City Council - Special Meeting

Okay. No problems.

I have no problems. Good afternoon. Everyone received the draft rules of procedure sometime in January. I know they were on the February council meeting where there wasn't discussion about them. It was decided that it would be more productive to discuss these at a work session. The draft that you received was prepared largely based on the school of government, the UNCC um Chapel Hill School of Government's suggested rules of procedure. They're not exactly verbatim for those, but everyone has a copy of that book that was published by the School of Government, which is where this came from. Throughout the version that you see, there are some items in red that was obviously meant to call your attention to certain parts. either it's inconsistent with the way the council's practice is or you need to make a decision, plug in a number or select an option. So, if you want me to, we can kind of just I know they're pulled up here on the screen. You can't see the full page, but when we if we have an item that we need to discuss, I don't know if you want to just kind of go page by page and if there are items on there you need to ask questions about. Obviously, our attorneys are here and can answer a lot of that. It would be helpful for us to get closer to a final version that we can either bring back in March if you're ready or April or or whenever. Friday afternoon, you received an email copy of this document and it was a front and back. Um Chelsea and I attended the essentials of municipal government course in uh Greensboro last week and they talked a lot about having some sort of rules of procedure for your city council. So on

one side it has the UNCC school of government's local rules and just sort of a comparison. And then on the other side it talks about Robert's rules of order. So y'all tell me how you would like to go. So if you just kind of want to roll page by page is that just go down. Okay. If there's no discussion just Okay. There's So on the first page there weren't actually the first few pages there weren't anything that I had a question. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

I I did have a question on the first page because I didn't understand the a majority of the actual membership of council plus the mayor. What do you mean by that? So the rules are set up because in not all jurisdictions does the mayor vote consistently. A lot of times the mayor serves as a tiebreaker. So as we were going through and drafting these, we kind of had to just pick the language that reflected the Graham City Charter, which is the mayor of votes at all time, not just in case of a tiebreaker. So this was really worded just to indicate that when it says council, it also includes the mayor because the mayor position always has a vote.

Okay. Because yeah, it it seemed like to me you were saying a majority of actual membership of council plus the mayor like like in addition to Yeah. Yeah. Instead of Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Well, that's what I was wondering because it would be more easily unders. That was mine, too. So, did you copy my paper? So, It was supposed to be three members total. Oh, but it says four.

Three. I understand it's three, but right. So, is the council consensus to change the word plus to including? Easy. Yes. Yep. Thank you. Uhhuh. Anything else on this page? No. Sorry, I back to you. I didn't mean to.

These are your rules, so we're just here to get you to a final draft. Okay. Anything on item on page two? I know in a discussion um with council member Whitaker on item C, close session participants, it was mentioned to add the assistant city manager on there. Yeah. back. Sure. Let's go back. So now we're saying majority is three members, correct? Yes. But but what it says now is

it's majority plus the mayor. That's the way it's written. And now we're changing it to that we're including her as a council member. So it's just majority. There's five of us. So the majority would be three regardless of who they are is what we're right. Yes. Is what we're getting at, right? Yes. Yes. So, all right. So, yeah. Yeah, that was my note about, you know, why isn't the assistant city manager on that list, you know? Yeah. Are we good adding that? Because I mean, he's always in there with us, so he's always there. He's always there. Like, you know.

Anything else? So, sorry. You're good. Anything else on page two? Did I have All right. So, moving I'm sorry.

Now I'm on. No, you're okay. I just wanted to catch you up. So, we're on page two. If you have any notes for page one, one and two, let us know. Otherwise, we're going to keep going with three. Thank you.

So, on page three towards the bottom, rule seven, there are some items in red that would need city council direction. I will say if you scroll just below C, Aaron, so this comment was included in the the published rules. I left it in here to make sure that it's very clear that this power lies in the hands of city council and the only way it goes to someone else is if you delegate it to someone else. So while they had city clerk, city manager or administrator, city council can retain that function. It doesn't have to go to anybody else. Obviously once you get to whatever decision you make here, we'll delete that comment from your final version. I just wanted to make it abundantly clear that by statute that power lies with city council.

Thank you. Do you guys have thoughts on these? Starting with B. Uh we're on page three. We're on rule seven. Uh starting with B where it says any radio televisions. Um and we've got two in red that we need to make some decisions on. I think well the only comment I had made on here was why have a 24-hour notice at all if it's not going to be grounds for denying a request but I think you we had talked about that and I had kind of I was good with just just helpful to have a heads up kind of thing.

Yeah. Yeah. And like we've talked about before, anyone can record. So it's Is 24 hours good? Like Renee, how do y'all feel about 24 hours? It really It doesn't bother me. Our our biggest thing as long as the equipment doesn't interfere, disrupt the meeting, then you know, we're good.

Okay. Um do you have a preference whether it says clerk or city manager directed to our clerk or city manager? I don't. Okay. Um, council, do y'all have any thoughts or can we just move forward with saying the city clerk will be uh no later than 24 hours before the meeting? Basically, we're saying so notify the city clerk slash city manager delete administrator. Yeah. You'll pick one title to put in there. So either city clerk, city manager, administrator, or whoever else you may deem maybe the inspections director. I don't know. It's the world is your oyster here.

Well, I would say city clerk. Yeah, that's council consensus. We're good. Let's do clerk at 24 hours. Understanding that this is more or less a courtesy request, correct? Everybody good with that? Okay, move on to C. Um, which you may just want to be consistent. I was going to say let's go ahead and put clerk instead of city manager. Um, and then that's good for C. And then we're deleting that last part. All right. Now we're on to page four. Did anybody have thoughts on this? We've got one little Yeah, there are red

two on here. The one at the top under oath of office is almost so small it looks sneaky. um as the first order of new business. It's um yeah, it's on there. I'm sorry. Even my on here can barely see it. Under B, oath of office. What's typically been done in the past is the current city council will approve the minutes. So, they won't be on the consent agenda. And then we'll have the certification of the elections, the swearing in, swearing in, and then on to the um the rest of it. So,

we we just added the word new. It was different. So, we were trying to draw your attention to it. You good with the the add of new? I'm good with the ad as well. And then rule nine, item A, regular meeting schedule. I I was wondering about the next business day. Is that something that we want to like even the next week on Tuesdays or whatever you I know I thought for us but yeah but us what do we what do we want? Um

so if it's on a holiday right now this how it's written is saying that it will be held on the next day. So, if we hit a Veterans Day or a 4th of July, that means we're meeting on the 5th of July or do you want to kick it a week down or something totally different? Problem with that is, please help me. Just speaking to your mic, pull it closer to you. I'm sorry. We have so many meetings that fill, you know, that fall on Tuesdays. Moving it into the next week on a Tuesday, you know, we'll bump somebody else. Just move it to the next day and get it done. You like the next day? Yeah, Bonnie. I'm good with the next day as well. Next day. Okay.

