Regular City Council Meeting

279 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MUNICIPAL MINUTES CITY OF TUPELO STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MAY 16, 2023 Be it remembered that a regular meeting of the Tupelo City Council was held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall building on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. with the following in attendance: Council Members Chad Mims, Lynn Bryan, Travis Beard, Buddy Palmer, Janet Gaston and Rosie Jones; Ben Logan, City Attorney and Missy Shelton, Clerk of the Council. Council Member Nettie Davis was absent. Council Member Lynn Bryan led the invocation. Council Member Travis Beard led the pledge of allegiance. Council President Lynn Bryan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. CONFIRMATION OR AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA AND AGENDA ORDER Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to confirm the agenda and agenda order, with the following addition: ADD ITEM #6.5 IN THE MATTER OF CORRECTION OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Council Member Janet Gaston asked that everyone remember Leesha Faulkner, as she continues to gain strength. Council Member Rosie Jones asked that everyone remember one of her patients in their prayers. Council Member Travis Beard mentioned that Council Member Nettie Davis is absent due to illness. Council Member Lynn Bryan thanked the CVB and the Gumtree Arts Council for all their hard work on the festival last weekend. MAYOR'S REMARKS Mayor Todd Jordan mentioned several past events that were all a big success: Gumtree Festival, Blue Suede Cruise (1100 entrants) and Wine Downtown. He offered congratulations to all the graduates of 2023. He asked Deputy Chief Anthony Hill to come forward and accept congratulations for his recent public safety award - Law Enforcement Agent of the Year 2023. DC Hill thanked everyone.  280 IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR LOT MOWING No one appeared to address the final lot mowing list, as follows: Parcel Location 088N3305700 151 CANAL ST 088N3304700 335 CANAL ST 089N3100601 123 S INDUSTRIAL RD 089J3114900 404 N GLOSTER ST 088J3303600 1250 BERRY ST 089B3013600 1132 HILDA AVE 113B0602200 S GREEN ST 105D1505100 3091 MOORE AVE 105D1503500 3064 MOORE AVE 089E3001700 816 CLAYTON AVE IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEMOLITIONS A public hearing was held concerning the demolition of properties located at the following addresses: 1133 Elvis Presley (Parcel 088F2802600) 1155 Elvis Presley (Parcel 088F2802700) 1165 Elvis Presley (Parcel 088F280260H) Susan Reed, on behalf of Vernell Reed, spoke concerning the property located at 1133 Elvis Presley. Evelyn Shields spoke concerning the property located at 1155 Elvis Presley. IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR REDISTRICTING A scheduled public hearing was held concerning the proposed redistricting plan. Jenny Savely, City Planner, and Cristen Bland, Three Rivers Planning and Development District, addressed the Council and audience on how the plan was developed. The following addressed the Council during this hearing: Reverend Jeffrey Gladney 415 N Joyner Reverend Charles Penson 377 Huntington Place Reverend Charles Moore 3204 Shonda Circle Rosie Jones Council Member of Ward 7 After each gave comments concerning the plan, the public hearing ended. APPENDIX A IN THE MATTER OF REDISTRICTING PLAN  281 Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to table this item until a Special Called Meeting scheduled for June 1, 2023. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX B IN THE MATTER OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE (TABLED AT THE MAY 6, 2023 MEETING) Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Gaston, to leave this item on the table. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2023 Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Mims, to approve the minutes of the May 6, 2023 Council meeting. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. IN THE MATTER OF CORRECTION OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING Having been brought to the attention of the City Council, Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Gaston to approve a correction to the March 21, 2022 minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council. The minutes originally stated: The Council previously awarded a bid and contract for Bid # 2023-003MT - North Veterans Blvd Improvements (Reese St to Hamm St) at the March 7, 2023, meeting. The contract is now being brought forward for ratification. Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Jones, to ratify the contract between the City of Tupelo and James A. Hodges Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,014,124.47 for Bid # 2023-003MT. The vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX L The correction of the minutes should be, as follows: The Council previously awarded a bid and contract for Bid # 2023-003MT - North Veterans Blvd Improvements (Reese St to Hamm St) at the March 7, 2023, meeting. The contract is now being brought forward for ratification. Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Jones, to ratify the contract between the City of Tupelo and James A. Hodges Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,814,124.47 for Bid # 2023-003MT. The vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX L Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. IN THE MATTER OF BILL PAY Bills were reviewed at 4:30 p.m. by Council Members Beard, Bryan and Palmer. Council Member Gaston moved, seconded by Council Member Mims, to approve the payment of the checks, bills, claims and utility adjustments. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX C  282 IN THE MATTER OF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL ITEMS Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to approve the advertising and promotional items, as presented. After a brief explanation by CFO/City Clerk Kim Hanna, of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX D IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL TO SUBMIT FOR BVP GRANT Grant Writer Abby Christian, addressed the Council to request approval to submit an application for a Bullet Vest Partnership (BVP) grant for 50% funding of the cost of body armor vests purchased for law enforcement officers. This is a DOJ grant and requires a 50 % match from the City. Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to approve the submission of the grant application. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX E IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING SELECTION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR DESIGNATED ARPA PROJECTS The City of Tupelo advertised and received proposals for RFQ 2023-031PW for the selection of construction manager for designated ARPA projects. Although several inquiries were received, only one RFQ was received. Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Mims, to approve the selection of ICM Construction as the construction manager of these projects. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX F IN THE MATTER OF LOT MOWING Council Member Mims moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to approve the final lot mowing list, as presented. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX G IN THE MATTER OF PROPERTIES FOR DEMOLITION DDS Interim Director Dennis Bonds requested that the Council consider the adjudication of each property on the public hearing demolition list that have been found to be in such a condition to be a menace to the public health, safety and welfare of the community and in need of cleaning by demolition as authorized by Miss. Code § 21-19-11 (1972 as amended). Each property was separately considered and found to be in such a condition to be a menace to the public health, safety and welfare of the community and in need of cleaning by demolition. The properties are: 1133 Elvis Presley (Parcel 088F2802600) 1155 Elvis Presley (Parcel 088F2802700) 1165 Elvis Presley (Parcel 088F280260H) Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Gaston, that each property on the demolition list be found to be in such a condition to be a menace to the public health, safety and welfare of the community and in need of cleaning by demolition as authorized by Miss. Code § 21-19-11 (1972 as amended). Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor of approval of the demolitions. APPENDIX H  283 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES APRIL 3, 2023 Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Gaston, to approve the minutes of the Planning Committee of April 3, 2023. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX I IN THE MATTER OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MARCH 13 AND APRIL 10, 2023 Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Mims, to accept the minutes of the Major Thoroughfare Committed of March 13 and April 10, 2023. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX J IN THE MATTER OF BODY WORN CAMERAS AGREEMENT WITH DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to approve an agreement with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), pertaining to the use of Tupelo PD body-worn cameras by deputized task force officers. Tupelo PD personnel assigned to the DEA Task Force will not have a Tupelo PD body worn camera on any DEA operation. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor to approve the agreement. APPENDIX K IN THE MATTER OF DONATED LEAVE REQUEST - FAULKNER Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Gaston, to approve the donation of sick time for Tupelo Parks and Recreation/Museum employee Leesha Faulkner, as allowed by the employee handbook. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX L IN THE MATTER OF RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT FOR BID # 2023-013FP FAIRPARK RESTROOMS Council Member Mims moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to approve the ratification of a contract with Timmons Electric Co., LLC for Bid 2023-013FP - Fairpark Restrooms, in the amount of $316,648.23. Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor. APPENDIX M EXECUTIVE SESSION Council Member Beard moved, seconded by Council Member Palmer, to determine the need for an executive session. Attorney Ben Logan said the session is for prospective litigation under Miss. Code Anno. 25-41-7(b) (1972 as amended) and the possible acquisition of real property under Miss. Code Anno. 25-41-7(g) (1972 as amended). Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor at 6:55 p.m. Council Member Palmer moved, seconded by Council Member Gaston, to close the regular session and enter executive session for discussion of litigation under Miss. Code Anno. 25-41-7(b) (1972 as amended) and the possible acquisition of real property under Miss. Code Anno. 25-41-7(g) (1972 as amended). Of those present, the vote was unanimous in favor.  285 APPENDIX A  286 APPENDIX A  287 APPENDIX A  288 Tupelo City Council May 16, 2023 Public Hearing for Redistricting Council President Lynn Bryan: In the next Item #3 In the Matter of Public Hearing Redistricting. So, the City Council has been working on the matter of redistricting for the City based on the 2020 census since November when we passed a resolution to look at the redistricting and at that time we hired Three Rivers Planning and Development to go through all the data and make recommendations to the City. This will be the first hearing on the draft final for redistricting. There will be another work session on the 23rd of May where we’ll discuss it with the input of the people that come and speak tonight with a final vote being on June 1st at a Special Called meeting. So tonight if you are here to speak on the redistricting, you can come up, and anybody can speak in this case, because even people that live outside of the City because it is a public hearing based on the census and not just to speak to the I mean the public hearing on the redistricting and interested parties are not just speaking to the Council alone. So, when you come up, you’ll need to state your name and address and you’ll have 5 minutes. So City Council members who want to speak on this will still have the same 5 minutes that everybody else does. You can give you input and then we will come back in and we’ll take all that input, and with the Mayor’s staff, the City Attorney and the City Council we’ll take that input and see if we need to revise this final draft. So, anybody that wants to speak about redistricting can come to the podium now and…Oh, did I miss a demolition? Person in audience: That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Bryan: Ok, what is your address, ma’am? Person in audience: inaudible answer. Bryan: Ok, well I missed you, then. I apologize. Hey, y’all come on up. Let’s do that. We’re going to step back and we missed a demolition and we’re going to let them come on up and give them their 5 minutes and then we will move over to the redistricting. At this time a demolition issue was heard that was missed at the previous item of Public Hearing for demolition. Ok. Now we are going to move to Item #3 – Redistricting and I’m not going to repeat myself, so anybody that would like to speak on redistricting please come to the podium, state your name and your address and you’ll have five minutes. APPENDIX A  289 Charles Penson: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn’t want to use my 5 minutes, I just want to ask a question about this hearing. Ahhh, you said that we are having a hearing today, follow-up on the 23rd and then the vote by the Council on the 1st. But in your printing on the website, it has that the hearing date is today and then tomorrow for the public hearing is the plan. COO Don Lewis: That was corrected. Penson: It was? Lewis: It was corrected and reentered on Facebook. Penson: Then this is the public hearing? Bryan: This is the public hearing. We’ll have another work session on it on the 23rd to discuss the input that comes out tonight and then we’ll vote on the 1st. So if anybody would like to