City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good afternoon. Welcome everyone to the September 8th, 2025 workshop of the Regal City Council. I'm Mayor PJ Connelly. I've been presiding over today's workshop. First, I'd like to call on our city clerk for the roll call. Yes, sir. Mayor Connelly here. Mayor Proton Daniels present. Council member Foreman here. Council member Blackburn present. Council member Skully here. Council member Robinson ready. And here. Council member Willis here. May you have.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to approval of the agenda. Mr. Transfer. Any recommended changes? Have a motion to approve. So move. Second. All right. Motion made by council member Scully. Second by council member Willis. All those in favor say I. Those oppos say nay. Motion passes 6. Move right into new business.

All right. Thank you, mayor. Item number one, presentation by fire rescue on proposed shift schedule change. I'll call forward deputy chief Jesse Harris for the presentation. And as he is approaching the podium, I'll make a few comments. What you're going to hear tonight is a a very transformative change for our fire rescue department to not only impact our patient care, but to impact the quality of life of each one of our employees within the fire rescue department. We're real excited about this opportunity. It's something that the the staff staff of Fire Rescue has put a lot of work and effort into and we've had a chance to to give you a little hint about what you're getting ready to see. But this is a a very transformative change that we're all excited about. And with that being said, I will turn it over to Jesse.

Good afternoon everyone. Thanks for having me. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Um so basically our issue is over the last 10 years we've just had a lot of turnover within fire rescue. Um, basically to highlight it, um, we take and get employees, we lose a significant number of them within the first five years of employment. Uh, what they're basically doing is going to other agencies that have a lower call volume or lesser work hours. So, um, this kind of is high level, but basically work at 2448 currently, which is a 24-hour shift every 3 days. Uh, so EMS departments aren't uh regulated by the same FSA standards that the fire service is. So we don't get overtime until basically 212 hours in a 28 day cycle whereas EMS is overtime over 40 hours. So what we're proposing is an adjustment to our schedule to bring us in line with an EMS schedule. Um so 83% of our call volume last year 21,500 and some calls 18,000 of them are EMS calls. So 83% is EMS. So that is the bulk of our work and what we do but we don't follow that type of a schedule. Mhm.

Um we conduct a survey and a study in 2023 through North Carolina Fire Chiefs Consulting. And so basically what they found was the workforce preferred a 2472 schedule. Um and it also preferred for us to move towards that in a gradual pattern. Um so there's a few ways of doing it. Again, this is a gradual phase in of that as opposed to um abruptly hiring a bunch of employees at one time. They go from three shifts to 47 to about four shifts. that would be an additional uh staffing and so this will allow us to do it over a delay in a longer period of time as the budget allows. Um so basically what we're looking for is basically an increase in the work life balance, a healthier workforce. So again the the 2448 they're also working overtime and things like that, additional class and everything like that. So just doesn't really give them a lot of time to be able to recover before they come back for another 24-h hour period. So, a lot of those 24-hour shifts, they're not getting any sleep arrest and it takes about 48 hours to recover from that. So, if you have a mandatory overtime shift or any kind of training, you just don't get an opportunity to recover before you come back in for work. Um, and so the employees all 81% was looking for a better work life balance. Um, and they wanted to take move that over a gradual period and also wanted to be sure that we didn't affect their um, pay, compensation, and benefits negatively by that transition. Um so over the last four years we've lost um 99 employees. Um we've actually had one more put set of even 100 now that we've lost over the last four years. And so basically we're paying one way or another for this. And so to replace a fire rescue employee um regardless of what they are to get back to just a plain firefighter EMT, not a paramedic, not a driver. It's about a minimum cost about 100,000 just in training and overtime cost to back field. Um so when somebody's out on shift, somebody else has to work in that spot. that increases the workload on those folks as well as having to retrain somebody. And so basically what it puts GFR doing is is being a training grounds for other places. We train them and then

we're losing a significant portion um you know 73% within the 5year mark. Um so that just makes us constant turnover, constant new folks and just not really providing the the service that we would like to deliver. Here's a direct comparison of what that schedule would look like. Uh so on the left you would see a current 2448 which again is every three every third day you would work and the 2472 would be every fourth day. So if you notice that the 2448 puts us working every single weekend either a Friday, Saturday, Sunday every weekend. They have no weekends off. Um so that new 2472 schedule would give them some three-day breaks in there and some built-in weekends which better align with what our um spouses and families are working with work. Um so what the advantages are basically is an increase in the work life balance. Um would be a retention of our employees and stop losing them because we have a more attractive schedule. Um and then you know a reduction in the use of sick leave. Currently the only way they're getting time off on the weekends they pick their vacation a year in advance or they call out sick the day of if something comes up that they need to do this weekend that they just call out sick and so then that requires somebody else to have to work overtime which puts them working a second shift on their weekend off. Um, and then obviously going to give us some additional career growth because of the new positions, the additional shift. So, it gives employees more options to be able to promote up within the department. And then that would also make GFR one of the larger metros in the state that would make this move and transition. Uh, with the only other one I know of right now being Asheville, uh, who's also adopted a 2472 model. Uh, what's allowed us to get here has been the 12 positions that council has given us over the last two years. So that basically gives us a solid foundation to be able to make this move. And so without those 12 positions, we couldn't even start to do this. But um what's needed to kind of keep doing this is to keep having personnel on. Uh in the inter we use work groups which will be similar to their overtime days um in order to cover the shift assignments as we go throughout the the schedule. Um then also we're adjusting the base

employee salary rates to make sure they're held harmless for any kind of a base rate change due to less work hours. Um, so again, we're going to hold harmless by adjusting their hourly rate. Um, so they'll work less hours but keep the same annual salary. So that will basically equate to hourly um increase. Then we're going to transition using work groups and then we'll put that plan together once we get blessing from council. Staffing requirements where we're currently at, we're running about 45 or 46 per shift and with a total of 138 operations and then under the new model we're going to move to 40 per shift. So that gives us about five or six per day that we're short and so that's where the work groups are going to be covering and again we'll continue adding positions on each year to to meet that thing to meet the uh in staffing goal. So the endg game of this is to take get to where we just have the 2472 with no work groups but in the interim we'll have workg groupoup days that the folks are working and make up that difference. So basically all the non-exempt employees would be in that work group. So their salary would be adjusted to the the 2472 and then when they work their workg groupoup days that would be additional salary. Um so it would have a temporary salary increase. Um and then that would go down as they as we decrease the um workg groupoup usage. So this is an example of the work hours. So currently they're working 240 hours a month which would be 10 shifts. Uh under the 2472 be 168 hours or seven shifts. They'll have two work groups for 48 hours. So immediately off the bat at maximum work group usage, it's still one shift a month less. And also getting some weekends off that they currently do not get because of the additional schedule change. And again, the end goal will be to eliminate the work groups and just have the full four shifts and then um fully implemented just be continue adding positions each year as council can see

fit to do so. uh currently where we're at the financial impact there's none right now everything's included within our current budget allocations and our allocated positions but again that would be using the work groups that I wouldn't be u making maximum utilization of 2472 because they do still have the work groups but as we add folks we reduce that and eliminate that um again like I said the initially there'll be a slight increase in um some employees paid with the additional work group usage but go down as we decrease and add on additional personnel. And then um the one negative piece being that some employees they work a significant amount of overtime that would be a little more controlled. So we minimize that impact. Some folks that make a tremendous amount of overtime we would control that to minimize that cost. In summary, it's going to give us fewer shifts work throughout the year. So a lot of employees just the number of call volume that we're the calls we run per day and per shift doesn't decrease that per day but it decreases in the week because they work less hours per week. So that in turn is less calls ran at the end of the week, end of the month, end of the year per employee, which is going to give them a better um recovery time, ability to be in better mental and physical health when they come to work. um going to have a increase in compensation temporarily with the work group usage and then uh should have a decrease in employee error and accidents because they're going to be better arrested when they come back to work. They have more growth and opportunities for our employees. Advantage to the city keeping our employees rather than training them for somebody else we keep them here in Greenville. We have a reduction in overtime expenses under this plan and then we'll have a decrease in academy training cost. So currently we have two or threemmies per year. Um if we can keep our folks and not be a training ground then we decrease the number ofmies that we need and can take and um operate with what we have and keep our folks and grow them here. Um again fewer folks leaving for other places and then

in the end a better service delivery for our customers. With that I'll take any questions and before I take any questions a few comments. So basically what this model does, it takes the traditional firefighter schedule which is an is 56 hours per week and converts that to a 40hour schedule just like all other employees without impacting the pay. And what that does is it creates more of that work life balance provides more hours to replenish the mind and also improves service care. What's allowed us to get to this point is I have to put the things back to city council over the last two years. It allowed those the positions within the department to be increased by 12 positions. We could not be at this point without that flat out. And so that has put us in the position to move this forward. that will uh put us on the cutting edge of of of service pro provision for fire rescue uh within the state. In order to be able to fully implement this so we get the full benefit of that, it will take a a couple more years, few more years of increasing at six positions per year. But I feel that that is very um uh easily done within the confines of our budget as it grows. But uh again this is a a program that we have presented through the recruitment and retention committee of fire rescue. We took it out and met with uh the departments and the employees and got hands up amongst the group that attended and we then presented that back to city council. I do believe that we will get a lot of positive recognition make us a destination. We've talked about having becoming a destination department. I think this is what is the first step to making us that destination department.

So when are we looking at putting this into

so as it as it stands right now we would our goal is to implement this March 1st and which means that we would need to have this approved by council basically as soon as possible. Now the go the traditionally what we have done is we brought to workshop in the first month and then brought it back for uh council approval the next month. But we really want to get this uh implemented as quickly as possible approved by council so that we can go ahead and start the recruitment process because we will be looking at um recruiting a lot of lateral entries not just relying on the academy. And with lateral entries you bring in individuals that's already has many many years of experience. So time is of the essence and we would like to go ahead and get and and this is what my thought would be is that what we would like to do is to have this approved say this is the direction we're moving and then I bring this back to council at the u the the planning session in January to give you what the progress has been. I've been real upfront with the employees as well as with the council is that we would never want to implement a a plan that we are not ready to implement. We've always got to put the the patient care that we're providing and the service we're providing first. So, the goal is to get this implemented, start the recruitment process, and give you an update with the full intentions of having this implemented on March 1st.

