Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the town of Garner town council regular meeting of June 16th, 2026. And if you think it's a beautiful evening this afternoon, you should have seen it early this morning. It was so cool. I went out and mowed the grass and felt like I was up in a Colorado Rockies or something. It was so refreshing. It was just great. We're glad you're here. The meeting's called to order. As we get started, I'm going to ask the town clerk to please call the roll.

Mayor Gupton.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Dellinger.

Here.

Council Member Matthews.

Here.

Council Member Singleton.

Here.

Council Member Stallings.

Here.

And Council Member Vance.

Here. Thank you. And this evening, our Council Member Phil Matthews has the honor and privilege of leading the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation. Please stand if you can.

Let's pray. Most gracious Heavenly Father, we come before you tonight, Lord, and ask you to bless our council meeting as we go over things that concern our town. Grant us wisdom, Lord, to make good decisions and move our town forward. Lord, we pray for our country. We pray for our military, those that are out putting their lives on the line, as well as our police fire and rescue, making our community safe. Lord, we just pray that you'll be with the families, those that are sick and hurting. Lord, bless them. And Lord, just have your way in our lives. And we lift up these prayers to you. In the name of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, amen. Amen.

Item B on our agenda this evening is the adoption of the agenda that many of you have seen. Council members have seen it. Can I get a motion and a second to adopt the meeting agenda?

So moved.

Second. Motion by Mr. Stallings, second by Mr. Matthews. If there's no discussion, all in favor of adopting the agenda, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, the agenda is unanimously adopted. Item C, and one of my favorites this evening, we've got several fantastic presentations, and the first one is one that's important to me as well to a whole lot of folks, and I'm going to start out by reading the proclamation about our Juneteenth, and then you will hear a little bit more about our Juneteenth celebration. The proclamation reads that whereas President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863, declaring enslaved people in Confederate-controlled territory free and paving the way for passage of the 13th Amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States. and whereas enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was delayed by up to almost two and a half years in much of the territory of the Confederacy, and whereas on June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger read to the people of Galveston, Texas, General Order No. 3, which stated, The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves. And whereas June 19th has acquired special meaning and is called Juneteenth, combining the words June and 19th, and has been celebrated as Freedom Day by many African Americans for 160 years. And whereas in Wake County, there were more than 10,000 enslaved people, nearly two-fifths of the county's population, according to the 1860 census. And whereas these citizens, both before and after emancipation, contributed greatly to the prosperity and development of the area that is now Garner. And whereas the creation of a Garner Juneteenth Committee was authorized by this Town Council to raise awareness about Juneteenth and about other information that places Juneteenth in historical context. and whereas the United States celebrates its freedom from tyranny on July 4, 1776, but we acknowledge that not all Americans were free on that day. Therefore, Juneteenth should be celebrated alongside July 4, Independence Day, and not in lieu of. And now, therefore, I, Buddy Gupton, mayor of the town of Garner, do hereby proclaim June 19th, 2026 in Garner is Juneteenth, Freedom Day. And I would like to ask our public information officer, Rick Mercer, to tell us a little bit more about it and some recognition as I walk over that way to deliver the proclamation.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Thank you again for reading the proclamation this year of the committee, and I know our community appreciates that. The Juneteenth celebration this year will be on June 20th, on Saturday, June 20th, starting at 11 a.m. at Garner Performing Arts Center. It's free. Everyone's welcome. We hope to see a good turnout. As usual, we'll feature a lot of our local history and also place it in some context, and we'll have some performances that will, I think, inspire and energize people. So we look forward to that again Saturday, this Saturday, June 20th, 11 a.m., Garner Performing Arts Center. Hope to see a lot of people there. And I do want to invite our committee members, the handful we have here, to join us for a photo with the mayor.

That job is complete without a photo wall. And we have two more presentations. Both of these have to do with outstanding police work. And the first thing I'm going to do is call up the chief of police, Mr. Chris Adams, to tell us about this life-saving award we're going to hear about.

Yes, sir. Good evening, mayor, council, everyone else. We typically incorporate these awards and PR into our PD presentations, our promotional ceremonies and things of that nature. But the ones we present at night are extra special and we felt appropriate to bring these before you this evening. So thank you for this opportunity. The first presentation involves two lifesaving awards. Sergeant Danielle Coker and Senior Officer Patrick Lee responded to a medical call that involved a three-month-old infant who was not breathing. Upon arrival, the officers immediately began to perform CPR on the baby and were successful in getting the child breathing again. EMS then arrived and took over and kept the child stable. And we recently followed up with the baby boy and he's doing just fine. And certainly without the quick and safe response of these two officers, the child would not have survived. So I'll read these to you. The Garner Police Department proudly presents these lifesaving awards to Sergeant Daniel Coker and Senior Officer Patrick Lee.

Marching up front for the photo op.

Well, we can go ahead and do the other one if you'd like, then we could do both photos at the same time. Okay. Yes, sir. So the next one is a medal of honor. This is not something that we give out often. It's very rare, but this recipient is well deserving. You may recall this incident, which took place during one of our winter storms in January. On January 25th, 2026, while responding to a domestic disturbance and vehicular assault, Officer Lee, risking his own safety, placed himself between the victim and the suspect as the suspect was attempting to run the victim over with his vehicle. Officer Lee guided the victim to safety and took immediate action to try to stop the suspect's vehicle. When the suspect crashed his vehicle and barricaded himself in a residence, Officer Lee quickly shifted to the plan of negotiating a peaceful surrender along with other officers. Officer Lee's swift actions undoubtedly saved the victim's life that day. And I'd like to further say I'm very proud of everyone who was on that scene. Everyone, the victim, the suspect, the officers, all the first responders all walked away from that scene that evening. So that was remarkable. I want to read this plaque to you. The Garner Police Department proudly presents this Medal of Honor Award to Senior Officer Patrick Lee for his extraordinary bravery, selfless service, and heroic actions performed in the line of duty on January 25th, 2026. Ask them if they'd like to say anything, and they decline for now, but we're ready for the photo when you are.

Where's Rick?

I say one picture's worth a thousand words. That's right.

Thank you.

And if you think that was exciting, let's go to petitions and comments. And I'm going to ask our town attorney, has anyone signed up to speak? Our town clerk. Town clerk.

We have three individuals signed up to speak.

Three individuals. In that case, then, let me read the instructions about petitions and comments. This portion of the meeting is to receive comments from the public on items not included in this agenda regarding matters germane to town policies or business or subjects within the town council's real or apparent jurisdiction. Individuals or group spokespersons must sign up with the town clerk prior to the start of the meeting. The council is interested in hearing your concerns, but will not take action or deliberate on subject matter brought up during the petitions and comments segment. Topics requiring further investigation will be referred to the appropriate town officials or staff and may be scheduled for a future agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes, and we've had good success with that, so everyone has a chance to speak. That being said, who is our first speaker?

Mr. Ricky Pierce.

Mr. Pierce, please address the podium and introduce yourself with name and address.

My name is Ricky Pierce. I live at 1810 Vandora Springs Road. On February 2nd, 1955, two brothers who grew up dirt poor on Creech Road began their dream of owning their own business. 71 years later, that business is still in operation, still family-owned. That business was founded by my father, Mitt Pierce, his brother, Macon Pierce. Pierce Brothers Roofing Company is still run by my cousin, Donnie. 1956, Purvis Jones started Jones Insurance Agency on Main Street in Garner. Purvis was a man about town, volunteer fireman. Everybody had business with Purvis. 1958, Sam and Anna Hudson came to Garner and opened up Hudson's Hardware, and we all know what a flourishing enterprise that's been. Before that, there was Green's Grill with Mr. Durwood Green. The governor of North Carolina used to go out there and eat chitlins, I understand. Today at Sandy's Restaurant, Toot and Tail was run by the Poole and Sparkman family. Sleepy Macon ran Travel and Service Station back in the 50s and 60s. B.R. Poole had a gas station on Old Garner Road where the men gathered in the afternoon. Four headed home, I think they would all get a cold beer. 1965, Bill Jones Tire Service began. In 1970, Roland Dutton Sr. purchased it, and it's still in operation today, run by his son. There are many others who built this town through their sweat, their hands, their labor. They built it to make it what it is today. Most of those business owners didn't serve on this town board. They were too busy trying to make a living and trying to make Garner what it's become. But they trusted the people that did. They believed in them. They were neighbors and they were friends. They were church members. And they took confidence in what they were doing. You saw these guys all over town. You'd see them at the bank, at PTA meetings, at Little League games, church barbecues and fundraisers, and anywhere men gathered after work. 2026, we have a new generation of members. And what do we know about them? Well, I've been here all 74 years, so I know a little bit about all of you, more about some than others. Two of you I know very little about. Don't know where you work, don't know where you go to church, if you go to church, and that's okay. But we see you when there's a town function and there's a photo op, but we don't see you out and about. The man in this town that built this town, they did it with their muscle, with their blood, sweat, and sometimes tears. Today we've got a new breed. We've got a policy nerd. I don't know what that is. It sounds like something I don't want to step in if I walk out in the yard barefooted. Well, we've got people that have got different backgrounds. You have eloquent words. You like to pontificate, but you don't want to be a part of this town because as of yesterday, this is the tax records of each one of you board members. Who owns property in this town? Who owns dirt? Who's invested? Mr. Matthews, Mr. Singleton, Mr. Vance, y'all are invested. You paid nice taxes. I saw the value of your homes. Mr. Dellinger, Mr. Stallings. Mr. Stallings rents. Mr. Dellinger lives with his girlfriend. I'm sorry. Wife. Wife. Sorry. It doesn't show up on your records. That's my time, so you be quiet. When it comes time for voting on things that affect the citizens of this town, when it affects their taxes, if you don't own anything, it's not in your name, you need to abstain from voting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pierce. Who is our next speaker?

Mr. Richard Godfrey.

Mr. Godfrey, please come to the podium and introduce yourself, name, and address.

Good evening. My name is Richard Godfrey, 106 Pineway Street in Garner, a longtime resident of town. Some years back, we built a rec center, which has been a major addition to the town, and it's a great place to do a lot of different things over there. I'm speaking on behalf of the pickleball community. I know this is a very small potato thing here, but anybody that plays pickleball, there's a growing number of people, and we have this great facility, and a lot of people play there all day long. Unfortunately, whenever they designed the place and painted the lines on the floor, Whoever painted the lines on the floor either didn't take their medication that day or they took somebody else's because the lines were painted the same color as the floor. So it makes it difficult to see where the court delineates. So something just to put before you, my understanding is that the paint is put on the floor and then it's lacquered over the top. And usually it seems like every Christmas, between Christmas and New Year's, they redo the floor, at least resurface it or do something. And it seems like at that point would be a good time to look into making those lines so that somebody can see them. Again, I apologize for my time in front of you. This is a very petty little thing, but I just haven't gotten anybody to listen to me at the rec center, so I decided to come here and just put that before you. It's a simple fix, I think, and I think it would make a lot of people happy. We're all having a good time playing pickleball, and most of them are complaining about they can't see the lines, so they get tired of hearing that, too. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Everybody loves pickleball. Who is our next speaker?

Anna Shelton.

If you would, please come to the podium. Introduce yourself, name, and address.

All right. Hello again. My name is Anna Shelton. I live at 1225 Sutherland Road here in Garner. I'm here to speak again about the issue of flock safety and the effects of mass surveillance in the town of Garner. For those of you in this room who are unfamiliar with this issue, flock safety is a private startup tech company that has erected 20 surveillance cameras on roadsides all around Garner. These cameras watch traffic and take pictures of your vehicle every single time you drive past, logging your license plate and other identifying features about your car, effectively tracking all your movements and whereabouts, which can be accessed at any point by law enforcement or by the company itself. Flock Safety claims that security and accountability are of the utmost importance, which for law enforcement is a good thing. We generally trust our police officers. But what do you do when the accountability portion of that promise starts to erode? People increasingly want to know, the reasons for constant surveillance by their local authorities, and the audit logs for this technology is a big part of that accountability. These audits usually include information like user ID, name, email, email address, date of search, reason for the search, and more to reflect who is searching for what information. However, flock safety claims that network audits will no longer include officer name, specific plate searched, vehicle fingerprint, and open text search reason. Does it not seem strange that a private company is so eager to scale back the measure of record keeping for this extremely invasive technology? It's been proven and known by these audit logs that a Flock employee by the name of Bob Carter accessed a camera the company is affiliated with to view footage of a children's gym back in September in Dunwoody, Georgia. Since this information came to light, I found out that the record of this access has been wiped completely clean from the Flock system. Are these the people we want involved in our community? Why is the Garner Police Department slated to spend a staggering $449,375 and a multi-year contract that extends into 2028? This money could be spent on hiring new police officers or increasing training efforts. Why is it being essentially offshore to a private company? Why is it being in Atlanta, who has essentially been time and again proven to mishandle sensitive information? Many of the cameras in Garner are located in public parks, not high crime areas the community is worried about. Because of this, we need to worry about safety for our citizens. It's been shown that flock cameras have extremely lax security metrics, showing that they don't even use two factor authentication. The means of which you log into Facebook is stronger than the technology that is used to track your every move. And it is being used to watch your children in public. I have literature on this subject for anyone that wants after the meeting. Thank you for your time.

thank you very much we appreciate input from all of our residents uh many ways to do it thank you for being here thank you for being civil and all going by our rules uh no other speakers tonight no sir okay well that brings us to item e on our agenda which is the consent agenda uh this evening there were six items on there typically of a more administrative or routine matter that we can approve but sometimes we need to look at these closely and ask ourselves is there anything that need be removed from the consent agenda for a more in-depth discussion that being said is there any council member who wishes to remove an item from the consent agenda mayor I'd like to ask we take item one and move it and move it down to old and new business and discuss it right before we go and have discussion on the budget since it's budget related Okay, and so you're making a motion to move that out?

