City Council - Regular Meeting

Lord God, we seek to be one as you are one. That which we say is the same as that which we do. We pray that we may have such integrity pressed down in our lives that it may be seen by all with clarity. And that truly we may serve our community, that we may serve our families, and that we may be true to our own selves and true to God as we understand God. We pray that as this city council looks out over this audience tonight that they may find integrity in each person here who speaks and who listens that together we may discern the truth and we know that we can make good decisions and we can make bad ones that may need to be revisited but as long as all this is done with integrity we shall be that city on the hill to which others may look to and find encouragement and light and strength and hope. Be with us now. I ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you, Pastor Ken. Would you tell us a little bit about the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd?

So, yeah, a little excitement to share on that regard is that our congregation is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. And particularly in October, we're going to be having several events and guests in our worship services that will help us mark 75 years in Brevard. I haven't been with them all those 75 years. I have just been with the congregation for six. And we are big on serving our community and working with our partner congregations in this community, as well as serving local ministries like the Haven and El Centro and Sharing House. and so many more, too many to name really. But we serve those through our budget. We also have a mission endowment fund to which we encourage people to apply in January each year because we have some funds that can help with various ministries and we encourage people to apply and receive a grant if possible. and also through our volunteers in our congregation who serve these organizations. So yeah, you might have seen me most recently walking down the sidewalk on Earth Day with members from five other congregations in our community out for a breath of fresh air to celebrate Earth Day and to highlight our care for the environment. So a little bit about who we are.

Thank you, and we are so thankful that you and your congregation are here and are so involved with our community. It makes such a difference. So thank you. If everyone would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Attention, honor, pledge. I pledge.

All right, Madam Clerk, do we have a quorum? Yes, Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. All members are present.

Council, you have the draft agenda. Are there any proposed modifications to the agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

The agenda is approved. Council, you've got the minutes of the March 6, 2026 priority setting retreat. Are there any proposed corrections or changes to those minutes?

i would like to challenge a comment in the minutes if i may the concerns of council council has also agreed to a new label concern these are areas where council wishes to make a position and muster the non-budgetary and non-staff resources at its disposal My recollection is we did not create a new label. We simply said, or I speak for myself, I said, yes, I am concerned. I have a concern about that, but I have a lot of concerns and if we were to start labeling all of my concerns, it would get to be an unmanageable list, I do believe. I object to this being in here because this, our decision was, and this was concerning the unhoused, is that we have extensive and we actually support our local community resources to the tune of $73,000. And we have Mr. Lytle who offered to be an intermediary on his own without being appointed as to a committee, cause there is no committee at this time. So I feel like, again, and I've said this many times in the last few years is it's overworking something. We didn't say this. We did not say that we were creating a new label and I would appreciate it if that was not how it was presented.

All right. So I guess council, I need to find out if the rest of council agrees with Mr. Daniels' request to remove that section from the minutes.

I'll make a motion that we table the approval of those minutes.

I'll second.

Very good. All in favor?

Aye.

The approval of those minutes is tabled. We also have the minutes of the May 4th, 2026 regular meeting. Are there any proposed corrections to those minutes? Do I have a motion to approve the May 4th minutes?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, those minutes are approved. All right, we will move on to recognition. And we have a proclamation. And I am going to ask the following individuals to come join me up here. Wesley Shook, our Public Works Director. Dennis Richardson, our Water Treatment Plant Director. Erin Winnings, our Waste Water Treatment Plant Director. And David Todd. Proclamation number 202617, National Public Works Week, May 17th to 23rd, 2026. Quote, rooted in a service powered by community. Whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life and well-being of the people of the city of Brevard. Whereas these infrastructure, facilities and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, other structures and facilities, Wesley, It is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders, and children in the city of Brevard to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities. Whereas the year's 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week, sponsored by the American Public Works Association. Now, therefore, I, Maureen Koploff, Mayor of the City of Brevard, do hereby designate the week of May 17th to 23rd as National Public Works Week. I urge all citizens to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association and government agencies in activities, events, and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and employees, and to recognize the substantial contributions they make to protecting our national health, safety, and advancing quality of life for all. And they certainly, certainly are so important to the quality of life here in our city, you know? You cannot imagine if you didn't have water every time you turned on the faucet and every time you went and flushed the toilet. It didn't work. If your roads were not maintained. There are just so many things that they do day in and day out that we just assume is normal. But these are the guys that make it happen. And they make it happen and it's seamless and it's invisible to you. So it's important to have recognition during a special week so that what we take for granted and what usually is behind the scenes is sort of prominent and think about the guys that are working all night all weekend repairing what's broken making sure it's operating and keeping this going no matter what happens so i just want to say on behalf of our entire community How much I appreciate everything that you guys do. You guys are amazing. And all of the folks that work for you in your departments are just so amazing. So thank you. Alright, thank you all. Alright, we will move on to public comment. The public is invited to speak during public comment at this time on any topic unless it is a public hearing item on this agenda. And we have two public hearings with separate sign-up sheets. Anyone who wants to speak must register with the city clerk, which is this. When it is your turn, step to the podium in front of city council, state your name and address clearly, limit comments to three minutes or less, and avoid repetition. Direct comments to the full council, not to an individual council member or to staff. And I will give you a warning when you have 30 seconds left. And our first speaker is Mr. Doug Powell.

Good evening. 250 years ago yesterday, May 17, 1776, the Second Continental Congress issued a call to the 13 colonies for humiliation, fasting, and prayer in anticipation of some very difficult decisions regarding independence. Prayer, the Bible, our churches, and pastors have always been an essential part of America's history and tradition since the very beginning. And I appreciate the invocations from local pastors and ministers that carry on this tradition at the start of these meetings. When the first Continental Congress met in Philadelphia two years earlier, after organizing themselves, the very first proposal from Thomas Cushing in Massachusetts was a motion that Congress should be open with prayer. Yet it was opposed by John Jay of New York and John Rutledge of South Carolina. among others. Why? Perhaps they wanted a secular atmosphere in order to make the important political decisions of their constituents. No. Both Jay and Rutledge were devoted Christians, and both of them regularly studied the Bible and prayed. And they were also heavily involved in government. John Jay became the very first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and was co-author of the Federalist Papers, which explained the proposed U.S. Constitution to its citizens. And in his spare time, he helped establish the American Bible Society, whose primary goal is to distribute Bibles. John Rutledge went on to serve as the governor of South Carolina, the Chief Justice of that state's Supreme Court, and Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, and was also a signer of the Constitution. So both of these founding fathers very much knew, as judges and political leaders, that civil laws rest their authority upon God's laws. That is why our national motto is, In God We Trust. In Congress, they were simply concerned that there were so many Christian denominations represented that they could not join together in a similar act of worship and prayer. Samuel Adams, the father of the American Revolution, solved the problem when he announced to his contemporaries that he would be led in prayer by any pastor of good character and virtue as long as he loved his country, no matter what denomination. He had heard good things about Pastor Jacob Duchesne, an Episcopalian minister, and suggested that he address the Congress, even though Adams was an ardent Congregationalist. So, on September 7th, their first day of addressing the tyranny of King George III. These men didn't partake in a brief invocation, but spent the first two hours of their meeting being led by him in prayer and Bible study. I suspect that at least one person on this dais tonight might relish this opportunity. And now we all know the real history and tradition of America's founding. We know that the first official act of the first Congress was Bible study and prayer, decided by the very men who would go on to sign the Declaration and the Constitution. So as we celebrate our nation's founding in a mere 47 days, if you are tempted to believe the founding fathers wanted a godless nation and a secular Constitution, you may want to remember this scene of our political leaders gathered on their knees in prayer.

Thank you Mr. Powell. All right we will move on and we are next having our public hearings. Our first public hearing is the proposed FY26-27 budget and ordinance. And City Manager will give us a brief recap of what he presented last meeting.

Yes, ma'am. As you said, I'm going to give a brief summary of what I said last meeting. I encourage folks who want to know more detail to either read the full document or go online and watch my presentation from last time, or both if you're so inclined. The proposed FY27 budget is actually a little bit smaller than the original FY26 budget, and it'll be a lot smaller at the end of FY26 because we've added some stuff over the course of the fiscal year. But I think they're close enough, the FY26 original and the proposed FY27, that we can call them flat. Let's just say for our discussion purposes that this year's budget is flat. But whereas last year's budget reached that level because of a series of large capital expenses and their offsetting revenues like loan proceeds, this year's expenses tilt towards operational needs, and the revenues needed to pay for them need to come from our natural, normal revenue sources. The proposed budget would, by and large, maintain all service levels and enhance them in the public works and fire areas, accomplishing the goals you, council, set in your priority setting retreat to continue supporting housing, focus on infrastructure, and support core services. The budget will see three positions added to the public works roster and fund a change in our residential garbage collection model that should free up additional man hours from existing staff. Together, we hope these changes will let our Public Works folks catch up on a backlog of projects and be more proactive in their maintenance of our existing infrastructure. The budget will also enhance staffing at the Brevard Fire Department, The amount included in the budget proposal will either fund one new full-time position and enough additional part-time hours to fund additional bodies on shifts where they're most needed, or the city's 53% portion of three new full-time firefighters. Which option gets implemented depends on whether the county grants our request for additional funding, which we're going to talk about more later on the agenda. Finally, the budget includes an across the board 2.7% cost of living adjustment for all employees, which theoretically should keep them ahead of inflation. The budget pays for all this in a few ways, the most notable of which is a 2.5 cent increase to our general property tax rate, which will increase the tax bill of a property valued at $350,000 by about $87. The second notable way is via a change to certain commercial refuse fees. Commercial recycling fee as proposed will go from 575 to $13 per month for all rate payers and commercial cardboard collection fee will go from 10 to $15 a month for all rate payers with large increases for heavy users. You approve these large increases in theory at your workshop when you learned that the current fee model only collects between 50 and 60% of the cost of providing that service. There are two other revenue increases that are notable, even though they don't yield significant raw dollars. First, a proposed two cent increase in the Municipal Service District tax, better known as the Harder Brevard tax. This will yield about $16,300 in new revenue, but it's a rate that hasn't been adjusted in a decade. The second is a small increase in the amount of premium our employees who purchased dependent coverage via the city health plan plan pay. Currently this cost is heavily subsidized and this change will bring us more in line with our peer public agencies. That's the general fund side of the house. As for the utility side of the house, the budget continues with our regular 4% consumption rate increase for all customers, alongside a corresponding 4% increase to the high strength waste surcharge, pardon me, for those that are charged that fee, and an increase to the fee that septage haulers pay to dump their trucks at our facility. This budget, when coupled with the millions of dollars of outside funds we've leveraged over the last few years, will enable us to keep our capital maintenance program active and initiate two new efforts that will help preserve our system. First, a non-revenue water mitigation program and a FOG, aka fats, oils, and grease regulatory program. Council staff stand ready to calculate the impact that any changes that are proposed tonight have on the budget. We'll try to do it on the fly, but if we can't, we'll follow up in the days to come. There's already one alternative that's been proffered by Mayor Pro Tem Baker, and that's on the back of the supplementary data sheet that I've handed out at your place. And I will pause now and I ask that you open the public hearing.

All right. A public hearing. The public is asked to adhere to the following guidelines for the public hearing. Register with the city clerk by printing your name, address and phone number on the sign-in sheet. And could someone hand me the sign-in sheet? Thank you. When it is your turn, step to the podium in front of city council, state your name and address clearly. Be concise, avoid repetition, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. And I will warn you when you have 30 seconds left. Direct comments to the full council, not to an individual council member or to staff. This is a time to provide your comments, but not to ask questions. A public hearing is not an appropriate venue for a question and answer session. Designate a spokesperson for large groups. At this point, council, do I have a motion to officially open the public hearing on the 26-27 budget and ordinance?

