City Council - Regular Meeting

The Kannapolis City Council meeting tonight, July the 13th, 2026. Before I get started, I think we ought to be thankful for that wonderful rain we got today. We've been waiting on that a long time, so we really, really thank the Lord for that one since we just got through a prayer. At this time, Mr. Davos is going to lead us in the pledge.

Please stand and raise the flag with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. public for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Council, we have an agenda in front of us. What's your pleasure? Move for approval, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Second. Second, Mr. Davon. All in favor, if you will, please raise your hands. Thank you. And this time, we've got a proclamation, I believe, coming up. Miss Dixon.

Tina, would you please join me? And we need to stand. So it is truly my honor to read the proclamation to Tina. Tina and I met back in the 90s or 70s. No, 70s actually. Was it 70s? Was it 90s? Okay. It was a long, long time ago when we both worked for Cabarrus County and we had the privilege of serving on a committee together to ensure that the hiring and firing and disciplinary policies were good. And so, Tina, I've worked with you for a long time, and so, again, it's truly my honor to read this proclamation to you. So, from the office of the mayor, Kannapolis, North Carolina, proclamation recognizing Tina Klein. Whereas Tina Klein has faithfully served the city of Kannapolis since 1995, dedicating more than 31 years of exceptional leadership, professionalism, and commitment to public service, and whereas throughout her distinguished career, Tina played a pivotal role in developing and strengthening the city's Human Resources Department, earning recognition as the 2022 Best in Human Resources finalist, and the respect of colleagues as a trusted advisor, mentor, and advocate for employees across all city departments and in municipalities across the state of North Carolina. And whereas Tina's leadership, vision, and steadfast service led to her promotion in 2023 to Assistant City Manager, where she continued to provide thoughtful guidance and strategic direction for the city of Kannapolis, And whereas a proud native of Rowan County, Tina is a graduate of Pfeiffer College and further strengthened her expertise through the UNC School of Government's Municipal and County Administration Program. And whereas Tina has extended her commitment to serving others beyond her professional responsibilities through volunteer services with Rowan Helping Ministries, United Way, and other community organizations, exemplifying her deep commitment to improving the lives of others, And, whereas the City of Kannapolis is honored to recognize and express its sincere appreciation for Tina's decades of dedicated service, exemplary leadership, and lasting contributions that have strengthened the City and supported the employees and residents, Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Kannapolis, North Carolina does hereby recognize and honor Tina for her outstanding 31 years of dedicated service to the City of Kannapolis and extends its heartfelt gratitude, congratulations, and best wishes for a rewarding and fulfilling retirement. In witness thereof, Mayor George Douglas Wilson, on behalf of the city council, has caused the great seal of the city of Kannapolis to be affixed this, well, we did it on the seventh day of July, and again today, July 2026. Thank you. Please join me in saluting Tina.

Okay, we now have the consent agenda. Council, what is your pleasure? May I make a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mr. Payne with a second. All in favor, please raise your hands. Thank you. I went into the business agenda now. I'm sorry, speakers on the floor. Couldn't wait.

Good evening. So we're going to start the speakers from the floor. Just a reminder, we ask you to come to the podium to speak when I call your name. You will have four minutes to speak. There is a timer at the podium. There's also one at the front. The light will turn yellow when it's nearing the end of your time. If you get to the end of your time, you'll hear a buzzer. Also, when you come, if you could state your name and your address, that would be great. I will make an announcement. Once we get to the last card, that's the end of speakers from the floor. So if during the process you think of something you want to say, just make sure you give me a card before the last card, before the last speaker. And with that, the first speaker I have is Cole Thomas, please.