speak, just come forward and you’ll have 5 minutes on redistricting. Council Member Rosie Jones: inaudible words on tape………..and then explain what the plan is. Bryan: Jenny? Lewis: What is the question? Jones: The question is…Is Three Rivers going to come up or the planning committee going to come up and explain what they have in the proposed plan? So will they come up and explain to everyone what the proposed plan is? First? Or so y’all just want questions about……. Lewis: Well, sorry, don’t mean to be disrespectful (walked to the podium) the way it was put out there, is that we had a work session yesterday, for people to come and see what was going on. So we had a work session that followed the pre council. Tonight, we want to hear what the public has to say about it. We want to hear their comments and what they have learned so far, and then we will take those comments. Now, I’m not in objection, Mr. President, if you want a quick explanation by Three Rivers – we’ll be glad to do that. But, that wasn’t part of the plan and we can do whatever you want to. Whatever the Council would like to do. Bryan: Alright, so, ahh. Council Member Travis Beard: Mr. President, I recommend that we let Three Rivers give a brief description… APPENDIX A  290 Council Member Janet Gaston: I agree. Beard: of the plan. Bryan: Ok, that’s fine. Jenny can you and your consultants……… City Planner Jenny Savely: Ok, Thank you. Three Rivers has been working with us and advising on the maps. They work with the software that allows us to measure the census blocks and the demographic data according to what redistricting law demands and what our resolution demands. And, so, I’m going to actually let Cristen Bland, from Three Rivers, is going to present that process and how the data was derived. Cristen, it’s all yours. Cristen Bland: So, yeah, uhm……..so to give a brief overview, the census happened in 2020, everything opened on March 12th. April 1st of 2020 is generally the target date of the snapshot used for numbers used for redistricting. Covid 19, of course, caused a lot of delays in collecting that data, so we were not able to get redistricting data until April 12, 2021. Now, along those same lines, the City started talking with us in November of 2021 and entered an official agreement in December of 2022 and, as previously stated, we have been working since about November when the established criteria was passed by Resolution was passed on November 16th. Now that criteria is as follows: We complied with all US Constitution, MS Constitution, National, State and Federal laws. We basically tried our best to stay within the voting rights act of 1965, as amended, to keep the districts contiguous, and keep their deviation brought to + or – 5 from the ideal total of each district. Incumbents should stay in their wards, but separated. We tried to maintain current wards as much as possible to avoid voter confusion and followed natural geographic boundaries as much as possible. Now, the main reason why we redistrict, is to keep equal representation per ward for each and that basically maintains that one person one vote rule. We used information on the census block level. As you can tell on that map, there are 1,019 census blocks in the City of Tupelo, and those blocks, though may not can see them from some places in the room, are drawn by streams, ditches, roadways, pipelines, powerline boundaries, railroads, highways and residential streets. Now, I’m going to give you a snapshot of what the data looks like, don’t be alarmed, a bunch of lines. So, what does that mean? So each census block has a total population, and when it comes to redistricting, that is the only number that we are truly worried about and want to have an equal representation between the wards. So, plus, the people have 2 historically majority minority districts. The data that is given within the redistricting, the information within the redistricting data, breaks down total population and the racial data and so we when it comes to redistricting in the City of Tupelo, we did use the total population and then used the white population and the African-American population to make sure that we maintained those minority majority statuses in 2 districts. Now, when we looked at current wards, based off the 2020 census data, we have benchmark numbers that look like this, where your total deviation is at 39. Your total deviation needs to stay within + or – 5 for an overall of 10. Since we APPENDIX A  291 can account to the general people not answering their census and then also just the growth that the City that everyone has seen. Now, that’s where we have our previous no current proposed plan. And then the data that goes along with that proposed plan – that was our general process. We did speak with Council Members and the planning commission to make sure that historic neighborhoods were kept together, as much as possible, and to maintain those current lines. We both had the map on the screen and so in your handout you should have the current lines which are the red lines on the map. Bryan: So, would anybody like to come and speak about redistricting in the City of Tupelo. Please come forward and state your name and your address and you’ll have 5 minutes. Jeffery Gladney: Good evening to each of you. My address is 415 N Joyner St of Tupelo, but also of concern is 1978 S Veterans Memorial Blvd, which is the road by the church where I pastor and which road will no longer be in Ward 5, but will move slightly into Ward 3. You have those maps where you can see it where it says Red Oak Church. Some of the members of our community church, Red Oak Grove, speaking specifically of what their concern is about that we want to make sure that lines are drawn favorably I know she says that wards should maintain 2 predominantly African – American districts, but it should be where it can be across the board where any district can be African-American or white. We want the lines to be fair. We want the lines to be where it is not necessarily, when you look at 5, a black person couldn’t win that district because the way it goes back up there with the population. So we really want to just, on behalf of me and my church, and I think I’m in 2 or 5, I don’t remember, but we just want it to be fair. A lot of the surrounding cities follow Tupelo lead and the way things are done and so when we really do this, we really need to be cognizant of the fact that we are a leading city and that if we do something that would be a balance of shift of power from the black community, other towns around us and people around us tend to follow what the All-America City does. We are very concerned about that and we just want it to be where anybody could win – the person who goes out and works the hardest spends the most money, and garnishes the most votes should win. And that’s when I look at everything and look at the numbers and the specifics, I believe you said point something off or something like that. I’ll have to go back and do my reading on all of that. So we just want it to be where it is fair, not gerrymandered, not like