City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, it is six on the dot. How are we doing? Everybody settled? Ready? Brian, are we waiting for Bob or is he joining us?

Okay.

All right. Hi, everyone. Welcome. Thanks for being here. I would like to call the June 9th City Council meeting to order. Welcome everybody here and everybody following along online. And I would like to invite Pastor Cox from the Mission Fellowship Church up to give the invocation. Thanks for being here.

Thank you, Mayor Dickey and council members. And I thank you all for your service to our community. And let's go to Lord in prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we come to you today with gratitude for the privilege of living in a free and thriving community. Lord God, we thank you for the beautiful county seat, city of Graham, and for the citizens who call it home. Lord, we pray for our mayor, each member of the city council, and all the city staff that are gathered here. We pray that you will grant them wisdom, discernment, and a spirit of unity as they address the issues they will deal with this evening. Fill them with the courage to make decisions that promote the well-being of every resident of Graham. Lord, we pray that you would help us all to set aside partisanship and personal agendas and live and work together in harmony. We pray you will give our leaders the grace to listen with open minds and the patient to navigate these challenges the city currently faces. May their work to this evening and every day reflect the integrity and genuine desire to serve the people of this city. We ask for your continued blessings upon our community, upon the work of the council sets out to accomplish this evening. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Amen. Thank you, Pastor. At this time, stand if you're able for the pledge.

Thank you all. All right. Council, I need a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. I make a motion we adopt the agenda as written.

Second. Mr. Michael and Ricky.

Awesome.

All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Consent agenda. To approve the minutes of the May 12 City Council meeting in closed session, B, to approve the revised project ordinance in the amount of $2.2 million, Home Banks Ward Holt Gilbreth Water Line Replacement Project, C, to approve the budget amendment in the amount of $72,753 for year-end salaries and wages, D, to approve a project ordinance in the amount of $330,000 for the Hall River Outfall Project. Does anybody have questions? Make a motion. We approve. I've got a couple questions if nobody else does. The C, Megan, is it normal to take occupancy tax and cemetery income for stuff like this?

Occupancy tax is limited by statute on what it can be used for. Um, cemetery revenue goes into the general fund and isn't put into fund 50, which is the perpetual care fund.

Okay. Um, it had just on our packet said that there was some funds coming from, sorry, um, Let me find the specific page. It was occupancy tax, cemetery tax, and some other areas. I just didn't know if it was normal for us to pull from those line items for things like this.

So it's really recognizing revenue above and beyond what's already been received. It can be adjusted if city council would prefer to remove the $7,000 in occupancy tax. It's really up to city council.

No, I don't have a problem with it. I just didn't know if that was a normal thing for us to pull from. And then the other clarification for the Hall River project, it says I&I in our staff report. What's I&I?

Inflow and infiltration.

All right. Any other questions for consent? Okay. Ricky, you got a motion on the floor?

Make a motion we approve.

Do I have a second? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. We have petition from the developer to request that the next item on the agenda, the public hearing for rezoning for Hanford Road, um, be tabled until the August 11th meeting. Um, there are members of the community that also were notified of this petition. Um, so I need a motion and a second to continue the rezoning at the August 11th meeting.

Madam Mayor, I make a motion that we reschedule this, um, Reasoning to I think you have to say continue continue. This motion until August 11 2026.

All in favor aye all opposed. All right at this time, I'm going to recognize our city manager to talk about the 2027 budget.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. Before we get into the specifics that have been revised throughout the two City Council work sessions, I do think it would be beneficial to hear from Hazen and Sawyer regarding the system development fee analysis. Colin is here with us tonight. He is one of the engineers who has worked on this. So if you would engage, allow him to come to the front and go over this. As you'll recall from the work sessions, There is a maximum amount that these fees are allowed to go to. There is a publishing period, which I'm sure Colin will cover. You do not have to go to the maximum, but we do have to publish the maximum in the amount that that is where city council decided to land because that is a potential fee in our fee schedule, which is part of the public hearing for the budget adoption. And it would ultimately be part of the budget adoption. I think it would be beneficial to hear from him first. Thank you, Colin.

Thanks for being here, Colin.

Good evening, mayor. Good evening, council members. As Megan said, my name is Colin Beck. I'm an engineer with Hazen and Sawyer. We prepared the 2026 system development fee analysis for the city of Graham, and I'm gonna summarize that for you tonight. So to start, let's define system development fees. In order to add new customers to the water and sewer system, you need available capacity. For that capacity to exist, it has to have already been made available and paid for by existing customers. System development fees are one-time charges to new customers and can be looked at as a reimbursement to existing customers to ensure everyone is paying their fair share of water and sewer infrastructure that they're using. The legal basis for system development fees is established in Chapter 162A of North Carolina General Statutes. System development fees are calculated on a cost per equivalent residential unit basis, and for Graham, one ERU is a two-bedroom residential dwelling with a three-quarter inch meter. Per Article 8 of Chapter 162A, the analysis must be made available, as Megan was saying, for public comment for a minimum of 45 days. This was accomplished by posting the analysis on the City website on April 23rd, 2026. There were no formal written comments. However, after further discussion with Graham Public Utility staff, there was one update made to the new customer capacity demand to align with current City of Graham water and sewer planning values. So there are three methodologies that you can use to calculate system development fees, depending on the characteristics of the system. You have the buy-in approach, the incremental approach, or a hybrid of the two. Since Graham has available capacity and planned future capacity, a hybrid of the buy-in and incremental approaches were used. But regardless of the approach, system development fee is ultimately calculated by taking the system value divided by the system capacity times the new customer capacity demand. So the results of the 2026 system development fee calculation give you a maximum justifiable charge in dollars per ERU, and that's what Megan was talking about, and are shown here for water, sewer, and the total combined water and sewer. Also shown here are the current system development fees and the 2022 calculated maximum justifiable charge. So as you can see, the 2026 maximum justifiable charge per hour analysis is higher than the current system development fees. It is lower than the 2022 maximum justifiable charge. So while the system development fee calculation provides a maximum justifiable charge, the utility is able to charge less if desired, and that's what Graham did during the 2022 analysis. The hypothetical difference in revenue between the 2022 system development fees implemented and the 2022 max justifiable charge is approximately $5.6 million. When making a decision on system development fees, it is helpful to consider what neighboring utilities are charging. The maximum justifiable charge for combined water and sewer, based on the 2026 analysis, would put Graham near the middle of the neighboring utilities. You can also see the current system development fees for Graham are on the low end of the benchmarking. So this slide shows a tabulation of the maximum justifiable system development fees by equivalent residential unit, ranging from a two bedroom residential dwelling unit with a three quarter inch meter to a new customer with a two inch meter. There are very few customers that require meters larger than two inches. And since capacity demand can vary greatly at those larger meter sizes, these customers would be charged based on actual gallons per day use and not by equivalent residential unit. So a couple of slides ago, I showed a tabular version of the benchmarking for water and sewer combined. To close out, I thought it would be helpful to graphically show the benchmarking for water and sewer separately and then combined water and sewer. So as you can see here for water, only the calculated 2026 maximum justifiable charges close to the middle of the group. On the next slide, we'll see the sewer or wastewater that is the calculated maximum justifiable charges on the low end of that group. But then finally on the last slide, when you look at them combined, we saw that before tabularly, but the combined water and sewer maximum justifiable charges is near the middle of the group. So, um, you know, that, that concludes the summary of the information I had to share with you tonight, but I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Um, council, do you guys have questions? No, no. You showed, um, The previous year when the fees, the max was higher and then it was lower again. Did these toggle up and down pretty frequently as far as what the maximum is that we can charge?

