City Council Work Session - Regular Meeting

Most gracious Father, we're so grateful for all that you've given. We thank you for the rain. We thank you for the sunshine. We thank you for protecting and watching over us. Now, Lord, as this great body of leaders guide our city to where we should go next, grant them wisdom, grant them patience, and grant them peace. And grant us all, O Lord, our Savior Jesus Christ, perfect harmony. In Christ Jesus' name we do pray. Amen.

Amen. 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, Dr. Perkins. Good to see you again. We're very familiar with you. All right, let's establish some ground rules early tonight. We have a robust agenda. We want to make sure we can hear from as many people as possible. But we ask that you please, we're going to maintain the decorum of the room. If you are unable to do so, you will be asked to leave. There will be no exceptions tonight. So we hope that everyone can be here to express themselves. We will refrain from personal attacks, disparaging comments. towards specific individuals or one another, and we'll respect each other to maintain tonight's meeting. So with that, we'll ask for your attention. Dr. Perkins, thank you for the prayer. If you could tell us a little bit about yourself and your ministry.

Well, Mr. Mayor and council members, city leaders, I'm with the Mount Pisgah Ministry, where we're celebrating the Nehemiah Project, restoring God's people in God's temple. And as you know, this is a great time for restoration across our great nation. and I just want to take a moment of personal privilege Mr. Mayor to remind the citizens and members of council that Fayetteville has a great history of restoration projects have been levied in our city to bring about this restoration there was a time when no one could vision what a festival park would look like and today it's the hub of restoration for the city As well as no one ever dreamed of a baseball stadium. Downtown Fayetteville, Mr. Mayor, you were part of that. Again, part of restoration. And so as you debate and you decide and you deliberate what our future should look like, I just remind you that we are a can-do city and we should keep moving forward. Thank you for your service.

Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Parkinson. Let's give him a round of applause. Thank you. All right. With that, we have a few brief announcements. I'll go to Mayor Pro Tem. He has a very important announcement he needs to make in order to be able for his keys to work tonight.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that. But today is an important day because 41 years ago, I married the love of my wife. So this is to wish my baby girl, Francine, a happy anniversary. Thank you for letting me do that. Thank you. Happy anniversary.

All right. Councilman here.

Thank you, Mayor. I am so happy to inform everyone that our annual Umoja Festival is just around the corner. It's August 29th. It will be from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Seabrook Park, Smith Recreation Center off of Slater Avenue. It begins at 10. The Umoja Festival is a day of unity An opportunity for family and friends to come out and just have a great old time. It's a culture day. So I would love to, I'm saluting them today and the admission to the event is free in the park. So come on out and enjoy yourself at the Umoja Festival, August 29th. 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Seabrook slash Smith Recreation Center on Slater Avenue. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. And I understand we're joined by Dr. Hewitt, city manager, joining us on teams. Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

Yes, sir.

All right, but we have ACM Yates here and our city attorney. Also, I'd like to welcome Mayor Pro Tem Crumpler here from Eastover. Is he out there, I thought? All right, welcome, sir. Any other elected officials we need to acknowledge? I see a hand.

Hey, Mayor, how you doing?

Good to see you, Mayor McLaurin. So glad to see you all. Thank you for joining us tonight. So councilors, we move into tonight's meeting. 4.0 is the announcements. Mr. Yates, do you have anything?

Yes, sir. Actually, I have a couple of announcements. If Chief Bryan could come forward. He has an important hiring that he would like to introduce to the council.

Good evening, Chief. Good evening, sir, city council, city manager. As we've been filling our vacancies all throughout the ranks of officers, but we're also filling our vacancies at the command staff level. And I'm here to introduce Chief Joshua Wallace, coming and joining us today. Chief Wallace is coming in from Chicago PD. He retired from Chicago PD and went through a nationwide search and he was selected for this position. So I'll let him tell a little bit more about himself.

Outstanding, welcome Chief. Thank you. It's an honor and privilege to have been chosen from the nationwide search to come here and continue my career. This is the only second job I've had in 27 years, and I'm looking forward to hitting the ground running. Everyone has been so nice, so hospitable, and I truly appreciate the welcome I've gotten. So, again, 27 years with Chicago Police Department, worked in many different specialties, and I'm bringing them all here to Fayetteville to help the chief and his team continue to do the great job they're doing.

Well, we thank you, and let's give him a warm welcome, counsel. Thank you.

Thank you, Chief. Look forward to working with you. Thank you.

Sorry, Mayor. No, go ahead.

We also have some folks that are retiring. So we wanted to recognize them and thank them for their years of dedicated service. There's about five folks representing 60 years. Mr. Thomas Farrell, Fire Captain, is retired on July 1st after 15 years of service. Uli Yohannes in our IT project management, 26 years of service with the city. He'll be retiring on the 1st of September. Mr. Cochran, David Cochran, Mechanical Inspector, six years of service. Also retiring on September 1st. And Mr. Christopher Dew, Fire Lieutenant, 20 years of service, retiring on September 1st, 2026. All right.

Let's give our retirees a round of applause. Thank them for their service.

And the last thing, Mayor, for all the public, if you're interested, please sign up for the City Manager's Report. and get all the latest information on city activities. Then that concludes my comments.

Thank you, ACM Yates. All right, with that, well, I guess we had, all right, we covered it. All right, Council 6.0 is to approve of the agenda. We'll go to our sure system, so I'll look to you for a motion to approve. Mayor Pro Tem, there's a motion to approve, seconded by Hondros. Discussion on the motion to approve? Is that discussion? Are y'all voting already? Is that discussion, Mr. McMillan? I see a light on, okay. All right, council, I'll look to you for your votes. All right, Madam Clerk, this unanimous motion carries. Moving to item 7.0, the consent items that Councilmember McMillan.

yes thank you Mr. Mayor I'd like to move that we amend the agenda to pull item 7.0 alpha 11 and 7.0 alpha 12 from consent so your motion is to approve with an up or down vote on 7.0 a 11 and 12. yes and discussion on both items right all right so there's a motion to approve by councilmember McMillan to approve the consented items with the exception of those mentioned is there a second

Second by Council Member Jones. Discussion on that? All right, Council, I look to you for your votes. Madam Clerk? Okay. All right, motion carries unanimous. Item 7.0A11, Council Member McMillan. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You know this is coming. Brian, if you could, Mr. McGill, I would appreciate your presence at the podium, sir. And for anybody that was watching the work session, this was recently discussed. This was a motion that came on from my colleague, the dean, who talked about the need for reducing the speed in this particular neighborhood. Neighbors that had come to him directly had asked him to put in a petition. This was an item that was recommended to be denied by both the city staff and the police department. They looked at the regulation as it was written and made a recommendation. for not approving this. Brian, Mr. McGill asked you to come up, if you could, just to answer questions about why the staff made a recommendation against approval of this reduction in speed.

yes good evening council and working off my memory here so the recommendation not to reduce the speed limit on Blanton Road was made for five reasons the first one was council policy 160.3 which there was discussion at the work session about the phrasing inside of it that shows that it's not necessarily a requirement to go through The second one was the Fayetteville Police Department not supporting the reduction in the speed limit on Blanton Road. The third one was the ball bank indicator test. That is a MUTCD federal highway guideline that shows that all curves on Blanton Road can be navigated at the current speed limit. The additional reason was the reduction in the speed limits that occurred on Ruritan Drive as well as West Rowan. Those have done a before and after study where they were all 35 and they got reduced to 25 and the speeding did not lower, it did not reduce. And so the idea that reducing a speed limit to reduce speeding on the road has not been supported by the data that we have and also the studies that have been performed by the industry. I believe, was that four or five? I lost count as well.

I want to go back to the first reason. Just going by the policy 160.3, is that the policy that you've been using to determine whether or not to move forward?

Yes. Whenever council has made a request to reduce the speed limit, our first answer has always been to go through council policy 160.3.

And if we would have followed through with that policy, what else could we have seen? What else was part of that policy in terms of the process?

From staff's experience, since I've been here with the city, I've not seen 160.3 go through the entire process. From my understanding of it, if we were to go through that process for Blanton Road, we would adopt the same way that we do it with RTMP speed humps, where we would send postcard ballots to the impacted area, and then they would vote on it, yes or no. If it passes the threshold, then we would hold a public hearing for the public to provide comment on reducing the speed limit.

Right. And just a note, as it stands now, we didn't have a public hearing. We made a decision just a week ago in a work session, ended up here without that public hearing, without that full process. I'm going to ask Sheila if you had anything to add to what Brian said.

Yes, sir, I think he eloquently stated that we had five reasons why we had recommended the way we did in the first round of evaluation.

Right on. Thank you so much, and thank you again, Mr. McGill. The reason I pulled this is because we skipped the process, y'all. When folks talk about transparency, accountability, They look for us to follow the processes. The staff looks to us to follow the processes. When we go around it with a vote in a work session to move beyond what the public thinks, to move beyond the process as the staff understands it, then we weaken our own systems. If this does need to be re-looked, if 160.3 needs to be re-looked or reworded so that it's ironclad, so that instead of May, it says will, then we need to put that through policy. But I hate to see us not follow the policies that we've laid out. That is a slippery slope that leads to a perception of corruption. So that's the reason I pulled this.

i hope that uh hope that i'm on board at least with everyone at least on working to ensure that our processes are ones that we're comfortable enough to follow through with all right all right council member here thank you mayor um i would like to move to make a motion uh yeah let me circle back to you okay because there was there was a lot said miss uh sheila mr brian uh brian can come back up for a moment

Now, council, each one of the nine of you represent a community and a district. that fought enough for you to vote for you to come represent them here tonight to make decisions and you're the ones who live in the community you're the one that you represent because that's a requirement you attend your community watch meetings primarily in your district because there are a number of community watches and I visit various districts but I see all of you from time to time there and you know by representing the district which I have before that there are certain specific things that communities ask for that are specific to their needs. And who knows or who is more impacted by speeders on the street than the people who live on the street. So council member here had residents here that night who had asked him to do it. He didn't make it up. He put in a request to represent the people who voted for him to represent them in this very thing. They don't expect you and another eight other people who represent 30,000 other people to be able to understand every single micro issue in individual districts from speed humps to stop signs to barking dogs to junk cars and so typically council member McMillan we defer to the district just like if there's an issue with District 8 with the exception of me I'm familiar with the concerns that your district have raised with me we typically defer to you for guidance on that to imply otherwise simply either speaks to inexperience, or we want to create something that isn't there, because that's our job. So Brian, when I brought the question to you, because I've been doing this for a day or two, and I know my colleague is still finding his way through it, councils pass legislation with specific language. to give it an option. It said that they may use this as a method. It didn't say it was the only method, because you could have very easily said, this shall be the only method. So when I pointed that out, it was not a got you moment. It was to try to give you the spirit of when that was passed. How many years has that policy been on the book, approximately? I do not have that information at hand but several yeah decade or two probably so just like this council understands the context of the discussion when they voted on it I'm confident that the council at that time just like this council and the attorney at that time knew the difference between shall and may so they created it as an option secondly who wouldn't err on the side of caution? Now you use calculations to say, this is the scientific approach that we will use to determine the answer to this. Council Member Herr has to go show up in this neighborhood when somebody had an accident, or the kid almost got ran over getting off the school bus, or someone's dog got hit. that he makes a practical decision to represent what the people who actually live in the street. Because the people in District 8 don't have to deal with the speeders on Blanton Road. And so I think that out of the respect for the council member and the respect that we show one another, that everything can't be a corruption. because you don't understand the process so you don't agree with it. Putting those words out there in the atmosphere is wrong because he's doing his job. You're doing exactly what you're supposed to do, what your district asked you to do. And that's why we deferred to it. And so at that time, the council made a conscious decision to reduce it in a cautionary manner to say that if we can save a life or we can prevent an accident, that we would do that, even though you did your job to give us the scientific approach to it. Correct. So I wanted to put that into context because you're doing exactly what you were elected to do, sir. So Councilmember McMillan, second round, or I'm sorry, may I approach him first since he hadn't spoken, and then second round, McMillan.

Well, I was going to speak, Mr. Mayor, but you said it all in your statement. But let me just add, as the policy chair, We always put in policies that we hope will benefit the entire community. The language the mayors mentioned about may and will was put in there for a reason. But pretty much what's more disturbing is you can't say that we're circumventing the system on one policy, then the next minute you want to do the same thing when it's something that appeases you. So if we're going to be 100%, let's be 100% across the board, not just on certain individual policies, whether you agree with or whether you don't agree with. At the same time, I asked the chief, when does reducing the speed limit is harmful? I've never heard of that anywhere, and I don't think I ever will. So I'm glad that we got to the point where we did the best thing for our community and reduced the speed limit on Blanton Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

All right, Council Member McMillan. Hold on, Council Member here. I think you got some colleagues. Oh, okay. Well, I'll go back to you. Council Member Ferguson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My question is, what is the intent of the process? Could you take us briefly through the process that we're talking about as far as it relates to going out and notices and responses? What is the purpose of sending out notices? It's for those people who are being affected, correct?

Correct. While I was not here whenever the policy was created, if I had to make an assumption, it would have the same intent as we do for the speed humps, where those who might not be aware of council meetings or those that might not be paying attention to what's happening in the news, they can be made aware through mailbox of what's happening inside of their community.

So everybody that is affected by the change would be notified, correct? Yes.

Okay.

And the ones that you made reference to, the speed humps and et cetera, is the language in them also shell or may?

No. I don't have that committed to memory.

Okay. I'm just curious, could you? Because if it's the same, then that makes a huge difference. Because there are a lot of people who, a lot of my constituents who come and want certain things and they just haven't been able to go through that process.

So they can't get it.

I just wanted to know that information to see if it was the same and what the process actually was to make sure that the people who are being affected are notified.

Thank you.

All right.

Council Member Green.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I didn't intend to speak on this tonight, but I feel like I need to, based on your comments, Mr. Mayor. I'm a policy and procedure person. For those of you who know me personally know that that's who I am. For those of you who've only witnessed me from this vantage point, I hope that you know I am, because there's a reason policies and procedures are in place. As I stated during the work session, and I will state again tonight, we need to make the ordinance clear there's ambiguity in the language the word shell the word will um it's one way in one ordinance another way in another ordinance and i think that that tells us we need we have some work to do we are a policy and procedure setting board that is our job so i would be remiss if i did not say that tonight because while i agree with council member hare's desire to reduce the speed limit i don't agree with the method that we got there because it doesn't follow our policy so it puts me in a very um sticky situation because you're torn with what you humanly feel is the right thing to do versus what we could potentially as council member ferguson just said open the door for a lot of people requesting a lot of things and going around um some of the procedures that we would like to see followed um sometimes you make that we make things a little too difficult but sometimes the difficulty is to weed out those who really want the change to happen versus those who just magically want it to change not saying that's the case here just stating that we as human beings tend to operate that way when we're allowed to so um that is my thought process behind how i'm going to vote tonight so i appreciate it

Councilwoman Green. Councilmember Herr. Well, thanks, Mayor.

Just like myself, and it was so eloquently spoken tonight by the Mayor, we had an option within the ordinance. Also, When your residents call you, when they text you, and they tell you what's going on in the neighborhood, you as their public servant try to do it as best as you can to make sure that that concern is met i see some of you in here tonight that i've had to do that for that are shaking your heads at me now it's just how it works during the night that i brought this during the work session i had several members of the community here but we had a long night I don't think we got to the item till about 10 o'clock and they were just tired the residents could not stay so they left and went home since we passed this on the work session for it to come back on the consent today I'm receiving text messages and calls when does it when does the speed limit change when does it go up now everyone around this diocese may not be aware of that because for one thing it's not your district and another thing you don't live in the area you don't have that rapport with those residents there so that's how that is and just for another before i move to make the motion just on sunday and i would have known it earlier if it was for church service but when i left church service In my phone was a text from one of the residents that live on Blanton Road in my Cornbow community saying, Mr. Hare, we just had another wreck on Blanton Road that destroyed property in the curve that I'm speaking of. Now I don't know, I'm assuming that the police were called, I don't know. But that message was sent to me about 7.30. And I didn't get a chance at that time to respond to the residents. So this is how that it works. And Mayor, if I could, I will move.

I still had a couple of more that hadn't spoken yet. Okay. Yeah. So Council Member McNair.