Motion to remove number one and approve the rest of the consent agenda.

Okay, is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Stallings, motion by Mr. Singleton. Let's take a voice vote on this. All in favor of moving item number one out for separate discussion and approve items two through six, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none that passes unanimously and that takes us right along to a discussion of Item number one is a budget amendment related to fiscal year in the 26 and I would ask that we move it down to old new business and discuss it before the budget since it's budget related and then we just go ahead and move on with the public hearings and OK, so you're asking that we move that from before the public hearing to after the after the quasi judicial hearing.

We got new and old business and we got one nominations and committees. After that discussion of the budget amendment, then we'll discuss the budget.

Okay, just wanna make sure I bring it in at the right place here understand that would be Before the nominations committee or after the nomination after the nominations committee. Yes, sir Okay after the nominations committee, we would insert item number one and I believe that's what you meant all along. I just didn't write it down That's okay.

Yes, sir. That's great.

Okay, that's all clear to everybody. No objection to that. Okay, excellent Thank you very much so we'll keep moving along on the agenda and we'll skip over the other the two to six items two to six have already been approved as part of the consent agenda and that brings us to our public hearing uh section f item number one is legislative hearings uh they do not require the sworn testimony uh all persons interested in speaking must sign up with the town clerk Town staff will present a brief presentation followed by the applicant and other persons who may wish to comment on the item will be recognized to speak. And let's move up here to item 1.1, which is a voluntary annexation case number ANX26-001 related to Renmore Pines. And our sponsor and our speaker here, I believe, is Jeff Treisenberg, our planning director, to talk about the planning and zoning aspects.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. Yes, we do have one legislative item for you tonight, and it is a follow-up from a development approval, contiguous annexation for the Renmore Pines subdivision. Again, this will be, sorry, flipping to the wrong page. A little over 27 acres, or actually closer to 30 acres, a little over total by the time we include right-of-way. Currently makes up two parcels at 1600 and 1612 Clifford Road. Ownership is still in the name of Lorraine Bryan and Daniel and Peggy Tingen, but this was approved for residential development back on June 17th of 2025. For that residential development, we do have an ordinance attached here for you to adopt should you decide to approve. Again, here's the map. If you do have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them, but otherwise I think this should be fairly straightforward. They need to have filed for the annexation in order to connect to the public water and sewer systems.

Do we have any other individuals signed up to speak? No, sir. Do we want to hear, does the applicant want to make a statement? I'm not sure. Excuse me.

I believe the applicant and their team are here and available to answer questions.

Okay. So no other individuals have signed up to speak. You're available to answer questions if they're here. At this point, let's hear what comments or questions we may have from counsel. Let's start with Mr. Vance. Questions or comments related to this annexation?

No questions, no comments.

Mr. Ballinger.

A comment. I'm going to vote no on this annexation. I think this is a part of town where I think we've made very clear in different ways, I guess in a previous council, but even in this council, that this is an area of Garner we need to protect and create some kind of commercial activity. I think it also is this legacy r8 zoning that is a a bane on our development down there uh with all the traffic we have with the cost of services all that's going to get built uh i would i'm not going to vote for the annexation and i'm going to vote no absolutely no

Okay, Mr. Stallings, no comments. Mr. Singleton, the questions. Mr. Matthews, no questions. Okay, if there's no further questions, we will close the public hearing and I will ask council members for a motion related to the ordinance for annexation 2026-5385. Is there a motion? Move to adopt. Move to adopt.

Move to adopt.

Move to adopt the annexation. Okay, I was hearing Mr. Matthews. Mr. Vance makes the motion to approve the annexation, I think, and there was a second by Mr. Matthews. Okay, let's see if there's some other discussion from council here, and we'll start with the person who made the motion. Mr. Vance, anything you'd like to add, any comments? No, sir, ready to move. Mr. Dellinger, would you like to add more comments?

Yeah, I think this is a moment of probably fleeting introspection, but introspection nonetheless on our land use decisions that we're making, have made, ones we can control and ones we can control retroactively such as this. When we talk about growing the town and we talk about responsible growth and the appropriate use of resources, whether that be density, traffic, town services, this is a case in point of a misapplication of our UDO with our R8 zoning. It is not located anywhere near commercial. R8s are supposed to be transitional. We've worked on fixing this, what I call loophole, which is basically what it is. But it doesn't mean we are left without any options whatsoever to address it now. So I will be voting no. They want to develop it without, you know, water and sewer, pay more for it. That's their prerogative. But I don't see this as being smart growth for the town. That's my only comment. Thank you. Okay.

Mr. Talens? No comments.

Mr. Singleton. Mr. Matthews. Just that this has been in the works for quite some time, and I know this group has been before us, and they've done everything we've asked of them to do for this development, and I just wanted to, that's why I'm supporting it. I think it's a nice development, and it'll do well there.

Thank you, Mr. Matthews. I will make a comment. I don't get a vote on this. But it seems to me that when this project came through for the rezoning, they addressed many of the concerns of council. They moved ahead with the plan. And this typically is a fairly routine annexation at this point after the rezoning. I agree with Mr. Dellinger. We do need to be particularly sensitive in this area of town. We certainly want commercial. We want high-end residential. and we're trying to implement that more as we go. At this point, it has been approved for the rezone. It's here for annexation. If there's no more comments from council here, I'm gonna ask for a voice, a roll call vote on this, and I'm gonna start with Mr. Vance who made the motion. If you're in favor of this annexation, please signify by saying aye, opposed by saying nay. Aye. Okay, Mr. Dellinger? No. Mr. Stallings?

Aye.

Mr. Singleton? Aye. Mr. Matthews? Aye. Sounds like a four to one approval to approve the voluntary annexation. Thank you very much. That concludes that portion there. And this takes us along to item two in that section, which is the quasi-judicial hearings. And we do need to read this. This is a little bit different here. When a public hearing requires a quasi-judicial hearing, each council member will be required to discuss whether he or she has a fixed opinion prior to the hearing that is not subject to change or had any ex parte communications or any close familial or business or other associational relationship with an affected person or financial interest in the outcome of the case. 30 days ago, I said, yes, I have had some communication outside of this chamber with the property owner who I had called at that time to indicate that his attorney should contact our attorney. There had been some miscommunication. Since that time, I did receive a call from one of the development partners who just wanted to chat about SGPs and projects in general. We made no decisions or voiced no strong opinions on this. So I have had communication. I'm disclosing that. I don't get to vote on this anyway. So let me get back to the quasi-judicial literature that we have to read. These hearings are fact-finding hearings, and only competent, material, and substantial evidence that is not repetitive is allowed. Only expert witnesses based on training and experience may testify as to the impacts of property values, traffic safety, or noise levels. All persons wishing to testify or provide comments must sign up with the town clerk and be sworn in prior to testifying or submitting written comments. This particular public hearing was continued from June 2nd, so individuals who were sworn in during the first hearing do not need to be sworn in again. And I believe we have one or two perhaps additional, if you would, where would you like to see them, town clerk? Thank you. And as we said, the staff report will be offered as evidence in the case and will be accepted into the record unless an objection is raised by the applicant or another person withstanding. So the item that we're addressing here is Special Use Permit SUP SP 23-03, Timber Drive East Mixed Use and Mr. Joseph Linsky Planner 2 will be giving us the back, bringing us up to date from how we continued this about 30 days ago.

Thank you, Mayor and members of council and members of the public. I'll be brief in my presentation here since we already went over this a couple weeks ago, but this is the Timber Drive East Mixed Use Project. The other name is the E-District, you might know it by. SO AGAIN, THIS IS FOR 300 MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT UNITS AND 9 RETAIL BUILDINGS THAT ARE OVER 95,000 TOTAL SQUARE FEET. IT'S 42 ACRES ON A LARGER PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF TIMBER DRIVE AND WHITE OAK ROAD. THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH HAS RETAIL AS WELL THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE E-DISTRICT. the adjacent properties to the east there is the white oak shopping center to the south there is the sp 2301 which is the other retail portion that's part of the e-district to the north it's undeveloped and to the west there's r2 land and then the wake med facility will be there as well again briefly looking at the Comprehensive plan this does fall within a regional employment and a regional retail center The land character use is mixed mixed use center and is an area to transform for mid-rise And then here's the overall site plan and The apartment buildings are on the southwest corner. Again, 300 units over four buildings. Does have a SCM on this portion here. On the southeast corner, we have the grocery store, and then three out parcels that'll be developed later. And then the northern portion, we have the Carolyn East, sorry, Carolyn Drive extension that'll come from timber and access into the site, and that'll lead to the village center, which is the retail. I'M GOING TO SKIP AHEAD HERE TO THE CONDITIONS SINCE THAT'S PRIMARILY WHERE WE LEFT OFF AT THE LAST MEETING. SO THESE ARE PRIMARILY THE SAME. A LOT OF THESE ARE STANDARD FOR MOST SITE PLANS AND But where we had some addition is number 9 and 10. So number 9, all multifamily apartment buildings will feature at least one elevator access from internal corridors, whether conditioned or unconditioned. This was in response to the height of the buildings being committed to uh four stories and more or less that being you know requirement to have a um an elevator so that's where that one was derived from and then i'll ask assistant town manager mr hodges to speak to number 10 here

Thank you, Joe. Good evening, Mayor and members of council. Here on behalf of our economic development team tonight, Mr. Nate Grover, our economic development director, was prepared to be a part of the hearing originally, and he was not able to be here tonight for the continuation because of a prior work commitment. We were hearing council's concerns about the potential impacts that the Blue Ridge loophole could bring to this project. We did want to remind council that we do have an economic incentive agreement that we've worked with the developers on. Council approved a resolution last fall to give the general outline for that. We'll continue to work on the details of it. As was mentioned previously, we will have language in the agreement that does address this issue. As a reminder, though, that agreement is based on the development of a project that does pay taxes. And then the contribution or the grant that is made back is dependent on those taxes. So any reduction or deferral or elimination of taxes by this project would leave them unable to fulfill their obligations and ability to recoup dollars for the infrastructure that they're investing. But nonetheless, we heard your concerns. Our staff and council have worked with the development team and their council to come up with the condition that you see here is condition 10. It is lengthy, but I think it's important for us to read it to make sure everyone understands it and can answer any questions. So, the condition states that for 30 years following the date of approval of this SUP, the owners of the property shall not apply for a property tax exemption under Section 105.278.68 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Unless otherwise amended, this condition shall be binding on all successors and the signs of the owners 30 years following the date of approval of the SUP and run with the land. Any application for a property tax exemption under this section of the statutes constitutes a major modification or amendment to the SUP and will require town council approval prior to such application being made. So that language is being proposed and we'll ask the development team for their concurrence on that, but wanted to pause here and just field any questions that council may have about this condition satisfying the concerns that you had previously.

Okay, so let's start with Mr. Matthews, if there's any questions for our staff so far. Mr. Matthews?

I think you most certainly responded to the concerns, at least I heard at our meeting, and I'm satisfied with them.

Mr. Singleton?

Yes, Mr. Hodges, may I ask the attorney, Attorney Jones, if she is comfortable with said document? I'm assuming you are since this is before us.

Yes, I consulted with both our outside counsel and with the counsel for the applicant to come up with this language. While it is limited to 30 years, we feel that this is the best solution to the issue at hand. Should there be a legislative fix so to speak um i just want to let you know that bill has not moved out of committee and again there's some concern that there's this was a judicial interpretation of the law that the general assembly might not completely have a fix for this situation in the future so by adding a condition and also putting it in the economic development incentive agreement will protect the town's interest and especially town council's interest in this matter okay thank you

Thank you. Mr. Stallings. No question. Mr. Dellinger.

Yeah, just a question on number nine. I know that's sort of used as a proxy for four stories because that's the building code requirement for putting in elevators. And I guess I would want to hear from the applicant later if they're willing to commit to a minimum of five stories or four, but get that in writing. I'd prefer five because that's what our, it's closer. to what our development standard and aspiration is and what has been zoned in our development intensity map. So I can ask them, but have there been any conversations to your staff been involved in any conversations regarding height?

Not since the last public hearing, no. Looking back at our comments initially from the submittal, we did make that comment early on several times, but not since June 2nd.

The staff had made those, given feedback to the applicant in that regard. Thank you.

Mr. Vance? No questions. Okay. So that's good for a first round there. Do we want to recognize the applicant to make a presentation?

Yes, that would be appropriate.

All right. If you'll approach the podium and introduce yourself, name and address, please. Sure.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the Town Council, Toby Coleman. I am here on behalf of the applicant. I'm an attorney with Smith Anderson in Raleigh, 150 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh. I think what Mr. Linsky and Mr. Hodges have outlined tonight is consistent with our discussions previously and certainly we're available to answer questions, but otherwise, we gave a presentation to you last week and we stand on that and would frankly ask that once we address the questions that we go ahead and close the hearing.

