City Council Work Session - Regular Meeting

Good evening, council. We'd like to call our April 13, Fayetteville City Council meeting in order. We welcome those who are joining us in the audience, those who were joining us remotely. We thank you for doing so. At this time, as with every meeting, we ask that pastor, honorable former council member, bishop Larry Wright, if he would come and lead us in prayer, the pastor of Hill, the land ministries, ask that all would please stand for the prayer immediately following. If we could repeat the pledge of allegiance. Bishop.

Thank you, mayor. As we stand here today, going before the Lord, before the opening of this city council meeting, prayer is essential for what is going on in our lives, in our city, and around the world. Let us pray. Heavenly father, we thank you as we gather here in city council. God, we're seeking your presence, your guidance, and unity.

As we commence this meeting, lord, we pray that you would help us set aside all differences and work together harmoniously for a better city. God, we thank you. As we behold your goodness, may your blessings rest upon this council. Allow them to make decisions that honor your will and benefit the citizens of this community. As Proverbs sixteen and three says, commit to the lord whatever you do, and he will establish your plan.

We commit our actions and our deliberations to you today, trusting that in your wisdom, will guide this council in all matters. Grant us discernment and clarity as we move forward in this great city. We invite your presence here tonight among this meeting. May your spirit guide them in discussion and decisions and actions. We acknowledge our need for your wisdom and your discernment.

God, we pray also for our military. At this time, in the Straits Of Humans, militaries are gathering together. We pray, god, for our soldiers that may be in harm's way. We pray for their safety and their families and their safe return home. We pray god for our president and his cabinet.

Give him the right decisions, the right insight, the wisdom to surround himself with leaders that will give him the information and have the courage to speak truth to power. God, as we here in Fort Bragg is our neighbors, god, we pray for Fort Bragg. We pray for the generals and those in command. Now, god, we pray for the staff of this great city, city manager, and the great staff, and all the employees that work in this city. The strategies, god, that is our priority, safety, housing, youth, economic growth for jobs, and transportation.

Lord, this council has a great responsibility. God, I pray that you would be with them. Bless the mayor and, god, this council for they have a tremendous responsibility. Let them be as one as they make decisions for the betterment of all the people of this city. And we bless you and we thank you in the precious name of he that we serve in the mighty name of Jesus the Christ. Amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the

republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, bishop. We all know you. You've been past in a long time. I understand twenty seven years today.

So Yes, sir.

Let's give him a round of applause. Twenty seven years of of ministry. Yes. And we thank you for spending your your your pastoral anniversary with us. But tell us a little bit about yourself and your ministry.

Well, you know I'm not a stranger here in this chamber, and we honor all of you. And, of course, we've been in ministry here in the city for twenty seven years, and we're going to be celebrating this week, Friday and Sunday. And we just want to invite all of you to come out to be with us and to celebrate our twenty seven years here in the city. Of course, the lord blessed us tremendously, and I just want to let everyone know that Fayetteville Technical College students were tremendously helpful in us putting together that facility. So they have a program there that the students can get hands on there with nonprofits, and we took advantage of that, and it really works.

Our ministry really focus on the word of God, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and sharing his love and sharing his word with the community. We have outreach. We give our clothing. We feed, and we do all of those things that's necessary to help our community to be all it could be. And so I look at what you do as ministry as well, and I looked at my time on the council as being a pastor on steroids because that's what you do on a daily basis. You serve. God bless you, and thank you.

Thank you.

And continue to pray for us.

Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, bishop Wright. That, I'll go to council member Davis for an announcement.

Thank you, mister mayor. So just wanna announce to the community that Fayetteville Next Advisory Commission is having a next generation business submit submit on April 21 from 10AM to 4PM. It will be held at Fairfield State University Randolph Jones Student Center, where you can explore opportunities for personal and professional development. So please check Fayetteville Next page out on Facebook and sign up and join the summit. Thank you, mister mayor.

Yes, sir. Always looking forward to Fayetteville Next and great work they're doing in the community. Counsel, with that, we will move to city manager's report, mister Hewitt.

Thank you, mayor and members of council. Good evening. Two quick announcements and an introduction. We're pleased to announce the kickoff of the Office of Community Safety safe space activations this summer taking place this Friday, the seventeenth from 5PM to 7PM at Massey Hill Recreation Center. Resource tables will include the approved project, Marius Maximus, the Cumberland County Health Department, Fayetteville Urban Ministries, and additional community partners with food provided on-site.

We invite residents to join us as we create a safe engaging spaces for youth and families across our city. Again, that's this Friday from 5PM to 7PM at the Massey Hill Recreation Center. Also later this week, we'll have our next dug in the district where we'll be hosting in District 3. We'll be taking place on Thursday, April 16 from 6PM to 8PM at the Country Club Drive Church of Christ which is located I think at 651 let me pull that

up real quick. Country Club.

Country Club Drive, 51 Country Club Drive. Again, dug in the district this Thursday from six to 8PM at Country Club Drive Church of Christ. At our previous engagements we've had, we've had great turnout and looking for a very engaging opportunity to meet with many of our residents and go through them go with them through some budget exercises that we hope to be able to help inform the council in your decisions in the next couple of months as you make priorities around the city as well. Hopefully, the residents will be able to give us information that we can share with council at that time as well. And with that, mayor, I'd also like to ask chief Kevin Dove to come forward.

It's not very often that we bring new firefighters to you, but we have a special introductions he'd like to make tonight.

Chief. Good evening, mister mayor and counsel. These two employees along with PD's Archie are probably well, I know they are. The only employees that we have that you can hug on, love on, kiss on, and not get called to HR and catch a charge. I gotcha.

So, we're happy to we know I think the residents realize you all's ongoing commitment to mental health in the community, but also I wanna shed light on your commitment to mental health with our staff members. And I say staff members because these guys are available to all city staff, PD, 911, anybody that's has an event that needs some extra attention. But this is Griffith. He's our senior man, our senior dog. We got him in July.

This is Madison who's taking care of him today. Haley, his normal handler's on vacation. And Lucy here on the on my left is our newest dog. She came last week, and this is Spencer Rowe, her handler. And Lucy and Griffith work on shift. They ride the fire trucks. They do everything with their handlers, and I wish the rest of my folks listened and did what they did. But it is what it is. But we just wanted to recognize them and recognize you for your support to our our staff, so thank you.

Well, we appreciate it, chief, and thank you and welcome you all, and particularly the two of you, but chief I'm a little upset you left off the mayor and council. We have tough days too, so where can we We find these

can we can have them up here as well. I'm gonna schedule

my appointment

this week. I don't know, y'all have some.

And Mr. Mary, you and wife can pick up Zena anytime you want, we're right around the corner.

But we also, we're expecting our third dog probably early fall, we'll have one on each shift.

Okay.

But we greatly appreciate you all's commitment to our staff.

That's good. We appreciate the work you all are doing and welcome them to the team. Let's give them a round of applause. Alright. So council, we are moving to the approval of the agenda. Council member Jones, are you there?

Yes, sir, mister mayor. Thank you.

Alright. So council will move to approve the agenda. Antenna motion to approve. Alright. It's a motion by council member McMillan. Is there a second? Second by council member Green. Discussion? Alright, council. I look to you for your votes on the sheriff system. Council member Jones, what's your pleasure to approve the agenda?

Green.

Oh, Green. Alright. Councilman McNair? Jesus got a vote tonight now. Alright. So motion carries unanimous agendas approved. Movement is seven point o a, the consent items. Counsel, if you could as you consider this, remember seven point o eight two if

Yes. Mister Mayor.

Yes, ma'am. Councilman McGree.

Thank you, sir. I'd like to pull 7.082 and put it on a work session for further discussion.

Alright. So there's a motion to approve with exception of that item. Was there a motion to approve the rest of it?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. There's motion to approve with the exception seven point o eight two second by councilor Mujandro's.

Yes. And can we specify May's work

session? That's fine with me.

Okay. It's a motion to approve with the removal of seven point o eight two going to a May upcoming work session. Any discussion on the motion? Alright. Council looks here for your votes.

Green.

Alright. Motion carries. Unanimous. Alright, council. Moving to item 8.081, financial update. I see the CFO in the queue, ready to go. Good evening.

Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight, I have the pleasure of presenting the city's financial update. It has been a pleasure for me to serve the city as its CFO, leading the finance department here for the city of Fayetteville. As you know, I joined in March 2025, joining the city with eighteen years of local government finance experience serving in counties such as Mecklenburg, Wilson, Gaston, and Durham. It's been a pleasure serving, and I've enjoyed my time here at the city, And I'm looking forward to many years to come.

As we prepare to go through the financial update, this is a snapshot of what our current performance is through February 2026. I just wanna start off by saying that the city is in a strong financial position. We are

stable I beg your pardon? Strong

financial position, stable, and we are operating as expected. So as we start off, I wanted to just highlight our fund balance analysis. Again, this is where we ended the fiscal year 2025. Just a refresher for you all because we've already gone through this data when our auditors came. We ended the fiscal year with a overall fund balance of just a little over a $102,000,000 When we factor in our nonspinables, our restrictions, commitments, and assignments, we are have an unassigned fund balance of just a little over almost $27,000,000.

