City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the meeting to order of the Wilmington City Council. I'd like to welcome all those who are with us here this evening and all those who are watching us at home. Thank you for taking an interest in your government at this time. I'd like to call on Sergeant Ron Evans of the Wilmington Police Department. If you'll come forward to please give us our invocation. If everyone will stand and remain standing afterwards for the Pledge of Allegiance. Sergeant, welcome.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council. Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we first and foremost thank you for this day. We thank you for your continued grace and your continued mercy that you'll bestow upon us day in and day out. We ask for your protection from the seen and the unseen. Continue to hold us close to your heart and cradle us in your arms. I ask that you continue to touch the hearts and the minds and give wisdom to this council as they prepare to make more decisions that will ultimately be beneficial for the citizens of Wilmington. We pray this prayer in your son's name. Amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have one presentation of recognition, this presentation this evening, and I'd just like to recognize Ms. Ann Marie Petroff of the UNCW College of Health and Human Services, proclaiming, naming May 20th, 2026, as Clinical Trials Day. So Ann Marie, if you wanna meet me at the front. Bring the entire council. Bring the, Ann Marie, you wanna bring the group up here? Yeah, well, this is our group, our professional group. I know this guy. I've seen you around once or twice. City of Wilmington North Carolina Proclamation reads, whereas Clinical Trials Day is observed annually on May 20th to honor the first recorded clinical trial and recognize the importance of ethical, well-conducted research in advancing medicine and public health, and whereas Wilmington, a historic port city shaped by the sea, acknowledges early clinical research efforts like James Lynn's 1747 Scurvy Study, which showcased systematic investigations' role in health improvements. And whereas communities benefit from research conducted with rigor, transparency, and ethics leading to better health outcomes, increased access to innovations, and a skilled workforce. And whereas the University of North Carolina Wilmington leads regional clinical research education through undergraduate and graduate programs that foster innovation and trial conduct. and whereas UNCW's clinical research program integrates teaching, applied research, and partnerships with healthcare and pharmaceutical entities to develop student skills, ethical judgment, and regulatory knowledge supporting Wilmington's growing life science sector in preparing for future healthcare challenges. Now, therefore, on behalf of the entire Wilmington City Council, I, Mayor Bill Safford, do hereby proclaim May 20th, 2026 as Clinical Trials Day in the City of Wilmington. I hope you don't put me in one, but if you do, let me know. So with this, I'm going to turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor and council members. We appreciate you recognizing UNCW's clinical research program, which has been in existence for 22 years, and the support that we provide our community in clinical research and in the global clinical research industry. It's really the backbone of medical development and quality of life advancements, especially in our growing region of southeastern North Carolina. So we appreciate you recognizing this tonight.

We appreciate everything you folks do for us. Hopefully Thursday we may have some good news about a medical school too at USCW, which would also tie in great with what you folks are doing. So congratulations. Give them a big hand, everybody. Thank you. That brings us to our next item of business, which is our consent agenda, items one through six. What is the wishes of council in respect to the consent agenda? Or does any council member like to see one separately? We have a motion to approve Council Member Andrews Second by Councilmember Santaguida. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That item passes unanimously. That brings us to our next item of business, which is our public information segment. We have a segment that is set aside for 30 minutes and is limited to three minutes per speaker. We have nine speakers that have signed up to speak with us this evening. Our first speaker is Rebecca Lilly, a non-city resident to fund a low barrier community care and outreach programs in Wilmington. Is Ms. Lilly here? Our next speaker is Mr. E.J. Hanley, a city resident talking about Greenfield Lake Park. Oh, Ms. Hanley.

Good evening. On January 3rd, 2026, I spoke to you about the poor condition of Greenfield Park's 4.8-mile asphalt multi-use trail. It has several sections of broken pavement and root upheaval. A person self-propelling a manual wheelchair cannot ride completely around this park, nor can a person using a battery-powered wheelchair. On February 20th, my husband and I met with Amy Beatty and Sally Thigpen. On March 3rd, Sally Thigpen and Doug Lewis walked the asphalt trail with us. During this walk with my husband, He told them an interesting incident that occurred on the trail near the Solista Independent Living Community. A person using a power wheelchair became stuck in a break in the trail's pavement. It took them several attempts of moving their wheelchair back and forth and back and forth before they were able to get onto a smoother part of that trail. A few days after our walk, that pavement break was repaired. And I would like to thank Amy Beaty, Sally Thigpen, and Doug Lewis for their service to our city. They are caring and dedicated employees. But to continue, I would also like to point out that there is no ADA curb cut for the Solista community residents to access the trail. The existing curb cut is quite literally a very small cut in the curb with a little bit of asphalt laid down for the transition. On March 10th of this year, I received an email from Sally Figpen stating that some capital funding became available and the resurfacing project would begin in July 2026. However, the allocated amount is $55,000. This will repair a minimal amount of what needs to be addressed. My request is for the city to prioritize additional funding for the trails resurfacing. As you know, due to weather and use, the trail will continue to degrade and the cost of resurfacing will only become more expensive. It is my dream that in my lifetime, Greenfield Park will look like the place you remember, Mayor Saffo, when you were a boy riding that train in the park. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Next speaker is Angie Hill, family promise of the Lord Cape Fear, a city resident, with the removal of deed restrictions. Ceil.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Angie Hill and I'm the executive director of Family Promise of the Lower Cape Fear, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping families experiencing homelessness and housing instability in our community. Founded in 1996 and originally named Wilmington Interfaith Hospitality Network, Family Promise of the Lower Cape Fear works alongside families during some of those difficult times in their lives. Our goal is simple, but the work is complex to support families and moving from crisis to stability and ultimately into independent, sustainable housing. I'm here today to discuss the property at 709 Dawson Street, which is currently subject to a deed restriction. The city owned the property and foreclosed on it in 2008. Family Promise was awarded the home through a community development RFP process since our organization aligned with the city's focus on housing for low-income individuals and families. For over 18 years, Family Promise has used the property as part of our program, including shelter services and affordable housing rent for families. For the past 10 years, Ms. Arlashon Davis and her son, Stashon, have been part of Family Promise, first in our shelter program, and then for the past nine years as a renter and resident at 709 Dawson Street. As our organization has grown, we have remained focused on aligning our resources with our mission and community needs, taking a thoughtful look at this property and supporting Ms. Davis's journey toward home ownership. We've worked closely with Ms. Davis to explore viable options for her to purchase the home, and we've found that viable option in the city of Wilmington's home ownership pool. And we're proud to announce that she has been approved for HOP funding. The Family Promise Board of Directors unanimously voted to support the sale of the home below market value in order to make home ownership for Ms. Davis possible. During our due diligence, we found that the property is subject to a deed restriction requiring it to remain a rental unit for low and moderate income households. We were informed through the housing program and city attorney's office that the only mechanism to remove the deed restriction is action by the city council. We are bringing this forward early to ensure transparency ahead of a future formal vote. Approval of this request would fulfill Ms. Davis's dream of home ownership, create generational wealth for her family, and maintain the stability they have built for over a decade. Thank you for your time and consideration as this matter advances towards a future vote, and for your support in creating an affordable and realistic pathway to Mrs. Davis's home ownership.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Ms. Arlishon Davis, who is a city resident, to discuss a hold on the deed to the property. Is Ms. Davis here?

Good evening. My name is Olashawn Davis and I'm the current resident of 709 Dawson Street. As Ms. Angie Hill said, I have lived in the house for over nine years. This is my home. This is the place that my son Stashawn and I built our lives together. I worked for Food Lion for 15 years and have worked hard to take care of myself and my family. I'm excited about getting to do something. I'm excited about getting to do something I've always dreamed of, becoming a homeowner. I'm proud to share that I have been approved assistance through the HOP program. I have also completed home buyers classes and did everything to prepare for the responsibility of owning a home. For the first time, I have the opportunity to make this house my permanent home and provide my son with a stable future as well. This home means everything to me. I don't see it as temporary. I see it as my forever home. Thank you for your time and consideration. No, thank you for your time and for considering what this home means to me and my family. Thank you. Have a good day.

