City Council - Regular Meeting

Item B2 is the workshop on Monday, July 20th, the minutes. Also in item B2 are the minutes for the Monday, August 17th workshop. There were a few edits to that one as well. Item B3 is the Watershed Review Board meeting minutes for Monday, August 3rd. Item B4 is the request from the fire department to apply for the frontline support grant for the emergency responders credit union. This is 100% grant, no required match for AEDs in the amount of $2,938.52. Request to apply for that grant. Item B5 is the capital project ordinance for the city hall renovations. Inside your package, you can see that I and help design work through the rough order of magnitude estimate. And the current budget includes $3.3 million that's in the capital improvement plan for city hall renovations. Going through the update, it was determined that there's a low side of that estimated cost at $3.2 million and a high side at $3.5 million. three million five hundred twelve thousand three hundred thirty four dollars after talking with our finance director we chose that we wanted to go with the three million five hundred twelve thousand three hundred thirty four dollars for the capital project ordinance this includes all the work that's associated with city hall renovation and so that is the capital project ordinance for city hall also included along the same lines of city hall renovation Item B6 is the design proposal from HELP Design. They were selected through a competitive process back in 2022. Of course, you all know we worked with HELP to come up with a rough order of magnitude during last year's budget process, and we presented that amount to you all in February 27th, 2026 during the retreat. You all decided to fund the project at $3.3 million in this year's budget. And so since that time, I've been working with Help Design to finalize their proposal. And so this document is the design proposal for $279,500, which includes their total basic services, supplemental services, reimbursable expenses not to exceed $5,000. Item we recommend that we enter into an owner architect agreement with help design to move forward with the project. Item B7 is the City of Belmont Chapter 75 regulation of electric and motorized mobility devices ordinance proposal. During the April 6th and July 6th, other business council members asked about e-bike and e-bike ordinance. And so staff had been working on that for quite some time. And staff presented during July 20th and the August 17th council workshops and instructed staff to place this on the September 8th city council meeting for the first reading. There's also going to be a second reading. Initially, it was proposed to be at the September 21st workshop, but I believe that we want to move that to October 5th for that reading, given that it's going to be a joint meeting with the town of Cramerton. So we thought that it'd be more efficient if we had that at the next regular meeting. So this is the Chapter 75 eBuy coordinates. As you know, item B8 is a budget amendment. for the Catawba River Public Water Intake Excavation Project. This project was originally bid on May 22nd, but we did not go through the proper state and city procurement requirements, so I asked staff to rebid this project. During the rebid, the project went from $1,397,940 to $1,794,690. And so we also had included that in the State Revolving Fund for the Hurricane Helene grant that we received. We decided that we're not going to include that with Hurricane Helene grant, given that we feel that that grant is going to exceed the $10 million amount that we had. So we wanted to go ahead and get this project underway. So this budget amendment takes care of all the necessary requirements to start this project. There is an amendment that I laid on your desk for the actual budget amendment, so it's listed as B8. There's an amount listed from last year's budget that should be this year's budget. Item B9 is to award the contract to the lowest bidder for the Catawba River public water intake excavation project in the amount of $1,794,690. And the bid sheet is included that shows what the bids came in at, plus the contingency, plus we did include an alternate to inspect a butterfly valve that we have. in the field that we need to see if it's operating properly. If it's operating properly, then we don't need to do the alternate number one. But we did want to include a mount for alternate number one just in case we need to replace that valve. So you can see that there's $163,600 plus contingency for alternate number one. Item B10 is a budget amendment. that appropriates $267,100 from the water and sewer enterprise fund balance and authorizes a corresponding amount to transfer to the raw water system intake rehab capital project. This amount is over the estimate of the Hurricane Helene funding in the $10 million amount, and so we need to fund that additional $267,100. As budget amendment number three, there is an edit for item B10 that I laid on your desk as well that accomplishes the change from last year's budget to this year's budget. Item B11 is the Raw Water System Intake Rehabilitation Capital Project Ordinance Approval. This is for the total project for the SRF $10 million drinking water state revolving fund for Hurricane Helene. And the $267,100 is a transfer from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Just as a reminder, the SRF award consists of $8,750,000 in principal forgiveness and $1,250,000 in repayable loan proceeds at 0% interest over 20 years. There's a closing fee that's associated with the loan, 2% closing fee. And so this is the capital project ordinance that shows that amount. In the same lines for B12 is the Raw Water Intake Rehab Project or the SRF Lean Drinking Water Project Initial Design Services Contract. This is for the engineering report and the environmental information document that's required for this project. So we already have Withers Ravenel as one of our on-call engineers. And so we'd like to move forward with using Withers Ravenel to complete those two reports. This is not the full design. We have to bring the full design back through another task order. And so this task order starts the project at $377,564. Item B13 is the police department's vehicle surplus request. This is for five vehicles at the police department that need to be considered surplus so that we can dispose of those through GovDeals. Item B14 is an ordinance to amend chapter 50 of the code of ordinances regarding the solid waste chapter. Staff did a really good job to look through our existing ordinance and determine what the existing ordinance looks like as compared to what we're actually doing in the field for solid waste, yard waste collection, leaf collection. And so we drafted a whole new ordinance for chapter 50. It should not change anything that the public sees regarding the current practice that we use. You can see that there's actually three documents. You've got the chapter 50 proposed ordinance. You've got our solid waste operations manual. And then you also have the existing Chapter 50 ordinance. That's kind of towards the back that shows some of those red lines that you saw. So that was our existing practice. And we kind of looked at both of those to compare. Should we update our existing ordinance or just create a new ordinance? And the idea was just to go with a new ordinance. It's a whole lot easier than trying to amend the existing ordinance. So this is for Chapter 50. Regarding the yard waste ordinance that we approved, you all approved back in October of 2025, this does include all of those new ordinance documents for yard waste collection that we went through, especially when we're talking about Poplar Street. So we made sure that that was included with the new chapter 50. And item B15 is from the Belmont Housing Authority. Their payment in lieu of taxes, their pilot request for fiscal years 25 and 2026. In 25, the amount that they're requesting to be a payment in lieu of taxes, the waiver of that is $18,744.61. And for fiscal year 2026, it is $14,570.61. Okay. Accompanying this item is the Belmont Housing Authority request letter that the executive director, Erica Bobo, provided. Mayor, that's it for the consent.

I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Miles. So I know we have a number of questions. What I would like to do, I think we're going to move, have some requests to move a couple items from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. So what I'd like to do is go ahead and get the ones that we want to move. But then if there are any remaining questions regarding any that are staying on the consent agenda, we'll kind of tackle those. So, Jim, you want to start? I know I'm suggesting the bike ordinance for a brief discussion. That would be, yes.

I want to pull B7, Chapter 75, Regulation of Electric and Motorized Mobility Devices, Ordinances to the Regular Agenda.

There may be some here in the gallery for public comment on that, so my suggestion would be to put it right after public comment, so that would make it new item C2. Is that agreeable? Okay, all right, so that will, so B7 will now become new agenda item C2. All right, Jason.

I would like to ask that we pull B5 as well as B6. Okay. For discussion.

All right, and let's see. So I think for discussion purposes, it'll make more sense to have B6 before B5. Yes. So why don't we do, as new agenda item C3, we'll do B6, and then C4, we'll do B5. Any other requests for removal? So those will be amended to the The regular agenda as stated in questions regarding the remaining items on the consent agenda.

I just had an observation on a question, I guess, on the, um, the housing authority pilot. Um, I know we've had this issue with this in the past, but we tend to get like several years at a time. Um, my understanding was that when this happened last time, it was supposed to like every year, I'm not opposed to. to doing this item, but I think it might be good to maybe reiterate that with them just so that we're doing these as we go rather than kind of letting them build up and doing several years at a time. Can you pass that a little?

Yes, sir. I have some difficult questions. I guess I'll just go in order. With respect to B8 and Budget Amendment 2, the Catawba River Public Water Intake Excavations Project, can you refresh my recollection, Miles, as to how the initial procurement process did not comply with the applicable state and city requirements? I know there was a bidder who didn't provide all the correct information, but I didn't realize that that might have made the process non-compliant.

When we were looking at including or not including that item into the SRF, the $10 million grant that we received, I asked some questions of staff because they gave me a list of things that we'd have to do to comply with the grant. One of them was And there was a couple more requirements that we needed. And so I asked staff that, given the project already was in the formal bid amount, did we not advertise it in the paper as we should have, whether it's any project? And the answer was no, that we did not advertise it in the paper. So given that it's a formal project, that state law, that we needed to do that. So I didn't feel comfortable executing a contract where we didn't comply with state law.

Yes, agreed. Thank you. And the agenda packet said the project was not eligible for reimbursement for the state revolving fund. Is it an issue of eligibility or is it an issue of we just decided that it wouldn't be included in the state revolving fund?

It could be, but it would require, what I understood was that we would have to have environmental studies we would have to have a third party administer a portion of it for us, which would cost us more money in the long run if we went ahead and used the third party to administer the grant piece of it. And so given that, we feel that the intake project, relocation of the intake project in the future to $10 million is gonna be over the $10 million amount. I thought that... It would be better that we save the city money to go ahead and go through the process issues and city bonds versus, like, include it to a grant that add more money on to it. So we said, let's just keep it out of the 10 million dollar intake grant.

Okay, that makes sense. And sort of transitioning to budget amendment three, item B10. Can you just refresh my recollection as to the relationship between the Catawba River public water intake excavation project and the raw water intake rehabilitation capital project?

They're interchangeable. They're the same. It's raw water intake is the Catawba River intake project. So they're probably listed. They might The different tidal projects, they're the same project. Okay. It's the intake on the Catawba River that we need to relocate from behind the island where it deposits sediment during heavy rains, especially during heavy rains.

But we're taking the dredging now and doing it ourselves versus as part of the $10 million state revolve. Correct.

A new intake somewhere in the top river. And so the engineers have to study where that will actually be located just further out to the channel instead of it being like, in a more shallow area.

And then with respect to the contract award, the twelve, as I was reviewing it, it seems sort of familiar to me. Did we pass Task Order 29 back at the July meeting? Did we approve it? Or are there some slight changes to Task Order 29 in our current agenda packet that we need to approve it again?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. Jonathan might provide me some more information on that. The task order 29 that you approved earlier this summer is essentially the same as what's before you tonight, except the one tonight does not include any work associated with the actual intake dredging. The previous task order did include work for the actual dredging.

And would that be why it's slightly less? Correct. Makes sense. Thank you. My last question is with respect to the solid waste ordinance, Chapter 50B14. I know we talk about yard waste and recycling and waste collection. Is the fact that there is no reference to the composting program, is that because it's a separate contract with a private entity and not with waste connections in the city? That's correct.

That's all the questions I have. Any other questions for Miles? All right. There are no further questions. That will conclude our work session. I will call to order the September 8, 2026 Belmont City Council regular meeting. And I believe we have Pastor Alexander, or I'm sorry, Pastor Jerry Pennington here with us to be calling up for the invocations of everyone to stand and remain standing with me.

Thank you, Mayor Jordan, Councilman, for inviting me to come by and pray with you and for you. Let's pray together. My gracious Heavenly Father, we are so thankful to you and praise you for this night that we can gather tonight and give you thanks for the many blessings and the benefits that you poured out upon us all. We've come tonight, Lord, before you to ask and seek and knock We ask because we know that we will receive. We seek because we know that we will find. And in knocking, Lord, your doors are open. And we pray this prayer on behalf of the city council tonight, and the meeting is forthcoming, that you would give them all wisdom and direction to be given to them as they conduct a business that is on this agenda for the night. I'm thankful also for those who have surrendered themselves to this office that they hold and Thank you for their faithfulness and for all that they do for the care and welfare of the city. God, I pray your blessings upon Mayor Joe Jordan and all the council members here and all her own staff. Watch over them, guard them, their minds, their hearts, and in their service to the citizens of this town. And just give you thanks for all the many blessings again. For it's in the precious name of Jesus that we pray. Amen. Thank you, Pastor Keith. Thank you, everyone, for joining. So we're going to start moving our way in here. Everyone bear with me. We're juggling a couple of different things, but I do want to take a minute.

to recognize a special guest we have with us. We have Dr. Jeff Talley with us this evening, the new president of Belmont Abbey. Dr. Talley, if you'd wave for everyone. So Dr. Talley has joined Belmont Abbey, this is his first year. He moved his family up here. We are very excited as a community to see him come in. in the Abbey and continue moving it in great directions. But we're also very pleased with the renewed relationship that we're seeing growing between the City of Belmont Abbey. I know a lot of that is because of your leadership and we appreciate you and the opportunity to welcome you to Belmont. So from the City of Belmont, welcome and thank you for the time and the energy that you're willing to invest into our community and to Belmont Abbey. All right, so that will get us to a motion to set our agenda, and this motion will set the agenda as amended, removing B5, B6, and B7 to the consent agenda items, and moving those to item number C4, C3, and C2, respectively. So I'll entertain that motion.

So moved.

All right, motion made by Jason.

Second.

