 Well, good afternoon. Thank you, madam. Please call the roll. Thank you for good afternoon. Mr. Brennan present. Mr. Rickerman. Mr. McDowell. Yes. Mr. Duvall here. Mr. Vine here. Mr. Davis here. Mr. Benjamin. Present. Thank you, ma'am. Brad, would you give us a word, please? Yes. Let us pray. Look graciously, Creator God, upon this land of ours, where it is in pride. Subdu it. Where it is in need. We pray for you to supply it. Where it is in error. We ask that you might rectify it. Where it is in default. Restore it. And where there is a hold in the very nature of grace and mercy. We ask for peace and compassion. We support it. We are undergirded by it. We ask it in your name, amen. Amen. Thank you, Brad. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda and the amendments, or so? I'm just holding President Kasslin's presentation, Mr. Mayor, until the next council meeting. Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. Is there a second? Second. Moving second. Discussion? Will the previous question draw a roll? Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickleman. Aye. Mr. Mcdowell. Yes. Mr. Govall. Aye. Divine. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. And thank you. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of May 12th, June 2nd, and June 23rd, 2020? So moved. I'm moving second. Any discussion? Will the previous question draw a roll? Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickleman. Aye. Mr. Mcdowell. Yes. Mr. Govall. Aye. Mr. Vyne. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. Thank you. Theresa. Yes, sir. The first item is the emergency ordinance extending our Mass Ordinance, Management and Counsel Ordinance, number 2020-087, an emergency ordinance extending certain emergency ordinances related to COVID-19. Morning. Is there a motion? I move. Second. Second. Any discussion? Obviously this clarifies the fact that we'll continue meeting in this meeting posture. For a foreseeable future and also extend our Mass Ordinance for the City of Columbia. And with the previous question, I'll card call the roll. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickleman. Aye. Mr. Mcdowell. Yes. Mr. Govall. Aye. Mr. Vyne. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. Thank you. Moving into a period of City Council discussion items, our normal COVID-19 update. The Honorable Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin to be followed by Mr. Harry Tinsley, Emergency Management Director for a COVID-19 situational report. And I know Harry may also throw in any activities regarding Hurricane Sally. Sure. And I'm going to defer to Director Tinsley in this incredible work they've been doing, not just keeping a surprise of everything we need to be doing, but also he and Hans and others around testing. I'll let Harry give his report. Obviously our next meeting we will be visited by President Kazum, who was anticipated to be at this meeting. We had a bit of a scheduling mix up. So we'll get him on here. We've seen obviously a positive impact from our masking ordinance, but we've seen some upward pressures from the students returning back. We're finding obviously some pretty good compliance and partnerships emerging. Teresa and your team, thank you for being diligent and making sure our policies are enforced. And we all know as soon as we get arms around the public health threat, we can get arms around economic challenges and then obviously educational challenges our children face. So we're looking forward to that. Before Harry goes on unrelated to the COVID report, Mr. Davis has reminded us that just actually got a few text messages from some of our community leaders that we lost Bill Manley. Bill, 91 years old Sam, one of our incredible community leaders, stalwart and pushing for healthy, strong neighborhoods in the vibrant city for decades. So we're going to miss that old soldier. So prayers to the Manley family. I want to make sure we do that. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Go ahead, Harry. Hey, Harry. Hey, can y'all hear me? Sure can. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Madam City Manager again, just a quick update on some numbers and testing data within our COVID response posture. So to date, our state is again, we're over 1.1 million in testing. As of yesterday's case report out, we're 130,256 confirmed total positive cases. Unfortunately, there have been 2,922 deaths due to COVID in our state. Here in Richland County, we are our case, cumulative case totals are 13,242. We've seen some recent spikes, but we are starting to begin to level back off again on that data that's posting again. Unfortunately, to date, 209 confirmed deaths due to COVID in the county. As far as testing in the city, we staff continues to be very diligently to partner with area partners to increase the testing capacity in and around but specifically in areas of our city. And just a quick report out as far as our static drive-through testing location at 2204 Lee Street. Still ongoing as of to date, there have been over 2,300 test screenings completed with a 12.3 positive test rate. And the the other is our CBS partnership with Benedict College over 1903 two-notch road, which is continuing ongoing. And these testing sites and information on their operation hours are on our website and all our media platforms. But to date, there have been 1,111 test screenings completed at that location with a 14 percent positive test rate. As this week, our municipal court, I'm sure you're aware, has reopened staff has worked very diligently, our safety and risk folks of support services and other key staff, chief of staff and court personnel to get ready to do that. The install they installed a thermal temperature scanner to ensure implementation of our COVID-19 safety procedures and requirements for anyone entering the courthouse. Our public and media relations staff along with our court staff created a video that is going to be available out on our platforms. So the public will know what the expectations are from maintaining a high level of safety as we as we posture back into that capacity. Currently, Richmond County still remains at a high incident rate based on our population has does our neighboring Fairfield and Fairfield County elections in Richmond, Newbury are at a moderately high, which is a step down. And some for in Calhoun, our other neighbors are at a moderate. So as the mayor noted, right now, currently 11 counties and 61 municipalities have mask ordinances in our state. And these restrictions continue to see over a 40 percent decrease in total cases. Overall, South Carolina is in the downward trend. Hospitals continue to have sufficient capacity and COVID-19 hospitalizations continue to trend downward over the past seven days. And if I will, if I could just as Miss Wilson said, if I could go into just a quick thing on Hurricane Sally, as we know, the Gulf is experiencing 85 mile and hurricane that is moving very slow and that produces a lot of rain and can can really wreak havoc when they don't move hurricanes or best if they move, as you all know that, but as far as timing for any remnants of Sally coming through our area will be Thursday, Friday timing. And right now, the current forecast models are indicating here in the middle or central midlands of Britson County will be two to three inches of rain. We'll continue to monitor that and provide updates as as wanted. And please my report. Thank you so much, Harry. Thank you so much. Mr. Mayor, excuse me. One second, Harry, just for clarification, I know we're in the process of working with DHEC to stand up a different site. I'm not sure that it's ready to be publicly announced, but just wanted to note that in the event that those who have become used to the Lee Road site, Divine Street location, if it does close, there's another site that will be opening. Correct? That's correct. In the close vicinity, Miss Wilson, and that that location will relocate to another area within the city and then fall back to that location after that time and that additional site will give some specifics. As soon as we get more information on the the finals of preparation and site, that messaging will go out as well. That is correct. And then the temperature checking at the courthouse is a mandate by the Supreme Court Chief Justice. And of course, we definitely follow suit with that with other public facilities. And whenever they do open, there is some guidance about not temperature checking the public. So I just wanted to make that distinction as well. Correct. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Bill. OK, Mayor, thank you. I do see our next wonderful presenter is queued up and ready, Miss China Phillips with the Columbia Complete Count Committee co-chair for a census update. Hi, China. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. I will be sure to make this quick. I know you have lots of things to do. So just to give you a broad strokes overview of everything. And can you hear me good? I'm getting some feedback. OK, so broad strokes. South Carolina now stands for seventh in the lineup. Nationally, we have a sixty five point nine percent response rate to the census. This is not good, everyone, especially because our new deadline ends at on September 30th. South Carolina stands at a statewide completion of fifty nine point eight percent. And right now, the city of Columbia stands at fifty five percent. Richland County is at sixty seven or actually Richland County is at sixty one point seven percent. So what are we doing to ensure that individuals get as much information about the census as possible? Obviously, reaching out to you guys to make sure that we pull on both social capital and we expand out census outreach within the communities that eat it. So I thank you for being so responsive. One of the people who has been integral to our success has been Krista Hampton because we have had to push out and make things happen quickly for the month of September. And so I just wanted to highlight three things. That I am asking that City Council do and it has everything to do with sharing the information and getting it out to your partners. So I gave Ms. Hampton some information earlier on just an event that we have coming up. Stacey Abrams, organization Fair Count and Mitch Landrieu's floor, Miss Unum is teaming up to create an event called Census in the South, A Road to Recovery, where they go through multiple states and they chose South of course, South Carolina is a Southern state and they chose Columbia as their only stop. So we are excited to have national eyes on the city of Columbia because, of course, Columbia leaves so excited. But you want to make sure that we get that information out because it's September 17th and we chose to make sure that we highlighted youth and young leaders as the focus to figure out if the next 10 years, if we got everyone counted, what is the world that we want to look like in the future? And obviously our young people has the answers. So one of our very own Taylor Wright will be a panelist. So if you want to share it, I'm kind of guilting you to share it because of Taylor, right? So he is a panelist and so hopefully we can share it and really support him and the others who are a part. Councilwoman Shaterica Neal is a part, Representative J.A. Moore, a high school student from C.A. Johnson, Bulamina Hunter and Miss Clathlin 2020 will be our panelists. So that's something that we want to get out and I have it an email for you. So she'll send that your way. The second thing is that we have a few joy tours coming up and it's really because we don't want to lose sight of the fact that we're working within difficult circumstances. So in addition to encouraging our city of Columbia residents to fill out their census, we want to spread more joy because we can always use that and of course spread joy, not COVID. Right. So we have two more events coming up and I thank you, Councilman McDowell, for making a point to come because we were right there in your backyard on our first one. And then of course, Tamika Isaac Devine was there and her husband just and her kids, right? Just to make sure that they showed the residents that they are valued, so undercounted, but never undervalued. And so