No. So per the general statute, you have to do an evaluation at least every five years. So the last one was done in 2022 and this was that five-year cycle just before that five-year cycle, 2026. Okay.

I don't have any other questions. Thanks for being here, Colin.

Yeah, sure thing. Thank you. Thanks for letting me be here.

Megan, is there anything else that you wanted to recognize before discussion?

No, I think it would be fine to go ahead and open the public hearing.

All right. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Does anybody want to come and speak on the budget, the pay plan, or the rates and fees schedule? Okay. Yeah, come on up.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Ntende Roll, owner of Roll Construction and a local residential builder. I live on North Marshall Street here in Graham. I'll be honest, this is my first time at this podium, so thank you for having me. I'm also speaking tonight as a member of the Professional Women in Building and the Alamance Caswell Home Builders Association. Thank you for the work behind this budget. Balancing a growing city's need is hard, and we appreciate it. We're on the same side. We all want Graham to thrive. I'm here about one specific item, which was the proposed water and sewer system development fees. Under this budget, those fees roughly double. A new three-bedroom home goes from $3,300 to $6,680. A four-bedroom from $4,400 to nearly $8,900. That's $3,000 to $4,000 added to a single new home overnight. This increase singles out new construction. Taxes, utilities, and sanitation rose modestly, but these fees jumped to almost 100%, if not a little bit more. Our company, Royal Construction, focuses on building on info lots and remodeling within Graham. Over the past 10 years, we've worked over 25 homes in the community. Our homes specifically have been sold to teachers, retirees, and local emergency response employees as a small business. And we can all agree that buying a home is already very expensive. And here's what I'd ask for you to weigh the most. The city's own budget projects permits and fee revenue to fall by nearly half next year. Building is already cooling. Doubling fees into a slowdown risks collecting less, not more. A phased increase keeps homes going up and revenue coming in. You don't have to choose between funding the system and keeping Graham buildable. A phase-in gets you both. So I respectfully ask for one request, which is to phase this increase over the next few years rather than all at once. We're not asking you to freeze the fees or stop funding the system because we do need it. Just to phase it in openly with the community at the table. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak on the budget, pay plan, or the rates and fees schedule? Hi.

Hi, good evening. My name is Nathan Pittenger with Pittenger Family Construction. And spoke very clearly, very well in the way she presented that. And grateful for that. I just want to have a voice on record of seconding to what she has to say, in that we understand that it does need to increase just to meet the demands. Because it's a growing economy and everything's getting bigger and larger. The fees all at once make it a challenge to continue that up front. And so we know it needs to increase, but if it could be increased, you know, at a percentage rate, 20% a year, in five years, 100%. Because in five years, we're going to revisit it, as he was sharing, that it's going to increase again. So how can we lessen the burden to the future residents of Graham? And just to help everyone. not feel that pinch right up front. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else want to speak on the budget, pay plan, or the rates and fees schedule? All right. This time I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

I make the motion we close the public hearing, ma'am. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Um, I have a couple of questions on the budget, but do you want to dive in on the development fees first?

Yeah, thoughts and thoughts. Well, I know that we had originally, you know, Graham is always behind. other municipalities of our same size. We've always always been quite a ways behind. So we have been incrementally increasing developer fees for these things over the last couple of years. Um, I mean, I realize it's a big jump from, say, 1,100 to 2,700. That's a big jump. But it still kept us, I believe, well within the limitations of our surrounding municipalities. While I do understand it puts a pinch on the developers, but I don't see it slowing Mebane down. Mebane's jumping off the map. and theirs are no higher than this. In fact, they're actually, actually, yeah, they are higher than this, I believe. So, I mean, I do understand what they're saying, but at the same time, You know, the more revenue, the more money that we can get from other places, the less we have to pay, you know, raise property tax and other things to make money to pay for the services in the city. So, I mean, I just, well, I do feel for the developers, but again, I don't really see it slowing down other municipalities at this time. That's just my opinion, so.

Erin, can you put the slide back, the combined water and wastewater from Colin's presentation? Because we were already ahead of Burlington too. The one that shows the benchmarks is comparative to other towns. It's the combined one. Yeah, I appreciate that. So where we are is already competitive with where Burlington is. And I think it definitely hits the developer, but it also is going to be passed along to the homeowners. And I think that point is very well understood that housing is very expensive right now. And as we're trying to further conversations around what affordable housing looks like, I really liked the 20% per year increase that was proposed or some kind of gradient schedule. Because yeah, some of these are increased double or three times what we are currently sitting at.

Yeah, but Mayor, you also got to understand We've got a $17 million water line coming out of the raw water side and an $82 million wastewater treatment plant we've got to pay for.

We do. And I think we've got to balance that with making sure we've got an affordable housing stock in our community. So it is a balancing act. And I think, I'm not saying let's not increase, I'm saying let's increase at a slower rate so that we don't shock our housing prices and our developers.

That's been the problem with Graham. They kicked the can down the road. Now we're at a point that, you know, we're almost in the dire straits when it comes to water and surface.

And with a strategic increase, I think we could get back on track. Bobby, did you have thoughts? No. Okay.

Jim, any thoughts now?

Okay. Is there a path forward, a motion, not necessarily a motion, but a consensus of how we want to move forward around fees?

I think we've had our discussion on the fees.

Not the fees overall, but this specifically, because we held this conversation to have Colin come and present. We haven't discussed these fees.

I believe we should adopt them as the study calls for.

At the highest rate.

Yes, ma'am. I concur.

Okay. I concur. I do just want to go on the record and say that I don't think this is this is not what I would like to see in this upcoming budget. But we do have council consensus to move forward with that. So I have a couple of questions around Megan, in your report that was sent out last night, it said that the library roof needed a funding mechanism. I thought we had spoke about that at our last the June 1st meeting, swapping out the inspections vehicle and the playground fund to put toward the library roof.

While it was discussed there was no consensus among City Council to remove the inspection vehicle and we have on here as a mid-year possibility for a budget amendment dependent on the survey results to evaluate the Marshall Street. So the funding for Marshall Street was zeroed in the proposed budget. The vehicle still remains.

Okay. Council, I thought we had come to more of a conclusion. No. What Megan said is we're going to wait on that survey. I went back for the year-by-year comparison and found those in SharePoint. The police line item is adding a part-time position, but their salary line item is increasing over $500,000. Can you speak to that?

Our police department is the largest, both in numbers and dollars. So any increases, particularly related to personnel, are going to hit the police department larger than they're going to hit any others.

Okay. That's like a $4,000 increase for every person in that department. Is that...

Over multiple years, I would say that's not unexpected.

It's only between last year and this year?

Yeah.

So between one year, a $4,000 increase?

Between cost of living, merit, yeah, I wouldn't say that. Okay. And education or certification. Okay. Not to mention career ladders.

For non-departmental that has zero staff listed, we've got an $18,000 increase. and we've got $125,000 in salary and wages. Where does that go to?

The attorneys.

Oh, okay. I thought that would have been in contractors. The sanitation is increasing $42,000 with no new positions. Is that also just cost of living going up?

Um, I could have gathered the detail on this if I would have known in advance, but I would say that it's mostly largely based on longevity of all of public works. I will say our sanitation department has the folks with the longest tenure. So any personnel increases again, similar to the police department would hit them harder than other departments.

Okay.

And this is a smaller one, but do you know how many Alamance News subscriptions we have? I saw it under a couple of...

I know Recreation has one.

Okay.

Off the top of my head.

It said that the police also have one. I just didn't know how many we... had under the city. And then last one on the salary, recreation has $179,000 increase from last year with no new additions.

