Town Council - workshop

Welcome to the Town Council work session of June 30th, 2026. And if you think it's a beautiful day out there today, just wait until Friday when we have the celebration. It's going to be happening. You'll need this, I guarantee you. I'm no meteorologist, but we'll need that. We'll call the meeting to order and we'll ask the Town Clerk to please call the vote.

Mayor Gupton?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Dellinger.

Here.

Council Member Matthews.

Here.

Council Member Singleton.

Here.

Council Member Stallings.

Here.

Council Member Vance.

Here. Thank you. That completes item A1. And we move now to item B on the agenda, which is adoption of the agenda. I trust that most of the council members have had a chance to look this over. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda? So moved. Moved by Mr. Stallings. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Vance seconds that. If no discussion about the agenda, I'll call for a voice vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. We have adopted the agenda. We'll start with item C on here, which also is close to my heart. It's a presentation. It's about America's 250th wedding, excuse me, anniversary, not the wedding, it's the anniversary proclamation. And it commemorates the anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. And whereas July 4th, 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, signifying the founding of the United States of America. Whereas the Declaration of Independence proclaimed the principle that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Whereas the federal, state, and local governance model has allowed for innovation, diverse policy approaches, and stronger accountability to the citizens of each state and local government, ensuring that government remains close to and reflective of the people's will. whereas America's local governments have been essential in transforming the United States of America into the greatest, most influential nation in world history, whereas Garner Station was first incorporated in 1883 and later reincorporated as the town of Garner in 1905 and is proudly served today by an elected mayor and five council members and a municipal workforce of dedicated public servants. Whereas the Town of Garner recognizes the anniversary of our nation's founding by holding an Independence Day celebration on July 3rd in Lake Benson Park. Now, therefore, I, Buddy Gupton, Mayor of the Town of Garner, do hereby proclaim that the Town of Garner commemorates the 250th anniversary of the United States of America on July 4th, 2026. and encourages all residents, civic organizations, and businesses in Garner to reflect on our history, celebrate our achievements, and reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of liberty, equality, and self-government during this milestone anniversary. And I hope you'll all be there to join us even more on the 3rd. I hope you can be there. By the way, there's no photo op tonight. It's hard to believe. We almost always have that.

Go pass me his around.

but that's that's that and we're moving right along now to a couple of very interesting discussion items uh the first one is a development preview these have been very informative uh for the last few months that we've been doing these and uh aaron joseph our assistant planning director uh backed up by jeff prezenberg and jeff tell whether that don't Don't worry, you can go on.

Yes, I'll just give a very brief introduction to this particular developer preview just so you have a little bit of information about what you're about to see. Then I'll toss it to the applicant team so that they can provide updates to you on how the project has progressed over its time and review. So this request, it is a tier two Conditional rezoning so it does accompany a master site-specific master plan the applicants Michael Jordan and John Frazier and the owner is Yiping Wang this is a tract of land off of Creech Road approximately 15 Point 82 acres and the applicant is requesting a rezoning from rural agricultural to residential for conditional and they're proposing a 52 lot single family detached residential subdivision. And what you have on the screen, this is the first middle so I really wanted you to see what has been submitted their application came in. And I believe it was June of last year. So they have been in the review cycle for a little bit of time, but still wanted council to have the opportunity to weigh in before a public hearing. And so you'll see on the screen here their initial master plan. Like I said, it is a 52-lot subdivision, rear-loaded product. There are some environmental concerns. flood plains, storm water control measure, and open space. And so to date, we have provided comments, staff has provided comments to the applicant. General comments, compliance with UDO standards, referencing buffers, stormwater control measures, the locations with on-the-site on-street parking standards, as well as some street cross sections. We have asked the applicant to remove the linear parks as a part of this development and also comments have primarily also included alignment of their zoning conditions to better fit with the Garner-Ford comprehensive plan and to ensure that any zoning conditions are above minimum standards of the UDO open space activation building design standards and amenities within the site. So without further ado, I would like to Pass the microphone to Mr. John Frazier and have him present to you, give you some background on this case.

Hey, good evening. My name's John Frazier, as Aaron said. I'm with FLM Engineering. and we are the project civil engineer representing site property development, Mike Jordan, as Aaron mentioned. so aaron did a great job kind of covering a little bit of the history of the project we've been working with staff for a little while to to address their comments and i wanted to come and share the plan with you all before we get too much further along to take any questions or feedback that you may have before we go further so as aaron said the the site is approximately 16 acres on creeks road got it highlighted there on the aerial image I just wanted to show a little more zoomed out image to give some context to the surroundings, but it's essentially a wooded parcel, but really kind of the defining feature is that north-south stream that runs through the middle of the property that has, it's a jurisdictional stream, but not only that, it has FEMA-regulated floodplain and floodway, so it's a challenging feature to cross, and you can see not too many folks, if anyone, is really crossing that stream right now because of that reason, so fairly early on, uh ask a subconsult to take a look at kind of the stream from a flood study and crossing perspective in terms of what that crossing may look like you know and the cost of some alternatives for that crossing so i'll explain that a little bit um but that's essentially um kind of a major point we wanted to understand as we went forward and that's really what helped us kind of define our site plan which is here on the screen for you. So this is our current plan that we've worked with staff to this point. So Aaron had shown you kind of our original submittal that had some linear parks in the middle of the main east-west road in a little bit different lot orientation. We've actually dropped a couple of lots, so we're at 50 total. But essentially, we're proposing 50 single-family lots. They're detached homes. You can see they're on some smaller, narrower lots. So they're more like what you might call Charleston-style homes, kind of a narrower product with a rear load on the alleys that are shown there. So they all front on public roads and are accessed by rear load alleys. As Aaron mentioned, we're avoiding the environmentally sensitive features that run through the middle of the property. So we're avoiding the, aside from the stream crossing, we're avoiding the stream and floodplain and floodway. We have our 50-foot conservation area buffers along that floodplain and proposing a couple of stormwater control measures and essentially located open space there along the stream. And the active open space is anticipated to be Park area with a grass multi-use field place that covered gazebo that has direct pedestrian access. And those are some of the things we're still working with staff on in terms of the exact amenities and the conditions, as Aaron noted. that's our current proposal um i did want to mention you know with this stream crossing ultimately what the consultant that we hired determined is to to demonstrate the fema that we would not cause a rise in the stream which is what we would have to do the crossing has to be a bridge so it's a fairly significant impact to the project especially project of this size we're talking you know a little less than 16 acres of property so that's one of the things that led us to kind of the narrower product to get a little bit more density to overcome that cost. The four options that they evaluated range from $720,000 to $2.5 million just across that stream. And that's just construction costs, so there'd be some other design and permitting costs associated with that. So that's kind of what led us to, again, to some of the density. But even with that, we're just at 3.2 units per acre. um not not super dense but wanted to make sure we could uh provide that crossing and and i and i showed that previous plan uh again with a little context to show that it does provide some benefit as it crosses that stream where there's not a lot of crossing now and provide some access to the surrounding property so that there is some benefit to that that stream crossing And with that, I just wanted to show some examples of the type of product that we'd expect. So you can just kind of see that, again, they're kind of the narrow Charleston style. We're working with staff on the architectural conditions to ensure a certain look with the development. But this just kind of gives an idea of what those homes may look like ultimately. But those are kind of the high points. I appreciate your time tonight. I'm happy to answer what questions I can or take back any questions or comments to our development team, and we'll keep working on this one.

