Budget, Finance & Human Resources · Meeting · Feb 9, 2026
Mon, Feb 9, 2026
Oversees the annual budget process, departmental funding requests, and personnel policies including hiring, compensation, and benefits.
Outline
This outline was generated by an LLM from a transcript and may contain errors or inaccuracies. Prefer the original recording when available.
The committee moved routine budget business quickly, then spent most of its substantive time on two issues: financing storm-disaster recovery and pressing the Water Authority after a court ruling rejecting its appeal. On the disaster side, members were told a previously discussed capital outlay note could not be used for cleanup costs, so the committee instead authorized staff to pursue a tax revenue anticipation note of up to $1.2 million through local banks, with FEMA reimbursements expected to pay down the debt as they arrive. The committee also heard that the ice-storm event had a signed declaration, reimbursement is expected at 75/25, and volunteer hours appear sufficient to cover the county’s 25% match for the initial response phase.
The other extended discussion centered on a 27-page judicial ruling that, according to members, fully denied the Water Authority’s appeal and validated Hickman County/TDEC arguments about flaws in the authority’s process. Members argued the county spent $2.4 million to build a sewer line serving the I-40/Dickson corridor but Hickman County applicants have been denied or discouraged while Dixon-side development has continued. The committee voted to have the county mayor, county attorney, budget chair, and finance director return with options or a strategy by next month. Other notable threads included January property-tax collections running at 56.71% versus 60% at the same point last year, two approved budget amendments, opioid-settlement limits on buying EMS heart monitors, and a delayed rollout of new county meeting software/tablets.
Budget, Finance & Human Resources Committee 12:18
Call to Order, agenda, minutes, and January financial summary 12:18
- 12:46 Agenda approved without controversy.
- 13:10 Prior meeting minutes from January 12 approved.
- 14:12 January financial summary discussion focused on property-tax collections:
- 14:12 Property tax was reported at 56.71% collected.
- 14:45 Members noted collections were 60% at the same point last year, but staff said one more month of heavier collections was still expected.
- 14:26 A question was raised about whether the schools portion remained on track after prior adjustments; response indicated school property-tax collections were tracking the same as overall property tax.
- 15:11 Motion to approve the January financial summary passed by roll call, all present voting yes.
Beer Board 17:50
Call to Order and agenda 17:50
- 17:56 Roll call showed 11 present and 3 absent.
- 18:42 Agenda approved.
Public comments on beer permit application near residences 19:11
- 19:19 A nearby resident objected to the proposed location, saying she moved there for the neighborhood setting and feared the use would harm the residential feel and increase traffic danger on a blind curve/hill.
- 20:24 Discussion indicated one affected residence was measured at roughly 279 feet from the site.
- 21:14 The property owner briefly identified herself but did not make a substantive defense of the application.
- 21:31 Another nearby resident objected strongly, saying the building was essentially in his front yard, close to where his children play, and raising safety/security concerns.
- 22:10 That resident said the structure was about 100 feet from his house/mailbox area.
Denial based on distance objection rule 22:29
- 22:29 Counsel/leadership summarized the governing rule as understood in the meeting:
- state distance requirement was described as around 700 feet;
- the county was said to have shortened that by resolution years ago to 300 feet;
- if a resident/owner within 300 feet appears and objects, the permit is denied.
- 23:00 Because two residents within the 300-foot distance objected, the permit was declared denied with no further action.
- 23:14 Motion to adjourn the Beer Board passed.
Budget, Finance & Human Resources Committee reconvened 23:26
Call to Order, agenda, public comment, and minutes 23:26
- 23:33 Roll call showed 13 present and a quorum.
- 24:08 Committee agenda approved.
- 24:20 No one appeared for public comment.
- 24:25 Minutes approved.
Finance Director / Budget amendments 24:51
- 24:51 Budget Amendment 2648 from the Sheriff’s Department:
- 24:56 Described as insurance recovery plus reclassification of funds.
- 25:06 Motion and second received.
- 25:12 Approved by roll call, all present voting yes.
- 25:39 Budget Amendment 2649 for schools:
- 25:47 Reported as already approved by the Board of Education on January 12 and intended to budget for TCAT revenue.
- 25:58 Motion and second received.
- 26:04 Approved by roll call, all present voting yes.
- 26:27 Finance director reported no additional budget amendments.
Human Resources and unfinished business 26:27
- 26:27 Chair stated there was no HR business.
- 26:34 Chair stated there was no unfinished business.
New Business / Agenda Items 26:40
Disaster financing: capital outlay note not available; tax anticipation note pursued 26:48
- 26:48 The committee was updated on borrowing options for storm/disaster costs:
- 26:54 The Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund advised that a capital outlay note could not be used for disaster cleanup and related response costs.
- 27:05 Members were told capital outlay financing could still work for the EMS heart monitors by themselves.
- 27:13 Staff said an alternative existed: a tax revenue anticipation note through a third-party/local bank for up to 3 years.
- 27:22 Explanation of how the proposed note would work:
- FEMA reimbursements would be used to pay the note down as money comes back in.
- Any amount not reimbursed by FEMA would remain the county’s obligation.
- Staff was exploring whether the structure could operate more like a draw/line of credit so the county only borrows what it actually needs.
- 27:57 Members noted prior discussion had referenced a higher amount, but staff recommended exploring around $1.2 million because the need was still being refined.
- 29:09 Preliminary disaster-cost estimate from the ice storm was said to be already around $300,000–$350,000, with more still coming in.
EMS heart monitors and grant/settlement offsets 29:26
- 29:26 Heart monitors were reported to cost $424,000.
- 29:31 Members were told the Health Foundation had approved funding for all CPR devices, subject to one more reading/final step.
- 29:44 A request was going to the opioid committee the next night to ask it to purchase 2 to 3 heart monitors.
- 29:55 If the opioid committee purchased 2 heart monitors, the remaining need was estimated at about $241,000.
- 30:07 Staff also identified about $88,000 in ARPA money and roughly $40,000 in direct-appropriation grant funds that might be applied to reduce the county cost further.
- 31:13 A member summarized that, if outside funding covered enough monitors, the county might get its net cost down to roughly $50,000–$60,000.
- 31:24 Committee sentiment was to wait on final action for the heart monitors until the opioid committee and other funding pieces were clearer, while moving ahead now on disaster borrowing authority.
Motion authorizing pursuit of tax anticipation note up to $1.2 million 31:51
- 31:57 Motion made to authorize the finance office and county mayor to pursue tax anticipation notes with local banks up to $1.2 million.
- 32:11 Motion seconded.
- 32:22 Discussion clarified the purpose was primarily disaster financing, with a formal resolution still required later before any final borrowing.
- 32:34 Roll-call vote approved the motion unanimously, all present voting yes.
EMA / disaster recovery status, FEMA reimbursement, and local-resource strategy 34:04
- 34:04 EMA reported the county had finally received the signed disaster declaration, so work done up to that point was covered.
- 34:36 Reimbursement was described as 75/25.
- 34:42 EMA said volunteer hours could be used as in-kind match and that enough volunteer labor had already been documented to cover the county’s 25% share for the initial phase.
