City Council - Regular Meeting

Test test. would like to call to order the Concord City Council uh work session. Welcome everyone. Um looking over our agenda. Um most of the items are ones that we're going to be covering on Thursday night. So we move straight down to public hearings. And I think we have some staff reports and I'll turn it over to the city manager for those.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Fred Wall is going to come up. He's our planning and development manager. He's going to handle all three of the public hearing items before council this evening. Give you staff reports.

All right. Uh good afternoon, Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Payne, Miss Kinsky, and Miss Jenkins. Uh the item, first item before you is case number Z225, which is a conventional resoning application request uh that was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their February 17th public hearing. Okay, there we go. All right. Um, there are multiple parcels included um in this request. Uh, and the applicant for this request is Vulcan Materials Company. The parcels included in the request are at 7201 and 7205 Trail Road with the third portion uh of the subject property being 508 Cessna Road uh which were all these three parcels were annexed on January 8th of this year. Um additionally there's a larger 129 acre parcel um to the west I mean to the east that was annexed back in 2016. Now, the applicant is seeking to reszone the subject property from Cabaris County Countryside Residential and I1 light industrial to I2 general industrial. Um to expand the existing quarry use. More specifically, they want to extend their uh existing overburden storage yard. Um the overburden storage yard is basically just a a yard for storage of loose rock, solids um and clay that's basically just piled up on the site and or hauled off elsewhere. Given the existing I2 general industrial to the west of the subject properties uh which is the existing Vulcan facility, the proposed change from I1 light industrial to I2 general industrial would be an extension of the existing district um and allow for the proposed overburden storageard uh expansion. This next slide is an aerial view just

showing the existing conditions with the uh subject parcels overlaid there. And in regards to the 2030 land use plan, um the three smaller smaller properties are located within the suburban neighborhood land use category. Um and the larger 100 plus acre parcel is located within the industrial employment land use category. And per the land use plan, the proposed I2 zoning is not consistent or corresponding zone zoning classification with the suburban neighborhood uh land use category. toward that end. Uh this petition is before the city council because for consideration um as the land use plan is inconsistent um with these these resoning designations. So it requires that the planning excuse me the zoning map as well as the 2030 land use plan be amended by council uh to designate all of the properties uh in this request as industrial employment. I'm at their February 17th uh meeting of this year. The planning and zoning commission voted unanimously uh to forward this request to council uh with the favorable favorable recommendation as shown by the statements of consistency on the left side of the screen. Um the statements on the right are presented should council decide otherwise. And in regards to council's next steps are to approve or deny the statement of consistency or to approve or deny the zoning map amendment or to approve and step three is to approve or deny the land use plan amendment. and I will gladly respond to any questions council may have at this time. Any questions on that? I I think we discussed this pretty extensively a couple months ago, so I think we're good. Yes, sir. All right. All right. Well, since I've got the floor, let's keep rolling. Uh good afternoon once again, Mayor Morris,

members of council, Mr. Payne, Miss Gchinsky, and Miss Jenkins. That item before you is uh the first of uh two right-of-way closure applications for your consideration this afternoon. Um council will recall that the uh that it adopted a resolution of intent on the closure on this closure request during your February the 12th session. Um the ride ofway in question is an unopened and unimproved approximately 50 foot wide area located near the Burich Road and Old Salsbury Concord Road intersection as highlighted on this particular slide. Um the area of closure has an overall area of approximately 37,026 ft. Um and and planning uh plat research indicates that the rightway was originally a part of a subdivision, a planned subdivision that was never subdivided. Rock Properties LLC, TC Resources LLC, and Grace Global Methodist Church Incorporated each own a portion of the land immediately adjacent to the area of closure, and each have been uh notified uh and each will receive a portion of the rideway being abandoned. This particular slide uh is uh taken from the planning department drone with the approximate closure area shown by the red cross-hatched area on the left side of this particular picture. Um and just to recap this request, the petitioners for this rightaway closure request um are the adjacent property owners as previously uh mentioned the area of closures and unimproved and wooded and and wooded and consists of approximately 37,2600 square ft. Um, additionally, council should be advised that there are no utilities present in the area of closure and the planning staff did not receive any objections to the request from any of the reviewing departments. Pursuant to North Carolina general statutes, each petitioner has been uh briefed on their ownership requirements and the impact of this particular closing. Regarding council's next steps, uh, council is to conduct a public hearing

on this matter and to adopt or deny a resolution closing the right of way. and I'll gladly respond to any questions council may have at this time. Any questions on that one? Okay, ready for the next one?

