City Council - workshop

would like to call to order the August 11th Concord City Council work session and welcome everybody it's good to have you here with us tonight going down the list here the first item that we have tonight is recognition of the city of Concord Finance Department and I'm gonna come down front for that one and I think Kristen This is recognition of the City of Concord Finance Department for receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the period ending June 30, 2025. The City of Concord has participated in the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada Award Program for many years and again has been successful in meeting the requirements for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the period ending June 30, 2025. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. And I think the real The real important part about this one is the city of Concord has received this award for 37 consecutive years. I imagine that probably sets a record somewhere, but we appreciate what you do to cause this to happen 37 years in a row. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to invite up some of my team members that are here to join me up front. So I mainly put this together, but this is the combination of a year's long effort of hard work. Jessica, that includes you. Um, so I just wanted to, some of them are working from home today and so they, they can't be here, but I wanted to make sure to bring them up here as well because this is a total team effort and we couldn't do it for 37 years without the entire team. So I just wanted to say thank you to all of you.

Congratulations. And thank you all for, for what, what you do for the city.

I don't know if you all want to move in. No, stay there. Okay. Yeah.

Great. Thank you. Okay, next order of business for tonight is item one, which is a public hearing that we will have on Thursday. And I think Jessica is going to talk to us about that one.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. T, Ms. Jenkins. So tonight, the item I'm bringing to you is the public hearing and resolution for financing that we're planning. This is for the communications building that has been in the CIP and was adopted for this fiscal year to be financed. The amount not to exceed of $10.2 million for that building, it will be going behind Fire Station 3 and will be where the 911 communications will be housed as well as the Emergency Operations Center. And so this is... A public hearing that's required is part of that financing process as well as the initial resolution with the financing team and other items related to the financing detailed out that need to be approved as well. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Excellent, thank you. Okay, moving now to item two and I think Alderman is gonna do that one.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Mr. Teedy, Mr. Blackburn, and Ms. Jenkins. These are amendments to the CDO, and there are quite a few. I did try to go ahead and place these into groupings so that I didn't have to go through every article. Just know that every article in the CDO for this will have an amendment except Article 5. So the articles to be amended, we're going to look at Articles 2 and 6, the Planning and Zoning Commission in their capacity as the Board of Adjustment in combining those two, signs specific to Center City for Article 12, and then just some general cleanup legislation and clarifying language in all of the other articles. So we'll start with Article 2. We needed to make some changes here for clarity related to the combining of the Board of Adjustment with the Planning and Zoning Commission, which includes quasi-judicial hearings and decisions. We've also included powers and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, and then you'll see that our department name has been updated throughout. So essentially for Article Two, we removed the current Article Two which reads Board of Adjustment and replaced it with 2.2 Planning and Zoning Commission and we took those powers and duties that were currently with the Board of Adjustment and moved those to Planning and Zoning as well as the quasi-judicial procedures and then limitations of the Board. We've updated the powers and duties to include administrative appeals and variances and then we've removed the ability for the Planning and Zoning Commission to here appeals of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So things like special use permits. So these would now need to be filed with the Cabarrus County Superior Court. And then we updated the powers and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission to align with chapter 160D of the general statutes. Moving on to article six. Again, a lot of this has to do with that combining of the Board of Adjustment with the Planning and Zoning Commission. permits requiring quasi-judicial public hearing procedures, appeals, removal of waiting periods for denied applications, alignment with Article 13, and again, the updated names for the department. So we did remove references to the permits issued by the Board of Adjustment, replaced it with permits that now require a quasi-judicial public hearing, We updated information on appeals and who can hear those appeals, and I mentioned that to you with Article 2. We removed the waiting period for resubmission of special use permits after denial. It used to be that you needed to wait a year to resubmit. That is no longer the case. We've clarified the processes and procedures for permits and administrative deviations, and we've updated and clarified information on certificates of nonconformity adjustment. to align with Article 13. So essentially now Article 6 and 13 read the same way. It's the same language. Moving to Article 12, this is where we see the most amendments. And a lot of these came from feedback in the, I believe it was the April 2nd work session for council. So some of the things that we talk about here are changes to sign standards, guidelines, and requirements in Center City. additional signage options for businesses, ground-mounted changeable copy for community service uses, transparency requirements, and then updated definitions. So Kevin's talked through these with you a couple of times, but now we are putting this in the CDO. So A-frame signs no longer are required to sit flush with the building. They don't have to touch the wall anymore as long as there is a minimum of four feet of unobstructed walkway clearance. Wall signs may be increased up to 10% with buildings that have no window signage. And again, these only relate to Center City. Projecting signs are now permitted per building entrance, where before it was per building wall. And clarification that signs placed on structures designated as historic will require a certificate of appropriateness. We did add that ground-mounted electrical Electronic changeable copy signs can now be used for community services in the CC District. If they are within 100 feet of residential uses, they cannot be illuminated between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. And electronic changeable copies shall be limited to only 70% of the total area. So you can see at the bottom in that red square, we have updated that community service that those signs can be available. Currently, that only applies to the Cabarrus Arts Council and the library. Clarification on window signs. Again, you've heard some of this. Addresses, hours of operations, and open and close status do not count in the calculation of window sign area. Multiple window signs are permitted with up to 30% of those windows can be covered. And then we've updated how to calculate the size percentage. So instead of the square that you saw earlier at the work session, it is now a polygon so it can fit and be tailored more towards the window sign itself. Part of also looking at the window signs is to make sure that there is transparency in those window signs, and we have included that transparency needs to be between four and eight feet above ground level. There are two different visuals here. The top one shows you what transparent compliant window signage would look like, and on the bottom you could see what would not be allowed. And the last article updates are really just general and clarification. For Articles 4, 7, 10, 11, and 13, it only has to do with language updated to combining planning and zoning in the Board of Adjustment. It's just changing names. For Articles 1 and 9, the combining of the Planning and Zoning Commission, along with the inclusion that we can email communication to people outside of just hand delivering it or sending it via snail mail. Articles three and eight, language related to the combining of PNC and the Board of Adjustment, removal of that one year waiting period, and then we removed an outdated example that was still included when self-service or self-warehouse or warehouse self-storage facilities were allowed in C2 zoning, which they are no longer. So these text amendments were heard by Planning and Zoning at their July 21st meeting, and they unanimously recommended these changes and to forward them to City Council. So the top two bullet points are their recommendation for the statement of reasonableness and consistency, and the third one will be if you Choose to not move forward with that so your next steps would be to consider the text amendments to the CDO Approve or amend the statement of consistency and approve or deny the text amendments if you have any questions I'm more than happy to answer this Not really a question But just I'm assuming from a communication perspective once all this is approved or if it gets approved however you want to say it and

Will, Paige, will you reach out like downtown? Like what's our plan from a communications perspective and then also getting it out to the sign companies?

So we will communicate it in multiple ways. I mean, we can definitely work with Paige. We will definitely make sure once it's updated that that communication goes out to all the businesses downtown.

Okay, awesome. Thank you. Yeah. Yes, sir.

Related to that, I've had several emails today from downtown merchants who are very pleased about the signage.

One question, and this was one that came up. A business installed an LED sign, which has the ability to change and so forth. That is not allowed anywhere other than those two locations

Correct. Is this the one that's on the wall?

Yes. Yes.

And they have actually reached out to us and we have relayed that information that it would need to be removed. So we're working with them on that.

Okay. So if they use it just as a lighted sign and it remains fixed, is that allowed or they can't be lighted? Is that the deciding point? Can't be a lighted sign or?

Or electronic.

Electronic signs. Correct. Gotcha. Okay, I was a little unclear about that.