Good evening. Cole Thomas, 803 Sprucewood Street. I'm speaking to you tonight as a dedicated citizen of Kannapolis to advocate for a Board of Adjustments member and previous city council candidate Holden Sides. I'm requesting that council table the upcoming vote on board appointments to allow for a review of what data would demonstrate to be an apparent case of disparate treatment exclusion, political retaliation, and bias against a sitting public servant for nothing more than exercising his constitutional right to run for public office. A factual review of the 28 total applicants across the city's board reveals a concerning pattern. Across Parks and Recreation, Planning and Zoning, Community Improvement, and Board of Adjustments, 13 seats expired. Of those, nine sitting board members sought reappointment. eight of those nine were successfully reappointed. Mr. Holdensides was the only current board member who sought reappointment and was rejected. Furthermore, five of those eight reappointed members have served longer than Mr. Sides, proving that longevity nor adherence to newly proposed policy were disqualifying factors. During a phone call on Friday, July 10th, it was suggested by leadership that denying reappointment was an effort to open the door to new citizens wishing to serve. However, the data would contradict this. Of the 28 applicants, 11 new citizens who applied were also rejected, while only eight new appointments were made. If the genuine objective were maximizing citizen participation, those 11 unappointed individuals would have filled the remaining vacancies. It was also noted that City is considering policy limiting board service to four three-year terms. Mr. Sides was appointed to an unexpired term in 2021 and a full term in 2023. The city's own proposed addendum explicitly states under Section 2 that time served during an appointment to fill an unexpired term on a board shall not count toward term limits. Under your own framework, Mr. Sides remains fully eligible and well within the parameters of service, matching the standing of every other reappointed member. Planning Director Richard Smith formally recommended Mr. Sides to serve on the Board of Adjustments. This recommendation directly refutes any narrative that this decision was based on performance, capability, or conduct. Mr. Sides was already listed for approval in the previous meeting's agenda and was removed. This could be viewed as an alleged use of position to retaliate against a political opponent. While this governing body does hold the legal discretion to appoint whomever it chooses, the questionable rejection of a highly qualified individual, recommended and eligible incumbent, while simultaneously rubber stamping eight others strongly indicates a purposeful effort to exclude an individual based on bias rather than merit. Should a council use its appointment power to target a single individual, it would undermine the integrity of our city boards. I ask that you consider these findings, table this vote, and correct this injustice to both Mr. Sides and the citizens he has faithfully served. I'd also like to note that on the back of the packet that you all have is a list of the 28 applicants, showing once again that there is one outlier here. I appreciate your time, and if I could maybe have an answer on the record tonight, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Next speaker is Holden Sides.

Hello, everyone. Holden Sides. I live at Sprucewood Street here in Kannapolis. Everyone up here is aware of who I am as well. As Cole said, since 2021, I have served on the Board of Adjustments here. Just a little bit of background on what the Board of Adjustments is. We are a quasi-judicial board. We hear certain zoning cases that come before us. Those cases must adhere to very strict guidelines that are set in the KDO. We're not allowed to take personal bias or opinion into those cases. Our decision on those cases has to be based on evidence that is presented from city staff, the applicant, and any relevant party that's publicly or any member of the public that has relevant standing on the case. I applied to be reappointed to this board. I was on the original appointment to be reappointed on the previous city council meeting. This city council meeting, my name was taking off and to my understanding, I was the only name that really changed from that list. For me personally, I just want some clarity and transparency about exactly what's happened there. It was kind of caught off guard on my part. I was fully expecting to be reappointed to another term. serving as vice chair for the past year. I had plenty of good experience serving on that board, and I really enjoyed my time being there. So truthfully, the only thing I'm really looking for is just a why on what happened. And so thank you. I appreciate everyone's time.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Deborah Johnston.

I'm Deborah Johnston. I'm at 2318 Beaver Pond Road in Kannapolis. I'm coming to talk about the Eastside Park again. I was shown this plot in February of 2024 and was told all the things that were going to come into the park, i.e. paddle boats, a dog park, a playground, walking trails, a splash pad, and shelters. All I've seen done is a gravel road. The people on the Beaver Pond side of the park put up fence, but we still haven't seen anything done. We were promised in February of 24 that it would be finished this year. I haven't seen any activity. I still continue to see older people and that one veteran walking on Midlake in the gully because it's not safe. If they had the sidewalk that went to the park, they would have some place to walk without getting hit. If you stop and think about it, there was a grant, and I think the grant should be used for the park because that's what it was promised for. If we ever give back a grant, you'll never get a grant again. It's just common sense. It's common sense to take care of the people and the children in the east side because there's no park over there. Having a splash pad and a place for people to walk, for the kids to get paddle boats and have a good time there, yes, there's a cost for the kids. That's fine. But there's a place for them to play without being on the main road of Midlake. And it's a place to keep everybody together, to family, because that's what it is. Kannapolis has still been pushing for health. Health is getting the kids away from the electronics and out. but there's no place on the east side for those kids to play. I wish you reconsider and get this move in so the park can open up so the veteran who's walking on the road, the old lady who, excuse me, the old lady who was walking on the road just yesterday before the rain don't have to walk in the gullies. They can walk on the sidewalk, go to the park, and walk on the trail there. 33 Acres is a pretty big size park for that side of town, and it would show so much that Kannapolis cares for their people. So I want you to consider getting the park moving, getting construction done, and getting it taken care of for the people of Kannapolis, not just the east side, but for everyone who comes on that side. Thank you.

