City Council - Regular Meeting

We'll now call this regular meeting of the Jacksonville City Council to order. I want to welcome everyone who's come out for the meeting tonight and also those who will be watching on a G10 television station. I'm going to ask you all to arise for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Edwards, followed by the invocation.

Please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

liberty and justice for all. Let's pray. our most gracious heavenly father we come to you this evening as a community lord as uh... as disciples of christ in those who follow you believe in you that you will give us the direction that we need as we work together that you will guide our council as they make decisions that impact all seventy three thousand people that call jacksonville home or we we ask for your grace we ask your presence in this room tonight for all the items that the council discusses we ask for the wisdom to move items in the direction that they should go so that your will be done. Lord, we appreciate the blessings of being here today. We appreciate the opportunity to have this fellowship, and we're thankful for the mercy that you provide each of us in our days and our efforts and our travels, Lord. We're just so grateful for this opportunity. Thank you, Lord, for letting us be here today. In your name we pray. Amen.

Council, you have been provided a copy of the agenda for tonight's meeting. At this time, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed. Next, we have our first section of public comment for this evening, and I don't have a sheet.

Mr. Massey is giving it right now, Mayor. Okay.

Okay.

When I call you up, please, you've got three minutes to talk, and if you will give your name and address to the clerk, I most certainly would appreciate it. Dennis Burgard.

My name is Dennis Burgard.

My address is 102 Riverwalk Lane. I want to come here and speak tonight, and thankfully the crowd is totally different than the last time I was here and the times I've watched on the video. This is what I was hoping for, something a little calmer, a little easier to speak about, because I want to speak about the warrant systems that I've heard about. I just moved back in town. I've lived in this area for 33 years. I just moved back into the city limits last year. So I have to admit, I wasn't really aware of or even had any concern or thought about ward systems or that there was a controversy or anything until all this just popped up probably about three months ago, I guess. And at that point, it was kind of interesting because Mr. Williams is my neighbor right down the road from me. And after talking to him, watching him move in, talk a little bit, I found out he's our city council person. But I was also kind of surprised to find out he wasn't my city council person, because we do live within probably two football fields of each other. And that's what I'm really here to talk about tonight, is my understanding of ward systems, and I tried to educate myself and listen a little bit through these last couple meetings, is the primary objective of having wards is so that there's kind of a geographical representation of a city as it's divided up. And also in listening to this, it seems like part of the issue that has been brought up is that within this division, from what I can tell, it looks like the inclusion of base populations is what has kind of diluted some of those wards. And I think my ward isn't one of those, but it is affected. So I'm hoping, based on what I heard last time, which is that these will be revisited, that there's a primary goal. And that primary goal is that the voters, the people that pay taxes, that are affected by your decisions, are all going to have an equal voice and equal vote. I hate to say this, not that I don't love our military, but I don't get why they're involved in a vote in the city in the first place. You could raise taxes 10,000% so it wouldn't affect them even a little bit. You can close roads, shut down city services, do whatever you want. They still live on base. They still get their water, their sewer, and everything is fine. We're not. So in my opinion, they shouldn't be involved in the vote anyway, but that's a whole other issue. But if they're going to be involved and they're going to be part of the census, what I would hope then is that it's understood that not only do they have no reason to vote, they're not going to. They're just not. I've heard it said they could. And actually, if they started, I actually would have a bigger problem. If all of a sudden they start showing up with no skin in the game at all, then I'd have a huge problem. Because I pay a lot of taxes in the city to the county. They don't. So what I'm hoping is that the primary goal is equal representation through voting, geography takes precedent, and that the base population is then equally distributed, basically as a bunch of people who are number fillers, in a census, as opposed to being looked at as people who have skin in the game, who are then going to be a part of voting and determining what happens to us and the voters, taxpayers, and residents who live in the city. That's all I'm here for tonight, is to thank you for coming to what I consider to be a reasonable conclusion to this discussion and argument. But that's just the beginning. If we're starting off with the idea that the wars need to be changed, then the real issue is going to be the criteria used to do it. And I'm hoping the two that I presented tonight will be primary. Thank you.

Next, we have adoption of the minutes from the June 16, 2026 regular meeting, the June 23, 2026 special meeting, and the June 29, 2026 special meeting.

I move that we adopt both minutes from the two previous meetings.

Second. And we also have, I would add to your motion on the nine consent items that are on the list, too, if you will, please.

Yes, sir. I move that we accept the consent items.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay, we're going to move on down to number 10 here. And this is a zoning map amendment for Rush Properties. It's the area on New Bridge Street. And Brian King will be presenting this item. Brian.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. Tonight we have a staff-initiated rezoning request. Because of the downzoning bill, any time we try to do a rezoning, it's got to be with the owner's consent. So we have a signed application from the property owner that is in support of this proposed change. There's two parcels of land, one is on New Bridge Street and the other is on Stratford Road. The current zoning is residential single family seven for the lot on Stratford and quarter commercial for the New Bridge lot and the proposal would be downtown business. Before you is the aerial photograph that identifies the parcels and as mentioned on the previous slide, we did reach out to, let's see, We did reach out to the barbershop that's next door that also has the parking lot to inquire if they wanted to join in with this rezoning request at no cost to them since it was staff-initiated. They chose not to do that at this time, but we did reach out, so I just wanted to let the mayor and council know that we did try to have a discussion with them to see if they were interested. this proposal is on the screen shows you the existing zoning so the red is the quarter commercial the yellow is the residential single-family what we're proposing would be to kind of continue the downtown business on to kind of the entryway into downtown There would be that little area that would remain quarter commercial there where the barbershop is the long-range plans identified this as Neighborhood commercial and also mixed-use and we believe that the plan supports the proposal to downtown business, which is a mixed-use district This was considered at the planning board meeting where they recommended approval Trying to get to it now going off of memory Sorry. where on June 8th, where they recommended approval of this request, I would remind the City Council that there's two items that the City Council has to consider with a map amendment, and that is, is the proposal consistent with the CAMA land use plan, and is this a reasonable action and in the interest of the public? I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Mayor and Council may have at this time.

Any questions of Mr. King there? Thank you, Ron. At this time, I'll recess the regular meeting and open up the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak to this agenda item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Council, you're being asked to approve.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the rezoning request, accepting the evaluation found within the staff report. The amendment is reasonable in the public interest and consistent with the Camelot land use plan.

Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next, we have a zoning map amendment. This is pursuant to development on Yacht Road. It's rezoning from residential single-family 22 corridor commercial. And Ryan will be also presenting this item.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Another rezoning map amendment. This one's over on Richlands Highway. This is where we're seeing a lot of potential growth, renewed interest, area of transition. So you'll see that here on the map that I'll show you here in just a second. But basically, Pursuit Development, on behalf of the YOP trustees, has submitted a request to rezone the property located at 2820 Richlands Highway. The current zoning is RSF 20. They're proposing to go to corridor commercial. This is an aerial photograph. The crosshatching identifies the flight path overlay district, so this parcel is within the flight path overlay. Once again, here's the zoning map existing on the left, proposed on the right. This area, as the Mayor and Council is familiar with, across the street is where your Walmart and Lowe's is on Yop Road. There is a proposed Wawa that's at the corner here. Let's see if I can get this to annotate. So this is the, and let's go to a different color. This is a proposed Wawa site, and we're seeing some development interest in this overall corridor. This is a proposed service road that DOT is gonna build, which is why it kinda looks like a road. So it's kind of cutting up this area, and then this opens up this land back in here for that transition from, there's been houses on large lots, to transition over to more of a commercial development pattern that we've seen. This area right in here used to be a salvage yard back in the day, and that's similar. This is where the tractor supply is located right here off to the side. So we're seeing a lot of interest in this area. This rezoning is going to be where some development occurs on this front piece. This is where their utility would be for their stormwater pond. So since it's trading that commercial use, they're rezoning it to quarter commercial. The CAMA land use plan identifies this area as neighborhood commercial, as is the entire area surrounding this parcel. The planning board considered this at their previous meeting. which was on June 8th as well, and they recommended approval. As with the last agenda item, would remind council that it's got to be consistent with the plan, which we believe that it is, as identified in the staff report, and that it's reasonable. One thing I failed to mention on the last one is we also notify all the adjoining property owners when we post signs. We post newspaper ads with any time we have a map amendment. So we've done that with... And notify the base as well because it's within the five miles of the base. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board may have.

Questions, counsel? Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, counsel. At this time, I'll reset the regular meeting and open up the public hearing on this matter. Anyone wishing to speak on agenda item number 11? CNO1, I'm going to close the public hearing. Counsel, are you being asked to approve the... or to consider the proposed rezoning request.

Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the rezoning request, accepting that the evaluation found from the staff report meets the requirements. It is reasonable in the public interest and also consistent with the camera land use plan.

Second. I will motion to second. Is there any further discussion? If there is none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Okay. Bring us down to number 12. And this is a flood damage prevention ordinance text amendment. This is a revision of the free board requirement for non-residential structures. Brian King will be presenting this item. Brian.

Thank you. So one item that we probably don't talk about as often around Jacksonville is the floodplain development prevention ordinance. It's a model ordinance. We basically take the model ordinance that the state of North Carolina has provided to us. We can tweak certain things. There's other things that we cannot tweak. The last change that we had was I believe in 2022 where we raised the accessory building standards from 150 to 600 square feet. We've received a request from Tidewater & Associates to adjust the freeboard for non-residential structures from what's a current freeboard, three feet, to a proposal of one. So what is a freeboard, you may ask? Freeboard is basically the amount of... space you have to provide between the base flood elevation and the higher amount that the city has adopted is three feet. So give an example on Court Street. If the ground is at four feet and that is the base flood and we have a three foot free board, you got to build three foot off of the ground, which is seven feet above sea level. So it's a higher elevation to basically allow, you know, to elevate that structure, whether it be residential or commercial, to get that structure up out of the floodwaters if a flood were to occur. This is maps that the state provides. Like I said, we just implement the ordinance. We have about 485 parcels in the city limits and another 54, I believe, in the ETJ, all of which have to comply with this ordinance. Every year we do certain things. We provide notifications. We post stuff in the library. Media sends out information on flood prevention items on the web pages and Facebook, things of that nature. All these things earn the city points for certain categories. And right now we're a Class 8 community. One is the best. Ten is the worst. So we're at an eight. Now, Jacksonville would be very difficult to go beyond much higher than where we are. It would take a lot of work to get that way. The last data that I saw, a lot of the communities are basically they fall in the seven to eight range. That's where the majority of the communities fall. And what does that mean for our citizens? That means that because we participate in this program, the 54 parcels that are in the special flood hazard area, they receive a 10% reduction on their flood insurance premiums. Everybody else, all the other homes that are not in that special flood hazard area that choose to have a flood insurance just to be on the safe side, they receive a 5% reduction. So that's why we do this every year, this outreach program, so that our citizens receive those insurance premium reductions. And so that they're informed. So this proposal would basically change the free board for commercial only, not residential, from three to one. We've evaluated. We do recognize that we could lose some potential points. Of course, we would also have the opportunity to try to gain some points back, but we are in support of the changes for reducing the free board from three to one foot for non-residential structures. Be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

Any questions?

We'll discuss as far as the premium reduction of 10%. Who works that out? Who worked that out?

Basically, the insurance companies, they're able to provide those savings to the insured citizens.

Have we gone before a larger percentage off?

We were a class seven, and recently we were downgraded to an eight. And this is, we were doing the same activities, but our community growth factor, which is based on the county, dropped. And as a result, we lost points. So even though we were doing the same annual outreach processes, we dropped from a seven to an eight.

What things can we do to go back to a seven?

That's something we could talk with our CRS coordinators to find out what items we could possibly pick up points. I mean, that would be, we have an annual audit every year, and then we have a big audit every five years. That's something that we can have conversations with them about what, if anything, can we do? But it's like that community growth factor. We can't help that. That's countywide. The most recent information that I saw is that community growth factor is actually going to go up. So that simple fact that it's going up, this go-around could help us gain some points as well, even though we're doing the same thing.

Any other questions, Ryan?

How does this benefit the city?

I would say that it benefits our citizens to receive the reductions in the insurance rates, and also you have renters. They may not know they're in a flood zone. So when we send out that annual letter that says, hey, your property's in a flood zone, It's it's informing them the social media posts maintaining flood insurance information on the webpage So that way if they don't have flood insurance and then we have a storm event they could lose everything that they have So we try to basically get the word out and we get points for doing that and then they also get reductions in the insurance When you say don't they have to elevate lower down because of this I This would be commercial would be able to to elevate to a lower standard. That would be what this proposal is.

Yes One of the benefits that can come from this is the waterfront development that is desired will be more attainable and more affordable

instead of it being three, reducing it to one. But more likely to flood.

And more likely to flood is true, but more financially attainable. But some of the challenges with a three-foot are cost.

But if that developer wanted to raise it higher, they could, couldn't they?

Yes, sir. If you look at what's happening downtown, we haven't adopted the new flood maps yet. Even though the appeal process is over, we're waiting to get word when those new maps will go into effect. You've already seen development occurring that they've elevated on piles, even though we cannot mandate that. They're doing that voluntarily. So, yes, you can always exceed the standards. And that's why we're not supporting a change to the residential. We want to leave the residential at that higher standard. This would be for commercial only.

I think it gives us good flexibility. We did this with stormwater, like fencing and stuff. We reduced some of it, gave the developers the idea if they wanted to pay for it, then that's up to them. But at least we didn't handicap them if they wanted to do it or not. That's correct. That would be kind of the same thing, right? They choose to build it lower than that search voice if they wanted it higher than that search voice as well, correct? Correct.

So on the back end, if the elevation is lower, then does that mean that their premium for their insurance is going to raise because now you're at a greater propensity to have your business flooded?

On the commercial side, I don't know that I'm prepared to give you an answer on that. But like Councilman Sosa said, if they want to get that reduction, if they have to be – But, I mean, they're going to build to that one foot. For example, Swansboro doesn't have a free board requirement from what I understand.

They're at zero feet.

Some places have, we have three. Some places have two. Some places have one. In order to participate, we need to be at the one. That's why we're not suggesting that we drop to a zero on the commercial side. Question.

Why wouldn't the residential residents benefit from reducing theirs if this is some benefit to commercial? What's the difference?

