M I N U T E S

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HOMEWOOD, ALABAMA
November 23, 2009

The City Council of the City of Homewood, Alabama convened in Regular Session on Monday, November 23, 2009 at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. The invocation was given by Reverend Ken Phillips (Raleigh Avenue Baptist Church), after which the pledge of allegiance to the flag was given.
The meeting was called to order by the President, Jeff Underwood. Upon roll call, the following were present: Anthony Smith, Sam Scott, Allyn Elizabeth Holladay, Patrick McClusky, Walter Jones, Hunter Payne, David Hooks and Jeff Underwood. Absent: Vance Moody, Jackie Langlow and Allan Trippe. (Note: Mrs. Langlow was not present for roll call, but arrived later in the meeting – see Page 3 of these minutes for her arrival.) Also present were: Mayor Scott McBrayer; Mike Kendrick, City Attorney; and Linda Cook, City Clerk.
Mrs. Cook stated that Mr. Moody was out of town and could not be present tonight.
Mr. Underwood stated that at this time he would like to consider the Consent Agenda. Mr. Underwood asked if there was any objection to the Consent Agenda as presented:
*CONSENT AGENDA

07.12.09 Request for consideration of creating the position of Personnel Technician Grade 18 – Finance Committee

Action Taken: The Finance Committee on 11/16/09 recommended dropping this item.