So, can I make a motion to have this on the agenda tonight? Um, that would be the will of the council. I I would say I' I'd rather bring it back Thursday night if I could. Well, Thursday night. Thursday night. If that would be the will of the council to want to go ahead and move that forward. Yeah. Because the holiday then uh we could add it to the agenda Thursday night. That way we could give the full pres presentation to the community. When did you intend to bring it back for a vote? It would be next month. October. You were you were going to do October, but what we're saying is let's just go ahead and do it this month if that's what the will of the council would be. Okay. I second that motion. Okay. I think let's uh well, so we got we got a motion probably second.

Daniel, you got that pro 10? Daniels second by council member Bman le I've got some questions. So let me I want to make sure I've got my facts straight. So you're saying the city spends about $100,000 per employee conservatively. Okay. And you're telling me we've lost almost 100 employees? We have lost 100. Okay. So tell me the math on that one. Uh like I said we're paying for it either way. I understand. But you see what kind of money we're talking about. Okay. So, if I understand correctly, most departments have the 2448 schedule now. Is that correct? Correct. Yes.

Well, then that kind of begs the question, why are we losing people after 5 years if other departments have the same policy? It sounds like to me, and I hear this from some of your employees, they talk we're not paying enough. Would you agree or disagree? Um, well, y'all have approved for the the paying compensation studies.

I'm not asking you what we've approved. I'm asking a very direct question. Are we not paying enough money? Cuz we're losing that kind of money in training somebody. And we all know whether it's a police department, whether it's a fire department, EMS, or a law practice, when you spend money training somebody, you don't want to lose them. And if we're losing them, not because other people have 24/7. They have the same thing we have. Why are we losing people? I mean, I don't know if we're doing exit interviews, but the complaint I keep hearing about is starting pay and longevity pay to keep people there. And do you mind if I make a comment? Sorry. Me too.

I think this is going to put us more in line with other departments that are emergency departments. Predominantly what our department does is emergency services. So it's not comparing apples to apples. It's comparing us to other fire departments because those departments don't function in the same way is going to put us more in line with other emergency departments which I think is is for comparison. If GFR didn't do firebased EMS, we would be running about 5,000 calls a year instead of 21,000 calls per And I've I've got a comment that they should be paid more. Well,

which is that when we that we've had a tax revaluation a couple years ago and I know that there were some people who said that we should go to revenue neutral revenue neutral budget. This is one of the reasons that we that we had that I think we kept about two cents two two and a half cents of that revaluation. We still dropped the tax rate almost 10 cents, but we kept a couple of cents out of that revaluation. this kind of issue was why we did that because it has allowed us to hire EMS fire personnel six last year and six this year. I think what we got to do is we got to look at it in combination that it's not just pay it's not just work schedule it's a combination of both and what we're doing is we're continuing la the last the last four years we've increased employees pay by 20 over 20%.

Right. So so that so the pay is increasing but what we're going to do is we're going to level it out. So now the majority of our comparisons are EMS schedules which are 40 hours per week. Now we're converting to a 40hour schedule plus what Jesse uh just basically said is that the pay for our employees is going to initially go up by about $6,000 a year by converting to this schedule. The other thing is what I saw in some stats and correct me if I'm not wrong. The number of calls that have we've gone up in

and and our number of staff have not gone up equally proportionate. Right. So, we're having to staff a lot more calls with a lot less people and we're losing a hundred. We've seen this happen to us in the police department, right? We got what almost 30 down at one point, 30 32 people down. When your house is on fire or somebody needs a medical emergency and we're leading the state in action, which is a horse of another different color, we don't need to be down. Instead of adding six year, we need to start adding 12 and get more. I would were they welcome there.

And so that that leads me in my next thing. At one point this city, we were number one in pay in the entire state for police. Number one. We're not. And so if you want to get the best, you got to pay top dollar. And when we're having more calls and we got less people, that's endangering our citizens in terms of fire, in terms of medical emergencies. And on top of that, we were leaving the state almost in top four or five with accidents. They're having to go to calls. So, number one, I'm all for this 247, too, mentally and physically. But number two, we need more people to take up the slack to take off the pressure. So, as a council, we need to certainly say instead of six here, let's be aggressive and let's do 12. I tell you what, if we could get 12 into this uh to this next year's budget, we would absolutely be killing it with the fire rescue department as far as being the um the prop putting us in a position to have it fully implemented and increasing the employee morale and increasing employee sa patient safety at the same time. That should be our goal. and the fact that within the we are now in a process of going ahead and starting the design right now. This is coming to you in the next uh couple months the design for the next fire station. We're not going to wait 15 years for the next fire station like we did between six and seven. My goal is to have that station built ASAP so that we can impact the the magnitude of how the calls are distributed.

And we can't talk about a revenue neutral budget. We are trying to add six new staff. I think that we each budget part we pay those going through training right and they get top-notch training and then they leave five years and they're gone not not even five years I think you said average was five% within five years yeah five years within five years but we are certain through we are certainly moving in the right direction and the quicker we can get those 12 those 12 positions the better off we're going to be and I will be advocating that I don't want to be a position like we were under Ted S where you got 30 that you need and we can't serve our citizens. I can assure you that 12 positions will be in

well I think 12 will be a great start and we need to look at the pay and revenue neutral how we've solved this problem which is real simple. We've got to grow green because when we add to our tax base and we can tax like the parcel we added on 10th Street. It's a $30 million buildout that we passed uh that was right outside your neighborhood mayor. We get to tax that. So the more we grow, the more we get the tax, the bigger bigger our budget grows. And we ain't got to raise the tax. We don't raise the tax. We drop the tax. I know that's a good thing. We can probably drop it more if you grow. Well, that's a horse of different color. Yeah, that's that's a completely different

I'm behind the this the 2472. I want us to be aggressive about trying to give you the people you need and the resources cuz it's a tough job to have and what you have to deal with and the calls you go to. We we need we don't need to be penny pinching when it comes to fire, EMT, and the police. 12 additional positions would completely uh speed the process up significantly and plus that lets the fire department know we got their back which is what we need to do. Also, I have a question if it's still appropriate to ask a question unless Monica I think you had. Did you have a question? No ma'am. Okay. So, um already

Okay. Um this trying to do the math. This brings it from I think you said about a 52hour week to a 48 hour week. Is that right? Or 40. Do I have that? We're currently 56. Going to bring it down to 42. Okay. 56 down to 42. Okay. Because I got 48 average, but the math we'll get that worked out later. Yeah. 42 would be the seven shifts over a 28 day work cycle, which is what they're they're averaging out as a 28 day cycle. Okay. And then and and then the pay is commenur. I know. Really pay the pay has been adjusted as you say harmless.

Correct. The the annual salary would stay the same. So that would be an hourly increase because of the less hours that are worked. So it would be a several dollar per hour increase because of the lesser hours worked for the same annual salary. This is a revenue even with the 12. Even with the 12 I do have a quick question. Currently 12 is good. Let's move on. You stated that people put in their time a year in advance. Have they anyone lost that time due to a shortage? Okay,

they don't lose time for it. So basically, they just have to work back on overtime to fill any vacancies that are there. So when folks are off on vacation, somebody calls out sick or we're short staff because people have left and somebody else is working overtime. So that increases that 56 by that 24-hour shift of overtime. For some folks, that's 72 hours in a 24 or two week pay period. They'll work 72 hours. That's three additional shifts in that two day two week cycle. Okay. Thank you. So what what I make sure I understand. Mayor, we are moving a presentation to Thursday night add this to the agenda so we can go ahead and get it approved which will speed up our ability to market this. That was a motion in the second. Okay, let's do it. Council member Wilson. Emanuel.

Yeah, Mayor and Council, I would just remind you if there's consensus at a workshop, typically you don't vote on things. So you can vote, but you don't have to if there's consensus. Just is there any issue with the public with having a public hearing on this? Is this subject to a public hearing? Do we need to provide notice and offer that? Okay. Council member Willis,

thank you. I just wanted to give a huge thank you to the staff. Um, I see a great example of leadership here because as you mentioned, this has been a process that started way back when. You mentioned about the adding of the positions over time. But not only that, you guys have provided us with um briefing. we've been able to go to um fire station 7 and hear the same presentation and ask all the questions that we wanted to ask of you. So, I was already sold. I was already informed. I already knew my decision when I when you were walking up here. So, being able to um know the work that was put forth, all the briefings that you guys did to make sure that we were aware um the research that's gone into it. And something that really I was appreciative of was in the meeting, of course, we had deputy chiefs there. We had members of the um the man city manager's office there, but we also had the staff who could tell us anything they wanted to tell us about the uh retention committee that you guys have and just kind of be open and honest about what this pro process is going to look like and what the rollout is going to look like. And that's leadership and I appreciate that and it helps us to make an informed decision so we can be ready to go. I will say that anytime you bring employees into a meeting with council, you're taking a risk. But uh but I I told the employees upfront, you've got the green light. Don't hold back

because this is not just about this is not just about the service that we provide. It's not just about the the the balance in and life balance that you have. This is also about creating trust that the council, the city manager's office is doing everything they can to look out for the best interest of the department. And I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that that department feels the love of not only this council, but also the city manager's office to do what it needs to do to make us that destination department. Plain and simple.

And their voices have been heard. I think I will stand. Yes. I will mirror what um Porsha said and uh with a thank you. Um I came in already ready to uh support you guys because all the questions that I needed to ask was asked at the briefing. Um, I don't need to say anything for Ginger, but I definitely want to say to you guys that this is going to be a good change for quality of life, not just for the firemen, but for their families. And that's what I'm excited about. Well, Ginger, make sure you get what we spoke about. Okay, don't miss it.