Meredith, can you bring that deed forward to us at some point in time in the future so we can help these folks out get to her home?

Yes, sir. We just needed direction from council that you wanted to remove the deed restriction.

I think you have a consensus here. Thank you.

Will do.

Okay. Our next speaker number is Ms. Sonya Benetton Patrick, a non-city resident who was speaking to us about the Citizens Review Board. Ms. Patrick.

Good evening. My name is Sonya Bennington Patrick. I currently chair the Southeastern Region of the National Black Leadership Caucus. And thank you for listening and allowing me to speak. On May 18th, we were honored to celebrate the 22nd birthday of a shining star whose light was tragically ended. by the hands of law enforcement here on March 8th in Wilmington, North Carolina. Law enforcement cannot be judge, jury, and executioner. The system has to change, and we demand a system that values justice, accountability, and compassion, sparing families from unbearable pain inflicted by those sworn to protect. Alberto was unarmed at the time of the incident. He was a loving son. devoted cousin and cherished friend. His life was precious and his memory inspires us to strive for change. This is why I think the city needs a citizens review board. This will build trust in law enforcement and will reveal appeals by citizens who filed complaints and depositions imposed by the chief of police. The board exists in Charlotte, North Carolina, and other places in the United States, and they have a model that you can follow. The board would also consist of the city manager, city council, concerned citizens. The system has to change. There are too many lives taken. And it's very rarely an officer even has to use his gun. So we need to look at this seriously because it impacts too many lives. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Next speaker is Robin, a city resident, a walkable and well-fed city. Robin here.

Hi there, thank you all for being here. I recognize it's kind of a new council, so I feel like it's my civic duty to bring issues to you. So my area of concern is the food desert problem in our city. We have a food desert on the north side and we have a food desert on the south side. The north side food desert is such a long standing one that we have data. says people who live in those neighborhoods live 17 years fewer in their life and like the fact that we know that just kind of goes to show how long and how severe this problem has been present. They're hungry and I know that there was a Publix but I'm on their side and thinking that this is inappropriate whenever there's people here in the community who are dedicated and wanting to feed each other power in our own hands. having an outside company come in and determine what's best for the community. It's never going to actually meet our needs. Um, so I just wanted to bring attention back to that. Your citizens are hungry and it's not a coincidence. I don't think you know that certain populations are always the ones that are going without nutrition. Certain populations are always the ones that are going unable to walk to the store. So it's really important, especially as the budget's coming up. I know next year is also on the table, but people are hungry every day. And yes, thank you for being here. Thank you for caring. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Next speaker is Nathaniel Burton, a city resident and justice for Beto.

It's been two months and 11 days since WPD murdered Alberto Espinoza Sierra less than a mile from here off of 2nd and Market. Some of us were there yesterday celebrating and honoring what should have been his 22nd birthday. This was an innocent unarmed man and an obvious case of mistaken identity. They caught the man they were looking for that night. Since then, there has been no accountability, no officers named, released, and little to no communication with the family. Nearly four months ago, Officer Daugherty, an SRO at DC Virgo, used excessive force on a seven-year-old disabled black student. She had no SRO training before being placed in the K-8 school. About a week after the excessive force used, she was moved to a middle school just down the street. and was not removed until the father of the student released a public statement. Neither incidents have had the body cam footage released, and neither families have gotten justice. These are not the first cases of brutality from WPD and the New Hanover County Sheriff's Department and will not be the last. Police need to be held accountable for the murder and brutality of our civilians. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Next speaker is Genesis Espinoza Sierra, non-city resident, requesting justice for Alberto Espinoza Sierra.

On May 18, 2004, my mother gave birth to her first baby boy, Alberto Espinoza Sierra, named after my father. Yesterday we would have been celebrating his 22nd birthday, but instead of cutting cake and hanging up party streamers, we spent that day at his grave. On March 8th, my brother was murdered by the WPD and the Sheriff's Department. Two months have passed since my brother's death, and we still have not received any justice. Instead, we are asked to wait patiently as the investigation continues. And my family and I have been patient. Tell me, what would you do if this was your brother or your son instead? My family has tried to remain more than reasonable. However, we continue to advocate for these officers to be charged. Since the last time I spoke at the city council, I have contacted two eyewitnesses. These witnesses stated, seeing the officers involved kicked my brother's lifeless body and proceed to laugh. Tell me, what exactly is funny about this situation? What's so funny about my brother's death? What's so funny about making a mother spend her Mother's Day mourning her baby boy? This kind of behavior is completely inappropriate and shows how little these officers valued my brother's life. And I ask, why even give my brother CPR? Why continue to mutilate his body and crush his ribs when he was shot to his head? One of these witnesses even states that they saw my brother suffer many beatings to the head by an individual named David Corpus prior to my brother getting into his vehicle. This individual was training under an MMA gym and has prior assault charges that he pled guilty to. So I asked, why was he not charged for the assault he inflicted on my brother? Rafael Martinez is being charged with the shooting of David to protect my brother. The witness then states, my brother already had blood leaking from his face, probably suffered from a concussion and fear in his eyes as officers chased him to his car armed with weapons. My brother told this witness, I do not want to die. They're saying I shot someone. I didn't. I didn't. I just want to go home. Please take me home. This witness was unable to help him, so he continued to run to his car. And so the police, instead of aiding my brother, chose to hunt him down and kill an injured and scared young man. 610 people have signed a petition to have these officers arrested. They do not want my brother's death to be in vain. My brother's blood is on the hands of this city. I ask you to take a stand and admit his death was not necessary, a cruel mistake. Hold the WPD and Sheriff's Department accountable. The Wilmington people are scared of this law enforcement. The Hispanic community is scared. Please provide some comfort to not just me and my family, but to the very people you promised to protect. Silence is acceptance.

The last speaker this evening is Mr. Tom Harris, Budget Priorities and Direction of the City. Mr. Harris.

I'll be speaking about the budget at the public hearing. So what I'm going to talk about is Living Hope Day Center. I met with Christine and Tony today, and they've only got enough money to last until about mid to late June. And they're only open now because I and some of my friends donated $20,000 to them to allow them to stay for the last six weeks. I guess we're at a crossroads in terms of what our priorities are as a city because they're not asking for a lot of money, but they do a lot of good. So I hope that y'all as a council can figure out how to help them. We've stabilized them for the last six weeks of their existence. if the city and the county don't step up. I'd met with Mary Vale some weeks ago at the endowment and she said for the endowment to help them that she needs to see the city and the county and private business at the table. And I'm willing to donate more money to be the private business at the table. but we need to get the city and the county at the table. And I did speak with Chris Coudray this afternoon, and he's taking it to the county commissioners. So I hope that y'all will consider it and can get together with the county, and then we go to the endowment and see what we can do. They do a lot of good. And I'm actually going to finish a minute and a half early tonight. This segment, maybe not the next one.