It was excellent. Thank you very much Mister Frazier. Thank you for participating in these little preview sessions that we have. So this is a little bit new for you to us. We had always had some discussion with property owners and developers. But usually the first official appearance before the Council was for the public hearing which would be a next step. this and a little more formal so no decisions will be made tonight this is an information exchange getting to know a little bit more about your project you have an opportunity here as our town is changing you might know we completed our budget process just one week ago and I think it's safe to say that we have become increasingly sensitized to the economic impact of decisions we make here particularly residential subdivisions and projects are a huge part of our community a huge part of our budget and a huge part of our expenses. So it's kind of a changing time in a way, but we're also looking for the community benefit. So you may hear questions oriented that way here tonight. With that prelude, I think we'll start with Mr. Matthews. We'll work our way down with a question and a follow-up, and then we'll come back around as long as time permits, as long as anyone has some questions. So let's have everybody have a chance to ask a question, make a comment. Mr. Matthews.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I do like these early previews like this. It gives us an opportunity to look and get a little dialogue going and get the feel from what we're looking for, which in the end result helps you out as well as us. I was looking at your homes, what have you. At this point, Are you looking at a particular price point you're trying to sell? Most of these are somewhat similar in nature. I see what you're doing here. What kind of price point you're trying to sell these out for, like a home in that area?

uh thank you mr matthews i i personally don't know as a civil engineer but i'm happy to to have that information prepared for you next time we come in front of you just that's an important topic but it's not something i've discussed with the development team to this point um as we're still kind of working on architectural conditions and zoning conditions and whatnot but i'll i'll make sure to mention that in my presentation next time i see you

Well, that's why we're all here, just to bring these things up, because that is a concern because of cost of services and what have you, and I'm sure you're very familiar with that. And we're trying to make it bigger and better in Garner, and we want you to make a good profit and have a good quality product here at the same time, but that'll benefit everybody. So that was my only question I had right now, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Singleton.

Yes, can you go back to the, thank you. This is a wooded lot now, so I'm assuming that the diagonal lines, the top and the bottom, or what's going to be left is buffer, natural, the tree standing, all this greenness around here, what is that?

Is that flat? Is it going to be grass? Is it going to be trees? Is it going to be what? It'll be a combination. You're correct, the diagonal lines are the preserved tree area and we'll preserve what other area we can. We haven't developed a grading plan for this yet, just kind of with where we're at in the process, but that other area I expect to be a combination of grass and trees. and we do have some additional trees that we have to plant in order to meet the overall preservation requirement for the site.

Okay, because of the conservation buffer and the 500 and 100-year floodplain, this little park, how big an area is this park going to be and how flat is it? Because everything else is going down to the streams. I'm assuming we're talking about sloping land. So how big is this where you've got the kiosk and the park? Is it a half acre, 200, about 100? How big a space are we talking?

It's roughly 40,000 square feet is what we've kind of delineated. And again, don't Don't know the exact grades, but we anticipate to provide as much flat areas we can there, particularly for the playground and the grass multi-use area.

So you're saying that from the kiosk on down, that area is going to be 40,000 square feet?

Yes, sir. Some does encroach into that conservation area buffer, but kind of that green area to the east of the stream on the south side is roughly 40,000 square feet.

Okay, that's all for now. I'll have more.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Stallings.

My question is where would the parking be located?

So there will be driveways and either parking pads or garages on every lot. and there are on-street parking on all of the public roads. Well, I should say the main east-west road and the north-south stub on the east side, there's on-street parking, again, something that staff requested. So we have both a combination of on-lot and on-street parking.

And the note right here in the middle, it says no on-street parking. Where is that limitation?

I'm sorry, it says...

No on street parking in the middle, the middle portion where the where it cuts across the stream.

Oh, that's just where you can see that it narrows across the stream for that bridge section. There's no on street parking there. On in that middle section, but but past the stream crossing on each side, there's on street parking on both sides.

I guess I was asking, where is that cutoff point on both sides?

It's generally after the alley connections on each side. So if you can see the gray area, it kind of bumps out on each side and that's where the parking is in those bump out areas. I'll see if I can, I don't know if I've got a way there.

So where the bottom gray part basically starts is where? Yes, sir. Okay, that's correct. Thank you.

Mr. Dellinger.

Yeah, what's the average square footage for the product?

Let's see. I'm just gonna check my conditions. I think we may have a condition. The minimum heated square footage, we have a condition the minimum heated square footage shall be 1600 square feet.

just to echo the mayor mr matthews um we really need half million dollar homes these lots are too small to accomplish that i understand the stream issue but right across the road there's a development that was approved came to us initially as apartments And now it's 32 or 37 lots, I'm not quite sure, on 38 acres. They're building big houses. And the reason is we can't sustain building houses that don't price out for pencil. They don't pencil for us. They cost us money to build. So it'd be helpful to come back as soon as possible with what those price points are gonna be. but I'm pretty sure it's 1,600 square feet on the lot this wide. There's not gonna be a half million dollar house. So I think there's some reconsideration. I'd look across the street to see what they did with larger lots, larger houses. This doesn't pencil for us. It's gonna cost us money.

Okay, appreciate that feedback.

Thank you, Mr. Vance. Yes, 50 single-family homes.

Yes, sir.

Was a traffic impact analysis required?

To date, no. We have not had to submit a traffic impact analysis.

Okay, so you don't know whether there'll be needed improvements on Creech Road or not?

We know that there will be a typical frontage improvements to meet the town section and a left turn lane into the development for DOT's typical requirements. Beyond that, we're not anticipating at 50 lots having to do a traffic study, but obviously we'll work with staff if that's a requirement.

Have you started a public involvement piece yet?

We have had our initial public meeting, yes.

How many attended?

I did not run that. I'm not sure if, for those of you that may remember Chuck Walker, I believe he may have even presented this or shared this with some of you before with the linear parks, but he was initially leading this project and ran that meeting, and he passed away, so I'm trying to pick up the torch. So I couldn't tell you exactly how many attendees were there, but I could certainly find that information for you. We've got our attendance log from that meeting.

The general comments from the public were?

I don't think there was a ton of attendance or comments from the public from from what I recall.

Before we start back over with another round. I've got a question and that is we're asking more and more what is the benefit to the community will be a walking trail cut through after infrastructure more improvement on the roads of what what will be the benefit to the neighbors from this project.

I appreciate you you know again we can talk to the development team and come back with that information for you in terms of providing a benefit I mean obviously we've got an internal park area for the residents but you know again we are providing a benefit to the town in terms of pretty expensive street crossing where it you know there has not been a crossing within this area to access some other properties. So, you know, fairly significant infrastructure investment there to cross that stream. But, you know, we can certainly put our heads together and, you know, come back with other community benefit information for you.

You mentioned the access across the street. Do you anticipate that other neighboring developments will benefit from that crossing?

Oh, yes, sir. Absolutely. So you can see we've got that on the west side of the site. We've got a north south road that essentially just there for for connection to other properties. And again, I provided this aerial image to show the area that it kind of opens up behind that stream for access to other properties. So hopefully a lot of property can benefit from bridge crossing of that stream, which would be, again, expensive for any individual property to accomplish there.

Okay. Mr. Matthews? Just one other thing I was looking. Do you, I'm seeing, can you flip back to the next slide? There we go. The entrance, single, is there a second entrance that I'm missing here or just one?

No, sir, just one entrance on Creech. I'm not sure if we could get another one on Creech just given the width of the frontage. And we have had NCDOT look at that entrance and they've approved that location. At 50 lots, I'm not sure they would allow for a second one, just given how tight that frontage is.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Singleton.

So the east west road gives access to a solar panel farm, so that's not, I know it's there, but the other one going north, particularly the close one, the stream buffers are so extreme that little to nothing is going to be developed there. So one of my biggest concerns here is that When we look here on the left and we look at the green dotted line, which is the 50-foot conservation buffer, I mean, we're bumping over here on the road on this side. So this is all going to be sloped land. It's not going to be flat. In the park area, you can try to make it flat. That's not a good answer. As Mr. Dellinger mentioned, across the road started 326 or 336 apartments. They came back with 75 by 150-foot lots, somewhere 180-foot deep. Single-family homes. We need an extremely growing, we need either very affordable housing or higher-end housing. This does not hit either one. This is, I'll just say it, I've said it before, this is ram and cram. I'll say we can cram in here 45 feet wide at 1,500 square foot lots. This is not, just be blunt, this is not what we're looking. We got, this is, sometimes a piece of land just needs to sit here and hold the world together. And this particular one with the impact of the stream, this is not the kind of product that we're looking forward, that the play space because of the buffers is so extreme. It's just a challenge. And I'll just be blunt with you. I have no interest in this type of project coming to Garner.

Thank you for your feedback.

Okay. Mr. Stallings? No comment. Mr. Dellinger?

Yeah, just a previous comment. I mean, we need a bigger product. That's what we need. We've got probably 7,000 of these in the pipeline throughout the town, and we need higher end. Thank you.

Mr. Vance. Go for the comment. Well, I think you're starting to see some of the questions that we're asking these days. Staff and you have been working on it a long time. We keep expecting more as more is placed upon us. We have to be wise stewards of the property that's left and make sure we're doing the best thing for our neighbors. So you've got a little homework, apparently, of questions, the info to come back with. So we appreciate you working with us, being in touch with our staff, and we'll hope to see you again.

