City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Let's pray. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you so much for this day, and thank you for the many blessings on our community. I pray for the wisdom for our mayor and council members as they make decisions for our community, and I pray for the events that are happening later this week that they'll be good weather. In your name we pray, amen. Amen.

Join me in the pledge. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All righty. On our agenda, item F was moved to the regular agenda. Are there any other changes to the agenda? If not, do I have a motion to approve the amended agenda?

So moved.

We have a second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. So the City Council as always strives to follow the code of ethics and the strategic plan as laid out by the city, so we're good there. We do have a couple of presentations and recognitions tonight. We have a proclamation for our Juneteenth celebration, and we are gonna recognize the National Waste and Recycling Workers Week with the proclamation also. So I'm going to move to the podium and we'll do the Juneteenth first. Do we have representatives? I know who all is here representing Juneteenth. Please come on up and we'll

Thank you.

Yeah, this is perfect. So April can see you. Well, her camera. So her camera can see you. Whereas on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced the freedom of enslaved African Americans, making the effective end of slavery in the United States. And whereas Juneteenth commemorates a pivotal moment in our nation's history and provides an opportunity to reflect upon the struggles, sacrifices, and resilience of African Americans throughout generations. And whereas this observance honors the pursuit of freedom, recognizes the enduring contributions of African Americans to our nation, state, and community, and whereas Juneteenth encourages all Americans to learn from our shared history, acknowledge both the progress achieved and the challenges that remain, and reaffirm our commitment to the principles of liberty, equality, and justice. And whereas the City of Statesville values the diversity of its residents in recognizing that understanding our history strengthens our community and helps foster mutual respect, civic engagement, and unity. And whereas the observance of Juneteenth provides an opportunity for residents to come together in remembrance, celebration, education, and service while honoring the ideals upon which our nation was founded, Now, therefore, I, J. Douglas Hendricks, Mayor of the City of Statesville, do hereby proclaim June 19th, 2026 as Juneteenth in the City of Statesville and encourage all citizens to observe this day through reflection, education, cultural appreciation, and community involvement as we celebrate freedom and continue working toward a more equitable and united future. Thank you.

JUST JUST A FEW WORDS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CYPHER. I MEAN, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE JUNETEENTH COMMITTEE. AND I JUST WANT TO REINTERRATE WHAT THE PROCLAMATION BASICALLY SAID ABOUT THE JUNETEENTH FESTIVITIES. JUNETEENTH, ALTHOUGH IT IS PUT ON BY THE PREDOMINANT AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY, JUNETEENTH IS FOR EVERYBODY. Because my holy book teaches us that God created the human being into nations and tribes so that we would know one another, that we could learn from one another, not to hate one another. So in the spirit of that, this is why we celebrate Juneteenth as a total community. It's a culture event where you can come and you can learn a little bit about our culture. And at the same time, we can exchange information with one another so we can participate in your cultural activities, so we can learn one another. Thank you.

Our second proclamation. And we've already taken the picture because the half of the folks in here are our wonderful city employees that keep our town looking the way it looks. And I thank all you guys and ladies. So this is the proclamation for the National Waste and Recycling Workers Week. That's June 15th through June 20th, 2026. Whereas the cleanliness, health, and safety of the City of Statesville depend in large part on the dedication and service of waste and recycling workers who faithfully serve our community throughout the year, and whereas these essential workers provide a vital public service through the collection, processing, and proper disposal of waste and recyclable materials helping to protect public health and preserve our environment. And whereas waste and recycling personnel perform basic physically demanding work often under challenging and hazardous conditions while ensuring the continued operation and quality of life of our community. And whereas National Waste and Recycling Workers Week provides an opportunity to recognize and thank these hardworking individuals whose efforts go unseen, yet are critical to maintain a clean, safe, and sustainable city. And whereas the City of Statesville proudly recognizes the contributions of waste and recycling workers and remains committed to supporting their safety, well-being, and professional service. Now, therefore, I, J. Douglas Hendricks, Mayor of the City of Statesville, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim the week of June 15th through 20th, 2026 as National Waste and Recycling Workers Week in the City of Statesville, and encourage all residents to express their appreciation and gratitude for the dedication, hard work, and essential service provided by waste and recycling workers to our community.

I just want to say this before we go further. I just want to thank you guys. I'm going to thank you ahead, okay? I'm going to thank you for this past weekend. I'm going to thank you ahead of time to my sanitation workers because you guys have helped me tremendously in the weeks leading up to this event. And I know you guys are going to, I'm sorry, let me apologize for having y'all work on Friday, but I'm thanking you in advance for helping me out this weekend as well. And also to the June team committee, looking forward to this weekend, just reminding everybody we have events Friday and Saturday. So you can't say you don't have anything to do. So thank you guys in advance because I know you're going to have a busy weekend, and we do appreciate all you do, okay? Thank you. We'll see you.

Also, we got something really cool going on. You can go on the city's website and thank these guys personally, and we're asking the community to do so. If you go to the City of Statesville website and you can thank our sanitation workers personally. So please do that if you get a chance.

I want to say thank you to all you folks. Y'all stand up. They need to know who you are. They do a really hard job. They're out in every kind of weather, a lot of them right on the back of a truck, which if you've ever done it, is not a real comfortable thing to do. And even inside the trucks, most of them are cab overs. don't really want to do that either they're not a real smooth vehicle to ride in but if you ever get a chance if you want to come by we'll be happy to let you ride on a shift and you can get a real good idea for what that what what the they pick up a lot of everything but the the garbage is really an interesting aroma so that that's something that that not too many people are willing to do and we really appreciate y'all doing it because we you do it so well and we very rarely ever hear from anybody so it just happens magically. So thank you and thank you.

Thank y'all. Appreciate y'all coming. I know it's been a long, hard day, guys. You are welcome to leave. Not you, Bill Balito. You haven't done anything today. I'm going with you.

That is so nice. That's well represented.

All righty. We appreciate everybody coming out tonight. That's a special time and for special folks for this city. Okay, we're gonna move on. We did not, well, tonight was our evening to have public comment. No one signed up for any of the public comment. Does anybody in here not have the opportunity to sign up if they wanted to? All right, so we will move on to the consent agenda. All these items are considered to be routine by City Council and will be enacted by one motion. Item A is consider approving the May 28 pre-agenda meeting minutes and the June 1st, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Item B is consider approving a resolution to amend the regular meeting calendar. Item C is consider approving the second reading of an ordinance to annex AX26-04, that's 1006 Wall Street, filed by Mr. Garrison Davis of True North Homes LLC. That's approximately 0.62 acres located along Wall Street. Item D is consider approving the second reading of an ordinance to annex AX26-07, that's 237 Third Creek Road, filed by Mr. Robert Helms of Husky Homes and Land LLC for the parcel located at 237 Third Creek Road. Item E is consider approving the second reading of an ordinance to reestablish the Downtown Municipal Service District for another five years. That'll be July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031. Item G is consider approving an audit contract for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 with Martin Starnes and Associates. for the city. Item H is consider approving the semiannual write-off of approximately $127,832.97 in utility accounts. Item I is consider approving the Statesville Fire Department to apply for the fiscal year 25 fire prevention and safety grant program. Item J is consider approving budget amendment 2026-30 to transfer funds received from the NC911 board to the police department for $74,353.42 to purchase two additional Vesta positions. Item K is consider approving a resolution to join the Integrated Mobility Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for a planning grant for the purpose of conducting a transit-oriented study to connect Statesville to Salisbury via the Western North Carolina passenger rail. Item L is consider approving budget amendment 2026-23 to accept a $5,000 grant award from the North Carolina Amateur Sports Youth Sports Organization. Are there any items on the consent agenda that need to be moved to the regular agenda? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, moving to the regular agenda. Let's make sure I got this right. Okay, conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of a new system development fee scheduled for NCGS. That's 162A-209. I will open the public hearing. And Mr. Vaughn. Dr. Vaughn, excuse me. Sorry, Bill.

Good afternoon. GOOD. WE HAVE A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT EVERY FIVE YEARS TO UPDATE OUR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES, AND THIS IS A DEFINITION OUT OF THE STATUTE. WE HAVE TO PUT IT IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET, AND EVERY FIVE YEARS WE HAVE TO DO THIS. THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS WAS 2021, SO WE'RE ON SCHEDULE. And the reason that we're doing the public hearing tonight is we had to have a 45-day basic comment period, which two months ago we started. And as of now, I have received no comments from anyone. And Mr. Moriarty, representing Raptellus, they have not received comments. So I guess we're in the clear on that unless somebody speaks up tonight. These are the statutory requirements. There are three ways of doing it. It's called a capacity buy-in, an incremental combined, and a combined. And I'll go through that, how we did the water and the sewer. One was done one way and the sewer was done another way, just because of the way we have developed those programs in the last five years and the expenses involved in that. Mentioned before, Raftelis Financial Consultants, they crunched the numbers for us. They're based on the cost analysis of planned infrastructure that is currently in place, basically your asset in place, and what will be constructed to serve new capacity demands. Now, the trick in this is we can't count contractor-donated items in our system development fee process. And by our ordinance, NINE OUT OF TEN TIMES THE DEVELOPMENTS GIVE US THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS AS PART OF THAT PROCESS. WE'VE HAD TWO LARGE PROJECTS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS THAT WE ACTUALLY DID AS A CITY PROJECT. ONE WAS THE LARKIN PARK WATERLINE EXTENSION. THE OTHER WAS THE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS WE DID FROM THE OLD COUNTRY CLUB AREA AND DOWN US 21. So those were the two big things. But in there, in between, in those five years, you know, we have purchase orders, we upgrade pumps, we change out equipment as part of the assets. So we got to recoup all those. We got to sweep all those POs and things for the last five years and include those as part of it. But as far as big projects are concerned, we've only had the two that counted towards it. And that is reflected when you see that the change in the SDF over the last five years is not that significant because of those very reasons. I won't go into a lot of details, but there was a lawsuit over this a few years ago. The statute was kind of rewritten, and it's very strict guidance on how we can determine what applies to the fees and such. Ergo, we hired Raftelis because they do it a lot, and they're the experts at it. The methodology is capacity buy-in, system development fees calculated on the proportional cost of each user share of the existing system capacity. divided by the estimated value existing. And a lot of that is done based on the depreciated value. We have a lot of old systems here. And that also reflects in the bottom line number that you get to as things are depreciated.