Again, just want to emphasize, this is a strong financial position. As you know, our current policy is that we have a minimum unassigned fund balance policy of 10% with a goal of 12%, and we ended this the fiscal year slightly above that goal. As we look at the current fiscal year and our adjusted unassigned fund balance, we are at 16%. However, I do want to bring to your attention that this board did take action late fall to appropriate some funding for the Stadium View project. So although we are at 16%, that number is not the same since there's been some additional appropriations.

As we move forward, we're talking about our cash flow, where we're at currently as we relates to our revenues. As you can see from this slide, where revenues are trending comparable to prior year. If you're looking at this particular slide, the the numbers or the bar chart in blue is 2025, where 2026 is in red. Our revenues are strong. We are about $11,000,000 more in revenue this year than we was last year, but this is largely contributed to property taxes.

We expect to be a little bit more cash flush at this time of year since we have seasonal collections as it relates to property tax collections. Our heaviest

it over And

trending close to prior year. Board This is just another snapshot of our general fund revenues, showing our revenues by sources. And as you can see, as we spoke earlier, when you look at our Avalor and taxes, this is showing how we're actually collecting and trending a little bit higher. That Avalor number does have PWC payment in lieu and taxes in there, so that's one of the reasons why it looks like we are over collecting versus what was budgeted on Avalon because payment in lieu and taxes is included in that number. If we look further at our restricted intergovernmental revenues, that's performing very well as well.

One of the things to note here is that sales taxes included in that number, and we're trending as expected. We did, however, project based off of the change in methodology with this county that we will recognize a little bit less money in sales tax, and that's reflected here as you can see that those numbers are down over last year. One other thing that I wanna just point out is, you know, functional revenues is down as well. That is due to negotiations with the county in regards to the the memorandum of understanding related to the park and rec districts. That agreement has not been signed as of yet and so therefore, we have some lag in revenue in that area.

As we come over to our expenditures, just taking a look at a little bit more detail at our current expenditures. As you can see, our expenditure drivers and where we seeing changes are directly derived from our salaries, operational expenses, and professional contractual services. But overall, our expenditures are trending as expected as compared to last year. Here, you can see when we're looking at salary and benefits, the the driver where we're seeing the increase here is related to public safety, salaries, annual increases for employees, and again, the board has made a commitment to employees with making sure that we increase the 1% additional for April. So that's reflected here as well.

As we look at our contractual services, the things that's driving that is the board commitment to public safety when it came to body cameras and also the capital program management that we have with Frist and Nichols. Operating cost is being driven by software licensing and data storage increases, and so that's where we're seeing the increases here. And then as far as our cost is concerned as relates to our other charges and services, we're recognizing a savings here due to the fact that when this county changed their from a per capita basis when we was under per capita, there was a portion of that revenue that we had to remit to the county. We no longer have to do that. So although we have a decrease in that revenue source coming in, we also have a proportionate decrease related to the fees that we was paying out as a result.

This is just another snapshot of the part of expenditures. This is by departments, and the thing that I want to highlight on this slide is that we are showing our expenditure comparison by department, but we also want to highlight that we have a vacancy rate of 10.7%, and that represents a 192 unfilled positions with an estimated total cost associated with that of $9,500,000 in savings to date. Our budget office had done a great job estimating the vacancy savings, and this is what we're seeing in the $9,500,000 is slightly above what was budgeted at one point at $9,100,000. These savings, I wanna directly tie to the department inability to be able to post a recruit. We we actually encourage departments to post and fill positions.

However, you know, the city is a great place to work, and our goal here is to retain employees with a focus ideally on having employees to be in their positions tender about ten plus years just to help from a stabilization standpoint when it comes to retaining and recruiting employees. And so one of the things that I wanna ask the council to consider as we are looking towards the upcoming budget year is to consider a comp study. We need to remain competitive in the market when we're recruiting and retaining talent. And so I know that this council has been committed to comp studies for our public safety departments. But we're asking that you will consider the same for our non public safety department.

The last comp study has been five years ago, so when it comes to recruiting and retention, we're five years behind on those salary projections and where they where we should be in market. Another thing that I want to highlight on this slide is I want to well, I shouldn't say highlight, but I want to say is I want to apologize for the confusion over the payroll communications that was coming out that was we talked about the last time we was together. And I want to say that we finance is trying to do a better job at communicating and communicating out amongst the organization. And so with full transparency, we send biweekly emails, which is the best practice to employees to ask them to review their paycheck stubs after we run payroll each each payroll. So, again, I apologize for any confusion that may have made or brought up for council.

But again, strong financial position that we find ourselves in here at the city. So other financial matters and things that I want to highlight for the board. As you know, we well, you may not know, but we've talked about we was in the process of issuing geo bonds for the 97,000,000 voter approved authorization that took place. We issued the $40,000,000. That sale took place on March 24, and we actually closed on that on tomorrow.

In preparation of year end, one of the things that we're doing and we're focused on in finance is our year end close coming up, planning in preparation with that with our auditors. We're also as part of this current year audit, we have to implement GASB one zero three. And what that means for the board is that whenever you get your 2026 financial statements, the budgetary information will be presented differently. That will be in the required supplemental information section and not presented as it has been in the past. That is a requirement that we have to do, and we have to implement that in the current fiscal year.

We also, in preparation for a year end, we're gonna be continuing to monitor our spending, working with departments on closeout, and making sure that we end the year strong. We are also looking at a possible revenue bond sale in late fall related to stormwater projects. And so as we continue to review that, we want to make sure that when we make recommendations for sales that we're reviewing the market and we put in the city in the most favorable position when we go to the market. And then our next financial report will be at the close of the fourth quarter. That will be with our financial audit, and we will bring that to the board once the audit is complete.

But again, I want to reemphasize to the board that the city is in a financially sound position. And as you know, since I've been here, a few things that we've done throughout the year, we in January, we had the credit rating agencies come. We did our interviews with them, and they affirmed the city's credit rating. Our audit was completed on time. Our auditors came in February, and they issued a clean opinion.

And then we also had our financial advisers come and speak to the board to affirm the CD's financial strengths. So I just want to continue to reemphasize to the board, you know, we're in good hands. We're moving forward in the right direction, and I will take any questions at this time.

Thank you, miss Murray. I did have I did have a a question for you. You mentioned in there that the city did salary comps, And so I know we've done it for police, fire, public safety related. How about some of the other areas that that we were looking to stay competitive, like our planners, our engineering, you know, some some of those other areas. When you do a salary comp, do you do it organization wide or is it specific?

Well, most organizations when they do a salary comp, they do it organization wide, so they don't typically keep it specific to a particular employee population. And then once they do that study, what they do is they develop a process or a policy to say, I'm going to review x number of positions every year so that they keep it refreshed. So most of the time, it's a third, a third, a third, so that every three years, you're getting a refresh of that data. But it's typically you you typically don't wait five years. So our general employee population has not seen a comp study implemented in five years.

So that means that we're lagging five years behind as it relates to compensation. So I think it's imperative in recruiting that we stay competitive

No, I agree. So so you in in other words, guess the long story short is you you've you've fixed that that that lagger that we check-in it. Do you have the proper budget or you recommend I guess that'd be more of a HR manager question. So you just keep up with the money that's in and out. So, miss mister manager, how are we on that in some of those other areas that will you know, that's very competitive?

We had a practice of where we were doing, I think it was 25% or maybe a thirty, thirty, third. And we still do those selective studies when we have hard to fill positions. But with the council's support over the last couple of years, we've been moving employees 4% of midpoint as well as adding an additional 1% for four zero one k for a total of for most general employees of 5% per year. And while that is not necessarily always kept up with the market, we agree I agree with miss Murray that that is something that we are going to take a look at in the upcoming year. But our salaries, what that means is that when we're bringing people in, we have to bring them in higher than the minimum.

Okay.

We do

that. Alright. Council member Jones.

Yes, sir. Thank you so much, mister mayor. Thank you so much for the report. I have a few quick questions. First, I'm glad to hear that we do have a strong financial health for the city, so that's definitely a charge for us to continue to be, good stewards. So I wanna piggyback off of, what the mayor just said and, the city manager. Do we conduct exit interviews to, ascertain if salary is a major or main contributing factor, for that? I know that's an HR thing, but do we currently do those?

Yes, sir. We do.

Okay. Good. Okay. Outstanding. Next, I wanted to find out, do we utilize, the preaudits for reoccurring purchases? I know, that can be a cumbersome task for your staff. So I wanted to find out, do we utilize, those blanket pre audits for those reoccurring perp purchases? And if so, can you just give the public an idea of what those purchases might be?

When you say reoccurring, can you clarify for me, sir?

Yes. It may be a company that you continuously purchase items from. So instead of continuously doing pre audits for each individual purchase or if you do that, I I would like to know that as well.