Yes, sir. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you. And that brings us to item 1.2 in our discussion items. And again, these are discussion items. No decisions are required this evening. This has to do with Garner Innovation Park, and particularly the discussion with our very close community partner, Garner Economic Development Corporation. And we'll start off with a little introduction from our Economic Development Director, Mr. Nate Gruber.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to continue our discussion regarding the GEDC's efforts on the Garner Innovation Park concept. I would like to begin this evening by acknowledging Council Member and GEDC Board Member Mr. Vance, who has a few remarks to offer.

Yes, for transparency, I want everyone to know that I serve on the GEDC Board. in my role as the town liaison i do not have any personal or financial interest in this proposed rezoning because i've worked with gedc throughout this process i would like to briefly explain the basis for the board's recommendation before turning the presentation over to megan excuse me back to nate one of the most important results of the project has been the progress made on the infrastructure and the traffic improvements. I want to thank the town staff for the time and effort they invested working with NCDOT to find a practical solution for this corridor. Their work, along with our development partners, help address challenges that have limited this property's potential for many years. As the Board continues to evaluate the site, We recognized the major infrastructure improvements and would be needed regardless of what was built there. Because of that, we had responsibility to consider which type of development would provide the greatest long-term benefit to the community. That was a key reason for supporting a project focused on bringing quality jobs to Garner. When the project changed from residential to industrial flex plan, the traffic outlook improved significantly. The traffic studies showed the industrial flex concept would generate less peak hour traffic than the previous residential proposal. The GEDC has worked with the NCDOT for approximately three years to advance the Northeast Gateway project. As part of this effort an additional traffic study was conducted. After evaluating multiple design alternatives and reviewing the results, the North Carolina Department of Transportation determined that installing a traffic light at Martin Branch is appropriate. I also want to highlight the private investment being made. HM Partners funded the traffic study and has committed to paying the utility extensions, road improvements, and other infrastructure needed for the project. As a result, the improvements can move forward without direct cost to the town or the GEDC. Together, these infrastructure improvements, traffic solutions, and private investments create a realistic path forward for this property. They also provide an opportunity to bring new jobs to Garner and strengthen our tax base and support long-term economic growth. Thank you, and I will turn it back over to Mr. Groover.

Thank you, Mr. Vance. Mayor and Council, as you may remember, this development stems from the completion of the Northeast Gateway Small Area Study, and along with further due diligence and evaluation conducted over the past 18 months. The initial focus is on the GEDC parcel, which you can see outlined here on the map, which is land owned and managed by the Garner Economic Development Corporation. To the north of this parcel lies the Jeter property, which is currently under option by HM Partners. The owner, Ms. Jetter, grew up in this area. Her father farmed this and other adjacent properties in Garner before the construction of Interstate 40. HM Partners' timing in securing an option for the Jetter parcel was advantageous for GEDC as collaborating with a master developer was one of the key recommendations from the INSPIRE study. GEDC and HM Partners have entered into a letter of intent to clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and financial obligations regarding the development of this area. The feasibility of this project is significantly supported by the structure of our partnership. HM Partners has taken on the role of the formal project applicant and more importantly is serving as the primary entity responsible for the funding, design, and installation of the necessary infrastructure. This collaborative arrangement allows both the town and GEDC to leverage private sector capabilities while ensuring alignment with our public objectives. I will now turn the next portion over of the presentation to GEDC Board Chair, Megan Pumarejo.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. On behalf of the GEDC, we thank you for the opportunity to provide a more thorough briefing on the Garner Innovation Park concept. We would like to acknowledge the presence of our GEDC board members tonight, former Councilman Buck Kennedy, Kevin Payne, Bill Moyer, and Robert Jaret. i want to emphasize that each board member serves in a professional capacity within the town of garner additionally we all have strong personal connections and actively participate in various local organizations throughout our community the question before us tonight is not whether workforce housing is important it absolutely is the question is whether this particular site is the right place to achieve that goal The GEDC was established to provide the Council with guidance on economic development initiatives. Our expertise is in business recruitment, corporate expansion, investment attraction, job creation, and strengthening Garner's commercial tax base. Before discussing the merits of the rezoning request tonight, it is essential to understand the site dynamics. At this time, I would like to introduce our land planning expert, Tony Tate, to discuss site suitability. Tony is a professional landscape architect and land planner with 39 years of experience in the Triangle Market. Tony started his firm on Davisboro Road in 1990 and was a member of the Garner Chamber of Commerce for many years.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Good to be before you again. My task here was to basically vision cast the thoughts and the programming ideas of the GEDC property and that focus area. It's involved evaluating the site on things like parcel size, parcel shape, topography, wetlands, which we had delineated further beyond what was already done. Neuse River buffers, landscape buffers from the town, stormwater, prior water injection uses, a little bit more in-depth study than maybe what was done previously out there. And the evaluation examines how these factors affect the site concepts against the existing and future invasion uses out there. I first looked at the broader focus area, which extended basically all the way out to Jones Sausage Road, and tried to look at the transition of uses from there all the way through our GEDC property proper. As the concept phase evolved and there are a lot of sketches done, it evolved into a more focused look at the GEDC property outright. And specifically looking at the types of housing related to workforce housing. We looked at apartments for rent. We looked at single family housing. We looked at attached housing for rent. We looked at town homes for rent or for sale. A broad range of residential uses that could be associated with workforce housing. We thought about how these would gel with the comprehensive plan for the adjacent and proposed industrial uses and with the Impending traffic increases of industrial traffic, the lack of public transportation, sidewalks, there were all the negatives to residential uses. The biggest, I think, was the site topography, which is challenging there. It all slopes to the south and to the east. south and northwest down to that creek in the bottom. There's significant topography change from Therioton Road. There's a stream that crosses over through there. There's wetlands that come in there. And so to provide any type of residential housing on a cost-sensitive basis, the department fee was one that, the challenges, they just increase throughout the building process, whether it's from the initial grayling clearing, to trying to pad out home sites, to, you know, foundation slab upgrades or whether it's crawl spaces from utilities all the way up through the whole building process and so in a In an atmosphere where we're trying to reduce costs to get to housing that is workforce housing cost basis, we just felt like this was not the site for that. We felt like there would be other sites that were more amenable to that type of housing. So it was like we were trying to force something onto this site. In conclusion, just the construction cost of this, we're going to work against residential construction to make it less feasible to make workforce housing work here. Thank you, Tony.

All right, moving right along, the financial reality of the project. We share a common vision of protecting taxpayers while fostering a stronger economy. Expanding our commercial tax base is essential because it generates significant revenue for our town with fewer demands for service. The structural benefit allows us to balance service costs and most importantly, helps keep residential property taxes lower for homeowners. To capture this revenue, we need to offer the right products in our community. By delivering Class A commercial spaces, Garner can position itself for success. These buildings attract top employers and support our growing local businesses, which in turn fuel job creation, capital investment, and the strong wages that our community relies on. Currently, two local owned companies are interested in staying in Garner and are evaluating the GEDC owned parcel for their expansion. These business retention and expansion opportunities represent hundreds of projected jobs and millions in investment. The GEDC owned parcel is particularly important right now due to high land acquisition costs in the current state of ETJ expansion. This proposed development is projected to bring significant benefits starting in 2028 with an estimated annual increase in tax revenue for the town of $819,000. This amount includes 658,000 from the Jetter buildings and 160,000 from the GEDC buildings. Additionally, as stated earlier, HM Partners plans to commit approximately two and a half million dollars to public infrastructure investments. This initial investment will greatly increase the value of our GEDC land following rezoning and site improvements. Furthermore, HM Partners intends to convey the parcel located on Tharrington Road, which can now be reserved for future development. I'll at this time again pass to Chair Megan Pumarello.

