City Council - Regular Meeting

testing. testing.

WELCOME TO THE JUNE 1ST, 2026 MEETING, AND I'LL ASK ALL WHO HAVE ALREADY RISEN TO RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND EMILY, WOULD YOU GIVE THE INVOCATION?

LET'S PRAY, EVERYONE. DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS DAY AND THANK YOU FOR THE RAIN THAT YOU SENT TO US TODAY, AND I PRAY THAT THIS MEETING WILL GO WELL AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE WISDOM IN THEIR DECISION MAKING. IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY, AMEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD YOU JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, Okay, as we prepare for the adoption of the agenda, we did move item C from the consent agenda over to the regular agenda. It will be item 15. Are there any other changes to the agenda? If not, do I have a motion to approve the amended agenda? So moved. Do I have a second? First and second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you very much. Okay, the next is the 2026 Code of Ethics and Front and Center Strategic Plan. City Council obviously always strives to follow the Code of Ethics and the Strategic Plan. We have no presentations or recognitions tonight, so I'm gonna ask Ron Smith if he will give his manager's report.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. So as I always do, I'm going to start out with some construction updates moving quite quickly now at the police department and the parking deck. Got some pictures in here to kind of give you a little bit of scope of what's going on. For the PD expansion, the call center should be completed at the end of this month. So that's a big deal for us. We were taking on fire calls as well at some point in the near future, but also just expanding the call center just in general. Completion for the bigger project is forecasted for the end of this year or early next year. And I wanted to kind of show you

Just a sec.

Kind of show you what's going on. So you obviously know where the parking deck is located. And you don't really see the police department addition very well. And now that it's covered in blue, it's easier to see. But there's a gap that's going to be between the two. And if you go by, you'll see it looks like you're walking the plank out here. But this is all going to tie together. And this is gonna be the secured access for the police department. So there's gonna be for the first time really ever an ability for our officers to be coming and going and our staff to be coming and going from where they park.

And all the parking in the deck is gonna be secured for the police department.

So we're looking at probably sometime in July for the parking deck to be completed.

There have been some delays, but it's getting close to being finished.

Fire Station 5, these are pictures from today. We've got our ribbon cutting set on for the 30th. In talking with the fire chief, basically the house or the main station, we'll call it, is basically ready for its certificate of occupancy. The foam insulation is going to be blown in tomorrow in the Bay Area. And it really, I mean, it almost looks like a purpose-built fire station. I'm really impressed with how this one is shaken out. So basically, if we can keep people from running off and messing up the grass, we'll be in good shape. That wasn't me, Chief. So the Municipal Operations Center, the MOC, this is one that we wanted to show you some renderings. This is not necessarily what it's gonna end up looking like, but we've been talking about this building for quite some time, so I thought having some elevations in here would be beneficial. This is the side that will be, well, this is Winston Avenue here. And so this would be the front, I guess you'd call it, of the building. And this will basically finish out everything that we have left out at the mock from an office space and departmental standpoint. We're working on the final pricing, and that's one reason I say that it may not look like this, because depending on how much it ends up costing, we may have to make some changes based on that. We are going to start our discussions with you in July at our three by three meetings to start talking about how do we pay for this? Because we're looking at a pretty high price tag that's very likely going to include debt. So how do we take this on? So I want to make sure before we do any more spending on the site package, that you understand the implications of funding the whole project. So moving over to REV, we've finished out some projects. Basically Kimbrough Park is done, and I've replaced that on this list with the Cochran Street Recreation Center. Don't know what the final name is gonna be on that. But we've talked a lot about the Newtonville Community Park, and this is basically the greenway between Mack Anderson and the high school. The pickleball courts are almost done. They need nets and the exterior fencing. When we were on our trip a week and a half, a week ago, whenever that was, I guess people were out there playing pickleball with no nets. So I guess that's a symbol of us needing more courts. So that's almost done. Disc golf is planned for along the Greenway. That's going to be to be determined as far as what that looks like and when. So at the event center, we have invested quite a bit in technology upgrades. And if you look at the screen, you can see these screens hanging down. This is with all of the rooms, well, two of the main rooms opened up. Heretofore, we have used basically you bring your own screen you bring your own laptops things of that nature projectors and this will definitely be an upgrade and much better I have a centralized system couldn't be happier with with us moving into this this century when it comes to the technology and then finally for the Cochran Street Recreation Center the old Boys and Girls Club the renovation was is if the budget IS APPROVED TONIGHT, IS FUNDED IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON A TIMELINE OF RENOVATIONS ACTIONS IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS. WATER LINE SPLINE, WE'RE GETTING THERE. 72% COMPLETE. BASICALLY THE 20-INCH LINE IS IN FROM THE PLANT DOWN TO NORTH MEADING AND WATER STREETS, WHICH I THINK IS RIGHT HERE. And we are working now on the southern piece, which is going down Amity Hill Road, or I'm sorry, Shelton Avenue. You can't see this very well, but I keep talking about how complicated this project is. And I always say it is complicated because it includes digging out for the water line, installation, temporary paving, connections, pressurizing, and then final paving. So there's a lot of steps going into this. Bill Vaughn was able to create a spreadsheet basically helps you understand helps us understand internally what steps need to be made so basically when you get down to two black check marks you're done but you're you're along the way you know you have you have some areas that are gravel you have some areas that don't have a permanent paving job done so anytime you get complaints about a project associated with the water line it's probably not 100% complete in that particular area. And that's really the message that I wanted to send to you tonight is that we're working through it. When we get done with the project, it's gonna look good. We will very likely have to come back in at a later date and do some paving to clean up some areas. We know that, but we will do that once we get to that point. Third Creek Sewer Extension, this was the line that is going out to Origin Foods. Bids came in on the 15th and just under the budgeted amount, we had $6 million in the budget. This is right at that number. So if you remember, we had an estimate of 10.5 million. So we really got, if this stands, we're in good shape. You will be seeing this again on June 15th. THE CIRCUIT 63 UNDERGROUNDING. THIS IS ANOTHER PROJECT I'M REALLY PROUD OF. THIS IS STATEFUL PUBLIC POWER HAS WE HAVE AN AREA DOWN IN THE I GUESS IT'S THE OLD COUNTRY CLUB AREA THAT WAS HAVING RELIABILITY ISSUES EVERY TIME SO MANY TREES THAT EVERY TIME THERE WAS A STORM IT WAS TAKING OUT LINES AND OUR CREWS WERE HAVING TO GO OUT THERE. So this project is basically completed. And the crew is taking care of the neighborhood. Everything is now underground. And I guess we'll be talking about what's our next step in doing the next undergrounding project. Stage two drought, we've gone from a three to two. I wish I could say the limitations or the watering limitations have lightened up a lot, but they've lightened up just some. I would just encourage everybody to go to the website for details on this. And I will say, I think thanks go out, should go out to our residents. We had one warning that we had to issue throughout all of this. And it really wasn't anything associated with watering or anything like that. So I call that success. So Public Works, we've talked a lot about the Alexander Street and Stockton Street sidewalks. All I can really tell you is that they are going along well now. Once they finally started, they're moving along quickly. Hope to have that done within the month. The wall down at the flats, that's something that's been lingering for quite some time. That was where the building facade, where actually it was just a brick wall, was falling down and the city ended up taking it down. The workmanship on the wall was pretty bad. So they're having to come back in, tear out certain sections and they're gonna fix it from there. But it just, it was not something that we were gonna release. And then finally on Race Street, this is one we get a lot of questions about. Some of you probably do as well, because Race Street is in terrible shape. That's a DOT road, believe it or not. And so they, There was work done, I'll say about a month, month and a half ago. They were jackhammering at night, if some of you remember that. And it was around manhole covers. And then they also did some filling of some really particularly bad spots. So it looks like it's about two weeks from, oh there it is, about two weeks from starting. Now the DOT, HAVING CONTRACT OF WHICH THEY LUMP EVERYTHING TOGETHER HAS A SUNSET DATE OF NOVEMBER, SO I'M HOPING THEY DO WHAT THEY'VE SAID AND THEY START TO GET THIS DONE OR START THIS IN TWO WEEKS, BECAUSE OF EVERY STREET I HEAR ABOUT, THIS IS THE ONE THAT I GET THE MOST COMPLAIN. KEY DATES, JUNE 5TH, WE GOT FRIDAY AFTER 5 THIS FRIDAY, JUNE 19TH, WHERE THE OFFICES ARE CLOSED FOR JUNETEENTH. Also on June 19th, the Garfield Green Street Historic District, there will be a marker unveiling from 12 to three. Thank you to Councilwoman Pearson for spearheading that. June 20th, Juneteenth celebration in downtown. On the 30th, we'll do our ribbon cutting out at the fire station, and then we'll be closed on July 3rd. Finally, open positions, we don't have a lot open, which is a success for us. So basically have two, landscaping and then wastewater treatment plant supervisor. I'd like to answer any questions that you might have.