Okay, so you're ready for questions?

Ready for questions.

Let's start with Mr. Vance this time and come this way. Questions or comments, Mr. Vance?

First of all, I would say thank you for going through this process and working it down to this level where we can have protections when it comes to having unforeseen actions happen in the future. It gives comfort as we move forward with our affordable housing process. And that's all I have to add. Thank you.

Mr. Dellinger.

Can you come back to me, please? Sure. Thank you. No problem. Mr. Stallings.

No questions. Mr. Singleton.

I want to thank you all for taking the time to work on this condition number 10 because of the significance it has for Garner and other towns also. And with it tied, as you mentioned two weeks ago, to the economic development incentive program that was apply it to be tax exempt, you wouldn't have any, so it all kind of held hands and worked. But anyway, thank you for meeting up with our staff and working through condition number 10.

Okay, Mr. Matthews.

I'm glad that everybody was able to get together. I think it just shows the spirit of cooperation and working together. We can accomplish good things both for the town as well as the company itself because this is a big project. We definitely want it to be successful and this is that first step into it. So I'm glad we could work together and I hope it sets an example for other folks that might come before us. We'll have to understand our concerns and how well we all dealt with it. So thank you again. Appreciate the staff working with you guys also.

Yeah, we certainly appreciate the cooperation as well and really appreciate the work that staff did on this.

Okay. Mr. Dellinger?

Yeah, just a question on why the resistance to a higher height limit, even though that is what would be consistent with our comprehensive plan and consistent with what feedback that was received from our staff.

the we do not have resistance to i mean we the plans call for four stories so we have no resistance to four stories if if the question is is why not go taller at this point it's it's in large part because going taller would require redesign among other things and we're ready to move forward with with the with the plan um we and just a final note um appreciate um what you said again because this is a quasi-judicial hearing i'll just underline We have presented evidence that we comply with the comprehensive plan, both via various portions of the comprehensive plan. Staff has found that we are consistent with the comprehensive plan. And because the zoning allows for this use, we are presumed to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Again, I'm not saying that to start an argument. I'm just stating that because it is a quasi-judicial proceeding. I wanted to just state that for the record, because that is one of the standards.

You're testifying that the project is completely consistent with our comprehensive plan?

I am, as an attorney, I'm probably more arguing, but... I'm stating that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We are not, I don't think it's the requirement that we be consistent with every single policy, but we are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

So under, some conversations with council, our council on putting things on the record. So I'll be very clear. On page 62 and 63 of our comprehensive plan on development and intensity metrics, it is a level four B project. Mixed use stacked is what is expected in a comprehensive plan. This project isn't consistent with that. Prevailing building height should be six to 10 stories. It isn't consistent with that. Also on the record, if you go to the guiding principles of our comprehensive plan, starting on page 31, community facilities and services, Continue to improve quality of life for all residents of Garner by maintaining and expanding facilities and services infrastructure to meet current and future demands, including water, sewer, roads, parks, police, fire, while ensuring elected officials are good stewards of allocating finances toward town-provided services that promote high quality of life. Focus infrastructure investments in identified activity centers and the general framework map. Maintain a strong partnership with outside service providers to ensure infrastructure capacity is available to support tenant growth and development depicted in the character typology map. long-term financial stability. I repeat this only because it needs to be in the record.

Sure. One thing. I'm sorry, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.

Remain a town dedicated to delivering excellent municipal services to the community in a financially responsible manner, especially in terms of evaluating opportunities that increase local revenues to maintain a high quality of life for residents in Garner. As I said in the previous meeting, going taller generates more revenue on the same amount of acreage and a higher net revenue for the town. Promote a more diverse development portfolio for the community that starts to balance the town's residential and non-residential tax base while requiring high-quality design principles and elements in new development to help increase value capture potential. The ability to recover and reinvest revenue from land use increases that result from public investment and other government actions. Land use, encourage a mix of land uses and development intensities throughout the town's planning area that promote economic development. I mentioned in a previous meeting, this is an economic development opportunity on this parcel. Sense of place, social interaction, community building, and the efficient use of town facilities and services. Emphasize the development of unique activity centers throughout the community that vary in scale and use and intensity. Also, proactively plan for the neighborhoods and public spaces adjacent to activity centers or along premium transit quarters and make the entire community more vibrant and connected. To me, that interpretation means we need to leapfrog the traditional development map, look at our partners, and develop along our transit quarters economically viable and sustainable and thriving projects. New development should be purposeful and closely tied to community values, lifestyle preferences, and economic needs highlighted in the comprehensive plan. Fiscal sustainability is highlighted in our comp plan. Going more vertical, denser, higher value, better revenue, lower taxes. Last one. Well, there's a whole section on employment centers, but on page. 37 that specifically identifies this type of parcel as an Employment Activity Center and what that should look like So I just wanted to read into the record and not go into any the fiscal stewardship elements and revenue recapture located on page 31 and 30 that this project shall fall short on Again, I'll repeat that just to be in the record. It's not a question. Thank you

I'll just note that this project, when it came in in 2023, the current version of the Garner Forward Plan had not been approved by Council. Under the prior comprehensive plan, what I call the old comprehensive plan, that land use map uh designated this area as a mixed activity center um which uh recommended uh building heights from one to six stories and apartments at four to six so um apartments at four to six six stories so why would you go on the bottom end of that and not do more that's the same thing i'm asking for now other than it's a minimum why are we not trying to get generate more revenue all around and have a better project that's not a question okay And the other thing I'll note is that this board did approve or that This board, among the other projects in this e-district area is the Wake Med Hospital complex. That complex is going to be three to four stories, so it's a similar height.

Just for clarification, that's a hospital. Yeah. So that's a different use when it comes to, and also not going to generate a lot of tax revenue for us either, regardless of how tall it is.

That's true, but I'm just saying that if we're looking at what's consistent with the comprehensive plan, one way to look at it is to look at what else is being approved in that district, in that area. And this is in the e-district and is part of the project. In fact, what the e-district, both what town of the E-district states as well as the general E-district donor state it is, it's going to be a mixed use district that's going to be anchored by a hospital. So in many ways the anchor has a similar height to what we're proposing. So we would say that that's relevant. I've got more questions.

Okay. I'd like to ask our attorney parliamentary question here. This is a quasi-judicial hearing very specifically about the eight characteristics related to an SUP. Just want to make sure that we're keeping our questions and our information related to that. And I'm looking to you to be the judge. Do we need to speed up, slow down? Are we in line with the items we should be discussing?

The public hearing is still open, so Council may question any witnesses that it wishes to do at this time. And again, you are correct that the factors are listed in Section 4.94 of the UDO. It lists the factors to be considered as well as... certain items that council may consider to address the impacts of this proposed development on things such as adjoining property, the existing natural and manmade features of the site, offsite and onsite traffic flow, public utilities, infrastructure, and services, and such other public services or goals of the comprehensive growth plan, adopted plans, or the transportation plan that may be negatively impacted by the proposed development.

And while we're still in the public hearing mode, I'd like to see if our staff has anything else they'd like to add that's clarifying or helpful in any way. Have there been any individuals who have signed up to speak on this?

We have three individuals on the list, but they are part of the development team. If they do choose to speak, they've all been sworn.

Okay, so we have heard from the people that we need to hear from for the hearing. Is there any other question that council wants to ask during the public hearing before we consider a motion and have further discussion? Hearing none, this closes the public hearing. We will close the public hearing. We will now move ahead and ask council members, is there a motion and a second to approve the special use permit? And if there is, then we can have more discussion before we take an actual vote.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the special use permit SPSP-23-03. Is there a second?

In reference to the motion, the motion, there's more stipulation than that that needed to be placed into that motion. As in our agenda, we have eight conditions that we need to include inside that particular motion.

A revised motion sheet, including the additional conditions you heard tonight, was provided at your seat in a handout.

Okay, I would make that motion to include those revised conditions.

So to clarify, it would be to approve it with the 10 site-specific conditions to be listed on the permit that will be prepared by staff.

Does that answer your question?

If it's clear with the attorney, then it's clear with me.

Okay, so is that a second to the motion? It's a second to that motion, yes. Okay, so there's a motion. Sorry about that. Yeah, there's a motion for Mr. Matthews, a second by Mr. Vance, to approve the special use permit with the conditions that were brought forward. And now we can take another round of questions or comments. Mr. Matthews, you made the motion. If you could start with any further questions or comments, discussion about this. I have none. Mr. Singleton.

No, sir.

Mr. Stallings. Mr. Dellinger.

Yeah, I was asking my council members that we have the ability to impose a condition where I make that motion, don't get a second. Anyone have any interest in debating that?

Ask that again.

I can make a motion for us to add an amendment, to add a condition for a minimum of five or six stories. I just wonder if there's even an appetite for having that conversation.

Well, let me ask more than appetite. Let me ask the parliamentary correct thing in a quasi-judicial. We have a motion and a second before us. Are we prepared to entertain any other amendment?

That's what I'm asking.

Well, yes. Mr. Dellinger. can make a motion to amend the substantive motion. If it does not receive a second, that would be an indication that there's no further discussion. If there is a second, then council would debate that particular amendment first.

Okay, so you are able to request an amendment at this point is what I'm hearing. Do you wish to make an amendment to this motion?

I'll make the motion for an amendment. I'd like to amend the motion by adding a condition to require a minimum of five stories for every multifamily building.

And the question, is there a second to that? There's a motion by Mr. Dellinger and a second by Mr. Stallings that we add another condition of at least five stories per apartment building. Is that the way it's stated? So help me out here, parliamentarian. Do we have another round of discussion on the motion and the amendment or just the amendment?

You would have discussion on the amendment first. If the amendment carries, then you would go back to the, you would then debate the overall motion with the amendment included.

Okay, I want to make sure we're strictly in line with all the rules and regulations here. Okay, so now we're talking about the amendment that's been made, the motion's been made and seconded to make an amendment to the original motion, which would stipulate another condition of at least five stories on each apartment complex. And let's start the conversation with Mr. Vance down here. Okay, we'll go ahead, go ahead. Let's hear from you.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate council giving us the opportunity to at least debate the amendment. I think according to the record and our expectations, this project has been consistent with our comprehensive plan. I think we understand that this e-district in general is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and economic opportunity. And we need to maximize it to as much as reasonable and rational and within the scope of the existing plan. I don't think we're asking for 10-story buildings. But I think we need to take the opportunity that we have to mitigate the impacts. And when we talk about mitigating impacts, we're talking about delivery of service and public service, which directly relates to the amount of revenue the town can generate to provide those services. It is just a simple logical conclusion that when you add stories, you're adding value. You're also adding value and customers to the adjacent commercial. I think if this project came to us in one of our developer review sessions tomorrow, we would have little debate on how high we wanted these buildings to be. And that is sort of the objective standard we need to apply as this is the only opportunity and only bite we're going to get at this apple to get closer to our aspirations through the special use permit and this amendment. It'll be a better project. It'll generate more revenue. So that's my case. It's an economic one. It's an aspirational one. It also, I think, sets a precedent for the rest of the development of this parcel, that there is an expectation that when our staff makes a representation to you,

on what is expected that you should probably follow through with that to the best of your ability and not wait three years and ignore it so i'll pass balance mr singleton so those are good points i don't disagree with that i think when this project started some time ago maybe years ago it was three story got the full story um it's it's project that's going to kick off the hub of activity along with the hospital. So I'm okay with the four stories as it is. Again, I understand his point that he's stating this, but I'm okay with the project as it is presented currently.

Mr. Matthews. I'll agree with Mr. Singleton. You know, this has been out there for some time, and my colleagues, I understand what they're saying, and they make some good points. However, in this regard, I'm okay with the four stories as presented because this thing needs to be moved forward, and so I'm fine with the four stories.

Mr. Vance, comments?

I would just say that this project has gone through a review process in which it typically goes through with this council with the developer coming and discussing it with us in detail. We had the opportunity to provide those particular concerns at that time and make the adjustments according to the plans that we had available relative to the comprehensive plan and also to the UDO. I believe that we have gone through a comprehensive process of Getting clarity on issues that were of key concern, and I agree that this is definitely a key location for Garner, and we are moving in a direction I believe is a positive one relative to all the other development that is going to be spurred because of it. And with all that being said, I'm comfortable with the current four stories that's being recommended. Okay.

Mr. Dellinger, further comment?

You can call for a vote. Or, I'm sorry, did you?

Mr Towns. OK, well that that's a lot of good discussion is important question. Two sides of every every coin here. I guess at this point it is time to take a vote on the proposed amendment that would add a deconditional the fifth. The other third condition of 5 floor minimum and will take a roll call vote. And let's start with the gentleman who made the motion, Mr. Dellinger. If you're in favor, signify of the amendment to require four floors minimum as a condition. If you're in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, by nay. Five stories. Five stories, excuse me.

I'm in favor of the amendment, aye.