So we do pre audits for all services that are being contracted that are over $1,000 right now. We just increased that threshold to $5,000. So anything over $5,000 require a purchase order and require a pre audit. For services contracts, if the agreement is a thousand dollars or more, we require three quotes, and those are flowing through, and they will get the pre audit stamp on it as well.

Okay. Thank you so much. That's why I was getting that just to to let the public know the type of scrutiny that we do go through for lack of a better word. And then lastly, how much did you say, with the new county valuations? How much did that produce for the city so far? Was that 12 or 13,000,000? And then second, was all of that based on the or was all of that based on the 6% 6¢ above revenue neutral rate? Because I know that the tax rates are going to effect, like, in September later in the year.

So I don't have the exact dollar amount of how much it produced. I will have to break that down. There's more included in the Avalorum number than just the property tax. It is also included in there to the mister Yates is coming.

Thank you. Thank you for

the question, councilman, and good evening, council. When you see the increase in the revenue, that is driven off of the tax rate. If you remember back to the budget discussion, although you weren't here, councilman Jones, if you remember watching that, we set the rates based on the valuation at the time. So all of the growth in the revenue is based on the valuation change and the rates as a combination.

Okay. Alright. And I understand you don't have that number. I would like to I can get that, later, but I would like to know what that, that the revenue, that derived from the new county valuation produced for the city. Thank you so much to you both. Thank you, mister mayor.

Yes, sir. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, mister mayor. My question is around the balance of the general fund.

Yes, sir.

We know the state standard, I think, is 8%, we want 10%, but our goal is 12%. How do we get to 16%? And this is equivalent of $9,000,000. What is that being used for? Did you describe that?

So the 16% is if you back out the fund balance appropriation. And that is the adjusted number if we're looking at July 1. But however, I'm prefacing that is the board has already appropriated some fund balance in the current year. So that number isn't exactly 16% at this moment. I will have to do the calculation to let you know what that is.

But that was on the That

was on July 1. Okay.

Alright. Thank you, mister mayor. Alright. Davis. Council councilman Davis. Thank you, mister mayor.

So my question I I guess I don't know I don't know who can answer this question. I'm going back to the comp study, Ms. Tiffany. So you said that we are five years behind in reference to our compensation?

That's my understanding. I've had several conversations about compensation as it relates to me recruiting it for the positions that I had and from the understanding that I have from HRD, and that is our comp manager. It's been five years since we've implemented a comp study.

So I guess, Jeff, we're presented with the budget every year. Right? How do we get five years behind on making sure our employees are paid, and competitive with the market around us? How do we get to this point?

So the I believe the last time the comp study was done was right at or right after COVID. So that'd be right at the five year mark. What we have looked at and what we do partials of from time to time is looking at those high recruitment, hard to fill positions to do, what I would refer to as an an abbreviated study that targets those specific positions. We looked at, for instance, this year, council set aside funding for us to look specifically at public safety compensation for firefighters, police and the sworn positions. So in looking at it over the last few years, we've made some adjustments based on the market, but not a global study as as the CFO is referring to.

So it's not uncommon just coming out of COVID and everything else to be behind in that practice. So we've made those adjustments and keeping up with the 4%, 1% increases are keeping us to that level. But what we're seeing is bringing people in. Instead of being able to bring them in at the bottom of the range, which would be just below market or entry level, we're bringing them in at the market level or midpoint. So we're paying more for employees. You just don't see it in the pay ranges necessarily.

Okay. I look forward to that discussion during budget budget season. Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir. We will absolutely be having that conversation during budget.

Thank Thank you. Councilman Hondros.

Thank you, mister mayor. Can and thank you for the presentation. Can we go to the slide with the revenues?

This one or the the

next one? The one where it breaks down. Where is the which category is the sales tax

in Unrestricted intergovernmental revenues.

Okay. So are we to take away the loss in revenue from the formula used to divvy up the sales tax from Ad Valerum from per capita to Ad Valerum that was 55 or 5,500,000?

No. Am I reading that right? So sales tax overall are performing as expected. Keep in mind that sales tax have a three month lag. So although although we are collecting as expected, they're not fully reflected here because they are we have a three month lag and when we receive the revenue. So we we're not this is what we've received to date, but it's more in that number than just sales tax, if I'm not mistaken.

Right. But I think, councilman, if I can get your quest if I could restate your question to be sure we have the right one. So what you're asking is the sales tax change that the county made going from the population number to the ad valorem methodology. Right. Where will we see that impact? You'll see that impact in the unrestricted intergovernmental revenues. It doesn't account for all the $5,500,000 difference, but accounts for a small portion of it. Because if you remember in 2025, we'd already had some change in that formula and that calculation going into it. So you're seeing the second part of that. If memory serves me right, we have projected that to be about 3,000,000 to $4,000,000 difference going forward.

Keeping in mind, this is only about maybe half of your sales tax for the year because there's a three month lag on that. So we'll know more as we get closer into June exactly how that change played out for the city.

Very good. Thank you.

All right. You had a

Just a follow-up on that, mister Yates, before you leave. So your prediction will come right that the sales tax will be a difference of $3,000,000 and not the $5 that we're looking at?

Can you say

The when you're looking at the number in unrestricted intergovernment revenue, we can absolutely pull the number for you and take a comparison just of sales tax. Unrestricted intergovernment revenue includes other revenues, not just sales tax. So a portion of that $5,500,000 no doubt, is related to the change in sales tax. But I can't speak to all of it being related to that or the exact amount at this point. So we can do some analysis and give that number to you if you'd like. Or when we get closer to the end of the year when we have all the more sales tax data because we don't have that at this point, we'll be able to tell you more specifically. But for sales tax purposes, we're barely halfway through the year at this point.

Gotcha. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, mister Mayor.

Alright. Council, I have a motion, I guess, to receive the report. You had a question? Alright. Councilman Dave. Alright. It's motion by council member David, second by council member McNair. Discussion? Alright. Council, I look to you for your votes. Councilman Jones? Councilman Jones? Oh, okay. Alright. Motion carries.

Alright. Council moving to nine point o one, proposed amendment for unified development ordinance regarding telecommunications and data storage facilities. This will be doctor Newton and team. Good evening. Good

evening. I'm doctor Newton, for those of you who don't know me. I'm development services director. It's particularly good to have a former council member here and what he shared in his prayer and points and talk and the conversations earlier. We are and we try to be very good stewards of what we're entrusted with.

One of the things that is very apparent that we've been working toward is making sure that city council can make the very best of decisions that you can that are informed by policy, that you make the policies and we inform as much as we can in doing that. That said, you had memos that were sent to you after the Planning Commission had heard a series that is now going to be presented back to you from the manager at the March saying, if we normal process, it would be March 23. Do you wanna wait? How should we proceed? You heard that conversation upstairs, and it was continued.

And then in following that, there was a question as to how to go into the work session. There was also a council memo sent from the manager on that. When we had the work session last Monday, we were asked to share the material, share the information that was sent to the and done by the Planning Commission at their February 17 meeting. That material was the same that was included last week, but we also laid it out in the material that you have this evening. You have 18 attachments to this material, trying to give you a lot of the information, some of which you've seen before.

Some of you were at the meeting, most of these meetings that have been involved in this.

The

executive summary that you have from last week's material included a statement about creating distinct development type, the siting, the infrastructure, and community impacts, and that we don't have anything in place now. We don't have anything in place right now. So back in the fall when people were bringing ideas of annexing in, coming into what was already zoned, coming into an area that might change, every single one of those would require decision determination, both appealable but also one that would take quite a process to go through. Being good stewards, we take that mission very seriously to provide the very best of information. What you're going to be hearing tonight is what we understood and will be sharing.

From that material is what the Planning Commission heard. What you also heard in the pre meeting, the inner meeting upstairs, is that we have all this information there available for you, and hopefully we can work through the issues. I want to close with a point before I move forward to thank the senior planners who've been involved in this process. We had three senior planners, all have been involved in it. Craig Harman, who that you normally see, Chester Green, and Scott Walters, each of whom were approached on different things of what do we do with a data center, each coming from different avenues.

Plus, we had Jennifer Baptiste, the ombudsman who works with us on a lot of different items, pulling together and doing this. We also had a person who had recently been promoted to a planner too. And Demetrius Moutos is the one who really spent the time focusing in, but all people were involved in working through how can we give you enough information so you can make an informed decision and come up with something that makes sense. What you have to understand, and I hope you're going to hear that in just a few minutes, we don't have all the answers. There are a lot of things that can be done, but what we do know is that having something in place seemed to be more appropriate than not having anything in place.

There's a lot of options that are available to you. Tonight, in hearing the presentation from Demetrius Moutos, will be his last presentation that he's making because he is one who next week will be moving in into a senior planner to another larger community in North Carolina. So we will continue to do what we can. You usually hear again from Mr. Harman. He's here. I'm also here. And we'll have that presentation by Demetrius Muntos now.