what happens in Atlanta or New York or somewhere else. We want things to be equitable and sometimes equitable is not fair for the other person who started way later. So they have to run much harder to catch up. And so we are always concerned about what happens at Red Oak Grove because God has placed us here to serve as leaders and we are always willing to fight for our people. Bryan: Thank you. Anybody else? Alright. Charles, if you’d like to speak you can come up to the…… APPENDIX A  292 Penson: I would request that I’m only a (inaudible) Bryan: Ok, that’s fine. Penson: I think I can be heard from here. I don’t know if it is necessary that I use the mic, but I did want to make a comment and I have some questions. Bryan: Ok. So, Charles, state your name and address please. Penson: Charles Penson – 377 Huntington Place Tupelo, MS. My first question has been answered about the hearing. This was the official hearing and the second one that is mentioned on the website, and it’s still on the website is May 17. The second one is, I wanted to address it to Three Rivers Planning. And I want the assurance that this plan complies with the criteria to insure one person one vote. And particularly are there any split voting blocks in this plan? Split voting blocks addresses the continuity requirements for redistricting and if a block is split, to enable passage from one district to another district, that’s illegal and I was wanting to ask the planning, do we have any voting blocks that are split and if those blocks when used as a whole, would it change the configuration of the map? Bryan: So, Charles, everything that Three Rivers has submitted to us, has been reviewed to make sure it follows the voting rights act, and has gone through our attorney to make sure it follows the voting rights act. Every bit of it. So, all the districts were done by major thoroughfares, and arterial roads and all that, so neighborhoods were not split. Penson: I’m not asking about neighborhoods, I’m asking about blocks. Bryan: If you split a block, then you violate the voting rights act because that’s how the votes are put together to do the districts. Because it was asked by me, specifically, when we were looking at several neighborhoods. Cause everybody in the room met with Three Rivers and with the attorney and with the staff and went through this. It’s not as easy as just drawing a line and all that, because when they take the census, they have voting blocks that they have to go through and the houses in those blocks have to stay as a unit and all that, and if I’m not mistaken, we didn’t divide any voting blocks. Or did we? Penson: Can Three Rivers address that? ……..several people talking at once Logan: Charles, I’ll respond to that. I only know of one place, one block, and it was a block that extended from Thomas Street all the way to the back of another APPENDIX A  293 neighborhood. The roads didn’t get there and so Council Person Jones was having to go past… Bryan: She left her ward to go into another ward to get to this…….. Logan: …to this one house. And that was flipped over into her ward. Penson: So you did end up splitting a block. I know that for a fact, because I have been asked to consult on the drawings and redistricting plans for the City of Tupelo. And it turns out that Ward 7 block 2005 presented a problem and in your plan it has been split. I believe even from previous plans, it may have been split and that violates the criteria for redistricting. And so I just wanted to point that out and also our assistance in the development of a new plan that does not violate the 1965 voting rights act and also addresses the concerns that were made by members of Ward 7. My understanding is that repeated requests that were made by their representative were not addressed. And so I will offer my services in helping to put a plan together that complies with the law. Bryan: Thank you Charles. Would anybody else like to speak on redistricting? Can you state your name and address and you have 5 minutes? Charles Moore: Charles Moore (inaudible) Missy Shelton, Clerk: I’m sorry I didn’t get your address. Charles Moore: 3204 Shonda Circle Tupelo, MS 38801. My name is Charles Moore and I am the president elect of the NAACP branch of Lee County and am also president of the MS state conference of the NAACP. My concern is that in this ward representation, needs to be intact, and I pray that we don’t overlook it as we have in the past and continue to overlook things that concerning these wards and also Ward 7 particularly that have been brought to the attention of the City and typically have been brushed over. As far as moving forward as a Council season, I hope they adhere and to do the work that actually pulls Tupelo together and don’t leave Ward 7 out. Even in this (inaudible) just stated (inaudible) confrontation that we know that everybody wants to keep everything intact for themselves, but according to the law, sometimes we can’t get what we want. So I ask that the City Council and those that are working for the City Council, will do their due diligence so that we don’t have to move forward with litigation outside this room. But we are prepared to do that as well, as I have talked with other constituents in the state and also in Jackson. Bryan: Thank you Charles. Does anybody else like to speak concerning redistricting? Jones: I would. APPENDIX A  294 Bryan: Ok. So, Rosie you’ll have 5 minutes. Go ahead. Jones: I’m Rosie Jones and my address is 1119 Evelyn and I also I live in Ward 7, the Southern part. Yes, I have met with Three Rivers on 2 or 3 occasions. On the first meeting, I asked that I not be taken all the way down to Main Street on the same side of the street, which is feasible for me to just take both sides of the street so that the ward is not so far divided. I also asked that to go into one of the neighborhoods, the neighboring neighborhoods which has to lose population and pick up some of those that pay higher taxes and that has more things done in their area so that if those people are in the ward so that other things can get done down in Ward 7 and I continuously hear about change, change, change and if change is going to happen we need to stop talking about it and start being about it. I do understand about the 2 wards that both lost population and mine stands to pick up the most population. So with that being said, my request each time, not only did it get ignored, it continued to go past Main and now almost down to Jackson Street, which makes no sense to me when Ward 7 starts at the South end of Tupelo and it should be able to come up and take both sides of the street without anyone being nervous about what is happening and what is going on and I need these changes to occur so we can move forward as the great city of Tupelo – so we can start to do things equally and stop talking about that’s what we want. So, I request that this map is denied, and I did hear our President say that this is the final map, but I guess this is just a proposed map. So with this I just propose that we come up with another map that includes all of the wards