- 34:57 One department alone was said to be showing almost 700 hours of volunteer time once calculated.
- 35:16 The county was shifting from response into recovery/debris cleanup.
- 35:22 Staff said actual debris operations had not yet started under the recovery phase because they wanted to slow down, confirm coverage, and target the greatest need while keeping public optics in mind.
- 35:33 Highway and Solid Waste had resumed their own local responsibilities, while EMA remained the umbrella/operations coordinator.
- 35:52 Both county agencies were described as overwhelmed because they also had regular duties to maintain.
- 36:15 EMA warned FEMA reimbursement can take years even when eligibility is clear, so documentation was being tracked carefully on a dedicated FEMA line.
- 36:55 Recovery strategy priorities:
- first preference was county-to-county mutual aid, especially highway-department help from neighboring counties, because it is simpler financially and administratively;
- local equipment and sheriff-supported staffing/operators were being explored;
- local contractors might be used if needed, preferably at FEMA rates.
- 37:44 EMA said a list of contractors was already being assembled, but some decisions were being held until reimbursement/eligibility details were fully settled.
- 38:05 A member emphasized that even reimbursable federal money is still taxpayer money and urged balancing speed with fiscal restraint; staff was commended for managing the event carefully.
Opioid settlement limits on equipment purchases 33:10
- 33:10 A member asked how opioid-settlement funds could lawfully be used for heart monitors if those funds were earmarked for opioid-related work.
- 33:37 The explanation given was that, after work with UT SMART, the county understood it could not buy all heart monitors from opioid funds but could buy a portion because the monitors are used on overdose/drug-related calls.
- 33:57 No vote was taken on that question itself; it was explanatory context for the EMS funding plan.
Water Authority / sewer corridor dispute 39:05
Court ruling and significance for county position 39:05
- 39:05 A member reported that on Wednesday, February 4, Judge Darnell in Nashville entered a 27-page ruling.
- 39:17 The ruling was described as affirming what county officials had argued for 4 years and casting major doubt on the Water Authority’s claims and process.
- 39:34 Members said the Water Authority’s appeal had been completely denied and that both the county’s and TDEC’s arguments against the authority’s actions had been upheld.
- 40:02 A request was made to place the ruling on the county website so the public could read it.
$2.4 million county sewer investment and alleged unequal access 41:15
- 41:15 Members said Hickman County spent $2.4 million in 2005 to construct a sewer line from East Hickman High School to just south of Sonic by I-40 in Dickson.
- 41:41 The committee was told 100% of that original construction cost was paid by Hickman County taxpayers, with no contribution from the Water Authority of Dickson County or Dickson County residents.
- 42:02 Since the dispute began, the Water Authority was accused of denying numerous Hickman County applications or discouraging applications at the outset.
- 42:23 By contrast, members said no Dixon County applicants along that corridor had been denied, and new houses/commercial development on the Dickson side had continued to receive access.
- 43:25 The central complaint was that Hickman County funded infrastructure its own citizens cannot effectively use while Dixon-side growth benefits from it.
Questions about numbers, denials, and informal discouragement 46:38
- 46:38 Members asked whether every Hickman-side applicant had been denied and every Dixon-side applicant approved.
- 46:51 The response distinguished between:
- some applications already in process before the conflict escalated;
- known formal denials;
- and many potential applicants who were allegedly told not to bother filing because they would not be approved.
- 47:40 It was acknowledged no complete numerical list of denials/approvals was available at the meeting.
- 48:01 Another member argued any count would understate the problem because many residents or businesses were turned away informally before filing.
- 49:12 Members noted the issue affected both residential and commercial prospects.
Prior permit-cap discussion and county-line issue 49:46
- 49:46 Members recalled a prior Water Authority meeting where capacity limits were discussed.
- 51:13 A specific recollection was that when the authority director gave a remaining-permit number, a board member moved to allocate 9 permits to Hickman County.
- 51:37 The complaint was that Hickman County still did not actually receive those 9.
- 52:21 Members argued the authority had publicly treated the corridor as “regional” and said county lines did not matter until permit scarcity arose, at which point Hickman County believed the county line was used against it.
Lease/ownership concern after debt payoff 53:07
- 53:07 Beyond current taps, one member raised a longer-term concern: the line is currently owned by Hickman County but subject to a lease arrangement under which ownership would shift once the debt is paid.
- 53:45 The lease was described as ending when the debt is satisfied rather than on a fixed calendar date.
- 53:58 Concern was expressed that the Water Authority has not shown itself to be a reliable partner and should not automatically receive ownership/control of infrastructure after treating Hickman County applicants unequally.
- 55:25 Members also discussed possible remedies such as equal treatment, recoupment of some of the $2.4 million, or other contract-based claims, while acknowledging eventual physical capacity limits may arise in the future.
Possible county strategy and role of legal counsel/JECD board 57:31
- 57:31 A question was raised whether, if money were no issue, Hickman County should consider a more independent wastewater solution rather than remaining dependent on the authority.
- 58:23 The response stressed there is no ready-made engineered county solution yet, but suggested the reconstituted joint economic/community development board should be tasked with examining long-term wastewater strategy and regional partnerships.
- 1:00:41 Another member asked more directly about having the county attorney review possible legal options, including whether the county could sue for equal treatment for citizens regardless of county line.
- 1:01:51 Discussion turned toward a more formal request for leadership and counsel to bring back options rather than the committee debating legal theories in the meeting.
Motion for mayor, attorney, budget chair, and finance director to return with strategy/options 1:01:51
- 1:01:51 A member suggested tasking the county mayor, county attorney, budget chair, and finance director to review the issue and return by next month with an appropriate strategy or remedy.
- 1:04:06 Motion made accordingly, with the named group asked to report back at the next budget meeting on legal/strategic options.
- 1:04:37 Motion was seconded.
- 1:04:49 Approved by voice vote.
- 1:05:07 Members noted legal work could involve some expense, though likely within existing budgeted legal capacity.
Land use plan emphasized as key in ruling 1:05:50
- 1:05:50 A member who had read the ruling said others should do the same because the judge appeared to rely heavily on the county’s existing land use plan.
- 1:06:24 The point made was that the plan’s wording—not acreage thresholds alone—was important, and that the current updated plan contains similar language.
- 1:06:57 Members argued this underscores the policy significance of land-use planning in future disputes involving developers, wastewater, and outside entities.
County meeting technology update 1:09:26
- 1:09:26 A brief update was given on tablets/new software for county meetings.
- 1:09:31 Members were told there was nothing wrong with the tablets or software itself.
- 1:09:36 The attempted “soft opening” failed because a new laptop crashed after a setup issue.
- 1:10:04 Expected rollout was pushed beyond the next county court meeting, with plans to keep testing before full launch.
Adjournment 1:10:22
- 1:10:22 Chair asked for any further discussion and moved toward adjournment.
