerton, check out Vernal Pike, et cetera, Thompson. Some of it was that. Some of it was programmatic,
- which you're going to have to do no matter where you go. How much space does each department need?
- that taking out that out of the $8 million. More than half of that $8 million was spent to design for
- North Park based on the council request in 2024. So now we've blown through another $4 million. And
- we can't use that design if we're not locating there. But where are we locating? And I keep hearing
- You know, here's a site, here's a place. They're small properties, which would tend to indicate multiple
- story facilities. But even then, they might be too small. We know that those aren't safe. Mr. Falk says
- that in his letter. We're just kind of stuck. We just would like these answers. And so Ms. Turner-King
- is here. And I don't know if you want to offer any insight
- because council could not be here. Well, it was last week and we moved it to this week because it was
- just me last week, but yeah. As far as the Council's answers to those questions, I don't think I can
- offer any insight. I do think their proposal is a joint session and I. They can do it. You would like
- to schedule that we couldn't coordinate it between the two offices and talk thereafter.
- And I could see a benefit to having a joint session, but really, I don't really have anything else to
- offer if we've done the work. We have the answers as a board of commissioners with the sheriff. We need
- to replace the jail. Here's the best place. Here's the design. Take out the whole state shenanigans
- because that impacts
- how we proceed, it doesn't impact where and if. But right now we are seeing no, we're seeing a lot of,
- we're seeing the no, the answer is no. Okay, well then what is the yes? Where are we at? But I don't,
- I feel like we've done the work and I don't, so I could see having a joint meeting, but I don't know that
- I guess it's to receive this information. If they want to talk through those five questions and give
- us the answers at that meeting, we can certainly meet with them. But I'm just kind of a little puzzled.
- I don't know what your thoughts are. Yeah, I think we're kind of in a tough situation because we heard
- last week that we're unlikely to receive special legislation.
- at this point. And we're kind of stymied. We don't know what relief will be forthcoming from the legislature.
- And we're kind of caught in a chicken and egg situation at this point because we don't know what relief
- will be coming in terms of bonding. We don't know what our ability to purchase will be at this point.
- And my personal feelings is that this should always be a values question first. And we're building for
- the next 50 years. And we don't want to shortchange.
- what, number one, our staff, and number two, the people who will be housed in this facility. And so
- none of them should be shortchanged. And so we shouldn't compromise on the values that have always and
- should always drive this decision. So my feeling is that this should be a one-story facility because
- that's safer. But we have a number of questions that we should answer. First of all, should the current
- facility be one-story or multi-story?
- the question is, can we rehabilitate the current justice center in any sense, right? Not only as a jail,
- but for any purpose whatsoever, even if we take it down to studs, that's a question that I think a number
- of people in the community have. And that's a question I think that should be comprehensively answered,
- because it has not been answered to a number of people's satisfaction in the community. And so I think
- that we, maybe an evening meeting that is a joint meeting could be productive,
- we all have to come to that meeting with definitive commitments and answers. And so in a willingness
- to be open to new solutions. But we have to, I think, move forward on this question because we don't
- have much time left. Yeah, we are running out of time. And I think the sad thing is we run out of time
- is that any authority
- on location, size, number of beds for the facility are no longer in our hands. And that to me is an
- abdication of responsibility that shouldn't happen. And I worry for the community because even just deciding
- Okay, well, we'll build the jail phase one, and then we'll do the rest of the justice center phase two.
- Even that decision is a $20 million decision. Now, we've already spent over $4 million designing. Some
- of that will have to be redesigned to make it a two-phase project. Okay, that may be the legislature's fault,
- You know, we have to take our responsibility here. We've made the hard decisions. We have studies that
- demonstrate that that building cannot be renovated. So I'd hate to go over old turf because those studies
- are out there. They've both been done. Nobody's questioned anything they've said. You can't create space
- where there isn't space. You can't build up.