Okay, Mr. Stallings. No. That was no, Mr Singleton, no, Mr Matthews, no, Mr Vance, no. OK, that sounds like four nose and one. Yes, so that the motion does not pass. We'll go back to the original motion or the earlier motion, which was to approve this issue P with the two changes. The two conditions that have been added. So that was that one still on the floor. Is there any further discussion in any further? observations, comments we want to make on that. Okay, hearing none, let's call for a roll call vote on the original issue here, which was to approve, we got a motion and a second to approve the SUP, and I think the motion was made by Mr. Matthews. If you would start, if you're in favor of that, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Mr. Singleton. Aye. Mr. Stallings. Aye. Mr. Gallagher.

No.

Mr. Vance. Aye. It sounds like a four to one affirmative vote on that. So the special use permit is approved. Paired by a vote of 41.

Approved with the 10 site-specific conditions. Approved with the 10 site-specific conditions. That was in the original motion.

Yeah, those two conditions that were added. Thank you very much. So that concludes the special use permit discussion. And that brings us along to item G. which is new and old business and item number one on here is nominations committee for boards and committee recommendations and we're going to hear from our deputy town clerk oh no we're not she's not here who are we going to hear from Down here, sir. Okay, Mr. Vance, thank goodness. Way to step up and fill in for our deputy town clerk. We're going to hear about the boards and committee recommendations.

Yes, sir. The nomination committee met to review applications, considered appointments and reappointments to various boards and committees. All applicants are located within the town limits. Following the review, the committee respectfully submits the following recommendations for council consideration. For Public Arts, term starting July 1st, 2026, ending June 30th, 2029, Greer Beatty, Celestine Hinnant, Cheyenne Champion, Lisa Sullivan. For the Public Arts Committee, term beginning July 1st, 2026, ending June 30th, 2027, Kathy Barringer, Grace Medox, Stacy Colax. Senior Advisory Committee, term beginning July 1st, 2026, ending June 30th, 2029, Tony Dorico. The nomination committee appreciates the willingness of these individuals to serve the community and respectfully request the council approve these recommendations.

I'll second that.

Well, I motioned in a second by the co-member of the nominating committee. A lot of work went into this. We're getting near the home stretch, I think. There's maybe one board left to be filled, and that was the most recently. It was only approved just a couple of weeks ago. Yes, sir. Outstanding work. You had many great applicants, I understand. Yes, sir, a lot. And we're keeping a record of anybody who didn't quite make the cut this time. We will find a good use to put them to soon, right?

Yes, sir. We have some very good candidates, and everybody cannot be on it, but we ask that they just stay engaged with the town, and they're excited. They really are. So I would say that we have a great group of citizens here who really want to be a part of what's going on in your honor. Excellent.

Well, yeah, great job by our citizens and stepping up to fill these things. We really do want their input, and this is a great process of doing it, a great tool for doing it. So thank you, Mr. Vance and Mr. Dillinger, for working through that.

And Mayor Gupton, I'd like to thank Mayor Pro Tem Dillinger and also for the staff for all their hard work they put into this endeavor as well.

Good work by all around. Any other comments before we vote on this one? Okay. We had the motion by Mr. Vance and the second by Mr. Dellinger. And let's say all in favor of approving these board appointments, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposition by nay? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Good work, team. Good work. And now I believe that brings us back under the new and old business category. back to item number one from the consent agenda, a budget amendment related to fiscal year 26. And who should we be calling on here for a present? You want to lay the groundwork here?

Yes, I sent an email to staff earlier today and got a response. And if Mr. Beck could come up and if you can access the Excel spreadsheet that you sent to us in the email. I had a few questions off of that before I get to the amendment this year.

Yes, sir. I have a printed copy of the spreadsheet with me.

Okay. You can't put it up on here? That's okay. I can ask questions. That's all right. Okay. I got it in front of me, part of it in front of me. And, you know, when we close out, fiscal year 26 it takes you months before y'all close everything out yes i'm looking at the some of the excel numbers from 25 the final all of the budget amounts budget was 82 million according to this we sent about 66 and a half million which left about 15 and a half million so it's always good to say hey we understood the budget but we had 15 and a half million dollars that we didn't spend some of that goes to fund balance for our policy because i budget increase per minimum 30 has to go into our unallocated undesignated fund balance so the question i have is we made the motion last year for 4.3 million dollars about a year ago june 17th i checked the date uh for the same budget amendment so this year is five and a half million I reckon the question I have is we had $15 million last year left over. Are we going to see that next year again, too? Because that's my concern is we're, I mean, the fund balance, I mean, that money, most of that money, part of it has to go to fund balance because it's part of our policy. But some of it just, I'm assuming, goes into fund balance of the $15 million that was left over from FY25.

Correct. Any of the remaining balance will go to fund balance. It's just whether it goes in as unassigned fund balance or it's been committed for a particular purpose. It's got strings attached based on the revenue source or whatever it may be. So the $15 million number you referenced, what's not reflected in just seeing the raw numbers there is that Part of that is the contribution to the debt service fund. So that was about, I think, $7 million last year. So about half of that went into fund balance reserve for debt service. The other half was sort of your true surplus of revenues over expenditures.

Okay, so I'm going to ask a clarification question because you're above my pay grade on this big time. So how come the $7.5 million going to debt service is not taken out of that on the final audited numbers? I'm just curious.

So it is included as fund balance. Fund balance is all grouped together, but then it's broken out into the various components. So it's shown as committed fund balance because council has attached some strings to that money by policy with the debt service fund policy. But it's not so restricted that council couldn't change their mind about what that money could be used for. So if you go back to our financial statements and look at those, you'll see that is reflected as committed fund balance, but it is included in the total fund balance as well.

Okay, so that's about half of this, at least about $7.5 million of which I think the budget in 24 was $76 or $77, so it grew by $6 million, so we had to add $2 million based off our third 30%. Okay, so there still was a surplus in the budget of about $5 million. If you take out what's got to add to the 30% and the half here, about $4 to $5 million was still the fund balance grew by that much and money that was not spent.

Correct, yes, we did grow fund balance at the end of the last fiscal year. I think it came in right around 40% was the percentage of unassigned fund balance to expenditures. Again, as you referenced, our policy, requires 25% with a target rate of 30. So we're above that. But as the budget continues to grow, if the fund balance doesn't grow in step with that, that percentage could go down, even though the raw dollars may not decrease.

But as our policy 25, I thought we moved it back to 30.

Is it still at 25? The floor for the policy is 25, but the target is 30.

The line that we use is 30? Yes. Okay, because that has to, as the budget goes every year, that amount has to increase that comes from that because... This year's $89 million. We're going to $98 million, $9 million. So a third of that's got to go into the fund balance regardless for our policy.

Yes. Per our policy, we need to have that money in reserves, that amount of money.

Okay. One other question, and then I'll just ask a question after this, Mayor. So based off of FY25, you don't have any idea of what FY26 is going to look like, but it's obviously going to have enough money in there. for the increase that has to be going to fund balance at 30% plus the debt service amount, which this year, well, that year you said was $7.5 million. In this upcoming budget, that'll be a similar number, or will it be higher?

It's increased in the 26 budget because it's based on the value of eight and a half pennies, which has been increasing year over year.

Okay, so that'd be $8 million, eight and a half million dollars.

Yeah, I think that sounds right. I don't recall the exact north of my head, but I think eight and a half million is close.

I remember seeing that now, yes, okay. All right, that's the question. I want to clarify the $15 million audited. I want to hear where all that was. So Mr. Beck has answered some of my questions.

Any other questions, Mr Matthews? No, Sir, I was Mr Vance. Any questions, comments? No questions, Mr Dellinger.

You have a couple of questions, and I think this is just, it's put in our agenda packet, the memo itself, the amendment itself, broken down by the revenue, the revenue amendment request, and then the expenditures, and a couple things, and then you sent some follow-up information in by email that was an Excel spreadsheet. Where shall I begin? I think one of the things that could be clearer in the presentation of this information is knowing what department these line items are in. Since we're approving a budget by department level, it'd be helpful to know because here it is indecipherable where these line items are coming from. So to have it by department, and then what the amendment is, because in the spreadsheet, you've got the departments, but all the numbers are rolled together. I was hoping I could match the numbers, but then you've got multiple, and you can't decipher. It's indecipherable at this point to actually analyze what's going on. And since we haven't sort of been in budget mode on a line item basis, we don't have access to that information to break it down. lack of clarity on exactly what i'm approving in here without that information i think it would be helpful for me to understand we don't have to go through the expenditure piece and maybe we do this at the next meeting or something but that the revenue the revenue Request part of it. Can you walk through each of those items so that we can all better understand? those sources of revenue and those changes that have happened and why and

Yeah, certainly. The revenues, I can speak at a high level, and then if we need to go into more detail on a particular line item, we can certainly do that. But this is aligning those revenues to what we see as the actuals for the current year or what we project as ending actuals. So some of these, like sales tax, we still have well at this point, three months to post and accrue back to this current fiscal year. So we are estimating based on projections what we think will land with sales tax. Some of the others like beer and wine tax, that's based on an actual number that has come in in early June. So we are amending the budgeted revenue based on that. Same with PAL bill, we get that in two installments during the fiscal year, so we are adjusting that to actuals. Many of these are just adjusting them to actuals and as I said, projected estimates as far as we'll end at fiscal year. The fund balance appropriations, are needed just to balance this amendment because we don't have enough of that surplus revenue to balance the amendment as presented. So the large number there for appropriated fund balance, that's essentially a plug number to back in to balance the amendment as it's presented.

Well, I guess that's why you've touched on most of them or quite a few. But I really am, I mean it's, I'm really curious because I'm curious as to what the process is and what some of these things are. So like heavy equipment, rental tax, it did have a budget item but then the revenue is 65,000. What is that?

So that's a revenue stream that the town previously had, and then it's based on if there is an equipment rental business operating in the town limits. There is a heavy equipment rental tax that's levied by the county. We didn't have it for a number of years because I think the business that was located here moved out or closed. We've had a new business come in fairly recently, so that revenue stream has picked back up.

And then street inspections, so that's one that the current budget was relatively low and the revenue change is now 300. What are street inspections?

That's an engineering fee. So that's really driven by the the volume of development and That's a that's also a newer fee that we implemented. I believe the prior fiscal year So there's not really much history on what that would be what revenue that would generate So our original busted budget estimate was a little bit low for that Please outside employment That's the officers working their off duty assignments that they can sign up for. The town doesn't pay for that, but we contract with a company who schedules that and then collects what's owed to those officers as well as an administrative fee to the town for those services provided. So the pay to the officers runs through our books as well as the offsetting revenue from those businesses that they go out and work for.

And recreation fees and park and rec facility rentals is pretty obvious.

Yes, sir.

OK. I was just curious.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

Mr. Stallings, I think it's your turn for questions. No question. Okay. That's good discussion. I'm glad to see that we have council members who are tuned into the details, even though this is to reconcile the fiscal year just now ending within the next couple weeks, and we do have to take action. I agree with Mr. Dellinger. It could be at our next meeting we talk about these things some more or in small groups. These are important details. Every dollar is important. And I appreciate you guys asking the questions. That being said, going back to our original proposed action, that was to adopt Ordinance 2026-5340N, which is to align the revenues and expenditures in fiscal year 26. Even though we've got a week or two left, we need to go ahead and get that closed out and move on. We can always ask questions and understand this more later. It is very important stuff. So that being said, I'm going to ask, do we have a motion to approve that ordinance?

I have a question. I have a lot of questions on the expenditure side. So my question is, is it possible for us to discuss this later?

So you could delay this and approve it later. It does have to be approved before June 30th though. And that is sort of the, one of the challenges with preparing this that far in advance is we know any budget amendments have to be approved by council in June, but the accounting work that continues to close out the fiscal year, like the mayor indicated, will continue into September. It does not necessarily have to be approved at this meeting. It was presented here because this is the last regular council meeting with action to be taken. But you could certainly delay it to another meeting, but it would need to be approved by June 30th.

um just me for me personally i mean if this could be a part of our special meeting because i really would like to get better understanding on the expenditure side of the equation since we've walked through the revenue side um and i think it too it's just a good exercise for i think some realignment of how we're just presenting some of the information at sort of more of a department line item level That it's hard to analyze this and know and ask it's hard to ask questions without going through Every single line item on the expenditure side, which nobody wants to do but it could be presented in a more concise structured way and it probably answer a lot of those questions and

Yeah, and I'm glad to also go back and add department sales to what's presented and send that out to council for review prior to any further discussion. I just want to clarify there with your comment about presenting in a different way. It does have to be presented at the line item level because we have to make those adjustments at that level, but it could be summarized in different ways.

Yeah, if they were grouped by department sales, that would be really really helpful i think because then at least we could compare it quick pretty quickly to the excel spreadsheet right you created because the numbers would be rolled up so but that's just my feedback at this time okay other questions or comments from council members

Yes, if we're going to have a special meeting next week to adopt the budget, if we could have that additional information, I'd see what Mr. Dillard is saying. But I mean, you go down here and contract services is on here like eight times. You got this, that, and the other. Where are the numbers going? I mean, we're approving $500,000. We're approving $5.569 million. That's the issue is $5 million. That's 5% of our budget. This year with the $89 million budget is almost 7% of our budget. So that's just in one swipe. That's a lot of money. Just a little more detail would be helpful.