Yes, sir. If I may ask a question, just for clarification, I know this might sound ridiculous, but if a building has double doors, is that one entrance or is that two entrances? Just because I'm sure this is going to come up somewhere, and I'd just like to have the answer a little bit ahead of time.

It probably would depend on the situation. I guess if the, you know, are they separated by five feet or six inches or?

No, I'm envisioning kind of like double doors, you know, and they both open or you can go in this one or you can go in this one or you can go up on both.

That one entrance, even though there are two doors. Okay. That's the way I would look at it.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure because I'm sure someone's going to ask that question. So, thank you.

And, you know. specific, another specific city. I know we had talked about the district exchange. They wanted two projecting signs, and we determined that they had two separate entrances, and they could do what they wanted to do. That is correct. Is that right? Okay, great.

And they've already submitted their paperwork, so we're just waiting to see how this is.

Yeah, I understand they were giving away free burgers today.

I've heard that there were a lot of people there.

Yeah, great. Any other questions? Questions? All right, thank you very much. Okay, the next item is item three, which is the public hearing on a zoning map amendment that we've all gotten lots of communications about. And on Thursday, we will need a motion to table that item until September. I think that's at the property owner's request. And so hopefully that word gets out to folks because I think there were quite a few planning to come and speak. But so that will be moved. And then we move down to the next item, Presentations of Petitions and Requests. Item number one has been withdrawn, so we will not be discussing that one at all. And then item two, Eric's gonna talk to us about.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Teed, and Ms. Jenkins. The first item that I have before you tonight, this is an amendment to our contract with Mountaineer for the North Apron roadway expansion. And this change order is really accompanying two things. The first is as we were going through the design and approval for the hanger construction that's gonna go on the site, we realized that the drainage pipe that was designed for the roadway was undersized for the hanger. And so we made that modification before that pipe was put into place in order to hopefully save money on the hanger project, which we're hoping to bring back to you at a later date. That was about $96,000 of this change order. In addition, they did find some additional unsuitable soil, and so the removal and replacement of that soil added another $49,000 to the project. So for this change order, we're looking at $145,329.85. which brings the total to $2,656,865.34, which fortunately this project is being funded by the state through a grant that we have received, which we are able to cover this change order with that grant. And so with that, I'm going to open it up if there are any questions on this item.

Questions for Eric? Great. I think you've got the next item as well.

I do, in relation to that project. So this is a change order for our engineer of record, which is Talbert Brighton Ellington. As we've been going through this project, we have had a lot of delays that have occurred because of the unsuitable soil that was found. As we have addressed the additional testing that they had to take on in a previous change order, we did not address the additional time. which the project was originally slated to be 150 days. Right now we're pushing up on almost 360 days because of these delays that we found in testing the soil, coming up with a plan, redesigning it. and then the time that it took as far as removing it and replacing it. And so they are asking for an additional 196 days to the contract, which is adding $299,604.91, bringing the total for this contract to $771,276.50. And again, this is all coming out of the same grant, and we are still able to accommodate this change order with those grant funds. And with that, I'll open it up if there are any questions on this item.

Questions? All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next to item four, and I think Kevin has this one.

Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Teedy, Ms. Jenkins. This item is, I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally we have a code that is a little unclear as to what it means. And this is part of the stormwater code. Chapter 60 talks about city's compliance with their stormwater permit and phase two stormwater compliance. It basically says that appropriate stormwater facilities are required to manage runoff when property improvements are made. It also states that the zoning compliance permit may not be issued until that condition is met. So it really doesn't reflect the way it's currently written, current practice. And if you were to read that in its literal sense, basically means that any small improvement like a patio or an outbuilding or a driveway or a building addition would require stormwater review, just your small additions to properties, which has never been the case. And this sort of shows, the blue part is what the ordinance says now. It says no zoning compliance permit shall be issued for any property within the jurisdiction of the city until the conditions of this section are met, which basically means no stormwater conveyance onto your neighbor, so on and so forth. So what we have done is we have added a clarifying sentence, just to clear everything up, to say that no zoning compliance permit shall be issued for any property that is subject to the stormwater control review requirements of the development ordinance until the conditions of this section are met. So basically, you've got a convenience store, you've got a shopping center, they go through the reviews, they get their zoning compliance permit with their stormwater improvements, basically means your small additions to your house, your driveway, your patios, your gazebos, don't have to go through stormwater review. And so this basically clears everything up. We worked with... Stormwater, water resources, engineering, legal, all to come up with this language to just clear that confusion.