Second by Charlie. Any opposed? All right, so that will set our agenda. Agenda as amended. So at this point, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. So moved. Motion made by Jim. Second by Alex. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. So that will pass the amended consent agenda. Thank you. That will move us to our amended agenda item C1, which is public comment. We have a couple here. Dr. Brenda Eskridge. Come on up. I'd like to remind everyone that the microphone is not that sensitive, so don't be afraid to get close. And just for the others that will be speaking tonight, I'm going to read through the public comment procedures. All speakers will have up to three minutes on any topics. Speakers must sign up with a name and address, must be respectful to city council staff and the public. There's a time for speakers to bring matters to the mayor and the city council's attention. There's generally no discussion or debate about items. I've warranted the mayor or city council may ask the city staff to follow up with the speaker on his or her concerns. And it is separate from various other public hearing items, which we do not have on the agenda tonight. So, Dr. Eskridge.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. I am Dr. Brenda Eskridge, and I'm a candidate for the Gaston County Board of Education at large. Over the last several months, I've been a strong proponent of our county commissioners providing additional funding to Gaston County Schools. I believed it was needed then, and I still believe that funding is essential. After taking a deeper look at the district's financial challenges, I also understand some of the commissioner's reluctance. However, our students cannot be caught up in the middle of a disagreement about funding and accountability. A consultant's review, as many of you know, uncovered problems with financial reconciliations, expenses charged to local funds that should have been reimbursed by other funding sources, communication gaps within departments, and recommendations for stronger internal control. In addition, our current enterprise resource planning system was cited by the NCDPI as out of compliance with the Uniform Education Reporting System, all while we were spending a million dollars per month on programming and maintenance that still required labor-intensive workarounds by the staff. Many of these issues appear to have been longstanding. They did not happen overnight. There are currently board members who have served for, and in some cases, 12 years. As someone with a background in governance and risk mitigation, I want to know, how did we get here? How did these problems happen? How long did they go undetected? What controls failed? What's been corrected? What remains unresolved? And what safeguards are now in place to ensure this doesn't happen again? But I also would have questions as a concerned taxpaying citizen. Who knew what? When did they know it? Why did so much of this appear to be crisis mode in November 2025 when many of these reporting concerns appear to have been longstanding? Were these issues discussed with the board? Did they take any action? I'm speaking directly to the Belmont community and members of the city council tonight because you have a role to play in advocating for all students in Gaston County. I especially want to encourage the representative for the South Point Township to keep asking the questions and keep a close watch on the action plans. That is governance. Board members don't manage day-to-day operations, but they should ask meaningful questions, monitor the district's financial health, and hold leadership accountable. Our most recent test scores showed improvement across the district, and our students, teachers, principals, and staff deserve to be celebrated for that progress. But we also have to acknowledge then Gaston County still trails our surrounding counties in overall proficiency. We're moving in the right direction, but there is still much work to do. So if we want to recruit and retain excellent teachers, improve proficiency, close achievement gaps, and ensure our most vulnerable students have the support they need, our local investment in education has to reflect the actual cost of educating children today, including inflation and rising operation costs. Everyone has a part to play. The school district must demonstrate fiscal responsibility, the board must govern and provide confident oversight, our commissioners must adequately fund the local share of public education, and the community and municipal leaders must stay involved, ask questions, demand transparency, and advocate for all students. Thank you for all you do in the service of this community.

Thank you for opening the floor, Mayor, members of council. For the record, my name is Zach Gehr. I reside at 621 Seacrest Avenue, and I've had the privilege of serving this city as an employee for the past nine years. I'm here today to express my deep concern and disappointment regarding how the recent 2% cost of living adjustment was implemented across the city. This year, several dedicated employees did not receive the 2% increase simply because they are at or near top of their position's pay scale. Historically, when COLA was approved, the city shifted the entire pay structure, moving both minimum and maximum boundaries, ensuring every employee received the adjustment. That established practice was quietly abandoned. Cost of living adjustment exists for a specific purpose, to help employees keep pace with inflation, which impacts every single person in this room, regardless of where they sit on a pay band. By capping these adjustments, the city is effectively telling its most experienced, long-tenured staff that the people dedicated their careers to building institutional knowledge here that they must absorb the full hit of inflation alone. It is particularly frustrating to see this cap applied while the council rightly recognized the need to raise officer pay to remain market competitive. Investments in public safety are vital. but so is maintaining equity and morale across the workforce. Including the handful of top-tier employees in this 2% adjustment will not break the city's budget. I respectfully ask this council to reevaluate this implementation and at the very least provide a clear, transparent explanation to the impacted staff as to why the city chose to diverge from past practice and exclude It's most loyal employees. Thank you for your time.

All right, that will conclude our public comment section.

I wasn't aware that that was a policy with respect to the COLA. So I'm just interested to hear the explanation.

Uh, what he's referred to is, uh, the past practice versus the existing policy. Uh, we do have a policy and, uh, the employee personnel policy that that does stay with become maxed out at your pay. Then, um, then you can't move forward for Cola. We recognized the issue for the employee personnel policy, and our staff is actively engaged with the league to draft a new policy so we can bring it to you all for consideration and approval. Working behind the scenes for the past two months on that, so I appreciate it. Thank you, Miles.

Okay. All right, very good. Just real quick, before we move on to our next agenda item, Are you, is the gallery here in the home? It's very slight. Slight? Okay, all right. I can kind of hear it there once in a while, but I can't tell. I just want to make sure that everything's clear and everyone can hear us. All right, okay. All right, now we'll move us on to amended agenda item C2, which is... Yes, thank you. The Chapter 75 Regulation of Electric and Motorized Mobility. We have Lizzy with us one more time. Good evening, everybody.

Good evening. I hope you're having a good long weekend. It's short. We have to start off.

Oh, so I'll start. I think what I was hoping to do is just, for those people that follow the city on social media, I think they understand that there was some revisions made at the last meeting that were put into form to be adopted on the consent agenda tonight, which would then be able to have it read in first reading of the ordinance. I have to have two readings, two separate readings. At least this one does. Sorry? At least this one does. At least this one does. And there was a change. And when it came to council, a number of council members heard from the community. And when we were reviewing it, noticed that some language that was added apparently to make it a job with our existing.

Oh, there's that palm.

There it is. I hear it now, yes. Okay, I'm not. There was some unintended language that remained. And with the new revision and the unintended language that remained, It appeared to restrict human power devices from the downtown dismount. And that was not the intent of the original draft. It was not intended to cancel it.

Which we did not intend to even deal with.

Get into human power devices. Traditional bicycles, if you will. But with that said, If I'm missing anything, I wanted to clarify prior to any type of vote that that is indeed the case with the downtown dismount zones. If you want to walk us through it just a little bit high level again, what it will apply to, what it will apply to.

Okay.

So the downtown dismount zone.

Again, in short, the downtown dismount zone will pertain to any devices that whether it is an e-bike, a bicycle, because regular human-powered devices are already covered under Chapter, I believe, 72?

73. 73.

73. 73, where it states that bicycles are actually not even allowed on the sidewalks anywhere in the city, which is something we'll need to look at so it conforms to this one. And there's also a section that talks about the skateboards and the rollerblades and things like that as well. But for the dismount zone, starting at the intersection of East Woodrow and North Main Street, extending all the way down Main to the intersection of McLeod and South Main Street will be a dismount zone for any type of devices on the sidewalks.

On the sidewalks.

Sidewalks only. Yes. This does not include the street, cannot legally ban Bicycles off the street.

And because e-bikes or electric-assisted bicycles are considered bicycles.

Vehicles.

Yes, as we learned last time at the workshop, we likewise cannot.

Correct.

So folks can drive their e-bikes down south. Correct. Yes.

It was one word that was mistakenly thrown in there that kind of created a little... Which is understandable, obviously, but it has been resolved as far as ending the conflict.

Just clarification, that will not change people's ability to come off Rocky Branch, come up Woodrow, turn, go down Main Street, go to the restaurants, go to our businesses, do the things they have always done.

Correct. It is only pertaining to the cycle.

Which they were never allowed to do in the first place. Correct. So that doesn't change anything either. Correct.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. A couple other points I just want to ask because I'm not real sure where these are landing and I did receive some feedback on them. Are currently the way helmets are handled. I understand that our fine is substantially more than North Carolina's statutory fine. I believe their statutory fine is $10, ours is 100. Maybe this is more of a parks question. I hate to do that to you.

Well, as luck would have it, I asked Lindsay if she would be prepared to discuss that.

I've had some time. Excellent. Please take it away. In your spare time.

Yes.

So after, here, I'll pass this out as well to make it a little more understandable to you. So after reading over it from different perspectives, I did see where it could become a little bit of an issue in parts. If I said anything that's not correct, please correct me, okay? I believe under Chapter 160A, well, Sections 174 and 175, it states that we can impose fines through municipal ordinances as long as they don't read the same as the state law. So as long as what is in our context is not exactly what's in state law, we can enforce that, which is where the issue comes in because what has been proposed in our ordinance does reflect exactly what state law says. So to kind of get out of that gray area that would keep us having issues with that, I would suggest rewording the language in the helmet section so it's not identical to state law. Change the text in D to say, a violation of this section shall be a violation of this chapter and shall be subject to the civil penalties and enforcement remedies provided in 7599, which is already in place under the penalties and violations. And then at the end of that, adding a statement just to cover us and to show what our actual intent is. Nothing in this section shall be construed to increase, modify, or otherwise alter any penalty prescribed by North Carolina for a violation of state law. And again, that's to make our intentions clear and that we're imposing a civil municipal enforcement penalty, not a state infraction. And that's where the language gets a little iffy. And in order to not step on the toes of state law, I feel like it would be best to just refer to what is already in the penalty section. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Okay. All right. I think that's good for the penalty for me. Any questions on the penalty? I'm going to go to the next. Well, it looks like you could waive it if you actually buy it.

Correct.

I'm sure.

Okay.

So my other question was our ability to put helmet restrictions on class one and two. Not only has that, not because I don't want to, but because I know that the new law coming in, state law coming in in December, there's going to be an effect for one, gives municipalities specifically the authority to put helmet restrictions on class one and two e-bikes. But the only thing right now that is, that the state requires is helmets of people under 18 on class three. So do we, put it in there and not make it apply until 12-1? Or do we put it in place and assume that we have the authority to do it until the new law goes into place? I mean, 12-1's going to be here before we know it, but we always want to make sure that we're drafting things that are reflecting accurately.

So right now, the way it's written, the Class 1 and Class 2 are still, the 16 and under are required. which would fall with the already existing laws for bicycles. The 18 is where it will come into effect for only the Class 3 and only Super 1st. So I don't know if you guys want to increase the Class 1 and Class 2 requirements to 18 and not 16. That's kind of something that you guys would have to decide. Otherwise, the 18... year old requirement would have to obviously wait probably till December 1st before it could be legally enforced.

Okay.

All right. Because you then need to indicate this section will become effective December 1st because I'm assuming if the two readings pass, then it would be the ordinances would otherwise be effective as of that date, which would be sometime in October.

Can we add that language in there and it cover?

I think so. I've seen that. Yeah, this will be effective.

Oh, it needs to be done there. Okay. All right. I don't have any questions. Other questions on helmets? Anybody? That's good. Okay. The last question that I did receive a lot of back and forth on was the impoundment language. So currently the way it's working is for inviolation, the device can be impounded. I think it was really focusing more on the little ones. But regardless, a lot of people tell me they didn't think that was the case. So what I would like to do is just make sure that we're within state statute. What we can and what we haven't. My understanding is that we need to add a notice ability for people to be able to appeal. But then at that point, the imponent can stand. There was a question as to the 90-day, like we can get rid of it at the end of 90 days if we don't know whose it is. I don't want to be holding a lot of equipment, obviously. I don't think we're going to be going around impounding a lot of things.

But also, I don't want to open the city up for... Well, the provisions that you cite, are those related specifically to these types of devices?

It is the general impoundment for vehicles. There's nothing specifically that I found on busing. the new devices.

So the way that section is intended to work is as an enforcement tool when a device is actually being operated or parked in violation of Chapter 75. It doesn't authorize any type of random confiscations or anything of that nature. North Carolina does give municipalities authority to regulate conduct affecting public safety, and that's under Chapter 168. And we can enforce our ordinances through penalties and other enforcement remedies, which would include impoundment. There is not, like you said, there's not a separate impoundment procedure that is specific to e-bikes or e-scooters and things like that, at least not right now. The important due process issue is distinct between temporary impoundment and permanent disposal. Now, the city, we can take a device into custody when there's an actual ordinance violation, and the owner will have reasonable time and opportunity to establish, will have given them enough time for us to establish ownership and for them to reclaim that device before it's permanently disposed of. And that's what the requirement in 7513. states that they're required to establish ownership and is waiting period for disposition are intended to address that concern. And I thought what we could do is have a simple spelled out impoundment procedure SOP that could be added. And it would be just a quick step by step. The process would look like step one, documentation of the violation. Step two, impoundment of the device pursuant to 7513. Documenting and identifying the owner, providing a way to establish ownership and reclaim the device. Allowing a reasonable amount of time, whether it be 90 days, six months, for them to pay any kind of penalties or to get those devices back. and then only proceed with the final disposition if the device remains unclaimed for a substantial length of time. For example, in our property and evidence, we have evidence in there from 1970. We don't throw away things that are... It's not something that would just be thrown out. You know what I mean? We would do our due diligence finding the owner and things of that nature.

Okay. So in practice... If whatever I was riding was impounded and you found me and I came to you, the idea is that the city will be giving it back. Correct. But they'll be paying a penalty or whatever it may be. Correct.

So you're saying having a car, dude.

Something like that. I like the idea of having those steps added just for the safety of the city standpoint. I think... Jim, you have thoughts on the appeal process of that? Do we need to give... specifically a chance to appeal the impoundment? I don't know how that would look in a different practice.

Well, I mean, all right. I mean, typically due process involves a bare minimum notice and opportunity to be heard. And what sort of notice and opportunity to be heard entails sort of depends on how much depends on the importance of the right. And so I would assume I don't think this is Life or death or or what, so I don't know it needs to be like a full blown multi step process. I don't know, Parks, if you necessarily have to provide the right to an appeal, per se.

I wouldn't put it in a complicated set of rules. I just have a general statement about it being in compliance with all provisions of state law regarding enforcement or something like that.

I kind of recall Chief Balls mentioning that you guys have a tow policy that has some sort of due process.

This is related to being flaked.

Yeah, because I remember talking to him about it at one point. It seemed like the thought there might be to maybe mirror that process to the extent that it's applicable.

I don't know that we need to be that complex when we're talking about... Well... What would be the worst case scenario that this would take place?

Yeah, because I mean, to Jason and Parks' point, you know, typically like at the federal level, the statutes are going to be very broad. And then the specific procedures are going, they'll say, oh, and such and such agency is authorized to adopt regulations to enforce the statute. And then you'd see the details. So like with Title IX, say, which when I teach sports law, you know, Title IX doesn't really specifically refer to sports. It just talks about, you know, you know, equal opportunities in education. And then it tasks the Office for Civil Rights, which is the group that, you know, issues the, you know, and regulations consistent with this, you know, shall be adopted by such and such organization. And they're the ones that have come out with like the three-part test and all the different details about what constitutes, you know, equal accommodation of interest, et cetera, et cetera. you know, now we're dealing with a city here, so I don't know if we treat it with as fine tooth to comb, but I like what Park says, you know, just as long as you put something in there that's, you know, comply, it will comply with state law and all rights and duties set forth in state law or something, I think would be fine to allow that you know, nothing untoward is going to happen. Um, I am a little bit, you know, I, I, I like the SLP, where would it be housed so that people would actually know how to avail themselves of it?