Any questions for Ron? Thank you very much. Okay, we're gonna move on to the consent agenda. All the items are considered to be routine by the council and will be enacted by one motion. Item A is consider approving the May 7, 2026 pre-agenda meeting minutes and the May 16, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Item B is consider approving budget amendment 2026-26 to purchase 1460 Winston Avenue. Item C has already been moved to the regular agenda. Item D is also to be moved to the regular agenda. Item E is consider approving the second reading of the ordinance for TA-2602, batch one, text changes to the Unified Development Code. Item F is consider approving the second reading of an ordinance for TA 26-03, batch two, text amendments to the Unified Development Code. Item F is considered, excuse me, item G is consider reappointing Steve Knight and Janice Powell to the Stormwater Advisory Commission. Item H is consider accepting a grant from the NCDOT Aviation Division in the amount of $3 million to construct a pad ready site for Weststar Aviation and approve budget amendment 2026-24. Item I is consider passing a resolution directing the city clerk to investigate a petition of annexation AX2603, 185 Moose Club Road, filed by Hezekiah Walker of Love Fellowship Tabernacle, Inc., for two parcels located at 185 Moose Club Road. receive the city clerk's certificate for sufficiency and consider passing a resolution fixing a date of June 15th, 2026 for a public hearing for the petition or annexation. Item J is consider passing a resolution directing the city clerk to investigate a petition of annexation AX26-08, that's 114 Bristol Road, filed by Jorge Valdez, the painter's personal touch LLC. Receive the city clerk's certificate of sufficiency and consider passing a resolution fixing a date of June 15, 2026 for a public hearing for the petition for annexation. Item K is appropriating fund balance to approve budget amendment 2026-23 to pay it economic incentive in the amount of $153,387 to Denso Manufacturing, N.C. Inc., Item L is consider approving budget amendment 2026-28 to transfer excess funds identified in project fund 321 to project fund 327 to support a portion of the capital costs included in the 2026 adopted budget for a new fire apparatus and equipment. Item M is consider approving budget amendment 2026-29 to transfer and appropriate funds to support the destination manager position at the Statesville Convention and Visitors Bureau for fiscal year 2026. And item N is consider renewing the service contract with Downtown Statesville Development Corporation to manage the City of Statesville's Main Street program. Are there any additional items on the consent agenda that need to be moved to the regular agenda? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved. Second.

I have a first and second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. Okay, moving on to the regular agenda. Item nine is receive and consider accepting the city's audited annual financial report for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2025. Individuals from Martin-Starnes will be presenting the fiscal year 2025 audit, and they will be on Teams. So please speak directly into the microphone if you have any questions.

Morgan Coley Good evening. My name is Morgan Coley. I'm with Martin Starnes & Associates, and I will be presenting on the June 30, 2025 audited financial statements.

Brett Redfearn Thank you, Morgan.

Morgan Coley So here on this first slide, we have issued an unmodified opinion, which is a clean opinion. And I would like to thank Ron Gina and everybody at the finance department for getting us everything we needed to complete the audit So we'll jump right in and the this is a slide that shows the general fund summary for revenues and expenses over the last two years so revenues increased and mainly due to increase in sales tax, property tax, and some increase in grant activity. And then expenses are very comparable to prior year with less than 1% increase. And then this slide here shows the total fund balance for the general fund over the last three years. And it is just a slight decrease this year, which is... normal and nothing to be concerned about it's still very comparable to prior year this slide here shows the fund balance position shows the unassigned fund balance for the year which you had an increase in unassigned fund balance for 2025 and that was mainly due to less encumbrances in the prior year or in the current year from the prior year so Then this slide here shows the unassigned fund balance that we just mentioned on the last slide as a percent of the expenditures for the general fund. And this is a roughly six month supply on hand of fund balance for your expenditures. And this is a nice healthy fund balance percent for the LGC considered 8% roughly. one month supply and so you have well above that and then this slide here shows the ad valorem tax revenue for the year and as you can see it has increased about seven percent and that's due to normal growth within the city and I believe there was a revaluation and the tax rate structure And then this slide here shows the unrestricted intergovernmental revenues, and that increased in the current year. And then you've got the investment earnings revenue, which decreased, but that was mainly due to interest rate changes in the current year. And then this is the public safety expenditures, and it decreased from prior year about 3%, and this was due to just a little less capital in the current year, but is very comparable to prior year. And then the culture and recreation expenses, they increased some this year, and this was mainly due to increases in some salaries, operation expenses, and capital outlay. And then the general government expenditures increased again this year. And this was mainly due to some increases in all of these different functions. Mayor, city council, city manager, finance, IT, legal, public works, garage, and warehouse. And then this slide here shows your enterprise fund income or loss. As you can see all of the enterprise funds have nice healthy incomes and it is nice healthy net positions as well as Good revenues and so then we've got the enterprise fund and this slide just shows the debt service and cash flows from operations for the different enterprise funds and And then this slide here shows the general performance indicators. So I know that I've mentioned this one in the past, the Water Sewer Fund capital asset condition ratio. So the LGC has a... ratio that they calculate and consider less than .5 may be a signal to replace the asset soon, which seems like you guys are doing so with some of your water infrastructure that is being updated. But right now, Statesville's asset ratio is at .4. So I know that you guys are working on Increasing that and getting that to not be a tick that just automatically happens. And a lot of different municipalities also have that. mark as well so it's not anything to be super concerned about but and you guys are taking the proper steps to rectify that and there were no significant deficiencies or findings that were noted there were two material weakness findings and those were for material journal entries as well as the late audit submission and the city has a steady property tax income collection percent as well as the healthy available fund balance percent. And then that is all that I have. If you have any further questions, you can feel free to reach out to Matt Braswell. He's the manager on the job. His contact information is here on this last slide. Or you can also reach out to Gina, and she can relay any questions that you may have.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Coley. Are there any questions for Ms. Coley or for, that we need to address to the managing member? Yes, please.