Key figures and statistics
| Figure | Type | Context / topic | Timestamp |
|---|---|---|---|
| 56.71% | Percentage | January property-tax collections | 14:12 |
| 60% | Percentage | Property-tax collections at same point last year | 14:45 |
| January 12 | Date | Prior minutes approved / Board of Education approval date for amendment 2649 | 13:10 |
| 11 | Headcount | Beer Board members present | 17:56 |
| 3 | Headcount | Beer Board members absent | 17:56 |
| 279 feet | Distance | Approximate distance from residence to proposed beer permit site | 20:24 |
| 100 feet | Distance | Approximate distance from another residence/mailbox to proposed site | 22:10 |
| 700 feet | Distance | State distance requirement as described during beer-board discussion | 22:29 |
| 300 feet | Distance | County objection distance under prior resolution, as described | 22:41 |
| 13 | Headcount | Budget committee members present on reconvening | 24:02 |
| 2648 | Amendment number | Sheriff’s Department insurance recovery/reclassification amendment | 24:51 |
| 2649 | Amendment number | School/TCAT revenue amendment | 25:39 |
| 3 years | Time period | Maximum duration described for proposed tax revenue anticipation note | 27:13 |
| $1.2 million | Financing amount | Authorization cap for proposed tax anticipation note | 28:03 |
| $300,000–$350,000 | Cost estimate | Preliminary ice-storm/disaster cost estimate already accruing | 29:09 |
| $424,000 | Equipment cost | EMS heart monitor total cost | 29:26 |
| 2 to 3 | Quantity | Number of heart monitors requested from opioid committee | 29:44 |
| 2 | Quantity | Scenario used for opioid committee purchase estimate | 29:55 |
| $241,000 | Remaining cost | Estimated heart monitor balance if opioid committee buys two | 29:55 |
| $88,000 | Grant/ARPA amount | ARPA funds that might be used toward heart monitors | 30:07 |
| $40,000 | Grant amount | Direct appropriation grant funds that might be used toward heart monitors | 30:15 |
| $50,000–$60,000 | Net county cost estimate | Approximate county share if outside funding reduces heart-monitor purchase enough | 31:13 |
| 75/25 | Reimbursement split | FEMA disaster reimbursement ratio described by EMA | 34:36 |
| 25% | Match percentage | County share expected to be covered by volunteer in-kind | 34:42 |
| 700 hours | Labor hours | Volunteer hours from one department alone, approximate | 34:57 |
| Wednesday, February 4 | Date | Date of Judge Darnell ruling referenced in Water Authority discussion | 39:05 |
| 27 pages | Document length | Length of court ruling | 39:10 |
| 4 years | Time period | Length of county’s Water Authority dispute, as described | 39:23 |
| $2.4 million | Infrastructure cost | Hickman County cost to construct sewer line corridor | 41:15 |
| 2005 | Year | Year sewer line was constructed, according to discussion | 41:15 |
| 100% | Percentage | Share of initial sewer-line construction said to be paid by Hickman County | 41:41 |
| $50 | Fee | Application filing amount mentioned during Water Authority discussion | 49:00 |
| 9 | Permit count | Number of Hickman permits members recalled being allocated in prior discussion | 51:13 |
| 20 years | Time period | Long-term concern raised about future ownership/control after debt payoff | 54:47 |
| 30 years | Time period | Offhand idea mentioned about refinancing debt duration | 55:05 |
| $30 million | Claimed cost | Amount a member said he was once accused of causing the authority to spend | 1:07:39 |
External vendors, brands, and software
| Name | Type | Context / topic | Timestamp |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund | Company | Advised county that capital outlay notes could not be used for disaster cleanup financing | 26:54 |
| FEMA | Company | Disaster reimbursement process and timing for storm response/recovery costs | 28:21 |
| UT SMART | Company | Referenced as source of guidance on partial opioid-fund eligibility for heart monitors | 33:44 |
| TDEC | Company | State agency whose arguments were said to align with county in Water Authority appeal | 39:47 |
| Sonic | Brand | Landmark used in describing sewer line route and affected corridor | 41:25 |
| I-40 | Brand | Interstate landmark used in describing sewer line corridor | 41:28 |
| Perry Mason | Brand | Mentioned figuratively during discussion of minutes/evidence in Water Authority matter | 1:08:41 |
Laws and policies
| Citation / name | Level | Type | Context / topic | Timestamp | |---|---|---|---| | County resolution reducing beer permit distance to 300 feet | County | Resolution | Beer permit denied because residents within 300 feet objected | 22:35 | | Existing land use plan | County | Policy | Cited by members as central to judge’s reasoning in Water Authority ruling | 1:06:04 | | Current land use plan | County | Policy | Members said updated plan retains similar protective wording relevant to future disputes | 1:06:31 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSgXNIY8fEU
2/9/2026 Budget and Finance Committees Audio - Hickman County, TN
Feb 9, 2026
12:18
Jim Bates here.
12:46
agenda motion to approve the agenda
12:54
and a second. All right. Anybody sign up on sign up
13:01
sheet back?
13:10
All right. Also, the minutes of the last meeting
13:17
which was the 12th of January packet
13:23
move approval. Motion approved by our coach.
13:36
All in favor say any discussion? All in favor say I.
13:47
Okay.
13:57
January last month.
14:05
I don't James coach. I feel like James coach. You know James coach.
14:12
Jim was talking. No, that's okay. 56.71% in property tax%
14:26
behind. What about the schools portion? Is it still running where it needs to?
14:33
Uh are you talking about the property tax is the same? Yeah, same. Okay. I knew since we adjusted that just
14:40
making sure that they're going to come in where we thought they would. Yeah. Yeah. There's still u all the
14:45
property tax across the boards at the 56.71 and we were all at 60% last year.
14:50
So we still got one month and that's usually
15:04
Jim Herren pays his way.
15:11
Motion to approve the financial summary for January. So
15:16
second
15:22
discussion roll call. Jim Bates. Yes.
15:28
Ronald Coat. Yes. Clay Chester. Yes. Dusty Jordan. Yes.
15:33
And Ron Pucket. Yes. All present voting yes
16:00
went over pretty quick over time on the roll. We hit one one time like two minutes.
16:06
I just try to try to beat it. Yeah.
16:26
We got about two points to be a midterm start.
16:35
chest
16:41
will be
16:56
without fighting. We used to grow pretty good.
17:22
They got my name.
17:28
I'm not going to say anything.
17:50
It's 510 by my watch. Go ahead and call the beer board to
17:56
order. Chris, if you would call a roll. Matthew Barnhill here. Claude Kot
18:01
here. Cheser here. Danny Clark here. Todd Collins.
18:07
Steve Janak here. Jim Herren here.
18:12
Dusty Jordan here. Ron Mayberry.
18:18
Ricky Murray here. Keith Nash here. Devin Picker here. Ron Pucket
18:27
and Wayne Thomasson here. 11 present, three absent.
18:34
We have four agenda in your packet. Most of you have in front of you.
18:42
Motion to approve the agenda.
18:51
in second.
18:58
Got a motion in a second. Any more to see discussion on the agenda?
19:05
Not all in favor say I. I passes.
19:11
We got uh now time for public comment and we have three signed up. Uh Ashley
19:19
Lewis step up here.
19:25
This is not a a uh we can't respond back. We just missed. Okay. Uh I definitely object to this.
19:34
I'm Ashley Lewis. I live at um General Forest Circle uh just across the highway
19:40
and I was uh made aware of the situation and am adamantly opposed to it. Uh I
19:48
first built there over 10 years ago because I love the community so much, the neighbors, the families, the kids.