Well, we could potentially lose more points, number one. And then I think a lot of times you have a builder that then sells to the homeowner. Whereas I think a lot of times on the commercial side, the commercial is being built by the commercial developer. So I could end up buying a house not realizing that I'm not high enough and that new flood maps may be on the way. And then I buy a piece of property that's built as a house and don't know it.

So, Ryan, is it not true that your analysis for this particular request was focused only on commercial and the considerations are different if you look at it from a residential standpoint?

We did not do any analysis on the residential side for this request because this came from a private company. firm requesting a change. So we didn't consider adding residential. If that's something that you would like staff to go back and evaluate, we will be happy to do that.

I was just looking at the logic. Seems like it would be similar. It'd be analogous.

Well, I would think like on the commercial side, if there's a storm or something, most likely the businesses would probably vacate, right? If it was a home, people are probably there in their house, you know, staying there. So you'd obviously, I'd say residential, you'd want to be a little bit higher. because most likely you'll be there during a storm versus, you know, if there's a restaurant or retail, you're most likely not going to be there anyways.

I just had an interesting thought. Tidewater is the request. I remember when Tidewater used to be on Kerr Street, and I remember what happened. Nothing further. With the flood.

Interesting. Well, I'd like to know just offhand on the residential side, and we can talk later offline on it, about the insurance reduction amount. I mean, I see 10%, but I don't know if that's beneficial still. I mean, it's like it's a handout, but would it be enough for someone to be able to recover, especially even with a commercial? Would they be able to recover?

It's just a reduction on their premium.

I understand that. I understand that. Maybe it should be higher. But like I said, we'll talk offline.

But as you go up, seven, six, does it reduce your, does it increase the amount that gets off your blood insurance?

Yes, sir.

It does.

So I believe a seven would give you 15 and 10.

Okay, there we go. So we should be working toward a seven, right? To help our homeowners and our businesses that are in the floodplain.

Let's work towards a two or one. I agree with you.

Mayor, and I was going to add, too, back to Dr. Washington's question. The business owner is here, and Tidewater's here, so if you want those questions of them, I would assume either one could answer those questions back for the business.

I think what's happened here is our staff has only looked at one aspect and don't have the information to give you, so maybe another time they can come back and... give us further update information on it. Yes, ma'am.

I have a question. Ryan, wasn't it true, and I'm asking the question genuinely, that when this was going on, and you may not know either, but I was under the impression that the advice we received from the state level of folks, you know, insurance commission and whoever else is in charge of all of this, is that making a change to commercial is pretty standard with what other communities do and acceptable, but it was not advised to go into making changes lowering heights in residential because of the impact it would have so much greater in reduction if we want to raise the discount we can't lower the residential

We would certainly lose more points if we dropped the residential. The request was not for residential. We did have a conversation with the folks at the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. We do have a rep that we send information through. We have them review the proposed ordinance language to make sure that we are not violating the state model ordinance, if you will. And they did tell us that they did not recommend that we touch the residential. But At the end of the day, there are other communities that have lower free boards than Jacksonville. So some people do. It's just, it comes back to what some of the council members are saying is, do we want to be at a higher level or don't participate at all? And I think what I'm hearing is we do want to participate, maybe even at a higher level.

Mr. King, I want to, has it been about... Seven, eight years ago, I believe you gave a presentation on the 100-year plan or the 100-year flood plan, and there was the conversation about the downtown area in regards that if those homeowners did not elevate their property, then... Correct me if I'm wrong that the insurance companies or they had to have flood insurance at a certain elevation. Otherwise, they could not obtain Flood insurance or if they were going to do a new bill that if you were in that plane, that if you wasn't at a certain elevation, you were going to be denied your health insurance for the floodplain. Do you understand what I'm talking about?

So I believe what you're referring to is in 2016, they came out with new revised maps. So it's been 10 years. It's been 10 years, and the city of Jacksonville appealed those maps, and that's where it went. It took the downtown to an elevation 10, whereas a lot of those places right now today have a zero. They don't have flood. People on Court Street don't have to get flood insurance because they're not in a regulated flood area. It's going to go to a 10. The city of Jacksonville appealed those maps. They re-ran the models, and the new maps have taken that 10 down to 7. So that's what's gonna go into effect whenever FEMA releases those maps. So if you're on Court Street and you're at seven or below, then you would be required to elevate in the future and you would have to get flood insurance if you had a mortgage on that piece of property. So yes, we did talk about that, but we're still waiting for the maps to be adopted.

I have a question. And I know we're talking commercial, but while we're talking about this, on Court Street, the highest elevated homes, what elevation are they at?

I think that the easier way for me to answer that question, if I may, is I think the ground level along Court Street is somewhere between three and four feet. So the houses that have been built there on Court Street, I think there's three of them. If the ground's three, most of those are probably sitting at about 11, if I had to guess. Because most of them have built on piles now, the newer houses, and you can drive a car underneath it. So I would assume that that's about 11 feet above sea level.

Are they at the standard or above it?

They would be above it. Because remember, before we appealed, what we advised citizens that were looking to build was we said, look, the new maps are at 10. We're appealing the maps, but they're set up at 10. So you had people that went ahead and built the 10.01 because they wanted to be above, by choice, above that level. Now we would tell them it's going to be at 7, so they could do 7.01. But if they wanted to build a 10, because we're right around the corner from having another flood map update, It typically happened about every 10 or 15 years. And we've been told that the next set of maps will incorporate sea level rise, whereas all the previous ones have not factored that into the equation.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. At this time, I'll recess the record. Council meeting to open up the public hearing of this matter. Is anyone present who wishes to speak to this agenda item? No one. We'll close the public hearing. And, Council, you've been asked to approve the text amendment.

I'll make a motion that we approve the flood damage prevention ordinance and to reduce the freeboard for commercial only at this time.

I'll second it.

Any further discussion?

Yeah. Yes. If they want to do it, I don't object to it. We are looking for waterfront development if they want that risk. I'm good with it.

Any other? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Next, we've got item number 13 on the agenda. This is Unified Development Ordinance. Text amendment to Article V, Development Standards, Section 5.2 on landscaping and buffer type application.

Ryan's back in.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. We joked about this meeting. I said, this is going to be the planning show, so we're going to load you up. We won't be here next month, though, so we're going to give you the month off as far as planning items go. So this is actually a request that the Planning Advisory Board suggested that we go forward with, and we brought this text amendment as a staff-initiated request based on the PAB request. This happened as a result of the recent annexations that we had on Blue Creek School Road and also Old Maplehurst and Highway 53, I guess that is, where our current standards for buffering does not require buffering for those properties that don't have city zoning classifications. So city property zoned next to county zoning, there would be no buffer standard. And they didn't feel that that was correct. And you may recall that Mr. Morton actually revised his application based on the feedback he got from planning board to add a conditional use zoning and add the condition that they would install some sort of a buffer along one of the boundaries or two of the boundaries. So we actually brought this forward, like I stated a minute ago, that we would basically add this column on the right-hand side of your screen that just says outside city of Jacksonville jurisdiction. So anywhere that you have residential next to residential, there would be no buffering. But anytime that you have residential next to commercial or commercial next to residential, that we would require a buffer yard. of the development even though it's county zoning next door to the development so pretty straightforward change we've done a little bit of cleanup as well on this as mentioned before with a map with a text amendment you only have to determine is the plan consistent their plan consistency and we believe that it meets the camera plan policy 27.4 the planning board at their um It came up back in February, but on their June 8th meeting they recommended approval. We have notified via the newspaper ads in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes and we'll be happy to answer any questions that the council may have at this time.