So with an audit, just since we have new faces on the council, this is, You're not really expected to have to answer or ask any questions tonight because you're just seeing this information. This is just, again, it's just an audit of FY25. It's different than a budget in that you're really not making decisions about it. It's just a snapshot of this is where we landed at the end of that fiscal year. So if you do have questions, feel free to ask them of Gina or myself and we'll convey those on to Martin Starnes and get you any answers that you might need. So you'll have a copy of this and you'll get the big book of it and it will go into a lot more detail.

Great, thank you. Okay, is there a motion to accept the audit as presented?

So moved.

We'll have a second. Thank you. Any more discussion? All in favor of accepting the audit, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposition? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much. Okay, item 10 is to conduct a public hearing and consider approving the fiscal year 2027 budget ordinance and fee schedule. I will open the public hearing. And Ms. Lawrence, you're gonna take that, okay.

So this is the required public hearing. This is part of the process of adopting a budget. We have done everything in association as is required through the general statutes. The process has been advertised, it's been on display, and we are ready tonight to hear any public comment. I've mentioned to you previously that if there is either no public comment or public comment that you don't think materially changes the budget, or if comments from you all don't really change it, then you do have the opportunity to adopt it tonight. If you don't choose to do that, we'll bring it back on June 15th for another stab at it. But we do have to have an adopted budget by June 30th of this year. And just to recap very quickly, just so we know what we're talking about, The FY27 proposed budget for the general fund, and I'm going to round these numbers, 63,400,000. Airport, 2.955 million. Public power, 53.2 million. Water and sewer, 35.8. Stormwater, right at 3 million. The event center, 1.6 million. AND RISK MANAGEMENT JUST UNDER $8 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF ALL OF OUR FUNDS OF $168,105,432. SO THAT'S AN INCREASE OVERALL OF 8.2% FROM FY26. AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. NEW SPEAKER PORTER EMILY, NO ONE SIGNED UP. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR RON? And I will ask that if you do choose to make a motion to adopt, I would ask that you make it effective June 15th to incorporate the system development fees, which are going to be on that agenda. Great.

Yes, James.

Before the motion is made, I think we need to formally open and close the public hearing.

Got it. So we will close. Well, we did open it, didn't we? Okay. We'll close it.

All right, James. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer up an amendment if this is the appropriate time to do that. Good time. But first, before I do, I want to acknowledge Ron and Gina and our staff for bringing us a balanced budget that keeps the tax rate the same and sustains and, in fact, increases a lot of the services that our citizens depend on. And while our tax structure remains unchanged, we have a number of fees that have increased. And I know our citizens are concerned about some of those fees. And I'm also concerned about the cost of living in Statesville. And some of these fees are related to that. So I've been working for the past five or six months with our staff on one of those fees. It's a street inspection fee that's proposed in our budget. And I'd like to just give a quick report on that work. So the city has determined that the actual cost of doing this street inspection fee and Matt Hubert gets a lot of credit here because he spent a lot of time on this, but we've determined the actual cost is 75 cents a linear foot. WHILE THE PROPOSED BUDGET LISTS THE FEE AS $1.50 A LINEAR FOOT. AND WE KNOW THAT MUNICIPALITIES IN NORTH CAROLINA CAN CHARGE FEES, AND IT MAKES SENSE FROM A COST RECOVERY STANDPOINT THAT THE CITY CAN RECOVER THOSE COSTS. BUT THE FEES THAT THE CITY CAN CHARGE MUST BE RELATED TO THE COST OF THE SERVICE PROVIDED. And we know that municipal fees are different in taxes and that the fee is intended to reimburse the city for those costs. But if a fee exceeds the cost of that service, then it becomes difficult for us to justify that to our constituents as a true cost recovery measure. And I've said it into this microphone before, but as elected officials, we have a fiduciary responsibility to our citizens to ensure that we impose necessary, fair, transparent and closely tied, that the fees are closely tied to the costs incurred by the city. I recognize we face budgetary pressures. I recognize that maintaining infrastructure and delivering quality services requires adequate funding. But we have a responsibility to make sure that the fees that we charge our citizens are related to the actual cost of the service provided. So with that being said, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion for a budget amendment to adopt the street fee, the street inspection fee, at 75 cents a linear foot to track our costs for the next six months and then to revisit this issue at our mid-year review. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we have a motion to amend the budget. Do I have a second? Does anybody have any more discussion, first of all?

I'd like to ask the staff to come up and address what the impact of that is as it relates to what the budget was, the budget fee. I think, James, you said it was 150?

In the budget, I would propose $1.50 a linear foot.

Right. And you're making a motion for 75?

Correct.

Okay. Yep. I'd like to hear the staff's recommendation. Procedurally, we need a second before we can go into discussion. Second.

We have motion and second. Thank you. Thank you for that. So what is the question?

What is your opinion on the budget rate change from 150 to 75 for the linear foot?

Yeah, I think you know, it's really up to the board's discretion. Essentially, we only had two data points to establish that 75 cents was what we were using in manpower and equipment for this inspections. We do intend to do little bit more in terms of our inspection so I do expect that to go up but you know I think it's reasonable to say if we want to be very sure that that we're not overcharging so to speak then then it's appropriate to reduce it to 75 cents you know again our fees are lower than I've seen anywhere in the state and so was key for me to at least ensure we are getting cost recovery and so this is a step in that direction

I like to say in reference to that, Mr. Presley was saying that he wanted to make sure that the citizens and that we're paying for the service would balance out. And 75 to 150 is a big margin. And in that middle, I want to understand how that 150, how that 150 you came up with, How did you come up with that to be able to come to that conclusion for that amount? Because of the fact that we know society and we know things are going on, we don't want to be under, but we don't want to be over either. So I do appreciate the fact that Mr. Presley have asked us to relook at this. You guys look at this. So can you say without a shadow of doubt that 150 is more Or is it we're going to have to do less or we can work with less? With the 150, can we work with 85? Can we work with 90? Certainly, yeah. I want to know the number that's comfortable versus the 150.