Right.

So residential small projects do not require?

No, they do not require stormwater review. I mean, could you imagine if you were building a patio behind your house and you had to submit to the city for review of a stormwater permit for that? So this basically just clears up that language. Great.

Questions for Kevin?

And I do have a question. So, like, let's say I live on five acres and I'm going to get on my tractor and I'm going to move a bunch of dirt. Is that a different kind of?

I believe it's a.

Because that would still be managed. I'm just thinking like.

That's more of a sedimentation control.

So, that would still fall under, like, if I piled all that dirt up at the back of my property and all of a sudden the rain went down to my. Does that make sense? It does. Because it's residential?

The threshold is 20,000 square feet disturbance. So if you disturb half an acre, you're subject to stormwater requirements.

Got it. And so if someone's doing that, like I hire someone to do that, then they're aware of that erosion control or whatever that might be that a permit would have to be issued to make sure that you're not. Correct. Okay. Very good.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thanks. Okay, next up is item five, updates to the downtown facade grant program. I think that's Paige. You're next.

Good afternoon, Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Teedy, and Ms. Jenkins. We are gonna talk to you a little bit about facade grants today. Just a quick update. So looking at the program we have allotted in our budget $50,000 for the facade grant program and previously we have structured that into two different options as far as what a property could Apply for as far as their amount that they're giving back based on their location so when Preparing for the streetscape and knowing that a lot of investment was going to be put into that area the decision was made to to allow up to $10,000 back for properties along the streetscape area, or what we called high impact areas. And so that allowed some properties to get 10,000 back, whereas others only received 5,000, up to a match of 5,000. And in looking at the number of properties we have, knowing that we had a lot more properties wanting to invest in their property and utilize the facade grant program, we would like to suggest that all of them would be eligible for up to $5,000 back. So this would allow for more properties and more businesses to take advantage of the program and would be the same amount no matter where the location is within the MSD. Um, and also would suggest that we remove the furniture. So if you remember during streetscape that was added, um, that was a difficult time for a lot of businesses. And so that was an opportunity to really help them in, elevating that patio space that they now have in front of their business. And now is the time we really feel like this should be something that's really in keeping with the purpose of the grant program that stays with the building and the property. And so this was discussed with staff and CDDC Urban Living Committee who voted unanimously to support these updates. But I will accept any questions about those updates. Well, of course, I have a few, if I may.

Yes, you may. First, I'm interested to know how many of our businesses have taken advantage of this and participated? this facade grant that's probably my first question I'd like to know and then secondly what's been the limit if ten thousand dollars has been the limit in the high-impact area I'm assuming the high impact is Union Street Union Street and Barbrick and Market where the streetscape took place okay was there any facade grant allowed for like Church Street or like up to five thousand that that was five thousand already on those outer sides Okay, I didn't know about that. Do you know how many participants we've had in a year?

I think we had around nine or ten last year, and some were as low as just a paint update, which was like $2,500, and some were the full $10,000 amount. Okay. But we ran out of money last year, so we just kind of want to spread the love a little bit more. Right.

How many were denied because you ran out of money?

I don't know that I counted the number of them. They will have the opportunity to apply now, to have their applications seen now, yes.

Yeah, I'd be interested to know how many were not able to be funded.

There were quite a few, probably about six or so.

Okay, and I remember us having this conversation about this was sort of a, it wasn't exactly fairly balanced if you came to town late. In the year after maybe the funding had been distributed, you know, like from January to June or something, you come along in August, the money's all gone. You know, there you are. Okay, great. Thank you.

For historical purposes, because I don't have this knowledge, it seems like the high impact areas in these facade grants traditionally have gone to the downtown area. Downtown area does get a little bit more foot traffic than other areas within the city. So how did that come about that it was only this area, but also has there ever been conversations about other areas that might not have the resources and the foot traffic to be able to participate in a program that can significantly increase their revenue, but also of course revitalize their businesses.

Sure, so because this falls within the municipal service district, it is tied to that money that these property owners are paying in their additional tax within that district. So it's something to consider if there were a new municipal service district created for another area of Concord, that's something that I would imagine they would probably want to consider. I think I have one more slide. Oh yes, your action will be to maybe approve these changes.

So the applications that were denied last year because funding ran out, were most of those for furniture or do you recall?

We've actually not had a ton of furniture. It really has been the businesses have really taken advantage and property owners have taken advantage of the building. We've had probably five that have taken advantage of the furniture and that's over two years so yeah that really isn't their big you know impact moving that now is probably not going to have a big impact it doesn't seem like it will yeah what's the rule currently or is there one that if you use your facade grant for furniture and then you move

Does the furniture stay with the building or can't split it 50-50?

It does kind of put us in a compromising situation because we do have in the policy that the changes need to stay intact for four years. And let's say someone goes out of business, who's to say, and that was something we talked about when that was voted upon, was they could potentially take that and we're never going to get it back. I don't know that we're wanting to be in the business of going after someone who had to close their business. But that's part of the takeaway is that It doesn't stay with the building.

Just one question, Mayor. If the ones that received the money before it ran out, are they going to be able to apply again? Once you've gotten a grant, do you get another grant? Can you apply for another grant?

You can get a grant each year. However, we would look at the ones who came in first.

Any other questions for Paige? All right, thank you. Okay, Chief Hughes is up next on item six.

Thank you, sir. Mayor, members of council, Mr. Teague, Mr. Blackburn, and Ms. Jenkins, thank you for this time tonight. Before you this evening, it is for consideration of adopting an ordinance ordering the demolition of a structure located at 426 Lincoln Street, and this structure is owned by Clean Clothes Enterprises. So just for reference, you can see the star on the map. That's just below Caldwell Park. A little bit closer in, you can see that it's at the corner of Lincoln and Cozart. And here is a street view of that structure. So this is a single parcel per Cabarrus County land records. It's valued at $78,530. And upon code enforcement's inspection, it was deemed to be dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. So this is actually the second case involving this property. The first case was back in July, started in July of 2024, with a minimum housing case, which was opened and a notice of violation mailed out. You can see the dates there. The property owner at that time obtained a building permit and said that they were going to move forward with repairs to the property, and they did not do that. But in good faith, the case was closed at that time. The property owner sought a second building permit or a reactivation of that building permit in April of 2025, and then again in January of 2026. However, no rehabilitation work or other corrective action was taken on that structure. So then fast forward to February of 2026. Another case involving this same property was opened again, and you can see there the dates in which a first extension was granted, a second extension was granted, and the property owner applied for a third extension June 30th of this year, and that was denied. And on June 29th, 2026, the civil penalties started, which as of today is up to $8,400. No work's been taken. No work, no nothing's been done to the property. So here's just a few photographs of that property. This is above the door. You can see the brick is damaged. You can see that the wood is rotten around the side of the building. See the foundations cracked where it's separating a concrete block. And here's where the roof has given way and water intrusions occurring. It's just another close-up to give you perspective of that. Then we move to the interior of the structure. You can notice where the outside is now coming to the inside of the structure in this photograph. And again on another wall, you can see the outside wall is deteriorated. And it's hard to see in this, but just under that grate to the left of the foot is a hole in the floor that's being covered by a grate. And with that, I will take any questions.

I have one. So currently, of course, you know he has his property up for sale. And there's two parcels, right? This one with the building and then the laundromat. But he's selling them together.

Yes.

So how will this action affect his ability to move forward with selling

It should not impact that. If you all approve the demolition, then the code enforcement would go with one of the contract companies. They would demo the building. They would grade it and fix the property. And then whatever the cost that is associated with that would go as a lien on the property. So if the property does go through sale, then that money would be recouped for the cost of the demo. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?

This actually may make that property more sellable. I'll just be honest with you from a real estate perspective. I mean, I know that there's costs involved and all that. Question, Chief. Don't we typically, so in the past, I know we've done a handful of these, not many. So we've got one extension, two extension, the third is denied. That is pretty much our standard practice from a perspective of what we've done in the past, correct?

It is. That is correct. And generally, if they're making progress towards Coming into compliance, we try to work with the property owner as much as possible. It's just in this case, it's demonstrated by the previous case that they're just not coming into compliance.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Any other questions?

Just a quick question, and I'm not sure if this is for the chief or Ryan. If the property doesn't sell anytime soon, is that lien just going to stay there for as long as it's sold? Is it accruing interest? What is the process for that?

It won't accrue interest because it's not a judgment. We would have to enforce an actual action to try to get post-judgment interest, but it likely would not be worth the cost to undertake that action.

Thank you. So in other words, we're giving the property owner an interest-free loan to make their property more marketable? Yes, sir.

Yeah. But it helps the overall.

I just want to add to that that this has been a long, ongoing eyesore for the Lowen community for years. He bought this property, I'm thinking, 10, 11 years ago, and nothing's been done. So just think about the community aspect of having to look at that in their community for years and years and years, and nothing's being done.

Not to mention the fact that it is the close proximity to the park and to residential areas, and so there's a lot of children that play in that area, and they're subjected to that structure, which is not extremely secure.

Right. Okay, any other questions or comments? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, next item seven. I think Jessica's got that one, reimbursement resolution.

Good evening again. So this item is related to another financing that was included in the fiscal year 27 budget for the purchase of fire trucks. And so we are doing a reimbursement resolution for that financing so that they can go ahead and proceed with purchasing the fire trucks to take advantage of savings before cost increases happen. And then we will be able to reimburse ourselves once we issue that debt later this year. And so this is the reimbursement resolution that authorizes us to reimburse ourselves later when the debt is issued.

Okay, any questions for Jessica? All right, thank you. Item eight, Jay has that one regarding WW Flow Park.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Teed, and Ms. Jenkins. Here tonight, we are going to show the next steps for our WW Flow Park. So just one of the next steps for our bond projects. And I have two images that we'll show. So this step is really to look at the next steps that we need for this project to take place. The image you see in front of you is the current setup for the park, which includes our four ball fields, two volleyball courts, walking trail, multipurpose field in the back, as well as the trails and the sand volleyball courts. This next image is what the future would look like which would include additional amenities based off the master plan that was completed in 2023. We took all of the community input we took from that meeting and that's where we got the, RESULTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT THIS NEXT PHASE OF LOOKED AT THIS NEXT PHASE OF THIS PARK. THIS PARK. SO THE TOP FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS SO THE TOP FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT CAME TO FROM THE PUBLIC THAT CAME TO THOSE MEETINGS AS WELL AS THE THOSE MEETINGS AS WELL AS THE SURVEYS WERE THE ITEMS THAT ARE SURVEYS WERE THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THIS PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES IN THIS PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES PICKLEBALL COURTS, A LARGE AND PICKLEBALL COURTS, A LARGE AND SMALL DOG PARK, PLAYGROUND, We'll renovate the multi-purpose field in the back, include additional trails, and then just for the land purposes, we'll have some stormwater utility improvements. So the item on the agenda is for us to take the next steps for that, which would include surveying services, utility investigations, geotechnical services, stormwater analysis, renderings, cost estimates, and then design for all those phases that would go into that park. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Questions for Jay.