For mental costs, similar but a little different.

Development fees on the new customers, proportional share of the cost of coming up with the utility. Finally, bind method. which is a combination of the previous two. As it turns out, we did the first one for the water system. That worked out best. And the evaluation of how the sewer system has been developed, the plant capacities, work we've done in those areas, a combined method actually worked out better for that determined approach for the water. There are no significant capacity adding water projects in the 10-year plan. Our wastewater, excuse me, our water plant is set at 15 million gallons capacity. If we were to add to that capacity and pay for that, then that would be applicable cost towards the calculation. But we're not. I mean, we're running three and a half to four MGD right now. Projections I saw the other day on some other places are in the next 10, 15, maybe 20 years, we might be running at seven. So we have a lot of capacity in the water system, in the water plant. That's why this calculation for the water is the applicable one to use. For wastewater, that's a little different. We have two wastewater plants. They have a total capacity right now permitted of 12. Third Creek, we have a permit that we could go up to eight when we do that. And y'all know all about that with some other discussions on other projects and things that are going on. So in order to utilize the capacity at both plants and the possibility of increasing those capacities, which we're going to have to do eventually sometime, this one became better to be used as a And here's how we did it. In the water system, the buy-in approach, you come up with the cost, gallons per U, and that's what you come up with the cost. So that is right there in the USDF fee based on those methods. Using the combined approach, you get similar numbers but two different places. You add them up, and that's what you get for the wastewater side.

How does that affect our customers?

The top ones, normally, it was going to be five-eighths to three-quarters. That's your normal residential meter for a home. And then it kind of goes up that, depending on size. You know, you might have a duplex or a few apartments, so you got to make the hose a little bit bigger to get more water there, up to about two inches. Those are the most common SDFs that we see, because those are the most common meters that we will be using in the future. That's not to say that there'll be larger projects. It could be an industry coming here that needs a three or four inch pipe, and we do have numbers for that. That chart tells you what all those particular numbers are. The one on the left, that's your single family residence. mostly with the others. This becomes your fee chart. Now, in multifamily, there's a little grace in that, you know, with individual meters. So the system has been divine to give a little relief on the SDF costs for multifamily townhomes and apartments. That's a new allowance that's kind of come up.

That's how we got to where we're at.

We had 45 days, no comments were received. We had two days to get it left for tonight's meeting. If you accept it, then it will go into the next budget year's fee schedule, and that's why we're here, just for you to vote on that, to incorporate the new SDFs into the fee schedule. I'll tell you that the SDF fees for water went up about 10% over the five, six years, and about 13% on the sewer. And if you look at our rate study, how we went nine, 12, 999, that's pretty comparable And when you set this tonight, that rate won't change for five years. So with the cost of money, you're actually going to decrease the percentage of what the real money cost is to the customer for the next five years. And we will go through this again. We will scrub all of our purchase orders. We will watch projects, whether we build them or they're contract donated. As you know, we'll be working on a new asset capital asset management system, which next time might help us just hit a button and roll up all these costs next time. That's what I'm hoping for. That's my goal. So, but we had to do it all by hand again, longhand. Mr. Moriarty here, he got the task of crunching all the numbers. So if you have any really, really down in the weeds questions, he's the guy.

Are there any council questions for Dr. Vaughn? Yes, Dave.

Yeah, Dr. Vaughn. When you look at other municipalities that have similar capabilities as ours, how would you say our fees compared to them?

Board, you do this for several. You want to field that one, please?

Yeah, of course. WELL, GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S ALSO KIND OF HARD TO COMPARE BECAUSE EVERY SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT, RIGHT, AND HOW THEY'RE UTILIZING THEIR ASSETS, KEEPING THEM UP IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. BUT I WOULD PROBABLY SAY THAT THE $1,100 TO $1,200 IS MAYBE EVEN ON THE LOWER RANGE OF WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE. Lower to mid-range. I would say that they're pretty comparable.

Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you, Dr. Vaughn. We will move into the public hearing section. No one signed up to participate in this hearing. Was there anybody that came in late that would be interested in speaking? If not, I'm going to call us out of the public hearing. Are there any additional questions from council? Is there a motion to go on with the system development fee schedule? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item 10 is conduct a public hearing and consider passing the first reading of a rezoning request ZC26-03 Moose Club Road Kingdom Townhomes filed by Hezekiah Walker of Love Fellowship Tabernacle Inc. for two parcels located at 185 Moose Club Road I will open the public hearing. Mr. Kirkendall.

Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. So this evening's rezoning case is located at 185 Moose Club Road. It's approximately 12 acres, and the request is to rezone from Trotman RS, which is residential suburban, to R5MF, which is a high-density multifamily district, which would be conditional here in the city. so first question why is it here if it's on moose club road well in 2023 city council adopted the proposed boundary agreement with the town of troutman for an annexation agreement so anything north of that black dotted line would belong to the city if it were to be developed and need utilities and anything to the south same thing with troutman for utilities this property is located at that red star Currently on the property, there is a church and these brick columns indicate where the driveway is into that church facility. Aerial photo of the property. There on the left is Shelton Avenue. Road diagonal is Moose Club Road. As you can see, the Wakefield development across the street is being developed. As a part of the conditional request, it would be tied to a concept plan if approved. And the concept plan we'll discuss here in just a moment. As a requirement of conditional rezoning, a community meeting must be held. This meeting was held back in January where two members of the public attended and their questions were pertaining to the compatibility of housing type. Here is the concept plan. A TOTAL OF 41 UNITS ARE PROPOSED. ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT, YOU SEE THERE ARE NINE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AND ON THE RIGHT WOULD BE 32 PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR TOWNHOMES. IN ADDITION, THERE WOULD BE SOME AMENITIES INCLUDING A DOG PARK AND A TRAIL AS WELL AS A CLUBHOUSE WITH A PLAY AREA AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE TOP RIGHT. When we look at the surrounding zoning, we do have multiple large tracts of land. That would include the Whitefield development. The zoning around the area would be Troutman residential and mixed use, as well as Iredell County residential agricultural. SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR MAP, BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO TROUTMAN, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT WHERE WE HAVE REZONED IN THE AREA. SO ON THE LEFT IN THE PURPLE, THAT STATESVILLE R-8 WOULD BE THE WALLACE SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE GREEN THERE RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF SHELTON AVENUE, THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY THAT WAS REZONED FROM IREDAW COUNTY AGRICULTURAL TO STATESVILLE AGRICULTURAL. AND ON THE RIGHT WOULD BE THE WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION, ALSO ZONED R-8. So as always, when a rezoning is presented to staff, we look at what our 2045 long range plan shows. So in this instance, our 2045 land development plan said this would be Troutman. So it did not fall within our planning jurisdiction. And so staff deduced, okay, so if it were to be developed, what would be a likely use? One would be an activity corridor and two would be complete neighborhood two. Activity corridor would be the pink KIND OF THE ARTERIAL ROAD ALONG SHELTON AND THEN COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD TWO WOULD BE MORE RESIDENTIAL USES AND THAT'S THAT YELLOW THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. AND BECAUSE IT FELL OUTSIDE OF OUR LONG RANGE PLAN WE WANTED TO REACH OUT TO OTHER PLANNING DEPARTMENTS SO WE TALKED TO TROUTMAN AND THIS WAS THEIR RESPONSE. SO THE PROPERTY IS SHOWN AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S TWO TO THREE UNITS AN ACRE FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND THE TOWNHOMES WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS AND THE WAKEFIELD DEVELOPMENT. The applicant has provided this rendering for the townhomes and the applicant is here to present and they do have additional elevations for you all. Staff has reviewed this project and the technical review committee has deemed that it is in compliance with our code. The open space we talked about, they are having 3.2 acres and they only need 2.4 and the amenities I previously discussed. AND SO CITY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAVE WORKED UP WITH THESE DRAFT CONDITIONS. SO OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED WOULD BE A 40-FOOT RIDERBOY DEDICATION ALONG MOOSE CLUB ROAD WHICH WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEN WE WOULD ALLOW FOR A 10% REDUCTION IN UNITS DUE TO ENGINEERING AND THAT COULD BE STAFF APPROVED RATHER THAN COMING BACK THROUGH THE WHOLE REZONING PROCESS. SO RECOMMENDATIONS, SO PLANNING BOARD AND STAFF HAVE CONFLICTING RECOMMENDATIONS HERE. SO STAFF ACTUALLY RECOMMENDS DENIAL WHICH IS OPTION TWO AS IT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR PLANNING AREA AND IT WOULD REPRESENT EXPANSION INCONSISTENT WITH THE LONG RANGE PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND EFFICIENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES. HOWEVER, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED OPTION ONE IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH WOULD BE APPROVAL WITH THE REGRETABLE CONDITIONS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, AND AS A PART OF THIS, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE 2045 LAND USE PLAN BE UPDATED AS A, TO BE DESIGNATED AS COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD TWO, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL USE SUCH AS THIS. AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP?