Yeah, and that's why I think if we're starting with the two data points, it's not a good sample size, right? And so if we take some time, get a better sample size, and maybe it comes in, it's more, maybe it comes in, it's less, I would think, you know, if we come back in another six months, I can have more sample size for you and have a better confidence level in saying where we really are at and where we should really be charged. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION REALLY QUICK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THAT COUNCILMEMBER PRESLEY CORRECTLY RECITED THE LAW. HE'S CITING FROM 160D-402D, WHICH SAYS THAT THE FEE MUST BE NO MORE THAN A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM THE SUBDIVISION ROAD INSPECTION.

CAN YOU CLARIFY, ARE CITIZENS PAYING THIS OR ARE DEVELOPERS PAYING THIS?

THIS IS A DEVELOPER RATE FOR PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A BURDEN ON OUR CITIZENS.

RIGHT.

SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CITIZENS, AND SO... WELL, THE FEE WOULD BE PASSED ON, OBVIOUSLY, TO THE END USER. THE END USER, SO IT WILL AFFECT THE CITIZENS AT SOME POINT.

BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT FOR FREE, I DON'T THINK.

YEAH, YEAH, NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE CITIZENS ARE PART OF THAT, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPERS.

MR. NICHOLSON.

AM I BEING CONFUSED?

I WOULD JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK THE MOTION IS REASONABLE, AND IT CREATES FLEXIBILITY for us to review where we are six months into it. I agree.

I support it. I was going to ask, is the 75 cents, I know there was some discussion about possibly contracting this work out as opposed to our employees doing it. Is the 75 cents enough to hire a contract out?

It would probably be more than double to privately do it. That would be a full cost recovery where there weren't any IT'S ARM'S LENGTH FROM CITY OPERATIONS, BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES A DEGREE OF COORDINATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULING AND THE PRIVATE FIRM SCHEDULING THAT IS PROBABLY MORE COMPLICATED THAN WE NEED RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SEEING A SLOWDOWN IN DEVELOPMENT. THE GROWTH THAT WE WERE KIND OF DEALING WITH A COUPLE YEARS AGO IS NOW KIND OF AT A POINT WHERE THE CONFIDENCE ISN'T THERE, AND SO WE'RE NOT SEEING A LOT OF APPLICATIONS, AND THIS FEE HASN'T REALLY BEEN APPLIED

Mr. Hubert, would you confirm, didn't the state legislature recently reduce the amount of pavement that is required on the roads in these subdivisions? So we need to be really, really sure that those roads are the best they're going to be when we take them over, right?

Correct.

So that's why this fee is, it needs to be right, James, I agree with you. But, and we discussed whether to increase the rate now and go six months and see if we could decrease it after we, if we decided to bring on these outside contractors. But I'm fine with what council decides.

THE KEY, MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY, IS THAT YOU HIT ON IT. THESE FEES ARE PASSED ON TO OUR CITIZENS. THAT'S NOT WHOEVER BUILDS THE ROAD IS NOT JUST GOING TO EAT THAT COST. HE'S GOING TO PASS IT ON TO OUR CITIZENS. SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER TAX ON THE CITIZENS WE SERVE. THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

And I don't know if it helps or hurts, but we've had the 150 in since the last budget was adopted, but it has not been, it's not been charged. So really it's been a zero effectively. So we would just be starting out with the 75% or 75 cents, whereas we haven't been getting anything heretofore.

Well, I do think it's a great idea because all that what we don't know, we will get information to bring clarity in the decision making that we're going to have to make in this process. So I'm in agreement with the plan for six months to see how all this comes together. And then when you bring it back to us, then we all can have a better view of decisions that we have to make.

OK. Mr. Hubert, can you share what some of our neighboring municipalities charge for this?

Yeah, it's not apples to apples because some of them put it in their application fee. Some of them charge fees for not just the street, but the sidewalk curb and gutter separately. you know I brought 150 up from Waxhaw that's what we were doing and that's where I put it in as a placeholder but I think Mooresville is like at a dollar and then there are some Clayton has like two dollars they charge for all the the different services and so it's been difficult for me to try and find an apples to apples that really helps cover what we're inspecting versus what they are in in other localities

And to address the mayor's concern, if a re-inspection would be required, would they be charged the fee again for the re-inspection, or is it a one-time fee?

So it's a one-time fee for per linear foot of roadway, centerline of roadway. So really you can find out at the application point what that cost is going to be. There are different fees for one-time inspections of driveways, and if that has to be re-inspected, there's a re-inspection fee, but that's not associated with this fee.

But when the development's done, it's a city maintained road, correct? Yes, that's the key is we want to make sure. So let's go back and think about when we had the Broad Street incident, when the road wasn't paved correctly. The city had to, if I'm not mistaken, we had to go out and correct that mistake. So I think we got to look at it both ways as well. I see, I understand the 75, but I think we have to have a happy medium to kind of, cover us as well. You don't want us to get lowballed and our staff to get lowballed as well. I'm just devil's advocate.

Just to make it clear, the dollar and 50 cents, we have to be able to legally tie that to what we are actually incurring in cost. So if what we can verify with what the data we have right now is the 75 cents and that's legally what we can do and charge. If we have the data to verify that $1.50 is what we're incurring and what we would be recovering, then we have the legal ability to charge the $1.50. So I think that that's really the crux of the question here, that this council has to get to the bottom of.

So it has to be either or? There's no median, like, it can't be a dollar?

Whatever the data supports is what you can do. So I'm only using those two numbers because those are the two numbers that we've been discussing. But if the data supports 85 cents or 90 cents or whatever it is, a linear foot that the data supports, that's what the data supports. And so that's where we're at from a legal perspective, because legally we can only charge what the statute authorizes. And we're really, our hands are quite tied from that. Thank you, Ms. McGill.

And I think the reason was we were anticipating that when we start doing this, it's going to be more than we anticipated because we may have to use an outside service. So for now, it's, We have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any more discussion? I mean, that makes sense to come back in six months and find out what the cost really is, right? Okay, are we ready?

Go ahead. When asking on the data, you said there were only two data points. So what were those two data points and are those representative or are those just the only two we have?

Those were the only two we had good records on. And then so I think one was Beaver Creek and I can't recall the other one. Right now off the top of my head, but we're going to proceed collecting that data on current subdivisions that we have and we'll be able to bring some new numbers.

Mr. Mayor, my concern is that we don't have, we really don't have good data to support it. If there's a reinspection required, then we know it would go over that. And based off of previous experience, we know that re-inspections are likely to be found. And while this is an indirect cost that we've passed on to citizens, having to bear the cost of additional staffing and inspections would be a direct cost on the citizens because it would come out of our budget. I THINK THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ANSWER WOULD BE TO STICK WITH THE 150 AND THEN WHEN WE RE-EVALUATE IN SIX MONTHS TO DROP IT DOWN TO THE 75 IF NECESSARY. THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE MORE PRUDENT RESPONSE BECAUSE WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE COST WILL BE HIGHER THAN THAT. WE ALMOST ARE GUARANTEED TO KNOW THE COST WILL BE HIGHER THAN THAT. SO AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE CITIZENS BEAR THAT COST, I THINK AT LEAST IN THE TEMPORARY TIMEFRAME WE WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT BE the user, which is the developer in this case. That seems to be the more responsible course of action, at least in the short term.

How does that go with what Ms. Messick said?

Well, if we don't have the data to support it either way, we just have those two pieces of information, then you can make a compelling argument in both directions. And so I think that erring on the side of caution, which using good engineering judgment, factor of safety is two. So if we think it's going to cost 75 cents, you come up with $1.50, and then we can adjust that down as we develop a data set to show that we can be more lenient with the cost structure. But right now, protecting the budget as we've currently got it would require $1.50. And that's the fiscally conservative thing to do. And then we can adjust it down if that ends up being too high.

Because we just don't know. This is the purpose of what we're saying with the six months, exactly what you're bringing to the table. So we all have that information. Right, because we don't have it right now. So it's really the 150 is just that guideline of what we think it would be. But knowing the fact that we don't know, so once this information comes to us, we all have a clear understanding whether it's 150 higher, 150 lower. So to me, I'm not really concerned about the 150 at this point, because I know the fact that we're going to have a, you know, we're going to do a survey, we're going to find out, do a budget. So we're going to actually know where we stand as a council body, as a city, and for the city and citizens. So all that comes to the same term, you know, we're just going to wait six months and find out.

To Councilmember Nicholson's question, I would defer to Mr. Hubert and ask, does the two data points that you have, did that support a finding of 150 a linear foot or does that support the finding of 75 cents a linear foot based on what you've seen and observed?

yeah it means so the the diary records and then they do include the re-inspections it was the the full life of the project so if if they had to come back those hours were already calculated in it and so when we took backed out the water and sewer and storm water out of that we got back to 75 cents for those two projects and And just for a reference point, a small subdivision, this fee at about $1.50 was going to be about $7,000 for the subdivision. For a larger subdivision, it was going to be $10,000, $20,000. It's not a giant impact to the cost of the home, particularly when we consider the original pavement section that we had that had a lot of factor of safety, and it was a very conservative design. That's going to save developers $100,000 comparatively. So the cost should go down when we compare the pavement section changes versus the inspection fee. But again, to the point, our data doesn't show that $1.50 is solid enough for me to stand here and say, no, we should stay there. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir.

Okay, having that in hand this evening. We have a motion and a second to lower the fee to 75 cents per linear foot until we prove that the actual cost is higher. Is that close enough? Okay, all in favor of this motion, please say aye.

Aye.

And opposed.

No.

Okay, I need to see hands. So we got the nays were four, The ayes were.

I think the ayes were for as well.

Your first chance to break a tie.

I will vote for James's motion. So the motion will carry five to four. Thank you. Great discussion folks.

So now I guess the issue is do you want to adopt a budget?

Can we make sure that we come back and revisit this in six months to the date, please? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. So we don't forget.

Thank you.

Okay.

I move we approve the budget.

Second. And effective June 15th? Yes, June 15th. Effective June 15th.

Do we have a motion? Do I have a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor of the amended motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson.

Thank you.

All right. Item 11, we need to conduct a public hearing and consider approving an ordinance to reestablish the Downtown Municipal Service District for another five years. That'll be July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031. I will open the public hearing. Mr. Pierce.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT. BEFORE WE CONSIDER THE RESTABLISHMENT OF THE RENEWAL OF THE DOWNTOWN MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT, I'LL GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON SORT OF WHERE IT IS IN TERMS OF THE BASIC NUMBERS, GIVE SOME QUICK BACKGROUND AND THEN I'LL STEP BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND YOUR VOTE. So the Downtown Municipal Service District supports the City of Statesville's downtown revitalization and has done since 1987. That's approximately 215 acres, 370 parcels in the downtown that stretches roughly from the railroad tracks on South Center Street and Shelton Avenue just past Stockton and then from Mulberry in the west along Broad and Front over to Salisbury Road. It is currently The rate is currently $0.10 per $100 of valuation. We are not asking for a change in that. By way of context, that is one of the lower numbers in North Carolina. The lowest I've seen was 8.5 cents per 100, but we're in good company. There are several communities at 10 cents per hundred dollars In the coming fiscal year that is projected to bring us in a hundred and twenty two thousand dollars That is slightly down from last year. That's primarily because of personal property. We're seeing citywide fewer cars we also have some equipment at Bartlett Mills that is personal property that is no longer on the books and This is renewed every five years. It's usually done at the same time as the service agreement with Downtown States Development Corporation. Thank you all for approval of that just a moment ago. As of now, because of that service agreement, the total revenue from the MSD is retained by the city to go toward the overall downtown revitalization efforts of the city. SOME QUICK CONTEXT FOR THE MSD AND OUR WORK DOWNTOWN IN GENERAL. THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY REASONS FOR THE WORK OF THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DOWNTOWN MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT, DSDC AND THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. MANY OF YOU KNOW THE 1960s AND 1970s SUBURBANIZATION BOTH OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMMERCE STARTS TO PULL MONEY AWAY FROM HISTORIC DOWNTOWNS. THAT PUTS AT THREAT BUILDINGS OFTEN A CENTURY OR MORE OLD THAT ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY'S INHERITANCE, PART OF WHAT THE CITY WOULD IDENTIFY AS PART OF OUR SHARED INHERITANCE AND IDENTITY. SO THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE EARLY 1980s DEVELOPS A FRANCHISEABLE MODEL, THE MAIN STREET MODEL, THE MAIN STREET APPROACH that does economic development in the context of historic preservation. One of the primary goals for Main Street programs, like ours, the city is the franchise holder. In all cities, the city is the franchise holder for the Main Street program. One of the primary goals is to vivify the downtown. It seems appropriate, given the current context, to talk a bit about the historic piece. Mid 1970s, there's a groundswell of interest in historic preservation in the United States around America's 200th birthday. And it's a shift. Historically, there have been a lot of interest in properties like Washington's Mount Vernon, Jefferson's Monticello, places of sort of great renown, Philadelphia, places like that. The shift is toward HOMES, THE SHIFT IS TOWARD COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DOWNTOWN, DISTRICTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I'VE PUT THIS OLD HOUSE UP HERE IN PART BECAUSE IN 1979 THIS WAS PROBABLY THE MOST NOTICEABLE VERSION OF THE POPULAR INTEREST IN PEOPLE TRYING TO PROTECT OUR SHARED INHERITANCE. ONE OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF OUR WORK HERE IS THAT WE HAVE TWO DISTRICTS NOW THAT ARE FULLY CONTAINED OR PARTLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE MSD, THE DOWNTOWN STATE'S HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND THE GREEN STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO BE PART OF WHAT OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR NATION USES TO INTERPRET ITSELF AND TELL OUR OWN STORY. SO PART OF THE WORK OF THE MSD HAS BEEN AND REMAINS TELLING THE STORY OF THIS COMMUNITY AND THIS NATION THROUGH ITS HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HERE, MAINTAIN THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN MSD RATE, NO REQUESTED CHANGE THERE, TO REESTABLISH THE DOWNTOWN MSD FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, AND TO SCHEDULE THE SECOND READING FOR JUNE 15TH OF 2026.