Thank you. Okay, this concludes the public information segment. Our next item of business are our public hearings. Item PH1A is the ordinance making appropriations to the general fund, grant projects, financial plans, enterprise fund, debit service fund, special tax district, and convention center for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. I will also note that this is a public hearing only. We will not be taking a vote at this time. We're here to hear from the community and from the public. At this time, I'd like to recognize the City Manager, Ms. Salt. Ms. Salt?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. We do want to go ahead and provide a recap. This will be a little bit of a repeat for council members. But given the importance of this budget, we did want to run through the details for the benefit of the audience before we open it up to public comments. So the budget that we are proposing for FY27 totals just over $350 million. That is about a 14% increase over FY26. A summary of the revenues that we are anticipating for FY27. Our property tax performance is expected to be less than we were anticipating. We went through those details last time, but this really centers around more appeals than what we're expected through last year's revaluation process. And so the year over year growth, we expect to only be about .79% for next year. When you have slower than expected growth, then you have slower than expected increases in your tax base. That does create downstream pressure on the overall budget because that is one of the few levers that we have to be able to raise required revenue to complete our operations. We're also expecting moderated sales tax growth. We saw huge gains during COVID and in some of the years past, but that has really slowed. And we expect next year that it will only be modest growth. And of course, international economic uncertainty and the conditions that are going on around the world continue to have an impact. When we look at our overall revenue capacity as a city, historically reappraisal years were not fully leveraged. That's certainly okay, but that does start to catch up when you're no longer able to cover the expenses that you're trying to because you've just tried to keep it as low as possible year after year. Those factors come together that in this budget, we are proposing a 5.75 cent increase to our property tax rate of that 5.34 cents is dedicated to the general fund and 0.41 cents would be dedicated specifically to our capital program, which builds large capital projects. This is just an illustration of that untapped potential that I mentioned on the prior slide. In the blue gray at the bottom, that is the revenue neutral amount if the tax rate is rolled back to a revenue neutral rate at every revaluation. The pink in the middle was what was adopted by councils in those budget years. And then the tan at the back represents the potential based on the increased values of property in Wilmington over those years. It's a historical look at property tax rate for the city of Wilmington only. I wanna be clear that this is the city's tax rate. And if you are paying the city's tax rate, you're also paying the county's tax rate, but this is ours that we set. It has been as high as 49.84 cents per 100, as recently as FY21. And then you see during every revaluation that is reassessed and set at a different rate depending on the needs at the time and what is happening with property values. So after last reval in FY26, the tax rate was lowered from 41.75 cents down to 28.25 cents per hundred. And as a reminder, the proposed there at the bottom for FY27 would bring it back up to 34 cents per hundred. One penny in the city of Wilmington generates about $3.5 million. And again, of that, about 73% of those pennies are dedicated to public safety. This is without a doubt a public safety focused budget. It is where we have put our efforts. It is where we are trying to invest the vast majority of our dollars. We do have other staff that also have needs and other departments that have needs. But 73% of this tax rate, we can directly attribute back to police and fire. Within that tax rate, there's also 0.67 cents dedicated to affordable housing. 5.51 cents for debt service on capital projects that we have already built or need to build. And then a CIP maintenance fund to make sure that what we are building stays maintained. These are the property tax impacts if the full 5.75 cents were to be approved. Again, these are the City of Wilmington's portion of the tax bill. But for a property assessed at $250,000, it would be a $12 a month increase or $144 a year. At a home valued at $445,000, which is the median value of a home in Wilmington, it would be an increase of $21 a month or $256 a year. And if you have a more highly valuable home at $800,000, for example, the increase would be $38 a month or $460 a year. As a reminder, we have seen the new Hanover County Board of Commissioners approve their budget since we last met, and they will be remaining at 30.6 cents per 100 for FY27. The budget drivers that really are putting the pressure on the budget, they really fall into six buckets. We talked about public safety, but a living wage is really a part of this. And this is really about making our salaries competitive by adopting a living wage philosophy. That living wage philosophy would really set a floor for what the lowest salaries would be for City of Wilmington employees. And we use that metric because a living wage is what is considered necessary to be able to afford to pay your rent, to buy food, to have healthcare and childcare. And that is meant to be what somebody can work during a normal full-time job. It does reflect the local cost of living here in this area, and it is set all across the United States, so it varies depending on where you live. It is not meant to be a one size fits all benchmark. We also had this discussion last Friday, but some of the desire to focus on aligning our pay scales with the living wage also centers around the fact that it tends to be fairly stable from year to year. It may tweak up a little bit or down a little bit, but you're not gonna get typically significant market swings the way that you might with some other ways of looking at pay that helps us be able to continue to afford this and keep up year after year, which would certainly be the goal. When we look at what we have done in prior years, we have done our best to keep up as a city. Council has absolutely invested significant dollars in pay increases for staff in prior years. Unfortunately, both CPI, which is inflation, as well as the area median income have vastly outpaced the increases that have been given dating back to 2017. The tan bar in front are city adjusted salaries year over year. The blue bar is CPI or inflation compounded year over year. And then the red bar is what 60% of AMI was year over year and how much it has increased. And here's really why it matters. We want to be able to maintain equity, competitiveness, and affordability as regional costs of living change over time. We ask our employees to put in work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They are out in all elements. They respond at all hours of the day. And making sure that we have well-qualified, well-trained staff to be able to respond to whatever the need is is vitally important in all of our departments. We believe that adopting this pay philosophy will increase retention and reduce recruitment costs that will have higher engagement and productivity. And in time, you end up with a more experienced workforce and increased ability to recruit top talent because you don't have the turnover that often comes in lower paid positions. If they can go somewhere that's gonna pay more for the same work, you're very likely to lose them before too long. We do believe that it will also strengthen the local economy because it will increase employee spending power, encourage corresponding wage adjustments across the region, and it will realign our pay scales to be competitive and help establish us as an employer of choice. The area median income right now for a single person household is $75,885 a year. 60% of that is 45,531. Currently 27% of the city's funded positions earn less than that. And people actually on the job, 138 of them are 13% of our entire workforce. When you look at 80% of AMI, which is the cutoff to be able to qualify for subsidized housing, $60,708 a year. 69% of the city's funded positions start lower than that, which means if they are a single family household and that is their single point of income, they would qualify for subsidized housing. Of the employees who currently work for us, 517 or 51% earn less than that. The impact of this living wage strategy, we were very intentional in how we put together the plan to focus on frontline staff and cap it for higher earners because we want to be driving these dollars down to the frontline staff who need it the most. If implemented, 100% of the city's full-time staff would now earn at least 45,531, which is still a difficult amount to live on, but it is certainly positive movement from where we are. And 74% of our full-time staff would now earn at least $60,708. Looking specifically at first responders, which make up about 65% of our workforce, it would bring 100% of them up to 60% AMI and 70% of them up to at least 80% AMI. Right now, only 39% of them make more than that. It is very expensive. We understand that. And that is really just due to how much lower we are from these thresholds that we're trying to meet. So it is expensive to implement. We recognize that. Total cost would be $16.7 million with $14.2 million of that coming from the general fund. That is all in to include taxes and retirement benefits and all of that that have to come whenever you pay somebody a wage. The impact that this then has is it translates to competitive salaries when we are out recruiting for these positions. The city's historic approach has been to be kind of middle of the road when it comes to salaries, yet the expectations of workload on our staff are significantly higher than many of our surrounding neighbors. So right now, the starting wage for a police officer is $52,154 a year. under this proposal it would increase that wage to $62,593. We are still gathering the data. Every other community is also still going through their budget process in terms of what they're planning to do for FY27, but we do feel confident that this certainly brings us much closer to the top of the stack, if not still at the top of the stack, and really conveys that we are looking for the best, we will hire the best, and we want to keep the best. Similarly with firefighters, also middle of the road right now, $48,368 is the starting pay. This would increase their pay to $58,000 and change. Again, puts them to the top of the stack, which is where we'd like to be based on the expectations of the work. Other pressures in this budget, we have about $2 million in additional public safety needs. It includes fire mission ready gear, training needs, protective equipment, mental health services for our police and fire. We have a fire fleet repair and maintenance budget that we absolutely exhaust every year. So being able to better fund their equipment and their vehicles to make sure that they're put back on the road in a timely order. And additional investigative technology for our police department. Additional budget pressures, these are ones that are really kind of beyond our control. We're looking at $3.9 million total in health insurance costs. That was after going out to bid and coming up with as competitive of a plan as we could. That is what is happening across the nation. So this is not a Wilmington problem, but it is something that we do need to absorb. We have about $1.4 million in insurance premiums, contract increases that are baked into the budget. $736,000 in increased retirement contributions. That is separate from any change to living wage. This would just be based on existing salaries that we have today. The state of North Carolina retirement system sets those rates. They tell us what we have to pay and we send them a check. We've also seen significant rates in our utility bills, just like everybody else has, and we're looking at 535,000 more dollars in FY27 than are currently budgeted in FY26, just to keep the lights on and the water flowing. Wave Transit has also requested an increase to their budget. There's a $116,000 subsidy that is part of our typical contract with them, but then they're also requesting a $800,000 total enhancement, but 400,000 of it to be paid by the city of Wilmington 400,000 by the county to help realign some of their routes, some of their planned service to make sure that they are able to get the buses to the stops on time to be reliable so that the folks who need or want to use that service can count on it to be there when they need it. Additional safety-focused strategies that are in this budget includes an IT security officer. This will help make sure that all of our systems are as protected as possible against cybersecurity attacks, phishing. We are constantly being hit, making sure that our employees are as trained as possible and all of the protections are in place. And then additional recreation center coverage to ensure that we have at least two staff members at every recreation center when they're open. Right now their staffing model does not allow for that and we believe that it is imperative to make sure that nobody is out working at a facility alone. taken interim steps in the short term to reallocate staff. So that is already addressed as of today. But these are folks grabbing a computer and helping staff a desk right now. So we are looking for permanent additional funding to be able to address that as we move forward. On the capital improvement side, $31 million is needed to close the funding gap for identified capital projects. Many of these are what we would consider non-negotiable. These are bridges, these are important trails that the city has identified for years as needing to be delivered multi-use paths, roundabouts. So we understand that that is a big ask, but this does allow us to complete our CIP plan over the next two years. So this would be increasing funding once, and then that perpetually creates new revenue every year that we will be able to complete these projects. And then in two years, we would start a new plan with council's adoption. Additional enterprise fund highlights, there is a slight increase to our stormwater fee. That is something that happens every year. It'll go up from $8.97 to $9.27 a month. Solid waste is balanced and we will not have to have general fund transfers in order for that to be balanced. Our parking fund is also balanced and it does include a $375,000 modernization project for elevators. That is something that is becoming required for all elevators. Even if they are in working order to allow them to continue to be maintained, they have to be modernized. And on the Gulf Fund, we are proposing a $2 greens fee increase for Muni to allow them to be balanced. Their operating expenditures and capital needs have just outpaced what the current greens fee generates for them. But with that small increase, they will be back to where they need to be. We are proposing all of this while we are also realigning the work that we do. It is not business as usual in the city of Wilmington, and we are focusing on delivering efficient services to the entire community as one city. We did find some position savings as we went through the alignment, but otherwise we are focused on streamlining customer contact, improving communication, having more consistent and standardized service delivery, operational efficiencies, making sure that we're reducing duplications, streamlining workflows, having faster implementation and execution, and also finding financial efficiencies. As much as this is a large ask, we have whittled down a lot of what we do and we're gonna continue to be doing that work because the realignment just went into effect in March. but we're already hearing great feedback from members of the community, from nonprofit organizations that we partner with to be in some of our facilities, that the amount of time that is taking to respond to requests has decreased, that things are being fixed kind of the first time that they come out, and overall they have seen improvements in the level of service. And my response to them was, that's wonderful to hear, but we're also just getting started. And so we want that to become the norm that people come to expect from everything that we do, not a pleasant surprise. Also included in this budget is transportation mobility funding for Vision Zero that is made up of $20 of the vehicle tax and generates about $1.8 million a year that will allow us to prioritize projects throughout the city that will increase particularly pedestrian safety but also motorized vehicle safety with the goal of reducing serious accidents that cause injury or death down to zero is the goal of that program. We also have continued partnerships with nonprofit organizations that will be supported by an RFP process that will come back to council this fall. And that is a small increase over FY26 proposed at $783,000 for FY27. A couple of updates. We met last Friday, we were there all day, and had a lot of great discussion. There are a lot of questions that council put forward that we continue to research those. We will have those back to you just as soon as they are available. But a couple of items did rise up to what we would consider the consensus level to go ahead and remove. So we did remove the city council pay increase, which is equivalent to $31,271 in the FY27 budget. as well as one item of police equipment that was about $29,000. We're currently exploring a five year replacement cycle for certain computer hardware that if that makes sense, there'd be a little bit of cost savings there. Council also asked us to evaluate a potential contribution to the film partnership of North Carolina. And we're also evaluating some alternative implementation strategies for the living wage pay philosophy that council has asked us to bring back to them. So all that work continues. We will meet again at the end of this month. But at this time, that concludes my presentation. So I will step aside for any public comments.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm going to set the public hearing for 30 minutes. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. The city clerk will buzz you. You'll see it on the screen there. This time I'm going to open up the public hearing and ask anybody Council Chair would like to speak at this time.