Ginger, I'll give you a quote. I will, too. Glad really quick to see again the thumbs up for consensus. Just need to see the phone. Yes. I give you mine, but I don't get a vote. Thank you very much. All right, let's move on.

So, now we shift to an update on the discussion of potential changes in the standards for bar 2022 and micro glory uses. I'll now call for our chief planner Shante Gooby. as she is put um coming to the podium. When we were reviewing this, what basically we had three parts to it. We had the micro breweries, we had the downtown, we had the the citywide alcohol. It became too voluminous. So, what we've done is we've split this up into two parts. Voluminous. Voluminous. You got that, Ginger? Voluminous.

Voluminous. So if we split this up into two different presentations. Today we're going to talk about alcohol downtown and citywide and then next month we're going to talk about the micro brewers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you sir. You're welcome. [Applause] You should be getting um two packets.

Should say series one and series two. Um I have one large size map if we need to look at it. Um you don't have a lot of room on your table, so we'll only pull that map out if we need to. and then I'm going to start the presentation and then you can sort of follow along with the maps. Um I'll start with series one. Great.

All right. So, we're going to get started then. Here's my clicker. Um, so this is a a followup to your August workshop. I wasn't here. Um but we'll um kind of come back up to speed and um we're going to I'm going to go over just a quick preview um little bit of this stuff should look familiar to you. Um again tonight we're only going to talk about the bar 2022 use. Um we gave you some prompts. You had some more discussion and then we have made these series of maps to kind of help illustrate if you do this then this is what it will look like. Um, these were the prompts that you had from August. So, again, bar 2022. Um, would you like to increase the maximum size? If so, what size? Would you like to allow this use outside of downtown? And if you did that, would you include separation distances from residential uses? And so, series two is going to cover that piece when we get there. So again, the first series of maps is for the current eligible area right now. And then series two is going to be maps of the citywide area. And I'll show you sort of the U method to our madness of how we did this. Um, a couple of caveats with these maps. Um, this was a ton of work on our poor computers that were almost smoking as my mapper was doing all of this. So, in order to make it digestible and to actually give you some output, we had to pull some things out um to help with these maps. So, what we did um when um if we're looking at a separation distance and we have a large

property that could be subdivided in order to basically void that separation distance, we left it out. We left out vacant properties. Um and um the other thing is we left out any kind of governmentowned property. So that would be the city, Pit County, state, and ECU. those typically are going to stay in the hands of the government. So, we left those out again to make this much more um digestible. So, this is I thought the best way to start is what do we even allow for the bars because the bar is our most intensive use. So, this is showing you the current standard. So, um the uh row for bar gives you the districts it's allowed in. Special use permit. Of course, we have the 500 ft rule, but as we always say, it's three prongs to the 500t rule. For bars, it's 500 feet from one from one another, 500 ft from single family districts, 500 feet from conforming single family districts. There is no size limit for bar 2022. As it stands today, um it's only allowed in the eligible area. There is no separation distance, but the size is capped at 2,000 square feet. So, this is showing you um and and I thought I deleted series 3, but don't look at that. That's that's nothing to worry about. Um

next month.

Next month. So now what we're going to look at with series one is just going to be the downtown area and then we've looked at the different size limits which we did at 3500 4,000 4500 and 5,000 square feet. So that would be the maximum size and we've got those maps illustrated for you. And then for series two we've looked at it citywide. We looked at the same zoning districts as a bar. We did two prongs of the 500 foot rule. So not from each other, just from single family districts, single family dwellings, but we still kept those size limits for you. So I'm going to walk you through how this works. I hopefully you'll find it very easy once you figure out how we did it. So, if you'll look in your packet on series one, map one, this is the current buildings that are eligible right now today. Okay, so these are buildings that are 2,000 square ft or less. And if you will watch sort of the counter up here, the right hand is a table. And that's going to tell you every time we sort of move the notch, what does that create? So, if we go to map two, what we've done now is we're looking at 3500 square ft. So, if you look up at our table, it's telling you that under 2,000, we had 65 I'm going to call them buildings. If we move the maximum size to 3500, we've added we've added 69 buildings. So, that's an additional 69 in the fold. If we move up another notch to 4,000,

then now we have added 14. So we're up to 148. And then we did 4500. That would bring us to 160. Oh, and I should have told you. I'm sorry. Every time I move up a notch, the new properties in blue are the ones showing up. So that that way if you want to see what happens at 3500, you can go back and look at the blue properties. I'm sorry I didn't point that out at the beginning. And then this is 5,000. So 5,000 adds 11 that would bring you to 171. I would call it opportunities is the best way to look at it for your series 2 maps.

Hey, can I make a statement here? Just to summarize that, just to go up from 2,3500, that's an additional uh 1669. So that's be doubled. To go from 3500 to the full 5,000 would be an additional 37 on top of that. So that gives you an indication. Now, this doesn't include, like you said, the vacant properties or anything like that that goes to be subdivided. These are just the ones that meet the standard just.

Okay. And then for series two, we've excluded the series one area. So to not mix and match. So what we just looked through is not included on this next set of maps. You can look through those and see how we added the size. And I just have a table here in front of you of how we add those. Again, we're looking at the same zoning districts as bars, but we're adding separation distances. So, we're taking um 500 feet from single family districts. We're taking it from 500 feet from conforming single family homes and the size limit. So, when you put those things together at 2,000 square feet, you have 32 properties. If you move the maximum size to 3,000, you're at 68. And you see how it just keeps going away. You're going up. So you've got 4,000, 4500, and 5,000. That gives 151 opportunities outside of the downtown area. Um, you've got maps. Um, they can be a little hard. I have one, well, actually I have two large maps if you want to see anything specific. I know your table's really crowded. Um, and putting this map on this slide does not really help you at all. Um, and then we're right back to where we started from, which is a lot of the issues with the bar 2022 use was it was too small. Um, it was limited to the downtown area only and also it does have more rules and regulations than a bar. Right now, the issues that probably most of you have heard about and staff has um consistently dealt with is when you have

an establishment that wants really doesn't have a lot of food sales, but they want the ABC permit, wine, beer, and and spiritous liquor. and you have a use such as an arcade, uh a golf simulator, and even micro breweries that as far as planning is concerned, you would be considered a bar because that's the most intensive use. And of course, we have some people who say, "But I'm just I just want a golf simulator and I just want to have the ability to sell whiskey, you know, on the off chance." Well, we have no control over how much you sell. So at the end of the day, we have to treat it with the heaviest hand, which is the bar use. Um, and

not ancillary use. No, ancillary use is only wine and beer. Okay. Spiritus liquors are not included in that. Okay. Um, and then the last one, micro breweries. They make beer on site. They can sell beer and wine. Typically, beer and wine is coupled together because of the alcohol content, right? You step up when you get to liquor. And uh we we'll get to the micro brewery. We're gonna like, oh yeah,

and and this is the piece we're going to pick up next month, right? Because it really starts to get way down in the minutia. Um, and so we're we're bringing these very same prompts to you. You have maps that show you when you start moving the scale what happens. And then, um, you know, based on what you want to do tonight, um, if you wish to change things, then we would obviously need you to tell us what you want to change and how you want to change it. That would be a text amendment. It would go to PNZ and then it would come to council eventually. Um, if you are able to come to some sort of agreement tonight, we can get that in the fold. If you want to wait for the micro brewery item to come up in October, we're in no rush. What we do need is just some direction of how do you want to proceed.

Uh, oh, that's the end of my slides. So, I'll I'll be happy to answer any questions. If you want to to expand the size restriction in downtown, we've got maps that show everything from three 3,000 up to 5,000. So then second, do you want to expand it outside the downtown? And we got the maps that shows you how that would be impacted. I'd like to sort of, if I may, may sort of frame our conversation. First of all, Shante, I need to commend you and all your staff. These maps are awesome. That is that is my mapper with me saying can you do this? So that that kudos belongs to Tim in my office.

This these are really excellent maps and the numbers. It's got exactly the information we need. So thank I just want to thank you very much for that. My thoughts on this are um we've talked about our micro breweries and um I I I appreciate that we are going to talk about them next month. I want to be real clear that they've made a significant investment in their business and that we want to look for ways to support them and make sure that that they are able to um continue doing business here because they bring a lot to our community. Um but specifically focusing then on uh just bars tonight. I think that before we go tinkering with the size, we should look at uh trying this citywide and let other people have an opportunity at this. It's been confined to the downtown area. Plus, we've got the 500 foot separation in place throughout our city. My thinking is before we go tinkering with bar 2022, which so far has been successful, um let's look at expanding it to the rest of the city, let other folks um have a chance at it because I think that when we look at making, you know, expanding the size, do we need 171 bars downtown? You know, to me, the issue here is let's open this up to the entire city. We have a good model. I know our staff spent a lot of time developing the bar 2022 standards. So, let's let it go into effect throughout our city. We have some consistency and we see how it works.

Do we know how many bars have opened up under bar 22 with 2,000 square foot? Two. Two. And that's been how many years now? It's been two two three years. So, I don't think that's a success rate by any means. It's been limited to downtown. Yeah, that's that's what I'm saying. But only two with one pending. One pending.

I mean, three in downtown. I mean, how many bars do we how many more bars do we need downtown? I think the issue is where are these bars opening up? You look at, you know, someone might want to have a neighborhood bar where they can walk there, not have to worry about driving home. Is something in their own neighborhood? And to me, that's that's kind of where the the the shift can take place and we can see something more more meaningful for our community happen rather than just saying let's have more bars downtown.