Thank you.

Daryl Hinnant.

Good afternoon. Daryl Hinnant, 1106 Sunset Drive, Kannapolis, North Carolina. I'm here to give you good news. Last time when I was here, I talked about building the Eastside Park, and I suggested that if you financed it and it would cost $647,532 and some pennies, But I'm here to tell you that that number is inflated because I used 10 years for a term for the loan instead of 20 years. I consulted experts in park building construction, and they tell me that almost all parks are financed over a 20-year period of time. I also was told by experts that the interest that I had estimated, 5%, may be a little too high because Kannapolis has a great reputation in building parks, and it might be as low as 4% rather than 5% interest. Experts say that if you borrow $5 million for 20 years, 5%, the annual fee or the annual payment would be $401,211. At 4%, it would be $367,907. Since by your own numbers, you have and will collect under this new budget $8,211,000 of new monies. As a result of that, it seems pretty obvious that you could find monies somewhere between $360,000 and $400,000 to pay for a park. And that is the real question. And that means you pay for a park without a tax increase. Many of you have been talking about not putting in tax increases. You did not put a tax increase in this year. But I'm saying to you, if you want to build this park without a tax increase, that's the way to do it. Also, I just ask myself a question. Why don't you just be straight up with the citizens who live within a mile or two of that park? There are 10,000 citizens or up to 25,000 within two miles of the park. And each of them, if you do the project as you are suggesting it could be done, that is, that you would do it with GO bonds, then it would be a difficult thing for them to swallow. Because the question is, do those citizens really matter to you, or don't they matter to you? You are offering them a GO bond. GO bonds never been done by the city of Kannapolis before. At least several of us had tried to figure out if there's ever been one. We cannot remember one that's ever been done. The citizens need to know clearly that if they pass, if they vote to pass this GO bond, that it will cost them 4.5 cent is the estimate in the increase of taxes. That's not just on the citizens near the park. That's on every property owner in the city of Kannapolis would pay that increase of 4.5 cents. So I'm saying to you. Tell the East Side citizens that you really are doing something besides building a sidewalk to nowhere. You're getting millions of dollars to build a sidewalk that will go from one street to another. And you're promising that maybe it will be finished by 2029. As a result of that, there's a lot more things that could be done and could be done quickly without increasing taxes, with our citizens having to absorb those huge taxes. Thank you very much.

Justin Luter.

Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Justin Luther, 1832 Mary Wynne Court. I'll be brief. Post-Juneteenth, the city let us know that they were not aware of the vendor that came and brought the whips and did that display during the Juneteenth celebration. However, subsequently, that vendor sat down with a press person and said that the city was very much aware of them being present during that event. So I am simply asking that clarity be given regarding that event. We are very appreciative of the message that the city council gave at the last city council meeting. It was very clear, concise. I think this... think the residents of the city were comfortable with with the response and we appreciate it however we are now receiving contradicting information and so i would like for us to hear directly from the committee or the committee persons that organized that event uh... that that was held beside the Juneteenth celebration so we can get clarity on how much the city knew. Did the city know that this vendor was gonna be present or did they not know? So this person's statement is that the city was very much aware of what they were doing, what they were gonna do, and so we want accountability on that because part of accountability is acknowledging that there was a mistake, which the city did, but now holding those persons who did or willfully thought that was a good idea accountable as well. And so more needs to be done in that regard. Again, we were comfortable with the initial response. However, that seems to be not accurate. And so we just want clarity. The community just wants clarity in how to proceed going forward. So if at some point in the very near future, perhaps the next meeting, we can hear directly from the organizers, the city representatives, the city liaisons that organized the event and set it up. We want to know, were they aware that this person was going to be present and participating in this event? Because that would mean that the city was aware, and then that's another issue we need to address.