All right.

Jay, have you ever had feedback that did not include Pickleball as one of the top ones?

I don't think so. I didn't think we had.

I mean, it is such a... Yeah. Yeah.

We actually have had, it's funny, we've had the reverse right now. We've gotten some calls from people that are seeing the designs for Ramser that knows that there's pickleball there, but they want tennis too. So we just direct them there's tennis nearby and there's not too far away because a lot of times what we're seeing is the pickleball is taking over some of the tennis courts that weren't used before and those numbers are going down, but there's still people that are interested in pickleball and tennis at the same time. So we've got to make sure we have even amounts as much as we can. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next item nine, Jeff's gonna talk to us about jet vac truck.

All right, good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Teed, and Ms. Jenkins. We don't normally present individual equipment purchases to you all, but we are doing so tonight because this piece of equipment was not included in our annual budget request, and we'll talk a little bit more about why that is the case. So we are asking for authorization for the replacement purchase of our jet-back vehicle for our stormwater department from jet-back equipment in the amount of $632,124.13, and also there's a budget amendment to go with that item as well. So our jet-back is the big, large, probably the most expensive vehicle that our stormwater department has. It does just that. It can clean and suck the debris out of our stormwater boxes, inlets, and pipes. It's a very important customer service that we provide, that that vehicle provides, and helps us maintain the high level of service that our customers deserve. The vehicle for the last eight months has been suffering major mechanical issues. The front of the truck, the chassis works just fine. This is the rear. a high-tech part of the back of this truck that's been failing. As we went through the budget process, it did not make it into the replacement schedule because we still had hope that we would get it back running again. We have exhausted numerous vendors, our own internal fleet folks, our own staff, and we just can't get this vehicle back up to a reliable working order. So what we're asking you to do is authorize that purchase JetVac does have a vehicle that meets our specifications on the lot, ready to go, and we needed this thing probably yesterday. It is a very critical piece of equipment. It does take a beating, and to think that a 2019 vehicle like that, a high service duty, has made it this far, we're still happy with. We're asking for your approval for that purchase as well as the approval of the budget amendment. You will notice on the budget amendment we are using retained earnings at this time to transfer over to pay for this. Historically, our stormwater revenues are extremely strong versus what we project at budget time. It's just way too early in the fiscal year to understand what those numbers are and have any other savings throughout the year. So that's what we're asking for. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Thank you. All right, thank you. Okay, next is item 10, and I think Ron's gonna report

So we had robust discussions about amendments to policy 5.10 regarding political activities of city employees at the June second work session, and then again on the July second work session. Following those conversations, I took back the feedback that I received and have drafted an amendment to that in accordance with the direction, and I'm happy to take any questions.

I have a question, but before that, I guess I need a little bit of clarifications before I ask my questions because I'm very, I became even more troubled by this policy today after receiving various emails because as a council, we didn't have robust conversations about what this would look like, what it can look like, and also what exactly are we trying to do when it comes to allowing our employees to engage in civic duties, et cetera. But upon learning new information that when we as a council stated that we don't overlap with the school board or we don't engage with them in a financial way and that's why this was permitted in the first place, to me it just simply shows that it is not, especially when someone on the school board was able to reach out today and state that, They did this in conjunction with coming to a previous council member. So it only further perpetuates the favoritism that was done for an employee, but also that those relationships do matter and that those relationships do influence how decisions are being made. So with that being said, I do have a question. I know we're going to have the motion to amend Article 510, And there's two portions that we will be working through, which is allowing them to run for public office, but prohibiting them to keep their respective jobs if elected. But we're also looking at the second portion, and this is my understanding that we're looking at if an employee is in office and this would apply to them, they get to finish their term. So those are the two portions. And it seems very unequitable, especially when this is an election cycle and we have no idea if another city employee wanted to run this year. Now they would have to wait an additional two years in order to do so but we're allowing that preference for someone to actually stay in office it just seems very unequitable so I guess for you Ryan my question is when we're looking at this motion and on Thursday when we make that vote is there any possibility that we are able to change the first piece and not the second to allow for further discussion or do both of those sections have to be changed immediately?