Are you aware of this action creating any amount of non-conformities with the existing, because we haven't regulated this in the past?

That's a great question. I don't know if it would be a... Obviously, if there's not a development there now and a development's proposed and they're just going to follow the current standards, which is what we're proposing, if there's something already there, I mean, we'd have to evaluate that. I don't know that we would be able to enforce that standard. It's something we would probably need to take a look at.

If the... If there's trees and vegetation there already, they won't have to do additional plantings, will they?

We give credit for existing vegetation provided it meets the standard, yes, sir.

What do you mean by what it meets the standard?

So if we have a ratio of X number of trees and shrubs per hundred linear feet, if they had one tree there, that would not be adequate. We'd give them credit for the one tree, but they'd have to add the other trees. If they had a dense area and that meets or exceeds the intent of the ordinance, we wouldn't make them tear down to plant new, and we wouldn't make them add additional to it. There is a fence requirement with a buffer, though. So if there's no fence there, it would require a six-foot opaque fence.

Other questions? Thank you, Ron. It's time to recess the regular meeting and open up the public hearing on this text amendment. Anyone present wish to speak to this agenda item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Counsel, you're being asked to approve.

Thank you.

before the approved unified development ordinance the development standards in the landscaping buffers

Second. I have a second. All right, further discussion.

My only concern would be that we have some way to address any non-conformities or existing properties that may abut something like that already at the periphery of the city. Green space is probably there a lot anyway, but it may not be 30 feet. There may not be a fence. So that could, you know, at what point does the current property owner have to engage meeting the new standard? What's the value of the home improvements or yard improvements they would have to do. And I know there are standards for all of that, but it would make me feel good to know that we had a plan in place for those who are either going to be grandfathered in or were clear on what that standard is for when they have to bring it up to code. And you may have that, Ryan. I don't know.

Article 7 identifies expansions that triggers compliance. It's based on a percentage. There's also, if it's a remodel based on values, how much is the value of the property as far as the structure, how much work is being done. So that's already spelled out in Article 7. But that's certainly something that we can look at in... Look to see if something else needs to be adjusted. I know one thing that comes up frequently is the end of the fence. If they have a nice, dense area, adding a fence, does it really gain anything? So then you end up with a fence on the one side, and it's probably better to be on the back side. But some people like the fence on the inside, some like it on the outside. But that's certainly something that we can look at.

I think we should wait then.

Any others? We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion?

I think we should wait. Well, we have to have a motion to table it then. Oh, yeah.

Okay.

I move to table this one. I think this is my first table.

Is that an appropriate motion there, Mr. Pratt?

At least a hold on. I'm sorry, was there a motion on the floor?

There was a motion and a second on the floor.

Substitute motion only. I think we'd have to vote on the motion that was on the floor before a motion to table would be appropriate.

We can do that.

Is there a motion and a second that is pending, that is on the floor?

Yes.

There's a motion and a second to approve and then a motion to table.

Motion to table.

Do you want to withdraw your motion?

Yes, indeed. While we wait. That's always permissible to withdraw the motion. What's the point of the table?

Well, based off of some things that Cindy talked about, we need a little bit more information on that. So if we don't have that, why are we voting on it?

I don't see how that's going to really affect anybody. I mean, Ryan, you can elaborate this because what you just said, if their addition is not going to be large enough, then it wouldn't trigger those anyways, correct? I mean, unless they're doing a whole redevelopment, but if they were going to do that, then they would have to follow the new standards anyways.

If it's a redevelopment, they would have to follow the standards. If it's an addition, let's say it's a 2% addition, you'd have to do a 2% buffer. Yeah.

What if it's a small lot, 30 feet and a fence? If it's not a large lot, that could be a problem that they didn't have to address when they initially bought that property or built that home. I'm just...

This is a staff-initiated request. Nobody's asked for this, so, I mean... They're trying to clean up paperwork, right?

But if somebody remodels their house... and they don't have a 30-foot buffer, how are they going to be able to do that? It'd be nonconforming, wouldn't it?

There might need to be just a contingency piece for lot size or something else. Like, we have values. You have to exceed this value before it's implemented, but I don't know. I'm not familiar with every periphery lot. If there is a lot that doesn't have 30 feet without you losing, per se, you know, half your yard.

Yeah, that's curious about residential lots versus commercial. I mean...

You don't have to have 30 feet president.

OK, so residential is not applicable, so it would not be so on the attachment except where it abuts commercial or other use in the county.

You don't want to buff anyways.

You would.

Because they're going to put a gas station in your backyard. Plus that developer would have to do it on their side anyways.

But, I mean, it could impact commercial business as well. If somebody has a small store and they decide to remodel it and they don't have 30 feet, they'll lose parking and they won't be able to continue their business.

well we do have with redevelopments hardship cases there are provisions in the ordinance to where if the building was already there you may recall we had a buffer situation come up along Henderson drive. That we create some standards there's already standards in place for redevelopment. That that's where. You apply it and they will this makes sense you apply wait a minute. It'd be nice if we had some other standard for that so. I mean, like I said, we don't have anything that's pressing if you would, you know.

But if something were to come up that were conspicuously odd, inappropriate, or not feasible for that particular site given a per se, this is totally hypothetical, but given a hypothetical of a small residential lot that abuts a county property that's going to be used for some other use, we could address that special need at that time.

Anything could be requested to be amended later. It could be a candidate for variance.

I just, you know, want to look out for the little guy who may not be seeing this coming. That's all. Make sure that we have an option for them.

I rescind my table then. I rescind the table.

Are you rescinding your?

Motion to table has been rescinded.

All right. All right, so with that, we're going to go ahead and vote on the first motion. I guess we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Thank you. All right, number 14, our Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment for Amendment to Article 6, Subdivision Standards, Section 6.3, Recreation Requirements. Mr. King. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. This is actually a requirement that goes back to 1983. The North Carolina General Statutes allow cities and counties to require land or money whenever a subdivision proposal for residential purposes is proposed. The current table that you have before you minus the last line has been that way for that many years. We've recently had a situation where you had lots that were one acre or greater in size, and we realized that this table wasn't set up for that situation. We typically don't see one acre lots in the city, but we had a recent development, and we said, well, we need to clean this up. We want to add anything greater than the 0.99 acres and give it a density multiplier of three. that's part of an equation where it's based on census size times the number of Lots times the density multiplier and then equates to a number and then you basically say okay well that's how much land they have to dedicate or they have to give us the value of that acreage of land and then that goes into our recreation fund and I know that we ran the math on this most recent one. It was like $1,400 that the developer would provide based on this new proposal.

So an individual who has a lot and builds their own house, does that make them have to pay?

No, the developer does this whenever the subdivision comes in to begin with.

This only applies in subdivisions?

Correct, residential subdivisions.

It makes sense that it's a lot lower as well because those larger lots are going to include a lot more yard and green space organically already.