Do I need to identify myself or do you all know me by now? Okay. Living wage. You know, it sounds good. But those of us who own small businesses can't pay our employees what City Manager Hawke is proposing, be the floor of the city wage. I sat through the budget session all day on Friday, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood her to say that the county had a floor of around $21, $22. And I spoke with Chris Coudray today, that's the reason I called him, to talk about that and Living Hope. The county floor is 17 an hour, that's what Chris told me. So we're looking at jumping over $4 above the county. I'm not opposed to paying people what they can earn in the private market, but I don't think that the city should be using our tax dollars to pay people more than they're gonna make in the private market or more than working for the county. I mean, we all see the stuff in the news about the economy not being good. And I can attest to that. I don't make any money in Wilmington. I make my money in the western part of the state in different businesses. But Wilmington is a hard place to make money. And I don't mind, you know, bringing money down here to pay the tax increase. And I'm actually for a tax increase. But I want the council to have a real deep discussion about what the real needs of the community are. That's all I ask. I don't mind the tax increase. And as far as tax increase, I know we keep hearing the 14%, but if you do the math, the actual city tax rate is going up 20%. It's not 14, it's 20. That's a huge increase. I would just advocate having the manager and her staff look at position by position. What positions within the city Are we unable to fill because we're not paying enough? Raise the pay to be able to fill those positions. What specific positions, not a global thing about let's raise all positions, what specific positions are we unable to retain people? Raise those salaries, raise that pay rate. But act like we do in the real business world. I've been running companies since I was in my 20s. But one reason I'm qualified to speak on this stuff is I've also been a blue collar worker. I've lived in a single wide trailer. I'm almost out of time. I have lived in a place where you had to use an outhouse. I've had roommates to make ends meet. I mean, when you're starting out I just don't think that starting out in some positions at 45 is real world and the right thing. I don't care if you raise my taxes 20%, but just use it where it really needs to be used. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else?

Not sure which mic is working, I guess. Laurel Taylor, Wilmington native, not a Wilmington resident. I will tell you that Like the last gentleman said, I think tax increase is fine here, but when you're using the 75% of the requested budget increase for police and other frontline services when teachers do not make a living wage. I'm a nurse, retired now, always a nurse, but when I thought about working here, It was one-third of what I could make, was making, and continue to make in Washington, D.C. Guess what? I didn't come here to work. Police? I don't know. There's a problem, as we've heard today, with a lot of the police training or... implementation of their training here. And I've not had a specific problem with them. But I will tell you why are we paying a sheriff's deputy might not be the city budget. I don't know. I don't care. A sheriff's deputy stands in our brand new project race library, scrolling his phone inside the front door of a sheriff inside our public library. Come on. I know why he told me why he's there and it was a totally ridiculous reason. So I'll leave that to you to figure out, but this is crazy. So I think that 75% on public safety sounds good, but your priorities are wrong. Living wage, people can't afford to live here. Luckily I can because I'm retired. I didn't make my money here or I wouldn't be here today. Thank you.

