Remarks by LaWana Mayfield
116 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 5
Thank you, mayor. So just a follow-up stormwater has identified the challenges that was noted by the resident.
So you're not able to move forward with the seven to at least create some. Correct. It's critical we get all eight. So it's all or nothing. And in the meantime, staff is comfortable approving the development of another residential property when it has already been identified that eight residential properties are having stormwater challenges.
So with the stormwater piece separate question for you.
So according to our standard, what is the maximum size that could go on a lot of this size? if it were a single family development?
So I will say I have concern and I shared a concern of my colleague. If we already have stormwater issues over there, approving another residential project to go in the area where we are already having challenges that we have not identified a way to address. I have concerns with, I look forward to you all continuing to work together as luckily this is the hearing because if the vote was tonight, I would have trepidation. We're moving forward. So I hope that by the time that's come before us, there's additional conversation where there's an actual plan. and we can figure out a way to not…
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Thank you. Cause I had, I was like, I had a feeling that you would have one of these. So here's what I'm thinking about. I thought about it for a long time before I shared this and what I want to make sure that I'm understanding we have seasons.
During the seasons, leaves fall. During the seasons, there are no leaves. So there is a concern that I have regarding the height. The billboard is going to be a digital billboard, which is going to, if it is promoted properly, will have multiple ads that will cycle through. Is the billboard going to have ads on both sides because you have traffic going both ways or is it a one sided billboard?
One, I have shared with staff on multiple occasions that I do have a concern when we're looking at residential area and rezoning residential to manufacturing, just like I have a concern of rezoning manufacturing to residential. We are losing quite a bit of manufacturing space in the city. I personally, we all have an opinion. You got 11 very distinct opinions up here, manufacturing. should be as far from residential as possible. We haven't had rezoning in this area since 2021. It potentially could open other opportunities. But my greater concern is when we look at ICF and we look at quality…
I Have a question for the attorney Good question.
I have a question for an attorney so I just completed and I think most of us if not all of us have our UNC School of Government at this class and in the latest at this class it noted that that we do not have to recuse ourselves from any boat or any part of the meeting, unless it's directly connected to financial benefit, meaning we own a percentage. So in the latest ethics, so three weeks ago, I submitted that many years of my life. So I'm, I just want to make sure moving forward ethically and according to the UNC school of government, We do not have to recuse ourselves. When we ask for a…
I think that would be helpful because the mayor doesn't vote anyway so I don't see a need for the mayor to have to recuse himself, but I want to just make sure that we have consistency in the conversation.
So I appreciate that. And I can understand if we had 10 members tonight. We have nine, so he wouldn't have to break a tie. And seven could override the veto if we chose to. But I just wanted to make sure for clarification's sake, as we're going through and we're taking these ethics classes, if we're given information and then something comes up that is in alignment with that information, we're either going to adhere to it or not. So it would be helpful.
Thank you, Mayor. I would like to pull item number 24, 26. As well as 32.
Oh, Mayor, my apologies. I thought I heard 34 from Council Member Johnson. Also 34.
Thank you, Mayor, and I believe staff is here. I sent a question to just identify for this proposal, which is to approve contracts for affordable housing legal services. for a term of one year just to identify if we had any of our small business enterprise through CDI program that were eligible for this particular bid?
Thank you, Mayor. This one I just wanted to pull out for a separate vote. Any of my colleagues that want to make a motion on it, feel free to do.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Thank you. And just for clarification, my question is based on, as we have faced new language regarding our CBI program with limitations that have been identified for us through legislative policy, wanting to make sure that we still are making sure that those small businesses that we encourage to sign up to do business with the city of Charlotte that we are doing our outreach and to know that we are making sure everyone gets the information, although we are not tracking the numbers anymore for minority participation. I want to ensure that the community knows that our Charlotte business…
Thank you, Mayor. So for... This project along with four additional that we will be discussing later. I want us as a council to take the opportunity to really look at our annexation process. What is our goal? Are we building a city that's truly welcoming for all? Are we building a city that is attainable? We use the language affordable. We've seen a lot of projects come before us that are at the 80% AMI range. Near the River District, there were plenty of conversations specifically for the River District that I had around this dais and in committee with clear expectations of us not building…
So, Manager, later I'm going to be asking for a referral, but I do want to say acknowledge we have not had this conversation since 2003. We are now in 2026, and to me it goes to that broader question of what type of Charlotte are we building. So we have a rezoning process, which is separate, but comes first. And then we have an annexation process. So there's a gap in conversation because there should be priority, even though I am not stating that we should necessarily mandate, but there should be priority where if a developer wants to be a part of our beautiful city and want access to our…
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Thank you, Mayor. We have representation from the Historic Districts Commission here. So a couple of questions that I have. One, I had already sent to staff previously, and I believe all of Council got a copy of it, because what I want to know is what is the long-term financial impact, the totality between the MSD, city taxes, county taxes, There's about $10,500 that is paid annually from this property, but what I didn't see is the revenue because they have a business, they provide jobs, they do a lot of other things. For future conversation, I think that would be very beneficial for us to…
That information would have been helpful because it was a bit confusing to say that we had a designation previously many decades ago without clarifying that this is an extension. So is this letter stating on the state taxes up to 50% but the request for us tonight is to designate the entire home as a historic landmark which means that $10,518.11 between City, County, and MSD. That is what we are being asked to forgive.
Thank you, Mayor Harrington. So, Shaw, thinking about the response you just gave to Council Member Azmir, since what we're looking at in totality when we break down City taxes, special district, special district one, special district three, and county taxes. That's roughly $347,000 right now that is paid in taxes. The designation is, if I'm understanding you correctly, is basically to just maintain the outside facade.