Next business day. Next business day. Okay. Um, that was offer three. Go ahead. Any comments on page five? There's nothing that was necessarily changed. No, I have nothing. I didn't have anything. Okay. [clears throat] You want to talk through page six, Megan or? Yeah,

absolutely. So, when you get down to rule 13, draft agenda item two. So, option A that you have there is what was suggested in the school of government rules. Item option B is Graham current practice. So y'all just tell us if you want either A or B or if you want to come up with a C, D, and E. I like option B. I like option B as well. I like option B also. Yeah, with B. Okay, you got a consensus.

Yep. And then I'm sorry, there's just one more on this page. I understand that that B is what we're comfortable with. option A if we needed more timely things put on the agenda um is a little bit easier. Um but if we're comfortable with with option B, we'll stay with option B. And then before you go from this page on item four, the last calendar days. Yeah. So, we typically push it out the Tuesday before sometimes, but the six calendar days just gives us at least one day kind of a wiggle room there. I'm okay with the calendar days.

I'm fine with it. Jim, Ricky, you guys okay?

Um, okay. Page seven. [clears throat] Let me know if y'all have other notes that you want to stop and chat about, too. Yeah, there was only one item in red in here and it was it was going to be moved to other business. So, if there was something from the consent agenda that one council member wanted pulled, it would just happen somewhere outside of the consent agenda. The only thing I'd add on rule 16, order of business to add invocation pledge of allegiance prior to the adoption of the agenda.

Yeah, I agree. It should be in there. You want it before the adoption before? Is that council consensus? That's fine. We usually do it first thing. Yeah. Um and adopting the agenda would be different from the current practice. Um do we like keeping the public comments at the end of the meeting? Yes. Yes.

Yeah. Well, I had a uh suggestion. I know I talked to you guys about this and um I know that the county commissioners put theirs at the beginning of the meeting, but they limit public comment to 30 minutes. Um which I would be I would be okay with that. Um but if we're going to not limit it to 30 minutes, I would not be okay with it moving it. Um, and I don't know the legality because I haven't talked to our attorneys in terms of like um, you know, a lot of times we have people here that are not from Graham. Um, which is fine. You know, anybody can come, but some if we are going to limit our agenda to 30 minutes, my concern is let let all the people that are from Graham or Graham business owner speak first. Can Can we do that if it if we put that on the sign-in sheet to put city and state and whether you're a business owner? Okay. Yeah. I wasn't sure about the legality. I just want to make sure that people from Graham get to talk first or people that own a business in Graham get to talk first.

Also too, you got it on. Okay. You'd have to take it in the order that they sign. Okay. you know, they would sign up and uh and they can virtually talk about anything, you know, they want to. It's just the the deal with respect to the comments, they got to be content neutral, right? And and it's nothing that's on the agenda, right? Yeah. Can't talk about anything on the that's on the agenda.

Yeah. I noticed when I spoke to the commissioners, it was kind of kind of nice to get it out in the open, but I I I agree with Bonnie that, you know, it should be a time limit. Um yeah, you know, just like the last meeting, and there's nothing wrong with people coming and speaking, but when you've got 40, 50 people speaking on the exact same subject, they should get together and have one person be their spokesman, you know, and not just not that we're we don't want to hear those other people's voices, but how many how many people can come up and say save the clock tower, you know, it's I don't think force them to do that, but we we can ask. The other thing that we could do is

Yeah, I know we don't we don't have we can make them but well you can limit the time closer to two or three minutes right now. Yeah, we're a four minute long. We could make it shorter that way more people get to speak. I know it's not I mean it's it's rare that we, you know, we have that much that amount of people commenting um just given whatever subject it is. But, uh, I'm I'm I'm not against having it at the beginning of the meeting.

I think we might be the only people that have it at the end in this county right now, too. So, not that we have to do what they're doing, but if they're founding that it it might work better that way. Um, and I will point out rule 37 is public comment periods. So, Oh, okay.

No, you're good. So, if you want to just kind of um figure out what you want for 16 and then when we get to rule 37, we can kind of figure out if y'all want to add or delete any verbiage there. And also at your seat was a copy of it's really our public comment procedure, although it's labeled items not on tonight's agenda. So if there are items on that current policy that you want to incorporate into your rules of procedure, then when you adopt these, you can repeal the items not on tonight's agenda and everything will be contained in one document. So you're not having to bounce back and forth between. Okay. So

well, I feel that when you have the public comments at the end, our first order of business is taking care of the c the citizens business. Bobby, I think we're going to skip back to 16 and then take care of public comments later. I know, but I'm just saying, okay, you know, it's at the end versus the discussion about, you know, so Okay. Anyway, so moving forward,

we are for the first bullet, we're adding pledge and invocation. Are there any other changes to the order? And then the last sentence which goes over to page eight is in red again because it's just inconsistent with the without objection. The may the mayor may call agenda items in any order. It's just different from current practice which is why we had it in red. Without what do you mean without objection? Like if if you said uh no let's go back to the way the agenda was. I could say, "Oh, let's start with procedure instead of Davenport because but if you were like, "No, I want I want Davenport first." You could call objection and we would go back to the way of the agenda.

I don't read it. Yeah, I thought it was read it that way either, but you could do it without people being able to object. It's kind of like plus including maybe it's a matter of interpretation. I'm not sure. Yeah. I mean, the way I interpret it is the mayor can mix up the agenda any way that he pleases and nobody else has any say in it. That's the way I read it. But I mean, that's I don't know. That's I don't know. How do you read that, Bob?

Well, that's that's certainly one reading of it. that you know I think what is contemplated here is that that the mayor quite rightly would say without you know without objection I'm going just give you a little scenario without objection I'd like to take you know administrative reports and and and sort of by consensus no objection you take that out of order then you'd go back to the order however in the event there is an objection you you would you would what you would do typically by majority vote say We want to stick to the agenda. Okay. That would that would that's the way it would ordinarily play. Okay. Okay. [clears throat]

Then I'm good with it. Yep. You got it. Okay. Okay. [clears throat] Um so we're going to keep going down knowing that we might public comments up to the top, but we're going to move down page eight right now. Any comments? Okay, there's no comments on eight. Let's jump to roll nine or roll 20 on page nine. I was still on looking at 17. Hang on a second. Okay, I'm being a slow reader today. I'm sorry. My apologies. It's thorough. This is how we're going to

work moving forward. Okay. So I guess then to determine whether a member or other speaker has gone beyond reasonable standards of courtesy in his or her remarks and entertain and rule on objections from other members on this ground. So is that saying that only the mayor can say when somebody is uh out of order?

I would say the presiding officer. Yeah, since it falls under role of the presiding officer. Yes. But I do think that other council members could ask the mayor to make a ruling on whether someone had has gone beyond reasonable standards of courtesy. We could we could say to her, for instance, you know, madame mayor, I think I think this person is out of order, gone beyond [clears throat] You know, we can do that. Yes. And then I think it would be the mayor's job to say yes or no. Okay. Okay. Did y'all want to keep going on these or switch to Davenport? Let's probably get right. This is awesome.