All right. Good evening, counsel. Thank you, Thank you, doctor Newton, for the introduction. So, again, my name is Dimitrios Moutos. I am the planner two here with the city of Fayetteville.

And, yeah, tonight is about TA twenty six zero one, which is telecommunications and data storage facilities, otherwise known as data centers. This is the presentation that the Planning Commission heard in February. Over the last fifty years, probably more, data centers, these types of facilities have shifted from quiet back office buildings to industrial scale infrastructure driven by cloud consolidation, AI computing, data storage needs and all of the above. And so our goal is pretty straightforward with the set of regulations is that we want clear rules upfront. We want we want the applicants to know what's expected them of them if they come in with a data center proposal.

We want the public to know when and how they can weigh in on these things, and we want the city to not be forced to improvise when something comes in and the stakes are high like this. So what I'll do with this is I'll walk you through the package, what it what it can do or what it does and what it cannot do, and then the decision points that'll be there for your review. You'll excuse my voice. I've talked a lot today. So here's the pathway we're gonna take tonight.

We'll just start with a plain language summary of of what this text amendment package does, how it connects to our strategic plan, why we're doing this now, the overall framework, and then each ordinance one by one, talk about the budget impact a little bit, and then, of course, again, your options and staff's recommendation. So the big picture here is that this isn't a data center ban, this package. And it's also not a benefits only giveaway either. It's intended to be a governance package. Okay?

Data centers are growing fast nationally. They have been for some time. They're getting into Fayetteville and this part of the state over the past ten months or so. The Department of Energy and Berkeley Labs, and this data might be a little bit outdated now, about eight months or so, but roughly six to seven 6.7% to 12% of U. Electricity by 2028 could be used by U. S. Data centers. And so when something moving at that scale, that that quick explosion in scale, it's not something that we can just look at case by case. We need to have a use type. Need to have definitions.

We need to be able to regulate it efficiently and predictably. And so this TA2601 does five things. It defines the use clearly so that we aren't fighting over labels, What is a data center? It clarifies where it can be located and what the approval pathway for that looks like. So what zoning district can it be in? Is it gonna require an SUP? Is it gonna be by right? That sort of thing. And then it adds standards for the impacts that people experience on the ground, especially outdoor equipment and noise. Those are the kinds of things that this ordinance can can address.

And then two other things that are pertinent but somewhat it's not unrelated, but somewhat off to the side are the parking and loading standards and the strengthening of the airport area review. So because it's a new use type coming into the UDO, it has to have parking and loading standards, which we've tried to rightsize for the type of use that it is. And then the airport overlay stuff is really just to clean up the language in there to make sure that the review that is already being done is kinda just caught and a little stronger on the front end. So there's not late late stage redesigns when things get caught from that airport overlay review. This is a pretty good point before I start into this relationship slide to touch on something that doctor Newton touched on, which is there are things that zoning can't control.

Zoning can't control everything. This package will not set electric rates. This package will not say anything or has anything to do with building transmission lines. It does not replace state or federal permitting rules or requirements. Requirements.

But what it does do is tighten the parts that zoning can do, which is land use classification, siding, what zoning districts can go into, and then the enforceability of the day to day operations and compatibility of the use. So that being said, this package does support the strategic plan in a very practical way, clear rules that reduce conflict, surprises and long term enforcement problems. These sites do involve high voltage systems and backup power equipment, so clear standards for those reduces avoidable risks that we might have. Predictability helps responsible investment, so clear guardrails, of course, will help protect nearby areas. Early coordination with the city will reduce any sort of reactive infrastructure decisions we might have to make about build out capacity, that sort of thing.

For the live, work, and recreate piece of the strategic plan, this is about quality of life. So noise, lighting, screening, and neighborhood transition pieces, how do we address those? Clear standards will help reduce repeat disputes and complaint cycles, and that helps with being a financially sound city. And then finally, collaborative government transparency and trust. This process that the staff has gone through with the planning commission and a working group has really brought this together.

It's been a lot of collaboration, and I couldn't have done it without them. The the problem that we're fixing with this is, basically, it's just a simple code gap. The ordinance does not currently clearly define and classify this as a use. So the the city could end up in a posture, if we don't have one, of interpretation instead of true governance. And this matters because the national trend line has changed.

Right? Going back to the Department of Energy in the Berkeley Lab, this rapid growth has projections to double or triple by 2028. And that's a couple of years old now, so probably halfway there. So we took an iterative approach to this and worked across departments and partners and aimed at standards that are workable, enforceable, and focused on the impacts that do show up on the ground. The package focuses again on those impacts that people experience on the ground.

So outdoor mechanical yards that these uses might have, generator activity and the testing that goes along with having diesel generators, transformer and cooling equipment, noise, lighting, service traffic, and the visual character of utility scale infrastructure. The key lesson that we learned from peer cities, Charlotte, Raleigh, and mainly in Data Center Alley up in Virginia is that the biggest conflicts are really at those well, the biggest conflicts that zoning can address are those issues at the transitional transitions between these uses in neighborhoods or residential areas. So going along with that, the framework is pretty simple. It defines it, places it properly within the use table, and then manages the impacts that they'll have or could have as much as possible, and then a verifying compliance piece so that we make sure we're not just saying, oh, you need to do this, getting assurances, and not following up with them. So we're going to answer three questions.

We try to answer three questions with this, which is, What is it? So we can stop arguing about labels. Where does it belong? And what review level fits the risk? And then what impacts are predictable and preventable through zoning specifically? And then how do we enforce that? And we're being honest about this. Right? Some of the externalities, utility cost allocation, generation mix transmission, those things sit outside the zoning ordinance. As much as I would like to address those things, they are not possible through the zoning ordinance.

So the intent here is to control what we can control. The package is built as a complete set of tools, complete but imperfect, I'll admit. Ordinances one and two create that clarity and predictable entitlement path pathways through clear definitions and placing it in the use table where it's allowed by right, where it's allowed with an SUP, what additional standards it's required to have, etcetera. Ordinance three actually lists those additional standards and addresses the day to day compatibility and enforcement pieces. Ordinance four presents unnecessary prevents unnecessary overpaving by trying to rightsize the parking requirements for this use.

And then ordinance five strengthens, again, that airport overlay coordination piece. And all of this aligns with basic land use planning logic, which is to place high intensity infrastructure heavy uses where they fit, protect neighborhood transitions, and require deeper review when the potential impacts are higher. So we'll get into the meat and potatoes here. Ordinance one is the foundation of all of this. It defines telecommunications and data data storage facilities clearly, and it separates it it into four use types, essentially.

A data center principal data center use without power generation, a principal data center with power generation, what is dubbed in the ordinance as energy center, and then two accessory uses, one that is wholly internal to another principal use, and then one that is accessory to a principal use but might have exterior equipment or something that is powering or cooling that data center. The data center concept itself is or the energy center concept itself is there because that operating model, being able to generate your own power, does present a change in intensity and the nature of the activity on a data center site. Just imagine you have a data center that's connected to local grid versus a data center that has a gas turbine or something else causing a lot more noise, maybe more emissions, that sort of thing. We recognize the heightened intensity that that could present and regulate it accordingly. So all of these clear definitions and everything, you know, try to prevent the fit it where it can fit dynamic where decisions hinge on which category an applicant argues is closest, and then where, you know, city staff would be required to interpret that as opposed to talking about what it actually does and regulating it accordingly.

Just a few things here to look at. Let's see. Talked about the energy center. Okay. Talked about all these.

Cool. And then we move on to the use table. So after we define the use, we can place the use in the use table and give it entitlements or essentially just tell you know, say where it's going to be allowed to go, what pathway it's going to be allowed to have, and and then reference the additional standards there. So ordinance two will principal data centers, the standard ones without on-site power generation, will be allowed by right in the heavy employment and industrial districts. So business park, light industrial, and heavy industrial.

And then in districts where compatibility questions are more likely, so office institutional, community commercial, Downtown 1 And 2, the universities and colleges district, the use there would require a special use permit, which would mean a public hearing process and discretionary review. And then it would not be allowed in neighborhood scale and residential oriented districts. So neighborhood commercial, limited commercial, and any of the residential districts, of course, not allowed in those districts. And then the with energy center variance, and that's the one that has its own on-site power generation, will be SUP only wherever it is allowed. So where the one without power generation is SUP in those business districts by right in LI, HI and BP, the with power generation would also require SUP in the LI, BP and HI.

Ordinance three is the biggest piece of this package. It's about creating predictable transitions and a lot more of the noise stuff. So if a site borders a residential zoning or a legally established residential use, these residential transition protections would apply. And then it would set clear expectations for buffering and screening, setbacks for major outdoor equipment, keeping larger equipment away from the most sensitive edges where feasible, and trying to make that the most common conflicts preventable before they become permanent. So the biggest things here, we've got a hard compatibility requirements at residential edges.