So, what you just stated just make sure everybody understands. But I think what Marian is saying is that you take the current bar 2022, make it across the entire city with the the current restriction of 2,000 square feet. Plus, you'd have to add in the the separation from the single family and all that, which would brings you to the map of it would create 32 additional locations across the city,

leaving the downtown center. And by this is kind of an off the cuff question, but of the two that have opened, have we had any complaints with them or violence or underra or anything like that? I don't know. ABC probably Shante, what are the two? Um, one is uh Carolina Icy because they wanted to do Spiritous Liquor. They they not had that piece added yet. And then the second one is Agave um which is Shere's building down here on Kotang and they are

very close to being open. So they're they're pretty close permanence with zero business. Yeah. Cuz I understood that the problem that brought this to to us was because that the limitation of 2,000 square feet was just not enough to do anything economically. And I think that's what you said. I think that's my point. Yes, sir. uh that 2,000 ft² is just not going to get it done. Um it's just not enough space to operate a business where you need storage, you need restroom facilities, some back of house u prep facilities. Even if it's just a bar, they need some place to cut fruit and wash dishes and storage.

But you you said your restaurant is My restaurant's 2600 ft. So it would be too big and scramble for space all the time. I do not have enough of it. We cook a lot of food and good food, I might. We're talking about a bar. Correct. Which, you know, again, we have a model. We've we've hardly fleshed it out. And when we say bar 2022, I think it was late in 2022 before this was um actually

Yeah. So, we we've had barely had two and a half years to see how this works. And we're we're talking about tinkering with it. I say let's let's give it a try citywide. Let's see what happens. Um, I think that let let these uh establishments that want to uh they're planning to open up downtown, let's see how they do and then if you know we come back and say no, we got to increase the size or we've got to tinker with it in some other way, we can we have more evidence at that point of how it's working. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, even though we've got up to 65 properties in the downtown area that would qualify for 2,000, only two and perhaps the third or even in that and not yet not

and the figure that we threw out last time was about 35,000 3500 3500, excuse me, square feet. And then that would give us under series one um about 134 across the city. Yes, just downtown. Just also obvious why when you look at the map, I mean, with the parcels that are available, they're not on major corridors. These are not places people are going to be willing to invest in this moment in time. Exactly. That's a good point. And that's why they're not operable because there's not foot traffic there to support a business like a bar.

They're outside the big U. And let me say, you know, we all know we got the greatest staff in the entire world working in the city, but when we developed for 2022, it wasn't a rocket science map that we used. It was a starting point. That 2,000 square foot was a starting point just to see how it how we would move, how it would be impacting the land. I I just want to say I I I want to be as careful as we can with this because I don't want to open the floodgates and welcome bad actors who would run businesses that would put our citizens at risk and and cause crime in the area and take us in the opposite direction. I don't want that.

But I think where we're at now is not the place where it's doing what we want it to do and spurring economic growth and welcoming good businesses to the area and supporting businesses that already exist. Um, and I think right now we have the opportunity to to really grow the downtown area. And with the citywide stuff, I that's also a slippery slope and and you know, I really want to be as careful as we can be, but I also think we need to begin considering and planning for uh entertainment zones that are outside of the downtown area so that our older citizens have somewhere to enjoy and so that we're dispersing that activity in a wider area. So there's less opportunity for for bad things to happen.

Do we need more bars downtown? And I appreciate what you said. I mean, I'm genuinely interested. Do we need more bars downtown? To me, when I look at entertainment needs, we really need more entertainment possibilities throughout our city. Um because I mean downtown bars seem we seem to have good amount. Um well, I think I think the ones that we have, we've really created a monopoly system and the ones that we have are not being really well taken care of. For the most part, we have some really great quality businesses, don't get me wrong, but some of them have been there forever and are are kind of locked in and have, you know, no possibility of competition that's going to lift them out of where they're at now in my opinion.

Because when we look at downtown, I and you were talking about we want to invigorate and continue to see our downtown grow. that that was that has been the issue for decades is that our downtown only had bars because they're they're a a a very uh profitable model. at least they were um and I I you know we haven't talked about that side of things but but the way they were able to operate previously um was a very profitable model and that was kind of like the path of least resistance when you come to Greenville and you want to open up a business downtown and what we've done by adding restrictions such as size and some other you know the whole bar 2022 that I think the goal was to allow bars to operate downtown if they you know follow these guidelines lines. That was a way to say we we want to allow uh uh new bars, but we want to do it in a tempered manner because we we also want to have other types of businesses downtown. When we start opening up property to to bars, we reduce the possibility of having other kinds of businesses such as the scullery, such as um clothing stores, such as, you know, all all the other kinds of businesses we have. And to me, that's that's why I'm saying, let's just open it up to the city and see how to the to the larger city and see how that works rather than saying our downtown is a bar area only. I'd like to see our our downtown have, you know, bookstore. I don't know, cafe.

I'm telling you, you need to stop agreeing with me. Are you agreeing with me? What is happening? Yeah. What is happening here? I'm telling you, I may be agreeing with her.

So, with that being said, clearly, what is your suggestion? I mean, I don't think you could you could continue. I think there's things that we can do to change downtown, right? But I mean, I don't think you're going to change the downtown until you open it up, right? We've restricted that bars go only in this area and this area only. And by doing that, you're basically cutting out all the other the commerce opportunities downtown. I mean, there's nothing else that can go there. And then the problem that you have is the hours that people go to those establishments that are downtown are between 1000 p.m. at night and 2 am in the morning. And so essentially when you walk past their doors, it says closed, which rightfully so, nobody's going in there and drinking at 8:00 a.m. in the morning, right? And so what you're doing is if you restrict them, that's the only type of business is ever going to be there. If you want to have retail businesses down here, if you want to have different opportunities of different types of businesses down here, you can't just restrict it and say that it can only be in this particular area. That being said, I think you need to be smart about when you go citywide because you don't want different types of things popping up all over there. I mean, we think about all the positive things that can happen. You know, I think one that you could say is maybe like a Dave and Busters. I don't know if that would fit the criteria. They serve a very small amount of food at their establishment. The majority of their sales is arcades and and uh liquor sales. But, you know, that's what we think of. But the flip side of that is is I don't think anybody wants next to their neighborhood a 5,000 foot club. Right. Wow.

So, as you look citywide, you need to make sure that you're smart about it. But I think if you ever want to change the dynamics of downtown is you're gonna have to change the makeup where you only allow bars downtown. That's my personal opinion. When we went through bar 2022, I think I was the only person that said, don't just restrict it down here. You're going to have to find a way to let it branch out if you want to see downtown grow because we're essentially doing the same thing over and over again. That's what we're doing. All we're doing is changing it and allowing more bars to be in the same geographic area. And I mean, from a a market standpoint, only a certain amount. I mean, look at look at our city. Like, look how many how many uh gas stations that we have. Look how many uh car washes that we have. At some point, some of those are going to fail, right? And so, if you have them all in the same exact area, I mean,

will you echo that one more time? Yeah. I mean, seriously. I mean, but that's that's just capitalism. I mean, that's the way it is. That's the way it works. That's that's the economy. I mean, that's that being said, that makes the market more competitive and it drives down prices because the more that you have uh the more opportunities you have and the more competitive that they have to be to stay in business. So,

I I I think if I remember when we were talking about this, the concept of it was I think at the time we had those problems back in 99, it was a perfect storm. you had 26 or 28 bars and now it went down because the college kids can't legally drink and now that law is actually enforced. So three4s of your crowd can't drink. And to say a co if you want to go spend money in a college bar and you got $250,000, go throw it in the river. That's what that that's what kind of profit you make out of it. The cash is in the door. But anyway, I I thought we were trying to figure out a way to have a a alcohol establishment that would serve workingass people that that after work want to go have a nice drink, but they don't want to sit with a bunch of college kids in 519 and hear the crazy music of some kid throwing up in the corner. They want to be able to have a a nice drink, a glass of wine or whatever, and then go home at 10:00, 9:30. And that's what I thought we were trying to do is and that's why we struggle with that. We want we don't want a bar like a college bar, but we'd like to have a place where people can come and enjoy their favorite beverage or whatnot or a glass of wine and you know that bar is going to shut down probably at 10:00 and go home because that clientele is already going home and not not waiting for the cause because the college crowd normally comes out about 11:30 12

and they get but we can't say what you can and can't do in your bar. Well Well, I thought we expanded to citywide we can have a more of like a neighborhood bar. I also just want to make comment that our our community has changed a tremendous amount since 1999. That was a different community. We have 100,000 people now. We have a hotel downtown. We have lots of great restaurants. And if we want, you know, people to move here to work and stay here. We need fun things for adults to do. And I'm not talking about college bars. I know I totally agree with everything y'all are saying, but we need to do both things at the same time. And I think our city's changing.

Well, for me, this is so far outside of my wheelhouse. Uh I've probably talked to Nay till she was blew in the face understanding this bar thing because I don't drink and I don't understand the desire to. But what I do, and I don't judge the desire to, all my friends do. I have since I was in school been the DD. That was that was my my role. Um, and I held that proudly. But first of all, I don't see it as economic development, but I do see it as supporting development.

Right? So, they're two that's those are two different things to me. So, as we're talking about it, and we say it's a form of development, I'm like, uh, I don't see that as development because, you know, you're not getting livable wages and there there only so many jobs that are going to be offered in that um sector. So, but I do see it as a support structure for development as our city continues to grow. Um, I do think because of the circumstances back then, then a lot of the decisions might have been a little more emotional

and when we make decisions in that manner, when you know I talked to my sons about this, anything that we're doing, the more emotional you are, the less practical you. So, if we look at it 100% and you're 70% emotional, then you're making 30% of your decisions with the practical mindset. And so, I I do think that we might have been, and this is me saying from the outside looking in, we might have been too stringent at that time by saying 2,000 square feet. I just don't know what that magic number is, right? And so, I did own a business at the corner of Dickson and 8th. Um, and um, I chose not to um, offer alcohol, but if I did, as I've been listening to you all talk, put a bar in there, then it would have taken up most of my space. So, um, and then as it relates to expanding it around the city, I have one question. If if if we make it citywide, are there rules that can be put in place to lording? I mean, I know that, you know, we don't we don't support lording, but from what I've heard from things that have happened around the city, whenever there is an issue, it's never usually an issue inside the bar for the patrons that are actually going into the business. is usually something that's happening outside of the facility due to ordering.