19:55
It's such a wonderful atmosphere. I feel like not only would this drastically
20:00
detract from that entire society and feeling of home, but I really worry
20:06
about the increase in traffic and accidents because it's such a blind
20:11
curve hill, the speeds. I just I'm really uh fearful of that aspect as
20:19
well. I have do have a question for you about
20:24
how far is your home from Casey measured it actually
20:30
can't that's one across the street is like what 279 is that right
20:36
I believe that's right yes
20:43
we have Hannah
21:03
Let us know what you what you got to say.
21:08
Oh, you signed up to speak. Do you not want to speak? Yeah.
21:14
is a property. I don't know what the issue is commercial.
21:26
Okay. You're the owner of the property located. All right. Thank you.
21:31
Thank you. Chan McCoy,
21:39
right? McCoy. Yes. So, the building's in my front yard and
21:47
I don't want it at all. So, whatever they put there, whatever they're going to try to put there,
21:54
I'm not going to let it happen. So, I don't want it there. My kids play in that front yard. Just one if anybody was
22:02
to come there and try to rob the place, I mean, the building probably wouldn't be there no more.
22:10
about how far you 100 100 or so.
22:16
Oh, it's in my front yard. So, I mean, it's closer to my house in
22:22
my mailbox. Thank you. Appreciate it.
22:29
As I understand the law, uh, the state, I don't know what state distance is, but
22:35
it's like 700 ft. County back probably 20 years ago, shortened that by
22:41
resolution to 300 ft. And if it's 300 ft from a residence and
22:48
that owner and resident in this case two residents
22:53
come to this body and um object to going in it dies right
23:00
there. So the the permit is denied because
23:07
residents within 300 ft that have opposed it. We're done.
23:14
Yes sir. Motion to adjourn. Motion to second.
23:20
All in favor can do whatever you want to for the next few minutes.
23:26
We'll go ahead and start. Crystal uh if you can uh roll call please.
23:33
Matthew Barnhill here. Paul here. Chester here. Clark
23:40
here. Todd Collins, Steve Janakas, Jim Harren here,
23:45
Dusty Jordan here. Ron Mayberry
23:51
here. Ricky Murray said here
23:56
Deon Pickard here. Ron Tucket here. Wayne Thomasson here.
24:02
12 pres I'm sorry 13 presents here. We have a quorum. Uh you should
24:08
have all received a copy of the agenda. for a motion to approve. Got a motion by Commissioner Kat. Seconded by
24:14
Commissioner Pucket. Any discussion? All in favor say I.
24:20
Opposed? Eyes have it. Uh public comment period. Anybody here? Nobody here for
24:25
the public comment period. Uh you also should receive the minutes in your packet for a motion to approve those
24:32
minutes. Got a motion by Commissioner Clark, second by Commissioner Herren. Uh
24:39
any discussion? All in favor say I.
24:45
I opposed. I have it. Crystal, turn it over to you
24:51
for the budget amendment. Budget amendment 2648.
24:56
It's from our sheriff's department. This is insurance recovery and some reclassification of funds.
25:06
A motion by Commissioner Calott. Second by Commissioner Chester. Any discussion?
25:12
Roll call vote. Matthew Barnhill. Yes. Calcott. Yes.
25:17
Clay Chester. Yes. Danny Clark. Yes. Steve Janak.
25:22
Yes. Jim Heron. Yes. Dusty Jordan. Yes. Ron Mayberry. Yes.
25:28
Ricky Murray. Yes. Keith Nash. Yes. Devin Pickard. Yes.
25:33
Ron Pucket. Yes. And Wayne Thomas. Yes. All present. Voting yes.
25:39
Motion carries. Budget amendment 2649.
25:47
This is a budget amendment that was approved by the board of education on January the 12th. It's just budgeting
25:52
for TCAT revenue. A motion by Commissioner Thompson,
25:58
seconded by Commissioner Chester. Any discussion?
26:04
Roll call vote. Wayne Thomasson. Yes. Matthew Barnhill. Yes. Paul Calif.
26:10
Yes. Clay Chester. Yes. Tenny Clark. Yes. Steve Janak. Yes. Jim Haron.
26:15
Yes. Dusty Jordan. Yes. Ron Mayberry. Yes. Ricky Murray. Yes. Keith Nash.
26:21
Yes. Devin Figer. Yes. And Ron Pucket. Yes. All present voting. Yes.
26:27
Motion carries. And that's all my budget amendments. HR business. I'm chair is not aware of
26:34
any HR business. Any unfinished business?
26:40
Chair is not aware of any unfinished business. Any new business? I just have an update on the at the
26:48
county commission meeting. I was looking into a capital outlay note for
26:54
um for the disaster. Um I was informed by the Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund
27:00
that we can't borrow capital outlay notes for
27:05
run for disaster for cleanup and things like that. We can do it for the heart monitor monitors by themselves. Um we do
27:13
have an option to do what they call a tax revenue and anticipation note through a um
27:22
third party bank for up to three years for that. But we would have to do the
27:27
heart monitor separately or find another form of funding for that. And I just
27:33
kind of wanted to get y'all's opinion on that. They are looking into that for me.
27:39
Uh go ahead and get in some quotes, but kind of wanted to let y'all know. And
27:47
so would we need to make a motion to move forward since we were specific and
27:52
said out with a one and a half. Should we from
27:57
this body make a motion to uh pursue the other loan.
28:03
Yes. And I told her to look at a maybe a 1.2 uh cuz I wasn't sure.
28:08
Gotcha.
28:14
It would still be like a line of credit where we would just use what we need or would it be a loan? Like it it would be a a note and um the way
28:21
it works is is as FEMA pays us back, we would pay on that and then whatever FEMA doesn't pay, then we would we would be
28:28
obligated for that. So we will just go and get to 1.2. too though and have it. Um she's she's looking at it both ways.
28:36
So I'm I'm not sure if they can do a draw on that. But in that type of loan,
28:42
we would just if we didn't utilize all of it and if we had it all, then we would just roll that back into the
28:48
to the what Matthew was saying is preferably we would rather just draw I
28:54
mean that's I think the way that's what seems not to spend as much that way.
29:00
Yeah. Yeah. Where are we on the ice storm?
29:09
Um I still got several things rolling in right now. Um I I I'd say um I'm going
29:16
to say we're already running at about 300 350.
29:26
So how much were the hot heart monitors again? 424,000.
29:31
Um, and the health foundation has approved tonight to fund uh all the CPR devices. They got one
29:38
more reading to go through to fully fund that. So, and then I think they've got a request
29:44
into the opioid committee tomorrow night to ask for them to purchase two to three
29:50
heart monitors. So, so what would that bring in total?