No, they did have an addition. In August of this year, the after school program was approved. So after the budget was adopted, the after school program was added.

It was a budget amendment for last year. Okay. All right. That sounds good. Um, any other questions from council about the budget, about the pay plan or about the rates and fee schedule? I'm good.

I'm good.

Um, There's no compromise we can make on these development fees?

We've got to pay for them. We've got to pay for them.

I understand. We just also have a responsibility to do it in a responsible manner. And I see a gradiated schedule being more palatable. OK. At this time, we need a motion and a second to approve the budget ordinance.

And I make a motion to approve the 2020 fund.

If I may, it is more than just the budget ordinance that would need to be adopted. Yes, please. Thank you.

I make a motion to approve the 2026-27 budget ordinance, the 2026-27 pay plan, and the 2026-2027 rates and fee schedule.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? I'm going to vote no on that just because of the fee schedules. You voted no as well? Okay. I've got past 3-2. All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you, city staff, for all your work on that.

Before we end that, I think Megan did a hell of a job on the budget. I just can't find it to raise taxes. I know she did a hell of a job

um and staff worked very hard on it i just you know i can't write i can't raise taxes on people not right now thank you jim um okay moving on to new business we've got an ordinance amendment this is carried over from last meeting aaron you got a minute

I do. As you said, this was a carryover from last meeting. This was related to the ordinance amendment to chapter 16, a solid waste ordinance. There was a word in the language that read promptly in reference to how quickly someone was to remove their cans from the curb. It was consensus from council to replace that with within 24 hours. Okay.

Thank you. Any questions from council? This is pretty straightforward, and we talked about all the details last time.

Madam Mayor, make a motion we approve. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Passed unanimously. And then ordinance amendment, canvassers and solicitors. And Aaron, I'm going to kick it back to you for a minute.

Thank you, Mayor. This was also a discussion related to the code of ordinances from last month. It was by consensus of council for us to bring that language to add the criminal penalties to the canvassers and solicitors permit section of our ordinance, which is chapter 8, businesses article 4, canvassers and solicitors permit section 8-114. As you can see, the language matches to the language that was also discussed during last month's discussion and approval to add the penalties to the vicious dog ordinance. So it matches with that. So the criminal penalties are similar. This would be step one. Because of criminal penalties, you have to have two approvals. So this would need to be approved first, and then it would be on July's agenda for the final approval for to be effective.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Do you guys have you want to go first with your questions? Okay. Um, the ordinance section eight. Um, is pretty outdated to say the least. And I'm curious how many permits we get, how many people apply for these permits in the city usually?

Those are handled in our tax collector's office. I don't ever see those.

I mean, it goes as far as getting a statement by a reputable physician of the city dated not more than 10 days prior. Certifying the applicant is free of contagious infectious communicable diseases. Did not say that well. The fingerprints of the applicant. And I mean, maybe this is what we want to stand by. It was also a little bit of a flag that it said wagon again in this one, that anybody is going around, what does it say, in a motor truck or in a wagon or traveling by foot. And so before, my first question is, I don't know if we want to criminalize, I think we should be careful about what we want to criminalize in Graham. and what we want people to be followed with a criminal record if they pass this. But before we have that conversation, I think we need to look at the ordinance itself to make sure we know what we are criminalizing.

So I think without this method available for our police department to be able to utilize the responsibility to enforce anyone that has or doesn't have a permit will fall on the residents. So they would then have to go through the system of trying to take someone to court for I don't know, something along those lines, which is very difficult. This is really the way that we're able to enforce the ordinance when someone has been asked to leave the premises for that purpose.

Well, and you also have the situation where, because we updated this a couple years ago, to include that even if they do have a permit, you know, if a neighborhood has it posted, if they have an HOA and the neighborhood posts it, no solicitation, no solicitors allowed, they can't even come in with a permit. But unfortunately, what happens is, These people come into the neighborhoods anyway, and when the people tell them, hey, you can't be in here, they laugh in their face because they know that no one's going to, no homeowner is going to take them to court to try to get a civil decision about them being there when they're not supposed to. And I think if you attach criminal penalty to it, it will get their attention. Because right now, the last two years, it has not been working out very well. You know, and I can guarantee you, I've spoken to people in just more than my neighborhood that say the same thing, that they have the same issues. They tell them to go away. They don't go away. They just laugh at you and say, I can do whatever I want. And then they crawl, you know, when the homeowner calls Graham PD, their hands are kind of, you know, tied behind their backs because they really can't, They really can't tell the person to leave, even though it's clearly in the ordinance that they're not supposed to be there because the criminal penalty was stripped out. I mean, it was originally, I believe it was in there before. It was stripped out by House Bill 300. That's what stripped it out. We didn't take it out. House Bill 300 took it out. Took it out of all of our ordinances, which is why we're methodically going through them now. But they will not take it seriously if you just have it as a civil penalty. I can guarantee you that. So I am definitely for putting the criminal penalty on it, for sure.

Would that not fall under just people trespassing? We have to have it under solicitors?

You can trespass them, but the problem is if you call the police, they have to be, they'll walk out to the edge of your driveway and stand in the street and then they're no longer on your property. And I think you can attest to that, that they have to be, you have to catch them on the property. So like people would have to sit there, make the phone call, say, okay, He's on so-and-so's property right now, or he's coming on my property right now, but by the time, you know, Graham PD gets there, they may not be on your property anymore. So that whole thing of trespassing them is a real sticky wicket, too. So I just feel like it needs this criminal penalty so that these people, these people have gotten very pushy, and they've gotten downright rude. They've been rude to a lot of people in our neighborhood. And we have a lot of older residents in our neighborhood, and they get really upset about this stuff. And they don't like when people curse at them and tell them that they can do whatever they want, blah, blah, blah, because cops can't do anything about it. So, yeah, I'm not going back down on this one.

I would like us to look at the ordinance before we vote to criminalize it.

just because of how dated it is. Well, you're basically just criminalizing if they're told to leave, they're supposed to leave, or if they have a permit or not.

Doesn't it apply to the entire ordinance? Shouldn't we look at this a little bit holistic, Aaron?

I think if we're going to be able to utilize the full arsenal of the ordinance, we need to have both in order to fully be effective. Otherwise, we're playing whack-a-mole with people who have gotten very good at knowing when they need to be on the property and when it's time to get off. I mean, having said that, it's completely up to council if this is something that you want. But for us to be able to enforce it, for the PD to be able to enforce it, we've had calls where PD has gone out there And the residents are unhappy because all they really got out of it was the person came back to the sidewalk. And then once the officers left, they continued on. And in certain subdivisions where you have 100, a couple hundred homes, they really don't leave. They just kind of hang around and just hit places along the way.

And you have to understand these people are being brought in from other cities, and it's not just Graham solicitors. They're being brought in by the truckload and then dropped off in the neighborhoods, and they just go out on their little hoverboards all the way through, hoverboard right up to your door. Now, I don't answer my door, and I have a sign outside my door that says no solicitation. And in the last couple of years... I've only had one person that challenged me on that, but he didn't do it for very long. But, um, you know, I think if we can always look at the if you think the ordinance needs rewriting, we can always look at that down the road. This is just the first step. I think we have to have two votes, right?

Yeah, I guess putting this in place and then coming back out later day to modernize it, I guess. wouldn't be the worst thing. It at least gets this in place so that when we come back later, we don't have to do that part of it. It's just maybe taking some of the antiquated language out. I've seen the folks out. I actually saw them come down. They were selling, they were tied to, I think the guy was selling, trying to sign people up for pest control. That's what it was. And he had a hoverboard. And he was on one road and a couple others on another road, and they were just hitting folks left and right.