So for generators and mechanical yards, it'd be 150 feet for the principal use without power generation and then 200 feet for if it does have power generation as well as requiring a type d perimeter buffer when abutting residential. Type d perimeter buffer is the highest level buffer that we have, and we can go to a picture of that if that's desired. On top of that separation, any generators, cooling, mechanical yards that are within 250 feet of a residential abutting lot line, which again, that residential piece for the purposes of data centers includes residential zoning or a lawfully a residential uses lawfully on a property. Think a single family house on CCs that that exists sometimes. They'll be required to be if they're within two fifty feet of that property, they'll be required to have a solid opaque wall that can be up to eight feet unless it's approved via a security plan.

And then in line with our screening requirements that already exist in the UDO, chain link fences with slats would be prohibited. It has to be a true opaque screening for that use. There's a piece here about loading service and openings can must not face the shared residential transition area. This is a piece that staff understands could be a bit hard for for developers to meet. So that is the first and foremost priority, but if they absolutely cannot meet that, then it still has to be screened from those residential transition areas to minimize the noise as much as possible.

Sticking with ordinance three, we this is the accountability accountability loop piece talking about noise. So the ordinance here ties noise compliance to the city's adopted noise limits that are in chapter 17. We're not creating a new noise ordinance in this ordinance. It just ties it to chapter 17. It limits routine generator testing to weekdays, 9AM to 5PM, while still allowing for true emergencies just like our noise ordinance currently does.

It requires professional documentation where the risk is higher and then a post opening boundary sound test. And then if that fails, of course, mitigation and retesting would be required. Going back to Chapter 17, those specific sound limits, it's tied to the commercial audibility and decibel ranges. So this is a use that's going in the use table as an industrial use. The reason it's not aligning with the industrial requirements in Chapter 17 is because the requirements in Chapter 17 are based on building code occupancy classifications, not land use classifications that the use table is.

And you actually want it to be commercial or business as far as the noise ordinances go because that's a stricter requirement than the industrial one is. Those sound level limited for 6AM to 10PM in the commercial is 65 decibels, and that audibility distance from the property line can't be more than 90 feet. And then from 10PM to 6AM, it drops down to 60 decibels at 55 feet from the property line. There is a residential piece there is a residential piece of that noise ordinance as well that we can go over if you would like. So the acoustical documentation, this is where we talk about noise studies.

For the non power generating uses without energy center, just your standard data center tied to the grid, they it's trigger based. So if it's a higher if it's in a higher risk context, so if it's if it's one that requires an SUP, if it abuts residential, again, that's residential zoning or lawfully permitted residential dwelling or it's within 500 feet of a residential district or if it has equipment within 250 feet of any lot line, it'll be required to have the noise study. So there's very little room for them to not be required to have a noise study if they're not generating their own power. If they are generating their own power, that'll always require a noise study. Okay?

And then as part of that noise study, that has to include map sources of the noise. It has to include manufacturer data for the pieces that are making the noise. It has to have boundary predictions for the noise. It has to show compliance on the site plans. And then it has to have plan integrated mitigation for if they fail their post occupancy noise test.

And that post construction boundary sound test has to be done within sixty days of continuous operations. And again, if they don't meet those, they'll have to implement their mitigation measures that came in with their site plan and then retest to make sure they stay in compliance or become compliant. Let's see. That's the biggest thing for that. Let me move to ordinance for two lesser heavy pieces of this ordinance package.

This one is just fixing a mismatch between first of all, it's a new it's a new use, so it needs to have some parking standards. We tried to do something with these new parking standards that our normal parking standards don't do a lot of, which is rightsizing it for the use itself and based on its actual operation rather than just a simple square footage ratio. Typically, data centers are infrastructure heavy and people like. They don't employ a whole lot of people. So instead of that generic one size parking ratio, we base it on the parking.

We base the parking in the office slash support area and the largest shift and allow for a modest visitor component and then set a reasonable maximum unless it's justified via a alternative parking plan. So it's gonna be one space per 1,000 square feet of office, accessory office, or support area, plus one space per employee on the largest shift. And then your parking your visitor parking is three per site plus one per principal building capped at 10 visitor spaces. Maximum parking is two times the minimum unless they have that alternative parking plan where they can prove that they actually need that. The loading standards you'll see here is a little bit different from what the what's in your packet as far as the actual ordinance goes.

This is the one thing that the Planning Commission did change is so instead of loading standard being one loading space per principal building, it's one loading space per loading dock. And that is because one of our planning commission members who has worked with data centers talked about how a lot of these most of the hyperscale ones, the bigger ones, they have these racks stacked from floor to ceiling inside the buildings. And a lot of time they need this second level loading dock that they use a lift truck or something to get into. So just adjusted that from one loading space per building to one loading space per dock to better meet that operational reality. And then the airport overlay.

Again, this just closes a process gap in the overlay. It ensures that compatibility checks are applied more consistently to new developments in the overlay, not just tied to whether a project happens to involve a rezoning. So basically, this isn't really changing anything. It's just cleaning up the language. Currently, how it's written is the earlier review and reporting for things, it's it's higher when it's tied to a rezoning.

So it doesn't mean that if it's not rezoned, it still comes through site plan review and permitting that these things aren't looked at. The airport overlay standards are always looked at. But it just tightens the language to make sure that not just for rezoning, but for every project that comes in, these things get looked at. So there's earlier part 77 for the for the Federal Aviation Administration. There's earlier notification and coordination with that when it comes through on a site plan review.

There's a referral to the airport director when any of the features of any development includes generators and fuel storage that is greater than or equal to thirteen twenty gallons. There's a very specific federal standard and guideline that that comes from. But essentially, it's just moving everything to earlier in the process. Not that anything doesn't get looked at, but it's actually to help make sure that they get looked at earlier so that there's less late stage design changes when it does finally get caught. And then it'll all get caught in the cycle interview.

That's what this change is. And then for the budget impact, there's no direct capital costs, no automatic general fund expenditures. This is a regulatory package. It does not by itself create any capital project or anything like that. The near term impact is mainly staff time for special use permit cases where required acoustical review and post opening verification were triggered, the utility coordination documentation, all the stuff that we normally do throughout our jobs and site plan review and applications and all that other stuff. This will add to that, but that's okay. We're all we're all fine with doing more work. And then these are not your options. That's Planning Commission's options. But the recommended action still stands.

The recommended option is not Option one because the Planning Commission did change that minor thing about the loading dock, so it's actually Option two where they made some revisions and then recommended that to you all. But we support this because this package, we think, is balanced for what the zoning code can do for these uses. It supports investment with clear rules, not ambiguity. It uses a deeper review where compatibility risk is higher. It targets the impacts that are predictable and local.

Equipment placement, screening, noise, generator testing verification. Again, those things that zoning code can do. It also reflects what experienced jurisdictions are doing once the growth accelerates. So going back to Data Center Alley, Loudoun County, after becoming the largest U. S. Data center market, shifted just last year away from many buy right approvals in certain areas towards special exception reviews. So we have some buy right approvals, but we also have a lot of special use permit approvals. That's our trying to strike a balanced middle of the road approach on that. The package also acknowledges the limits of zoning, so some externalities require other tools. Tucson, Arizona is actually a good example of this.

They had some controversy tied to data centers related water concerns, and the city adopted an ordinance that required conservation plans and public review for very large water projects. But this wasn't because their zoning laws or regulation failed. It's just because they recognize that some impacts need a separate policy lever. And that's the point that I'm trying to get across is that some impacts need a separate policy lever that can't be done in this ordinance. And finally, the broader point, you know, communities are pushing back when they feel the rules are unclear and incomplete, and that's wonderful.

This this is this ordinance package gives you something. You don't you don't have anything at the moment. There are three pathways for this. There is the one where you accept a package that gives you regulation for data centers. There is one where you do nothing and data center decides they don't want to wait and comes in and requests that interpretation that goes to the city manager that then becomes an interpretation fiasco.

And then there's the other one which uses a blunt tool to essentially force studying something that's already been studied in the state of North Carolina and doesn't really get us anywhere different than what I'm presenting to you today. That's my presentation. That's what the Planning Commission heard. I'll be here for questions. Demetrius? Demetrius.

Alright. Listen. We're we're gonna hit a presentation. This is not the place for that. You've got your signs, but anyone that that disrupts will be asked to leave, so let's all listen to it. We're here for educational purpose, so you don't need to do that. Doctor Newton, any more disruptions you'll be escorted out. Mayor Colton.

I will. And members of the council, thank you for listening to that presentation. Let me start that again. Mayor Colvin, members of the city council, thank you for listening to the presentation that was presented to the planning commission in February. You also heard summaries of that from last week.

What we've tried to share very clearly, and we truly trust anybody who is listening to this will also take the time to read the documentation that's been provided to you and others to look at it. This ends up being a decision as to what you want to do. And you do not have to go with all the zones. You don't have to go with all those ideas. But what you currently have is nothing in place.

And what you've heard from the professional staff is, here's what others are doing. The land use classification that you actually heard is the same one used by Charlotte. However, we felt that that one had too many loopholes that allowed too many things and not enough standards in place when and if somebody would develop. I hope you've also heard that we are not looking to the idea of solving issues that are also policy issues that are outside of zoning. You've you've heard many of those.