Keisha Sandage.

Hi, how are you doing? Thanks for saying my name right. I appreciate that. So as she said, Keisha Sandage, and I live in Concord, North Carolina. Tonight I'd like to speak less about one appointment and more about the president that your decision makes. Every time this council asks citizens to volunteer, you're asking them to invest something that they can't give back, their time, their expertise, and their reputation. Many of these positions require people to make difficult decisions. They won't always be popular, they won't always agree with elected officials, and they shouldn't have to. The value of advisory boards is that they provide independent judgment and not agreement. They give you guys suggestions and you determine whether you're going to follow them or not. But you put them there for a reason. If citizens begin to believe that continued service depends on staying politically agreeable rather than serving with integrity, we risk changing the very purpose of these boards and why they are put in front of us. Public service should never require political comfort. This is a, well, it was a nonpartisan board, or now it's getting ready to be partisan. That's another topic for another day. If citizens begin to believe that continued service depends on staying politically agreeable, rather than saving with integrity, we risk changing the very purpose of these boards. And public service should never require political comfort. It should require competence, preparation, and willingness to serve the community. Whether you intend it to or not, the decision to remove or reject Mr. Sides from reserving on the board, in my opinion, leaves questions. If I do my job faithfully but disagree with those in power, will I still receive fair consideration? That's a question y'all should be asking yourself. That question doesn't just affect one person, it affects all of us. It affects current board members and it reflects what future applicants are gonna look to and gonna believe is gonna happen to them when all they're doing is trying to volunteer for their community. Trust in government isn't built when everyone agrees with your decision. It's built when people believe your decisions are principled, impartial, and consistent, even when they disagree with you. I hope this council reflects not only on the decision that was made, but on the message it sends to every citizen in our county, specifically here in Kannapolis. Will they be willing to serve? if they determine that them serving depends on how they veer politically? Ask yourself that question. I know majority of you are Republicans. This board may not look like that in another year or two. So you've gotta be willing to experience or to see what that experience might do to the next board member. appointment or the next person who is interested in coming on a board here in Kannapolis. If you want people to serve, I said, if you want people to serve, be fair. When you think about nine people reapplied and only eight of them were selected and one was not, one was rejected. I'm wondering, and I'm sure our community wonders what that says. Was that person not experienced? Did Mr. Saez not have what the committee needed, what the board needed? I hope you guys are asking yourself that. And I would also suggest that you take the suggestion that was earlier mentioned to table that decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Next card I have is Joanna Baco.

Good evening, Johanna Baco, Concord. And I am here in support of reappointment of Holden Sides to the Board of Adjustments. I am here because I've known Mr. Sides for several years, and I know of his commitment to this city and to that board and his work ethic, and it speaks volumes. And another thing that speaks volumes is the chair, Mr. Smith, asking him to assume that role. So I have seen or heard nothing that gives reason why he should not be reappointed to this board and serve admirably for the city of Kannapolis. and he seems to meet all the qualifications with your term limits and whatnot. So I would like to ask that the council members, so we can all be clear on this, the council members would state their reasons why he is not being reappointed to this board and that be recorded in the minutes of this meeting so that we are all clear because it doesn't seem clear why he's not being reappointed. So I would ask that of each and every council member to answer that question. And I, too, pray for your wisdom and your discernment to do the right thing, because that is very, very important. And I thank you for your time.

Okay, just as a reminder, I'm down to the last two cards, so the next speaker I have is Zach Erwin.

