City Council - workshop

We do not have any type of consent agenda items today for our workshop, which is, again, for the normal to not have them, but I will entertain a motion to set the agenda.

Motion to set the agenda.

Jason? Second. Second by Mark. All in favor? Any opposed? All right. So the agenda is set, and we will start off with agenda item B1, the Stowe property request for proposals. We have Kevin with us.

How are you, Kevin? Doing good. Good.

Good. Don't be afraid of that microphone.

I won't.

Okay.

All right. So at the last, well, the meeting before last, council directed staff to develop a RFP for consulting services for the Stowe property. Is that good? so you're not selecting the development plan tonight you're just approving the process determine the best and most feasible long-term strategy for the property tonight we're asking you to prove an RFP for professional advisory services related to the approximate 11 acres of the city recently acquired in the downtown area in your packet you'll have a copy of that RFP In preparing this, we considered three possible approaches. One was to hire a developer, two, hiring an architect slash land planner, and three, hiring a real estate development advisory firm. So in your packet there's a table that provides the pros and cons of each one of these alternatives and ultimately staff recommends the real estate advisory approach because it begins with the city's long-term interest in mind. The consultant will evaluate market demand, financial feasibility, development alternatives, public investment requirements, and potential disposition strategies before recommending the preferred approach. An advisory firm will still assemble a multidisciplinary team that includes architects, urban design, planners, engineers, market analysts, all the people that will come to the table, even the finance professionals. And this gives us the necessary design and technical expertise while keeping the work grounded in what is financially feasible and implementable. Because that was your marching orders. We want something that can happen. So that's what we wanted to keep in mind. So the RFP includes, these are the things that the RFP will require that whoever responds to it, they have to include. So they'll include the existing conditions assessment, a market and highest and best use analysis. They'll provide at least three conceptual development scenarios, financial feasibility analysis, conduct the public engagement as needed, recommended development and disposition strategy, and the implementation roadmap, how we're going to move forward. It also includes a confidential market outreach to developers to get the feel. Also from investors and lenders and brokers so that they can give us the interest of the market. We think that's very important. This process does not commit the city to a particular development plan or developer tonight. It just gives the council the information needed to make those decisions later and position us for future development solicitation. So if approved tonight, staff will advertise this RFP, we'll receive proposals in late August, select the consultant in September, return to you for approval of the consultant contract staff recommends approval of the RFP and authorization to begin this consultant selection process and in your packet that RFP is there along with the memo the pros and cons of what we went through and we're here for answering questions

Once we award the contract, how long would you expect this process that you're recommending to take?

That's on page six.

Yeah, and this is an estimate. We haven't been through this before. So really just kind of unsure, but we're trying to just give you some idea.

So this level, the kind of the real estate advisory-led level, which seems to be, as we go through the table, increasingly more direct and maybe more scrutiny as to the overall process. And I understand, I'm assuming things here, so tell me if I'm wrong, but the idea of why do we need that level of involvement Why is it important that we do it outside the norm? And it's because of the impact this could have on our downtown. Is that effectively why staff is suggesting that we go in at that level, kind of leave no stone unturned situation?

Well, yes, and also I think that staff's been through this process with maybe the first two options, but this third option sort of is a, it's not, what's the word, something that you don't typically maybe see. You see going straight maybe to land planners. Yeah.

Well, and it was more broad-based. It's not just from the perspective of the developer or the architect. It looks at financial feasibility. It's one thing to have a developer put together a plan, but it may not be feasible financially.

That was the thing. Is it buildable? Right. Sometimes we see that where they say, well, we bring in a lot of the involvement, and that sounds great. Let's do a water park. That sounds great. But in the end, maybe is that the feasible thing? We're the market study.

We've already sort of seen that around that area. Yeah.

And so, and I know I probably shouldn't, that was a bad, maybe a bad spot outside. And I brought up the, any kind of water facility. But as you can see here, the one thing we thought is they, it's a multidisciplinary approach. And that's what we liked is we're not just pitching, holding ourself into one approach. They would involve all the disciplines into this process. And we just thought that might be a good approach for this.

I think it's an appropriate approach. Again, think of things that keep me up at night if anybody's interested. It's things like that, making sure that this is such a defining part of our town. And the fact that only 100 years was held by the same family, roughly. It's an important piece to Belmont, and so I appreciate the forethought of staff to make sure that we're meeting it with an appropriate level of consideration.

i know we have some downtown property owners here tonight as well so it's you know even early on planning stages this is important i fully agree that the real estate advisory pathway is the is the most appropriate here i think it like you said it's a multi multidisciplinary approach and um i think for the scope of what we're talking about here i think that makes absolute sense and i want to commend you and staff because this was very thorough uh all the aspects that you guys seem to have covered in the rfp um you know i can't imagine the There may be something we've left out, but I think you did a pretty good job of covering all the bases. Yeah.

Any questions for Kevin?

all right well if there are no other questions we'll have them thank you so i want to make a motion i'll make a motion to approve the request for proposals and authorize staff to advertise the request for proposals and initiate the consultant selection process thank you motion by jim second second by mark all in favor any opposed all right so that passes i appreciate that thank you staff for putting that together

And so that will move us right along to agenda item B2, the FERC permit and lease agreement with Duke Energy.

Welcome back. And let's make this one. Yes, there you are again. Good job. Let's make this one just as simple. That might be wishful thinking. Oh, we can do it. We can do it.

When we pull it down, it's simple. We'll soon see about that.

I'm going to put it in a nice little neat box.

I don't think this is capable of being put in a nice little box. Let's try. All right.

So I'm going to summarize about 10 years of information in about two sentences, and then go from there. So we'll try. So kind of how we got here. So let's go back to 2017, and none of us were here. Okay. Oh, it's well-participated. That's just a scene, though. Let's go back.

Look at that file. Look at that file. Look at that.

Kevin, this is a gotcha session. He's prepared.

The box got bigger. All right. So back in 2017, the city entered an agreement with the Belmont Rowing Center. So this agreement donated a portion of their property, which was the waterfront part, donated to the city, and the rowing center would in turn operate a rowing part for the city. So it was a win-win. The city was the one that could only obtain a FERC permit from Duke, so thus the reason for that agreement. So the rowing club also, they funded the cost to prepare this FERC permit application, but the city provided the work. It started with Shelly, and then if Tiffany's here, she put in many hours working with HDR to get that FERC permit application completed. So fast forward nine years, the city now holds an unsigned Duke Energy Use Agreement with the FERC permit. So the FERC agreement requires that the city maintain the property as a public park. Therefore, the premise of that 2017 agreement cannot happen as planned. So that just where they were going to take over and run it. So we can't do that as it was proposed.

But this can... Go through that again.

So the old agreement, when it was first repaired, I think there's a copy of it in there.

There is.

So the idea behind that at the time was they were going to make all the improvements, the Belmont Rowing Club.

They being the Rowing Club.

And they would operate a rowing club, rowing program on behalf of the city. for the city how that would all happen any other agreements of course probably need to be worked out over time right but that's the agreement that was the idea that's what's in there so the city would apply for that right because the city only the city could do that so when we got the first permit agreement back from duke in there it says that it must be a public park We must own, operate. It basically tells us that this is ours. It can't be used for third parties. So when we saw that, we understood that, well, we're the proud new owners of a rowing park if we choose to do so.

Well, all right. Yes. As I understood it, the rowing club donated three acres to us. But there was a portion adjacent to the three acres that was donated called the rowing center site that they were going to keep. And so you're saying that all of it now is...

I guess I'm talking about the part that they donated to us.

Okay.

Well, that was always going to be... So they still own, of course, a piece of the property. Right. and they'll develop that however they would want to. We're not sure about that. That's for down the road. But we're just talking about this piece and the agreement that was given to us

All right, because I'm confused because in terms of the lease that was provided and the operating agreement with BRC, the lease that we are being asked to approve today concerns, I believe, 0.3652 acres and the... The agreement with Belmont Rowing Club, as I understood it, the park was a little over three acres, and the warranty deed that's in the packet is, I believe, 3.0490 acres. So I'm just confused as to what property we're even talking about when it comes to the lease, which is 0.3 acres vis-a-vis the operating agreement refers to three acres.

Well, I know we're talking about the 0.3 acres. It's on the map. that's in the agenda packet where it has a site plan. Let's look for the site plan and which shows what can be built. That's what Duke has permitted. And that's the only area that can be built on based on this permit.

Okay. Is it our property?

That's the area that was donated to the city.

And it does say 3.2 acres in the map. Okay. All right, the lease is for- Track 2B. Are we talking about track 2B? I mean, assuming looking at the map, there's kind of a- 3.29, yeah. It's the top portion on the water. Kind of starts skinny, gets fat, then goes back skinny.

Yeah, I think the- 3.28. The first memorandum of lease that you see where it refers to that 0.3652 acres that Jim references. And if you flip to the map on page 21, The FERC area is like the boundary that kind of extends out to the water. And it shows, you know, the proposed public use dock. And it shows this 0.3125 acres. And then there's the boat ramp in that FERC lease area number two. If you're looking where the water is, there's a boat ramp. and that area is 0.0527. So I think those two areas combined together equals that number that you're referencing, that 0.3. Is that basically the access? The dock space, right? The docks are like the first list because we're extending over onto there. into the Catawba River. So that's only the area that needed the FERC.

That's the area, right.

So that area is in our property, not theirs. Not BRC's.

It has to be because we're the only ones that could be the applicant.

So they don't have a FERC permit for the property that they own.