Correct.

So a lower multiplier makes sense.

So with this UDO text amendment, it aligns with the North Carolina General Statutes. We are adding some clarity that we're specifying that this would be payable at the final plat stage. That's the way that we've done it for as long as I've been here. It just doesn't say you'll pay it with the final plat. So just to add clarity, hey, when do I pay it? Well, it's with the final plat. We believe it's consistent with the plan policy 22-3, where it actually talks about new development contribute its proportional share towards the development of neighborhood and community park facilities. And the planning board at June 8th recommended approval of this change. And I remind the council that in this case, you only have to identify that it is consistent with the plan. So we'll need a consistency statement. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Questions, council? I don't have any. I think it's been a very effective way of being able to provide recreation amenities and not have to increase tax or use taxpayer money to do it. So, any other? Anything else?

Unless you have a question or two for me.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. With that... recess the regular council meeting and open up the public hearing on this matter. Councilor, you're being asked to accept this text amendment to the UDL.

Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the text amendment as presented because it's consistent with the land use plan. Second.

Second, Mayor Mickey. Yes, sir. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, okay. Going to item number 15, and this is a single and multi-family design standards discussion, and I believe.

Last one tonight, I promise. I tried to get one extra one, but somebody overruled me on that one and said, no, we're going to stop after this one. You're doing too much. Unless you all want to add it to the agenda, but we may be too late for that, and I don't have the slides on here.

We'll get it later.

All right, so in this situation, ideally we would be in the other room for discussion, but this is our last one, so we're going to do it in here, so I'm going to stay in the whole time. This is the discussion item. We've had this discussion with planning board. We've actually had discussions with... John Plagman, he's an architect that's here in town. He doesn't have any projects, but he offered and said, hey, let me look at it. I'll be happy to give you information, feedback on it. We've had discussions with Martin Kluski, who builds multifamily developments, and we've also talked with Tidewater and Associates to kind of get some information as it relates to this discussion item that we want to have tonight. So in the UDO, we have design standards that are in there for single family and multifamily. Well, the first thing is that the general statutes have changed. In anything that is single family, and that's including a townhouse, we are unable to regulate. So we've made changes before, but then they've changed the statutes again. We've got to play catch up with the statutes. So anything that's related to single family duplexes, townhouses, We cannot regulate anything pertaining to design. That is up to the building code to regulate. So we're going to eliminate any reference to design as it relates to single-family, multifamily townhouses. Multifamily will still be in place, but townhouses and single-family, we need to strike that from the UDO. That's part of our annual evaluation of the UDO. That's also to try to keep from having somebody that reads the code and then they don't have a question and they think they can't do something. Well, it'll be clear when this gets taken out of there that, okay, we can. Likewise, it's going to keep somebody from saying, wait a minute, you can't do that, and they want to go through a legal challenge, which we don't want. So we're going to eliminate that. So we've got to do that even if we don't do anything else. We need to make that change. But there are some challenges with the multifamily standards. And so we're just going to go through a couple of these standards. We've also looked at Fayetteville's ordinance because they have the UDO that they've had longer than we have. It was drafted by Clare and Associates. So we always go to them. I know I sound like a broken record. I tell you the council that all the time that that's one of the very first things that we look at. But right now our masonry stuck over decorative concrete exposed foundation or decorative base of at least 18 inches in height shall be provided around the base of a building. That's what the standard says today. Interesting enough, this picture that you see here on the bottom was actually a multi-family design or multi-family apartment complex that was pre-UDO. Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally think this is a pretty good looking building. But this was pre-UDO standards. Here's some examples of some other places. I think this is in Wilmington. Different design elements, different look. But with the exposed foundation, it makes slab on grade construction difficult. It makes ADA compliance more difficult. And there's also some discussion about, well, do we replace the foundation, exposed foundation, with maybe planting? So there's a couple of things that are on the table there. And we wanted to just basically mention these items to city council. So we can get any feedback that you want to provide to us. Are we heading in the right direction on looking at this, going in the wrong direction, leave it as it is? You know, well, hey, I like that, but I don't like that. So this first one's just exposed foundation. We're looking to make a change to this because we've heard that this creates difficulties. All three people have said this is a challenge. So I think that you're going to see us make some sort of a change to the exposed foundation requirement. And I think that you can see that all three of these examples, now once again, you may think that they're not attractive looking buildings. I personally think that these look good. So we are going to look to make a change. So I would just ask the question, any concerns about making that change? I know that you don't have the text in front of you, but we're looking to make a change. Head in the right direction?

Yes. I think so.

Anybody think we're not going in the right direction? All right. Well, then I'll move to the next item. Um, building orientation. So this kind of creates problems because is it to the parking lot? Is it to the street? Um, you know, you've got multiple buildings within a development. So that orientation, um, is something that we're going to be looking to make a change. Also, there's a 15% glass requirement. Well, which facade? Is it the front that's facing the street? Is it internal? Like on our commercial standards, we say on the street-facing facade, we want that glass. We don't necessarily have it for the sides and the rear. So there are some items that we're looking to make some changes to this. So as stated here at the bottom, for considerations, modify, provide equipment to screen with decorative glass. fences in or fencing in or landscaping. So when you change that orientation, you could end up with HVACs and meter bases and things like that, some less desirable items. So if they're gonna put it on that end and it's facing the street, do we wanna dress it up? This is actually an item that planning board talked about quite a bit. Here's an example of a building orientation. So one, this is in Jacksonville pre-UDO. This building on the right, it's facing western. The other building off to the left is side two western. So you can see there's way more glass on the front building that's facing versus that side profile because that's where the bedrooms typically are, so you can't just put a bunch of windows. Well, I guess you could, but that's not desirable. And then if you look really closely right in here, There's your meter bases, your HVAC equipment, things of that nature. So that's some things that we're talking about making some adjustments to as far as orientation. Here's a situation where it's oriented towards the street. They've got a nice evergreen shrub row across the front. But then you see right here they've got their HVAC units exposed. So we want to dress that up so that way it's that less desirable items are screened. Planning board was like, they could take care to leave it. But I mean, that's kind of, do we want to see that? Do we want to require screening?

Do we want to regulate everything?

No.

That's the other question.

That's, planning board talked about that. The developer would take care of itself. But I can also tell you this, sometimes development regulations come into play because somebody doesn't do that. So if you don't have the ability to require it, or if you aren't requiring it, you aren't necessarily gonna get it.

Well, we don't require that for a regular home that you build with our air conditioner units.

Well, we can't with residential houses anymore anyhow. So the state law tells us what we can and can't do, and they've said we can't regulate single family.

Why would you do it for the multifamily?

It's up to the mayor and council. Because we can, it's a matter of do we want to do that?

But probably putting landscape in front of all those units and stuff is not everyone keeps up maintenance the same way. Some people don't trim their bushes back. You know what I mean? So that's kind of hard to regulate what their maintenance is going to be like. So I'm a little biased, but I say just get rid of them.

I also think that the way these buildings are set up, you'll probably have HVAC units on either end. So if they put the side to the street, you're going to end up with that.

It depends on the layout of the building and utilities and everything. Sometimes they just got to go there.

I don't think it's a problem until it's a problem.

That photo doesn't offend me. I can live with it.