THANK YOU, MR. PEARCE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATTHEW?

I HAVE A QUESTION, MATTHEW. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL PART?

YES, MA'AM.

SO SAY IF A HOUSE IS IN A HISTORICAL AREA, BUT IT'S NOT A HISTORICAL HOUSE, LIKE SOME IS CONSIDERED, YOU FIX THESE HOUSES UP WITH THESE HOUSES IN IT, BUT YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THEM. So how is this going to maintain that structure with you in the site, but you're not considered historical?

That is a great question. That's a great question that lies beyond my sort of day-to-day responsibility because single-family residential stuff is specifically exempted from the MSD tax. We don't have them downtown officially. I would have to defer to our historic planner who is not yet on board. I still think we're in the process of hiring them. So if you can bring this question back in a couple of weeks to someone else, that would be great.

All right.

Thank you. Any other questions for Matthew?

Mr. Mayor? Yes. So let me just back up a little bit. So 100% of the revenue generated from the downtown municipal district goes to pay two full-time city employees who manage DSDC. Is that right?

YES.

OKAY. AND DSDC ADMINISTERS THE CITY'S MAIN STREET PROGRAM, WHICH YOU MENTIONED, WHICH COMES THROUGH THE NORTH COUNT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, I THINK. IS THAT RIGHT?

THE PROGRAM ITSELF IS RUN BY THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AT EACH STATE YOU HAVE A COORDINATING PROGRAM. SO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IS THE SORT OF INTERMEDIARY FOR US WITH THE NATIONAL

And one of the pillars, I mean, I just Googled it because I didn't know anything about the Main Street program. And one of the pillars of the Main Street program is, as you mentioned, strategic planning for economic development of our downtown. And I just want to know more. I sent a bunch of questions. I'm not going to ask you all the questions. I sent a bunch of questions to Matthew just because I want to learn more about the program and what DSDC is doing. So, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the ordinance to reestablish the downtown municipal service district. AND THAT WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, RON, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO ASK DSDC TO COME TO OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION JUST TO SEE WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING AND JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF OUR DOWNTOWN AND FOR OUR CITY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE.

NEW SPEAKER I'M SORRY, RON, BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, THE INFORMATION THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD GET WITH US, COULD THAT BE INCLUDED IN THAT AS WELL?

They will, the DSTC annually provides council with an annual report, which Emily sent out last year's, was that yesterday, today? So we will have, not only will it be at a, it'll be presented here by Matthew and his team. So we have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion?

Which just to brag on DSDC for a second, since we're talking about it now, I know not every member of the city understands exactly what DSDC is and what they provide, but the team at DSDC, so Matthew and Nan, their salary is funded by this tax. They're the only section of the city that voluntarily imposed a separate tax district on themselves to supply an advocate. And last year, this team was able to yield an additional 1.6 million of private investment in the downtown district. They coordinated over a thousand hours of volunteer efforts that supported over 15 events that drive that economic development in downtown and pull our community together in the heart of our city. And we're able to show an increase in property values of almost 30% due to their efforts. That organization is led by a volunteer board of concerned and involved citizens, and is without a doubt one of the best organizations that we support, not only from a cultural perspective, but also from an economic development perspective, as well as firmly establishing the identity of this city. So without a doubt, I think this is a fantastic Fantastic program to continue and look forward to our continued partnership now that we've brought DSTC into a closer relationship with the city.

Thank you, Mr. Robertson. Thank you. And just to confirm, Emily, no one signed up to speak, right? So I'm calling this out of public hearing. We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor of this motion, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. Okay, next, we're going to conduct a public hearing and consider passing the first reading of an ordinance to annex AX26-04, that is 1006 Wall Street, filed by Garrison Davis of True North Homes LLC for approximately 0.62 acres located along Wall Street. I will open the public hearing. And staff is here.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Council. I have two annexation requests for your consideration tonight. Our first one, two separate annexation requests, is 1006 Wall Street. It is a .62 acre parcel along Wall Street owned by True North Homes LLC. The applicant is requesting annexation to connect to city services, specifically power and water. Here is a photo of the current site. It is wooded and undeveloped. Looking at the wards, it's adjacent to Ward 6, and if approved for annexation would be a contiguous annexation, so it would complete our city limits just a little bit further. And the owner does intend to build a single family home on this site. Looking at our department feedback, Statesville Public Power has stated that it is in our exclusive territory and they can serve it. Public Utilities has reported that there's a 12-inch water line in Wall Street, although there is a sewer line roughly 450 feet to the north. However, the applicant does not plan to connect to sewer. Stormwater reported no concerns. Fire has reported that it is within the four-minute response time from station number three, and police have stated that there are no concerns at this time. So for our staff review, we have reviewed the request and determined that the site meets the statutory requirements for annexation and that services can be efficiently provided by the city. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Any questions for Mr. Campbell?

Is the applicant here? Do not believe the applicant is here.

Okay. There was something that was brought up in pre-agenda. Dr. Vaughn mentioned that within the city's code, because this is a lot under one acre and they're not planning on tying into the sewer system, they would not be eligible to get approved for a septic system. So I'm concerned that the applicant would, by annexing into the city, the applicant would not be able to have a septic system and is not planning on tying to the sewer. So I'm just more interested in what their thought process is than anything else.

I completely understand. Like I said.

I think that, Scott, correct me if I'm wrong, I think that the waiver would have to be given by the city council. So they could do it, but based on the size, that person would have to come to the city council to actually get the approval.

Do they know that, though? I don't want to make life harder for them by approving this now, knowing that they don't know that.

That would not be information that I had passed to the applicant.

OK. Are you saying that you're going to contact the people? Because I couldn't quite hear that. Are you going to contact the people and give them this information? or inquire that do they know or don't know, are you coming back to council with that? Is that what you're asking?

More or less, because if we were to annex it, then they would have to come back to get city council approval for a septic system. So if they know that, all's fair in love and war. But if they don't know that, I don't want to put them in a worse situation because of us annexing it. I agree. But if you have the opportunity to talk to them between now and then, there will be a second reading of this and they can.

Yeah, I'd be more than happy to coordinate between the applicant and public utilities for that information. Great job.

Okay, thank you. So this is just the first reading, so that's legit. Thank you very much. Any more discussion? Emily wants more. Nobody signed up for public? Okay. All right, I'm going to call this out of public hearing. Do I have a motion to move forward with this annexation?

So moved.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously, thank you. Okay, item 13, conduct a public hearing and consider passing the first reading of an ordinance to annex AX26-07, that's 237 Third Creek Road, filed by Robert Helms of Husky Homes and Land LLC. I will open the public hearing and Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our second annexation petition of the evening, 237 3rd Creek Road. It is a .88 acre parcel on the east side of city limits. Owner Husky Homes and Land LLC is requesting annexation to connect to city services, specifically water. Here is a site photo of current conditions. They are currently finishing up a single family home build on site. This would be another contiguous annexation. This is right across the street from city limits. It is adjacent to Ward 1, so if this is approved, it would go into Ward 1. And as stated before, that the owner is currently constructing a single-family residence on site. In our department feedback, Statesville Public Power has reported back that this would be serviced by Energy United. Public Utilities has reported there's a six-inch line in Third Creek Road, and there is no sewer in the vicinity. Stormwater reported back, no concerns. Fire reported that this site is not in the preferred four minute response time from station three. However, they feel confident that they can service this within a five minute response time. Police had no concerns at the time of the request. Once again, city staff has reviewed this petition and determined that the site meets the statutory requirements for annexation and that services can be efficiently provided by the city or other utility providers, noting that the site exceeds the preferred four-minute response time. However, it is within a five-minute response time. Any questions?

And this one also did not want to tie into sewer?

There's no sewer in the vicinity.

Okay. So this one would also require...

Correct. And it's also less than an acre, so we'll be in the same concern, but it'll be addressed the same way.

Thank you.

Yeah, once again, I'm happy to coordinate this information with the applicant and public utilities to see how you would like to move forward or how they would like to move forward in the event of a denial.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Thank you. Okay, no one signed up for the public hearing, so I'll call this out of public hearing. Do I have a motion to approve the annexation as requested?

So moved.

I have a motion to have and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. Okay, item 14, consider approving a resolution to cancel the U6153 project to relocate Bethlehem Road adjacent to the Statesville Airport. And Ms. Martin is going to give us the staff presentation.

Thank you, Mayor. So in 2019, the city of Statesville was awarded $2.5 million towards a project we thought at the time would be $5.5 million to construct or relocate Bethlehem Road to Highway 70. Really, this was done being planning for an expansion of our runway safety area. that expansion did happen in 2022, and it severed the connection between Bethlehem Road and Aviation Drive. Since that time, we've completed phase one of our preliminary engineering, so we have 75% design with our construction drawings, and we were beginning land acquisition with the proposed construction date of 2029. However, with rising land costs and construction costs, it's staff's recommendation, planning and engineering's recommendation at this time that we cancel the project from both the regional, state, and federal transportation improvement plans and instead allow this road to be built through future private development as part of airport economic development. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions for Ms. Martin?

I have a few questions. Yes, please. If the resolution goes through, the funds that were spent on the engineering and planning, would that be required to be repaid by the city?

No. So the Federal Highway Administration, when you're in this phase of design, they do let you walk away because they understand that it's no longer feasible to continue forward. So we're not on the hook for it. to repay those dollars.

And then, and maybe the city manager can answer this, the funds that the city had budgeted for this project, what would happen with those funds?

Currently, we have, I would say roughly $2 million that are assigned in our fund balance. And if the project were to go away, we would unassign that money. So that would be $2 million that would add to the totals you saw earlier in the audit. We also had money, because of the escalation, we had money associated with the old Brookdale Connector project. that was also canceled about a year and a half ago, I believe.

Well, it's officially getting canceled on the 15th, if the board chooses.

But the council had said we don't want to do that. So there's about $900,000 there that the same would apply. I've been kind of holding back on releasing that money because we knew this project was going to be so expensive. So roughly $3 million would go back to unassigned fund balance. Thank you.

Ms. Martin, the $2.5 million in grant funding that we have, is there a shot clock on that funding or a hard time constraint that we have to work within?

There originally was, but the DOT, since 2019, they've been very behind on their projects. So they've allowed everyone to continue their projects as well. So extensions are normal.

So we would have some time?

We would have to ask for additional time, but it's common for them to grant it.

Okay. Mr.. Mayor I was surprised that this recommendation didn't come from the airport commission YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE OUR COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS, THESE ARE THE GROUPS OF EXPERTS, AND WE HAVE THEM TO ENGAGE AND INVOLVE OUR CITIZENS IN THESE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. SO I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE SENDING THIS BACK TO THE AIRPORT COMMISSION AND GIVING THEM SOME TIME, 60 DAYS, TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES, AND THERE MAY NOT BE AN ALTERNATIVE, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT IF WE HAVE TIME WITH THESE FUNDS, THEN IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO GET THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AIRPORT COMMISSION.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A CITY PROJECT AND NOT AN AIRPORT PROJECT. SO THE AIRPORT COMMISSION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DECISION, IS THAT CORRECT?

THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, SO, WELL, THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE COMPONENTS. THERE'S THE TAXIWAY AT THE TOP, WHICH IS A DEFINITE AIRPORT PROJECT. THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PINK AREA. and then the road project, which was kind of independent of both of those. They all would work together if they could, but none of them yet are financed. So yeah, and the money's coming from different places.

And from a grant perspective, it is considered a roadway project.

Mr. Presley, I would agree with you. However, I think more specifically, I would say this road project divided THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES IN HALF. AND I DO BELIEVE IF THE PROJECT WENT BACK TO THE AIRPORT COMMISSION AND GOT A PART OF THEIR LAND PLAN, THE CITY IN THIS PROJECT WOULD RECEIVE MORE FUNDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SO WE COULD GET MORE OF AN 80% FUNDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A PART OF AN AIRPORT PROJECT VERSUS A ROAD PROJECT WHERE THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE having to come up with half of the funds for that. So I think, to your point, I think, yes, it would be better if it went back to the airport commission to get in their land plan to where we could go get more federal dollars, and it would be less of a burden on the taxpayer. And plus, I think it would allow the development of these parcels more flexibility to where the developer or the people who are going to occupy and develop the property are not restricted by a road that's already in a plan that's really not useful.

Yeah, so Mr. Mayor, with that, that's a great segue. I'd like to make a motion. It sounds like we don't have a time constraint. We don't really have anything to lose. So the motion is to send it back to the airport commission for 60 days if that's adequate time for that group to look at putting this road into that layout plan, and then to come to the city council with a recommendation.

Any further? Can I clarify one thing? Please. To do an airport layout plan amendment, that's gonna take longer. I think John left, but that's gonna take, oh, there you are. That's gonna take longer than 60 days.

on the airport layout. Road is already shown on the airport layout plan in a general location. Now, I know that it was in pre-agenda, there was a comment about the road splitting the triangle up there. This was laid out, I don't know, five or six years ago, and that was going to meet up with a future road that was going to come through the middle of Stamey Farm. So they were going to meet up. That's why that triangle split in half. But we can get with our consultant. We can move that and preserve that triangle. But yeah, I mean, As an airport director, this is my airport. This would benefit the airport tremendously. I know there's lack of funding, but if you could give us a couple of months maybe to go back to Raleigh and see if we can find some aviation funds to finish this road. Like I said, 60 days. If we can't do it, then we can't do it.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify exactly what we needed to do if the motion passes.

Any questions for John? Okay.