Yeah, it is definitely eye-opening with the size of the amendment, but as I shared in the email earlier today, we're building margin for expected and unexpected things. So when you look at the 25 amendment that you referenced that was in the $4.5 billion range, we ended up not needing any of that, really. When you look at What we ended up with as far as expenditures go, and looking at the original budget from last year, we didn't go over the original budget. So even though we did the amendment as an exercise to build margin, taking that opportunity in June as the last option to amend the budget in any way, We did build that buffer, but then we didn't use any of it. So I think normally that's what you would see unless there were some extenuating circumstances. It's not really gonna have a true impact on the bottom line of the final budget and the final actuals that we see at fiscal year end once everything's audited and finalized.

I understand, but again, we're being asked to make a $5.5 million decision. We don't make many of those in one swipe. So that's just why a little more detail would be appreciated. Clarification also, you said street inspection is an engineering fee, not through the inspections department.

I believe that is handled through the engineering department. All of their permits and fees are kind of grouped together on the revenue side, but I believe that is handled by the engineering department.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Is that the one that's sort of by foot on new developments and stuff, and they go out there and make sure that it's meeting code? Is that what that was?

Off the top of my head, I don't recall how the fee schedule was set up to charge that. I'd have to look into that and come back.

Mr. Talbert is here if he needs to address that.

So that's by foot basis. So we do it by linear feet of the streets curving gutter sidewalk Okay, that's what's come from remember correctly The other comments from staff Mr. Matthews, did you want to add anything to know?

Mayor members of council my recommendation to counsel this afternoon would be to to go ahead and approve the budget amendment tonight so that we can go ahead and start the process of closing out the books for twenty twenty six uh... and do that work and make sure we don't have any audit issues going into our audit in the fall uh... we i hear the uh... interest in wanting more information sort of broken down by department and i think we can provide the information that uh... mister beck has provided to you and identify it by department share it with you, and if there are questions about it, certainly answer those questions at your meeting on the 23rd. But I would recommend going ahead and approving the budget amendment today so that we can continue doing the work of closing out the FY26 budget.

thank you very thank you very much for those comments it kind of echoes my my kind of primitive understanding what's going on i'm one of the least experienced on the details of this budget stuff but it seems to me that the issue before us to adopt this ordinance to align the revenues expenditures for the year that's just now closing, we're not going to change how we spent the money. We're not going to change what we might do with the money. We're just accounting for the money and closing it out so that we can proceed with a few more months of cleaning it up and analyzing. I think it's very important that we have council members who can understand every detail, every decimal point, every line item on here. But I don't think that would interfere with us approving this, as the town manager suggests. Go ahead and approve this reconciliation. Close this out. And then we can spend the next week, the next months, learning more, becoming more familiar and more confident. I don't see it as changing anything. It's just getting our paperwork done. That's my personal perspective. So that being said, is there a motion to adopt Ordinance 2026-5340N, which is the reconciliation of revenues and expenditures to close out fiscal year 26? So moved. A motion by Mr. Vance. Second. Second by Mr. Matthews. Any other discussion or questions, comments related?

I'm not voting yes on something I don't understand.

OK. Any other comments or questions? On this, OK, we have we have this down. Did you have a comment?

How much work would it take to push this to next week's meeting?

So we not only would have to do this work, but also we have to prepare the budget ordinance as well. That includes the entire team reviewing and providing updates on numbers. So to be able to do both by next week for a decision would be challenging. As a reminder for our deadlines, the agenda needs to be posted Thursday for the meeting on Tuesday. And so essentially that means we have tomorrow to do any level of work and final work on the budget ordinance or any follow-up. So I believe we can provide the level of detail that's needed and if there's council has any questions, we can provide that to you. But in terms of the timeline, it would be very difficult.

Any other questions or comments on the motion? I think we had a motion by Mr. Vance, a second by Mr. Matthews to adopt the ordinance to close this out. Is there any other question, any other input?

Would it be helpful to move the meeting from the 23rd to the 24th?

It would not.

Okay, so that's the discussion. Let's call for a roll call vote on this, and we'll start with Mr. Vance, who made the motion. If you're in favor of adopting this ordinance, please signify by saying aye, if opposed by nay. Aye. Mr. Dellinger? No. Mr. Stallings? No. Mr. Singleton?

I ain't gonna break anybody's heart, but I voted against the budget last year, so I'm not gonna vote for the amendment, so no.

Okay, Mr Matthews. Aye. Okay, that sounds like three to two in favor of not passing the ordinance. Did I read that correctly? Is my math correct? It says do not adopt the ordinance tonight. So we'll have to do the best we can the next time you can get it before council. Am I stating this correctly?

Yes. Mr. Mayor, can I clarify, is it the desire of council to not bring a budget amendment back or to bring one back at a future meeting date?

I think we have to, at some point, approve this ordinance. This has to be done.

Yes, it has to be approved in the current fiscal year, so no later than June 30th.

Yes, so it will be brought back as soon as it can fit on an agenda or a special meeting or whatever we have to do. And it has to be done this fiscal year. I'm getting the impression from you and the town manager that every day that passes without doing this is another day of more work or doubling up. But it sounds to me like the council has voted. Mr. Matthews?

You know, we're taking this thing to the wire. The clock's running. I understand all of this. And we can pick it apart. Now the old term, hell freezes over. Anybody can get all the answers they want. But I would encourage those who've got these questions to sit down with the town manager and do it immediately and get your questions answered rather than kicking this can down the road, down the road, down the road, because it's going to catch up to us. I'm telling you, it's going to catch up to us. Whether we 100% agree to everything? Probably not. It's what we do. You know, we do the best we can. But we need to act upon this thing here, and I suggest we take a close look at it so they can at least get the wheels moving here. And if you've got questions... She's right there, and you've got her phone number. Give her a phone call, or David. They can answer your questions, but it's no need to tie the whole process up. If you've got some questions, they could readily answer for you. And they work for us in the town. So like I said, we can kick this can down the road all we want, but the clock is running. And it's not fair to them to say, now you've got to go back and dig all this up and dig all this up. How would you like to have that job tomorrow morning? I would not. and uh so time is running out so i suggest we rethink what we just voted on and reconsider it mr mayor and uh and let them move this thing forward and deal with anybody individually if you've got questions bam I sit down with the town manager once a month. I know a lot of us do that just to go over things concerning. We get those answers. We commit. If you have tax questions, you could ask them then. David is readily available, I'm sure. The attorney is readily available. But, you know, we've run this thing out to about to the limit here. We need to make a decision, give them some positive guidance, let them move forward. And if you've got individual questions, sit down with them and get them answered. That way you don't tie this whole system up. That's what we're doing. Somebody can argue that, but I've been down this road close to 20 years now seeing these kind of things happen, and we've got to act. That's what we're elected to do. So I suggest we reconsider that vote, if it's at all possible, and give them some direction, let them move forward this thing here. If you've got individual questions... sit down with them and get them answered. That's what I would do if I had those questions. And I'd be at her desk tomorrow morning if she'd let me, you know. I'd have done it way before now. So that's just my opinion. And it's not fair to these people out here working, receptive to this, try to pull this thing off at the last minute. So I suggest we reconsider. If you've got any visual questions, Mr. Mayor, let them sit down with them. I think they'll be receptive to that as early as possible. That's my two cents worth.

We all get to give our two cents worth. Thank you. I don't know if I'm sensing any opinion from council.

I have a comment. If a council member has a question about spending $5 million on consent, I think that it's worth having more of a conversation around it. We're spending $5 million on a consent item. We had to pull it to even have this conversation that we're having right now. I think if any member of the public heard that, they would say, how would you, who has $5 million to just say, yay or nay, I want to spend that right now. Not many people. So it's serious, important conversations that we are having that are worth the debate because we're spending a lot of money. We're spending a lot of taxpayer dollars. And I'm the newest member on council. I don't know how we've done it before. But I know personally I have a serious problem spending millions of dollars on consent that I think that we should talk about in the future as a council. But I think, like I said, it's worth the debate. Do we need to figure this out? Yes. Do we need to pass a budget? Yes. Do we need to pass this as a budget amendment? Yes. But we have members of council that have other questions about spending $5 million, and we were about to spend $5 million on consent. So, yes, we need to work through this, but we need to figure out what that looks like.

Okay. Other comments?

I would just make a motion that we include this amendment along with the restructuring that we discussed around departments and make that a part of our special meeting that we, whatever date we choose for that, to adopt the budget. And I think that would still provide enough time, if it happens next week, for staff to do what they need to do, but also for council to do the work that individual council members feel like they need to do. And I think we should always be respectful of how council members conduct their business and be respectful when council members want more information. And how we go about getting that information is up to individual council members. So I think we can work as a team, but the fact of the matter is we have made a decision tonight on what we're going to do with this, and we're not going to pass it. That's the action and direction we gave. And now we'll give more direction, which is I make a motion that we include this item in the same meeting in which we scheduled to adopt the budget.

So moved. I mean, second.

OK, let me kind of catch up here a minute in my mind. I got a little confused when we said we're getting ready to spend $5,000,000. I think we're just. I didn't think we were making a decision to spend 5,000,000. We came out.

Mr Beck, will you give some clarity around the budget amendment in terms of closing out the fiscal year and how it how it impacts the audit process?

Yes, so to clarify a little further The amendment amount is five point five million dollars. It is appropriating that money in the budget, but there are currently no plans to actually spend any of that money and So there's that difference between appropriating and spending. This is more an accounting exercise at fiscal year end that needs to be carried out, like I said, to build some margin and buffer so that we can carry out all the activities and make all of the accounting entries that are required to close out the fiscal year. If you'll recall, last year we had a financial indicator that popped up with the LGC because of a budgetary item related to accounting for lease and IT subscriptions, which is essentially just a paper exercise for how you account for those liabilities. It didn't involve any actual money being spent, but it still got flagged as a budgetary violation and we had to provide a written response to the LGC for that. We've made internal accounting practice changes to try to avoid a similar type situation this year and in future years, but that's really the impetus for this amendment is to build enough margin within departmental budget so that we don't have any worries about running into a budget violation as we close out the fiscal year and and you know the repercussions that could come from that as far as drawing attention from the lgc and and other state agencies does that help at all i think there has been a motion and a second made

Okay, there's a motion, and I'm a little confused on that too, not just about whether that's spending the $5 million, but you mentioned the five-floor minimum. Please elaborate on that for me a little bit. Your amendment included putting, not your amendment, you say postpone this to a future date when we will be discussing this item that we just decided not to approve, along with what was the other item?

The budget adoption meeting. included in our budget adoption meeting so we don't wait until our work session.

Okay. Our budget adoption, which is next week, one week from today. Okay. And knowing that today we need to give that clear direction so the ordinance can be prepared. That's our next item coming up.

Did I get clarity on that motion? I'm kind of confused. I'm totally lost. Just to provide clarity as to what the actual motion is that's being made.

The motion is to bring this back at the same meeting we are going to adopt the agenda next week.

Adopt the budget.

Correct. Yes. That's the motion.

Okay, to bring this up next week. And I thought I heard some comment from staff that delaying this week presents some logistical problems to get it done on time. Would you address that, please?

Just as I previously stated, we've got a short window of time to complete the budget ordinance. I'd also like to remind council that Friday's a holiday. And so we have to get everything done and posted by Thursday for our meeting on Tuesday. And so Based on tonight's discussion, we hope to be able to prepare the budget ordinance and make sure it's balanced and correct for council's action on the 23rd.

And to also do this closeout for fiscal year 26.

Well, it's not really closeout. What I hear from council members is wanting a little bit more detail on some of these light items in terms of which departments they apply to. So that is the additional level of work that needs to happen. The challenge becomes the same people who are doing the budget

Ordinance work would have to be doing this work at the same time and and that becomes problematic Problematic, but I guess what I'm hearing from council members who voted to Not approve this reconciliation tonight It's just work double let the staff work double time over the next week at our budget ordinance Shined up and this completed at the same time. It's just That's that's the way I'm here. I

There could be a situation. I don't understand what the problem is right now. There could be a situation where a council member can ask a question that can be simply answered. Council members don't feel comfortable voting on this right now because they don't have enough information. They can ask simple questions and get simple answers and then feel comfortable to vote on it at the next meeting there might not be much work to be done there might be a lot of work to be done but if council members have questions about reallocating or spending or whatever terms we want to use in terms of the money that we're allocating towards this then council should have the prerogative and the ability to be able to table until a further date to get the information they need to make an informed decision for their constituents

Oh, I couldn't agree more. We need to make informed decisions. We need the information. I'm just a little puzzled about our failure to approve this when it's just an accounting exercise and we've got plenty of time to review the details of it. I'm just confused, but the council has spoken and we'll do our best to make it happen. As to getting questions answered, There's open email. There's open office doors. It's just a shame that we're here at the final minute and we're doubling down on the work that our staff has to do. But the council has made a vote, and we'll live with it. Parliamentarian, town manager, help me out.

I believe there was a motion and a second. I don't believe there was a vote on that particular motion.

There's a motion and a second made by Mr. Dellinger and seconded by Mr. Stallings to bring this ordinance, this reconciliation, I'll call it, ordinance, back to council one week from tonight. That's the motion.