I have a question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to hear from either the policy chair or the attorney. You can't hear me? you hear me yeah okay the policy chair or the attorney concerning the verbiage whether it states shale or maybe it may if possible attorneys the one with the law degree so maybe she can help us out

I can read the policy Council Lady McNair this is the council's policy 160.3 a petition may be submitted by a majority of the residents abutting streets in a neighborhood for reduction or increase of the speed limit upon receipt of a valid petition City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the request and As I read that, this is an option for residents. If residents want to petition for a reduction or increase in the speed limit, this is a way for residents to do this. But this doesn't preclude the council from taking any action it would like to take. Thank you, Madam Attorney.

All right, thank you. Councilman Davis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With all due respect, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. So I just don't understand when it became an issue to represent your district, when it became corrupt to represent a district. So this seems to be some personal issue, the reason this was pulled. So if we can vote at this time, Mr. Mayor, that would be great.

All right, second round. Ferguson, you had a second round? Yes, sir. Yes sir, I just- But yeah, after him. Okay. Council Member McMillan.

Yeah, as I said before, thank you Mr. Mayor.

And we have one minute on the second round, yeah.

As I said before, it's a slippery slope. In the military, we have a term called the perception of impropriety. It's in the UCMJ. It doesn't mean you're wrong in doing something, but a pattern of doing things outside of regulation, outside of policy, can create a perception that you don't have respect for the rule of law or that you are usurping the process in ways that are improper. And I think that's what we run into if we continue to look beyond the policy instead of fixing it and making it clear and making sure that we place our own personal preferences, our own district preferences ahead. And I can say I did see this also in our budget process. Late in the budget process, we got a list of things that were not in our priorities. They weren't in staff's priorities in terms of what should be fixed when. And we as a board did what boards do. We voted that list in, and we went against what the professionals had recommended in a way, to me, that seemed improper. And I would like for this board to see the fault in that, to see how that could be perceived, and then just to do our job and be legislators. It is going to take some time, but let's fix the policy instead of looking beyond it and making up our own path.

Thank you, Council Member. All right, Council Member Ferguson.

Thank you, Mayor. I absolutely support, I mean, that's why we're elected to address the issues that our constituents have. So that's not even really the issue from my perspective. It's that the procedure is set forth so that everyone in that area that is affected has knowledge of it. So say, for instance, you go across that process, and five of the people that contacted are cool with it, but there's 10 people that knew nothing about it, and they're not good with it. So you haven't heard from all the people that are affected in that area. And that's my only concern. And it sets another precedent for others who have been trying to do that but couldn't because they couldn't make it through the process. And now they're saying, oh, well, if you've got a good councilman, they could just take you right across that process. I mean, I'm just saying, that's where I have you from.

All right. Thank you. Well, Chancellor, I know we've called for question. But the irony of the very basis of your argument is that we don't follow the policy that was just read to you and interpreted by what the lawyer said the policy was. So because the policy didn't say what you wanted it to say, now all of a sudden you're circumventing it. or it's corrupt, or it's a process that's not followed. The policy is what the basis of your argument is, which is the basis of why he made the request. It didn't say that this was the only option. What it did, just like a speed hump, because some people on the street will want it, and some people don't want it, and sometimes the fire department says this is not a good place to put a speed bump because it's gonna scrape our trucks. But if there's a consensus, we set up a process that says if there's a consensus of the neighbors in the impacted area, and you get the majority of those signatures, then that is a step toward it. Now every single speed hump is not determined that way. There are times when our public services are called to an area that has problems, Excessive speeding, and they do it all the time. They did it in front of East Smith High School, 1800 Seabrook. You get a number of calls. They say, school lets out at a certain time. They says, we have some traffic calming recommendations. You said that in your presentation last week, didn't you? You said, there are other traffic speed calming mechanisms that we can use, meaning that nothing would have precluded just gentlemen from giving other options. The policy that you're saying we should follow, you're not following it, because it doesn't say what you want it to say. That's not a matter of following or circumventing. That's a matter of accepting what the policy actually says. If you want to fix that, then you put in a council member request and do it. Now, council, we've had a couple rounds with council member McNair. I mean, Davis has called for the vote. So council member here, repeat your motion.

Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the residents of Corn Bowl Community, I would like to adopt the ordinance of Blanton Road speed limit to a reduction from 35 miles an hour to 25 miles an hour.

All right, there's a motion by Council Member Harris, second by Hondros. If you've had discussion, council will look to you for your votes. All right, Madam Clerk, a 7-3, those voting in opposition, McMillan, Green, and Ferguson. Motion carries.

Thank you, Council.

All right, 7.012, Council Member McMillan.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I'd like to call Robo up if he's here. Thank you, and good to see you. Yeah, I have questions about this one. This was, for anybody that was paying attention within the last couple of months, we got first code name, Project Odessa. The council voted to have some sort of abatement in an effort to woo this company, which is a Ukrainian drone company, to Fayetteville. Majority of the council voted to provide that abatement. Got this on our agenda, on the consent agenda, so it wasn't supposed to come to, wasn't set to even come before you. And it's a $500,000 grant to this Ukrainian drone company.

From the state of North Carolina.

From the state of North Carolina. My understanding is there are some city funds that are also attached to this. And I would like, if you could, Robo, talk about how this got here and then also talk about what we,

Your previously approved incentive covers your match for this. So there's no additional funds beyond what you've already committed.

And what is that dollar amount?

You approve the job creation grant of $121,500. For 162 jobs paying an average of $70,000 a year. Happy to answer any of the questions about the grant. The company has to invest more than double the grant amount into renovating a long vacant industrial building in the community. So this will take a vacant building. They'll actually be investing close to 2.5 million in the building. And this grant will go towards the permanent improvements that stay with the building, systems that would remain with it regardless.

And I brought this up a couple of months ago. Has there been any further discussion on what happens if or when this country that is at war is no longer at war and there is a potential that this, what seems like a lucrative opportunity, dries up? What happens when Ukraine is no longer making drones for themselves or Israel or any other country?

As I said at the time, sir, this is an industry automated systems. I understand there's a lot of different perspectives about the advance of technology. But whether it is vehicles or drones, from delivery from Walmart testing it here a few years ago to delivering to people, to DoorDash is launching its own fleet of delivery drones out there. I think there's a lot to be said in a variety of different conversations around it, but For automated systems like this, everything from this is used for forest fire monitoring around to extending Wi-Fi in rural areas during a time of crisis. Those are all types of units for this. So this would be a U.S. headquartered, U.S. division, actually U.S. subsidiary run by a U.S. citizen producing drones by a United States government.

Are there other international corporations that have similarly invested in Fayetteville or are headquartered here in Fayetteville?

There are a variety of different joint ventures that happen organically here in our broader community, yes, with international companies.

All right. Mr. Van Gant, you have a long agenda, so I'm just going to ask you a couple of questions. What's the average median income here in this community?

I want to say the average median private sector wage is around $49,000. And this will pay how much? Average of $70,000 with the lowest job being close to $60,000, $59,000.

So almost double. Getting there. And we are tier one. What does that mean?

Of the 100 counties in North Carolina, we have the highest combined metrics that include things such as per capita tax, value, income, poverty rate, and population growth.

And the site that you reference, that they are required to rehab to get this $500,000 grant from the State of North Carolina Department of Commerce, who typically most elected officials' goal is to create jobs in the economic. So the State of North Carolina Department of Commerce will give this job to take a older building you said that had been vacant. Are you able to disclose where that location is?

Yes, this is a sub-building in the Black and Decker complex, been vacant for a number of years. And the purpose of this program broadly is to encourage reinvestment. in older buildings, whereas the other alternative would be to go out and stretch beyond infrastructure into greenfield areas to build, believing that it's better to reinvest and reuse than it is to create new.

Black & Decker has been vacant just like a number of factories who hit North Carolina, Cumberland County hard when manufacturing shifted where it does business because it was cheaper to do it in Mexico or in South America, so those jobs left. And you have empty buildings like Black & Decker and others that have been here until a new industry comes in, right? And so you get an international company that wants to come in because of an industry of a service they provide. Now, it would be unfortunate if somebody knew that I was American, to say that that's that guy from the country that's at war with Iran. And so he can't do business here. Like, I don't know that this company doesn't necessarily represent the Ukrainian government. This is this is a private business that just happened to be from the country of Ukraine, correct?

That is where they started, yes.

Right, and so we've seen that the world is moving to aerospace and to technology. And so I get asked often from my constituents, are you all going to get anything more than gas stations or restaurants or tobacco stores? And so when you bring a $70,000 opportunity who's going to invest in a building that's been vacant for a decade, then you still have an issue. So I think we've got to put this in context. And so what you're asking for is a matching grant. So if you don't get the grant, it says that it would fit within the incentives that we already factored in. So those families who are making the $70,000 jobs will be some Cumberland County residents for the most part. They'll be able to buy homes and to invest that money back here in our community. Is that fair to say? Yes. All right. Council, any other questions for Mr. Van Gans or Mr. McMillan? This is your item.

So it's up or down vote. Yeah, we're going to go into discussion.

Well, this is your item, so we're discussing it now.

Yeah, I'll kick it off.

Well, this is your second round.

Thank you again for the information. I was concerned and I said it to the whole council about the lack of transparency around how this came under a code name. Obviously very controversial, very little time for the public to understand that it was coming before a public hearing, before it ended up here. And I don't think the public was, those of us who may have been in disagreement with this were able to say anything. I want to put it in context that all money ain't good money and that the public should have a say in what we invest in, especially if it's tied to things that we don't approve of. I want to fully acknowledge that Ukraine has been tied to funding or aiding Israel. And in terms of support to a nation that has committed and is actively committing war crimes, there is something to say about where our moral compass leads in terms of investment. And I think that discussion should have been had in a public hearing. with many people that were notified prior to this being put on the table. And I appreciate you coming back later to talk about it, but really want the public to tune in to what's going on. That's why I pulled this from a consent agenda. This discussion wasn't supposed to happen. It was supposed to just be rubber stamped.

Thank you, Councilmember. To give any incentives, are you required by state law to have a public hearing? We are.

We are. We've done that. You approved it at the time.

So I'm not sure where my colleague was, but it was a public hearing held on this item, is what you're saying? Yes. Consistent with the state of North Carolina's law?

Yes.

That is correct and we will also follow any policies that the city or county puts in place with regards to how you want these things noticed but yes we did it consistent with the way we have done every project during my decade here. All right.

Mayor Pro Temp.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. I said this once before but I think I need to say it again. We are the largest neighbor to the largest military in the world. Our soldiers use drones. Technology is the future of fighting wars. Drones could save soldiers' lives for reconnaissance and a whole bunch of other things. Let's not lose sight of why we have our freedom. Freedom isn't free. People die. This technology will help us save lives. We talk about the things that we do for our military. These are things that we can sell back to defense to help our military. You can have all the opinions that you want to, but I will always stand for our military as a retired Army soldier. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right, Council.

Council Member Jones. Thank you. Just to sum this up for me again, building reuse of city staff, this is not the first time that I remember that a company has been awarded this correct. That's correct or correct and it comes from the state the city acts as the grantee so the axe tonight is for the application to go forth the city would basically oversee the project things of that nature they they would have to prove that they've invested. amount of dollars in the facility it's also tied to tie job retention standards and it was subject to the incentive was originally subject to a clawback feature on that and the incentives again original came from the state first because it was if I remember correct it was three let me stay on task with the grants with the grant so the city would be the grantor So basically, you're taking out of that incentive state, city, county made out of the county. You're going to ask them to use part of that to act as part of the match for the grant so that they can obtain the grant.

That is correct.

All right. Thank you.

All right. Council, we've had discussion. I look to you for your votes on this item. I'm going to obtain a motion to approve or something different. Yeah, you pulled it. So it's your motion, sir. What would you like to do? It's an up or down vote.

Yeah, I put a motion on the floor to reject the resolution supporting Scotton.

All right, there's a motion by Councilman McMillan to reject as stated. Is there a second? All right, motion fails for lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor I move that we approve this item that was pulled I believe that was item 7.0813 and that is to identify a project with a death sign authorizing application of $500,000 for the North Carolina Commerce Building Reuse Grant.

All right as opposed by Mayor Pro Tem seconded by Hare by sure system I saw you Hondros you late to the switch All right, we've had discussion. Council, I'll look to you for your votes on this item. All right, so she clears the board. Ms. Paula, you working on us? all right all right motion carries nine to one those voting in opposition councilman McMillan all right council moving to staff report which is the eight point item thank you mr. van Gans received a 20 FY 26 year-end strategic performance report yes sir mr. Lowry how are you sir yeah good mayor they did

So I'm gonna try to make this as brief as possible tonight. So I'm Chris Lowery, the strategic and performance analytics manager for the city. I work in the city manager's office. Tonight we're presenting the FY26 strategic priorities on the year-end wrap-up for the FY26 plan. Throughout the year we have provided our quarterly updates to council, but this gives us time to actually step back and look at the whole year as a cumulative versus just looking at the quarterly reports. So we'll go through those priorities. Tonight, Council, we're establishing our priorities and action plans that you gave us from FY26 and focusing our organizational efforts and resources based on those directions. Our quarterly performance allowed us to monitor throughout the year and track those adjustments and adjust where needed. Tonight, this actually closed out the FY26 plan and allows us to move into the FY27 plan along with those priorities and those action plans. Just a reminder there are 5 priorities that Council approved for if I 26 was a comprehensive approach to community safety and enhance our economic growth. Revitalization and housing. Transportation and connectivity as well as parks and rec and youth engagement. These priorities provided a common framework for departments across organization to align projects, programs, partnerships and resources at Council's direction. Starting out first is our priority one, dealing with comprehensive community safety. This demonstrates why council established this comprehensive approach to community safety. It always combined prevention, intervention, traditional public safety partnerships, and infrastructure. At the Fayetteville Cares Daisy Resource Center, there was over 1,360 unique interactions. exceeding the annual target of 1,200, and we finished the year with 52 active partners at DRC, compared to a target of 30. Through the Office of Community Safety, or OCS, 218 individuals assessed mental health services, exceeding the annual target of 200, while OCS supported 236 community outreach events, compared to a target of 125. Looking at our traditional public safety measures, they also performed well, where we reported a violent crime finished 13% below baseline, exceeding our reduction of 8%. Police priority one response averaged seven minutes and 41 seconds for the year, which was well within our 10 minute time. Even more encouraging, our response time improved each quarter, all the way to the fourth quarter being six minutes and 47 seconds. Fires year-end emergency response time finished at 7 minutes and 17 seconds, which is slightly better than the 7 minutes and 20 second target. Wildfire also exceeded the target of containing structure fires to the room of origin, which is another important indicator of effective emergency response. Public services also significantly exceeded several infrastructure measures supporting community safety, including more than 65,000 linear feet of open conveyances worked and more than 55,000 stormwater assets inspected. So when we look overall at priority one, as a whole, council's comprehensive approach to community safety produce measurable results across prevention, mental health, emergency response, community partnerships, as well as infrastructure. Priority two is economic growth. We close with a strong indicator of economic investment, job creation, and commercial development throughout Fayetteville. Three ECD grants and loans, approximately $8.23 million was invested in the city, exceeding our annual target of $7.3 million. Those investments translated into employment outcomes with 174 jobs created against 135 as our target, and 63 jobs retained against a target of 35. Commercial permitting in particular was noteworthy. Early in the year, this was one of the most market sensitive indicators that we were monitoring. We saw 35 commercial permits in quarter one, 57 in quarter two, and 75 in quarter three. In quarter four, that jumped significantly to 329 permits, where a total of 496 for the year, nearly twice our target for the FY26 year. Across residential and commercial permitting, FY26 represented approximately $274 million in projected contract evaluations, further illustrating the level of development activity that is going on throughout the city. Residential permitting did finish below the annual target with 742 permits against a target of 1,000, and small business program investment also remained below target, but these continue to be those market-sensitive measures influenced by financing calls, construction calls, and the risk that businesses are willing to take, as well as developers. But taken together, what we see in priority two is that council's focus on economic growth priorities help translate city investments into jobs, business activity, and substantial commercial development across Fayetteville. Priority three, we're looking at revitalization and housing. So turning to priority three, FY26 produced measurable results in housing opportunities and neighborhood revitalization. One of the strongest outcomes, thanks to some council support and program expansion, was the Homebuyer Hero, where the city assisted 47 first-time homebuyers, compared with an annual target of 10, so it's almost five times what our target was originally. The city also leveraged ECD funding to support nine single-family affordable housing units as well as 84 multifamily units, both exceeding their annual targets. Revitalization efforts also continue removing blight with 10 CDBG-funded demolitions and an additional 19 non-CDBG-funded. But the demolition only tells a part of the story here. We're looking at nearly 80% of code violations were resolved by property owners exceeding our 70% target. and 72% of structures removed from dangerous or blighted status were resolved through owner compliance compared to the target of 50%. So this is important because our approach continues to emphasize early intervention and voluntary compliance whenever possible, helping address neighborhood conditions while limiting the need for city-funded demolitions. So the broader story here for priority three is focused on this expanded pathways to home ownership and affordable housing while continuing council's commitment to stabilizing and reinvesting in Fayetteville's neighborhoods. Priority four, this is our newest priority for FY26, is dealing with transit and connectivity. And it actually showed substantial growth here, even though it was the newest one. So we had three of our transit study implementations that were put in place, while service reliability remained essential to the annual target. Through collaboration with information technology or our IT department, 18 transportation and connectivity plans were uploaded into the GIS map. Baseline was 10 as our target, so almost double what we were looking for. The infrastructure results under this priority were particularly strong. I'm looking at public services that completed 63.19 miles of roadway resurfacing and alternative pavement preservation substantially exceeding the annual target of 39 miles. And I think one of the biggest ones was city and private development projects also constructed 39,447 linear feet of sidewalk exceeding the annual target of 28,500. So that's approximately seven and a half miles of new sidewalk. And of that total, 11,545 linear feet was constructed within our school walk zones, improving pedestrian connectivity and access around our schools. So of that total, 11,545 linear feet was constructed within our school walk zones, improving pedestrian connectivity and access around our schools. So when we step back and look at the first year of council's priority, transportation and connectivity, it has moved from just a concept that was put in place into measurable infrastructure improvements that residents can see and use. Onto the last priority, priority five closes out FY26 as one of the strongest performing areas in the strategic plan. The Orange Street School Project reached over 3,200 participants compared with an annual target of 500, so that's more than six times what the target was projected. STEM and similar school-based initiatives served over 15, right at 1,600 students compared with a target of 150, so over 10 times what the annual target was set at. So Parks and Rec also created 278 additional hours of youth engagement opportunities compared with an annual target of 75. Participation in several of our key youth initiatives, you're looking at the Counselor in Training, so CIT program had 144 youth. The Fayetteville Cumberland Youth Council had 62, 35 in our ACE Academy through the airport, and 217 through the PALS program in the police department. So through coordination of OCS, another 314 youth were engaged in Parks and Rec programming, exceeding the total annual target of 250. And from an infrastructure standpoint, the city finished with the FY26 with 100% of the projects identified in the 2018 pedestrian sidewalk plan, and that is now completed. So when we look at the year as a whole, Council made youth engagement a strategic priority, and the organization responded by significantly expanding opportunities for young people to learn, lead, participate, and also connect with their community. So as you can see from tonight's results, council set an ambitious agenda for FY26, and staff and council delivered significant results across those priorities. We saw millions of dollars invested into community, job created and retained, families supported in becoming homeowners, neighborhoods stabilized, infrastructure improved, public safety outcomes were strengthened, and thousands of opportunities created for federal youth. Importantly, this work has accomplished while the city maintained its strong general obligation bond rating, reinforcing our continued commitment to fiscal strength and responsible stewardship. Going into FY27, we'll come back in quarter two with the FY27 quarter one presentation performance report. Behind the numbers are residents receiving services, families becoming homeowners, businesses creating and retaining jobs, neighborhoods being stabilized, infrastructure being strengthened, and young people being connected with opportunities. Those outcomes are the results of Council's direction, the work of employees throughout our organization, and partnerships across our community. We look forward to building on that progress as we move forward with Council's priorities for FY27. Thank you, Council, and I stand ready for any questions that you may have.