So, with that being said, Shante or Michael, whoever, I would I would I would I would say that usually falls back on the business owner, outside of being able to restrict it per ordinance, I would say we'd have to research that from a legal perspective. Is that making that increase our police calls in any sense, too? Mhm.

So, can can a lording rule be attached to it that we hold a business owner accountable to ensuring that say um during operating hours or during operating hours definitely cuz one of the things even though we didn't offer alcohol, you were not able to order outside my building. We had a rule and my guys enforced it. You're either inside or you're gone. If you were in the parking lot for more than 10 minutes, somebody was out there telling you to get up out of there. M. So, and then after we were closed, um, if we had a dance event or something like that, 30 minutes, after 30 minutes, the parking lot should have been cleared. And so, is that something that

I mean, we we have to research to do give you a thorough answer. you know, a business owner can't obstruct the sidewalk and have people out of their business 30 deep blocking people from, you know, passing on the sidewalk. But we would need to research you make sure we're not we're not violating first person's constitutional rights if they're on private public property on public property. But so no, I think but is my question at least making would we even need a new or would we even need to add that to the ordinance because we already have lording rules and we've got one of the things about bar 2022 is that it's got the security requirements. So that should come about with the security requirements in the bar 2022.

Yeah. I think the beauty of the of the bar 2022 is that it creates like not only the security but it also means that you got to bring it up to code. You got to meet all these other specifications which reduces the potential that someone's just going to throw a business together and start selling out. Other thing is I feel like the rest of the city, all parts, and I've always said, you know, to be great, we got to be all over the park equal that they've got a monopoly on the bars. And I think that's not fair to other sides of our city, the east, west, north, and south. Instead of, you know, like a little community bar like talked about where you can walk to and have a drink and maybe walk home. Um, so I think if we do it, I I think it needs to be citywide. What I struggle with is how big or small do we go? That's what bothers me because we can put the teeth in it. But just to give you an example, the restaurant that's on Greenwood Boulevard, right, that backs up to my neighborhood.

Remember the complaints we have with noise and that that was a restaurant bar. Remember all the controversy with that? Was that bullet? Yeah. Yeah. And that luckily just apparently gone away. But I mean that's the stuff I worry about and that probably wouldn't have qualified because it was too close to the neighborhood with the feet restriction. That's my concern is we is you know I I don't go to these bars and stuff like that but like I go to Nino's have a good meal that's a neighborhood restaurant bar but I get people want to go have a couple drinks and plus like you pointed out I don't think it's economic development but it's an amenity that we need for people who come here want to go like my associates 20ome years old he would like to go have a drink but he want to go hang out with the college kids you know

so I think it it's an amenity that we need I think we need it statewide I mean excuse citywide. All right. I just wonder I just struggle with the size of it. How big should we go or how small

and is size the weight? Because when you when you're talking I I see what you're saying and oddly enough I fully agree. I think I know I think the thing is the thing is is size the weight because we can't tell a business you've got to cater to this kind of crowd. You've got to you know attract a certain kind of staff member. you've got to help with our economic development by being attractive to international companies. We can't say those things. So why are we looking at size as the way to get to get to that point? If that's if those were our goals, let's see how I think size is the way to get to that point. I think they just want a reasonable size that someone can run a business and have enough space to do it. Well, I think I'm going to play.

Yeah. And that may be I don't know. I feel like once we open up those floodgates, you you as they say, you you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. I think I think size does play somewhat into it. I'll give you an example at a bar called it's basically the bar and

probably not as me to walk through. You can sit there and you get a drink and it's kind of like an area that stays busy from about 7:30 to 10 or 11 and is gone. two bartenders and talking to some of them, it's amazing because they're they're charging high-end drinks and they get a high-end clientele and they make four $500 in tips a night each bartender because they're not competing with 10 people. But it's a small family bar and people go to it, have a drink after they eat dinner or something on the waterfront. They have a couple drinks and they go home. So, I think that's kind of, you know, the neighborhood. It's small though. That's small. Yeah, it's small. That's why I say I struggle with how big or small do we make it? That's the part that is what I read the room. I think that I'm feeling that there's a consensus to make it citywide.

And let me just say, you are in control of this. Just like with bar 2022, you start out at 20,00 you could do the same thing citywide outside the downtown area. You could start with the same restrictions you have with bar 2022 and start at 2000 and see how it goes. Typically, when you do research, you only change one variable because that way you can know what's the effect that this one variable's had. So I say we we go about this one variable at a time before we look at the size. Let's make it citywide. Now if you did go citywide start with the same restrictions that we have on bar 2022 plus the the distance restrictions

then all right. So that settles that question. I have to go back to what about the downtown area? Do you what's the what's the feel the group's feel about making any changes to

I don't think downtown my personal opinion is downtown doesn't need to change because we do I I can't imagine um that number of uh buildings being having the option to be a bar that's that's that's a huge number and even though um I was listening to what Les um and Matt were saying that they're not near the major corridor. If it's somewhere that you want to go, you will um be intentional about going there. Um and again, using the place that I have for example, you know, people came from a lot of my business, I would say 25% of it was here, but most of my business came from outside of our county, other parts of the state and outside of the state. And so when someone when that's where they want to go, they will make it a point to get there. And so if we open up that many more options, um I can only imagine what the police would have to deal with. Um

so so with that being said, what I what I kind of gather from the the seven, I've heard the mayor, Marian, and Tanya basically say keep the downtown the same and expand it to the citywide. And if we use the same restrictions as city citywide, then it would be at 2,000 square feet. Matt, I think Matt's still out there. Let's do something in the downtown. I don't think that really does anything. I mean, respectfully, um, I don't think that we would pull any permits on that and 3,000 would do anything either.

I don't know. I think I think 3,000 would. How big is the AI? you guys who sweet a store anyway international store and bar and I also look forward to hearing the presentation about the um micro breweries maybe we spend enough time I'd like to think about it some more than anybody else I just I want to answer about the lordering piece

um that that's important to me we we and you guys are not aware but we recently had a situ situation with a um small business in the community. Um basically I'm one of those hole in the wall type businesses. Um and again they they were having major issues outside the building. It wasn't the patrons that were actually going in the build and they weren't even offering alcohol but it wasn't the patrons right chief that were going in the building that were causing the issues. it was the people that were lording outside the building and we had to do a community intervention which um seems to have taken care of it over the last few weeks but the issue was lording more than it was patron

so we can make sure this but just like off the cup ordering is already a criminal police can be called they can be arrested they can be charged all that can happen already

where you get into the problem is trying to put that burden on a private individual or business owner to go into a public parking lot enforce that you're generally not going to be able to do that and that creates a whole bunch of issues particularly when we talk about people drinking alcohol and that possible confrontation. So generally what you want is collaborative kind of working business owners police enforcing the existing laws that kind of there that there are trespass agreements and things that could be that allow them to go and kick people off if they're near their property and things like that. We can explore all these possibilities for you, but if you're just saying a business owner operating a bar trying to personally enforce law in there, that's problematic outside of reporting. I guess what I'm saying is can it be like after a certain period of time? Are you tr that you're public property? Okay.

So, you see what I'm saying is it's like do they have the authority to even do that and you won't get in that position to try to force it. Now, what they can say is this is right in front of my business. They can call the police and say these people are problematic. You can try to have those kind of like task force meetings where you coordinate and you say this has been a problem. You can have those trespass agreements again as we mentioned where it's kind of like a preemptive strike in regards to if they're here kind of but as far as just public land. Can a business owner stop someone from standing in the parking lot is kind of a problem like you know you start getting okay

and I also think you really want to air on the side of caution with people drinking and having business owners possibly confront people that might be you know bad actors or something along those lines because I mean you don't you don't want people that are essentially trying to do the right thing that are now in a circumstance where they could get hurt or you know it just adds to the fire. What we've advised historically, at least in recent months, is collaboratively meeting with city staff, meeting with police, trying to make sure they have contacts, make sure they can call if there's somebody concerned, making sure charges are filed, arrested, if those people stay.

So, we can we can solidify that and bring back that information. I'm asked one more time. Is there anything else that council needs to help them make a decision on the B on alcohol citywide and downtown? is not I guess my question is um we spoke about earlier what effect is this going to have on our police department and if we have I'm I'm in agreement with it going citywide but I guess we need to look at I know with some of the bars there's some training some yeah and I I think that last month Chief Tindle basically I mean I put words in your mouth but you basically said it would be incremental Right.

Okay. No way to know. I'm sorry. What did you say? So, if there's no other additional information that you need in order to make a decision, you just want another month to talk think about it or Shante could like change the colors. So, is there anything else you need? I don't need anything else. So, I'm good. Next month we'll be prepared at least to try to make a decision on I think we're going to discuss micro breweries. Pardon me for speaking with my mouth full. I'm sorry. But we will not go back and rehash this. We will not go back and represent it. Can we do all at the same time?

In other words, when we take action at the same time. Oh yeah, you can do it all. You can make a decision all at the same time. Okay. I just want because we will spend our time staff will spend his time presenting the micro breweries next month. From there's council will have to provide us direction of what the next steps will be. Yeah. So let's do micro breweries next month and then we can take the whole package up together when it's time to take action. Sound like a winner. Winner. All right. Winner winner. Chicken dinner. Let's move on to item number three.

Uh presentation on recommended uh change changes for the boards of commissions. I'll let service of city clerk Valerie Schubar with the presentation. Okay, y'all. I'm gonna try to race through this as quick as possible just to allow some time for questions and discussion. Um, back before Yes. back before you to talk again about boards and commissions. Um, it's been a little bit. So, just to refresh our recap of our timeline, we heard from you all a desire to once again take a look at our boards and commissions. Just trying to find some areas where we can strengthen and support them. Um so we brought before you um in February 2025 at your workshop a presentation just outlining a process to take a look. Um we asked for the formation of a smaller subcommittee of the city council. Um just want to say really quickly right here thank you to our subcommittee members Mayor Prom Daniels council members Blackburn and Scoly. Um, we took March 2025 just to take some feedback in again realizing that there are a lot of people that have a hand in boards and commissions. So, I thought it was very valuable to get the feedback from everyone involved um you all um the commission members and from um the staff that supports them. And then from April until August on a monthly basis, we met with the subcommittee. you all had some peer discussions and um that is why we are before you today just to present you with some of the proposals. Um it's important to understand again just a refresher the types of boards that we decided to dial in and take a look at. Um we were analyzing your advisory boards. Advisory boards are the ones that you all have the most control over. Um I've got them listed right here. Won't necessarily go through each one listing them again trying to get through this presentation. But if nothing else, one thing I would like you to note on this slide is the creation date. And it's important also to realize the

mindset that we took um going into this process. Um these were the questions that we would ask ourselves. Um one is the board commission, are they still valid? You know, the the reason, the purpose why they were created, is that what they're being used for today? Um are they are they producing the expected results? um are there other ways um to maybe get that type of engagement that you all are looking for? And ultimately, is this a good use of the volunteers time and efforts? So, we're going to launch right in. I would just ask again, just trying to get through the slides if you would just note down any kind of questions that you have until the end. This is a group project, so either myself, the city manager, or anyone that was involved on the subcommittee will um help and chime in. So just going in alphabetical order, we have the affordable housing loan committee. Um the first thing was very evident to us just going over the discussion points. We found that they were actually very limited on their abilities. It's important to note here um anything that is done on affordable housing on that front is really set by you all the mayor and council. Um you all provide that direction. Um you set the goals and you give it to staff and staff does the work. Now there are some things that will still go before the affordable housing loan committee. um such as subreient grant applications, um down payment assistance. Um but really a lot of that work is done on the back end by staff. And the reason why it's like that is just to ensure that consistency, making sure that we remain um we're not partial in any way when we are um deciding on who will get granted these awards and how much we're going to allocate. So by the time it gets to the commission, unfortunately, they're very limited on what they can do. So, it's more or less like a rubber stamp by that point and we don't feel like that is the best use of their time. Um, it's also worth noting that sometimes um having to wait for a a board meeting can actually

hinder the applicants. Um, we have seen situations where you kind of need that agility and fluidity just go ahead and make these decisions. And unfortunately because we are um excuse me subject to open meeting rules having to wait for a board meeting um can kind of hinder the public in that way. So it' be our recommendation to one dissolve the affordable housing loan committee but want to point out in its place um we would be sure staff would coordinate um efforts and opportunities um just again to get that public um expression and to provide the education related to affordable housing and to form task committees as needed. Moving on we have the environmental advisory commission. Um again, one thing to note is um the creation date. This board was created in 1975. Um the city of Greenville has come a long way since then. Um including the expansion of the city um and also the hiring of technical experts. Um thus decreasing the need for that technical expertise on the board. Um, in a way that's an opportunity for us um because we can soften those membership requirements um just to open it up and make it so that if you have an interest in environmental issues then you are free to apply. So it's our recommendation um just to soften up that membership again noting that it is nice to have the technical expertise but it is not going to be required. Next, we have the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. I have combined these two boards onto one slide just because they're similar in the sense of um we take a very light touch with these two boards because there are some statutory requirements in place. Um hence the very light touch. Um there's certain things that only they can do. Um so we need them in place. I will say though, we

were looking at the feedback received by the boards and saw that there were some current concerns about the preliminary plat approval process. Um it's our understanding that those measures are being considered right now by the state. Um so it would be our recommendation just to wait and see kind of how that shakes out, what comes out of that. I also would like to note that the planning staff is working with a consultant on the design guidelines. So the recommendation here would be no structural changes but just wait and see the results from the state and from the consultant. Next we have the human relations council. And so I would say the thing that really caught our attention here when it came when it came when it comes to the HRC is just the sheer size of it. Um you can see 18 members. I mean this is you all are a group of seven and it can be difficult just to coordinate meetings, coordinate events. Um that was the main takeaway from that discussion is just that 18 members can be a little unwieldy. It was also noted that it was difficult at times to attain a quorum. So it would be our recommendation just to kind of help on that front to reduce the size of the board. Um we'll get into the specifics about how far to trim down a little bit further into the presentation. Next we have the multimodal transportation commission. Um this is the baby of the group. It was just formed in 2020. Um we would say that they are doing a pretty good job. It was noted during our discussion that they were instrumental in helping the city to obtain a sidewalk grant. We'll say though that there was some discussion had at our subcommittee meetings about the scope of the board and if it was maybe too broad. But um ultimately where we landed at was that the scope just because transportation is so interconnected um the scope of the board would be appropriate. Um we also heard a

desire from the board um about um a desire from them to meet a little bit more frequently. Currently right now they meet every other month. And so it's our recommendation just to inform the multimodal transportation commission about their abilities to form subcommittees and set their own meeting schedule. Um and again um a little note here about changing the length of the terms. Next we have the neighborhood advisory board. And so um it should be noted that they have been inactive for the past two plus years. Um they have not been able to meet. Um, now they are a little bit different in the sense of you all don't make appointments to this board. The structure is a little bit different. You guys are a little bit more hands-off. However, I would say it's our opinion subcommittee. We talked about this that this could be considered a su a success story um just because you know they understand like we understand that strong neighborhoods um build a strong community and um I think that's very evident. You can see that from the city, us realizing that with the creation of a whole department devoted to just that, the neighborhood and business services department, they actually overlap and um their goals and the their work actually overlap a lot with the neighborhood advisory board. So, it's our recommendation to dissolve the neighborhood advisory board and and in its place have staff coordinated um opportunities such as neighborhood symposiums and other like opportunities on a regular basis. Next we have the police community relations committee. Um not a lot of changes proposed here but one thing that we were talking about with the subcommittee was just the need for a little bit of consistency as to why we do some of the things that we do. Um some of the structure is not consistent and in line with our other boards and commissions. So really the

recommendation here would be just to build in that consistency, change the appointment structure. Um, right now it's a direct appointment. Um, so we would propose that we change that to an appointment by majority vote and change the length of the terms. Next, we have the recreation and parks commission. Um, we did hear some concerns expressed by staff about the difficulties and attaining a quorum. Um, luckily they were able to meet, but it's a little nerve-wracking not being able to confirm um that you're going to have a quorum until the day of the meeting. There was also a desire expressed to see um more dedicated formalized time for board discussion um during the meetings, but I would like to note that there are opportunities there for the board members to um offer their feedback and make comments. Usually, it's done after staff reports. Um but still, we understand um the subcommittee expressed the um desire to see that a little bit more formalized. So, it's our recommendation to reduce the membership on the board to help with those quorum issues and um add a board discussion to the monthly agenda. And next, we have the youth council. This will kind of round us out and be the last of the boards that we discuss. Um unfortunately, the work um the mission of the youth council is not exactly in line with what we see today. Um and again, the size of the board was one of the main things that we were focused on. 20 members can make it very hard I use the word unwieldy um can make it very hard to just manage and coordinate efforts and also to achieve go so it's our recommendation here and um assistant city attorney D Alexander has been working a lot in talking with um neighborhood and business services director Tiana Barryman about shifting the model of our youth council

uh changing it from what we currently have to like a leadership youth training opportunity. Um, it's also our recommendation to reduce the size of the youth council. Oh, wait. City manager's office. My bad. Y'all know what I meant. You know my heart. Sorry. Sorry. Hey, thanks for the memo. [Music] All right. Thank you.

All right. So, next we have our general structural recommendations. This one might be a little hard, but that's why we printed out these slideshow. So, it might make more sense if you got it right in front of you. But um again, the reoccurring theme throughout our discussions was just the need to one um build in opportunities for um diversity and representation on the board um but also trying to standardize some things just to make it make sense. So, one of those things that came up in those discussions was our cooling off period. Right now, currently cooling off periods are um a a member can serve two full terms and they must sit out for one year. That's the cooling off period. However, we find that maybe that's not um enough that we're doing just to ensure the turnover of membership. Um so, we have a proposal here. Um would like to note that a majority of the subcommittee was in favor. Maybe not necessarily a consensus, but a majority in favor of this proposal,

right? Um, so guess which was the one that did not.

So it's the proposal of the subcommittee for an initial cooling off period that would be equivalent to one year after someone has served a full term. Um, subsequent cooling off periods would be a period that's equivalent to the length of a term. And under this proposal, there would be no term limits. So, that is a lot. Um, and I'm visual, so we just have like a little chart right here just to kind of help to organize that and hopefully make it make a little bit more sense. Um, again, first term, let's just use the example of a board that has three-year terms. First term would be three years. You serve that, you come off for one year. If you're reappointed again, it's again three years. But now the cooling off periods as you can see are equivalent to three years. And again this is just to ensure the turnover of membership and to provide additional chances for others to serve. And another change that was in the previous slide is you can only serve one term under these proposals which again the two out of three people agreed on that. So I know we'll have discussion but that was another kind of structural change. Yeah.