Whenever we have our budget adoption meeting. that's scheduled for next tuesday i don't think we've scheduled it technically yet well i think we've we haven't scheduled it it's been there's a date i'm just trying to be very clear because if we go into the meeting and we move the date we don't want to say this is a week from now i'm just trying to be clear that i want it paired with the budget adoption meeting okay well while we're being clear are we planning to meet next week and approve and vote on approving the budget

That's the plan. We talked about a week from tonight, or a week from tonight evening, whatever time we meet, to approve the budget and then include this discussion with that with some greater detail. So that's what has been discussed, and I think by the time we discuss the budget options tonight, I think we'll be able to give staff direction and move forward with that.

Is there a meeting? Are we planning to have a meeting next Tuesday?

So my understanding from our discussion on June 8th was council had identified the 23rd as a special meeting for adoption of the budget. That would then allow enough time for staff to close out the FY26 books and then get everything uploaded to the system for July 1st start for FY27. So that was the discussion at the special meeting on the 8th.

So we're planning to have a meeting next Tuesday about the budget.

If it's the concurrence of council this evening, yes, we can do that. We have not posted that meeting yet. That was one of the things I wanted to talk with council about just to confirm that based on our meeting on the 8th, but also wanted to make sure that we had the information from council and direction from council so that we could prepare the budget ordinance for a meeting on the 23rd.

Do we need to discuss whether we want to plan to get together next week? I know there's a motion up here about doing this at the same time.

Is it possible to call it a question? I think we should take the motion up. It is ambivalent, but it is irrelevant as to when this comes back, if the motion is to bring it back with the budget adoption ordinance. So it doesn't matter when that happens. What we don't want to do is set a date for this, and then staff maybe in two days says, you know, we really would like another day to prepare. We're going to do it on Tuesday. And we've already had this motion sitting on the books, and we have to have it on Tuesday. So the motion is clear, concise. It makes no predictions about anything else. It's just trying to be efficient.

Okay. It all seems like the opposite of efficiency to me, but if the motion is to schedule this along with the budget discussion, yet to be determined when that will be, then that's the motion that's been made and seconded, and I think we need to vote on it now.

You can call the question provided every council member's had an opportunity to speak or debate this particular motion.

Say that again?

So can't call the question until every council member has had an opportunity to speak on this motion, and I believe Mr. Matthews would like to speak on this motion. Okay, thank you.

Just to make sure I understand this correctly, y'all can remember, I'm a little older than some of you, but I'm trying to make sure I understand what I'm voting on here. We're going to vote next Tuesday the 23rd on the budget, period. i don't think that's been i don't think that's been voted on we've been talking about doing that that's our target but apparently that that's not uh actually on the calendar that's what i want to find out we're talking about a whole lot of stuff here and i don't want to get lost in some of the dialogue i just want to make sure it's a thorough understanding for for us as well as the staff next tuesday the 23rd we're going to vote on a budget to approve it or not is that Is that correct? Ask our parliamentarian.

I believe as Ms. Miller stated, the special meeting was discussed with the potential of Tuesday, June 23rd, but it has not actually been set. It has not been officially called or noticed yet with the date and time.

What does it take to set that meeting?

It would take action by council giving specific guidance on the three items that are needed for the budget ordinance, the tax rate, the total FTE count, and the fee schedule. Once the staff has clear direction from council on those items, we can prepare the budget ordinance and bring it to the date set for approving the budget. which council has talked about being the 23rd of June, a week from today, because that also gives enough time to approve the budget and then do the closing out of FY26 and then the uploading and reset for FY27, the time that staff needs in terms of the end of the fiscal year.

And that will be the topic that comes up next on our agenda after this one, which is number two, continued discussion on the fiscal year 27 recommended budget. That's the next major and the last major item on here to be determined later. But at this point, what you're saying is until we do that part and set that and give it the clear direction tonight, then we can set a meeting time for next Tuesday or whatever.

That is correct. And what I'm hearing from Mr. Dellinger is he wants to bring back whatever the date determined is to approve the budget. He also wants to bring back this amendment for further discussion. And so, as I mentioned, it will be challenging to provide that level of information based on a quick turnaround time, but staff will do the best we can.

Okay. Other observations or questions?

Mayor, I would like to call to question.

And everybody has been heard now, according to everyone has had the opportunity to be heard. Is that correct, parliamentarian?

I believe so. I'm not seeing anyone.

Excuse me. We're here. I just want to make sure I'm understanding totally what we're talking about here. If we say we're going to vote on it next Tuesday, we're going to vote on it next Tuesday. Is that what I'm hearing?

We haven't said that.

Okay.

Let's vote on this and then I'll make the motion to have the meeting next Tuesday and we'll set it up for the budget in this. That's all we have to do. Okay? Call for the question. Get the question going. Let's go. Come on, people. Let's roll. I don't think. Let's go. We're going to call. As soon as this is done, I'm going to make a motion about setting the meeting next Tuesday at 6 p.m. to approve the budget, the fee schedule, the FTEs, and this ordinance. That's all we need to do. This is just tied to whatever date that may be. That's all the motion is. That dates from the 23rd to 22nd, if it's tomorrow. This is just tied to that date.

Okay.

Load on this. I'll make the motion. We'll set the time next week at 6 p.m. on the 23rd, and then we're set.

Thank you for clarifying the path forward. The motion has been made and seconded to address this issue at the same time that we do the budget. And let's say if that's not correct and accurate, tell me again.

Just one question from me, if you mind. And that question is, I hear the tight timeline. I hear that it's doable. And with that, I know that a lot of things have been discussed here tonight, a lot of frustrations here. Even I'm frustrated with what's going on, honestly. And I just want to make it clear, as we move through this, and in reference to that, hearing that it's tight, but it's doable, I'm willing to support that adjustment. I'm willing to support it. So, good question. Thank you for that opportunity to say that. Okay. And I call for the vote.

And I believe the question has been called about three times now. And thanks for your patience and letting people get a grasp on this rather complex thing. But the motion was made and seconded to add this item, reviewing closing out fiscal year 26, to have that appear before the council at the same time that we reviewed the budget for final approval. Is that an accurate statement? That this item will be brought up at the same time as the next budget review?

Yes. Okay. That is the motion. Okay.

Let's have a roll call vote on this. And help me out here. Who originally made the motion? Okay, you go first. Mr. Stallings. Aye. Mr. Singleton. Aye. Mr. Matthews. Aye. Mr. Vance. Aye. Okay, it's unanimous. They appear this will be deferred or continued. It will be continued to be heard at the same time that we set a date for the final, what I hope is the final budget review.

Mr. Mayor, may I make that motion to designate that date? For the budget meeting?

Okay, let me ask our parliamentarian.

We need a date, a time, and a place. Okay. Special meeting.

I move that we designate Tuesday, June 23rd at 6 p.m. our normal meeting time to meet here in the town council chambers to discuss the numbers as Ms. Miller mentioned, the three items, FTEs, the fee schedule, and the tax rate, which would be the entire FY27 budget, along with the budget amendment ordinance, which is before us now.

Second. Second. Okay, motion has been made and seconded to schedule the next special meeting on the 23rd. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, that passes.

I would like to recommend a break, Mr. Mayor.

Yes, it's ten minutes until we're passed. Let's be back here at five after eight, please. Brief recess, we'll come back with the budget review. Thank you. and we're back from recess live again and we'll be coming back here with item two which is a continued discussion on fiscal year 27 recommended budget uh and before and our presenters are going to be town manager miller with help from our budget director sarah warren but before we leap into that i would like to make a few uh introductory comments if you'll bear with me and i want to make Uncertain to say that this is my opinion only I'm not speaking for council You just want one person's opinion and it has to do with how does the town achieve? long-term financial sustainability Which is the opposite of how does the town go bankrupt? We're not in the danger going bankrupt. We are on the path of long-term financial sustainability and And it just crystallized for me over the last 30 days, 35 days. Twice in those 30 days, I've been to the Wake County Mayor's Association meeting. It's a little round table. Everybody talks about what's going on in their town. And you can only imagine that for the last 30, 60 days, there's been a lot of talk about budget, what to do, what they're doing to address it. And it made me think, as complicated as some of this stuff is, sounds, it's really not too different from individual households. when it comes to budgeting and getting through and achieving long-term financial sustainability, which we all want. In my day job or previous job back in the insurance business, we had an imaginary client that we used and we picked on to use as an example to work through different scenarios. We called him Billy Bob. And of course, Billy Bob married 2.5 children, steady job, nice home with a mortgage, And he values and aspires to long-term financial sustainability. So he's the guy that we've used, and I thought it might be helpful to think about him and his family and his household budget as we talk about this. So we know that he's committed to long-term sustainability. financial sustainability. And to him, that means getting his kids through college, getting his house paid off, finally retiring, maybe going to the lake, or whatever he wants to do. But there's a couple warning flags that Billy Bob should be looking for to make sure he's not getting off the road of long-term financial sustainability. Level one, and there's level one and level two. At level one, a warning flag would be if Billy Bob takes out a second mortgage to pay his electric bill, he might want to stop and think. That's a warning flag. If you're taking your long-term assets like your home to pay off your monthly bills, you may move a path not on long-term financial sustainability. It's like if you were driving to Wilmington on Interstate 40 and your check engine light comes on, and your tire pressure light shows two tires getting slower getting lower you should be looking for service station this is a warning flag that's a level one warning flag we don't have any of those here in garner but the but the other towns did and level two warning flag for billy bob on his household budget would be if he cashes in his retirement fund his ira to buy groceries He's in big trouble. This is like you cruising toward Wilmington at 70 miles an hour when suddenly your engine knocks off and one wheel locks up. You'll be lucky to get out of the travel lane and onto the shoulder. This is a level two warning. We don't have those. But let me tell you about these other towns and what I'm hearing from them. It's disturbing to me that more than one mayor in Wake County admitted to being at level one warning flags, that they were getting these warning flags. Even more disturbing is they had council members who were pressing to do what I consider cashing in the IRA to buy groceries. They had people who wanted to say, we know we're running in the hole, but it would be politically imprudent or inconvenient to raise taxes. So we're going to say, don't raise taxes. Let's go further in the hole. Let's cash in our IRAs. to buy groceries in my mind. There are people who admit to doing that. I want to assure you that Garner is nowhere near a level one or a level two warning flag. Our staff and our council and all of our team members have been doing a great job to find ways to increase our income and our revenue while we continue to provide excellent services to our residents. Other mayors are talking about may not be able to provide the same level of service. We are not in that category. We have been wise stewards of our taxpayers' money. Our town manager and her staff have listened closely to guidance from our council and have prepared three options for our budget for the coming year based on the information that she's heard and the clear direction she's been given. Town of Garner is much more on the path of long-term financial sustainability than some of our neighbors, and we want to keep it that way. We must be prepared to make the tough decision to put some savings away today so we can address the needs that we clearly see around the corner. It's always hard to say. There's never an easy time to say, I've got so much money, I don't want to spend it on a vacation or a new car. But we have to say my thanks to all staff and council who are working hard for our taxpayers. Let's stay on the path firmly on the path of long term financial stability. Thank you for the work you've done and continue to do. And we'll turn it over to you, Miss Town Manager.

Thank you, Mayor, members of council. tonight's discussion on the FY 27 budget is a continuation of your discussion from your special meeting on June 8th based on the discussion and feedback and comments that we heard on June 8th we've prepared some additional information and options for you to consider and we're going to spend some time this evening walking you through those and Of course, there'll be opportunities for council to ask any questions you have for staff on the budget. And then by close of our discussion this evening, staff is looking for clear direction on the tax rates, the number of FTEs and the fee schedule to prepare the budget ordinance for FY27 for the special meeting that now has been identified and approved for the 23rd of June. So let me walk you through what we heard from Council's discussion at your June 8th meeting. So we heard there was interest in a range of tax rate increases, everything from a high of two cents to a low of 1.25 cents, maybe even one cent as well. Uh, if you recall the manager's recommended budget had two and a half cent tax increase. And so wanted to make sure we highlighted, uh, the conversation and the range of potential tax increases council wanted to learn more about from your June 8th meeting. Uh, one thing that we heard from all of council, there was consensus that there was an interest in increasing. Uh, our contribution to preserving home, preserving home is our partner and affordable housing preservation. In the past, we had given them a hundred thousand dollars. That's what had been recommended in the FY 27 budget. Uh, council was interested in giving them additional funding based on the number of houses in Garner that could use that funding in terms of overall maintenance, um, uh, preservation, uh, safety and security work that needs to be done. And so we heard that council was interested in increasing that budget from $100,000 to $200,000. In addition to increasing preserving home, we heard from council, based on your June 8th discussion, there was an interest in reducing the amounts budgeted for public art next year to $50,000. And then also look at reducing traffic calming by $50,000 as well. So the scenarios and options that I'm going to walk you through include that increase and those reductions. We also heard from council by consensus an interest in putting a penny towards our debt service fund. As a reminder, our debt service fund is the way we pay for our capital projects. We have been working with staff over the last few months to really talk about some of our big capital projects that we need to plan for for the future. We have some significant ones that we need to plan for, including a new public work center and two fire stations. And so the idea is then to start putting some dollars away to be able to support those projects in the near future. I have a question.

Just a quick question on the penny for the debt service fund. I don't know if we explicitly said this or not. Is that another penny that would go on top of the eight and a half, or would it be a different dedicated stream?