Um, we could have it publicly available on our, on our, um, website or exhibit or attachment.

Yes.

And then when we find the owners and we would mail it to them or, even take to their house if they're local.

All right. Because I think that's fine. I agree with both Chase and Park. You don't want to make it overly complicated, and statutes and ordinances themselves aren't necessarily supposed to, you know, get super complicated.

So I think that would be it. We're already at seven pages.

Well, I mean, compared to the one we passed with Chapter 50 in the consent agenda.

We're good at making things complicated.

Yes, well, that is true. I think that's it for me, for things I wanted to cover on it, just to make sure that there was clarity on the record and everyone has the opportunity to tune in here and to understand what we're looking at as far as the new revised purpose. Thank you, Lindsay, I appreciate that. Anybody have, yes?

First off, I want to, again, thank Lindsay. She's doing gentlemen's work through all this, and a lot of this is new territory, as we've talked about. I know we've had some conversations offline Some of the changes, and I think we're getting really, really close. I know we all want the same thing. We want this to be right for the first time it gets rolled out. You know, I'm sick safety of our citizens and traveling public is paramount. One of those changes I noticed in your latest graphic, because in the previous one, there was nothing to dictate what governed in a 25-mile-an-hour zone.

We governed by under 25 and over 25, but we have some 25-mile-an-hour zones.

like between, on the main, between Woodrow and 74 is 25. So I think that's helpful. So now you'll notice it's the 25 and under zones are governed in that first section of the row there. To be honest with you, with what I've witnessed and what I've seen and heard myself and through others, the main issues that I continue to see involve two of these models. or classes rather one is the motor driven bicycles motorbikes the other is the micro mobility devices with the motorbikes um you know for those of us that are up and down south point road we tend to see those quite a bit um on the sidewalk sometimes on south point road but but usually on the sidewalks leaving the south point game friday night 9 30 night it's black dark once struck it down central avenue no lights probably at a good 25, 30 mile an hour cliff, might have been 10 years old. And I've seen them on Central, I've seen them, not seen when I'm out, I mean, we were all kids, a lot of us probably rode dirt bikes, but again, this is a different era. And I don't see a lot of these riders typically yielding to cars, much less pedestrians. And I know that's kind of the overarching thing that we're trying to achieve here. So, One of the issues that I have with, well, I'll just mention some of those with the motorbikes, lack of lighting, the speed is, I don't know if that's one of the specs anyway. But the other thing is with regard to the micromobility devices. You know, those are your e-scooters, your hoverboards, your skateboards, the univille. I'm not even sure how you turn that, but... For instance, think about those under this scenario in the downtown dismount zone. Again, a main street between Merlin McLeod and Woodrow. What we're saying under the new ordinance is that they would have to obviously dismount just as the other models would in that zone and walk it on the sidewalk, right? However, under the current ordinance, if it was approved, those micros would be allowed in the roadway in a 25 mile an hour and under zone, right? So sort of anecdotal example, I'm sitting downtown last week and I happen to look up and see one of these e-scooters zipping out of Stowe Park right by the railroad tracks and not even thinking about looking both ways, right up Main Street towards Catawba in the middle of the lane. And right now, there's nothing to really say that they can't do that, right? Even under the new ordinance that's proposed so far.

Unless they were doing something that a normal driver should be doing.

Right, unsafe behavior. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really have an issue with the class one through three bikes, nor the mopeds and motorcycles, but I don't know that I want to see 12 different variations of devices going up and down Main Street. Like the micros is what I had the biggest issue with because I like my chances a lot better if I get an impact with a car or a truck, if I'm on a bike or a moped or a motorcycle, a heck of a lot better than I do if I'm on a little scooter. Would you agree? So again, I don't mean to keep throwing things out, but thinking about different scenarios, maybe in that downtown dismount zone, that yes, they need to be walked on the sidewalks, but I don't know that that class needs to be permitted in the street. This is my personal opinion.

My stance on it, I understand where you're coming from. I get that. I would prefer to not raid the street. That's what I'm totally good with. I understand absolutely what you're saying. I know there are a lot. I see a lot of people using, even adults, really, I think is where I see the most of being very respectful in their use of the street. I guess mainly on the one rules, is what I would say. Not really the scooters so much. Those are kids. But their use of Main Street, if we're just telling them what we would personally want, but that's what I would like to see. I'm absolutely for the regulation of the safety of the pedestrians on the sidewalk, I get that, I'm with you, but I would prefer not to regulate Main Street. This is really the sale for micromobility.

I met y'all's direction.

Any other thoughts on that particular zone or scenario? I know we kind of bounce back and forth on this one, but we are indeed allowed to place a regulation on the street itself for these devices. Not bicycles. The issue that we run into is in the more heavily trafficked, populated areas. Like I get both sides, Joe. I get where you're saying we don't want to limit different types of mobility, but I also lean more towards the adjacent side here because of the safety. Downtown continues to get kind of more and more crowded, which is good for our businesses, but it's also like we've got to be cognizant of how do we continue to protect. in our downtown areas, even if it's maybe an unpopular opinion. I have also seen those instances, more than none. It's crazy. I feel like these have happened more frequently than last, but where scooters and stuff like that and other issues have become problematic. So, I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to looking into it. I don't know if we can do tonight, but, I mean, I think this is kind of uncharted territories that a lot of municipalities are starting to kind of intervene. You had to do a lot of unique behind-the-scenes work to try to figure this out.

Your observation was specifically for the micromobility devices. Most of those riders are under 16?

I would say, yes.

Typically, those are the age bracket of riders on these micromobility devices.

What I have seen, at least.

Right, same. And I don't, like if you're on a neighborhood street, not a lot of traffic, that's a heck of a lot different than Main Street. And we don't have bike lanes downtown, right? If you had a bike lane, it'd be a different story, because I wouldn't have an issue with that. It's where the reserve were, but we don't. And so to see a one-wheel, or a scooter, or a skateboard going up and down Main Street, I just, I can't be on board.

We can also look at regulating by age. I mean, if that's really the concern of the kids, getting hurt.

Yeah, I mean, I will be, again, just my stance on it.

I see a lot of adults using it in a very safe and respectful way. I don't see people, the adults that are using these devices, and they're getting smaller and they're going to continue getting smaller technology, continue to evolve and we have a better balance and all that other stuff. I think you're going to see people using them more. And I really do feel like the adults that are using our downtown, they're going to the restaurants, they're going to the that come in and out on the one wheels are being extremely safe. And I don't want to be the one, I know it doesn't necessarily come to me, but I don't want to be the one telling them that even acting as a very safe adult in downtown that you're not allowed to be on the street with your device. I'll tell you not to be on the sidewalk because you hook me with the kids getting hit, you know, and it's very possible. That can happen, and I'm sure it has happened. Are we able to... Restrict 16 or 17 and up on micromobility in the road? We can draft it anyway we want. I assume if we're able to regulate the street, we can regulate how we want.

Is there guidance in regards to the age you pick, though? Does it have to be 16 and under is restricted, or can it be 18, 21? Like, how does that work?

There's really no formula that way.

35. No, I was just curious.

No, yeah. That's a good question.

Office 3 has that.

What I'm hearing is it sounds like it's more of an age issue.

If I'm an adult on a scooter and I get... Yeah, but the other thing too is the speed is what drives a lot of the injuries and it's that whole F equals MA thing. Yeah. Theoretically, if they're doing if the car should also be going slower downtown. And I mean, I don't know what the neighborhood speeds are. But I feel like 25 is probably 20. Oh, so it's actually probably lower than most neighborhoods.

I believe downtown that section of downtown is the lowest speed in our city streets.

Yeah. So I mean, it's like to Joe's point, like, I think there's like there are people who are going to be able to use that responsibly. They're going to be probably mostly kids who will make poor decisions. But I mean, there is also quite a bit in here that I think potentially gives you tools to address that behavior. So, I mean, we could potentially look at it, but then also maybe look at like how it, goes with this too with like you kind of see you've got people who are doing things on these devices downtown and there's like a enforcement gap there um maybe we kind of like just let it ride for a few months and kind of see yes uh no pun intended The idea is to try to be proactive.

You don't want to let something play out. I like your point. I thought the whole point of us having the dismount conversation was to make it safe. Try to get a lot of that off the road. And I think a great compromise is 18 and up. I would say 16.

Well, that and because, you know, at 16, unless things have changed since when I got my driver's license, you know, 16 is the age to get your driver's license. And I would assume that's when you start having maturity to understand how. but presumably you understand like the rules of the road I think our issues are with people that have no idea what to even look for and look both ways and presumably you would have at least had that training in order to be able to get your license in the first place now what you do with it after that I don't know but I always like to have using a scooter you probably don't have your license I don't know I'm just trying to find a rational basis for our our age limit, and that seems to be one.

Let's ask the people that are seeing this most every day. Do you have any thoughts on specifically for micros? Well, let's talk about in general first. In the downtown dismount zone, do you have an opinion on whether it's safe for micromobility devices to be operating in the street in the downtown dismount zone?

I definitely don't feel like it is for what you're saying, for children. They just don't have the mental maturity or knowledge to be able to operate in that area alongside cars. So doing the age route is definitely an option. And I also agree with the allowing responsible adults to still have their ability to travel in that area on the street as long as they are abiding by all the regulations. So I do agree with both.

Age recommendation?

Age-wise?

I'm thinking you make a good point about presumably they're getting drivers.

16 is kind of that safe number, right now anyway, as far as being able to comprehend what the road rules are.

So I think this has to, we're going to have to get back. Yeah, I mean, I think we're almost there.

Two, three remaining issues to work through.

It might be December 1st, and we don't even have to put that in.

So we're saying- Is anybody against the 16 micro mobility regulation?

Yeah, I think that's- To be clear, 16 and above can use it. Right. In the street.

In downtown. In the street, yeah. Yes. Just a couple of things, and I think you've already addressed them in my email from earlier, but there was one other provision, 7507C, that needed to be amended to add operating on a city sidewalk because otherwise you would again include traditional bikes in the dismount requirement. But I saw you had fixed that in what we were handed today, as well as the definition of micromobility device that had been tied to that provision in state law regarding electric personal assistive mobility devices, and you said that has also been removed.

That's when we had two separate categories for the e-scooters, and then we had the micromobility devices. Once we combine that, that took out that 15 mile per hour limit, which then excluded it from that provision of those devices.

I was just going to sort of have a summation and direct us where to go.

Well, I just have one last clarification, maybe, and that's regarding operating after dark. So both of those devices I raised earlier, the micros and the motorbike, are not allowed, at least under the proposed ordinance, to be operated after dark. Correct. Right. So whether or not they have a light is criteria. Right now, there's nothing really governing when they can operate those.

So I guess is that we- I think we'll- Table to- We need to absolutely have one more go around that with clean language, I think.

So we'll- Well, before I do, do we dare put it on the consent agenda for October, or should we just put it on the regular agenda? Regular, let's just put it on the regular agenda. All right, I move to table this item until what day do we meet, October? until our October 5th regular meeting so that Lindsay can provide additional amendments based in our direction here tonight.

Okay. All right. A motion made by Jim. Second by Alex. All in favor? I oppose. All right. Thank you.

I echo Jason's comment. Thank you.

I know you are very much looking forward to the completion of this process, but we want to make sure we get it right.

And obviously... We can see daylight. Yes. People are concerned about this. Thank you.

All right, so now we'll move us on to our amended C2, which, oh, sorry, C3, which is the City Hall Design Proposal.

Yes, we have Tim Johnson and Raleigh Klein with Health Design for Bowbottom.

I was wondering how we kick this off. Yes, absolutely. Jason, we'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you guys for being here tonight to answer some hopefully final questions before we start down this road with this exciting project. So I know this is something that's been a topic of many council meetings since, I guess, November of 2022, when your firm was selected to handle the renovations of our city hall. Fast forward, I think it was 2025, September of last year, whenever you presented design options and the rough order of magnitude. So obviously we had a three-year hiatus there, and there were a lot of things going on in there with the rec center and other things that kind of put that a little further down the road a bit. But then obviously at our retreat in February this year, we approved the funding for the renovation. I know we're all really, really excited about this project, and I know you guys are. We're seeing some great work from you thus far. And I think most of my questions this evening are really kind of concerning regarding the timeframe going forward for the different phases of design, construction, and so forth. And again, I don't know, I'm not, I don't know that any of us have construction expertise or design expertise in this room, so I don't pretend to have that, but it really just is more of an education about the timeframe associated with this really important project. Because, you know, one of the things that's frustrating about our roles is approving something in 2022, and here we are in 2026 and we haven't turned a show yet, so. I know we're all anxious, but we don't want to cut corners. We want this to be a first-class facility and address all of our needs without any design flaws. So with that, just reading through the design proposal, there were some items that I just wanted to ask your feedback on, because it sounded like that some of these phases in the basic services will overlap, right? There's nothing to say that even though these are outlined separately, you can't start one phase before you finish another. And so when it comes to things like the bidding process, I noticed that that can occur concurrently with the building permit review process. Permitting, I know, can be a long process, process you know headache at times um and so um one of the other points under permitting and bidding was that one of your roles could be assisting the city with developing a bidding strategy well i know we've used that obviously in a lot of other contexts and applications so i'm assuming we have a what strategy put together so i guess my question regarding that would be you know that would be one thing to me as a novice looking at this that you know we could develop that strategy ahead of time so that when we get that point we could just you know proceed with the bidding um maybe while the construction docs are being formulated um let's see um with regard to the conditional zoning so i know that had time earlier to do with the flex room addition right Yeah, and I think in previous discussions, I don't know that we had formal consensus on it, but maybe we did, and a lot of us were big fans of that flex room addition. If we know that that's gonna require conditional zoning, is that an item that we could go ahead and get on an upcoming agenda? One less thing to check off as we go forward here. The things like the A, B, I, T, low voltage and security design, bid package, can we assess those needs and prepare that bid package concurrent while some of the other phases are going along? The whole idea here, as you can probably tell, is just trying to see how and if we can condense this timeframe so that we can get this thing, this really great asset of the city, new and improved and operational as quickly as possible. And I know you guys share that too. Yeah, it's a form of identification for me. the TTM and the potential for a transportation technical memorandum or a traffic impact analysis. We don't know whether or not that may be required yet, right? Correct. Okay. Is that something that you foresee us getting to a point that we could predict whether or not that's going to be required, and if so, what type, and go ahead and get started on maybe that process. I'll stop there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll talk about the TTM and the conditional zoning. So we met with staff to talk about that. So the addition goes over the setback line on the side of the property, and that's what's sort of triggering conditional zoning. And so we met with staff to find out, are we going to have to go through that process, or is there an administrative process where staff can perhaps do that? And the answer was no, we really need to go through the formal process. And then overarching kind of schedule comments. So it's set up in very kind of linear stages so that we go through a little bit of schematic design where we meet with people who are using the space more frequently, right? And we get their input and do we need to tweak the plan? There's already been some comments about, you know, can we rotate the elevator? Can we maybe provide a different kind of access so that if you all are having a special event those adjustments so it's important to kind of go through that process and schematic design so in right now schematic design for example is is at the beginning of the schedule and then we go through the conditional zoning process and that's so that if during schematic design there's a tweak to the footprint of the building that might affect that conditional zoning process it can be adjusted before we go in and staff only has to look at it once so so and then the next Phases are including, I think, highlighted in red, are a number of different pricing exercises. We did input from a general contractor. The R&OM was, for example, that was Sure. Including building materials. So having those check-ins with general contractors to get updates on pricing and then be able to update you all. Here's where the cost of construction is at this point. Should we continue? Do we need to look at making some tweaks to try to reduce costs? So the short answer to your question is can we compress the schedule? Yes, it's probably going to come with some some risks and some disadvantages, right? We could not do as many of those pricing exercises. For example, the process would go faster, but then we don't have kind of real world data that we're working with on a regular basis.