BECAUSE I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE YOU SAID THE PLAN, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENYING IT, BUT IT IS IN WITHIN OUR RANGE. CORRECT?

SO IT'S WITHIN OUR HOLD ON LET ME SEE HERE SO IT IS NORTH OF THE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF TROUTMAN FROM 2023 HOWEVER THE IN 2022 WHEN WE ADOPTED OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE STAR AS YOU SEE THAT GRAY IS TROUTMAN OKAY LET'S GO BACK WHAT YOU SAID WE TALK ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT YEARS

OKAY. SO DON'T CONFUSE US. TWO DIFFERENT YEARS. SO WHICH YEAR ARE WE GOING WITH, 22 OR 23?

SO WHEN WE ADOPTED THE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY AGREEMENT, WE DID NOT UPDATE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

BUT WE HAVE UPDATED OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WE HAVE OUR UDOS. DID WE NOT JUST DO THAT?

YEAH, IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED AT THE TIME. SO THIS MAP Actually, go back to the land use plan.

There we go.

So that this probably should have been amended at the time to follow the annexation boundary agreement, because that's what established the jurisdiction essentially, you know, not, not in fact, because until the ETJ is eliminated, which this would do if it's rezoned it, but that's, that basically cast the die for saying, yes, this is going to be in the city of Statesville moving forward.

Well, and I guess I'm not trying to be complicated, but I guess my thing is we have to be consistent, you know, let's, LET'S KEEP IT LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT YEARS. WE ALREADY ZONED SOME STUFF. I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED WHY THE PLANNING STAFF DENIED IT. OKAY. I'M DONE.

CAN YOU TELL US MORE ABOUT THAT PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION? I KNOW IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE.

NOT THE PLANNING BOARD. THE STAFF DENIED IT.

THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED IT. IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE OPPOSITION PLANNING BOARD?

UH REALLY THE PROXIMITY TO THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS THAT WAS REALLY THE DISCUSSION AND THE LOCATION IS WHERE AS FAR SOUTH AS IT IS GO BACK TO WHERE IT WAS ANY ADDITIONAL STREET FROM WAKEFIELD RIGHT THAT IS CORRECT WAKEFIELD IS ACROSS MOOSE CLUB CORRECTLY CORRECT

Any further questions? Once again, no one signed up for the hearing to speak. Did anybody come in late that would like to? Okay. I will call us out of public hearing.

Mr. Mayor. Oh, did you?

Okay. That's fine. Yeah, I didn't.

Nope, come on up.

And can we go back into the public hearing?

Yeah, we'll go back into public hearing. Sorry.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

I appreciate that. I've been at all the meetings since January on this project. As I had spoken earlier, I have all the property to the left of this, approximately 26 acres. So I keep coming back to— Can I interrupt you for one second?

For the sake of the clerk, can you state your name and address for the record?

Sure, I'm sorry. Garth Leidecker, and I'm at 177 Moose Club Road. So, again, I'm a retired general contractor. I'm not anti-development by any stretch of the means. But this development is inconsistent with what's on Moose Club Road today. Wildwood would be my example. And I think there was another property at the end of Moose Club that was denied property. for almost similar reasons. I'm just, you know, I'm just concerned. Yes, there's nothing I can do about what Town of Troutman did. Yes, that's over 3,000 homes and condominiums. I get it's in that area, but that's an awful lot of development for one area. That's just my comment. Don't know if they're going to, you know. I understand it's very confusing on that, but I just don't think that's consistent with what's in the area.

Excuse me, can I ask you? Yes, ma'am. May I ask you a question? How is this going to affect you, your business, the property that you have, by the disconnection?

32 condominiums are going to now be within 100 yards of my house. Noise, garbage. I'm concerned about the water flow. There's a natural pond in the back of that. I know they're going to have a retention pond, but that's going to affect that. That's an awful lot of density. That's an awful lot of people in 12 acres. How do you feel about the Wakefield project? There's absolutely nothing I can do about that at this point. Nothing I can do about it. I'm concerned with the city of Statesville. That's y'all's rules. We're here to discuss a rezoning for city of Statesville, not Troutman. The only thing I would comment there is how much development do we need within one square mile? We got two lane roads everywhere. We don't have the capacity for sewer. Wakefield can't get their development going because they can't get sewer connected. So we're gonna add more to it. That's what I'm hearing.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, any further questions for the applicant or staff?

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Lashree Rogers and I am here representing Hezekiah Walker and as a project manager for this particular project here.

All right, I think I got it.

So welcome note, as a thoughtful design mixed residential community that balances housing growth, environmental preservation, infrastructure coordination, and quality of life amenities in alignment with the vision and objectives of the state's bill 2045 land development plan. About us, Love Fellowship Tabernacle, Hezekiah Walker and the Love Fellowship Tabernacle vision is to help the community thrive and build for the future by developing attainable quality homes. We aim to strengthen families, promote stability, and create opportunities for long-term growth. We believe this project is a practical step towards unity, bringing neighbors together, and investing in healthier and stronger community. Kingdom Homes Community. So as I think we've pretty much had an opportunity to see this here. So we have, sorry, let me move this onto the side. So we do have the town homes. We do have the single family homes here. We also have the trails. As mentioned, we do have the natural pond that we decided to keep as a natural feature. And then we also added the retention pond Here at the bottom, I want to say the bottom, middle and the bottom, we do have the townhomes, the parking spaces for the shared community amenities as well. So we have 32 townhomes, two to three bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, rare garages, and due to the The information that we were provided by the city, they had to have two different types of exterior. So we have the hardy plank and then we have natural stone. Also, as mentioned, these are the different varieties that we're looking at. Different colors, different textures, different exteriors as well. This is also an example of the front and the back. So again, these are just some different options that we may or can be utilized to provide some different types of variety of exterior. This is an example of what one of the nine single-family homes residents can look like. Again, still keeping the hardy plank and natural stone exterior. Here are some other examples. So again, just some different variations of what they can look like. Did I go too fast? I'm sorry. What's that? Okay. All right. So how 185 Moose Club Road aligns with the Statesville 2045 development plan? Kingdom Homes represents a thoughtfully planned medium density residential community that complements the broader growth and development to, I'm sorry, and development occurring throughout the Troutman and Statesman's Corridor. According to the Statesville 2045 Land Development Plan, medium density residential development is supported when it is designed as part of a coordinated walkable infrastructure supported community rather than isolated high intensity growth. The plan emphasizes complete neighborhoods, housing diversity, environmental preservation, and intentional growth patterns throughout the city. One of the clearest reference appears within the city's plans complete neighborhood framework, which encourages compact and walkable residential neighborhoods, multiple housing type choices, townhomes and multifamily forms, pedestrian connectivity, trails and greenway systems, shared open space, and community-oriented amenities such as parks and clubhouses. The adopted 2045 development plan specifically states that it encourages master plan projects that include a variety of units, types, designed around a common space, which are preferred. The Kingdom Home plans excuse me, the Kingdom Homes Plan preserves open space, maintains a low visual intensity, distribute density, strategically includes detached housing, and integrates natural buffers. The proposed development at 185 Muth Club Road strongly supports several major goals outlined within the adopted Statesville 2045 Development to Plan which includes strategic residential growth, housing development, excuse me, housing diversity, preservation of open space, quality of life enhancements, infrastructure coordination, and long-term economic stability. Excuse me. The first thing supports managed residential growth. The 2045 plan emphasizes directing growth intentionally, preventing unplanned sprawl, and creating organized residential communities. The Moose Club Road concept accomplishes this through a massive plan layout, coordinated infrastructure, internal road support, utility easements, designated entrances, and organized housing placement. Rather than fragmented lot by lot development, this project introduces a cohesive residential neighborhood that aligns with the city's long-term, long-range growth strategy. provides housing diversity. Statesville's future planning initiatives emphasize the importance of offering a variety of housing types to accommodate workforce residents, young professionals, families, empty nesters, and future population growth. This development achieves that goal by incorporating 32 townhomes, nine single family residents, multiple lot sizes, and a variety of residential product types within one coordinated community. Preserves open space and natural features. One of the strongest elements of the concept plan is that a substantial portion of the property remains dedicated to stormwater management, open space, landscape buffers, walking trails, and green space preservation. This plan includes a stormwater pond, pond reservation, greenway walking paths, dog park, preserved wooded areas, and community green space. Rather than modifying the existing pond, the development plan preserves the pond in its original state in accordance with applicable municipal requirements. The approach allows the pond to continue serving as a natural environmental feature while enhancing the surrounding greenway walkway, open space areas, and overall peaceful character of the community. Sorry. This feature directly supports the 2045 plan's quality of life and environmental goals. Encourages walkability and community design. The Statesville 2045 plan promotes communities that are interconnected, pedestrian friendly and community oriented. This concept includes internal sidewalks, greenway connections, centralized open space, recreational gathered areas and walkable residential layouts. These features help create a true neighborhood environment rather than isolated residential lots. strengthens the Moose Club Road corridor. Moose Club Road is already experiencing growth, pressure, and transitional developmental activity. This project would improve corridor appearance, excuse me, introduce high quality architectural standards, increase taxable property value, and establish a more intentional gateway into this portion of Statesville. The use of hardy plank siding stone exterior accents, landscape buffers, and coordinated site planning creates a significantly higher quality development product than scattered rural subdivision growth. Supports future utility expansion and infrastructure planning. The 2045 plan discusses the importance of coordinating future development with infrastructure expansion and long-term utility planning. This concept already incorporates sewer easements, stormwater management systems, utility coordination, internal circulation, and designated access points. This allows for the property to develop in a more efficient and infrastructure conscious manner compared to the piecemeal development. Creates economic and tax based growth. This development would generate long-term economic benefits through increased property tax revenue, construction employment, increased consumer spending and long-term residential stabilization. THE PROJECT ALSO CONTRIBUTES TOWARDS WORKFORCE HOUSING SUPPLY, RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY GROWTH, AND INCREASED COMMUNITY INVESTMENT. THESE ARE ALL PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE STATESVILLE LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENTAL I'M SORRY, I'M A TEACHER AS WELL. LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK. aligns with complete neighborhood development concepts. Recent Statesville planning discussions reference complete neighborhood development patterns that encourage residential integration, connectivity, green space, and balanced housing design. The Moose Club Road concept already incorporates mixed residential product, recreational space, pedestrian pathways, landscaping, and centralized amenities. This positions the property as an appropriate candidate for inclusion within future residential planning updates. Why the Statesville 2045 plan should be revised to include 185 Moose Club Road. The property represents a strategically located residential growth opportunity. a transitional corridor between rural and suburban development, a master plan neighborhood concept already aligned with many of the 2045 development goals, a project that preserves open space while still addressing housing demands, a development capable of supporting future infrastructure investment responsibilities. This will conclude my presentation. Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions for the applicant?

When you said that a lot of information, a lot of good information that has been brought to us and the quality of life, our goal is to, we have to look at all of this and make the best decision that we possibly can. The resident, some people or the gentleman that spoke was concerned about how many residents How is this going to be there in his way of life? So as a council, we have to make the decision based on what is for the greater good. Am I correct in our decision making? In our decision making, we just can't look at it and say, well, Mr. John's going to be uncomfortable, so I'm going to vote for him. We have to look more into the depths of the reason why we're voting for this project. And my concern was, I don't know the communication between you and many of the residents, or how do some of the other residents feel about this project that's coming to their community?

So I will say we did, as mentioned, we did offer the community meeting. And I'm sorry, sir. What was your name? I apologize.

Carter.

Guard. We did have an opportunity to meet. We did speak. So, and pretty much I believe it was himself and his wife. So, it was more personalized because it was just pretty much the two of them there. So, we did have an opportunity to talk. And, of course, we definitely understand and we hear the concerns of the community. You know, growth, you know, that's, you know, sometimes some of the challenges with growth. You know, with growth, you know, things are going to be different. Things are going to slightly change. So how can we work together to make this work? Because, you know, as we know, with the growth process that's happening here, Charlotte and all throughout the region as a whole, growth is happening. It's taking place. Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid. But my question would be, how can we work together to make this work for the greater of the community as a whole? So I will say that we did have an opportunity to speak. I did answer the questions that he proposed, answered them to the best of my ability, and I think we walked away pretty much in alignment and had a great understanding of what was to come and what we were hoping to plan to build and to develop here in the space, not to kind of push away or push out the community, but more so to embrace the community. So we did talk about the opportunity of having the pond and having the trails and having the walkways there, that the community as a whole can partake and be a part of this, not just the community that we're building for, but this is something that can be introduced to the community as a whole. I believe he also mentioned that he and his wife did visit the pond from time to time. Am I correct in stating that?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so I know we talked about it, so maybe I'm confusing some of the information that we discussed, but the goal would be to open that up for the community as a whole. AGAIN, GROWTH, SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WHEN IT COMES TO GROWTH, BUT HOW CAN WE WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS WORK WHERE THE COMMUNITY CAN BE INVOLVED AND ALSO BE IN A SPACE WHERE THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION. AND I KNOW THIS IS HER PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK AS A COUNCIL, IT'S ONLY FAIR FOR US TO BE HONEST AND TRANSPARENT TO OUR CITIZENS We already know amongst us there is a huge elephant in the room regarding this project. It is for me, and I'm just being honest with you. With that being said, is it really fair for us to even think about this tonight, knowing we have this huge elephant on our back? If you know, you know. That's my comment. I'm just saying, I don't think it's fair to the developer, and we know what we know, and we can't be honest and transparent to the community, is it fair that we sit here and place a vote or a non-vote on a development?

Lisa, I might have a question that might help with that transparency. Help me out. Okay. Can we ask staff questions during this time period? Yeah, we're still in public. Okay. Can I ask Dr. Vaughn to come back to the mic? Absolutely.

Yes, sir.

Question about specifically this site in regards to if nothing happened with Wakefield. specifically just this site. Could you talk about sewer and sewer connection for this site and how that would work?

Okay, this site, since Wakefield doesn't happen, so there would be no collection system available on the south side of Moose Club Road. The nearest city sewer is in Wildwood. So the internal collection, and I guess by gravity, to a lift station with a force main going back up north and east to the Wildwood subdivision to daylight in that collection system, and then back to our Third Creek plant via the Wildwood lift station. So you'd have a daisy chain effect of two lift stations. Then the question becomes public lift station in Forest, Maine or HOA private lift station in a fairly long stretch of privately maintained Forest, Maine. That's the only way it could happen. That's the closest sewer to this development.

So could you put that up on the map so the public can see and understand that? And then also I would like the developer to acknowledge their responsibility for sewer connection as defined by the city.

Matt, that would be on your slide somewhere. Okay. Follow the arrow, I guess, if I can get it to work. So here's where we're talking about. And Wildwood here. Now, I mentioned earlier in the SDF presentation, we had the one water project, the Larkin Commerce Park. As part of that project, we ran a 12-inch water line down Club Road here to complete a loop system like this for the city. So water, 12-inch water line would not be a real problem. The developer could extend water. The problem becomes the sewer. The lift station is back up in here. ETERNAL COLLECTION SYSTEM IN WILDWOOD, HOWEVER THEIR GRAVITY FLOWS, WHEREVER THAT COLLECTION POINT WOULD BE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUMP SOMEHOW BACK TO MAYBE SOMEWHERE IN HERE TO A MANHOLD TO DAYLIGHT TO GET THEIR SEWER INTO THE WILDWOOD COLLECTION SYSTEM. BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF WHO MAINTAINS THE LIFT STATION, WHO MAINTAINS THE FOREST MAIN, ET CETERA. SO THAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP. THAT'S A PRETTY FAR PIECE not undoable engineering-wise, but then there are economic parameters and price point considerations, et cetera, like that. Our policy is contractor donated.

So my next question would be to the developer. Are you aware of these challenges with sewer and the pump stations required?

So unfortunately, our engineer wasn't available to come this evening, but we have had A lot of discussions surrounding the sewer, of course water. She has pointed out to us that there will be a stretch in regards to getting connected to the sewer based on where we're positioned and where the connections are. So she has worked through and she is continuing to work through a plan on how that would work. So of course that would definitely be something more We would focus definitely more heavily when it comes to finalizing the construction design, but we have mapped things out, and we have had discussions around this, and she has also, you know, the cost involved. Let me just say it that way. So, yes, we have had discussions around that whole sewer situation.

Did I answer the question?

Well, that's something. This is the owner. We had the discussion, and he's okay with what's being proposed and what she has shared with us thus far.

And the reason why I asked it, because that's a huge issue for us, not an issue, but that's a huge discussion with us, our sewer capacity. So thank you for that. Thank you, David. I appreciate that.

So, yes, again, just to reiterate, we have had that discussion. We are well aware of the gravity. She's she talked us through every part of that, the gravity, the incline, the decline as far as how we're positioned and where we're positioned. She talked about the specialized pumps that we would have to add on to it to make sure that we're able to get everything pushed to where it needs to be. So, yes, we have had thorough conversation regarding this, and we have also discussed the cost involved and knowing that it can be costly, but we're still in a position where we're ready to move forward.

Matthew, can you put up the four staff recommended, in the event that this was approved, what the staff recommended comments? Go back. As the developer, are you okay with these four conditions?

I'm sorry. Just making sure before I state yes to that dedicated role. Okay, so we did the concept plan and subsequent submittal plan review. Yes, we discussed the conditions. We were fine with that. It's actually on our plan. The development will include a maximum of 41 yes. So we do understand that with developing and finalizing the plan that there is a potential for reduction. So yes, we are fine with that. And yes, we do plan on having an HOA. Amenities will include everything that is mentioned here and also what is also included on our plan. But again, once we finalize the plan, the final construction plan, we will definitely make sure that we pay close attention to what it is that the conditions that were being proposed. But yes, they have been mentioned to us. We have discussed them and everything is fine with us and we're ready to move forward with these as well.

Ron, excuse me. Sure. With the information that we have now that we just heard, how is this going to affect us within the city in this process with the sewage? Because we didn't have this information when we were discussing things because we were not able to talk to the developers or have a representative. So now that this information is here, we need clarity on how it affects us and what part that we need to play or not play in this process.

Well, I think it comes down to the capacities there, because this is not a large development, but what Councilwoman Pearson has mentioned is there's a large development potentially across the street, and potentially that could help to make it easier for this development to access sewer, because we have two bill pump stations that would be involved with this, Those are long-term maintenance costs for the city. So that's something you have to keep in mind. But if the developer is willing to build them and the city is willing to take them on, then it shouldn't be a problem as far as providing the service.

Mr. Mayor, I think that's a great question that Councilwoman Allison raises, is how is it going to affect our citizens? And as I've said before, I'm very concerned about the cost of living in Statesville. There's a concept called incremental expenditures to say, the more of these developments way out there that we take on, the more it costs the city, the more it costs our citizens. We need paving inspectors and we need garbage collectors and policemen and firemen. So that's something I have to say that this development being so far south of the city limits really concerns me. And I think it's a good question to bring up.

But if we wind up with Wakefield, how is that going to be different? Not going to be different at all. We're not talking about Wakefield. No, but Wakefield's going to come up. It's coming up. And that's what I'm talking about. It's going to come up. So when it comes up, that development is bigger than this development. So it's coming up. So what are we going to do then? We're just going to say no to Wakefield? I mean, come on, let's just let's let's be honest and be realistic. Is that fair for us to really sit here and do a comparison and contrast when you have another development across the street? Make it make sense, because right now it's not making sense to me because you're sitting here talking about a huge development with over 300 plus houses compared to 40. Come on, guys.

I LIKE TO SAY IN REFERENCE TO MY QUESTION, AND I GOT THE ANSWER THAT I WAS SEEKING, AND THAT ANSWER WAS HOW ARE WE AS A CITY, WHAT RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD HAVE. AND AFTER OUR CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED TO US THAT YOU ALL ARE WILLING TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY That means to me, because growth is going to be no matter what, and we need to get this guideline through, but I just want to know what stays for, because I want to make sure that we are looking out for our residents. We need to know. And if we say yesterday that we're not going to be held accountable for anything that goes a different direction, but if this is going to help to strengthen the growth within Troutman and with the project with Wakefield, then it's something that we should not try to stop the greater good. So the only thing I wanted was to make sure that what our responsibility would be, and that's already been clear to me. So as far as the project itself, our liability, and we know that right now. You know, I just want to make that clear that I wasn't saying A or B, I was just saying I want to know what our responsibility was. And now that I do, I can make my vote for myself.

Any further questions? Matthew on the, go ahead, go ahead, Chris.

Question. The 41 units that are going to be there, the townhouses, are those going to be rental units? Are they going to be sold as? These are for sale. All of them are for sale? For sale, yes. Okay, thank you.

And Matthew, in your due diligence, did you speak to the police and fire as we typically do and get any kind of feedback? I didn't see in the packet. Maybe I missed it. But usually we know what kind of response time we get, which fire station would be responsible, that kind of thing.

Excellent point. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And that was included in the annexation packet. Okay. Thank you. I guess I could answer. So fire, it was seven to eight minute response time for station one, and then police had no concerns.

Any further questions? Leah, are we okay to call it out of public hearing now? Okay, I'm calling us out of public hearing. And we will go back. Any, so no more questions? Christy, you good? Trey?

Mr. Mayor, so first off, I would like to compliment the applicant. That was probably one of the most thorough presentations we've seen from a developer. And in terms of the layout of the development, It is an exceedingly good layout of a development. You've got the facade of the homes facing the public realm. You've got rear-loaded townhomes on an alley. You've got a compact level of density. This is exactly the sort of development that we would like to see in the city of Statesville. This is very much not in the city of Statesville. And so the concern that I have with this development is one of particularity. The layout is great. but the location is not. And so from a matter of cost of service, and this was addressed by Dr. Vaughn as well as by the manager a minute ago, is to run sewer to this, you're right, the developer writes the check and we've got that in the ground. But we also have a long-term maintenance obligation in the ground that the taxes that are generated by this development will never be able to sustain. And so this development is four miles from where we currently sit. It is an island annexation. So we as a council, most all of us ran on not doing this type of development. Most all of us discussed in land use planning, not approving this type of development. And a number of us went at city expense to a conference that explained how this type of development bankrupts cities. And so while in 2045, if this area is more thoroughly built out, this would be a logical extension of development. In 2026, it is not. If you look at the map, this is outside of what is generally considered Statesville and is definitely outside of what our utilities would consider Statesville. It would be a large and expensive extension of the sewer line that would require expensive pump stations to continue to provide service it would be difficult for the police department because they regardless of the fact that they can send troopers out there or patrol cars out there doesn't mean that it is inexpensive to send patrol cars out there sanitation has to put additional miles on their vehicles fire very expensive and large fire apparatuses would have to be sent a very large distance to go and serve serve this area eventually this area could possibly end up being a place where this development would be great. If this development was proposed in an area where we already had streets and sewer and all that, then this development would be exceptionally great. This is exactly the type of layout we want, but it is exactly the type of location that we do not want. And so one of the things that was mentioned was that this would prevent isolated high intensity growth. This is textbook example of isolated high intensity growth. If you look at the surrounding land uses, which a member of the community came and spoke about, this is completely inconsistent with the neighboring uses and inconsistent with what we want. And just because the town of Troutman behaves in a regularly embarrassing and financially irresponsible manner does not mean that we have to follow their suit. So this is a great opportunity for the city of Statesville to draw not a line on a map differentiating ourselves from Troutman, but to draw a line in behavior that differentiates us from Troutman. we should show responsible government that is responsible to the long-term obligations of our citizens and disapprove this project. Thank you, Mr. Robertson.

I'd like to say in reference to appreciate your input, but when I spoke to Ron, Ron, when I asked you the question and you were saying that if they're taking on the responsibility that we should not have a problem with their growth and development. And now we hear the statement coming from Mr. Trey, and I'm looking at the developers out here, the people out here, do you understand how we are being county torn between these projects based on issues that, information that we have received? And I have Ron to ask me, I'm asking Ron to help me to give some clarity on Mr. Trey, and I'm asking the developer that stood before us, the representative, how would you take this information that you heard and then apply it to your project that you?

Can I clarify what I said earlier? Please. I do not disagree at all with what Councilman Robertson's saying. What I was saying to you all was from a capacity standpoint. So we have, this is a small development. Our plant has the capacity to serve it with sewer. Those pump stations are expensive. And so there's no doubt to that. So from a capacity standpoint, yes, we can do it. From a pump standpoint, if the developer puts them in and we take them over, yes, we can do it. But it will be much more expensive than a gravity system.

Yeah, we can physically do it, but we cannot afford to do it because they'll pay for the construction of it. But every member of every resident of the city of states will pay for its maintenance from now until eternity. Well, let's just be honest.

We don't have the infrastructure to have a development like this. So you're sitting here saying, well, this is an idea for inside of Statesville. No, it's not, because we don't have the land size for that inside of Statesville. So yes, Statesville has grown, but we are moving out of the city limits of Statesville. Let's be clear about that because we've gone to 64, we've gone to 21, we've gone outside the boundaries. We are growing. So now let's go back to, like I said, the elephant in the room, Wakefield. So is it fair for us to even vote on this tonight? with all these issues and be a disservice to the developer when we know we have these other issues going on? To your point, I don't think it's fair because you have those concerns that you have. We have the capacity issue and we also have the other issues that we have. They're not going away. So let me share with this. If we don't do the due diligence for this developer and then Wakefield comes on the table, that's going to be a huge problem. A HUGE PROBLEM FOR THE CITY OF STATESFIELD. SO I'M GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE AS PUBLIC RECORD. SO LET'S THINK ABOUT THAT. DO WE WANT TO DO THAT? AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT.

NEW SPEAKER Well, AND A QUESTION MIGHT BE THAT MAYBE THE DEVELOPER PULLS THIS AND HOLDS IT FOR A LATE 90 DAYS. I think that would be prudent.

So do you guys understand? Let me explain. Well, let me explain where I'm coming from. We have another issue with another development that's in close proximity. The issue that we have is sewer capacity. But there's another huge elephant in the room that publicly we cannot discuss. So what I'm saying is I don't think it's fair for us to even make a decision on your project until we make a decision on the elephant in the room. So what we're asking is for you guys to give us what's the timeframe.

I would recommend to the developer that they pull their project for 90 days.

Can you pull the project for 90 days? Okay. Okay.

Quick clarification with that, by pulling it, does that mean it has to come back to the planning board or through the planning board?

Whatever, so they don't have to go back here. To table it or postpone it?

It was postponed to a date certain is what we would do. We would close the public hearing, and then we would postpone the debate and decision until a date certain.

So it would be September?

October 5th is what Madam Clerk is telling me. What about October? It would be 90 days. Is that okay?

October the 5th, 90 days? Is that okay?

Okay. Thank you. That would be my recommendation for the development and the annexation.

Somebody should make a motion then.

I second it. I make a motion that we allow the developer to extend.

That's not the motion.

I'm sorry.

Procedurally, the motion would be to postpone until a date certain of October 5th.

I would like to make a motion to postpone the date to October the 5th, 2026. Okay.

I do have a question. Just so that we're clear, can you give us, just give me an understanding of exactly what we're tabling it, understood, but what do we, so this way we can go back to the table and make sure that we're better prepared.

Just got to open my big mouth, let me say this. What I would recommend is you get with staff.

Yeah.

Get with staff and let them explain why it's an advantage or disadvantage to table your request. And then we can go forward with the decision. Matthew, can you explain that to her, please?

This is the reason why that we ask questions like we do and get our understanding because everybody cannot speak for everybody in the field, which we are not in. So I am grateful that, and I'm grateful for this council. As you can see, we want to get to the right We want to make the right decisions for the greater good for everybody that we can. So we appreciate you willing to come in and give us those 90 days and be able to sit down and let us come back. And then we can have a real conversation and be able to make a better decision on what we're voting for.

Thank you for that.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

We need to vote. There's a motion and a second on the table.

We have a motion to delay the presentation or the vote until October 5th.

So moved.

All in favor say aye.

Can we have any discussion on the motion? I just want some clarification. So are we waiting 90 days to see if Troutman builds a sewer line out there? What are we waiting 90 days for?

WE'RE WAITING 90 DAYS TO RESOLVE.

WE NEED TO RESOLVE.

NO, NO, NO.

THIS IS NOT A RESOLVE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S NOT FAIR FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION ON A DEVELOPMENT THAT WANTS TO MOVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALREADY IN THE MIDST OF. AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN REALLY DISCUSSED IT. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE DEVELOPER FOR US TO MAKE a decision on their project and when you got a whole nother issue that's going on.

It's independent of Wakefield. The developer is asking to be annexed in the town of Statesville and to be rezoned by the city of Statesville. It has nothing to do with Wakefield.

It will have something to do with Wakefield because it's going to affect their sewer capacity.

SO IT WILL. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION. IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE A DECISION HERE TONIGHT. WE'VE ALL HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION AND TO MAKE A DECISION. IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT TO PUT IT OFF FOR THREE MONTHS WHEN NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THREE MONTHS.

WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION REGARDLESS OF HOW WE FEEL. YOU HAVE YOUR SAY, WE ALL DO. But if there's information out here and we need clarity on that information, I don't think that we can make a decision just because you clear doesn't mean that I'm clear or anybody else is clear. But once we get all this information on the table and we come back, I think that we have a better decision whether it's yay or nay. But not to do it would be unfair. And I think this is what it's all about. How do we deal with difficult issues that we don't really understand? So to your point, I get it. But to the point that I have to make a decision on a yes or no, I want to know what's out there. And once I get that information, yes.

We have a motion and a second.

Second, yes.

Is everybody good?

Yes. I would say I would agree with the honorable member opposite that this will not be resolved in 90 days. I think the appropriate course of action would be to vote on the motion, deny it, and then in the future, and I think it may be a long-term future once other things have been settled, then I would encourage the applicant to come back and represent, but this will not be done in 90 days, I think that the better course of action would be to deny the motion on the table and then deny the applicant as well. I think that's the most responsible course of action we can take so that we don't leave them in limbo for 90, 120, 180 days going forward.

So, okay, so then my next question is going to be, any other development that's coming to us in this vicinity, are we going to do the same thing? You know how I'll vote. I'm asking. No, I'm dead serious. 100%. Because anything else that comes this way, are we going to do the same thing?

I think that would be responsible, yes.

I think that we should go ahead and whatever the process may be, whether it's yay or nay, it's not for one person to sit up here and say, well, you may be right. So, okay, let's see 90 days if you really actually right. And if you right, then we move on. We'll understand the process. But killing something before we have an opportunity to invest in it, to see the yays and the nays, I don't think that's fair. So I am for the 90 days, you do your work, do generally, we come back and we start from there. THAT WAY WE'LL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR, HOW WE'RE VOTING, AND THEN THAT WAY IF THERE'S ANY CONCEPT, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY SEE SOMETHING ELSE. I MAY SEE SOMETHING ELSE. BUT LET'S GIVE THIS AN OPPORTUNITY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT, GIVING PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERY DEVELOPER AND DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN AND FIND A SOLUTION.

IF IT HELPS WITH THE CONVERSATION, IF IT'S TURNED DOWN TONIGHT, THE DEVELOPER CAN RESUBMIT pretty much immediately. So you're getting the same result potentially either way.

Yeah, but we're moving forward. So while we want to turn something down, they're going to come back and make that same decision. Everybody has a right to vote and whatever your country say, but turn it down and then they're going to come back and reapply. Then we're going to go through the same process. While we're on the wheel, let the wheel keep on turning. And then when we stop, we stop.

Any further discussion? We have a motion to postpone to a definite date of October 5th. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. I will vote to approve delaying the decision for 90 days to the date of October 5th. Okay, item 12, conduct a public hearing and consider passing the first reading of an ordinance to annex AX26-08, 114 Bristol Drive, filed by Jorge Valdez on behalf of the property owner, the Painter's Personal Touch LLC. It's approximately 0.36 acres, located at the corner of Bristol Drive and Gardner Bagnell Boulevard. I will open the public hearing.

and mr kirkendall um just as a procedural matter um the next item on the agenda was the annexation request for this same development um is that are we gonna open the public hearing and have hold that hearing and then postpone that one to the same date certain is that the intention or would need a motion to do that but i think that if we don't open the public hearing and hold the public hearing i think we'll need to re-advertise for the public hearing so i just want to put that in everyone thank you for bringing that up i don't know what we want to do i had assumed it would automatically follow but that that's a very good procedural point yeah that's so i'm calling us back into public hearing okay so

Do we even need to have discussions given what's already been said?

So I guess the question is, are we going to hold the public hearing and then have that hearing and then continue to the date certain so that we don't have to re-advertise? Or are we okay with re-advertising and we just want to go ahead and continue it to a date certain and then planning can re-advertise that?

Being that he's opened the hearing, can I go ahead and just make the motion to postpone

No, we would need to either hold the public hearing, you've opened it, so are we gonna hear the evidence for the public hearing at this point?

That's what I'm saying, at what point?

The motion would come at the end of the public hearing if we're gonna have the public hearing and hear the evidence for it. If we're not gonna hear the evidence and we wanna hold that public hearing, is there a preference for the applicant? Is there a preference for planning department here? What do we wanna do?

So after convening with the planning director and the applicant, if we could go ahead and hold and close the public hearing, that way the decision will be postponed to that date certain if everyone is on board for that.

Okay, yes, thank you.

Fine, thank you.

So you want to go ahead and do your presentation?

Absolutely. So annexation request in regards to the rezoning we just heard. Again, located at 185 Moose Club Road. It is a satellite annexation. Two parcels over just over 12 acres. So staff did reach out to various departments states will public power provided that this is the Duke in dukes territory stormwater had no concerns. fire station one from seven to eight minute response time and PD had no concerns. It would be in voting ward one for the Department of Elections. And Dr. Vaughn briefed you on the water and sewer situation at Wildwood, Shelton, Pub Station. And so for staff review, staff has determined the site does meet the statutory requirements for annexation and that services can efficiently be provided by the city or other utility providers. Although the site exceeds the preferred four minute response time, it is within a seven to eight minute response time.

Any questions? All right, and there's no one left to speak, I suppose. So I will call this out of public hearing. Any further discussion? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Mayor, I move to postpone this item until the October 5th meeting. Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. So we'll go back to item 12, that's conduct a public hearing and consider passing the first reading of an ordinance to annex AX26-08, that's 114 Bristol Drive, filed by Jorge Valdez on behalf of the property owner of the Painter's Personal Touch LLC. It's approximately 0.36 acres located at the corner of Bristol Drive and Gardner-Bagnall Boulevard. I will open the public hearing. Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Council. Our annexation case tonight is 114 Bristol Drive. It is approximately .36 acres spread out across two parcels. As previously mentioned, Mr. Jorge Valdez, on behalf of the property owners, Painters Personal Touch LLC is requesting annexation to connect to city services, specifically water. The backstory on this is that when the home was purchased earlier this year, it was found that the well was dried up, so they had to connect to city water, and they are requesting annexation to get an inside rate versus an outside rate. The green dot on the screen shows that the property is on the western portion of city limits. Here's a slight photo of the parcel. Just wanted to note that the home fronts along Bristol Drive and Highway 70 right there, or I apologize, Highway 90, but the entrance of this parcel comes off of D Street just behind this property. This property is adjacent to city limits, so if approved for annexation, this would be considered a contiguous annexation. It is adjacent to Ward 1. and there is an existing home on site previously mentioned. So whenever we look into annexation petitions, we do request information from other city departments. Statesville Public Power has reported back to us that this is within the exclusive territory and Statesville Public Power is currently serving the site. Public Utilities reported that there is a 12 inch water line in Bristol Drive as well as an eight inch sewer line in Bristol Drive and is available for connection. Stormwater reported no concerns. Fire did report back that the site is within the preferred four minutes response time from station number two and police reported no concerns. Staff has reviewed the request and determined that the site meets the statutory requirements for annexation and that services can be efficiently provided by the city. I'll be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is present if you have any questions for them as well.

Awesome. Any questions for Mr. Campbell or the applicant? All right. No one signed up to speak at the public hearing. Is there anybody here that missed the opportunity to sign up? Seeing none, I call us out of public hearing. Are there any additional questions from council? All righty. Is there a motion on the, is there a motion to proceed?

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the annexation.

Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you all.

Thank you. All right. Item 13. Consider approving a resolution to cancel Brookdale Connector Project from Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization, CRTPO, and Transportation Improvement Plan, and the NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Plan. And Ms. Martin.

Thank you, Mary. So the Brookdale Connector was a locally administered project planned during the time that the Divergent Diamond and Roundabout were planned at interchange 40, RI 40. The project over time, though, shifted the original alignment that was the proposed alignment there further south to impact the Brookdale Lake Dam, which made the project no longer financially feasible. So city council in February of last year canceled this project, but in order to actually remove it from the accounting books from both CRTPO and the NCDOT, a resolution needs to be passed. And so staff recommends approving the resolution to formally cancel the project this evening, and that'll allow the funding to be returned to the region. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions? Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the... So moved. Thank you very much. Seconded. Do we have a motion and a second?

Any more discussion?

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Please.

It was very disappointing that we didn't get this project done because it was a safety issue. traffic and proximity moving in and out of the hospital. I do hope with our new planner, transportation planner, that we could revisit a plan. And as the roundabouts get flushed out, just egress in and out of the Iredell County Hospital for emergency services is a key thing that we do need to look at. So thank you. Thank you for the comment.

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Thank you.

All right, item 14, consider approving the city manager to execute an estoppel certificate on behalf of the Keith Corp regarding the Larkin Regional Commerce Park Development Agreement. Staff presentation, Mr. Harrell.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. What you see on the screen, this has to do with the Larkin Commerce Park, which you know is right off exit 45 on I-77. This figure is the original concept plan for the park. It is rotated 90 degrees, so north is to your right. That's I-77 running across. And where you see designated Phase 1 is five buildings. That was subsequently revised to be three buildings. So what is currently happening is the Keith Corporation is in contract to purchase the balance of the park from the original developer, who is GS Statesville Greenland. The city entered into a development agreement with GS Statesville Greenland back in 2019 to establish terms and contributions from both sides in the development of the park. The purpose of an estoppel certificate is to basically give a snapshot of that development as it stands now to verify its current status so it's clear as ownership transfers what the new owner will be responsible for. Briefly, the terms of that agreement, again, it was adopted in 2019. It runs with the land in perpetuity, so it does transfer with an ownership change. It includes that initial concept plan, but there is allowances, there are allowances for variation from that plan so long as the general intent of the plan is not compromised. establish the park. Zoning is B4 and HI, and there is a list of prohibited uses included in the development agreement. And it has to comply, all development has to comply with the terms of the city's unified development ordinance as it existed at the date of adoption in October of 2019. Water and sewer lines are internal to the park. The developer is responsible for their construction. External to the park, the city did build as part of our contribution. Dr. Vaughn mentioned it earlier, the water line on Amity Hill and Moose Club Road Sewer connection is to be, or at the time the development was to be, through the city's agreement with Troutman to use Troutman's line, which does border the park. As you know, that agreement has expired, and there are conversations about options between the city and the Larkin folks, Keith Corporation specifically, about what options they may have to tie in. We did reserve 55,000 gallons per day of water and sewer capacity. That is in the numbers we tracked for the Third Creek plant. The plan is that once the first three buildings, which is what that capacity refers to, the first three buildings, once they are built and their actual volume is known, we'll kind of reappropriate for the following phase. INTERNAL STREETS. WE BUILT THE CITY STANDARDS AND ACCEPTED UPON INSPECTION BY THE CITY AND PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL FOR ACCEPTANCE. THERE IS A GREENWAY MULTIPATH THROUGH THE PROJECT AND OTHER DETAILS AGAIN PHASE ONE IS THREE BUILDINGS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED TO BE ABOUT 1.65 MILLION SQUARE FEET. THE FIRST BUILDING WHICH IS THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS DISTRIBUTION CENTER AROUND A MILLION SQUARE FEET HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THEY HAVE PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEXT TWO BUT THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN SOLIDIFIED YET. A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED FOR PHASE ONE, AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE CONSTRUCTED FOR PHASE ONE. SO AS IT MOVES TO PHASE TWO, PAST THE FIRST THREE BUILDINGS, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE UPDATED AND ANY ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED. THE LAST KEY POINT WAS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT, A PART OF THE AGREEMENT WAS THE CITY MAY CONSTRUCT AN EMERGENCY SERVICE CENTER. THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL $125,000 PAYMENT TO THE CITY FROM THE DEVELOPER IF THAT CENTER IS CONSTRUCTED. And once they move past phase one, the first three buildings, there's been some debate as to whether fire station one would count. It's not on the piece of land that was referenced in the agreement. So there is some openness there to interpretation moving forward, but that doesn't really come into play until they build the first three buildings and then apply to move to the fourth building. That's really the highlights of the agreement. Again, it would be, if you authorize the manager to sign, he's simply signing the statement saying this is where the agreement stands today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions?

Mr. Mayor, I have a few questions. Yes, sir. Mr. Hill, this has been going on for years, this whole Larkin Commerce Park. So can you take us back and just tell us what the city has invested in our infrastructure in that business park over the years?

The primary investment has been that off-site water line. It actually did complete a loop for us. It helped our overall system function, but it did provide service to that park. And I think it was in the neighborhood of $5 million was the construction cost. That was in lieu of any other economic incentive.

I read something just looking back through the years that maybe it was $19 or $20 million in infrastructure costs that we've paid in the Larkin business card. Is that right?

It doesn't seem that doesn't seem right.

Just curious about the cost and what we've paid for the infrastructure in that part. So do we know if those costs have been recovered by the city or if they've been repaid? I would have to do it.

I have to work for the finance, do an accounting. You have the tax revenue. Larkin, when GS Greenland annexed, they annexed, I'm not mistaken, back around 2008, 2009. they repaid their taxes they made the first three payments totaling 375 all those years while development really stagnated it was originally conceived to be something very different than a commerce park or an industrial park so they if you it depends on how far back you want to go as far as the property tax they've been paying going back you know 18 years

And the 2019 agreement with Greenland LLC entitled that 1,000 acres plus or minus for certain uses. Can you describe to the council what those uses are in that agreement?

Let me go all the way back to the concept plan. the kind of the upper left part of the screen where the the smaller buildings that are shaded red that was kind of a commercial retail area that was um that then was um zone b4 and then the balance of the park is hi so it would be typical uses there there is a list and is the agreement in the packet before yeah it looked like mostly commercial and industrial is that fair Correct, correct. There is a list that's Exhibit C in the agreement. I don't know what page that is in your packet. Okay. There's a list of kind of your typical prohibited uses. Otherwise, yes.

Do we know if Keith Corporation will maintain the existing development plans as identified in that agreement?

They would be required to.

Okay. And you talked about the different phases of development. Can you tell us where we are in the development process, which phase, and how that works?

Yes, sir. Phase one, again, it was revised after this concept plan. There is an updated version in this, and the copy was very poor quality, so that's why I didn't put it in there. But it's three buildings was the exhibit E in the agreement, the first three buildings, again, one of which is Sherwin-Williams distribution, which has been constructed. The next two are in the early stages of concept, really, because they're still trying to nail down an end user. So that's phase one. It's basically south of Dover Road. Okay. And once they build those out, then they'll contemplate how much of the remaining would be a phase two or even if they broke it into a phase three.

So, one of the things that concern me about this is that if we're in the phase one of this development agreement, the 2019 agreement with Greenland LLC, it says that sewer, sewer is my big concern with this, sewer will be provided by the town of Troutman in accordance with the agreement between Statesville and Troutman. And do I understand correct that that agreement is not existent now? That's correct. It's expired. And is city approval of this estoppel required for the sale, required for the buyer to close on that land? Do we know that?

I don't know if it's required. There is actually a clause in the agreement specifically referencing an estoppel certificate.

So what I'm getting at with my questions, Mr. Mayor, is I understand this is not a policy decision. I understand we're voting on this estoppel. It's a legal document and I'm not opposed to the sale at all. I want to see this park built and I want to see higher paying jobs coming into our community. But I think before we facilitate the transfer of a thousand acres, which is what we'll be doing, of publicly supported infrastructure, then we need to have a clear understanding and a public accounting for the biggest issue would be the sewer, how the city of Statesville will serve the Larkin Business Park with sewer. But also I'd like to know, get an accounting for our infrastructure investment, how much we've spent so far, how much has come back to us, what our plan is for bringing in higher paying jobs to recoup that investment that we've made over the years. And this has been going on, like I said, for over 10 years, a long, long time. So that's my biggest concern, and thank you, Scott, for obtaining those questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, any further questions?

Mr. Presley said he has some concerns. Ron, is there any insight you can give on that, you know, about the concerns that Mr. Presley has?

Not specifically about his concerns, but from the sewer standpoint, we're in active, not negotiations, but we're in active discussions with the Keith Corporation on how the sewer will be provided. they have to be provided sewer there are i think three options to include the troutman line which we're actively working on to to discuss with troutman as far as the the future or the the investment we can we can i think scott's hit the big investments that the city's made through the water line most everything has been that has been done at larkin has been done by the developer or the owner So we can come back with that. But as far as the strategy, this is their property. So this is a business park that they are facilitating the development of. So I don't know that we'll have a good answer on what's the strategy other than things we've already talked about to facilitate the development of the park.

Thank you. Does that answer your question? But basically, we haven't lost any money on this project, correct? Have we lost any money? I think that's the big question that asks without asking a question. Have we lost any money?

I don't know that there's been a loss of money on this, but if you think about if it would have developed quicker, then we would have capitalized. Everybody would have done better if it had been done quicker.

But now we have an opportunity to be able to go in and And we learn from our mistakes, but we have opportunity to move forward with this.

And Scott, Keith Corp, they already own almost all of this, right? Don't they just have like five acres that they don't own yet? Or am I?

They've been in the park, but as far as how much they own versus what's left, I'd have to, I could ask that question, but I don't know it off the top of my head.

Okay, but they own, they already own, this transaction is not about a whole thousand acres.

No.

It's some smaller piece than that, I believe.

And I just want to address kind of the legal issues that, that Councilman Presley's comments kind of bring up within the agreement. If you look at paragraph 21, they have the right to assignment. That right is not restricted in this development agreement. The estoppel certificate perfects that and is specifically mentioned by paragraph within the agreement. I think that that is well contemplated that the city kind of has an obligation to execute the estoppel agreement or certificate if the city doesn't approve the estoppel certificate, I think that there could be some liability issues. And so I just wanna put that on the formal record for the council. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Do you have any, the sewer, there's a paragraph in there that's my biggest concern. and I didn't write down which paragraph it was, but it just said that if we're in phase one of the development, which it seems like we are, then the town of Troutman will, do you have any concern with that language in that paragraph?

I think that we're, yeah, of course, I think that there's a concern with that paragraph, but that's something that we have to work through as of right now.

To the sewer piece of it, is a concern. One of the main reasons I wanted this to come on the regular agenda is so we could have these discussions in public, because it is a big deal. The Larkin development is a huge economic engine that needs to get started. i feel very confident that the keith corporation will do that now they're heavily invested in ownership i think they've acquired i think it's like 900 some acres of this so i think when we first came on when i first came on council we were discussing the issue with the sewer line and i think we had a budgeted plan and i'd have to ask Dr. Vaughn about this, but I think we had, in the event that we were gonna have an issue with Troutman and the sewer line, we were gonna put in a parallel line and we did forecasting, capitalization budget forecast for that. Dr. Vaughn, would you like to come forward and articulate that? And I know this, but this kind of addresses the question that Mr. Presley asked.

No, Councilman Nicholson said you might want to just take a seat in the front row.

Yeah. Sir, you are correct. We have recently completed an on-the-shelf design with the Timmons Group for a ballpark $10 million current opinion cost project that starts just below exit 45 on the east side of the interstate. kind of follows the topography paralleling Amity Hill Road, then goes to where the existing IL Creek line is, which is the Troutman asset, parallels that, passes the lift station, picks up and plan the flow from the lift station so the current Troutman force main could be abandoned, goes around the horn, comes back past the Mooresville poultry property and back to the Third Creek plant. In recent discussions with the developer, The lift station is about the halfway point in that. And he's saying that from what I've got, his outfall could go to about that point, which could maybe half that project. So Troutman notwithstanding, Troutman never happens. We do have a design on the shelf all the way around, but we could, if that's the right location for all the upper development with the Sherman Williams and others, PICK UP A PROJECT THERE AND BRING IT AROUND THE HORN AND BACK TO THE THIRD CREEK PLANT, EH, $5 MILLION, PLUS OR MINUS. SO WE HAVE A FALLBACK POSITION DESIGNED. AND IT'S SIZED FOR THE ENTIRE AREA EVENTUALLY. THE REASON THE LINE IS THE SIZE IT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE NORTH PAST MURDOCK ROAD, THE OLD GYM SITE IN THAT AREA, IF THERE'S EVER A CONNECTION TO GET BACK TO OUR PLANT. THAT'S WHY WE SIZE IT THAT WAY FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT. but we do have a design inside the Larkin complex proper. Fall back on that if we have to.

And I want to add to that, that whether this sale goes through and whether the estoppel is signed, we still have this discussion about sewer. So this is ongoing, started before this estoppel and this issue came up, and it's going to continue afterwards. So we are, through this development agreement, we have to figure out the sewer solution.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY BIGGEST CONCERN, MR. MAYOR. AND THANK YOU TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY. AND IF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OKAY WITH IT, THEN ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION. YES, PLEASE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE ESTOPICAL AGREEMENT. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. All righty, so we are down, we're down to doing some appointments to commissions, committees, that kind of stuff. So item 15 is consider appointing two members to the Statesville Regional Airport Commission. John does, you wanna?

Yes, thank you. Martin Gotham does not want to be reappointed. David Stamey does. And we have a good list of good candidates.

Okay, so does everybody have, you see the, those are, you can see on your screen the possible names. Do we have any nominations?

Mr. Mayor, first, I'd just like to acknowledge Martin and thank him for his service. He's served the city admirably and very well, and we understand he has some new roles and responsibilities. So we thank him for his service, and I'd like to nominate David Stamey.

I'd like to nominate Steve Johnson.

Any further nominations? So we're looking for two people. Okay, I will close nominations. So, we have two people, so we can move on. So, thank you all so much. All right, item 16 is consider appointing one member to the Statesville ABC Board.

Mr. Mayor, due to my employment as general manager of the Statesville ABC Board, I'd like to recuse myself from this vote.

And I'd like to nominate Ron Matthews.

Ron currently serves on that board, and I believe he was recently appointed to the state board, right, or something?

He's running for that position.

Oh, he's running for, okay.

So we just need one person?

We just need one person. So he's currently on the board. Do we have any other nominations? All right, I'm closing nominations. So Ron Matthews will remain, will be reappointed. All right. Consider appointing one regular member to the Board of Adjustment to fill one expiring term ending on June 30, 2026. And is there a list of nominees? I'll nominate Jed. Okay.

He's the only one.

Okay. Any nominations from the floor? Okay, I'll close nominations. Jed Pitcock. will be reappointed to that board. All right. Consider appointing two regular members to the Design Review Committee. Are there any questions for Mr. Campbell on the nominations?

I just wanted to note there are two slides. The Design Review Committee was a very popular choice and had multiple applications that were active on it. So look at your screen here and then there are two other members as well with a little bit of background information.

I'll nominate Brian George.

Steve Harbert. Scott. Donnie.

Any further nominations? I will close nominations and Leah will pass out the ballots. And they will vote for two, correct? Leah, you will vote for two.

While the votes are being passed in, I would like to say it's very encouraging to see a lot of people applying to these committees. In the past, it's been none.

Right. We're finding out how key these committees and commissions are to the running of this city.

You could be on more than one, is that correct?

Be on more than one board now? Yes. Through these nominees, it says that they are currently- Yeah.

Serving on boards.

Paper's on the HPC.

I would like to clarify, the members that are serving other boards, if selected for the design review committee, would elect to leave the board that they're currently on. All right, good. They're right.

So we'll be back here next month.

That's the way it goes.

Do what?

These are trash.

I just want to make sure we got them right.

Yeah. This is the only vote we've really done.

The highest vote getter was Scott with seven votes. Brian came in second with six and Steve with three.

Okay. So Scott and Brian are appointed and or reappointed to that board. So thank you. Alrighty. I guess the last one is the planning board. We'd need two regular members to the planning board.

Nominate Alicia Cordell.

Bernard Robinson.

Who did you say, Christy?

Alicia Cordell. And Bernard Robinson. I'd like to nominate Tammy Wyatt.

Okay. Any further nominations? I will close the floor. So you will once again vote for two.

Okay, the highest vote getter was Ms. Cordell with eight votes. And then we have a tie between Bernard and Tammy of four votes each.

Okay, so we need to pass back at, do we have more? Okay.

They could please be passed back out.

So obviously this time just vote for one, please.

The votes still came out 4-4, and so Mr. Mayor, I would put it to you to break the tie.

I am so honored. I will vote with Bernard Robertson as he is a current member and co-chair. Any other business for the good of the city of Statesville? There being none, I have a motion to... Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

Friday, Friday. I hope to see all you guys on Friday from 12 o'clock at Garfield Park.

Thank you. Awesome. Yes.