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

The budget hearing is now open. Our first speaker is Mr. Carl Mooney.

Good evening. My name is Carl Miller, Jr. I reside at 34 Mills Avenue in Bavard. I'm here to talk about the budget proposal to remove $98,000 from the budget that was earmarked for the Rosenwald community. My concern is that in the Rosenwald community, our roads need to be repaired. We need sidewalks. On many mornings, I watch the kids get on the school bus, but they're having to stand in the road to wait on the school bus. And that's a couple of issues. I guess my main concern is, in my lifetime, has been a lifelong resident of the city. I've never heard of you putting money into the Rosemount community. This has never happened. So I would like to see these funds stay so they can be helpful to our community. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mooney. Our next speaker is Jonalynn Kreit.

to Mayor Kopeloff and all the members of the City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to come before you to speak and address my concerns. I'm also here because I've heard about the budget proposal to take the $98,000 that was proposed for the Rosenwald community and fold it back into the general fund. My main concern like Mr. Mooney's is that I, um, am a product. Um, I was raised in the Rosenwald community and I am also a co heir of property that is in the Rosenwald community. And I have concerns about how the, um, infrastructure has been neglected and needs to be addressed as he said um streets need to be repaved sidewalks need to be repaired sidewalks need to be installed in some areas and my particular concern for property that i'm a co-heir of is the drainage city drainage i appreciate that the public works supervisors are here this evening but i realize that they have to get their work orders from someone and where our property is on oakdale street the flood water is a problem because there's not enough drainage there so My concern, my main concern is that if this funding is taken away from the Rosenwald community, that our community will not get the services that are needed and it may be deprioritized. So I ask you respectfully to please keep this in the budget. There are many other concerns around the community that I know other people will speak on, but I just kindly ask that you keep this in the budget for the improvement of the Rosenwald community. And I thank you for listening.

Thank you, Ms. Craig. Our next speaker is Sheila Mooney.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, persons. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm Sheila Mooney, and I live at 34 Mills Avenue, right down the street. And I must say, I really appreciate the Reverend's opening prayer about integrity. Also, I'm very pleased with this plan for the meeting in the Mary C. Jenkins Community Center about the Rosenwald community. And because of that, and obviously you have goals and plans for our community, I'm just here to strongly encourage you to maintain that $98,000 for our community. Carl and John have spoke about the needs and there are many more. And the fact that our community seems to be shrinking, we are still here and we still take pride in our community and we want it to be one of the best communities. We want our children to understand the vast and great history of our people. And living in a safe, clean, beautiful community will definitely impact that. So I do not envy your task of balancing a budget. But while you making plans, please remember the importance of Rosenwald community, not just to the members of Rosenwald, but to the whole county and city of Brevard. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mooney.

Our next speaker is Adam Perkins.

Good evening. um thank you my name is adam perkins i live at 1113 north country club road to begin i'd like to start by thanking the mayor council and city staff for your continued partnership and collaboration with the heart of brevard As you know, downtown Brevard is much more than a collection of storefronts. It's the heart of our community. Downtown serves as one of the city's most powerful economic engines through property taxes, sales tax, tourism spending, job creation, ongoing private investment. Downtown businesses and property owners contribute substantially to the city's financial health. If you were to take downtown Brevard and put a roof on it, it would stand out as one of the community's largest and most productive economic assets. Within just a few walkable city blocks, downtown generates millions of dollars in taxable sales, supports hundreds of jobs, sustains some of the highest property values in the city, and attracts substantial private investment. On a per acre basis, downtown produces more tax revenue and economic activity than almost any other area in Brevard. These revenues help fund essential services such as police, fire, public works, infrastructure improvements, and benefit residents throughout the community. Because when downtown thrives, it strengthens the entire city. Heart of Brevard exists to strengthen and sustain that economic engine. As Brevard's nationally accredited Main Street program, we use the National Main Street Center's four-point approach to economic vitality, historic preservation, design improvements, and community engagement. With a staff of only two full-time employees and the support of more than 300 volunteers contributing more than 2,000 hours annually, we leverage a relatively modest public investment into significant returns for the community. In recent years, our works help facilitate more than 30 million in public and private investment in downtown Brevard. We administer facade improvements, business improvement grants, coordinate beautification and strategic planning efforts, advocate for infrastructure improvements, and produce free events that drive substantial foot traffic for local businesses. Part of Brevard works closely with the city through the year on initiatives that enhance the downtown experience and support long-term economic development. These collaborative efforts include the walkability assessment, the employee parking program, downtown wayfinding and signage, and the implementation of the downtown master plan. Our signature events, including White Squirrel Weekend, Halloween Fest, Light Up the Night, and the Brevard Plein Air Festival attract tens of thousands of residents and visitors downtown each year. The White Squirrel Festival or White Squirrel Weekend alone is expected to draw more than 30,000 attendees this coming weekend. These visitors shop in our stores, they dine in our restaurants, they stay in local accommodations, and they contribute directly to the local economy. Heart of Bavaria remains committed to creating a vibrant downtown that's welcoming, inclusive, and economically successful. Our board's committed to keeping these events free and open to the public, but they're not free to produce. The cost for staging, sound, lighting, bathrooms, permits, safety, accessibility, insurance, and contract labor continue to rise at an alarming rate. We recognize that this is a particularly challenging budget year for the city, and we appreciate the difficult decisions that must be made to balance in competing priorities. The current proposed budget includes both a reduction in the Heart of the Arts nonprofit funding and a proposed increase to the MSD tax. As you consider the proposed budget, I wanna emphasize that the heart of Brevard is not advocating for an increase in the MSD tax at this time. We understand that downtown property owners and small businesses are already facing significant economic pressures and we believe it's important to avoid placing additional strain on the various stakeholders who invest so much to making downtown Brevard so successful. We believe there are creative alternatives worth exploring before considering an MSD tax increase. One option would be to amend the existing community development contract so that the Heart of Brevard retains the full $19,000 allocation rather than redirecting $11,000 to the Downtown Master Plan Fund. This adjustment would reduce our projected budget shortfall by approximately $5,000. and provide a short-term stability while broader funding discussions continue. More broadly, we encourage the city to continue viewing downtown as a high return investment. Investments in downtown improvements, way finding, planning, and placemaking are not simply expenses. They're economic development strategies that strengthen property values, increase tax revenue, attract visitors, enhance the quality of life for residents. Heart of Brevard stands ready to collaborate with the city and identify solutions that preserve this momentum that we've built together over the last 30 years. Downtown Brevard is one of the community's greatest assets. And again, when downtown thrives, the entire city benefits. I appreciate you letting me speak. Y'all have a good evening.

Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Our next speaker is Hannah Bowers.

Hi, I'm Hannah Bowers. I'm here in my capacity with Transylvania NAACP. To City Council members, at the previous Brevard City Council meeting, amidst discussions of budget, it was suggested that the $98,000 in the Rosenwald Fund might be reallocated for the upcoming budget. It is not the burden of the Rosenwald community to alleviate strain elsewhere in the city budget. While we understand the impulse to exercise every option to avoid raising taxes, reallocation of these funds would be inappropriate and must not be considered a viable option. Those dollars have been allocated to the Rosenwald community and should remain as such. There will be no other source of funding for critical and long overdue projects like having real restrooms at Silverstein Park. You must look elsewhere to balance your budget or implement the necessary tax increase across the city instead of defunding one neighborhood to make up the deficit. Thank you, the Transvania NAACP.

Thank you, Ms. Bowers. Our next speaker is Rodney Locks.

Good evening, Council. My name is Rodney Locks. I live at 187 South Rice Street. Everything has been said and so well said. I have nothing more to add. Believe that? I have something else to tell you. First, let me say what I don't like about the proposed 26-27 budget. I don't see anything Council is doing to make it affordable to live in Brevard take care of the homeless, and much less improve our quality of life. Most of us don't have high paying jobs that will allow us to afford another property tax increase or pay higher water and sewer rates. Council needs to look at its own internal health. When you need money, merging funds into the general funds is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. So don't take the money from the Rosenwald Fund and leave the community without houses on the playground so you can renovate bathrooms elsewhere. You need to find ways of getting more new revenue or you too will be living paycheck to paycheck like the rest of us. I don't like that you are raising property taxes 2.5 cents and water and sewer rates 4.5 cents. I don't like the fact that more than one half of the tax increases to maintain the operation of the government. 57% of the general fund is for personnel and 28% is for operations. I will say I approve a pay and staff deliverable raise, but the council will decrease. Let me put my glasses on. Gosh, I can't find them. its share of the healthcare premiums for employees dependent plans from 86% to 83%. Increasing employee dependent share premiums will make it almost impossible for council to provide COLA and salary increase to compensate for this increase in premiums. and make it hard for employees to maintain a living wage. Premiums for employee-only plan coverage will not be affected yet. What do you think these employees will do when they need to cover their dependents? That doesn't leave much for nonprofits, multi-use plans, downtown master plan projects, renovating city hall, fixing facilities at the sports complex, removing outhouses at Silverstein Playground, and any other projects you might have. I see also you propose to increase the commercial recycling and cardboard collection fee from $13 to $15 a month to cover 100% of the cost of the services for business. I don't know how you can calculate costs, but that means that sanitation workers pick up cardboard 20 times a month, five days a week. That works out to 75 cents a day. The amount of cardboard they pick up is unlimited. You say this is a better deal than the competitive private sector options. How do we get that deal? We residents pay $15 to $75 for one single special collection pickup for televisions, cardboard, furniture, and any of the other stuff. I am against the typical carts program.

I see this program as the city appearance program.

You add the architectural study to change the corridor, your beautifying roundabouts, and now you want to pay, buy 2,560 gallon tipper carts and give all residential customers a new rollout bin for our household trash. You say this will create a cleaner community appearance on collection day.

30 seconds.

as a uniform system of bins will replace the hard parts system we currently utilize. I suggest you repair our streets and council can brag about how we have the best selling, best looking streets in Brevard. You can keep my tipper cart and you can use the money to help pay for increasing the public work staff. I wish I could give this to somebody else because I got plenty more than I'd like.

Thank you, Mr. Locks. All right, our next speaker is Rebecca Winn.

Okay. My name is Rebecca Wynn. I live at 180 Duckworth Avenue, and everybody said what I wanted to say. Thank you all for allowing me to speak. So I'm going to take over where Rodney left off. Speaking of public works, they are seriously understaffed in overworked sanitation. Asked for seven people to take... talk them down to four and the end of the day you are offering two buildings and grounds in one street zero sanitation maybe with this increase we can fix facilities landscapes and repair the sidewalks with the typical sanitation workers may still be shorthanded and overworked but council think they will eventually become healthier next You budget the city's share for three additional fire workers and hope to get the other 47% from the county commissioners. The city fire department really needs to maintain a level of service expected to save life. I favor including the community share in the budget first and hiring the three firefighters. You do trust the county will reimburse you. How the county gets the money is of no concern as long as they repay you. All right, let me not forget the 4.5% water sewer rate increase. If you live in the city and will pay $27.30 basic charge for service of water, sewer, garbage, recycle, meter plus city water service, and $20.52 for the first 1,000 gallons, and if you live outside the city, basic charge is $41, and then... $30.88 for the first 1,000 gallons. That is a hit to our pocket every month. Since garbage collection is based on a 32 gallon container, does that mean when you give residents a 96 gallon container, will this cost us more or is it free of charge? I suspect council will do a budget amendment sometime this fiscal year and start implementing the chief of police recommendation. Is that it, Ronnie? Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Wynn. All right. Our next speaker is Kellen Haidt.