It would be another penny on top of the eight and a half, so it would be nine and a half total.

Okay, thank you.

So in addition to the conversations that we heard and consensus on some of the things council discussed on June 8th, we also went back and looked at the budget and said, are there any other opportunities to reallocate? Is there any more revenue that might be available? Every every year this time of year we go back and look at our partner agreements to make sure we have budgeted appropriately And if we need to decrease money or add money to make sure that we've done that the Wake County adopted its budget on June 2nd and one of the things that after they adopted their budget we were allowed to do is we saw an opportunity to increase some of the reimbursable dollars for the fire department and specifically regarding expenses for outside of the annual allocation and then also they approved in their budget some additional reimbursements for staff that they pay using their American Rescue Plan dollars. And so we were able to find almost $358,000 or so of new revenue that we didn't anticipate but can now anticipate based on the county's approved budget. So what does that look like? So we provided three options. First option looks at a two cent tax increase. So this reduces it by half a cent from the original recommended budget. It includes half a cent for operating, half a cent for positions, and one cent for debt service. It adds the $100,000 for preserving a home that we talked about. With the additional revenue, we also were able to add an additional FTE. One of the points of discussion at your June 8th meeting was the need and opportunity for better grant management and writing for the town. And so when we looked at the additional revenue and looked at potentially some other cuts, we found that we were able to fund a second grant position, what I'm calling a grant writer position for half a year. Option one, a tax rate increase of two cents maintains our perform funding at over a million dollars. It does reduce it capital by 40,000 public art and traffic calming by 50,000 and, um, supports council's priorities with minimal reductions. So this is what it looks like. This is what it would fund based on the two cents. So we have the half a cent for operational expectations and obligations. The recommended changes includes the additional revenue both from interest income and the fire county cost share, an increase for preserving home, a reduction in public art, traffic calming, and IT, and adds an additional FTE, bringing the total new FTEs for FY27 to 10 new FTEs. It also sets aside one cent for debt service for those capital projects, those big ones we know that are coming in the near future. Option two looks at a tax increase of one and a half cents. So that's a reduction of one penny from the recommended budget, tax increase in the recommended budget of two and a half cents. It keeps the additional revenue projections in place and adds half a cent for positions and one penny for debt service. It continues to add the additional $100,000 for preserving home. It also allows us to add that second grant position for half a year, that grant writer position. It includes reductions to PERFORM. If you remember when we talked about reallocating some dollars, there was a recommendation to do some reductions to our PERFORM budget and our IT budget, so you'll see that in this scenario. It also has reductions in public art and traffic calming, but this one also includes additional reductions in our VERT program as well. So this maintains service levels, but also acknowledges that there may be emergencies next year, especially in our perform and our vert budgets that we may have to come to council with for a budget amendment should the need arise in next fiscal year. So it balances council's priorities with a lower tax increase. So this is what it looks like. So it doesn't, the one and a half cents is focused on new positions. It keeps that additional grant position, so 10 new FTEs, puts one cent away for debt service, and then we still were able to increase some revenue and reduce areas in public art, traffic calming, IT capital, perform, and avert. Option three is 1.25 cent tax increase, and so this is a reduction of half of the tax increase that was recommended in the FY27 budget. It looks at .25 cents for positions, still keeping one cent for net service. It adds $100,000 for preserving home. Under this scenario, we do not have enough dollars to add the additional grant writer position, We would still maintain the grant manager position but not able to add that second grant position. It includes prior reductions for perform and IT, but we also have additional reductions in our VRT program as well as public art and traffic calming. It also looks at a reduction in resurfacing as well. So this is the lowest tax increase but requires the deepest cuts and does not include that additional grant writer position and also includes reduction in our resurfacing budget for next year. Here's what it looks like in terms of the spend, the 0.25 for the new positions minus the grant writer position, still putting one cent aside for debt service. And you see where the reductions include not only public art, traffic calming, IT, perform invert, but also adding resurfacing here. So budget ordinance direction. So my recommendation to council based on your discussion and feedback is to go with option two. Option two is the 1.5 cent tax increase for next fiscal year. Based on tonight's discussion, we are looking for direction from council on how to prepare the budget ordinance for your special meeting on the 23rd. We need information specifically on the tax rate, the total FTE count, and the fee schedule. And then just to kind of reminder, here's where we are on the schedule, uh, for, for our budget discussions and approval. The mayor members of council, that's the brief presentation we prepared for you this evening. Myself and the entire staff is available to answer any questions you may have on the budget And certainly any direction you want to provide in terms of how to prepare the budget ordinance for next Tuesday's meeting

Thank you very much for the presentation, clear and concise. We will have plenty of opportunities for questions. Did you have an immediate question?

Yes, really immediate before we get into the actual budget discussion. I definitely do want to thank staff for the hard work putting the proposals presented. I definitely appreciate you incorporating a lot of feedback that you've been hearing over the last couple of weeks, especially with the one and a quarter and the one and a half cent proposals. But from what I understand, there was a recommendation from the compensation study in here that was listed to increase the compensation of council members. in which, in my opinion, as we discussed, possibly raising taxes is wildly inappropriate to even be considering when no council member, from what I understand, has requested this, and our residents are currently struggling to put food on the table and gas in the cars. So as I've stated in many emails, I'm in staunch opposition to this, and with that being said, I want to, before we have the budget conversation, make a motion to remove the proposed compensation increase for council members out of the 27 budget. Thank you.

Very good. That was a motion by Mr. Stallings, seconded by Mr. Tellinger. And let me go ahead, for the record, to say there was no raise for the mayor of this anyway, so I don't have a dog in the fight. Makes it easy for me. But thank you for making a clear motion to give no increase to council members on this. salary, whatever we want to call it, seconded by Mr. Dellinger. I'll be glad to hear any comments from any other council members. Let's start with Mr. Matthews. Mr. Singleton, questions, comments?

No, I agree with the motion.

Let's see, skipping over, unless you have further observations, Mr. Stallings, Mr. Dellinger, Mr. Vance.

I'd like to say that I also appreciate the staff's clarification. and the work that went into the Baker-Tillich study as well. And I agree with the motion that these are difficult choices that we have to make throughout the budget process, and I support maintaining the current level of conversation for the mayor and council this year and focusing our attention on the broader budget as a whole but i would like to make one one one statement is i would encourage us as a council as a as a staff group that we in the diff in future discussions on on the on compensations that it's made early in the budget process and it's made open to the public clearly so we can get it out early in the process and so we won't have this difficulty in In the in the future, possibly as a user says, a point of just after actions and what to do for future budgets.

Yes, thank you. It it was kind of it appeared to have an automatic thing based on some other larger study, but thanks for pointing out it deserves. It deserves scrutiny, deserves examination, and I think I've heard pretty consistently here. There would be support for this motion to eliminate any increase for council members. If that is, then I'm going to call for a voice vote on that. All in favor of approving the removal of any increase in compensation to council members, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. Stallings. A generous move. It won't balance the budget, but it's a step in the right direction. Thank you very much. That being said, let's go back to more generalized questions concerning the optional, the three options that have been laid out for budget ordinance direction. And let's start with Mr. Matthews. Questions, comments on that?

Again my compliments and staff all the hard work and efforts and it's kind of a moving target And I remember our last meeting we were looking at numbers somewhere around the one and a half was kind of feeling I was getting and and I was glad to see the manager Recommended that one and a half because obviously you heard everything but you still managed to put those things that we needed to to stay in business here, so but but the one and a half Certainly can go along with and I think it will take care of our needs and that will give the staff some guidance to What the target is I support the one-and-a-half option to thank you. Mr. Singleton.

I Stand up at any time while we're discussing this. I'm having some back spasms a little back spasm. So What results of my shingles? I'm gonna say this this isn't the current but last year we had a chance to with a balanced budget brought to us and Mr. Dellinger and Mr. Whaley and myself found a $1.3 million error, a software error, and we had a chance to save a million dollars back then and have a capital account, but we chose not to. So we could have already had a capital account or one penny, a million dollars, whatever the designated amount. They already had that in process, and so they're kicking it down the road. So anyway, that's the disappointment I have in the current budget, and that we could have already done this because we knew this was all coming in regards to having some type of capital account, debt service fund, whatever you want to call it. That's all.

No comment other than it's been a long process. It's been good and had its ups and downs. And I think the more eyes we have on the budget, the better. And the sooner, the better. And even the mayor and I had a conversation at the intermission there about, why are we paying so much attention to this this time? So well, the situation changes every year. We've evolved from explosive growing budget to now I wanted an even more uncertain future. And so your scrutiny level needs to be different on different parts of the budget. So I think it's an ever-evolving process that we have to weigh against what we see coming at us in the future. And so I'm pleased with where I've gotten to. I think there's a lot more work left to do. I think we've had some conversations about having budget conversations earlier in the fall next year so that we can make even better progress, more progress on this. So I think, again, it's an iteration. It's an iterative process, and it's getting better. So I think we're headed in the right direction, but we still have a lot of work to do. But pleased with the options we have in front of us, and I'm confident we'll be able to move forward.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vance.

No questions.

No questions. Second round opportunity to ask questions and make comments.

Does are you looking for that number tonight? I guess yes.

So so consensus of Council on how to prepare the budget ordinance. And so in order to do that, we need three pieces of information. The tax rate, the total FTE count and the fee schedule. If Council's not able to come to consensus on that direction. Then we would need a vote by action for majority vote to determine how to prepare the budget ordinance for the June 23rd meeting.

And a point of clarification for my information here, we have the three options, option one, two, and three, and clearly the headline on each of these is either the pure tax rate increase, two cents, 1.5 cents, or 1.25. I think also included in each option is the number of FTEs. Is that correct?

It's the FTEs that would be funded by the tax rate increase. So we remember we had three FTEs already in the budget for Yergin because we had already planned to have two additional public works maintenance staff for the opening of Yergin, and then we also had one fire inspector as well. So those were positions we had already planned for for the budget. What you see before you... And these scenarios looks at when you have an increase in taxes, what positions would that tax increase fund? So if you take all these numbers and you add the additional three, include the grant writer position, it would be a total of 10 new FTEs for FY27.

And that is included in option one and option two.

That is correct. And then option three includes the nine FTEs. It does not include the additional grants position.

Okay, so that's one of the distinguishing characteristics. That is correct. One, two, and three. And so if council picks one of these options, one, two, or three, that gives you the information you need to prepare the budget ordinance.

It does, outside of the fee schedule. And our discussion on June 8th, there wasn't a whole lot of discussion about the fee schedule. As it was proposed, really the significant changes focused on what we were going to do for Yergin Park because we were opening that in the fall. So unless I get any guidance from council on the fee schedule this evening, we're going to prepare the budget ordinance as the fee schedule has been presented.

And that fee schedule would be the same for option one, two, and three? Yes. Do we need to talk about the fee schedule? No. I'm asking the council members, do we need to talk in detail about the fee schedule? There seemed to be consensus that the fee schedule was okay. Is that, we're okay with the fee schedule?

I'm seeing shaking heads, yeah.

And we agreed that in the soon-to-be work session, we would get more information and discuss the parks and fee changes. But we're not going to do that now. That's too complex.

So we've separated that from the approval of the budget process. We're going to bring that back to council for continued discussion on it.

Yes, and just for the sake of discussion with among counsel to gauge our level of understanding are we clear about the FTEs that go along with each one of these options? How many and I think option one would say the 10 FTEs that you discussed. Option two would include those. Option three would have less.

Would have less, would have nine.

Okay. What other questions might we ask about clarifying the difference between option one, two, and three? No questions?

I guess we need to know what everybody's thoughts on what option they'll support so they have some guidance here for the 23rd. So what option will everybody agree with? That's the fair question. As it is right now, yeah.

Okay, yeah. I guess what I'm saying is our mission here, as I understand it, is to provide clear guidance so the staff can prepare the budget ordinance. And we can choose one of these options, one, two, or three. Option two being the town manager's recommendation. If we can say, yes, this is the clear direction we're giving you to bring the ordinance back for final approval, at a meeting which we've already set for a week from the night. That's our mission here. So what else do we need to know or talk about before we start talking about which one should we choose? Does anybody want to volunteer what their thoughts are, what they think is the option we should go with? Is there any talk that we need to come up with a different option at this late date? Somebody talk to them. Do we have to make a motion? Are you ready for the motion?

I think Phil wanted to go down the line and kind of feel people out.

Is that what you wanted to do?

Well, no, I just wanted to make sure. That's what you were recommending, right?

I'm going by the town manager's option number two. I think that serves the purpose, and they've cut quite a bit, and I think that would meet our needs. I'd give them clear guidance as to how those numbers have got to work out. They're going to bring back to us. So I support option two.

Is that a motion?

Yes, sir. That is a motion. Okay.

I'm sorry. Go ahead. There's a motion made to recommend to give the clear guidance of using option two as the template for our budget ordinance that will be presented in a week. Is that the motion you're making? Yes, sir. If there's a second, we can talk about it more.

I'll second it for discussion purposes.

Okay, thank you. And so Mr. Stallings is the second on that one. And now we can ask all the questions we want to about option two. We can have a full discussion of the pros and the cons. And Mr. Matthews, since you made the motion, would you like to expand on why you think this is important?