So regarding that sketch plan submittal and the conditional zoning process, I noticed you have, again, I wouldn't hold you to it, but a suggested duration of approximately 12 weeks. Again, regarding the conditional zoning piece of that, if we know ahead of time that that's going to be something we're going to need, I don't know why we couldn't do that rather quickly. The sketch plan, I know there's obviously time involved in putting those together and submitting, but

And we got feedback from staff, and they felt like two to three months for that process to evaluate whether or not TTM would be required. We wouldn't do that. Staff would do that.

So that would, if there was a TTM or TIA required, that would be included in that sketch plan conditional zoning phase? Yes. Yeah, we would definitely try to do that, yeah. um and then the next item on the project schedule assumptions was the probable construction cost update and we had a suggested duration there of four weeks um and that is the there's two aren't there two check-ins on the construction cost updates there's three in this schedule there's actually three okay so and that would be the first one so that's after we it's been a year

re-engage we make some adjustments as we've heard from tweaks to the plan and then it's starting back in with that same contractor who was generous enough to give their time last year just to give a recheck on that but then at some point the GC selection process has to be undertaken by you all yeah you asked about that as well so

You can go through a pre-qualifications package, which can be done prior to the bid period. It can be done during CDs or even towards the end of DDs. We start to evaluate who would be acceptable contractors to bid on the project. And that would be a selection bid process, public. That's one approach on a public project to try to come up with a number of bidders. We don't need 30. We need a number of bidders for the project that we know that can do the project. It's not a simple project. We're doing two additions to a historic building. We're going to have to excavate around the building to get a new elevator down to the basement. So there's some complexities to it and want to make sure that all the contractors are qualified. One way of addressing that is through pre-qualification.

And then the second one, Raleigh, would come, the second cost update. Again, we have a four-week duration attached to that. At some point, you're in the design development, right?

Yeah. And, you know, I put in four weeks. You push a contractor for three. My thought is the first and possibly the second pricing check, they do those internally. So they rely on their own store. they say they like to usually go to the street one time so they don't get fatigued from their subcontractors who see it over and over and every time a subcontractor sees it seems to grow a little bit right so they try to do maybe those first two pricing checks are done internally and they can do it less than four weeks And then the last one, when you're going in for permit, usually you're saying, okay, we're 100% here. We're going in for permit. We could price it at the exact same time. If you get some comments during permitting that might change it slightly, they might have a little adjustment to it. But that's your, when you go in for permit, you're also going out for bid. And that's where you will get your final numbers. You can then go to contract on, get your permit, and shovels come to the ground.

What did you normally recommend on a project of this size and scale in terms of the bidding window?

Like that last one, that full one? Eight weeks? No, I would think they could do it in a month. Yeah, a month. It's a complex little project, but it's not huge.

Right.

So I think a month is probably, they put it out to subcontractors and ask them for two to three weeks to get it back, and then give themselves a week to button it all up and deliver it.

And the item before that, the construction documents, we've got 12 weeks suggested there for the duration. Again, looking at this through the novice lens, I'm assuming most of these parties, I mean, they've been on board through the development process and through the, you know, the sketch plan. And so this is not new, right? Typically, I imagine, to most of the parties involved in the formulation of those construction documents. So might that be another area that, again, not to cut corners, but that could possibly be accomplished a little quicker.

So the other way to approach this is, you all could give us, can we target this time for move-in or completion? And we try to work backwards. And it might mean giving up one of the pricing exercises. It might be consolidating schematic design and additional zoning approval in a tighter timeframe. It might come with some risks. As we go through, we, for example, combine schematic design and additional zoning. We find we have to make some changes or whatever, and it's already been submitted. Do we have to back up and make changes? So, but we can approach it that way.

Yeah. I mean, I recognize you guys, I'm sure, built in some cushion here. Yeah. But you can kind of see, you know, I can't speak for my colleagues, but I know we just, we started this a number of months and years ago and just want to get moving. But again, we want to do it right. the first time around. So with regard to the amounts in the proposal for, let's just take basic services, I'm assuming that there's some metric there that's attributable to approximate man hours for each of those phases, right? So are these fixed costs, or are these reimbursable based on actual hours spent in each of these phases, or is this more of a fixed cost proposal?

So in those costs are consultant costs, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, engineering, AV design costs as a supplemental, but structural engineering, all of those are included in So we have consultants who give us fees, right? And those are included in there along with our man hours for those fees.

Okay. So they're fixed?

They are, yes. Yes, they are.

So what was that? I know we've got 44 weeks approximately allocated for construction start to finish. And that starts from the date, remind me. When they pull the permit. When they pull the permit.

Well, when you sign a contract or something, which ideally you're, you're dovetailing as the permit review is going on, they're getting their final pricing for you. You get that and you all enter into contract with them. So yeah, permit issue and all kind of starts right about the same time. I had it like the permit would come through and two weeks later, now I've got the permit and construction starting all about the same time. Yeah. And I even put a duration, 40 weeks. We could hear from a contractor. They could say, you know what? No, we can push this. It could be 30 weeks. This whole thing, I think the end date here is like July of 2028. To Tim's point, if you say, look, we want to be in this Christmas 2027 or Q1 2028. I know. We have to. Usually it's nobody in this room that's going to be a hurdle signer. you go, well, wait a minute, let's back up. You know, it's usually something, these have a bit of cushion to them, but they, we've been doing this a long time and 22 months is probably from the saying we'd start next week and 22 months from now is probably about right. Maybe spring of 28, but.

Well, and all these phases of design and sketch plan submit and all that, I mean, general enough, that's about 58 weeks. before construction starts. Now, some of those overlap. Yeah. Yeah. Right? Yeah. But I guess my point is with regard to the design proposal amount, if in reality we're able to shave that by a month, does that change the amount allocated for the design?

We still have to squeeze the same amount of work just in the last time. So it means more people on the project.

Mm-hmm.

Are there other questions on that? We need, I think staff is asking for us to approve the proposal to mount and enter into ending and execute a standard American Institute of Architects or Architect Agreement.

Move to approve the proposal and authorize staff to enter into and execute a standard AIA or Architect Agreement.

Second. March second by Alex on favor any opposed all right that is approved and that will move us to next agenda item which is related that will be C4 which is the Seahawks capital ordinance I can yes sir this amount

includes all the project costs associated with the project, not only for health design. It also includes supplemental design services for the owners, so there's certain things that we'd have to do for owner site and construction-related costs. We need a geotechnical engineer to come out and do a geotech report, asbestos testing, abatement. There's some things in here that we have to procure outside of help designs amount. And so there's some soft costs you see in here. And then, so it's a full project cost. And right now, what Tim and Riley estimated on the ROM was 3.2 to 3.5. And that's where, let's talk to Jared, our finance director. We'd like to proceed with the project capital ordinance for consideration for $3,512,334. And as, like Tim just mentioned, as we move through the process, the pricing gets updated. But at some point, we'll have all the price when we bid it out. And so we'll know whether we can amend this capital project ordinance or not. But we need to get it approved because it's going to span multiple fiscal years.

Would we likewise perhaps need to have a budget amendment depending on the costs?

Not yet. We just need the project ordinance approved possibly at some point. Of course, we have to go out for financing through the local government commission. And so that will occur, you know, once we get to the point of the final. Construction via that comes in, so factored in that schedule that the terminologist mentioned is like, towards the end of that go to the local government commission. We know our estimates. We've got a hard cost for hilt design. Really, that's the only one right now. So these other costs will be associated in there.

In the last item that we just went over with the detail of the contract, this last section here, owner-provided information and investigations. So that's things like hazards, materials assessments, surveys. We'll get the TPM and TIA at the appropriate time. Flow testing for the hydrants, that kind of thing. Are those things that we can do independently of the design firm? If we know we're going to need those things, can we?

Yes, we've already got an estimate for a survey. We need a full survey of the sites. We've already started talking to surveyors about that. We'll have to go out and, like I said, get a geotechnical company to come in. So that's a separate proposal. We haven't gone through all of those yet, so there's multiple things that we them design the project so yeah it's they start on their things we start on our items to bid on.

As far as the financing options, will that just be like a straight bank loan or are there other options on the table for that?

I'm not really sure right now I think it's probably open-ended as far as how we plan to finance it I don't really know the answer yet I think we'll be investigating that with Firstron as we as we move forward to the project.

Any other questions on the capital project? All right. Well, then I'll entertain a motion one way or another. Motion to approve. Second. Second motion by Jason. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. The motion is approved. All right. Thank you. So that will handle our amended portions of the agenda. new amended agenda item c5 which is considered planning staff's methodology for selecting members for the center city small area plan steering committee chester welcome back

I'm here ready to present on the Center City Small Area Plan Steering Committee. The methodology and some additional documents was added to your item prior to this meeting. In July 2026, City Council approved Arcadis as the chosen consultant to spearhead the Center City Small Area Plan. The scope includes oversight by a steering committee. The city was tasked with selecting approval of the group representation of said committee. Once approved, staff will work with each entity to designate the relevant participants on the committee, and the anticipated kickoff for this steering committee to actually engage with the consultant and city staff would be October 12th, 2026. This is provided a small timeline. This is also on our planpalooza if any of you have the chance to attend. This is the overall timeline for our city to city small area update. So currently we're in the first phase, the discovery phase, and part of that is us being tasked with getting some of those steering committee members, getting them identified, coordinated, and being able to hit the ground running on October 12th. Just based off of some of Arcadia's recommendations, staff in coordination with them is recommending the following composition of the steering committee for the Center City Plan. It was recommended that we have that consists of two city council members to planning and zoning board members to mainstream every board downtown business and downtown association. Members one parks and rec advisory board member one mark cross Chamber of Commerce member and one belmont tourism and development authority representative as well. Some of the key takeaways we're wanting you guys to take away from this presentation is that staff is requesting that council approve our steering committee composition. Just to note that the expectations for our steering committee members, we're expecting them to guide the selection of participants for the focus groups and stakeholder meetings, assist with promoting and supporting any center city engagement opportunities, share updates with their respective representative groups, and review any draft plan recommendations prior to the public at large, or you all say them. If approved, staff is requesting that council appoint two representatives to serve on the steering committee. Those are the rough takeaways, mainly, but I wanted to open the floor for questions. Very high level, a lot of the information was in the agenda item as far as methodology, composition, and obligations of them, but I wanted to put it before you all for conversation.

Of the breakout of the different groups, does anyone see anything that's missing?

I mean, do we want like just a Main Street business owner?

At least one. Yeah. I'm trying to think, could that fall into a Main Street advisory board member? I think they're... Maybe not.

We'd still like to revise it and say, you know, a Main Street board member...

I want to revise that to include a business owner for the, in the slot that says two Main Street Advisory Board members, just change that to include one business owner?

No, I think you do supplemental. I mean, get two, and if they just so happen to be a business owner, maybe it's a business owner that's not a major, because that's a new perspective you'll get outside of our existing You're saying add two additional members, both of whom are business owners? No, no, no. Add one, and then if one of them... Keep two Main Street advisory boards, whether they're a business owner, it doesn't matter, but one that is not on the Main Street. An additional. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's an additional... That is a business owner. Yes. Okay. Gotcha.

So that would bring the... It wouldn't have to be a Main Street.

Yeah, it wouldn't have to be. It actually probably makes it easier to sign somewhere, because historically you have trouble.

Yeah, it doesn't have to be Main Street. That's a good point. Bring the total count to 10. You guys are all right with that?

You guys can certainly alter it at your discretion. I would just ask that if we're going to add some additional slots in there that you can staff some direction on how to select the one business owner that you'd like to participate just so that we can make sure that we're following a methodology that makes sense and also keeps our efforts on schedule.

Thank you. Tiffany, maybe, I don't know if this question should be directed to you or Chester. Will there be any bleed over with this committee with the forthcoming, I guess, visioning committee, for lack of a better term, for the stove property process? Or is that going to be a completely separate processing committee?

My understanding, as of right now, is that that effort is a completely separate effort, but it is. Our intention as well as our consultants intention to make sure that they're coordinating with whoever selected for that opportunity and making sure that they're invited to participate in all engagement efforts.

Here's my thoughts if you all agree. My thought is to approve the structure tonight. And then to, because, again, to Jason's point, we've got this other one that will need representation. We've got Riverfront that's going to need representation. this is not a light schedule for the demand, the hour demand, and it is on weekday. So I know it may work for some people's schedules, it may not. So my thought is we improve the structure and then we can either, Miles can reach out to each of us to see who has an interest in it and who is scheduled it can fit into, come to the two council positions. I don't want to throw it at you all and have somebody jump in and then realize it's a mess. It's a problem.

I like that approach. Just so we can be thinking about it, do you have an idea yet what time most of these meetings may be taking place?