Hi, everybody. My name is Kellen Haight. My husband and daughter and I live at 200 Carolina Avenue in Brevard. I'll try to keep it short and sweet. Maybe not sweet, but short. Two years ago last fall, I requested the placement of two stop signs on Carolina Avenue. Used as a cut-through to Rosman Highway and a drag strip, traffic studies conducted last year found 30% drivers committing ticketable offenses 3,000 vehicles per day passing through, and a top speed of 57 miles per hour. The city then created a plan to install four speed cushions at a cost of $14,000. You all have deleted this item from the 2027 budget. Consideration. Just last year, 13 speed cushions were installed on Probart Street at a cost greater than $50,000. By deleting our project from budget consideration, not only are you not representing or advocating for us, you are perpetuating an insidious inequity that has been experienced by our neighborhood for decades. Physical safety is a basic human need. My neighbors and I do not feel safe. We do not feel safe pulling our cars out of our driveways, walking down the street, checking the mail, or letting our children play. This project is important and necessary and should not be classified as voluntary. I implore you to reconsider and vote to include this modest project in next year's budget. This coming year, I apologize. And if there is truly no money to be found, please consider the following. Redistribute two or three speed cushions from the ProBar installation. or better yet and cheaper still, is give us the three-way stop that was requested two years ago. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Haight. All right, our next speaker is Anthony Garden.

Hello, my name is Anthony Gordon. I live in 69 North Lane. I am here with the same concerns that many of my neighbors have had about the budget money for the Rosamond community. I lived there and have lived there all of my life, and I can tell you now that not one time have I seemed to have been considered for anything in the budget since 19, since 2008. Under my concerns about the property, the city, drainage in my yard. I was told it wasn't in the budget. I was told it was going to be put in the budget. Now there's just rows of them all. Our grant is out there, whatever the money comes from. I wish it would be provided. And once again, y'all are asking the least to give the most to those who don't need it. Our community is hurting. Our roads, I just called the city about patching some holes in our road. They patched one hole, left the scene, and I called the next day. I said, what happened? We had an emergency. We had to leave that one patch. We will call you back whenever we can find out when we're going to come out there. That's it. So now we've got one little patch in the road, and it's harmful. We can't get any help. We call. How do y'all just dismiss us?

How do y'all just dismiss us?

I mean, we've been here a long time, and we don't even exist until a contractor decides they want to build a house in our neighborhood. They would dig up the damn road, remove out all of the dirt, put in a pipe, and leave the gravel there until the rain washed it away, and then we have to come and complain about the road with holes in it. It doesn't make sense to me. And I was told that these contractors, when they do ask for permission to build or get permits to build these homes, money is provided to repair these roads, but they have not been repaired. And if the money was provided for it, why haven't they been repaired? What else can we say? I mean, you see, we come up here and we ask and we talk, we never getting answers. Nobody seem to have an answer for a damn thing. Nobody. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gardner. All right, I'm having trouble reading the next name here. I got nothing. Parker? Patrick? Patrick? Okay. Okay. All right. Sorry. That one. This one. Yeah, I couldn't. Yeah. Patrick. Sir, your last name was? Whiteside. Whiteside. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next one after that is Mr. Harvey Sankey.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name's Harvey Sankey. I live at 51 Lakehouse Trail in the wonderful city of Brevard and wonderful county of Transylvania. It's hard to follow Rodney. He said a lot tonight. They spoke with integrity. They spoke the truth.

They have issues that you should all pay attention to.

Property tax increases, they don't stay contained. They hit homeowners directly and then ripple out to maybe renters, families, and anyone trying to get ahead. You can have a stable payment one year, and then suddenly your escrow jumps for property taxes if you have a mortgage, and you're paying significantly more each month. For a lot of people, that's not a small adjustment. It's the difference between feeling secure and feeling stretched. And yet, these increases keep happening like they don't have real consequences. They do. They affect how people live, how they save, and how they plan for the future. The recommended fiscal year budget for 26-27 by the city manager shows a property tax increase of 7% over last year. Plus additional fees over last year. And that comes after we had an 8.3% tax increase the prior year. So you've got an 8.3 tax increase, now you have a 7% tax increase. Part of the 7% increase includes a 4.4% increase in the general fund for operating departments. I agree that this increase is necessary. It includes 2.7% COLA for the city employees, three new full-time positions in the public works department, enhanced staffing levels for the fire department, and two new police cars for the police department. Well what about the other part of that 7%, the 2.6%? Are these increases necessary? These are in the non-departmental funds that I'm talking about. Are they necessary? Housing Trust Fund, the Multi-Use Path Fund, the Downtown Master Class Fund. plant fund and other fund increases in these non-departmental budgets, are they needs or are they wants? City Manager prepared a cumulative impact of potential tax and fee increases. I looked at the last two years on the burden increase, which includes the property tax increase of last year and this year, plus additional fees, that's a 20.5% burden increase on a household that is appraised at $191,760. On a household of $595,000 that was appraised, it's a 29.8% burden increase over the last two years on those households. The other item I'd like to talk about is the fire department. I know we are looking for money from the Transylvania County. But if we don't get that money, are we going to spend 100% of the payroll for these three fire department people? Or what are we going to do? The recommended budget includes a city share of 53% of those wages. We're looking for 47 from Transylvania. Property tax rebates for the lower income taxpayers, why can't we have something, and I brought this up last year when we had this problem, a rebate for the taxpayers who's a lower income or who's age related. I brought this up last year. You started, it stopped. Now you're doing something. You're gonna mention this later on to help these people out, but you started too late. You should have started this six months ago.

Time, Mr. Sankey.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is William Bell.

Thank you, City Council, Mayor. Mostly, I want to speak on the drainage system. And I think we do need to keep this budget at the Rosenwald I'm William Ball. I live at 75 White Oak Lane here in Brevard. I've been here since 1982, and I have a very bad drainage system in our area. The city has come out twice, and they looked at it, and they walked away. The streets, when they dig up and put in new pipes for the new homes that they put in our area, they just patched it. Well, we got holes now because the holes where they dug up have not been refinished or fixed over again. So my thing is flooding in my area and the playground. When it rains, I go down to the playground because I know it's going to flood. It's worse in my yard because we have no drainage systems. I think this $98,000 that they are talking about taking from the Rosenwald community be left alone. We need some help in that area. If we move out, then you're going to put another home there, and they're going to have the same problem. My request is, and I think you're doing a good job, but please don't make promises that you're not going to keep. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Our next speaker is Serena Sackett.

Good evening. My name is Serena Sackett. I live at 72 Carolina Avenue. I have two statements of concern to make tonight. The first is the removal of funding for the road speed bumps on Carolina Avenue. I am afraid to walk on the street at night because people literally floor it through that road. There are currently two tire marks on the road, one of which I witnessed someone speeding so quickly and was so surprised by the stop sign that they had to brake really hard to make it. I have to put on my hazards to pull out of my driveway. And really even during the daytime, I'm afraid to walk my dog or my partner's daughter, have her bike around the area. So I'd really appreciate it if the funds stayed for that purpose. It feels like the area isn't being considered as much as other areas in the city. Secondly, I would also like to state my support for the funding staying for the Rosenwald community as well, but I feel that those concerns have already been really sufficiently stated.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Sackett. Our next speaker is Jeremy Whitworth.

Good evening. My name is Jeremy Whitworth. I live at 72 Carolina Avenue. which I think Kellen aptly called drag strip. Every night between about 9.30 and 10 o'clock, I walk out the door with the intention to walk my dogs 50 yards to my left down the road to this little grassy area on the corner of Silverstein and Carolina Avenue. I take baggies, just so you're aware. I walk out the door, I go left on the road, I'm at the head of Beth and Steven's driveway, and thankfully they pull forward quite a bit, so there's a lot of room there. When I get to Miss Sylvia's yard, she parks just off of the road, and so I have to be in the road to keep going in that direction.

So I get around her car, hopefully go a little further,

And then I eventually look both ways and scramble across the road to the little grassy section on the corner. When I turn around after the dogs have done their business, I then begin to make a new plan of how I'm going to get back to my house. And I'm telling you this because every single night I have to make a bailout plan so I don't get hit by a car. Last week, three times, myself or my dogs almost got hit by cars going too fast down that road. It's $14,000. I'm a small business owner. I have two employees. One of them is myself. I spend more than $14,000 a year on workers' comp insurance alone. So $14,000 potentially allows my daughter to actually go get the mail without me being scared about the fact that she's 10 yards up the road but she's on the side of the road. $14,000 means that maybe myself or my dogs don't get hit by a car trying to take them to go to the bathroom at 9.30 or 10 o'clock at night. And I don't have to walk up and down that road always having a bailout plan because people drive like bats out of hell thinking that there's, I don't know, there's a timing race somewhere that I'm not aware of that goes from one end of Carolina Avenue to the other end of it. It sure seems that way if you live there. So my ask is that you look around and you find $14,000 and get us some speed bumps so that I'm not in here in a wheelchair next time saying, hey, can we have it now? Because I get hit by a car. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Whitworth. Our next speaker is Ella Jones.

Mayor, City Council, good evening. I don't want to be redundant, but some of the same things that has been spoken already, I'd like to bring them up again. When we start talking about the budget for the Rosenwald community, if it's not remained the same, can it be increased for these reasons? And here we are again, talking about the rise of taxes in the community. And I proposed one time before, and I will again, most of the people in the Rosenwald community are retirees and are on a strict budget. If we talk about raising taxes again, we may be putting these people in some kind of financial harm. which we don't want to do. We've also heard about water problems on Oakdale, on North Lane, a lot of the other places. And these areas, if you look at them, could be considered a water plain, even on McMinn. And if we continue to put structure, or not put structures, or improve the road situations in these areas, that's what it will become. We also need speed breakers in our community for our kids. People just fly through Cashers Valley Road, whether it's large, vehicles or what but we have children that play on the on the playground and when people we thought that once we got the the um the area fixed where the water was um coming in and and everything was sinking in we got that covered up thought we had that worked out but it seems to be a speedway through there and we need either I don't even know if a stop sign would do it. We need something where people are coming across that bridge. We don't have to worry about our kids being killed. We also need to, I've talked about the repairing of the streets in the community. And on Oakdale, it's just about when it rains, it's just about a water. situation there we've had people complain about so much water in their yards and and there has been help that has come but it seemed like it's to no avail and we we just need help there and before we talk about increasing taxes again please consider that there are people who are really struggling The other thing is there has been a proposal to help with the playground in reference to having a shed there. I hope that that is still in the budget and that it will be materialized soon. And as Rodney, Rebecca, many others have talked about, our concerns the concerns are universal we all feel the same way and i love my community i want it to be taken care of just like everywhere else thank you thank you miss jones all right that is everybody that signed up for this public hearing council do i have a motion to close the public hearing so moved

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

The public hearing is now officially closed. I will now open the topic for discussion and comments from council members. And we will start with Mr. Wise.

I just want to thank everyone for coming and speaking to us. I don't know if you appreciate how valuable it is that we hear your voices. And sometimes it can sound like we're not listening, but we truly do and weigh every word we hear very carefully. As you know, there's a lot of hard decisions to be made in the next couple of weeks about the budget. This helps us weigh priorities that we hear from our public. Thank you.

Ms. Holder.

I, too, want to say thank you to everyone who has come out. I haven't had a chance to really count how many, but it's made an impact. Your time is spent well to come here and speak. I hadn't thought about or didn't know of kids standing on the roads waiting for the school bus. the flooding that has been spoken of, the shed that needs to go to or the shelter that needs to go to Silverstein and a bathroom. I think we're the only park in the city at Silverstein that does not have a bathroom and we don't, we don't want to continue to do outhouses or whatever it's called. Um, Porter Johns. Yeah. Um, we're way past that and this is 2026 and uh, it's time to have restrooms there. Um, I certainly agree with a lot that has been said. You have certainly enlightened me in many, many ways. Um, And I will continue to stand my ground on how I feel about this. And it's no surprise I've said it here before. We need restrooms. There are other parts that already have a restroom. but we do not at Silverstein. And, you know, the money that is there, the $98,000 that is there, it won't pay for it, but it will be seed money. And perhaps we can get other people to come in and help. They'll see that we've got something started and be able to help and get these things done that need to be done at Silverstein, like I shared with tables and chairs and uh like a restroom so i think that you all have spoken loudly and clearly i hear you and i also hear the other concerns outside of that the flooding and the kids on the street um It's a lot. It's a lot. I really appreciate your time. I really appreciate you coming here to speak your concerns as well and get the speed bumps done. And thank you. Thank you so much.

Mr. Baker.

Yeah, I do want to thank everybody that spoke. I mean, we have I think this is the fifth time I've been up here working on a city budget and we have had years where I think we opened the public hearing and nobody has signed up and we closed the public hearing and and we move move on and that is a failure of the city. in my mind to communicate about what we're doing up here. And when I was listening to a lot of the comments, I kept coming back to the word failure because I think the city has failed to communicate about so many of the things that that are in the budget um and you know the rosenwald fund in particular i just don't think that we have communicated about that um for the community and i think that is the um the the reason why we have that listening session coming up um which i'm really glad that we're doing there is a lot of a lot many things going on uh you know i live on the outskirts of of that community over on mcminn avenue and um there are there are there are a lot of changes happening some that have to do with the city some that have nothing to do with the city but um but we owe it to that community in particular to fully communicate the things that we have control of and hear from them what their priorities are and where they would like to see additional funding that $98,000 I do want to ask the city manager to and and we we may not have to do this right now but if you if you would like to do it right now we can but to fully explain where that $98,000 came from and just track that for us so we know where that funding is from.

Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Lytle, if you'll pass those down. So at the end of every fiscal year, usually in June, we do a series of what I call cleanup amendments, and it's budget amendments, journal entries, just accounting moves to... move money around, say, from a department that was a little bit under budget to one that's a little bit over budget, to book revenue that we got in, unanticipated revenue we get mid-year, and to just clean up our books in preparation for year end. And so last year on the 16th of June, our last meeting of the fiscal year, we did a series of those amendments. I think they were on consent. And one of those was to make a $100,000 general fund contribution to the Norton Creek Stream Bank restoration project in anticipation of overages in the construction contract. That money was put in Fund 82, which was also known as the Rosenwald Fund, because that is where the money to fund that project was parked. It turns out we didn't need that $100,000 extra because, for once, the project came in on budget. But it was never redirected after it was parked there, and we realized we didn't need it anymore, and so there it sits to this day. And so you can see the document that memorializes this budget amendment in front of you, and it's pretty clear what the council's intention for that money was, and that was to offset anticipated overages for the construction of the Norton Creek Stream Bank restoration.

Yeah, and I'll just say that's a lot of jargon and bureaucratic speech that I understand because I was up here and I supported this I'm sure at the time but to the public and this is where the city failed we did not communicate to the public and what the public sees is a hundred thousand dollars in the Rosenwald fund and you know, whether we like it or not, or staff likes it or not, that is perceived as a promise. And, um, it's um it's as someone who is here every day hours of the budget pouring into it I can say you know I can look at this paper and track it and say well you know it was overages from this project that got completed and that's money that you know is now you know not assigned to anything but the the staff put it in that fund and um we did not communicate communicate well enough about where it was coming from and that represents a promise that now i think we i don't know how we do anything with that that money other than assign it to the rosenwald fund so As a person who has advocated for, we have a lot of serious needs all over the city, and we certainly could, within the budget framework, hundred thousand dollars is is uh as a half cent on the tax rate so that is a substantial amount of money uh but to me we we we failed in communicating and and we have now uh represented something to the community that we we have to follow through on that um now unfortunately That money is still unassigned. So now we've got to do the hard work of figuring out where that money goes. And it was great to hear things tonight from the community on sidewalks and streets. And the truth is that we can't necessarily spend that exact money on the particular project in a particular spot as of now. We've got to do that work as a group. And maybe the listening session coming up can be a part of that. I will say that I maintain that this budget has to, in my mind, we've got to do some work at the sports complex. A child being run over by a truck is just a bridge too far for me. And we have to figure out that parking lot. I was there last week. on a Tuesday night. And Chief Owen, you'll appreciate this. I was there at my son's end of season soccer party. Little League was happening at the same time and a Little River Fire Department fire truck pulls into the parking lot. And I mean, the parking lot is, I didn't get a spot in the parking lot. I went through the whole thing and went out and parked over at Davidson River School. And the fire truck could not get through the parking lot. He went all the way around, got stuck, had to wave down a Little League parent. And I'm sure the person driving the truck obviously worked at the fire department, wanted to see his kid play Little League, but was worried a call might come in and he would have to have the truck. But the fact remains, he was trying to pull a fire engine through the parking lot and was not able to get through. And to me, that is a safety issue. That is where our kids play sports. And if they get injured in a sport, let alone run over by a truck, we need the emergency vehicles to be able to get through there. That is a dire need for me. That's why I proposed this using alternate two of the commercial cardboard fee to add funding for the redesign of that parking area. And that does not include construction funds, which we are gonna have to find as well once we have the design work i'm sure that little league and and the soccer folks will be able to and possibly tda and friends of acoustic trail will help fundraise for that but that is an effort that we have to we've got to make progress on this year i think we owe it to our kids and and and the future operation of that park because We're kind of a victim of our own success over there. I mean, it's great to see the ball fields full and the soccer fields full, but the city has to do our part in providing safe facilities for people. And we're failing at that right now. Again, there's other things we could talk about. I do have one more question on the Harder Brevard, the suggestion to reduce the amount they're currently paying back to the downtown master plan. I think that was, it was stated that that's part of a contract currently. So how easy would that be to change, Wilson?

Is that part of the contract or is that just something we do? Okay.

Okay, so if it is not a part of the contract, then I would suggest that we take that, suggestion i don't think that gets us all the way there on the the two cents um so i think we may still have to see an msd tax increase of like half a cent or or whatever that calculation is but i think we could reduce that and take hard brevard's suggestion on that Um, but, uh, finally I'll just say, you know, I, I, I do, I've been a little hard on staff up here talking about failures to communicate, but, but I understand also having been through this process multiple times that, that this budget It takes a lot of effort to put a budget together. And it is difficult to communicate this day and age. I think we've done better. Part of four years ago, we hired a public information officer, which is not something we had previously, to try to improve our communication. I think we're doing better, but we obviously have more work to do. So I think those are all my comments at this time.

Mr. Daniel?

I too appreciate the comments that have been made tonight. They've given me some food for thought and kind of realigning some of the things that I was thinking about. I would like to address one thing as Yeah, it's probably politically expedient for me not to say this, but I am. I served on the Mary C. Jenkins Task Force that the city joined in with members of the Rosenwald community and the Mary C. Jenkins board. And when I hear respected members of the community say that the city hasn't done anything for the Rosenwald community, I just, I don't get it. I worked my butt off on that, and a lot of people here did, and we put a lot of money into the Mary C. Jenkins Community Center. We put in the Silverstein Playground. We put some money there, we put effort, we concentrated on that community over the last five years, probably more than any other, area of the city. And to say that we haven't done anything, I mean, literally, I heard somebody say, we haven't done anything. And we have. I'm sorry, we have. And that just, I just want to say that because, you know, that kind of hurt my feelings, to be honest. Because I felt like we had done hard work and put real money in there um the uh to um aaron's point uh about promises made because i made this comment i believe at the last meeting that uh we made a lot of promises that we're not going to be able to keep we we promised the heart of brevard or the downtown master plan that we'd be putting forty hundred thousand dollars into their accounts several years back we're putting 11 of that into that account it's a decrease harvey it's not an increase it's a serious decrease so is the uh the parks and trails most most every every service of that type across the board is getting cut And I understand that. Times are hard. There's not money to spend on all these things. But it's not an increase, and it's not, these other plans share the same pain that the Rosenwald community is sharing. So I don't want to dismiss that pain, but I don't want to, deny that others are feeling the same pain. You also mentioned the Heart of Brevard repayment of the 11,000. As I'm on the downtown master plan, I would like to know what the cost of a grant writer for the downtown master plan committee would be before we make that decision. on whether or not the downtown master plan gets the funding because the downtown master plan that grant writer was not funded in the budget so if it gets paid for it's going to be paid for by the downtown master plan committee and i would just like to make sure that we have the money to do that so um But again, thank you for all the comments.

Mr. Lytle.

Thanks, everyone, for coming with your comments. This is the first time I'm sitting on this end for public comments for budget. Didn't know what to really expect. But as I was listening to everybody give their opinion, one of the things that is positive is that you gave an opinion. Because if you felt that your voices wouldn't be heard at all, that it didn't make a difference, you wouldn't be here to say your piece. So I take that as really positive in that you're entrusting in us to make those right decisions, and they are very, very tough, as you can imagine. Um, me as a philosophy, um, you know, knowing and all of us, you know, I don't want to speak for everyone, but all of us in the room, I guess, um, understand, um, you know, some of the real, you know, issues and, and, um, um, issues of budget and, and, you know, issues of, uh, finances and it's, it's not going to get, uh, uh, any better anytime soon in terms of economy, um, So what I think about is, and I said this at the retreat, is in those times to me, you look at essentials. What's essential in everyday life? And I know that, you know, I grew up on Carver Street and there's a sidewalk in front of our house that when I was eight years old, it was newly poured. And there were some next door neighbor kids that walked on that. concrete and the footprints are still there. And I like to think of myself as a young man, but I'm not that young. It's been decades. So and that's also, by the way, in Rosenwald. So for me, when we talk about investing in community, I agree with that, but also I think we look at what is absolutely essential. Roads and sidewalks are very, very essential. They're also very expensive. And I think it's also important to see the connection between some of the decisions that are being contemplated, adding additional manpower to public works. leads to projects like that actually getting done. And so if we take that into a vacuum, it's just, well, let's just hire more folks. Well, why are we hiring more folks? It's to get to those projects that have been sort of neglected. um I don't I don't know quite what what you know my conclusion is um I know I've gotta you know contemplate and and take back some of the comments and really think about the budget but I did just want to say thank you for for comments and um I think in the end uh there'll be someone unhappy uh and we all know that but i hope that we can come uh to a budget that at least uh takes care of our essentials and make sure that uh everyone's safe and um has a has a safe space to uh to live in thanks thank you mr lytle all right that concludes the comments on our public hearing and we will take a 10 minute break at this point

all right and we are moving on to our second public hearing on the proposed amendments to the city of brevard unified development ordinance chapters 2 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 16 and 19 regulations for non-conformities and we have emily brewer going to walk us through it thank you emily

Thank you very much. I have a presentation, I will keep it as brief as possible, that provides an overview of how nonconformities are regulated and outlines how we're proposing to improve the clarity, fairness, and redevelopment outcomes of the city's development ordinance. The reason why there's eight chapters that are touched is because nonconformities affect every element of our development review process. But it's pretty much all in chapter 14. So that is where the meat of this is. What is a nonconformity? A nonconformity is a use, structure, sign, site feature that was legally established but no longer complies with the code. Some of those examples are on your screen, but they include a building that doesn't meet setbacks or something like that. Nonconformities are not violations. They were legal when they were established. And as communities grow and update our standards, nonconformities are inevitable. The issue is not that they exist, but how we manage them over time. The big question before you is how much flexibility should they be given, should they have moving forward? So under North Carolina law, nonconformities are generally allowed to continue even if they do not comply with current zoning regulations. That's what you think of as grandfathering in something. However, local governments are authorized to adopt ordinances that limit the expansion, enlargement, intensification of these nonconforming situations and may require compliance with substantial improvements, reconstruction, or changes that occur. But that core issue is really that nonconformities sit at the intersection of vested rights, which is what property owners can continue to do with their property, and our zoning authority, our zoning powers to be able to regulate land use. And so that's what makes this such a complicating issue. complicated topic. There's really those two diverging concepts, protecting existing property rights with the public interest in gradually bringing development into conformity with our adopted plans and regulations. And as land becomes more scarce, redevelopment and densification of existing properties continues to occur more and more. So this is something that we really need to think about and clean up in our ordinance. Regulations, it really is a balancing act. Regulations that are too strict may discourage reinvestment and property upgrades. But if we're overly lenient with the regulations, we can perpetuate noncompliance and outdated development patterns. The overarching goals of nonconforming regulations are to limit substantial investment in those nonconformities, encourage eventual elimination or mitigation of the impacts of those nonconformities on their surroundings, and to preserve the integrity of the ordinance and the character of the community as it is expressed in our development regulations. So those are the three things that we focused on in looking at this nonconformity regulations and moving forward. So first and foremost, we looked inward. We looked at our current ordinance challenges as we do with anything. The nonconformity chapter has been on our list of wants to change for a while and has continued to become even more and more important in the way that we review developments. The current ordinance presents several different challenges. It is often very vague and confusing, which can make it difficult to administer fairly and can be challenging for developers and property owners to understand their expectations and what they can do with their property. It also uses very ambiguous phrases such as to the maximum extent possible or increasing the degree of nonconformity and conflates nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures and there's a lot of contradictions. So it becomes really challenging for us to be able to administer this barely and objectively with all, with contradictions and vague and confusing language. and then finally it also relies on investment thresholds that are tied to building value to determine when compliance is required without clearly defining normal repairs versus improvements and really staff you know with this model staff has been forced to estimate project costs and this can it makes it very challenging for us to be able to do that and requires us to really parse out different project costs and put them in different budgets, look at that kind of a method. But in practice, it really, prevents investments from happening, especially in low value buildings because that full redevelopment that gets triggered as a result of the investment that they're putting in as a percentage of the building value is financially infeasible for them to be able to do that full site redevelopment and then come into full compliance with our ordinance. So we've been navigating these for a while and have a number of proposals before you today. So not many regulations. Like I said before, uses, structures, lots, and site features. Site features or any other development feature on the site. So a sign would fit into site features, landscaping, parking lot, all those different kinds of things. But we also have a number of policy considerations that really apply to each of the nonconformities, different types of nonconformities. The authority to continue, the authority to expand or alter, and when compliance is required. So that first one, authority to continue, is covered by state law. So we're really focused on the second two. So I'm gonna walk through very briefly some of the things that we thought about and different approaches and then how we're proposing to put that into the ordinance language. Different expansion policy approaches exist. There's a strict elimination approach which prohibits expansion entirely, which is simple to administer but can, again, discourage that reinvestment. a controlled expansion approach that often allows limited expansion. Sometimes they use percentage caps to say you can expand by up to 25% or something like that that can offer moderate flexibility kind of within And then a compliance-based approach, which allows for the expansion if the improvements comply with the different regulations. So really making sure that that new investment is aligned with policy goals, development concepts, or development regulations. So really trying to move the investment into a way that complies. but different types of nonconformities require different types of policy approaches. So for nonconforming uses, this approach is largely unchanged from what we have in our existing regulations. Expansion is generally not permitted, though we have some exceptions that may be granted for low density residential uses. The way we've defined it is single, family, duplex, triplex, quadruplexes. An example of this might be a single family residential home is not permitted within the downtown mixed use zoning district. We wanna make sure that that house can still have an expansion or have an accessory structure or something like that, even though that use is not permitted. So that's why we have that one exception in there. We also have included that increased intensity, such as longer hours, more employees, higher trip generation are typically prohibited. We've included guidance and information as to what that looks like in the actual ordinance language. And then if a non-conforming use is abandoned for 180 days or more, it cannot be reestablished. And once converted to a conforming use, it cannot revert back. Again, these are basically what's in our ordinance right now with some clarifying statements. Nonconforming structures, on the other hand, are a little different. Nonconforming structures may be enlarged as long as the expansion does not increase the degree of nonconformity and complies with the current regulations. So this falls into that compliance-based expansion approach. We have something kind of similar in this in our current regulations, but we have added a lot of details as to when exactly something is increasing the degree of nonconformity, including this chart, or this graphic, and some very clear examples as to when something would be increasing. increasing the extent of the nonconformity. So in this example, a building encroaching into the front setback currently may expand elsewhere on the property but cannot be in the setback area anymore. So that proposed language, that's an example of what it means to be increasing the degree of nonconformity and we're really trying to make this as putting that in the ordinance language to make sure that we are consistent in application and fairly administering this with clear expectations. We then have some information on if a structure is damaged as a result of natural disaster or accident. The permissions vary slightly. Structures that are damaged less than 50% of the replacement value may be reconstructed as before provided it begins work within 180 days. If the damage exceeds 50% or if they have not met that 180 days threshold, it cannot be replaced or reconstructed as pre-damaged and must be built back conforming. This is pretty consistent across most of the other municipalities that we've used, that we reviewed as part of this process and seems to be successful in addressing non-conforming structures in this way. Some other notable distinctions, historic structures are not currently included in our nonconformities chapter, and so adding in that they are allowed to be altered or expanded if they meet the setback requirements, so long as it's approved by the Joint Historic Preservation commission and that's something that that we added in there and then this element of manufactured homes is in our ordinance right now but i wanted to highlight it as it is a notable distinction between for a non-conforming structure manufactured homes cannot be replaced if they don't meet the ordinance requirements this means that they don't meet the definition of manufactured homes that set forth and the regulations set forth by hud if they don't meet um setbacks or if they're located outside of the manufactured home overlay district that is currently in the ordinance but cleaned up and made more clear as well other non-conformities non-conforming lots in our ordinance the way that we um The density, the way that we calculate density really does not affect, does not create a non-conforming lot because we made a lot of changes to create more flexibility in that manner. And so the really, when we're talking about non-conforming lots, it's not about size, it's strictly about the amount of street frontage. so we have in the ordinance right now that those non-conforming lots are allowed to be developed if they have evidence of a deeded right-of-way or an access easement so that would be a minimum requirement for us to be able to permit development on that lot to make sure there's a way to get to that property safely and then if if the property could be, is like there's multiple owners, or there's one owner that owns multiple properties, we would require them to be combined in order for that to be developed to make sure that we're getting some lots that are, that have the adequate street frontage. And then no subdivision activity would be allowed to occur unless it remedies or improves the non-conformance situation. So there might be an instance where a lot has no road frontage, but there's a way to maneuver it and property line adjustments that can get it 10 feet. Well, if we require 30 feet of road frontage, 10 feet is much better. And so trying to look at how we can make small improvements where possible to be able to grant that street frontage and that access for people, for emergency services, things like that. Non-conforming site features include accessory structures, fences, signs, parking areas, landscaping, lighting, buffers. Those must be brought into greater compliance when they're modified. So if you are going to make improvements to your or changes to your landscaping, we have to make sure that they comply with the ordinance. So we would require that anytime you're making changes to your parking areas, for example, must be brought into compliance really better than it was before. And then the administrator also, we did reserve the right to require changes to site characteristics that endanger public health and safety. This is one that comes up sometimes specifically related to number of driveways or things like that. We wanted to make sure that when it comes to public health and safety, that that authority is still granted so that we're able to do that. So that is for expansion and alteration of nonconformities. The next item is about compliance thresholds. So this is really the bigger issue here. Compliance thresholds determine when a development of or a reinvestment in a property requires compliance with other standards. This one is probably one we use every single day. If not every day, most of the days. So there's really three different models that we looked at with across various other municipalities. The first is a redevelopment trigger. This is what we currently have in our ordinance and many other municipalities have this as well. Properties are required to meet the current zoning and site design standards whenever redevelopment occurs. So if there is a construction of a new principal building or a major structural expansion, really trying to say, you're not gonna have any of these smaller gradual compliance, but have one trigger where you have to bring the whole property into compliance because you're making such a redevelopment, you're making such an investment. Like I said, this is pretty common, and this avoids forcing full compliance during minor repairs. So if you're making some small changes or minor repairs or some small changes, you would not be required, you wouldn't hit that redevelopment threshold. But this, we've seen here in Brevard and what we've seen as administrators of this ordinance, is that it's very challenging for low value structures and can very often disincentivize investment because people do not want to trigger that full compliance. The next option here is proportional compliance investment. An applicant must invest a percentage of their project value into correcting nonconformities. So it's really only in one or two municipalities that we've seen. For example, Holly Springs has a few, 5% of your project cost must be spent improving landscaping or pedestrian facilities and sidewalks. um this like i said this really isn't very common but it can move projects closer to compliance it would be very difficult for us to administer fairly and objectively and be able to come up with a defensible strategy around around this And lastly, we have incremental improvement compliance. This is where certain elements are required to be brought into compliance as improvements are being made. So for example, if you're expanding a parking lot area, we would require you to come into compliance with parking lot design and parking lot buffers and sidewalks to the parking lot and things like that. This is also another very commonly used approach. This method is trying to limit investment in the nonconforming elements leading to gradual compliance. But this method notably uses a direct reasonable connection in determining which elements are required to be upgraded. So like in the example I just shared, when you look at expanding a parking lot, you have a greater impact on the surrounding properties with a greater intensity of uses, so a landscaping buffer is more important. You're working on your parking lot, so we would require you to bring it into compliance. you are having more trips generated because there's gonna be more people in your parking lot, it makes more sense for us to require you to bring your sidewalk into compliance. So really tying the impact of the improvements in the work that you're doing to the required compliance. I wish that Mack McKellar was here because I'm using a legal term. This is really what we call a rational nexus. It's a legal term that says there is that direct and reasonable connection between what that person is doing and what you're requiring them to do. So what we have proposed as part of this hybrid compliance is a hybrid compliance approach where we have full compliance triggered by new construction of a principal building. Full compliance. And then we have incremental compliance based on what improvements are being done. So notably, that full compliance new construction, you all recently amended the new construction definition, and so we're tweaking that slightly. New construction applies to any newly constructed building or structure, but it also applies to additions or substantial improvements in existing structures over a certain value. What's currently in the ordinance right now is 66%. We are proposing to increase that to 75% as it is the trigger for full compliance. And we have all these other we have options for smaller incremental compliance as well. So moving that full compliance trigger up a little bit so that we're able to have that incremental compliance options as well without disincentivizing investment. So then the incremental compliance would be based on what improvements are being done. Again, applicability is derived from impact, not monetary investment necessarily. And so this is why it touches so many different chapters is because we have actually put this in the applicability section of every chapter that we would require. So, for example, if you were to look at Section 8.4, where you have landscaping buffers and screening, the elements you would be required to come into compliance with landscaping buffers and screening if there is a new construction of a principal building, meeting that definition above, There is an expansion of a principal building where the gross floor area increases by 25% or greater, or the expansion of a parking area by 50% or 10 plus spaces, whichever is greater. So the idea is when you have a new building, a significant expansion of a principal building or a significant expansion in your parking area, you have more activity, it's a more intensified use, and you would be required to bring your landscaping buffers and screening into compliance. So that is an example of how the incremental compliance and that rational nexus kind of plays out in one of the sections of the . So I know this has been a lot, but this has been months and months of work. We've had this on our radar for probably a year now. But in January, we started a really intensive process where we reviewed 25 ordinances from other municipalities and we also like test had some test cases for different potential options that are here in Brevard based on some of the development we've seen so we looked at some of our applications and said well if we use this kind of a model and this kind of a trigger what would that look like and would we want it to happen and would it what would it change? And so we used all of that and we spent multiple months going through those cases as a group before having a work session with planning board in March to discuss all of these different kinds of things. And then they unanimously recommended in favor at their April meeting, that you have before you today. And now we have the public hearing. So that is the process we've been through, our rationale for a lot of the changes. I apologize it's super technical, but it's really important for us on a daily basis to be able to clear this up and make it as clear as possible for applicants as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Council, this is a public hearing. Do I have a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Public hearing is officially open. No one has signed up to speak at this public hearing.

Unbelievable.

Therefore, council, I need a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. The public hearing, now I didn't see your name anywhere on here, Harvey. Is now closed. All right. We will now open it up for comments and questions from council and we'll start with Mr. Lytle.

No, thank you for the work. No further questions or comments.

Mr. Daniel.

I have one question and that is in the nonconforming lot you say that a subdivision can occur only if it improves the nonconformity. I think in the interest of being understandable by the public, I would like a definition of how you improve nonconformity or maybe if that's the wording you actually want to use. It sounds like planning speak.

Yes, understood. An example would be sometimes we have people come in with lot line adjustments when they're a historic shed that's been on the property forever, the lot line runs right through it. So we would want to allow them to build a, to do a lot line adjustment to move it out of the way. So we will definitely, I can add some language to that effect.

Okay, all right. And so, but I will say also that when I saw this and read through it, it was, I feel like this is one of the more important reviews you guys have done to our ordinance. All the other ordinances that we work on and pass and have hopes for the formation of the city of Brevard, without this process, it really slows it down. It really makes it difficult, so I appreciate that.

Mr. Baker?

Sure. Yeah, great work. I think I was one of the proponents of lowering the threshold for new construction to 66% versus 75%, but I think my rationality or my, yeah, the reason I thought that was warranted was We didn't have a way to make incremental improvements, and so it was sort of all or nothing, and this seems to make a lot more sense in terms of allowing incremental improvements as people improve their lot or their building or what have you. I do have just a couple of questions. I wonder, I know there was a section that touched on the architectural standards, I need a little bit more clarity on how this would interact with that particular section of our ordinances. I wondered if you could just talk about that a little bit further.

If I remember correctly, It is not. So if you look at section 5.2, where it talks about the applicability, we have written in here that the new construction of the building would always trigger compliance, that any new changes in the building facades that you're making would also have to be in compliance. So really, if you are painting your building Even if painted brick, for example, painted brick is not allowed in our ordinance, but if you're painting a building, if your current painted building is hot pink, We will let you repaint it, but in a color that fits our approved color scheme. So it's trying to move us into smaller compliance without us making you completely redo your whole building and tear the facade off and put it back on. So we would still have some kind of requirements related to the work that you're doing, as those requirements would be subject to the ordinance. Does that answer your question?

I think so. And that would that would apply to any exterior improvement at all okay um okay i think i understand that um my other question or slight concern i guess is just some of the some of the sections rely on other trigger the trigger is related to, like the required off-street parking. That is a trigger for the buffers and screening in the example you talked about. I guess this isn't a reason to change anything that is here, but I think it just led me to think further down the road when we have, because we're gonna change other parts of the ordinances, but each time we do that, That might also change a trigger that we're currently looking at. So it's sort of there's a cascading effect that we didn't necessarily have before this that now exists.

We had somewhat had it. It just wasn't very clear where they were. So now we have at the beginning of each of these sections an applicability section to look at each and every time we have a development plan review, each and every time we do a text amendment that affects some of those kind of things. So we now know exactly what's going on. we always knew where to look, but the general public, somebody that doesn't spend every day looking at the nitty gritty of the ordinance, can quickly and easily be able to identify where the applicability is for these different things, and when they would and wouldn't be required to do something like that. So it always kind of was there, but not in as clear a format that made it easier for everybody.

I think I just wanted to, just as a call out, when we're making future changes, and I know y'all already do this in terms of showing us how it might affect other things, I think for the incremental changes that might be affected when we change, like if we reduce parking minimums, understood that would affect this section as well because we're the buffer and are relying on that i think just making sure we see that and maybe making sure it's called out clearly because um yeah just we're kind of in the weeds at that point but it might be easy to gloss over but i think just the other effects of making a a change to The underlying ordinance, I think, is important.

Can do.

That's all I have.

Ms. Holder?

You've got to be one of the smartest people in this room to understand that presented. I probably could not have read through it that clearly. One thing to Aaron's point that I do remember, I think in a previous conversation or something maybe last year, he said that he was more in favor of 66%, and I remember thinking the same thing. Is the 75% that you're presenting

the standard or where how did we come to that number 66 was not the standard usually it's a 25 50 75 breakdown um I would say most of the properties if they have a redevelopment trigger it's on the higher end because it is so intensive to say we're going to fully redo the property um Yeah, so I think it was, I think Asheville was 75, I think. But it is pretty common for it to be, a higher percentage when you're requiring full redevelopment because you don't want people to start saying, well, I'm not gonna make that improvement to my property because it will mean I have to put in an extra $100,000 to redo my parking lot, to redo all these different kinds of things. intentionally setting the redevelopment trigger high means that a lot of other property improvements can be done before you hit that full trigger what we're proposing here is to have that full trigger to catch the major redevelopments but having smaller incremental changes that are make sense with what you're doing to your property so that we're able to catch some of these smaller things without requiring people to put in an extra $100,000 worth of work to bring it into full compliance when they're perhaps not ready to do that yet.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Mr. Wise?

Just, this is certainly one of the keystones of the UDO, and I had realized as an architect that there were some issues in the past, so this is really refreshing to see because it was hard as a professional to kind of interpret. I know there's always going to be specific cases that kind of don't fit in perfectly and I think we have reasonable ways to deal with those. I think really I just want to kind of piggyback on what Aaron said is just making sure we're aware of what some specific cases might be that we don't understand because we understand very little really. and just help us with all this. This is a lot of new information. Otherwise, fantastic work. This is really important.

All right, thank you, Emily. All right, there's no action tonight, council. This will come back for a vote at our next meeting. all right moving on to the consent and information the following items are on the consent agenda one the tax settlement report of april 26. two amendment to the roundabouts capital project fund three budget amendment 2026-05 lease payments at 132 commerce street four public works and utilities committee meeting minutes april 1st 2026. Five, housing committee meeting minutes, February 10th, 2026. Six, housing committee meeting session notes, March 10th, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Consent is approved. Unfinished business. Moving on. The proposed amendment to the official zoning map of the city of Brevard, the hub. And we've got Mr. Paul Ray, our planning director.

Good evening. Tonight council is considering a voluntary rezoning request from Okeechee Davidson LLC. I don't know if I pronounced that right. To apply the Pisgah Gateway mixed use zoning district to two adjoining properties at 11 and 113 Mama's Place. Properties include the hub bike shop site, currently zoned downtown mixed use, and 7.1 acre undeveloped tract that is currently split zoned. Split zoned residential mixed use and GR4. Together, the rezonings would be approximately 8.8 acres under the new PGX zoning district. This request follows council's January 2026 adoption of PGX zoning along portions of the corridor and council's direction to continue working with willing property owners interested in voluntarily rezoning into the district. The rezoning is consistent with the building Brevard 2030 comprehensive land use plan and the future land use map for the Pisgah gateway character area. The Planning Board recommended approval at its April 8th meeting and no members of the public spoke at the May 4th public hearing for City Council. Tonight we're requesting a vote. Happy to answer any questions.

Council, do I have a motion concerning the proposed zoning map amendment?

I move we grant zoning map amendment as shown.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, we'll open it for discussion. Mr. Wise?

No comment.

Ms. Holder?

No comment.

Mr. Baker?

No comment.

Mr. Daniel? No comment. Mr. Lytle?

No questions.

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right, moving on.

Okay.

Our second item of unfinished business. Proposed amendments to the City of Brevard Unified Development Ordinance, Chapters 2, 3, and 19, Regulations for Data Centers. Mr. Ray will present again.

Tonight's the culmination of work council initiated back in February after concerns were raised about whether our current ordinance adequately addresses data centers and similar high impact digital infrastructure uses. Staff reviewed the issue, determined that while these facilities could loosely fall under heavy manufacturing, that approach was not sufficiently clear or tailored to the unique impacts associated with data centers. As a result, council adopted a temporary moratorium in March to give staff time to prepare more appropriate regulations. The proposed amendment before you tonight creates a specific land use category for data centers and similar facilities rather than trying to force them into a manufacturing classification. The amendment would allow these uses only within the general industrial zoning district and only through a conditional zoning district process. That's important because it gives council the flexibility to evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis and impose conditions necessary to address impacts related to infrastructure, utilities, buffering, compatibility, and surrounding properties. It's important because it's not just about the building itself, but the potential scale and intensity of these operations, like their significant demand on water and electrical infrastructure. This approach is intended to ensure that the city has adequate tools in place to balance economic development opportunities with protection of community character and resilient public infrastructure. This text amendment creates a new use and definition for data centers and updates the definition of heavy manufacturing to better capture uses involving extensive utility consumption. Ultimately, this amendment is about clarity. local control and ensuring that the city has appropriate safeguards in place before considering uses that could have substantial longterm impacts on infrastructure and surrounding properties. The planning board reviewed the amendments and recommended approval by four to one vote with one modification, removing a line that lists specific impacts council should consider during a conditional zoning review. City Council held a public hearing on May 4th, where several members of the public spoke in opposition to data centers. Tonight, City Council is being asked to vote, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Ray. Council, do I have a motion concerning the proposed amendment as presented by the Planning Board?

I'll make a motion that we accept and approve the Planning Board's recommendation.

I'll second.

Okay, we'll open it for discussion. Mr. Baker.

Yeah, I think I just want to say that I'm proud of the planning staff and our planning board and this council for moving very quickly on addressing this. I think there was some confusion, I think, from the public on just why we were why this was coming up and an assumption that we wouldn't be proactive, that there was a data center wanting to come here and that's why we were bringing this up. But no, I think that is not at all the case. It's just that we recognize that we were not protected and our rules were not up to date and we moved in a very quick and proactive manner in order to add those protections for the community. So I really like the solution we landed on, the conditional zoning district. has a lot of steps to it and those steps are very public and require multiple meetings with both staff but also the city council. And so we would have plenty of opportunities to weigh in should one of these facilities want to move to Brevard and I feel like we're in a good spot. I do just want to say that I was amazed at really the diversity and the cross-section of folks who came and spoke to us at the last meeting and at earlier meetings about data centers. Really just cut across the entire demographics of people that live in Brevard. because we're all concerned about our water and our power bills. you know, the jobs or lack of jobs that we're supporting here. But, you know, the city of Brevard is just one small piece of a big county. And as far as I know, the town of Rosamond and the county has not focused on this issue. And we have some areas up in Balsam Grove at the old Perry area. center, the satellite tracking station that could be vulnerable to something like this in the future. So I hope that we don't have control over that. I feel adequately protected here in the city of Brevard, but I hope that some of those other municipalities and the county will take a serious look at this issue and try to come up with a solution that can help their constituents.

Ms. Holder.

does this um thank you first of all um does this mean that we would not be able to support data centers is that no it means that if somebody wanted to apply to have a data center they would have to do a conditional zoning district which there's several steps that they would have to follow and come before the planning board and come before city council and you could decide on that on a case-by-case basis So you would know a lot more about the project before it was approved or denied.

All right, thank you.

Mr. Weiss.

Yeah, I just want to again say thank you for how quick acting and facile you guys were with coming up with this. And I think ultimately it does more than just help us understand the impact of data centers. It can be used in a number of different ways as well. As Erin mentioned, especially on social media, which I know is maybe a more accurate barometer of what's happening in the city, there's a lot of misunderstanding about this, and I think hopefully those social media people are listening to this, seeing how we really do stand. I'm sure they are, and how we really truly stand on data center, so thank you.

Mr. Lytle.

First, thanks Councilman Baker for originally raising this. It's important and I'm glad that we got on this and that it's actually proactive. We want to be in this situation rather than having to react to a proposal and thanks for all the work.

Ms. Daniel.

I always say how slow the wheels of government work. Thank you for getting this done so quickly. I think it is important that it was taken care of. And I think considering that this, I think it was discussed quite a lot at the last meeting that the limitations of what we can do, this is the most that we can do. This is the most active we can be. And I know that I would like to be able to say no But we can't say that. So thank you for getting all this done.

All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to new business. The proposed amendment to the City of Brevard fee schedule for pool fees. And Mr. Dean Lubbe, our finance director and assistant city manager, will brief.

good evening mayor and City Council I will try to be brief staff is requesting an amendment to the fee schedule concerning daily entrance fees to the Brevard swimming pool currently two dollars we're requesting that it be raised to three dollars we did some research it has not been raised in the last at least ten years we we called around to six other pools and All but one of them are either at $4 or $5 for daily admission right now. So we are requesting that you approve the fee increase from $2 to $3. Alternatively, if we leave it at $2, we'll have to find an additional $12,000 in the budget. We contract with a company called Swim Club Management. It was $72,000, but if we increase this to $3, it will be $60,000, or you may have another option of a daily fee, daily interest. So that's about the short of it.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Luby. Council, do I have a motion to approve the ordinance amending the fee schedule as presented? So moved. Do I have a second?

Second. Excuse me.

Ms. Holder.

I'm aware, so I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. Weiss.

Yeah, I'll just say that I think it's important to note that this will yield a $12,000 savings of... what we're spending seventy two thousand dollars on not that we're netting a profit in any way not that they were cooping all of our fees not that we're trying to do any of that this is just to lessen the burden so that we can hopefully use this to lessen the burden in some other places as well yeah I think that is a good point that the fees currently charged at the pool

don't cover the full cost, not anywhere close. It's currently $72,000 that the general fund is paying for the management of the pool. And I remember a few years back when that management contract went up pretty substantially in a single year.

I can't think of. and we think that was because of COVID, lifeguards were a lot harder to get, but then the cost of lifeguards stayed at a higher level.

Right. So I think, you know, obviously, because we didn't raise the fee at that time, the general fund picked up that increase and has picked up, I think, every increase since the pool entrance fee has been $2. So nobody likes to I mean, I don't like thinking about raising this fee, but I think given the financial situation we're in and the amount of money that we're spending from the general fund already, and given what you just said about surrounding pools charging an even higher amount, I think it's just something that needs to be done.

Ms. Daniel.

This seems like a modest increase to me. I would suggest that we look at next year for an incremental another dollar. Maybe not go to five, but I can see four in a year or two.

Mr. Lytle.

And to that point, I'd be curious to see the difference in activity like entrance, how many folks are utilizing and if it, whether or not it goes down, stays the same, goes up with the raise fee to inform us next time. Great. That'll be great to see. Thanks.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes. Moving on, our next item of new business is the 2026 North Carolina General Assembly Short Session Legislative Requests. And City Manager will briefly go over this.

Yes, ma'am. Usually we go through this exercise a little bit earlier in the year, but our rhythm was interrupted this year by the death of our previous representative, Mike Clampett. and the appointment of his successor only one day before the session started. I'm happy to report, though, that both Mayor Kopeloff and I had the opportunity to talk to our new representative, Anna Ferguson, today and share with her the themes that we hope she'll advocate on our behalf. And we started setting up a visit for her next month. And themes, by and large, are what we've got because many of the issues we care about have multiple bills dealing with them or no bills at all and so you won't see at least on staff's proposal any support or opposition of a particular bill but instead support or opposition to outcomes we don't really care what bill these outcomes come through as long as they come through i give you an example reading from staff's proposal We ask Representative Ferguson to support bills that preserve our ability to set our local tax rate without restrictions imposed by the state. There is a specific bill out there, House Bill 1089, that deals with that. But rather than ask her to oppose that bill, we've just asked her to support the preservation of our ability to set our tax rate. Our funding requests stay mostly the same, but with one notable change. Instead of requesting $50-plus million for our wastewater treatment plant upgrade, a number that has since increased. It's now probably going to be closer to $90 or $100 million. We're instead asking for help with the number we do know about with some degree of certainty, and that's $2.6 million to continue on with design and engineering of phase two. I think the smaller number is also more likely to get funded, which is why we changed it from the big number to the small number for this request. staff's proposal was included in the packet but there is an alternative proposal that's been proffered by Mayor Pro Tem Baker and it's printed in front of you it's the one with the blue text and of course you can add delete or edit this as you see fit before you approve it but we do ask that you approve the contents of our legislative request tonight so that mayor copeloff when she goes to raleigh tomorrow and have it in her hands when she starts meeting with general assembly members and others tomorrow

I think at this point, Mr. Manager, I'm actually going to ask Mayor Pro Tem Baker to explain a little bit about why he proposed an alternative with some additional language.

Sure. Yeah, the blue text is some additional language that I requested be put in. underneath the local government revenue and property tax section we didn't really have any language about tax evaluation which is something else that the General Assembly has started to talk about but hasn't really dug into what we saw here last year with the county's revaluation which was a disparity in revaluation increases between lower value properties and higher value properties. And I think we all witnessed what that can mean for individual people, especially folks who have lived here a very long time in a single family home where some other higher value properties commercial properties especially we talked about the hospital last time have saw a tax bill decrease which seems to me to indicate something that we need to fix so there's some language in here about asking them to to look for ways to work on that disparity and then the other two items are specific legislation I would If we want to be consistent and not actually list the actual bills, I'd be OK with taking the actual bill names off of there, and we could just leave the the language, but those two bills, one of them is in regards to data centers and something we've talked about here in the last couple months, which is that they currently have a sales tax exemption, which means that they do not pay sales tax on the energy that they use, and they do not pay sales tax on any of the equipment that they buy when they're building a data center, which just seems crazy. And the governor I know has highlighted this as something that needs to change. So that's one of the bills that handles that. And then the other is a bill that's been kicking around the General Assembly for a while. And it pulls together a couple of different things that are kind of jargony, but it removes parking minimum requirements for developments. It also has a lot of provisions about runoff and some stormwater help that I think would dovetail nicely into the stormwater work that we've done. But again, if we want to be consistent and sort of strike the specific bills and just have the language that sort of says we support those things, I'd be open to that.

All right. I'll open it for other comments. Mr. Daniel.

My first response when I read this, I was reading it, is this is a lot of information. It's like, it's sort of, you start zoning out. However, I'm sure the mayor will be able to convey the intent of this very well. Good luck, Maureen. I just, I'm trying to imagine a new legislator facing a list like this without, I would suggest that if you don't say what you're talking about, such as HB 369, that she may not know what you're talking about. So I'll throw that out, but if there was some way to kind of divide this between fiscal and policy, It would, you know, just some sort of reorganization of the list because it just kind of goes on and on and request after request after request, which, you know, I think we were advised with Representative Clampett that, you know, keep it short, keep it simple, and this is not that.

Well, I proffer then that we create two documents for the mayor and you all eventually to have in your pocket. And if she asks just for policy request or support or opposition to certain bills, we can hand her one. If she asks for funding requests, we can hand her the other. If she asks for both, we can hand her both.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I... I think we should ask for all of it, but I would also like to get something. You know the old adage of if, well I'm not even sure what, it's not an adage, but if you ask for too much, you end up with nothing. So I would just want to be mindful.

I would just say an awful lot of times legislators will ask for our top three, or they will try to say, you can't just give us an unlimited shopping list. What are your top three financial, what are your top three policies that you are really concerned about here? And that's often how they phrase it when they come to us.

Well, that was my recollection. But anyway, those are my only comments. But again, I can't argue with either alternative one or the original. Actually, I like Mr. Baker's additions as well. And I don't think he's overburdened something that I feel like is already overburdened. That's all I have to say.

Mr. Lytle?

Yeah, and as I add to the list, maybe. But under the local government revenue property tax, Councilman Baker added, addressed the valuation, which I agree with. I'm wondering whether or not we look to support legislation like other states have, Homestead Act, It limits the percentage of increase and caps that. Your property tax can't increase over X percent in a single year, which would have really, really helped this last time. But I would think that that would be of interest so we don't have some of the same issues that we face this time with the huge blown up valuation. Other than that, I'm in agreement.

Councilmember, so I just want to throw some editorializing out if you don't mind. The North Carolina State Constitution requires that tax rates be uniform and Walmart can't be charged a different rate than the smallest house in Rosenwald. The Association of County Commissioners has actually been working real hard to get their caucus, so to speak, to agree to advocate to change that so that second homes can be charged a different property tax rate than primary homes, which of course would benefit us here in Transylvania County. But one of the things you have to consider is that if you artificially cap the amount of valuation increase that one property can see, you're also going to cap it for the high value properties that were undervalued last time. And so the prospect that I think we're hoping for that, you know, Transvania Regional Hospital pays a fair share of its property tax burden, a year after they got a big discount, well, capping the amount of valuation increase would put them permanently behind and give them a permanent break. See what I mean? So I think that there's some merit in what you propose, but you gotta consider that any artificial cap will limit our ability to raise the revenue that we need to provide all our services. And it's why I think you as a council oppose the constitutional amendment that's being proposed to artificially cap the amount of millage rate increase that we can apply year over year. So I just want to offer those thoughts for your consideration.

Very good. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I'm not sure, I'm not, I don't obviously have some of the examples in front of me, and I'm not sure whether or not it's specifically for residential evaluation or not. But comments taken. Thank you.

Mr. Baker, more comments?

Yeah, following up on that, I think a homesteading exemption or something like that would have to be done in conjunction with variable tax rates, which is what is currently not allowed and what the County Commissioner Association is pushing for. So I think we could put language in here that that advocates for variable tax rates, and that sort of covers both, which is to say maybe a second or third or a fourth home is a higher tax rate, and in conjunction with that, somebody that's lived in their home for 25 years is a lower tax rate, which we don't currently have the ability to do. I'd be for adding some variable tax rate language in here.

Miss Holder?

I don't have anything. Thank you.

Mr. Wise?

Yeah, I agree with what Aaron and Dean said, especially with the variable tax rate. And I realize that's going to be a long shot, but I think we need to start setting the stage, especially out here in the rural part of the state, where when Raleigh makes decisions, they're basing it on Raleigh and not what actually happens out here. We're oftentimes sort of out on our own. Otherwise, I support, well, we're talking about alternative one, so obviously I support it. I hear, Gary, what you're saying about the length. I do wonder if we almost do, or Mari, this may just be you talking, like just in a little outline, but I don't know. She's a new representative, She's from here, so she probably gets some of these issues already, but what I don't want to do is, like you said, kind of just overwhelm someone new. However, these are incredibly important, and I like having...

this information for somebody now i will say that in my conversation with her today i already talked to her about some that you know you had previously already approved and you know um that has been on our list for a while and she was pretty well uh informed on it we talked about the wastewater treatment plant which she already knew about and which we will give her a tour of when she comes to visit. We also talked very much about the concern with everything that is going on with property taxes and what the legislature is looking at. She was very well versed and knew what our tax rate was. She has been doing her homework. I think it's very possible to have a discussion on a few key items and have others documented in writing. Obviously, in a short half hour meeting, which is what you get with a legislator, you don't get to cover a whole lot.

all right can I can I yeah read back the feedback that I heard so by and large adopt alternate one but removing the references to specific legislation and just moving those outcomes and just referring to those outcomes that are mentioned in the right-hand column there Council, how do you feel about adding an additional bullet? And Gary, I'm sensitive to your statements. And I think there's a little bit of editing we can do to all the descriptions here to make this a little bit more readable, but With that said, Council, how do you feel about adding to the local government revenue and property tax fairness theme something about variable tax rates? And I'm thinking specifically about the statement or position that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners has been discussing. I don't know exactly what it says, but I know that I wish Larry was still here. He could have told us exactly what it is that it says. I feel that it's, I have confidence that it's a good and descriptive statement to adopt. So how would you all feel about adding that to our list of themes?

Yeah.

Good, except I don't know how to craft a motion that takes all that.

All right, so I'll repeat. Adopt alternate one with an additional statement. on variable tax rates per the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. And removing any specific references to bills and instead adopting just the thematic language.

I thought your feedback was the opposite. It was. His feedback was to add the bills.

Yeah. I'm not sure of the rationale not to.

Would that make it easier for her to understand where the thought process comes from?

I think on some of these, I don't want to say more obscure bills, but somewhat more, not the high visibility ones like, you know, some of the housing and the, you know, ETJs and stuff like that, which is just, you know, all over the news. Having the numbers to help her pinpoint exactly what we're talking about is probably helpful.

In that case, then, can I recommend that we do refer to the specific bill numbers of the high-profile ones? So instead of just saying observe local government's ability to set its property tax rate, come out in opposition to HP 1089. I'm trying to think if there are some others on there that have high-profile bills. numbers attached to them. I don't think there are. Paul and Emily, did the Planning Association folks identify any of the ETJ bills that seem to be moving quicker than others?

Okay, I got a motion. I think. I'll make a motion that we adopt alternative one with the addition of language regarding variable tax rates referencing the county commissioner association underneath local government revenue property tax fairness and that where possible we reference specific bills having to do with these policy requests

Do you have a second already? Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes. I need one more motion. So now that you have adopted the content of the request, I need you to adopt the resolution memorializing this request.

So moved.

Do I have a motion approving the resolution?

So moved.

Second.

You can say that before they say the motion.

All right. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right. Resolution is passed.

Mayor, what time are you leaving tomorrow?

Around 10 o'clock.

Okay. I think we can get it in your hand before then.

Okay. 10.30 at the latest.

And if we can't, we'll just email you an electronic copy to share.

Yeah. Yeah, it'd be good to have it because I won't have anywhere to print it when I'm out there, you know. But yeah. Okay. All right. Moving on to our last item of new business. Resolution requesting increased funding from Transylvania County to support enhanced staffing for the Brevard Fire Department. And again, city manager.

Yes, ma'am. This is a procedural request from Transylvania County. They ask all partner agencies who make a budget request of them to submit a resolution by that agency's governing board to accompany the request. And we haven't done that yet. We've made an informal request staff has to them. But I'm asking you to officially memorialize your request by approving one of the two resolutions that's offered, the one in the packet and then the alternative that I sent to you on Friday afternoon and that you have a hard copy of in front of you. And once you approve one or the other of those resolutions, we will be able to check this off our list and wait and see what they decide.

Do I have a motion concerning one of the two resolutions?

I'll make a motion that we adopt the alternative one resolution. I'll second.

Mr. Baker?

Yeah, we've talked a lot about this in our budget, so I won't say too much, but I am hopeful that the county will provide their share of the funding that will allow the staffing levels in Sylvan Valley 2 to match the staffing levels that they currently have at their other fire departments, which is three full-time departments. firefighters for Sylvan Valley too.

Mr. Weiss?

No comment.

Ms. Holder?

No comment. That's good.

Mr. Lytle?

I want to make sure I understand. So essentially... what we're providing the county is our endorsement of countywide tax increase to be able to help fund the three new positions is that okay the language of alternative one doesn't clarify how it's funded just that we're asking that they fund it somehow but the county said that they would their plan so far is not to have any increase.

Come up to the mic if you would, please, Chase.

This letter went out and asked that anybody who had an increase over 2%, this letter was requested to be submitted to the resolution, I should say.

Okay. And do we know how much their portion of this is in real dollars? It's 140.

Yeah.

Okay, I just want to make sure that It's very clear that we're not dictating how it's paid for. We're just asking for it to be paid for. Just because I saw the previous wording. And if it's not in here, that's fine. So I'm okay with it if that language isn't on.

Mr. Daniel? I have a comment. All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right. And that is the end of new business. And we will move on to remarks. And we will start with, where shall we start? We'll start with Mr. Lytle.

Myself? Oh, okay. Nothing else to add. It was a good and difficult meeting and lots to reflect on. But I think, as I said before, it's going to be a case where I think that there'll be some unhappy folks, but at the end of the day, hopefully we, with the budget, can come up with something that's good for the city. That's all.

Mr. Daniel?

I would agree with Dean.

Mr. Wise?

Yeah, Dean brought up a really interesting word earlier, connection, and that and integrity sort of resonated with me, and we just declared this as Public Works Week, which it should be like Public Works, Millennium, but what we heard from a lot of people today and what we're dealing with in almost every capacity deals with public works, deals with our ability to deal with this city. The connection between what we hear people say and what we're actually doing and funding in our budget for public works can be lost because it's not always entirely clear, but we hear things about stormwater, about drainage, about trash pickup, about all these issues, and they all are certainly the top of our priority, and that's why we're spending so much time this year on public works with new personnel, new methodologies, new strategies. And I think it's important to look at those connections to understand that none of these things that individuals deal with live in isolation. They're all part of a larger matrix that we're well aware of and trying to deal with. And that's all I've got.

Ms. Holder?

I'm processing a lot. We've heard a lot tonight. I would like to know what was the budget that was spent for Norton Creek, is that correct? And the completion of the project, what was that amount? I have to ask, and I'm wondering why we didn't see this before tonight. And is it possible, you know, to get like this supplemental figures reference ahead of time? Because, you know, we don't have time to really read this and process it and see where it fits in or doesn't fit in. So if we can get documents ahead of time. That would be helpful for me. And I appreciate what everybody's doing, but, you know, we have a lot to process when we get our packets on Thursday or Friday. but to get something as we're coming to this session it would be helpful for me to get as much as possible in advance i know sometimes it can't be avoided but i think that maybe getting something that's important would be helpful um I don't have anything else to say. I appreciate what everybody has done and what you're doing.

We'll follow up with that information on Norton Creek.

All right. Mr. Baker?

Yeah, I'll just briefly just call back to. What I said earlier on communication and you know the city certainly has an obligation to communicate clearly to the public. But I do want to say that you know communication is is a two way street and. There were a lot of things said and and I think Gary referenced. Some of them. which with a little bit of knowledge and paying attention to some of our meetings that we've had over the last six week or six months I think would have cleared up a lot of a lot of misconception And I understand that not everyone can be a superstar like Harvey and come to every single meeting. I certainly understand that. And I will acknowledge that we live in a media environment which is pretty lacking. Our newspaper and other outlets like Brevard Beagle do their best, but we're not living in a big city with constant communication. but I was struck by a lot of the comments referencing as as Lauren said things like stormwater which we two years ago established a stormwater fund and are working on a stormwater master plan to address those stormwater issues things like sidewalks and and streets that are a direct result of our public's work staff being understaffed. I mean, one of the speakers tonight mentioned that they were fixing potholes in his street and they got pulled away for an emergency. Well, that's exactly the type of thing that we talked about during our strategy session months ago as being a problem. public work staff is being pulled in multiple directions, which led to having started out with four public work staff in the budget and now three. And I understand that some of these things are hard to follow and the decision making is spread out over months. But I just encourage people to ask questions if you are concerned about a specific thing um reach out the mayor i think over the last five years has done a great job of being present and available and she can take those issues one-on-one with folks when they bring them to her and and let them know what city council has been up to for the past six months on that particular issue Um, so I think our budget, you know, obviously we heard a lot from the public tonight. Um, and some of it was was pointed and directed and maybe a negative way towards the budget as it sits. But I think if you zoom out and really look at the budget and the priorities that that we put in there, um, many of many of those concerns feel like we we addressed in the budget and and I'm proud of that I really am because a lot of work goes into this and it's again the communication could always be better but I think it is good that the things we're hearing from the public are things that we are we are already addressing and we need to continue to listen and make adjustments as needed. But I think the budget is in a good spot. I do have a question for staff or sort of a comment, just there are a couple of lingering, I'll say hanging chads for lack of a better word, things that we still need to nail down and I'm, curious and hopeful that at our next meeting or when we're passing the budget, we can clearly lay those out so that council knows how to take action on the full budget, but then maybe some supplemental actions on individual things that we have talked about over the past couple meetings so that we can make those small adjustments on the final document. That's all I have.

Madam Clerk. Nothing for me today. Mr. Manager.

Well, Councilman Baker, I think I know at least one of those that you are talking about. And we had planned on having the smokestack discussion at the meeting tonight, but I pulled it. from the agenda before we send out last week because there's still one critical piece of information that we don't have that i feel i need to bring to you all in order for you to make the wisest decision you can uh... but i can tell you that there's been some developments in that area and they are that there is a possibility that we can retain a remnant of the stack. So at first our insurers were a hard no, and now they are a Maybe. And so I'm waiting to hear back from one of the underwriters to get some information from them on what exactly they need to make their decision on whether they would be willing to insure a remnant of the stack or not. and how much it would cost us to provide that type of information because that's going to i think be important for you all to decide between whether you want to demolish the thing altogether or keep a remnant of it the difference in cost i can tell you that the difference in cost of demolishing it all the way and demolishing all but 20 feet of it is modest um but some of the additional measures and steps that we'll have to take to make sure that that remnant that's left is safe might push the cost up to where it's not worth it but i need to get a little bit more information before i bring that to you all to make a decision on that question but it will be on your next agenda thank you mr manager

When you first get elected to public office, they tell you that the most important thing that you will do as an elected official, especially at the local level, is the budget. They don't tell you it's also the most difficult thing that you will try to do because there is never enough money to do everything that everybody wants. And I think several people talked about it. It's identifying what are the needs versus what are things that we want and really concentrating on the things that we need to do to make sure that Brevard is a safe, healthy community where everybody can thrive across our demographic. And that's what we really strive to do, and that's what we work with the budget. This is the most feedback on a budget, and this is my ninth budget. the most feedback we've ever gotten. And you know, I don't care if you're angry or frustrated, I want to hear it. I want to hear it. You know, so I so appreciate the honesty that people came to us with tonight. That means a lot. And I think I can speak for every elected official here. We listened and we heard you. And we'll be discussing with manager how to incorporate what we heard into a final product to the best of our ability so you know running the city it's also about taking care of our employees because they are another big part of that consideration you know the people that live here work here and do all the jobs such as public works all those invisible you know tasks that get done um so Making sure that we are doing right by our employees is also another really high priority as we look at that budget. I want to remind people, especially people from the Rosenwald community, that we have an information and listening session on June 11th at 6 p.m. at the Mary C. Jenkins Center. We're going to go over a lot of the projects that are on there, but it's also an open forum. It's also an open forum for people to talk to us about anything that they want to. So I encourage people to come to that. We do want to hear what you're thinking. We want to hear what makes you mad. We want to hear what frustrates you so that we can try to deal and come up with the best solutions possible. So with that, I think it's time to adjourn for the evening. Do I have a motion? So I have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned. And we have no closed session. Yes.

We have no lawyer. I know.