equally and get things done equally – or at least attempt. APPENDIX A  295 APPENDIX B  296 APPENDIX B  297 APPENDIX B  298 APPENDIX B  299 CHECK INFORMATION FOR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16, 2023 FUND CHECK NUMBERS POOL CASH ID-417754-417756;417757-418102 EFT 50002203-50002225 TWL ADJUSTMENTS ELECTRONIC TRANSFERS AS SHOWN ON THE FACE OF DOCKET INVOICES AS SHOWN ON FACE OF DOCKET APPENDIX C  300 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kim Hanna, CFO DATE May 16, 2023 SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL ITEMS KH Request: Proposed items for approval are for the purpose of advertising and bringing into favorable notice the opportunities, possibilities and resources of the City of Tupelo. ITEMS: WTVA $1,000.00 Tupelo Aquatics Center Ad Campaign CDF $10,000.00 Cooper Tire Back-to=Work Celebration Lee County Courier $350.00 Graduation Ad for Tupelo High School  301 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Abby Christian, Grant Administrator DATE 16 May 2023 SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL TO SUBMIT FOR BVP GRANT AC Request: Seeking request to submit a Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) grant for 50% funding of the cost of body armor vests purchased for law enforcement officers. Agency: DOJ, Office of Justice Programs Grant: Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant #: TBD Match: This funding serves as a 50% match for funds spent purchasing vests. Submission Deadline: 26 June 2023 APPENDIX E  302 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Logan, City Attorney DATE May 11, 2023 SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING SELECTION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR DESIGNATED ARPA PROJECTS Request: The city has solicited Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) for construction management services. All responses from prospective proposers are due May 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. These proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee. The selection committee will choose the most qualified proposal and make recommendations to the city council. A list of the designated ARPA projects is attached. Construction estimates on these projects are estimated to be $9,000,000. However, no local ARPA funds or MDEQ state matched funds will be used for compensation for these services. The requirement that ARPA funds be obligated by December 2024 and completed by December 2026, the number of projects being coordinated, and the current demands on city departments and personnel to manage non-ARPA projects and work justifies the need for these services. BML APPENDIX F  303 CITY OF TUPELO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RFQ 2023-031PW APPENDIX F  304 CITY OF TUPELO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ARPA WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE RFQ 2022-031PW PURPOSE: The City of Tupelo is seeking Statements of Qualifications from interested construction management firms for the purpose of providing construction management services for a program of work attached as Exhibit “A”. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND REQUIREMENTS: The PROJECT consists of two (2) separate groups of storm water infrastructure projects in Tupelo, Mississippi, with a total budget of approximately $9,000,000. All projects must be eligible under the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSFR) program, or any other storm water project eligible through ARPA guidelines, guidance, rules, regulations, and other criteria, as may be amended from time to time by the United States Department of Treasury. ARPA funding for projects comprising this program must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by December 31, 2026. The work covered by this request includes those responsibilities, basic services and any additional services set forth in AIA Document C132 – 2009, particularly Articles 3 and 4 as contained in a final contract. These services will be paid for solely by City local funds and will not use City local ARPA funds or State of Mississippi matching ARPA funds. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: Method of procurement. The City of Tupelo has determined that Request for Qualifications would be practicable and advantageous to the city and has made that determination based on the nature of the services, i.e. professional services, where quality, availability or capability is overriding in relation to price in procurements for such services. Submissions: Interested firms are therefore required to submit one original and eight copies of their response marked “City of Tupelo Request for Qualifications to Provide Construction Management Services RFQ 2023-023PW”. Qualifications should be received before 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 15, 2023, in the office of the City Engineer, Dennis Bonds, 71 East Troy Street, Tupelo MS, 38804. Mail responses to: Hand-deliver responses to: City of Tupelo City of Tupelo Dennis Bonds, City Engineer Dennis Bonds, City Engineer P.O. Box 1485 71 East Troy Street Tupelo, MS 38802-1485 Tupelo, MS 38804 Form of RFP. Qualifications must be clearly identified with “City of Tupelo Request APPENDIX F  305 for Qualifications to Provide Construction Management Services RFQ 2023-023PW” on the front of the sealed envelope along with the firm’s name, address, point of contact, telephone number and email address. Inside the envelope, eight copies of the RFQ response shall be in printed document form and at least one additional copy shall be included on a digital storage device. If corrections or erasures are made to the printed copy, they shall be initialed by the person signing the proposal. No telephone, telegraph, facsimile or email proposal will be accepted. Qualifications submitted after 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2023 will not be considered. Responsibility for timely submittal lies solely with the submitting firm. Pre-submission Conference. A pre-proposal conference will be conducted to answer any questions on Thursday May 11, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room B, First Floor, City Hall, 71 E. Troy Street, Tupelo, Mississippi. Please advise if arrangements need to be made for teleconferencing. Pre-selection Discussions. Discussions may be conducted with responsible firms who submit qualifications determined to be reasonably qualified for being selected for award. However, qualifications may be accepted without such discussions. Any discussions shall be for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of, and responsiveness to, the solicitation requirements. In conducting discussions, City will not disclose information derived from competing offers. Firms submitting qualifications will be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion. Revision of qualifications may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. Selection Criteria. A selection committee will evaluate the qualifications submitted. If a selection is made, the City