We've tried to present a paper position on some of those items. I know that you're aware of those. But in respect to the council, mayor, manager, we are presenting what we can for you right now. And I will be able to answer questions that you have as well as senior planner or Demetrius Mentos' planner too.

Alright. Thank you, doc. Don't go too far. I do have a couple of questions. Councilmember Green and then McMillan.

Thank you, mister mayor. Doctor Newton, I don't know if this is your question or in ordinance in the presentation, in ordinance number two, it was mentioned and in our packet that we would need to amend the use table. And in another location, it says the named use table. So I'm assuming a data line a data center line with more specifics would need to be added if I was reading that correctly. How long will that process take in just your experience and knowledge and best guesstimate? I can't imagine that would be something that was swift.

What you first, said is correct. It does require naming, coming up with definitions, and so that it's not lost in some of the other activities that are going on. What you heard in part from Demetrius is there are some activities that are automatically allowed. We have a data center inside this building, and it's called our IT department. However, that's not what the signs and people are discussing are on.

We also have where people put in facilities that run their operations across a lot of different states. Those types of data centers are an integral part of their business plans, Nor is that what we're talking about. Some of those things should remain as permitted. And because of that, council member Green, those are the types of things that have to be properly defined, that you'll see that there are definitions in there. The definitions of those type, as well as the others that we've heard and you're hearing about, what happens when they are these hyper scale, these very large ones, and all the all the impacts, and they have external energy power sources.

Their impacts on the environment, impacts on the community, what are those? All of those also require definitions. So two things to answer your question, and then a third to to be to the last part that you had asked. The definitions have to find themselves into part of what you will have as UDO changes. Those have to be discussed if those are acceptable.

And secondly, that's when they then move into the use standards. And they can come in as and they come in different ways. They come in allowed automatically. And I will use the example of what we have in this building. I don't think anybody would oppose the idea of what we have as a data center in this building, which is the IT department in that activity.

However, if we're defining this, we have to parse it so that each one of them are understood. So that would be something that would come in with a P, principally permitted, in certain zones. Others would come in as conditionally allowed, and that's when you were hearing use standards allowed with standards. And those standards were quite extensive depending upon the classification. How long does all that take?

Actually, there needs to be quite a bit of conversation with us working through that. However that is determined by the city manager and you as the board on policy, how you want to approach this. We've given you some opportunities, some ideas. How long does the process take? I would say normally sixty days. And it includes the proper notification, and that would be on the lower side. I think that's given you the answers to the questions that you asked. Alright.

Thank you. Is that good? Councilmember Green? Yes, Councilmember McMillan?

Yeah. Thank you, mister mayor. Yeah. Per our our discussion upstairs at the dinner meeting, I'm prepared and intend to to make a motion to have a similar presentation on moratorium for the council. Before I make that motion, I wanna say thank you for the work that you presented tonight.

We're in alignment on the fact that something needs to be done prior to these potential harmful potentially harmful industries coming into our town, our city. What we've heard from our neighbors is that a moratorium could give us that pause to make a comprehensive plan to address all of the things that that you referenced in terms of risk, in terms of harm that this part of our staff is is not prepared to address tonight and nor should you be. It's not not your lane, not your wheelhouse. But prior to making that motion and prior to discussion on that motion, I I don't wanna shortchange you all and the work that you've done. I would like to make some space for my colleagues to ask any additional questions that they have based on the information that you presented tonight.

So if you could come back to me,

mister Yeah, I will. I'll circle back. Appreciate that. Yeah, was gonna suggest that. Doctor. Newton, told you you might not get to sit down for a little while. So so right now, just so I understand and clear, if an application came in tomorrow because there's nothing in our current ordinance, how how would it be handled?

The way that the ordinance is structured in it, it actually has this. There's determination as to how it would best fit. They have to give us all the details of what they intend to do. That then is a determination that has to be made by the city manager, and it's an informed decision based off of all the material that's presented. However, what it does not provide it does not provide that we could identify a series of five standards that have to be followed.

And that's what you are beginning to hear in this presentation. There are some standards that would have to come in. So, for example, somebody looks to annex into the city. They would ask the annexation, and part of that would be the zoning. We have nothing that specifically states what zone the use would be.

The biggest part of what we're trying to make sure is that it's very clear so that it's not vague and based off of one person's statement and that it has a position that is enforceable. And I think what you, hopefully, what you all have heard us talk about is let me back that up and say it a different way. Three senior planners each had somebody asking about the idea of a data center within a period of less than a month. Each one had something different as to what they're proposing. Some of them were never intended to be what they had proposed.

Others were looking, and what we realized, we don't have this in place. We have to work through the standards. So the current process, sir, is, again, they have to give us all the information. A determination is made by the manager, and that becomes an appealable determination. So people can like it, dislike it, take it through that process. That process, should it be appealed, ends up to the Board of Appeals. That board, as you may or may not remember, is the zoning commission. It is the zoning commission that would hear an appeal. It seems that the policy issues ought to be a policy issue and that this this board can work through those items.

Right. So right now, I guess, to summarize everything you said, it'll be decided basically by one person in order in the manager's discretion consistent with the best information they have at the time.

Yes. And again that's correct. If let me just add this one extra piece. We don't normally have anything like this where it's not identified in our ordinance or doesn't fit. That's why it's in front of us.

Right.

Alright. And and I appreciate it. And and the this is this is a this is a thorough presentation if you take this and you combine what you did last week with explaining the different types of data centers and the amount of power that they use and pretty in-depth information. Where did you all compile this information from? So did you use other communities' ordinances? Did you school of government? Like, where did you how did you get get this information?

If you will. Yes. Many places, mister mayor. The peer cities, so Charlotte's ordinance, Raleigh's ordinance, the minutes and ordinances from Lawton County, and starts with an f in different county in in Virginia.

Fairfax County.

Thank you very much. The Department of Energy, Berkeley Lab, National Laboratory, I believe it's in your packets, is essentially a research paper. Okay. And there are a lot of sources listed in that. Okay. Many, many places.

Alright. So it's pretty comprehensive. Alright. And can I have council member Jones?

Thank you, mister mayor. Thank you, staff, for the information presented. I just have a few questions, and I'll hurry up just to give my counterparts time as well. One, I want I wanna address something that's already been done. For me well, let me ask this question first. What what precipitated the the topic to get to the planning

Text amendments that are not defined, It is a statutorial process that the Planning Commission hears those. It's in January d, but the ultimate authority ends up being yours. And the way that we have handled that and thank you for asking that question because I know your time on that on the commission, that you understand our process is one that requires us to take them through that way. So I'm hearing that I've not answered this question. So, council member Jones, if I'm not answering that, I'll be happy to try it again because I'm hearing it off

to side. Let let me ask it a different way. Was an application submitted which precipitated this this request going to the planning committee? How how did it how did it land at the planning committee? This topic.

I think we have others who think it's an easy

easy answer. Disregard. And listen. I'm a I'm a make a last announcement. We're gonna hear the presentation. We're gonna ask questions. If you can't restrain yourself, we're gonna actually step out. So please go ahead. These are good questions.

I went to the planning commission because we didn't have that as a text amendment, and there was, as it has been widely shared and shown, there was somebody who was proposing something and had gone to the technical review committee back in October as to how do we handle that. And that was that was a very specific reason that it came in. There was also a request by attorneys to, look at it specifically outside of our city attorneys to look at it. Council member

Okay.

And, yeah, that that's where I was going. So so from there, I'm gonna push forward to a few meetings ago when it we we voted on, allowing staff to bring some additional information. It was that time where I became aware of that. So that that's one of the other issues I had. Again, this has been addressed, so I'm not gonna harp on it. But this this is one of the things I think this is not in the day to day, activity. I mean, this goes beyond the scope of of, day to day activity that staff may do. So I think that should have came to all of us, sooner. But that has been rectified, so I'll move on from there. So I had a another question.

Did I hear you say that, mister Demetrius' position will be coming vacant?

Yes. And it has been posted and and advertised. Alright.

Do how do you foresee that that vacant position, as it relates to fulfilling that that basically data discovery and continual process and the regulatory, work that you're doing?

His position is one that he has to handle many things. Started, he was handling No.

I mean, his app the absence, once he vacates the position, how do you think it will affect, the information gathering that you're that you're doing?

Okay. Thank you. I don't believe that it's going to alter our ability to work as a unit, as a team. We fill the gaps when they occur. We have that's why I mentioned the ombudsman and the three senior planners who have worked on it

Super.

As a collective effort. I but any and all input is appreciated. We we will greatly miss him and what he's been able to do just as we have with other people as they have left. But also wish him the best.

Thank you. And I'll go ahead and try to close this out, mister mayor, really quick. But thank you again, all the staff. This is definitely not to diminish any work that has been done. But I had a question. Mister Demetrius and you can definitely correct me if I'm wrong. You alluded to a blunt tool that that would possibly do nothing or something to that effect. Can you tell me what what were you alluding to when you said blunt tool?