No, the BRC, they have their own property. So that has nothing to do with the city's parcel. The area that's shown in the map that that duke is referencing is the city gaston gis parcel so we own that we own that piece so it's a portion of the property that was uh quote unquote gifted to us by brc in the 2017 agreement a portion of that three acres is the subject of this lease it's a subject of the memorandum of lease which is the first document there's like really two documents right the memorandum of lease then you got that lease agreement for the public

because the lease agreement is not that's just between Duke in the city and it doesn't need to be filed but I understand the memorandum of lease would be filed with the register of deeds I would assume that that's correct so can we talk a little bit more come back to how where that would be filed

Go back to the agreement with the rowing center. One thing about it, if we don't do anything, if we chose not to do anything at all, they have a right in that agreement to take the property back. They're covered in there. This is just an agreement we're working together to try to accomplish a goal because they couldn't do it without us. Getting to this agreement tonight, I'm going to go all the way to the takeaway and then go back. So the takeaway of this is signing this agreement tonight preserves the opportunity. It does not approve construction funding, finalizing a park plan, or committing the council to do anything. Signing this doesn't commit you to a thing. not signing it, you would forgo the opportunity to use this property in any way without going through a new costly and lengthy application process.

Why?

because duke has approved we already went through this process and duke has come to us and said here we we grant it they don't do that often it takes a year it was a year and a half maybe in the making for that okay here's the agreement you can do these things you have a clock on you to to get started to sign this and that clock was uh went about august the what was that date miles

The deadline for the execution of the lease and the memorandum of the lease is August the 10th. So when they dropped this off to me, they set a deadline prior to that, and I was like, no, you need to give me more time. We're going through the budget process. And so they put a deadline of August the 10th when we need to have these documents executed.

So is that just a deadline set by Duke, or does it have anything to do with the actual validity of the FERC license?

I'm not sure why they set a deadline. It's something that Duke worked the process with first. They were setting the deadline when they needed these documents executed.

And so the FERC permits expire if we don't execute it. And to get another one, it's a lengthy process.

And did I say that the frequency of issuing even the FERC permits is not as great as it once was?

Correct. And I don't know if there's a waiting period on a reapplication either. And I know it's an expensive process because HDR is a long, long process. So the back to it, by signing this, it's just, look, they've come to us. You can do this. All right. We'll agree to it. But if we don't do anything, we can't come up with the funding. We can't come up with an agreement with the Belmont Rowing Center. We just don't do it. No harm, no foul. And we move forward as though nothing happened.

And the lease, I should also point out, is for nominal consideration. So it's not like our recent discussions of other leases that are... Non-nominal amounts. So we wouldn't be... It's not like we'd be obligated to pay like... $1,500 a month or anything for nominal consideration.

So, so, so this agreement preserves the city's ability to develop the public paddling park and rowing facility in the project boundary. And what's included, uh, the approved improvements are one paddling and rowing doc. one boat ramp supporting city administered growing activities and a small irrigation pump for landscaping that's what was approved and that's what can be built and no more executing the agreement does not commit you to fund or construct the park The project design, the cost, the funding source, the timing, that's all to be determined after this day if you were to approve this, because we just don't have answers to those questions. But if you sign this, it preserves and authorizes you for something that's going to be very difficult to obtain again if you didn't. We have a lot of questions about this, but we can answer those questions. We're confident that we can get to some resolution with the Belmont Rowing Center because they've been a great partner throughout this process. Are there more questions? I know there's questions because I told you there's questions for this whole thing. How will we pull this off? But really, this tonight is just here we are with this FERC permit from Duke that's very difficult to obtain. And we would like to go ahead and get it approved so we can work through this process. Because in the end, it could be a great asset for our citizens. Anytime you can take advantage of Waterfront. I think this is a good opportunity to try to do this, and we have a partner that's willing to bring funding to the table and those types of things as well.

We do have 18 months after we execute the agreement to construct. So that 18 month period is the timeframe that's kind of set forth in the leases.

And if we don't, then it reverts to BRC?

If we don't, we have the ability to ask for an extension of up to 12 more months after that. So really like you've got, what's that, two years and a half. is duke granting that or is that belmont rowing club that's duke okay all right and so what happens if nothing happens uh in those 18 months and then the 12-month extension what happens that's what kevin was referring to as no harm no foul the permit just goes away because we hadn't we hadn't constructed anything we hadn't constructed our park and of course you all know it's not on the cip right we didn't realize we were going to Get the lease. It's been an extended period of time, but that's something that we would like to work towards with Belmont Rowing Club. If there's funding through the BRC or funding through the city or grants or whatever it may be, that's an awesome opportunity for us to have a waterfront park and access to the river.

So there's no lease on this property at the moment by anyone, whether us, BRC, there's nothing?

No, sir. Nothing I'm aware of.

Okay. And the lease seems to be for an indeterminate time. It just expires at the end of the term of the FERC license, and that seems to be, no one seems to know when that might be. Is that correct?

I don't know when that is, but FERC requires the license for Duke Energy to maintain the waterway. So as long as Duke Energy is around and is managing the water, then I would assume that the FERC permit stays with that.

And that's Duke's FERC permit, or is it?

Yeah, their ability to regulate the Catawba River.

And that's the same FERC license that's referenced in the agreement with the BRC that that was going to be obtained through the city with assistance from the BRC. Is that correct? I would assume. This FERC license that we're talking about in connection with the lease that we want to execute, is that the same FERC license that in the agreement from 2017 with BRC, Section 4 says that the parties will use diligent effort to get a FERC license? That's the one. That's the same one? Yes. Okay. All right. If we could, what is the exact relationship between this lease that we're being asked to approve and the 2017 agreement with BRC? How do those two agreements fit together? I was having a hard time understanding that in my review.

We have to revise the 2017 agreement completely because things have changed because of who is operating. I think we still need to talk to Duke Energy about what the lines are of what can take place, because it has to be, there's strict requirements for public. And if they have involvement, is it still considered public? So I think we have some things that we need to work out there. But back to it was, what was the relationship? What was it again?

What's the relation? How does, how does, what's the relationship? Because there were, there were a number, there are several agreements in the agenda pack. There's a memorandum of lease, there's the lease, and then there's the agreement with BRC from 2017. The 2017 was there just for your knowledge. Okay.

Because really it's old and, and I think you would agree we're going to need some revisions to it.

I think we were talking earlier. I might be mistaken, but I thought there were some revisions made to it in 2020.

I remember something related to this, but I don't remember what it was.

Do you remember a change in 2020? There's a 2018 amendment.

There's a 2017 original amendment.

Do you know what the substantive amendment had to do with it? So it sounds like it had nothing to do with what made up the agreement. It was location, and we changed the location for that agreement. So really, the only correlation between those agreements is that in the first one, we said we would get the FERC license, and we have, and that agreement is from Duke.

And that BRC would operate... on the city's property, a paddle park for the public purpose of having a park. So they would take away, it would almost be like an opportunity for the Parks and Rec to have a rowing aspect to Parks and Rec.

Now, they're also going to run their own operations from there.

Correct, their own operations from there. And that's what we, it sounded like that's what was understood in 2017. Well, when Duke finalized the lease agreement, the memorandum of lease, it was that the city of Belmont can't allow a private entity to come in and operate on city property. It has to be for public purpose only. So there's a big difference right there is that BRC can't come on to city property and set up shop for lack of a better term. They can access the docks, the roads, the parking lots, the park itself. If it was constructed just like anybody else in the city, it would be open to the public. You know, they could launch their boats just like anybody wanted to launch a canoe or their boat. When I say boat, it's not a powered boat, it's a paddled boat. man-powered boat. So that's a difference that we saw in there. We did contact Dan Hartley, the chair of Belmont Rowing Club, and shared this information. There were a lot of questions still with Belmont Rowing Club since that time, but given that we're up against the clock, even so much as the Belmont Rowing Club would fund certain aspects of construction and everything for the park, I don't want to speak for Mr. Hartley, who's in the audience, but it seems like there was going to be a capital campaign that would start so they could raise funds. Right.

Because they were supposed to do certain things within six months of the FERC permit issuing. Correct. Which obviously hasn't happened. But this is...

And I think that the time, given it was 2017 and nothing occurred with a FERC permit for an extended period of time, they didn't want to start a capital campaign not knowing when this thing would even be approved. And so there's that aspect of it that we're going to have to work through with Belmont Rowing Club on some of the things between the city of Belmont and Belmont Rowing Club. That's the difference.

What is that deadline or clock you referenced?

The 18 months is when the paddle park needs to be constructed.

Right, from the date that the FERC is issued.

Yeah, once we sign, if you all sign it tonight, the clock would start tonight, 18 months from today, to try to get the park funded, constructed, everything that goes along with that. If it didn't happen in that period of time, 12 more months for an extension. If it didn't happen during that period of time, then the agreement's null and void because we didn't have a part, we didn't construct our docks, we didn't do anything. So it would go away, we'd lose that opportunity.

Just out of curiosity, correct me if I'm wrong, I think there's a small area plan in that area, the Waterfront Village small area plan. Is this property encompassed within that small area plan?

Yes, that's what the planning department is working through now, and it is part of that. which would be the city property, not only the paddle park, but the wastewater treatment plant area, which is adjacent to the paddle park, the Belmont Rolling Club's property, the property that's adjacent to the Belmont Rolling Club, all the way up until you get to close to the mill, the mill area, I forget the name of that mill, but where the existing muddy river distillery used to be that that area so that that whole area along the shoreline is the the waterfront master plan area okay and we feel pretty confident that under this new kind of structure that was we still will live up to the deed restriction aspect of it i assume

I mean, it's pretty broad. The deed restriction is pretty broad. It just can be developed and used exclusively as a park for rowing, kayaking, paddle boarding, and other human powered watercraft activity and for other recreational uses that are compatible with such purpose. I mean, it sounds like it's within it. I just want to make sure that we're not going to get ourselves in a situation where we're outside the deed restriction.

I don't think that's the, yeah, I think we'd be able to adhere to that. I'm just, it's interesting because, you know, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, based on what was actually issued to Duke by FERC, B. R. C. Can't do what they were contemplating to do on the property when this original agreement was entered into between B. R. C. In the city. Is that correct?

From what I read, that is correct.

Okay. And so I would assume in the months to come, then we would be I'm revisiting this. I still think it was amended in 2020, but there was a meeting and a bunch of people came. It was one of the first meetings we had.

Yeah, because the neighbors across the river were all upset about noise.

Yes. But I thought as part of that that they're Their leader at the time agreed to make some changes to some of the conditions. It was one of the first meetings that was allowed live in the summer of 2020. It was in the basement at TechWorks. There was a lot going on at the time.

As far as the lease signing goes, would you have any concern with the lease being signed before this details with Duke regarding the private aspect of the development is finalized?

Yes Yes

Oh, that's not in our packet.

I'm going to show you. So that's what they had to begin with being ruined soon. And that's what we had. That's what they've donated. Okay. And that is this.

Ah, okay. That's this. Okay.

See the finger? It's sort of like a finger down there. Okay. The lease, and that is what you, Mayor, was referring to as track 2B on that old plant. That's what we got. Now, the lease is for this The lease would do is for, see there? This is first lease one and first lease two. So that's a dock and a ranch.

Would you say to combine adds up to the .365?

Yeah, these two combine now.

And that's the only portion that's, yeah.

Yeah, the acreage it shows is like right there and right there, and those two added together equal that.

Here's our property. Mm-hmm. And it comes up here.

Yeah, so it's just the part over the water. This is Belmont Rolling Club.

Okay.

That's what they do.

Yeah. Okay.

All right. Thank you, Parks. And I assume all Belmont Rolling Club is involved so far in the kind of restructuring and the discussions that have happened. We feel like everybody's looking in the same direction.

Yeah, and like I said, they have as many questions as we have, and we'll have to figure out how to rework that agreement so that they get what they want still, and they understand that. I think we can come to some conclusion.

Just something to keep in mind for when that happens. I would probably when renegotiating and thinking about termination, I would make sure that there is a mutual termination clause as it's written. It's only the agreement can only be terminated at least before the park opens at the election or discretion of the BRC. As I read it there, if for some reason we wanted to extricate ourselves from it. we have no ability to do that as I read the 2017 agreement. So I probably would include a mutual termination clause.

I agree with that.

All right. Any... I don't have anything. Anybody else have any questions for Kevin? There's a lot of moving parts to that. Jim, I appreciate you digging in, helping us all understand the parts that are they're moving here i do think overall it's restarting the process i can only imagine is not fun with the permit i have heard and not from this position but i've heard that it is difficult to get duke to do much of anything when it comes to relinquishing any um authority they have over the water property. So I understand that that is probably a long drawn out process and we don't want to overly complicate things, but it is also important that we understand whenever we're getting into any type of legally binding agreement that we understand the different parts of it.

For the immediate purposes of tonight, it makes the most sense. It's been such a long time, and you can appreciate this as an attorney yourself. A lot of times, when you think something makes sense in the moment when it's written, it's going to be an issue and interpreted by people who come along many years later who aren't going to have been privy to those original discussions. don't understand what everyone was doing and somehow have to try and piece everything together.

Yeah, I guess my last question, just real high-end, and I think a hundred of you may have gotten to this a little bit, but in the event we sign tonight, we say, yep, move forward, and there's a breakdown with Belmont Rolling Club, which I don't anticipate, but just where my mind goes. In the event we lose that relationship, what are we looking at? as far as our obligations or our ability.

I think, wouldn't it just be back to Kevin's no harm, no foul? That's what I'm hoping.

He would just revert back to BRC. There's no obligation, and then the city could choose, well, we still want to make a parking. We do it all on our own. I think that's open to the public.

If you look back into the 2017 agreement between BRC and the city, that if there may be the clause, if Belmont Rowing Club and the city did not agree, somehow this thing fell apart between the two parties, I think there's the clause that the land can revert back to Belmont Rowing Club. I believe that's correct. So if it falls apart... then the land is gonna be transferred back to Belmont Rolling Club. you wouldn't have a park anywhere.

Right, we wouldn't be fulfilling our deed restrictions.

Right, and so the lease agreement would be, we wouldn't have, they can't apply for the FERC permit because it's got to come through the city, and that's where they need the city at that point. I think the Belmont Rowing Club sounds like they still were interested in constructing a facility on their property that would be some kind of rowing club, rowing center, which is directly adjacent to the public park. They could still launch their boats and do the things that they need to do. All the details that one agreement has that we need to look at to amend needs to occur over the next little bit. So staff will be working through that with Belmont Rowing Club. Okay. Thank you, Miles.

Any other questions for Kevin on this? All right. Do we have any discussion?

I think it makes sense what we're being asked to do. There's no commitment or obligation. It's just trying to understand what we have to do going forward.

Minimal three parties that are involved in making this work. Understanding that it really just comes down to the city being the only one that's available to apply for that. So we kind of have our dancing shoes when I have a choice. Well, I mean, we do have a choice, but you know what I'm saying.

By the way, did Duke get back to you on the edits?

They did. I sent it to the two representatives that are with Lake Services. They're both on vacation, so they said they couldn't get any comments back tonight.

I don't think there was anything substantive. I mean, I had a few questions, but I don't think there's anything substantive in there that would preclude us approving it.

We could approve it subject to revisions if you want to, or we can just approve it and authorize Miles to work out what he needs to. I think it would probably be the best.

Yeah, I think that's fine, because I...

my only question was um well there were a few but it was more interpretation until august 10th right we do so there's a city council meeting the week before there is and that's the reason i put on the workshop so i knew that if it was questions that uh and you didn't approve it tonight i have one more meeting yeah let me look at that strategic okay let me look at the edits real quick

Because I saw Jim, you had made a note a couple places, yeah.

There's one that's just, I mean, more informational, like we should be aware that basically they can flood the property with everything they want.

Yeah. The good thing is it's a park, so it might be the best place to flood is a park. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. If we feel good about it, I'd go ahead and move forward with it. Somebody wants to make a motion?

I'll move to approve the lease as presented.

Thank you. Second. Second by Jason. All in favor? Any opposed? All right. It passes. Thank you for that, Kevin, for that information, and Miles for clearing that up for us. Jim, your insight, always appreciated as well. All right. All right. Then I'll move us on to agenda item B3, which is City of Belmont Chapter 75, Regulation of Electric and Motorized Mobility Devices Ordinance Amendment Proposal. We have Lindsay here with us. How are you?

Good evening, y'all. How are y'all doing? Doing well.

Good.

Alright, so in your packet, I have included an ordinance drafted with some edits already added. But as for the regulation of electric and motorized motor vehicles and as a response for the growing use of the devices throughout the city, the goal is to establish clear rules that improve public safety while remaining consistent with North Carolina law. And when I started this process and all the research, I realized it was far more convoluted and involved than I expected. So if you have any questions.

Only slightly, yeah.

Feel free to fire them.

Lindsay, is this loose copy? Is it the same as what was in our packet?

That is different.

It is different?

There have been a lot of edits that have come in.

Okay.

Edits in addition to edits that I had?

I made those edits in there.

Are there additional edits?

There are additional.

Are they marked by chance, or are they all read?

I'm not sure if that one has them marked or not. There was only a couple.

Are they marked so we know what's new or not?

I'm not sure.

You don't have to get into the edits yet, but if you could. I see two things, the two provisions I had questions about were removed. I took them out. Yes. Okay.

I took them out.

So there were, I will explain. Yeah. There was a 75.03 H and a 75.05 E. And both of those provisions I went back and forth with Corky about because let's just take 75.03 H because 75.05 deals with micromobility. So let's deal with the e-bikes. If you look at the definition of e-bike in the definition section, or electronic assisted bicycle, I think is what it is, part of the definition, one of the standards says that to be an e-bike, to be an electric assisted bicycle, it has to be incapable of being driven more than 20 miles per hour. If it's capable of being driven more than 20 miles per hour, it's a moped. If it's capable of being driven more than 30 miles an hour, it's a motorcycle. But then you had 7503H, which turned around and said, individuals are prohibited from operating e-bikes at a speed of more than 20 miles an hour. And I said, well, that's not necessary because if it's capable of being driven more than 20 miles per hour, by the very definition, it's not an e-bike. It's not.

We probably should let Lindsay go through your presentation and what distinguishes these different types of e-bikes. I think that'll give some context.

I'll have that ready for you. Okay, so let's see. The purpose of the ordinance is threefold. It aligns Belmont's regulations with current North Carolina state law and the statutes governing these devices. It establishes consistent operating rules so residents understand where they can operate these devices and under what kind of conditions. And then it also protects pedestrians, maintains ADA accessibility, and allows these newer transportation options to safely coexist with traditional traffic. So we're not alone in addressing these concerns. Many of the municipal districts around us have already adopted similar ordinances. and others are in the process of researching them and discussing them. So over the last few years, we've observed a significant increase in the use of all of these devices throughout the city, and they are commonly used for recreation, commuting, and transportation. As their popularity increases, so do all the complaints, which I'm sure we have heard and seen, which involve the riding on the sidewalks, excessive speed, hazardous riding, conflicts with pedestrians, and being unsure of whether they're actually legal to be operated. So one of the most important provisions of this chapter would be that under this section, it states that electric assisted bicycles and motor driven bicycles and motorized scooters and micro mobility devices are deemed vehicles and that every operator has to comply with all state laws regarding the use of a motor vehicle. So this is an overview or a breakdown of the definitions of each. The micro-mobility device, it includes electric scooters, e-scooters, actual e-scooters, hoverboards, electric skateboards, those little unicycle boards that we see, and they're only limited to 15 miles an hour. They can't go any faster than 15 miles an hour.

Is that like... Mechanically, like that's how they're set up? Correct. Okay. Physically, it's not like we just say, we're just saying they can't. It's like they literally cannot go.

Manufactured.

That's how they're manufactured. Yes. Okay.

And it's also stated in the state statute. Under general statutes, the actual name of these devices is, let's see.

I just changed the word around because it was... By the way, this color-coded chart you put together, I think, summarizes... I don't know that you need to go through all this. This is really helpful. Okay.

I can definitely fast-forward this. Let's see.

Unless you guys weren't.

Well, I'm just... Like, how... If... you're out patrolling how are you going to tell the difference between a micro mobility like for example the pink scooter is a micro mobility device the black one is a motorized scooter but they both to me look functionally the same skateboards too all right the electric skateboards now no chance you can tell the difference between a regular one version has pedals right correct so i'll go straight to the chart just so you guys can see it you're fine

So these are actually, this is the speed comparison for each device, and this is in general statutes as well. Micromobility devices cannot go more than 15 miles per hour. Motorized scooters, electric assisted bicycles, which are e-bikes, and motor-driven bicycles cannot go more than 20. Mopeds have a max speed of 30, and motorcycles can go, obviously, more than 30. I'll go straight to the chart. Well, you guys have it in your hands as well. Okay, so for us to be able to see, I know we've all seen the kids riding the little motorcycle, which are technically motorcycles. We encountered one the other day. He was 15 years old, and it was going well over 45, 50 miles an hour.

I've seen them well under 15 going.

Yes. Oh, yes. Yes, definitely.

Well, I think that's a little bit easier, though, because of the speed.

So the micromobility devices, they are not the... Like, the e-scooter and the motorized scooter would be hard to determine the difference. You could pretty much kind of see, in a way, the speed of that, I would say. If it got down to it, I guess we could do radar on those two. But basically, it's just to... set a regulation to what these kids can and cannot ride and where they can ride them per se. If it got down to, you know, specifics, of course we would venture there. But every definition in here is a direct reflection of North Carolina general statutes.

Well, and not to pile on, but like what's the, I mean, what is, why do we need to distinguish between the two? Because the speed difference is five miles an hour and it looks like Most of the regulations between like a micro mobility device and a motorized scooter are the same.

So motorized scooters can't go 20 miles an hour. Micromobility devices is an e-scooter. It can only go 15 miles an hour.

Right, but what I think Mark was saying is there's only a 5-mile-an-hour difference, and most of the regulations are the same, so why?

Because it will determine where they can and cannot ride.

I see that.

Can I ask you just a very... bullet down for me where are we having the problems because i know when we start when we're whenever we when we think about when i think about statutes you know we're writing something that is attempting to address an issue and my mind always goes just because it's the way i think about it i want to be as narrow as possible to achieve the result we want And my concern is recently we've had this proliferation of these electric motorcycles. They really are. They're dirt bikes. They have no pedals. They do 35, 60 miles an hour. They're very fast. They're advertised everywhere. I mean, I see them. They're all over my point of view. Super cool. If I was a kid, I would have wanted one. But is that where we're really having issues with those on sidewalks and cutting in and out of cars? And some kids are going to get hit and killed, I understand. And I think that needs to be addressed. My question is with the micro mobility devices. Me, personally, I would exclude the micro mobility devices from everything.

I was just saying. Do you want them, even if they're doing 15 miles an hour, do you want them on a standard sidewalk? Not an 8-foot multi-use, but a standard sidewalk.

I understand. I know that there are some that do get up to 15. The ones I see kids on are the little hoverboards and stuff like that. If you're going full bore on it, it's the same as if somebody was running at me on a sidewalk. It's going to do the same amount of damage. What I don't want to do is I don't want to... put a chilling effect on people using these type of devices. I'm not talking about the motorized bikes and things like that, because I don't want sidewalks. But when I think of, kids are using electric skateboards, kids are using those little hoverboards, that falling into the, the constraints that we're putting on them, especially in the downtown area. I mean, that's where the D is essentially a none on any sidewalks in downtown. I see a lot of people that are using our downtown in different ways. And they use, some of them use it in ways where they're using a one wheel or something and they're not going 30 miles an hour on the sidewalk. And the regulation, I mean, as the ordinance is written, they have to watch for pedestrians, they have to make sure that they're given the right of way, they're doing all these things. That can apply on a sidewalk as well. When I see people using them to get around town in different ways, which I don't want to, to limit so much. I like the idea of people being able to use these things. I just question really where I had, I agree with the vast majority of all that. Where I have most hangups is with the micro mobility devices.

That's understandable. I think most, I think that came from the complaints that we were getting of people using them on sidewalks or causing issues with people who were running or they were being used in areas they weren't supposed to be used.

Yeah, I mean, but that's my question. Does that dismount zone, does that apply to the micromobility device? Yes, it applies to everything. Like, you take that main section of sidewalk between, on the main between Myrtle McLeod and Catawba.

Yes, all that.

Is that considered a multi, is that wide enough to be a multi-use or is that a standard sidewalk? I can't, it seems pretty wide.

A lot of it's pretty wide. Yeah. A lot of it's pretty wide.

And that, you know, again, I'm just trying to think. Like, do you get the dismount? Are you even allowed to operate those? I remember seeing the dismount section in their packet.

Within the dismount section, there's a different width of sidewalks. In the downtown area, there's supposed to be a 60 feet recommended. I don't know who they are. There is a difference in that. Honestly, I understand and I respect your point, but we have to look at it from a public safety standpoint. We also have to look at it holistically to where If we're going to present this to you, we want to make sure we include every single thing. And it's not that we're going to go out. Our officers are not going out every day and looking for all of these different criteria, the different ones, and doing anything. This is not for your law-abiding citizen who may be doing this. It's for when we have those times when people are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. When we get those complaints, it's to give us some bite. Right now, we don't have an avenue other than the state laws. If we're riding on a street or highway, then, you know, we have state law for that. We'd have no ordinance, and we're still having such an issue. We get complaints daily, if not twice a day sometimes, because of these different things. And the different ways everything's set up in there, that's really the thing that you're seeing if you go back, Randy, with this sheet. That's really a quick reference because it's so complex, right? Yeah. So for our officers to, you know, obviously we'll educate the public on all of this, too. We also have to educate our officers to understand what the state law says. and the new laws that have passed, but also they have this in their core to make sure they're understanding when they do speak to people that are educated as well as educate the public. I'm giving out some of these myself to people that I put over on the e-books myself. This isn't to go out there and make sure that everyone's doing exactly that because we can't do that with any law or ordinance, right? So this is just basically to make sure that the public is educated, that we try to ensure that we get voluntary compliance, And when we do have issues, when people are doing things they shouldn't be, call it naughty or whatever you must, then we have an avenue to handle that situation, whether it's on a city ordinance or a state citation.

Go ahead, Jason. And this is one of my biggest questions tonight, because we're talking about a new ordinance, and if it's passed, like you said, there's an educational process with your officers. Where's the educational process for the operators? There's no licensing required. There's no permit required. When do they get, how do they get, how do these things get conveyed to the operators or their parents?

Social media, signage.

Can we institute some sort of permitting process where they have to know what these rules are? Because I mean, you talk about yielding to pedestrians. I mean, that's pervasive through the whole ordinance. Yielding to pedestrians or other vehicles. If it's an eight-year-old on an e-bike, Are they really going to be conscious about yielding to pedestrians? I mean, where's the education for the operators? Do we have the ability to implement some sort of, you know?

I'm not saying that's not a bad idea, like we do with dog parks, an issue in permits. But you're talking about a lot of permits and a lot of more workload.

Yeah, but let's be preemptive. I mean, I don't want to be coming back here with an accident.

I don't want to exclude any one of these because any one of these... So I don't want it to be excluded because we need to have some kind of bite, too, when our officers go out and handle things. We get caught on the carpet on it, and there's not an order to say laws don't apply. There's not really much we can do. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.

What is the crux of the complaints that you're getting that you don't have? like that you can't respond to with what we've currently got in the ordinance?

Well, the ones that are popping ruins and riding down South Point Road for a long period of time on the roadway, we can handle. The ones on the sidewalks and the ones in some of the areas where we don't have anything like the multi-use pass and different things like that. And the other thing I want to make sure you understand is this is not just something that we are doing. This is something that's become a huge issue nationwide. It is. You can see all the different other municipalities who have, like Cornelius is actually towing a lot of these back to their station and then charging tow fees. We don't plan on doing that. That's something they're doing and making sure their parents have a better understanding of what's going on. They, you know, Thanks.

Riddle me this. Obviously, you all didn't just come up with this out of the clear blue sky. You provided the list of other municipalities that actually have these ordinances. Presumably, someone somewhere has defined and regulated micromobility devices and motorized scooters. Is that correct?

That's actually in general statutes. It's just under a different name. There were several of the list of the municipalities that actually had ordinances right had a section that was specific to micro mobility devices and to piggyback on on what she said the specific complaints that we were getting for the micro mobility devices were both children and adults riding them on streets that were 40 miles an hour over or or just cutting in you know through specifically around school time um cutting through traffic like it was nothing, and it's unfortunate, but at some point, somebody's going to get hurt.

Yep, I agree. You know, you talk about max speeds here, and talking to some of these kids that are riding these e-bikes, Thank you guys for doing the research on this and putting together this because this is, like the mayor said, I mean, there's been such a proliferation here of just all these different types of bikes and vehicles and, you know, how you come up with a body of law to regulate them is no small undertaking. So I commend you for that. But one of the things I'm hearing lately, too, one of the big trends with these e-bikes is modifying them.

Mm-hmm.

So they're spec'd out for 20 miles an hour, but they're putting kits on them. They're going north of 50.

Correct. And that will get you into the moped, motorcycle realm.

Right. So how, yeah. I mean, you're going to be enforcing the law with someone on one of those modified e-bikes as if they were a moped or motorcycle.

So depending on, here's the difference.

Because the moped and the motorcycle talk about cc's. They don't talk about speed. Correct.

The moped and motorcycle is a moped, a device that can go over 21 miles an hour and under 30 miles an hour is actually legally a moped. And you don't have to have a license, but you do have to be 16 years old or older.

Sorry, you said 21 to 30? 21 to 30.

And that's in the state statute? Yes, it is. You have to wear a helmet. 16 years older, older registration through the DMV, you have to have a tag and everything.

And if it's over 30, it's considered a motorcycle. Correct.

Anything over 30 or more than, I think it was, I forget the CC of it.

So you pull over one of these e-bikes and you find out it's got a kit on it. And whether you clock them or you, I don't know if you can visually, you know, tell if they're going more than 30 miles an hour, if that stands, how that holds up.

Me and Chief actually... Yes. There were two kids riding.

Did you clock them, or are you just visually? How does that work? Because I know you guys have specialized training when it comes to that. I don't.

To answer your question, I do have specialized training, which inspires me. Just when we need it. But what we did was I actually did pace them. I got behind them and drove at a certain speed that kept the speed that they were going for a period of time. and they were going 41 miles an hour and pulled them over down near the canal bridge. 15 and 16. Exactly what you're talking about. On South Point Road? Yes. They had their bikes, I guess, what you call tricked out, and they were going 41. She could probably tell you what they were actually considered. The one thing also I think I need to point out is these speeds are based on flat-level surfaces, but just because it don't say it can do it don't mean it won't do it on a hill. Sure. To be within the wall, you'd have to hit the brakes on something when you're going downhill because if you go 25, If you go down a hill, it's a big hill.

So one of the big distinguishing factors between a motorcycle and the others is they have to have a license. Correct. So if you have a modified e-bike that's spec'd out for 20 or 30 miles an hour, but they're going downhill or on a flat surface and they're going north of 50, if they don't have a license, it's... Depending on where they are.

If they're on the folks for your highway, then yes. But if they're on a multi-use path or on the sidewalk... Well, hopefully they're not going 50 miles an hour on the sidewalk. It would be the difference between

So one of the Enforcement strategies for a situation like that The parents can actually be charged with contributing to delinquency and There have been a couple kids that have continued to do what they have done But this will come into play for that and So, yes, the majority of those are actually considered motorcycles when they're modified. And you can tell through this on the usually on the side of the motor or of the engine, it'll have like the CCs or it'll have the watts and things like that. And it will show you or you could catch them through radar or as Chief was saying. using his skills.

If it's modified, would it show you the modified CCs or what?

Not usually. No, they're putting like upgraded controllers and stuff on. You never see, it'd be extremely hard to know.

you'd have to catch him in the act yeah then you'd have to yeah that'd be the best way to do it yeah when you're doing 60 miles an hour we know it's faster rather than like focusing so much on like the structure of the vehicles would it be simpler to just say like the speed limit on a sidewalk is 10 miles an hour or something and not get into this hole like is it modified is it not modified is it micro mobility is it not because like i'm just thinking like if the Because I keep hearing us refer to kids. I'm trying to explain this to a teenager.

Well, it's mainly for the parents. They shouldn't be allowing their kids to do that. And this is actually coming from state law. Everything that's in here is already in state law. So we don't have that ability to simplify it like that apparently.

So let me ask you this. Two questions. One, let me get them out or I'm going to forget them. One, where are the majorities of the calls coming from? Which of these categories? And two, if I were to put Jack on his hoverboard and said, go down to the pizza place and put our name in. If he is scooting on his little hoverboard on the sidewalk without a helmet, what are the liabilities?

Well, you'd be in the downtown dismount zone, too.

He wouldn't be allowed to be on it, right?

He'd have to be on the street, right?

For a hoverboard.

How old would he be?

He's 13.

If he's under 16, he could be on the sidewalk.

Under 16 by himself. I thought, is it not just an adult and kid?

If an adult is with them, the adult can be with them too.

The adult can. So a kid under 16 can be on one on a sidewalk in downtown.

Correct.

Okay. What about somebody that has one will that is 30 years old? They would have to be on the street in downtown, right?

Correct.

But they could be on the street, just couldn't get on the sidewalk. In the dismount zone?

In the dismount zone. They can be on the street. Absolutely. Yes. The dismount zone is specific to the sidewalk.

Because of the street. That's right. So we would be pushing them on the street instead of on the sidewalk.

If the problem is with kids, why is there an exception for under 16 on sidewalks? Shouldn't it be the opposite? Like, wouldn't an adult theoretically be a more responsible operator on a sidewalk than a child?

Well, I would think you'd rather have a child on the sidewalk than in the middle of the street.

Yeah. And I assume the kid stuff's going to go slower if they're little. Well, I mean, there's, again, a lot of assumptions here.

Yeah. A whole lot. There's a lot of ways that this can go.

A lot of assumptions. But before we finish that, let's go back to my first question. Which one are you getting the majority of your calls on?

The majority?

Mm-hmm.

Would be between the motor driven and the motorcycle because they go hand in hand.

Fast and aggressive.

And the motorized scooter usually being more than the micro mobility device.

Where are you getting most of the calls? Is it all over?

What area? Mostly downtown. South Point Road, around the school. We have a couple neighborhoods. I think Bellmead may have been.

You say Bellmead?

I think Bellmead. Is that what you just said? Oh, I'm sorry. Bellmead. Yes.

And one of the issues I see, too, is they're typically going home or maybe they're just making their last couple laps around the neighborhood right at dusk. You can't see them. They come zipping around the corner and no lights. And I noticed that was one of the requirements. I think you're not allowed to operate them after sunset. After sunset. Right?

Well, if they have lights on them.

But there was something in there about lights, was there not?

Yeah, if they're lights, they can, right? If they've got like a certain distance, you can see the light from a certain distance. I believe there was actually a section in there. But no micromobility after dusk.

Correct.

Yeah, which again, I'm not...

I'm not... I'm operating electric... I'm sorry, I'm not reading the latest version.

That didn't change.

Okay. when operating electric-assisted bicycles, motor-driven bicycles, and motorized scooters after sunset, all such vehicles shall be equipped with a lamp on the front.

This makes me think of the saying that no good deed goes unpunished. I understand the underlying thing here is to keep people safe. I understand that. But I think what's going to happen from this, especially the, and again, I know there's going to be education to it, but unfortunately it's complicated because there are a heck of a lot of different categories that people are using electric vehicles now. My fear is that once this is rolled out, people are just going to say, I'm just not going to use them. I mean, because I don't, there's so many constraints that they're not used.

I mean, is that what we want?

Do we want no, we don't want people using alternative vehicles to get around in downtown or in Belmont? If that's the case, then I think that's pretty easy. We can draft a much shorter ordinance to do that.

With responsible adults on golf carts, you know, I think most of what we're seeing, what I'm seeing driving around town is anywhere from eight to 12 year olds you know, typically on what looks to me like the motor-driven bicycle with no pedals. More like a motorcycle to me is what it looks like, but it's electric. And they're definitely going more than 20 miles an hour. They're not stopping at intersections. They're not even looking at intersections in a lot of cases. So if we have a serious accident or a fatality, then people are going to be like, well, why didn't y'all regulate this?

Well, I think, again, my biggest thing, I understand all those other ones. Motorized scooter makes sense to me. The electric-assisted bike, that makes sense to me. The motor-driven bicycle, of course, I mean, you're essentially, in my mind, that's a motorcycle at that point because they're that fast, they're heavy enough, and all that. Where you lose me is just the micromobility because these, I understand they go 15, and there are some, I've seen one-wheels that go a lot faster than 15. But those in my mind are used for little short people moving as opposed to transportation like these other true transportation like the bigger scooters or the electric motor.

Do we even have the ability to customize this or is that all?

We can customize it, of course. The micromobility device, the only thing that's really restricting is their ability to be on a street over 35 miles per hour. Or on a street over 25 miles per hour. If they are on a street that is over 25 miles per hour, they can be on the sidewalk.

Except in downtown if you're over 16, right? Unless you have a kid with you.

Correct.

But if you're by yourself, you'd have to be in the street.

Correct. Yes. Just not on the sidewalk.

Does Jack wear a helmet?

Do what?

Jack, wear a helmet. Not normally. You're not going to be putting me in the clink.

Parents would be fine. That's right. Yeah.

Okay. Does the state allow you to implement a minimum age for any of these bikes? Like minimum age period? On city streets or sidewalks?

No, only the moped and motorcycle.

Really? That's something else I may want to think about. Do you know, I mean, regarding the lighting, I don't, well.

So it was under 75.08.

Yeah, I'm just asking if, you know, if you see that typically these bikes typically come standard with any lights on them? Or is that something they have to add?

I think it probably just depends on the model.

There are some that are sold as commuter devices that are built with that in mind. So I've got one, and it's got a bright headlamp on the front, and it's got brake lights in the back. So you can actually be out at night, because the idea is you work until 5 or 6 o'clock and you need to scoot home.

In electric-assisted bicycles, they have the full rights as a regular bicycle does. So anything that a normal bicycle – anywhere they can operate, anytime they can operate, according to state law, an electric-assisted bicycle can operate as well.

I've just got – like on the whole sidewalk thing, I know this is kind of like – Some people have different opinions on this. But my opinion, that's the safest place to be, particularly with a lot of our streets. Because I actually, when I campaigned, I was buying the scooter. So I've actually been on probably every street on your map here. Safest for the operator or safest for pedestrians? Well, for the operator, if it... I mean, for pedestrians, if it's handled responsibly. I can tell you what I did.

It could go either way.

I can tell you what I did as someone who's cognizant of this. When I saw a pedestrian on the sidewalk, I'd dismount and walk the bike or the scooter until I went past the pedestrian.

You're a responsible operator. Well, yeah.

I'm not saying that necessarily everyone's going to do that, but I also... It sounds like the way I'm interpreting the ordinance is any road where the speed limit is 30, was it 35 or over?

Is this for?

Well, I just like, so if I want to take my scooter out.

A motorized scooter or an electric scooter?

Which model is yours? It does 20 miles an hour.

Okay, so you can go on any street.

That's before you put the kit on.

Yeah, under 35 miles per hour. If it's over 35 miles per hour, you can ride on the sidewalk.

Okay, but that's, okay, so the streets that are over 35 are only going to be the boulevard and there's one other, because I asked the chief about this. Well, there's six in the south. 85. So every other street in town, I have to be in the road.

Okay. Well, I'm thinking, like, for example, Central.

Even parts of it actually even have bike lanes. I actually tried. I was like, well, I'm out here. It's got a bike lane. I'll use the bike lane. It was terrifying because, like, you've got cars flying by you. If they're not flying by you, they're pulling around you into the other lane. And then you also have the issue with tree branches and stuff in the bike lane, which make it actually to the point where you have to actually stop and get off to go around the branch, which I guess is a separate issue. And then there are parts of Central, for example, that don't have bike lanes at all, so you've got to be in the road. I think the speed limit, there's 35, is it 35? I don't know. Yeah, if you're coming past where First Presby is. So then you're in the street doing 20 and the traffic going around you is attempting to do 35. There's no shoulder. What I did there was I just rode on the sidewalk because I didn't feel safe in the street.

I would tell you that if I was driving while you were driving, I would rather be on the sidewalk too. And this ordinance proposal is not for people who are driving with due regard and they're not causing issues. This is just for the people who are not. And we're getting complaints on all different areas. On the sidewalks, in the streets, all kinds of different places. It's not one of these. It's a combination of them all. And I can assure you that our officers don't have the time or the energy to go out here every time I see them. or be on the sidewalk myself. I would walk against, but it probably is safer on the sidewalk. We're probably not going, there's kids that get on South Point Road at 40 to 50 miles an hour on the sidewalk. We've had an electric-assisted bicycle get hit, get from a hospital, get hit right down past the hospital because of the weight of the vacuum. But at the same token of that is, at the time, we didn't have anything that allowed us to do any kind of enforcement action. I understand that, but... Yeah. Obviously, like anything else, I'll give you an example. On Snow Road, we had a lot of people down on the left when they didn't get the setbacks right to the road, and people couldn't park in their driveways because there was a handicapped kid who went up and down. The mom pushed the handicapped kid up and down that street for a while. It was over a period of a couple of years. We educated the people because they couldn't park in their driveway two cars deep because they were in the sidewalk. So what are you doing that aspect? But we allowed grace and we also went to every single house and we educated them for a long time. And then when people were just, you know, spiteful in a sense and said they weren't going to comply, then we had to take them back. And this is kind of a similar situation where that's what we do. With anything that we implement, that's moved under ordinance or anything, like when we did the stuff on Jody Avenue with the stop sign and the common devices. Well, I understand. I just kind of go back to what Joe was saying about the chilling effect. Like, I wouldn't want

I don't think you're going to go around patrolling looking for people on sidewalks. We don't have enough manpower to do that.

I don't think it's going to be entirely popular with everyone. I think for everything, it's just like anything else. Once we educate everyone and everyone understands what the expectations are, I think it will be as good as anything else. I think in the beginning, up front, until everyone's educated, I think there's going to be some bumps in the road. Obviously, the rest will be anything. Yeah.

I've got a question on section. No, I'm chewing it over. Okay. Go ahead, Jason. Section 7508B. Anyone riding upon an electric assisted bicycle, motor-driven bicycle, motorized scooter, or micro-mobility device shall not attach the vehicle or himself or herself to any other moving vehicle upon any public highway or public street. So I notice that mopeds are not included in that section. Can mopeds pull other vehicles?

So we know that goes on quite frequently.

We know that happens quite frequently, especially around the downtown area. Typically around the weekend.

I'm not sure if it's entirely a moped.

Speaker stacks pulling behind. I haven't seen it.

I haven't seen it in person.

Oh, you've got to get out a little more. It's a sight. But anyway, so that is illegal, though.

I'm just... You took me back to my skateboarding days when I was a kid. Stitching.

That's right. Stitching. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We're still here. Yeah. By the grace of God. Mark, go ahead.

You had a Holly Springs on your list of towns with an ordinance, and that was one that I just happened to look at. I grew up near Holly Springs, so I was like, oh, I know what it is. I know the area. They seem to have a much simpler approach to this. They've got two classifications. An e-bike, which is 750 watts or less, based on the battery wattage, must not exceed 20 miles an hour, requires pedals. And then something called an e-moto, which is basically anything over that. And they also expressly allow... um e-bikes on basically everything greenways sidewalks multi-use paths walkways wow um the emotos are restricted to town streets um i mean it's a lot simpler to explain anyway but and it's also tends to be a little bit more i i guess i'm very sympathetic to the whole riding on the sidewalk thing i know some people don't like that but um In my opinion, that's the safest place for somebody who's not in a car to be, as long as they're not running over the other people on the sidewalk.

Well, that's the thing. I mean, it's safer for them, but it may not be safer for the pedestrians they're encountering.

Yeah. Yeah.

There was actually, I can't remember if it was Morrisville or, I don't remember exactly what city it was, where the kid had hit an elderly lady. And the parents were actually charged for that because he was riding on the sidewalk. She was just walking down the sidewalk. And I think he may have been 17, so he was just below being an adult.

Was that something you could address through like a, you know, you can't, you have a dismount zone, so to speak, within like, you know, I don't know, 50 feet of a pedestrian or something?

Is that after someone gets hit or? Like how would we, how would we?

You're saying if you see someone ahead of you that you have to dismount before you get to them?

Effectively.

Man, we're talking about splitting hairs here. Yeah, that's enforcement of that. Let me steer it another direction while you're thinking on that, Mark, just real quick. Because one place I got a little confused, and I'm sure it's in here a bit, point me to it. Micromobility, I'm going to go back to that again. Micromobility devices can only be operated on public streets, right-of-way, and bike lanes during daylight hours. So, where they're allowed on the sidewalk, are they allowed outside of daylight hours, or is there no micromobility in city limits after daylight hours?

It wasn't specific to... I mean, that's something we can change.

Well, I'm saying under 7505A2. Oh. So we're talking about here, micromobility devices may be operated on public streets, multi-use paths, bike lanes with the following restrictions. Okay, under one, micromobility devices may only be operated on public streets, right-of-way bike lanes with a posted speed limit of 25 miles an hour or less, as Chief pointed out a second ago. A person operating a micromobility device may cross over roadways or public right-of-ways with posted speed limits greater than 25 miles an hour. Okay, got that. Two, micromobility devices may only be operated on public street, right-of-way, or bicycle lane during daylight hours. And here's what I've run into with my golf cart. So I don't have a street-legal golf cart. I have one that's permitted by the city. So there are certain restrictions that apply to that as opposed to like a low-speed vehicle. Well, when time changes, it gets dark at like 5 o'clock or whatever. Not anymore. Well, not now, but it will. We'll see. We'll see, right? But in the fall, if we use it, we go out to eat. A lot of times we don't take it specifically because after dinner, it'll be dark. We don't want to drive back in the dark because it's not allowed. But with the micro-mobility devices like an electric skateboard or something like that, I mean, are we... Are we saying they don't happen after dusk, or they can if they're on a sidewalk, or what's the rule there?

Right now, there's nothing. All it says right now is they just can't be operated at night. If we wanted to add in a criteria for them being allowed on the sidewalk at night, then I don't see why we couldn't do that.

Yeah. Operating a micromobility device on public street, right-of-way sidewalks, or multi-use paths within city jurisdiction before sunrise or after sunset shall be prohibited.

If you'd like to take out sidewalks for the after hour, or, you know, before sunrise and sunset because of a time change. Yeah. You know, that's concentrated in there.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think that's something I'd like to see. I don't necessarily want to tell... No, this presentation is for informational purposes.

Sure, yeah. But, I mean, this is entirely up to you on the decision. Because then when you cross the street after dark, that's the potential for being hit after dark with people who can't see you after dark. So you're right on the sidewalks in these areas, but if you come across the street, like you said, it's splitting hairs.

And there's no lighting requirements on the micromobilities, right?

No, because they're not allowed in. So if they're allowed after dark and they don't have lights, that just increases the risk.

Yeah, it just seems like a lot of unnecessary restriction to me.

That's why you've got to walk.

It's a walkable town.

But it does specify the two areas that can't be operated after dark.

I would definitely want to remove the sidewalk from that, me personally. Again, I don't have a vote. But, yeah.

I guess we're just looking at a city as a whole and all potential issues that could come about if we didn't have something in place. every citizen.

Yeah, I mean, the motor, like, again, the motor-driven bicycle, those are no-brainers to me, right? I mean, that absolutely makes sense that those would be regulated. Those should not be on sidewalks. You know, those should be, Jason, to your point, when you're talking about permitting, like, the golf cart permit totally makes sense to me on those motorcycles. They don't have pedals. You know, they're miniature dirt bikes that are doing that are capable of doing 40 miles an hour. In my mind, that makes sense. No brainer. It's when you get, you start going down from there that I started, you know, it just brings up more questions in my mind as far as how far do we want to regulate these things as opposed to the other ones. But then again, Chief, I'm not riding along with you and seeing, you know, hearing all the calls and seeing what's happening. So I understand that, but

I think as we work through this, I know this is information only tonight, right? It is, yeah.

It's totally open drafted.

But I mean, I'm fully in favor of formulating some sort of regulations around these bikes because I do just foresee I mean, you're already seeing it. Fortunately, it hasn't been to the level of a fatality or a serious accident yet, but just the more these things continue to proliferate and you don't have necessarily most responsible operators sometimes, not always. I mean, I think that's the purpose of what we're trying to do here. I think the biggest challenge is going to be education and such at that point. I mean, do we have the ability to require a permitting process like we do with, I know that would be a cumbersome undertaking. Maybe you only do it for, maybe you only do it for like the e-bikes up, you know, through the mopeds. The bigger ones, yeah. And not for like the micros or the motorized scooters. You know, does the state allow us to?

I would have to look and see if there's, because there are some regulations that are, or some statutes that are specific to you not requiring, a city can't like, you know, ask for a permit. But it's possible. I'll just have to look a little bit more and see.

To me, it's going to be a huge conundrum if all of a sudden we approve this new ordinance.

Just don't post this on Facebook. No, no.

I feel like a lot of people are also becoming aware of it just because a lot of cities are conforming to this. Right. Because the state has given every municipality the ability to regulate it. Right now. Right now. For each specific city. And the speeds for the micromobility in the scooter, those can be changed as far as, you know, if you wanted to take out the... Then being allowed on streets over 25 miles per hour and then saying that if you're if the street is 25 miles per hour or less, then you have to be on the sidewalk or, you know, we could kind of play with it that way. If that would make it more feasible or likable per se.

I think we're moving in the right direction. I agree with you 100% the sentiment here, which is to keep people safe, keep pedestrians safe on the sidewalk. Absolutely. Growing up, I was always told, don't ride your bike on the sidewalk. I knew that. But what I don't want to do is go too far, too far that way. I think that there's something we can definitely get to something here. It's just exactly where it lies within this. I'm not sure.

Yeah, it's just like, the way I'm reading it, it seems like it's very much kind of pushing people into the street, which might, like, I think as far as, like, neighborhood streets are concerned, that's fine for the most part. Like, if you're in a you know, like a side street or something. But it's just like these other, I wouldn't want someone to read this and think that, like, for example, they have to go down Central in the road because that's what this says. And I understand that from an enforcement perspective, maybe that's not how this would actually be executed. But I'm not entirely sure.

Are we talking about the motorized scooter?

Yeah.

Or all three?

Well, I guess all three. Well,

Because the problem we're having are the kids on the motor-driven bicycles being on the sidewalk.

Yeah.

Well, that's where... So how do you differentiate between all three that can go 20 miles an hour?

One has pedals, one doesn't.

Some of the other towns I looked at did that, where they were like, you can't do more than 10 miles an hour on a sidewalk. Right, and we have that.

Yeah, there's part of that in here. I mean, if that's really the problem, the way I see a lot of people differentiate them, and maybe the state statute does it to some degree, I'm not sure, I didn't look, is that they have pedals. Like the motor-driven bicycle doesn't, does it? It doesn't have foot pegs?

No, it doesn't.

It doesn't have pedals. No pedals. Right, it's like a motorcycle. Yeah.

Yeah. It's not technically a motorcycle.

And that's easy to look and see and differentiate. But I also do know that there are some models that do come with pedals because they're sold overseas and apparently other countries have rules about pedals and foot pegs. So I don't know that that would be an easy rule.

But the e-bikes... with the pedals and the motor-driven bicycles without the pedals, their regulations are identical.

It's an e-bike.

Where they can go, where they can't go, you know, whether helmets, everything is the same for those two columns.

Right. But I think what we're saying is what seems to be the biggest issue causing category is the motor-driven bicycle, right? Like the little, the mini dirt bike things that we're seeing. Right.

Well, it's a combination, but mostly at this moment right now, it's the motor driven bikes.

Right.

Is there any safe place to ride that?

No.

Your backyard.

We just say you can't. Neighborhood street. Do that? I don't know if we're allowed to say that.

So growing up with dirt bikes, you weren't supposed to ride those on the road. You had to be in the woods or a neighbor's property.

So the thing is the difference between that and the motorcycle. What we have going on right now are... Kids that think they're on or parents that think their kids are on motor driven bicycles and they're actually on motorcycles.

Yes, that's right. Yeah.

So, but like you pointed out, the motor driven bicycle and the electric assist bicycle, it's pretty much one has pedals and one doesn't.

I mean, I wouldn't necessarily want those where they're allowed, you know, parks, even though it does limit them to five, but you know,

If that's the issue, can we just say you can't do that?

It's not the only issue.

That might be the issue this week. Right. This is the cover of everything, the exclusive of everything, where it gives us the ability to act. And I understand the perspective of looking at it from being too restrictive, but also look at the perspective on the lens. There's a lens from the pedestrian downtown, riding on one of those down to get me a steak or something or some ice cream, might be fine. But on South Point Road or down by the hospital, when you cross over South Point Road, they get lucky.

And they do that.

And on the sidewalks, there's kids going wheelies and riding on the road and they shouldn't be. But I also see these kids, because I drive down through there because I live down there, I see kids that I probably could have stopped and talked to, but what am I going to tell them? Right.

You got no teeth right now.

See what I mean? So for that pedestrian who calls in and complains and our officers are educated on this and they have no avenue to deal with it, what am I supposed to do? What are we supposed to do in these situations where we don't have the ability? even when I stopped those kids and we educated them, they had a different perspective on everything. They didn't have an understanding or idea that it was even illegal. I think a lot of the parents don't either. That's what we're here for. That's our job, to make sure that that happens. We're not saying this because you vote on this to say, yes, be restrictive or less restrictive, that we're going to go out and write everyone a citation or say the order. That's We also have a Vision Zero program. And when I came up on somebody that was a pedestrian make sure we implement. Like I said, we want voluntary compliance, but in certain situations, we may take enforcement action. But I can assure you, we don't have time to stop every single one of you. Every single one of these people are going to get a ticket from the police. When this is in, after we educate everybody, I can assure you that we're not going to be targeting all these classes because we have much more things to think about. I would suggest that we don't give. We've told you five times

Going back to the micromobility stuff, what if we did put a restriction on it that just said that you could operate micromobility devices assuming, or that you must, let me think how I want to say it. To your point about due regard, saying that you had to operate with due regard to pedestrians, if in the event you're operating on the sidewalk, you have to do it with due regard to pedestrians that are on the sidewalk. So in the event they were not, or they were acting crazy, or they were going faster, and they hit somebody, then you would have the ability to do something.

Well, it says yield to pedestrians.

But my response to that is, what we're presenting to you is due regard within the due regard, because within these perimeters, that is the due regard benefit itself.

It says yield to pedestrians when you're out.

But I mean, if we're looking for...

I think we need to study this, especially when we have a full council that can see it. I think we definitely need to take some action here and give you guys the enforcement ability if and when it's warranted in your discretion. Because right now, like you said, you don't even have that ability. But I commend you guys for the work you're doing, and it's a lot to undertake, but it's something we have to do to prevent injury or fatality. Because we are hearing a lot about it in the community. So that would be my suggestion that we study this. And I'd rather take it up sooner than later. I don't want this to drag out months.

Well, isn't that the goal is that it was presented for information tonight that it'll be presented as an actual ordinance for voting on at the August regular meeting. Is that correct?

I'm not.

Yes. I'll present it, I guess.

Yeah.

The ordinance, and if you're going to recriminalize the ordinance, it has to be read twice. And so you have two opportunities to go through that process as far as ordinances required. But it also sounds like y'all would like for... A few changes. Yeah, a few changes. And I made some notes, and I'm sure that the police department has as well. So if we could... simplify anything by looking at other ordinances like Holly Springs or any others. We'll definitely do that and bring something back that's a little different than this one.

Like I said, it's an open draft, so I mean you're

I'm here to get y'all's opinions. One or two more questions. On the downtown dismount zone, section E, which says the city may install and maintain signs or pavement markings. Can we change that to shall? I think if we're going to have a zone like that, it makes sense for us. Where does that, what section? 7507E. I think if we're going to have a dismount zone like that, it makes sense to have it marked. I mean, I'm sure you were intending on doing that anyway, but. That would just kind of scratch that itch for me.

Change the may to shall.

Yeah. And then I have a question on the, like, fines for parents. As far as the, like, do we do that with anything else? I'm just, okay. Because I had not heard of it.

It's a knowing kind of thing, right? To that language, yeah. I mean, so it's.

No, that's fine. I just had a question when I read that about the enforceability of that. But if that's something we're already doing, that's fine. And then on the impoundment of the devices, where it talks about disposing and all of that with the equipment, given how expensive some of this stuff is... I would just want us to be cognizant of ensuring that we're not getting rid of somebody's property without getting them adequate opportunity to get it back.

There's certain steps and avenues that you have to take when you impound something, and obviously it'll be expensive. after a period of time. But we can change that to make it more specific to exactly.

OK. Yeah, I think it'd be helpful to spell that out. So if somebody's e-bike disappears and you've got it.

It's not spelled out in this in the ordinance, but it's spelled out in our department . OK. OK. It's all laid out. OK.

How would we establish ownership? Because these things don't have... A lot of them look the same as far as serial numbers and stuff go. I don't know.

Depending on the manufacturer, some of them have either a VIN or they have a model number or something that you can trace back to the actual owner of the device. And I guess if the ones that do not, we can always do... Like a post. Yes. Okay. I believe there is something in state law that is specific to that, to obtaining property. I feel like I read it recently, so I can dig more into that and look.

Okay, okay. Yeah, I'm just thinking this from the perspective of like if you guys picked up the bike that I spent $1,000 on and I can't prove that it's mine, you know, that's causing a bit of a headache. So, okay.

I don't know that I'm sure.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

I don't know that you're going to get a sure answer tonight. I want to see a lot reformed in the micromobility devices. I don't really, I'm not a big fan of having the time restrictions on them at all. That's just not something I'm a fan of. But somebody else may be, so I don't know that we're going to have

perfect direction for you this evening but hopefully between now and I guess the second revision I mean for me to the extent that we can simplify it I think any move in that direction would be good the only problem with simplifying it it creates a lot of gray area which is what we're running into now with city ordinance all the old ordinances and it's I guess I'm not opposed to revisiting it, like starting small. And if it's not working, we can come back and tweak it. I don't think we necessarily need to get it right on the first try.

Oh, absolutely.

So as long as we're kind of hitting, you know, if we can get 70% or 80% of the way there, I'd call that a win.

So why don't we, because I think we all still have feelings one way or another about certain issues of it. We're still missing two council members to your point, Jason. So for the August meeting, do we want to just put it on for discussion? Do we want to have it for the August workshop and do this again, having a new version in front of us, having time to look at before? I mean, I'm open to either.

Well, as you said, there's got to be two readings at two different days.

There has to be. Well, once we have an agreed upon ordinance, there has to be two readings. Yeah, that's right.

Two ordinances. So to vote on it, I think the workshop's probably the, if it fits on the agenda, I don't know.

I think it's to give us more time, I think the workshop would be better. Yeah. Yeah, let's do that. Because we've only got.

If you guys are in agreement with that, you're moving it. Yeah.

I do want to speak on the education part of it. So I was thinking if when this comes into play, it wouldn't be immediate. We would have like a phase of where we're maybe the first month of educating residents and staff, second month, you know, putting things out there, signage, whatever, and then you know, eventually getting to the part where we can actually enforce it.

Can we also research the ability of a permitting process to that? Yes. I mean, maybe not for the micros, but for some of the faster, more problematic types of bikes, if we could research that. Otherwise, I think the education process is going to be, yeah, you can put it on social media. Could you structure it?

That could also be a way to get around the knowing the ownership situation. If you have a permitted sticker, it's registered, you know whose it is.

You could even do, I'm just thinking out loud here, but like a voluntary registry of the devices. I don't know what that would cost to maintain, but if I buy something and want to register it with you guys, that would be one way to keep track of it. I think you make a requirement.

Yeah.

And then, well, even with the permitting thing, like, could you structure it in such a way as, like, if you wanted to go above a certain speed on these things, you have to complete it?

I'm sure you can do it.

We can come up with whatever we want. Yeah, I want more enforcement on me.

Who's going to do that? We're going to have to have a dyno installed at the police department. We can do test pulls as they're permitted.

Before you leave, this is a similar vein. It's not on these bikes, but I am getting a lot. I imagine my colleagues are getting a lot of comments, concerns around golf carts.

Yeah.

We're going to do this again with golf carts. I need an education on certain things pertaining to golf carts. I know that there's different types, and depending on the type kind of determines where you are and are not allowed to go, apparently, right? Can you just – is there like a short version, Prima, you can give us on – So short version of that would be – Or maybe the different types first.

So there's a golf cart. Golf carts are – cannot go over the speed of 20 miles an hour legally. Anything that goes over 20 miles an hour and under 30 miles an hour is considered a low-speed vehicle. Low-speed vehicles have to have all DMV required bells and whistles. You have to have a driver's license, MP-16 obviously, and you have to have a state registration and insurance.

So if it goes over 20 miles an hour, is it regulated just as a car would be?

Correct.

Correct. So tag.

Correct.

Right.

Insurance.

Yep.

And you can actually drive on any street that is 35 miles an hour. So you don't have to – you wouldn't comply with the city's restrictions on a golf cart.

I think that's what – Sorry? 35 and under? Or 35 and over? Under.

And that's where all the confusion comes in.

Does that apply to any type of golf cart?

Any type of golf cart.

You can't be on any street above 35 miles per hour?

There are certain, I don't know.

There's a list of streets.

I don't know it off the top of my head, but there is a list. It's South Point Road, Central, North Central, South Central, South Point Road. How long is it again? North Main Street past, once you pass the fort, or no, I'm sorry, past 74, where it turns into Belmont-Mont-Halley. Right now, you can't go south on Main past Eagle Road. 85, obviously. And any other street that's over 35 miles an hour. But I'm in the process of redoing our golf cart ordinance, and I have a chart that looks just like this that includes the golf cart, an LSV, and a UTV, which is a modified utility vehicle.

And with all of those, there is a permit required, right?

No, not with a golf cart. No, not with the – only with the golf cart. So you don't have to have a city permit when you have a – low-speed vehicle or a modified utility vehicle. Because they have to be registered with the state.

I see. So that takes the place of...

Correct. It is just like a regular vehicle. You have to follow the car seat rules, everything.

Yeah, so our golf cart... Policy kind of carved out this area where golf carts were allowed without having to be street legal Effectively is what it is. I mean, you know all the streets are in there and listed it's permitted But you don't have to you do have to have a liability insurance, but you don't have to have a tag It's not titled and permitted Well, right but then you get into low-speed vehicles, which is a totally different animal That's like like you Lindsay said it's just treated as a vehicle under the right and and so it can be on streets that go 35 or lower so i think that's where a lot of people when they see those on 35 mile an hour streets they're like why are they those people on the golf carts and they're out here on the street and if it has a tag on it it's allowed by the state if it doesn't have a tag on it it's just somebody rolling around with our belmont permit that they are not supposed to be there for the majority of the streets unless they're carved out in our

Coordinates and when I first started here that I had no idea about the difference in that So what I've been slowly trying to do having to do is weed out the golf carts versus let's be vehicles so recently I The past couple years I've had to deny a lot of people and explain to them why I can't give them a permit. And then I give them the whole process of how you get the tag and everything. The DMV actually has a pamphlet, a trifold, that explains. It actually says on there, golf cart versus LSV. And they're very specific with it.

What about, is there any verbiage that speaks to restraining children or toddlers in these golf carts?

In golf carts currently, not in our ordinance as it is right now.

So if you have a toddler, I don't forget what the rule is now. I'm out of that phase. But as far as when child seats are required.

So that is required in LSVs.

Yeah. What's the age? Is it seven or 70 or something like that? Eight or nine or something at this point.

I'm not sure. I think it depends on the height and the weight and everything like that.

So if you've got a four- or five-year-old and you're holding them in your arm driving a golf cart or they're just sitting beside you.

Right now in our code, there's nothing that speaks to children, which is something that I'm changing.

And we have that ability? Say that again? Hopefully we have that ability to do that.

Yes. Oh, yes, definitely.

I have to ask these days. I mean, I don't know.

I just, you know, ask for forgiveness. Yeah, right, right. I'm joking. So, yeah, that'll be something that's presented after all. Yeah.

Will that also address, like, parking, I'm sure? Correct. Lighting?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah. Okay.

Any LSV is required to have lights and everything, so. And they obviously can drive at night. Okay.

Well, your responsibility continues to increase. You're doing an awesome job. Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Yes, thank you. That was a tremendous amount of information. I was thinking to myself the North Carolina legislature would be proud with the job that you guys did putting that ordinance together. So thank you for that.

I told you it was convoluted.

It was a lot, and I know you were starting from ground zero with a lot of it. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. And our discussion with one thing or another doesn't necessarily reflect on what we think your effort was. For sure. It's just we want to make sure that we make the right decisions.

Oh, but.

But.

When you present the revised.

I'll have it in blue. Yes. Red line. Red line. I guess I printed out the wrong one, but I have it with the blue text as edits.

Any other questions for Lindsay before we let her go?

Please let me go.

Thank you, Lindsay, so much. Thank you. Thank you, Chief, for your time. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. All right. Well, that, I think, brings us to the end of our meeting here, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All right. Jason?

Second.

Second by Mark. All in favor? Any opposed? All right. We will stand adjourned.