we have two more, one in Arthur Town and that's a partnership with Richland County as well. And then the last in Gable Oaks area and Belmont Community. And then the third and final thing I wanted to highlight is that please, please follow us on social media because that's how you will get access to all of this information and just share it with all of your constituents because the more eyes, the more people who are engaged, the more times that individuals will be annoyed with hearing the information. Hopefully they will share with someone to fill out their census. So for instance, a really good highlight is that tomorrow, AC Flora High School students and I believe Councilman Rickerman and Councilman Brennan there in your areas. But AC Flora High School students, they have got 35 student leaders who are going to be doing a phone banking event. So tomorrow we are going to just tally up how many calls they did and make just a thank you post. And so we would love for you to share that. I believe Councilman Rickerman, you have something. Yeah, can you let me know what time they're going to do that so that we can arrange to have some pizzas or something delivered to them as a thank you? Because that's really commendable of them to step up and help. So I would love that. And I will definitely send the information to you. I will say that our phone banking events are actually virtual. So we would love to be pop on during that time, just to say hi at the very beginning. That would be very, very great. So that's one way that you could engage. But again, we are using our virtual platforms because we want to spread joy, right? And I will get that information your way. Yeah, maybe we can do something else then down the road to thank them. But I think that's commendable for those kids to do that. Any time you have people that step up and volunteer, if you'll let us know about that, I think we should thank them. I think that's that's fabulous. Thank you. Absolutely. And then in response to that, Mayor Benjamin was on a couple of weeks ago at our last meeting, and we definitely do have to arrange a time to think through the committee and then we'll share suggestions on how to thank the community because we haven't seen as much support as we would want from the federal bureau. Definitely the census workers on the ground, but our community has really stepped up to do some amazing things. I know Director Wilson and Mayor Benjamin gets random emails from me all the time, but that is just one drop in the bucket of how our community has really stepped up. So we will make sure to get some more information your way. Trying to hold the success that we have has directly attributed it to you and team Adity and Renea and others. I mean, the whole squad, young David, I mean, it's been great and just want to thank you for your leadership. I would be remiss if I still don't give credit to Ms. Vine for bringing you to us and just identifying the amazing talent and you stepping up and standing in the gap. And again, you already recognized Krista and her team, I mean, this is what community leadership is about. So we keep up the great work and we're thankful for your leadership and I can't agree with Daniel Moore, these young people who see the value so early in life of stepping up and contributing to the body of politics. This great country is very impressive. So we definitely want to recognize them. Ms. Devine? Joanne? I commend China. I told her Saturday what an amazing job they've done and yes, the numbers are not where we'd like to see but this has been an increasingly challenging year. We know it's already challenging for people to participate, encourage participation in the census and this year it's been tripled but they've done a yeoman's job with the circumstances. So I thank them. Just the thought, you know how we all did those videos that we all pushed that Lisa and her team pushed out on social media about the masks. Maybe we all can just type, do something on our phones and let PR send that out for the last couple of days maybe to encourage a last push. 15 days is not a lot and I kept using the 61% number and that was Richland County and to now to know that the city of Columbia is actually 55, we've really got to push that up as much as we can. That's great, I'd love to do it, I'd love to do it. Thank you so much, Mayor. And it's an honor to serve and so I will probably bid you guys adieu now, right? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for everything. Bye, everyone. Okay, our next discussion item is our normal clean water 2020 program update. Mr. Clint Shealy, our Assistant City Manager for Columbia Water and Brian Cully with CDM Smith. Thank you, Ms. Wilton. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. I'm gonna attempt to share my screen and while I'm doing that, I also want to call to your attention one unrelated item of a pending retirement that many of, someone that many of you know well, Mr. David Brewer, our City Traffic Engineer has been in public service for over 31 years. David's going to be retiring on September the 30th and so I just wanted to, yes, sir, I wanted to bring that to y'all's attention. It's not gonna happen, Clint. Just tell David that's not gonna happen. Completely unaccounted. Yeah, tell him I still have a conversation. Don't stop that in his tracks right now, so. Yeah, man. Yeah, no, that's wonderful. So happy for him. So happy for him. Yes, sir. He really hates to see him go, man. He's done a lot of work in the neighborhoods. He's outstanding and big shoes to fill but we're moving in that direction and have someone that is gonna be able to help us in an interim role and we'll miss David but we wish him well in his retirement. I knew y'all would want him to have, so. So, sir, we'll move on to the business at hand which is our Clean Water 2020 Program update. We are concluding our eighth year of services with CBM Smith as a business partner helping us manage our consent decree and really a lot of the programs within our wage water collection system. They have acted as an extension of staff and an integral part of our team and the big reason why we're in the strong compliance position that we're in with EPA and DHEC right now. They're also helping us a little bit on the water side as well and so we're using some of the efficiencies in terms of how we mapped our collection system to map our water distribution system and that's really working well so far and so we're leveraging some of the lessons learned on one side of the house to help our overall utility operation. We've asked Brian Carly with CBM Smith to come present some more specific information and update and really this is done to set the table and answer possibly preempt some of the questions that you may have about their pending contract amendment which is on your consent agenda item 22 for this afternoon's meeting. So Brian's got a few slides and information he's gonna share with us and then hopefully we'll have just a few moments for questions and answers. So I'll turn it over to Brian. Clint, I wanted to quickly add, Brian is coming on that council, you have this presentation as part of the email that Erica sent to you. Thank you, Brian. Okay, thanks, Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Clint for the introduction and agreeing to do the slides for me. Sorry, I can't be there in person with all of you this time. Today I wanna talk about the Consent Decree and really wanna focus on some of the milestones and kinda look at where we are in that overall schedule and also highlight some of the impacts that the city's looking at. Next slide. As far as the overall schedule, common question, just to recap for everybody, if you recall, the Consent Decree was actually signed and enacted by the EPA on May of 2014 and right now, based on the schedule that we have, it looks like the last group of required projects are gonna be ending and required to have a deadline by 2028, so that kind of bookends the Consent Decree. And 2028 is whenever we've finished all the required projects and would likely be able to then go to EPA and sort of petition to be relieved of the Consent Decree, basically get out. So if you kinda do the math there, you'll see that we're about halfway, coming up on the halfway point of that. So far, we've completed 16 of the 18 program submittals to EPA, you'll see the list here. For those of you that have been on council for a while, this list is very familiar. It used to be all white as we've gone through and we've completed the Consent Decree programs to EPA. We've shaded them gray as we've gone down. And so you see, there's only really two of the 18 Consent Decree programs left. Now these Consent Decree programs take the 200 pages of requirements in the Consent Decree, basically lay out how we're gonna go about enacting that at the city. So once we do these programs and submit it to EPA, we didn't have to go and actually implement. And most of these go on essentially for the life of the Consent Decree. And so it's great to get those in and have those established, but it's work to be done essentially in perpetuity and we keep track of all those implementation items. I wanna call your attention. You'll notice that there's four of those programs that have red arrows off to the left of them. Those four programs with red arrows are essentially the programs that define infrastructure-required projects. Most of what you see on here doesn't have a red arrow and is O&M related. So you can see that we've got the two programs that are left are infrastructure-related. And the second one with the red arrow that just recently went in, the IR report, is also heavily on infrastructure. But you can see great progress here so far, it's spinning those. Okay, Clint. Kind of taking the alphabet soup, if you will, of the different acronyms of the programs on the left-hand side and how they all feed together. You can kind of see that infrastructure roadmap there. I think it's a lot of users to talk about the right-hand side of the slide that sort of lays it out in three steps. And so we've been doing a lot of mapping of the sewer system. That was about an eight-year time frame. We have about two years left to go on that. We've also been spending a lot of the last couple of years doing condition assessment on the sewer system and figuring out what needs fixing. What's unique is that we're now entering that third milestone, which is to actually go out and do the rehab and the capacity improvement. So essentially we're thinking, or the essential way to think of it is we're entering the fix-it stage. You'll always be doing the condition assessment, but we're now getting to where we're actually telling the EPA we will do the certain projects and being held accountable to them. Okay, next slide. So the infrastructure projects, two of those programs that are important to note, the first one is the IRR, the Infrastructure Rehab Report. That's for the major part of the system, the 15-inch and larger pipes. That's about 10% of the system. That's already been submitted to EPA and we're awaiting approval of that. And then soon, in about 2022, we'll be submitting the supplemental IRR, which is for the smaller pipes in the system and smaller infrastructure, but represents 90% of your system. Those will be going into EPA in 2022. And those two program documents contain a list of projects that we have to do by specified dates. If those projects aren't complete by those dates, you have to pay five. The good news is we've started on a number of those projects already. Projects that we had a high degree of confidence would be in those program reports and required. We've started on many of them, not all of them, but we do have a good head start there. Then a little bit later with the submittal of the CAP program to EPA, we're gonna have projects that are required to ensure capacity within the system. And those projects that are required to ensure capacity in the system don't have the funds like the other projects. But if they're not completed in time, they do carry with them a trigger for capacity limitations or moratoriums as we come to refer to them. What's important right now is everything's kind of up in the air with COVID, including funding and budgets, CIP levels, but