All right, good afternoon once again, uh, Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Payne, Miss Kchinsky, and Miss Jenkins. The item before you is again another rightway closure application for your consideration. Um, as with the previous request, uh, council adopted a resolution of intent for the closure for this closure request during the February 12th session. The rideway in question is an unopened and unimproved approximately 50 foot wide area located uh north of the Burge Road and Old Salsbury Concord intersection as highlighted on this particular s slide. Uh the area of closure has an overall area of approximately 33,715 square feet. Um, Santana

now joining.

Okay. And like the previous petition, the rightway was originally a part of a planned subdivision that was never subdivided. Rocks Properties LLC and a Day in Paradise LLC each own a portion of the land immediately adjacent uh to the area of closure and each property owner will receive a portion of the rightway being abandoned. This next slide is a picture taken from the drone um showing the approximate area of closure on the right side of this particular slide. Um and again just to recap this request to provide some additional details. Uh the petitioners for this right ofway uh closure request are the adjacent property owners as previously mentioned. Um the area of closure is an unimproved and wooded area and consists of approximately 33,715 square ft. Um there are no utilities uh present in the area of closure. Um and planning staff did not receive any objection to the request from any of the reviewing departments. Pursuant to general statutes, each petitioner has been briefed on the ownership requirements um and the impact of this particular closing. Once more, uh in regarding council's next steps, a council is to conduct a public hearing um on this matter and to adopt or deny the resolution closing the right of way. I'll gladly field any questions council may have at this time. Any questions for Fred? I just hope the public doesn't get the impression that we're taking away access to a day in paradise.

No. Yes. Interesting name. Great. Thank you. Okay. Next up, I think consider authorizing the city manager to execute a change order number one for the North Apron Roadway project at Concord Pageant Regional Airport. We're happy to have Dirk for that item.

Yes, sir. Mayor, members of council, Mr. Pay, Miss Cochi, Miss Jenkins, it's my last request, but this won't be the last change order for the airport. I can assure you that much. We are requesting uh approval to increase the contract amount for $298,425, excuse me, and 0. This is due to some unsuitable material that was found uh during some excavation with a contractor. Uh this has been reviewed by our engineers uh have determined that we need to remove that due to the expansion of a wall needed for the north roadway apron expansion. We are requesting approval for that. Uh NC DOT Aviation has agreed to continue funding this particular change order. Any questions?

Questions for Durk? All right. Thank you, sir. Y Okay. Next up, consider awarding a bid and authorize the city manager to execute a contract with Williams Electric for the construction of a new 100KB transmission line down Rock Hill Church Road. Happy to have Caleb with us for this one.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Payne, Mchensky, Miss Jenkins. The electric department is in the process of building 100 KV transmission line down Rockill Church Road from Dropman Corner to substation B at the pop tent intersection. To date, all ements have been acquired. All materials been ordered. Steel poles are on site and ready to be installed. A job this size will require a contractor with specialized equipment. On February 17th, 2026, a formal bid was held and three bids were received. Williams Electric was the lowest responsible bidder at $3,921. All bids have been reviewed by staff and it's recommended that we accept Williams bid for this project. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up, consider authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Bioonomic Services Incorporated to line 19,974 linear feet of sewer lines and the rehabilitation of 53 manholes. Happy to have Jeff Corley for this item.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, Mr. Miss Colchinsky, Miss Jenkins. Um item three is u our our annual slip lining um project. We've really adopted this technology. It's a trenchless technology as as some of you are aware that allows us to rehabilitate to fix um defects in our sewer system without digging up uh all that is above it, whether it's streets, sidewalks, yards. Um, basically we we push a a felt liner through the existing pipe that has an epoxy on it. It's inflated and pushes that uh that liner against the existing pipe and then heated to cure uh to cure that epoxy creating uh basically a pipe within a pipe that now has its own structural integrity. All those old joints are are filled and replaced uh with that brand new liner. So uh it's a very good been a very good strategy for us. We budget about 1.2 2 million every year in system development fees to do this activity. Um we did uh so we always uh through our asset management program we identify uh lengths of pipes. So we go based on length and each year we put out a length that we think is going to be about 1.2 million. Uh happy to report this year we had 10 biders. I I don't believe we've ever had 10 biders for this project since I have been here. U and the low bidder was Bionomic Services. We've used them for lining one other time. We also have used them for a couple other projects. We are completely comfortable with them. But you see that low bid was $844,36.73 cents. So, we're real excited where we're headed there. That technology is is obviously getting cheaper and that's a really good thing uh because we are uh will continue to invest in that technology to make sure our system is performing the way we need to. So, uh we will ask for your um approval of that item to move forward.