Mr. Lowry, great report. Only question I have, do you have that in writing that you can email it to Paul Wolverton? I didn't see him writing one thing. Every time I pick that paper up, we have conversations about that. So I'm hoping that you capture that, but he's going to email you. all the homeowners 40 000 miles of sidewalks the job saved millions invested in businesses so the community deserves the city deserves some good stories too so he's going to email you thank you all right any questions councilman here yes sir yes sir well i'm glad you said what you said about the

reporter sir because i was watching his hands too yes sir that's all that's all paul um when we get back to the investment of micro grants i did see that i was trying to find it on my slide here but i couldn't i don't know if you can answer that question tonight but here's another concern from uh some uh some of the neighborhoods in district four they asked about the microgrants and when will they reopen? And I just got some questions just last week about that. Can you answer that or is that something to be answered tonight? I don't have the answer.

I'm not sure if one of the ACMs may have the answer. I know I spoke to John about it, but I didn't get a definitive date.

Because they are asking. This is on behalf of the crossings off of Morganton Road.

I know they're asking. We get that question almost every day, too. I know Director Jones in OCS is looking at that right now. We hope to have the schedule out to you soon. And when he gets back in the office later this week, we'll make sure we get that out to council.

Tell them the residents are hungry. They're ready.

We know. We hear it, too, sir. We're ready for you.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor.

all right councilmember mcmillan yeah thank you again to the jedi team that put this report together i had a question just about strategy excuse me priority number three uh commitment to revitalizing efforts and housing needs we had a discussion just last monday about regulating how we feed the unhoused There's been some feedback from the public that the city doesn't really do enough to address the unhoused crisis in Fayetteville. I'm wondering is there any part of our strategy that involves working with the county, working with Continuum of Care, which I know we have some members of that body here tonight, in order to track our unhoused community and then do some leveling up in terms of what resources the city can provide.

I know through ECD and through OCS there's dollars that is spent, there's resources that is put in place to address those. As far as like doing the pick count and things of that nature, that is done through county resources, but I know there's city staff that also sometimes participates in that service itself.

Would there be a willingness for your office to track these along with the housing, to track those numbers along with the housing numbers? Or do you see any utility in that?

We can pool that information. Yeah, we can 100% pool that.

Right, right. And let me know if I can assist in any way in making the connections with county and social services and the folks that engage in that fight every day. Yes, sir. Yeah, I appreciate you. And I know the OCS would want to be involved in that too. Mm-hmm.

You're tracking the $350,000 that we gave to Salvation Army. City and County gave, I think they gave, it was a total of a million contributed, $350,000, so that they could reopen their doors and continue the work they do. Is that factored into your, or you leave that into the individual department?

Yeah, we leave that into the individual, so sometimes that'll be wrapped up. You're just on the higher strategic point of view? Yes, sir, 30,000 foot. Gotcha, sir. All right.

Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Thompson and then Councilmember McNair.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lowry, I was looking at your permitting numbers and I know we streamlined our permitting process and it looked like it helped out the commercial. How come we didn't meet our goal when it came to residential?

So I'm not sure if Dr. Newton wants to speak on this, but I know residential is pushed a little bit heavier too on the financing and the risk. I'm not sure what other factors would have played into that, but I know that was one of the biggest ones. And I don't want to speak out of turn, but I can follow up with them and see if there was any issues that we ran into and then get the answer back to you on that. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Newton, did you want to add to that?

Single family is under pressure nationally anyway. Dr. Newton will tell it.

good evening good evening dr newton development services and that is a market measure of what the market is showing and as i think all council as i know all council members and mayor familiar we are going through and making sure that the process that we have in place now is doing everything we can to help every person every way that we can barry dunn has been commissioned to do that study you'll be hearing a presentation in that about that in September of what are done anecdotally we can say that those who have to go through one time through that process it's challenging and we need to make it better thank you sir

Thank you Mr. Mayor to Councilmember McMillan's concern I presently sit as the liaison along with Chris Cowley with the COC committee and I can assure you that we are working they are working towards helping the unhoused population to the best of their ability at this present time we are not just sitting around and because I've dealt with the unhoused population now ever since I've been on council so we went we've been working diligently to assist those that are in need so I don't know if Chris is here Chris Collins here not is Chris here I don't think he is okay okay I would like for him to speak on that but however he is not here I just wanted to let you know that the city plays a major part in protecting the unhoused population thank you Mr. Mayor

thank you uh well and to piggyback on that the only local government funded full operation going on right now is is the city i mean it's the it's the building that the day resource center is the contract with um with manor church and so you know we're we're playing as big a part as we can play certainly we wish we could all do more but i would say those things need to be mentioned we also we meet monthly yeah via zoom okay all right well all right so council we have a another few items any other questions councilmember Jones oh yeah you're making a motion to receive a report all right there's a motion by councilmember Jones to receive report is seconded by Davis I think discussion all right council look to you before you vote Okay, all right, motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Lowry. Thank you. Good job, sir. Council. All right, councils, we prepare now to move into the public hearing where the city council formally seeks your input. Individuals desiring to speak in the hearing must have signed up to speak with the city clerk by name and address before the beginning of tonight's meeting. We will begin with a staff presentation then we will move into the formal hearing. 15 minutes will be allowed for those in favor and same amount of time for those opposed of the item during the hearing. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes each unless by previous arrangement a single spokesperson may be designated in which case the spokesperson may use the entire 15 minutes. When the city clerk calls your name we ask you please come to the podium. Please clearly state your name and address for the record and you may then begin to address the council. When the light changes from green to amber, it means you have 30 seconds remaining. The timer will ring at the end of your allotted time. With that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Harmon.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council. We will get into this presentation on telecommunications and data storage facilities. Just a quick table of contents. This is what we'll be going through during this presentation. I would ask, if you can, to hold your questions until after we have the public hearing. That way you can hear from every side before delving into things. So just a short executive summary. This text amendment 2601, is looking to create a clear enforceable UDO framework for these telecommunications and data storage facilities. They will define the use, they will add the use to the use table, it would adopt targeted use specific standards it would have updates to the parking loading ratios in the UDO it would also strengthen the airport overlay compatibility review and we look to in designing this for it to be impact based and the outcome of more predictability fairness and forcibility mainly As far as the relationship to the strategic plan, I'm not going to read through all of the goals that we have here with the strategic plan, but you have them in front of you and in your packet as well. As a background, again, the goal of what this is is to make a production-ready land use with clear entitlements and enforceable standards. Why do we need this addition to the UDO? Currently, it lacks a defined data center use. Sorry, we've got a little fly in here. We put together a working group that was cross-departmental, many of the city departments along with representatives, as you can see, from PWC, fire, police, development services, public services, Fayetteville Community Development, and three members of our planning commission as well. The focus of that work, again, was to confirm the entitlement approach and standardize a complete framework of how to handle these. uh... the interactive path basically started back in october when we took a uh... first draft to our planning commission of some ideas uh... then in january that working group started uh... working on uh... refinement of that and streamlining uh... which led to coming to the planning commission in february of this year for a public hearing with them. So the scope of the discipline basically as we went through this was to not regulate every facility as a hyperscale but be able to distinguish the different sizes and scales of these facilities. Precision definitions and some of the things we found to be most important with whether they had internal and external power generation of their own some things of that nature so that is kind of help separate the different the different use types that will go through we have entitlements tied to the impact So again, the energy center being one of the large things of what we can regulate and use as a defining factor through zoning regulations. So the standards that have been put together try to target real externalities, especially trying to protect residential edge by regulating the equipment placing, screening, acoustical issues, and things of that nature. Also tried to have no surprises, and that comes in with the parking and loading and some changes to the airport overlay compatibility review. Peer lessons, basically, we don't regulate these data centers as warehouses. And peer examples, we took a lot from the Northern Virginia, their ordinances which emphasize noise, proximity controls, things of that nature. So just a few issues and analysis. So what this is intended to do is create a full regulatory chain, target real externalities, like I said a moment ago, of like equipment yards, generators, noise, things of that nature. Predictable investment path and enforceable guard rails. And then what we'll get into here in a moment, and this is just kind of a quick, we have five ordinances that go along with this, or five changes to the ordinance. First is the definitions. Second, the use table. Third, use-specific standards. Those include things like residential edge protection, noise standards, generator testing, the enforcement backbone, operations and coordinations and things Related to ones with energy system centers and acoustical studies Ordinance for the parking and loading Ordinance five is dealing with things out there at the airport in the airport overlay And then you can see some of the future land use plan alignment listed as well So we'll get into each of the ordinance sections in a little more detail here. So the first one definitions, what it would do is add a core definition to regulate data centers. It would be named enforceable land use. It draws bright lines on what the use is and is not and defines these as telecommunications and data storage facilities. They separate principal uses versus accessory forms. Principal uses, the main building's accessories being internal and external plants that go along with some of these. Also defines impact drivers for neighborhoods and actual experience dedicated, again, exterior plants. Creates a higher impact operational model. Trigger for things again such as the energy plant principal uses with the energy energy backup generators things of that nature It also locks in clear compatibility triggers for things such as noise sensitivity It standardizes utility review And the bottom line for this first ordinance change is it sets the foundation for what you will see coming next. So ordinance two, the use table. This adds a named use table row, telecommunications and data storage facilities, to our use table. It creates two principal use rows, the principal use baseline data center and principal use with an energy center, which is a higher operational intensity. The baseline principal use entitlements permitted with standards in our BP or LIHI districts and with a special use permit and standards and size constraints in our OICC, DT1, DT2, and UC districts. We also put in neighborhood context protections to prohibit these in our NC, LC, MU, and planned development residential PDRs as well. The energy center variant equals a special use permit only. in every conventional district where it would be allowed, which would be the BP, the LI, and the HI. Plan development consistency. Both variants would be allowed in our PDEC and PDTNs, but they would have to go through a master plan process. And this would look to close loopholes and ties to standards. So Ordinance 3 are use-specific standards. These would add enforceable operational and site design standards for principal centers. Again, this looks to close those residential edge loopholes, ones that abut residential. We've got hard compatibility requirements for residential edges, setbacks for different types of uses, our type D perimeter buffers, which is our heaviest buffering here in the city, equipment placement and visual controls, the orientation of residential edge service, and near edge enclosure triggers as well. continuing with ordinance three we also have noise and operations controls these result are have to do with the generators and not having amplified sound outside acoustics documentation having a trigger based acoustical memorandum for these mitigation would be part of the the plans for this as well post construction boundary sound test also The energy center ones would be held to a higher standard with more acoustical studies required for all of those. Operational coordination basics, things such as exterior lighting and utility coordination, air quality disclaimers, things of that would be included as well. Ordinance 4 is a parking and loading. This adds a dedicated parking and loading standard to this new use. The change and why it would be needed is These are typically infrastructure heavy but people light so they don't need as much parking as a lot of other industrial uses. You can kind of see here what our proposed minimum parking base is and then that the max would be the two times the minimum unless they do an alternative parking plan. Loading standard, they would be required to have one loading space per loading dock as well. And then ordinance five, the airport overlay. This makes the airport overlay safety standards apply to all new development in the overlay, strengthens rules to match real projects, improves site plan content for early coordination, tightens operational hazard standards and bottom line makes it come in earlier more enforceable location based and risk management heavy so as far as the budget impact goes Right off the bat, there's no automatic general fund expenditure or city capital cost. This is regulatory changes only at this point. The primary short-term impact would be staff time. The airport overlay cases would take some additional staff time and coordination with the FAA as well. The parking and loading updates would be adjusted to meet operational standards. This is basically concluding this portion of the presentation. And again, if you would, Mr. Mayor and Council, hold questions of staff until after you finish the public hearing and we'll be glad to help with the technical assistance.

All right, thank you, Mr. Harmon. Council, I see your lights, but we are going to hold at, try to hear from all sides. So with that, Madam Clerk, I'll open the public hearing.

Mayor, we have six speakers in favor, 12 speakers in opposition. Our first speaker is Mr. Zachary Traylor.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening. My name is Zachary Traylor, 3917 Village Drive. But to preface this, General Statute 143-318-17 states that a citizen may only be removed for disrupting the meeting, if not be removed because of the contents of their speech. This was later upheld in State B Barthol in 2025. I speak in support of data centers because I support the will of the voters. And as the minister earlier today mentioned, restoration. Last year we had an election where Mitch Colvin and the corrupt gang of six, Malik Davis, Derrick Thompson, DJ Hair.

No, sir. Tonight is for your time to talk about the topic. So there's not going to be any personal attacks or name calling. So whatever that is, you can talk privately to me about that. We're not going to waste the citizens' time or our time listening to that. So you're allowed to speak about the topic, which is data centers. No name calling, no personal... Disparagement, no corruption conversations, any of that stuff you can't prove. May I continue my time? Because you might end up in court and have plenty of time to talk about it.