29:55
Um, if they purchased um the two of the heart monitors it would bring it down to
30:01
about 241,000. Um you know I thought we still have about
30:07
88,000 worth of ARPA money that we might be able to utilize towards that and then I have maybe 40,000 worth of direct
30:15
appropriation grant that we might be able to use towards it um
30:20
to to help fund that. And if they purchase three it would be a little less than that. So
30:28
What would you recommend? Um, definitely the uh tax revenue
30:34
anticipation note for for the disaster because I just don't know where we're going to be on that one. U the heart
30:41
monitors. Um, I think that if we could get that,
30:48
you know, the price down, depending on what the opioid committee does, I would love to close out those
30:55
older grants to get rid of those and use them towards that. Um, we would still
31:00
have to come up with some from county general, but I think we could do
31:05
I mean, the numbers are swirling in my head and they're on your piece of paper. Um, but
31:13
all that being said, I mean, it sounds to me like we can get out of this for around 50, maybe 60.
31:18
If if they purchase three. Yeah. So, I mean, do do we need to do
31:24
something tonight or we need to wait to see what the next action is by um, as far as the heart monitors, you
31:31
could wait on that, but if we could move forward on the tax anticipation side so
31:37
that I could please get quotes or I can still get quotes. we just don't have to move forward. I I just want to
31:42
be able to you would still have to pass a resolution anyway. Um I just kind of wanted your guidance on that.
31:51
Well, and I understand I hate tax that just stinks. But um I mean we're in the
31:57
situation that we're in. So, I'm going to make a motion that we authorize the finance office and the
32:03
mayor to pursue the tax anticipation notes with the local banks up to 1.2 million.
32:11
Got a motion and I got a second by Commissioner.
32:17
Any discussion or clarification on the motion?
32:22
And who is the second? I'm sorry. Commissioner
32:29
Any discussion? If not, we'll roll call.
32:34
Ron Tucket, yes. Wayne Thomasson, yes. Matthew Barnhill, yes.
32:40
Call, yes. Chester, yes. Andy Clark, yes. Todd Collins,
32:46
Steve Jenkins, yes. Jim Herren, yes. Dusty Jordan, yes.
32:51
Ron Mayberry, yes. Ricky Murray, yes. Keith Nash, yes. Devin Picker,
32:57
yes. All present voting yes. Motion carries.
33:03
Crystal, did you have anything else on that or is that all the that that was all I had? I got Commissioner Picker.
33:10
I just have a question and you it's maybe just a matter of refreshing my memory. So, uh the opioid board that
33:18
there were several dollars I guess that were requested back from several different groups that were given.
33:24
Um, so how is it, and I'm for it, but I'm for heart monitors, of course, but
33:30
but how is it that we're able to if the if the opioid money was earmarked for opioid, it's a hard word to say, stuff
33:37
issues, how are we able to transition some of those monies to perhaps buying the heart? Is it because of drug?
33:44
Because we have so many drug calls. That is my understanding. We uh was working with UT Smart. We could not purchase all
33:51
of the heart monitors from the opioid, but we could purchase a portion of that
33:57
because they do utilize those for those calls. Sure.
34:04
Cal. Yes. If it's okay, I'd like to ask Pete tips kind of about how we're
34:11
you know, nobody objects. What's the as far as the moneywise? I mean,
34:18
so I mean, where are we at? What's next? All the things we we're transitioning into the recovery
34:24
stage. We did finally get uh the declaration signed. So, everything that
34:30
we've done up until this point is covered. Uh we'll get the reimbursement
34:36
piece on that. That's the 7525, right? Okay. I don't know when on the
34:42
7525 I do know that we can use volunteer hours for any kind and I have enough
34:50
volunteer hours to cover u with when this thing first hit we we've got one of
34:57
our departments is showing almost 700 hours by the time you calculate so I'll have
35:05
enough volunteer hours to do the inind that'll cover the 25% So that should be
35:11
100% back it was. Now moving into the recovery phase of
35:16
this the debris cleanup part. We finally did get that declaration. We have not
35:22
started anything yet. Uh I said with Crystal this morning and we're going to
35:27
try to slow this thing way down and and really think about where the most need
35:33
is. We got to keep the optics in the county where they are. We're still working. Uh everything got transitioned
35:40
back to our local agencies, highway department, solid waste. I'm just
35:46
umbrella and that I'm going to work the operations side of it. Uh with that
35:52
being said, both of those agencies, both of our county agencies are overwhelmed.
35:57
They've got things they have to do also on their side of the house. Uh I've got a list of of resources that I'm going to
36:03
need and we're just kind of holding on to make sure all this
36:09
the declaration will cover it and we'll be able to ask for federal reimbursement.
36:15
We all in this room know that takes years sometimes. Uh there's no I mean the money will come back. We just don't
36:22
know when everything that we're doing we keep it on the FEMA line so that we know
36:27
that everything we're doing will be reimbured and we're keeping up with all the documentation. That's where we're
36:33
at. So the we feel like the first phase the
36:41
volunteer in kind we will be able to cover that 25% with
36:46
volunteer for sure. Do you are is there when you say resources are you talking about bringing
36:55
contractors in or equipment? The the goal is the hope is that we can
37:01
do some county to county mutual aid. It makes it easier on the finance side where I can just call up uh another
37:09
county highway department and say, "What can you offer to us to help?" Uh that's
37:14
going to be our first step in getting there. Uh we do have some equipment in the county that I'm trying to resource
37:20
some boots on the ground people through the sheriff's office, uh some operators and stuff. So, we're trying to keep it
37:26
as local as possible. Uh there will be based off of the need that I'll have
37:33
There will be some local contractors that I'm going to reach out to to see if they're interested in coming in and
37:38
working at FEMA rate so that we can get that covered. I've already got I've started tallying the list of contractors
37:44
already. I've just got a lot of things on hold. Just waiting on that number to
37:51
hit. So that I want to keep it as local as possible. It's cleaner. It's easier. And
37:58
it it gets done faster. I mean just I mean it's it's dollars.
38:05
Yeah. I mean I mean it's tax dollars. I mean and I know it's a 7525 but I mean it's
38:11
federal tax dollars is still tax dollars and and I y'all done a great job you know and just and I and I and I know
38:18
everybody wants it done quickly but just you know try to balance both sides of that and and y'all have done a great job
38:25
so far on that. And I know there's a ton of overtime hours in there. And and I'm glad to hear that the the volunteer, you
38:33
know, hours is going to be and it's I mean I don't know how we can, you know,
38:38
I don't know what we can do for those people because I I mean I was around a lot of that and it was, you know, I mean it was great what they did, but I was
38:45
just kind of curious how things were going on that side. So
38:53
Commissioner Nash, did you have new business. Okay.
38:58
Yeah, you answer question. Um, thank you. I I'll try to be brief. Uh, I
39:05
really want to cover something with you guys. Last Wednesday, February 4th,
39:10
uh, a 27page ruling by Judge Darnell in Nashville was
39:17
entered. uh that his decision
39:23
affirms what many of us have been saying for the last four years and it uh really
39:29
uh cast some doubt significant doubt on anything that the
39:34
water authority had said for the last four years. Essentially the water authorities appeal has been completely
39:42
and utterly denied. The arguments that we made, the
39:47
arguments that TAC made against what the water authority was trying to do
39:54
have been upheld. I will be happy and I'm going to ask that uh I'm going to get this and mayor
40:02
if we could put this on the county website. This rule, it's 27 pages. It's a great read.
40:08
The judge did a wonderful job of going through the timeline of what had occurred and what did occur and the
40:16
problems with their applica the flawed process and the application.