There being no objections to the Committee’s recommendation on the Consent Agenda item, Mr. Smith moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Holladay seconded the motion.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding this motion. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the Consent Agenda was approved without dissent.
The first item of business on the agenda under Old Business was the Public Hearing January 11, 2010, for consideration of Speed Reduction Measures on Roseland Drive generally between Ridge Road and Broadway. Mr. Underwood stated that this matter would be carried over.
The next item of business under Old Business was Item No. 30.11.09 – Bid Opening December 7, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. for a revenue services contract.
Mr. J. J. Bischoff (Chief of Staff) addressed the Council and stated that without objection he would like for this matter to be sent back to the Finance Committee pending a new bid opening date of December 21, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Underwood stated that without objection from the Council, the aforementioned matter would be referred back to the Finance Committee pending the bid opening on December 21, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
The next item under Old Business was the request for consideration of Change Order No. 6 re: proposal and approval of the contract for Gonzalez-Strength in the amount of $1,800.00 for a sanitary sewer re-built.
Mr. Underwood stated that Mr. McClusky would give the reports tonight on items coming out of the Public Works Committee in the absence of Mr. Moody.
Mr. McClusky stated that the Public Works Committee met and voted 4 – 0 to recommend the proposal and approval of the contract for Gonzalez-Strength in the amount of $1,800.00 and to refer this matter to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding the Committee’s recommendation. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the motion carried without dissent.
Mr. Underwood stated that the aforesaid matter would be referred to the Finance Committee as recommended.
Mr. Underwood stated that this was the time and the place for the Public Hearing November 23, 2009 for consideration to adopt per Ordinance the 2009 International Building Code, International Fire Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Existing Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code, International Property Maintenance Code, 2008 National Electrical Code, and 2008 International Energy Conservation Code (Public Hearing previously held on October 26, 2009).
Mr. Jerry Crowe (Chief Building Official) addressed the Council. Mr. Crowe stated that the 2009 code included all of the amendments and it had been changed, one of the main changes being the sprinkler system for new houses built in the year 2011 forward. Mr. Crowe further stated that there were also some changes in the foundation requirements and the wind load.
Mr. Underwood asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this matter.
Chief John Bresnan (Fire Department) addressed the Council. Chief Bresnan stated that the Fire Department was in favor of the code as it was and he saw it as a real value to home safety for the community. Chief Bresnan further stated that it would take a long time to get to a point where there were sufficient fire sprinklers to make a dramatic difference in the safety of the community, but it was a starting place.
Mrs. Langlow entered the Council Chambers at this point (6:11 p.m.)
Captain David Berry (Fire Marshal) addressed the council. Captain Berry stated that he would like to speak in favor of sprinkler systems in one and two-family dwellings. Captain Berry stated that sprinkler systems had been in use for over a hundred years and they saved lives, but the place where most of the lives were lost now was where they were not required. Captain Berry added that he would like to go over some of the facts and figures because whatever decision the Council made, they needed to hear the facts. Captain Berry further added that 80 percent of fire deaths occurred in homes and accounted for 95 percent of fire deaths in all structural fires.
Captain Berry stated that home fire sprinklers also helped reduce the risk of injury and death for firefighters and emergency personnel. Captain Berry quoted some of the statistics from his research as follows: “Up to 90 percent of the time, fires are contained by the operation of just one sprinkler head. In 2008, there were approximately 2,900 civilian fire deaths reported in structures and 103 firefighter deaths reported. During that same period, 12.4 billion dollars in property damage was reported. A structural fire is reported in this country every 61 seconds and a home structure fire is reported every 82 seconds. Most people are surprised to learn that 8 out of 10 fire deaths occur where they assume they are the safest – at home. As far as property damage is concerned, fire is the largest single cause of property loss in the United States. People in homes with sprinklers are protected against significant property loss due to sprinklers reducing the average property loss by 71 percent per home fire. Just as there is no other fire safety technology or program that produces as great a reduction in risk of death as sprinklers, there also is no other fire safety technology or program that produces as great a reduction in property loss per fire as sprinklers.” Captain Berry further stated that some of the things that were seen in a fire without sprinklers were (1) flames grow and move room to room quickly; (2) heat and toxic gases spread; and (3) in as few as three minutes, the fire becomes deadly – flash-over occurs in the gases and combustible materials bursting into flames. Captain Berry added that everyone was concerned about costs when it came to home sprinkler systems, but it was much less costly for a home sprinkler system than for a commercial building as the requirements for single-family dwellings allowed some areas not to be sprinkled. Captain Berry quoted information from several studies concerning the safety of home sprinkler systems and home sprinkler system costs, including one study that established the average total cost per home fire sprinkler installation at $1.61 per sprinkled square foot. Captain Berry further added that he would be glad to provide the studies to the Council for their examination.
Captain Berry stated that with all of the new light-weight construction that was now allowed in the building of new homes, it was putting firefighters at a greater risk, which was why the sprinkler portion of the code was so important. Captain Berry further stated that those concessions in construction were allowed because on the safety side they would be made up because the sprinkler was there to protect the people and the firefighters, so taking the sprinkler part out of the code would be removing that safety factor. Captain Berry added that some of the trade-offs that were given for the sprinkler system were (1) greater spacing of fire hydrants, (2) reduced access road widths, (3) reduced size of water mains in certain cases, (4) increased density allowing for more units in a development, and (5) extended distances between required turnarounds.
Mr. Brooks Harris (1517 Somerset Drive) addressed the Council. Mr. Harris stated that he was present tonight representing the Greater Birmingham Association of Homebuilders to speak in opposition to the mandate of residential fire sprinklers in all one and two-family new construction. Mr. Harris emphasized that they were speaking in opposition to the “mandate” – they were not opposed to residential fire sprinklers.
Mr. Mark Woods (1557 Parkside Court) addressed the Council. Mr. Woods stated that he was building a new home in the Homewood area and the last thing he wanted to have to do was take into account the additional cost of putting a sprinkler system that was required in his home. Mr. Woods further stated that he was an insurance agent and the largest claims he had were for floods and water damage, and when a sprinkler system was installed in a home, the discounts on home insurance were very limited. Mr. Woods added that it was twice as costly to repair homes damaged from an accidental discharge of a sprinkler system than it was to have the sprinkler system installed. Mr. Woods further added that if it was an option for a homeowner and they decided that they wanted to have a sprinkler system installed, then he saw no problem with it, but to have it mandated made it very hard for him to desire to build a home in Homewood.
Others opposed were Mr. Bart Fletcher and Mr. Marty Byrom who were in the audience. (A third person spoke from the audience in opposition but their name was unintelligible from the recording).
Mr. Underwood asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this matter. There was no response from the audience.
Mr. Underwood, at this point, declared the Public Hearing concluded.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding this matter.
Mr. Hooks stated that the Fire Marshal had quoted several studies and that for the record he would like for the minutes to reflect based on that research, who funded those research papers and what were those sources.
Mr. Underwood stated that he also thought some background on those studies would be helpful and asked that the source and the funding behind the studies be provided.
Mr. Jones stated that it would also be helpful if more statistics for Homewood were provided as opposed to national numbers before the matter goes to the Public Safety Committee, such as how many residential units there were and the average square footage, as well as Homewood’s history in fighting fires in single-family dwellings. Mr. Jones further stated that information on any other municipalities that had looked at this and what they had done would also be helpful.
Mrs. Langlow stated that one of the studies quoted seemed to insinuate in the article that more people went ahead and built in the area where the sprinklers were required, and she would like to have some background information on what was the actual population and what was going on in those communities that might make one community more desirable than the other community, other than the sprinkler system.
Mr. Smith stated that he would also like to have some additional information and in particular he would be interested in finding out how many members of the Homewood Fire Department lived in single-family residences that were sprinkled already.
Mr. Underwood asked the Fire Marshal to provide the requested information to the Council as soon as possible.
Mr. Underwood stated that this matter would be referred to the Public Safety Committee.
The next item on the agenda under Old Business was the request for consideration of a bid opening date/ In-Car Camera System for the Police Department.
Mr. Underwood stated that Mr. Jones would give the reports tonight on items coming out of the Finance Committee in the absence of Mr. Trippe.
Mr. Jones stated that the Finance Committee met and voted unanimously to recommend setting a bid opening date for the In-Car Camera System for the Police Department on December 14, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding the Committee’s recommendation. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the motion carried without dissent.
The next item under Old Business was the request for consideration to declare an emergency by Mayor McBrayer to unfreeze funding in the Capital Projects Fund in the amount of $4,600.00 for the Fleet Maintenance Department.
Mr. Jones stated that the Finance Committee met and voted unanimously to recommend setting up a new account number and unfreeze funding in the Capital Projects Fund in the amount of $3,329.67 for the purchase of safety slings and chains for lifts for the Fleet Maintenance Department.
Mr. Kendrick, at this time, presented the following Resolution for Council’s consideration:
Resolution No. 09-190
(A Resolution to unfreeze funding in the Capital Projects Fund in the amount of $3,329.67 for the purchase of safety slings and chains for lifts for the Fleet Maintenance Department and authorizing the creation of a new account number)