We have an engagement schedule that we can send out, but there are a few that are You know, summer during the weekdays, there's going to be a site visit. We have a tour that's going to be during the day, but there's also virtual meetings. Whoever is selected will have a full schedule ahead of time to know what their obligations would be. But a lot of some of the times, as Mayor Jordan mentioned, are during the weekday.

I would say, you know, one of the things that's really important for us is making sure that whoever is a representative on this group, that we pick times that are convenient for them. And so once we have names, then we can check their availability and send out a doodle poll or some other way to find the times that are the most convenient for everyone who is representing those groups. From a scheduling perspective, with a target of October 12th, I'm not sure. I just want to have some clarity so we can report back to the consultants. whether or not that potential for identifying members could still happen in September on any sort of consent, or if we are proposing to move that to October 5th, just because the turnaround time for October 12th would be a little tight.

Sure, yeah. We have a workshop coming up that's going to be freed up, probably. So I think we can pick. We can have it ironed out by then. We approve the structure, and then we can have our members chosen. When they have a special meeting.

You may have a special meeting possibly that day, or was that the 8th?

Special meeting will be later. So I think there is time for a little workshop, if nothing else, and we can do it then.

So to be clear there, are we adding the additional business owners?

Yes, we're adding 10 max. We'll do 10. So not to belabor the point of any other questions on that, all right, well then I'll entertain a motion to approve the structure as presented.

Yeah, I was going to say as modified with the additional business owner added. Any opposed?

All right. Thank you. So we'll go with that structure, and we will have Miles reach out individually to council to see who... And just as a follow-up, does council have any direction for how the additional business owner...

Slots should be filled if you want staff to do that, if you all want to designate, if you want to defer that over to community development, how we should reach out for that slot.

I think the Ferris method is an application, but I don't know if you have that long with what you're trying to accomplish here. The spirit, I think, is to get someone to maybe not We'd almost have to find them for an application. That's where I'd default to. They would have to be knowledgeable of the schedule of meetings to make sure they're available.

I think that's something you could open up until we're good to go. That should be.

When we designate the council.

seats can we designate that seat as well that gives us something two weeks to do and you're gonna see who applies who doesn't sure so what what we can do is we can work on going back and drafting out what that schedule will look like um especially if you all are comfortable with an expedited you know time frame for application and you guys can help us get the word out about that so that anyone who is interested can go ahead and apply that would be great uh we'll we can draft that out and then send that out as quickly as we can um and then Just to make sure, are you guys comfortable with us just presenting the full list of all applicants and then you guys designating somebody that evening? Or are you asking staff to make a recommendation for you?

We just take a look as a council at the end of this.

It's too many, I don't think. My thought is we can, if we know someone in the community we want to say, hey, go put in an application. At least we get our bases covered and then we can get somebody out of this.

That would be perfect. Thank you so much. And then the only other thing we wanted to just make sure that we're throwing out there for your benefit as well as the public's benefit are some public engagement opportunities everyone can look forward to as a part of this plan. So Chester's team is looking to launch an online survey that will be open to the public mid-October to late November, right before the Thanksgiving holidays. And then also they are slating a public open house on November 12th. We're still identifying and finalizing that location, but just to hold on calendars. And then February, I find an exciting three-day charrette opportunity. So, floating that out, I know there's been some questions of when can we get involved, and we'd love to hear more. So, those are the three that are on the schedule right now.

Okay. Any other questions for Jessica or Moving right along now, move this to amended agenda item C6, which is data center update and proposed moratorium. Let's see who we have for that. All right. You're back up.

I am back up. So thank you guys for having me back up here. We have done a moratorium, but it's been a little bit. So we wanted to start by just giving a general reminder of what is a moratorium. A moratorium is a temporary suspension of an activity or law until future consideration warrants lifting that suspension. So the last one we did, as you all remember, is for the Morgan's Bridge Pump Station and Utilities. This one is proposed more as a moratorium on a specific land use. A moratorium cannot be a solution to the problem, but rather the action initiated to address the problem that actually is what led to the moratorium in the first place. So it's just a pause. Under General Statute 160-107, local governments may adopt temporary moratoria on development approvals required by law. And while the authority is available, it is very limited on how it's used. And so we did want to make sure that we were mindful before we brought this item for your consideration this evening and ultimately give city council some opportunity to provide feedback on if this is a direction you'd like to go. So as you all may know, we are in the process of updating our land development code and our current land development code does not specifically regulate data centers. Because of this, a local government can impose a temporary moratorium in order to respond to potential problems and conditions that may arise without otherwise any action to address these concerns. So since we don't currently have regulations that are specific to data centers, and if we suspect that there might be potential problems that could arise out of that lack of regulation, we are enabled, per our understanding of the statute, to pursue a temporary moratorium if you all would like to do so. I did want to go over the current regulations just from a high level look by planning staff on what our LDC says today. related to data centers. So I did want to note that data centers are not able to be included as any standard commercial use. And the reason for this is because they have the potential for environmental degradation. And so because of that, they're not lumped into commercial use as an overall larger category standard. They would likely be most closely identified as an industrial use.

And when we say data centers, just to ground ourselves on the definition, this includes the three different types of data centers, right?

Correct, because our code right now doesn't regulate or define them at all.

So you're grouping in, like, I can't remember, like the data mining or the Bitcoin mining thing.

And that's why you'll see it likely classified as this based on, I'm not sure, you know, this is, hypothetical and because we don't have any definitions in the current code, each application would need to be uniquely considered for us to be able to understand how our land development code most closely defines and regulates that. But based on my understanding today, it is most likely that any of those types would be classified as an industrial use because they're not otherwise classified as commercial. and they're not classified as residential. Sort of a process of elimination right now based on our current code standards. And you can see there on the screen that industrial uses and development are defined as any non-residential use that requires an MPDES permit or an industrial stormwater discharge or involves the use or storage of any hazardous materials or substances or that is used for the purposes of manufacturing, assembling, finishing, cleaning, or developing any product or commodity. So in this interpretation, staff would view data as a commodity being developed and or stored. Industrial uses are allowed in business campus development within workplace buildings currently. And so that would be zones similar to our industrial areas or parks or any other piece of land, but again, they would still need to comply with all the other regulations within the code. There's just not specific regulations regarding data centers as a unique use. Concerns that we have heard both from the council presentation and discussion, as well as from others and other municipalities that are likely of need to be addressed within our land development code include primarily environmental impacts This could include regulations on the amount of energy consumption and the impact on the surrounding businesses and neighbors, noise factors associated with data centers, and that is perhaps dependent on what type and where they're located, the water usage and consumption of that particular use, and the size and scale of the buildings associated with housing that use.

So

Again, when it comes to state regulations, there are some projects that would be exempt from a moratorium if one was enacted. One is any project with a valid zoning and building permit. Another would be any project that has an accepted special use permit application. And then lastly, a development with vested right. As of the time of this presentation, no applications are currently active or filed for data center uses. no vested rights have been claimed so there is there's nothing that from planning staffs knowledge would be exempt from the moratorium as it stands today if we're interested in pursuing a moratorium our regulations must include a problem statement on alternatives that have been considered how the moratorium would address the problem a date for termination and why it's reasonable and and a statement of actions to be taken during the moratorium that would be addressing the problem. Staff is proposing, if Council would like to pursue this option, a timeframe of 13 months, and that would have an end date of November 2027. That proposed timeline would ensure enough time for the Land Development Code update to be presented to you all for your consideration and adoption, and presumably include regulations that would fill this gap in our current code standards and address data centers as a use within our code language. So if you're interested in pursuing that, we will need to follow the standard notice procedures that are outlined in 160D, hold a public hearing, and adopt an ordinance that addresses all of the requirements in 160D-107. And so that's the end of my presentation, and I look forward to hearing from counsel on the direction you would like us to move forward. I believe when we were looking at the notice requirements the soonest because of the 10-day hearing requirements would be the 24th of September and then I would just want to double check and confirm with parks how many advertisements are needed if it's one or two before we finalize it.

If we have a public hearing, we don't want that to be at a regular meeting for a public hearing, so, right? Yeah.

I mean, that would be up to you all's discretion, but if the soonest.

We normally don't have public hearings.

And we wouldn't be able to get it in time for the September workshop.

So it's only like October?

It could be October regular, or if you all elected to hold a special meeting, It could be in later September. It just wouldn't be in time for the workshop based on the notice requirements.

And just so we're clear, before all the social media posts go out, this is not a vote for or against data centers. This is simply to allow us to appropriately update our LDC data development code as it's already underway and allow the language around data centers to be more fully outlined.

Correct. It's actually... being recommended by staff because we are already under contract for amending the land development code. And so in an effort to not have staff's proposed text amendment compete with a consultant's proposed text amendment in this area and to allow for us to sync up those efforts and include it as part of their already approved contract, we are recommending a temporary pause just to allow us to properly coordinate on our end. It is not a decision of for or against in either way just to make sure that we can properly regulate.

Just for clarity purposes, again, there are no currently proposed or approved data centers.

That's correct.

Okay, perfect. So I think I like the way this transpired, that we had someone come out, tell us about the data center, so we knew what was out there, that staff then took that information and turned it into a advice and feedback for us to consider, but then the timing of it is just right on point because we're in the middle of a lead development code update. So...

Sorry, I just have one quick question. Sure. Have you, through your research, I know this came up at the end of that meeting with Pat McGavin when he was here, have you been able to identify any other municipalities that have gotten a head start on this with incorporating language in their LDCs regarding data centers? Yes.

Yeah, so there's been... at least two or three that we've reviewed their draft ordinances and some that have that fully adopted in their code. We've also attended and listened to several webinars for different communities and how they plan to address data centers within their code language. And in fact, there's another one coming up later this week. I believe it's September 10th that we also have staff planning to attend.

How does the situation with the down zone prohibition from the General Assembly interact with WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED DURING THE ACTUAL FULL UPDATE OF THE CODE LANGUAGE, BUT I AM NOT AWARE AS OF THIS TIME THAT WE HAVE ANY DATA CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF VELMONT LIMITS. SO IF SOMEONE SHARES THAT WE DO, THAT WOULD CHANGE MY CURRENT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY. HOWEVER, DOWNZONING APPLIES ONCE

use is already in place that you couldn't take or to reverse right it's something right we can add it you almost made much restricted so you can start because like are they technically permitted as an industrial use now like if somebody wanted to build one they submitted an application tomorrow i'm not trying to like put you on the spot i'm just right again i have to review every single one

And I would say that we would want to be mindful of that. And I would ask the consultant and their legal team to review that if we were proposing to try to make further restrictive any regulations within the industrially zoned area specifically. However, in the other areas where they may not be currently allowed or, you know, it may be added in or clarified as allowable under certain conditions, that would be something that as long as the youth wasn't there wouldn't necessarily be impacted as strongly by down funding, but we would definitely want to review the industrial uses areas as well as all of the others to make sure that we're in compliance with that law.

No, that makes sense. It's just, you know, if anybody can afford an army of lawyers to take over something like that, it's Amazon and Facebook.

But if you got an application today, what would happen? How would that be?

If I got an application today, I would need to review the application with its letter of intent and make a determination. today and any time before the moratorium is adopted.

Most likely, in a sense, it will go conditional.

Without reviewing an application, it's hard for me to speak on that. Based on the size limitations and triggers in there, industrial zones do have a higher one, but if it was a large center, I believe that is 100,000 square foot or more. If it's larger than that, it is likely that it would trigger that.

I think we do it. Is that what we're just looking for, is yes or no, if we want to proceed?

Just some direction to staff if you're interested.

Proceed as expeditiously as possible.

Quickly.

Although I don't know, do we, I mean... The options, I guess, would be a special meeting or wait until October.

Does it depend when you guys would be, would you be available or ready at the end of September?

There is a draft ordinance for your consideration and review in there. So it's really, as long as we get out the proper notices, subject to any changes you all would like to have in the draft ordinance, we can be ready at your discretion.

As soon as possible. What's that notice period? Two weeks?

So typically we have to notice no less than 10 days, and then it takes us three days to advertise. So two weeks is a really great planning tool.

Okay. I'm open if you want to do a special meeting for that specifically, we can certainly do it. We'll just give you one item.

Do we need to do a hearing at that meeting?

I believe we were.

Yes. To be a standalone.

Couldn't be any closer. Let's go back. At the very minimum.

Well, could we ask that staff propose a date at the end of September for council to review if we want to proceed with the special session? Joe can call on.

Well, wouldn't you have to notice the hearing for a date specific?

I will, right? So if you all want me to look into that and just verify those dates, it may be more helpful if there's some dates that absolutely do not work for you guys, for you guys to share that with me, and then I can work back with you.

September 29th, that teaching class in Winston-Salem.

All right.

I just want to go for the regular meeting in October. It's going to be close. It's going to be close to it. Because it's October 5th, right?

Yeah, it was October 5th, yeah. October 5th.

Because if it takes three days to advertise, then that's fine. That's fine.

So we're pushing to the 21st already, so. That's not on me.

Is there a light agenda? Lighter.

Lighter than this one. Lighter than this one. Yeah, I think that's fair. Is it an issue to have it on October 5th? All right, so what action do you need from all of us?

Just council's direction to move forward is my understanding, Parks, unless there's anything else needed on your end.

Do you need any further direction or do you deal with that?

No, I will bring it back on October 5th. Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, moving right along. That will take us to amended agenda item C7. The proposal for designated veteran parking at city parks and city facilities. Okay. Black, are you joining us?

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. Coming to you tonight for a proposal for veterans parking throughout city parks and city home facilities. I'm going to turn it over here to Officer Compton here in just a second, but she's actually the one that came to us for this proposal. This was part of her ALO project in PD, so if you know anything about our ALO project, it's our advanced leadership program that we have at the police department. So it requires certain incentives, certificates, years of experience, training, and in part of that program, officers have to come up with a project, a community project, for it to be This was her project. Obviously, I've seen many of these. I can probably say this is the best one I've seen thus far, but I'm going to turn it over to her and let her present the proposal to you guys. So with that, this is Officer Compton. Thank you.