Yes. Thank you for the question. That blunt tool would be a moratorium.

Okay. I and I and I I appreciate that. I I appreciate your candidness. And, again, what what I'm getting ready to state definitely doesn't diminish your work. I I could also put forth and, again, this is not a a tit for tat thing. We all have our opinions, and I and I I respect all of those. For for me, with the newness of this, the last meeting or the meeting before, I'm asked another question about the data centers being new and emerging. And one of the answers that I received was, you know what? This is new and emerging. It so it's pretty clear that everybody was still doing their due diligence.

So for me, right now, the blunt tool would be pushing this forward without a moratorium. And so you you mentioned, heard mentioning, control what we can, heard a lot about residential and what basically, what we can. So for me right now, I think we can control one thing, which is the use of of this blunt tool of some sort, so that we can really get this right. I appreciate, again, the work that that has been done. It's not diminishing any of that, but I think, we we have to get this right.

And, again, for me, it just kinda started off kind of kind of, off. Not to say that wasn't correct. And, again, the the work that you've done was tremendous. I did read through, the work work you gave us. It was extremely, extremely, beneficial. So for me, that that blunt tool again, while I appreciate the candidness, for me, that that blunt tool right now is something that we can control. It's within our toolbox.

Yes. Councilwoman,

we gotta bring it in. Got I got another Councilwoman. Just wanna thank so for me, I I will support

staff to organize a presentation and a discussion on potential moratoria for data centers rather than proceeding with the proposed ordinance revisions for a legislative public hearing at this stage. Now, as you all acknowledged, this is not a comprehensive risk mitigation plan. There are more levers we need to place to to to push in order to keep communities safe. I'm in alignment with the need to do something prior to this potential harmful industry coming in. I understand that there are options to avoid this.

I'm thankful for the residents and the organizations who have stepped forward, many of whom are here tonight, to emphasize the option of a moratorium, an option that effectively closes the door while giving the city time to develop a municipal risk mitigation plan. And I wanna bring something into the chamber that was reinforced time and time again, my time as and a leader in the army. Prior to executing a mission, you always do a risk assessment. Always. It's not negotiable.

In the army, we're trained to evaluate every mission against one question above all others. What is the catastrophic outcome? And have we done everything in our power to prevent it? Not the probable outcome, the catastrophic one. I'm grateful for the work that the staff has done, but these U UDO recommendations are really just a foundation.

They're just a starting point for us. I accept this work as a foundation, but also understand the need to seek expert consultation from orgs like North Carolina Environmental Justice Network and the Southern Environmental Law Center, to do things like conduct a grid capacity study, a water analysis, a ratepayer impact assessment, and also especially to hear the voices of communities most affected. Those are just to name a few of the things we're gonna do during this moratorium phase. Before this council takes a final vote, I would like a formal staff presentation on what a moratorium is, what the legal pathway looks like under general statute one sixty d dash one zero seven, and what a moratorium study in that process would require. I've commanded soldiers in combat.

I've stood at the intersection of speed and consequence. What I've learned is that sometimes at great cost.

You gotta you gotta

That the urgency of the moment is not the same as the wisdom of the Mcmillan. I appreciate appreciate that. Right. I'll leave that that motion to be seconded by my colleagues.

So so to repeat, so we're trying to get to the core of what you're saying. So basically your motion is to do what's I'll

say it again. I move that the city council direct staff to organize a presentation and discussion on potential moratoria for data centers rather than proceeding with the proposed ordinance revisions for a legislative public hearing at this stage.

Alright. So I think the presentation tonight as we clarified during the last meeting was that the steps would be, we heard a presentation last week. We said they would come back with a presentation that was presented to the planning commission, which tonight is. And then we said before any action was taken on a text amendment that there would be public hearings and there would be further action. So tonight was a presentation, but I'm getting to where Hold you on a second, I'm clarifying it because we're conflating two conversations as if there were actual clarification. Wait a minute, sir. Please let the floor. I understand what you're saying. I don't need your no, sir.

No, I'm I'm trying

to make sure that the motion that you have in these minutes, because we've had a problem with the minutes being clear with that. So we we're clarifying it so that the the clerk is clear that the staff presentation tonight at the conclusion of that was a presentation. But your motion is is now to have another presentation for the rules around the moratorium. Alright.

It's very clear.

Is there a second? Yeah. No. I got it. But you said a whole lot of stuff that wasn't a part of what was I understand. Alright. So is there a second to staff presentation of of the moratorium and it's not necessarily to implement. So we got mister Pitts here, but we want a staff presentation is the motion on the floor. Is there a second to that? Second by council member first. Alright. Discussion on the motion. Alright. So the discussion that I have is this, council member, there was a lot said in that. One is we've heard right now that doctor Newton said that in the event that an application comes in, we don't have a legal basis.

The process is that it falls in in a discretionary phase where the manager makes the decision. So I think the council's goal is to make sure that protections are in place. So we we I'm in support of of the motion to hear the rules around it and to do the other due diligent things that we would do. For instance, part of in this this tonight was talking about a prohibition of putting this in neighborhoods and sound barriers and making sure it was in high industrial areas. Right now, we don't have that capability according to the presentation as as I understand it.

But so I will support a full review as a part of our job to make sure that we get all sides of every story. But I would say this, that at the end of it, there should be an obligation to put up factual data on both sides. Right? Whether you're pro or against, shouldn't be opinionated. And it takes a period of time that should be reasonable with an outcome that at some point, this body's gonna have to make a decision to vote.

And delays are not necessary the option to get out of having to do our responsibility. So I'll support that motion for those reasons because I do wanna hear more information about all of our options. Alright. And madam attorney, you're you're the legal person because it seems like this will move to your world next. So you wanna talk a little bit about the moratorium and and what it would take for you to come back to us and tell us what the rules are the state says about that?

We are prepared, mayor Colvin, to present on the statute. My office has already provided that to the council, and we're happy to provide it to the rest of the public. Of course, it would not be implemented in a day because it takes

Yeah.

Public hearings at least one, maybe two.

Well, not the implementation, just to present us the rules, know Yes, pros, cons,

rules. Right.

Okay. When So we make a decision, we'll know what the statue says. So you're saying your office has started to gather that. I know you sent us out some earlier today. So when do you think you could have that ready if this motion carries?

Whenever council would like for it to come back.

Okay. Alright. Alright. Council, any other comments or questions on the motion on floor? Mayor pro council member mayor pro tem and council member Hondros.

Thank you, mister mayor. Mister Demetrius, let me just ask you a question to make sure I'm fully aware and educated about the motion and about how we move forward. As I was writing down some notes, I just wanna emphasize on the mega data centers, the 100 or the 200, was it megawatts that they would need. One, if it is in a private area, it has it would have to be self powered, which would still need an SUP, which would still need a public hearing.

Correct? Add on-site power generation. Yes, sir.

It would still need to be rezoned as LI or HI and will still be required to have the noise study.

Correct? If somebody if it has on-site power generation? Yes. It could be in any of the the districts that it's like CC through UC and BP, LIHI, but all of those with SUPs which would come before you.

And what I highlighted was you mentioned about separate policy levers. That would depend on the size of the data center that want to come here.

Correct? Now the separate policy lever comment is in regards to the things that the zoning ordinance cannot do. Electricity rates, water usage,

Got that sort of you. Do they have No. Okay. That's it. Thank you, mister mayor.

Yes, sir.

Council member Hondros. Question. Thank you,

mister mayor. Question on the motion. So if I heard correctly, it was to receive information on the process of a moratoria rather than moving forward with this. Right? Yes. That's that's why I can't support it because I I don't think it has to be either or. It can be both. We can currently, right now, mister Muto's or doctor Newton, either one, we have zero protections in place. Right? So approving these initial protect the restrictions on this type of development and protections that currently are not in place.

Correct? So we could do both. We can we can approve protections that we currently don't have and still receive research on or or the information on the process to do a moratoria.

Something on that.

So hold on a minute. I've got council member Ferguson, then McMillan, then Thompson, and McMillan.

Thank you, mister mayor. I do agree with bringing that information back to council. And I'm a favor because I believe that we we need more time. I don't know what the exact time frame of that would be to look at the continue to look at these potential impacts, both both negative and positive. But what I don't wanna do is to continue to look at this issue from a one-sided view.

We don't we don't represent a group. We don't represent, you know, different entities. We represent the entire community, the city of Fayetteville. So and I say that because many who are against it approach it from a one-sided, and their research is only to strengthen their argument and the positives that are rarely even looked at. So the negative impacts we have received are not even really included in this ordinance because they are water, electricity, air, those things that we cannot control.

Last month well, last week, in fact, Iroh mentioned that in our work session last week that many of these companies are moving or have moved to ambient air as their source of cooling rather than water, which would satisfy the water consumption concerns. Some are looking at solar power rather than electricity, which would satisfy satisfy the electricity concerns. One thing, and I've heard over and over again, is look at other communities who have installed instituted moratorium. But when I looked at it, what I saw was that out of 100 counties in the state of North Carolina, only two, Chatham and Gates County, have implemented a moratorium. There were 551 municipalities in North Carolina.