Next, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, city council members. My name's Tom Morgan. I live on Walnut Street in downtown Wilmington. I've lived in Wilmington for over 20 years. I am retired and live on a fixed income. I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed FY27 budget for the reason that a 20% increase in property tax is completely unacceptable. The proposed rate would raise my property tax by $380 a year. That, coupled with last year's reval and the increase last year for the county, My tax went up 500 last year, so now I'd be looking at $880 increase in my property tax if this is approved, which equates to $73 a month for me. I've looked at this budget, and I cannot believe it increases by $44 million from last year's budget, with a big portion of that going to provide pay raises for city employees. While I'm not opposed to paying city employees a living wage, I'm also in support of a living tax rate for taxpayers. Therefore, I support a phase-in of the pay increase over a three-year period funded with expenditure savings and much smaller tax increases over time. Also, I note that one of the ongoing initiatives of this budget is to continue funding for affordable housing in the community. However, a consequence of tax increases, especially one of this magnitude, makes housing less affordable in general. The resulting tax increase payments takes money out of the homeowner's pocket, and if they have a mortgage, increases to their escrow accounts. Also, renters are impacted because landlords will roll the increase in taxes into their rents and leases as soon as they can. If this budget is enacted, I predict that people who are retired and live on fixed incomes will be forced to sell their property and move to a more favorable tax rate community. The loss of long-term city residents will impact the character, spirit, and soul of this city, and that will be a big loss. Also, a budget with a huge increase in property tax, such as one that is proposed, is exactly why the North Carolina General Assembly is exploring legislation to curtail local government's ability to enact such. I support our lawmakers' initiative in this regard. To sum up, I recommend City Council direct City staff to reevaluate this budget, cut expenditures, and phase in the salary increase over a three-year period. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Hello, City Council. My name is Jordan Scott, and I'm the Volunteer Coordinator at Port City Harm Reduction. We are a community health hub that is affectionately known in the community as the little yellow house on Marcellar Street. Speaking specifically to this budget, we also, like Living Hope, are on the brink of having to shut down our doors. And regardless, we will continue to do what we have always done, even if it means going back to running out of the trunks of our cars, which is where we began. It is very disappointing to see a city council talk about priorities, and then completely ignore those priorities. I want to look specifically at the projected funds for the golf course. And I want you to understand that out of that $2,962,366, I could run a fully staffed day program for 14 months and that is everything, salaries, admin costs, program costs for 14 months. And I really need city council to understand what the impact will have on the city when both living hope and port city harm reduction has to close our doors because people make a lot of assumptions about the people that we serve. So I want to tell you about the people that we serve. We serve teachers who work for new Hanner county public school district. We also serve city workers. in all departments of the city because we have a food pantry, we have a clothing closet, we have a washer and dryer, we have a shower. and we operate on the one rule of if we have it and you need it, it's yours. We don't ask questions, we don't ask for ID, we don't ask for proof of residency. Anybody is able to walk in our doors at any time. On average, we serve at least 500 individuals a week and that is only operating Monday through Friday, 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. That does not count the individuals that we serve on our weekly street outreach. Your projected funds, the $475 from the opioid settlement funds, I want you to know I spend more than that out of pocket a month to fund our outreach work. That also pays for a wound care nurse that we bring out to provide wound care. I need you to understand that we serve the older adult population in Wilmington who was on a fixed income and their power has been shut off so they cannot take a shower and they cannot wash their clothes. The city is on the brink of collapsing and losing the very people that run this city. We have been fortunate to have so much community support, but to be honest, this isn't our problem to fix and we are tired. Please reconsider what those priorities really should be. Thank you.

Ms. Scott.

Ms. Scott. Ms. Scott, would you come share your email address with the city clerk? I'd like to follow up with you on the opioid funds. I'm the chairman of that joint committee and most of our funds are reflected in the county budget because we share funds, but I'm interested in fantastic. Okay. I would like to follow up with you. Thank you.

Next.

Good to meet you, Mayor, Mayor Pro Temp, members of council, city staff. Thank you for coming here, having this, and having the open hearing to talk about this. I represent, my name's Jordan Pett. I represent members of Local 129, which is Firefighters Union for the city of Wilmington. We're here in support of the budget and the living wage and everything that comes with it, all the safety aspects, the money going towards our apparatus to fix everything that happens to you on a daily basis. I was gonna do a speech or have something written down, but I figured if I can't really speak on it, then I shouldn't be writing it down. So I'd just like to bring up August 19th, the explosion that happened on News Center. At that time, we had multiple people injured. We had people who transported Chapel Hill. The city manager came out. That was within her first month or two, maybe. She went to Chapel Hill to check on that member. But these are things that the men and women of Wilmington Fire Department see every day. And we don't know. We got many in the room right now who we don't know. We work tomorrow. That could be another explosion. That could be our last day that we have. So with that, without making a living wage, trying to make ends meet. We work 900 hours more than a general employee who's working a 40-hour week, so we already do that. Many of us work second jobs just to make ends meet and still come work for the fire department. We love what we do. We love the citizens. Not a day goes by that we would change what our job is, what we'd want to do, but If we're not making a living at a certain point, people have to go look somewhere else to find a job that they can make a living, support their family, support the needs of their loved ones. So when we lose good men and women to go find a higher job, now we're starting over. We're getting somebody younger who's coming in, which we always need new young talent in the fire department. there goes experience too. So if we don't have experience, we can't have the firefighters on scene who can make those judgment calls to hopefully make the outcome of whatever the situation is better. So I bring up August 19th. That was a major one. It made national news. But there's plenty of calls that we go on that they don't make the news on a daily basis, between car accidents, CPR, whatever it may be. When somebody needs us, we always show up. So I think for... For us, from the union, we stand for the budget. And I would say, I would venture to guess, I know we have a lot of city employees in the room right now, I would venture to guess we stand in support of all city employees. So I just wanna say thank you for your time, staff, everyone who's worked on the budget, thank you for presenting it and going through, asking all the hard questions and working with the city employees and bringing morale and the hope back to the city employees that we've long needed. So thank you.

Next, anybody else? Anybody else? Okay. Madam Clerk, have you had any additional commentary?

No, sir, I have not.

Okay. Are there any further questions from council?

Mr. Mayor?

Yes, ma'am. Ms. Andrews?

I wanted to say that I appreciate the people who have come forward and talked about Living Hope Day Center and other organizations within the community that are serving our residents who have great need. I did bring up on Friday about something that's been near and dear to my heart that I've been talking about for the past few years. You know, when I first got on the council, I sat down with Mayor Sappho, who talked about we want to do something for the homeless. And in 2024, we did. We had two joint meetings with the county. And in between that time, City staff and county staff met with 25 service providers. We met with people with lived experience and we came up with the strategy for unsheltered homelessness in September of 2024. In August of last year, I had asked staff to put together a budget to implement that strategy to address unsheltered homelessness, which, by the way, talks about a day center being available full time. about low barrier shelters. About a month later, on September 9th, Mayor Saffo made a plea to staff to come up with land that the city owned that we could use for people who are experiencing homelessness. And last month, WHQR put out an article about the efforts that city staff is doing to make that happen. But what I don't see is I don't see anything about that in the budget. And I brought that up on Friday, and I spoke with the city manager about it yesterday. I really want to talk about this at our last budget session because as we know, if you don't have a timeline and you don't have a budget, you really don't have a project. You have a wish, you have a dream, but you really don't have a dedicated project. So I would really like to talk about that at our next budget workshop, and I would like to see something in the budget that reflects that priority.

Thank you.

Um, Council Member Santaguita.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for the City Manager. Um, I know we talked about this on Friday, but I think it would benefit, uh, folks in our community to understand why the implementation of a living wage is more than just raising the salaries before, below the floor to the floor, and why it's important to look across the organization at this implementation, if you don't mind.