Good evening, Council. My name is Zach Erwin. I reside at 903 Applewood Avenue in Kannapolis. I'm here tonight to talk about Senate Bill 876. And some of you may be wondering, well, why is he here to talk about a state law? That's a state government matter. Well, it has local ramifications, and allegedly, it relied on the consultation of local leaders, including a few members of the city council. Under Senate Bill 876, As it was originally submitted by Senator Carl Ford back in April, there was no mention of changing Kannapolis elections to be partisan, nor were there mentions to move Kannapolis elections to even-numbered years, suspending what would be next year's election to the following year and subsequent years to follow. However, as of June 25th, since the last time we've been together, Kannapolis was added to that bill in the committee phase, and it was approved by both the House and Senate in the state of North Carolina. Allegedly, and I say allegedly because I'm willing to hear from anybody who would like to correct the record if I'm wrong, Members of this city council, perhaps not all of them, but at least some of them, were contacted by Mr. Ford, Senator Ford, but also contacted by Senator Campbell, or sorry, by House Member Campbell and Senator Miesmer. both from Cabarrus County, all three of those Republicans who were in favor of making elections partisan here in Kannapolis for our city council and in favor of moving those elections to even-numbered years. And based on what I have been able to find out through reporting and through messages that have been shared and responses that have been shared directly from Senator Ford's camp, they relied on the consultation of members of the city council in order to justify adding Kannapolis to this bill that was ultimately passed. I'm not here to talk about the partisanship as much as I am to talk about the suspension of these elections to even-numbered years. That is my greatest contention. By doing so, you are taking a local election that had its own opportunity to stand alone on the ballot in odd-numbered years and putting it in with other state, county, and federal races of even-numbered years. I want everyone who's here to use their imagination and think, what is that going to do? Proponents of this move would say, oh, well, we're going to save money because we don't have to have these extra elections on odd-numbered years. You're going to save $35,000, and that is according to the North Carolina GOP, Cabarrus GOP. $35,000 out of $125, $35 million allocated in this budget? Is that what we're gonna use to justify moving these elections and taking away the attention that is solely focused on local elections in those odd-numbered years and pushing them off to try to hide them on the ballots in even-numbered years? so that people are less inclined to vote for people that they can research and more inclined to vote along party lines. That's what the GOP party has told us they want. Thank you.

OK, last card I have is for Alicia Emmeling.

means I need to get down here more often. For some of you who don't know me, Alicia Amling, I'm with Temerity Capital Partners. We own the baseball team and are partners with LMG on a lot of the big, beautiful new buildings you see downtown. And I am here just to simply say I should be here at council and not at the ballpark as often as myself and Andy and Peter, our partners, are. and we should make a point to come on Monday nights to say hello and really just to reaffirm our commitment to downtown and to continuing the further growth in a positive and meaningful way of downtown. We hope that is with a hotel. We continue to actively pursue financing and have renewed our commitments from Marriott to put that project there. As you all might appreciate, there's been a lot of vagaries of financing and construction costs and getting everything to line up on the perfect timeline hasn't been in our favor, but we continue to actively pursue the project. We think it is vital for the downtown businesses to have the vibrancy of a hotel. We think as a ball club, we would love to have a downtown hotel. We think a lot of people here would enjoy having their wedding here and sleeping right over there. So we continue to believe in both downtown Kannapolis, the baseball team, our buildings, and just wanted to publicly and verbally say we're affirming our commitment to downtown Kannapolis. Our partners at LMG have invested, are committed to $150 million downtown. They are finally, I think many people are Happy to say finally completing 200 main and as you know our building at Stadium lofts our tenants are occupied Where our building is occupied our tenants. I think I won't speak to Affirmatively looking at mr. Jackson our tenants seem happy and and our ballpark, we try to activate as many days of the year as we possibly can, and we will continue to do that in a way that brings people downtown, supports the businesses, supports Tall City Tavern, supports the coffee shop. I haven't done my usual $200 shopping at the boutiques, but I continue to need more and more clothing as I continue to grow. So I look forward to breaking ground on the hotel sometime and we will continue to pursue that. We might very well come and talk to you guys more in depth about needs and how we get that done, but we are here, and we're here for the long haul in Kannapolis. So thanks for your support thus far, and thank you for your support going forward of all of our many enterprises that we have going on.

Thank you.

Mayor, that's the last card I have.

Thank you, Ms. Gaggs. Now we go to our business agenda. I think we did the consent agenda just a minute ago. Remember we did that? Yeah, we did that. I think we did that a few minutes ago.

Yeah.

We did. Yeah, we did that. We've already done that. Mr. Kelly?

I think I'm going to kick it to our city manager, actually, to talk about your policy.

Okay.