of Tupelo will select the proposal or qualifications that, in the opinion of the City Council, shall be the most qualified on the basis of price expressed as a percentage of the total actual construction cost of the program’s projects (30%) technical factors (25%), management factors (40%) and cost factors (5%). Firms interested in providing these services must submit, as a minimum, the following information to meet these evaluation factors as detailed below: Price factors –Construction management fees will be expressed as a percentage of the actual construction costs of the project program. Technical factors - Experience in large and/or complex construction management projects over the past 5 years, particularly projects involving governmental agencies, regulations, contracts and programs; demonstrated understanding of the scope of work and related objectives; demonstrated understanding of ARPA water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure project requirements; demonstrated understanding of the MDEQ MCWI matching grant program HOME - Mississippi Water Infrastructure (mswaterinfrastructure.com) ; complete and responsive to the specific request for qualifications requirements and past performance where similar qualifications were required. Management factors - proposed scheduling timeline meet the needs of the city; project management plan, history and experience in performing the work on-time, on-budget and contract-compliant; professional staffing that will be available and dedicated to these projects; and availability measured in terms of location and distance to Tupelo. APPENDIX F  306 Cost factors – Cost of services compared to other qualifications for similar services and adequately explained or documented. Reservation of Right to Reject. CITY reserves the right to reject any and all submissions of qualifications. Contract Negotiation. City has identified projects in two groups based on the previous selection of two (2) different engineering firms to perform engineering services within those groups. It is the intention of the City to select one (1) construction management firm to manage the program for all projects. Contract price will be determined by negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation after qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified firms submitting qualifications are selected. Construction management fees may be fixed or expressed as a percentage of the actual cost of the project program. While it is the city’s intention to build each project listed in the program, the actual cost of the project program is subject to funding. Consequently fixed or percentage fees proposed for construction management services will be based on actual costs of projects funded and built. MBE/DBE Policy. The City of Tupelo is an equal opportunity employer. Minority and disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit qualifications in response to this request and will not be discriminated against on any grounds. APPENDIX F  307 EXHIBIT A GROUP 1 Storm Water: Robins Field arched pipe repairs $ 475,000 Holly Hill pipe project $ 200,000 Gum Tree Park pipe project $ 200,000 Ford Circle pipe project $ 200,000 City Park pipe project $ 500,000 Van Buren pipe project $ 425,000 Ridgeway Drive pipe replacement $ 150,000 GROUP 2 Storm Water: Haven Acres reshape and rip rap ditch $1,350,000 Mitchell Road pipe drain upgrade and replacements $ 300,000 Gun Club Road box culvert upgrades $ 450,000 Barnes Crossing box culvert upgrades $ 750,000 Medical Park pipe replacement $ 200,000 Danielle Cove replace pipe and rip rap downstream $ 450,000 APPENDIX F  APPROVED 5-16-2023 Preliminary Lot Mowing Report for 05/16/23 Violation Ref Parcel Location Owner Owner Address Owner City State Zip Inspector 1. 44009 088N3305700 151 CANAL ST WENSLEY POST OFFICE BOX 6474 CONCORD, CA 94524-1474 RS COLLEEN M 2. 44011 088N3304700 335 CANAL ST FAULKNER LLOYD P O BOX 100 HOUSTON, MS 38851 RS 3. 44015 089N3100601 123 S ACC TAX SALES P O BOX 850001 ORLANDO, FL 32885 SB INDUSTRIAL RD PROPERTIES LLC 4. 44028 089J3114900 404 N GLOSTER TATE PROPERTIES PO DRAWER B TUPELO, MS 38802 DS ST LP 5. 44032 088J3303600 1250 BERRY ST BAGWELL 2112 BRYAN DR TUPELO, MS 38801 RS CARLTON LEE (DECEASED) 6. 44035 089B3013600 1132 HILDA SCALES MARK 1103 HILDA TUPELO, MS 38804 SB AVE 7. 44060 113B0602200 S GREEN ST GENLYTHE 4360 BROWNSBORO ROAD STE 300 LOUISVILLE, KY 40232 SB THOMAS GROUP LLC 308 8. 44065 105D1505100 3091 MOORE DANCER MCCOY 1103 FILLMORE DR TUPELO, MS 38801 RS AVE 9. 44072 105D1503500 3064 MOORE RICHARDSON P O BOX 87 RED BANKS, MS 38661 RS AVE MEGAN 10. 44073 089E3001700 816 CLAYTON HENSON SLEEP PO BOX 728 TUPELO, MS 38802 SB AVE RELIEF INC 11. 12. APPENDIX G  309 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis Bonds, Interim Director of Development Services DATE May 9, 2023 SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF REVIEW/APPROVE PROPERTIES FOR DEMOLITION DRB Request: DRB The Department of Development Services requests Council approval to demolish substandard structures on the following properties: 1133 Elvis Presley (PARCEL 088F2802600) 1155 Elvis Presley (PARCEL 088F2802700) 1165 Elvis Presley (PARCEL 088F280260H) APPENDIX H  310 APPENDIX H  311 APPENDIX H  312 APPENDIX H  313 APPENDIX H  314 APPENDIX H  315 APPENDIX H  316 APPENDIX H  317 APPENDIX H  318 APPENDIX H  319 APPENDIX H  320 APPENDIX H  321 APPENDIX H  322 APPENDIX H  323 APPENDIX H  324 APPENDIX H  325 APPENDIX H  326 APPENDIX H  327 APPENDIX H  328 APPENDIX H  329 APPENDIX H  330 APPENDIX H  331 MINUTES OF THE TUPELO PLANNING COMMITTEE APRIL REGULAR MEETING Monday, April 3, 2023 6:00 PM Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Lindsey Leake called the meeting to order. Committee members Mark Williams, Bentley Nolan, Pam Hadley, Leslie Mart, Patti Thompson, Victor Fleitas, Gus Hildenbrand and Scott Davis were present. Staff members present included City Planner Jenny Savely and Zoning Administrator Russ Wilson. Director of Development Services Tanner Newman was absent. Chair Leake asked Bentley Nolan to open with a prayer and Mark Williams to lead the pledge. Chair Leake then presented an opening statement of the committee purpose and reviewed how the committee would conduct its business. The Staff and Committee were then asked to introduce themselves and did so. REVIEW OF MINUTES Chair Leake asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. Leslie Mart said that she recalled that Jenny Savely had mentioned that the Chickasaw Study was underway but was not reflected in the minutes for the January meeting. Savely said that she would make sure that was corrected. Scott Davis made a motion to approve the minutes of the January meeting with those corrections, seconded by Bentley Nolan and passed unanimously. Leake then opened the regular session of the meeting asking for a report on Council Actions. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS City Planner Jenny Savely mentioned that MAJSUB22-05, Maplewood Subdivision had been approved by City Council on February 7th. OLD BUSINESS Planner Savely mentioned old business TA-22-02 remains in legal review. NEW BUSINESS Savely welcomed new member Victor Fleitas representing Ward 4 to the committee. Past Chair Pam Hadley will be rotating off the leadership but remaining on the committee, Lindsey Leake will now be serving as chair, Bentley Nolan will serve as Vice Chair, Mark Williams will then be next to advance to Vice Chair at the end of this next year. Leake announced the first item on the agenda, FLEX23-01, Lakefront Gardens requests to add an 8th duplex on the property which requires a modification to an existing site plan. He asked the applicant to come forward. Mark Summers, representing Lakefront Gardens. Savely mentioned that previously Summers development was approved as FLEX20-02 at 1030 South Veterans in June of 2020. Due to Covid-19 the project had been delayed. He seeks to add an additional duplex to the plan. Thus two things are needed. Approval of modifications to the APPENDIX I  332 Major Site Plan moving landscaping and adding one more unit, and a Flexible Variance is needed to increase density to 16 total dwellings on this 1.33 acre lot. Staff recommends approval of the site plan and adding in landscaping around the northern side. Chair Leake mentioned that the first item to review would be the Major Site Plan. Since there was no one from the public to offer input, Chair Leake opened the floor for discussion between committee members. Leslie Mart mentioned after making a site visit, she had concerns about access for fire trucks and a turnaround. Savely mentioned that Fire would review the plans for compliance before construction begins. Summers said there would be more than 22 feet and the 96 foot turning radius available. Mart also asked where the HVAC units would be installed. Summers said in the back of the units. Mart asked about distance between buildings. Savely mentioned 10 feet is required between buildings. Hildenbrand asked about parking requirements. Wilson explained parking requirements had been met. Mart expressed concerns about dimensions on the drawings and landscaping placement. Savely explained landscaping requirements for modified site plans that have already been approved. Summers mentioned that there is more landscaping than is included on the drawings saying it was only required previously to show typical landscaping on two of the units with the understanding that all of the units would be landscaped in a similar fashion and explained that in more detail in response to Mart’s questions. Fleitas asked for confirmation that there were 25 parking spaces on the plan. Summers confirmed. Mart asked about green space. Summers said the “garden” was west of the southwest-most building, a 25 x 70 foot area next to the road. Mart expressed concerns about parking, space between buildings, layout of the buildings, location of the HVAC units. Hildenbrand mentioned that all of this had been approved before in 2020. Scott Davis said, so if this is approved, and the Fire Department sees something out of line, it will have to be changed? Savely said that if this has to be amended, it will come back to the committee. Wilson stated that it had already been before the Plan Review team and approved. Davis said that the details are left up to Plan Review, the committee looks at the big picture. Fleitas clarified that what we are approving is going from 7 to 8 units with this preliminary site plan with a firm understanding that the ultimate approval will be with the city and fire department addressing Ms. Mart’s concerns which will still have to be addressed within code before construction can begin. Savely agreed. Leake asked for a motion. Wilson added that the construction permits have been signed off on for the first seven units, so the only one in question would be the new unit #8. Williams asked is parking was being considered for all or just number 8, Wilson said unit 8 is the only one and it’s ready to go. This will then all go before Plan Review one last time to check all of this in totality. Patti Thompson then asked if the scope of the decision tonight is just to give it the go ahead on allowing an 8th unit so they can start looking at the other things that go with it. Mart once again expressed her concerns. Savely said that’s why you are being asked to review the density also at the higher level. A motion to approve the modification of a major site plan was offered by Gus Hildenbrand, seconded by Patti Thompson. All in favor except Leslie Mart voted No. The Flexible Use to allow duplexes was brought up for a motion just so it was on the record. Mart made the motion to approve, seconded by Pam Hadley and approved unanimously. Then a motion was made to approve the flexible variance to increase 12 units per acre for a total of 16 units by Mark Williams, seconded by Scott Davis, all approved except Mart who voted against. APPENDIX I  333 Savely then advised the applicant of the next steps. Chair Leake then announced the next item on the agenda, FLEX23-02, Change of a Non- Conforming fence at 2215 Reagan Cove. Melvin Orr came forward to present his application. Mr. Orr said that his existing fence encloses a pool in the back yard and is in need of repair. He wants to redo the fence but found out that he has two front yards on his corner lot. The Nixon Street side has 80 feet of 6 ft. tall fence which is 10 feet off Nixon. He wants to move it back off of Nixon another 16 feet and keep a wrought iron gate adjacent to the house, but is requesting to be allowed to exceed the 4ft max height in this front yard by installing an 8 ft. fence there so they can have privacy for the pool. Wilson stated that there was not a drawing for the proposed fence, that it was simply 16 feet further back from the street, which would put it a total of 24 feet from the curb. Mart asked that it looked like the neighbor on the east side was doing something there. Orr said that he wanted to go 8ft in height on the east side because some of the previous trees and shrubs had been lost when they died from the freeing temps and beetle infestation last year. Mart confirmed that he was just wanting to replace what he has currently got with new fence, but moving it back 16 feet further on the Nixon side. Orr agreed. Hildenbrand asked if that was tornado damage and Orr replied no. Leake asked if anyone wanted to speak to the issue. Wilson said that 59 letters went out and only one call came in for clarification. Savely explained the reason the fence is non-conforming and the change being requested. A motion to approve was made by Mark Williams, seconded by Bentley Nolan. All voted in favor so the approval was unanimous. Savely advised the applicant of their next steps. FLEXVAR23-01 – 589 North Coley Road, adding electronic media to a non-conforming multi- tenant sign. Adam Cleveland, 1979 North Coley Road wants to add an LED reader board to a non-conforming sign. Mart asked if there were any residences nearby. Cleveland said this is the location just north of Chesterville Road. Wilson stated that 6 letters went out to adjacent property owners. Mart asked for clarification. Cleveland mentioned that they wanted to update the multi-tenant panels as well as the “LQ portion” and then add electronic media, or a digital reader board measuring 65 inches by 17 feet underneath the top LQ portion. Wilson stated that the board is a high quality Watchfire brand board. Hadley asked if they were putting landscaping at the base. Cleveland replied yes. Mark Williams noted that there was a planter at the base. Cleveland said they were going to modify that to work better for permanent landscaping instead of placing potted plants. Fleitas asked if the Airport Authority needed to approve this. Wilson stated that this was not required until the height gets to 100- 200 feet, and that the height will remain the same at 30 feet, which is the same height that is allowed for a multi-tenant sign with 2+ tenants. Savely stated that the recommendation was that the lighting be 4,000 kelvin or less at this location. Wilson stated that he spoke with the sign company that assured him that the sign is capable of automatically controlling these specifications during all times of the day in bright light or at night. Cleveland agreed that this was fully compatible with any standards required. Leake closed the public input portion. Wilson said that a letter did go out to the Airport Authority and no response was received. Patti Thompson made a motion to approve and Leslie Mart seconded, with the vote unanimous APPENDIX I  334 for approval. Savely advised the applicant of next steps. And Savely clarified that the approval also included the landscape requirements, and that was unanimous to include the previously stated landscaping. Leake moved on to the next application, FLEXVAR23-02, 1890 McCullough Boulevard, calling the applicant forward. Josh Roberson was asking for a variance on the required lot width for a two lot minor subdivision at 1890 McCullough Boulevard. This development originally started out as a one lot project with two buildings on one block of land. One of the businesses decided that they wanted to own the property instead of leasing, thus the need to divide the parcel, which required dividing the lots in a manner which left the shared parking on the other lot. The access isn’t actually off of McCullough, but off of a drive to the west side of the two lots. MDOT would not allow additional curb cuts on McCullough thus dictating that access come off of a shared drive that Storage City also uses. Mart asked who owned the drive. Roberson said they had an irrevocable easement from Storage City to use the drive. Wilson said that this was really a technicality since frontage is defined in the code as being off of a city street, not on a drive. Savely explained the principle and stated that the City recommends approval since the easement runs across the front of both lots. The developer said there are several easements that run with the property via deeds so that these will not cause any problems going forward. Mart asked about the use of the buildings. Roberson stated one was a crossfit gym and the other a shell building possibly a multi-tenant office building. Mart asked about Plan Review for parking. Wilson explained the way that parking is allocated by use and that the proposed uses would have to follow available parking. Savely mentioned that a landscaping plan was included. Wilson stated that 15 letters went out with only two question calls for clarification. Mart asked about the house that had been on the lot. Roberson said there was a house on a lot just east of their lot. Wilson explained that this house could probably not be used as a residence in the future due to the renovation costs exceeding 50% of the assessed value. Mart asked about buffers required. Wilson and Savely both mentioned that no buffer is required because both lots are zoned similar off of McCullough, but there is residential to the north, but Storage City owns a portion in between. Savely mentioned that the Land Development permit allowed cutting of most of the previous trees and that a 10 foot buffer was left. Leake closed the public input section and opened the meeting for committee discussion. Mart asked a question about setbacks in MUCC. Usually developers clear it out and then landscape back when building. Leake asked for a motion. Bentley Nolan moved to approve, Pam Hadley seconded the motion, with all in favor of approval. Savely informed the applicant of the next steps. Thompson asked if there was anything on the agenda for May. Savely mentioned three possible applications. Chair Leake mentioned that the next work session will be Monday, April 24th at 5:15 PM, and the regular planning committee meeting will be scheduled for Monday, May 1st at 6 PM. There being no further business, Patti Thompson made a motion to adjourn which passed unanimously. APPENDIX I  335 APPENDIX J  336 APPENDIX J  337 APPENDIX J  338 APPENDIX J  339 APPENDIX J  340 APPENDIX K  341 APPENDIX K  342 APPENDIX K  343 APPENDIX K  344 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alex Farned, Director DATE May 5, 2023 SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF DONATED LEAVE REQUEST - AF Request: The Parks and Recreation is requesting approval to donate leave to an employee that has a qualifying health condition under Policy # 315 of the City of Tupelo Handbook. The employee will be exhausting all of her earned accrued leave. Leesha Faulkner had a two major surgeries and has been off work since February 13, 2023. We are requesting approval for employees to have the ability to donate a portion of their accrued leave in accordance to the Donation of Leave Policy to help this employee. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. APPENDIX L  345 APPENDIX L  346 APPENDIX M  347 APPENDIX M  348 APPENDIX M  349 APPENDIX M  350 APPENDIX M  351 APPENDIX M  352 APPENDIX M  353 APPENDIX M  354 APPENDIX M  355 APPENDIX M  356 APPENDIX M  357 APPENDIX M  358 APPENDIX M  359 APPENDIX M  360 APPENDIX M  361 APPENDIX M  362 APPENDIX M  363 APPENDIX M  364 APPENDIX M  365 APPENDIX M  366 APPENDIX M  367 APPENDIX M  368 APPENDIX M  369 APPENDIX M  370 APPENDIX M  371 APPENDIX M  372 APPENDIX M  373 APPENDIX M  374 APPENDIX M  375 APPENDIX M  376 APPENDIX M  377 APPENDIX M  378 APPENDIX M  379 APPENDIX M  380 APPENDIX M  381 APPENDIX M  382 APPENDIX M  383 APPENDIX M  384 APPENDIX M  385 APPENDIX M  386 APPENDIX M  387 APPENDIX M  388 APPENDIX M  389 APPENDIX M  390 APPENDIX N  391 APPENDIX N  392 APPENDIX N  393 APPENDIX N  394 APPENDIX N  395 APPENDIX N  396 APPENDIX N  397 APPENDIX N  398 APPENDIX N  399 APPENDIX N  400 APPENDIX N  401 APPENDIX N  402 APPENDIX N  403 APPENDIX N  404 APPENDIX N  405 APPENDIX N  406 APPENDIX N  407 APPENDIX N  408 APPENDIX N  409 APPENDIX N  410 APPENDIX N  411 APPENDIX N  412 APPENDIX N  413 APPENDIX N  414 APPENDIX N  415 APPENDIX N  416 APPENDIX N  417 APPENDIX N  418 APPENDIX N  419 APPENDIX N  420 APPENDIX N  421 APPENDIX N  422 APPENDIX N  423 APPENDIX N  424 APPENDIX N  425 APPENDIX N  426 APPENDIX N  427 APPENDIX N  428 APPENDIX N  429 APPENDIX N  430 APPENDIX N  431 APPENDIX N  432 APPENDIX N