I would say let's go ahead and finish it up if we're on a roll. Um, so rule 20. Is that okay, Bonnie? Yes. Are we there? Okay.

So, rule 20, we're asking for a decision on either may or must. So, if the presiding official, whether it be the mayor or in the mayor's absence, the mayor proim is active in the debate, do you want to allow those individuals to cons continue as the presiding official or step back and hand it to, in the mayor's case, the mayor pro Tim? If they're both active in debate, then the council members would appoint one of the other three to preside while the two of them were debating. Hopefully someone who's not debating. I was going to say, what if all five of us are engaging? I just don't know. What if all five of us are?

I think if you're all engaging, it's probably going to default to the your normal presiding official of the mayor. But it, you know, just mayor must is direction we need. I'm okay with I What do you guys think? I don't even like this one at all. It's kind of confusing to me, but uh [laughter] I don't I mean, we we always, you know, we're always going to be engaged in debate. So, um, well, let's just put May then because I I do foresee us all being engaged in comments a lot.

But if it comes to being like me and Bonnie are going back and forth on a particular topic, we'll hand it to Ricky to for that. Is that okay? Good with me. We're good with May. I'm good with it, ma'am. And then rule 22 is different than your current practice. It says no second is required on any motion. I don't know about that. [clears throat] I I would be I disagree with that. I would be opposed to that.

I feel the same. I don't I don't even understand why why that even matters if you have a you know if you don't have a second because you're just someone wants to make a motion. They make a motion and what you just sit there in silence until you decide to have a vote. It seems like having a second would make it go. It facilitates the vote. Yeah. Quicker. Yeah. In my interpretation, and Bob help me on this, but if we're a little bit more strict in the rules, making a motion starts the conversation

more. And so then you might get a second once you've said your point. But we don't necessarily hold to that. We do a lot of discussion ahead of time. Yeah. Am I correct in how I'm explaining that? I mean, we usually just fence it up here anyway. I mean, we before anyone makes a motion. Yeah. So, we do a lot of on the front end. Yeah. So, I feel like I mean, we still need a motion or a second on a motion once somebody commits to a motion. We've already discussed it enough, I think, where So, the second pushes it along to a vote instead of pushing it along to a debate. Exactly. Yeah. If you guys want to ask.

Very evident with what Megan sent out. When you look at Robert's rules of order, a second is required just about for everything. When you look at the UNC, not they don't require it at all. Right. Yeah. And we've got a little bit of a hybrid here. Yeah. Mostly the UNCC school. Yeah. But I'm hearing from the council that they would like to continue with the seconds. Yes. Yes, I would. Yes. We'll have a second as required for all motions. Yes. Thank you, Megan.

All right, we're going to skip down to rule 25 debate. Um, it's the last bullet. No member may speak more than twice. We've got to figure out these time limits. [clears throat and cough] Y'all think speeches should be limited to 10 minutes? Do you think that's too long? I don't know. I think I could hit that. Okay. Challenge accepted. Right now, we've got 10, five, five, and two. Do y'all have any thoughts on those four numbers? [clears throat]

I'm good with 10. Yeah, I'm good with it. Yep. Yep. Just take the red and make it black. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. Yep. All right, moving on to There's no red on 11, unless you guys have notes on it. Uh um mine's a little bit off because I had made notes on it and then printed it out. So, so my Oh, your page my page numbers are a little bit off. So, let me get make sure

on our page 12 motion 8 um has with a deferred consideration within a 100 days. Um the motion that has been deferred expires unless the council votes to revive it. Um is 100 days uh a date we can stand behind? What number are we on now? We're on page 12, motion eight to defer consideration. It was Yeah, I'm good with that one. I didn't have any Okay. I didn't mark anything on that one, so

100's good, Megan. Got it. Um the next mot or motion 11 has if the committee fails to report on the motion within 60 days of the referral date, the council must take up the motion if asked to do so by a member who introduced it. I'm good with 60. We might even I I don't know if you guys want to consider 30. This is if we are discussing something um amongst ourselves, we kick it to committee and if they just let it sit and don't act on it. I think 30 would be better.

That just means that we can address it again after 30. Um do I have a consensus for 30? I'm good with 30. Works for me.

Okay. Thank you, Megan. Um motion 13 to revive consideration provided so provided it does so within 100 days of its vote to defer consideration. I think that's fine because we just did consideration again. Motion 16 to prevent reintroduction for six months. Um do y'all have thoughts on this one? Is anybody going to remember that? [laughter] Well, that's Well, it's it's

I think the reason for six months some of the things that are re that planning board may reject the applicant could come back and keep bringing it up over and over to the council. took six months. It's like, okay, whatever objections the c the the planning committee had, that gives them time, rework it, go back to the planning board and then bring it forward. Otherwise, if you don't, they'll be on our agenda every month. So, I think six months I agree with Bobby. Yeah.

Bonnie, you good with that? I'm good with six months. All right. Six months. And I will point out that there is a time limit to even make this motion that it has to be made immediately after the motion fails. Okay. Right. All right. If there's no comments on page 14, um the next that we need to talk about is rule 36 [clears throat] and that's under A. Yep. Back to the public hearings again.

Well, as I said before, I'm I think they should be limited to 30 minutes. I think we should do it the same way that Hold on, Bonnie. This is public hearings. We have to let everybody at public hearing I'm sorry. I thought we were No, you're okay. Um, we need to decide, are we going to delegate scheduling to our staff, which is the first red and I think that's could be an easy yes. Yes. Um, and then we need to fix the maximum time allotted for each speaker. Four minutes is a a little bit of a lot. Um, three minutes. We could do two to three. Three minutes. Three minutes. I'm good with three. All right. Four was a little too long. All right. I'm hearing three minutes on that. Yep.

Thank you guys. All right. Now, we're going to f conduct of public hearings. The mayor shall declare the hearing closed or the mayor shall entertain a motion to close the hearing. Opinions. and a motion to close the public hearing. Okay. I think there should be a motion to open and close. I think it's a little bit cleaner. Yeah. But just my opinion. All right. Now we're at public comment. Bonnie, you go.

Well, like I said, back to I think I think the way the county commissioners do it is agreeable to me to limit it to 30 minutes. um and uh you know put it at the beginning. I don't have a problem doing that. Uh the only time I would have a problem with the public comments being in the front is, you know, if we got something that's a hot button issue and we've got, you know, a bunch of people, then that pushes all our business to the very end, you know, and then by that time it, you know, I mean, we're people, too, and our minds might not be as sharp, you know, to do the business of the people after that. So that's my my objection to just moving it without a time limit. So, but I I don't have any problem if it's if there's a time limit on it.

At the public comment, they can't be talking about something that's on the agenda. They're not supposed to. Yeah. Well, like if we're having a public hearing, that's where they come and okay, they're talking about the item, but public [clears throat] comment is anybody has something to talk about, right? They can come. But if it's on the agenda, it shouldn't,

right? I think we might like if we decide to do this and you know have the public comments at the beginning and and uh have them you know 30 minutes [clears throat] maybe um you know I maybe we just need to let the people know that you know if it's an item on the agenda it won't be discussed and I think that's I think that might be a little vague to some people that that um you know when they want to come and comment but Bob could can they come come in and comment on just about anything. We just can't respond if it's on the agenda.