I think we need to get it in place now. We can always make adjustments to the ordinance, the wording later on.

There have been a few, I don't know, this geographical anomaly that you live in that you don't have them coming around.

They came to my house. They talked through the door for a while.

They're selling security systems, bug proofing your house. And I mean, I've had one guy come selling a security system and he actually went around the back of my house before he came to the door. And, you know, he starts telling me about what I have in my backyard. And, you know, that's a good way to, I mean, I can handle the problem right then. But, you know, it's dangerous for the homeowner and it's also dangerous for these young kids that are out there on their little hoverboard's because they're all just working. It's kind of the equivalent back in the 80s and 90s when they would sell magazine subscriptions. I think they still do. They come and do that too. But I'm all for revisiting the whole thing, but I don't see the problem in going ahead and passing these.

Do I have a motion?

Madam Mayor, I make a motion that we approve this ordinance. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Aye. I think it's imperative we get it right before we criminalize it. But we will move forward. That's a 4-1 vote, Renee.

And that would be brought back in July for the second vote, as will the dangerous dog one, because it needs a second vote as well.

Correct. Can we go ahead and give you direction and consensus from council to look at this and get it rewritten? Council?

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it. Sure.

You got consensus. We'll look for that in July. All right.

Not in July. You'll need longer than that. You've got to get to some place before you can actually work.

Because then you're starting to clock over again because this is related to a particular item and then Yeah, so you talk about.

I mean, you can look at it, but I don't want to. We probably can't do it till August after we have the second vote to criminalize it, and then we can change verbiage if you want it changed.

And then legal, we need to look at it. So August, September, probably what you're looking at.

All right. Number five. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. Aaron Holland. Can I recognize you for the next?

Yeah, I don't have that one.

Okay. I don't mind jumping in on this one, Mayor. Sorry. Wrong name. That's okay. Tropical storm Chantal last summer damaged a fishing pier at the Grand Mebane Lake. This has been in process for quite some time to try to get the memorandum of agreement from the state. It finally came back. It's on your agenda for consideration. We did share this with Mebane because it is a 50 50 joint venture between us and Mebane on this. They would likely have to approve it as well. But someone has to go first. We figured we initiated it. We would go ahead and put it on ours first. It is a 75 25 split between the state and us and then the 25 would be split between Graham and Mebane.

Do we know what the dollar figure is for the 25?

No, not yet. My guess is it would probably have to be bid and the construction prices.

Madam Mayor, I make a motion. Do we approve this? Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Passed unanimously. All right, next item is our City of Graham Boards and Commissions appointment. I just wanted to say thank you to everybody that submitted your application for your interest. I'm really excited for everybody that is interested in being a part of all of this. So you want to go down the line? We'll start ABC. Does that sound okay? All right. Does anybody have anybody that they would like to recommend for appointment for the ABC board?

I'd like to recommend Larry Brooks.

Okay. We did have a... An email come in from another ABC executive, one of the chairs, board chair from ABC that also recommended or requested Glenn Patterson for the position as well. So I would like to add his name to the recommendation. We've got one for Larry, one for Glenn. Anybody else have another name they want to throw in there? But what are your thoughts. Yeah, well do you do you have a opinion.

Nominees with me I'm really low. How would you like to that body will all vote on the motion. The name is brought forward.

Jim do you want to make a motion.

Sure. I would like to make a motion that we vote for Larry Brooks for the ABC Board appointment. I second the motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? I'm going to do 4-1 to that one because Glenn was requested. All right. Alamance County Library Committee, we've got two recommendations we need to send to the county because they are the ones that confirm these appointments. Megan can ask a clarifying question.

Do I need to recuse myself from this since I'm on that board requesting reappointment?

So I think that question should probably be answered by city council since y'all kind of police yourself.

I can do whatever. I'll do whatever I need to do.

One second. Sarah Durbin. Her address, I think it was out in Zaxba Hall. That makes her ineligible for our appointment, right?

Yes, ma'am.

If she doesn't live in the city of Graham, then she cannot be appointed. Because she could not be recommended by the city of Graham for that seat. That's what I was thinking. I would have to defer to the city clerk because I'm not familiar with her address.

She mentioned in her application...

When I looked it up, she does out in the saxophone.

Okay, that's what I was thinking. All right, so Sarah's got to be off the list. Sorry, Sarah. Bonnie, I think... I think since you're seeking reappointment, I think recusing yourself from this, what do you guys think? I know it's not a financial gain, but since her application is...

If Bonnie wants to abstain, that's fine with me. That's fine with me.

Okay. Thank you for bringing that up, Bonnie. Yeah. I don't need to leave the DSP. No, you're fine. You'll just abstain. All right. Do I have... Some recommendations. Oh, I will say that the agenda list is missing Cheryl's name.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we leave Bonnie Whitaker and Lindsay McKinney on the library board. It's my understanding they've got a project in the works. And, uh, it doesn't seem like it would make much sense to, uh, change it up right in the middle of that project.

I absolutely understand keeping, um, momentum with people. I also love that there's so many new voices and new experiences that have applied. And I would love to see some new faces in there. Can we consider Cheryl or some of the others? Jessica's application came in a little bit later.

Let's vote.

Okay. Um, there is a motion on the table and a second all in favor post that's three to a three, one vote for Bonnie and Lindsay to stay on. All right. Appearance commission. We've got three appointments to make and three applicants. There's I enjoyed all of the applications. Is there a vote on the table for this one?

One thing I do want to point out, when I was going through the apps, there's two of the three people that are applying for this board have never even attended a board meeting. I find that kind of disturbing. I mean, but that's just. I think if you're going to apply for a board, you should have at least gone to a meeting, one of their meetings, to see what they do and how they do it. But I just thought I'd make that point.

I know that they have been to these meetings. I totally hear your point with going to the specific meetings. But I do know that they are actively

understanding what we are doing um and i thought that their applications were strong but i agree with bonnie you're going to apply for a commission you should at least go to one meeting just because you're active in within the community on other things you would think you would give time to go to a meeting they see how they're conducted they just said oh i want to apply for this you know committee But I've never gone to one.

I would like to make a motion to accept Cheryl, Janine, and Molly into the Appearance Commission for these three appointments.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Aye.

So that's a 4-1 vote. Which way do you vote, Ricky? No, I just didn't hear you. I need it for Renee. Does it find me in your favor? Okay. Renee just brought up a good point. Bobby, if we can pause here for just a minute. We can make it a requirement for people to go to the board. They have to make it a requirement.

Okay.

I just didn't know if that was something that you're interested in.

These are volunteer organizations. We don't want to make it a requirement. If you're going to work You're required to go. You should want to go to the meeting if you're going to participate and it shouldn't have to be a requirement.

I was just making a point.

I think it's a valid point. I just didn't know if that was something that we were interested in pursuing as a city council.

When my wife and I first got here back in 19, we went to a budget meeting when they were discussing the budget because we wanted to know about how Graham operated. Nobody said you had to go. But when it was announced, oh, city council's having their work session, she and I went, sat through, listened to the presentations, learned more about Graham, and got interested. And that's the way we want our community to be. We don't want to force somebody. If you want to serve, you have to go to this meeting. You have to go to this committee. We want you to do it out of civic duty, not because you have to.

All right. Well, let's keep going. We've got Graham Historical Museum Board.

Madam Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Chuck Talley and William Mippin.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? 5-0 vote. Graham Housing Authority. I would... Sorry. He said William Mebane. Sorry. No, Chuck Talley and William Mebane. Yep. For Graham Housing Authority, I would like to put Sonia Carter's name. I would like to recommend her for this appointment.