So the proposal in front of you is a motion to adopt it as I've currently got it drafted. I wanna make sure, I don't know if I misheard you or if I missed a word that the, As it's drafted, city employees could run, but could not hold their city employment once they take office. Okay, I thought, okay. I misheard what you said, so I just wanted to make sure.

Can you tell me then the second portion of those that are currently in office that would be impacted by this?

Those individuals would be able to finish their term, because I believe the discussion amongst council members was, the concern of the thrusting that upon someone after they've run a campaign, they've been elected, and to say, well, now, starting Friday, you must decide which one it is that you're going to take. And so the conversations were to allow them to finish it out, to allow them to also run for reelection, if that's what they choose to do, but then if they're reelected, they would be just like any other city employee who may be running for election this cycle, that if they are reelected, that they would then have to choose between taking the seat or keeping city employment.

Thank you for that. I simply don't agree, but I know that we're gonna go based on majority, but again, that seems unfair to allow someone to finish that one again. We also have other employees that are severely impacted and would also have to wait two years to run. So I respect the majority of what the council decides, but I personally, I don't agree. So they can run, but they can't. So this is a cycle of election where let's say, for example, somebody were to want to run for county commissioners. They've missed that opportunity because of the policy that we have in place right now.

You're talking about in this current election, which that filing was like a year ago.

But we still had a policy in place, and that's why they were not able to run. So that just means that they would still have to wait, because they would be allowed to run, just can't hold on. the position and do that. So that's my thing where it is almost double sword for those that were to want to run and don't have an opportunity to do so. And now we're changing that policy now while still continuing someone else to finish their term. So that's my biggest concern.

As the policy exists, that individual would be able, I mean, under the current policy, that individual or individuals would still be able to serve because there would be no change in the status quo would remain. Which is the part I don't agree with. Gotcha, understood, understood.

It just seems like council is in agreeance with that. And again, it's all about the majority.

Not just the personal opinion because if we go by opinions choose minds as best, but that's not it But again, it's very unequitable and unfair in my perspective I don't think that concern arose when we had discussion during our work session and I understand because I've flip-flopped on this a few times myself.

Well, there was a lot of discussion on the timing. I think we went through each board cycle, I don't know if that's the proper term, but you know what I mean, we went through each board cycle to say if this happens now, just like, for example, I think the discussion was if this happened next year, Concord is currently not, and I know that's a bad, I was gonna use Kannapolis, that's a bad one too, because now it's partisan. Mount Pleasant, let's use that, right, is currently nonpartisan. If we changed it next year, at this time, it would impact someone that, right? But since the commissioner race is partisan, that race has already been. So there was a lot of discussion around that piece of it, and I hear you and I respectfully, I appreciate your opinion on that, but I will say there was a lot of discussion around that too, for sure, on the cycle itself, I guess.

Okay, any other questions, comments? Great, all right, the next item 11 is consider making appointments to vacancies on various City of Concord boards and commissions. We did have a meeting Lori, Betty, myself, along with staff, to discuss the vacancies that we had. And you see on the screen the recommendations that we had after looking at the applications that were on file. I think that left us with one additional vacancy that we did not have enough applications to fill and that was the Public Art Commission. And we do have a citizen that has expressed interest but has not gotten their application in yet. So these are our recommendations and we're happy to answer any questions that you might have. All righty. Hearing none, we have a number of items on the consent agenda. So if anybody has any concerns or questions about any of those that need further discussion, do not hear anyone. And so we do have need of a closed session tonight. So at this time, I would entertain a motion. that we go into closed session pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11 in order to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. We are now in closed session. Thank you.