40:23
So, as much as I like to hear that, I'm thrilled that my district, Steve's district,
40:30
doesn't have to worry about uh millions and millions of gallons of waste from
40:37
Dixon, William County coming into it and being treated and then being sent down
40:43
to Dusty's district uh and dumped into the creek.
40:50
I'm thrilled. I am absolutely thrilled with this. There's another little hurdle
40:56
or two that they may take up to try to get this reversed. Uh boy oh boy, what a
41:03
mountain. They want to climb that one. They're just wasting more and more of their uh their their their money. The
41:09
the issue that we have though, and some of you are aware of this, is
41:15
that in 2005, we we being the people of Hitman County spent $2.4 4 million
41:21
to construct a sewer line from the East Tickman High School to just south of the
41:27
Sonic next to I40 in Dixon, Tennessee. Every
41:34
inch of that line was designed by funded by the people of
41:41
Hitman County. Not a dime, not a dime of that initial construction
41:48
was footed by the WADC or the citizens of Dixon County.
41:54
100% of that was paid for by us.
42:02
Since all this ragamaroo started, the water authority has denied numerous
42:10
applications and have turned a lot of people away at the door
42:15
from being able to access that line. All from Hickman County.
42:23
Not a single person had been denied in Dixie County along
42:29
that corridor. Let's let that sink in a minute. $2.4
42:34
million that we spent, none of our folks are able to take advantage of it. In
42:40
fact, one uh gentleman tried to put in uh some access point just south of that
42:47
line and was flatly denied with with all these different caveats.
42:54
Meanwhile, just north of that line, if you travel up 46, there's a new house right across the county line on 46 up on
43:01
that hill. So, nice little home. Boom. Immediately got accepted.
43:09
Immediately got accepted. All that new construction road immediately got
43:14
accepted. All the new stuff around the new construction at the interstate
43:19
got accepted. That's the same $2.4 4 million we spent.
43:25
Their folks are getting access to it. Our folks aren't.
43:31
My question for this body is what are you going to do about it? You know, as much as I like some of the
43:38
folks on the previous court, um you know, the there was a this is has nothing to do with this body, but the
43:45
previous court had an opportunity to go on the offense against WC when this
43:51
initially started. Many of you weren't even on this body then. That part of the language in the resolution was stripped
43:58
by a member for whatever reason. I don't understand it. So, we've been for the last four years,
44:04
we've been fighting this battle with our literally literally with our hands behind our
44:09
back. We have not tried to take the fight back
44:15
to those guys. Not one time. We just taken their beating and we've taken their beaten and we've taken their
44:21
stupidity. We've taken their stupidity and thank God. Thank God
44:28
that we have a process in this country. We can appeal those decisions. And an arbitrary third party person looked at
44:34
it and said, "Water authority, y'all are full of it. TAC Hickman County, y'all were right.
44:43
So what do we want to do? Is there anything that this body wants to do so that our folks can have access to the
44:52
infrastructure that we paid for? Or do we just want to still sit on our
44:58
hands and just take whatever beating that they have to give us? And I'm I'm
45:03
putting this on the table to see what the will of this body may be, what some of the thoughts of of this body may be.
45:10
Um, and I'm not I'm not a good person in this.
45:15
I'll be the first to tell you. I mean, I've taken the wicks with these guys, both personally, professionally,
45:22
in every aspect. I've had to go to hearings. I've had to go to depositions. I've had to do things that I I don't
45:28
ever want to have to do again. So, so I'll be perfectly honest with you. I
45:33
mean, my remedy to this would be really ugly.
45:41
Really ugly. But I'm hoping that there's some cooler minds in here, but that you do can you can understand that we have a
45:49
2.4 $2.4 million investment. It's a sizable investment
45:58
and we we don't have access to it and it's arbitrary. you know, their decisions are wildly
46:04
arbitrary. I I believe it opens them up to a lot of issues,
46:10
but on behalf of the people of Hitman County, this body is going to have to act if we're going to try to get any
46:17
kind of uh any kind of just remedy to this
46:26
and I'll just listen to what everybody has to say.
46:38
So, so you're saying that 100% of the people on the Hickman County side
46:44
that have desired taps, one every single one have been denied and every single one on the essentially
46:51
the Dixon County side have been approved. The only exceptions to that were um the ones that were kind of in
46:58
the pipeline working prior to um specifically the Mr. Rinker's property
47:05
which Mr. Rinker enjoyed having uh Daryl James as his engineer who sits on the
47:12
water authority board. Um and but I do know that since that time
47:18
several of the folks who have gone and and and have had Let me back up.
47:24
that I know for for sure. And of the folks that I know that have applied,
47:29
they've all been denied. And I'm unaware of any that have been denied on that
47:35
corridor in Dixon County. Do you have a number of both the number that have been denied and the number
47:40
that have been I do not have that specific number. Yeah. I mean, take a speak. You don't have no
47:47
idea. Well, I mean, I only know the ones that I have been privy to. is is in in
47:54
spinning in that periphery of this issue. I mean, but that's a good point. I have no trouble asking for that
48:01
information. Chris, a lot of that information ain't going to
48:07
be accurate because a lot of people got like you said got turned around at the door to never filed an application.
48:13
So, and they have been doing that and I know people that bought way in Dixon County and just call up there and then
48:18
my permit won't be a problem. So, I what he said is 100%. I don't I don't think you gonna get an accurate number on how
48:25
many just because most people didn't bother putting a permit in because they told him not to application. So, and I
48:33
and if you don't mind, I want to clarify that because Matthew's absolutely right. I I there are people I know of that that
48:38
made the phone call or had an engineering firm on their behalf make that phone call and they said there's no
48:46
sense in you even applying. You're not going to get nothing. So, so the the the ones I do know are
48:52
the ones that were, you know, there there are some people, however, unbe that they weren't aware of any of this
48:59
situation and they just thought they were just going to go fill out the the appropriate document, file their $50 or
49:06
whatever it is and and get on with it. And that's when they that they that's when they learned and I I am aware that
49:12
there are some of those people out there. Most all those residential that you're talking about, we have commercial as
49:18
well. Both. Yep.
49:25
If you remember, Devin, we were told by a man one night that there wouldn't there wasn't going to be any commercial.
49:38
You backed it up pretty so far.
49:46
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't or also somebody on their board that asked when
49:52
permits were turned in on which side of the that line that that they were or
49:58
something to that nature that basically said that we would only we would allow you know some
50:05
like like basically scale back Hitman County but but allow all of them in
50:10
Dixon or something to that nature. I don't know exactly what was said, but I just Well, I think that the meeting that
50:15
you're talking to is a meeting that I was there personally, and I'm not sure if it was the mayor who
50:22
was with me that night or whether it was the county attorney was with me, but one of the two were with me that night and
50:29
and there was a discussion about this and one of their board members who happens to be the mayor of the city of
50:35
Dixon, I think at that point in time and and and asked, "Well, and This was prior to
50:42
them making some changes and they've made numerous changes in their system since you know that that
50:49
time you know three and a half years ago and and for some reason I'm and don't
50:55
quote me on any of this but there was a specific numeric number that the
51:01
director of the water authority said they had available
51:06
to that whole corridor. I mean I don't know what that number was. I can't remember it. But at that moment in time,
51:13
the that particular member made a motion and said, "Okay, then I want X amount to
51:19
be allocated to Dixon." And mayor, did you heal up nine? Was it nine? I held up nine fingers because that's
51:25
exactly And he said that that that Okay, we'll allocate nine to Hickman County.