Only three have initiated a moratorium. With those two counties and three cities together or less population than the city of Fayetteville. So what you have to ask when you look at that is that 99.9% of the municipalities across the North Carolina have not instituted a moratorium in response to that argument. Still, though, I do believe that we need to look at that option, and I think that is the best would be the best thing for Fayetteville. But I would ask the community, as well as my colleagues to take a more balanced approach in looking at this issue rather than a one-sided view that looks only at the potential negatives. Thank you, mister May.

Thanks, sir. Councilmember McMillan?

Yeah. I'd like to speak to both of those. We're up to five now, five different municipalities in North Carolina.

That's what said.

Three counties, two counties, three cities. They all equal less than 200,000 people if you combine them together. So that's what I was saying. Yeah.

Yeah. I appreciate that. This is one of the things I found that's been frustrating living here in this city. We're a can do city until it comes time to do something for our people like this. So it comes comes time to stand for the community in this way. Then all of a sudden, it's what I

I got what you're saying. I second your motion. Yeah.

I appreciate that. I also wanted to speak to to council member Hondros point. This is a discussion. What this is doing, if we can take a look at a moratorium, what other communities have done is use that period to have a comprehensive plan. Basically, it shuts the door temporarily so you don't have the harmful industries coming in, But it also allows you, instead of just biting off the piece that is UDO, that as our colleagues have said so clearly, that's just one piece of it.

And it does not take into account the environmental impacts, the the social socioeconomic portion of this that is harmful to to our communities. What they've done is is they've taken a comprehensive approach to addressing all of these concerns, come back to the community. If they need another moratorium, then they extend it. If they're confident with the plan that they have, the comprehensive plan, then they set that in place with the knowledge that they've done their their due diligence, that they're not negligent in their responsibility to keep people safe.

Alright. Thank you. Council member Davis.

Thank you. I just wanted maybe the city attorney or whomever to answer his question specifically. Mister mister Hondros. Can you repeat your question? Because I don't think anybody answered your question from staff. About the motion? Doing both either and

Yeah. Don't know that it's necessarily a staff question. I'm just saying for us and appreciate Councilman McMillan your your speaking towards the comprehensive approach but the fact of the matter remains, it'll be a future meeting when staff comes back, the attorney's office or whichever staff, to tell us how we do a moratorium where we can move forward with passing the whole time we're getting that information, there's zero protections in place. Right. We can put this putting these protections in place is not a finish line.

It's a starting point where we can we can repeal them all in the future if they don't work. We can revise them and make them better. Again, I don't think it has to be either or. It could be this and that. We can put protections in place and still look at doing a moratorium if that's what we feel is is is necessary. But whenever it's appropriate, I do have a question for doctor Newton as well to pull up one of the other

Yeah. I'll I'll come back to you, councilor Mahendro. I did have a have a a question and and or or more so a comment. It was a question from a colleague here. So googling it, we all do it. I sent a sent an article out today about the state treasury department talking about that AI was gonna be a major part of the state that sets our rules operation. Alright? And so technology is a real thing. And so as you Google moratorium, it says a temporary suspension. Temporary, keyword.

That if, as I asked you before, if this is an item that you don't support because you don't support it, is the moratorium for fact finding purposes? Or is it for something else? Because I'm I'm And and where I'm going with that is is that here, to councilman Mahendro's point, right now, you have absolutely no protection for the community. While while you're making a decision on hearing what the rules are, what the state says you can and can't do, what the moratorium says you can and can't do, and there has been no definition about what the specific outcomes are that you're asking. But I ask you again, my colleague, is there any version of this at the end of period of time, whether it's one month or a year, if you don't support it, you don't support it.

And so the question is, if the information that you just obtained is obtained, are you saying that you will support some version of it?

So it's I may answer now, Mr. Shing.

Sure,

sure. Yeah. So it's amazing how we're digging so deep into this moratorium. I love it. I love it. Thank you Good for that question.

You help me with my

question. This is and I'm gonna pick on you, Robo, for just a just a minute. If you could stand by. I'm gonna preface my statement with knowledge of how this industry moves. It goes to places where there's little to no resistance. It the data center industry goes to places where they can have maximum tax abatements, where they can have maximum range on things like prioritization of the grid. They go to places where they hear elected officials welcome them in, mister mayor.

Yeah.

And what what happens when they do that and when we don't stand up in the ways that we're doing is it opens up the possibility and the likelihood that they're gonna step right in. They're gonna accept that invitation. What I love about what has happened over the last several months is I see a coalition of people that have come together to say we need to pause and we need to to get right before we move forward on this. I watched the county hearing where I saw somebody who was a a decade long veteran in the tech industry come up and say, these are this is what needs to happen. This is how my former industry used to operate.

And I live in Cumberland County now, and I'm gonna tell you exactly what we need to do. And that person actually put forward moratorium as a thing that we need to move forward on. You have people who are deep into the tech industry and you also have people who are anti anti technology, who say, don't need that in my life. I don't need AI. But what has happened is through that wide spectrum of people with different beliefs, we still agree that we need to take our time with this.

That's why you see so many signs up right now saying moratorium. Mr. Mayor, that to your point, that is why you have such a popular movement to regulate, to move towards things like a moratorium. And that's why I'm appreciative that you're supporting this. And I would also like to recognize that there is a motion on the floor.

Right. I understand that. And I also like to recognize that you don't have an answer for my question. Right? You're saying move forward, but you're not given an answer. So there is no outcome that you can support.

So Yeah. I will also say this Yeah. So also say this. When this coalition comes together and we work together as a community for a year to three years on a moratorium

So now that's three we

iron out we iron out the things that make us safe. We prioritize the things that keep our community safe, not what the invited industry is looking Not maximizing their power. Alright. And when we do that, let me finish since you asked

the question. Well, didn't answer it

and you had three minutes.

So we got I've gotta move on to council member Jones.

A question and then cut me in.

I see that.

Council member Jones. I see you.

You didn't answer.

You had three minutes.

I see you. No answer. Councilmember Jones. Councilmember Jones.

Yes. Very quick. Very quick. Thank you all so much. I I let me say this extremely quickly. I do understand. As as is my understanding of the the motion as is, it would still leave us unprotected. So in regards to if someone came tomorrow while we're waiting, there's nothing we could do to stop it. So, councilman McMillan, I would ask if you would be open to receiving a possible amendment to that to add a time frame to that such as six months?

Well Because you would you would have

the motion, just to clarify, council member Jones, is for the attorney to bring us back the rules. It's not on an actual moratorium. So she said she's ready to go.

Okay. Yeah. Alright. Thank you.

The reason I I said I was gonna pick on Robo is because I would I would love an update to to the public in this discussion on what the posture of these companies that have been asking is and how our actions, how our movement might impact that posture.

Council member councilmember McMillan, you got a you got a motion. You've had two rounds of speech.

Oh, now you wanna make

You wanna make the motion We're gonna vote on your motion. Oh, you're I'm passing now. This is your motion. Yeah. I see you. Alright. So, council, we'll we'll look to you for your votes. And this is for the city attorney to bring back the rules. I understand that there was not a acceptance to the friendly amendment, which would have been to adopt, to protect, and then to move forward. So this is just to bring back, moratorium rules. Alright. Council, look to you before you vote on that.

Grange. Alright.

Who we Who hadn't voted?

Council member Jones voted, I believe, yes.

Alright. Alright. So city attorney, you'll come back at the next meeting for past five four to do that. Counsel, so at the end, if there was anything else about this item before we call for a motion to adjourn, was there anything that we want to do with this item? Was it presentation?

I did have a couple questions, mister mayor, if I may.

Alright. Real

quick. Yes, sir. Either

staff member appropriate there's another in our CCAM, another PowerPoint presentation labeled data center evolution v three. Is that possible to bring up to the screen?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'll make sure you tap that. What's it what's who are who's supposed to bring that?

It's part of our CCAM data center. It's the 45678910111314. It's like the fifteenth attachment.

V three?

Data center evolution underscore v three. Right.

That was presented by council or by mister Willie Henry at the last

So that was the last week's?

Right. Mhmm. Is it possible to bring it

up or no?

No. No. It's not him. That one.

So slide 14, I believe it is. Remind me again, sir. Are are these the current data centers in the state?

That is correct. So

Charlotte Mecklenburg has five. The Triad has four. Raleigh Durham, the Triangle has 10.

Correct. Okay. In no particular size, but that is correct. Right.

And then thank you, sir. That's all I have for me. Thank you, Before we we adjourn, sir, mister mayor, we were gonna

Move item 10 o one. 10 o one to work sir. So Alright.

I can move to do

that now. Alright. So council consensus to move 10 o one to work session, which was the public visibility improvement, I think, that council member Jones said. Alright. Show of hands on that. Just so the manager can see us. This is just moving 10.01. Yes. Yes. Alright. Alright. Motion to adjourn? Alright. Have a good