Thank you. And while we're in between, Councilwoman Santana was trying to log in. She's out of town and she said she didn't get let in. She's in. Okay. She thinks she's not, but sorry about that.

So my question is, if this came in so low under bid, did you think about expanding that? Yeah, we always have some additional footage that that we've shaved off. There is the potential once we get towards the end of this project. It is a line item pricing that we're given through the bid process. So, we do have the ability to increase. Um, we actually are planning working with budget next year. We're we're looking at changing the way. There's always a a rush because this is annual money that we're trying to spend within a year. Um, and we're looking at making some transitions in the coming years to putting this money in a project account, which will give us a lot more flexibility over multiple years, potentially multiple bids during the current year. Um, so we we think we're happy where we're going, but uh, there will be an opportunity if there's any highprofile lines we really need to get done, uh, we'll be able to add that to the project at the end.

Great question. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. And for our technology people, she says that um she can't hear anything, but she's going to try another link. So, okay, you're good for the next item. while he's working to get to get that one up there. Uh there we go. Uh so this next item is is changes to city code, specifically chapter 62, where all our uh fun water and wastewater utility code language lies. It's a very long uh section, but we're really looking at really two subsections here. Alvary Santana

is now exiting. I can't get it to move now.

Oh, there we go. Uh, so why are we making these changes? We have some existing code language that was meant to uh reduce uh the use of wastewater pump stations. As you know, through the last couple years, we have brought projects to you to take pump stations offline. most recently the Laurel Park pump station. Um we've gotten about four or five of these offline. Uh they cost a lot of money, a lot of electricity to run, a lot of long-term maintenance costs. So, uh there is a huge cost to maintain these systems. And our perspective has been um we need to make sure that we're using them very sparingly in the system where they really should be used and for the purposes that they should be used for. Uh the current code uses a one-time maintenance fee. um in in an attempt to uh to limit the use of new and expanded pump stations. Uh there is some concern about the consistency of the system development fee language uh that we need to uh to go away from the one-time maintenance fee idea. And really um you'll see what we've done is we've taken our system extension policy which has always been in the city code uh which has basically been for linear sewer lines and we're adding the pump station uh language to our extension policy. So if you're a developer and you're wanting to develop a piece of property uh you will use this new language to determine whether the city will or won't entertain a new public pump station on our system. So the first change is chapter 62 section 79. This is again that extension policy. I'm not going to read all the language. Both of those documents are are in your uh in your packet. Section A ex has always existed. That's the linear extension policy that is remaining untouched. We are adding a brand new

section B which talks about wastewater pump stations um and when and how you are able to uh to consider public wastewater pump stations. The other change is chapter 62 uh- 98. This is where the one-time lift station fee language existed and we are uh specifically removing almost all of section 9. Section 9 also includes some specific design criteria on pump stations that I'm not entirely sure uh how it got in there that does not belong in city code. We have that properly handled in our technical standards documents. Um so we are basically referring all of those minimum design criteria for the wastewater pump stations to the technical standards documents and taking all that language out of section 9. Any questions? questions for Jeff.