Good evening. I want to start by saying thank you for allowing me to be here to speak tonight. Like Captain Black said, I'm Adriana Compton. I'm a canine officer with Belmont Police Department. I've been there for about four and a half years now. Prior to law enforcement, I was in the Marine Corps, where I served four years active duty as a 0341 warden. So the purpose of this proposal is to establish designated veteran parking spaces throughout the city of Belmont. This initiative is a low-cost, effective strategy to provide a meaningful way for the city to recognize the service and sacrifices of military veterans. It encourages veteran participation throughout the community, and it increases the public's awareness for the sacrifices made. And again, it accomplishes these goals at a relatively low cost. Does anyone know how many veterans we have within the city of Belmont? So, Roughly 1,000, 998. This makes up 8.1% of our adult population, and that is higher than the national and state average. And we have 15 veterans at the Belmont Police Department. So the guidelines going into this proposal, again, one veteran parking space per location. We're never going to replace handicapped parking. We'll preserve the existing Purple Heart parking spaces. repurpose parking spaces, and then use the city signage at each location. So again, recommended locations. I just want to preference that I started small with city parks. So we got Rocky Branch, Reed Park, Davis Park, Stowe Park, Eb Gant, Crescent Park, City Rec, Kevin Alton Riverfront Park, and Kevin Alton Boat Ramp. So again, going into the locations, Took some pictures here of where, again, recommended to implement the signs. So you got Rocky Branch Park here. There is no handicap parking at Rocky Branch Park. I chose this location because it's easy to get to the trailhead. It's very visible. Reed Park, as you can see, there is handicap parking. Again, I chose the parking space to the right simply because It's accessible to the playground, highly visible for people coming to the park. And then Davis Park, I actually had two ideas for this location. I ended up going with this one. But again, you know, it's at the front of the playground, whereas the other spot I chose was adjacent to this particular one that was at the entrance of the baseball fields. Again, it's the front of the park. It's highly visible to people coming there. So next we have Stowe Park. So this location in particular, I'm really gonna highlight on. Originally I had chose a parking spot in the gravel lot next to Two Chicks and further learned that the city does not own that parking lot. There were some talks about the paved lot beside of that. However, the reason I think this particular spot works better is because it's right there in front of the memorial. And also, too, we have a lot of attention from outside cities that come into Belmont to use the amenities in downtown Belmont. So this is a way to show, hey, Belmont supports our veterans, and we can broadcast that to other people who don't live within the city limits.

Can I ask a quick question? I thought we owned that parking lot next to two ships.

The paid parking lot would do the gravel parking lot

Initially, she proposed the gravel lot. We don't own the gravel lot. We own the pavement like Kat Black says. I think the paved part, I think we do own the paved part. There's two right there, two parks and subways. That's one that's paved and one's gravel. Yeah, one's paved and one's gravel.

The paved one sold off the apartment about that patio. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't mean to.

So next we have Ed Gant. Again, as you can see, the two handicapped parking spaces there, those face the restrooms. The next parking space I chose was the one you can see in the picture. Again, it's just visible to people pulling into the parking lot and using the soccer fields and whatnot. Next, you have Crescent Park and Dwight Freddie Field. Again, no handicapped parking spots at this location. However, through my research, I did learn that this parking lot is also leased, to my knowledge. I was told that there shouldn't be any complications with us utilizing city signage there. But again, it's close to the entrance of the baseball field and relatively close to the basketball courts. Next we have the City Rec Center. Most of the parking spaces to the front of the City Rec Center are handicapped. So this particular spot that I chose was, again, Close to the entrance, people driving in can see it. People coming to the rec center can see it. Next is Kevin Lofton Riverfront Park. So fun fact about this one is again, through my research, I was unaware that we had existing Purple Heart parking spaces. So that was kind of a cool thing for me to learn along the way. I also learned that we have one down behind Sammy's. So again, this parking space preserves the handicap parking. It also preserves the existing Purple Heart parking space while also keeping the front of the park accessible to veterans and people can see it. Kevin Lompton boat launch. This one was a little tricky because there's kind of parking spaces in the middle off to the sides. However, I chose to stick with the parking space. The side of handicap parking, again, doesn't take away from it and it's still accessible to the boat launch. So sign ideas. So these were a couple ideas that I came up with. Obviously, you see the one to the right that's big and bold. So the idea is to keep the sign relatively to the 12 by 18, which is your standard handicap parking. Again, these are just recommendations, but the signage to the right encompasses all of the armed forces. And it's, you know, It's big and bold, but it's not overpowering to the existing handicap signage.

Still be the same dimensions, though, or no?

Yes. I mean, that's what I'm...

It's just larger here to kind of draw attention to the branches. Yeah. Right. Which do you prefer?

I prefer the right. I really like that it shows all of the armed forces. I feel like there's a lot of people who don't really think about the Space Force, especially because it is a newer military branch.

That was the one preferred by the Parks and Rec Board, too, was it not?

Yes. The bigger one to the right was approved by them. That was their favorite.

So the estimated cost, roughly $153 per location. So we actually got some clarification through Public Works that they recommended that this would be about $110. And the high side of that price would be the $300 you're looking at. So cheaper than than what these numbers here are on the screen. And again, this is using existing parking spaces and using our city sign creation and installation. So the conclusion is, again, the establishment of this is really just to say, hey, thank you for what you've done for our country. We appreciate you. It's low cost. It shows the public that we care. It shows the veterans that we care. And again, a small gesture can make a lasting impact.

Thanks. Questions? Thank you for your service. Great work. Excellent presentation. Any comments? I like the idea. I think it's very home-warranted.

Outstanding. Thank you for bringing it forward. A couple of questions. The tennis courts, isn't there some parking behind the tennis courts? Would that be an appropriate place also to have a movie?

referring to Davis Park, the tips courts.

Yeah, but behind the courts and they're like a crowd.

Okay, maybe it's not. I mean, if we're going to have the rest of the park behind the courts. Yeah, we're going to do it right there. I could be in definitely another location.

I would say do one here at Daphne Works, City Works.

They're inside the handicap spaces over there. The other thing I'd like to see us maybe consider is, I don't know if there's a way to mandate this in our policy models for future locations or parks that we might activate. I'm thinking about McLean. That's all that matters. It gets added.

Absolutely. I think we can do it.

Thank you, Gil. Thank you so much.

I just had one thought. So I like the idea. For Kevin Lofton specifically, that parking lot's not very big. No, it's not.

For the boat launch or the park?

No, for the actual park. I forget how many handicap spaces are there. Unless you did another one. I'm just thinking, like, as far as like people who are not handicapped or veterans the number of spaces that would then be available because the problem there is that there's nowhere else to really park either I mean I wouldn't be opposed to like if you're going to build another space or something if that's even you know it would cost more money but Kevin Lofton is the one with Purple Heart and you could do it Purple Heart and veterans so it's not taking up

Is there room there?

Is there room there even to have a special hotel? I don't really think so. I'd have to look to see.

Is that an issue already anyway? I mean, the last couple times I've been there, even in the middle of the week, I mean, it fills up fast. I forget how many spaces are there, but it's not much because you've got the park, you've got the picnic area, you've got the kayak stuff going on down there.

The only thing, though, is the intention, if I recall, is to let

up here as well in the parks and rec which is why you've got the walk the area you could walk there because eventually it would all be connected with this yes happy creek maybe the solution there's more signage directing people up here um well i i no problem putting one there i just want to make sure that like if somebody gets their lots full right and the only spot left is that, like you don't want to be the jerk who's parking in the bus who's parking. Yeah, so that's just my two cents on that. The other thing too is like that purple heart sign is almost invisible the way it's on that fence. I don't know if there's a way to, maybe it's part of that.

Yeah, we definitely can talk to public works about maybe updating or a new one. Yeah. Maybe matching the size.

Yeah, yeah, that's a good idea. Do you want to make a motion?

Motion to approve is presented. Second. All right.

Motion to go out. Second by Jason. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Good job, guys. Thank you.

Thank you.

I look forward to seeing this work. Conflict of metrics. All right. That will move us along to, make sure I'm not missing anything here. That was C7. So we're moving now to amendment C8. which is the fiscal year 2026 fourth quarter finance update. Jared, will you join us?

How are you? I'm good. How's everybody doing?

Good.

So this is the fourth quarter finance update for fiscal year end June 30th, 2026. I do want to preface I mentioned that our fiscal year audit is in progress. So the year end balance sheet, fund balances that I'll be discussing tonight should be considered preliminary and unaudited. And this is just to show a timely picture of how the city performed against budget and where our major operating funds landed at fiscal year end. So all three major operating funds closed the year within their amended budgets. General fund expenditures totaled 95% of the budget. Water sewer had a positive pre-audit budgetary change of $4.83M. Stormwater increased fund balance by approximately $181,000. And general fund finished the year with $14.65M available fund balance, which we'll touch on later in the presentation. Specifically for water sewer, there's a distinction between budgetary performance versus audited net position, and we'll discuss that later in the presentation as well. So for our major fund revenue sources, this slide provides revenue comparison for our three major operating funds. Water sewer revenue exceeded budget by approximately $3 million. Stormwater also performed favorably. General fund needs a little bit of context because the final revenue budget includes $8.26 million in appropriated fund balance, and those appropriations are budgetary financing sources only, not revenue. So actual operating revenue should not be expected to equal the full amended budget, and that's why you're seeing that variance there. The key takeaway from this slide is we don't want to be looking at this as, did revenue reach 100% of the amended budget? We should be asking, were those resources able to support the adopted expenditure plan? And the overall answer to that question is yes, they were. Here's a more detailed snapshot of our major fund revenues. Property taxes, sales tax, and intergovernmental revenue continue to make up the largest sources in the general fund. Water sewer's primary revenue source is charges for services, as well as stormwater. And based on 2026 results, we do not see a revenue issue that creates any causes for concern.

What is the other general fund revenue, the source of the variance there? $1.4 million between the actual and I think the final budgeted amount.

I'd have to pull the detail, but that's a smaller source. Usually that would be smaller grants, solid waste charges, and other miscellaneous revenue. I can follow up with detail if needed on that.

Yeah, I was just not sure if there was something in particular.

If you would like, I can grab my computer and I can probably tell you right now.

Sure.

So we did see large increases in solid waste revenue, about $900,000 over expected. That makes up a bulk.

Yeah, it's actually .

Yeah. Recreation fees came in about 300,000. Okay. And a few miscellaneous planning review fees, zoning permits, those are 90,000 and 70,000 respectively. So it's kind of a conglomerate of smaller,

Thanks.

Local option sales tax continued to perform well in 2026. Our final budget was 6.05 million. Collections came in at 6.73 million, which is approximately 680,000 above budget. I do want to note that sales tax is one of the larger recurring general fund revenue sources, but at the same time it is economically sensitive, so we generally take a conservative approach on budgeting that particular line item. For general fund expenditures, they total $31.5 million. This figure excludes transfers from the general fund to various projects, including the 2026 paving project, Propler Street stormwater project, the capital reserve transfer that we did last year, the Avigree Greenway project, and the public works sign shop. There's a total of about 1.5 million, so that's the variance between the number you'll see at the bottom line there versus the 31.5, or excuse me, 33.5. And the key takeaway from this slide is that total general fund expenditures were controlled within the budget while maintaining existing service levels and and completing significant capital projects.

So you're saying, Jared, the biggest reason behind that variance between final budget and expended income is mostly due to those transfers?

Yes, the bottom line, the 31.5 does not include those transfers. So if you go back to the very first slide, it was 33.5, and that is all related to capital project transfers. This is just for departments and debt service and capitals.

It looks like admin was significantly under budget. Not that I'm saying that's a problem, but a lot of that's related to professional services.

I mean, I can pull that up here too, since it's up here, but so travel and training was under telephone was under a few personnel related items were under IT services, professional services is 282. Okay. Under. Okay. That's distracting that.

Okay.

For the water sewer fund expenditures finished below the amended budget. This slide is presented on the city's budgetary basis, which is appropriate for monetary compliance with the City Council's adopted budget. However, because Water Sewer is an enterprise fund, the final audited financial statements will look different than this presentation slide. The audit will include depreciation expense, capital assets, debt activity, compensated absences, pension and OPEB adjustments, and these items can materially affect change in that position but not appear the same way as this budget to actual report. And it's very difficult to project those. We don't maintain our fixed assets. We give those to our auditors, and then they run the reports, and we're in the middle of an audit right now. But from a budget to actual standpoint, the water sewer fund performed very well. Next is stormwater expenditures also remained in line with the budget. Budget remaining gap is primarily a function of capital project timing versus a reduction in actual stormwater operations. The fund ended 2026 with an estimated fund balance of 2.37 million, which we will look at in more detail here in a few moments. Any questions so far before I move into fund balances? This slide walks through our preliminary general fund fund balance calculation. Estimated total fund balance for the general fund is $26.51 million. From that amount, approximately $45,000 is non-spendable. That's related to prepaids and inventory. Approximately $1.98 million is restricted by state statute, and that's a law that prevents us from appropriating this amount based on year-end cash, liabilities, receivables, and other balance sheet items. Approximately 1.05 is restricted for Powellville for streets, and 97,000 of other restricted amounts, which would include the USDA, were required through that loan to restrict $5,000 for capital replacement, and also the rest of that would be for principal repayment, just to have it reserved. After these classifications, approximately 23.34 million remain. And then we have to add in our fund balance policy. That's an internal policy where we try to target minimum 25% with a target of 30%. And so when we back that out, we landed a available fund balance of 14.6 million as of year end. Any questions on General Plot?

Is that a reserve fund just kinda held in some fixed income instrument?

It's just class, there's not really like an account for that necessarily like on our general ledger, but it's restricted fund balance and we manage that internally.

Where does that 30% target come from? Is that something that was adopted?

Yes, that was adopted. Even before my time, it was part of our financial policies. And when we did the financial policy update last year, I left that in there, that provision in there. It does provide a nice buffer for us. and helps us target some of our savings goals, whether it be for capital projects or one-time appropriations. The policy does have provisions where we can go below that amount, but it would be required by the city council to have a plan to get it back up to the target amount within a set number of years. And that's at your discretion. And speaking of the fund balance policy, Our fund balance policy requires available fund balance at year end to be no less than 25% of general fund operating budget and establishes a target level of 30%. For 2026, the 25% minimum is approximately $8.7 million and the 30% target is $10.43 million. Based on preliminary calculations, we're at approximately $14.65 million above the 25% minimum and $12.9 million above the 30% target. policy also provides that if available fund balance exceeds 30%, Council may choose to use excess amounts for one-time capital expenditures or transfer them to the capital reserve fund. Separately, our capital formation policy provides a transfer of equal to 5% of addition to available fund balance when certain conditions are met. And that is a new provision that I put in based on your direction when we were creating the new financial policies as part of taking some of those additions of available fund balance, putting those into the capital reserve fund to help fund our CIP projects. Because preliminary available fund balance decreased from fiscal year 25 to 26, We do not currently anticipate an additional 5% transfer being generated from the 2026 year-end calculations. That does not affect transfers already made during the year, and the general fund capital reserve itself ended the year at approximately $717,000.