All right. The next one is currently we limit an individual footprint of 15,000 square feet. We heard that this is actually an example. It's not technically a multifamily. It's an assisted living facility, but this is in Fayetteville. This is an item that one of the folks that I mentioned earlier provided. They said that this would not meet in the city of Jacksonville because it's bigger than 15,000. It's longer than 200. So one of the things that we were proposing would be to increase that to 20,000 and to increase the length to 250 feet and maybe create some standards that break up the building. So if you look at this here, they've got a canopy at the front that kind of breaks that building up. So requiring some architectural features that may break up the monotony of that 250 foot long building.

How big is this building? Is it 250 feet?

I think Fables max is 20,000, so I would get somewhere between 15 and 20 based on Mark said this building wouldn't work in Jacksonville. And knowing that I've looked at Fables code, I think theirs is 20,000. I think their maximum length is 230, but then they also have some other language in there about, well, if you put a bend in the building that's at least 30 degrees. Yeah.

So they could go over that if they had something to break it up with.

But we're proposing to bump the 15 to 20 and go from 200 to 250. And that's in line with kind of what we're hearing from the folks is that that would be a good shift from their perspective.

Sounds good.

All right, materials. So right now the UDO says that you have to use primary materials, and at least 65% of the front facade has to be a primary material, and you can only use a single primary material. Well, if you look at the picture down here at the bottom, that's three primary materials, or at least two. The brick and the stone, three. You got the brick, you got the stone, and you got the cedar shake. Those are three primary materials. that would not be allowed today, because this is, you're gonna use one primary. So we're proposing to eliminate the single primary, and I think we're talking about dropping the primary material down from 65 to 51%. So, I mean, unless you think this is a bad-looking building, then...

I think it looks pretty good. I think it's very pretty.

Okay, you're... Oh, you have four there, the siding as well. He sure does.

You're dropping? Well, we think the siding would be an accent material. That wouldn't be a primary material. But that is a fourth material. That's correct.

Yeah. Put it all in.

So you're dropping the primary, the percentage of primary material down to 51?

This is just what we have identified dropping from 65 to 51.

So you will see more siding and less brick?

you could but this would just be that our minimum would be 51 if you go to 70 we're not we're not proposing to say you can't do a hundred percent brick we're just saying you have to have at least 51 be the primary material i prefer 65. i don't see the need to reduce that

I think it gives the developer more flexibility to have a little bit more leeway with what they choose and everything, and it could help with cost and development.

The cost factor.

I'm thinking about the cost, yeah.

Which ultimately becomes a rent or mortgage factor because the more it costs to build, the more it costs to buy.

Stick it to whoever's renting the place out, which will make it more expensive. That's all it's going to do is just pass the cost down.

Well, 30% primary material.

We would have to do the calculations on this building, which we can certainly try to do, maybe with a more recent plan, to try to tell you with the brick, you may only be at 35% brick. I was joking. He's joking.

So my OCD wants to know why 51% and not 50%.

Because primary, you want it to be more than half.

So there has to be a secondary. Okay. Oh, good gravy. I am that person at the gas pump who's going, one more cent.

What would you say that one is? If I had to guess on that one, on this facade, probably 40% to 50% brick. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I had to guess. Because it's on every other. It's more than 40.

So it doesn't matter if it's different color brick?

Or is that brick?

It's stone. It's just materials. Brick is brick. But it needs to be color coordinated. Yeah.

I don't know that there's anywhere in the UDO that regulates color right now, just so you know. So if they wanted to use pink polka dots, I don't think there's anything that says they couldn't do pink polka dots.

Use the color of a court strip.

I mean, we could add no polka dots, but...

I think he's looking for some definitive direction. Sounds good. 51?

About 49.

We want at least 50%, so let's 51%.

Yeah, based on the feedback, I mean, 65 is a little bit much, but we didn't seem to have any concerns at 51. And I'm pretty sure they would tell us if they were concerned with that, at least the folks that we've talked to.

What kind of feedback did you get as far as percentage-wise?

The 51. The 65 was a bit much when you start factoring in the other accent materials. I think most people want to do something more so than just a solid. They want to break it up like that picture there at the bottom.

It's a visual interest. It's more appealing for renters and folks who live there or visit there, so it makes sense.

But some people also would prefer to use one material, and that's fine.

But if you made that all brick, it would look like a big government building versus someone's home.

But, I mean, we also, I mean, I can name, it's a two-story unit that we have in town that's all brick, and it's a nice-looking building.

There's some in the commons, too.

Not the one I was thinking of, but, yeah, I think the couch, the reserve apartments is all brick. All brick. I was thinking about one on Liberty, but.

We're saying at least 51%.

All right, so another one is no off-street surface parking associated with a townhouse or multifamily development shall be located between the structure and the street at fronts. Right now, today, it prohibits it. We're proposing to allow a certain percentage, don't know what that percentage is just yet, between the structure and the street, provided that they dress it up. So whether it be decorative fencing and or landscaping, this picture below here shows you landscaping and decorative fencing the parking lots behind it there may not have a whole lot of cars you can't see much but this next picture on the right hand side you've got some cars parking kind of see right in here they've dressed it up nicely but at least they have that option to provide parking provided they kind of screen the parking facility so right now it says none We're proposing to make a change. We just don't know what that percentage is. And then what kind of dress up do we want to require if we allow it? Because this example, pre-UDO, I don't know what percentage of parking is. It's a relatively small amount. But that's sometimes the difference in getting an extra building in here versus not because of being able to comply with our parking standards. And also sometimes the parking that they feel they need for their apartment complex. Okay.

But this example that you show is on Western Boulevard.

It is.

Does it really matter to have screening there? Because as you drive down Western Boulevard, you're looking at parking lots on both sides.

Well, this is a question. What I'm hearing you say is don't require the decorative fence and evergreen landscape and just leave the normal street lawn there. And if that's what the mayor and council wants to do, then we can apply that. I just wanted to give the, right now it's none. If we're going to allow it, do we want to allow it but with standards, or do we want to just allow it?

Well, you already have buffers between multifamily and residential, right? They would be required to have some buffers.

This would be more of just a visual buffer between the motoring public and the parking lot.

Yeah, and I think we do need to consider that. I mean, we're definitely giving some leniency when it comes to what the builder can put out there. But when you're talking about driving past, even going down Western, I don't want to see a whole bunch of trees either. I would love to see a nice fence and some bushes covering that. So I think that's pretty much what it is, just whether or not aesthetically, how will that look for the city?

Well, and it may not make as much sense to be needed on Western, but we could have these in other locations as well where the side streets are smaller, arteries in town. It might be more appropriate or more appreciated there, depending on what's across the street from the new apartment complex.

It's like Williamsburg Parkway behind the Taco Bellers apartment complex, and they have a fence and they have shrubs and everything because, you know, the parkway runs right there and there's all the parking and everything you see, so. Maybe with that developer, I guess, just shows it decorated that way.

Correct. That was pre-do as well. But that's a great point. That's actually a, I could have used that instead of this picture, and that would have been a good picture to use. Man, why didn't you talk to me about that before tonight? I would have stuck it in there. I'm good with it.

I think it's a good direction.