Well, I think the town manager has presented it well, and they've looked at this thing very close, and they heard us at our last meeting that That one and a half was a lot more, I'll use the term palatable, but even with that figure, she's managed and the team has managed to come up with the things that we need to move the town forward and not get her sipping a vine like some other towns are and being good stewards of the people's money. So with that in mind, the option two, that's why I'm supporting that. I think it's very workable. During the year, we can always do budget amendments if something pops up, so it's not like that's locked in a stone. We've got that flexibility, but to kick this thing out of the box and get it moving so you guys can make a plan, that's what I'm supporting option two. Okay.

Mr. Singleton, comments?

Yes. I'll say a concern. Last week, I met with Ms. Miller and Attorney Jones, the mayor, and Mr. Dellinger. We met and talked, and one of these concerns I expressed at that time was the number of FTEs that we're adding. made it 30 last year, and I just took $75,000 to include everything, salary, retirement, and so forth, which is a low number, but I just took that number. That's $2.25 million. We're talking about adding 10, $75,000. That happens to be exactly $3 million in two years on recurring expenses. We can't continue to do this unless you can have a tax increase every year. I'm just stating, you cannot have a recurring cost increase You can say we're going to have to have tax increase every year because you're going to have to do that. That's just no way to do it or you're not going to get any capital projects done. I'm just stating that as a fact. I'm not saying it's going to happen next year or the year after. It's going to catch up to us one day because the economy is flattened out right now and the economy may pick back up. This is the importance of the projects that come before us, cost of services, et cetera, et cetera. Continue to add recurring costs because everything that's been cut over here in the recommended changes are capital projects. We didn't have any reduction of FTEs. I'm just saying that it's long-term, that it's not a sustainable way to continue to do business unless you automatically recognize you're going to have to have a tax increase every year. I'm stating that. You cannot. That's $3 million in two years. That's three pennies. I'm stating that. I'm done.

Mr. Stallings, comments?

I said everything in a previous statement. I just appreciate the staff taking the time out working through this, providing different options. I know it's been a long road, but a lot of this definitely, and all three options incorporate what you've been hearing from council members throughout this process. So I'm definitely excited to support one and a half cent.

Thank you. Mr. Dellinger.

Yes, for option two, I think we have a lot of confidence in council and staff to continue to move forward and be very proactive with regards to the budget going into the next fiscal year, and everyone being engaged and having those conversations to continue to iterate on the process. And to Mr. Singleton's point, identify points of unsustainability early and work as a collective to address that. I think we're doing a step in that direction, putting that money on the capital side here for the next three to five to six years for fire stations and public works facilities, but we got more on our plate than that. But I think collectively we'll be able to continue to move the needle forward, so I'm supporting option two.

Thank you, Mr. Vance.

Yes, I support option two also because I believe it provides a balanced approach to addressing the needs of our growing community while maintaining fiscal responsibility. I believe that this is the most responsible task for Garner to take at this time.

Thank you very much. I'd like to make a comment. I agree with our council members here. We'll take a vote in a moment. And I also agree with Mr Singleton that unless we make some other radical changes, we will be doomed to eternal tax rate increases. And I don't want to. water down our great services that we're providing. We're kind of hooked on the best police, the best fire, the best public works, the best staff. But the way that we can change our revenue is to be extremely vigilant about new projects that we approve. We need some that are what I will call financial fountains, revenue positive, And we know that that happens with almost every commercial project. They contribute more property tax than the cost of services it requires. We get to our residential, and we've got an 80-year history of modest homes. And modest homes don't quite break even on the services that it costs. So it was time for us to add some higher tax value homes, residential, whether it's apartment, condos, Whatever it is, it needs to be higher value so we can start earning our way to higher income so we are not doomed to eternal tax increases. Are we on the same page there, Mr. Singleton? Yes, sir. I thought I was phrasing what you said. So I agree with everybody on this one. Good job here. If there's no further discussion, I'll call for a roll call vote. on this, on providing the clear guidance of option number two is the motion that's been made. And option two, the motion has been made and seconded. And we'll come down with a voice, with a roll call vote. And we'll start with Mr. Matthews. Aye in favor or nay opposed?

Aye.

Mr. Singleton?

No.

Mr. Stout?

Aye.

Mr. Dellinger.

Aye.

Mr. Vance.

Aye. Thank you. That's four in favor and one opposed. So council is giving you clear direction to proceed with option two, which addresses the key things that you need to prepare our budget ordinance for fiscal year 27, which will be coming back to us a week from tonight for the motion that was made previously.

All right. Thank you.

Is that it? Okay, wow. Good work by everybody over the last six months and for some of you the last 12 months working on this. At this point, we'll move along to updates to council. We'll start with committee reports to report out from your committee. And Mr. Vance, your committee has... Yours and Mr. Dellinger's have been one of the most active here recently, and you gave us a preliminary report and approval. Would you like to make other comments on your committee report?

I'm going to say that the interviews will continue for the affordable housing advisory committee in the very near future. The date has yet to be established when those interviews will start. That's all we have. That's all I have. Mr. Dillinger, want to add anything?

I just want to, again, thank Mr. Vance and staff for all their assistance in helping us get through the process this spring. Typically, I think working with Mari and her team and the clerk's office, we're going to be establishing an earlier cadence to our work at the beginning of the next year. So looking forward to that. And we have had some discussions I've mentioned before the fall of doing a little bit of preliminary work in the fall around volunteers and volunteering and trying to get folks directed to organizations in the town. So we'll do some of that work in the fall and see what we come up with, get some feedback from council and staff and keep moving forward.

Keep moving forward. Your committee, again, basically a committee of two with a little assistance from our, A lot of assistance. A lot of assistance. The three of you have done a hero's job.

And Ms. Stella also, she's engaged as well. Absolutely.

Well, we take that for granted. She's the clerk. She's the clerk. Mr. Stallings, I know you have some committee reports.

So we had a great Parks and Rec meeting last night, had two zoning cases. Attorney Jones was actually in attendance to talk about committee bylaws and fielded a lot of questions, including around vacancies and the removal process of appointed members who don't attend meetings. And I've already been talking to the nominations committee about some possible solutions to that. But overall, it was a great meeting last night.

Right. You've been busy, too. Mr. Singleton, committee reports.

No, sir, no committee reports. Mr. Matthews?

Yes, we had the quarterly Veterans Council meeting last week and making plans for the fall of the year. We've got a lot coming up, and I know we'll have representation out at the memorial for the July 3rd celebration tents, giving guided tours to people coming out there. And, of course, Veterans Day and... has worked down toward the gold star toward the end of the year. So got a lot going on, got a good crew. Appreciate all the support from the town and Stella and Parks and Marie and all the gang that helps us out there. And the attorney keeping us on the right track. So I know it's been a challenge, but we're getting there. But everything's moving forward.

Excellent. Good report. And back to the manager for talk of the town and manager report.

Yes, I'll ask Mr. Hodges if he'll review the talk of the town briefly.

Thank you, Ms. Miller. Our next Groovin' and Garner concert will be this Thursday at the Lawn at the Rec Center. It will be hot and warm, so please take precautions. Come out and join us for that. Cops on Top will have a fundraiser for Special Olympics. at the Chick-fil-A on 1010 Road on the 18th and 19th, weather permitting, 630 to 230. This is one of their annual fundraisers that they do for Special Olympics with the Chick-fil-A organization. Our Juneteenth celebration has already been mentioned, but that will be Saturday at 11 o'clock. We are gearing up for our July 3rd event that will be on the 3rd at Lake Benson Park. A brick house band will be our preliminary band that is performing, and then the North Carolina Symphony will perform prior to the fireworks. The event will be 5 to 10 p.m. As everyone's probably aware, on-site parking is there on a first-come, first-served basis, but we want to make sure the public is reminded that we do have free shuttle service from South Garner High School for convenient access to the event. And lastly, we want to just let you know that the Garner Police Department is hosting a leadership camp in July. on the 20th to the 24th, and this is to support students in reaching their full potential by building positive relationships between youth and law enforcement. So I wanted to bring those events to your attention. Your monthly analytics are here. As typical for this time of year, most of those calls are tall grass and weeds. As I always like to caveat, this is in addition to the many proactive calls that our staff is out handling every day that never makes it into our Garner info system. So we want to thank all of our staff who responds to our Garner info calls, as well as all the proactive calls that are handled outside of that system. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

Any questions for talk of the town?

Just two other announcements I want to share with council. I shared this with you via email yesterday, but I wanted to state it publicly at the meeting this evening. The town has once again been awarded the Triple Crown, which recognizes governments that received the Government Financial Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting, the Popular Annual Financial Reporting Award, and Distinguished budget presentation award for fiscal year. So Garner is one of just 144 governments to achieve this special recognition for fiscal year 2024. And so this is something we strive for every year to not only do a great job in our budget presentation and reporting, but also in our financial reporting and then creating a document that helps the community really understand the financials of the town and how we budget and how we report. It's exciting to be recognized the Triple Crown winner again. I want to thank the team at the town who does this work every year to make sure that we're recognized. But more importantly, it creates confidence and trust in the work that we're doing here with the town. So very excited to share that with council. The final announcement is the Stevens Awards nominations are open. And so we'll be taking nominations until July 3rd. applications to nominate a resident is on the town's website. So we encourage those who are interested, who know of a resident who is deserving of this prestigious Stevens Award to submit a nomination. Our Stevens Award winner will be recognized at our August Garner Celebration event that honors not only the Stevens Award winner, but all of our volunteers in Garner. So those are all my updates and announcements this evening. Happy to answer any questions that council may have.

Any questions? Well, I just got to give one more shout out to the Season of Freedom. Here comes Juneteenth coming up this Saturday. This Saturday, right? And it's a little different. We're missing one of our key participants in this. But I think her team has come in with a new approach that will be equally exciting if that's possible. And just a wonderful new thing. So that's kicking off the Season of Freedom. And, of course, you'll never forget July the 3rd. You know that's the big deal. So a great season here. That being said, let's roll along here to attorney reports.

No report this evening.

Imagine that. How about council reports? And this time we should start, I believe it was back at Mr. Matthews.

Just one thing. I'm going to ask the council support on our 23rd meeting report. I'm going to be way out of state on that day, and it's been bouncing around because I'm not sure what we're going to do, and tickets had to be bought. And so since we're locked in on the 23rd, I would get council's consent that I can do a Zoom meeting online and be a part of that where I'm at, because I think it's a very important meeting, and just to be a part of that. So I would ask the council's support on allowing me to do that 23rd meeting by Zoom.

Well, it's actually teams.

Team, yeah. Zoom teams. Either way, I'm going to be on line with you.

So what do we need to do to make a decision on letting him participate remotely?

So that evening, you'll have to take the members that are physically present in council chambers will have to make a motion, but it would be helpful if you would give direction to Mr. Matthews about his participation. So the decision is whether he can participate by electronic means of teams and whether he can include that can include participation deliberations making motions and voting and i believe mr matthews is asking to have the ability to to do all three of those during the meeting okay input comments questions does that seem does that seem to be okay okay i think we should make them fly back

If you give me the money, we can work that out. Can you send your jet down there and pick me up?

How about he just brings us a nice souvenir? That'd be fun.

Well, I appreciate that. That's an important meeting. It could happen to all of us, and it does from time to time. Thank you very much. Okay. Further council reports.

I just want to mention as a reminder that we have a meeting next Tuesday, and then we have a work session on the 30th, and then we won't meet again until the third Tuesday in Not July, so we need to remember that.

That is correct. So we take a break right after July 3rd, and so the first meeting in July, I believe, is the 21st. And then we'll have a work session in July as well.

I just wanted to confirm that so everybody remembers, because we made that change two or three years ago, so not to forget.

Will you remind me weekly so I know when to come and not come? Yes. Have to give them a count.

Just remember after the 3rd, don't come the next week, or you'll be here by yourself.

Well, that'd be okay, too. We'll see how that goes. Mr. Stallings? No report. Council reports?

Yes, I would just like to apologize to council and residents for my outburst during petitions and comments this evening. I would like to go home tonight, but I apologize.

You are forgiven. If that's your worst outburst, we're in good shape. It was a correction, not an outburst, but thank you for the apology. Mr. Vance.

Yes, there's a few things here. Congratulations to the staff on the triple crown aroid. That's a great achievement, and it proves that your hard work and accuracy in what you're doing, and that's the way to represent a town. Thank you for doing that. And on June 5th, there was a Habitat of Humanity event in which six homes were Given to homeowners, it was a great event to be a part of and to see our affordable housing activities are really beginning to take root and move forward in that effort. And on recently, last week we had a workshop on a bridge replacement, a Vandora Springs replacement project. I would say, again, the staff did a great job of representing the town when it comes to advocating for needs that are necessary in order to improve the movements around that area and asking questions that are key and technical. And we ask that if you have not had the opportunity to go to the website to look at NCDOT, the bridge project is B5681. You can look at it, plus you can provide comments if you have any questions that you would like DOT to respond to. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, and that's most of the business we had to take care of. If there's no other items that we need to be discussing or other issues we need to address, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. Motion by Mr. Stallings, second by Mr. Singleton. All in favor of adjourn, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, it's unanimous, we're adjourned.

I have a question.