Just doing what we've always done, just in a different way. Right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up, number five, consider adopting an ordinance ordering the demolition of the structure located at 141 Himlock Drive Southwest. And I think Chief Hughes.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Payne, Miss Kjinski, and Miss Jenkins. Uh this evening it is uh the Hazel Murray estate located at 141 Himmllock Drive that we're here to discuss. This is a single parcel. Uh the building tax value is $68,560 per Cabaris County land records. Uh the case was opened in September on September 15th of 2025. Code enforcement determined the house is dilapidated. They established a hearing date of October 15, 2025. Uh, no one attended that hearing. Finding a fact in order to repair or demolish was issued on October 16th, 2025, and an order to repair uh or demolish expired on February 25th of 2026. There's been no attempts to come into compliance with this case. Staff's recommendation is to adopt an ordinance ordering the demolition of the structure located at 141 Himmllock Drive, Southwest Concord. If anybody has any questions.

I do. Just for clarification, is this the home we talked about off Highway? No, this is uh Himmlock, which is close proximity to downtown. Okay. I just couldn't place that street in my head. Thank you, Mayor. I have question if that's okay. Yes, ma'am. So, this property is different from the other two properties that are under in domain, right? Okay. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, the reason this one wasn't considered for that program is because there was an active tax case that may or may not have been completed last week or two weeks ago. Uh, so there is an there's an active tax lean on this property.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. So that means that they are not paying it's dilapidated and they are not paying the property taxes on it. So this this property is part of an estate that is for all intents and purposes abandoned and has been abandoned for quite some time, right? And it's there are several properties that will fall under this estate. So over the year next few years, you're probably going to see more of these. And so when the property's demolished, then that'll be an additional tax lean. Yes, the city's costs will become a lean on the property. Um, I would not expect that to ever ever be paid

be paid. Um, the the the issue with the property is that it's been abandoned for so long that there's the ownership is so clouded, no one can clear this title except the city, right? I mean, or some other power, the jurisdiction that could exercise the power of imminent domain. Um because the the heirs are so dissipated and the ownership interests are so dissipated, it would be cost prohibitive for any of them to try and and come back and and claim and clear that pro the title to that property. Yes. Just a quick one. Does the city take title to that property then? Yes, sir. So who does?

No one. It remains in the as with the heirs of um the previous owner. That's correct. There are there are many many many many many properties in the city like that. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Uh next up is consider approving demolition of 372 and 374 Lincoln Street Southwest. We're happy to have Mary with us for that item.

Mayor, members of council, Mr. Pain, Miss Kochinsky. My item for this afternoon is the demolition of 327, sorry, 372 and 374 Lincoln Street. 372 may be an address that council remembers. Uh this was the public housing unit that unfortunately had the three children that passed away, Daniela, Steven, and uh Emmanuela. Um, this property uh has been sitting vacant uh awaiting the steps necessary to complete the process for us to work with HUD to demolish this unit. And just a little recap for council to remember the steps that we have undergone with this property. Um the fire did occur August of 2023. Um staff had to wait for the fire marshall calls and origin report. There was an independent investigation that was completed in September of 2023. There's a fire investigation uh preliminary summary of findings that was um presented in a in April of 2025 and then it was finally released by the insurance investigator in se in July of 2025. It was at that point in time that the litigation with the family concluded in August of that year as well. So August of 2025 was the first point in time when staff could actually begin working with HUD to get the approval to demolish this unit. Um at this point in time, the insurance information and the findings from that have been presented to HUD. It's being investigated and reviewed by their engineers. Um the next step in this process is to get your approval for that demolition of that those two units and also to complete an environmental review which is also underway. And staff is also mindful of the fact that this will be um a

trying time for residents and also for the family. And so to be mindful of that before the demolition takes place, we will be reaching out to the family. We will be making accommodations for the temporary memorial that is present and we've also worked with a counselor who has agreed to be on site um and also be available to residents before and after the demolition if needed. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Any questions for Mary? Yes, ma'am. How long will that process take?

Unfortunately, I can't give you an answer on that. The demolition itself will not take that long, but it's going to be going through the process with HUD. And this will be the first time that Concord has gone through an approval to demolish a unit. And with HUD, within their system that they use, they don't let you see all of the steps. You have to do a step and complete that step before they open the next step. So, it could take weeks. It could take months. And unfortunately, I don't have the ability to give a timeline. and our HUD rep um has sent me to several sites that don't give you a time frame, but as soon as I have one, I can share that with you. Just be interested.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh thank you for, you know, um going through this process. I know it's been difficult um this is difficult for the community and for myself but um you know I would like to share with council that myself and Sally Coleman I think everybody here knows Sally uh worked with the school system the school board to um acknowledge Daniela during graduation. and she would have graduated um in 2025. And a couple weeks ago, Sally was able to get a cap and gown and um her diploma certificate and get it to her mom. I just want to share that.

Any other questions or comments? I think it's really important the information that you gave to for the public to understand the process that you have to go through. You know, I've heard some conversation out in the community as to why there has been such a delay and I think you did a good job of explaining all the steps that are required and and and hopefully people take note of that. And one of the things that um I've been doing at the resident council meetings is um updating them on the process and tomorrow evening is their next meeting. So anyone whose board wants to come, they would love for you to come. Um we'll be updating on this um as well as several of the other things that are

Great. Thank you. Okay, we move now to item seven uh to execute an amendment for a traffic signal. And I think Tonyy's going to tell us about that one. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of councel, Mr. Payne, Miss Kchinsy, Mr. Jenkins. Um, yes, this uh this location for reference is the intersection on Brutin Smith Boulevard um just to the west of the golf course where the uh the new atrium emergency department is being built and the Hendrickk uh facility is being built to the south. Um the developers of those facilities had a traffic mitigation agreement that required them to build this traffic signal. um their their timelines are aggressive and um in order to meet this uh the goal of getting the signal built they have provided us a payment in lie uh for us to construct the traffic signal. Uh we've received those funds in the last month and um this um this item is to uh appropriate the funds to uh execute a tax order with our on call traffic signal contractor to construct the signal. So, the funds we've received are enough to execute this task order as well as purchase the materials and complete the work with city forces to complete the full traffic signal installation.

Great. I'll take questions. Any questions on that one? All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Next up, we have Leslie Reer to talk about uh financing agreement.

Good evening, mayor, members of council. Mr. pay Miss Chinsy. Miss Jenkins, as part of the fiscal year 2026 budget, council previously approved staff to move forward with installment financing contract to pay the cost of acquisition of various firetrs and related equipment. A banking RFP was prepared to request proposals from financial institutions with respect to the $6,238,000 installment financing contract. A summary of bids received is attached to the agenda item. staff is recommending that we enter into an installment financing contract with Atlantic Union Public Finance, Inc. as they were the bidder with the lowest effective interest rate. The interest rate in Atlantic Union Public Finance, Inc. proposal was 3.16% for a 5-year term. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions on that one? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up, item nine. consider allocating sewer to custom ingredients doing business as custom flavors. We're happy to have Samantha from the EDC to talk about this one.

Hello. Thank you. Um good afternoon, mayor, members of the council, Mr. Pay, Miss Kchinsky, and Miss Jenkins. Um thank you for your time this afternoon. Custom Flavors, a food flavoring manufacturing facility, did not request or need sewer allocation when they originally applied for the economic development grant. um they were locating an existing building that had an existing sewer allocation associate associated with it prior to their occupancy. Um the request now is for your consideration um for allocation 5,000 gallons per day is driven by record growth in both new and existing com customers via their Concord facility. Happy to answer any questions that you all have.

Any questions for Samantha? I think that would be would be great.

So, um I would like to just take a moment to to sort of explain why this request is outside of the normal quarterly sewer allocation. I think it's important for this information to be out there. Um the city when it's when when city council set up the sewer allocation policy there there were essentially two sides of that. The first side was a regular allocation process where someone needs a sewer allocation. They they send in an allocation. It gets processed by staff. It gets presented to city council. city council does their thing and then we have the meeting and the allocations go forward in the way that we've all become very familiar with. The second side of that was economic development. There was a separate um bucket of of available allocations set aside for economic development. And typically the way that occurs is when a a a project is brought to city council and requests an economic development incentive, they they would know at that time what their sewer requirements or have at least some pretty close idea what their sewer requirements are. And in this case, that really did not occur. Um and the and the sewer policy was not clear, really did not speak to this issue at all of having an economic development incentive recipient come back at some later date to then request their sewer. So that's why this one is treated differently because it it really is tied to an economic development incentive and the policy did not clarify exactly what would happen in that kind of instance because well we can't think of everything. So um that's why this one's a little bit a little bit different.

Great. Okay. Thank you. And then I think our next item which Valerie you can explain is to fix that.

Yes. So, um, as I said, the economic development policy portion of the sewer allocation policy, um, really did not, uh, think about or have any any, uh, direction for how to handle when an economic development recipient uh, comes back at a later time and requests sewer allocation, more sewer allocation than they got before, new sewer allocation, whatever the case may be. And um pursuant to city council's direction, we are offering um an an addition of language to that policy to clarify that any allocation awarded through the economic development process shall be based upon the amount requested by the applicant at the time of consideration of the economic development incentive. Any additional request subsequent to the approval of the economic development incentive shall be required to submit an application and proceed through the allocation process that is set forth in the sewer allocation policy. So the idea is that if this occurs again this kind of request would be moved back to the other side so that it's treated like a regular sewer application for allocation. So, so in layman's terms, anybody going forward with the exception of what we just discussed prior gets in line like everybody. Cor,

correct? They submit an application. Okay. Like like any other applicant for allocation. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Thank you. Okay. We move now to consider adopting changes made to the mayor and city council operating principles document. This is part of our discussion that occurred at our retreat a month or so ago and as are the next couple of items and I'm going to turn it over to the city manager to talk about those.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, as as you stated, council at the retreat earlier this year did discuss four separate documents that belong to you uh that are administrative and procedural in nature procedural in nature and three of those council saw fit to make some changes. Uh and these are presented as three separate items to you. So, the first one item number 11 is the uh city council operating principles document. And so, that is on the screen in front of you. You all have received uh copies of the proposed document changes uh with it being redlined and strike through. The striketh through being the items that are proposed to be removed uh and the uh red letters are the items that are proposed to be added to. And so that is similar to the other two documents as well. Happy to answer any questions about these operating p uh principles that council may have. But again, you've seen these these documents in the past. questions or comments.

Okay, move on to the next one. All right, so the next one is the rules and time limitation for public hearings document. Again, similar to the previous document, what you saw uh is the proposed uh changes that was discussed at the retreat and then subsequently reviewed um by you as well. And so th that document is on here for your approval on Thursday night. Happy to answer any questions. Um, if council uh has any questions or comments. Yeah. And I think this kind of just clears up a few foggy things about making sure everybody gets their appropriate time to speak and so forth.

Mhm. Okay. On to the next one.

So, in the last documents, it's a little bit different. Uh, it is recommended with some changes. Uh but there is a small little nuance at the very end of this document that says no changes can be made without 30 days elapsing. Um so uh I'm presenting this to you tonight for your consideration. However, no action will be taken on this Thursday night uh to allow the 30 days to surpass it will it will be on uh and show as old business uh on your April council agenda. Then at that point in time at the April regular meeting, you can take action uh to meet the u the uh the lettering in the documentation itself. Uh and so again, uh this is a little bit more of a lengthy document, but just really talks about the procedures that council has uh for council meetings. Uh how the the agenda is worded. Uh so a few changes there, a lot of um just uh grammatical things uh more so than anything, but there are some other substantive changes. So again, some strikethroughs, some also some added items as well. So happy to take any questions that council may have based on your discussion.

Excuse me. I did have a a question um that I somewhat discussed with you earlier today, Lloyd, after I read through it again. Um I have a little bit of a pause on items J and K. And I think we just passed it. It's I think it's under the um public hearing section under the agenda on the it was page 70 in all of our Let's see if I can I think you passed it. Go back up. I think it's back up. I think it's under agenda. So, I think you've passed it. Um, I just think in light of some things that that have happened locally and and some cases that that we have read, I feel like everything about this is okay, except I would really like us to consider citing the actual state statute that speaks to this. I think that leaves a little bit of um little bit of openness there as to what defines decorum and um just I I think we just might be exposing ourselves a little more here than than maybe we should.

Where's the specific ask? We can pull it up on the screen. Can Who who's doing running this? Can you go back up just I think on this document it's on the second page of the rules of procedure. Uh we had a very large area that was marked out. Item G. So go to page two please. Two after I think it's under public right here. There you go. It's items J and K. Okay. So those J and K is staying and the items above it. G H and I is being proposed to be removed. Yeah, that's correct.