51:32
Okay. Now, whether I like that or not, that's irrelevant. But the problem is we haven't had nine. We haven't got the
51:37
nine.
51:43
And I and I had had a a request in for the minutes of that particular meeting.
51:49
But again, I want to make sure that everybody understands the preface of that particular moment was they had
51:56
these constraints that were going on. And so they were trying to allocate for
52:03
that level of the constraint. Well, since that time they've been there have been numerous system infrastructure
52:09
changes that that constraint that whatever that number was is is not
52:14
around any longer. I mean it's they they've alleviated that problem.
52:21
What recourse I'm sorry what recourse do we have and what do we
52:26
want for the citizens of Higgman County along that corridor? There's a lot on the north side of of the line. A whole
52:33
lot more between there and Sonic in the years that have passed. A lot of
52:40
stuff. A lot of lot of commercial stuff going in there. Are we are we going to do we need to ask
52:47
for equal treatment or do we need to be able to catch up? what what what you know
52:56
I mean I know I know that's I mean I'm usually a guy who could tell you what I want but what I want right now is not
53:01
very nice and so that's I mean I'm just being upfront with you guys. So the one
53:07
thing I would say that that scares me personally, not just for me, but for the generations to come, is we have a lease.
53:15
We have a lease agreement with the water authority in Dish County.
53:20
So we we still own all of that
53:26
from the school to Sonic. It is owned by the people of
53:32
Hitman County. But once the debt is paid on that,
53:38
we don't have, you know, we we we've agreed to surrender our ownership.
53:45
Well, I mean, I hate to say this, as much as I want to, I mean, the first thing I'd want if if I had the ability
53:51
to have this in front of somebody who could could help us, the first thing I'd want,
53:58
I mean, I know that sounds silly, but maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but the first thing that I would want would would be for
54:05
the water authority because of a breach of contract to no longer ever have the
54:10
opportunity to fully own that. It would it would scare the be Jesers out of me if they were vested with the ownership
54:20
because they have not shown themselves to be good friends and partners now. So what I mean now if we're going to turn
54:27
now we're going to you know that they they've driven the car badly. Now we're going to give them the keys. No. I mean that so I mean I know that's not what
54:33
anybody wants to hear but I mean the first thing that I would look for is for
54:38
the problem that we're going to have 20 years from now if they obtain ownership of that outside of that outside of a a a lease
54:47
leasing a agreement. How long was the leasing agreement? The the I think the lease uh expires
54:54
when the debt is paid. There's not a time specific.
55:00
Um And I've talked I I mean I I'll be upfront with you. I've I've talked to
55:05
our our finance people about heck let's refinance to debt for another 30 years.
55:11
I mean just the way that's worded. Yeah. Just so but I mean we've got plenty of time right now but that's but that
55:17
scares me. That really does scare me. I mean we're we're going to let them have some ownership. Uh so that I know that's
55:25
not what people want to but really that's my first concern. My second concern is I mean can we recoup some of
55:32
the 2.4 million? Could we force them into taking applicants irregardless of
55:39
of on you know I mean of irregardless what line side of the line they're on. I
55:45
mean let's I mean all of us need to be upfront and and we need to understand this. At some point in time that 8 in
55:51
line will be full. It's not now. It's not at capacity now.
55:58
I don't think it's at capacity anywhere to there now. But at some point in time, it will be full. And at that point in
56:04
time, they're going to logically have to say we can't accept any longer because we can't pump that stuff under the
56:10
interstate. But up until that point, which obviously is not now, then I think that we should
56:16
be getting treated at least on an equal basis as they are. But that's all
56:22
subject to what this body wants to do and how what how the how this body wants
56:27
to tap somebody on the shoulder and says here's our objectives. Go help go see if you can't help us out.
56:42
And quite frankly uh I mean we can talk about Lar for one. They their antics is
56:48
the reason why they they left and went and built in Fair View, which was on the same water authority lines, but they
56:55
were granted there, but in Hickman County, it was delayed. And I talked to the owner himself and asked him exactly
57:03
the what happened in in and the the sequence of events. And he said when
57:08
they denied me that night, he said, "I knew it was going to probably be strung out for a year." And he said, "I didn't
57:14
have a year. I needed to get it going ASAP. And uh so when you think about tax
57:20
revenue that's lost on something like that, it's
57:25
sizable. Let's just say money is not an issue.
57:31
It's just we got all the money we want. And if we don't want to be beholden to the water author anymore, if we had all
57:38
the money we wanted and we could build our own plant and handle our own water,
57:47
what would be the options? Lit Creek obviously is that's been not so what if
57:52
if if we wanted to do that, what what would be the options of
57:58
because I don't know. That's what I'm asking. Are you asking me?
58:04
I'm asking do ever can answer. Yeah. Well,
58:10
I did not sleep in a hut with the DN express last night, nor am I a civil engineer. Um
58:18
I I mean, one of the things that I mean, I understand what you're saying and I'm
58:23
trying to give you the answer that that Keith Nash has with all those caveats
58:30
and that is I And I still believe the answer for us, us being Hickman County
58:36
and it is us through the joint economic community
58:41
development board that we reconstituted a year ago. and that board who has our
58:48
mayor, the county mayor, the city mayor, and all the right people. I think that those folks should should be tasked and
58:54
asked to go search for the remedy
59:00
because it's it's more than it's, you know,
59:05
it's more than just a place to put the water. Let's be honest, it's more than just
59:11
that. You got to have water in order to start the whole process. That's a
59:16
limiting factor. All of us know that that's a limiting factor. Everywhere you look in any county, any community in the state, it's still a limiting factor. Um,
59:24
but we don't have a organized,
59:29
cohesive, thought through, maybe even quasi engineered solution.
59:35
That's a hitman county solution. It always is is some kind of crazy bipart,
59:40
you know, something or the other. So I mean do I believe at least there should
59:46
be explored the relationship between bonal and serville water and what we can all do collectively and collaboratively
59:53
to to make this better. Absolutely. And and and again my hope would be that that
59:58
joint economic community development board which is kind of that triage for that to happen would take that up.
1:00:08
But we've had a new, in all fairness to that board, we had, you know, we got re, it got redone and we had a mayoral
1:00:14
election in the city which kind of reshuffled the deck. And about the time that that has really kind of gotten
1:00:21
settled, I'm sure that Mr. Greer would would would echo this, his life got turned upside down with a with a storm.
1:00:29
So, I mean, we we I mean, it's not as if they've been dragging their feet, sure. But I think that is something that
1:00:34
should rise high up on their list of things to look at.
1:00:41
I'm not trying to take I'm not trying to put off an answer. My answer is there is a group they should be looking at part
1:00:47
and that's them.