Madam Mayor, I would like to ask that we reappoint Larry Brooks.

Would you consider another name just because we've got Larry already serving? And I understand that he was already serving at the Graham Housing, but we've got a lot of community members that have experience that do want to serve.

And again, she's never been to a meeting.

Just pointing that out. Madam Mayor, I will. For consistency purposes. I will entertain William Evan.

We just appointed him as well. I'm asking for Sonya Carter because I think she's got a really good application, but because she is a new voice that we could engage a new community member in a really, I think, impactful way. And Larry Burks and William Eben have already been appointed this afternoon.

I nominate Larry Brooks for reappointment.

Do I have a second?

I second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? 4-1, Renee. Okay, Historic Resource Commission. We've got one appointment.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to ask for Ricky Hurtado.

Okay.

I second the motion.

All right. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? 5-0. Planning board, board of adjustments. We've got two appointments and one recommendation for the EJ that goes to the Alamance board. county commissioners for appointment.

Did we qualify that as we're just looking for two?

We're looking for two appointments and then the additional. So it's really three.

It's three, right?

Because we asked this question before the meeting. Three or two?

Okay, so you're making two appointments and one recommendation. So there's three. Three names. Yeah. But then the recommendation goes to the county, and they make the appointment, and then they let us know.

So we would recommend. We still need three names. Right. And I know that Chad was, he's on right now as the ETJ. Is there other applications that you know are ETJ, Renee? Nope.

No.

He's the only. Okay.

I'd like to nominate John Wooten and Chad Huffines and Richard Shevlin.

Second.

Richard's on another board, isn't he? He's on historic. Would you consider subbing Richard for Tina to get...

I'm going to foot stomp on this one now because I think the planning board is so important and so integral to the city. Super important. If you haven't been to a planning board meeting, I would not even consider putting somebody on this board that hasn't been to a meeting. And I can tell you straight up, we've got one, two, three, four, five, six people that volunteered for this board that have never been to a planning board meeting. I will not consider any of them. Okay. Fortunately, that includes Ms. Love.

Ricky, did you make? No. Jim made the motion.

I made the motion.

Did you second already?

I'll second the motion.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? 4-1. Recreation Commission, three appointments, four applicants. We've got Casey and Brian reapplying, and Madison and Kimberly as new applicants.

I make a motion that we approve Casey, Ms. Baker, and Brian. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Vote. And then for the economic development and marketing, 5-0, 5-0-0.

Mayor, I'm sorry. The economic development marketing board, I'd like to make a motion that we disband that board because it seems pretty difficult to fill it. And quite honestly, I don't think Graham needs it. I second that motion.

I'll second.

Just to give some clarification,

if we do this we're we're already paying the chamber of commerce for 90 percent of what this board would be doing okay so we've got consensus to dis disband this committee um well only that we have a motion yeah and actually i don't think we've ever had

We've never in the history of its existence had a board. We never have. So it's kind of a waste.

You've had a motion. Do we have a second to disband? All in favor? Aye. 5-0. Disbanding the economic development and marketing. Okay. At this time... We'll do public comments. If anybody wants to have a public comment and hasn't, run to the back, race walker, and sign your name. Otherwise, we will have public comments. I think just one too. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Renee, are we good to continue or you want us to pause? Okay. Jeff, name and address, please, sir.

Jeff Bennis, 1407 East Gilbert Street in Graham. I want to provide my comments on high-density housing developments. North Carolina, especially Elements County, is fertile and ripe for in-state and out-of-state developers to build high density housing developments. Just because it fits, doesn't mean it's good for Graham and benefits the citizens, okay? The Graham planning department job, does it fit and does it meet the Graham land use plan? That's all they do, yes or no. The Graham planning committee, who I've gone to a number of their meetings, does it fit and is it good for the community? They do both. Graham City Council, and these are general comments, Graham City Council, is it good for the community? Because the planning board has already done the hard work on taking out the tape measures and measuring it out. High density housing developments are not good for this community. Why? Safety. Increased crime. More people, more crime. I just heard about the budget. We're not adding more police officers. More opportunities for fire. High density. One house catches on fire, the next one catches on fire. I don't think we're buying more fire trucks. EMTs responding to 911 calls. We are not hiring any more EMTs. Automobile crashes due to increased traffic. Take a look at Hanford Road. And traffic jams in Graham. Who heard of traffic jams in Graham? Used to be the only time there was a traffic jam if someone hit a deer. Now we got traffic jams here. We've already approved some high-density developments. You're going to continue to see more. You're going to see developments with mini-homes. North Carolina defines a mini home as small as 400 square feet. This room is 1200 square feet, okay? No garages, all right? On my corner on Gilberth and Ivy, they just built a 1200 square foot home, right? No garage. People have moved in. There's two cars on the pad, two cars on the lawn, one truck on the side and a food truck in the back on that little property, right? Just because a developer has purchased the land doesn't mean the city is required to rezone. Let's not say, well, geez, he already spent the money. Now we got to rezone. Uh-uh. He should have done that before he bought the land and got everything approved and made sure everyone is in agreement. Then buy the land, all right? We are counting on the city planning board and the city council to protect this community from high-density developments, all right? Growth is growth, and growth is good, but it's got to be responsible, and we're counting on you guys to protect our community. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You did it. Thank you. Nathan? You're good? Good. Okay. I have one that was messaged to me recently. This says, I am not happy with the three people who vote on this sad day in Graham. We need to stay where it is. And if it can hold a bobcat to tear down the park, why can't y'all just fix it and leave it alone? Bonnie, Ricky, and Bobby, you guys want this and we do not. Um, hope you're happy include, um, thank you, mayor Chelsea and councilman Jim Young who want to save the park and rebuild it. Um, so that was one that was messaged to me. Um, they wanted to be anonymous. Can it be anonymous in public comments? Can I re-change that to mayor's comments? No.

You already read it. Who's it from? If you received that, it would be considered a public record and subject to turning over if anyone had asked. I would say I'm not asking. I'm not asking, but it would appear that the ask is there.

Jason Varner. I think Tom's asking. Jason Varner. He obviously doesn't know anything about construction equipment. That is public comments.

That was it?

That was it. How you doing?

I think we're setting a record tonight.

I know. Don't get healthy, though. Okay. City staff comments. Megan, you want to start with you? I have nothing. Thank you. Okay. Aaron?

The only comment that I have, I guess, to formally get a consensus from council to add the criminal penalty to the vicious dog. I know it was another item topic, so I want to make sure that it's a consensus for that particular item to be brought back in July as well to add that for the second time. The second thing, the second thing, also in the consensus, our public works department has had issues during paving season whenever vehicles are on the road. We try to get the owners to move. It creates a big issue. Obviously, if you can imagine, you can't pave if there are vehicles on the road.

Tell them.

And our ordinance doesn't give us that straightforward way to handle that. It will in a minute. So if I could get a consensus to bring back some language out there and run it by legal that will allow us and other jurisdictions in the area have stuff in their ordinance. General statutes gives us the ability to put stuff in our ordinance. We just don't have anything in ours. So I just need consensus to bring something back for council to consider.

Does that ordinance say anything about wagons?

If so, could you fix it before it comes before us?

Yeah, because there's, you know, a wagon fetish up here.

Aaron, you have consensus to bring that back. Yep. Renee, do you have anything? Okay. Brian? Okay. All right. City Council comments. Who wants to kick it off?