Okay. So just to kind of synopsis, we're going to eliminate the items that we're unable to enforce so that we're not conflicting with the statutes. Thank you. We will bring forth additional changes to the mayor and council and the planning advisory board. The desire here will be to eliminate confusion, conflict, potential legal challenges, and also be responsive to development concerns. Thank you, Ryan.

Appreciate it. I think that's very appreciated by builders in our community and residents alike that we're hearing them and being a little more flexible on some things. Thank you.

We'll have housing issues and be able to do more things like that. I would hope to bring more people in soon.

All right, I don't have any other items for you tonight, unless you have something for me.

Go sit down.

Okay, thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it. All right, we'll go ahead and go to reports, and I'm going to start with Mr. Willingham tonight.

Thank you, Mayor. Just have compliments for landscaping. I remember after Lynn Thomas left that we – made a decision to hire a horticulturalist. I don't know if that person's still here, but the landscaping looks very good. And I'm a big fan of the tree-lined streets. And I know we had a conversation at one time years ago when they kept cutting the the tree branches from over the street, but I like that it's covered. It's kind of quaint, and I'm seeing that more around town. So kudos to whoever's doing the landscaping. On agenda item number seven, I have some concerns, and I don't want to conflate liability with accountability. But if we're settling lawsuits, of course we're settling without admitting liability. That's part of what you do in settlements. But we can't keep paying money and not understand the accountability portion and not really know if there is a learning lesson, a lesson to be learned. That's all I got on that. Thank you.

Mr. Sosa. I'm happy to be here.

No report. Hope everyone had a happy 4th and A250 and are staying as cool as possible in this guzzle.

The hotter the better. Lots of luck.

Dr. Washington. Just a few items to share with Mayor and Council and the community. I recently attended the Summer Board Leadership for National League of Cities where I'm the chair to the advisory council, which is past board members to the National League of Cities. And there was quite a few things that we talked about. So I'm not going to go in deep, deep detail, but. Just to let everyone know that some of the same things that other municipalities across the United States is dealing with, the city of Jacksonville may or may not be. So one of the biggest things that was talked about was the data centers. Mr. King and I was having a conversation because many cities do not address data centers in their code and some municipalities are finding out the hard way that when a permit is placed in their city for a data center to come in, then mayor and council is playing Monday morning quarterbacking, trying to figure out what's going on, and thus sometimes passing a 12-month moratorium until they're able to collect that information and that data moving forward to determine if data centers is something that needs to come to their particular city. I don't know if at some point in time mayor and council needs to and the city manager and Ms. Welch needs to discuss this along with Mr. King to decide how we want to move forward with data centers. One of the biggest victories that the National League of Cities and I think about when we were awarded the ARPA funding. National League of Cities heavily lobbied in Washington, D.C. for those monies to directly come to the cities without having to go to the state level and then being dispersed. And I do believe, Mr. Rea, if my memory serves me correctly, the city of Jacksonville received $9 million. with our ARPA funding. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act came into fruition and with that being said, maybe at a later date staff can do a presentation to the council to now interpret what Does that mean moving forward with housing initiatives? Which I would like to put a pin and to make a sidebar conversation that on yesterday I had an opportunity to go to Wilmington, North Carolina with staff to view Eden Village and This is a particular type of permanent housing that is for the chronic homeless individuals. This particular housing is permanent housing in order to be able to get individuals off of the street and put them in affordable housing in which they can live until until their final days and even with this particular development they have gone as so far as to have an internment plan incorporated that once a resident dies they can be their bodies will be cremated and they will be interned on the property unless their family members have otherwise made burial arrangements so It's a 33-unit complex, and they're looking to add additional housing, but it will be very interesting to see if this is something that can be duplicated in the city of Jacksonville at a later date. Also, with the Advisory Council, there was a lot of information talked about ICE and immigration and proactive conversations between the police departments, mayors, and councils to have those authentic conversations in terms of what happens before ICE appears in your city. So I don't know if that's a conversation, but definitely it resonated throughout the halls of the National League of Cities because many municipalities are actually... dealing with this and some of the immigrants are finding themselves actually relocating where other family members are living to flee from being at risk of being detained. So this was a topic that was heavily talked about. Also, Civility initiatives. A lot of divisiveness is happening across the United States within municipalities, and it was shared that the three most common division that is being seen is citizens towards elected officials. in terms of whether someone is angry, someone is upset, and that anger is projected towards elected officials. And some city councils are working with their state legislatures now to determine. We do currently know that with say, for example, with our elected officials in Washington, D.C., that there can be misdemeanor or felony charges brought against someone that's projecting threats towards a sitting congressman or senators. And some municipalities are working with their representatives to see if something could even be brought down at the local level. when those threats are being made. Also, there is an increase among adversarial between staff because of divisiveness, not saying that's happening here in the city of Jacksonville, just relating what some of the other elected officials are beginning to see. And believe it or not, there is starting to be this partisanship between council members that divisiveness uh... so hopefully moving forward we can continue to put our best foot forward because ultimately at the end of the day elected officials is always going to be held to a higher standard than what our citizens are and whatever they see us model they're going to believe that they have license to do the same so it's up for us to make sure that in all that we do that we have to remember who we represent and who we are representing and that our behavior needs to be examined and the more training that we can have with regards to civility to help mitigate some of those divisiveness, the more that would help us, particularly when we are discussing items that we may be on opposite ends of the spectrum or we're not seeing eye to eye. And then finally, this is aside from the advisory council, I do know that council has an upcoming retreat So one of the things that I'm going to ask moving forward is that whenever Council has a retreat, if there is a way that we can invite Representative Gabel, Shepard, Smith, and Senator Lozara to our retreat for authentic conversations. There has been much talk about House Bill 1038 and in hindsight, what could have been different? What could we have done differently if we have had those authentic conversations up front as opposed to conversations being had with individuals on an individual's basis versus a collective basis with the council. So I would like to see our representatives to come to our retreat. And if there are measures, if there are mandates that they are proposing, particularly if it's affecting the city of Jacksonville, the council, We need to be aware of that, of their decisions in terms of what they are proposing to do, as opposed to waiting for those bills to be filed and we find out after the fact. And that's my report, sir.

Well, I had the privilege of sitting down with XY. I've been visiting him at the nursing home. He's doing well. One of the most important things he wanted to do was make sure that his kids knew that he was still thinking about them. So he's doing well and obviously still concerned with his kids that are at Northwood. So I wanted to give a shout-out to those kids to let them know that XY is thinking about them.