ensuring we have sufficient CIP levels to meet these project requirements in that IR and SIRR, so we don't have to pay fines or in the capacity improvement projects to make sure we don't have those moratoriums, capacity limitations will be critical. It's a tough time to be trying to make all that work out. Here on this slide, what you'll see on the left-hand slide, the original $750 million estimate, how it breaks down between a couple of different cost buckets. On the right-hand side is how much we've done so far. So what you see is of the original $750 million estimate, we so far had council approve about $312 million. And again, this is the money that has been approved at council. So say there's a consulting project to do a capacity enhancing project, make a pump station larger. If that's in the design stage, you've likely approved the consultants contract. So that money would be counted over on the right, but the construction dollars, which is where the larger amount is, if it's not going to have been approved by you at council, is not counted over on the right-hand side. So just to make sure you understand what's in that bucket and what's not. So again, about $312 million so far of the estimated $750 million. All right, as Clint mentioned, tonight on the agenda is the renewal for year nine of the Consent Decree program support contract. This will be year nine of an 11 year contract. And this year again, like the last couple of years is characterized by ramping down of the level of effort. Just to highlight a couple of areas that are ramping down and some others that aren't is the operations and management support. As you saw, a lot of those programs early were O&M heavy. And so we've helped to write those documents. We've helped set up the practices and the policies and standard procedures to implement those. And for the last few years, been basically handing back that responsibility to the city, the ongoing implementation of the O&M items. That's been a huge effort that ramping down and shrinking of the budget and authorization each year. Some areas where the program is not able to shrink or is actually growing, I'll highlight two very quickly. The first one is project management support and implementation. We help oversee all the design consultants and contractors in implementing the projects. And so right now we are managing 70, actually 70 plus active projects right now through the Clean Water 2020 program. And as we hit that exit stage on the Consent Decree, that's not likely to slow down anytime I'm saying. Also, I'll point out, as Clint highlighted, some of the stuff that we're doing on the water distribution side, and you can see this on the next slide as well, going in and leveraging some of those innovations and best management practices that we've put in place for O&M and asset management on the wastewater side, leveraging that over to the drinking water side is something that we can now be cost-effective efficiently and quickly, now that we've already shown how to do it on the wastewater side. So that's been a big part of what we've been doing. And Clint, if you'll flip to the next slide, you can sort of see that declining authorization request every single year. And that's even despite a growing water, drinking water portion of the contract. You can see that highlighted in blue versus the green that's wastewater. One thing I've not talked much about in the last few years, but I think it's definitely time to discuss a little bit, is there a usage of sub-consultants on the Clean Water program? Again, this has been a large contract with the city. And I want to remind you that there are 20,000,000 for the non-professional services contract at the city of this scale. So today that means that $9 million, a little over 9.1 actually, has been paid out to sub-consultants on the Clean Water 2020 program. Again, those are ones that are contracted directly with CDM Smith on this contract that you'll be asked to approve tonight. Of that 10, I think it's important to note that eight of those 10 have local offices. That's very important. Nine of the 10 are DBE firms, five of those being minority seven women owned. And I think it's important we're not just, basically signing up and working with those subs to kind of do a little piecemeal work here, a little bit there. We've made long-term commitments to these sub-consultants and we're giving them a good base of work and base of operations. They can help grow and sustain their business. I think it's been a wonderful partnership. I know Clint would agree with me in saying that we would not have accomplished as much as we have on the Clean Water program without these sub-consultant partners. It's been really great. And even though it's not required, I really enjoyed sort of having a mentoring relationship with several of them. So it's been a great highlight of the program so far. I know from listening to y'all's council meetings off and on, there's probably not a single part of city of Columbia that hasn't been impacted by COVID so far in Columbia water is not immune either. And so as a result of that, working with attorneys and preparing a draft force-measure request for Clint and Joey's review to go to the EPA essentially asked for some additional time to implement some of these impacts. Staffing has been a significant impact. Obviously the number one mission of Columbia water is to make sure we're meeting permit requirements and providing customer service. The preventative maintenance that is a huge part of the consent decree takes a lot of man hours, sort of been cannibalized a little bit to make sure that we're doing those other higher priorities and so that's had a big impact what we're trying to do with the consent decree. So that'll be front and center with the force-measure request. Also the budgetary impacts to the CIP have been significant. Last year we had a 80 million wastewater CIP. This year we're at 25 because all that uncertainty. So we're including that into the force-measure request as well. However, I do want to note, I don't think any of us really understand what the budgetary impacts are for the city at this point in time. And so we are going to try to leave it open with the EPA to say that, hey, in case of these things become more long lasting, we may have to come back and increase or amend the force-measure request. So we're essentially leaving the door open with that. One very important note I want to make and make sure everybody hears today is to talk a little bit about hydraulic capacity. Since the consent decree was initiated back in May of 2014, the city's been allowed to continue using the same capacity assurance process that it had before the consent decree. So if somebody's building a hundred home subdivision or McDonald's, the process by which they make sure there's capacity in the system before they hook on has been allowed to essentially remain unchanged by the consent decree. However, the consent decree does have generally more restrictive definition of capacity and a very detailed capacity assurance process laid out. And that timeline for those to go into effect is coming very quickly. Matter of fact, we'll hit during 2021 most likely. And what's very important to note with that is with these increasing requirements, what's going to happen is now capacity in the system is going to be dictated by a consultant's hydraulic model. And so we're just now wrapping up that hydraulic model. And so that will be used to determine capacity in the system. That is further, I guess I'll say aggravated or lowered or tightening of the definition if there's been an SSO due to wet weather that was caused by less than two-year storms or a moderate storm that caused an SSO, it's going to further ratchet down that available capacity. And so capacity will now be dictated by a model, not by some calculations and any known problems. So that's becoming a little bit tougher. The challenge is now based on updated information, based on updated projections as we're wrapping up the model, the capacity limitations or moratoriums may occur in portions of the system under the new cap criteria. So we may have in the near future some high priority projects that have very rapid turnarounds that we need to get out to try to avoid or minimize any of those moratorium areas. We may be coming back to you with more information to talk about reshuffling some project priorities to make sure we try to meet this challenge at all. All right, two of the things I want to touch on briefly. Next to last is going to be the defective private sewer laterals. For those who've been on council for a little while, you remember about a year and a half ago, us coming and talking to you about a requirement in the consent decree to notify homeowners when they have a defective private sewer lateral. So this is the pipe that takes the wastewater from their house out to the main line and the homeowner owns the portion up to the right-of-way line or easement line of the main sewer that the city owns. Sometimes when we're doing condition assessment, such as smoke testing, it's very clear that these private laterals have defects for allowing high and high to get in which heats up the capacity of the system. So this requirement to notify those homeowners, we've got another large batch of letters that are about to go out. And so just want to let you know that'll be happening soon. We will be coming back to you with more information to let you know where those are. And also want to remind you as before in the last batch went out, there is no current punitive clause in the city's policy for those that do not repair their laterals. When the letter goes out, it does ask them to repair and notify the city. All right. Lastly, just wanted to touch on the sanitary sewer overflow update. Very brief here. I just want to let you know that the overall volume, looking at the last five or six years, the volume trend remains to continue to be down, which is great news. This is despite an incredibly wet December of 19 and first two months of this year, some of the wettest winter I think on record in a number of decades really gave us a large SSO account. But even despite that, the SSO volume trends are down. And another note in helping that is the late Catherine Capacity Project, which we all are familiar with, is our current most frequent SSO site. That project is wrapping up now and will be in place here pretty soon. So we'll have our next biggest offender for SSOs taking care of the systems. We continue to implement the system. So that was a lot in short order. I want to open it up for questions and see if there's anything else that you wanted to talk about or ask me or come up. Questions and questions? Let's see how it's the hands. So I've missed the Davis. I think that's a very good report. I noticed when I was reading it, we're very heavy with project management. And I'm assuming that's because of the number of repairs and the upgrades that we have to go through. I think I have noticed a sense of defeat up to now. Sanitary overflows have really dropped. Am I correct on that? I would say that the number of sanitary overflows have been pretty consistent the last few years. The volume resulting from those is significantly, significantly down. So everything of a chart in the chart, a massive drop that probably is showing volume. So volume is as down. The other thing which was educational for me, was where we are with a number of the projects and the contracts of year five of projected or contracted six or a year or four of contracted five. So that's how you, we kind of really track internally in-house. That's what you guys do. Yes, sir. I mean, in addition to keeping track of our contract, we help provide project management services over all the projects associated with clean water and even some that are more city related. And so there's a number of, that's where that 70 number was. I think that little tag would be helpful really moving forward. I know some of the period of time since you've done it, but if we can look at that periodically, more periodically to where we are with the contract that we've met, where we are with either renewing or finalizing it, that helps. It helps. I know it helps me. Director, thank you. And to this point, Mr. Davis, a lot of the projects that we're doing have been ones that we knew were going to be on those list of must do projects with EPA. And so, but they haven't had definitive time launch yet. We kind of knew what they were, but they hadn't been approved by EPA and the official clock hadn't started yet. Very soon we're going to have a lot of projects on the clock. And so I think if you'd like to see more information and status of those, that's something we can definitely provide to you. Yeah, and that would be helpful. I mean, we can even address public questions because you're right, there are a heck of a lot of contracts out there, the dollar values are high, but the results are what we pay for. So that's good. Thank you. Mr. McDowell. Yes, let me thank you all for that report. Just one follow up project that I'd like to certainly inject. Clint, where are we with the Belvedere project and how do, how are we mission all of that again? Yes, sir. That project is part of our stormwater capital improvement plan. So Brian and his team are managing our wastewater services councilman, but we had actually procured consulting services for Belvedere improvements. And those are under design now. That's one of the few that Brian's not helping us manage. We're doing that separately through our stormwater plan. Yes, sir. Good. Just wanted to make sure we got that on the radar. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you, everybody. Any questions of Brian and Clint? No, thank you. You guys keep up the great work. Let's keep on pressing. It would be, it would be helpful. I'll see if it's in this document, but the question Mr. Davis had on my SSOs, I know of the frequency is maybe not a beta and the volume is down significantly. If you would mind just maybe put in the top of my inbox that chart that usually is very helpful and instructive would be great. Certainly. I'm sure we'd be happy to do that. We've got that. It's just matter of sending out. I'll have, I'll get that to Clint right away and get that to you all. Sure. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Clint. Mr. Mayor, at this time, we have made it to the consent agenda item six through 27. A motion to approve consent agenda item six through 27. Who's approval of item agenda agenda items six through 27 on the consent agenda. Second. Second. All right. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Madam, I think he's meant to call the roll. I keep forgetting. A lot quicker than that one. It's a lot. It's a lot. I was throwing off, because I did want to point out, obviously the number of important things in here, I encourage people to look at the agenda, including, you know, the adoption of the revolving loam fund for healthcare. And also, you know, so there's some good stuff in there and some good action. So Madam Perk, please call the roll. Absolutely. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. McAuliffe. Yes. Mr. Duvall. Aye. Mr. Vines. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. Thank you for saving me, Erica, before one of our multiple polemeterians on this call, trying to check me. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Madam Steven. Yes, sir. Moving into a period of ordinances, first reading, item 28, ordinance number 2020-076, repealing ordinance number 2014-079, granting an encroachment to Kinzel F. Summe and Allison Renee Lee, replacement and maintenance of a steel palmetto tree with concrete foundation. But then this... Yeah, second. Second. Discussion with the previous question, Clark-Fallrell. Mr. Burnham. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. McAuliffe. Yes. Mr. Duvall. Aye. Mr. Vines. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. Item 29, ordinance number 2020-090, granting an encroachment to Richard Latson and Jeanette Latson for the use of the right-of-way area of the 700 block of Abilier Road for the installation and maintenance of a garden wall, landscaping, and irrigation adjacent to 701 Abilier Road and 3827 Devine Street. Yeah, motion. Move. Second. Move. Second. Discussion with the previous question, Clark-Fallrell. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. McAuliffe. Yes. Mr. Duvall. Aye. Mr. Vines. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. Thank you. Mayor Benjamin, as we move into the public hearing and first reading for zoning planning matters, I think we have one item at the beginning that is in your neighborhood, sir. Item 30, the annexation and zoning map amendment. I wouldn't mind trying to go get a cup of coffee. OK. But Ed is proving himself rather efficient lately, so I'm not sure that's possible. But I'll step off for a moment and wait for the high sign. Thank you. Yes, sir. And I'm going to hand off to Ms. Hampton at this point in time. Good afternoon. Hi, Christa. Hello. You may want, let's wait until Mayor Benjamin gets back on before you take that point of personal privilege, OK? Absolutely. Well, maybe I'll wait till the end. Either way, or whenever he gets back on, either way. Great. Sounds great. We'll do this first one here. OK. Next, Harvard. There we go. All right, public comment for the zoning public hearing. In addition to viewing the meeting at the city's website, the public may comment via telephone. When calling, please include your name and address. The public may listen to the audio and participate in the meeting via telephone at the number listed. And it also was published on the agenda. When prompted, enter the meeting code 8608. And one will allow you to listen and you can stay on the line until your case is announced. When it is called, you can either press star 2 to leave a voice message to be played back, or star 3 to be placed in the speaker queue. City staff will unmute callers. And callers are limited to three minutes. If you are participating by phone prior to speaking, please make sure you mute any other audio on your devices before you speak to avoid any feedback. The first case is an annexation at 166 Riding Grove Road. This is a request to annex and assign a zoning of PUD law. It is PDD in Richland County. And Councilman McDowell, I'm not sure if there's any public who wants to speak on this request. I'm just making sure I'm in the right place. Yeah, I am. Madam Turco, are there persons to speak forward or against it? Mr. McDowell, we have one caller on the line and I'm not sure if this caller is about calling for this case. So I would have to unmute the caller and ask the question. And if they are not calling about this case, they will need to be re-added to the speaker queue when that item comes up. Yes, ma'am. Please do that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm actually waiting for item number 37. OK. At this time, I am going to end your speaking session. And when your item is called, please press star three to rejoin the speaker queue. Thank you. I'll do it. Thank you. So at this time, there are no other callers waiting to be heard. That's for either against it or for it, right? Yes, sir. For item 30. All right. So, is there a second? Second. All right. It's been moved and probably a second. Madam Turco, would you call the roll, please? Sure. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Mr. Rickerman? Aye. Mr. McDowell? Yes. Mr. Duvall? Aye. Mr. Von? Mr. Davis? You're muted, Mr. Davis. I'm sorry. You vote in favor? How do you vote? OK. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Item 31. Yes, sir. Ms. Wilson alluded to the point of personal privilege I wanted to take once the mayor had returned. Is he back on yet? I don't see everyone. You don't see all this right here? I did. I could not. Come on, Theresa. Well, we're in the presentation modes. I can only see five of you. I'm sorry. I'm back here. OK. Go ahead, Krista. Thank you. It seems we have a number of departures to announce this evening. And I sadly report to you that we are losing John Fellows. He is moving out of state. And then with us nearly 10 years has made a tremendously positive impact on this city and will be missed dearly. So I wanted you all to know that last week. The next week will be his last week. So this is he's on the Zoom and this is his last council meeting. Pastor, I'm happy to address you. We make a rule that during COVID, because we can't get together and hug each other, that people can't leave. Amazing impact, John. I think that's a number, Krista, things of you. But that may even be the understatement. You've been an amazing gift to the people of the city and completely changed the way in which we see connectivity and walkability and bikeability and just a real leader. And I know you can be an asset, both you and your wife, and a great dream team to your new community. Well, thanks. It's really been a pleasure to work for Columbia and all of you as well as all the citizens. It's been a really great decade. So thank you very much. I miss you, John. Absolutely. All this great institutional knowledge, mayor and council, between John and David. Anybody else quitting today? Anyone else? No. Good. OK. Well, you got to build a bench. This is what I always say, because it happens. And I'm happy to report that Lucinda Stettler has agreed to serve as our interim planning administrator. Oh, good. Awesome. Awesome. Fantastic. Thanks again, John. We're going to miss the heck out of you, brother. Thanks, Chris. Thanks, John. Go ahead. Thank you for that, indulgence. All right. Going ahead to an annexation with zoning map amendment at 2125 Apple Valley Road. It's a request to annex and assign a zoning classification of RG1. All right. Is anyone here to speak in favor of or against this? No one is in the speaker queue, mayor. All right, thank you, Erica. Is there a motion? So moved. Moved to approve. All right, moved and seconded in discussion. One with a previous question and card call roll. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Mr. Rickerman? Aye. Mr. MacGowell? Yes. Mr. Duvall? Aye. Mr. Wye? Aye. Mr. Davis? Aye. Mayor Benjamin? Aye. Thank you. An annexation with zoning map amendment at 906 Brantley Street. A request to annex and assign a zoning of single-family residential RS1. Is anyone here? Madam Clerk to speak in favor of or against this? No, sir. And at this time, we'd like to remind callers that if they're interested in speaking on an item, they will need to press star three. All right. Seeing none, is there a motion? So moved, Mr. Mayor. Second. Second. All right, discussion. One with a previous question, card call roll. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Mr. Rickerman? Aye. Mr. MacGowell? Yes. Mr. Duvall? Aye. Mr. Vine? Mr. Davis? Aye. Mayor Benjamin? Aye. Thank you. An annexation with a future land use and zoning map amendment at 3801 Eureka Street. A request to annex and assign a land use classification of UCR1 and a zoning of RS3. Is there anyone here to speak on in favor of or against this, Madam Clerk? No, sir. All right, is there a motion? Move approval. Second. Second. All right, discussion. Seeing none, we'll move the previous question, card call roll. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Mr. Rickerman? Aye. Mr. MacGowell? Yes. Mr. Duvall? Aye. Mr. Vine? Aye. Mr. Davis? Aye. Mayor Venditti? Aye. Thank you. An annexation with future land use and zoning map amendment at 3834-3836 West Beltline Boulevard. A request to annex and assign a land use classification of AC2 and a zoning of C3. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of or against this, Madam? No, sir. All right, is there a motion? Move approval. Move and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll move the previous question, card call roll. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Mr. Cummins? Aye. Mr. MacGowell? Yes. Mr. Duvall? Aye. Mr. Vine? Mr. Davis? Aye. Mayor Venditti? Aye. Thank you. An annexation with future land use and zoning map amendments that for an 18.1 acre portion of 300 Clemson Road, request to assign a land use classification of UEMR, Urban Ed Residential, and a zoning of RG2. Bill, is there anyone here to speak in favor of or against this? No, sir. Madam? No, sir. All right, super. Thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Second. Any discussion? The previous question, card call roll. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Mr. Cummins? Aye. Mr. MacGowell? Yes. Mr. Duvall? Aye. Mr. Vine? Aye. Mr. Davis? Aye. Mr. Benjamin? Aye. Just a reminder for those on the call, if they wish to participate, once the case is called, you can either press star two to leave a voice message to be played back or star three, which will, in essence, raise your hand to be placed in the speaker queue. And remember to turn off any audio while you're speaking. The next case is at 1232 Whitaker Drive. This is a zoning map amendment and a request to rezone a pencil from RS1 to RS2. Speak in favor of or against this matter. Mr. Rick, I'm sorry. Anyone speaking with Madam Cart? Not there. All right. Well, I'll again, ask you a question before I get into motions, Mr. Rick. I'm sorry. You have a question? Well, no, I actually have spent a great deal of time working with the developer and talking to several of the neighbors. And what I would suggest here and would like to present to council, and I'm going to do it in a motion, is that we give first approval of the rezoning, but the developer has agreed to split the lot into two equal lots and put a deed restriction along with adding adjacent neighbors to that deed restriction so that the property will stay as two single families and not convert into multiple, which is the big fear among the neighbors. The house does connect to RS2 and is surrounded. The neighborhood's very split in RS2 and RS1, as you can tell from the picture. So it's not at a character, but the unknown of possibly a third house being built is the real concern. So after talking to Mr. Carlisle, he's between first and second reading to try to go ahead and get the property split, platted and survey deed restrictions put in and potential drawings of the two single family homes to share with the neighbors before we would give it second reading. So I plan on making that in the motion at the appropriate time, but wanted to bring everybody up to speed. I think we've all gotten some communications from citizens on that, gotten some from his poker and his Berkheiser. Do you know if Mr. Carlisle wants to share those thoughts with some of the next panel? Brenneke was, I'm sorry, Mayor Benjamin. Yes. I've got a bad connection here, Mayor Benjamin. I'm sorry. We can hear you. Can y'all hear me? Yes. Y'all can hear me? Quite well, Mr. Carlisle. Give my check. Erica, how many folks we have signed up and certainly given the right to present in thoughts first? I have one caller holding to speak. I'm not sure if it's in reference to this particular case, but I wouldn't like to add them to the meeting just to find out. Yeah, but before you do that, Erica, one second. So can we, Mr. Carlisle, we can hear you. Can you hear us? I can hear you now. It was terrible for a minute there. Okay, bro. Go ahead, please. I'll just, yes, sir, thank you. I'll just try to get to the minutes, but I spoke when Rick stated was that if I would be willing to commit to doing only two houses and get that in writing with deed restrictions and so forth with a real estate attorney, y'all would approve that at this reading. And in the meantime, I'll get all the paperwork set up and then at the second reading here in a couple of weeks, we'll try to proceed. That's what Mr. Dested and articulated. I'm believing that that's what y'all were just discussing. Yeah, did you, have you had a chance to discuss that with any of the neighbors just yet? Yes, sir. I have spoken to a lot of the neighbors about it, although there is quite a bit of misinformation out there. There are a lot of people out there who were convinced that I'm gonna put three houses on the lot. I have no intention of doing that. And I offered to put it in writing on July the 15th, but they said there was no such thing as contractual zoning. So that wasn't an option at that point. The, I encourage you to listen to Mr. Rickman's direction. Christa, based on what you've heard, does this address some of the issues raised by the neighbors? There has been a concern about the, being able to construct three houses. And Mr. Carlisle is correct. We, council cannot condition zoning, but certainly you can feel better about approving a first or second reading based on certain things occurring. Sure. All right, good deal. Thank you, Mr. Carlisle. Ms. Hammond, you wanna see if the other caller is on this particular item? So that caller has left the speaker key, so I think we're okay. All right, Mr. Rickman, you have a motion? Yes, sir. I would move for first approval with the understanding prior to second approval that Mr. Wade Carlisle, the developer of this site will bring a plat that has divided the lot to reflect the setbacks and the zoning that are required for the two lots there, had the deed restrictions put together with an attorney and reported and provided us and the neighborhood with a snapshot of the potential buildings for those two lots. Daniel, let me ask you a question. Can I get a second? I suck at the motion. I suck at the motion. Thank you, Mr. Duvall. Mr. Disguise, Mr. McDowell. Yes. Now, I've got an inordinate amount of teammate saying that it was three houses being built. Now, are we clear that it's two instead of three? Yeah, because when we divide the two lots and put the deed restriction, the deed restriction causes it to only be one house per lot. Okay. All right, that's what I needed. Bless you. All right, thank you. Bless you, brother. Yeah, let's just make sure, I got an handful of emails, so make sure we communicate with the citizens who reached out to us on this. Let's move and second it any further discussion. Let's see, no other hands. Let's move the previous question for Carl Royal. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickamus. Aye. Mr. McDowell. Yes. Mr. Duvall. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mr. Vyne. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. And let's just impress upon, obviously we know our abilities and our limitations. Let's impress upon Mr. Garlau, the importance of haste and getting this done pretty quickly. So we can all be on the board by the time we meet again. All right, thank you. All right, Krista. Yes, sir. Next case is zoning map amendment for 901-903-11 and 919 South Avenue. This is a request to rezone the parcel from White Industrial M1 to General Residential RG2. Is there a motion? Oh, sorry, Krista, is anyone here to speak in favor of or against this? Yes, sir. We have callers joining the speaker queue now. All right, thank you. That's fine. Let's go ahead and get them going. All right, yes, sir. It stands for the land, please. Hi, I'm John Parrish, the vice chair and the Richland County Airport Commission and a corporate pilot. I want to thank you for letting us speak today regarding this rezoning request. The FAA has issued a no hazard finding indicating the proposed development does not penetrate part 77 airspace. The FAA is not addressing incompatible land use. It is merely stating its finding that the proposed development does not violate the height restrictions imposed by the airport's imaginary surfaces off the end of our runway 13. The South Carolina Aeronautics Commission issued a finding that though it doesn't penetrate the part 77 airspace, the proposed development is a safety concern and an incompatible land use because of its proximity to the airport. The commission has sent each of you copy that finding. The developer's engineer noted to the planning commission that the aeronautics commission view was myopic in the greater context of the surrounding area. I would contend that this is not myopic. It is the interest of safety and the general public. In short, high-density housing and aircraft operations are just not compatible. And the planning commission presentation, the developer's attorney also advised the planning commission that development of this type should not be the airport's direct concern and should not be the airport's primary direct interest to restrict property use. The airport's goal would to be to pose no restrictions on anyone, however, and once again, some activities are just not compatible with others. Separating those incompatible land uses as a primary objective of any rezoning regulation, the current M1 zoning has already accomplished that separation. The planning commission was told that proximity to the airport should pose no specific problem, critical hazards or public safety issues. Safety is the number one issue in just about everything aviation related and is an issue here. Though incidents are seldom and unlikely, exposing high-density residential to closed-proximity aircraft operations is just not good practice. The South Carolina Aeronautics Commission has written the city letter saying so and allowing such proximity has consequences. Thank you very much for letting me present today. I appreciate you taking this under advisement. Thank you. All right. How many people do we have any? All right. Currently, I believe we have four additional callers in the queue. Good work. Okay, thank you. Let's keep hearing people out. Thank you. You're welcome. So the next caller is Mr. Chris Eversman and I'll add him to the queue. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Eversman. I'm the airport general manager for the Jim Hamilton, LB Owens Airport, 1400 Jim Hamilton Boulevard, in Columbus, South Carolina. Thank you for letting me speak today regarding this rezoning request. Another purpose of zoning is to protect some aspect of quality of life by land use regulation. Allowing incompatible land use such as residences near aviation operations is not conducive to quality of life. The management and the commission of the airport are proud of the limited number of noise complaints we get each year. We take each one of them seriously in order to maintain quality of life standards in the surrounding neighborhoods. It was noted by the developer's attorney to the planning commission that the property is set idle for some time. That idleness and proximity to rail and air operations suppresses property values and creates an excellent opportunity for low-cost property and long-term returns for development. Development at that location is fine for commercial, industrial, or other land uses that act as a transition and a buffer to residences, but it is not acceptable for high-density housing from a safety and quality of life standpoint. Our airport is the most landlocked airport of its class in South Carolina. Allowing incompatible residential encroachment in that proximity to the airport will hinder future uses and opportunities for the airport to serve the city, county, and the midlands. A study is currently being performed by the airport that may or may not indicate a need for an extension of runway 13. The extension would be in the direction of the city center in this property. The possibility of that extension has been masterplanned and part of the public record since 2011. Should the extension come to fruition, it will move the runway protection zone and the airport airspace closer to the proposed multi-family development. This will promote either safety nor quality of life. Therefore, we, along with the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission, oppose this rezoning request. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much, Mr. Depp. All right. Good afternoon. My name is, good afternoon. My name is Joel McCreary and I'm the chair of the Risen County Airport Commission. Thanks for letting me speak today. I hope you've all read the letters sent by myself and my colleagues regarding this issue and I'll be brief. The Jim Hamilton L.B. Yeowans Airport has been an economic, business, recreational and community threshold to the city and county for over 90 years. It plays an important role in our community, state and national infrastructure. Incompatible land use encroachment is a common threat to urban airports throughout the U.S. The airport as an important part of our community infrastructure deserves the city's stalwart stewardship and protection. Each council member has a responsibility today to deserve the safety and quality of life affiliated with the airport and others before us that work so hard to protect including city and county councils, the Risen County Airport Commission, airport management and operators and the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission just to name a few. Our stewardship of such an important infrastructure asset is crucial to meet today's and tomorrow's needs and challenges. It is an irreplaceable asset. Please protect our community asset and deny the rezoning request from M1 to RG2 and thank you for your consideration. Fantastic architects in the community. Thank you, Joe. All right. Madam Clerk. Hi, my name is David Brandes. I'm an engineer with Yale Robinson. I'm at 1301 Jervais Street. I've lived and worked in Columbia my whole life and works extensively in the Rosewood area. I'm speaking in favor of the project I'm working with the developers. What we're looking for is seeking a change from an M1 designation to an RG2 for about 8.64 acre site the former Wagner Builder site. The RG2 is really what's zoned around us. There's a significant amount of RG2 and I think someone before mentioned that M1 would be a good buffer transition to RG2. I don't think we'd ever consider M1 as a buffer to residential just the highest most intense zoning we could possibly have. The RG2 would allow a 16.4 units per acre which would allow up to 141 acres but that's not what's being proposed for this property. Proposement is for 90 units mainly a town home style apartments, two to three store windows. It'd be a lower density transition from the single family homes that are adjacent to us to some of the other light industrial uses. A reasonable question from M1 to RG2 is gonna help correct some balances of uses in the city which just have not met the market need. The one of the reasons this property is set vacant is that there's not significant transportation to support the M1 needs. Believe me that there was significant need for M1 at this property last decade or so somebody wouldn't think of looking at it. The units catered that workforce housing needs in the city and products that's really needed. Most of the other residential projects that come before you recently have either been high density student housing or large suburban property. Hello, I'm John Ferris, Vice Chair of the County Airport Commission and also Coco Fowler. I'm sorry, am I still being heard? Yes sir, please continue. And we have a three minute time limit. Okay, the site has a number of environmental concerns which the developer is bearing up. Just wanna point that out as well as an opportunity to fix a lot of the stormwater issues. We've completed our traffic investigations and the met with that CDO team is extremely low traffic area and this creation of traffic would not hinder that. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the Sackland Aeronautics Commission. There's no question that the Sackland Aeronautics Commission is focused on aeronautics. One of the things we wanna point out is that in that area, 33.5% of the existing parcels are single family hunts. To say that you need to protect this urban airport from single family just doesn't really meet what is there now, single family. Really would only be talking about a change from 33.5% to 34%, a 1.5% change in the amount of residential is located in the RPC approach. I did wanna point out one of the reasons FAA gave us that no obstruction letter is because the RPC has a three dimensional logic. Wait, David, we gotta wrap this. Yeah, we gotta wrap it up. Yeah, we gotta wrap this from the middle of it. Okay, I'll wrap that up with, I'll wrap it up with that comment then. Well, finish your thought, finish your thought, it's okay. Okay, well, the RPC, the safety approach is a three dimensional entity. So because this property is further away from the airport and further away from the potential expansion, we're out of the glide zones. And so that's why FAA says we don't have an obstruction and we don't. So if you're just looking at land, things like Henry Holmes, things like all of the property that's in that part of Shandon would also be in those safety issues. So to say now that these homes will present a safety issue, makes you wonder, what about the homes that are there now? Oh, super. That's it, thank you. No, thank you, man. You take care. All right, all right. Madam clerk, Erica, do we have other? Yes, you got. There you go. Dear mayor and council, this is Columbia attorney, Mike Kelly, who's been practicing law in the city of Columbia longer than Steve Benjamin and to make Isaac Devine put together. I exactly sure what that means. That's a good thing or bad thing. I don't know either, I just felt like saying it. Today I've got my airport commission hat on and I think there are real and valid reasons to oppose this rezoning request as pending before you. The rezoning request for council today proposes this 90 multi-family high-density development, only 2,300 feet from the current end of the Jim Hamilton LBO and airport runway 13. In the July 13th planning commission meeting, the proposed UDO Employment Campus Land Use Classification, which encourages multi-family redevelopment and infill. However, from the city and other planning studies I have reviewed addressing this area, it appears that some sort of transition zone was attempted by each, buffering the airport and rail operations from residential development. Some of you old-timers may not be familiar with the proposed UDO Employment Campus development. Some of you old-timers may recall that the Jim Hamilton LBO and airport historically had intersecting runways up until the early 1980s. At that time, the airport was reconfigured to its current single runway alignment to minimize residential overflight for safety and noise abatement. Approval of further residential encroachment directly off the end of runway 13 contradicts that original effort and the substantial public monies that have already been spent precisely to avoid this situation, high-density housing and close proximity to rail and aircraft operations. I would urge you on behalf of the commission to make a finding against the rezoning of this property. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. All right. Ma'am Kurt. Hello, I'm John Hodge. I'm the attorney for the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission, Mayor Benjamin, members of council. It's a pleasure to speak to you today. The Aeronautics Commission is a state agency that is charged with the oversight of airport development, maintenance, safety, and land use. And in three minutes, I'll try to summarize the commission's concerns. We do have a letter that's part of your packet and we would certainly crave reference to that for additional information. First off, the Aeronautics Commission is concerned regarding the city's potential compliance with the state code. The state code basically says that governments and local agencies shall take into account the presence of airport land use zones and airport safety zones and consult with the division prior to making land use decisions. In addition, if the division provides comments within 30 days, the governmental body must respond substantively to each comment separately stated before issuing an approval. The Aeronautics Commission did provide comments on June 6, 2020, which have not been addressed as of yet. Furthermore, land use decisions by county, municipal governments, and local agencies shall take into account the existence of airport land use zones. And the also land use decisions should minimize the impact to the interruption of aircraft operations, aviation safety, and other criteria or other items in accordance with FAA criteria as well as any other nationally recognized criteria. Now we'll say that we'll tell you today that right now this proposed project is in the interapproach zone and also in the runway protection zone. And to respond to Mr. Brandy's, let me just say that these rules don't address grandfather properties, people that have been around for quite a while, but for new properties, they do apply. And so it's clear to us, it's clear commission's findings of incompatibility that the sort of land use that's proposed is not suitable off the end of a runway. And that is a serious concern. Now the Aeronautics Commission doesn't wanna have to go to court to enforce Title 55 of the state code against the city or the developer. We don't really wanna do that. We have no interest in doing it, but certainly we wanna make sure that in the end it does comply with these rules. And secondly, the proposed project violates the land use guidelines of the FAA and the Aeronautics Commission and that there's high density develop off the end of the runway. If the current location, if this project were permitted, aircraft would be flying as low as 42 feet over these homes, over these residences. And as soon as that starts, noise complaint starts. And this is a hazard also, probably to people on the airplane, but to people on the ground as well. The FAA approved master plan, as Mr. Eversman has mentioned, has a runway extension. And if that runway extension goes in, then you would have airplanes flying 19 feet over this development. So these rules, land use criteria were set up for major reasons, public safety and harmonious land uses. And granting those developers requests would create an immediate land use conflict, a safety conflict. It would create an airport noise issue. Now, the developer claims that the airport is not a hazard to air navigation. When the FAA reaches a decision like that, that's based upon towers and height, but it does not address the FAA's land use criteria. It's quite significant. So the Aeronautics Commission is also charged by the legislature with representing the public interest to ensure that there's harmonious land use around South Carolina's public use airports. And we would urge you to consider that. And aviation is generally a safe activity, but we're trying to prevent issues where there might be an accident or an incident. So in summary, I will just tell you that I urge you to follow the recommendation that the staff to deny, ask you to deny the rezoning and comply with Title 55. And the Aeronautics Commission also is available to meet with the city and county staff as to address the future zoning issues in the vicinity of the airport. And that is actually planned at this time. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your consideration. Thank you, John. They hear from you, hear your voice, hadn't seen you in a while, and I hope you and your superstar child, yours are doing well, all right? Good deal. Any other folks online, Erica? Yes, sir. We have four callers in the queue. All right, let's go. Let's do it. All right. Hi guys, this is Jeff Cooner. There you go, Jeff. Please. Hey, Jeff Cooner, Stratus Development Group. Thanks for having us this afternoon. So we're excited about the project we've titled The Rosewood, which would bring needed workforce housing and desirable two-bedroom and three-bedroom plans to an area of Columbia and in need of positive growth as a part of that development, a blighted property with lingering environmental issues would be reborn as a productive and positive addition to the community. The infrastructure concerns are minimal with the boutique size of this development. Contrary to what has been mentioned before, this is not a negative element, it's not high-density, it's not a popular new complex. This is a town-home style, two-story, low-density, matches the surrounding community project. From the outset of this development, we strive to be a good neighbor and actually a good, say, rather forcing a mid-arist community on this site as it has been proposed in the past. We opted to downsize and propose community voluntarily to a town-home style that's more conducive to neighboring uses. We're working closely with state authorities to clean up environmental issues and even offering to pay for such clean-up ourselves. Additionally, there are lingering stormwater issues in the area that will be mitigated by the additional stormwater attention facilities in the community. The vast majority of people we've talked to have been in support of the project as it brings continued positive growth in the area displaces no one with low impact and use of more thinning with the neighborhood than what is currently allowed. The RG2 zoning contemplating matches exactly with the