Okay. And and even then what you would do is probably, you know, respond by saying you ask staff to look into it. It's not a time to engage, right? Okay. So,

it's not a time [clears throat] to debate, right? Another note or just a pro for moving it to the top is like you said, it was nice to go to county commissioners, say what you needed to say, um, and and leave. Um, especially if we have hot button issues because we'll be here a while. Um, and that's our job and that's what we were elected to do. Um, [clears throat] I'm for picking them up and putting them closer to the top of the agenda. Um, Bob, do we have to have more than do we have to have more than 30 minutes? A lot of the towns that I know that have a 30 minute have it multiple times a a month.

I I don't know the number, but typically 30 minutes is used. And I know our policy in Burlington is if we need more than 30 minutes, you by majority vote, you can extend that. The policy, our policy says exactly that. You go with a strict 30. Then if it's the council wanted to hear more, you could take a vote and say we'd like to extend the public comment period for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, whatever you wanted to do. But if not, it just gets cut off. Fet at those people are invited to come back next month kind of thing. or what's the Well, you you know, most typically, you know, they would come back or they would submit something in writing to the manager.

Okay. But we can we can legally only have one regular meeting a month and have the 30 minute have one comment. Okay, great. That's the statute pretty clear. You only required to have one for one uh per month. Okay. And the statute's okay with the 30-minute limit, right? Great. Um

the the only problem with moving comment period to the front, we have city employees that you know we're paying him to be be here on on our dime. Why why would we um you got 90 people out here? Why would you would you do that? Well, if you if you're limited to 30 minutes, you know, and you're you have two minutes per speaker, I mean, you can do the math. I mean that's not you know so I don't think that would be an issue you know but um I just think for the public comment period if it's at the end of the meeting after we've conducted all the city business then it doesn't matter how how long the public comment period goes. I mean, we've had experience where the public comment period went late and I think

after midnight you move was without the 30 minutes and and a couple other safeguards in place but it would allowed everybody to talk but you know they had the time limit and I just feel if we have conducted the city business and that's done then the public comment period is now open to anything. As long if we've already covered in the agenda, then they can't that's not open for any more comments. It'll already like they'll have the agenda and still will not be able to speak on that.

If it's on the agenda, they cannot use the public comment time. So unless we've got new public hearing that's different, right? Unless we've got new ideas we want to bring to the table, I think we need to have a consensus around if we want to bring public comments to the front or leave it at the the bottom of the agenda. Y'all have any other things to add to the conversation? I think if we if we do have a 30 minute because I don't really think we're gonna numerous meetings where we've got an abundance of people talking. I don't either.

But the if if we put it at the end and just playing devil's advocate, if I was sitting out there um and even an agenda item can drag out pretty long. I mean, it's and and I would be pretty pretty mad if I had to sit through all that. And I just think we're we would be doing the public a service by letting them speak first. I see pros and cons to both. I mean, I I see what Ricky's saying. I see what Bobby's saying and I see what you know what I'm saying. Um

I mean, there can be advantages to both, but but I still feel like let's go ahead and move it to the front. So if people have to speak and go, they can speak and go and then just limit it to 30 minutes. But see if somebody has special issue that they want to they need to they'd like to bring it up. You'll see you know they could come up and make a request. Hey, it's on public comment, but they have something pressing that they would like if we could give them the opportunity to speak ahead so that they can meet that pressing engagement, whatever, you know, where it becomes an

I see what you're saying, but I think just setting the the framework is a little bit more freeing to the community because they know they can show up at 6:00 and be out of here at 6:30 at the end. I Okay, I think we should go ahead and call for a vote. If we had, you know, just a scenario, if it was a a hot topic when we had public comments after we had handled business, you're going to have people coming in. They're going to have their kids. They might even bring their dogs. I mean, you you know, these these people work. Look, I brought a horse one time. [laughter] So, okay, that's that's just another argument for doing it first.

Let's go ahead and get to Davenport and respect his time. Let's do we need to call for a vote with this? Honestly, I would prefer not to vote. Um, but if you want to say I'm either this way or that way, so we just know what the majority wants so we can plug it in a document. That would be helpful. And also keep in mind that however you end up adopting it, still has the flexibility per meeting to make changes. Well, do the majority want to move it? I'm hearing that me and Bonnie and and Jim want to move it up, but I don't want to speak and limit it to 30 minutes and limit it to 30 minutes.

And every speaker has the allotted x amount of minutes. Yeah, we want to go three or two. What do you think? Two minutes is how you feel, Jim. Well, you what was it at the county commission? It was two minutes, wasn't it? I think so. Yeah. Um Well, if you give them two If you give them two minutes, then you're going to That's giving more people an opportunity to speak. So, let's say two minutes. I mean, we can always amend it later if we find it doesn't work for us, but I'd say two. So, we some people

What if we have somebody uh you know, somebody comes in and our and the 30 minutes isn't up and they, you know, and they want to keep speaking. Well, the 30 minutes isn't up. [laughter] So, yeah, [clears throat] barely do that. I know. I know. But thank you for your flexibility. Okay. I am hearing that we are moving up public comments to under help me Megan. Is it under the approval of minutes? One second. Okay. Um I can find it. It would probably be uh yes, probably after approval of previous meeting minutes, which is generally under the consent agenda.

Okay, I'm good with that. If it's do [clears throat] we want to do it before the consent agenda unless in case we take something out of the consent agenda or am I doing the details now? [clears throat] Yeah, we might be getting a little in the weeds. Okay, we'll just leave it leave it after the consent agenda. What is your thoughts? Ask what your thoughts are. What's your thoughts? Up for have it at the end. Me, too. All right. [clears throat] So, yes, it's being moved or no, it's not. Yes, it's being moved two minutes

after consent agenda. 30 minute total limit.

Yeah. I would like before we get off of rule 37 to go through and y'all let us know if you want to maintain your separate items not on tonight's agenda or if you want to take items from that and roll it into 37 which is obviously a a bigger conversation but the larger sheet of paper before you. It would be helpful to have one document which was your rules of procedure that spell out everything that the council needs to know and even the public needs to know. So if there are other items from this that you like or don't like, let us know what they are. And if you want to switch and come back, we can do whatever you want. But it would be helpful to have one document that houses it all. But if there are items on here that you want included to govern the public comment period, then it would be beneficial to have them all together in one document.

Okay. Um I Yes. Can we do Davenport to respect his time? Are we Are we done with this or I think we're pausing at 37. Oh well, we're almost done. It's just Are you sure? Okay. I appreciate that. I only be five more minutes. So, well, it's just integrating that document. So, I didn't want to Okay, it might be a larger discussion. It might not be trying to mess with

So, is city council okay with trying to merge the two? So, we have one document. Okay. So, if that's the case, what items from this do we need to incorporate into rule 37? And did you land at two or three minutes? Two two minutes capped at 30 total. 30 total. Yep. Right. Okay. Copy. Okay. So, does everyone have this at their I don't sorry. She's going to get Nope. [clears throat] Nothing like that. Just pretend you do. Okay. And we also accept Robert rules of order.

No. So that these rules will replace Robert's rules. Everyone says they use Robert's rules, but if anyone read them, they would know they're not really using Robert's rules at all. Those contradict what we're adopting right now, Bobby. [clears throat] So, even we're adding a lot of detail to how we're doing it. I know, but I'm just saying, you know, I think what's addressed here is a matter of motions, right? But we're adopting more along these lines where those are they have different nuances. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. I really appreciate it. I've got a digital copy. That was quick.

Thank you. So, even though it's labeled issues not on tonight's agenda policy, in essence, it's our public comment period guidelines.

They were adopted back in 2012. that lays out A through K as far as the rules. So, if y'all can tell us what you would like included from this into rule 37, we can add them. And then whenever you get to the point that you adopt your rules of procedure, you would repeal this policy, adopt your rules of procedure, which would incorporate your public comment period guidelines. Mhm. Um, with our public comments moved to the top, I am interested if we want to keep the sign up only because if people are walking in while we're doing it, they can't sign the sheet that I'm holding. Um, I totally understand, and Renee, correct me if I'm wrong, but you work off of the sign up sheet. So if if somebody comes up, says their name and address, and then we direct them to sign it up, so they we still capture that information, but if I'm holding the sheet, they can't necessarily sign up at the sheet at 605. And do you remember if you signed up at county commissioners or Sorry, Jim, I'm talking to you.

Sorry. No, I Well, just walk up. No, actually um I did the week before. You you have to do it online. They have a submission form and you, you know, put your email address in there, who you are, what the subject, and then um maybe couple hours later, you get a reply, you're you're signed up. Okay. Do you have to do that or are there some people that just walk up? As far I didn't see anybody walking up. I think you had to sign up in advance, which that I I don't mind people coming and signing up. I mean, because we're we're not the county, so, you know, it's a lot less people.

There's a lot of other towns I know that don't do a sign up. Um, especially since you have it at the the front Yeah. of the meeting. Um, I think a Dunham sheet is is a way for us to be able to say if somebody comes up and complain, you didn't hear me, I got you right here. Say what? What did you say? I think we've also got video proof of of that if that's what we're trying to point back to. I

mean, in the in the the mind of like maybe streamlining it and and having people sign up online like they do for the county commissioners, you know, because everything is going electronic that way. Then you have a a trail. Um but uh you know, just people coming in physically signing up is really no big deal to me either. as long as we can keep a sign up at the back of the room until the end of public comment. So, I'll have a sheet up here and then somebody can bring it as people sign up.

Um, just because if we're if we're doing all of this at 605 and somebody walks in at 607, yeah, I don't want them to be cut off is my only thought. Unless they come in after the, you know, like 29 minutes into it, right? Unless we've already closed it. Renee, what were you gonna say? I was going to ask Megan, um, do we have to have a sign up because as long as they give their name and address, right? That's that's what we need. Yeah. And it's going to be recorded. I think the sign up is helpful even just for like spelling of someone's

name and interpretation of who they are. if if you want to go through these A through K one at a time because the very first one is the one that you're talking about, right? So, but we haven't landed on this one yet.

Clear on that. my I've seen other councils where they've come up and if it's not something that they're just telling us if they're requiring action, the mayor says if you could sign up with our clerk and you get any information that you need um and we can have a book up here um for them to to fill out. [clears throat] No, no folks. The fact of the matter is if you've got a signup sheet and you call the meeting to order and you remind folks that they need to sign up if they plan to speak at public comment. you're already going to go through and do the consent agenda and such where before you open the public comment, you can tell folks because if they come in at that point, hey, you can still sign up, but to wait for somebody to come in at whenever to want to walk up to the podium, I'm sorry, they need to be responsible. I public comments. When you're ready to start public comment, you make an announcement to the audience. If you have not signed up for public comment, please do. Otherwise, you can't speak.

Is it the consensus of the C council that you guys want to keep signup sheet? Uh Renee, what was your what was your opinion on that? If you would say again. Well, Megan made a good point about names. Yeah, because the spellings are and sometimes I can't understand addresses either. But that can be if it's just a a tally, it can be done after the comments. What? For them to give me their name and address. Yeah. Somewhere written down. Usually they'll leave. Yeah. Not not for you to ask them, for me to direct and say, "Thank you for your comments. Please sign."

Yeah. Folks who don't sign up and you let them speak will walk out when they're done. They're not going to go back there to sign up. [clears throat] We record human nature being what it is. I mean, I I I like the idea of just having the mayor say, "Look, you know, if you haven't signed up, you know, just remind people if you haven't signed up, please do so now." Yeah. I don't and then once we start public comment, you know, bring that list up to the clerk so that she has it. You know, I think that might be better. As long as y'all are okay with me letting people speak that have come up during public comment,

they have signed. No, my my question is if somebody gets off work at 6:15 and they're not here to sign up and we're in the middle of public comments and somebody says, "Hey, the signup sheet was taken. I would like to speak." When you when they bring the signup sheet, when Renee brings the signup sheet, why can't you leave it back there with another page? If they come in at set, you know, before before we've closed public comment, proper time, they can sign up then and then bring it up. Yeah, that's Yeah, I don't have an issue with that. Okay, I'm fine with that. Megan, is that clear as mud for you to put down on? Great.

So, let's say we've already started public comment. Are they still allowed to speak? Because the forms would already be up here and you're in public. saying we're leaving half forms in the back and some the filled out forms are up here. So, as long as they come in any part during public comment, they're allowed to speak. That's city council consensus unless the 30 minutes run. Yeah. Unless the time's run out. But anytime while public comment period is open, they will be required to sign up. Even if they come in at like you said at 6:15, they're still going to have to sign the roster, a roster. So, yeah. Does that make sense?

Yeah. So we'll just have to reword a because this says must sign up before that portion of the meeting. So we will just reward that. We can say before the end of the public comment period. Yes, I'd be okay with that. All right, everybody good to move on to be? Yeah. [sighs] Yep. If it's on the agenda, they don't need to talk about it. or should

um I spoke with somebody that um helped create this document and they specifically put this on there um because this council allowed a lot of people to speak on the agenda items during their meeting

which is how past council has operated. So I understand that that is not us, but looking at the historical how it was created, Daniel couldn't come and talk about the pothole on Goalie Street if the pothole on Goalie Street is on the agenda and we as a council normally opened it up to say, "Does anybody have anything to say about the pothole?" because we don't want double input is what this council past council member was saying. Um so I don't know if this is if we want to be able to allow people to speak on things especially if we do want public input. Um and our council nature and correct me if I'm wrong is not necessarily to open up the floor every agenda item. Um, so if we did want input on the pothole on Goalie Street and it was a consent or a agenda item, I would like to hear from the public on those things. We are going to discuss it later in the agenda. We are going to discuss it amongst ourselves. It's not a public hearing per se. Um, but I would like to either clarify this a little bit more or take it off just to allow the public to speak on these things. I don't I don't think I mean there's there's nothing legal that says that a person can come can't come up and mention something on our agenda that evening. Am I right?

If we adopt this, it's just it's like a shell or may Yeah. I mean, it we're not going to have we're not going to call the agenda police and have somebody taken out because they want to speak on something that's on the agenda. I I think we might be making a little more out of it than it used to be. The only If it's at the end, they will have heard the discussion.

But it but also if some some people want to come and speak because they well like you know at the planning and zoning board, you know, the the citizens come and speak because they don't want something to happen. Um, so it doesn't make much sense for that person to come and speak at the end after we've already decided and everything. It's just kind of a moot point. It just makes them mad. But allowing someone to come in and speak like on a subdivision here, you're you're just mudding the water because when the um applicant gets up and speaks, he's going to answer 90% of their questions.

Agreed.

And we got to open that up again for a public hearing. So, you're going to get up in here second. I think if we say the request should not address any uh item up for public hearing, that makes it like you are going to have your time to speak on that for sure. And if if we're okay with letting people talk about items off the agenda and we've got some flexibility there, but in the past, I haven't felt like we've had that flexibility. If if people haven't signed up to to speak, we haven't even allowed them to speak during public comments. And so I want to make sure our policy is something that I can stand by.

Yeah. I just I feel like they can come and speak really. I mean, we we wouldn't have any control over what they what they say. So yeah, if if we have a good deal of flexibility there, I'm okay with that. Well,

this is what we we have now and it's not stopping them. I don't see the reason to change it. Well, if you're not careful, we'll turn our city council meeting into a public forum for anything and everything. I agree, Bobby. And the reason we, you know, there are times we have public hearings that open for discussion, but hey, we're talking things that, hey, it's either a financial issue or it's an ordinance, you know, things that there are times when, hey, we need to take care of business and if we're going to let everybody speak, League. You know, we are a republic. We are elected to represent and make decisions. If all we're going to do is wait and hear everybody talk says, "Okay, we had five yays, seven and and then then hey, why why have elected officials?"

I think our public government now becomes one of uh majority rules. So, I think we've discussed it. Do we have a consensus on how we want to move forward on B? I just I think it should stay it should should not address an item already on on the agenda. That's just my agree. That's my vote. Okay, Megan, we're keeping B. Yep. Is that right, Bobby and Ricky? Yes, ma'am. Yep. Okay. Um C um will be placed at the agenda end of the item. That is not correct anymore. We are putting it at the beginning. I think we could just take that one out entirely because it's addressed in an earlier rule. Okay. Yeah.

Uh each speaker may be recognized by the mayor. Um that is correct. Everybody feel okay with D? Okay. Yeah. Madame Mayor. Yes. Um going back to B I'm sorry everybody. Um but you know if a if a person did want to speak and it was absolutely something of utmost importance, it can always be you know a motion could be made and and voted on um to allow them to speak given whatever the circumstance is. So that's always something that we could do. It's just an exception to the policy versus creating a policy that's open to hearing. Yeah, I got you

people. Okay. E comments are limited to two minutes. A speaker cannot give their allotted time minutes to other speaker. Everybody agree? Yep. Agree. Yes. F. Speaker may must address the entire council, not an individual. Discussions between speakers and audience will not be allowed. Agreed. Agreed. Yep. Okay. Speakers will be civil in their language and presentation. Agreed. The mayor on um on F. How how do we plan on um enforcing that? The mayor will have to enforce it. She'll have to say, "Have you got your gabble over there?"

I do. Gavl right there. I'll put it even closer. That's better. It's been out of reach. Just Just curious. It's right here. do that. Okay. Are we good to move on to H? Okay. It is recommended that if there are several people who wish to speak on the same subject, they will choose one speaker to speak for all. Yeah. Agreed. Okay. That never happened.

Just just to reiterate, this is a recommendation. Um we can't enforce that, but it is a recommendation. Number or letter I, for clarification, any council member may ask the speaker questions. the time used by the council member to ask questions or the response his or her question will not be counted um against the two minutes. Yeah, but the short time frame there really shouldn't be any questions.

I I was going to say it it's our policy to to hear out the whole two minutes because then it doesn't muddy the waters as much. But we I'm okay with allowing I because once in a blue moon we are going to need clarification and so to ask those questions because you never know what they're going to say. I'm okay with that. Okay,

it go back to H for a second. Sure. Because H is somewhat contradictory or perhaps less than clear to the second and third bullets under C, which says provide for the designation of spokespersons for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same position and provide for the selection of delegates from groups or persons supporting or opposing. So, you may just want to look at those second and third bullets in conjunction with H and figure out exactly what you want to land on. I'm sorry. Yeah, H because H says it's recommended and the other two says the council may adopt reasonable rules among other things. I like H.

Yeah. Um and I like that they say um same position when number of persons um hold on. Yeah, I think I like H. H is wording. What do you guys think? Yeah, I like it better. It's it's more concise. I don't I don't want to make it too difficult for anybody, you know, to remove birdie, you know. So, remove bullets two and three and sub sub aent. Yeah. Um, thank you. We good to move to J.

Speaker shall not discuss the candidacy of any person seeking public office, including the person addressing the city council. That one basically was what? That one's never enforced. I don't I don't know if it needs to be. This this was in front of other councils. I'm glad that we're going through it. Um, so we're okay with keeping Jay. Okay. I am. Yes. Okay. Um, K. Any action on items brought up during the issues not included on tonight's agenda will be at the discretion of city council. I agree.

The way we've done it, we've never taken action on anything that was brought up in consent. I mean, from public comment, and I don't see we should change that. I don't know. I mean, sometimes we have said, you know, had the staff look into something for someone. Um, I consider that an action when you say, you know, somebody's talking to you about a specific problem um with their street or whatever and and we say, "Hey, Aaron, you know, look into that." Um, to me, that's an action, right? Yeah. somebody comes up and wants us to vote on something or I'm not talking about voting just, you know, just saying, you know,

hey, hey, we'll staff look into that. Yeah. And get, you know, get their name, you know, and get back with them. We do do that. Yeah. I I'm fine with the way that K is worded. I'm okay with it. Okay. Um Megan, any other clarification that you need for integrating those two? No, I don't think so. Just know that the language will change. So, anything that

says issues not included on tonight's agenda, we'll just default to public comment period. And as we go through there, there might be a little bit more where it's not necessarily verbatim to this. But once we get them revised, we'll go ahead and send them out so everyone has an opportunity to look at them and if it's council's consensus, then we'll bring it back in March for consideration. Y it is our consensus. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. I need one more. Yes. To make it consistent. Yes. [laughter] Okay. Great. All right. Thank you for your patience and dragging us through that. Not dragging. That wasn't That wasn't bad for 18 pages of proof reading.