- And to assume that building a jail somewhere, even if we said, hey, we're going to go multi-floor, which
- goes against everything the experts recommend, but even if we were to do that, we still have a justice
- building that needs to be replaced. So where do all those folks work?
- because that building is in terrible shape. And I think that building is a key example of what happens
- when you try to do it cheap and fast, because that's what they did. They didn't have a choice. I'm not
- blaming the county government of the 1980s. But I will say that they were under the gun. They had to
- build something. They built it as fast as they could.
- And it turns out that this was, what, the second project that that builder had ever done that was a
- jail. Yes, exactly. But hey, they got it done. And it worked for a while. It's just so that building
- is so terrible. And the way it's built is so terrible. We know better now. We have the information.
- We have the technology. We know better.
- Yeah, so I. So I'm I am fine with having a joint meeting, but I but I don't know. I think at this point
- I would ask the council to tell us what they plan to do. I don't. We've tried to give a path based on
- their input based on all of we've worked at this for months and months and months and months. October 24.
- And I said, hey, yeah, let's do this purchase agreement for North Park. A year later, $4.2 million later,
- we're ready with a design, and the council says no. And now we're supposed to come up with an answer?
- I feel like we had the answer. And I'm open to hear what other ideas there are out there, but I am not
- willing to
- to make this a facility that's less safe for our employees, for the people who are housed there. I'm
- not willing to do that to save a few bucks or to make it in the city or whatever becomes the most important
- thing. I just can't. I just can't. So it's the values thing. I agree with you. It's the values thing.
- But I feel like we've had the answer. We cannot renovate.
- are they on board with that? Are there some folks on the council who think we can somehow renovate that
- building? I don't know how to get them past that if that is a firmly held belief. It's very difficult.
- We'll work with
- council office and set up, and it's not on the night of a council meeting. It has to be a different
- night. It can't be a Tuesday night period because planning is the other two Tuesdays. So yes, if you're
- okay with that, Ms. Purdy, would you try to book something in for an evening? And what does that mean?
- Do you like 5.30 or 6.00 or 7.00 or anything? Okay.
- I would agree. And I just would agree that we have to be. And I think, unfortunately, we're running
- out of all the qualities that we need for this process, which includes time and patience and respect
- and collegiality. And so those are all really in short supply right now. And we all really need a greater
- quantity of those than we have. The other thing, too, is I can't
- I compare this process to a situation where you have a very important job interview or some other.
- you have to attend some other important event you have to attend, and you really need to dress up, and
- your outfit really matters. And on the day of, you wake up late, and the power's out, and it turns out
- that everything goes wrong. The outfit you laid out is entirely wrong, and you have mismatching socks
- and your shoes. You put on the wrong pair, and you come in, and it turns out nothing matches, and you're,
- you know, two different socks and two different shoes,
- And everything's a muddle. And best of intentions aside, you botch it. And it just seems that with all
- the planning and all the preparation we've done, we should have done a better job. And it seems that
- we're in this situation because of SB1. And we would have been much farther down the road, but for SB1.
- that we could have done better along the road, but, you know, again, I just throw the wrench in their
- court, and I think, again, this starts and ends with them in the legislature, and, again, we're not
- the only county that faces these obstacles, but it is very, very difficult to work and function under
- these conditions. It is, but I also
- I want to be careful when we have so this is going to be a joint work session so we wouldn't take public
- comment. We will send out the agenda. We'll do the agenda. So I'm just kind of giving Angie instructions
- here. So, um, but I don't. Yes, I want to lay this at Senate Bill one's feet and the state Legislature,
- because certainly they made life a lot more difficult for a lot of people. Not just in this community,
- but across the state agree, but
- But the answer to that would have been last October for the council to vote to say, let's postpone this
- until we have a legislative answer. Let's postpone this purchase agreement. Can we get this extended?
- And let's postpone it. But that wasn't the answer. The answer was, I want it in the city. I want multiple
- floors. I don't want that size. I like that size. We heard all kinds of bits of information about why
- people didn't like
- North Park, the design, et cetera. So if that is the reason, then let's do that. Let's tell the legislature,
- look, we want to proceed. Here's the purchase agreement. We're waiting on the legislature. Let's extend
- this purchase agreement. But that's not what they did. They said no for various reasons, which is fine.
