Town Council - Regular Meeting

Town Council work session for May 26, 2026. I usually like to make a comment about the beautiful day. It's not really that beautiful today, but let me tell you how beautiful it was yesterday. And my meteorological prognostications came true. It was a great day yesterday at the Memorial Day service out at the Monument for Veterans. It was not too cold, not too hot, not too windy, and it rained just enough to have everybody scrunch up under the tent real cozy like. So it was a great day. Thanks for you who were there. Thanks to Mr. Matthews and his team who pulled us together. Parks and Rec, Public Works, everybody played a part. It was a great event. One of the best ones in the county. We're proud of that. That being said, let's move along to calling the meeting to order. And we'll have our Deputy Town Clerk please call the roll.

Mayor Gupton.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Dellinger.

Here.

Council Member Matthews. Here. Council Member Singleton.

Here.

Council Member Stallings.

Here.

Council Member Vance. Here.

Okay, thank you. We move along to item B on the agenda, which is adoption of the agenda. We have had a chance to review this. We've had a lot of discussion about it, and I'll ask council members for a motion and a second.

So moved. Second.

Okay. Is there any discussion about the agenda? Hearing none, all in favor of adopting the agenda, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, that's adopted unanimously. We have no presentations from outside. We do have several very interesting discussion items under item D. And this is one of our new programs we've been doing just a couple of months. That's development previews. And we greatly appreciate our developer partners coming in as early as possible and giving us a kind of overview of where they are. We turn first to our planning staff, and it looks like our presenter this evening is our assistant planning director, Ms. Erin Joseph. What can you tell us about this project?

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening. And council members, members of the public development team, hope everyone's doing all right this evening. Just a brief introduction on this proposal. It is a Tier 2 conditional rezoning request. And I just prepared just a new format just to give you some little bit of information about what has been submitted so far. So this evening, Mr. Toby Coleman, representing the property owners, will give a development preview for you this evening. As I stated, this is a Tier 2 conditional rezoning. It's approximately 14 acres, located at 4800 Auburn-Nightdale Road. It's bound by Auburn Road to the north, Auburn-Nightdale Road, and then 70 U.S. Highway 70 east. The applicant is requesting commercial mixed use for the development of a mixed use site. On the screen here, I just wanted to highlight just what has been submitted to the town since its initial application. pre-application meeting. This is what was reviewed during the pre-application meeting. And then this is what has been submitted since the initial rezoning application. So it does include multifamily several multifamily buildings as well as non-residential square footage up to 340 320 think that that number may have adjusted since the initial submittal so today comments that have been received the main comments that have been received by the applicant from town staff includes feedback regarding the open space, asking to detail more about the tree preservation and the passive and active spaces. More information about the buffer standards road improvements that will be required as well as pedestrian connectivity staff has also provided comments about alignment with the zoning conditions to better align with the Garner forward comprehensive plan and to go above the minimum standards of the UDO addressing such standards as number of the stories within the buildings, building design standards that are above the UDO, as well as amenities included within the site to closely align with the Garner Forward Plan. And so I will pass the microphone over to the applicant team and they will walk you through what has changed so far, give you more details about the proposal.

I'm Toby Coleman with Smith Anderson, 150 Fayetteville Street, here on behalf of the applicant, Brown Investment Properties, which is the developer, as well as the property owner, State Employees Credit Union. So with me tonight we've got a group of folks, Chester Brown with Brown Investment Properties, Sam Simpson and Lawton Crowe with Simpson CRE, Mark Kretschmeyer with State Employees Credit Union, and Matt Ansley with ISG Incorporated, which is the architecture group. So plenty of very smart people who can answer any question that I cannot. This is a good overview of the application. Let me see if I can get this to work here. Is there any trick to this?

There you go.

Try turning it on. um so just to give you context uh this property is located on the north side of 70 at the intersection of 70 and auburn nightdale it's right between uh 40 and the future i-540 corridor so in a fairly uh sort of a trafficked area it's an area that has been targeted for growth is all by the garnett ford plan as i'll detail in a minute The current zoning is actually already commercial mixed use. It was rezoned about 30 years ago. On the basis of the zoning conditions alone, there was a provision to allow for a driving range use along with some other uses. So I suspect that when it was done in the 90s, it was probably for a driving range, but I haven't gone that far into it. So this rezoning is really, we'll keep the existing zoning, we'll just be changing the conditions to match more of a vertical mixed use development, which is what we're proposing. It's also needed, you know, to go through this process is also needed basically so that we don't have to go through a special use permit process. So, you know, we're proposing more than 200 apartments, so we're going to trigger that requirement as well. As I mentioned, the Garner Forward Plan already sort of designates this as an area for mixed use and, frankly, sort of more dense development. So it's got the mixed use center typology. It's designated as an area to transform with a mid-rise designation. It's a priority infrastructure area, as well as sort of a transit-oriented development activity center. This, as I understand it, there is a future for a potential sort of transit stop using the train tracks that are behind this property. So there's some opportunities there, although obviously that's probably more in the future. THIS IS THE PROPOSAL. SO IT'S A PROPOSED TIER TWO REZONING. YOU CAN SEE IT THERE. ABOUT 320 APARTMENTS AND ABOUT 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, RESTAURANT, AND BANK. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION. SO YOU LOOK UP THERE ON BUILDING ONE, WHICH IS THE RED BUILDING ON THE LEFT THAT HAS SORT OF THE REVERSE L. The front of that building would be, on the first floor, would be where the State Employees Credit Union branch would be. It would have a drive-through, which is what you're seeing there with that reverse L. On the building two, which is the other red building, we're envisioning that would also have retail space facing 70 as well. That would be sort of a restaurant space or some other retail space. The estimates you can see up there on the screen, the current estimated square footage for retail is currently about 11,600 square feet. So what we're proposing is to have a minimum, IF THIS COUNCIL WANTS A MINIMUM, WE WOULD PROPOSE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF ABOUT 11,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO PUT A MAXIMUM ON IT. I THINK WE SORT OF INITIALLY PUT A MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 12,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE. AGAIN, 320 APARTMENTS. IT WOULD BE A MIXTURE OF APARTMENT, FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS, WHICH ARE MOST OF THE BUILDINGS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN THERE. then on the right there those sort of smaller buildings in a lighter yellow are townhome style apartment buildings those would be three-story buildings and so we happy to take guidance on whether there needs to be a minimum height but we are again looking at four stories for the apartment style buildings and about three stories for the townhomes um we were asked by staff to put in a maximum height and so given the garner forward plan um we've initially we haven't turned in these zoning conditions we've initially had uh initially thought about doing a six story max but again we would take guidance from uh council on that again here's the vertical mixed use just so you can see a little bit more detail as well as the elevation we have proposed We've started to propose some conditions related to the product, mainly no vinyl. We've also got a condition that requires internal halls and other sort of requirements to address so that it's not a suburban style sort of three-story apartment building. It will be elevator served. We don't currently have a condition that specifically says that. Again, just wanted to call that out if that's something that you all wanted to discuss. And here's the sort of list of the current proposed zoning conditions that we've been working through. As was noted, staff did ask us to specify the types of amenities. You see at the bottom there we will have, we will add those in our next submission which will be coming up shortly. It's gonna have a swimming pool, a dog park, and potentially other amenities. Again, they'll have to have indoor corridors, and I think I've addressed most of those issues. Again, we did want to be sensitive to, this was sort of a situation where the requirements of the owner, state employees credit union, sort of really met well with the town's desire to have sort of vertical mixed use in these projects. So this is a vertical mixed use development in part because State and Police Credit Union really wanted a bank branch on this property. They wanted it developed, but they wanted to make sure that they had their own, they planted their flag on it. I do want to note two modification requests you can see there it's not as large as probably should have made it but one is is that under the minimum parking requirements where this site is slightly under parked by about what by what we estimate is about nine parking spaces that probably can be addressed through shared parking but We are going to ask for a modification as part of that, at least at the current time we're planning to. The other issue is that the property to the west, one portion of the property to the west, is currently zoned residential agricultural, even though probably all this property is ultimately going to be mixed-use development. and it's because of that designation a 45 foot perimeter buffer plus another 10 feet of tree save is required we're asking for a reduction along about I don't know 100 150 foot long stretch of the property to about 15 feet again it's not it's well it's designated as residential agricultural there is a residential there is no residential use to the west what you have are a couple properties that are currently used by businesses and then you move over i believe to a sort of an industrial facility correct and so with that we are available for questions

Excellent, thank you very much. A lot of good information, interesting project. I'm sure we have some questions. Let's start with Mr. Vance, and we'll come down the road here with questions or comments. Mr. Vance?

Okay, what conditions are the additional conditions you're asking for?

Say again, what conditions have we proposed? Yes, ma'am. So we are proposing basically to require that there be, you know, your upper story residential. Wanted to address the concern that there be vertical, basically require that there be vertical mixed use. We're capping the number of units 320. We're requiring that the townhome style buildings be no more than three stories. We've got right now a maximum of 12,500 square feet of non-residential uses. We've put the maximum apartment building height at six stories. Again, that has to do more to do with sort of the Garner Forward plan guidance. We really only need four stories, so we're happy to drop that, but we're just trying to sort of address the desire to have the guidance to have a little bit more height. We've got a no vinyl provision, a provision sort of that has been used in other apartment building, apartment rezonings that requires indoor corridors. As I understand it, that's to ensure that they're conditioned corridors, that you're not doing sort of open air sort of apartments and that they'll be elevator served.

Thank you, I just want you to emphasize that also. Are you familiar with the Blue Ridge Loophole?

uh yes i am i'm very much so and and uh in fact um well i can tell you afterwards but um i had a i had a client who actually tried to get the state to provide a little bit more guidance and consistency around it uh and uh the state department revenue declined to do that, saying it was too complicated. I guess the result has been what we see now, which I think is going to result. Obviously, none of us can know what the General Assembly will do, but it appears that the General Assembly is headed towards getting rid of that loophole.

Is that a possibility that's happening with this project?

No, it is not, and I'm happy to bring up Chester Brown if you'd like to hear from him. Brown Investment Properties has done projects across the state. It's been in business for a very long time. They've developed, in the Triangle, they've developed some very high-quality apartments in Nightdale, also done it on the coast. This will be a market rate project, and they do not anticipate utilizing any property tax exemptions as part of that.

I don't need to hear from your... You'd like to hear from... I don't need to hear from him. I'll pass one down for the

No, it's a good time. Casual conversation. Come on up and answer that if you would. Yeah, this is on everybody's mind. We learned about that Blue Ridge loophole the hard way. That cost us a lot of money when somebody chose not to pay property tax on their apartments. So we're eager to hear how that'll never happen at yours.

Chester Brown with Brown Investment Properties in Greensboro, North Carolina. Familiar with the Blue Ridge loophole, but I have never participated in a development where that was utilized and would not anticipate utilizing that or something similar on this development.

Any other questions? All right. Is there a way of giving assurances that that will not happen? Is there a way of ensuring that will not happen later on down the road, that you want to take advantage of the Blue Ridge loophole?

We would not take advantage of the Blue Ridge loophole.

I'm happy to talk with Attorney Jones about whether there is a zoning condition that could address that. I don't know. I've actually never been asked to try to address tax issues as part of a zoning, so I frankly don't have a legal answer for you at this point.

understand. It's just something that's been clearly on my mind, the council's mind, and we'll make sure that we are getting what we're asking for and that we are in agreement with what we see and what we talk about. It's something that's going to be clear going forward. We're telling the citizens one thing, but later on down the road it changes without us having the ability to make any adjustments. We'll make sure that we are clear with what we are presenting to the public. also that we are getting the revenue necessary to continue servicing the public well. We'll make sure that happens. One last question. What responses have you received from the public in reference to this project?

We had a neighborhood meeting probably a couple months ago. I told them what we thought, what we planned on doing, and it was in good keeping with what the neighbors were thinking. Do we have notes from that meeting that we can share with the council?

Mr. Dellinger.

Yeah, thank you for participating early in the process with us. Also want to just express appreciation for doing the Tier 2 route on your rezoning. I think that'll make the back end of the process much smoother. So we appreciate that a lot as well. I have a question just to be really clear on the layout. And I saw elevations for the apartment.

buildings but i don't are there elevations for the townhome structures as well or are they looking similar enough that i didn't notice the difference uh no uh you're correct um we the townhome structures has actually been part of a recent addition as we've sort of been working through some of the technicalities so we do not have at this point elevations for the townhome structures And we're certainly willing to take input if you have specific concerns or issues related to it.

Yeah, my biggest concern is at this point, what would be the breakdown of apartments versus those townhome style units? I know it's early.

10 townhomes.

10? Okay, so where are they on the site plan? I'm just making sure I know which buildings are doing what. Those are the ones on the side?

Yeah, the ones in the lighter yellow on the plan right. Okay, I got you. Basically, and part of this has to do with just, we were trying to figure out how do we make the parking work? How do we do everything else? And so this was sort of one of the solutions to that, if I got that correct.

And another question was related to sort of the verticality and the density and the back and forth with staff and kind of landing on a six-story maximum. Do you all have a preference with regards to how high you go?

The preference is a four-story development. We would rely on the architect on exactly how high and the number of feet that would be. The design would be very similar to one that we did in Nightdale, right at Nightdale Station Park and 64264. Very, very similar design design.

And the only feedback I have right now is we are in a pendulum swing from a lot of residential to more commercial and mixed use. And this particular location, though, is adequately serviced by a major thoroughfare. And so it affords itself more density and more verticality, which, again, is a tax-based benefit, and more opportunity for some commercial. So I don't know how.

dense and vertical you'd want to go i'm sure over five is not where you want to go so this is i think we're 14 acres um between 320 and 340 units so our density is probably close to 25 units an acre surface part um you get much more density than that you're going to have to have some type of structured parking that drives your costs up exponentially um and with that you would have to have higher rents um so we we're just trying to keep something looks nice that is a more dense type use but without having to to build that structured parking which is

Prohibitively, yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. And I would also say get a little more vertical, not 20 stories or 10 stories or anything like that.

Going over four would actually add, I think, a different building type construction. Right. Also, which... That adds to your costs as well.

Yeah. And speaking of that, because I'm also thinking about that buffer on the side and the request for that reduction, and there's no telling how long that's going to stay, what it is over there. So kind of think about the livability for folks that live there next to industrial. But the other question is about affordable housing. And have you all given any thought to that with regards to this project?

the the original intention has been a market rate market rate development have not thought of um having it in any type of affordable type product all right last question um thank you so much for um taking the tier two approach it's always good to see what's being planned um so thank you for that i have no further questions mr singleton

Okay, I see on the west side of the site, number seven, number five, and number six. Number seven is stormwater, five is a dog park, and six is open space and trees. Where's the open space? Where's some flat open space for people to lay on the ground, roll around on the ground, play ball? I'm talking about of all ages. I don't see any, unless the stormwater is going to be underground.

Stormwater, it would be surface. We've got that as being a surface, not underground.

So there's no flat space, open space?

We've got, I mean, we'll be advancing this plan further. This is kind of an initial, here's conceptual plan. So as we get towards the next step, we'll find out where those type of flat open spaces could be provided.

360 apartments or whatever at two people at 720 feet when they got any place to play. Why don't we take one of the building three townhomes out and just build five townhomes against the road and leave that as a nice flat space. But anyway, until we get some open space on here, I'm not going to support this project at all. We need open space for people to do whatever they want to do on a flat lawn. We had last week after our meeting out here on our stormwater device, which is underground, we had three teenage boys playing on that. playing throwing football. One was the quarterback, one was the receiver, one was the defensive back, and they were running routes out there. So we need flat open space.

That's all right now. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate you guys coming in early like this and taking advantage of this. We hope more will do that. It gives us opportunity to have this exchange. Like you said, you've not got everything totally figured out, but you're hearing what we've got to say and taking it back to work with it. And that's the whole purpose of these early meetings to kind of work together so we can come up with something to be workable for everybody. I like the fact, now building one and two, is that where your retail space is going to be under on the front level? That's what we're seeing a lot of. Okay. I like seeing that. But most of my questions have been answered. I like your presentation. Look forward to seeing where it goes to from here. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so far. I'll just intervene since we're getting ready to flip over and run by again quickly. We try to make this a quick preview. You've done a great job of bringing it up. Now we'll try to stick to our 20-minute limit for our questions here because you do have many more steps to go through. There will be many other places to observe this. I'd just like to make my little two cents worth. I don't get a vote, but I get to talk. So I appreciate you mentioning the tax base at higher quality. higher value properties that comes with the indoor corridors, comes with the elevators. It may come with a four or five story. I think some of us are less worried about how many floors it is as to what's the net impact on our financial stability. And it might be 100 units, but if they're all leaking below the water line, they're not helping us. If it's 500 and they're all below the water line, it's not helping us. This looks like an above average quality, above average tax-based revenue. I would see this as a fountain. revenue instead of a drain. Let's keep that in focus there. We really, you mentioned storm water control measures. Mr. Singleton mentioned open space and we, I have seen recently where some forward-thinking developers and builders have put in an underground system so that we did not end up with a mud hole out there that we're used to see, but usable space for parking or green space and and the stormwater control was out of sight. It cost more, but a couple of developers have told me in the long run it was more cost effective. They had parking space. They had open play space. They had less maintenance with the contained advanced stormwater control measure versus the typical mud hole. The one we have out front that the guys were playing ball in is a hybrid between the two. It was grassy and flat on the bottom. It could actually get multi-use as a stormwater control measure overflow containment. And then 95% of the years they can throw a football around. So that's the kind of ingenuity, the kind of adaptivity we're looking for, not just mud hole or underground. There's something in between, too. These are important concepts. And my last comment, the thing that has broken my heart over the last several years, it was first my friend's parents leaving Garner because they could not find a high-quality senior apartment. And now it's my friends who are leaving Garner because they can't find a senior apartment with high quality, high amenities, and they're not worried about the difference between $1,600 or $2,300 a month. They want a nice place, and they are leaving us in droves. So I'm just throwing that out. That's my little dream. I'll shut up now. Did we want to run back through questions and comments here, Mr. Vance?

I would like to see them. Also, thank you for coming early and providing this tier two rezoning for our early review and consideration. Hope you understand where we're coming from relative to the loophole piece. We'll make sure that we're getting what we asked for and look forward to seeing the revised plan.

Mr. Dellinger, closing remarks or questions?

Yeah, I would sort of say that I think from a development perspective, we're not really afraid of higher, more density, not afraid of higher rents. I think with regards to it also lending itself to more opportunities for affordable units within, the more units you have, the more you can do more mixed use and maybe dedicate some. We're lucky enough to have some expertise on staff here to maybe help you think through some opportunities or ways to work with that. And I'd also recommend, if y'all aren't busy for the rest of the night, stick around for our affordable housing part of the agenda. I think it might provide a lot of insights into where we are as a town on addressing that issue. And we're not very highly prescriptive at this time. We're open to a lot of creative suggestions and participation in helping us tackle that challenge. So I kind of leave you with that. And we're not afraid of the verticality or the price points. We want more of that. while not trying to undermine also our efforts on affordability. Not your entire project, but just trying to, you know, you've got to take the bites at the problem where you can. I'm sure State Employees Credit Union would love that, too. Thank you for coming in early. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Mr. Cowan? No comments. Mr. Singleton?

On this, guys, again, the concern about the Blue Ridge Loophole, you can put something down into condition, but I talked to the attorney multiple times. We don't have a leg to stand on right now. And quite frankly, I already told you I'm not going to support it with open space, but I would have a hard time supporting any multifamily project proposed, not just yours, because of the possibility of that. Maybe the General Assembly, you know, they're supposed to be done by June the 30th. We know that means September the 30th. if we're lucky. But until that language comes out, I'm hesitant to support anything, any multifamily project because, again, I've asked her. She's told us there's not a condition we can put on it that makes someone stick to it.

I'm not saying you wouldn't do it, but you could sell the project in five years and someone else could change it. That's the concern.

Right. With that, that's a pretty serious concern. So again, like the mayor said, we've already been bitten by it once and maybe getting ready to be bitten by it again. So that's a concern. Thanks for coming early.

Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Again, just thanks for the presentation and listening and working with our staff. We've got a great staff and they kind of know what we're looking for. And you work with them, they'll work with you. And so thank you again. Look forward to seeing you in the next round.

Yes, thanks for starting early, getting feedback. We've got to remember where this is. It's inside what I'm calling the outer belt line, 540. This is what downtown Raleigh used to be, inside the belt line versus outside. This is going to be inside Garner's big belt line. This is primo property across the street from a fantastic industrial park, soon being had by Greg Poole Equipment. This is high-end stuff. This is a high-value spot. Let's shoot high, do something remarkable. Do something you can be proud of 20 years from now. Thank you very much for coming. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Looking forward to working with you all and staff as we further refine our plans.

Good. You'll find our staff very good to work with. Thank you. And that brings us to item two on the agenda. This, again, is going to be presented to us by our assistant planning director, Ms. Erin Joseph. And it has to do with something everybody loves to talk about, death and taxes. No, I mean funeral homes and crematoriums. Same thing. Important stuff. And where are we on this topic?

Thank you. Good evening again. So this evening I am going to present to you for discussion a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow funeral homes within the neighborhood mixed-use zoning district. A little bit of background. Staff recently, a few months ago, had a site pre-application meeting with a long-standing owner-operator of a funeral home within Garner's jurisdiction. And it was noted during that meeting that funeral homes are not allowed in the neighborhood mixed-use or NMX district. We have two funeral homes within Garner's jurisdiction, both would be considered or are considered nonconforming uses because they during the zoning conversion back in 2022 of the update to the Garner Ford unified development ordinance, it's believed that it was an omission that the funeral homes were not included in the NMX district. And so just further the unified development ordinance that was in effect from 2003 until July of 2021 included funeral homes, as well as crematoriums as a single. permitted use on the table of permitted uses. It was allowed in crematoriums, I'll note that crematoriums were actually allowed as an accessory use with the funeral home use as a primary. And so they both were, as you can see on the table here, funeral homes and crematorium and so they were allowed in the neighborhood office and office institutional which that that was the zoning district at the time for the 2 existing funeral homes, we have today another non residential districts. And as you can see just further with that, this is a snapshot of the current UDO that was adopted in 2022, where the neighborhood commercial, neighborhood office, and some of the office institutional districts were converted to neighborhood mixed use. You can see that on this table here. And it notes here also that not all the properties necessarily translated to a direct remapping. And so you may have the question, well, office institutional here was CMX, but not all of that was CMX. Some of it was taken into consideration and also went into NMX. And that's why staff believes that was an oversight during that period of time. And so the neighborhood mixed use district is intended to support low intensity commercial uses such as office, professional services, small scale retail that provide services, convenient access to goods and services for the surrounding neighborhood. It also serves as a transitional district between residential and the more intense commercial mixed use districts. And so currently under our Garner Forward UDO, funeral homes were separated from crematoriums and permitted by right in the commercial mixed use and the light industrial zoning district. And as you can see here in the image, you have funeral homes and then you have crematoriums. And so crematoriums are restricted to industrial and rural agricultural zones either by right or by special use permit. It's no longer an accessory used to funeral homes with this update and given its own special place on the table of permitted uses. So as staff review this for this this proposed zoning tax amendment we took a look at some of the surrounding towns to see what their standards are as it relates to funeral homes and out of the 6 that we took a look at 2 of them Clayton and Fuqua Verena had new standards for funeral homes, they also had accommodations for crematoriums as well as cemeteries so some of the setbacks storage screening and then the crematorium use and the cemetery use as accessory or even a cemetery with a funeral home accessory and then no use standards were found within apex holly springs nightdale Wake Forest and within Clayton and Fuqua the the zoning districts were commercial corridor or light industrial we found that the within the the towns that did not have you standards there's more aligned with a commercial standards that included that neighborhood use neighborhood commercial neighborhood mixed-use type of commercial uses And so the proposed UDO text amendment would add funeral homes to the NMX zoning district by right, would add additional standards. Currently, there are no use standards for funeral homes. There are parking ratios that are built in. But other than that, there are no use standards. staff is proposing to include screening standards for funeral homes that any outside storage, outdoor storage would take place solely within an enclosed building. And if there are any display of headstones or any other memorial items, that it would be screened from the public right-of-way or greenway or even a residentially zoned property or use. And also, crematoriums would remain as a separate, distinct use And so with this process, with the text amendment, the planning commission would review this for plan consistency. The most appropriate would be our Garner Forward comprehensive land use plan. And then council, in accordance with general statute, would make a statement of reasonableness, excuse me, would not need to make a statement of reasonableness, only relating to the plan consistency. And so the next steps to consider would be to receive direction from council on setting a public hearing date, conduct the public hearing and forward the case on to planning commission for review and then back to council for a decision of approval or denial. And that is all the information I have this evening to share, but I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Excellent. Good information. And again, the decision before us tonight is not to approve or disapprove this, but to set it up for a public hearing if we want to continue to go through the process there. That being said, let's start with Mr. Matthews asking questions or comments.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Great presentation. Crematoriums, I know... The large funeral home in Garner has a crematorium on premises. I know the Bright Funeral Home in Wake Forest, their crematorium is on the premises. And cremations, as I understand it, and from personal use and other people I know, is starting to become more and more a popular thing to do for various reasons. Is there a reason why, since we already have that in Garner, The process has already been set there. Why would we not have or my misunderstanding is we got a funeral home. The crematorium should be part of that property. It's all one business the way I look at it. I don't know why you want to separate that out. Is there a reason for that or is that open for discussion?

Yes, well, it currently, it was separated during the last update to the Garner Forward UDO in 2022. And so, crematoriums are more, they're considered more of a heavier industrial, more associated with institutional or industrial uses, versus a funeral home is more of that low intensity, neighborhood serving type of use. And so that's why I believe, you know, I wasn't here during that time, but that's why I do believe that it was separated out because the intensity of those two uses are very separate and distinct. And so one of the funeral homes that, as you mentioned, does have a crematorium on site and it's in service. that use would remain a non-conforming use. So they would be able to continue as long as they did not do anything to expand beyond the scope of a non-conforming use. But anything new that would be established would continue to adhere to the current UDO standards, and it would be a separate use within the rural agricultural district, which must be approved with a special use permit, or in the industrial uses, light and heavy, where it's permitted by right.

Some of these places, and the reason I keep dwelling on this, is that so many people don't even know there's a crematorium back there or on the premises. It's not like a high-profile item. It's just part of that service they offer. I can't speak for my fellow board members. I think we need to revisit this because it's a business. It's a business. And like I said, you don't know it's back there. And to have a crematorium somewhere... five miles down the road, that's not really practical. So it was like, and I'll use Brian Lee, because everybody's familiar with that, and they got a crematorium, and like I said, you wouldn't know it's back there unless somebody told you. And so I think we need to look at that again, just speaking for me, my colleagues can bring it up, but keeping it all on the same premises, that's the smart thing to do. It's just good business, and it's not like it's loud noise or anything else. Like I said, you don't even know it's there. So that would be my recommendation. We would revisit that crematorium on-premises. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, ma'am, for a great presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Singleton. Are we sure Brian Lee has a crematorium? I don't think they do.

Yes, I confirmed with the two that are existing. Brian Lee has an active crematorium. Chappelle does not. They provide off-service crematory services.

Many, many years ago, that came to us to add the crematorium at Brian Lee. And it got pulled, not by the council, but it got pulled before it got here anyway. I think that's when some of the changes were made. You know, it was allowed as to use. That's when it was done. This is a long time ago.

Okay.

So I couldn't remember, but I think it got handled administratively. I think we changed the zoning. It began many, many years ago. So I just want to mention that. I don't... We'll see what people say. I have no issue either way. My father was cremated in Raleigh, Carolina Crematory on Hillward Road. So it's a place, I don't know if you'd call it industrial, but anyway, that's where it is. So when they started years ago, it wasn't developed like it is now. But anyway, that's where that one is.

So I don't, we're just waiting to hear what feedback we hear from people.

Hey, Mr. Stouts.

Just this one question and I'm not in any form of the expert, but I do have a question. So looking at a couple of these permitted districts, I see a lot of light industrial and just doing a quick Google search on the difference. It says on the Department of Environmental Quality's website is that Crematoriums and funeral homes do not handle the same type of waste while both handle deceased individuals. Funeral homes generate a wider variety of hazardous and medical waste. So is the reason why a lot of these in light industrial, and I see Clayton even has a use standard of saying crematoriums should not be included with a funeral related service use within or abutting a residential zoning district because of some of the waste that may come from a funeral home?

Well, so you have to, so you have the funeral home where they would do, you know, the preparation of the body and maybe even conduct funeral services on site, but the crematorium be separate where they are, I don't know what the proper term is, disposal or cremating the body. And so within the funeral home, And the definition that we have within the UDO, it talks about the preparation of the bodies for either internment or for cremation. But again, with the uses, crematoriums, it's associated more with an industrial use, and that's likely why in Clayton it has crematoriums cannot be adjacent to a residential zone property because, you know, you have the output, the smoke and the, you know, the industrial look of a crematorium. And so, and that's typically why you see Funeral homes, you know, historically it may have been formerly a home, you know, that blends more in with the residential uses and intensity, whereas a crematorium can be certainly more intense, more industrial-like.

And I know there's a lot more steps in this process before we get to a point where we have to make a decision, but I would love to learn more about the waste disposal procedures around funeral homes.

Okay. Good point. Mr. Dellinger?

I have no questions. I'm fine for setting a public hearing.

No questions. Okay. Excellent. Again, our mission tonight is to consider scheduling this for a public hearing to start the rest of the review process. There seem to be council members nodding their heads. Yes, we want to move it ahead. So without a formal vote or not hearing any objection to moving ahead, let's do what staff suggests and move this through the process. Mr. Mayor.

If I may, is there consensus on council to include the crematoria as an accessory use with the funeral homes or to keep them separate?

I think it should be discussed as it goes through the process and we will learn whether we think it should be automatically included with the funeral home classification or if it needs a separate process. That's my thought.

With the public hearing, we'd have to present to you an amendment to go to public hearing. So if there's consensus to change that or to require further study, we need that clarification.

Okay, so you're saying that council does need to indicate if we want the public hearing to involve just funeral homes or funeral homes and crematoriums on the same spot?

Correct. We need some direction on what to go forward with. That doesn't mean it couldn't be changed after the public hearing and as it goes through the process.

Okay, input, questions, comments? Help me understand, Mr. Dellinger.

I'm trying to, I was looking at the UDO change and I was, my understanding of the change was just to give, put funeral homes into the neighborhood, but now it sounds like we're asking It says crematoriums will continue not to be permitted accessories. Right. I'm looking at page 15 of our packet under proposed UDO text changes. That's what we're trying to decide goes to public hearing.

Yes, that the because right now under the you do crematoriums are you can see you have crematoriums in the allowed in these districts and then a funeral homes allowed in and cmx and ally so there are 2 separate uses right now on the in that that change happened during the the garner update gun for update.

Well, I'm confused. It says proposed GDO text changes, and it says crematorium shall remain a separate allowed use. But that's not a text amendment change. That's a text amendment keep the same.

Correct. It will just. Yes, I'm sorry if that confused you.

We're just trying to change the funeral home to be in the neighborhood mixed use.

Yes, and that's it. And add two use standards as far as screening and storage of enclosed buildings. But we're trying to clarify that crematoriums would remain a separate use and not an accessory use.

That's confusing. It just goes with what we're changing, not what we're keeping the same.

Okay.

I think that's helpful. Okay. Okay. So we're just trying, the hearing would be about a tax amendment change to add funeral homes to neighborhood mixed use and some more screening stuff.

Yes.

And we're ignoring crematoriums because that's not part of this proposal. Correct. That's clearer to me. Yes. I'm on the public hearing. I'm confused.

I was just going to say, unless you want to allow, as Mr. Matthews proposed, that a crematorium can be an accessory use, generally under an accessory use, there are some limitations as to the size and scope of that use.

What I'd recommend is... have the public hearing gather the more information that council members want and if we want to amend the Texas amendment when it comes back. Otherwise we're trying to get some slowing down the easy part and convoluting it a little bit and i think it's worth discussion i'm curious about it because i don't know anything but i don't think we can decide tonight to go above and beyond what you've presented to us for the texas amendment for public hearing and i think if there's more information that can be provided by then to counsel on an adjustment we can maybe make that amendment during that public hearing before it goes to Planning Commission if we see that that's an amendment or change we want to make. I think I'd be prepared to make that change if we decided to do it, so you're not having to stop and go back for another public hearing. But that's kind of where I'm coming from.

You know what would be good is to, we do have a local business, they have a crematorium, to maybe have one of their representatives come in and explain to us how it works. And answering questions we have, because it's something, let's face it, not all of us know a whole lot about. I mean, I've had to deal with it from family matters. And I know it's, I don't want to get into details of it, but it's a very clean process, what they do. And it's not like they're pouring black smoke coming out of a chimney somewhere. And I think Clayton Funeral Home on Highway 70, I think they've got a crematorium there. on premises right behind their buildings. They're around all just about everywhere, and it's a new way of doing things, and you don't know about it because it's just part of that operation. But we could bring a representative from somewhere like Brian Lee in and say, tell us about how creative materials work and what's the upside and downside. So if anybody's got any questions, it's a good time to get it answered.

Would you prefer for this to come back for discussion with those details and maybe invite the owner-operator of Brian Lee to provide more information? And then once that's satisfied, then we would know how to move forward with the actual text amendment if we are now talking about including crematoriums as an accessory use and just furthering that discussion so we're not So we're clear about what we're requesting during the public hearing. Does that? Help at all?

That would make sense to me. At least we get a clarification of what it is and what's involved.

What I thought I was hearing from Councilman Mr. Dellinger particularly is that what our planning department is asking for us to do is to move along the inclusion of funeral homes in the neighborhood mixed use category, not addressing the crematoriums at this same time. We can do that easily and study more, and then we can come back and consider at a later time in a separate way or amendment way does it do we also change crematorium status at the same time to go hand in hand i'm looking for the easy way to keep it moving ahead and give us a chance to learn more before we say let's go ahead and group the crematorium for the funeral home My personal belief is probably we ought to do that. I think they are a low-hazard thing. More and more, there are some cultures prevalent in our neighborhood now who their service is that you have the funeral service and the cremation at the same place. So that's important, too. There are reasons to do that, but I think the question before us tonight, the simplest question, is that we want to refer this on for a scheduled hearing on the most basic aspects of it. And I was getting a lot of head nods. Yes, let's move it ahead at the basic level. If we need to expand it to include crematoriums, we can do that if we go through the process. Okay. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes. And certainly any representatives could come to the public hearing and speak from any of the existing or prospective funeral establishments.

Okay. Where's the other funeral home in Garner?

It's on Creech Road.

It's Chappelle.

I'm still a little confused at what the question before us is. Is anybody else confused about this?

we are we given an indication to move ahead with the rezoning to include funeral homes i think we defer to planning on what is the most efficient way to do this since it sounds like both are going to extend potentially the timeline a little bit yes so i'd lean on them to come back to us with a recommendation on either moving forward with this as is and then having a public hearing that could then change the whole thing again, or if we have another sort of interstitial information session. I think getting the public input is really important. I think that recommendation is good. So it might make sense to go ahead and schedule the public hearing with understanding there's probably going to be some changes to the amendment during that public hearing and then come back to us.

Okay.

But you guys are of a better view on kind of, but how much work these changes take and and stuff because i know when you start talking about accessory uses now you're changing other parts of the udo and it's a lot more work to make sure you're not missing anything so right right um okay i i believe i i what i hear what i believe i hear is that to move forward with the nmx funeral homes added

to the NMX district as a public hearing as we present that and further discussion during that process can include crematoriums and what the future of that would be.

Yes, that's my understanding. My question is, do you have any time constraints on this amendment?

The only time constraint would be the consideration for the owners and operators of Bryan Lee. They would like to expand the funeral home, and that's what prompted this conversation. So they are in the process of having their site plan reviewed for modification, but it cannot be approved until that update is made with the with the funeral homes. And so that's, you know, and what is is going to be explained to them, I reached out to them to try to explain to them, I know they're busy. So I haven't had a chance to speak with them just yet that the crematorium aspect of the operation would remain a non-conforming, a legal non-conforming use. If there is ever such time that they would like to expand that crematorium use, then they would be subject to rezoning or you know what text amendment whatever that process is but right now the most critical path for them is to get the funeral home within the NMX district so they can move forward with their site modifications all right my question becomes this

What response do you need from us tonight? Relative to the.

To the public hearing you need to know we want to go forward with this or yes, if you would like staff to move forward with a text amendment to bring before you through public hearing to allow funeral homes within the neighborhood mix use zoning district permitted by right.

That will keep it within the restrictions we think, with the time constraints we have?

I believe so. I believe so. And if there's further discussion about the crematorium, which is a separate and distinct use, if we need to consider that, that can be fleshed out during that process. The text amendment can be revised. It would likely... maybe extend the process because now we're changing the text amendment in the middle of the public hearing process so that may add some time to it um but i think the goal really was to allow the nm allow funeral homes within the nmx district and crematoriums could be addressed separately but you know from feedback tonight there sounds like there's some interest and maybe crematoriums um you know being further looked at and so staff can certainly bring that information for your consideration as well but but publicly have a uh a hearing to allow funeral homes in the nmx that's what we're truly looking for

And I'm hearing additional time being added on to this, which pushes it out of the timeline we think we're trying to work with when it comes to one particular business in particular.

If we want to add the crematorium, then how that process... would look, you know, we need to have a separate hearing, a separate text amendment, you know, there's the process for that. Or if you want to move forward, it's, you know, we're seeking, you know, discussion and feedback from you all this evening, so this is very helpful because our intent as staff was to move forward with funeral homes, NMX, Leave crematoriums alone. We may be, you know, maybe an issue of too much information, as Mr. Dillinger pointed out, you know, focus on what we want here. But it certainly has opened the discussion about what to do about crematoriums. Are they truly a dirty use? Technology has changed, things like that.

I say that it was presented to us as a correction of an omission, and so I think we should work sort of post-haste to correct that omission, whereas the crematorium is a different consideration and use change, and so I think we need to consider those both as really separate, as this is a fix to an error or an omission, and we'll call it an error. an omission and so we need to move to rectify that omission for the sake of our business community and then the crematorium is another separate change or use track that i think we can address yep

Yes, that's the way I understood it, that tonight is a simple text change related to funeral homes. If that expands along the way to be considered crematoriums, then we'll deal with that as it comes. The question before us tonight, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Parliamentarian, the question before us is does the council want to move ahead to set a schedule hearing on the UDO change neighborhood mixed use zoning districts to include funeral homes. That's the basic question. That's what's before us tonight. And I'm seeing universal acceptance of that. If I'm wrong, raise your hand and tell me. We want to move ahead with that. process. We want to move ahead with the basic text amendment that's been brought to us. Yes, let's move ahead. Mr. Sandelson?

Yes, sure. I'm fine with that, but I still don't get that. Somebody come here and tell us about it. If it could be done at the same time, that'd be nice. So everybody could hear it.

And it may turn into a two-for-one as it goes. Let's get started on one, then we'll work on two.

Okay.

Yes, you have counsel's direction. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, and that brings us along to item number three, and this is the continued discussion of the fiscal year 27 recommended budget. Our presenter is our budget director, Sarah Warren, and probably assisted by our town manager, Jerry Miller, I think. And before we launch on that, just let me say again, thanks to everybody who's been working so diligently on this. Again, we've had several staff members who have been working around the clock, around the calendar on this for 24 months. The council's been involved actively since January, even more so in February in this process. We've spent a lot of time and we'll spend all it takes to get it right. This is extremely important stuff. There are lots of complicated questions. We want to work through them one by one. And I want to thank Mr. Dellinger and the other four council members who over the last week or so have sat down one by one, two by two, and figured out what do we agree on, what are we a little unclear on. What do we need additional information on? And to our pleasant surprise, 21 out of the 27 or so ideas, there's pretty good consensus and pretty good understanding on. That leaves just a small handful. And since we just got the results of their discussion last night, we probably won't be addressing those here today. But we do want to continue to address the issues we brought up a week ago, two weeks ago, and where you are on that. And knowing, too, that at the end of the day, we're probably going to need another special meeting between now and the middle of June to make sure we've addressed every issue answered every question, heard every point of view. And just looking at our portal feedback, it's a lot of fine print, but it's a lot of participation by a lot of people, a lot of citizens putting their input in through the portal. And we had public hearing. We continue to take the intake. This is a big deal. We're talking about our money and our taxpayers' money. We want to spend it wisely. We want to prioritize the things that our citizens won't prioritize. We will not stop until we get this as right as humanly possible. But we have to get it done. Keep paying people after July 1st. So we do have the time frame. That being said, it's all yours, Ms. Manager.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Good evening. Tonight is a follow-up to your discussion at your budget work session on May 15th, and the information that we'll share this evening is a reflection of the direction council provided at the May 15th budget work session. That information was included in a memorandum that was included in your agenda packet. So as a reminder, an overview of the recommended FY27 budget. Our focus and theme is our town and our people. And we really focused on investing in a foundation in our community, investing in people, infrastructure, and services that allow the community to thrive. So maintain a self and resilient community, invest in inclusive and high quality services where all residents benefit, support and retain a talented workforce, strengthen operational and community infrastructure, and plan responsibly for the future needs and challenges. So those are really sort of the framework that we used in terms of discussions and putting the recommended budget together. In terms of strategies or principles for putting together the recommended budget, we use the following principles in our deliberations that are included in the recommended budget. To limit property tax increases as a solution, to fulfill ongoing project commitments, maintain our compensation strategy for our employees, address required expenses, and leverage partner resources. So the recommended budget totals $97.9 million. A proposed 54.5 cent tax rate per hundred valuation is proposed in the recommended budget. 45 cents of the tax rate would go towards town operations. Nine and a half cent would go towards debt service, which funds the town's capital projects. And we would use $2.2 million in one-time costs, one-time funding from our fund balance to be able to balance the budget and address some one-time costs identified in the FY27 budget. So the manager's recommended budget included, as I mentioned, the one-time use of $2.2 million for one-time initiatives. These included the police information center, the one-time cost of the equipment there, continuing to finalize the stormwater utility study, the Yergin Homestead project, which we're contractually required to complete in terms of our grant that we received for the Yergin Park property. Town share of fire equipment and upgrades. That's a cost share with the county. The Peacock Dam remediation for the future home of the Public Works Complex. Continued Yergin operating equipment. The park is scheduled to open this fall. There's additional equipment that needs to be purchased in order to make sure we maintain the park property. Looking at demolishing some of our vacant building structures on town property, some things that have become problematic in terms of maintenance, health, and safety. And also funding for public art as a way to continue to support our public art initiative, but also to advance the Avery Street Art Park project that's moving forward. The manager's recommended budget had a two and a half cent increase, and this is how that increase breaks down. One cent for operational expectations and obligations. This would go towards health insurance increases, increases to workers' comp and town insurance. Ongoing operational impacts for two of our new amenities that will coming online or had just come online. You're in park and the white deer splash pad, uh, training, uh, increases for, for staff in some of our departments and also continue support for the youth council and the civic academy. A half a cent is included in the two and a half cents tax increase increase proposal for staff staff to support the police real time information center. Um, and, and crime analyst position, a fire analyst, a stormwater supervisor, executive assistant, paralegal and grants administrator, all for the, um, executive level, um, departments within the town. And then one cent for debt service fund. This goes, as I've mentioned towards capital project specifically to add capacities for some of these big projects that we know that are on the horizon, specifically a new public work center, as well as two fire stations. So that's what was in the recommended budget. And we spent a lot of time at your work session on the 15th describing and discussing this. So council asked staff to come back to council with some additional approaches or options to looking at the two and a half cent tax increase, to look at reallocating some of those dollars. Could we tighten up the belt in some places, find some new revenue in other places, so that we can still do everything that's proposed in the budget, but instead of having a penny towards debt service, have a penny and a half. And so we've spent time over the last few weeks coming up with three options based on the direction that council provided to us at your budget work session. So this is specifically to reallocate half a cent from the tax rate that's being proposed. So option one looks at increasing interest revenue. This option is for all three options. This strategy, staff has had an opportunity to comb back through our revenue assumptions to see if anything has changed. With review of our interest revenue, with the lack of any changes at the Fed level, we feel like we can probably get another $200,000 out of interest revenue for our investments that will help towards reallocating dollars within the budget. For option one, in addition to that $200,000 of interest revenue, we are proposing to utilize a fund balance to transfer more fund balance to the budget of $322,000 as a way to make sure that the budget is balanced. Option two takes a different approach. Option two looks at increased interest revenue, continuing to use that, that $200,000, but looks at reducing our VERT budget by $322,000 for FY27. And as a reminder, the VERT budget is what we use for vehicles and equipment and those types of things for all our departments within the town. Option three, I took another approach. It still looked at that additional $200,000 of interest revenue, but it also reduced one-time funding for PERFORM by $225,000 and also reduced our IT revolving fund by $97,000. So it's my recommendation under this scenario of a two and a half cent tax rate increase and as directed by council that we look at option three as being the most feasible based on review of not only the revenues for next year's budget, but also going back and aligning projects and spending with timing in terms of the fiscal year, where we are now with spending, what we anticipate being able to roll over in some of these areas, And then what is the actual timing of projects coming online? These are very common strategies used for any budget team in terms of looking for ways to reduce the gap in funding to make sure we have a balanced budget. So this is what it looks like in terms of the reallocation of expenses. So the original recommended budget had one cent for operational expectations and obligations using option three as the model, it reduces it to half a cent and the recommended changes look at increasing our revenue by that $200,000 for interest revenue, reducing perform by 225,000 and reducing our it capital by $97,000. It keeps the 5 cents or a half a penny for new positions and it increases the debt service fund by one and a half cents building capacity as we discussed during your budget work session and as Davenport are financial advisors have shared with Council as an opportunity to invest now to make sure that we have enough funding in the future for some of these significant projects including 2 fire stations and the public works center. So here's where we are in our important dates, our budget process in terms of discussion with council, also in terms of any questions or additional information that needs to be provided to council with the target of looking to adopt the proposed budget at one of your June meetings. So tonight we're looking for guidance from council on support of option three to reallocate the half a cent towards debt service as discussed and directed at the budget work session. Any additional questions from council? Any additional information requests? The mayor mentioned that we had received some additional information requests earlier today. Staff will work on providing that information as soon as possible to council, and so that council will have that information in terms of your decision making. And then also guidance specifically on moving forward with how to address timing for your June meetings. I would say based on my initial review of the information that was submitted this morning, it's going to take some time for staff to review and provide that information back to council. Because of the way your June meeting schedule works out, your next meeting is a week from today, of which that agenda has to be posted by Thursday. And so my recommendation to council would be to have a special meeting to discuss the budget process and any final questions or information before your June 16th meeting. So that's the brief update that we have for this evening, Mayor. I'm happy to answer any questions that we're able to answer tonight, but certainly what questions we're not able to, we will take down that information and provide back to council for future discussion.

Thank you very much. As I said before, council's been working on this since January. Many of the staff since last year at this time. The one thing I continue to learn, this whole budget thing, number one, it's very important. Number two, it's not that different from my household budget or the business budget that I worked here in town 40 years. If you're spending more money than you're taking in, you're either going to go into debt or you're going to go into your savings. That's what happens. And those are the decisions we have to make. There's a time to go into debt. When you're buying a new home, you take on a mortgage. This is what you do. You build that into your budget. You borrow money, get where you're going. There's some times when you're outside your budget, but you need to go to your checking it. You need to go to your money market account and find that extra $5,000 to fix the transmission on your car you thought would last longer. That's taken out of your savings. And you can keep taking it out of savings. You can keep borrowing money until you can't pay your payments back. That's what we're very conscious about doing, calling it a balanced budget. We're not against borrowing for the right things. We're not against taking money out of our savings account for the right things. The other perennial question is how much money should we be putting in our savings account, whether it's my household, whether it's my business, or whether it's my town. And the more money you put in now, the more you can do with it later. We know this. It's true at every level. And that's one of the big questions. It's easy to say, yes, let's put another half cent. We call it the debt service fund. That's our big savings account for big projects later, even though we might have to borrow some money. So these are all good objectives. It's just that everything that we look at, are we going to give up A to get more of B? How are we going to prioritize A? fire stations against new park lands which comes first how about traffic calming devices in our neighborhoods which is a priority before we start borrowing before we start going to our sales these are the issues we're dealing with now and i really appreciate everybody's help on this it's good to know we don't have to make final decisions tonight we'll address the questions that came up previously We'll give you some more questions to research before the planned special meeting in June, which would be about the 8th or the 9th, I think we calculated.

That's what we're targeting, but I'll be able to give council more of a specific time range after we have a little bit more time to review what needs to be gathered and put together. And then we'll work with our clerks to make sure that that date and time works for all members of council.

Yeah, exactly. And this is not the last we're going to hear this. We have important questions to address this evening. Thank you for being on hand. And let's try to address the ones we had in the past. Let's write down our new questions and give written questions to staff to prepare for our next dedicated session. So saying that, let's start with Mr. Vance this time for questions and comments about what we've over the last few weeks, excluding the last four days.

Yes, sir. I will say that, to keep it short, I appreciate the work that the staff and the council has done of putting this budget process together. There are a lot of moving parts, and we're working on a short timeline. We know that. We are looking to approve the budget in June, which is next week. And given the short timeline, I hope that we are able to discuss the issues and concerns and narrow the remaining issues so that we'll be able to make a clear decision coming up in a very few weeks. Hopefully we'll be able to identify those missing information and move forward and provide the council and the staff with the questions that are needed to be answered so that we can be able to have a healthy a healthy budget for FY 2027. I'm willing to support the option of number three if that reallocation is going to provide the necessary outcome that we're trying to achieve tonight. And that's all I have to say right now.

Okay, Mr. Dallinger.

Yeah, just to reiterate what's been said already tonight by council, I'm just appreciating everyone's hard work through this year's budget process. It's been started earlier. I think we've gotten into the weeds earlier than we have in the past, and I think that's beneficial. I also think we've made great progress in the past week or so winnowing down some of the areas where there's consensus so we can focus on issues that we require a little more information and deliberation on. So I think that's been really good. I think for me, if we're looking at doing a special meeting For me, I think there's an interest in getting more into getting better clarity on fund balance and capital projects. And I don't say CIP, I say capital projects writ large. and getting more clarity specifically on sort of a two-year horizon and getting even more granular on what the expected projects are so that there's awareness, universal awareness of what those projects are and what their budgets and timelines may be. And then also some sort of backwards-looking fiscal assessments of capital projects as well. We do a good job on our gauging progress on capital projects. We'd be nice to kind of get a rear view mirror and look at how some of those projects have performed fiscally as well. The other, I think we need a little more time to have some more open discussion and clarity on the salary adjustment study and some options related to that and sort of the compensation strategy. so that we're at a full understanding of what those implications are. And the two other kind of bullet points I have are, you know, I think kind of a nitpicky one, but I think there's a We need a strategy from the police department on their outreach on the expansion of this real-time information center. I think we had, I kind of felt like a psychic, but then the next meeting we had folks come up and say, hey, what is this doing? And so I think we need to do some kind of active community engagement on that. I know it's a multi-year project. roll out of that. I think we'll benefit from engaging the community very proactively on that. And lastly, just I don't have an opposition really to looking at the budget with a very discerning eye on cuts because I think it's also an opportunity. It's not like we don't have money, but I think it gives us an opportunity if we need to make mid-year adjustments. I think we...

council is very capable of making those kind of mid-year adjustments as they're needed um so that that's kind of where i am right now on the budget very good very good mr talents not to reiterate a lot of what's being said been said already um but i will say there's been a lot of work that's been done a lot of work that's been put into this budget um many conversations a lot of moving parts um I think that we do need to have more granular conversations over the next couple of weeks. In particular, for me, around a lot, just in general and just being new and this being my first budget and trying to get accustomed to the process. But from what I've been hearing from a lot of other council members, a lot of the process has changed. We got it earlier. We got a chance to work through it. Just looking at specific projects and specific positions as well too as we have these conversations. I don't think anybody, and I'll just be clear, I don't think anybody wants to see a tax increase. So just being very specific on what we're spending the tax increase money on. I know it's listed out in the budget specifically, but some of it's not tied to specific items as well, too. So definitely want to have more conversations around specific items in the budget as well, too, because I don't think we've actually sat and went through it from a granular level, specific items in the budget. And I do want to echo Councilman Mayor Pro Tem Dellinger's comments around the real-time crime center as well too. I do think that we need to have more community engagement around that item as well too, because as I understand, we've been using flock cameras for about four years now. And I don't think that the general public understands that as well too. So we definitely need to have conversations around what does that community outreach look like to make sure people are aware of what we're trying to do with some of this technology as well too. I know there's a lot of fears in the communities around the surveillance state or whatever language you want to use with evolving technology, but we can definitely do a good job of having conversations with the public about what we're trying to accomplish. So those are my comments.

Excellent summary. Good thoughts. Mr. Singleton.

Yes, Mr. Miller, could you go back in the presentation a couple slides to where you have option number three that you recommended? Yes. I sent several questions today, but the first three were all about this, because I want a clarification, and you all sent me answers. A couple of questions specifically to make sure I want the public to hear all this. On reduced PRFN by 225, it was budgeted to us on page 220 for $1,035,000, reducing by $225,000. That line item will change to $810,000. Yes, that is correct. Okay. On reduced IT capital, you suggested reduce it by $97,000. That would be $200,000 there to make it $103,000. But when I go to the IT capital page on page 217 in FY27, it only shows $100,000, not $200,000.

Yes, so that $200,000 looks at not only the IT projects, but also the technology for the conference rooms, which we talked about in terms of the work session. So between what's been budgeted for FY27 and what we anticipate rolling over just from timing of projects into 27 from IT, we believe that we could reduce the IT costs. a budget by $97,000 in order to reallocate the tax rate as presented.

Okay, so it's just not the IT capital line on page 278?

It's on the same page, but also if you look at it a couple lines below or above, I can't remember which order. The conference technology. So that includes both.

or I read the answer, but I wanted it in public. Thank you. The other question is very interesting, is that the interest revenue increased by $200,000. My specific question was about the debt service. We have about, we have eight and a half cent dedicated to it right now, which is about eight and a half, about $9 million. If it get raised, I'll say a penny, that's nine and a half cent, around $10 million. Mr. Beck sent some detailed information. I just wanted that to be stated also, because we understand how that interest on that is invested In a different way, or where is this? If I could hear that explanation, I'd appreciate it.

And I'll ask Mr. Beck to come to the podium to provide that level of detail information. Unfortunately, it's become more expensive to borrow money, but that's also meant that our money is earning more interest. And so that's been something that we've benefited from over the last couple budget cycles. And so I'll let him talk about how we account for that in the budget and how we use it. So, Mr. Beck?

Thank you. Good evening. Yes, Mr. Singleton. To address your question, essentially the town has all of its EIDL funds invested through various investment mechanisms. So we keep a relatively small amount of money in an operating account with our primary bank. which is essentially our day-to-day cash flow so that funds our accounts payable paying vendors paying employees things like that the rest of the money is invested we have a couple of government mutual fund investments that we utilize north carolina capital management trust is the largest of those so we have quite a bit of general fund money invested there of a fund balance We also have all of our bond sale proceeds invested with Capital Management Trust. We also have another local government mutual fund that we're invested with, which is the North Carolina Investment Pool, very similar to NCCMT. We have some general fund money invested there. And then we have an investment advisory relationship with PFM, and they manage a portfolio of investments for us that they select on our behalf. And that's another about $10 million or so of general fund money that's invested there. The interest earnings on the general fund money goes back to the general fund. The portion of interest on the bond proceeds stays separate because we set up an individual investment account for each of those bond questions essentially. And so we are able to allocate that interest directly back to those bond projects. But the rest of the interest on general fund money is pulled and put back to the general fund.

So the debt service money, which may not be all of the bond proceeds money, does that money go back to the general fund? Does it go to the debt service and the payment on any specific project?

No, it's in the general fund. So it is part of the general fund fund balance that has been committed or signed by town council. And so the previous iteration of the debt service fund, which was the revenue savings plan, had a formula and policy that directed those, how to calculate those funds and set those aside. It did not contemplate any type of interest on those funds. And the current debt service fund policy does not contemplate interest on those funds either. So all that interest gets pulled. It essentially just becomes another general fund revenue policy. that comes in during the year. And then when we get to year end and we do the fund balance calculations, we see where we are surplus, deficit-wise. It's part of that calculation as a revenue. Okay.

I appreciate that information and answering the questions. When we meet, whatever date that may be, I would hope we would meet in here and we can have it recorded so the public can hear what we talk about when we talk more about the budget. Because when you're talking about a tax increase, we should do that so the public can hear what our discussions are.

Certainly. If council would prefer that, we can schedule it in here.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Matthews.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate all the updates. And that last slide, I think it was for the debt service, it's going to be on Thank you. To reallocate another half a cent, I like that. I think it's definitely well spent. And I look forward to our meeting as well. A lot of questions were submitted today. It gives you guys a chance to look at it. Are we going to get everything everybody wants to know? It never happens that way. It's an ebb and flow. We'll try to spend those. those dollars wisely and I know you and your team will pick it apart and come up with some good solutions and we'll see where it goes. I look forward to that meeting so we can hopefully bring all this down to where it needs to be and so we can vote on it in a timely manner. So thank you for all the efforts you guys are doing.

Certainly. Excellent. Do we want to make another round of questions, Mr. Vance?

Yes, I would like to just emphasize what has been said about the police real-time crime center and crime analysts in particularly. Just concerns of the public in general and also nationally just looking at the guardrails. What guardrails are we going to have on this type of operation going forward? It can serve great uses, but it also can be some mission creep in there as well. We want to make sure that the proper guardrail is in place to make sure that we are are not doing beyond the scope of what we said we're gonna do.

Thank you. Mr. Dellinger, comments, questions?

Yeah, just a couple of questions to go circle back on the interest question. So the bond funds sitting there, stay in there and go to bond funds. General fund interest goes to general fund. The debt service fund, that's going into general fund. And my question is, is that by... When we shifted over to the new way of doing our debt service fund, was that by policy or was that by default?

So the policy really just affected the way the revenue for that set-aside was calculated. But the accounting for it and the mechanism for it is basically the same. We've always kept debt service within the general fund. So we pay those bills out of the general fund and we calculate and accumulate that set-aside within the general fund as well.

I think there might be a place where we need to look at policy because I think when we think about a savings account, you think about a savings account as putting your money aside and it earning interest and growing and as you put more money in. And so I'm thinking about the impact of that over time of that fund earning interest on itself while we're sitting waiting to get the bond, particularly as we're entering or remaining in kind of a more higher interest rate environment. But I think that's also the considerations with regards to revenue sources in the general fund. So I think kind of a question on how much money do we have in interest-bearing accounts? how much revenue is being generated, and then where is that revenue being held or being directed. So I think you answered most of that, but without a set of dollar figures attached to it. So I think that would be helpful, too, maybe to present at the special meeting is sort of how much interest are we earning on how much money. The other question I have is the 8.5 cents is sort of based off of the budget. overall budget and then there's a reconciliation at the end of the year generally and then my question is there is there an adjustment made at the end of the year to make sure that STILL AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT, THE 8.5 CENTS IS BEING CAPTURED INTO THE DEBT SERVICE FUND.

THE RECONCILIATION USED TO OCCUR UNDER THE OLD REVENUE SAVINGS PLAN AND WE HAD TO TRUE UP ACTUAL REVENUES TO BUDGETED REVENUES BECAUSE THE PROJECTION WAS BASED ON BUDGETED REVENUES BUT THE DEBT SERVICE FUND IS JUST A FLAT AMOUNT BASED ON THE ANTICIPATED AND BUDGETED TAX BASE AND TAX RATE FOR THAT YEAR.

So there's nothing at the end of the year to make sure that that 8.5 cents has been dedicated to the debt service. So it's a different, there's no true up is what you're saying.

Well, it's dedicated, but the amount is set as part of the budget process. There is no true up at the end of the year.

Okay, that was my question. So I think there are two things we should look at. One is And this is again sort of an offset for tax increase or looking at how we're projecting the funds. One is the policy related to reinvesting the interest earned. And then the other is a true up at the end of the year since we seem to be, We did that with the revenue savings plan. We did that adjustment, right? So I think that sort of just these tweaks to policy that I think might be beneficial for our capital fund over the long term. But again, I think when we have our special meeting, we can talk about those revenue flows and what impacts that has on operations and these other things and fund balance and all that. So I just raise those as something we probably want to talk about.

So just to kind of address the fund balance too, as we're talking about interest, like I referenced earlier with Mr. Singleton, the interest that comes back into the general fund does essentially end up as part of fund balance at the end of the year because we've had surpluses each and every year. It's another revenue stream that comes in. We've been able to set aside that money and add to that fund balance pot. But we can certainly look at different options for the debt service fund or however council may want to kind of look at that going forward. It's a different... process than the revenue savings plan which was more based on revenue and this is based on tax base so it's not quite as fluid as the revenue savings plan was um and and you know not quite as um you know kind of fluid with the the year-end true ups it's more of a pretty solid number when we budget that and that's primarily the reason we changed is because it's it's a lot easier to budget for and a lot easier to pinpoint what that's going to be year over year

Thank you.

Thank you. This is talent.

Second round really quickly. The 1 cent operational expectation obligations. I see you counseling civic academy support. Is that 1 time? Or do we plan for that to be a recurrent expense expense over the next couple of years?

Can you repeat the question, Mr. Sullivan?

So under the one cent operational expectations and obligations, the youth council and civic academy support.

Yes.

Is that one time or do we plan on that being a reoccurring expense over the next couple of years?

It's programmed as a reoccurring. We've had such success and positive feedback by both programs that we would like to be able to continue to have them annually. And so the idea would be to be able to cover a cost for those moving forward with that tax, part of that tax increase.

Thank you. You, Mr. Singleton, second round.

Yes, I think as Mr. Becks was alluding to the revenue savings plan, when you had to true up, you had percentages coming from a different, now this utility and that utility, all that kind of stuff, it was rather tedious. And when we made the change, it was just simply easier to have a percentage percent sense dedicated to it. It was easy to clean up at one time, which it came about in a very similar amount in the long run. In regards to the real-time center, I think that's a concern. We've heard it about flock cameras. I have a lot of issues. I don't have issues with cop cameras at all. Anybody that complains about they're toting around one of these, I'm sitting there thinking, really? Sorry. Seventy million cars right now in America have technology tracking the car. And by 2030, they say 90 percent, 98 percent of all cars, all new cars will have that in there. So I'm sitting here wondering about people who are not being tracked, and you're tapping a card. I'm sorry. and you're worried about flock cameras. That's just me. But you have to respect what the citizens have and the crime center, excuse me, the real-time information center is a similar version of that, just in a different way that you can address real-time parades, any event we're having July 3rd, whatever. So I think that's a concern with people just because what it is, and I do realize that, I do believe that community outreach and meeting with people and talking with people is going to have to be a part of it. People have their mind made on flock cameras and that's fine, but again, I really question why we're worried about that, and you're riding around with a cell phone in your car. That can be tracked. Just watch some of these TVs, or watch my show, Tracker. You're going to be tracked. Just watch how they get on there so you can hack a computer. And that's happened in real life, unfortunately. Everybody's probably had a computer or a phone or a card hacked. So anyway, I just do think that's something that's going to need to be, some of these community meetings police have had scheduled in the past would be advisable to talk about that. And I look forward to us talking at the next budget session with specific questions about specific line items.

Mr. Matthews? Nothing different. I'll just look forward to our coming up meetings so we can hopefully resolve a lot of things and put some things to rest.

Yes, well, just let me interject how proud I am of our council and our staff of the way we're doing this process. In detail, asking high-level questions, sophisticated questions. You don't have to look far to read in the paper about other towns in our state going bankrupt or defaulting, have embarrassing disputes between staff and council or among council members or, heaven forbid, mayors being caught with their pants down in town hall on video. How embarrassing can it get? We're way above all that. I'm so proud of the way this team has dug in from the council members to the staff of which we expect high performance like you have. It's just very refreshing to see all this and to know that we're going to take the time and address the issues. just to recap a couple of key things i heard priorities we want to make sure we're setting our priorities for projects whether it's capital improvement or single funded or grant request we have to set our priorities what's most important to our citizens uh i heard more communication We can't communicate enough. And it's not just because you're a rookie. It takes a lot of communication to work through this. Thanks for pointing that out. And Mr. Singleton, thanks for your input on the real-time information center. If you carry a cell phone or drive a car, people already know way more about you than you ever thought. Yeah, finance the car, use the credit card. Your stuff is out there. We have to make good decisions. We have to focus on how to safeguard the guardrails we talked about. How do you have community involvement and bring it on all of these things, prioritization. So y'all are doing a great job. are we okay to uh table this and and continue to submit questions and be ready to hit this hard for as many hours that it takes on our special meeting are we able to move along tonight uh kind of wrap this one up tonight or another round of questions comments i just have one more thing to say around the um the flock camera um i just want to say out loud that um

Nefarious actors are becoming more technologically advanced, so I definitely understand the need for the police department to have the technology needed to be able to do the job that they need to do. And I think, as I've been told, there's a lot of elements that will come along with it, like being able to recover missing people that we just don't communicate well to the public that will definitely be helped by the technology, police real-time crime center. I think what I've heard mostly about people's concerns, I just want to say this out loud for the public, is around if the flock camera is selling your information to a data broker. Now that's more of a conversation to be had because I don't know the intricacies of that back end or what contracts that we have with flock or their ability to sell it to data brokers or to whoever. But people do have Grave concerns about surveillance pricing. And I know we were sitting in the budget hearing, I think it was the budget hearing, where the guys or whichever meeting we were at the Transportation Policy Committee and the guy said, yeah, I know when you go to Costco because we're the ones who buy your data. So it is a real concern and we definitely need to have more conversations around it. But I do agree that there are nefarious actors out here that are becoming more technologically advanced, and we need our police department to be ready and capable to be able to protect the populace.

Yes, that may be worth having their police representatives, our chief and his team address us again on our special meeting to make sure we're looking at this from every angle. We're taking proper precautions using it wisely at the end of the day. It all boils down to the human beings that use these tools. And fortunately, we have way above. average human beings in our police department. These guys have been great through the years. So that being said, are we able to wrap up here and move on to the next item? This was a great discussion. Plenty more to come. Okay. Nobody's objected. In that case, we'll take a reset and you better be back in here at two minutes till eight or your name will be on the permanent record. Thank you. Let's take ten. Thank you. And we return from reset. We're live again. Thanks for being prompt and using your time wisely. We come back with an item that's close to my heart. It has to do with the Garner Housing Advisory Committee related to our Community Development Specialist. And we have our top team here from Innovation and Strategy. We have Maureen Howe and also our newest specialist, Lewis Hurd. Where are we and where are we going with this?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So thank you. This evening, we wanted to bring you a memo that has some recommendations for forming the Garner Housing Advisory Committee. This is the next step following up on the work from the Affordable Housing Task Force. Just to kind of we're going to run through some of this. Our goal for tonight is to get feedback from you. the next step after this will be to bring you a resolution to take formal action to form the advisory committee so what if anything you hear tonight if you have feedback on it if you want something changed please let us know because we will be drafting that resolution um tentatively to come to the next meeting so we just need to be able to update that as soon as possible so Just to get started. So before you have the memo and just for the public, several I'll read the parts that you all have seen already. So council has gotten some recommended the mission statement duties and a timeline for developing the affordable housing, the Housing Advisory Committee. Just to reiterate those, the mission of the Housing Advisory Committee will be to provide informed guidance, community perspective and strategic recommendations on policies, programs and partnerships that promote safe, affordable, equitable and diverse housing opportunities for the Garner community. The recommended duties of the advisory committee are to review and recommend policies and programs that promote housing affordability and preservation, to assess community needs around housing and data, and report findings to council and the community, to provide input on funding strategies that support housing affordability and preservation, and to support community education and engagement around housing affordability initiatives. So that's just a brief overview of the mission statement and recommended duties. And then just to reiterate that timeline that you have seen starting from tonight, so we're presenting this memo to council for discussion. Tentatively, we are planning to bring a resolution back to council at their June 2nd meeting to take action to form the committee. After that, we would allow about three weeks for staff to post and advertise committee vacancies. Then the nominations committee would begin interviewing applicants around June 25th through the July 15th window. That would tentatively put the nominations committee bringing their recommendations back to council either on July 21st or August 4th at the regular meetings. Assuming we're able to fill out our vacancies, we would be looking at providing orientation for new members, most likely in line with the other orientation for other advisory committees at the beginning of the fiscal year in August. And that would put us at having our first organizational meeting sometime in August of this year. So that's just a brief overview of that timeline. This is what you have seen before from the manager's office. And now I'd like to turn it over to Lewis Hurd. He's going to share some more details about sort of the composition of that committee. And we look forward to hearing any feedback you have.

Good evening, everyone. I'm going to just follow up from what Marty has started out and mentioned that we have our membership terms. We're looking to have seven members on the Advisory Council all serving a term of three years. We're looking to have them staggered. As you can see on the on the memo, we have two going there one year, two members going there for two years, and three members going for three years. In addition to that, they're allowed to have served two terms, and then they would have to step off the board. If at some point they want to come back on the board, they would have to wait a year to come back onto the board. The important part is that the nominating committee is asked to really look at the diversity of the prospective applicants. We're looking for expertise in development, funding opportunities, partnership relationships to grow the outreach of the advisory council. Also recommended is that we meet the meeting once a month. The mayor would appoint a council liaison and then myself or Mari as the staff liaison to the advisory council. There has been no date that has been set at this time yet. That will be determined once the applicants are appointed by you, the council, so that we can determine what the actual dates are. But we're looking to have them meet once a month. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

Okay, well, that's great presentation. We've been studying this stuff a long time, but there's always room for questions and learning more. Let's start with Mr. Matthews and work this way. Questions, comments?

Looks like you got the usual committee type organization, which I know we're trying to do that consistent all the way across the board with all the committees, which is a great thing, and I like your staggered. Once you guys establish, I think you said in August, you hope to have your feet on the ground, so to speak, with the council. Sometime after that, I think it would be nice if we could have a, once you've got your arms wrapped around this thing, a joint meeting with council and that group to just open the floor up for questions and ideas and talk about things and get clarifications. I've probably got some questions. I want to know what... And I've got some ideas I might want to toss back out. It's a two-way thing. But sometime after you guys got your feet on the ground, have a work session or something to just run over what's going on and how we can make the same work better. Great.

Thank you. Mr. Singleton.

Yes, thank you for the information. And it looks like at our meeting next Tuesday, we'll create the housing committee, and then they'll start posting this here the next day. So it sounds like good steps to go.

Excellent. Yeah, again, our mission tonight is just to make sure it's on the agenda for next week where we approve the official resolution. That being said, other questions, comments? Mr. Stallings?

Just for clarity purposes, and I just want to ask this question out loud. I know it says provide input on funding strategies that support housing affordability and preservation. Housing affordability and affordable housing are important. technically classified as two different things. There will be an element of affordable housing that comes along with this Housing Advisory Committee, correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

Mr. Dellinger.

Yeah, very excited for this to get underway. And as I sort of have mentioned, I'm excited for Garner to move forward and kind of punch above its weight when it comes to this issue and be kind of a model for how a smaller town can embrace this as an issue and make progress and be a resource even to other communities with regards to how we're doing in structuring and just in conversation. last week, the ability to assess what other communities are doing and what worked and what hasn't, when it's failed other places, reaching out to that. I think one of the questions that will evolve over time is what is the role of this committee with regards to being a resource for the development process. And so we have developer applicants here tonight and sort of, you know, How do we help people who don't have any idea on how they can incorporate affordable housing into their project? And I do want to highlight Mr. Stallings' consistent clarification that we need to make around affordable housing and housing affordability. And I think that'd be a good place to start a future conversation with this committee. We've defined affordable housing as the work on the task force. what is that interplay and is there any between uh housing affordability um so i think that's an important it is important so i want to elevate that but other than that i'm looking forward to getting the work done and as mr vance and i begin that process um figuring out the best way to get your input on uh the skill sets that are going to be a best the best resource for you as you do your work and complement your your skills um i'm excited to do that too so thank you welcome aboard thank you mr vance i'll say welcome aboard uh to to the team and all the work that's gone for it so far it's a

Great step for Garner. It's a lot to learn about the terminology when it comes to affordable housing. defining it relative to Garner and now we have reached a point where we are moving, I believe, greatly forward knowing what our focus and our scope is to a certain degree as it relates to Garner and I agree looking at what has worked. We know that other municipalities have plans in place and we can learn from them what worked and what didn't work as we go through this process and look forward to working with you all. In the future endeavors, and we, and I also believe that we can punch above our weight and garner, you know, just a big proponent of that. And I look forward to working with the team.

Excellent. Clearly off to a great start here. We're very excited about it. I'm glad to hear the enthusiasm that we have. We're finally launching and nominating committee who has helped put this together, which consists of Mr. Vance, Mr. Dellinger. Rebecca and Stella, who's not here, but they have really put this in hyperdrive to get this done and caught up on track with the other July 1st effective dates on all our committees, and I'm glad to see this. We really believe in citizen input, and just like we all think about how housing affordability and affordable housing helps our residents, and let's don't forget what Mr. Dellinger just said, help our development partners do this too, not just our residents, but help the people who are partners in the community, how they can contribute, how they can help us on this journey. So we're excited, and it's all at full speed ahead. Please bring in the resolution next week, and we will officially get you up and running. Thank you, sir. Thank you. One more comment. Here we go.

I got one more question. In terms of the membership, I don't think it's the membership term. It may be the membership terms. Have we thought about having an ex officio seat on the committee for preserving homes since they're one of our partners in housing preservation?

Yes, I think I'll let Louis speak to it a little bit more based on his previous experience with these kind of advisory committees. But we discussed having different ex officio, but that we didn't feel at this time we needed to define it explicitly. So that can come with time unless we're advised otherwise that we need to include that in the resolution. But if you want to add anything.

The only thing I would add is that members of the advisory committee should be residents of Garner. And if there's a preserving homes employee or worker, whatever, that meets that residency requirement, then they have the option for the nominating committee to select them on there. But we want residents of Garner as a priority.

And if I could add, we do have a current existing contract with Preserving Home for Services, and so we've had to be very careful that there wouldn't be a conflict of interest in terms of anything recommended coming from the advisory group to Preserving Home as our strong partner in preservation. So just wanted to make council aware of that consideration as well.

Yes.

And this doesn't have to be a conversation for today. Would it be a conflict by there being a non-voting ex officio member? And I'm kind of indifferent on it, but I'm just for clarification purposes. Would that be a conflict of interest by a person being a non-voting ex officio member on the committee?

I would recommend that they be non-voting.

Thank you.

To prevent any potential conflicts of interest with service, you know, as well as other groups that might provide services on behalf of the town.

Thank you.

But what I hear you saying is we want to make sure we get their input and their involvement and their help. Yeah, absolutely. I think we're talking to some people who know how to do this over here. And an attorney who's going to keep us between the ditches. Mr. Delano.

Yeah, and to that point, I think we'll have some conversations with Attorney Jones on guidelines for people who are applying to be voting board members to make sure we're avoiding those types of conflicts intentionally avoiding them and don't accidentally find someone who's on Habitat's board or something and not think through that element of what we do. So I would put that on our radar as well.

Yes, keep a close eye on them if you would. Please do. Okay, excellent. Anything else? Go get them, kids. Thanks, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And that brings us along to updates to the council. And we start with manager reports. Ms. Miller.

Yes. So we have two items under manager reports this evening. The first is our monthly development activity map update. And I'll ask Ms. Joseph if she will come up to the podium and review this presentation. Ms. Joseph. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So this month we have two additions to the development activity map. Draw your first attention to the site at 1529 Creech Road. site is at Creech Road and Tryon Point Drive. The applicant has had a pre-application meeting, so this application is for a conditional rezoning. It's still in progress, so we have not started to review the request. So the applicant is requesting a residential subdivision of about 19 lots. The site includes 4.92 acres. It's currently zoned R2, and the applicant is requesting R4 zoning for conditional zoning for a single-family detached subdivision.

Ms. Joseph, that's at the intersection where Creech and Sanford Road split, where the Tron Point Drive is. It's right there. Yes. That's where Creech and Sanford split.

Absolutely, yes, sir. The second... addition to the map is Bennett Commercial. It's located just at the front portion of the Bennett assemblage apartments. So you have the Bennett assemblage subdivision and then the apartments here off of 401 Fayetteville. They are proposing a CMX zoning district. It's currently zoned MFB. They'd like to rezone for commercial mixed use. We recently had their pre-application meeting. Again, this is still an application in progress so we have not started to review the applicant did mention a tier one is similar to the 401 exchange tier one that was approved a few years ago but again have have yet to review their application but that is what the proposed intent is rezoning to CMX so this is totally commercial nothing to do with the other other project Right, it's the front parcel here. I believe they were intending maybe commercial, maybe apartments. It was zoned when the Bennett assemblage was zoned as MFB, which allowed some commercial, but they decided to move forward with solely commercial on this acreage right here, seven acres.

Matthews, this was one of the things that the developers of the Bennett North Apartments offered to Council when they were going through their recent change in their project. So they had committed to changing this to commercial zoning rather than a smaller apartment complex.

Okay, you've answered my question.

And I believe, I don't want to speak for them, but I believe the reason that it would be tier one is that they would probably not be the ones developing it, but they were following through with their commitment to convert it to commercial so that it could then be marketed for commercial use.

Okay, thank you. That's absolutely what the feedback we got during the pre-op. And that's all. Are there any questions? And I know you see this one here, but that just came in yesterday, so that's why it's not on the report for this month, next month.

Okay, yeah, I'll just count one, two, okay. No news on the Stokes survey. Yes. Great, thanks so much for your help. Always good to see what's going on. Helps us pay attention.

Absolutely, thank you.

Thank you all for your time. Thank you, Ms. Joseph. And the final item under manager reports is just a review of your pending agendas looking ahead towards the June meetings. I'll briefly review these, looking ahead to next week's meeting on June 2nd. We'll have an opportunity to recognize our Civic Academy graduates. We had a great ceremony last week, a lot of energy and enthusiasm from that group, and so we'll have an opportunity to recognize them publicly at the council meeting. We've got several things under consent, including voluntary annexation, setting the public hearing, updating our contract with Wake County tax collection, and making sure that we give them permission to collect the taxes on our behalf. We just talked about the resolution to form the Garner Housing Advisory Committee, and so that will be back as well, and then awarding the bid for our 2026 street resurfacing work. Under public hearings, we do have a quasi-judicial hearing for next week, an SUP for Timber Drive East, mixed use. And then under new old business, we had included a potentially discussion of the budget. We talked about that more this evening with the focus on calling a special meeting. So we'll remove that from the tentative agenda, but also have an opportunity for the nominations committee to make recommendations to the council on filling any board and commission seats. also code revision project update from the legal services team, as well as NCDOT Benson Road winding project, looking at some potential easements that need to be acquired on town property as well. Looking ahead to the second meeting in June, which is June 16th. We will have under presentations the Garner Juneteenth Proclamation. We have several items under presentations for this meeting. We may end up moving or shifting some just for load balance, but also life-saving awards, Medal of Honor awards, both from our police department and the recognition of service for our codes administrator, fire codes administrator, who will be retiring. Under consent, we've got a few items for no parking zone edge of auburn streets potentially looking looking at also the final budget amendment for fy26 the cleanup that we need to do to make sure everything rolls over appropriately for fy27 we've got our interlocal agreement with our peg media partners as well And then public hearings, but we do not have any public hearings so far scheduled for the meeting on the 16th. Um, under new old business, we have, we have the potential for approving the FY 27 budget. And then we have the talk of the town. For the June 30th work session, this will be a meeting that starts early at 4.30. This will be the second meeting of the policy committee meeting for the Garner Forward Transportation Plan. Council will be meeting with the Planning Commission as part of the next steps in this process. We will take a break. and then go into your regular work session meeting. Your regular work session meeting for your work session, we have included, should I pull it up correctly? We've included a few things first, bringing back any development previews, so we'll be working with developers if they want to come and do any previews with council, which has been our standard practice. Also, we're looking to do a joint meeting discussion with GEDC, continued discussion on the Innovation Park project. We talked about this briefly during your work session back in April. And so now it's time to bring that back for continued discussion and follow up and an opportunity to ask questions. And then we'll just have our development, um, map, development activity map update, and then review pending agendas looking into July. So that's what's before us as always. These things can be tentative as we look at trying to load balance and make sure, um, that, um, we're using our time wisely for all the agendas, but these are the things that we know as of right now that we need to try to address in June.

Excellent. A lot of good news. A lot going on. A lot to look forward to. A lot of meetings. That brings us to attorney reports.

No report this evening.

Wow. Counsel reports, we've got to have some. Let's start with Mr. Vance now. Any counsel reports?

I do not have one tonight.

Okay, Mr. Gallinger.

I have a list, I rarely have a list. First thing I just wanted to highlight as we're getting into the budget and kind of almost at the halfway year mark here, we're just really excited and pleased at the progress we've made with these developer um previews at our work sessions i think that's been very very significant and helpful to counsel in in our partners and it's evolving but i think it's been a really a strong step in the right direction with regards to streamlining our processes and being even better communicators back and forth with our development partners. Also, again, I'll beat this horse, but I'm still very pleased with our strategic initiatives department and what we're doing there. I think it is a unique thing that we're doing and allows us space for kind of a broad view of things, a creative way of looking at things. And the efficiencies, I think, coming out of there are already apparent in so many ways. and also want to just thank staff for the improvement on the budget process this year improvement is improvement it's not always smooth the budget process never is smooth but progress is is is definitely felt i think on the part of council so i see that as a positive as we go into next year as well so just thanks to everyone for stepping up harder as hard or harder than ever to get that ball rolling earlier in and we're gonna not go down to the wire i think because of that and i think that's a good thing for everyone i do have uh four quick things just curiosity there may not be direct updates tonight but just curious as to on the uh this is for mr pool where we sort of want to ai evolution and develop policy development

so we created the ai work group we gave an update to council so what we're doing is creating a comprehensive workbook for all town staff basically policies and guidelines we have a small group that are demoing different generative ai platforms so the it director and the managers have access and are testing out a few generative ai platforms our goal is to determine one particular platform to for town employees to use. So we have set a timeline really by midsummer to be complete with the guidebook and give you an update. So once we get through the budget process, that'll be coming back to council. Our strategic initiatives departments, along with that team, kind of work in parallel between the guidebook policies and procedures and the generative AI piece.

Thank you. The other is LMG timelines. I know we kind of had them come back. Do we have any updated or what's their timeline right now?

We have not set a next date for that to come back to you. We're still working with our partners at DFI and the LMG team to work through some questions and comments we have about the agreement. So we'll try to provide you an update on timeline soon.

Okay, but no groundbreaking or dirt moving as of yet? No. Okay. The other is on our fiscal impact assessment work, where are we on that part of the work?

We've started internally with staff, started conversations on that, a more streamlined, simplified version. We've had to sort of put it on pause while we were working through the budget, but it's on our list of things to be able to follow up on and continue on once we get the budget approved.

Thank you. And the last one is where are we with regards to communicating our tier one preferences and lack thereof to our development partners?

I think staff is advising developers whenever they're discussing potential projects. I think the primary ones that are moving forward as tier ones are ones that the developers believe that they have a market need to bring it forward that way. So we can't speak for them that that's accurate, but staff is communicating and trying to get folks to use the tier two when possible. I think, like you heard tonight, The carrot of the SUP process is a good one, but we do recognize as staff that there are some times that market conditions seem to make sense, sort of like we did the Gateway 540 project to work together on good conditions to go along with the Tier 1 when it's going to be mutually beneficial to the town and the project. I would say that's ongoing communication that staff does naturally all the time.

Thank you. That's all. Thank you.

Real quick report. So the youth council met and they had their executive board elections and they gave some rousing, great speeches, articulated what they want to accomplish on council during their next term. It'll be the end of the year when they restart the next term. But it was great just watching it. It was great watching them put themselves out there, how invested they are in the council. So I definitely do want to congratulate President Anish, Vice President Lilly, and Secretary Manurishi on being elected as their youth council representatives for next year and look forward to their leadership and what they will accomplish on youth council.

Very exciting. Thanks for your leadership in that goal. Mr. Singleton.

Yes, I got three items. One of them more relevant yesterday was nice. Might have been a few sprinkles, but nobody melted, so appreciative of that. I was talking with Mr. Jones about the flag poles they got up there. It does make a difference seeing the other two flags there. Looks really good, and they did a really good job of getting that work done. I want to comment that we're going to have the civics class here next week, but I was able to attend the last three meetings of that. That was a really good group of people, 25 people. Different ages, different backgrounds. It was a really good group. And I enjoyed meeting those folks. Also, the splash pad opened this weekend. I went by Saturday about 4.30. It was 71 and cloudy. And no one knew about it. And there were two huge parties at two shelters. And so the kids that were in there were wearing, some of them had on tennis shoes and shorts and shirts. They didn't have bathing suits. They were walking around getting wet. They were older kids too, but Sunday it was hopping. It was much warmer, much sunny, very sunny. It was hopping, some tweaks that had to be done. I emailed this morning, but it was really full. It was interesting. I was there, every parking space was full except the two handicap spaces and one space. That place is gone and the shelters are full. I'm really worried whether I can park. But anyway, it was really good to see people out there. There were questions about how come they stopped. And Maria told me, explained it's on a cycle. It goes, skates off for a few seconds, and it cycles back on slowly. So I asked that they put signs out there because people were saying how come it's stopping. It's stopping on purpose as part of the programming. But really neat. And I think it will have a lot of activity this summer. I also appreciate what staff did with the, at least the sweet gum shelter. Putting up signage clearly stating the shelter is for people to sit and enjoy the park. And if you're going to use tables, please push it to the side. And on both days, that's what I saw. There were 2 groups of people there and they took 4 tables and push it to the side, like the sign said, and had their little gathering. So. I think it'll be heavily used. So thumbs up. Glad we got it going. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Matthews. Yes, sir. A couple items. And in regards to splash pad, we were talking tonight earlier. I said, well, we wait until July 3rd. And it's going to be between that, the farm, and our park across the road. Half of the world is going to be converged down there.

July 3rd, it'll be closed. It'll be closed July 3rd because they do the fireworks in the front white deer park is closed on July 3rd.

I'm at the farm.

It's still going to be busy down there.

Sit back and watch. I appreciate all the comments on the memorial service. It's good to have everybody there in support and the town staff that got some things going. Flagpole's up and Forrest held to his promise they're going to be up. Matt said they're going to be up and they were up and they look good. Thanks for everybody showing out. Also, just a reminder, June 26th at the GPAC, the 82nd Airborne Chorus as well as band will be playing there. And tickets are free, but it's going to be a sellout. I think you go online and get your tickets, but that's going to be a jam-packed event. So you definitely want to be in that place if you can make that happen. But other than that, there's a lot going on in Garner, so as the man says, just grab a hold and hang on.

Mayor Goodman, if I may, I would like to also express my appreciation for the event board day celebration that was conducted on yesterday. It's a somber moment, but it's one in which we are remembering the ultimate sacrifice made by individuals so that we can have the liberties that we currently have. So thank you for putting that on.

Was a great event well attended that concludes council reports. I think I don't think we have a closed session of any kind. We appear to have maybe covered all of our business and issues that on our agenda. If there are no other items that need to be discussed to review, I will accept the motion to adjourn.

So move.

Second. Motion from Mr. Stallings and second by?

Second.

Okay, there you go. Throwing your voice again. Throwing your voice, tricking me again. Second by Mr. Vance. All in favor of adjournment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Meeting adjourned.

.