Good planning sometimes requires us to change course when the facts tell us that we should. That is exactly what has happened here. We are not walking away from workforce housing. We are recognizing that workforce housing deserves to be built on sites where families can thrive. Why this change makes sense. This proposal accompanies several important goals that don't align directly with Town Council's priorities. First, it supports Council's vision for economic development. This project creates opportunities for business expansion, job creation, and long-term economic investment. As previously mentioned, a successful Garner-based company needs room to grow, and without it, we risk losing that business to another community. This site also has the potential to attract new companies seeking to establish their headquarters here, opportunities we should not overlook. Next is consistent with the Garner Forward Plan. The Garner Forward Plan encourages thoughtful land use decisions that place development where it makes the most sense. Rather than forcing residential development on a site that presents significant challenges, this proposal better matches the property's locations and characteristics. This strengthens our commercial tax base. One of Council's ongoing goals has been diversifying Garner's tax base. Commercial and industrial investment generate long-term tax revenue that helps fund essential town services. A stronger commercial tax base creates a healthier and more balanced financial future for Garner and helps reduce future tax pressure on homeowners. Expanding our commercial tax base helps us meet the Council's goal of achieving a 50-50 balanced tax base. Lastly, it leverages private investment. We have a private development partner ready to invest significant capital into this property. That results in jobs, generates tax revenue, and transforms an underutilized parcel without requiring the town or the GEDC to shoulder the development cost. This is exactly the type of public-private partnership that communities seek after. Our action plan with the GEDC property is both straightforward and strategic. One, rezone the property. Second, complete the sale after the new infrastructure is in place. Three, reinvest the proceeds to support the town's long-term fiscal goals. The GDC has unanimously voted to allocate up to $500,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the GDC parcel to support Garner's housing affordability initiatives. We believe this rezoning is the highest and best use for this property and aligns with the town's long-term vision, creating lasting economic benefits for our community. thank you mayor and council for your time your consideration and your commitment to garner's future on behalf of the gdc i respectfully ask for your support on this request thank you and we're happy to answer any questions at this time

Thank you. I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions. It's a big project, a lot of moving parts. Clearly, your organization, Garner Economic Development Corporation, has been working on this a long time. I'll start out by just asking one or two questions, then we'll probably start back over with Mr. Vance to get questions and comments as we go. But I'd like to just ask this one. sometimes have to go back to the basics we're not making a decision tonight we're not rezoning we're not committing to any of this we greatly appreciate our community partner gedc keeping us informed keeping us in the loop uh getting our input on this uh so so no decision today uh but just kind of paint me a little picture uh if if we if the town ends up not pushing ahead with this partnership that she described and not pushing ahead with this particular project at this time. What are the consequences?

Well, I think after, thank you, Mayor, first of all, after 18 months of close cost analysis of this site, this is really the only feasible way for us to develop the GEDC parcel. It's too small for us to cover the infrastructure portion. Also, when we talk to affordable home builders, the amount of site work, as Tony alluded to, just makes it unattractive to them.

So it didn't look too well suited. And the other question, then I'll pass the mic down to Mr. Vance. It seems like we've been working on this Northeast Gateway, the town has been working on this for a number of years. Apparently, when this property first became the property of Garner Economic Development Corporation from Goodmark Foods 15 years ago. And then I think I've been to several small group studies where we had consultants come in and look at this and come up with ideas through the years. And you mentioned Garner Forward Plan. This seems to be in compliance with that, reflecting that. Can you tell me a little bit more about how this has been studied, what alternatives have been considered, and what's been the process for the last how many years?

I can tell you that for the last 18 months, how we've looked in the small area study, how we've reviewed it, but I think it might be good to look at the overarching history of this site, because there is a lot. I'll let Buck Kennedy, former Councilman, speak to that briefly on that. And Nate, if you could put up the slide that shows our proposed.

Thank you, Megan. Good evening, Mayor, Council, Ms. Miller, Town Manager, and staff. A little bit different being on this side of this. When we start talking about history, what point do we start? Let's just start with I-40 coming through Garner. That happened maybe 40 years ago, plus or minus. When it did, two intersections were established. That was a big deal. Having direct access to an interstate highway was, that gave us potential. At that time, well, those two intersections, Jump Sausage Road and Highway 70, of course, At that time, Jones Sausage Road was a quiet residential area, primarily, with one exception, and that being the largest employer that we had. That was a good mark at the time. Twenty-five years ago, and the reason I can say twenty-five years ago that we obtained that the town obtained the site is that it happened before I came on council in 03. So at the exact time, and I never knew who the, it was almost like it was a silent issue that nobody ever really explained. I'm glad you filled in the blank that was with Mark Foods that gave us that site that we're, that GEDC now currently owns. Even along from the time that I-40 came through on into the 2000 era, that area was relatively quiet until, of course, 2009 when the tragic explosion occurred at Goodmark Foods. We understand the ramifications of that. The building was destroyed along with the lives, and it was beyond repair. Conagra soon decided it was going to relocate its operation, close up shop here, and it left town. It gave us 106 acres of property, 96 being in the Amazon site. And in addition, they made us a grant of $3 million, two or two and a half million of that earmarked specifically for the Recreation Center. GEDC, as a result of the town having ownership of that site and it being a challenge without staff to deal with it, the town formed GEDC as a result of gaining that property. Councilman Vance, Mr. Vance at that time was one of the first board members. Former council member and the later mayor, Ken Marshburn, was another one of the board members. Bruce Andrews was the third member, and at the time there was only three board members. The mission that was given to him was clear it. get rid of the, handle all the environmental issues associated with it, get it ready for market. TPDC stepped up to the task. There's a story, the story's integral to that, but they did their work. In the meantime, little was happening along General Sausage Road. In the late teens, Amazon announced, maybe mid to late teens, and it was going to be built on the ConAgra site. It was apparent to Garner's economic development interest that if you're going to have Amazon there, there's going to be a lot of folks that's going to want to be in close proximity. So your former economic development director went across the street, started calling on people in that area and specifically in our study area. And at the time, the body was interested in selling. There's a lot of those 19 different properties in there, excuse me, 19 different owners. But there was no progress that was made in that regard.

But here was a,

Here was Amazon, and it brought our focus that we've got some property up there. We need to pay some attention to it. It's worth noting that actually settling the red route issue and getting confirmed on the orange route made us, all of a sudden, we found out we were going to be in the ownership of maybe seven major intersections or access points to I-40 and 540. but some of it was in the future. We got Amazon, it's time to, let's focus on what's available to us. The town's earmarked funds started talking about, let's look at three different properties, earmarked, this particular one is the longest one standing, and we got to work on that. I cannot tell you the exact time, but somewhere along that route in the late teens when GEDC became the owner of the property in a land swap with the town, and John and Matt can tell you the details, but we did not get access or get ownership of it until more recent times. So the town budgeted funds in 24. The study was underway and by mid 2025, the study was completed. When the study was being, while it was being initiated, AGM partners made us aware that they had an option to purchase. An option to purchase 60 acres out of that 118. Put it together with our 15 acres Two properties controlled 65% now of that study area. That's really when things came into being because now an investment large enough that it could absorb all of the development costs, it gelled. As the study progressed and development options were evaluated, GEDC and HM partners agreed to jointly pursue rezoning the two properties and securing approval of a full movement intersection. That site was not going to be developed unless you had a traffic light and a full movement light or a full movement intersection. The second part was the rezoning, and that's what brings us up to where we are today. The issues are in place. We're focused on the fact that you got the property. We've got a plan, and that's where we are tonight, presenting it. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have on that, at least on the history part.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks for that piece of history. Did you have a wrap-up?

No, Nate and I are open to questions at this time. The drawing that Nate has put on the board is a very high-level illustration of what we would like to see achieved on the GEDC property. This is taking into account the two businesses that we're speaking with right now in the one-acre parcel that Greg has conveyed to us or will convey to us if this is a successful rezoning.

Okay.

So very high level.

Excellent. Very high level. A lot of information going on. And that's a good time for council members to ask a question, make a comment, and we'll roll back around. Let's start with Mr. Vanstant just then. You started just tonight. Any further comments or questions from you, sir?

I would just say a lot of good work has gone into this project and great collaboration and just getting to this point was a feat within itself. Getting the traffic light there was one in which we worked diligently because of, as mentioned, with the history of Amazon, Amazon calls, because of the success of Amazon, the size of Amazon, calls reconfiguration of the interchange from what it was a, I think it was a clover type interchange. It first now is a unique divergent diamond, which calls for us to look and see how we could work with DOT to have a light at Martin Branch that would allow us to get the highest and best use of the property. And that's all I'd like to say right now, pass it on.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Dellinger.

So clarification, because I'm a little confused. So when we were here last time, it was stated that the northern part could continue without GEDC's parcel. Is that correct or not correct?