I'll go. I don't mind. Just to comment on Mr. Benress' statement. I agree with everything he said, by the way. I've always been against high-density housing. You can go back and look at my voting record. I don't vote for high-density. I don't think it's good for Graham. And that was something that I ran on, so... And I've stayed true to that. I wanted to thank our city manager, assistant city manager, our clerk, and all of their staff, again, for the phenomenal job they did on the budget. I mean, it's primarily the city manager's job, but I know she has to get input from all her departments. And I think they did a fine job. So I just want to say thank you to them for the fine job that they did. And that's all I got. Thanks, Bonnie. Bobby?

I'd like to commend the Public Works Department, all the work they did in dismantling the park, making it safe and doing it very quickly. And I would like to have the city staff begin to look at the steps necessary to declare the property surplus.

Do you want to, are you asking to get it put on the next agenda to discuss the possible disposition of the property, is that what you're asking?

I was just asking if they begin the process of looking and then... What the options are?

Your thoughts?

Yeah, only city council can declare real property to be surplus. There are various methods that are identified by statute. We can bring those back to city council at the next meeting or a subsequent meeting if that's the consensus. And you can consider any action and adopt what's necessary or give us further instruction.

Please do that for July.

Is that consensus among city council?

We have a discussion. Thanks.

Well, your rules of procedure, in order to get an item on the agenda, needs consensus to bring it forward.

I would like the city staff to bring forward to the council process to declare a property surplus, the options that we have.

Megan, does that have to go to public hearing to do that?

I don't believe any of the disposal remedies require a public hearing. I don't believe so. I know it absolutely requires governing body action, but without looking at the statutes, you've probably got three or four different ways that you can choose to dispose of real property. I don't believe they require a public hearing, but that's something that if there's a consensus, we would certainly check and report back to you.

I'm good with it.

I'm fine with you looking into it for us.

I mean, just for informational purposes, yeah. No, I'm, no.

You still have three, yes. Okay, thank you. Bobby, is there anything else? That's it. Okay. Ricky?

I would like to ask city staff, if it's agreeable to the rest of council, that we look at imposing a moratorium on any more car lots throughout the city for a period of one year.

Say more on car lots? Are you talking like sales? Car lots.

Used car lots. Used car lots. Okay. Okay. I thought you were talking about parking lots. I was like, what? It did sound like parking lots.

We've had three or four of them pop up here on Main Street, and, you know, they're taking up business property.

We should do that on crematoriums, too. They keep popping up in Graham, and people must be dying at an alarming rate. I find that disturbing. But... We're going to go back to Ricky's comment. Sorry, that was just half a joke. I'm sorry. Okay.

I'm sorry. Ricky, you want to direct staff to look into what it would be like?

What ordinances that we need to change or what ordinance do we need to bring forward that would allow us to put a moratorium?

Yeah, my guess is there would probably be some legal implications that would go along with that. So it might be something that we would need a little bit more lead time than July to bring forward, assuming there's a consensus.

Yeah, let's do it.

Yeah, let's look into it. Thank you.

How about vape shops?

Is this a joke comment or is this a real comment?

I'm popping it.

It doesn't matter. I just want to make sure I know which one it is.

I remember, and I'm sure most of the people out there, well, most of them, um, we had tattoo parlors coming in and they were, they weren't allowed. And now tattoo parlors are like the thing. I mean, I've got tattoos and, um, But now it's like these vape shops are popping up everywhere. It's not the healthiest thing in the world for our kids. I would honestly rather see a kid light up a cigarette or a cigar than sit there and pull on their strawberry daiquiri vape. I'm just curious. Yes.

I'm going to pause really quick. Ricky, did you have anything else to add? Okay. I just wanted to make sure I didn't skip over you. Is this a real consensus that you would like to have from council?

Well, I mean, just from my experience on the planning is only board. I don't, I don't think we could, I was just making the comment. I don't, I don't think we can do anything.

Like the car lot.

It will be, I would be the last person to tell somebody that they can't open whatever business and, But it does seem like, you know, there's like one on every corner. They're worse than McDonald's.

Do you have other comments?

No, I do not.

Okay. Okay. Um, I would like to counter Bobby's comment and ask for consensus, similar to what Jim said, um, for information's sake, to get bids to repair the park. I also would like to ask Brian and Bob to re-look at the statute, specifically because the first time we were looking at it the all the energy was to relocation of that plot um and to the park and now we're talking about not relocating and just selling the property and so i want want to make sure that that legally um that we don't have legal implications there, but I am asking council for consensus to direct staff to get bids to repair the park, especially in light of the estimates that came back from our contract engineers in the last week or two. For information's sake.

The only fear that I have is that getting bids is going to be extremely difficult, especially when these contractors are not expecting or anticipating that their work would be done on the back end. Because the struggle to get the ones that we got the last time, there was a chance of the actual bid coming to fruition. If we're doing it for information's sake, without knowing what going out and doing the bids, I'm not as confident that we're going to get bids back. That's my only concern, but just want to state that.

Sure. I've heard that people would be interested in throwing numbers in just so that we have information.

Well, one of my concerns with that is somebody can throw in a very low number and then the city is obligated to accept it. And then it's not going to be a fixed price contract. And then there's going to be, it's going to be a money pit. you know, there's going to be amendment after amendment after amendment, you know, or change order after change order after change order. And that price could just balloon enormously because of the structural conditions that exist over there. And the, you know, so that's, I'm concerned about that.

So I agree with Barney.

I will say that we're not obligated, just like the Elm Street Park, we're not obligated to take these bids. But it would provide information and context and answer some questions that the community has as well.

Well, I want to restate my position. If you want to rebuild the park, I oppose using taxpayer money to do it.

And there are several people, we've gotten emails from people that say that have... We've been hitting that for two years. They have proposed using half grant funds and half raising the funds themselves. And I... Two years. And we haven't set up a way for them to donate to this.

We don't set up a way. The city doesn't do that.

According to what Bob said, is that we would have to work with them because this is a fund that the city would have to access.

No.

According to what I've spoken to Bob about. Nope.

Nope.

Can I get consensus? No.

No. No.

All right. Moving on.

May I just ask, was that no consensus on both items? Because you did have a two-part, the bids and to read the legal statute.

So it would just be beneficial to know if, or do I have consensus on legal to make sure we, what legal implications we have for keeping or selling? Well, it does say in the statute that we don't have to put it back, but sure. So I have one toward, okay, we have consensus on the legal.

I got to tell you, it would be, you know, of course they've all, they've been saying we've come up with the money, we'll come up with the money and nothing's happened. And I know some that I've talked to when you do say, well, where's this money you're going to come up? Well, I'm not going to pay that. It's the equivalent of, Oh, you can put it wherever you want, just not in my yard. But the more information we have, the better off we are. I'm not opposed to finding out. We got the estimates. I think that the bids would be higher than the estimates, but I'm not in that line of work. But just my two cents, it would be interesting to find out.

I think it is going to be astronomical because if you look at the bids, they only dug down 8 feet. 8 feet is not even going to touch the contamination you got to go down at least 19 feet.

Jim to your point. I've heard community members are holding off from raising the funds. They've got people ready to write checks, but we haven't given them any hope forward that we will actually take them up on it, because last time, I'm talking, hold on, Bobby.

We already voted. We're done. We voted.

I understand, and I'm saying we haven't given them any hope forward that we would actually take them up on it, and so if I were them, if I was writing checks, I wouldn't want to write a check to a question mark either.

I don't want the liability... anything over there doing anything to fix that on the city of Graham. Period. End of conversation.

If the community wants to rebuild the park... Can you speak into your mic? If the community wants to rebuild the park, I've said in previous meetings, you can set up an LLC, collect the funds, buy the land, build the park. We have, you don't need council approval to create an LLC to raise money.