All right. And so I read over those a couple of times and I wish we could leave that part in there about not having a, you know, wearing mask in here other than medical mask, but okay. Um, but the ones that really caused me to pause are items J and K there. And I just feel like we should in light of some some cases that we talked about at our retreat and some other things around. I just feel like the state statue should be referenced there. And I think that if we did that, I just think it's more clearly defined um what defines decorum, if that makes any sense. The state statute is 143-318.17. It's disruptions of official meetings and it pretty clearly defines it. It basically says the same thing here, but I just feel like it ought to be cited. Um and that would be the the change that I would ask that we would make that we would just cite that state statute just for clarity if for nothing else.

Yeah. C and certainly council can make any changes that you deem necessary. And I brought a copy of that if you all are interested in reading it. But I just think it keeps it very clean. It defines it. It's not making us look like from this seat that we're bullies or just going to throw someone out because we feel like it. I just think it's very it adds a lot of clarity in my most humble opinion.

Any other comments? Yeah, I think the concern that I would would have with that based on the discussions that we recently had with the school of government are the recent cases that uh uh that have have changed some of those things and I think there's a lot of that that's up in the air. I think if we cite the state statute uh this that is subject to change at the whim and fancy of the general assembly which we might not even necessarily be informed about. Betty, did did you have something

that I guess I was thinking about the case of the um gentleman in the back of a council chamber somewhere that held up a sign and you know I think that actually went to the Supreme Court if I'm not mistaken, Valerie. I think you sent this case to us. at least four.

Yeah, it it went pretty far. And that was where where I was really thinking that I just thought, you know, if we site I see your point, Steve. I think you're exactly right that um you know, it that statute could change and and we would not know that. But there again, I just feel like having somewhere something cited that says this is what we're basing this on. It it again, I just feel like it more clearly defines it. But, you know, it obviously we're we will vote on that. But I I just felt like that when I was reading through it again today, that that jumped out at me and I thought that doesn't look as clean as I feel like it it should look. So, that was that was just my thought on it. And I was just going to ask if you all would consider us adding that or some type of verbiage that says where we got this, you know, the basis for that.

Right. Okay. Other questions or comments? So, very quickly, this is not on our agenda for this meeting. It's it's correct. I'm simply presenting it to you tonight for consideration. Unlike the other previous two documents, they can be actioned on Thursday night. This one will not be actioned until the April council meeting, the regular council meeting. In in answer to Lor's question, it'd be nice to have our attorney look at that and see if this was a useful addition or not or if it would create more controver more more confusion.

So, it I do not believe it would create more confusion. Um, I also don't know that it's strictly necessary. You can adopt whatever rules you find are appropriate for your proceedings. You cannot violate the stat state law regardless of what your rules say. So as long as the rules are in alignment with the state law, no problem. Fine. You can have whatever rules you want. to the extent the rules become out of alignment with state law because of a change from the legislature or or interpretation by a court. What that simply means is that you can't interpret your rules to violate state law. So from my perspective, you you can if you want to. You you don't I mean it doesn't

doesn't really have an impact. Is that what you're saying?

From my perspective, no. Now, does it make it could someone read that and I mean maybe um but from my perspective I don't think it makes any difference really whether you cite it or not. Um, so a lot of times we'll have something in in city code that we'll cite to a statute and the statute will or a different part of the code and the statute will either change or go away or the code will change or go away. The code section Kevin's looking at me with that expression on his face because he knows exactly what I'm talking about. And then we struggle with, you know, we're citing to something that doesn't exist anymore. So how does that change? and then we have to go back and do an amendment. It's just it sometimes it works out for the better and sometimes it works out for the for the worse. So, it's just hard to predict.

I appreciate that clarification.

Okay. Anything else? All right. Then we will now move to our consent agenda. And I am not aware of anybody that has asked any questions or expressed any concern about any of those items. So that takes us to that completes our agenda and we do have need of a close session. And so I would entertain a motion to move that we go into close session pursuant to North Kai general statute 143-318.11A3 and 4 in order to consult with an attorney to protect the attorney client privilege and to discuss the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by this public body.

So move mayor second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say I. I'll oppose. No. We are now in close session. Thank you.