surrounding properties. The current M1 zoning, however, is not desirable. It's been vacant sale countless years, proving that the current usage is not needed and also what is allowed. M1 allows for things such as outdoor kennels, trunk terminal, even chemical distributorship, things that are not good for a neighbor. For the perspective of the city, just to talk about this and talk about it for years. Workforce housing with desirable floor plans, but absolutely zero government subsidies. I do wanna harp on that. Unfortunately, the only local opponent of this development has been the local airport authority. Keep in mind, we meet all the safety criterias laid out by the FAA and by its supersedes the local airport. That has proven that FAA is no hazard letter which pertains to this development. Additionally, we have emails on file from March 2019 from the airport authority clearly stating the subject parcel is not in the runway protection zone, either currently or even a proposed airport extension comes to fruition. There's been a deliberate backdoor campaign of misinformation by the airport commission to sidetrack this development for their own personal reasons. I hate that. We had only been forward objections by the airport and those connected with it, most are inagulous in nature today. Proving there is no effort by the airport to work together, but to work against each other on this project. It seems there's been false information the airport circulated effort to maximize the scent. We've met with the airport commission in good faith to present our plan, but found that a letter had been written opposing the project before we even got there. From now, we've been diligent with communicating with neighboring associations, multiple emails to Addison Court, Rosewood, South Kilburn, to help walk them off, Holly Rose Hill, addition all those from the city council, the airport authority, economic development and direct neighbors. We're not trying to pull the wool over anyone's out of this development. To dispel a few rumors that have recently surfed from the project, the project is exclusively two-better and three-better units named Workforce Housing. This is neither intended to be a student dormitory or identity development. The request is nothing other than such. These units are all two stories. As a permitting developer, we'll meet all traffic guidelines for the DOT to ensure a proper traffic flow. They will sell park, not require any street parking. Stormwater issues will be decreased, not increased by the addition of stormwater detention facilities. We do welcome the opportunity to work together rather than against the airport and make this work for everyone. One resident that was mentioned packet mentioned we made no efforts to reach out to the neighborhood. And again, we have multiple emails and files, this person in particular, July 27th, August 3rd. We've done everything we can to get this information out there. In summary, we do regret the politics and misinformation that's recently surfaced on this development. We do remain convinced the proposed use is ideal for the subject property, as well as the community and the city as a whole, and hope to have your support. Due to those American projects were contemplated by the Planning Commission to recommend approval. That being said, we would ask for a deferral of the final vote to try to address a couple items that came up recently. And then again, we do want to work together and be a good neighbor. And our goal is not to make this a contentious process, but to make it work for everyone involved. I do believe in the merits of it and hope we can make it work for everyone. But I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Hi, this is Michelle Huggins with the South Kilburn Neighborhood Association. We are letting you know that we are opposed to the development coming in with the 22 two-bedroom and 68 three-bedroom townhouse that is over in the Edistone Court community. Neighbors that we are finding have not been notified. And that is of a concern. The infrastructure for this development will at this point not be able to handle what is proposed. We are looking at 90 town homes that will have approximately at least 100 vehicles, if not more, that will also be involved on those streets. That's not gonna be able to happen with the condition that the streets are in at this time. That is a commercial area that is going through in there. You come down at a stove and it turns into commerce. That is all industrial back through there. It is a heavily trafficked area. We would really appreciate a no from city council on this. Also, please, you do need to remember that the airport has had accidents before, even though they are few and far between, they have impacted greatly on the neighborhood. And we appreciate all that you do. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, this is Steve Hedges. I'm the manager of Southern region of the aircraft owners and pilots association and not for profit association and the world's largest aviation organization representing the interest of 310,000 aircraft owners and operators, including 3,600 and self-drown. The speaking today to express the OPA's concern and opposition to the proposed rezoning of land near Hamilton Owens Airport from light industrial to residential. This land is situated within the runway protection zone at the threshold of runway run three. Federal aviation administration defines our runway protection zone as a trapezoidal area at the end of the runway and that serves to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. And the events and aircraft lands or crashes beyond the runway ends. Properties also identified in the Hamilton Owens airport layout plan for future property acquisition for runway extension under easement for future runway expansion. This rezoning of residential development project will eliminate the possibility of expanding the runway at Hamilton Owens. And it will lead to a larger, even larger, the need for larger runway protection zone for a new runway. This is an asset, this airport is an asset worth saving. And the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission has recognized that by opposing the runway protection zone rezoning. The city staff has also opposed or suggest that the rezoning request should be denied. Hamilton Owens has accepted nearly 5 million in FAA airport improvement grants since 2016. And those grants come with assurances that the airport will adhere to FAA airport design standards and operating requirements. Under FAA design criteria, the airport must own the landing area. Secondly, the airport owner must have sufficient interest in the runway protection zones to protect the runway protection zones from both obstructions and incompatible land use. The FAA considers residential housing in a runway protection zone to be incompatible. In that regard, I ask the city council to deny the zoning change and request in consideration of its future impact on aviation safety, public safety and the airport itself. AOPA considers light industrial development as an appropriate near general aviation airports and within a runway protection zone. Thank you. Thank you. How many more folks do we have, Erica? We currently have three callers waiting there. Okay. Do it. All right. Thank you for your patience. Good afternoon. This is Mark James with Cypress Real Estate Partners. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, sir, Mr. James. Hey, good. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to call in. I am the... I'll show you them, Mark. Okay. I'm back. Real estate broker that's representing the seller of this property and actually initially sold this to the predecessor in interest to the property back in 2009. The property has been vacant for, I don't know, 20 years probably. We've been actively trying to sell it for five or six years. And I certainly appreciate that. It sounds like to me, we've got kind of a classic case of land use and what's compatible, what's not compatible. And I don't envy the situation all around. We've worked very closely with the city. We've had a number of discussions with the airport commission in our efforts to try to sell this property as well as some others in the area that the seller or client owns. And we're calling a little bit of a, Dan, if you do, Dan, if you don't. The airport commission feels very strongly that the property should remain of commercial use, something compatible to what is there today. However, a number of the neighborhood folks and other kind of vested parties have wanted to see it transition away from a more industrial distribution type used to something more compatible with the neighborhood immediately surrounding, which is residential for the most part, with exception of what my client is doing currently in a property down the street. And so it's a tough one. If we were to try to continue to market the property for use that would be acceptable to the airport commission, we'd run into a problem with the neighborhood associations and the residents in the area. And here we are trying to come in with sort of a low impact residential development that sort of runs afoul of what the airport commission wants to see. And the thing that I have really appreciated that the developer has done in this process is tried to be sensitive to the airport commission's concerns and they've come up with a plan that to me certainly seems as reasonably low impact as possible. It does have 90 units, but gosh, it's almost nine acres. I mean, you know, it's not a small piece of property. And when you consider that it is outside of the runway protection zone, even under the expansion of the runway, it to me feels like it's a reasonable request. Certainly, if you put a ruler down the runway and extend it on out towards Rosewood, the Rosewood Hills project and the recently approved expansion of that project is more in the runway path than this property is. And it just seems to me to be a reasonable request. I can't speak to some of the outreach that the developer has had to the neighborhood. My understanding is that they've made good efforts. Maybe there's more work to do with that. I did hear him say that he's agreeable to deferral for a couple of weeks to try to figure out if there's some questions that need to be answered or continued review of the plan. I know that in conversations with them that they're looking for a win-win solution here that's agreeable to everybody. And so it's just as a person who's been working on trying to sell this property for quite a long time, I do just have to say that I feel like this is a good kind of a compromise for all the parties that have an interest in what goes on this property and some of the other properties around it. That it will be developed in a thoughtful way that balances sort of some conflicting desires on the property. So with that in mind, I'll leave it to y'all to make the hard decisions you've got to make, and I appreciate you hearing me. Thank you, Mark. Take care. All right. Tom Cart? Hey, this is Blake Underwood with the Stratus Development Group. I'm also a principal of Stratus Development and work closely with Jeff who's already spoke on this project. Jeff, with our group, he kind of goes out and takes the front end of things and talks to the neighbors and brokers and city council people on our projects. And I'm more on the backside on the engineering and operations and construction side, but I'm definitely heavily in love all the way through. We work closely together. You know, it's kind of frustrating to get to this point on this project after we've given a lot so much effort to reach out to all, you know, city council members, neighbors, airport authorities, and then, you know, the day of the meeting and kind of get blindsided that we haven't been reaching out. And, you know, we're in the runway protection zone. And, but yeah, we have emails from the commission that, you know, the airport authority that we are not in the runway protection zone. And, you know, our engineer can speak further to that, you know, illustrating the fact that we're not in that runway protection zone. So, you know, it's a little bit frustrating, but, you know, we definitely have made come and made the best efforts