Okay. If I do not have consensus, we have consensus on the legal. We did get that clarity. Right. We do not have consensus on the bids and we're going to move on. So we will see the part come before us in July, Megan, are we thinking? For the surplus conversation? Yes. In July.

Okay. Brian, you think y'all can have all the answers for us? For legal? By July? Yes.

No, the statute. The statute for historical remembrance.

Oh, yeah. That statute. Okay. And then the surplus also. Okay.

I just wanted to make sure. Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, moving on. Um, it, let's talk process. Um, for the six months that I've been here, um, it was my understanding that we had a process to get proclamations on the agenda and that was to email Renee, um, a couple of weeks before the agenda came out. Um, And it would be put on, there's only one proclamation that did not make it on our agenda, and that was a nonprofit out of Charlotte that was not necessarily applicable to our Graham community. We did have a local nonprofit that was submitted a proclamation that did not make it on tonight's agenda. I am going to personally proclaim this as mayor because I do want their proclamation to be heard this month. This is... You can't do that.

You can't do that.

I can. No, you need to stick to the rules of procedures. Amending the agenda both before and after it adopts the agenda, the council may add or subtract agenda items by a majority vote of the members present and voting. This isn't an agenda item.

You're adding something to our... Yes, you are. Wait just a second. You can't do that. This is under mayor's comments. This is something that I can do. You can't do that.

You can't... I can't have comments. Show me where it says you can... do a proclamation without asking the rest of the council. Show me. Show it to me. Where is it written? Show it to me.

Bonnie, as the mayor, I am the dignitary head and I am able to do this. This is not, sorry, hold on. No, you can't do it. You can't do it. We don't vote on proclamations.

It should have been part of an agenda. If you wanted it on the agenda, you should have brought it up at the end of May, whatever it is. at the meeting that you wanted to put that on the next agenda. You didn't do that.

Hold one moment.

That's what the rules say.

We're not doing that. This is part of my comments, and this is part of my proclamation as mayor. If I could just add something now and say, well, it's part of my comments. You have, and you've done statements.

No, I haven't added anything to the agenda. You're adding something. I'm not adding anything. Yes, you are.

So because of that, and because of this, I think we need a better process so that this doesn't happen for our nonprofits.

We have a process. What is the process? I just read it to you. I just read it to you. We have a process.

In the past, in May, we had two nonprofits that emailed that were not approved by council that showed up on the agenda and that were able to be proclaimed. But you're trying to add one now, and you're breaking our own rules of procedure. Because the previous process was not followed.

Well, then we can look at the process, but you're not going to add it. Absolutely right.

But I will proclaim this tonight because this nonprofit deserves the same respect as our other nonprofits. We don't even know what it is. What is it? I will. It's Alamance Pride, and I will proclaim it. We are not doing that. We are not doing that. It does not say city council on there. I am not speaking for you, but I am speaking for myself.

We are not doing that. I make a motion that we stick to the rules of procedure, and we do not allow this proclamation to be entered.

But I appreciate that.

Bonnie, this is my... I made a motion. Do I have a second?

Bonnie, this is my...

I can gavel you. You are breaking the rules of procedure. Excuse me. Stick to the rules of the procedures.

Brian, it is my time for my air comments, is it not?

Flattery, make the proclamation.

This is just a mayor's proclamation. This is just for me. No.

You're signing it as mayor representing the city.

This is me as the department. I am personally proclaiming. Just because you can't do that.

Let's vote. Let's vote. Your position as mayor. Let's vote. You're overstepping. Let's vote. Let's vote.

I've already made a motion. Do you mind restating your motion, just so I'm clear?

My motion was that we need to stick to the rules of procedure, and the mayor is not being allowed to add a proclamation at the end of the meeting.

I second that motion.

I second the motion, too.

Erin, can you let us in on what you're looking at?

I was trying to pull up the general statute. I know we were looking here to see if it's possible to do, to the point that Brian was making, is a mayor can't make a proclamation unilaterally. Trying to see what the mayor proclamation is to see if that's a thing. So as a board, that's one thing. As an individual board member, I guess we're trying to see is that actually a thing.

Yeah, this is me personally.

It doesn't have City of Graham Council.

Is it on city letterhead?

It is, but all my other stuff is as well.

Yeah, but this proclamation that- I am the mayor of the City of Graham. You're a member of this council. But you're a member of the council. With a title.

Madam Mayor, the mayor has absolutely no more authority than any of the other council members. Right. You have one vote just like the rest of us.

That is correct.

Okay.

And from the General Statute 160A67... I am the dignitary head of this council. And so that gives me the authority. But you facilitate the meeting.

Did we as a council prove the proclamation?

That hasn't been the case in the past. That's my whole point is that We don't decide on what we proclaim. That has been a staff conversation.

We have never added a proclamation in my four years on this council. They're in the agenda, at the beginning of the agenda. They are not on there. We're not doing it.

Bonnie, that's my whole point. That is that this proclamation did not make it on the agenda.

Well, it didn't make it on the agenda.

And why? Because it's a local nonprofit. And I think that's a question that we should ask.

If you want it on the agenda, put it on for next month. Get a consensus and put it on there.

And this is a nonprofit that's asking for this month to be issued Pride Month.

So? And your point is? And you didn't know that last month? I mean, June always follows May. It is.

And the president sent this in a little over a week ago to Renee.

It's not on the agenda. It's not on the agenda. So I made a motion. I had two seconds. I understand.

We're going to wait for them.

All right.

Let's vote on your motion. I decided to do it. Motion was made and seconded.

I understand.

Yeah, let's vote on it.

We're going to wait for what Brian has to say. I don't think they're going to find anything because, you know, either way.

Do they find anything and do any legal research on it? We're finding conflicting things, to be honest with you. Yeah, because each looks like you can't. Unilaterally, another thing looks like you can't.

So I don't have... Because in the city, they have their own separate guidelines and rules separate than what ours read. So they give authority. Yeah.

Section 2.3 of the Code of Ordinances spells out the mayor, the term of office, and the duties. There's not a tremendous amount of substance to the section. I'm happy to read it, or if you want to pull it up on the screen, it's... it doesn't really say a lot to be honest with you and it doesn't address proclamations one way or the other it was 2.3 here Mm-hmm. Right there, it said Mayor. Yeah, mine says Section 2.3, Mayor, Term of Office Duties. Do a Control-F and search for Mayor. That's how I feel. I'm being dizzy.

I don't think you're going to be able to find anything this quickly, number one. And number two, we still have a closed session to do.

Well, if I can read this, then we can continue. No, no, no.

There is a motion and a second on the floor.

I understand. I haven't called for a vote yet. 160A67 is the mayor should be recognized as the official head of the city for the purpose of service for civil process and all ceremonial purposes. I do read the proclamations. This is under mayor comments.

No.

You going to call for a vote on my motion? Yes or no?

Brian, what are you looking up? Okay, it's 160A67. It doesn't say anything about adding one at the end.

You can laugh all you want. You know, you wanted these rules of procedure. We have them. Let's follow them.

Just stop. I think we're saying the same thing. No, I don't think we are. Okay, hold on a second. We're saying the same thing, that this is an issue, that it wasn't on the agenda, right? And so my path forward is to clarify moving forward so that nonprofits and city communities can know. But my question is, why did it fall through the cracks this time? And we'll find out.

But put it on for next month. Get your consensus and put it on for next month. Can I get a motion to? I already have a motion. The motion's already on the floor. You have to entertain that one first. You have to call for a vote. And that is by the rules. You can't just make another motion until the other one's done.