- Where have you been? We pursued this $4 million design starting in October of 24 because y'all agreed
- to that purchase agreement. It's mind-blowing. I don't get it. So I'm happy to have that work session,
- joint work session,
- We'll send out the agenda. The agenda is going to be those five questions. And it's on our website right
- now under our thing. So hey, if you want to look at the five questions that are going to be on the agenda,
- that's it. I just don't know what else to do. I just don't know what. I feel like we've done everything.
- We have done everything. We have followed guidance from the council and the sheriff and all
- of the departments and all of the professionals involved in design.
- to bring us to this point. And it's just really hard because I see this future where someone else is
- going to pick the outfit that you're going to wear to the job interview. And that's a terrible abdication
- of responsibility. That's terrible. Personally, I think that's a horrible thing. The community deserves
- better. And it's hard to make these decisions. And we struggled all along the way.
- to make all of these decisions. And I will certainly not be a person who goes, this North Park design
- is perfect. It is not perfect. We had to sacrifice and make cuts and give up. And departments had to
- make cuts in their square footage. And the judges didn't get individual kitchenettes. I mean, the list
- goes on and on. But it's not perfect because we are constrained by the tax rate, by the lit.
- And now we have more constraints. But I wonder if we could approach this issue in this joint work session
- as let's not even think about what the state's done. Let's talk about what we're going to do. What would
- we want to do? Let's say there isn't an issue with the state. Because if we can send them a strong signal,
- they may help us. But time is short.
- to hear that message. And if the issue is that different council if North Park if the council wants
- to send a message and communicate to us that North Park is dead and they want to revisit other options,
- then that is a very good opportunity for us to hear that message and us to hear what those other options
- are. But the problem is. We
- This is what we're down to after all of that research. This is what we're down to. And it's frustrating.
- It's frustrating. Yeah, if they want to say North Park is dead, then they are essentially abdicating
- responsibility for finding a location to some judge somewhere, potentially. Because I don't know where
- that location is. I don't. I don't know where that is.
- And I don't, yeah. I just don't. Maybe another county. I don't know. They make it sound like, well,
- you just have to look. Well, yeah, every time you look, there's new lots for sale or somebody throwing
- out something saying, hey, we could do it here. But they're so small. And if you really want a multi-floor
- jail, you're going to spend another
- 4 million plus in design, plus you're going to be hearing from DLZ all along the way that this isn't
- a safe facility. And I know there are multi-floor jails all around the country, but typically they're
- in urban areas. And they're older facilities, much older facilities. Mr. Cockrell, sorry. I would say
- the other thing, and I think everything you said was well said, right?
- point I would make is that when we're dealing with, you know, there's a difference between a single
- cell or a single story and a multi-story. There's also going to be some kind of operational cost difference
- between co-location and not co-location, right? And so, you know, if we don't want a co-located facility,
- you know, what are those kind of things? I mean, it's the questions that I think you read off. The answers
- to those lead to different sets of questions. They don't lead to a
- Here's what we're going to do. It leads to, well, if we're not going to co-locate, then how are we going
- to deal with transport of inmates? What do we have to do with the current facility for transport of
- inmates? What do we have to do in the new facility? So it's a process that we were, with the DLC, had
- gone through a lot of those under a basic set of assumptions. And if those assumptions change, we've
- got to re-look at them.
- not saying we can't, not saying there's not a viable solution out there, nothing like that. It's just
- those questions beg more questions. Right, right. But if we're going to come back to, oh, you should
- try Fullerton Pike, it's like, we spent a year going through the planning process with the city to be
- told no. It's actually farther from right here than North Park is. Why would we do that? So there are
- some things I would say
- on the table because we've already done the work. I don't know. I'm trying to be open-minded about this,
- and I'm trying to, but I just don't. I just worry that if somebody says, hey, here's property X, let
- me just say it this way.
- Somebody says, hey, here's property X. We never, it was never available. We didn't know about it. It
- wasn't for sale, whatever. By the time we even get ready to look at a purchase agreement, it's going
- to be after April 15th. Honestly, I mean, we've, we've lost avenues of. There are going to be so many
- contingencies in that agreement that it would be contingent of on
- Yeah. Environmental, you know, which are, you know, basically if you get to the point where you have
- a purchase agreement with all those contingencies in it, you're after April 19th before you're going
- to know what the answer to those contingencies are. Probably even longer than that because depending
- on where it is and depending on how it's zoned. Well, I mean, everything in the city of limits is going
- to probably require
- the same process that we did with Fullerton. I want to say there may be one parcel or one area, and
- I'm going back my memory, four years, that was big enough and zoned appropriately. My memory is it had
- all kinds of topography issues. But there was maybe one where you could just go and go ask for the variance.
- If everything else worked out on that property, we didn't look at it because I think there were huge
- issues with the property that weren't like that.
- So just to get through all that process is going to be longer than 90 days. Yeah. Yeah. That's my worry.
- I'm kind of, oh, look, here's this great property. But now we still have, I don't know. Angie, do you
- have thoughts on this? You were going to say something earlier, I thought. No. OK. Yeah, I don't have anything.
- One thing I was going to say is that, you know, this whole event, if you will, with the council not
- approving the additional appropriation for the purchase of the property, you hit on it with, you know,
- they could have said pause as opposed to absolutely no. That was not a Senate Bill 1 issue. The purchase
- of the property, we have the money.
- that was not a legislative issue. And so I just want to make sure that that's that's a good question.
- Yeah, that was not a legislative issue. Yeah. But building but building was definitely and I would just
- I think maybe we need to talk about this. With the council without that issue, because. You know, we're
- either going to talk it to death, and then we're going to be in
- or who knows? So let's take that off the table because we've missed opportunities. But let's take that
- off the table and just look at here are the five questions, where are we at? Because all we heard was
- a no, not here's what. But at the same time, I don't want us to spend money with DLZ
- doing another property investigation when they've already done it, like Fullerton or Vernal Pike. We've
- been there. We've done that. So I don't want to redo the work we've already done because the outcome's
- the same. And so I think we do have those questions. And I think we'll get the agenda out once we have
- a date set. OK. So doodle poll, whatever. Great. Thank you. Anything else on this?
- That's just, yeah, don't understand. I don't understand. And the fact that some counselors seem to be
- angry with us for doing something, I don't understand that. And I hope that's not the case, but that's
- what I keep hearing and feeling. And there's no, yeah, no reason for that. So all right.
- We have the other item on the agenda. The council's not here. They asked for a BEDC appropriation of
- some sort. Ms. Turner-King, do you have information on this?
- the only information I have on the BTC resolution is that the full council did vote on I think it was
- the last meeting in December, maybe December 13th to in support of the resolution. There was a similar
- resolution pledged in the previous year. And so I think this is just a similar practice to what they've
- done in the past. And this is not for membership. So
- In the past, we've asked for a report on how the money was spent. And I don't believe we've received
- any report from the BEDC. So maybe if you could ask maybe Mr. Cockrell, if you could ask Mr. Griner
- to provide a report of some, I mean, we don't even know what this is for. I mean, there was a great
- deal of sweat equity poured into an hours long discussion about
- I don't know. I don't know if I can pay for. Judges clerks this past Tuesday and. Yet Oh, here's 30,000.
- I don't get it. But I do have a lot of questions like what is it for? What did they do at the last batch?
- What? What's the plan? Um so and I know that that that's not. For you to answer. I don't
- that we can consider this in due course. Um and so I guess we can pose all of our questions. And hope
- at some point that we have more information so that we can consider this in due course. Thank you. Thank
- you so much. Appreciate it. Anything else? I'm missing anything. Angie