Okay. Um again just trying to make things make sense and just try to standardize some things across the board. Here are a few measures that we thought um would be good just to build in that consistency taking this opportunity. Um number of members um it's the proposal of the subcommittee to have all of the boards except for the ones noted right here HPC and planning and zoning just because again statutory requirements light touch but the rest of these boards to trim them down to seven members. length of terms. We're proposing um term lengths be equivalent to three years just because that seems to be kind of across the board the length of terms. Um nominations that's a that's a pretty big change and instead of just the city council leaison to that board making the nominations, we thought again just trying to build in that representation across the community. It might serve us a little bit better to have um the mayor and council have an assigned nomination on each one of those boards. an appointment structure. Um, again, just to keep things consistent, all appointments would be made by a majority vote of the city council. So, again, I'm visual and I just have like a little table here. Let's take a look first at the number of members. You can see that there's a few that would change. Um, HRC would go from 18 to 7. Wreck and parks go from 9 to 7. Youth council would go from 20 to 7. Length of terms. Um, a few changes here. Multimotal Transportation Commission go from terms of two years to terms of three years. Um PCRC, Police Community Relations Committee, go from terms of two years to three. Youth Council though, you'll note that that stayed at one. We just think that for that proposed model, it makes more sense to keep those at one-year terms. And then here, the changes highlighted in red about um nominations and appointment structures. Um you can see changes in red. The environmental advisory commission um human relations

council multimodal transportation commission and the youth council would shift to um a model where um changing from city council liaison making all those nominations to assign nominations for the entire near city council. Other change I'd like to highlight would be the police community relations committee um changing from a direct appointment made by council to a majority vote. There are a couple other things that were talked about um that can be implemented on the staff side. Still felt it was worth sharing. Um the first point was the timing of planning retreats for advisory boards. So, we think it's only appropriate that the advisory boards build their work plan and their goals around the city council's um goals and priorities. So, the timing should occur in February and March. This is something though again that can be achieved on the staff side. Um city manager's office has put out an administrative procedure um drafting this change into there just to let the staff leaison know um kind of when they should plan on having their retreats. Um the other point that got brought up um a lot and quite heavily was opportunities for engagement. Just making sure that we are very intentional um about connecting these pieces. Um there's a lot of events that we coordinate and we help to co-sponsor just making sure that our boards and commissions have the opportunity maybe to join in allowing them to kind of feel more folded in into um city government but also allowing them of any just to kind of amplify the work that they're doing and their message. And this is not really under the umbrella of your boards and commissions, but this is something that you requested um at that February workshop. And that's just some information and a procedure for your ENC Alliance board of directors. Um so just going through the membership composition. Um currently you have three voting members on that board that's appointed by the mayor and

council. Um there's also a city council liaison. city council leaison does not vote. Um they are also appointed by the city council. Right now we bring those to you every year and it's usually the first one that can speak or um shout out their nomination and usually that's who gets appointed to the board. So we recognize that there needs to be a little bit of structure there. Um so working with the city attorney's office um a recommendation just to implement a rotating schedule um to nominate those three voting members. And again, for the sake of consistency, it would be our recommendation that the mayor assigns the city council leaison to the board of directors just like the mayor assigns um makes assignments to city council um advisory boards. Yes. So, next

I've been so shaky up here. Um next steps I'm feeling really good now. Next steps would be to take any kind of questions, gather your feedback tonight, and then bring you back something hopefully at the October 6th meeting that you can consider and adopt. Y [Music] done an outstanding job putting all this together.

Yeah, I'd like to It's been a group project. I'd like to commend Valerie and um all our staff who participated on this because we really did we had some very vigorous discussions about this and just a couple of points I want to make just to provide context for our conversation. One of the goals that I had for for being on this subcommittee was that my concern was that our boards and commissions in many cases they had outlived their their usefulness. They had accomplished their goals and so really no longer didn't didn't need to be there like the neighborhood advisory board. they are a victim of of their own success. Um, and some of the other boards I felt with, for instance, recreation and parks that that they needed more opportunity to engage to have conversation and that that maybe wasn't happening. And so I think we really addressed that in a big picture way. We set um we we also had just a conversation about community events where our boards and commissions can be directly engaged. And I think that is another uh very positive kind of just a a shift kind of a a culture shift um because one of the things I think has ha has happened and one maybe one of the reasons we can't these boards haven't made quorum is because they they haven't been focused on um what exactly their role is and how they are useful and how they can be of service and change our communities. So we did that and um had some good conversations about that. Couple of things though that I wanted to talk about that that I'm still not convinced of. One is that we've a key change is that we've said you can only serve one term. That's one of the proposals that you can only serve one term. You can't be reappointed. Um I I really have mixed feelings about that because we say on the one hand we have an issue with not making quorum. We got folks who want to serve a second term because they love what they're doing. I have mixed feelings about saying we're only going to let you serve one term and then

for that particular board and then I feel like the cooling off period if it's one year let it just be one year and don't get into sometimes it's three years and sometimes it's one year and then last we specifically when we talk about recreation parks commission not making quum one of the reasons that it hadn't made quorum is because two seats have been held open for a long time and still they've been held to the larger board's quorum. So that's I I don't want Reck and Parks to feel picked on. They they've had some special circumstances to deal with. And then last, I really want to hear from Porsche about the youth council and how because that's a huge change that we're is being proposed there and I'm not sold on it, but um I'd like to hear from Porsche. Okay. Thank you, Mary. Um

you're up.

Um okay. So for the youth council, some things that I liked were u the progress um that I've seen. I've been able to meet with uh Director Barryman and um Bella, I believe it is Bella. Um in terms of the direction, the new leadership there, I'm so pleased. I can't stress how pleased I am. Um I feel like for the the meetings I've been able to sit in on, um they've lacked the enthusiasm to go into the community and do different things, I feel like they're going to be reinvigorated and want to get in and get things done. Um so I'm excited about that. Um I think that reducing the number will help with quorum issues that we've faced. Um and a smaller group may be more manageable and um I feel like they would be um apt to get to work. Um as well as I think um being able to spread our appointments out amongst council members is only fair. Um so being able to to do that, but then along with that comes the responsibility to appoint. you know, we've got to, you know, get out there, do the work, you know, and find those young people that are excited to want to be a part of this that have applied and um appoint them. Um, so those are my thoughts about um the youth council. I think serving a one-year term is reasonable because at that high school age um you know, they're going to be constantly rotating out. And so I think I'm I'm good with the changes as long as we can go toward that youth training model. I think the model that the chamber has, they are doing some incredible things with their their teams. They've even uh come over and Matt and I had the opportunity and our mayor to talk to them um about their leadership institute, give them a mock council meeting. Those are the kinds of things that u I feel like are tangible experiences that our young people can look at and say, "Oh, I could see myself in those seats." And those are the kinds of opportunities I would love to see the city be able to provide to teens that

are interested. Um as well as some other things down the pike. Um but we can um work on that. I think this is a great start. And seven members going from the 20 down to seven members. You think that's I I feel fine with that. Okay. I was even recommending that if they serve their full year term that they get some sort of certification that they could put on their college application kind of thing.

Look at you peeking into the future. I mean that that is all about the recognition and being a part of um of um the the thoughts going forward. I think our our city manager has some thoughts on that, but how we can partner with Pit County schools to really make this something that um is something that uh high school students want to be a part of. Like I I want that not just as a resume builder, but are able to take the experiences with them, life skills, leadership training. I mean, the sky's is the limit to what we can do. It it really should be a curriculum based um appointment that you can earn like a high school credit. And I think that's what should be a part of our our long-term goal.

Cool. or a short time. Let's see. All right.

I did have a couple other comments. Um um who is the liaison to the affordable housing loan committee? Is it council member for? Okay. I was interested to know your thoughts about dissolving that. Um First thing I want to make comments. Go ahead. Um and um I had it questions about the human relations council. I'm in favor of the recommendation, but one of the things that um we encountered at a meeting in 2024 was I think we were right before the election and the uh council members wanted to make a statement in terms of just being civil and respecting uh every citizen's right to make their own decisions in a heightened election year. and um they were trying to find a way just to make a blanket statement to the city and were trying to figure out how they could maneuver to do so. And I think being able to have more clarity around that if they have the autonomy to say something or if they can make a presentation to us about what their recommendation is about any issue that they face. um whether it was say with the flag recent the flag situation recently if they wanted to bring something to us in terms of their thoughts about how that's been handled or how we should look at it as a city or what have you for them to be able to have a process by which to do that. Um not speaking on behalf of the council but being able to say council members this is what we're seeing and this is um a message we'd like to have promoted throughout the community as One other thing, um the police community relations committee, um I've been really disappointed at what I've seen uh in attending the meetings. Um even down to my suggestions being told that's not the

way we've done things and we're not doing it that way. I'm just like, wow, okay then. All right. um and not coming from the police department um but coming from the chair and uh I feel like it's irrevocably broken and I would like to see it dissolved um if not dissolved completely revamped because I don't feel like it is effective and I really don't want for time and energy being put into something that's not effective and not uh beneficial to the citizens especially when we're talking about something as serious as police and community community relations. Um, so those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Okay. I I just wanted to address let me address first um the issue with the human relations council. So I will go ahead and take that as a personal point to make sure um that I'm doing a better job that we are doing a better job just about um informing the commission members as well as the staff liaison about the boards and commission's policy and what they have the ability to to do. So there is a communications um procedure in there on how you get messages from the full council, the full board to the city council. So it looks like at least what I'm taking from these comments is that maybe that's lost and it needs to be clarified for the board. So I am taking that down as a personal note. Um, and as far as the police community relations committee, and you know, I don't want to tread into areas where maybe I shouldn't because that's really more of a a personnel issue for um, the manager and the chief, but I will say that I think there is also some room in there just to kind of clarify roles and expectations. I think we have said that multiple times um in February also today here about how it takes a lot of us just you know different um different roles different players working together. So we will also take that as a personal point of consideration just to clarify um who does what council um the staff liaison as well as the commission members.

So thank you for that. No, but but I I know you're going to speak about PCRC. I think we've heard we're going to speak about a couple of things, but we got 15 minutes. Yeah. I mean, it seems like we might need to look at PCRC since these concerns have been raised. Definitely.

Okay. Um so, um to piggyback off of what, um Councilwoman Will said, uh for the affordable housing loan committee, I disagree with that one being dissolved. Um my reason is that I do agree that a lot of what happens with um housing is discussed amongst council and staff, but I think that citizens need to be involved with um the grant making process. Um and um because often times the grants go, what' you say? Nothing. Oh, okay.