Sure, appreciate the question. And before I get into that, Councilmember Andrews, I did have a conversation with Rachel Schuller about your request today. And we believe that there are opportunities to earmark some existing pots of money for that purpose that we can bring more information forward to you at the next work session. But we do have a plan for that. Thank you. Yep. As far as the question about living wage, when you raise the floor of your pay scale and that kind of becomes your new bottom, that is our frontline employees who are making that lowest wage, they are also skilled in what they do. But as you then look at the rest of the pay scale, as you have employees with other more advanced skills, additional certifications, their supervisors, as you kind of run up the entire gamut, if you just raise the floor without adjusting everybody else's salary, then it creates compression to where you have somebody essentially doing a a less skilled job for the same or similar amount, if not sometimes even more than somebody who has additional certifications or even their supervisor. And so you really need to look at the entire pay plan as sort of one unit that you want to move at once, otherwise you create those significant compression issues. that also then causes problem, not just with morale internally of an employee saying, well, why would I take a supervisor's job if I can not have all that extra responsibility and basically make the same amount of money, but it also then creates a lot of issue when you are recruiting for open positions Because of that compression, you may have somebody who applies who's very well qualified, has multiple years of experience. But you can't bring them in at a high enough amount because you're paying everybody in the organization to low of an amount. And so you can't bring them in making more cuz you've got employees who've given years of service to the city making a lower amount. Then you end up losing out on that applicant. And we have seen that time and time again where we go through an entire hiring process and we have posted a range and at the end of the day, they have said, well, I'm actually gonna need more than that in order to come and we're not able to offer that because of the internal equity that it would disrupt and they end up walking away or they may take the job and we get them here for six months and then they leave for a higher paying job. That has also happened on numerous occasions. And so we also have positions across the city in some of the higher bands that have been difficult to fill. Our positions when we compare them to the private sector, they do still pay lower. Some of them there isn't really a comparable, there's no police in the private sector. But accountants, HR managers, IT professionals, paralegals, these are folks who are choosing public service. And I think that they recognize that there's going to be a little bit of a difference. We're never going to fully match the private sector. But at the end of the day, if they can't pay their light bill with what we're paying and they can pay it when they're in the private sector, they're going to ultimately opt to take that private sector job or if a neighboring locality does pay more, they're going to leave us for that higher paying job. So this is about retention, but this is also about the ability to recruit and recruit the very best who want to come here. We have so many amazing amenities that naturally draw people, but then they look at the pay and they say, I can't make that work. And we're trying to change that.

Ms. Andrews, go ahead.

Thank you. Along those lines, we had a speaker who had asked about the golf course. Would you explain about enterprise funds and how some of these funds are segregated and we're not funding that out of the general fund?

Yes, so certain functions of the city are funded through what we call enterprise funds. And that means that the fees that are charged for that service then go into a special pot that is designated purely for that use. So stormwater fees as an example, all of the stormwater fees that you pay go into a stormwater fund. And then that funds everything that we do with stormwater. Same thing with golf. There is no money that is going into supporting the golf course that is from the general fund. It is all from golf user fees. So when they rent a cart, when they pay their greens fees, whatever the case may be, that all stays in a single golf fund. And so it is not something that we would take out and put toward any use, let alone say funding one of our nonprofit partners. I also want to add that the library deputies are county employees, not city employees. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions? Okay, Ms. Joyner.

I have a question for staff, and if you have the answer, I'd love it right now, but if not, you can research and get back to us. What is the cadence that we make that payment to Wave Transit? I'm curious about how much per, is it one lump sum that we give them and that plugs into their budget for the year, or are we paying on a monthly basis or a quarterly basis? I'm just curious about that and whether or not For some cost savings, it might be something that we could save until after hurricane season because generally we do our very best not to touch the general fund until after hurricane season if we do at all. If we could delay it past hurricane season and make that payout then through the general fund.

Okay, so I have been told that it is once a year at the beginning of the fiscal year so that they have those funds to be able to operate throughout the entire year. What we're looking at with the $400,000 is also not one-time funding. I understand. That will be annual funding that we would need a revenue source in future years.

I understand. There are no bad ideas when you're brainstorming.

Okay. Anybody else?

Okay.

We'll close the public hearing on item PH1A. Now we come to item PH1B, which is the ordinance making appropriations to the capital projects funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. Again, I'd like to recognize City Manager Hawke. Ms. Hawke.

Mr. Manager, I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, you don't have to do a separate public hearing since they're listed as A, B, and C. I believe that the city manager's already covered all three and the public hearing was intended to be for all three. So I think you're good to go.

So we're all three. So just go through each one of those particular items. So item PH1B, which is the ordinance making these appropriations to the capital projects funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. And then item PH1C is the ordinance amending various chapters of the City of Wilmington fee schedule for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. Mrs. Hawke has identified all of those in her presentation. Are there any other questions in respect to any one of these items since we've had the public hearing or in a public hearing?

Okay.

Madam Clerk, have you seen, have you heard any comments on any one of those, PH1B or PH1C?

No, sir, I have not. Okay.

So with that, I will close the public hearing on item PH1B. I will also close the hearing, public hearing on PH1C. Okay. That brings us to our next item of business, which is our ordinances. Item 01 is an ordinance amending Wilmington City Code Section 8-5 on criminal history background checks and or credit history checks required of applicants and employees. And at this time, I'd like to recognize our city attorney, Meredith Everhart. Ms. Everhart.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. This item came before you last time and there was clearly some need for some additional explanation. So I wanted to prepare a presentation to go over for you about what is being changed and what we're asking you to do tonight. So the question, first question, why are we changing this now? As I mentioned last time, it's part of the city attorney's work plan to do a comprehensive review and rewrite of the city code. Obviously, that's a long and kind of intensive process. We've already brought forth to you the changes to chapter one of the city code. You've already approved those. The plan in general is to go through the code in order. However, I wanted to allow for items that need to be addressed to be taken out of turn. And in discussions with the city manager, we had conversations about any items that we would like to see kind of be taken out of turn that had risen to the top and we wanted to go ahead and address. And in those discussions, this ordinance stood out as needing to be addressed out of turn for what we felt to be safety reasons. I wanted to clarify what is actually being changed in this ordinance. I know that most of you, if any of you were here when this ordinance was originally passed, some were here when it was most recently updated, but there are only three things that are actually being changed in this ordinance that we're asking you to change. Those three things are number one, that the criminal background checks would be required for all applicants for employment. Right now they are only just required for specific positions within the organization. So they would be required for all, I'm sorry, all final applicants for employment. So they are not required until after that offer for employment is made. So they'll be required for all final applicants of employment, not just for specific positions. The second thing is that they'll be required for current employees who are applying for a new position. So just as the applicants who are applying from outside, if you are the final applicant and are offered that job, they would have to do a criminal background check. If you are an internal candidate who is the one being offered that job, you would similarly have to do an updated criminal background check before you move into that new position. And again, this is only for final applicants to those positions, not all applicants. And then the third thing is that random criminal background checks would be performed on current employees. That is similar to random drug tests now, which we already do for employees. And so this would be random criminal background checks that would be performed in a manner similar to that in a random fashion. Those are the only three items that are being changed. We did talk a lot last time about credit history checks. I'll get into that shortly. Nothing about those, however, is being changed or asked you to be being changed from the previous ordinance. These are only three items that are being changed. So with regard to criminal background checks, the current ordinance, you can see the long, lengthy list of all the positions that criminal background checks are currently required for. Sworn and not sworn, fire and police, quote, anyone working with youth or supervising youth, and I've got that highlighted. I'll go back into some information about that on the next slide. Parks maintenance workers, anyone, you know, giving permits or volunteers for any youth programs, department directors, assistant directors, if you can create financial records, collect records. So basically you can see the whole list and what has to happen right now as it stands is that for all final applicants for employment who have been made that conditional offer, HR has to go through basically this list and through the ordinance and see do you fit in this category, do you fit in this category, and check to see whether they have to do a criminal background check on that person. So in the new ordinance, there would be no reason to do that. It's just if you're a final applicant for employment and you want to come work for the city, then you'll have to go through a background check, regardless of which position that you're in. The highlighted portion from the last time is one of the ones that has brought to light this issue and why we wanted to go ahead and get this taken care of. The quote, anyone working with youth or supervising youth. That includes for sure in the ordinance, recreation employees and quote, other employees in a position to implement or coordinate any program for the youth of the community. That seems self-explanatory. If you're creating a youth program, if you're working in a rec center, it seems obvious that you would want to check that for criminal background checks to protect with the idea towards protection of youth. However, it doesn't take into consideration employees in other departments who have contact with children during the course of their jobs. Our rec centers are not the only place that people come in contact with youth. It doesn't take into just this past few weeks we've had tons of employees for the city go volunteer on behalf of the city with Special Olympics. There are plenty of those people who have never had to have a criminal background check done and yet they're interacting with not just youth but a vulnerable population of youth. And we think that we would like to have criminal background checks done of those employees ahead of time. Also, our RTS workers, you wouldn't necessarily think of that being a program or a department that would have much contact with youth, but they actually do have a program where they hand out little toy garbage trucks to kids along their route. So they are interactive, and they're encouraged to do that. And it's a fun thing for them to do. but they've never had a criminal background check. And if something were to happen, then that would be on the city, because we don't have that information to know whether we need to take any extra precautions. It also currently doesn't include any employees in other positions who could have violent convictions that could lead to workplace violence or other violence. So right now, an employee in engineering or IT or HR, those employees aren't covered in any of the current categories. because there's it doesn't have to do with finance it doesn't have to do with youth whatever and so those departments a lot of the internal services departments they can have a murder conviction and the city wouldn't know about it because they've never had to have a background check they could have any other type of violent felony that we might want to consider it may not make a difference it might be a position where you don't care if they've got a particular item in their history. But I think it's incumbent upon the city, and I believe that city manager would agree with me, that the more information we could have about that, the better. And again, this is not preventing anyone from applying for a job with the city. We are not doing background checks on all applicants. This is just everybody's gone through the process. We make you a final offer of employment. And this is the final step, just like a drug test. You've got to go and get a drug test. You'll have to go and get a criminal background check. So again, the proposed ordinance would apply to all final applicants from employment and the internal candidates applying for different positions. They're only done after a conditional offer. Although all final applicants will have the criminal checks done, the automatic exclusions that you see that are listed in the ordinance are still gonna only apply to certain positions. The rest is gonna be discretionary. as to whether it really affects that particular position. So there are some automatic disclosures. If you work with children and you've got a felony sex offense with children, you're not gonna be offered employment with the city, right? That's gonna be an automatic exclusion. But with some of the other positions, that may not be the case. The rationale for having all other employees do criminal background checks is just to give us more information to consider before we make a final employment decision. We feel like that's our responsibility. So with regard to the youth protection provisions, I just want to go over briefly what those provisions are, what they apply to, and what will actually keep you out. So the positions that the youth protection provisions of the ordinance apply to are obviously positions working with or supervising youth, so our rec employees, anybody working with the youth program. our parks maintenance workers who are routinely in contact with children and young families at the parks, any director or deputy director who supervises those positions, any vendors, performers, or volunteers who we're inviting in to an event that is going to have contact with children, anyone directly reporting to any of your three appointed positions, and all sworn and non-sworn members of police and fire. So for those particular positions, after the criminal background check is done, the crimes that will exclude you from employment, misdemeanor assault within seven years of the job posting. So not ever, but within seven years if you've had a misdemeanor conviction for assault. if you've had any crime, felony, or misdemeanor at any point in your adult life against a child or involving a child. I think that's fairly self-explanatory why you would want that to be an automatic exclusion. That would include child abuse, assault on a child, or a myriad of other offenses against children. Homicide and kidnapping at any point in your adult life, whether involving a child or not. I think that's fairly self-explanatory as well. under the youth protection provision of the article, these are the crimes that will automatically exclude you from employment. And we'll discuss in a minute, there is an appeals process for all of these, and I'll go over that shortly, but these are kind of the ones that set off the flags that would trigger the opportunity for that appeals process. As far as the financial crime protections, the positions that those protections apply to, and again, these are criminal convictions for financial crimes. Any position where the employee would have the ability to change or create city financial records or collect revenue, any position responsible for issuing permits or code violations, any position where a function of the position includes managing grant funds, anyone directly reporting to your appointed positions, and sworn and non-sworn members of fire and police. So with regard to those particular positions, you could be excluded from employment for misdemeanors within seven years of the job posting for financial misdemeanors involving theft, fraud, worthless check, misappropriation, or concealment. felony financial crime at any time in your adult life, and homicide or manslaughter anytime within your adult life. So with the financial crimes, those are the only situations for those positions that you would be automatically excluded. Next set of exclusions is the controlled substances prohibitions. As you can see, this essentially applies to all of the groups from both the youth protection provisions and the financial crime provisions. That's why this list is so long. But for the controlled substances provisions, so this includes your youth and your maintenance workers and your vendors and performers, but then also the financial provisions if you've got a chance to work with money. And so with regard to the controlled substances prohibitions, the crimes that would exclude you from employment are misdemeanor violations of the Controlled Substances Act within seven years of the job posting and felony violations of the Controlled Substances Act anytime in your adult life. So misdemeanor within seven years or felony violations at any time in your life. Those would result in these triggers that would, could possibly result in you, in the city revoking its offer for employment. And again, there is an appeals process and we will get to that shortly. Credit history checks, nothing is changing with regard to this section from the current ordinance. The positions for whom credit history checks are done are those final applicants for employment for all positions with the ability to create city financial records or to collect revenue in any form. Final applicants for any council appointed positions and department directors for any position that reports directly to the city manager. So that is a much smaller category of individuals that the credit history checks will actually apply to. There is no automatic disqualifier based on what is found in the credit history check. There's nothing in the ordinance that says if you've got bad credit, then you're not gonna get offered a position with the city. The determination is gonna be based on what the concerning factors are and what the position being applied for is. I would tell you that the higher in the organization you are, if you're our chief financial officer and you've got concerning items in your credit history check, that's going to be a bigger issue than if you are somebody who's taking in money as a clerk or for violations of city laws. City ordinances, sorry. So the final determination is gonna be made whether to withdraw an offer based on discussions between the city manager, the HR director, and the department head for that position. So whatever that concerning issue is, it'll be a group discussion about why that's concerning and whether it's concerning enough to withdraw the offer. Moving to the appeals process, nothing is changing about this part of the ordinance either. This is the same appeals process that was already in place. This appeals process was put in place in recent history since I have been here. This is the newest change, but there is no change in what's being recommended to you tonight. Currently, final applicants for employment in any of those applicable positions that we've been talking about, who have any criminal violation or any challenging credit history that would result in a possible withdrawal of that employment offer, that's who this appeals right is going to apply to. That includes current employees whose random criminal records checks could lead to an adverse employment action. Just for clarification, I think I said it before, there are not any random credit history checks. The only change, those three changes that I mentioned at the beginning included random criminal background checks, but there are no random credit history checks for any reason. So the individual in those particular cases is gonna be allowed to challenge either the accuracy of the information, say that's not me, say it's not right, whatever, or to provide evidence of mitigation. So if it happened within the proposed time period or if it was a felony and it happened a long time ago and there's been mitigation since then, you'll be allowed to present that evidence. That evidence will be presented to the city manager. If the challenge is not approved or accepted, then they'll be removed from further consideration for the offer for employment. So the city manager's got a couple different options that they'll be able to do if someone does appeal. And this would happen by way of, it's kind of an organic process as opposed to a formal appeals, you know, sitting in front of somebody being a judge, it would happen in the fact of something concerning has come up and so the city manager or the department head, HR director, would contact the individual and say we found something concerning, we found something that could disqualify you for this, we'd like to have a conversation with you, this is what we found, would you like to appeal this determination that you would be removed from consideration for employment. At that time if they'd say yes, then they'd have a chance to either come in, to have phone conversation, however we'd want to do that, where they'd be allowed to either present any information that shows it wasn't them, or show what their mitigating factors are at that point. She's got the ability to allow anyone with a misdemeanor criminal conviction or non-violent felony conviction, so that would include your controlled substances, your financial crimes. For an individual who's appealing for one of those things, for the misdemeanor or the controlled substances, the financial crimes, she can allow them on her own to make that decision to allow them to continue in the process. She can allow any applicant with a concerning credit history to proceed in the hiring process. And so those are all within the city manager's authority to do. However, applicants with violent felony criminal convictions can only proceed in the hiring process if the last date of, and I believe that during the last meeting, this is kind of where we got a little messed up. Councilwoman Zane agreed, so hopefully this will clear it up. If you have a violent felony criminal conviction, you can only proceed in the hiring process if the last date of adjudication, incarceration, probation, or parole occurred more than seven years prior to the date of the job posting. So the thought with that, and again, this is not a change, this is how things currently are now, is that we do not want violent felons who are in these positions that we've noted in the ordinance to, we do not feel the need to offer them employment with the city. If they are within that time. If it's outside of that time, then they can still go through the process, but if it's If it's a violent felony conviction that was within that time period where your last date of whatever, adjudication, incarceration, probation or parole, is within that seven years, then appealing to the city manager is not going to do you any good. That is the big disqualifier that we're going to have. So here are your options at this point. You can approve the new ordinances written with three new changes that I mentioned at the very beginning, which are all in regard to the criminal background check, which are criminal background checks for everyone, regardless of where you are, criminal background checks now for current employees who are applying for new positions within the organization, and random criminal background checks for all employees. And so that's your first option. You can approve the new ordinance, but then provide staff instructions on any additional changes you'd like to see to any unchanged sections. And so when we originally came to this, we only intended to change those three sections. If you're seeing this now and seeing sections that you also would like to change, we can certainly also come back to you at a later date if you wanted to go ahead and vote on these three changes now, and then we could bring you back a further amended ordinance later. You can deny approval of this new ordinance, in which case it would remain the same. Or you could deny approval of the new ordinance, but then also give us instructions on any changes you'd like to be brought back to council. And so with that, I would entertain any questions.