OK. Let's wait until Brian, then.

We're talking about the part before, I guess, while we're waiting on the 168-67, because I'm trying to help them look this stuff up.

Yeah.

Just that you had was the latter part of it.

Yeah.

There's a part before it.

Yeah, it says except for otherwise provided by law and government, the general management of the city, that part.

Well, I have the powers and duties of the mayor shall be such as are conferred upon him by law together with such other powers and duties as may be conferred upon him by the council pursuant to law. And then the part that you read. So it's a part before that.

I think maybe you're right, Bonnie. Let's back up and ask staff why this wasn't included.

I'll be happy to jump in on that. Last month in May, City Council violated your rules by adding items to the agenda that were not brought up at the month prior. It gives us as staff conflicting information on how you want us to proceed when it appears that sometimes the rules are followed and sometimes the rules are not. When the city clerk sent that out to me, I said, where did this come from? And she said she was under the understanding that it came from the mayor. And I said that and I think that may have been in the email, but I'm not completely certain. And I said it needs to come from city council when we had our agenda discussion last week. I mentioned to you that I recommended you bring it up at the beginning of the meeting under adoption of the agenda. And if there was a consensus to add it, that that would be the appropriate place to do so given that it wasn't addressed when adoption of the agenda came up. I didn't think that this was going to be brought under city council comments because it, my recommendation to you was to bring it up at the beginning under adoption of the agenda and that didn't happen.

I will clarify because the board president's email was forwarded to me. He had requested how to make this request. And so the email said, because I read it, the mayor instructed me to like the proper procedures. And so this was not coming from me. This is from Alamance Pride. And so, yeah, if I wanted this on the agenda, we would have to have consensus. But this was from a nonprofit agency. And so I need the city to... just have the same response for all of our nonprofits when they come with a request for the city. I think it reflects really poorly on us.

Yeah, this is the city council's agenda, not the staff agenda. We put items on there in accordance with city council direction, which is why it's helpful for us. If y'all know you would like something on the agenda to bring it up the month before, I had two council members reach out to me prior to the agenda being published and specifically asked for items to be added aside from this and my direction to them was bring it up under City Council comments if there's a consensus will add it to the following month's agenda. So it would be helpful for us to staff if clear rules are adopted which they appear to be earlier this year and those rules are followed consistently.

I think we need to adopt further information around the procedure for proclamations so this doesn't happen again. So I would like to direct city staff to add that into our. Are we going to vote on my motion before they.

That will determine if there's a consensus to move that forward to next month. Assistant city manager Aaron Holland did pull up the full statute that talks about the general powers of the mayor and council. People may have better eyes than I do, but it's 168-67 that has the full statute on there. It appears that the mayor has the power that is granted to that position by the remaining council members. If that's something that city council would like to confer to the mayor, if you come to that consensus today, we can figure out on our end what we need to bring forward for next month. To clarify that language, there is a motion and a second that's still pending that would be helpful to be addressed before maybe we get too far down into this comment. All in favor?

Bonnie.

For Bonnie.

What was the motion? State it again.

Yeah, please. Renee.

OK. My motion was that we not allow this proclamation to be added. We not allow the mayor to add it. And we stick to our rules of procedures.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. 4-1. OK.

But do we have a consensus to, I guess, figure out how proclamations will be handled to our next weekend?

I think it would be helpful for city council to review this statute and determine what additional powers you would like to convey to the position of mayor.

In addition, I would like us to have very clear understanding because the way that Preservation Alamance submitted their proclamation was the exact same way that This organization submitted their proclamation. This one was not added to the agenda. Preservation Alamance was added to the agenda. So that juxtaposition one month separated. You said they sent it to you, right? No, I had Renee send this to me because I was confused why it didn't make it on the agenda.

She was shaking her head.

The email did come from me, from Mr. Ken Smith, and I did forward that to the manager, as she said, but you asked me to give this to you, I think it was the day of the agenda meeting, and I sent that to you. Yeah. But it does say that he did talk to you about it.

And I talked to Molly about the process at that point, too, and I told her to send it the same way. And so they are... They were the same process. It landed two different ways on the agenda.

Last month's meeting didn't quite go to the way the policy is written, the policy that you wanted to have enacted. Clearly, we do need to have some consistency, especially with having people speak public speaking and then when you have last minute additions to the agenda like last month. And so we need to be consistent with that. We either follow the rules or we don't. And if we don't, just have at it. That's fine with me. But clearly we need some kind of interpretation. And it's worthy of, I mean, hell, if we need to schedule a special meeting, let's talk about it. It's fine with me, but we've got a closed session to have, and I'm really not looking forward to this being another six, seven-hour meeting, and I'm sure nobody else is either.

I think one thing that would be helpful for us as staff is are you considering proclamations, agenda items similar to you would other items? I mean, I know Council Member Young has requested a presentation from the Invictus Task Force was not an item that was something that you would be voting on. It was just something where you were receiving information. My instruction to him was to bring it up at the council meeting, get the consensus and we'll schedule them for a meeting. So to come before the city council. So if you're going to treat We were treating everything basically as an agenda item, even if it's not necessarily action being taken. It would be consistent to have proclamations treated similar to agenda items, whereas if city council is instructing a community member or they're getting information just to bring it up, get consensus and add it, even if it's a proclamation and there's no action being taken.

I think the question with that is sometimes they don't come through us at all. And so we need a different process outside of bringing it up a month earlier at the meeting. And I don't know if that's a series of criteria and then sending out an email. I don't know what it is, but I don't think that we can only funnel them through this meeting because a lot of times they don't come through us.

Something we're going to figure out.

Megan, can you look at neighboring jurisdictions to see how they handle proclamations? Thank you so much. If you could bring that back, that would be helpful.

Is that council consensus?

What was it?

To look at neighboring jurisdictions to see how they handle proclamations, just as a starting point.

For once, can we not be copycatting what everybody else is doing?

If you have an idea, throw it out. I want them to have a starting place.

We were perfectly capable. We had the policy. The policy for our meetings and everything, we have that. I don't think we needed anybody's help holding our hand to get through that. Don't waste a whole lot of time, but sure. It's just irritating. It doesn't mean you have to do it the same way. Everybody else is doing. It seems like everybody else is raising taxes. I guess we are too.

All right. Moving on. I will entertain a motion to enter into closed session. I make a motion.

We consider going into closed session to consult with the attorney in accordance with NCGS section 143-318.11 alpha 3, city of Mebane versus city of Grant. Oh, wait. No, that one got stricken. Excuse me. All right. Let me start over.

Sorry, let me say something really quick. The attorneys advised us that we do not need to meet in closed session regarding City of Mebane, but I do need a motion to discuss the personnel issue.

All right. City Council will consider going into a closed session to discuss a personnel issue in accordance with NCGS 143-318.11-Alpha 6. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Unanimous? Thank you all for being here. We're going to go into closed session and we'll be back.

All right.

Madam Mayor, I make a motion we come out of closed session. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Unanimous. Sorry, I forgot to. Aye. Bonnie, you got that?

Yeah, I got the numbers, yeah.

Mm-hmm.

Do I need to do this as a motion?

Yes, please.

Okay. Okay, so I make a motion that we raise the city manager's salary 12%. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Aye.

And now I need... Madam Mayor, I make a motion we adjourn. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. 41, you were opposed. Correct. Great.

Y'all have a good night.

You too. Hey. Uh, Bonnie. You by any chance have the dollar amounts from and to, right? Give it to you. Oh, that's a problem. I just ran out of time.

Megan, do you want these folks back?

We don't want them. We want to ask you a question.