Well, I'm excited about being here today. I'm excited about breathing. And I'm most excited about what's going to happen this weekend. I'll be joining other leaders with the elected officials in Wilmington, North Carolina this weekend, so I'm looking forward to connecting with other leaders other city representatives and Seeing what they're doing in their city that we could possibly even bring here to Jacksonville on the 25th of this month, we have our Summer Latin Fiesta at the Commons. That will be from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. And since I can't be there because I'll be in Wilmington, I want everybody to show up and enjoy, eat all the food possible, and I will be praying for great weather. We also have, coming up August 4th, our very own Medal of Honor winner is going to be here. Not only do we have a resolution for him, but he's going to be giving some coins to some well-deserved leaders here in the community. I did get confirmed that Colonel Pace will be available to come as well, so I'll provide more information once that comes down. I'm very thankful to both the mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, supporting that effort. And I'm just glad he'll be able to come out since Wilmington grabbed him. We get to grab our very own Medal of Honor winner and have him here in Grace Hour Halls. And also, I'm looking forward to, I was listening to Councilwoman Dr. Washington talk about Eden Village, and I know several of our staff members have been down to see that facility. And I'm looking forward to seeing it for myself. But I signed up for a summer session called the Local Solution to End Homelessness. And I start that in September. So I know that we may not have the homeless population that some of the major cities do, but I believe one homeless person is one too many. And this is to educate myself and to be able to pass the information along and see what we can do here in Jacksonville to do our part. when it comes to our homeless population, and that's whether they're the working homeless or not. We want to make sure we're doing our part as a community. I'm looking forward to getting with some of the nonprofit organizations that help in that regard, but spotlighting them and seeing what we could do better to help and assist them. Other than that, that's all I have, sir.

Thank you. I just have one thing to add tonight. I did have the honor of swearing in Council Member Michael Uniero there for his seat on the North Carolina Governor's Crime Commission. So he'll be doing that with his vast knowledge of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. I think he'll be a big asset to the commission. uh not that he hasn't been already he's been on the commission for like 10 years but he's just he had to come he couldn't be a representative as a police chief anymore he had to go as an elected official so there you go you're welcome and rose for holding my bible mr ray

Thank you, Mayor. A couple points. Mr. William, thank you for recognizing Michael LaCourie. He must have known that you were going to recognize this team because he's here tonight hiding behind Fannamiller. But the Parks team does a fantastic job of maintaining our city and giving us a look that a lot of the items that the council considered tonight, the aesthetics do matter in our community. And when the city made a direct, intentional effort years ago to say, The look matters, and Michael's team does a fantastic job. It doesn't matter if it's a person that's been with him for 20 years or a person that he just picked up last Monday. They're all trained to focus on the aesthetics of our community. So any of those compliments or credits or kudos all go to Michael LaCour, his team, and the leadership that he provides. And back to Dr. Washington, the data centers are a really big issue, not only in the state but in the country. And we are going to bring that discussion at our next retreat. albeit briefly, to the council so that you can decide the depth that we talk about a lot of these issues. So there's a lot going on, a lot of great activity that we're seeing in the city and a lot of good work going towards these events. We just had, about a month ago, the city and civic affairs and Onslow County and a lot of our community groups celebrated Juneteenth. And I say that in terms of the city taking that lead because the city council took the lead, especially in Onslow County. This is a celebration that has been going on for a number of years here in our community. Civic Affairs Group does a fantastic job of kicking off the celebration. You're going to notice up here, this is on the June 18th date where Ms. Smith is leading the show here. and providing an invocation for this kickoff event. It still amazes me that a lot of people aren't celebrating this holiday here in our own region, and so I encourage others to appreciate what Juneteenth means not only in our community, but around our country. A significant day of celebration for the end of slavery as we see it in recognition for equality. You'll see here Lachey Cavers. She was the keynote speaker for this event by the Onzo Civic Affairs. And Lachey gave a very great presentation She's a local business owner, a marine, and just a very active person within our community, and she did an excellent job just for one, just for smiling. She has a fantastic smile. Whoever took this picture did a fantastic job of capturing there. And you'll see our council members here being present for the presentation. Civic Affairs does an amazing job of leading within our community and stepping out front, and so to have these individuals present was very good for the community, and we always want to get people engaged. Then the following day, on June 19th, you're going to see the Georgetown Remembrance Ceremony. So here, city council member and a county commissioner who says that we can't work together. Here you go, city and county and community all together for the event, showing the U.S. and Juneteenth flags at the Georgetown Ceremony. And then on the 20th, another day of celebration, the Unity Fest at Riverwalk Crossing Park. Riverwalk is one of our most happening places here in the community, something that we're very proud of for our events and festivals. You're going to see group dancing. You're going to see some of the local groups being active here. And then, once again, you're going to see city representation. I'm not sure why this person had to attack Minnie Mouse, but whoever this guy is... Looks like he just came off the street, but great group of people here. Thank you to Dr. Washington and Ms. Smith and Mr. Willingham and to Terrell for being active at the event and representing here in our community. What a great community activity for our people to come together, just like we're coming together during a council meeting. So I say I go back to the city council. It would be different. if the city council did not recognize this day as a holiday and share that with city staff so that it is recognized by our employees. But you did. And for those council members that have started the process, to the council members that maintain the process, we appreciate it as a community because it allows our citizens to stay engaged on these days and it allows our employees to get out and to be active. A couple other comments, Mayor, things that are going on. Council did have a lot of planning items tonight, and it just shows you there's a lot going on in the community. And for those people that wonder how these things happen, well, they happen from being intentional about taking action. So it was good to hear the direction Council gave to Mr. King tonight about certain items that can move us forward. Just yesterday, the Fayetteville VA Coastal Health Care System broke ground for the VA clinic that's coming to Jacksonville. And surprise to some of us because we didn't know yesterday was going to be the groundbreaking. But it doesn't matter if we know as city staff. And unfortunately, we didn't get you that information because we did not know. But the fact is, the VA clinic is effectively coming here and hopefully by 2029, it will be built. It will serve anywhere from 40,000 to 80,000 veterans. It will be a multi-specialty unit facility that will combine not only the four clinics that we have here, but they'll bring new specialties in. They'll bring new doctors, new nurses, new equipment, new opportunities for our veterans. And for a military host city who leads the way, that's extremely important. The other thing is there's a lot of grand openings going on now. So you've seen Guthrie's, you've seen Raising Cane's, you've seen the Crumpler Marina. These are all great things happening in our community. And then there's other items that are on the upcoming horizon over on Yop Road, over on Gum Branch, over on... The commons, multiple, whether it's commercial development, residential development, or other businesses, they're fantastic. So to see business happen in Jacksonville is a blessing. It's a good sign for all of our citizens. Thursday, I think Ms. Smith might have alluded to this, but Thursday we will welcome a new community member to Jacksonville. That'll be Colonel Ingram. He will be assuming command from Colonel Pace. So the blessing there is we'll get to keep Colonel Pace, and then we'll have Colonel Ingram. And so for some of us that are going to be there, we get to welcome him into our community to say thank you for being here and leading from the front, which is a blessing. And the last comment, Mayor, I don't have a picture of it, but... Our own Wally Hanson is not here tonight because he took his 19-under JASA soccer boys program. He took them out to Utah as the North Carolina state champions. And when he comes back in tonight at some point, probably midnight, he comes back as national champions. I don't know who all the team members are, but I promise you we'll get you a picture, at least share it with you. I know that Wally's son Parker is on the team because Wally's son had a corner kick that ended up in a goal that tied the game. So I think we could probably beat Spain at this point because they hardly scored anything at all. So we're putting the challenge out there. Wally's team versus Spain. If you know anybody in Spain and they want to accept the challenge, I'm quite confident Wally will say, let's do it, and they'll load back up and fly out there. So we're just very proud of our people. These are celebrations that we have for multiple things, from business owners, from council taking action, to community leaders, to our kids and the programs that we have. A lot of things to be proud of and a lot of success. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Raz, thanks for joining us tonight.

Thank you.

All right, with that, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed.