12/28/2008 9:27:00 PM Can O' Worms #6 Government In Action - Part Two: Did Somebody Call An Inaudible?
Every once in awhile, the official meeting minutes from the Board of Works are transcribed verbatim. I find these minutes especially entertaining because every vocal utterance is included. It's also fun when everyone in the room is speaking at once. This particular meeting is the one that does not include any mention of the Marion Township Trustee. Keep in mind, the trustee was supposed to have been invited to the meeting. Shouldn't that have been old business? If you don't have enough patience or interest to read the entire document, at least scroll to the bottom and read "new business". Please? Do it for me? I promise you won't be disappointed.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS & SAFETY MEETING MINUTES
November 17, 2008 (Preceded by a brief Public Utility Board Meeting)
Scott Furgeson: November the 17th, uh of course we have the minutes of the uh November 12th meeting.
Don Baumgartner: Make a motion to accept November 12th minutes.
Tim Barrick: And I'll second.
Furgeson: We have a motion and second to accept the minutes. Is there any uh discussion?
Furgeson: Anyone in the public wish to speak to the minutes?
Furgeson: Hearing none, all in favor, say "Aye".
Barrick & Baumgartner: Aye.
Furgeson: And I'll abstain since I was not here, so motion carries 2:0:1. Uh Old Business, oh I'm sorry New Business. Old Business yeah for the Public Utility Board?
Furgeson: New Business for the Public Utility Board?
Furgeson: Motion to adjourn for the Public Utility Board?
Furgeson: All in favor?
In Unison: Aye.
Furgeson: Now let's call to order the Board of Public Works and Safety meeting for November 17th. Of course, we have the minutes of the November 12th meeting.
Baumgartner: Make a motion to accept November 12th minutes.
Furgeson: We have a motion and second for the minutes. Is there any discussion?
Furgeson: Anyone in the public wish to speak to the minutes?
Furgeson: Hearing none, all in favor say "Aye".
Barrick & Baumgartner: Aye.
Furgeson: Those opposed?
Furgeson: I'll abstain, so motion carries uh 2:0:1. Uh we have the claims before us for this week.
Baumgartner: Motion to accept claims.
Barrick: And I'll second.
Furgeson: Motion and seconded to accept claims. Is there any uh discussion?
Furgeson: Anyone in the public wish to speak to the claims?
Furgeson: Hearing none, all in favor, say "Aye".
In Unison: Aye.
Furgeson: ....(inaudible)....Motion carries 3:0. Uh Old Business for the Board of Public Works and Safety?
Tammy Cornelius: Good evening.
Furgeson: Good evening.
Cornelius: Uh we have Old Business. Uh we have uh Darrell Riggs here for 26 & 28 E. Penn and I've talked to Darrell. Uh he has some house there that uh he was going to fix up and that has not come to fruitation. And I have talked to him and he has been trying to advertise to sell the property for the last three weeks. However it's only been through the newspaper. He told me tonight that he's going to talk with a realtor and try and put it on the realtor uh board to see if it can go, so I would like to ask for an extension for 60 days to give him a chance to uh possibly sell this property or in that time period, fix it.
Baumgartner(?): Sixty days?
Baumgartner: Inaudible comment.
(?): Inaudible reply.
Barrick: I'll make a motion to grant a 60 day extension to give uh Mr. Riggs a opportunity to sell that property.
Furgeson: Any uh discussion? Sixty days do you feel is a pretty fair time line with even you know Christmas, Thanksgiving?
(?): I don't know. We can just revisit the issue at that time.
Furgeson: Well I that's what I don't wanna I don't wanna revisit. I'd rather set something that's gonna be firm and we understand that when 60 days are up, we're gonna do something regardless, so....
Furgeson: We understand that you know Christmas and Thanksgiving falls in that 60 day period and we also could end up with snow and bad weather and the whole nine yards, so is that understandable?
(?): Inaudible reply.
Furgeson: Yeah. Well I wanna be clear and on the record that you know we understand that you know in this 60 day period so we don't come back in 60 days and say that you know well with Christmas and Thanksgiving and with bad weather....(inaudible)....
Barrick: Would 90 would 90 days be more appropriate?
(?): Well that would get us through the holidays anyway.
Cornelius: I'll amend to the 60 to 90 days, from 60 to 90.
Barrick: Then I'll I'll rescind....
Furgeson: (?) your second?
Barrick: Inaudible comment.
Furgeson: And you'll remove your motion?
Baumgartner: Inaudible comment.