Thank you, members of city council. In advance of your consideration of board appointments, one of the things that we wanted to do was update our board's and commission's conduct policy. Our original policy was adopted July 23rd of 2012. Attorney Kelly and others worked extremely hard to get us an updated policy that addressed various things and bring it up to date. I won't read the policy in its entirety. It's in the packet. But what I will point out are just a few things. It clarifies what the boards are, and boards are certainly the boards and commissions. volunteers that City Council has appointed to the various boards and commissions that are listed. Can y'all hear me better?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's wrong with this mic.

That's okay. City Manager, you can kick it back to me. I'm happy to kind of take over and just continue to give an overview of the new policy or the revised policy as it sits before City Council. I'm going to refer to the one that's not before them as the previous policy, just for the audience. So the previous policy had... two provisions, one of which said that the maximum terms that an individual could serve on the board was three consecutive three-year terms. And then it said, but council could also elect to appoint the same individual for a fourth consecutive term. So it was really 12 years. So what we've done in the new policy is to simplify that. Instead of there being the option to do it four years, it's to say that the maximum total term is 12 years, whether or not they are consecutive or not. so that this will eliminate folks. There was also a rule in the old policy that was somewhat unclear that said if you sit out one year, then the clock starts over again. So then this just clarifies that, again, it's 12 total years on any one board instead of what could be up to 12 years one year off, and then another 12 years on one board. That's one of the probably most significant changes in the new rule. The new provision also clarifies the attendance that's required of volunteers. Previously, you had to serve 75% or you could only have three absences per calendar year, which would start July 1, enroll each calendar year beginning. That's the city's fiscal year. And now it is still three absences, but it clarifies that those are unexcused absences and so that there may be significant life events that happened and so long as an appointee is communicating with the staff liaison and chair about those absences those aren't going to count against somebody who is you know faithfully trying to volunteer for a board or Commission and In addition, one of the significant changes to the new policy is a code of conduct. And I'm going to go just briefly to identify some of the basic premises of the code of conduct. that an appointee treat their duties with dignity and respect, act with honesty, integrity, respect, fairness, equity, and accountability with independence from improper influence, refrain from using derogatory or profane language, refrain from the use of cell phones and electronic devices for personal use, refrain from any action that would discriminate against or be considered harassment towards constitutionally protected classes, and refrain from any action that interferes with or adversely affects the work of the board. The remaining policy provisions are largely the same. It's just that those three key areas that have identified have been revised so that there's now a 12-year total term limit for any one board. Attendance now identifies what might be an excused versus a non-excused absence, and then that there's a code of conduct that appointees are asked to adhere to with respect to their volunteering on any board or commission of the city of Kannapolis. If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I have a question, yes. My question is, since we're trying to get to having more of our citizens apply and serve on boards, if we could not roll the term to three consecutive terms as opposed to four, that would be nine nine years as opposed to 12. And so if we have the term limits 12 years, it's not allowing a lot of our citizens to apply and serve. And so it would be my recommendation to roll the four back to three years as opposed to four, or the consecutive terms.

I think I agree with Ms. Jean. We definitely need to allow more citizens to be part of the boards, get them more involved and all those kind of things. I think, though, the way that Mr. Kelly has this worded, it's not so much because 12 years could be over a span of a lifetime. They could do two terms. They could come back. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would be 12 terms. And I'm a little concerned because if we did do that, when would that roll back? Because we actually have some people right now on some committees that are in their fourth term. So would that disqualify them now? I would rather have it just so it's 12 years for the lifetime. because then they can kind of spread it out because, you know, different things happen in life. And that way, if you did six years here and then ten years later you did six years, I think that's very fair. That's just kind of my thoughts about it.

Andrew, do you hear this line of questioning? And my understanding is that people who are in that situation now, once that term's expired, then they would roll in if they're in a fourth year.

That's correct. The current policy does not affect anybody who's currently serving that's in or outside the parameters of the new policy. I can kind of expand upon the thinking was, however, that there are folks in a fourth term position. and that as Council Member Hatchell mentioned, this is not, it's no longer consecutive. It's 12 years on any particular board. And so that after you reach 12 years on any particular board, you'd be immediately eligible for a new board. And then from the other perspective, that was currently the maximum that you had was four years. So we didn't change the ultimate maximum amount of terms. We just eliminated the kind of I'd call one-year rest period to then be able to kind of restart your consecutive clock, which was something that this council was concerned about was eliminating the opportunities. And you would still have, obviously, this council's or future council's discretion doesn't mean that they must serve 12 years, doesn't mean that they must be consecutive. City council would always have discretion about who they could appoint.