to reach out to folks. The pastor at the church, which is our closest neighbor, working with him on numerous occasions and actually have approval, a letter of approval that was submitted on his behalf. And, you know, like Jeff noted, we, you know, we would be happy to defer for a couple of weeks to clear up some of these issues that have popped up here recently that we weren't aware of. If that's what everybody would like to see here. So we definitely think we have a good project that can fit in with the community that's gonna help out the property that is obliged to the neighborhood right now. It was obvious environmental issues that everyone has noted already that we'd be cleaning up on our own dime. You know, I don't see how that could be a negative impact for anybody living around that property, but with that said, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. This is Pastor T. Russell Moore. I am the pastor he just spoke about from Holy Nation Church that is their closest neighbor to the project. I want to just take a few minutes and thank you all for allowing me this opportunity to speak on behalf of this project. And I wanna say first of all, that I have been in the NSO court for 23 years. I came when it is to a court was, let's just say it was on the wild side. And I have seen the transformation and the slow deterioration of gangs and violence in it is to a court. And this is, I think this is my second or third project where I have been asked to speak on behalf of someone wanting to make major changes to Edistor court. And when Rosewood Hills came, I was a part of that group and gave my input to Rosewood Hills. I thought it was for the betterment of the community. And I wanna say right now toward anybody at the airport, the airplanes do not fly over the back of that property. Airplanes land and take off over the top of my church. I can stand in my church yard and on my front yard and watch the little single engine sessiness. The only thing I ever see that takes over, that takes off are, you know, back there or even close back there is a jet every now and then. And that is so infrequent, but most airplanes that fly over that community actually fly over the top of my church or towards Rosewood Drive. And I wanna just agree with the gentleman who spoke that the new part of Rosewood Hills that's being developed. Our whole area stands, you know, in danger of if an airplane was to fall, it would fall somewhere on my church or somewhere in, you know, on Mitchell Street. I just don't see where it would fall behind the church at all. But I have met Mr. Coon, I have met him and I found him to be, you know, a man of integrity and honesty and we've sat down on several occasions and we have talked on the phone and communicated about this. And I've seen his heart that what he wants to do is actually help our community. You know, and I think that it is time now for that community to be changed from light industry. I do not see where the light industry has really added anything to Edisto Court. I do not. The last time we had a developer that wanted to do this, the Neighborhood Association opposed it. I opposed them because I asked them, do any of y'all live down here? Do any of y'all live on Mitchell Street right here in this area? Not many did. And especially I said to Councilwoman, she did not live on Mitchell Street at Edisto Court. And I said, do you not realize the impact that having homes or people owning their own homes in this community would actually do for us? It will help drive getting our streets repaired, getting our infrastructure redone. And we really need that in that community. And in order to have that, I believe the city or nobody else has taken any interest in changing Mitchell Street, Edisto Court for a long time. Rosewood Hills is basically the first development that we've had that actually brought some improvement and that's not industry, that's housing. I don't know whether it's condo apartment, but that's housing. And I think that we need more housing in that community to bring a system more community there, the safe environment, more community there instead of industries and then many of them. Sir? Engineer. Please continue, sir. Please continue, please continue faster. Okay. I really believe that if we have more homes and people living in those homes, it will provide a much safer environment. And so, every night when I go to my church and I do my online studies, I still, there's dark areas in that community because I'm right there and there are dark spots, dark areas and it's really not safe. And we've got industry there now. So I would really like to see this project come to fruition. I would really like to see homes there. We have several churches in the area and they've all gone down. My church is still doing good, but most of the churches in the area have gone down because of the change in the area. And on our part, it's really, really been dilapidated. You know, when you look at, when you look at the structure and the buildings and everything, you know, Edisto Court needs a facelift. It needs a change. It needs some new development. It's above the past. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Message is loud and clear. I appreciate you, doc. Appreciate you. All right, thank you, sir. Be well. All right. Madam Perk. All right. Again, we thank you all for your patience. That concludes our public input at this time. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right. Mr. Brennan. Yes. First, let me ask Erica. Is there something going on with the screen share right now? I'm getting a lot of Councilman McDowell on my screen. But I'm... You may need to change the setting, but we're about to take down the video, the presentation, so that might help. Perfect. I like you, Ed, but not that many of you. And it won't have something going on with it. Let's see it. There we go. Will and then Tamika. Will? Yeah. Mr. Mayor, thanks for everybody's comments, both for or against. I'm a little uneasy on just... We need to clarify what the FFA criteria is first and foremost. There's a lot of different legalese being thrown out there, and that always makes me nervous when we enter into one of these. And not just for a change of use, but just uses in the future. Future uses for growth for that corridor, which I agree with the pastor. Absolutely. There's great things coming to that area that we've all put our minds to in our efforts. So the property owner owns a lot of property that is a major puzzle piece to any growth in that area. So I would like to echo the deferral comments to get around the table with the airport folks and the property owner and really talk about what does the future hold for that as a parallel track to clarify the FFA criteria that are being talked about, Mr. Mayor. Right. That's a second motion. Second. Further discussion. That's really just what I was gonna say, Mr. Mayor. I mean, I think certainly there's a lot of questions here. You know, as someone who talks a lot about having more workforce housing and looking at the pictures, the project itself seems like a quality project. My only concern would be the safety regulations and I think that we don't really have clarity around that. So I would like to get more clarity around that. And certainly Councilman Brennan, I will offer myself if you want to pull together a group of folks to just discuss the project and how do we figure out what really the law is and an opportunity that maybe we could bring folks together for a workable solution. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? I don't think so. All right, that's with the previous question, Mr. Sorry, Mr. Rick, do you have your hand up, Daniel? Are you taking off? Okay. Is Will gonna make a motion? Yeah, he has. He has in Howard's second, Ms. Devinas as well. Let's move to the previous question, Member. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickman. Hi. Mr. Mcdowell. You're gonna mute it. We're doing a roll call on item. Roll call on to the fur action. All right. Yes. Mr. Duvall. Yes. Mr. Define. Hi. Mr. Davis. Hi. Mayor Benjamin. Hi, and thank you. And thank you to all the participants and another interested parties who called in to make sure the voices were heard. We'll see Mr. Brennan and Ms. Define moving this discussion along. So thank you. Medal of city manager. Or Chris, I'm sorry. It's been a couple of days since we were. We just have a few more items that should be fairly quick. Your next item is a zoning map amendment at 1801 Assembly Street. This is a request to resound the parcel from C1DD to C4DD. This is the old veterans administration thing. All right. Is anyone here speaking in favor of or against this? Member Kerr. No. All right. Motion by Mr. Mcdowell. Is there a second? Second. All right, discussion. Exciting opportunity. We'll move the previous question or follow-up. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. Mcdowell. Yes. Mr. DeWall. Aye. Mr. Define. Aye. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. The next two cases are rezonings to apply the design preservation or landmark designation to these structures at the owner's request. The first one is at 1601 Hampton Street. Again, a request to apply the DP overlay to designate the structure at the Group 3 landmark. All right. Is there anyone here speaking in favor of or against this? Member Kerr. No. All right. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? They none with the previous question. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. Mcdowell. Yes. Mr. DeWall. Aye. Mr. Define. Mr. Davis. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. I want to note for item, I'm sorry we're dealing with 39, Krista. All right. I note for item 40, that Mr. DeVine is going to accuse us of from participation in this discussion. All right. And this is your last item. It is a zoning math and text amendment 2531 Gervais Street. A request to apply the DP overlay to designate the smaller structure on the parcel as a Group 3 landmark. Is there anyone here speaking in favor of or against this item? No, sir. Thank you, Member Kerr. Is there a motion? No, sir. I move Mr. Mcdowell second by Mr. Rickerman. Any discussion? We'll move the people's question. Court call roll. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. Mcdowell. Yes. Mr. DeWall. Aye. Mr. DeVine. Mr. Davis. Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. That concludes your zoning public hearing. Thank you. Bye. Is it still Tuesday? Thank you, Krista. Thank you very much. That was great. All right, let's keep, let's keep on moving. Yes, sir. Thank you, Krista. One appointment today, Mayor Benjamin and Council for the Fire Advisory Committee. I sent you an email and follow up to Ashley's email. Chief Jenkins and I have been working to get this committee reestablished with the County Administrator and just need two appointments. I move we appoint Mr. Rickerman and Mr. Brennan to represent the city. Second. Moving second. Any discussion? All right. Move the people's question. Court call roll. Mr. Brennan. Yes. Mr. Rickerman. Aye. Mr. McAul? Yes. Mr. Boval? Aye. Mr. Vine? Aye. Mr. Davis? Aye. Mayor Benjamin. Aye. Excellent. Thank you so much. I have a little bit more work to go. Councilman Brennan and recommended it will be letting you know. Thank you for organizing, Theresa. Yes, sir. Okay. Erica, do you have public? Well, I guess we need to do our committee referrals and reports first. All right. Any report of committee or referrals to committee? Thank you. All right. We have anyone? Erica, anyone else who signed up for public input? Not there. All right. All right. Well, Mr. Duval, you have a motion. Mr. Mayor, I move we go into executive session for receipt of legal advice related to matters covered by attorney client proof is pursuant to 30-4 as 78-2 COVID-19 street planning. Discussions of negotiations as proposed contractual arrangement pursuant to 30-4 as 78-2 capital city study. Mr. Mayor, could I add the canal to the contractual item, please? Item 40. Absolutely. One addition is a second to Mr. Duval's motion. Second. This is a discussion. Seeing moved the previous question. Mr. Brennan? Yes. Sir, recommend? Aye. Mr. McAvoy? Yes. Mr. Duval? Aye. Mr. Vines? Mr. Davis? Aye. Mayor Benio? Aye.