1:01:02
Any other discussion? What would be our like having our lawyer
1:01:10
look at it to see what our options are if we can sue the water authority to get equal rights, you know, for all our
1:01:17
citizens where there ain't a county line or to see if we what would be, you know,
1:01:22
wrong with that. I wouldn't want to get tied up a lot of money, but if we couldn't win something, you know, if we
1:01:28
could didn't have a avenue where we could have a legal
1:01:35
event and again, Matthew, you know, Keith Nash.
1:01:40
Yeah, I know. If that was up to me, it would be some big old trucks going up there. We just smash them all down. Yeah.
1:01:46
So, but trying to be the cooler head sometimes.
1:01:51
Yeah. is I think the appropriate thing for this body to do would be for us to task
1:01:59
the county mayor and the county attorney along with uh the budget chairman
1:02:07
who would kind of represent this body and and then even grab Crystal's in on this because there's there's a financial
1:02:13
aspect to this and for those folks between now and next next month's budget meeting to come back
1:02:19
and and bring us what they think an appropriate strategy may be in order for
1:02:24
us to facilitate some okay a remedy that that would be that would
1:02:30
be my suggestion. Well, if you make a motion, I'll second it. Well,
1:02:37
I I I'm going to tell you something. I can make motions all night long. Yeah. But I'd love for somebody else
1:02:44
I mean I I know I mean guys, y'all's heard me passionately talk about this for four years. I don't like these
1:02:50
people and I don't want anybody to get drugged along because of my personal
1:02:55
angst about this. I mean, if if you feel like we need to look at a for if you if
1:03:02
if if someone in this body certainly thinks that $2.4 million has been wasted
1:03:08
to some degree and we're not being treated fairly. I mean, I'll support it, but I would love for somebody else to be
1:03:14
the motion maker. It'll also look better if it's not Keith Nash making the motion
1:03:19
to the water authority. Christian, I mean it I mean I think this is headed
1:03:25
to the lawyers and you start talking about contracts and breaches of contract and all of that. I mean I don't know if
1:03:31
we got any lawyers on here or not, but it sounds like that's where it's headed. Uh, I mean, and I'd say the start of the
1:03:38
process is for them to look at it and then to see what legal action needs to be taken
1:03:44
because obviously they are not upholding their end of the deal and they are not there discriminating against county due
1:03:52
to the, you know, having their feelings hurt. I'll put that in the midst. But um
1:03:58
uh so I I will I'll make the motion that county attorney, county mayor um and and if you would
1:04:06
love to be involved with that be in the middle of that. And we got budget coming up. I don't
1:04:12
know what else you're going to be doing. You might as well you might as well.
1:04:17
I don't have enough iron to do. That's right. That's right. And and Crystal doesn't have anything to do either. So, we'll put her in there and
1:04:24
if y'all could and yeah, by the next meeting just kind of come back with this is what we've the whatever the legal
1:04:32
said and then go from there. So, that's a motion. If you you want to clean that
1:04:37
up a little bit, that'd be great. A motion by Commissioner Kai, second by Commissioner Pucket. Any discussion on
1:04:42
the motion that's on the floor?
1:04:49
And I mean it really doesn't involve money. So we can just at this point we're just going to be talking. So I'd
1:04:54
say all in favor say I. Opposed eyes have it. It might involve a little money cuz that
1:05:01
law I think charis
1:05:07
that's probably already covered in our budget there a little bit. Mayor, have you got a copy of that one yet? This ruling yet?
1:05:13
I have not. Okay. I will forward this to you and if you could get it on our county website for everybody to have access to, I think
1:05:19
it'd be I mean I'm not a big legal person. Um I guess I learned a little
1:05:25
bit more in the last four years than I ever thought, but you could almost pick this document up and start it from page
1:05:32
one and go to the end and and and really get a good feel for the whole situation
1:05:39
because it's maybe every judge does like this. Maybe
1:05:44
Judge Pucket does a this great tight work, but this is good. I'm trying not to read them.
1:05:50
Don't blame it. Richard Clark, I've read it and I would encourage
1:05:58
everybody to read it when it gets forwarded to them because
1:06:04
to me the the the judge hung his hat on our existing land use plan.
1:06:11
And that'll when you read it, you'll see that. So, public safety next month when we're
1:06:18
taking that up. And it's the verbiage. It's It has nothing to do with 1 acre, 10 acres, 50 acres, anything else. It's
1:06:24
the verbiage in there. And there's a there's a couple of lines. I didn't know the the point numbers. They are 21, 22,
1:06:31
23 around in there that he references our current land use plan, which the
1:06:36
verbiage in the new one is pretty much the same. But that's what the use plan
1:06:42
is. It it it jumped up here. Dixon was trying to say uh it wasn't that word to
1:06:50
the creek. That's right. The the degradation that that it was overruled or or
1:06:57
overcome by the economic benefit. But the judge said that that was not
1:07:03
true because of our land use plan. We weren't looking to
1:07:08
do that to the whole county. It was prescribed in that in the plan that it was that important. And this one is too.
1:07:15
The the current one is too. But that's just that's just me trying to get y'all to understand how important that land
1:07:21
use plan is is is it it determines what we can do going forward. It also
1:07:26
determines what can be done to us but by a a water authority or a big developer
1:07:33
or anything else. So, just pay attention to that when you read it. The
1:07:39
I was I was accused of causing them to spend
1:07:46
$30 million one night and so was Devon.
1:07:52
I wish I could facilitate the spending of $30 million, but anyway, that that's an I saw a different
1:08:00
water authority at at that meeting that that we were at. The
1:08:06
I've got no problem going to court with them to do to do what's right. And I
1:08:12
think it's right. The minutes when you get them that it was explained to me is that from from a Dixon person the night
1:08:18
that the mayor said that the nine got put in all the talk leading up to that
1:08:24
for several meetings was how the county line doesn't matter. It's a regional
1:08:29
thing. The county line doesn't matter. But when Mike Adams said the number of permits that was left, uh, all of a
1:08:36
sudden the county line mattered. And I think those those minutes,
1:08:41
all I do is watch Perry Mason, but those those minutes are pretty damning to the to the water authority because what was
1:08:48
coming out of their mouth for several meetings running up to them setting that number based on the county line,
1:08:56
they continually said the county line didn't matter.
1:09:05
If you if you and everybody voted for it, if you're for it now, once you read the report that Keith is talking about,
1:09:12
you'll be more for it than you are now.
1:09:18
But any other new business?
1:09:26
Oh, Casey, I just want to say one thing mainly for Claw and Clay. There's nothing wrong
1:09:31
with the tablets or the new software. I know we were going to test it.
1:09:36
We were looking forward to that soft opening. I thought tonight the new laptop our guy did something and
1:09:45
just crashed totally.
1:09:51
But there's nothing wrong with it software.
1:09:57
I think we should just let's just just do a hard launch at the county court meeting. You know, I'm just kid.
1:10:04
Yeah, I think it's probably going to cut off to the next county court meeting. Not not this one coming up
1:10:10
next year. Yeah, we test it here. Yeah, at least you're consistent. What's the over?
1:10:22
All right. Any other discussion? Any other topic? Anything y'all want? If not, the motion by Commissioner Clark,
1:10:30
second by Commission.