All right. Can we I'm sorry. There was something on page 17 that needs to be removed. Um rule 38, item B. 38 item B nomination voting procedure. The council shall use the following procedure to fill a vacancy. Yeah, there is no following procedure because we removed it. So, it would basically just say all appointments shall be made as provided by law and city ordinances. So, that first sentence will just be removed. Okay. Oh, okay. And then that's it. Okay. So, just for clarification on that. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Megan, can I recognize you again to Intro Davenport? Yep. So, Ted Cole is here with us again. As you'll recall, he gave everyone some really fun financial documents.

The last special meeting we had, walked you through various options on both the utility side of the house. Um, we did have to kind of follow up from that, we had a preliminary uh rate um meeting, no final decision yet, still working through sharpening pencils to to come back and um they always give me a hard time to come back and and land on something that will be presented to city council as a part of the budget. on the general fund side of the house. I will follow up and say that recreation reached out to Withers Ravenel. Um all we've gotten so far is basically a quote to amend our contract with them to get more definitive pricing on the specifics for phasing the design. So not anything at this juncture that's definitive would be several I would say best case scenario probably weeks out before we would have that. So, my number of still less than 4.1, which is not terribly helpful, still stands for the design work. But we would like for city council to get to the point, whether it's today or at a subsequent meeting, where you're comfortable to give us direction on what you would like to see funded for the upcoming fiscal year. understanding that this only pertains to capital as we've mentioned, not maintenance and operation and the tax rate implications that go along with that. So, he's here to answer any questions or to go over any parts again that would be beneficial for council. Anything that y'all would like us to do that we haven't to this point, you just let us know.

Great. Thank you, Megan. Thank you for being here. Happy to be here again. Welcome back. Thank you. Thank you. Um that what's on the screen just so you know this is the general fund analysis and it's sort of the summary page of the cases we ran if you want to reference anything there happy to go back through that. I think we're we're good. We'll have uh some discussion. Is there any comment that you have to lead us off or are you good? I'm good.

All right. Well, let's do it. Let's kick it off. Um All right. So, we had our reading um we've got some proposals um of different tax rates, different ways that we can fund things. Um again, coming out of our priority setting meetings, we identified the fire substation, fire apparatus, um the master plan for the park, and repaving the streets. Who wants to kick it off? Come on, Bonnie. [clears throat] I don't like any of them. I don't want to raise taxes. Totally. All right. Who else wants to kick it off? That was a [laughter] good giggle.

Hey, I would recommend scenario 1B. Which one are you? 1B. Okay. I was looking at the column. Oh, is D in the middle. All right. Um 16. Thank you. It's column D. It's the 2.9 uh tax increase. So that's financing everything but the street repaving. It's financing everything except for banking on a 6 million uh substation versus an 8 million. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Um

just a slight nuance to that. Yeah. Um, it's it's funding everything in column D, right, which is a $6 million substation, a million dollar apparatus, 4.1 million for the Graham Regional Park design, continuing to fund a million427 a year for capital and continuing to fund 750,000 uh sorry 3,750,000 750,000 a year for for streets. It's funding all of those. That would be

roughly 21.9 million. The financing, the debt that would occur from that is 7 million for the fire substation in the so just a distinction between funding and financing. Thank you. Yep. and and the the Graham Park project um in in this scenario is cash funded over a two-year period, roughly $2 million a year. Great. And unless the full plan is designed, you're not going to need the 4.1,

right? So the 4.1 is to design everything at Graham Regional, not just the northeast section that city council sort of seemed to decide, you know, kind of as their priority. Sure. Um All right. Thank you, Ricky, for kicking it off again.

My my question is what is a two million what is $2 million difference in the fire station going to give us? A lot of that's driven by the cost once we get to the point of bids. It could be something different between two bays or three bays. You know, I think three bays would probably be ideal. It might be where we land on six and that's sort of where we're heading and then we get to the point of bid and the the environment is such that it's higher and then we have to go through value engineering to scale back within budget. It's it's really hard to determine which one it's going to be until it's designed and then until it's bid. And the design process, you're thinking sometime later this year or early next year?

If it's this if it's this fiscal year, it would require a budget amendment because there are only pretty close. We can be ready. There's only I think 50,000 allocated in the current year budget for design. We could not preit the contract until we had the full amount. So what's the timeline on design process? I would guess I mean certainly less than a year. I'm not an engineer and architect. So I'm not either. I just didn't know if there was any way to to design it now to actually know a number going into this budget, but there's not.

No. And I would say design build is generally where you get more bang for your buck. So that would probably be the route we would look at pursuing. Thank you, Megan. Ricky, other questions on that? Okay. Hey, Jim, what are you thinking? I like what Ricky's thinking.

Okay. Give us the biggest bang for the buck. Is it going to put us in any kind of a crunch if we follow uh Ricky on the the scenario 1B and then we get down the road and we have a $8 million price tag. What is that going to do for us? I would say if you go with 1B, understanding that the 4.1 million for design of the park is unlikely to occur, then what you're likely to see is less than the 2.79 for that one project where part of that could be made up or reallocated to a fire station.

Okay. Does that answer it? Yeah. So we can have some flexibility if if the price tag comes back and we really need a three bay and it's $8 million, we can take part of that 4.1 and move it over a little bit. Yeah. Okay. Any of these are likely to be set up by a capital project ordinance that has to come to city council for approval and to be amended. The money stays in that project ordinance until it's either fully spent or city council reallocates that somewhere else. Okay. Thank you, Megan. Bobby, what are you thinking? [clears throat] Funny what we said we wanted to do.

We are. They've been talking about that fire station for 30 years is what Chief said. We could be the council to make it happen. Yep. Bonnie, you got a look on your face. Yeah. What are you thinking? I'm thinking that's a really high tax jump. Um, so the 1C, just for clarification, that that would be like not funding any of the the park. Is that what you're saying?

Uh, yeah. Yes, ma'am. The the 4.1 million comes out. That is not spent in that scenario. and we've repl not not replaced it but we've added an additional 550,000 a year of street resurfacing. So in total it's a little less of total capital. We removed 41 and added 22 and that's the difference. [clears throat]

The other thing that I think about is if if we're increasing taxes, we're increasing our services so our community can be taken care of. We want to make sure that especially the southern part of our city is getting those same response times from our fire department. Um, so nobody likes tax increases, but if we're able to say we're doing this in order to keep you safe, um, I don't want to put our city in in a place where people are not safe when they call call on our our services for help. No, I wasn't suggesting we not do the fire department, of course, but

it's just the biggest price tag up there other than resurfacing. Usually is. Yep. [sighs]

What questions you got? So, if we make a even across the board 3 cent tax increase, would the additional over the 79 cent pay for um capital improvements? When you say would it pay for capital improvements, do you have something specific in mind? The capital improvements that you give us in um in these

so we generally fund I think it's around 1.4 million a year in I'll say capital but like for the current fiscal year our total capital allocation was I think somewhere around 1.4 4 million among all general fund departments not utility obviously. So it would depend on the specific capital item the cost of it how much the difference generates

each penny generates 270,000. So um we would be getting um a partial penny if you went from to an even three pennies, right? You would be getting um uh what would that be? Uh about $50,000 a year by going a tax adjustment, if you will, from of 2.79 to three pennies. So it would it would it would generate an extra roughly 50,000 a year for capital to perhaps a vehicle.