My question is going to be, how is this going to affect the current budget, though?

It shouldn't have an impact on the current budget because the money we have is the money we have. We don't know what the cost is going to be of the road in the economic development project. That's when the real issues will come to pass. But because we don't have any of that, and to be honest with you, We've been very part of the reason we're here tonight is because we've been unsuccessful in gaining the right of way needed. So to me, not the inability to get right of way is small compared to the ability to get the pink areas as well. So it's just going to get more difficult, in my opinion, and more expensive. So that's not to say don't do it.

That was our issue right away. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that was our issue in previous, you know, issue was the right away. So I guess what has changed from then to now?

Possibly, I suppose, possibly additional funding, which would help.

Just a note that we should have a second before we engage in discussion. I'll make a second.

Thank you. Sorry, Leah.

Yes, sir. And not to mention the previous council's promises road to the folks that live down there. So the point of the motion is just to buy a little bit more time just to and if we can't do anything, we can't we can hear that from the airport commission and then we can make that decision. So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

So previous council, just to clarify, we promised nothing with this project. So let's for the record, not within the city limits of Statesville.

Can't make promises.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion to take 60 days to try to find additional funding from outside sources? That's a poor way to say that, but anyway, sorry James. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, all right, motion is defeated. So do we now need a motion to, we need a motion now to act on the recommendation from staff, which would be to cancel the project for now.

I make a motion that we support the resolution. However, we add back into the airport commission that the land use plan for a road that could be used to obtain federal dollars to get a higher percentage in cost sharing we have a motion no second any questions on that I do with the plan that we just discussed what mr. Preston brought up so what we're saying is that going back and asking for funding would not be

A. Would not be beneficial to the city of Statesville to try to find more fundings for doors.

You're not going to get funding in 60 hours.

I'm asking questions. I know.

And I'm just I'm just I'm just saying it takes years to get this into a transportation planning cycle.

That's why it's important to get all the information right.

You're not going to do it. You're not going to do it because I didn't know that you're not going to do it in 60.

So I'm in agreement with that now that I know. Thank you. It's going to take longer than 60 days.

I also support Mr. Jones' motion because where this road is laid out may not be the best location for the further development of this. Having sat in on some of the airport commission's meetings, we have one of the opportunities to have one of the most important regional airports here. And currently, the road is, as was mentioned earlier, was laid out under a previous transportation plan that had it meeting with a different road. So if nothing else, it comes out on 70 in the wrong place entirely. It bisects a large piece of property that would be developable on. And then further up, it may also pose similar issues. When this gets developed, either by a private developer or by the city, we can better position the road if we pass this amendment right now so that we can make sure to build the right things in the right places at the right time around the airport to further support their growth. not in a short-term way, but in a long-term way that's intentional to bring jobs and to bring taxable property into the city. And so this additionally frees up $2 million that we have already had allocated for either land acquisition or any other projects to support the airport as well. So from a long-term perspective, approving this motion is the right thing for the airport, the right thing for Statesville, and the right thing for the economic development of the city going forward.

This is the reason why I say when we get information, some people may have history of some things, but everybody may not have that knowledge. So you're going to be based on what you know. But when you bring it out in this matter, you give everybody an opportunity to be able to understand a little bit in depth. And I appreciate this from the council, Mr. Jones, to my brother Trey. You know, I appreciate that, Mr. Pressley, because this is what we do. This is how we make the best decision that we possibly can as a council. And I appreciate you all doing that. We should have done it before I said something, but I still said it.

And it was on the consent agenda, and that was good governance to get it onto the true agenda. So thank you very much. Okay, we have an amended motion to cancel the current relocation of Bethlehem Road, but to go back to the Airport Commission and ask them to add a road to their current plan, or to their plan as they go forward. So that'll allow John to go ahead and pursue additional funding from federal and state sources. Is that close enough? Okay. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, folks. That's good governance. Okay. The last thing we have was item D on the consent agenda, which has been moved. to the agenda, the main agenda, and that's to consider approving the second reading of an ordinance of annexation petition AX2606, Turnersburg Highway, filed by Thomas Daunton of Quick Trip Corporation for six parcels located at the intersection of Turnersburg Highway and Interstate 77.

And, Mayor, if I may, we'd actually like the rezoning to go first. So if that is not approved, then they would like to withdraw the annexation.

Okay. Does everybody understand? Okay, so go ahead and make your presentation.

So Councilwoman Pfeiffer reached out to staff asking for a clarification on the proposed conditions, specifically removing truck stop and travel plaza as a permitted use on the site. And I believe she wanted to speak about that now.

Yeah, I sure do. So with the Lowe's Distribution Center north on the Tommel Mill Road exit, if anyone has been up into that area on the interstate, you will see that there is quite a bit of truck parking along the sides of the interstate and the exit ramps because of the fact that the rest area up there is full and overwhelmed with truck activity in that area overnight because they cannot deliver until the next morning. So on another board that I sit on, we had an issue come up UP OFF OF TOMA MILL ROAD WHERE A TRUCK STOP HAD PURCHASED SOME PROPERTY UP THERE AND NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR TRUCK PARKING AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE RESIDENTS WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF AT THE TIME IT WENT TO THE COMMISSION COUNTY COMMISSION AND OF COURSE IT WAS DENIED So the plan that they've got for the quick stop here is great. I think that plan is wonderful. But the issue that I brought up was the land, the 14 acres that is bundled into this request that will be before with some of the restrictions. And 14 acres, just to give you an idea, the Wilco truck stop down in Troutman, is on seven and a half acres. The Loves truck stop here in Statesville is also on 14 acres. So my concern there was to have a truck stop that the public didn't have input on and we as a city council didn't have input on because once a by-right zoning moves forward, then it is hard to get that stopped. So Erica reached out to the applicant and I will let you pick it up from there as far as what they have considered.

Sure, so we did speak with the applicant today. Mr. is here this evening representing the applicant. And we worked through striking or adding to the list of prohibited uses, truck stop and travel plaza, and then just clarifying with a new condition, condition 7, that would expressly approve the following two uses, eating establishments, which is the Arby's that already exist, and a gas station convenience store, which is the proposed quick trip. And then it also further states that the use of gas station convenience store meets the definition in our UDO and is therefore not a truck stop travel plaza. There will be no on-premise showers and no more than five designated overnight parking spaces for tractor trailers or heavy trucks. So that should alleviate any concerns for the quick trip or that future site. Our future land use plan does designate this area as a mixed use sort of area. And so it would be staff's recommendation to add in this condition, which restricts that more commercial, heavy, intense use from this location. Thank you.

Any additional questions for Ms. Martin? Okay, do we have a motion to make the revisions?

I make a motion, Mr. Mayor, to approve the resigning request with the revisions that the staff has brought before us tonight. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much, Ms. Martin.

So now you do need a motion for the annexation.

Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion for the considering approving of the second reading of the annexation for the quick trip. Second.

Is that descriptive enough, Leah?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. So... We have no advisory board meetings, any other business. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. We have a motion, second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.