In theory, Greg could proceed without the GTC parcel.

That's what he said. I don't need that parcel. I can barrel forward and do my Tier 1 rezoning of that parcel. That's what he said.

It would, yes, but for infrastructure costs, I would say it would minimize disruption to Greg down the road to move forward with it.

was just trying to make sure because we only have like the gedc parcel here i don't see the in our information the whole the real big build out i don't remember seeing this before so i'm trying to get clear yeah and i'm happy to answer that mr dillinger too if you want some clarity on that so uh right now the focus is just with us gedc just on our parcel tonight um

HM Partners, we've had a community meeting where he presented the zoning request of changing this to residential, the entire area of GEDC and the Jeter parcel from residential to heavy industrial. So HM Partners has not provided like site layouts or anything like that yet, obviously knowing this is a tier one. So the focus tonight was just on the GEDC parcel.

Okay, because I thought, this is where I'm confused. I thought that this was a continuation of a previous conversation.

Mr., if I could add, just to help with the confusion, this is continuation of previous conversation. The comments that we heard from council seemed to indicate that they wanted some specific conversation around GDC's plans. This is still one single application. Tonight is just zeroed in. Does that help you?

Yeah, because I'm... Tonight is just zeroed in on the... Well, the... That's why I'm confused, because we were talking about the big project. Now we're still talking about the big project, we're only talking about a small part of the big project, which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. We should still be talking about the big project. We could focus on it, but there's so little, it's within the context of some other stuff, and that's why I'm trying to reconcile what are we doing here. Now I'm trying, I'm getting there, okay. Because you're talking about hundreds of jobs, hundreds of jobs on this parcel?

Correct. On that parcel.

And what are the wages of those jobs?

So we're still working with the companies on that, so we don't have a fully fleshed project summary form yet, but with the initial conversations, we don't have the wages on that yet, but we do know it's in the hundreds of jobs and millions in capital investment.

Well, I mean, one of the most important part about bringing jobs into a community is what the wages of those jobs are. is a $15 20 dollar an hour jobs that is not the type of impact that we are looking for an economic development in order correct. So that's a key piece of this information is not just number jobs, what kind of jobs.

Mister down and you're connected to that briefly. And so I've been in contact with this business is and I'm aware that they are not hourly jobs that they're looking to produce within garner their salary jobs that would be above $60,000 and that ballpark starting and moving upwards from there.

It'd be nice to see what that breakdown is because $60,000 is still below 60% AMI. They can't afford to live in the town, which is fine. Some people can't. But if we're bringing jobs into the town, we need to know what those jobs are. And if all these are $60,000 or $80,000 jobs, and that's all they are, that's what we weigh, that's what we have to measure. But that's a missing piece of information that's very helpful, not just for this part of the project, but for the other part as well.

And I can add a little bit to that. So based on where we are right now in the project, so the companies needed, some clarity on our end of if the likelihood of this parcel becoming available for them to locate. So while we've had preliminary conversations around the jobs numbers and the investment and the wages, obviously once we would get to the point where we would bring that information to you, it would be fully fleshed out where we could show you the average wage for all the positions.

I guess again, as being development partners, we wanna share in that information as early as possible because in the same way that we want high value properties, we want jobs that have disposable income in town and can afford to buy and live here. So again, this is comprehensive economic development. That's really what we need to get our arms around for this parcel and the other. So, okay, I'm getting through some of my clarifications, but The wages is super important. The other is, we touched on this a little bit, so GEDC owns this property. And then we'll get, is selling this property to them, right?

To the end users.

Yeah, so not to agent partners, to either the end users or another party that comes down the road and wants to develop that for them. So we have not, that's not laid in stone yet at this time. So obviously with first things being first, yes, the plan is to get the infrastructure improvements and then have the parcel where we can sell it. We haven't identified, the potential buyer at this point. But with the two companies that are looking, obviously they're the ones that are interested right now.

So you developing this parcel is 100% contingent on the other part getting rezoned and developed? Because they're not going to build without, they're not going to put in the infrastructure without.

So, and we are not developing this parcel.

No, no, no, the northern parcel. That's correct. So once, so.

We are contingent upon Greg developing for us to develop.

Okay, so, okay. I have more questions, but I need to think.

Yeah, yeah, thank you. Yeah, a lot of questions. We'll hit one and follow up and keep moving because this is extremely important and it's extremely complicated. Is it one project or two? What are the codependencies? A lot of excellent questions. And this is what we're here for, to talk about it well ahead of time, well before coming to a decision. So thank you. Good question. Mr. Stiles.

Yeah, so I'm the new guy on council, so I've heard a lot of it seems like people have more historical context on this property than I have. So I've heard workforce housing mentioned a couple of times and the pulling away of workforce housing. I guess my question for my edification would be, what was the genesis of providing workforce housing and when was the decision made to pull that idea?

So that really came out of the results of the INSPIRE study that we presented to council in September of 2024. So that was one of the options that we were considering and we considered, we evaluated those further and then through that process, that's where we came with further education of our parcel of the significant costs in site work because of the topography challenges there that Mr. Tate alluded to, that delivering a cost-efficient land model to workforce housing developers for this parcel simply wasn't feasible just because the amount of site work that needed to go into it.

And I heard it mentioned that there may be a contribution towards the town's affordable housing, housing affordability incentives. What would that look like?

I can speak to that that's something that the board unanimously decided we initially as Nate spoke to we do feel that affordable housing workforce housing is key to a healthy community initially when I came on the board it was already heading towards reviewing pretty solely affordable housing workforce housing on this site Through that 18-month process of meeting with Land Area Land Trust, Wake County, it became pretty apparent that we didn't have the ability to take this on on this location and the site was not suitable for it. But we still feel that this is a key component to the success of Garner. So we have agreed if we're able to take this to market and sell, we will allocate a portion of those funds to the town to determine how they want to use that for affordable housing workforce housing transportation initiatives that would be up to the town to deliberate on

Okay, so my last question will be, I know we have this proposed, I'm guessing conceptual plan in front of us, but now I'm hearing that it's one application, but the other party may be moving forward with a tier one rezoning request. Is that correct?

So it's one applicant, so HM Partners, Greg Sandroiter that presented here for the development preview, he's the applicant for both parcels. So for the parcel that he has under option that we refer to as the gender parcel, and the GEDC parcel, mainly because of obviously the shared infrastructure, but more importantly, the significance of the traffic signal that we basically partnered on making sure that we could get to a point with NTDOT where they were agreeable to putting a traffic signal here. So that was one of the main purposes of the partnership. and happy to answer any other questions.

So this parcel will be considered in a tier one rezoning request as well? Yes, sir.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good questions. Mr. Sandleton.

Lots of questions, lots of concerns, because I hear a lot of double talk. It doesn't add up. we had our public hearing about the data center mr treasonberg presented us a powerpoint and it said this is part of bringing it right off what's talking about this is specifically data centers simply permitting such issues under the general you just not allow it allowances within the UDO would run counter to several goals of the town's comprehensive plan. Key here is goals of the town's comprehensive plan. Establishing compatibility and transition standards that respect spaces between existing and future development, page 128. Recognizing that new commercial, light industrial, or flex developments in close proximity to residential areas should limit their uses to those considered low-intensity or at a scale design compatible with the nearby neighborhoods, also page 128. So what was presented before and looks like what's presented here is I-1 heavy industrial in a tier one, and this clearly states on our development goals, new commercial light industrial flex. It has nothing to do with I-1 heavy industrial. Shouldn't even be close to this neighborhood. We talked about private investment. I'm concerned about the private investment of the 200 homeowners. I don't care about the other private investment. Questions about this plan, Mr. Groover? The buildings, can you give me an approximation of what the square footage of those buildings is?

Yes, sir. So building one approximately, and again, these visuals here are just to give you a general idea of the layout on the site. Right. So the... So the total square footage of the three proposed GDC buildings is 162,000 square feet for the three buildings. So largest building is roughly 120,000 square feet. The second building is roughly 35,000 square feet and building three, the small one on the one acre parcel is 7,000 square feet.

Okay, all right. Can you go back to the taxes that would be paid annually? I'm channeling my inner Buck Kennedy here. Serious, this is what I watch him do while I was sitting up here. So this tax revenue is estimated to garner just off this project, right?