My only other question is, if you'll allow me, sorry, Mr. Dayball. That's okay. If we vote on this now, it would go into, like, if we would change it as Ms. Dixon has suggested, that would affect the other people that we are going to then vote on tonight, correct? That's correct. Because there would be somebody that that would affect tonight if we decided to do that.

Right. That's correct. It's only currently serving.

So I want everyone to be aware of it, yeah. Yes. Because it's for a reappointment.

You understand that, James? Is he saying it could impact?

Okay. Yes, based on your current maximum, it wasn't changed so that somebody who was currently up would not be, you know, nobody currently up would be impacted.

Right, if we rolled it back to nine years, that would definitely affect somebody. I know Mr. Dayblood wanted to speak.

So, Mayor, I would like to make a motion to go ahead and amend our current policy to... Reflect on exactly what Mr. Andrews said. If you've got something, we're going to go.

Before I do anything with that, I was going to say, the only member – my microphone is doing what – there we go. I'm the only member up here that was on the board when this policy was revised in 2012. And it was revised – and before that, I don't even – We had a policy, but it was very minimum, I think. And the reason this policy, the original 2012 policy, was put in place was exactly for the reasons we've talked about, trying to encourage new members to be appointed and encourage new members to apply for these boards because then, and as well as now, you've got some people that have served a very long time on some of the boards now, And, you know, that's why it read the way it read, was three appointments for nine years, and then they were eligible for that fourth renewal. Because I think in a lot of cases staff feels comfortable with some people over the course of time, and, you know, they just want to keep things status quo, so it's –

that's why that was there if people want to keep serving but i just want to point out that was the original intent when 2012 was when this policy was put in so that's all i got let me add something there from my own behalf i was on the first parks and rec commission that we ever had here and i don't think we had any policy until i resigned and they said hell he served 13 years we can't let that happen again so uh they actually started putting in rules i I hate to think it, maybe it was because of me to start off with. I stayed on a long time. But when I left in 2001, I think that's when the first time that they actually came up with some ruling, and apparently it was reloaded again in 2012, and now 14 years later. So back to Mr. Jackson. You have a motion, sir, right? Are you guys something that you want to say?

Well, I'm going to try. Um, mayor, I just wanted to just a point of clarification. Does councilman Jackson's, uh, motion amend the amend the time limit to 12. So you're recommending state. It's like, okay. I just wanted to verify.

Yeah.

Okay. We got that motion. Is there a second? Ms. Hatchell. Okay. All in favor, if you will. Okay. So it's six one. Thank you. All right. Now, we move on to Ms. Klein, I think.

Good evening.

Tonight, we are going to be talking about the general obligation bond again. At the June 22nd meeting, City Council unanimously approved setting the maximum amount of the general obligation bond at $40 million, adopted the introduction of the bond order, and adopted a resolution setting the public hearing for tonight. The next steps in this process is to actually hold the public hearing, adopt the bond order, and adopt a resolution setting a special bond referendum for November. So before we actually talk about the public hearing, open the public hearing, I want to stress three things. First of all, the general obligation bond gives the authority of the city to borrow up to a maximum of $40 million over the course of 10 years. It's not immediate. So when the bond passes, it's not immediate. It's over the course of 10 years. It also does not require the tax rate to be increased immediately. The financial impact is determined by how much is borrowed at the time we begin a project after the bond is approved, and we begin borrowing the money. So if you borrow $10 million, your tax rate would be based on $10 million for however long until the next project is begun. So I just want to stress those. And I'm not sure if, Gary, do you have anything else you want to add?

No, she hit it pretty close, and we kind of talked about that at the June meeting on what the equivalent was to understand for everybody's sake that your potential increase, because there's nothing to say that you have to raise taxes in order to pay off the bond. It could be done within your existing budget. But, yeah, your tax rate, any potential new tax add-on would only be based on the amount of the money that you issue the bond for. So, which right now is roughly about $11.49 per month on the average household. So, which is about $137 a year if you borrowed the full 40 million at the same time. If you only did the 10 million, like I said, which might cover the Eastside Park and one of the Greenway projects, then you're only talking roughly $2.87 a month to do, to borrow 10 million over the, to get those two projects going.