Thank you. But go ahead, sir. The voters were aware at the time of allegations, and yet they still voted for U6. I support data centers because that has been a national debate for over a year, and the voters were aware of your allegations. Well, I can't say it apparently. Despite this, the voters elected the Gang of Six to control our city council, and because of this, they're now attempting to stop, we are trying to stop construction of a data center that you guys decided 12 months ago. Now, the critics claim that the environmental issues, strains on the electric grid, and lack of job creation warrant moratorium. However, as a homeowner, I support data centers because of the 18 to 15% decrease in property values around them. I support data centers because it will cause a net decrease in ad valorem tax collection. But as home values fall, so will my property taxes. So why should I care? So yes, I support ADOs because They do not change. When we have well-researched objections, we decide to ignore them because this is who we have voted for. But I hope your support, Henry Mitchell Colvin, is the same when they are trying to be built near your home. So yes, the UDOs will cause a spike in electric prices. They will increase water usage further. exasperating the drought we are existing uh experiencing with the udo allowing data centers by right it will harm predominantly black neighborhoods represented by yourself however i support them because if you do why should i disagree data centers are a virus to low-income communities they take away our resources but if the gang of six supports it why shouldn't we thank you

All right, Madam Clerk.

Mayor, our next speaker is Mr. Robert Van Gians.

Mr. Mayor, council, I'm going to yield my time to the other speakers in favor, so they may utilize it.

All right, thank you. Madam Clerk.

Our next speaker is Mr. Azeem Lakhani.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening, council. Can someone tell me when we're ready so I can start? Yes, sir. Well, thank you so much for having me make this presentation. Why I believe data centers are important, because they are the future of our children and our grandchildren and provide security to North Carolina and United States. We all use data centers whether we like it or not. Where do you think the stored data comes from your watches, your cell phones, and your glasses? It comes from stored data. My name is Azim Lakhani, and I have a background in project management, construction, and cyber security. Electricity is the currency of the new AI economy. Data centers use electricity to create outputs measured in AI tokens. Data centers use vast amounts of computing power to deliver results using AI in a fraction of a time. It creates greater economies of scale than the traditional internet based economy. The internet economy is fading away. For example, this presentation is about one million AI tokens, and it costs $9.23. Without AI and data, it would cost me between $1,600 and $2,000. AI tokens worth billions are being created and used every day. These AI tokens can be a source of taxable income, a new source of revenue in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and the United States. Local concerns. I sympathize with the concerns citizens have of increased utility bills, water usage issues, and these are important issues. However, data center regulations are being debated and worked on right here, right now in North Carolina. To the citizens of Fayetteville, I say there is a bigger picture. Data centers are our security blanket. As Americans, we need to focus on the future and the security of our children and our grandchildren. Do you want an Asian country to build data centers in the Middle East? Do you want them to take our data and technology in the data centers and control us? Do you want China to take over artificial intelligence economy as they did our manufacturing economy? It is our obligations as Americans to keep our data and the billions of dollars generated by AI locally in North Carolina and the United States. In summary, We have two choices, we can either be the can do city and create a new economy with data centers and AI. Or we can go with the old school city model, history, heroes, and homeland feeling with fried chicken and grits. So this is a choice, Popeyes or AI. Thank you.

All right. Chief Bryant. Next outburst, please escort whomever is the perpetrator of it. So we're going to be able to have a fair and event-free discussion. So, sir, I think, was this three minutes up? Yes, sir. All right, sir, thank you. Thank you for your comments. All right, Madam Clerk.

Our next speaker is Mr. John Soka.

Representative Soka, how are you?

Doing well, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is John Sokka. I live at 6922 Surry Road, Fayetteville, 28306. As you call me representative, I just want to remind everybody here that I did serve for 10 years in North Carolina House of Representatives, where I was not only the chair on the House Public Utilities Committee, but also the chair of the Joint Legislative Commission on Energy Policy. While in those positions, I passed bills that saved over $350 million for rate payers across the state. And as far as water goes, I was the leading voice on protecting Fayetteville's water supply upstream, and also on champion fighting the Gen X issue that we have in Grays Creek. Having said that, I'd like to move to the ordinance, the proposed ordinance. I'm currently the CEO of the Considerative Energy Network, which we operate in 26 states and also Washington, D.C. We deal with energy issues, with water issues. I just got back from Massachusetts where I was talking on this very issue. The proposed ordinance moves in the right direction. It's actually very good. It's one of the best that I've seen across the 26 states that we operate in. I do have five points that I would like to hit first on water. It's not really covered in detail in the proposed ordinance, but I would suggest you require developers to submit a detailed water management plan to the PwC or the servicing water provider that discloses how much water they will use, where it's gonna come from, and requiring the servicing water provider to certify that adequate capacity exists without jeopardizing existing customers. Codifying these disclosure requirements and water provider requirements would make those protections visible to residents. Number two, on noise. The gentleman who briefed the ordinance went through that very well, and I think that overall the proposed ordinance does a pretty good job of accomplishing everything that you need to accomplish. On air quality, need to distinguish between emergency backup generators and on-site power plants. That is in the ordinance, and the proposed ordinance does specify a special use permit is required if they're going to jitter all their power on the site. Number four, on setbacks, protecting neighborhood homes, Don't rely on arbitrary distances alone. This is one of those things where what's arbitrary for me might not be arbitrary for you. So I suggest regulate the actual impacts of noise, visibility, and equipment location, and allow engineering and technology to solve those problems. The ordinance, when it's all said and done, does this fairly well. And most importantly, cost of electricity, the impact on rate payers. Before approval, I would suggest a required data center project to submit a utility service and capacity determination to the servicing utility that identifies expected peak electricity demand, necessary generation transmission, substation upgrades.

Representative Zilk? And I'm done. I appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Mayor, our next speaker is Mr. Richard Van Wye.

evening sir evening mr mayor nice to see this evening i'll keep it short and sweet because uh first off i agree with the city council's recommendations there and what i've heard here so far uh the uh i would like to point out i've been recording the decibel level here okay that some people are concerned about and i got this nifty little thing that came from a data center Hontai, aside from that, until the actual company has proposed something and put it in writing, all they've got is a base plan right now, you're right. I'm going to leave it alone because until they actually propose something, you're right, what are we arguing about? Thank you.

All right. Madam Clerk.

Mayor, our last speaker in favor is Mr. Lamont Hinson.

Mr. Hanson, good evening, sir.

Good evening, sir. For the record, I am here to speak on behalf of Fayetteville PwC, the utility, and I am on the record as not speaking for or against just to provide information for the Goodwill Council as well as the community. As this conversation continues, PwC remains committed to transparency and collaboration with city leadership. and providing factual information to help elected officials make informed decisions pwc's mission has always been to provide exceptional utility services while supporting responsible growth that benefits the entire fayetteville community pwc is committed to supporting growth but growth should never come at the expense of the reliability our customers expect Let me stand here and clear up any confusion about PwC rates. PwC service regulations require that any large load customer pay for itself. PwC cannot and will not raise residential or commercial customer rates. to pay for services to support a data center or any other large, low customer that may come to our service territory. As discussions continue regarding the possibility of data centers development within the community, PWC believes it is important to provide perspective from the standpoint of a utility responsible for delivering safe, reliable and affordable electric water and wastewater services pwc's responsibility is to evaluate any significant new customer whether it is a manufacturing facility industrial operation military expansion or a data center Through the similar lens of asking these questions, can PwC serve the customer safely? Can PwC maintain reliability for our existing customers? What infrastructure investment will be required? How does PwC ensure those costs are allocated fairly? How does PwC protect long-term affordability for all our customers? These questions guide every service request. It is important to recognize that not all data centers are the same. Our community has already served customers in this category and we understand that their size, power demand, water usage, cooling system and infrastructure requirements can vary significantly depending on their design and intended purpose. Note that a team of utility professionals at PWC from our engineers and planners to financial analysts have evaluated each opportunity that is established in industry standards and sound utility practices. PWC stands ready and well positioned to support any new large load customer. PWC has the lowest utility rates throughout Cumberland County. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, Madam Clerk.

Mayor, our first speaker in opposition is Miss Amelia Maxfield-Chavez.

Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening, distinguished council. My name is Amelia. I'm an artist, an organizer for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and a Fayetteville resident appalled by city council's response to vulnerability to data center development. Hundreds of residents have raised their voices in unison about the negative impacts of data centers, both environmental and sociopolitical. Even if it falls on deaf ears, it's worth repeating that it will pollute our water more, pose health risks for already underserved neighborhoods and fail to replace jobs lost from the Goodyear plant, exacerbating the rampant unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and lack of investment outside of Fort Bragg. No shade to it. Your people are vulnerable, but a data center is not the solution. It's a short-sighted bargaining chip designed to benefit greedy tech companies, not the people of this city, and definitely not you sitting up there, despite what you choose to believe. The people's concerns are real. We do need infrastructure, but not that which won't serve the working people of this community. Why not pioneer investment in social programs in North Carolina instead of using taxpayer dollars to stop and start projects on a whim? Give the Merc a grocery store or expand public transit or build an open air venue for third space engagement. Big Tech is only interested in a desperate, unorganized workforce. Is that what you want your people to be remembered for? Or are we gonna be the organized, diligent, can-do city? A title which we earned this time by hopefully driving a data center the hell out of town. We've heard your defense, saying that being against data centers and against this ordinance is a minority decision, and we know that that's a short-sighted statement, because we've been out there doing the work. We've canvassed neighborhoods, pounded the pavement downtown, including the businesses y'all claim to prioritize, attended community watch meetings, and showed up to every major event in the city. We have over 1,400 signatures on our petition. Over 80% of the people that we spoke to are against data centers, and specifically this legislation, which would recklessly open up our city to data center development before implementing any good faith efforts to solicit community input or develop sufficient regulations. This is an issue that the whole country, Fayetteville especially, are paying attention to. And you can bet it will be a primary issue considered come election season. We will remember who voted in favor of this ordinance as those who voted against the people. Thank you.

Mayor, our next speaker is Ms. Carol Olinger.

Show me what democracy looks like.

This is what democracy looks like.

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.

SHOW ME WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.

HI, Y'ALL.

I WAS ASKED TO LEAVE, BUT I AM GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. THIS IS WHAT A DATA CENTER SOUNDS LIKE. Y'ALL VOTE FOR ONE. YOU AREN'T VOTING FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS OR YOUR VETERANS OR FOR CREDITS. FREEDOM. THIS ISN'T WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

ALL RIGHT, MS. CAROL.

SILENT VETERANS FROM A MEETING. THAT'S WHAT FASCISM IS FOR.

I'm Carol most all y'all know me some of them are getting ready to get to know me I'm here in front of you again with the same story you can hear me can you hear me now he said go to this y'all I just want to say, I heard what you guys said earlier about that 7.0, I listen to my constituents, I reach out to them, they're calling my phone. We've been doing that. We've really been doing that to all of y'all. Are you listening to us now? Y'all, let's consider all the facts. These massive data centers consume millions of gallons of water. just to cool their servers this is not an abstract statistic it translates into real consequences for our community as water resources are drained our local supplies dwindle driving up water bills for families already grappling with rising temperatures high electricity costs How many of you had to make the heart-wrenching decision to skip meals or to postpone medical care because bills are piling up? This is not just about pocketbooks, it's about survival. along with PFAS already in our water, we do not know what the data center water discharge is going to add to our already contaminated water. You already know I'm an affected person because of the PFAS directly. These data centers is going to profit who? We are in the midst of a heat wave. We're in a drought right now. those in power must understand that these facilities while they may promise jobs and investments are sacrificing our health my health my grandchildren's health and maybe yours this is a real thing and you guys have a chance to make a difference a pause an actual moratorium. That guy up there, he could have been speaking French to me. I didn't understand the gosh darn thing. He said a thousand alphabets. I've been taking classes and going to stuff to learn more about this. We want to be the can do city. We want to move forward, but not at the expense of our health. Can't we just, take a break a real one not this pause that you gave us so graciously the city and the county have to come together we can do better we really can but this is like we're fighting each other we voted for you I drove people specifically to vote for some of you and now you're doing this it's not fair to us

Madam Clerk.

Mayor, our next speaker is Mr. Louis Felice. Mr. Louis Felice. All right, not present.

Sir, please don't do that. Hey, sir.

Councilmember McMillan.

They are asked to keep the decor in and out of the room. Councilmember McMillan, you're interrupting your next speaker. All right.

Our next speaker is Mr. Jose Cardona.

Okay. Trying to give everybody an opportunity to be able to hear. Mr. Cardona.

today I stand before you I am Jose I Cardona address 233 Edison Street in Fayetteville North Carolina three of you have been bombarded with the information that I've been sending you You took it, you analyzed it, you're acting today. Today the UDO that you're trying to change to get this data center in here, the people don't want you to do it. The people want you to give them a moratorium. The people want you to act on their behalf, not on the agenda of the data center people who are not here today. Well, I'm assuming. You also had one guy that owns the AIT across the street, and he gave you a tidbit, a gold nugget, that Fort Bragg already has a data center being built. They started in January. I know it. He knows it. We know it. You don't know it? Five elements that you need to consider real deep in. Water. Air, pollutants, and the land itself, the land has to be, how do you say, it has to be leased. You just don't give them land, and you just don't sell them land. It has to be leased. Water, electricity, and anything that they're going to deal with, to include pollution, charge them 5 to 10 cents above what we pay. water, electricity, and anything else they need, fines, all the fines that they go through and any of this money, put it in our children's account, children that would be from the age of 10 to 18, so they could have a college degree, so they could go to the school that they want to go, They, the data center that you're going to build here, Fulbright is not going to pay, but we can. We charge them over the same thing you just did right now. Guess what you just did today? You gave Black & Decker, guess what? Money for somebody to rent the building. Black & Decker who let us down about 25 years ago and left us because your taxes, Cumberland taxes, And the state taxes, because we get it three ways, people, three ways. We get it city, state, and Fayetteville, and county. County just sitting up there saying, ha, ha, ha, I want that data center. Why do they want that data center? Because they have failed in the so-called industrial park that they got up the street, okay, almost close to home meals. They have failed. Empty properties. Listen to the people. Listen to me. You have listened to me before. i'm the guy with wisdom five to ten cents the five element is the children of this country this town in this county give them some money to fall on when the waters they cannot drink like right now polluted thanks to share more tamil you guys continue to pump money you just gave a million dollars last year hello all right thank you very much for having me thank you sir

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Mayor, our next speaker is Miss Angela Tatum.

ANGELA TATUM JR.: Good evening, Miss Tatum.

ANGELA TATUM JR.: Good evening. Extremely tired, just getting off of a plane. I am here tonight in opposition of the adoption, and I'm gonna speak fast because I have a lot to get through. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of the adoption of TA 26-01, the Unified Development Ordinance, text amendments for telecommunications and data storage centers. I am literally just flying in from a reunion from Texas where their land, they don't have an inundation in the small town where my family's from. I am not asking the city to ignore the development ordinances that address data centers. Fayetteville needs strong regulations specifically designed to address them. The question isn't simply would a data center have an energy center. It should be, what is the total impact of a facility like the ones we know are trying to come here? What impact would it have on Fayetteville? That requires deep review and need for an impact study, which is a reason for a moratorium. Wilson County's recently published UDO is a very useful comparison because its data center section expressly addresses matters Fayetteville should consider. In another North Carolina jurisdiction, you can explicitly regulate potable water cooling, and this is something that should be adopted in the ordinance as well. Why should the city establish by right development entitlements while Cumberland County is still studying the very infrastructure and community impact questions that remain unresolved? I therefore ask council to remove by right approval and require conditional zoning for every principal use data center, require independent pre and post acoustic analyses, expand risk-based siting analyses, require mandatory fiscal impact study, more reasons to legally support a moratorium. What require PwC to answer these questions on record before adoption? What is the current system peak demand? What MW load can be added without major generation or transmission upgrades? What is the anticipated load of 50 megawatt, 100, 250? The proposed state regulations that are in Senate Bill 730 to consider. These standards need to be strengthened before development rights are granted. and I'm gonna skip down, just take the time to implement the protective regulations. There is enough work that needs to be done with the proposed amendments to legally justify moratorium. The burden should not be on Fayetteville residents to prove years from now that the protections were inadequate. Give us the opportunity to prove the impact now. The responsibility you all have tonight is to vote no, Prepare to implement a moratorium and establish adequate protections through the necessary impact studies before any entitlement is created. As Spike Lee told us a few decades ago, just do the right thing. That's it.

Member.

Mayor, our next speaker is Mr. Alan Nazarchuk.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening. How are y'all? Good. Good. I had this whole speech here, but I'm going to go around it. So listen to all this stuff here tonight. A lot of information. A lot of information up there I didn't understand. A lot of us behind us don't. I'm in sales, so I talk to a lot of people on the day, and we have a good conversation. But a lot of that stuff I didn't understand. Be honest with you. I don't. You guys are in a position here because you are ordained. Every one of you. Okay? And I'm reminded of the wisest king that ever lived, King Solomon. All right? There's a lot we can learn about him. Young man, 20 years old, coming into the kingdom of Israel. Didn't know what to do. What did he ask the Lord for?

Wisdom.

Wisdom. And the Lord said, since you didn't ask for riches or the heads of your enemies, you'll be the wisest king ever. And I'm going to give you riches, and you'll be the wealthiest man to ever live. So I'm praying for you guys. I don't want to be where you are. I really don't. But I pray for your wisdom. And that's what we're asking for. That's what us common people back here are asking for is your wisdom. Okay? With that, I was encouraged to hear the mayor say a while ago, and I quote, who wouldn't err on the side of caution? I was encouraged to hear that, Mayor, thank you. DJ Hare, sorry, Councilman Hare. I was encouraged to hear you say people depend on you to listen to them, and then stated that some people don't understand everything because they don't live there. I stand before you as a resident of Eastover, North Carolina, who would be permanently affected by this data center. I'm right behind Custer Avenue on a proposed site, and it will affect my everyday activity, okay? If it doesn't concern you, it's because you don't live there. So with that, I'm just reiterating some of the things that all of us are just asking you to have wisdom on. And we've heard them a thousand times, but you're listening, but maybe you're not hearing. Water usage. Power usage, higher electricity bills, pollution. I sell crops to these people in the room. They bought crops from me. If we have pollution falling on those or I have no water to irrigate those, I have no job. That's a concern. Not only for me, but we got people in here to have farms and head of cattle all around. So I was also encouraged on some of that stuff I didn't understand, but one of them I saw that it's gonna take a lot of pavement, and that's great, because that site is very wet.

Thank you.

Mayor, we've now reached 15 minutes for opposition. We still have six speakers left.

All right, council. I want to allow additional time. All right. So get a motion. All right. Motion by Council Member Green. Is that second? Davis? Second by Davis. To extend to accommodate the remaining speakers that have pretty signed up. All right. All right. Council, I'll look to you for your votes. All right. Madam Clerk, next speaker.

Yes, sir. Our next speaker is Dr. Katie Intricaso.

Good evening, ma'am.

Good evening, council. Much like our last speaker, I have a speech prepared, but I wanted to address a couple things first. One is the intense police presence at the PSL rally right before this meeting. It was my understanding that officers had ARs as they were unloading their gear. We were met with six officers outside and then I came in to get water and there were 20 more in this building. I think for citizens of Fayetteville who are exercising their First Amendment right, that is a bit much. Today, y'all will prove to us which side of Fayetteville's history you choose to align yourself with if you vote against a further moratorium regarding data center development. The Southern Environmental Law Center identified four main areas in our city facing disastrous economic and health impacts should the Fayetteville City Council vote tonight or in the future to proceed with data center development. Those areas are, Murchison Road, Shaw Mill Road, Bragg Boulevard, Cedar Creek. We cannot sever the impending specter of data center development from Fayetteville's foundational architecture of generational disenfranchisement and social violence against our black and brown communities. To champion unregulated data center expansion without rigorous, rigorous scientific scrutiny perpetuates an insidious lineage of exclusion in our city. Voting for data center development in Fayetteville votes to uphold our city's historical lineage of black disenfranchisement and attempted erasure. Voting for data center development without more time for experts to gather, analyze, and share research with the public aligns directly with Fayetteville's history of only attending to the citizens it deems worthy of economic development. Voting against a moratorium at this stage of public outcry votes to perpetuate the insidious pervasion of white supremacy and fables economic development, public health, and which residents our city council deems worthy of protecting. And we will remember come November 3rd. We will remember those council members who tonight vote to protect the financial and political interests of historically white wealth in this city. We will remember the actual history of our city and those in political power such as y'all who voted to maintain it. We will remember that we the people hold the power collectively and as a unit we will move accordingly. I will now speak to the doctors on the council. As one doctor to another, regardless of discipline, our creed is first to do no harm. I urge you, as one native Fayettevillian to others, vote in support of a moratorium, in support of more research and public hearings, in support of protecting our residents and the work to lift them economically upwards without selling out another side of the city. Time's up, y'all's move.

Madam Clerk?

Mayor, our next speaker is Mr. Stuart Williams.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Stuart Williams, River Road resident. Thank you for having me. Make it clear, I've contacted several of you, and everyone I've contacted has contacted me back. My hat's off to you. I'm here representing a lot of people in this room, whether they know it or not. I live in that area. I'm not opposed totally to data centers, but I think there's a place for them. And I can almost guarantee you I'm a neighborhood boy, and that is not the place for a data center on Custer Avenue. Everybody thinks we're in the country there. But we're surrounded by Beard Road, Middle Road, Dobbin Homes Road, River Road, and dozens and dozens in between, and there are thousands of people that live around that area. We're rural. I understand that the zoning board will have to go all the way and probably zone this M1. I don't think that's ever been done before, going from A1 to M1 or whatever the designation would be. My neighbor reiterated the land out there, it holds water, it does. This particular property was condemned by the EPA in 1970 for a cow manure manufacturing plant. I'll take my chances with cow manure over what possibly is coming out of this new data center any day. invite any of you to come right around I'll show you my neighborhood firsthand a lot of the people here live in that area and then there's several more our eye is now on the ball we never heard of this probably till about six weeks ago and we appreciate y'all we also appreciate Cumberland County I don't really have anything else other than just piling on and I appreciate you listening to us and the residents out there in the Eastover area. Several of our electric officials are here. This is my second city council meeting and it is a different world most of us are not used to. We respect each and every one of you. My biggest concern is noise, noise, noise. Y'all got a generator out here in the parking lot for the backup. hundred and fifty feet whoever came up with added this bright staff and they're all smart I know 150 feet is this rooms a hundred feet and they're gonna have 30 to 40 of those generators screaming even if it's testing once a week I don't think we deserve that I would really love to see that What about 2,000 feet? Ride down Ramsey Street, pass the Goodyear plant. Wind is down on a Saturday. You don't hear a word because they got setbacks way off the road. That's what we ask for, protect our neighborhood. Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you.

Mayor, our next speaker is Ms. Jacinda Matthew.

Good evening, Mayor.

Good evening. Hello, my name is Jacinda Matthew, and I am here tonight against the proposed data center here in Fayetteville. In order to strengthen how I feel about data centers, I looked into some proposed positive impacts. The impacts I found, when analyzed, do not benefit the majority of the people of Fayetteville. The following pros were all found on the informational site Benefits Beyond Connectivity, who sourced PWC's report in 2024. The following are the proposed pros of data centers. Data centers create well-paying jobs for engineers and technological majors. These jobs require high levels of education, which means that these new jobs cater to those who are either already rich or under student debt. These jobs will only feed those in the upper middle and upper class. Data centers support digital information regarding financial transitions, governmental services, internet, AI, and healthcare records. Additionally, they secure the U.S.'s sensitive information. These are already done in government buildings. With the risks we are strongly aware of regarding data centers, building more space to hold more information is not worth the sacrifice. In 2024, the data center industry generated more than $1.39 billion in state and local tax revenue, which could have funded nearly half of North Carolina's education services. This did not cause individual taxpayer rates to increase, which is good news, but it's also important to notice that it is openly acknowledged as a pro that this collected tax would have funded K-12 education. It is not disclosed what these taxes actually went towards. North Kalians should be concerned that public education will become less of a priority following the implementation of more data centers and their high maintenance. Please consider the following when you think about the proposal of a data center. Usage of water, again, considering that areas of Fayetteville are still suffering from the introduction of Gen X to our water systems. Emission of nitrogen oxides. According to Virginia Commonwealth University, data centers would make up 33% of the region's total nitrous oxide emissions if they consistently reach their maximum allowable emissions. noise pollution. According to Jude Kramer, the data center of Dawagiak, Michigan exceeds the decibel limit of 65 decibels in the day and 55 decibels at night. This is also the decibel limit in Fayetteville. Ask yourself the following questions when you consider the data center. Who funds the process of the construction? It should be corporations and businesses who benefit from the excess digital storage and electric price surge, but tax rate trends show that North Carolina is removing taxes from corporations by 2030. This is unfair to hardworking North Carolinians. As of 2026, the tax rate is 2%. It will continue to deplete until 2030 when it hits zero. For comparison, the tax rate for citizens is 4%. How will this impact electricity bills? Citizens are already speaking up about finding increases in their electric bills. I ask you to consider these consequences that North Carolinians will face at the expense of corporations and government systems working to only benefit themselves. Please continue to work to keep the citizens out of Fayetteville. Thank you.

Mayor, our next speaker is Ms. Janet Menzak. Ms. Janet Menzak. And I do know there were some people in the holdover room, so we'll give it just a second. Nope. She would have come by now. All right. Our next speaker is Ms. Christy Davis.

Good evening, Ms. Davis.

Good evening, thank you all for letting me speak. My name is Christy Davis and I live at 3136 Beard Road. I have lived there for 25 years and it is 1.1 mile away from the proposed data site at the Custer Avenue place. I have to use a speech or I go off on tangents. I'm speaking tonight against the UDOs as written because they do not go far enough to protect our community from the adverse effects of data centers. Since you're targeting agricultural land in Cumberland County instead of land in the city, you must know of these adverse effects and don't want them by you. We in the county do not want to see, hear, feel, smell, or pay for data centers. As to site, your UDO will not control the light pollution that will emanate from the center. A six foot fence will not hide a two story building, and the site is proposing nine two story buildings. We want higher barriers specified in the UDO so they can't get away with it. As to smell, your UDO has one sentence about air pollution. Quote, it must follow state and federal guidelines. There are no guidelines for data centers because they're new. We want some kind of fine particulate filters and heat exhaust baffling specified in the UDO. The water, okay, as to the water needed for this center, there's a lot of information in your UDO about a closed loop system, but there is no information about the disposal of the used water. So when the scale in this system has to be cleaned out and dumped, it can't be done with white vinegar like your coffee machines. Where will the heavy metal sludge be dumped? So we want regulations at least as strict as hog lagoons specified in the UDO. Regarding hearing, you have considered a lot about amplitude, but the limits are, the numbers are still not low enough as far as our hearing. These machines will run 24-7, so we want some sound barriers and limits on the noise levels specified. You say in the UDO that you can only test the system from nine to five during the week, because when they test it, it's louder. I did door to door trying to get people to come to meetings, and a lot of the folks on Beard Road and me are retired. We will never get away from the noise. You have also not specified any restrictions on frequencies, namely the sub and super frequencies that humans cannot hear, but that travel through solids, liquids, and gases to affect our sleeping and the wildlife in our area. We have cows and bees on Beard Road, not to mention the deer and all the other, the squirrels and the raccoons and the coyotes and the stuff that we like because we went to the country. In addition, blasting a jet engine-sized gas-powered turbine a mere 150 feet from someone's home is not acceptable. In the county, we deal in acres and miles and want that distance amount increased to a minimum half acre or whatever other figure we can come up with. The companies forcing us to accept these centers have money to make them more environmentally palatable. Thank you for your time.

mayor our final speaker is mr zach drummond good evening council i think ms beard should have been last i feel like i'm taking up a spot she would have been a veteran but in any case ladies and gentlemen of the city council The choice sits before you not of ushering Fayetteville into the age of AI or creating opportunity for the people of Fayetteville, but of choosing whether or not to invite a vampire into our collective home. A vampire with a nearly insatiable thirst for water and hunger for power, not uncoincidentally like many of those seeking to build them as fast as possible anywhere a town or city council will let them. You've no doubt been sold the supposed benefits for our community by this would-be addition to our fold. Enormous tax revenues without the bothersome downside of actually utilizing the services we taxpaying citizens support. Fayetteville is a welcome abode for private investment, a jobs boom during construction of this behemoth. After all, vampires are nothing if not polite when they're seeking entry into your home. Where reality lies, however, is once they're inside. As the bustle of construction fades, the incessant hum of the beast will remain, punctuated sharply by its army of diesel generators. What were intended to be strict guidelines pre-built will now merely be suggestions on how to operate. After all, who are we to refuse our new biggest water and power customer? Ultimately, who will pay the price of this invitation? We will. We who are unfortunate enough to be put into the path of this project will pay out of our pockets in the ever rising cost of electricity and the ever shrinking availability of water. This vampire will be sucking at both at rates near equal to the entire city it exists now on an annual basis. But even more so, our payment would be in our well being. the various pollutants of our new neighbor serving as a constant reminder that their contribution to this city was more important than ours. It is for these reasons I demand as your neighbor you consider a complete moratorium on all current and future data center proposals in this immediate region. If vampires are to be a necessary evil in the world, let us corral them where they can do the least harm to our society while providing what supposed benefits they claim. That place is not the doorstep of the sixth largest city in the state. Please do not allow this vampire into our midst. Thank you for hearing us out who were later speakers tonight.

All right, Madame Clark.

Mayor, we have no further speakers.

all right so council we uh appreciate your diligence for holding questions i do have some lights that i lit up i'll try to catch them in the order that they came in or that i saw them i think i have huh uh if are y'all through calling any any all right so we'll close the public hearing so council where i see council member andros and then mcmillan

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I tried to catch you before we opened the public hearing, but didn't push my button fast enough. St. John Chrysostom once said slander is worse than cannibalism. I wanna speak to accusations lobbed at some of my colleagues and I'll speak for myself. Currently to date, I own no land that's for sale to a data center. I own no land that I'm gonna develop for data center development. I'm not representing any sellers selling any land to data centers. I'm not representing any buyers that are buying land for data center development. I'm not receiving any consultation fee, and to date I've not signed any NDA or non-disclosure agreement. If there's any silver lining to any of these allegations, it has brought me closer to prayer. So I forgive those that lobby those slanderous, unsubstantiated claims against me. And to my knowledge, there's been not one elected public servant in the county or even in the state that has made those pledges that to date they're not representing or don't stand to gain a penny that I just made. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Council Member McMillan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Mayor, at this time, I move to call a public hearing under General Statute 160 Delta-107 on a data center moratorium to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance and the clerk to publish the required notice. Looking for a second. All right. Consider them weak.

Are any public hearing, Madam Clerk, what's the procedural process for that? Is it just like any other motion? Because we're still kind of having the hearing, so any guidance?

Mayor Colvin, I think he's asking for, I'm not, I think he's asking for a public hearing on a moratorium, so really the question is the motion to reconsider?

Because it's already been voted on.

Well, in order to get to the public hearing, you have to vote that you're going to have the moratorium.

Right, right, right. So, yeah, we've gone through that with him. So, I guess the first motion is to reconsider the vote on the moratorium.

Yes, sir, which will require eight.

Right. Super majority because it's not on the moratorium. order all right so council member you have something i'll amend that um i'd like to move that the council reconsider uh previous vote on a moratorium uh to allow for scheduling of a public hearing all right and this is a motion for which will require super majority councilman jones a second all right second all right discussion

All right, councilor, I look to your point. I do have plenty to say, probably more than Tom would allow. You all have done what you're supposed to do. My sister Carol, I really think it was despicable that she was put out of here. She's a respected member of this community. Two things she said, this is what democracy looks like. Democracy does look like you telling the people who represent you how to best protect you, right? And this group, this community, along with the community in Eastover has done that for months. Not hundreds, thousands of people at this point. have said we want a moratorium have said that this statutory pathway to protecting us to considering all of the facts in a comprehensive way is exactly what we want and i have heard you and other members of this council have heard you tonight we're going to have a vote to see how many of us We'll consider getting to where we are tonight on a UDO, UDO amendments, but through the process that the state has laid out to protect us by putting a temporary ban in place so that we can make the best decision for our communities. And I thank you all for coming to make that clear. And that is why this vote is on the table. All right. Thank you.

So is this, Councilman Davis, is this for discussion on this?

Yes, I have a question for my colleague. Is there a timeline for the moratorium or is it just a strictly moratorium?

I have explained this many times, Council Member Davis, I will say it again. In terms of a moratorium, we have to take the first step. The first step tonight is reconsideration. I would love your vote and your support on this, sir. We've talked about this in private.

Is it gonna be one year, two year, three year?

Let me finish, let me finish, please. The second step, sir, would be for our staff, our able-bodied staff, to set a public hearing date. The length of the moratorium, as I've been saying since April, does not have to be decided until the date of implementation.

It's not another discussion for you.

Just answer this question because you've had your first round. Please don't interrupt me. No, sir.

I have the floor and I have not yielded. No, you don't, sir. I have the floor and I have not yielded. No, you don't, sir.

You do not have the floor. I have the floor and I have not yielded. You do not have the floor, sir. Mr. Mayor, my question was answered.

So I had recognized Council Member Davis.

Council Member Davis. My question was answered. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. all right so we've got one chair to make tonight's meeting that's me we're not going to co-chair this meeting so when you recognize if you would like your second round but right now you have a motion you do have a second it requires super majority is there a second round of discussion on this particular motion or first round for any other council member i do have a question mayor all right uh and i don't know if if my questions may would be

for this item but i wanted to have some discussion and i have some questions on what was presented to us this is on this motion because we didn't have an opportunity to start asking questions okay so we've got to dispose of the motion okay all right councilman mcgreen on this motion yes on this motion thank you mr mayor um madam attorney can you just because we've had so much back and forth i'm i don't want to be confused i don't want anybody else to be confused

can you just outlay so if we vote to reconsider this that's the first step the second step would be the public hearing and the third step is the timeline or can you fix can you help me with that yes ma'am so if council approves the reconsideration then we have the vote on the motion which would be for the moratorium if council approves moving forward with the moratorium then we would bring back the ordinance And that is what we have the public hearing on.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. Is the council seeing none further? I'll tell you before you vote. I do have a second round. All right. Second round. One minute. Yes, sir. Yeah.

What I was explaining to Councilmember Davis is that the length of the moratorium, that's been an issue with council. Some of them are afraid that it'll go into three years because they know many of us are very much against data centers at all. Some of them want something as short as 120 days or six months. And what I've said over and over again is that's not to be decided tonight. That's something we as a council decide at a later date, at the date of adoption. And that's something I've tried to make clear over and over since April, because that's been thrown up as an obstacle to them supporting a moratorium at all. And I just wanted to clarify that there is a clear path to this. It was laid out in a very well put together presentation by our city attorney months ago. And tonight, I think we have an opportunity to make the right decision and move on this.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member.

All right, Council, I'll look to you for your vote. Councilman Mahindra, is there a question or you vote?

I can state it after. All right.

madam clerk who we miss all right all right motion fails five five uh acquired a super majority all right so back to the public hearing um council member harry you had your light yes we are the super majority you are you are yes ma'am all right yeah right and super majority can't fit in this room tonight

Councilman here. Okay. Thanks, Mayor. I did have some questions. I think, who did the, Mr. Harmon was it? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Harmon, please. Mr. Harmon. Okay. Dr. Newton is coming? Oh. Okay. Well, Dr. Newton, as you come, uh, I have a few questions and concerns about the on the presentation tonight and how it would work last last Friday I mean last Monday we had a number of items that were brought to us by our presenters and what my concern was I wanted to know how could we How was that or could it be related to what was given to us tonight? One thing that I remember from the work session meeting was as far as the MOU is concerned, the construction of the data center And that jargon or that information being in the MOU, the energy efficiency of the construction itself, When I was reading over everything, I think it was on page four, I did see something in your presentation, or the presentation that was given, about energy efficiency. And that's something that a lot of the residents speak of. Because I still want to go back to the concerns that we hear about, you know, and we did hear from PWC tonight, how will their use, the data center's use, reflect the bills or the utility bills of everyday residents? How will the water usage relate to the everyday citizens' bills? And what I was just wondering is, since we got a lot of that very great information from the presenters at the work session how do we tie that in you know this evening i'm maybe my council my colleagues can can can help me understand that how we do that because i've got a number of things uh you know i have i have an issue with the the the 150 uh setback or the generator setback um i want to know exactly what the premier buffer and I'm big on buffers, so the more the distance, the better. And I know one part in there was the eight-foot fence. So I've got a number of questions. I don't know if I can get them all kind of answered this evening, but Mayor, that's the direction that I'm going in, and maybe we can start out with some answers for you.

So I think, Dr. Newton, to kind of summarize all of that, it was over the course of these last four or five months, the council has been, seeking best practices and taking site visits to actually visit some of these because you know like like many of the people I don't know if you've ever actually seen one and not just on online but to actually see it to walk it to all of that but there were 15 things that they said should be in any ordinance and we heard a lot of that concern today one was noise that there's strict guidelines on noise regulation power water usage that there are commitments or in specific language in any ordinance that addresses that emissions and so the 15 best practices I guess or anything else that council has heard I guess council member Harris question is how can that be incorporated into that because what you have tonight is not a final document this is just staff's version of that so I guess what he's saying if there are changes or more strenuous regulations to put in there like thousand foot setbacks or 500 foot setbacks versus what's proposed how does that go about is this question

And one more thing to go along with that. It did tell us about, the presentation did tell us about setbacks, okay? But what my concern also is not just what the setback is, but what would be the distance between communities and the data center, not just the setback, if it's 100 feet, 1,000 feet, I got 1,000 feet, I got 3,000 feet. So those are the kind of concerns that I was questioning related to the presentation. Because I have no problem, I like a lot of what I heard tonight in the planning, what the planning has given, and of course what we've heard tonight by some of the professionals. Let him speak, okay. It's a lot, I got a lot, but yes, sir.

Dr. Newton, Development Services Director. Planning is one of the divisions that reports to me. They're also the ones that put together this information for you that you heard a couple different times. And we have followed the process that was set in place. And you have heard what was prepared and presented to the planning commission in February. And what we wanted to make sure that we gave you an opportunity, having listened to what you had said, to make sure that we have folded in that new information so you can filter what you saw and heard as a full city council in your work session and discussed. I think that's accomplished. The items that you've talked about, you've asked about how can we fold in the items from last week. But I would say that there are issues that even go further than that. There are ways that you can do that. And I need to back us up just for a minute to make a point. We're looking at text amendments that put something in place There is nothing in place now. Can these be adjusted? How can they be adjusted? We have presented to you that information. We're not talking about a physical location yet. I want to make a really important, I think a very important point for you to hear, and that is that focus has been on one location, but there is nothing in yet for that if they come in for that our recommendation is that it be a conditional zoning with development agreement with negotiated points that's where a lot of these standards can be put in place so that nothing can happen automatically and that idea of how that would be done ties to items that you can't generically just put in to an ordinance there are some things that we can't put in however if somebody applies should something be in place we have a baseline of standards so issues like setbacks the buffering it would be site detailed so they come in with a conditional plan. You've seen those before as a council in terms of what that means. They have to establish standards. I listened to the presentation that Mr. Harmon made and there clearly were some things that are hard to understand what they mean. It doesn't matter how smart, how new somebody is on this. There were some things that we said that maybe could be restated a little bit more. And I want to take just a moment to answer that in answering your question, Dr. Hare. Right now, we say there's nothing in place. There are some opportunities of what could be put in place. Nothing happens automatically. They would have to meet a set of standards In addition, that's a text that would then turn around. And if somebody wants to put that in, they would have to come through, if they are not already in a zone where the standards would be in place, and ask for an annexation in the case of what we've been hearing, have to work through a development agreement. And those are where a lot of these standards would, in turn, come in place. You've seen one that said, Plan development. What was that PDEC? That's a Plan Development Employment Center. In other words, if somebody wants to come in, they've got to develop an overall plan that meets a lot of standards, figure it out, work it out, work with the community, and come up with something that makes sense. That's what you are seeing in this. We also have put in there that a principal use or an automatic in with a whole set of standards has a higher standard based off of external sound effects of those generators and other diesel things and all those activities that are being put together. Those are the types of things, coming straight back to your question, trying to hit it straight on, those are the types of things that if this council by policy wants to have further now versus what's in place or proposed, that would be your decision as a policy as to direct the group, the staff, led by the manager. And I don't want you to think that this is just planning because, as you know, it's been Dr. Manziel and mr. Andy Brayboy who've been heavily involved and they're here to answer specific questions but that's how some of those items would come in dr. Harris it would come from this board having some policy positions that you want and ask us to do

All right so I did have some other lights Dr. Newton so you'll probably get a few questions so if you can kind of summarize them for us so to the best of your knowledge you're over planning and zoning the reason why your team pick this issue up in late last year early this year whenever the council first heard about it in in february march was because and i and i heard it presented uh earlier by uh mr harman is that there there is nothing in our ordinance that specifically dealt with this because it's relatively new is that is that correct that's correct so obviously uh that's the same for the smaller communities, the towns like Eastover and Godwin and Stedman and the other nine municipalities, Hope Mill, Spring Lake, because even the county, they're pretty much in the same situation. Do any of them, to your knowledge, have something in their ordinance that specifically talks about data centers?

No, they don't.

Right. So at some point, each board will be where we are. They're going to have to make a decision to add something that doesn't exist to the law, right? And so... whether it is Cumberland County who's doing it and the municipalities because it doesn't automatically apply to town boards. So the Eastover Council, I see the mayor here tonight and Mayor Pro Tem, they're going to have to take some action to adopt whatever standards those are. So at the end of it, everybody is going to be having this discussion at some point. Is that fair to say? Because it doesn't exist.

That is correct. I think the question is, or the extra to that is, when is the end of it?

Correct, correct. And so as we go through this, we may be the first through the door, but we certainly are not the last that's going to have to have this. And this is what we want to try to help everybody understand, we want to get it right as best we can but each town board as many of the residents are here from eastover tonight that have expressed that are going to have to have this conversation or as the county brings theirs up i think their their timeline is through the end of the or through december i think they have a six month as they are working through their process that uh that that will be submitted so i wanted to want to clarify that just from a procedural standpoint that we didn't just dream up something to do. This came up to test a law that doesn't exist and now the opportunity is to put in here the provisions that we can to tighten it up. And so the last thing I'd say is when we visited some of these in Loudoun County, which is an area that is in Northern Virginia, it has some rural components to it, but it has some urbanized areas to it too. But they actually have more data centers than anywhere in the world. It's called a data center alley. They said they have so many because they didn't have any rules. And so when one came, they treated it as office zoning. So everything that came in the office space automatically got approved. And then before they knew it, they had 10. And before they knew it, they had 20. And it kept going. And so they said the lesson to learn from them was to make sure you put something in place. And so what they shared with us was that these are the things that you would want to put in place. Because if you do this, because they have so many that have approached their community, you're going to have some who are bad actors who will say, I'm not going to put a 1,000 foot setback. That's not going to work for me. or I'm not gonna sign an agreement that says that I can't have my generators run when I want them to run, or that you have to have a certain low emissions generator, or I have to commit to a certain power usage or water usage. So there were things that we were told, and those are those 15 points that Council Member Hare pointed out, that we wanna make sure are in there, because at some point all of us are gonna have to have rules, it's just a matter of if it is gonna be protective enough, is that right?

Yes, and may I continue with that? Sure. The idea of all those items that you're referring to that have been shared, the 15 items that you heard from them, measure up to the idea of conditional zoning. Somebody comes in and applies. This is where you get those conditions in. And there are items that are outside of land use and zoning dealing with operational agreements that could be put together in development operational agreement. That is part of what could happen in the negotiated agreements before something comes in. So the very issues that you heard in the 15 best practices were not all tied to land use. Some of those were specific things that had to be worked on because of lessons learned from the first one in to where they are now. All right.

Council Member Green.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In preparing for this meeting tonight, I think we probably all had a lot of things to consider. We had a very lengthy agenda for consent items and they all have to be reviewed. But in saying that, the two things that, or one thing I heard tonight, um and it was from somebody that spoke for data centers but i was it was very interesting that representative soka while he's for them and understands them he also admitted that there were things that needed to be addressed that he did not see addressed so those five things um need need to be looked at in my opinion um if we're truly going to move forward in a in an in an attempt to get this right. We need to get this right. We don't need to speed through it and fail somewhere where we fail for a lot of, number a number of years rather than just getting it right the other person that I want to acknowledge that was very impressive to me was during the work session Clarence Briggs who's the owner of a IT which is a data center here in town it's been here for years on a smaller scale but he gave us a lot of information during that work session he also followed it up with a very lengthy email and which I have highlighted a lot of portions of it he makes a lot of gives a lot of kudos to city staff and I want to do the same because they have spent a lot of hours doing this research and this work for us and I want to thank them for that research because people like me as the speaker said earlier I don't have the wisdom of Solomon i would love to have the wisdom of solomon and i do pray for that wisdom all the time but so far i haven't gotten on the data centers to the extent that i probably need it so um i i appreciated mr briggs's comments um along the lines of these are the things that the city where the city got it right where the city staff is exactly on target but this would put more teeth in it so i appreciate someone who can take a report and realize that hey we got to a but we need to be to b and so we need to tighten up what goes from a to b so i would like to really entertain a discussion and i'm prepared to make a motion if i if we get to that point after discussion to add, to have staff look at those two sets of separate recommendations from two different people and combine them into some of what is already been presented. And I think that's where you were headed.

Yes, ma'am. I'll come back to you. And Mr. Briggs did send an email tonight. Yes. If he hadn't.

Another one?

Yes, ma'am. Okay. Yeah. All right. Council Member McMillan. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Doc, I had a question, if you could, or Craig, about the ordinance itself or the amendments itself. And a question that's been coming from the community is this concern about by right and what is allowed by right. And I saw language that discussed standards as permitted, and it was attached to LIHI, light industrial, heavy industrial, and I'm wondering if you could address the concerns the community has about by-right exclusions that allow folks to come in without a special use process that really allows us to take a good look at the application. I also wanted to note, when we say we don't have a site, that's not altogether accurate, in my opinion, just because if we look back at late last year, we got two pre-applications, one from ESS for Dunn Road, and the other one was from Terra Nexus. And I'm sure those are just shell companies that probably are attached to much larger entities that are secret to us right now. But when we say we're not looking at it, we're not looking at a particular site, it is denying the existence of those two pre-applications. That's what brought the folks from Eastover in concern about something that has 200 megawatts attached to it already. and pre-application and I wanna acknowledge that and then encourage all of my colleagues when we're talking to the public to talk to them with that level of clarity. Yes, there have been pre-applications and there's been an admittance by the FDECD that they're on pause looking to see what we do. These companies are really watching to see what we do next, and that's another reason why I'm pushing for a moratorium. But again, the question about the standards as permitted, HILI, those classifications, then overall the concerns that our community has about what is permitted by right.

Are we able to put up the attachments and share the attachments that are in their packet that would have the actual ordinance amendments? can someone assist on that I can clarify a little bit more it was under baseline principal use I understand I actually do think that I can illustrate it by showing you what you have in your exhibits you have attachments specifically and I'm gonna step away so just hold on a second

So those are all the text amendments. You're just going to have to open each one. Which one do you need?

So I can click on. We'll go to. Which one do you want?

Yes. It's the slide that says ordinance two, use table.

Ordinance two. Ordinance two and three are the ones that I'm looking for. OK. And then. So it's higher impact.

Sorry.

oh it opened it just by itself sorry and you said three there you go both of them they'll pull mark home will have to bring it up on the screen but yes sir

while they're getting it where you can see this information that we just have loaded. Let me hit your second item first. It's text amendments. We have had locations in the city, outside the city. We've had multiple conversations on that. What I wanted to make sure that was being understood is that I'm not trying to cover anything except explain, this is the text. If anybody wants to come in, they're going to have to go through the process. That process would be laid out as I'm getting ready to share a little bit more here on. in particular because you have mentioned that and it's been used a lot of times as to the one that's been identified that would require an annexation that annexation comes in where they have to request a zoning and that has a public hearing that is also where standards that's where conditions what's where development agreements can all come into play so I was not trying to diminish that but to point that out is that would be another step if a that project came through. Now to what you are seeing, and this is not one that the audience can necessarily see, but let me just describe it. You ask the question of the ones that say a P. And right now, we have, in terms of telecommunication on data storage facilities as a principal use being permitted in those business park, light industrial, heavy industrial, as currently written. And there'd have to be a master plan for those other two plan development projects. It's a set of standards. Essentially, those standards then are allowed with standards. Those standards are in your next ordinance, which is detailed in the packet and it was summarized in the PowerPoint. here. This stack of pages covers a lot of those standards. If there were areas that you need to focus in on from points that have been made, that have been heard and listened to before, a lot of them come in at this place, in these standards, like setback requirements, Birmingham. having not only maximum sound, but also having that low reverberating that you heard information on that we also received material from. It would be in that section of the ordinance. Not so much in the airport, which is the fifth one, and not so much on the fourth one on the parking. The state has since done some revisions that probably are going to require us to modify that part one. But in terms of definitions, it's the first one that you have. two is the location that you're asking about and three these are the standards that if they meet these standards they'd be able to come into those spots that are identified all right here dr newton we have quite a few more lights on so i need to just all right councilman mcmillan you good on your question

So then here addressing the by right language, and do you think that that is something that could be addressed in this process, removal of that?

That is a policy of this board, and certainly it is something that could be done. Whether or not that's the policy decision that you want to do is we leave that to this council.

All right. Let's see. Council Member Hondros.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We've heard a lot this evening about conditional zoning and or operations agreements. Are those mentioned in the proposed UDO revisions in our PowerPoint presentation in our packet tonight? I guess that's for either Mr. Harmon or Dr. Newton, either one.

No, they are not. Again, those would be ones that we've mentioned, what we've presented, what we've provided, and they're not in there. It would come with conditional zoning as the recommendation.

So thank you. To my colleague's question about by rights, I think in the proposed revisions tonight in the packet, it was HILI and CC, is that correct?

BP. Business Park. Business Park.

Four of them?

Not. It's only those business part?

Not CC. So HI, LI, and BP. Yes. So out of the three, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, HI probably has the most lenient standards as far as setbacks and those things.

yes so well yes and it does as it currently exists as a regulation in general in general right in general so my question is because i think the the conversation has has been um

not it's kind of been hijacked in a way so because I've received a lot of questions and I've had a lot of conversations with residents that they basically start out are you are you for data centers or you know are you gonna vote for the data centers tonight and I just want to be clear that Council's policy and budget, right? So we don't we don't we never approve projects. It doesn't matter if it's a mobile home project residential subdivision or Any other projects so we pass policy we adopt ordinance and then staff when somebody When when a resident property owner or developer submits an application for whether it's a technical review or whether it's a permit to build something to start moving dirt to create a subdivision, staff approves those projects based on the development standards that council has adopted, correct?

Correct, and there are times when you have conditionally approved zoning. So it's a zoning, and then you have that. Yeah, you have straight zoning and conditional zoning. Conditional zoning. Right. And in that conditional zoning, you often have concept plans that have a set of standards that are in place, as well as some things that can't happen. Right. So yes.

So the current HI setbacks for just general, and HI is heavy industrial, so general heavy industrial projects on an HI zone property currently, The minimum setback is 50 foot for many yard, front, rear, side yard, correct?

I don't have that in front of me. I suppose you're looking at something.

Is that right? Do you know off the top of your head? Setbacks for HI zoning. This is more than 50 feet. Okay, so in the proposed revisions this evening, can we pull up the slide what the proposed setbacks are for specific data center developments in either of those three zonings, HILI or BP?

Can you see where I've scrolled?

Barely.

Yeah. My eyes aren't what they used to be. Hold on. Let me see if I can do this better.

There you go. So 250, is that for the generator? And then 500 for the? So on C there, administrative review 1C.

What you need to look at, if I can interrupt you please. Please. This is an acoustical compliance memo. And it says that as a part of what would be reviewed on a site plan application, these are the standards that would have to be in place. And as you see, it has a couple different things as to what has to be put in and at what location. We do have a provision that's, well, you see it in D. any generator cooling equipment mechanical equipment is proposed within 250 feet a lot line requires this but there's also a provision that and says can't be closer than 200 feet if it is doing that what you heard from people in in an open agricultural area, that's not FAR. And those are the types of things. So by zone, it's not laid out that way because these are standards for that use. These are specific standards for that use. Let me move another spot.

Right, and the distinction I was trying to make is, you know, the current, I think, setbacks for the most part in HI is 50 foot. That's a 250 foot. The section we were just at stated a 250 foot setback and a 500 foot setback, and we can debate whether that's far enough. You know, I've heard that it needs to be 1,000, 1,500 feet or 2,000 feet, but what we can't, disagree on is that whether it's 200 or 500 is greater than the setback that's currently on the books. Per North Carolina laws, the state constitution, general statute, and case laws, the fact that currently data centers aren't defined in our UDO and they're not included in our use table does not disallow that use, correct? The fact that it's not in our use table, state law dictates that they must be allowed, right?

combination of a correct and that is what our ordinance has in place that when it's not when a use that wasn't contemplated or known when I was put in it is a decision of the city manager as to where it best fits so when I you know state that the the conversation kind of been hijacked or usurped in a way because I think many many don't know that it just because it's not on our use table it's not disallowed it's it

State law says it must be allowed, and the way our current ordinance is written, I think our attorney has told us that it comes down to the discretion of the city manager. So what council's trying to do, and again, we can all, the 10 of us on this dais and everybody in this room, can debate whether the proposed revisions go far enough, but there are currently restrictions and protections that we currently don't have. Would that be a fair and accurate statement?

Yes, and I want to just make sure that you see what I highlighted as I was scrolling down, because these are use standards. You see that it says generators, mechanical equipment, yards, no closer than 200 feet. Yep, I'm closing up soon. 200 feet from the shared line. So it is an additional standard, but it is shown here as a standard for data centers at 200.

Thank you. So I just, in closing, a lot of residents that I've spoken to in the last several months, again, want to know what we're actually voting on and then kind of how we got to where we are today. And I just want to say, in large part, the hearing we had tonight should have happened in the fourth Monday, which is our second regular scheduled meeting in March. Why? There was a lot of discussion today about process and procedure. The City of Fayetteville Planning Commission received that report and had a public hearing in February. Since I've served on this council for the last four plus years, when the zoning commission or the planning commission hears a case and has a public hearing, we council receives that presentation and has a public hearing the very next month usually the second regularly scheduled meeting, which is always the fourth Monday. So without any action by council, we should have had this public hearing today in March or April. At that meeting, we could do exactly what we're gonna do today. We could either take an action to adopt the revisions, we can reject the revisions, we could send it back to, remand it back to staff for additional work, or we could have a discussion about a moratorium. That could have been had back in March or April, And I just want it to be known that we're here today in large part because of our city manager. He chose not to put it on the agenda for whatever reason. And we've seen a pattern of that because it happened with this item. It happened 18 months ago with the signed ordinance, and it happened with the budget season.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Huntress. Council Member Jones.

Yes, thank you so much. Not so much of a question, just some quick questions. statements. I heard two words tonight that resonated. There's more. With those two words coupled with another phrase that was stated, we will eventually have gotten there, meaning to an approved UDL. Both of those things are true. And for me, I knew we wouldn't necessarily get to, in my personal opinion, a resolve on tonight. If I can just kind of piggyback, not necessarily totally on what my council member to my left has stated, but I believe personally, for me, we kind of started off wrong. In March, it came to me, let me speak for me, at a work session, kind of surprisingly, to vote on something that, again, had been being worked on before my time in the appropriate manner, of course, going through the zoning commission, planning, et cetera. I was going through the appropriate channels. So it started off wrong. So to me, it set a bad precedent, not only for me, but even for the public, because that's when you can start eroding public trust, even if you're on the right track. And so I know some adjustments were made, some things were made in regards to letting council know about certain requirements. very important things that were coming either through planning or zoning, so I appreciate that shift. So that to me kind of started a downward spiral. Number two, Madam Attorney, just for clarity, because I've heard a lot of my constituents' actions, they were just really confused about the four month pause. That was not a pause on construction, that was a pause on having an actual moratorium. yes sir okay all right and I want to say because I spent a lot of time just clarifying clarifying some things so I do agree with councilman hondros in the fact I do believe part of this we could have been a little further along I do believe with that again personal opinion if we would have enacted at least a six I say if it was a six month moratorium back then a lot of this would have been in my personal opinion would have been spit up would have been sped up we would have had some public input and again going back to those two words I heard tonight there's more because we knew we were going to really end up here and not really get there. And so it would have at least provided us some protection from there. She laid out the framework for it. It could have been in place. And whenever the UDOs got to a place through public input, through experts, whatever it is that council decided as a whole that we needed inside of those UDOs, we would have been there at that point. So we're right back here at the same spot now. There's more to be done. So for me, it would still be practical That's why I voted the way I did in regards to reconsidering the moratorium, just because there's more to be done. And if we want the protections, I do firmly still believe that going through that process of the moratorium would outline it, and it would get us eventually to that place of an approved UDO. So I just wanted to share that. And then lastly, I appreciate everyone that has spoken, sent emails. just expressed themselves in community meetings. When we say, when I say, let me say that again, speak for myself, that we listen, I listen, I do listen. I listen to the public, I listen to the constituents, those that put me here and even those that don't because I know I represent the whole of Fayetteville. At the same time, I also realize that that doesn't always equate to we're gonna agree on everything. There are some things where we're gonna just grossly disagree. uh disagree on uh so but i want you to know i have heard you i i'm listening and i i run that through because we spend uh we have spent a lot of money on studies uh hundreds of thousands on studies on surveys things of that nature because we want to get things right we whatever it is so for me i really want us to get this right so to me that pathway to that has been laid out in the form of taking the time to do it

again addressing everything that needs to be done all right thank you there's more and we will eventually get there thank you Mr. Mayor yes sir all right Mayor Pro Tem first round thank you Mr. Mayor first let me say good job Planning Commission you guys have brought us a foundation on where we can start from let me just state this first we know that we are in this position not because of anybody else's fault but because of new technology that's coming We have heard a lot of individuals' concerns, and we do hear you. You have to remember, we live in this community just like you do. If you say it's a danger to you, it's a danger to me, and it's a danger to my grandkids. And I'm sitting here to make sure that I do everything to make sure I have a future for them. So my question is, Mr. Harmon or Dr. Newton, we talked about establishing standards. Standards are going to be based off of what type of data center comes, because I don't know who it was that spoke and said, what are we arguing about if nothing has come here yet and we don't know what they want, whether it's going to be 50, 100, 250, 300 megawatt center. So I guess my question is, we talked about standards again, and I think this came from Mr. Briggs, who gave us the presentation on Monday. How do we decipher, let me rephrase that, When we decipher that a data center is coming a large scale, where is our checklist even though we have a SUP? And how do we put that into the UDO, either adopt it in the next meeting,

Well, if you look at the, and the staff could answer that, but if you look at those best practices, it's separated by, you know, megawatt usage, I guess. So, AIT has been there 20 plus years. Mr. Briggs said it's one to two. And so, it was different criteria based on if it was a 50 or 100 or higher.

I got that, Mayor, but I'm talking, speaking of standards. I'm pretty sure when you have a closet data center, they have a standard that they have to abide by that you establish in your UDL. I want you to do the same thing when you have a 200 or 300 megawatt data center that's coming, so they know what the standard is when they do come. How do we implement that into our UDL?

So I guess, Mr. Newton, because you'll get a lot of scenarios tonight. I guess tonight is more like process. So as the council are bringing up these various concerns that we've heard and the public has stated, to embed that into this as a text amendment, or can you clarify Just like we do on our current UDO that was crafted, I guess, what, 2012, 2013? We add and change and make it tighter or less strenuous based over time. Can you talk to the process part of that, like Mayor Pro Tem is asking?

Briefly. The first part, briefly? Yes, sir. And I'll try to be precise and accurate and brief. New technology is requiring new standards. We have learned that the Senate bill that has been referred to as the one that maybe we can just rely on, that's for 100 megawatts. That's too large. That's the only one that they're looking to regulate. So we would need to come back and look at other standards that have exactly thresholds and types. That is something that would need to be addressed in here. We haven't even talked about the transmission infrastructure. There's an acknowledgment that the Utility corridors would need to be established. We cannot rely on the network that currently exists. It's not adequate. And there's been no discussion of that. The process is, to go back to this point, the process that we're currently in is holding that public hearing looking at honestly receiving the feedback from everybody, considering it, and then determining what course of action you want to take. There is nothing that requires you to take action tonight. You can decide when you want this to be determined. You can set, these are the things. And you heard one of your council members suggest something that could actually be used and looked at that would establish some of those items. Not all of these are going to be tied to development or zoning or the UDO. Some of them are going to be in other ordinances of the city, such as the noise ordinance. There's others that will come in as development agreements that are outside of the parameters. And then on top of that, we have to also process-wise stay in tune with what the standards are that the state continues to pass statutes that have impacts on what local government can and can't regulate.

that's all process that's all things that we have to keep our eyes on and keep moving on Can I follow up with that Mr. Mayor because I want to use the example of you guys going to Loudoun County how do you guys have how did they come up with their standards for the different types of data centers did they have and did they already have it in the UDO do they do it by SUP

uh they could you know now andy spent a lot more time getting into the which we definitely need to hear from him because he he played a significant role up there um but uh some of the 15 that their vice chairman recommend recommended they adopted a portion of that but andy could probably speak to some of the high level stuff but i think there is a process now as to where instead of it automatically fitting into light industrial or office that it triggers them to come before council because they have so many and so that was so every time they came to council and council before there was there was nothing there was nothing that regulated so and it could probably speak more to that good and yeah and dr manziel

Good evening, Council, Mayor Pro Tem, Andy Brayboy. To your point, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor, in Loudoun County, they coined it as the Wild Wild West at the time. There was no regulation, so it was by right use for everything, and Loudoun County caught the wave of the data centers. and that's how they got their big growth. Dr. Newton and his team has worked extensively well on the text amendments that we have before tonight, addressing a lot of those by-right use issues in certain areas. Loudoun County is at a different point, of course, than where Fayetteville is at. Loudoun County is not Fayetteville. Our structure here would be much, much different. They're at what we refer to as the mountaintop looking back down. They refer to that as it was time for them to diversify. That was their pivoting point from data centers because it was such a large piece of their portfolio for what they're doing in Loudoun County. To your point, Mayor Pro Tem, There was no regulation at a time for Loudoun County, so everything was allowed. And to the point now, they've recently, I think, as far as March of 2025, as of March of 2025, everything becomes before their elected body now. Got you.

That's what I wanted to hear.

That's right.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. Council Member Hare. Well, thank you, Mayor. I want to go back to okay everybody left i want to go back to my very very beginning question and i've heard a whole lot of conversation but i haven't heard where we're going with this i greatly appreciate what the planning department has presented tonight i like it okay but my question was council and staff and our legal team from and from the email that I sent over the weekend to what I'm asking once again tonight out of what we have heard from our work session even my colleague to my right already spoke on it from how are we going to connect those two are we going to receive the information from tonight with sending it back to staff to adjust to not only the five points that we heard from our former legislator, the points that we received from the work session from Mr. Briggs and the other presenters, how are we gonna bring those together in order for us to move forward now that was my question there hasn't been an answer yet so i'm waiting on where are we going now from this because that was what my concern was i mean you all got the email you probably got it sunday i wanted to know about this and tonight we'll still count us right where we are mayor so that's where i am so so uh councilman here good point i think

I think that the question has kind of been addressed in different phases. One, there have been a number of council members who said, if I wanted to add something or I wanted it to go farther than what you're presenting, what's the process? And then I think Dr. Newton said that this is your document. You can adopt it. You can add. You can strengthen it. You can do whatever you'd like to do. So I think that is the basis to the answer of your question, that whatever it is now, it will take us some time to get to the whatever it is, because there are a lot of different things to consider. There's stuff that we learned in Loudoun County. There are things that we learned that other communities are doing. There are mistakes that people made that we don't want to make. So it will take a process of getting and amending this document like we've been doing the current UDO. It's 700 pages and we've had probably 700 amendments to it, I know. We had task forces and committees, so I think tonight they presented it, this is a public hearing, which was to hear back from the people, even though we've had several meetings and at every public forum since we've had this first discussion, to Council Member Hondo's point, When this kind of popped on our radar, we've had people who were concerned about it and they came. And it's not that we don't hear what you say because there are a lot of people we talk to who don't want to speak in front of people. Catch us at the grocery store or at church and say, hey, I want to know more about what you're talking about. But I think tonight the goal is we've heard the staff. Staff will hear us. There's stuff that Mr. Briggs gave. There was professional testimony from the work session last week that we heard from NC State. Stuff that people gave us.

That we heard from citizens.

And so I think what the bottom line is that you take all of that and you send them back to come back with their version of how they capture all of that. Okay, that's where we roll. All right, Council Member McNair.

Thank you Mister mayor, I want to elaborate on the fact that I made a friendly amendment to the motion. so that we could gather accurate information from other locations. Actually, when we visited several data centers here in Fayetteville, in Durham, and in Virginia. So my question right now is to ask Andy and Andrew if they would I don't know if the public wants to hear it but I think they should the 15 best practices that was presented by Vice Chair Commissioner Mike Turner in Virginia I think it would be an adequate time to do that because these are some of the things that should be added to the UDO before it's passed

Thank you, ma'am. So when we met with Vice Chair Mike Turner in Loudoun County, this is his area of expertise from an elected official standpoint. And he has drafted and published what he calls the 15 best practices for communities considered data centers. This is his white paper. this topic councilmember Manier I don't I'm not sure so what I'll do is we'll give the high level because it is extensive if or unless you want me to know no high level okay so what I'll do is I guess the best way we could preface this is I'll give the top 15 per se high level wise and then dr. Manziel he can elaborate

a little bit more on each.

so he lays out in his white paper of course the elements that we're all looking at which is noise power water emissions setback and appearance and council for those who who participated in the loudon county um trip councilman mcnair we spent quite a quite a bit of time together on on this trip um we we got to see firsthand um the field observation of these six items um noise We stood at the sidewalk of these data centers, hyperscalers, power. We spoke with the engineers, with the subject matter experts, what their power grid looks like, the challenges that they have, and they were candid. with us they didn't hold back they didn't sugarcoat anything they were really direct that their grid can be strained at times and like all things there is a trade-off in the type of system that you use by this time i'm sure most people have heard of the closed loop system so like with anything What our research has shown, talking with all the experts, which we've had the pleasure to do, is the trade-off is if you have a system that uses more water, you're going to use less energy or less power. Trade-off to that is if you have a system that uses less water, like a closed loop, you're generally going to use more power. That is the trade off. Of course, technology is rapidly expanding. They're constantly coming out with new technologies. And that's currently where the data shows for power. For water, they used closed loop system. That was his best practice for water was the closed loop system at the time. They use about 10%, this is Data Center Alley, and they use about 10% of their total water capacity for Loudoun County. And they also, we had the pleasure to visit one of the reclamation centers there. for one of the hyperscalers, which is where they reuse that wastewater. Emissions, their standard was the tier four generators, which produced the least to almost no emissions. That is the standard, the tier four. He also let us know that not everyone can get a tier four. because they're so backordered. So if you cannot install or require a tier four generator, you would look at something like a tier two or a tier three with what you consider like a Cadillac converter for the emissions. uh it was also we noticed uh mayor we we call eye to this um a lot of these systems use typically the same setup as the hvac system on 410a um 410a coolant basically And then you go to the setback, he required, part of his best practice was 500 to 1,000 setback. And then appearance, this is one thing Council Member Manera and I really, this caught our eye driving through data center alley. You would drive, look left and it was a data center, look right, it was a data center. But while we noticed that all the buildings were for the most part, aesthetically appeasing. They weren't ugly warehouses per se. Everything had a common appearance to it. They also had protocols in place to where if it was corridor facing, like facing the highway or facing a neighborhood, you had to have some type of facial on your building that resembles an actual building, not just a concrete slab. 30% of the building that's right 30% of the building that was facing the corridor even if it was fake windows it had to have windows so that was a part of the appearance so that was that was the the high level of his 15 best practices noise power water mission setback and appearance and they're they're constantly innovating themselves you know they're they're a leader they're a standard in this in this era and in this industry really so it was it gave council first-hand experience on what the industry experts look like Sir that's a great overview of what we learned in Loudoun County from 15 best practices we brought those back to the city here and compared them to the TA 2601

just to see where we were compatible, where we could tighten up what we have, um, in the specific areas. So we looked at the noise, uh, the noise section and everything that we have in our Texas amendment is either partially aligned or fully aligned with what they're suggesting with the power implications. Some things that are not currently in the package that we could consider adding. They talked about building near power, existing power lines, but no closer than two times the right of way. That's currently not in our package. Long-duration energy storage, 10-plus hours of non-lithium ion, again, zoning for battery storage, sitting in common, mandating a specific technology deserves a legal look. With the water portion, determining potable versus reclaimed water supply is not in our package. It was a suggestion on the 15 practices. They said disclosure is available if wanted. Whether reclaimed water is an option here is a PwC system question. In determined wastewater treatment, can the local plant produce the discharge? Disclosure is available if wanted. The capacity determination itself belongs to PwC. Talking about the tier four backup generators versus the tier two, we came back and analyzed that and found that that requirement sits with the state. North Carolina assigns air quality to the state. The local generator tier rule would need a legal path instead. Lastly, appearances, like Mr. Bradbury was talking, limited building height and floor area ratio for compatibility currently is also not in our package. But the mayor is absolutely correct when he's describing the flow and the process of this evening's events. You heard the same presentation that you heard earlier this year. The difference is you have a lot of education between then and now. Things might make a little more sense hearing it the second time. And in between those two, February and now, you're able to go to Raleigh, you're able to go to Loudoun County and see this stuff firsthand, see the impacts. And it can make a little more sense on what the regulations say. So anything that you've heard from the presenters, anything that we've learned during the research and education portion, absolutely, staff can take that back and add them in. It's totally up to you.

All right. Thank you. All right. Council Member McMillan, second round.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On July 27th, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors voted six to one to direct staff to prepare an item placing a moratorium on new data center applications. So we went to Data Center Alley. Our city council, some of our members, very likely signed NDAs to sit with industry for hours upon hours. That was their second trip to spend time with industry to talk about data center. And some of them came back sounding like data center salesmen. Talking about the virtue of closed loop systems. Ladies and gentlemen, we got a brief from an expert that told us there's no such thing as a closed loop system. The water has to go somewhere. Do you want to drink water that used to have refrigerants in it? The water's gonna come back to your drinking supply and to our river. So I say that all to say it's nice to quote the pleasantries that you experienced sitting with the data center industry in Loudoun County, but please do what Cumberland County did. Listen to people. They're going into their second of three sessions where they're listening to the public as part of their moratorium process. I urge you all to continue to push this board to do what's right and offers the best protections to reject these UDL amendments tonight. and to continue demanding more for you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. You know, you said a lot there that I think was worthy. Here you are, critical of your colleagues making policy, and it didn't take one trip to learn anything about it. Not a single trip. Not a minute of his time was invested in going to see something firsthand versus what you saw on the internet.

So had you gone, oh, excuse me, sir, I got the floor.

You made your comment, so I want to straighten it out since you didn't spend any time doing it, which we've seen that several times tonight. So if you would have gone to Loudoun County, what you would have seen and heard was that they said because they have 300, it is time to consider a moratorium, a stop, because they have too many. So that is the context that you leave out, but you missed that by not putting in the work. And then finally, you would have also known, had you taken the time to go even across the street, that not a single NDA was signed, and that's where rumors are perpetuated. Not a single NDA was discussed. These folks were open for us to come in there and we didn't have to sign a thing. So all of those stories that whoever's typing up your words, it's coming off of Google, but you didn't actually take any time to go and see it for yourself. So we can't allow you to put out these falsehoods to bring speculation where it's not necessary. So, state with facts, and as we make policy, we've gotta leave our opinions. There are a lot of projects that I don't necessarily wanna approve when people come in here and stand before us. Whether it's tobacco shops or vape shops or whatever it is, but I take time to read my material and do my research. Because I am not making an opinion based on what Mitch wants to do, I'm trying to make a broader policy decision. So, at the end of that, council member, it would have behooved you to actually see one for yourself. And it would have taken a little bit of your time. All right, so Council Member Green.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to make a motion that we take what was presented to us in the UDO text tonight and that we refer this back to staff. to for them to consider and make recommendations additional recommendations well additional

Make additional, make additions.

There we go. Make additions to that. Based on some of the things that we've heard and the concerns that have been addressed, in whatever form, I will particularly state Representative John Sokka's comments, Mr. Clarence Briggs' comments from Monday night and from the subsequent emails that he sent, and the 15 best practices sheet that was received at Loudoun County, Virginia. and any other source that we feel like addresses the same type issues and that we bring this back to a special session where the public can be part of this process when we receive it back all right all right the most by councilman green second by here yes sir all right

All right.

Oh, I saw you with your light on. That was Davis because he had planned it. You got to amend that, Madam Clerk. I'll fall on that sword. He beat it. Yeah, Davis, yeah.

To my colleague from District 2.

All right, Councilman Honduras, you have a question, discussion, or you vote?

That's okay.

All right. Are these votes or questions? Questions, Mr. Mayor. All right. Mayor Pro Tem and then McMillan.

Councilwoman Green, did you want to go over Soka's five points, or did you just want staff to go back and review the minutes of the tape and do it?

I think it's fine. He was pretty precise in those five. I wrote them down. That's why I asked. I did too, and I'm sure staff can go back. If they don't, you and I both have them. I'm sure Jennifer has captured them in the meeting, in the minutes.

All right, and Council Member Green, just for clarification, it kind of talked offline prior to that because this is a lot of information for them to consolidate, that they have the 15 best practices, they have the presentation, they have Mr. Briggs, they have Zoka, and they have the concerns that they've heard. Did your motion leave room for a special meeting perhaps in the scheduling? So I would like to put some specificity to when they return, but we don't have to have the exact date, but we need to ask them to come back at a certain time so that then we can clarify.

I'm not sure what's realistic. Does someone?

So I guess Dr. Manziel, Dr. Newton, if I guess we maybe you can give us an update. And we're not asking you to come back with the package because it's going to take time to go through each one of those things because you've got a lot of different things that may align and some may not align. I guess would this be more for Dr. Newton, Dr. Manziel? I know you were kind of leading the way. What do you think? A couple of weeks. beginning of the month or something of next month, maybe to give us an update and let us know kind of.

I think that sounds a little bit quick.

Maybe not. Well, we're asking them. That's what I meant. If only there was a moratorium. Exactly. Exactly. All right.

seems that we can give you we should be able to give you a good update and do what exactly what you've asked for in two months coming back in two months and that would not give you all points but as i heard the motion and understand the motion it is to work through those 15 points that are from Virginia where they have proffers and they have different statutes so we'd have to translate what that means and then John Zoka that you heard what him saying from 22 states and practices best practices folding that in and then the third one on Briggs and what he has said Clarence Briggs in the presentation as well as what the community has been asking for that we can bring you that information back in about two months and I heard special meeting when that would be yeah we can determine the time I guess something in the October time period all right so so that sounds that sounds good is that you're amenable to that hit your mic for me Council Member Green I'm sorry

Sorry, I thought it was still on. I'll amend my motion to be a special meeting on or before the end of October.

All right. All right. This is a motion by Council Member Graham. It was amended as reflected and seconded by Davis. You accept the friendly amendment? Yes, sir.

All right. Discussion?

Yes. Discussion on the motion. Martin, you had a question, comment?

Thank you, Mayor. My question was, Excuse me. Water and power is something that we have not really heard a lot about. I would have thought and would have loved to have heard from PWC because we're talking about a lot of things. You've been with us tonight? He spoke on it for three minutes, and he generally said that we're always going to protect your water. I mean, I'm talking about in depth, because these are the ones that's going to control what we drink and our power. My question, Dr. Newton, is how does what the plan that PWC has for data centers, how will that affect the proposed UDO?

I can speak to it theoretically, but I obviously can't speak on behalf of PwC. There are different utility providers. They're not the only one. It could have something that if it's in the county or in the city. So we heard about the rate protection that they referred to. Correct. The other items of consumption? and making sure that they have capacity, that they frankly have the full distribution lines in place. Those are things that they'd have to answer. We could fold that in.

It didn't come up tonight, but there were community service agreements I think they were called CSAs to where you could capture those things that may not be something that you normally regulate, but it's like a contract so that you say that you agree not to impact the water. Some of those areas that there were gaps between what the local government could do, they had community service agreements. So when Dr. Manziel has

has some of some of that information so that could capture yes that could address some of that that's part of what i was trying to allude to before the conditional zoning where you can put development agreements together they capture all those elements that we don't mean we benefit agreements yeah there's they come by different names different states have different ways we have from multiple states including virginia and ohio All right. Councilman, you good? Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm not good, but I'm good. Go ahead.

You had a floor, sir.

Well, it's just John sitting next to you, so go ahead.

No, because we always talk about these elements, water, power, land, air, and noise, and we only can focus and control the land and the noise with our current UDO. We're talking about water and power, and I understand and thank you, Mr. Henson, for bringing that information. You only had three minutes, and you were basically saying in general, we're going to do this, we're going to make sure we do this. But I would love to hear a complete, full-scale plan that PWC has and all the other utilities that are gonna directly affect us. That's great, all the other ones is wonderful, but they're not gonna affect us directly. PWC and these other utilities are. So it would be great to know their plan and it would seem to me that they're interrelatable in that they come together as it relates to all of these different functions. That's what I would like to see, is to hear more from these utility companies, and that's why I asked the question, how does what their plan is, because they're developing a plan as well, how does that correlate with our current proposed UDL?

And Council Member Ferguson, good point. They did give quite a bit of extensive conversation in Q&A last week. You had South River, you had PwC represented as well as North Carolina DEQ.

Right, we had a chance to ask questions, but they didn't give a presentation. All right.

Council Member Jones. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick question, Madam Attorney, just for a point of clarity so that I can make sure I am still informing my constituents. When we take this vote tonight for the next few months, we would still be without technically any protections.

Yes, sir.

Okay, and I'm in agreement that we do need to do everything we just said. I probably couldn't support the vote tonight just because I still feel we need some sort of protection. I am definitely for the aspects that need to be addressed. I know it sounds conflicting, but it is definitely not. Again, we will get to where we need to get to. Just for me, I think there was a pathway to that. Thank you.

All right.

Council Member McMillan. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I cannot support supporting UDL amendments tonight, and I will vote in line with that conviction. Ask my colleagues to remember that how you vote is a standing record of your attention to the care of this community. And we will, all of us will look at the vote for tonight and determine, ask the question basically why many of you are not in support of a moratorium but are in support of doing things that fall far short of the comprehensive process that this agrees with. I can't reconcile how you can say, I'm so concerned that I need to define data centers, yet not do the very thing that allows you to comprehensively, as best you can, protect your community. Why does your concern stop short of a moratorium? I'll also say this. Only one member of this council who is pro data center is so deep in his conviction that he said to the press, we don't want a moratorium because it sends the message that we're closed for business. I need to hear from everybody else why you don't want a moratorium. The mayor said that openly, and I respect him at least for voicing his opinion. He's pro data center. I want to know why those other council members who will not support a moratorium will not say why.

All right. All right. Thank you. Council Member Hondros.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to piggyback on my two colleagues to my right. They mentioned power, water, those things. Over ten, probably over two weeks ago now, I sent an email prior to last Monday's work session asking similar questions about having – utility company representatives to answer certain questions like if a large industrial user that was a large utility, electric or water user, wants to come to town and create a new development, a new industry, how they address those things so i agree that the three minutes allotted to the pwc representative this evening doesn't hit all those also in speaking with residents there's a lot of what i categorize as tier one uh and tier two reservations and concerns tier one is all the things we've talked about electric usage electric rates water usage air and water quality and then the second tier is kind of noise setbacks appearance and those things Everything in the second tier, we have the statutory authority, council does, counties and municipalities do to address those through our development standards, through our UDO. Most of the first tier concerns, we don't have, no county or most counties and municipalities in the state of North Carolina don't have the statutory authority for that. I ask those questions. the email for someone to be able to address those publicly either last Monday or tonight and we didn't get that so hopefully within the next couple months we can get that lastly we visited certain council members who were available one data center here a couple in the triangle and a couple I guess in in Loudoun County Virginia those were pretty much for the most part some of the some of the better ones there's also some negative some data centers that have been not such a pleasant experience that were developed not so great I think Michigan and Wisconsin has a couple that are very noisy very um not environmentally friendly um and i mentioned that to the manager i think to you mr mayor and the mayor pro tem when can we go look at those so we saw the best case scenario i think it's prudent to go look at the worst case scenario so we can make sure as we're developing and firming up these standards we do get it right thank you

all right thank you all right thank you councilman mojado so uh council we had a motion on the floor second it's been discussed uh i think over the next few weeks and months staff will work to kind of compile and summarize all what they've heard uh nothing precludes uh you from taking some And take some time putting the work in and going to visit the good ones, the bad ones, the indifferent, the ones you agree or disagree. That's part of what we have to do. So to your point, Councilman Mahandros, I mean, you know, that will have time to be done as we work to get it right. So Council with that, we'll call for the vote. And this is the Green Davis motion. All right, are we missing?

Council Member McNair. Council Member McNair, what you doing?

All right.

All right. Council, motion carried. So with that, we'll look for a motion to adjourn.

All right. Thank you.