The garner portion, yes sir. So the garner portion of the taxes is?

I believe it's 160,000.

160,000. So the total tax revenue for the Jetter parcel and the GDC parcel is roughly 820,000.

So both parcels is 820,000? Correct. This one is 160? 160,000. Okay, because 162,000 square feet. I pulled the tax records for the 4900 Jones Sausage Road. It's 260,000 square feet on 17 acres. $32.474 million value. $32.5 million. If you tax it by a tax rate, that's $177,000 a year. I'm just trying to figure out where the, I'm seeing some new math here because this is substantially bigger than that. The taxes you're saying can be paid is almost the same. That's where the math doesn't add up.

So these projections on the tax revenue were basically pulled on comps with the square footage basically over at Beacon Commerce Park.

But that's what I got sitting right here.

Yeah.

This is substantially smaller, but you're saying the taxes are going to be as much. That's what I just said here. I did my Buck Kennedy up here on my phone, hitting $32.5 million at .00545. It's $177,000. And this is going to give us $165,000, and it's 100,000 square foot smaller. The math don't add up. I'm sorry. I'll stop right there, but the math does not add up. It's the first thing I did. And that's who I learned it from is him, so you can blame him. All right, someone else can talk.

Thank you, Mr. Singleton. Mr. Matthews, questions, comments?

Oh, quite a night here, I'm telling you. We're going to start here, but ideally, I mean, we've all had our opinions and we've talked numbers and this and that and the other, but I look at this as a total picture of this piece of property and the ups and downs we've had with it, and I certainly appreciate Mr. Kennedy's historical review of how everything happened. And you brought a lot to life as to where we're going here. But with the developer willing to pay for the infrastructure, and plus this will give us a lot at that intersection, which is mostly instrumental, because if we don't have it, that the property is dead in the water as i see it and we can all pick it apart if we want to but i think for that particular piece and the gateway coming in that whole area is commercial anyway and as a gateway interest i think this is a great opportunity we've got two potential or strong potential people want to move into it already and keep their businesses here uh speaking for me on this board and trying to look out for everybody i think this is a great opportunity for the town i think it's a great opportunity for the gedc to step up and put this together and make a contribution to as we look for us to workforce housing later on to be a part of that or how we want to work that out but uh as i said i uh I say this is a win-win deal all the way around. There's a lot of hours and time been put into it, and we can bump numbers all over the place, but for this particular piece of property, for us to do something on it now and move it forward, I think it's a great opportunity. Again, we can pick it apart any way we want to, but I would encourage my Colleagues, let's get behind this program and get behind the GEDC and let's make this thing happen. I think it's a great opportunity. And it's just going to open up the remainder of that corridor because what little bit is left all the way down to O'Garner Road, some of those houses, that's all going to be commercial. It's just a matter of time. But this is it. And for the gentleman to step up and willing to put the money in it to make it happen, he's got confidence in it. He put money where his mouth is. And and that's quite expensive um i strongly support it and i would encourage my colleagues let's move forward with this thing and uh and make it happen it's a win-win deal all the way around thank you mr mayor thank you mr matthews uh indeed we're seeing more and more moving parts more and more complexity this is not our everyday project this is one and i'm glad we're having this preview meeting here

and there'll be other meetings and opportunities to look into these details. Let's make another round. Mr. Vance, other comments, questions?

Oh, my question.

Mr. Dellinger.

What I'm not appreciating is the way we're backing into this other rezoning. coming in with this is our portion of this larger project that's still one project here this is great look what we're going to do even though it's still tier one so we still don't we get we don't know how much the jobs are going to be paying get us on board with this i mean if y'all are in favor of affordable housing go ahead and send the money over to the town with no strings attached to any other project that's also to me a little distasteful to say, if this happens, then this. If you care about affordable housing, you support it and you write a check. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But I'm really confused as to why we're, we would, I've sat on, the years I've sat on council, I don't think, don't consider part of a project and evaluate a part of a project. You have to consider the whole project. and that that's where i'm kind of honestly frustrated because it is it's been presented as clear as mud in terms of what where what how this fits into everything else started with the big project you start with this is what the big project is remember this this is a tier one we're going to do this this is our portion i'm not even sure what we're considering tonight What are we considering? We're not considering the rezoning because this isn't- No, this is a development preview.

This is to get information and provide feedback.

And that's what I'm confused about. Why are we not talking about the whole project?

Yes, Mr. Dellinger, I can touch that. So at the first development preview with Greg Sandroiter from HM Partners, yes, he did present the total project. So we felt that we heard enough concerns and questions about the project as it's specifically related to GEDC so we took the opportunity to come back tonight you know happy to talk about the bigger project but wanted to just make it clear to everyone the GEDC's parcel here yes you know under the umbrella of the entire larger project but also to say because I think I heard you clearly one of the questions earlier was HM partners can absolutely develop their project without the GEDC parcel if that tier one zoning were to be approved and the traffic signal goes in there. It's not the case for GEDC. So if the tier one is turned down at that point in time, then Mr. Sandroider walks away, HM partners walks away, And as we discussed with the GEDC board, we really don't have a plan B for our parcel because of the significant weight of the infrastructure costs that HM was, you know, going to offset, provide for us. So really, we're left back where we were four years ago with this parcel that essentially we pay the taxes on and can't really do anything with.

To follow up with that real quickly, I don't know with 100% certainty that Greg or H&M Partners could move forward with development. I think, and you can speak to this, Mr. Vance, that light, The numbers are really contingent upon us doing that in partnership together. I don't believe that H&M will get the signal without the numbers that trigger that, which includes our parcel. Second, as it relates to the contribution towards affordable housing initiatives, we're not in a position to do that until we put our land on the market that is site ready. That's where those two concerns are. Mr. Vance, if there's anything on the traffic signal that you think

You're right in line with that, and also the consideration of other potential developments in the area which could take capacity away from what we are doing right now. Just before we came before the council, there was a project that was being proposed at the intersection of Martin Branch and Jones Sausage Road, which would potentially pull some of the capacity away, which may even limit our use of the property. And now there's opportunity for the for this particular parcel the joint rezoning to go forth uh to go forward as it is now so that we could be able to get the highest and best use for the property as it relates to the current uh the current uh the current plans i would like to also add that at the last uh the meeting we had it was um It was clear that the GEDC did not get an opportunity to brief the council as to what was being proposed for our particular parcel, and now was the opportunity to just lay it out to clearly focus on the GEDC property and allow the town, allow the council to see what with what is being proposed. And that was the initiative here, to be clear with that and to try to explain why the transition happened when it came from one particular use to another use and to be where we are now to get that feedback. And as we also talked about in trying to develop those particular partnerships which would be useful and beneficial for our future endeavors, whether it's in transportation or economic development, this is a good example of that whereby the infrastructure that would be Being proposed would be placed in and property that currently doesn't have The the infrastructure and would be costly for the town to put it in or the GEDC to put in We now have the opportunity to have make this a win-win situation where we're able to show how partnerships can work to get the highest and best use for uh for property and also provide an opportunity uh to bring a strong tax base to the to the town and taking consideration what we've heard from martin branch i'd like to add that we uh have since looked at and studied with with the staff and the staff maybe provide more clarity with calabar and General Sausage Road, the concerns there with the developments there when it came to concerns with the traffic during peak hours that has been studied and taken on by the development partner, HM partners, to look at that and going through that process of trying to make that a more movement-friendly location along with the light that will be placed at Martin Branch will be another alternative for the development to be able to use that as an alternative for their movements out, that'll be a control as well. So it's a benefit all the way around. It's one in which would be of significant benefit for the town, the community, and also the development if we look at it from a visionary standpoint.