Thank you, Gary.

So the first thing we need to do is hold a public hearing unless you have other questions for myself, Gary, or our financial advisor.

Counselor, any questions? No questions? Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing. If you want to speak on this subject and this subject only, please come forward. Anybody want to speak on this subject? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing.

Okay, so the next action is a motion to adopt the bond order authorizing the issuance of $40 million general obligation parks and recreation bonds of the City of Kannapolis, North Carolina.

Is there a motion? So moved. Mr. Payne, is there a second? Mr. Dayball, all in favor? Okay, thank you.

And our last action is a motion to adopt a resolution setting a special bond referendum and directing the publication of notice of a special bond referendum and notification of the Board of Elections.

Mr. Dayball, Ms. Dixon, all in favor? Thank you. Okay, thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

And we move on into your appointments. Let's see. Mr. Smith, we always get to see Mr. Smith, it seems like.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. I've got the first of your five appointment agenda items tonight. First two I have for you tonight. One is for the Board of Adjustment. We do have five positions up, and staff recommendation is for you to appoint Wilfred Bailey, Chris Dwiggins, Ronald Flanders, Susan Irvin, and Michelle Steele to new three-year terms, and then have as your alternate Jeffrey Gray as the new three-year term for an alternate position there. Okay. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the nominees as presented by staff.

You're making a motion, isn't it, too?

I move to approve the nominees as presented by staff. Yes, sir.

Is there a second? I'll second. Ms. Hatchell? He has made the motion that we just go ahead and okay them all at the same time. All in favor of that? Okay. That's a four. Five, too. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Gordon.

Good evening. The Community Improvement Commission serves as an advisory board for our HUD grants, community initiatives, as well as review of the code enforcement cases as it relates to demolitions. We currently have three member openings due to expiring terms of Amos McClory, Spencer Swain and Jacqueline Anthony. Amos and Spencer have expressed interest in continuing to serve another three-year term, and Jacqueline has expressed the desire to step away at this time. Staff is recommending reappointing Amos McClory as well as Spencer Swain to serve another term and to appoint Mitchell Johnson, longtime Kannapolis resident, to fill the vacant seat left by Jacqueline Anthony. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. I move to approve the nominees as presented by staff.

Ms. Dixon? Ms. Dixon with a second. Okay. All in favor? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Smith? I believe it's Mr. Smith again. Oh, Gary Mills. I'm sorry. I've got to get these glasses checked.

That's easy to predict.

I thought we just saw you.

We have four appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The applications have been reviewed to reappoint the motion to reappoint Buddy Amerson to a new three-year term, appoint Justin Null and Daniel Helms to new three-year terms, and appoint Kenneth Matthews to fill the one-year unexpired term left by Jeff Ashbaugh. Okay.

Mr. Dixon. Motion to approve the appointment. All of them. Is that what you're saying? Second. Second, Mr. Payne. All in favor? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Now, Mr. Smith, I'm back online.

Last one I have for you. So we have for the Planning and Zoning Commission, we have four positions with openings. Chris Puckett, Daisy Malit, Shelly Stein, and Aaron Haney is the staff recommended folks for those three-year terms.

Okay, council, any discussion here? Mr. Mayor, you're going to do this the same thing again?

Move to approve the nominees as presented by staff.

All right. I'll second it. Ms. Hatchell with a second. All in favor? Thank you. Okay. And now, Mr. Melton, it ended up with you.

Well, I'm going to try to do this. It might work as well.

Maybe I'll borrow it.

I'm going to borrow Councilwoman Dixon's. This evening, we have an appointment for the Rowan-Cannapolis ABC Board, and staff recommends reappointment of Ken Gathers to that position. Happy to answer any questions.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to appoint Ken Gathers to the Rowan-Cannapolis ABC Board.

Second. Second, Mr. Payne. All in favor? Thank you. All right. Now... Back to you again, Mr. Milton. Still going to borrow her mic?

Yeah, I think I better. Nothing further this evening, Mayor.

Nothing there? All right. City Council comments? No one have any comments? Okay. Well, at that thing, I think I'm going to say a motion to adjourn. Can we get that motion, Mr. Daywalk? Mr. Payne, all in favor? Thank you. Thank you for coming. We are adjourned.