So if I'm reading this right, you're not saying that our available fund balance is $14.65 million. You're saying that the available fund balance is $14.65 million above the 25% minimum.

Yes. And I don't know if you recall back in, there was a council meeting this spring. We did the budget amendment to move the additions, the 5% to the capital reserve because fund balance dropped this year. And a lot of that is due to the fund balance appropriations from last year, most specifically this property purchase. Since that dropped, we will not be moving 5% unless That's something you were so moved to do. But per policy, we won't be moving the 5%. And then we'll look at this again come the end of next fiscal year.

Is that 717K included in the 14.65? It is not.

It's completely separate. It's a completely separate fund. But it is restricted. The capital reserve dollars are restricted for capital projects. So once that money's in there, the only way you can get it out is by appropriating it for a capital project. Next is Powell Bill. Powell Bill funds are restricted by state law for eligible street construction and maintenance. So they are included in total general fund balance, but restricted. We began fiscal year 26 with approximately 1.34 million of unspent Powell Bill funds. During the year, we received approximately 582,000 in new allocations and spent approximately 885,000 for paving and resurfacing. That leaves approximately 1.046 million at june 30th and that restricted balance decreased by approximately 303 000 that decrease is intentional and reflects the use of previously accumulated pal bill funds for eligible infrastructure work should not be interpreted as a deterioration in the general funds restricted financial position and if you recall from the budget retreats we there was a concerted effort uh general fund dollars as well for continued resurfacing over the next several years.

So I'll actually probably end up spending that balance down.

Correct. Yeah. Based on the current capital improvement plan.

What time of year do those power bill allocations typically get?

It's usually November, December. It's usually in the first and second quarter of the year. Stormwater's estimated total fund balance at June 30th is approximately $2.37 million. Of that amount, only $5,000 is estimated to be non-spendable and approximately $17,000 is estimated for restricted by stabilization of state statute. That leaves approximately $2.35 million assigned for stormwater purposes. Because the stormwater is a special revenue fund, its positive fund balance is classified as assigned rather than unassigned. It just means it's restricted for stormwater purposes only. These resources remain dedicated to stormwater activities. The 2.35 million represents a significant liquidity cushion relative to the size of the annual stormwater operating budget. I would not apply our formal general fund 25% or 30% policy directly to stormwater, but it does demonstrate that the fund is financially well positioned to absorb operating volatility and support future stormwater projects. Next is water sewer, and for this one in particular, like I discussed earlier, I want to focus on liquidity rather than trying to estimate audited unrestricted net position before the audit's complete. The operating fund had approximately $7.5 million in cash at June 30th. After considering current receivables, the related receivable reserves, and identified current obligations, we estimate approximately $8.7 million in working capital or liquidity resources before final audit adjustments. that working capital figure is not the same as cash because it does include assets and liabilities. Separately, $2.64 million is held in the Water and Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. I'm presenting that separately because those resources are intended for utility capital purposes and should not be viewed as normal operating cash. On a budgetary basis, water and sewer revenues exceeded expenditures and other uses by approximately $4.83 million during fiscal year 26. 4.83 million is not profit and does not automatically increase cash. The audited changes in that position, again, will lower or otherwise be different after the depreciation capital assets, debt, and other enterprise fund adjustments are recorded. The takeaway from this slide is that the utility fund ended fiscal year 2026 with strong liquidity and meaningful capital reserves. And this is a comparison slide year-over-year. I would not look at just the percent budget collected, because the composition of the amended budget can change significantly year-over-year. As in last year, we purchased a large property, and that's kind of a one-off. In particular, the general fund budget includes substantial appropriated fund balance and one-time financing uses. and sources that causes the total amended revenue budget to be much larger than recurring current year revenue collections. The more meaningful trend here is that the city's core recurring revenue sources remain stable and strong. Water and sewer revenues performed well, stormwater revenues also performed well, and we will continue to monitor whether any favorable revenue trends appear sustainable before incorporating those into future budgets. And similarly, I have a comparison on the expenditure side fiscal year. Twenty six reflects a larger expenditure budget than twenty, twenty five. Particularly in the general fund, as we just mentioned, a significant portion of that is related to capital. Purchases and one time appropriations rather than recurring operating growth. Despite the larger budget, the city remained within the amended appropriations and all funds. Year-over-year variance also reflects timing. A project budgeted in one fiscal year may not be completed by June 30th and may continue into the following year through capital project funds, reappropriations, or subsequent council actions. So the main takeaway from this slide is budgetary compliance and financial capacity rather than every appropriated dollar was spent.

Good job. Yeah, I really like that summary.

Yeah, this presentation was great. I like it. I have one question, though. As far as like knowing, like, as far as like the net impact to the water and sewer fund balance, I don't know if I'm using the right terminology here, but... Will we not know that impact until the audit is completed?

Correct. And I should have draft. I may have. I don't want to say should. I may have draft financial statements before the next quarterly finance update, so I may be able to present those at that time if you see fit.

Okay. Yeah. Because it looks like we're doing really well with that, which is a great turnaround from where it was a couple years ago. So it would be kind of interesting to know what the bottom

of the concerted effort on behalf of council with focusing on water sewer infrastructure projects funding sources for those grants srf loans as well as the rate studies that we've incorporated we've really turned the water sewer fund around

And all the hard work from Jerry.

I appreciate that. Every time I go see Miles, there you are, toiling away at your hands.

Talking away at Excel. Thanks, guys. All right.

So that will bring us home to amended item C9, which is the workplace violence survey.

Yes, that's for me. Yes, sir. So as you know, we went through a workplace climate survey over the past year, and we formulated a task force. And the task force made their recommendations during your February 27th council retreat. The direction from you all was to bring the recommendations update back to a future council meeting. So I appreciate the task force members that are still here. So if you could raise your hand if you're a task force member. It's awesome we've got at least five people here that are still, uh, hanging with us. So I appreciate y'all, y'all, y'all hanging in, hanging in here tonight. Um, and so, uh, we did meet on occasion, uh, since the February, uh, retreat. And we've met a couple of times with the task force and we strategized on the best way to make the recommendations update. And instead of, uh, The task force get my update and then they'll present what my updates are. They preferred that I just give the updates myself. And so I was like, that's fair enough. And so we really did a deep dive and researched most of these items throughout the year. And I provided in here your workplace climate survey results as far as how the survey came out, what we were doing well, what needed work, what needed work was the attitudes towards the organization. emotional exhaustion, morale, and silence. And so those are some of the topics that the task force focused on. Also placed in your council packet the minutes from the retreat so that you could see what that discussion was like and occurred. And then the final several pages here is the update from me. You can see that it's the same document that was initially repaired by the workplace climate task force. Most everything in black is their information. And then everything in red are my updates. And so I don't want to go like word for word on what these are. There's a lot associated with them. I tried to break them down too. There was certain areas in each one that we could focus on. The first one would be in the insurance policy process. You can see that they had recommended a stronger member support by the provider that offers approved network coverage, more flexible plans while being cost efficient, and involving the wellness committee in selecting the insurance provider in the future. And so I did not recommend that we include members outside of administration to go through the selection process when we were going through our insurance. And you can see some of the statements here is that sometimes we talk about confidential things, personnel related, and we didn't want to inadvertently compromise employee privacy. you know, while we were going through that. I think that staff did a really good job when we were going through the insurance process is that, and this is just a recollection on my behalf as far as like how we were considering to be self-funded through the pool, the nationwide pool at the same time we were going out to bid. The pool came in very high compared to what the actual bids were. And so we recommended that you know we don't go self-funded this year but we also talked to the to the broker about you know providing options to employees and that's how we came up with the buy up option that we had included option a and option b for employees and so even though it's not exact and and Most employees don't like the insurance that we currently have, and that is including me. And so we'll be doing a good job this year coming through to see if we can have any reduction in cost going back to employees. That plays out when we bid things out. Also, there was an advocate for cost sharing in collaboration with neighboring municipalities, look for supplemental cancer plans. Like I mentioned, we did have the parental pool. that we didn't go with, but we'd like to continue to try to move forward in the current fiscal year as we approach budget season. It was also the option to include an employee benefits survey. We are conducting a compensation and classification study this fiscal year. It's budgeted. And so we asked the consultant to have a benefit analysis along with that compensation survey or compensation study. And so part of that is that they are going to formulate a survey that includes benefits when they send that out to employees. There will be surveyed employees anyway. And so we said, hey, how can we accomplish that goal? Let's put that in the survey coming up. So that's really for item one. Item two was a full-time communications staff person. I totally agree that we're big enough. We have enough information that we need to get out. Right now we're accomplishing that by double duty on certain staff members. They're doing a great job to get it out. But through the budget process, we did consider that. We actually had our HR director create a job description She provided me a salary along with all the other departments when they were submitting their position budget recommendations through the budget process. And like I mentioned during the budget process, I didn't feel comfortable with saying, hey, Miles deserves a communications manager. But, you know, other departments don't need employees. So we recommended zero employees. We still need a communications person, hopefully. Next year, we can hold that into the budget somehow. So staff is currently managing the communication through established processes and then. They've also said they would like to have some top-down communications for me. So I've tried my best to pull together what I thought would be some updates to the staff. And that's similar to what I send to you all each week. I've been compiling those and sending those out to staff so that they could see just how I communicate with you all. We'd also talked about, is there other ways that we could do that? Possibly through the wellness newsletter that goes out. Any other ways I'm open to any options on that transition to support services to in house. This is also a budget related. Item where we were going through the budget process, considering, you know, add the new person. We didn't add any new people this year. Plus, if we added a new person at some point, we would be doubled up in the budget because we still need like a third party provider to do a lot of our updates and software and to manage some of the things that just the third party has to do. So it's really budget driven as well. One of the things that the task force mentioned was that there was an informational form that Yvette had created and had shared with our finance department. I think Sue had mentioned that. And so we said, you pass that back to Yvette to say, hey, there's a form that you shared with the finance department. Could you create this support services flyer? Yvette did a really good job. We've shared that with all staff. And that kind of shows like when you need to call our third party or when you can call Yvette. So one woman showed up. Very busy every single day, so we wanted to make sure that everybody knows, you know, you can call this number when this occurs, call this number when that occurs. She did a good job on that. We did change the level of priority to immediate to near term on that item. Item four is the panic button in citywide emergency alert system. We did fund the planning, or you all did fund the planning department's security update that would provide a more secure vestibule in the planning department. We have engaged an architect, met with them on site. It's grown a little bit from this project because we feel like there's more security measures we could probably do at the finance department, given that we've had active shooter training that scared the life out of everybody that has gone through it. And so we know that we need to make improvements, especially where there's areas that we interact with the public. And so we told that to the architect. They're preparing the proposal so that they can design the planning department's project and include the emergency alert system with that. I feel like it's a little, this project's grown a little bit. It's more of a health and safety project. So you'll see that when I bring it back to you all for approval, that it includes, we have humidity issues and the human resources IT department there's offices down here that This is almost the basement level. So there's a lot of humidity issues that are taking place down there And so we mentioned to the architect. Hey, we would like for you to look at this as well accomplish that project along with this one, so I'll be bringing that back to you all plus the last paragraph there states that while we were in our active shooter training. It was mentioned that we've done a security assessment for the City Works building. The police department did that. From what I understand from Chief Falls is that we have checked all the boxes that they wanted us to do for this facility. But that was before City Rec was constructed. So now that we have a new facility, the police department plans to do the same thing for City Rec to say, all right, how can we improve security there as well? And so they're in the process of scheduling that with the police department. A comprehensive citywide facilities assessment and implementation plan. We have engaged our qualified architects. We did the on-call architects that Jonathan Wilson brought to you all. We have five firms now. We do not budget a comprehensive facility assessment to go through all of our facilities, but we do have architects that we can go to similar to the project that I just mentioned. The wastewater treatment plant security gate, we corrected that item. And then the fire department facilities, you can see that we've gone through, you all budgeted to acquire two pieces of property to construct the north station, design next year, construct next year, and then for the replacement of the main station in 28, 29 will be for design, and then 29, 30. So I think that those items are... We've done a really good job to make sure that some of those issues that were identified have been corrected or in the process of being corrected. Item number six, the citywide payment processing systems. This one has taken some time. We have met... on three or four occasions with the planning department, the public works department, the IT department, finance, HR, administration, given that there's a workflow that occurs when permits come in and fees are paid and when public works needs to go out to install water meters. So it originates in the planning department and then at some point it breaks off and a portion of it goes to public works and So there's some communication issues that are occurring within our software, iWorks. We were in the room together. Tiffany did a really good job to diagram how the flow actually works on the chalkboard. And then we met with Yvette. She went to iWorks and kind of showed them that, talked to... Our works about what we would like for the software to do. And this doesn't any other municipalities do what we need it to do. We hadn't resolved this one yet. This one's taking us a little bit of time, but it's in the works. Monthly updates to staff from administration and departments. This was what I had mentioned about bi-weekly, bi-monthly updates to city employees. And that's where I mentioned any more information or suggested feedback is welcome to me so I can communicate better to employees. Item number eight is regular council tours and all the facilities. just put in here that this item is at council's discretion several of you have been to facilities and have have seen our facilities but at any point in time if y'all like to schedule a tour i can take you to the water plant wastewater treatment plant any anywhere you like to go to check out the facilities the standardized certification and incentives program um this item um Was included in our personnel policies under the pay plan certification pay incentives. This was the new pay plan that was adopted in March, or the new personnel policy was up in March 3rd, 2025. And so we're encouraging the department heads to establish their, their pay plans. Um. several departments already have you all funded the police departments two years ago in the budget process and funded the fire department this year public works has their process already established and so it's really that we want department heads to come up with their certification process and then how much you would be increased if you you know met certain certifications or education requirements and so That one is ongoing, and like I mentioned, it's ultimately budget-driven, but Hannah and me and Jared have looked through several of them so far, so several of them are still in the works. Hannah may have to help me with this one. I told Hannah she had a big part in number 10 and one coming up, but the bonuses, certification, licensure, incentives, continuing education, longevity pay, that the task force say that they're vague and they need to, they do not clearly define the frameworks or metrics that inform employees of the resources or opportunities available to them. And so written here is that steps have been taken to bring clarity around the use of comp time. This effort began with a discussion that department heads, then we followed that up with a lunch and learn session to communicate to employees about that. And it does mention that discussions with the Department has remained ongoing. The standardization and clarification of bonuses and incentives policy updates are currently in development. The updates are intended to provide clarity around the calculation of bonuses and incentives. And so we're working on certain things already inside our, like I mentioned earlier to Councilman Hepburn during the public comment period, that there are certain things that we have seen that do affect employees and the personnel policy. We know it's there. We know we need to make a change. It takes a little time to get to that point. So Hannah is communicating with the League of Municipalities on several of these items. The City of Belmont Employee Academy Program, that's the CABEA cohort. It's the nine-week program designed to have members of each department and to go on a week by week basis to highlight different city departments and giving them firsthand insight to how city functions. I think it's a great idea. We've said, you know, the COBEA said that they could be the first cohort that goes through this and we'll support them along the way. We'd like to know do a debrief once the process occurs to see how it works and see if there's any pitch points or how well they liked it and so that one is being scheduled by the task force cohort number 12 is enhancements to lunch and learns and wellness programming we heard that we read this agreed and increased the budget that you all adopted, increased the enhancements to Lunch and Learns and the wellness program. So that one, we did increase our funding this year. Revising city policies for overtime, comp time, and holidays and closures. I think that inside the personnel policy, there was maybe some confusion on what we do. And so we did state that we have to follow the Fair Labor Standards Act regarding overtime, comp time, and straight time. And really, we left it at the department head level. We didn't want to standardize across all departments because each department is so specialized in what they do, it was kind of hard to standardize everybody. And so we left it up to the department heads to determine whether they have whether they get comp time or whether they get paid out overtime on certain items. Let me read for a second. With the most recent personnel policy adoption, updates provide an additional compensation for employees who called into work during adverse weather conditions. Under the personnel policy, eligible employees receive vacation time for an hour-for-hour basis for each hour worked during adverse weather. And then employees are also appropriately compensated for working on designated holidays for the city's personnel policy. When they are required to work on a holiday, they typically receive their regular compensation for the hours of work in addition to holiday pay within the applicable pay period if eligible for the personnel policy. So we put some like clarifying language inside that update. Cross-departmental overtime sharing was a great idea. it is a little more complicated for us to like manage that um to have like a you know a pool of people and we then we do like cross we can share over time from department to department so we're still researching that as as mentioned uh human resources has reached out to the league municipalities for guidance on how we could accomplish that so that one is still in the works as well Improving peer community selections for future pay and salary studies. This one was about not just so much, you know, finding a peer community the same size as Belmont, but finding possible departments that have very similar to what each department does. Like, for example, the police department is CALEA certified. So instead of, you know, lining them up to compare them to another community that doesn't have a CALEA program, try to find a CALEA program to see how much they get paid. So that's just one example of how we plan to do that. We actually have selected the compensation and classification study, and that was some of the questions and information that we passed along to them to say, hey, is this a possibility? Have you ever heard of this? And they said, yes, we can do that. So that is in the works as well. The Citizen Academy program, I think it's a good idea. We've said that we'd like to complete the CABEA program first and debrief on the CABEA to see how we can accomplish the Citizens Academy. What we don't want to do is fail in a public program. And so that one, there are other communities that do the Citizens Academy program. And so we're doing additional research to see how they've structured it and implemented it for similar citizen academies and any cost to do that. And then the ongoing employee engagement and workplace climate survey. Great idea. I think that we do need to survey to see how if. we improved the workplace by going through a survey and then having a task force go through there and look through it and then make recommendations and then survey employees again to see if we've made any kind of improvements. So that's the update that we've been working through. It's eye-opening as far as all the items that were presented to us, and it does take time to get to the, I don't know if there'll be an end point. It's just a work in progress as we move through the improved workplace.