Barrick: I'll make a motion to uh extend the uh grant the 90 day extension to Mr. Riggs to sell the property, try to sell the property.
Furgeson: We have a motion for 90 days uh understanding that we know the holidays coming up, bad weather is coming on us. We're not picking on you, Mr. Riggs, but you know we've we've heard excuses before, so we wanna make sure we wanna understand all these things when we enter into 'em that people are clear what what our expectations are uh when we do these things. Okay? Uh so is there any further discussion?
Furgeson: Anyone in the public wish to speak?
Furgeson: Hearing none, all in favor, say "Aye".
In Unison: Aye.
Furgeson: Motion carries 3:0. Thank you.
Cornelius: Thank you.
Furgeson: Thank you. Further Old Business?
Tom DeBaun: We have an item of Old Business regarding the mobile home park on Knights-town Road. Um and as we discussed in the pre-meeting, Tammy Cornelius and I have met with uh representatives from the Sundvalls and they had indicated to us this morning that they were owing uh that they were going to remove all the trailers except trailer 20. Their electrical and plumbing contractors came in this morning or this afternoon to pull the permits and it was our understanding that once they pulled the permits and and tore into the trailer to see uh the extent of repairs, then we would be able to report to the board a deadline to have those repairs completed. This evening at the pre-meeting, Mr. Brown, who represents the Sundvalls, indica-ted they also wished to save an additional trailer. Uh we have not had the opportunity to re-view that trailer with the Sundvalls to determine the amount of time that it would take to to resolve any issues that trailer may have. However, Mr. Brown offered a deadline of December 12th to have repairs done on both trailers. Um we have not reviewed the inspection report on that second trailer with the Sundvalls. We uh believe that December 12th would be a fair dead-line to have those repairs made, however, I got the feeling from the board that there may be some additional questions for the Sundvalls or for Mr. Brown. In addition uh to address some of Mr. Smith's concerns, the Sundvalls have contracted contacted the Waste Water Treatment Plant because Mr. Smith expressed some concerns regarding uh raw sewage in the sewer line adjacent to his property. The Waste Water Treatment Plant has instructed the Sundvalls to cap off the laterals where the trailers used to sit and that they would make an appointment to tele-vise that line so that the Sundvalls would know what deficiencies existed and what repairs needed to be made. So we would recommend that the board would issue an order for compli-ance with the Waste Water plant requirements for capping of those laterals. Otherwise, I don't know that we have any additional information to offer. Um in the last year, we've gone from 20 trailers to one, possibly two. Uh the area has been cleaned up tremendously and we are now in discussions with the Sundvalls in regards to what additional homes may be brought into that area and that is an ongoing discussion that that Mr. Brown and I have even had some this evening. So with that, I'll open it up to the board.
Furgeson: I have a couple of questions. One I guess well a couple may be for you, Tom and some for either uh Doug or the Sundvalls if they don't mind. Uh first of all, if we deem that the trailers that are there can be repaired, there is nothing the city can do to make them tear those down if they can be repaired, correct?
DeBaun: If they can repair them to meet our standards, we could not make them remove those trailers.
Furgeson: Inaudible comment.
DeBaun: It becomes a cost benefit.
Furgeson: And that's been our understanding from the whole time, right?
Furgeson: At this point in time, we're thinking only two are they can save two?
DeBaun: That's our understanding.
Furgeson: Now with two, will they still have to have a license to have a mobile home park?
DeBaun: They will not be able to lease any property until the State issues a mobile home license, mobile home park license.
Furgeson: (?) this question I guess is for Mr. Brown or the Sundvalls. Did you do you currently have that license?
Doug Brown: Doug Brown, from Brown, DePrez, Johnson. They indicated that they have applied for the renewal and they're coming out November 26th.
Furgeson: So the State's coming out to do those inspections that would issue the new permit?
Furgeson: Okay. Uh....
Baumgartner: And that November 26th?
Furgeson: So if they would not if you do not receive the new permit, then therefore we could not have both trailers there is that the understanding?
DeBaun: I don't know that there would be any prohibition to having the trailers there. They just couldn't lease them.....
DeBaun: ....because there would be no licensed mobile home park.
Furgeson: And and another question is the sewer I guess, issues that that have kind of popped up tonight. I I apologize, (?) thought further into this situation before we got to it here, but trailers that were there are removed understanding that we had some sewage issues before or (?) trailers and the sewer sewage on the ground. Is it I guess if if if you were granted a new license and wanted to put more trailers back in there, would the State require you to renew the sewage? Or is that something that we would require....(inaudible)....
DeBaun: As I understand, Mayor, the infrastructure under the ground is regulated by the State Department of Health. Um I believe that there would be some jurisdiction through the Waste Water Treatment Plant as far as infiltration and things of that nature and we'll know those answers once those lines are televised. So I believe the jurisdiction lies with the State in that regard.
Furgeson: But as far as ...(inaudible)...it's a we we have several laterals out there that are uh insufficient and taking on water. We, as the Waste Water Treatment Plant, can shut that uh tap off to the main line.....
DeBaun: I believe it would violate that requirement.
Furgeson: Is that correct, Brad?
Furgeson: Alright. I was just trying to make sure we under...everybody understands what we're talking about. So uh so at this point in time, uh I guess we're asking for two trailers to remain and uh not well there's a possibility that two trailers will remain. We need to have inspection on those trailers to even see if they are able to be fixed?
DeBaun: That's correct, Mayor. We weren't aware of the second trailer until this evening and we need an opportunity to review that trailer and and determine uh if it can be brought up to code to our standard. They need to determine that if it's a cost effective measure.
Furgeson: We already have determined that the one is......
Furgeson: ....has the ability to be brought up to code?
Barrick: I have a question.
Furgeson: Yes, sir?
Barrick: Uh would it not be prudent to I guess not move forward with anything until we find out ....(inaudible).....Wouldn't we wanna wait for that before we act on this....(inaudible).... because it (?) a moot point if if the State rejects it and assuming they do. If they don't then it's then it's a different situation.
DeBaun: Yeah I....it could be, Tim. I don't know. Because as I understand, the State is really waiting on the City to be satisfied with the issues at hand out there, and I think the State issuing their permit is contingent upon a lot of the things that we're doing here locally in the conver-sations that I've had with Tammy and in her conversations with the gentleman from the State. Um I don't know if it's a chicken and egg sort of thing.
Barrick: Sounds like it.
Cornelius: The State won't be able to issue the permit until they have satisfied the violations they have with the City and the fact that they can show that the sewers are in working condi-tion and up to code.
Barrick: So .....(inaudible)....so why would we ....let me ask you a question....(inaudible)...
DeBaun: Well and if the State were to come back and indicate that there were insufficiencies, there could be an additional deadline uh imposed based upon whatever work would need to be done.
Barrick: Inaudible comment.
DeBaun: Yeah they can continue to operate on the trailers. No no no question.
Barrick: But I mean but but the reality is that I mean that could be a whole different situation.... (inaudible)...
DeBaun: Yeah. I think if you wanna do that, that's fine. Um they can continue to work on those trailers. We can continue to work with them. I think you probably need to take an action this evening though at least uh directing them to cap off any open laterals and that was the kind of a discussion that we had informally. Uh and then we'll meet with the State and and Brad's people and see what we find out in that regard.
Furgeson: The bottom line is if it's determined by well our building department that the second trailer is fixable, I mean we don't know ...(inaudible)....
DeBaun: Correct. Because the bottom line if if the trailer if it cost $20,000 to fix the trailer and the trailer's only worth $10,000, that's their decision.
Furgeson: Uh I think before we have a motion uh we have some public comment. If anybody would like to speak, please step forward uh to the mike to comment please.
Harry Smith: Harry Smith on Knightstown Road. This evening I you know on behalf of quite a few of the neighbors out there would like to thank the your administration for what you have done out there. You have accomplished out there what's been needed done for the past 45 years. What we are asking tonight and we'll continue to ask that you complete the project that you have started. That has been a public nuisance out there for the last 45 years that I've lived out there. Some of the neighbors haven't lived out there that long, but it has been a public nuisance. Ill run, ill managed. We've had problems with sewage, trash and your administration has accomplished what has needed to be done. What we're asking is that you complete the job and then advise the State that the city does not want that out there if that's where we have to go to get the license rejected. We also would like to know if that is a public meeting that we can attend and talk with the State as to whether or not we can eliminate it. It should not have never been there. It's inside the city out there with residential area and a residential area that's growing. And it's a public nuisance. And I don't know whether any of the rest of the neighbors wanna say anything, but I think they're all in agreement. We just have a few here tonight, but I think I could probably fill this room and the hallway out there if I really went out there and talked to the neighbors 'cause none of 'em want it.
Furgeson: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Would anyone else like to speak at this time?
Les Slusser: My name is Les Slusser. I live on at 405 N. Knightstown Road. I think Mr. Smith is right. I don't think any of the neighbors out there want this trailer park there. I know I don't. But if the City and the State decide to allow it, I would like to know what kind of codes there is governing how many trailers can be placed on that property out there. It just seems to me like it's jam packed full of trailers. If they could get 200 trailers in there, they'd put 200 trailers in there. They got trailers back there that run right up next to that easement back there and is that allowed? When they when they had those trailers back there, the people that would rent 'em would park their vehicles in that easement and block that easement and that shouldn't be allowed.
Furgeson: Tom, do you know uh if it if the State would renew their license, is there well I guess ....(inaudible)...or is that a City issue ...(inaudible)....
DeBaun: Mr. Brown and I were discussing that this evening and we've discussed it in previous occasions. The ordinance for nonconforming use is very clear and it's based upon case law uh State of Indiana as well as the United States indicating that if a government action intercedes into the operation of a business, they have to allow it to go back in its existing condition or or or configuration. Otherwise, it's considered regulatory taking. And as we found out from the Deckard case and other cases, takings are viewed uh very poorly by the courts and and in your pocketbook. Um in essence, we have to allow the Sundvalls to return to a mobile home park in a configuration similar to what existed before our action. Um Mr. Brown and I were discussing that it would be difficult for them to find mobile homes as small as the ones that were there and he understands or at least we we have discussed that if they cannot find mobile homes that meet that configuration and size, that does not allow them to pack more in there. It has to be of similar scale and similar scope.
Furgeson: There was so if there were 10 ten foot trailers, you can't put 20 you can't put 10 twenty foot trailers in there?
DeBaun: Right. It has to meet it it we can't require them to meet the current standard as far as green space and area per trailer, but that doesn't mean that they can maximize the site with giant trailers either.
Furgeson: Does that uh help you understand your question?
Slusser: That helps me understand.
Furgeson: Our hands are our hands are tied a little bit in that aspect as far as uh you know because they do have rights.
Slusser: Right, yes.
Furgeson: And we do not wanna try and tramp on anybody's rights whether it be your property or anybody's property. Uh we've gotten into those situations before uh and it's you know it this is gonna be I think I think we've all uh you know after a year of working on this project, we've come to a better understanding on how everybody feels and thinks....(inaudible).... direction and I think we've made some efforts out there that are that are being (?) (?) good for the neighborhood and we wanna continue that, but we've gotta work with....(inaudible)....
Slusser: Yes. I can understand that and I wanna thank thank you for allowing me to attend.
Furgeson: Alright. Thank you much. Anyone else have any public comment? Yes, sir?
Jose Garcis(?): Jose Garcis(?) uh 227 Knightstown Road living adjacent to the trailer park. My concern is uh just hearing the news about the sewage uh problems in the park, I would like to request that the city uh notify the State Health Department and do a study as to how that might impact the the community there, uh not only my property, but uh my neighbors as well. Uh if there is open sewer lines, um how you know is that hazardous to uh our living conditions there?
Furgeson: Sewer issues we're we're gonna take care of uh from a local standpoint. We're gonna televise the line uh to see if there is any uh penetration or leakage I guess at the same time. Uh....
Garcis: But at the same time, wouldn't you want the Health Department to come out and and do uh a testing of the soil or at least the air quality if there is open sewage?
Furgeson: That that would be that would be an issue for the uh uh Health Department before they renew the license because the license would have to be renewed by the Department of Health. So...(inaudible)....the trailer park license. So we would recommend that they (?) consideration. Uh unfortunately uh ....(inaudible)....I'm not an expert on sewage, but uh Channel 13 did an expose on lines (?) close areas and it talked about how raw sewage in Marion County dumps into ....(inaudible)....and pretty much every community in Indiana does that (?) Shelbyville....(inaudible)...storm sewers and sanitary sewers come together and at some point, they all...(inaudible)....but we we do not have those in the city. But uh so it's it's not a it's the only health violation he would have would be the health....(inaudible)....health concern if you would uh be near a lake or if that would be running off into a lake, that would be our health concern...(inaudible)....From a air standpoint, I don't believe it does anything to you or ...(in-audible)....Uh but we're gonna look into that and uh we'll get those problems taken care of.
Garcis: Thank you.
Furgeson: Alright. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak tonight?
Furgeson: Mr. Brown?
Brown: Right and some of the neighbors have concerns about the sewer lines and so on. Could you give the board and the neighbors an update on where that stands right now?