We clearly have a lot of ground to cover here. There's a lot of history. There's a lot of confusion. Last time there was confusion when it was all brought as one with two different owners. And it sounds to me like our valuable community partner, GEDC, in the effort to try to make it clear, brought just their side of it. But that seems to be confusing too without seeing the whole thing. so we're going to have to spend a little more time looking at this and working through this for sure because this is too an important project to either approve without the right conditions or to bypass for the wrong reasons this is a landmark property here it's a landmark decision may i say that in reference to the confusion piece uh uh that was uh

That was clear when we had the last short meeting and tried to cram up all this information into one short meeting, the one that takes time to digest and to look forward and try to lay out the benefits of the projects and how we are working through this and the collaboration and working with the property owners and pulling things together. It is an intense process in which it takes time, and the time that was allotted, in my opinion, first time was not enough to try to get this and try to explain what the GEDC did relative to pulling all of this together and taking consideration and trying to move forward with a viable project. At the same time, knowing that the economic situation is one in which developers beyond us are also looking at this location and would also be impacting potentially what can be placed there if they began to pull capacity away, would make it even more tenuous for us going forward.

yeah my inclination uh i'll let you make a comment for sure but my inclination at this point if we spend almost an hour on this and we may have raised more questions than we have understanding uh we may need to figure out what's the next step to gain more more clarity for all of us as we make this extremely important decision that being said i'll sure let mr dellinger make another comment or ask another question if you like yeah and again i'm just trying to understand the dynamics and the opportunity so

Why wouldn't GEDC just sell this parcel to the developer? Why would GEDC sell that parcel separately? And I'm asking because I don't know.

Yeah, so we heard at the development preview there was a question about, you know, was GEDC intending to sell this property to HM Partners? So that was really just a follow-up answer to that question of we do not have any intention, I mean, We're going to sell the property, but it was never understood that we would sell it directly to HM Partners.

Why wouldn't you, is my question.

It's not that we wouldn't. We just didn't want to imply that we were going to already.

That's what I'm trying to understand, because then it's like we're going to get this portion over here, and it's going to have a parking lot in the building. I'm trying to understand the business decision GEDC is making.

It's possible that at a future date, I think what's important to know is we are not obligated after this infrastructure is put in to sell to H&M partners. We're going to take it to market and our goal is to have, we have currently two end users in mind, but because of the time that this particular project is going to take, you don't know that their economics will still allow them to be able to purchase the property at that time.

Yeah, I hear where you're coming from. In some ways, it's simpler to sell it and then walk away and good luck. But it's more complicated than that. But that's a good question. And again, I don't think we'll be able to answer all those questions tonight. We're not under any obligation to make a decision tonight. This was an information gathering episode that we spent about an hour, a very informative time on. And I don't think we're going to reach a conclusion, but we've raised lots of good questions. And I'm going to ask our staff, our planter staff particularly.

We're going to ask more questions, Mayor. They're here and we're here. I've got questions to ask that I've gone through one time. I've got lots of questions. And they need to answer them.

Okay. Hang on. Hang on, Mr. Singleton. All right. We have a lot of work here to do. We typically take a recess at 730. I understand. We have another closed session and many other items behind this. If we thought we were going to, if we had to make a decision tonight, we would push ahead if we did. But we don't. I think the only decision we might be making tonight is we need more clarity. And there'll be plenty of time for other questions on any rezoning, any operation that this council does. That being said, did you have another comment? No, sir. Not unless there's another question. but we are getting toward the end of our time here and uh we will be taking recess one way or another and and coming back for our next session but i don't think we're going to reach a resolution here tonight there's a lot of confusion you've brought all this information to us in good faith as clear as you could possibly make it but you've got been given a number of other questions uh mr singleton if you'd like to uh you know write all your questions down and hand them off to the GEDC, off to the planter staff, so they can be researching those particular questions prior to spending another hour without knowing what we need to know. There's a lot of homework that needs to be done to satisfy a lot of needs.

But we're here at a public meeting and people are watching this and need to hear the questions. I mean, the question about the HM's going to invest and do infrastructure and they're not going to mine the property, that makes no sense at all. That just literally makes no sense at all. They can buy the property if they can invest to put the infrastructure in. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. That first makes no question. And then Mr. Tate brought up the issue about the lay of the land, the topography, and I understand that because you've read through it, you've seen it. But we've got 120,000 square foot and 35,007 plus all the parking. We've got a couple hundred plus thousand square foot that we're going to grade out to put flat land. The reason I bring this up is years ago, Mr. Kennedy and I met with the property owner at Greenfield for apartments where the apartments are down there because the lay of the land was, they said, you can't do anything with a big pad or a big building there. Apartments work because you could go into the lay of the land. And that project got approved. And so I'm sitting here thinking, if we can do this, how come you can't do the housing? Of course, you'll go to the traffic light story. But you say you can't do that, but if you look at 120,000 or 162,000 square feet and take those 1,500 square foot townhomes we just had, you can put 70 of them on there easy, and that's putting 30% for infrastructure. I'm just sitting here thinking, this is just a tier one on this piece of property and the other one. I think the chances of a tier one passing are slim and none. because you're backing up to a residential neighborhood with 200 homes. And our goal clearly states not to put I-1 anywhere close to a neighborhood. They've got it across the street, that's bad enough. So what we're doing is we're talking about something to run counter to our goal or our comprehensive plan. I'm just letting y'all know, the chances to me of a tier one passing this is gonna be very hard and difficult. again and again the part about the developer will do the infrastructure and then not get the property i mean sorry that just makes no sense i understand you just don't have a degree but i'm assuming you don't have a memorandum of understanding or a handshake deal but that just doesn't make any sense at all so and i can touch on that if you will so i just wanted to be clear again that when we stated that we were not selling the parcel to hm it was like chair pumarillo said

under no obligation from HM to sell the property. And Greg Sanroyder would stand before you tonight and say the same thing, that he's providing the infrastructure and obviously to serve the Jetter parcel, but there's no handshake agreement, there's no understanding, there's no commitment that we would need to sell the parcel to him. And obviously he understands that with the two local companies that we're talking with, that's a viable option that we would, yeah sell it to the two companies that are looking for it so again i just wanted to be clear when we said we were not selling the property to him that was just to be clear that there was no obligation or directive that if he would install the infrastructure then we would sell the parcel to him and to speak to your question about why would he install the infrastructure and not benefit from a monetary means he knows that we cannot

develop our parcel without him putting in the infrastructure. He also needs our traffic to help trigger the signal. So it's a mutually beneficial partnership to that end. He also has to bypass our property to pull the utilities to his site. So that's how we've looked at it from the GEDC side.

And that along too with these buildings are smaller footprints than he usually develops. So this really is of no interest to him from him going out and selling to end users or recruiting tenants there.

But the two end users are people who currently are at Beacon Properties, which he used to own. So he's familiar with them. Y'all are all familiar with them. Okay. I've said enough.

OK, yes, 730. We're going to take a recess. Thank you for spending all this time with us sharing this is where we don't have a decision to make tonight. We may book this for another round as we clarify a little bit more what some of our questions and some of our research needs to be done. So we're taking a recess. Please be back at 740 please and we'll be here.

Thank you.

We return from our recess back to continue with our work session tonight. After consultation with several different people involved in the last episode, we will continue discussion. Many good questions to be asked and issues to be clarified. That will be taken up again as soon as possible at another council meeting. And that brings us to section A of our agenda, which is updates to council. And we will start with number one on the list, manager reports. Ms. Miller.

Yes, we have two reports for you this evening. The first is our monthly development activity map update and I'll ask Mr. Triesenberg if he'll step up to the podium and provide this monthly update.

Thank you, Ms. Miller. Good evening, Council, Mayor. Hope you all are doing well. Yes, we have just two projects to brief you on for this month. The first that I will highlight actually is the major site plan. which is for Stokes surveying. This is a property located at 214 US 70 Highway West. It is the reuse of an existing building. Not a lot to really comment on on this one. I will see if I can get the plans to come up here. Again, it is an existing building. They're primarily just reusing it as is. There were a few site upgrades that we've had to kind of work with them on because being the age of the building and the age of when those improvements were done, there are some things that are not to current standards. One of the major issues, I say major, but it was probably fairly minor, was just integrating a separate pedestrian way through the parking lot. Because the lot is so narrow, THEY ARE HAVING TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REQUEST A VARIANCE, JUST TO FIT THAT IN AND SLIGHTLY REDUCE THE BUFFERS BUT STILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PLANTINGS. BUT THAT'S, LIKE I SAY, FAIRLY BASIC. IT'S JUST A SITE PLAN APPROVAL THROUGH STAFF, BUT JUST WANTED TO BRING YOU UP TO SPEED ON THAT.

THAT'S THE FORMER ROFFLER STYLE SHOP, RIGHT? YES, IT'S A NARROW PARKING LOT. I WENT THERE FOR MANY YEARS.