That's a lot of information. Big understanding. Yeah, it is. It looks like good progress is being made. Captain Black, can I make you the unofficial spokesman of the task force real quick? Thank you. So I make the assumption, I look at this and I see it looks like we're making good progress. It looks like we're taking the points that were given to us and that really pointed direction has been taken on each one. Would you say that is an accurate assumption from your task force that is being met in a satisfactory way? Yes. Any questions?

That's the easiest question you'll ever get from us.

What if you said no?

Then there would have been a bottle of us. Any questions from us? No, great work. Thank you for following up on that. That's about as brief as I think I could have gotten. All right, that will take us to our other business.

I have nothing.

Thank you. Great job. Oh, I've got something.

Okay. And there's really no delegate way to say this, so I've been spending more time downtown with my son, and I've noticed the last several times, actually, there seems to be a ponderance of dog poop in and around Stowe Park. I've been out there at about five o'clock or so for several days and noticed people kind of bringing the dogs down, doing their thing, and scooping out, which I think is kind of disgusting.

Time for task force.

Yes. Well, I bring that up because I don't think it's our job to pick that up. Like, you bought the dog. Don't do that. You know, you take care of it. But obviously, we can't rely on the goodwill of... people quite like we used to, um, and it irritated me because my son, you know, stepped in not only once, but twice on the same walk, park, and I had to hold on to him and then just did not want to have to deal with that.

So I throw that out there.

Um, hopefully you can really think about some options. I don't know, like, I don't know in other towns there are like signs and ordinances and fines and penalties and stuff like that. I don't necessarily need to go like that long on that. Maybe like education? Yeah, we could start nice. Yeah, like pick up after.

I don't know, that seems kind of common sense to me.

Do you have a few signs?

Honestly, you know, this is a funny one. Like we had at our neighborhood, someone threw it in the pool. Like you're just not going to fix stupid.

Like, I mean, sometimes people just, they did.

I mean, it's just not going to fit. So, yeah. So that, that, that.

Do we have little stations with dog packs? I'm pretty sure there's one. Right, right. Like, yeah.

I'm pretty sure you have to walk by it to go pick some grass. So, you know, again, like human behavior. Yeah. Yeah. Um, other thing, uh, I've also noticed that the A-frames have been, they seem to be like reproducing on the, uh, the sidewalks. I know this kind of came up when we were talking about the sign projects earlier. Um, yeah, like, uh, the, the sign of caves is another name for them. They're the white.

Anybody know what's to advertise? Plastic A-frames. Oh, yeah.

yeah they're kind of cluttering I thought you said yeah yeah yeah we have I was not talking about we have a lot the businesses downtown also have a lot like I know there's a balance there but it kind of seems like they're slowly taking over the sidewalks which makes it difficult for the pedestrians to use them um particularly in that area right by uh station where you've got the crosswalk and there's just like a pile of them Particularly when there's events downtown and stuff, it's difficult to actually use that crosswalk because you're navigating.

So that might just be a bicycle going down there.

Yeah, well, sorry about that. Well, actually, that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah, yeah. Just a plow right into it. So, yeah, be interested to know if there are any ways we could maybe get that under control.

Kind of related to that, and this was maybe last year at a Main Street meeting. Someone had gone, you know, would go out and see different municipalities come by and kind of talk about it. And there were a couple, I couldn't even tell you where it was, but the remedy to that was almost like a shepherd's hook on the side of the building where people could hang their sign out. So it was only, you know, this size kind of cloth sign. When they were open, they just put the sign out, and you could see it standing on your sidewalk looking up, and you could kind of see the signs that were out. It's up out of the walkway, so you're not going to hit it or anything. It's relatively inexpensive. I think that could be an option to that, to get it off the ground, off the sidewalk, because I agree with you. There are a couple spaces where it definitely... But that's one thing that was looked at, but I'd be interested to hear more. Yeah, yeah.

Last kvetch from me. So I've also noticed, being out late as I frequently am, that there are these pop-up food tents that are sitting on the right-of-ways. Yes. I've noticed one on Park Street in front of the Bank of America. Yeah, I've seen it. suspect that they're probably trespassing because i feel like about that bank of america doesn't even know that they're there but separate issue uh there's also the health and safety issue with the food but that's more like the county thing um but it doesn't seem like it's a very safe situation to have people gathering inside of a right away in the middle of the night um so let's do that I came back from a wake game around midnight and they were still open. It's like a tent.

It's like you went to an event and they've got the tent with all the stuff and the lights and they're... Serving... This is just in my box. I don't know. It's in front of us. Right beside the parking lot. Yeah.

It's not even in the parking lot.

It's literally right beside the parking lot.

They tend to be out there, like, after the sun goes down. So, like, when it's dark. And we'll occasionally move around to... Yeah, it's like, I wasn't really sure, like... Do we regulate that or not?

Sounds like a code enforcement. We can get with code enforcement on that. Okay. Yeah, because they...

she could take her scooter you say it's every night yeah i don't know it's every night but i've seen it multiple nights when i come back late every night it's like right there's like a strip of grass and like at first i thought it must have been associated with the bank that's what i thought the next time it was so late i'm like there's no way this could be like

Yeah, you know, it's like midnight, and I happen to talk to somebody else who's encountered this in another town, and they said that the problem that they found out after the fact was that they were taking their grease and dumping it in the sewer drain. They had to go in and, you know, do what you do with a clogged sewer drain that's full of grease. So, yeah, there are Because, I mean, it comes back to the whole, like, if they were using a, you know, inspected in, like, kitchen, you'd have a grease trap that could handle that appropriately, but... We'll set code up as a good point. Yeah, definitely. So, uh... Maybe some undercover. I'm sending Jason. Can we go out there tonight?

I don't know if we're dealing with the after effects of that one.

Um, yeah, so that's it. Nice one, Jason. Uh, I've got just a few.

I'll get through them quick. Um... First off, great job to our planning department. And for the exceptional event with the Planpalooza, that was a great, great event. And then we were all excited to see the huge turnout there. To give us input on some of the exciting projects that we have planned. Also to the police department, you guys did an awesome job with Operation Guardian Angel. And I know that's still ongoing, but it's been nice to see the stats and things. It sounds like we're off to a pretty safe start. Hopefully that continues throughout the school year. So thank you guys. I had a citizen raise a concern with me on Nixon Road, and I'm not sure if this is our responsibility or not, but particularly the stretch of Nixon between Amberley Crossing and Rachel Land Drive, there's a narrow planning strip there between the sidewalk and the road, and they've got, I'm sure, required trees that were planted there. A lot of those branches are now into the roadway, and so I don't know if the trimming

if that's city i think nixon's uh state road okay so maybe we need to call i thought it was an hoa like in our neighborhood an hoa thing maybe that's a homeowner's if it's into the roadway or only if it's on their side i just know that the hoa got um somebody to come around like cut them off and but they didn't tell anyone before they did it and so a lot of people were like

It's only neighborhood specific, you know, HRA discusses the bylaws or not. So maybe we can just look into that because there's definitely some of those. The other thing in that same area is the stop sign on Nixon at the corner of the South Parkway. There is a, there's three new maple trees that were planted there in the last one. is so close to the stop sign, it really obstructs the stop sign. And I've heard a number of people complain that they can't see that until you literally get on it. It almost is like that tree was planted way too close to the stop sign. You don't want to jerk up your maple tree if you don't have to.

Well, they've already done it like three times over there. Yeah.

I remember when they turned up that sidewalk for all the landscape. I mean, if the canopy grows, it's going to probably be a nice three-line street. But for now, it's really obstructing that stop sign. So anyway, you could just ask Mike to take a look at that. And then the last two things are just days to keep in mind. We have the 37th Annual Belmont Sports Hall of Fame that the mayor is going to be speaking at for us. That is on one month from the 9th, October 6th, Tuesday at 630 at Park Street, United Methodist. We've got some exciting activities going on this year, including the 2016 South Point High School State Championship football team. So, and then lastly, Can we get tickets for that? I can get them for you, or they're also going to be at State Farm, State Farm office on Top Street in East Belmont, as well as . And I think we're going to have some at the Chamber this year too. And then lastly, do we know, or maybe at some point in the future, can we get up soon? Can we get an update maybe from the DBDA or who may be spearheading any events we're planning for Veterans Day this year? And I've talked to Susan Martello and Frank Mathis, the American Legion. I don't know if it's possible to maybe, especially with this being the 250th anniversary, you know, if we could maybe kind of see if there's some extra things that we could do for Veterans Day recognition this year, that'd be much appreciated. That's it. Thank you.

Jim? Nothing.

All right.

I have just a couple things. Let's see. Just want to point out, I think some of you may have seen Jim's excellent synopsis of the Go Gaston Forum that we attended recently. Miles, Jim, and myself were there to see everything happening in Gaston County. Sure, having read Jim's synopsis that you know is a lot. There's a lot going on. We've got a lot of construction projects that are going to be impacting us. Bridge on Wilkinson is going to be impacting us a lot of things. So there will be the need for a copious amount of patience in the next few years as we're working through all this.

And we know that patience is always in such abundant suppliers.

We're going to need to put council meetings back. With everything that's going to be closed, it's going to be interesting. Not that there's anything you need to attend, just be aware, Larry, the American Legion is doing his second round of veteran headstone cleanings this Friday, 8.30pm WSOC is coming out again. He's got 45 volunteers, student volunteers, which is a huge turnout. Chick-fil-A is bringing food, the whole big thing. If you're around and up, stop in, say hello to everyone. I'll be there. It starts at 8.30. Sisters of Mercy had their solar celebration. All the solar panels were now active and generating electricity. It Jim and I were there for that, and we were able to enjoy going out and seeing it.

It was so powerful and amazing. The lights even turned on before they flipped the switch.

It was amazing. That is amazing. Like the one they had in Tallahassee. But it was good to see them bring that to completion. A couple other things. Bill and Abby homecoming is October 2nd through the 4th, so I expect to see a lot of them. It's also coinciding with parent weekend, so I expect to see a lot of activity around downtown students. Is everyone going to go to the football game? Say again? Is everyone going to go to the football game for homecoming? Maybe. Do you invite them?

Yeah.

All right. You guys, Jason, you already took a couple of months, so thank you for that. And I think that will do it for me. If nothing further, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.