Mr. Jones moved for the adoption and enrollment of Resolution No. 09-190.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding the Committee’s recommendation. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the motion carried without dissent.
Mr. Underwood stated that at this time he would like to consider the Committee Referral Agenda.
Mr. Underwood stated that without objection, Item No. 17.02.09 – Request to consider unfreezing the Capital Projects Fund for an emergency expenditure of up to $5,000.00 to replace a server at the Library, would be removed from the Committee Referral Agenda and taken up separately under Other New Business. There was no objection from the Council.
Mr. Underwood asked if there was any objection to the Committee Referral Agenda as modified:
COMMITTEE REFERRAL AGENDA

15.02.09 Request for consideration of comp time payment for Senior Accountant – Mayor Scott McBrayer
FINANCE COMMITTEE

16.02.09 Request for consideration of Trane Service Agreement renewal for HVAC systems at City Hall – Mayor Scott McBrayer
FINANCE COMMITTEE

18.02.09 Request for consideration for the city to take over a street light at 823 Columbiana Road – Jody Chesnut/ Traffic Department/ Mayor Scott McBrayer
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

19.02.09 Request for consideration of a variance to the Sign Ordinance at 197 Oxmoor Road – James Hollis/ Greg Cobb/ Engineering Department
SPECIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE

20.02.09 Request for consideration of a variance to the Sign Ordinance at 2826 18th Street South – Danielle Davis/ Greg Cobb/ Engineering Department
SPECIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE

21.02.09 Request to address the City Council concerning trimming some trees on the city right-of-way at 436 Greensprings Highway – Dusty Finch/ Greg Cobb/ Engineering Department
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

22.02.09 Request to reconcile the 2009/2010 General Fund Budget as adopted 09/28/09 – Jeff Underwood/ Council President
FINANCE COMMITTEE

There being no objections to the Committee Referral Agenda as amended, Mrs. Langlow moved to approve the Committee Referral Agenda. Mr. Scott seconded the motion.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding this motion. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the Committee Referral Agenda was approved without dissent.
The first item under Other New Business to be considered was Item No. 17.02.09 – Request to consider unfreezing the Capital Projects Fund for an emergency expenditure of up to $5,000.00 to replace a server at the Library.
Mayor McBrayer stated that last week the server at the Homewood Library had failed, creating an emergency situation for the Library. Mayor McBrayer further stated that the Library had previously placed in their Capital Budget up to $6,000.00 for the replacement of the server. Mayor McBrayer added that after some research it was determined that the server could actually be purchased for up to $5,000.00 including the shipping. Mayor McBrayer further added that he was declaring an emergency and requested that the Council unfreeze the Capital Projects Fund for an emergency expenditure of up to $5,000.00 to replace the server.
At this time, Mr. Kendrick presented the following Resolution for Council’s consideration:
Resolution No. 09-191
(A Resolution to unfreeze funding in the Capital Projects Fund in an amount up to $5,000.00 to replace a server at the Homewood Library)

Mrs. Langlow moved for the adoption and enrollment of Resolution No. 09-191 to unfreeze funding in the Capital Projects Fund in an amount up to $5,000.00 to replace a server at the Homewood Library. Mr. Payne seconded the motion.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding this motion.
Mr. Hooks stated that for the $5,000.00 he was assuming that a new server would be purchased and that the current server was down. Mr. Hooks asked what the Library was doing in the interim.
Ms. Deborah Fout (Library Director) addressed the Council. Ms. Fout stated that the server was not totally down, but the Library could be facing a catastrophic failure with it, and she was trying to be proactive.
Mr. Smith asked how many different places had been asked to give an estimate or quote on the server.
Ms. Fout again addressed the Council and stated that she could not answer that question as Mr. Brooks Fancher, the IT person at the Library, had actually done that research, but he had checked around. Ms. Fout added that the amount that had been requested in the Capital Projects budget was to replace two servers but Mr. Fancher had done some research and he would be able to replace the two servers that needed to be replaced with one.
On a voice vote, the motion carried without dissent.
The next item on the agenda under Other New Business was the request for consideration of a resolution authorizing payment of invoices for the period November 7, 2009 through November 20, 2009.
Mayor McBrayer stated that he had talked to Mr. Payne and Mr. Trippe who had some questions about an invoice from Santek Environmental. Mayor McBrayer further stated that he would recommend payment of the invoices with the exception of the Santek Environmental invoice.
Mr. Kendrick, at this point, presented the following Resolution for Council’s consideration:
Resolution No. 09 – 192
(A Resolution authorizing payment of the vouchers for all funds as listed in Exhibit “A” as attached to the Resolution for the payment period beginning November 7, 2009 through November 20, 2009)

Mr. Scott moved for the adoption and enrollment of Resolution No. 09-192 authorizing payment of the invoices for the period November 7, 2009 through November 20, 2009 with the exception of one invoice withheld by Mr. Trippe for Santek Environmental. Ms. Holladay seconded the motion.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding this motion. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the motion carried without dissent. Mr. Payne abstained.
Mr. Underwood stated that the invoice from Santek Environmental would be carried over.
The next item of business under Other New Business was the presentation by Darrell Skipper, Skipper Consulting, on the proposed Lane Park Development.
Mr. Underwood stated that Mr. Darrell Skipper (Skipper Consulting) was present tonight to share with the Council information related to the traffic assessment for the proposed Lane Park Development.
Mr. Darrell Skipper (Skipper Consulting) addressed the Council. Mr. Skipper stated he had prepared to give a visual presentation of the materials that he had earlier distributed but that he was unable to do so due to some technical difficulty tonight.
Mr. Underwood asked Mr. Skipper if he would prefer rescheduling his presentation until a time when the technical difficulty had been resolved. Mr. Skipper stated that he could use the written material as his presentation and that without objection he would make his presentation tonight.
Mr. Skipper stated that the Council was probably familiar with the Western Supermarket and the apartments that run up Lane Park across the street from the Botanical Gardens which was an area of about 26 acres. Mr. Skipper further stated that it was this area that was being called the Lane Park Development. Mr. Skipper added that the Lane Park Development would be done in two different phases, the first phase of which would deal with some retail/office and some of the residential. Mr. Skipper further added that a fair portion of the residential would not be touched for the first phase. Mr. Skipper presented a rendering of the development to the Council.
Mr. Skipper stated that the Lane Park Development as planned called for 217,000 square feet of retail, which included 67,000 square feet presently occupied by the existing merchants, 23,000 square feet for expansion of the existing merchants, and 127,000 square feet of new retail space. Mr. Skipper added that the Ray Building and the Regions Bank on Montclair, together about 7,000 square feet, would be taken out as a part of the development, and the master plan for the new development had a total of 24,000 square feet in it for office use, which was a net of about 17,000 square feet. Mr. Skipper further added that the existing 126 apartments would be demolished, to be replaced with 40 new residential units, for a decrease of 86 dwellings.
Mr. Skipper stated that Skipper Consulting had studied all of the intersections in and around downtown Mountain Brook, including the circle. Mr. Skipper further stated that the intersection at Hollywood Boulevard was not a part of the initial study, but some spot counts and some observations were done and the traffic was forecasted back to that intersection. Mr. Skipper added that as part of the traffic study, extensive traffic counts were done in both the morning and afternoon peak, including the circle, because of the elementary schools down the street on Cahaba Road and on Hollywood Boulevard. Mr. Skipper further added that the forecast was that about 15 percent of the traffic would be generated by this development as coming from the Highway 280/ Hollywood Boulevard interchange area.
Mr. Skipper stated that once it was estimated where the traffic would be coming from, the traffic was forecasted on each of the intersections including the circle and an analysis was done to see what kind of condition the intersections would be in, and from that a road improvement program was developed. Mr. Skipper further stated that the developers had included all of those road improvements into their development. Mr. Skipper added that the improvements included (1) reducing the 12 accesses to the 26-acre piece of property to five accesses, with restrictions on some of the movement on two of those accesses; (2) widening Culver Road to three lanes wide from Montclair over to Lane Park; (3) widening Lane Park to three lanes within the length of the property along this development; (4) re-aligning the Culver Road leg to line up with the Highway 280 ramp; (5) adding some right turn lanes on Cahaba Road and on Lane Park to get traffic to the expressway; and (6) adding some traffic signal modifications and things of that nature. Mr. Skipper further added that regarding the intersection at Highway 280 and Hollywood Boulevard, in the afternoon peak hour, there were 471 vehicles that were leaving the circle in the village going over to that interchange and 472 vehicles coming from that direction to the village, for a total of about 950 vehicles that were on the road.
Mr. Skipper stated that the additional traffic that would be generated by the development going to and from that interchange during the afternoon peak hour was estimated to increase about 14 percent over what it was today. Mr. Skipper further stated that the traffic volume counts at Hollywood Boulevard and Highway 280, traffic leaving the village going toward Homewood, was about a 50/50 split of those that would continue on Hollywood Boulevard coming to Homewood and those turning left on Highway 280. Mr. Skipper added that this would equate to about 20 or 25 vehicles an hour that would be added to the morning peak and about 40 vehicles that would be added that would be continuing on from Highway 280 back over to Highway 31 and vice versa going back toward the village from the Highway 280 area. Mr. Skipper further added that the traffic that was being generated today from the current development versus the traffic to be generated from the development once it was built out would be about 2 to 1.
Mr. Skipper stated that one of the things that had been done was to keep a cap on the size of the tenants that were going to go to the new development, the largest single tenant being the supermarket which would be 35,000 square feet, and there would be no other tenants even close to that amount of square footage. Mr. Skipper further stated that the one big use would be a small 75-room boutique hotel, capped at four stories, which would make up kind of a cornerstone on the approach to the village from the Highway 280 corridor.
Mrs. Langlow asked what hours of the day in the AM and PM were considered the peak.
Mr. Skipper again addressed the Council and stated that there were two peaks dealing with retail and the retail peak that was studied was the 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekday peak because of the combination of commuter traffic mixed with the retail traffic that made the worse-case scenario. Mr. Skipper further stated that retail actually peaked on Saturday at 2:00 p.m.
Mrs. Langlow stated that she would not want to see the traffic back up in Mountain Brook Village, but she was more concerned about it backing up between Highway 31 and Highway 280.
Mr. Skipper again addressed the Council. Mr. Skipper stated that there would not be any more back up there at the ramps than at the 4-Way stops right now because of the free flow of the traffic that could go straight or turn right.
Mr. Skipper stated that he would be e-mailing his presentation to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council.
Mrs. Langlow stated that Mr. Skipper may need to return for a subsequent presentation since all council members were not present tonight and there could be other questions.
The next item on the agenda to be considered was board vacancies.
Mr. Scott stated that he would like to add one vacancy for the Commercial Development Authority to the agenda. Mr. Scott further stated that this vacancy was posted on the board, but it had not been placed on the agenda.
Mr. Underwood stated that this vacancy would be added to the agenda.
Mr. Scott then moved to open the application period for board vacancies, including the vacancy for the Commercial Development Authority, until close of business December 18, 2009, at 4:30 p.m. Mrs. Langlow seconded the motion.
Mr. Underwood asked if the Council had any questions or comments regarding this motion. There was no response from the Council.
On a voice vote, the motion carried without dissent.
Mr. Smith stated that the Public Safety Committee would meet on Monday, November 30, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Holladay stated that the Special Issues Committee would meet on Monday, November 30, 2009, at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Moody stated that the Public Works Committee would meet on Monday, November 30, 2009, at 6:30 p.m.
Mrs. Langlow stated that the Finance Committee would meet on Monday, November 30, 2009, at 7:00 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was, on a motion duly made, adjourned.

Council Minutes

Minute Archive

September 27 - October 8
Small Works of Great Art

All Events

Council Minutes

Homewood Websites