So if we went if we were to go with 1 C and add seven cents to it um we could put some money towards partial part of the park. So a 2.5 instead of 2.43. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. I mean, because if we're going to do it by section in phases like we had discussed before, we're going to do the that in phases. Why do we need, you know, full funding for it? You definitely don't need.1. That's what I'm saying. Could we a little less like like you said that 1 cent gives us

270,00 equals 270,000. Okay. I will say that we just talked about if if our fire station I'm just trying to lower the Yeah, I know. I'm trying to lower the tax rate and not give everybody sticker shock on, you know, because that's going to be a big hit, especially on our senior citizens that are, you know,

and uh it's going to be a huge for them, you know, when you're on a fixed income like that. So that's what I was just trying to do. See if we could maybe get it a little bit lower, you know, and and still still have a little bit of money for the park to do one section or one phase at a time rather than fund the whole the whole thing at one time. You know, we could spread it out. But so that's what I was asking. So I just know that $2.80, 80 cent. That's a lot of money for people. You know, it's going to hit them hard.

There's some um senior citizen like tax freeze programs that I would love to explore, especially for our lower income and fixed income. Um because you're right, this is going to hit everybody very differently. Some people are not going to notice it and some people it's going to make all the world of difference. Exactly. Yeah. But

but if we get this in in this tax budget, we'll be um getting ahead of the rebal because when reval comes in and we have to lower our rate back down, we will already have this budgeted in [clears throat] if that makes sense. So Ted, can you speak to the tax increases for these? So obviously basically one penny, 2.79 pennies

for fiscal year 27 and what that looks like for the fiscal years beyond. Sure. And and remind me what the current real property tax rate is. 3099. What's that? 30.99. So I will round up 31. 31. Right. So, we're talking about going from 31 cents to maybe 34 cents, a 100, right? I want to be clear about that because it's it's 2.79 pennies. You have 31 pennies right now. And

forget about the reval. If if the way that you wanted to fund scenario 1B was to increase the tax rate to a round number three pennies, you would go from 31 to 34 cents. And that would be a a net new three pennies on the tax rate. And the expectation is that would be needed um for at least the next four years. then you're at a place where you could consider reducing the tax rate because the debt starts to go down go down.

But it's remember that this this potential three pennies in this scenario is just for the debt has nothing to do with might what might be going on in the operating budget. But it would be expected to be continue to be in place an additional three pennies of revenue every year for at least the next four or five years. And it can't be eliminated all at once. It might be able to come down gradually, but I also expect you'll also have other capital needs to be dealing with in those years. Yep.

How we feeling guys? So when do we need to make this decision? Whenever city council is comfortable. Certainly in advance of budget. But we don't necessarily have to do it today. Right. No. But the sooner the better for your purposes. Yeah. Okay. Right. Yeah. I get that too. Yeah. And I don't maybe this is helpful perspective. Um, I don't know what you might consider the average value of a home in the city. Yeah, I was kind of looking at 150,000 versus 200,000 over here and what that penny, right? So in a year,

let's say it's $200,000 just for purposes of the discussion and it's levied on a per$100 value, right? So you take 200,000 divided by 100 and let's say we are talking about three pennies, right? times 0.03. That's that would be about $60 a year or a $200,000 home additional

of Yeah. Additional the three pennies would equate to an additional $60 a year for a $200,000 home. If it was a $300,000 home, it would be 90 thou, excuse me, $90 at additional. [clears throat] I I can tell you personally, I hate raising taxes. I mean, it's

I do too. Um, but it's sometimes it's a necessary evil for us to pay for the services that we've got to provide and we can't keep kicking the fire station down the road. Are we ready to make a decision or y'all need some time to think? How we feeling? I don't want to rush this, but but this is going to inform how Megan puts the budget together.

Ricky, you're comfortable moving forward? Yes, ma'am. Jim, yeah, I feel the same way Ricky does. It's I think, you know, it's it's it's got to it's got to happen. So, yeah, I'm I'm going ahead. [clears throat] What about you guys? Do y'all need time or are we feeling okay to give a what do we say? Three cent is our comfort level. I'm I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying are you comfortable with saying that? Megan,

would it be helpful for council to know the other tax rates for municipalities within Alamance? I've got a a chart that was for the current fiscal year. Erin, I could pull it over to the shared folder if that would be helpful. Pending. Did I get a print rent print out of that? Sure. Thank you.

Oh, it's in the I I'll do it. I'll print my own. It's okay. Lot of subfolders. Hold on. I'm clicking. Thank you guys. Okay. It's under the 2026 and it's been emailed. So, thank you, Megan.

As a recap, Burlington's at almost 48 cents. Elon's at 35. Gibsonville's at 53. We're sitting there at 31. Uh you got Meban at 37. We'd still be the lowest in in in the county of of our size for sure. Green level sitting at 26, but they don't offer the services we do.

Uh Village of Alamance is less. They don't offer the services. Oipy is at 20. They don't offer services. Hall River is at 44. We would still be solidly the bottom of our size at a three cents increase bringing it up to 34. It still doesn't make me feel any better. Yeah. But yeah, it doesn't make me feel better, but but I mean I I get it. I mean, you know, we got to pay for stuff. Anybody want to take bets on um Means being that way too much longer? Sure. theirs will go up this year. So, [clears throat]

do we feel like we have a consensus or we feel like we need some time? I'm not rushing it, but if we want to kick this off to the March 10th meeting, if we want to plan another meeting or No. What are your thoughts? Yeah. What are yours? [laughter]

I I like Ricky's suggestion. I think the I mean, we worked hard at identifying priorities for our community. Um, and I think we were taking everything into consideration that they were all going to come with price price tags. Um, but I I do like Ricky's suggestion. I think it gets us to be in a good place um to take care of our people and and that's why I ran. It was public safety and making sure that we're taking care of our people. Well, I don't see any way around it. I don't like it, but I don't see any way around it. So, you know, I don't

Don't shoot the messenger here. [laughter] Oh, no. I'm not saying I don't like you personally. I understand. I don't like raising taxes. That's what I totally understand. It has nothing to do with you. So, you just We appreciate your time today, sir. Yeah. We We appreciate all the work you put into that to, you know, to help us, you know. Okay. I I know I sound very redundant. We need uh consensus for Megan. Are we in consensus that we are going to be comfortable as a council for a three cents increase for capital improvements? Yes, I agree. Okay, Megan, you good? I am. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you all for your time. I think Renee, you need anything else from us? All right. With that, I will take a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion we adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I.