Frankie Sundvall: Sure. Sure. To satisfy all the the neighbors' uh concerns, uh the water has been off to the trailer park for over a year and um as soon as we pulled all the trailers that we have removed from from the premises, um those lines have been capped, so there's no rain water or any waste going into those. And I do believe that um the raw sewage that was adjacent to um Mr. Smith's property, that was coming from lot 20. Uh there was uh a busted sewer line underneath the trailer, um so that that should be the problem. We found the problem where the sewer was coming from, so all the tenants all the all the neighbors should be able to rest after tonight know that, so....
Brown: Okay. The activity that's going on this week...(inaudible)....you start to remove 19, 12 and I think you got 5 out....
Sundvall: Yes, correct.
Sundvall: Yes. And we we met with the uh sewage department and they came out and inspected everything. Everything's (?) uh everything's up to code with that, so being capped. That's all.
Furgeson: Alright, thank you.
Brown: Just briefly in defense a little bit of the Sundvalls, they they have elected to pull some of these trailers out, not necessarily at the City direction uh but they've elected to do this them-selves, so uh they are making steps toward uh making this park uh to the City's specifications and to abate that nuisance. I to clarify, I think that's one of the reasons why we're here tonight is because there was a November 12th deadline given uh on the abatement and whether it's uh uh extended or whether this matter's continued. Either one, it's fine with the Sundvalls.
Furgeson: Thank you, Mr. Brown. I hope that I acknowledged with my comment that we were realizing we're working together to try and resolve this issue. We have had cooperation from the Sundvalls. So at this time, I'd entertain a motion.
Baumgartner: Inaudible mumbling.
Furgeson: Well I I think that our motion should uh you know I I believe that we should go for the 12th. That that would seem logical and reasonable at this time uh so we have a better assessment of lot uh if there are some uh trailers left or if there are one trailer left at the time. Uh and then also by the 12th, we should uh know whether the State's been to the site which I was told tonight would be November 27th and uh hopefully we can have some conversation with the uh State inspectors uh see which way they're wanting what their decision...(inaudi-ble)....and what time frame they will make their decision...(inaudible)....find out and then hopefully....(inaudible)....public hearing process....(inaudible)....Mr. Smith 'cause uh he was wanting to know that....(inaudible)....
Barrick: Are we considering this a continuance or a (?)?
Furgeson: Michelle, is that what you'd recommend?
Michelle Cobourn-Baurley: I'm sorry; I'm having a hard time hearing.
Furgeson & Barrick: Both talking at once; neither is clearly audible.
Cobourn-Baurley: It probably if that's what's been requested. Just kind of keep it, there is some (?) order as to altering the (?) the ones that are remaining on the property right now... (inaudible)....
DeBaun: Inaudible comment.
Cobourn-Baurley: Right as to the (?).
Barrick: And we're down to how many? I'm sorry.
Several people talking at once; no one is clearly audible.
Barrick: So we're not gonna be we're not gonna be coming back on this 12th and there'll be a third one all of a sudden?
Cobourn-Baurley: Inaudible reply.
Furgeson: I I would (?). Uh we would need to continue. I mean ...(inaudible)....or that we need to continue uh only on the trailers 20 and and trailer 6 and also that uh the sewer uh lines can be looked at to make sure that they are capped and taken care of at this time and bringing it back the 12th.
Barrick: Um and then just for my understanding before we make a motion, the State is coming here to look at this property is that, did I hear that correctly?
Furgeson: Yeah at least.....
Barrick: You're ...I just wanna make sure I'm understanding what I'm doing before I do it.
Brown: Right. Some questions have arisen with regard to the licensing with the State. Can you advise the board on the status of that?
Frank Sundvall: Yes. I applied for the uh renewal back in uh the spring of '07, but because of the problems with the mobile home park being condemned, that was put on hold. I talked to uh Mickey Carr and he's uh coming out November 26th to re-inspect it and at that time, um I guess we can work it out with the City as far as he doesn't get involved with the mobile homes themselves, just the park. Now it was my understanding that he'll issue the license whether or not there's any mobile homes there or not. That isn't their jurisdiction, the actual mobile homes, just the park itself.
Sundvall: But we'd like to try to refurbish those two mobile homes, lot 20 and lot 6 within that time frame that Mr. Brown has expressed.
Furgeson: Did Mr. Carr indicate to you on what kind of time line if he came out there on the 26th when he would feel that you'd get an answer on when your license would be renewed?
Sundvall: Uh no, he didn't. Uh in fact, he's been moved to a different district and there's a new inspector who he's bringing out. I don't know who that is, but he's going to bring that person out with him on the 26th and introduce us and he'll be taking over his position.
Furgeson: Are you aware are you aware when you had to previously apply for this is there a public hearing process? Or is it or are you (?) of that when you made application?
Furgeson: Or have you ever made an application? How how long have you how long are these uh permits good for? Is it annual or ....
Sundvall: The per the permit is good for four years.
Furgeson: Okay. So have you made one of these applications before?
Sundvall: Yes, several of them.
Furgeson: Was was there a public hearing held?
Sundvall: No. No, it's just...they come out and inspect the park, make sure that those things are up to code.
Furgeson: Okay. Thank you very much.
Barrick & Baumgartner: Inaudible mumbling.
Barrick: Sorry, this is for Michelle. What we are if we continue this to the 12th, do we have what other opportunities to review um (?) the situation?
Cobourn-Baurley: As far as making sure that the order's being complied with along the way?
Barrick: Every step of the way.
Cobourn-Baurley: Well my understanding it seems like Tom and Tammy and their department have been um communicating pretty well with the Sundvalls and ...(inaudible)....or at least so far the removal that occurred and I'm pretty confident that within the next month they'll be able to uh keep a close eye on ....(inaudible)....
DeBaun: Right. Because permits have been issued, there's a minimum inspection schedule for each permit, so we'll be out there on a fairly regular basis inspecting work as it's completed and then we'll be able to observe whatever activities are taking place during those inspections.
Barrick: So we're not gonna (?) opportunity to act or react to the situation?
DeBaun: Correct. And ultimately on December 12th, if they've not met your standards, then you can, as a part of your order, indicate that they go no further.
Barrick: Okay. I'll make a motion that we continue this action to the 12th of November or uh December and uh for units 20 and 6 and subject to the sewer lines being reviewed then (?) and uh all laterals capped.
Furgeson: Okay we have a motion.
Furgeson: And a second. Further discussion? Yes, sir?
Smith(?): And (?) find out if there is a process where the public to speak with the State licensing board...(inaudible)...are indicated that there's no public hearing on this, but I'm not I wanna make sure that there is....
Furgeson: Right, right.
Smith(?): ....a way that the public can hear.
Furgeson: I I would I would think that if there (?) really be.....usually there's no objections to anything. A public hearing would be you know not needed and and there may.....All I know is how they do liquor licenses. You know if you have a liquor license and and you have no viola-tions and you have nobody you know protests your liquor license, you don't even have to show up at the meeting. They just automatically renew it, so it may be a process like that. I'm assuming there is. So uh uh either uh Robert Lewis from the Health Department had probably better tell us. We we'd probably be glad to find that out and let you know.
Furgeson: Yeah. So okay? Any further public comment? Yes, sir?
(?): Inaudible comment.
Furgeson: They....Tom, correct me if I'm wrong. They have to be brought up to to current standards. Uh so the ones that are gonna be left and of the existing ones have to be brought up to current standards. Is that correct, Tammy?
Cornelius: Right. They have to be brought up to the Indiana Residential Code. It's not the manufactured (?). It's residential...(inaudible)....
Furgeson: Any other further public comment?
Furgeson: Hearing no further, all in favor say "Aye".
In Unison: Aye.
Furgeson: Motion carries 3:0. Thank you all very much for attending. Um we're gonna continue now with Old Business. Old Business?
DeBaun: Just wanted to report that Tammy, myself and Troy Merrick, the Code Enforcement Officer met with Bob Arnold and David Longstreet at his property. We conducted an inspec-tion. We've been generating a report. We have forwarded that to Mr. Arnold and to his client for review. Uh Mr. Longstreet, as you may recall, has been in front of the board previously. Uh he was very cooperative. He acknowledged that there were certain things that needed to be uh done to resolve some of these issues and I think that we've got we've established a good work-ing relationship and my intent is to continue that uh through this process.
Furgeson: Any further Old Business?
Furgeson: New Business?
Furgeson: Any New Business to come?
Furgeson: Uh only thing uh I'd like to bring up I guess uh we will be uh keeping the west side of the circle closed again tomorrow morning uh in order to finish the Christmas tree 'cause Santa is coming to town Friday and we've gotta have the tree up for him, or he said he wouldn't come. So uh Friday night the uh traffic uh on the circle will will be closed by 5:30 and be open at 10:30 for our Christmas parade or Holiday parade. And uh I believe that's it. Any other public comment?