Excuse me. Um so with um us uh distributing GL grants and things of that sort I think that that is a great use of citizens time and it is a means of checks and balances um between you know uh application staff involvement and having a um having input from citizens because oftentimes those people that are um requesting those grants are talking about doing things within the community and so I think that needs C citizen engagement. Um, so, um, I think that there is and I need to give that a little bit I need to process that a little bit more, but I think that there's some good bones to that. And I also think that they're probably one of the most efficiently run boards that we have because they come in, they do what they need to do, and they get on out.

Um, um, for the Environmental Advisory Commission, um, I was looking up the requirements, and I do agree with that. after looking up the requirements that was pretty stringent. Um, and so but I would, you know, want to have some input on what those requirements are. Uh, and to your point, if I understand what we talked about was making them so they're not a requirement, but they are suggestions. They be they go from being a requirement to becoming a suggestion. That's correct.

Opens it up. So it says it'd be great to have these people, but they're not bound to that. So you can put in anybody that's interested or committed or is educated or you know check those boxes. They don't necessarily have to be an engineer anybody but it just puts in there we recognize it's important to have these professionals in contact.

Okay. Thank you. um for the neighborhood advisory board. Um I've got mixed feelings about that um because um I and I don't think we have time to discuss it now, but I want to understand what victims of their own success is because I hadn't seen where the success was uh maybe in the past, but I don't see currently. Um I think it's just kind of it it kind of fell through the cracks from a community standpoint. And so I just and I just would love a sidebar conversation on that. Um uh my thoughts with um police and community relations were very similar to what Porsches were. Um initially I was going to those meetings because I had hope for how that might have some impact at the community level where it's actually needed in the communities that it's needed. And um I ended up seeing it as a waste of my time because I was having to choose between that and serving. And so, you know, my default setting was to serve um at the community level. Uh but I I think maybe a revamping um more than a communication of expectations um is there, but I think something needs to be there. We need something um to improve community and police relations. um and that that needs to be a priority. So dissolving it completely, I'm not sure that I agree with that, but something needs to be in place to prioritize and to so that um it's communicated that community and police relations is important to us because we don't have it's not where it needs to be. Um youth council, I agree with spreading the appointments out. Um, as far as the training is concerned,

um, I agree with that to some level, but in my mind, I'm thinking it might end up like everything else in high school that it becomes a who's who of high school students. And um, and so like who ends up being part of that um, type of thing. Um and um and I do the um mock council and have my own as you know um own initiative that I do related to that to work with students and I am I'm very intentional in how I do it so that it doesn't end up being one of those things. um general structure, the cooling off periods. I need to think about that a little bit. Um with the terms, um I kind of three years may be okay, but two sounds better for me because what I found since I've been on council is that the board appointments um kind of exceed council uh tenure and so we really don't get to make an impact in a two-year term. Um,

okay. So, okay with standardizing the terms, but maybe not three years. Maybe you're suggesting two years. Uh, possibly. And again, I want to meal that over, but possibly, but haven't felt like um and when I think about that, I think about all the issues that we're having with the housing authority and um just feeling completely handicapped. Okay. Um that's a horrible feeling,

right? And and I felt the same way with community police relations. is like, you know, I came here to I want to be a change agent and make a difference and um and be part of a solution and um and that that was just not the feeling there. And the housing authority is that on steroids.

Um so that was general structure. Oh, and then with ENC Alliance, um I had to mold that over a little bit. Um I agree and I don't I I need a third eye today. Um I can't see, but um I agree to that the council needs to vote on um nominees. I'm not sure about the mayoral appointment for the liaison because the um Porsche's appointment for our term ended up being a kind of controversial appointment. Um and I don't want to regurgitate all of that, but having to vote on it um I think uh is good because that is a very very important um appointment and so I I just need to think about that a little bit more kind of straddling the fence.

Yes, sir. I didn't. No, I appreciate it. I think I think Porsche comment is I think our appointments need to be tied to individuals because what what what and you won't worry about this until you're in position. When you're in a minority position, you can't get an appointment. That's a problem. So So my position is appointment should go down the the wire so that every council member has a right to make appointments because

again that's not a problem until you're in the minority and that's a problem and I don't think that's fair to anybody. So I think they should pass on from one council member to another one. Uh number two, I think in term term limits of two years, they rotate kind of like with our schedule. Two and two, then you're gone. You know, maybe limit it at four or maybe at two. Uh definitely when people come on, it might be good and periodically to have a Robert's rule of order training because when I went to the multimodal, it was a disaster. It was like a it was like a circus. And our senator Dixon has done a good job in getting back in there. having the structure that make the meetings productive because my appointment person he left he said I'm not going to sit here have people cuss at me from the the comments and and going on crazy like it's a circus and he just quit he said I'm not going to be part of this

so we need to have some training for all members and have it structured so that every committee is structured the same way and every committee needs to have opportunity for public comment because I'm always big about you whether I like what you say or not we need to be able to hear you and then I think that it would be a good rule for us to put in play that all these boards, commissions come and speak to us at least once a quarter so we can understand what's going on with them and so we can hear what their concerns are, their articulations are so we can get the feedback and know how we can help them do their jobs. That way cuz one of the big complaints the multi they felt like they had no voice

and so if you don't feel like you have a voice what are we doing here and wasting our time on the afternoon at 5:00. So I think if we had the the idea that every quarter we get to hear from them and hear their concerns that way I think they will feel there's more value to their opinions and their time and their resources putting into it and you go there and it's structured and organized. So those that's kind of my comments and the planning and zoning. How many do we have to have on it by law? Uh minimum three discussion extended. And so, uh, those are my points. Just trying to get them more structured and give them a chance to have a regular chance to give feedback to us every quarter so we know what's going on with them. So, one of the things, one of the things we

When you said feedback every quarter from each board from each board. Yes, sir. So, I would say that there's an annual presentation, but we had talked about doing a newsletter that would go out to council and I think that might accomplish the goals that you have in mind. We were talking about having a boards and commission like a newsletter where we get a little brief from every board and commission maybe do that quarterly.

I just would like them to feel like they can address us with their concerns and because that was the main complaint multi we're doing all this work but nobody's listening to us and and that voice I want to make sure they have a voice that's on a regular basis that well I was I was about to say the staff or the the council leaison and then if that's the case then maybe that person's not Yeah. Well, I think that's on I do believe that we could provide that information back out in like like like I don't know if I call it a newsletter, but some sort of correspondence that we give a progress report to to council. That's our council.

Yeah. I just to piggyback off of what Council Member Robertson said, uh, Robinson said, um, last year I was looking for the PCRC report to come through because I knew it was coming through around like October or something and then found out it was slipped in like just in a email or something to I'm not sure if it's to the manager's office or whatnot, but I was looking forward to them coming before the council because I knew that I was really disappointed. I wanted you all to hear it and be able to hold them accountable and then it gets slipped through so that it's you know it's just kind of here's our and so I was just I was disappointed about that.

When you say slip through I just want to at least put this out there. Now starting during CO we did provide the opportunity for these boards and commissions to provide their presentation. There is an annual presentation that they have to make to the mayor and council. um giving them two options just because recognizing the time and um you know just what we were in um and we just haven't taken that option back honestly um but we did provide them the opportunity where they could come before you all and present at a meeting and also um have the option to submit something to notes to council. So, I mean, I'm trying to I'm I'm trying not to interject, just to allow everybody the chance to express their points about this because I realize we are seriously running out of time here having to get to the six o'clock meeting.

I mean, I I personally like the notes to council because then I can read it on my own when I wake up at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, I can read and find out what's going on in each of the boards and commissions. I mean, that's I would prefer that method. I like how that is they make a yearly presentation. I would say this, if we do the two years for the term, then at that I'd say most definitely need to be able to return.

Okay. So, what I'm taking from this is that this is definitely not something we're ready to have come back to us in October. It sounds like there needs there needs to be a lot of clarity given here just about the different roles, the different expectations, the things that we're doing just to kind of help support the staff to make sure we're getting the results that you want to see. Um, and also too getting some additional direction about um, you know, I heard PCRC brought up a couple times. I mean it's appropriate then for you all to decide if the mission is still relevant today. So um say all that to say it is not going to be ready for you all in October. Um obviously

I think of our time. Um I wish we had a little more time but I think it was a very good use of our time and I think that structuring it in this manner really generated food for thought. So um don't feel like it right. I think it's a great start great. have a special subcommittee on PCRC. No, we don't need No, let me let me stop right there. The chief and I will discuss the PCR. I It's not them. It's not being Well, I would suggest that we don't even look at getting rid of that board. I mean,

we don't like the people that are on there. Right now you've got three of the seven are cycling off in October. So you're going to have essentially almost a brand new board and the board numbers are new and you guys get to decide who gets to be on there. Can I can I say one thing? The ones that are up are four, five, and at large. Mayor, so you can put whoever you want on it. Mayor, let me just say one thing. the the changes that we have had in here with concerns to term limits as well as to the off period I think will help rectify this in the long term for a lot of our council or a lot of our commissions

and I want to say one thing too just that just food for thought for everyone um what I keep hearing is that that we're talking let's see um that whether this is a good use of volunteers time and their effort um with my organization I don't work with volunteers any any differently than I would work with someone that was paid. I don't manage whether or not they're getting paid. I manage their commitment, right? And so if they have volunteered to do that as in my mind, you have committed to do what it takes to get it done and get it done with excellence. And so whenever I point people to boards, uh, you know, I sit down and meet with them and I give expectations. And so just

we seem a little soft on it. We I mean, and I would hope that the volunters also carry that same mindset with them. But, you know, just realistically speaking, they're volunteering time and efforts and sometimes it just doesn't translate into that commitment. Um, and that's why I feel like you see a lot of turnover on board. Um, but again, I feel like what is needed is a little bit more discussion. I'm probably getting up with you all oneonone. Um, and then we will see what would be an appropriate time to bring back. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Motion made by Mayor Dana by council member Wills. All those in favor say I.