Yeah, our stormwater pond is right next door there for downtown. The second project, probably of a little more interest, I would imagine, is the skilled nursing facility proposed here. It shows up kind of as at the end of Hillandale Drive, but there is room for access off of Timber. This is being proposed as a Tier 2 conditional rezoning, so you will see a site plan with this. This is currently just their sketch plan, of course. They took one of their typical layouts of a one-story skilled nursing facility, and there would be access out here off of Timber Drive. The portion of Hillandale that stubs in does need to be finished off with an appropriate public turnaround, but it is not required to be fully open. So they are proposing it as a gated emergency access so that emergency vehicles would have another way if needed. Other than that, that's about the general information I have on this project at this time.

So based off what we see here, where there currently is a house, this is going to take the power of that property?

Correct.

And the house at the end of the cul-de-sac, or the building at the end of the cul-de-sac. So it'll be a gated emergency access, but the main access will be directly off Timber Drive?

Yes. That is correct. Right. Thank you. Mm-hmm. And that is all I have for you tonight. There will be more to report on next month. We already had a couple things start to trickle in, but as of the cutoff date, they were just after, so.

But what's trickling in, is there a pattern or a theme? Are you seeing any changes in the types of stuff, residential, commercial, or is it just kind of a mix of different things?

It's still a mix right now. Definitely smaller, more infill projects, I think. There's still a few key areas where we are seeing some bigger proposals still. But I think folks are trying to, one, fill out the lay of the land and seeking input early and often. But yeah, right now we seem to be in a phase of mostly like smaller infill projects. Thank you.

All right, if there are any additional questions for Mr. Treisenberg, thank you. Thank you, Jeff. The next item under manager reports is review of the pending agenda for your July 2026 meeting. As a reminder, council, we have one regularly scheduled meeting and a work session in July. Your first regularly scheduled meeting is July 21st. We've got a few items under consent regarding stop conditions. as well as your minutes and no parking zone for edge of auburn streets we also have several legislative hearings with a voluntary annexation for 78 54 white oak road tier one conditional rezoning for 1010 road and then the funeral homes um TZTA 26002 coming back to council for the hearing for the, including it in the NMX district as well. Under new old business coming back to council is the delegation of authority work that council worked on the early part of the year. And then we have quite a few of our quarterly reports for July as well. The quarterly financial report, the quarterly capital update, and then your July talk of the town. So looking ahead to your work session in July, which is July 28th, we've got several topics and items lined up for that as well. We keep a placeholder for any development previews that would like to schedule and present to council. For the code revision project, looking at some proposed amendments for fire and police, so we'll be bringing that back. Council earlier in the spring requested that proposal be created on our next steps on affordable housing and housing preservations. And so we'll be bringing back a proposal with some recommendations. Tentatively, we also have the LMG master development agreement, the cost of services as well. And so we'll know a little bit later in July, whether or not both of those items will come back at your July work session or the first meeting in August. And then we'll have the normal reports at the July work session as well, the development activity map, and then a review of your pending agenda. So those are the items that we have planned for your July meetings. Happy to answer any questions that council may have. Just a final reminder, Friday is the town's July 3rd Independence Day celebration. starts entering the park at 5 p.m. It'll be a great event, lots of music, activities for all ages. the North Carolina Symphony, and then a finale of the fireworks. And so we're excited to host that again on Friday, July 3rd. As a reminder, because July 3rd is our big Independence Day celebration, town offices will be closed on July 6th, which is Monday. So I just want to remind the community that town offices will be closed on Monday, July 6th.

Thank you very much. And I believe that brings us along to item number two, attorney reports.

No report this evening.

Okay, then that brings us over to council reports, and let's start with Mr. Matthews here and see if you have any report for us.

Just that last Friday evening, 82nd Airborne did a fabulous, fabulous show at the auditorium. Great turnout, and had a chance to chat with a lot of those guys afterward, and... Well, I speak to a lot of folks who I hadn't seen in a long time. But they certainly enjoyed being in Garner. They said that this was probably the most patriotic pro-military town they'd played in in a long time. I said, well, you got that right. But they thoroughly enjoyed themselves and wanted to come back. But it was well attended. And Tim Stevens did an excellent job pulling both of those groups together. Very entertaining. And if you missed it, you missed a good one. Okay, cool. Mr. Singleton.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I had planned to be there, but due to a very long workday, I passed there about 7.35 when I got back into town, and you did not want me sitting beside someone at the concert. It's a hot day. A couple of things. One, I appreciate Mr. Poole getting back to us on the information about the splash pad and issues we've had. So I got a question. So it looks like specifically we made a contract with Wake Aquatic, and they're the ones who are, if there's an issue, to come and address it. We have no one with the town trained in any shape, form or fashion how to work on that if there's a minor issue. Is that correct?

As of last week, that is correct. Ms. Munoz Blanco was meeting with two representatives with the companies today to devise a plan. And so our goal is to provide you an update some point this week with the game plan going forward. It's a new product for us. There are new vendors for us. And so we've had mainly it's been pressure issues that we're trying to navigate. Okay.

We still haven't figured out what the pressure issues are.

Well, there are several issues. One is one of the devices, the green bucket. So that's under warranty. I believe they're going to be replacing that product. There's a pressure issue with the pump. So it's just ongoing working some of the initial phase of the project out.

okay all right thank you for the answer i appreciate that and do look forward to uh friday night based off what the mayor said to start the meeting i reckon this is an extension of the wedding reception here since we had the web 250 wedding anniversary since you what you mentioned the beginning it's been 250 good years yeah yes but yeah i look forward to it uh you know it's gonna be hot and i appreciate this member getting back to me today somebody asked me if we were having misting stations and i said well i believe we did in the past she got back and told us all there can be five of them there so I look forward, we'll probably have a late arriving crowd, I expect. So anyway, that's all, thank you.

Mr.

Towns? I want to echo Councilman Matthews' sentiments. I was there on Friday at the 82nd Airborne presentation. I mean, it was just amazing. I mean, standing room only, people's clapping. I'm singing along with the choir and the band. I mean, it was just an amazing experience to watch. So definitely want to echo those sentiments. If you missed out, you definitely did miss out.

Maybe we'll get a bigger venue next time. Who knows? Mr. Tellinger.

Yeah, I just want to thank everyone who helped us pull off our Juneteenth celebration a couple weekends ago. Big shout out to our staff, communications staff that put in a lot of work and extra work and community members who came in and helped out. Neil Padgett came in late. in the process and really helped us with some of the voiceover work and just the whole committee and everybody who participated, Mayor and Tracy Bell and everybody else. It turned out well and I think it opened a lot of people's eyes to history they didn't know about people they thought they knew. So I think we learned a lot in the process this year and last year. that these oral histories are very, very important. And so we'll probably think of ways we can continue to do some of that work in a broader sense. But as we were doing the work this year, we realized we probably should have done some of it 20 years earlier because we missed a lot of stories from folks.

but uh so it's a good experience and it was a good crowd and i thank everybody who came out uh and appreciate everyone's support for that event yeah you're right stories are powerful and hearing about people's family it brings it close to a great great event thanks to rick mercer and his whole team the videographers a lot of work went into that and all the volunteer stars who told their stories it was great uh mr vance

I would just like to echo what has already been said. It was the 82nd Airborne Chorus was great. And I just want to ask staff, is that going to be on a loop like possibly others' activities the Juneteenth? I think it would be a great opportunity to just show the 82nd Airborne Chorus here in Garner and the show they put on at the Juneteenth celebration. Hats off to that. I echo Mr. Dillinger. The history was just fantastic. And just to have a Rosenwald school still active is amazing. It's 100 years old, I think, this year. Just to see that school still active and still serving the community was fantastic. To hear those old stories which keep you going. And I'd just like to add that we'll start interviewing for the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee in the not-so-distant future. So we just want to make everyone aware of that. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor.

Excellent. Well, that does it for council reports. And unless we have some other business, I think we have a closed session that we need. And our town attorney, do you want to give us that? Or does a council member have the right citation? Mm-hmm.

I can make the motion.

Pursuant to the North Carolina General Statute Section 143.318.11 , I make a motion to consult with the town attorney regarding litigation or settlement of a claim in 143.3818.11 to discuss possible real estate acquisition.

There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Dellinger. There's a motion and a second to move to a closed session as stated before. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed by nay? Hearing none, we will move to a closed session and we will be back at its conclusion. Thank you very much.