Council Member Santaguida?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, Meredith, thank you so much for the clarification. This was incredibly helpful. So thanks to you and your staff for putting this together for us. As we talked about earlier today, this process of cleaning up the city's ordinances, I think is instructive for not just us, but everybody in the community. So thanks for the time you put into this. I wanna say that I'm supportive of the amendments that are recommended. I have a question about the random drug testing and criminal history and if we can't answer that tonight, that's okay. What is the random process for determining that and how often does that occur? And if we don't know now, that's okay. It's fine for me to have that be a follow up.

I would request the interim HR director to answer that question for you.

So currently our random drug screening is done. It's random, so I can't really, can't really give it, but there's a 50% of like our CDL drivers and it's the same with police and fire. Okay. Thank you.

Council Member Clinton Quintana.

Good evening, Meredith. Thank you for presenting this ordinance to us. So I kind of have a statement and then also a question. My statement is that many people experience a financial hardship. at some point in their lives, whether it's medical, divorce, caregiving responsibilities, things of that nature that causes them to go in debt, including student loan debt. It's not because they want to, it's just as we have spoken earlier about a living wage or losing a job or whatever the case may be. And so I just wanna ensure that we're not creating policies that unintentionally push otherwise excellent employees out the door. And what I mean by that is you have employees currently who may have worked for the city for 20 years, maybe 15. And they finally get the confidence, maybe have gone back to school, got a couple of degrees. And now they know that they can, they don't have a glass ceiling, but they could go to the next level. And they apply for something and credit is a barrier or some background, criminal background. And I get that you're looking at seven years or more than seven years and so forth as you described in the ordinance. But that may also deter someone from applying for a job as well. And in a city where we are also asking for a living wage and where we have, I think the city has about maybe 1,200 employees, maybe, I don't know the exact count. What happens when those employees apply for that role, can't get it because of their background or criminal history? And so are we putting them through some sort of program or are we just sending them back to their old job where they are automatically out the door?

So they would certainly not be automatically out the door. They would at the least be able to go back to their new job if they have applied for a position. Old job. Yes, I'm sorry, at their old job. And so I will tell you, and I can let the city manager speak to this as well, In your example, if there is someone who has been here for an extended period of time within the city, they've not had any issues, I cannot fathom a situation where having a credit history run on them because they're applying for a new position that now requires it would ever result in their termination. As a matter of fact, I would think that their long history with the city would give them more advantage than other people as well, but I'd let the city manager speak to that if she'd like. Sure. Thank you.

On the credit history part, It is a very small number of staff members that the credit history check applies to. And of those, it is likely that they are already working in the financial world. I mean, we would be looking for, say, an actual bankruptcy, and they were working at a very high level for the city, actually managing money. needing to make some of those decisions. So I have had policies like this in every organization that I've worked for for the last 20 years, and I have not seen a credit history ever come up that actually caused us to have to withdraw an offer, but it is It is an important step when somebody is handling cash or making financial transactions to understand what we are getting with that applicant or with that employee because it also helps with our financial controls. So on the audit side, if we were not doing this check and there ended up being an internal issue and it could have been prevented if we had just done this check, that would be viewed as a weakness in our policies. But this is not meant to dissuade anybody. This is not meant to cut people out who would otherwise be looking to improve themselves. But it is just making sure that we have a full picture of who we're putting around money on behalf of the city. On the background check side, similar as well. If they're already employed with the city, then all of those things are presumably in the past. If somebody does have something come up while they are employed with us, that is always a case by case basis. If there is a way to retain employment, we retain employment. Sometimes that is having to move an employee to a different position. But we want to do that to the extent that we can whenever it's appropriate. So I don't see that as being an issue for somebody who was looking to move up in the organization, cuz all of that would be in the past.

And I would also clarify, especially for the public who is watching, that this is not one of the items that is changing from the current ordinance. This is how we already do business. And having been here for over a decade myself, I also, here in Wilmington, have never seen someone who has gotten to the point that they are being offered a final offer of employment, a conditional offer of employment, who then has been had that offer withdrawn as a result of credit history, it would have to be very significant. If you have gotten all the way to that point and we believe that you are the person for this job, that we would see something on a credit check that would disqualify you from that point. As Ms. Hawke said, this is the smallest category of individuals that this actually applies to. simply for your three appointed positions for the department directors who report to the city manager and for our financial positions. And those are the only positions that the credit history is gonna apply to. And as Ms. Hawke said, most of these individuals are already working in the financial industry or the financial part of the city. And so I have never seen it be a barrier to employment, either within the city from internal candidates or outside. I do appreciate that, yes ma'am.

And again, as I stated before in our budget work session, I can totally see this for someone such as, again, as the example that you provided for a chief financial officer, anyone able to write checks, take cash, that sort of thing. But in this ordinance, it says for all employees.

So the credit checks will be done at the initial employment or if they're brought as they currently are. But again, it's gonna be at the discretion of the city manager and the hiring officials whether anything in a credit check would affect anyone's final offer of employment. And again, I've never seen that happen. Because if you've gotten through the criminal background checks and you've already gotten the final offer of employment, It's highly unlikely that anything that you would ever see in a credit check, even if it's a bankruptcy, that unless you're for one of these particular positions, that that's going to have any effect on your offer. Again, it is something that we feel like is an important piece of information for the city to have. We have been doing that already, so nothing about that is actually changing. And we've never, yes, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Does the city offer any type of credit counseling for its employees? And if not, perhaps that is something that we should work on since we're going to pull everyone's credit going forward. Suggestion. I also, I'm sorry, we're not pulling everyone's credit moving forward.

I wanna be very, very clear on that.

But what departments are you pulling credit for?

So for these, just for these applicants that you can see on the screen, positions with the ability to create city financial records or to collect revenue, final applicants for any council appointed positions or department directors and any other position that reports directly to the city manager.

Thank you for that clarification. i want to also add that in a workforce shortage i want to make sure that this policy isn't Is it helping with recruitment and retention or is it making it harder for applicants to apply? Because everyone, of course, is watching us tonight and this ordinance and what's being stated. And we're talking about being one city, but this also affects vendors who will potentially have contracts with us, small business owners, any of those folks who are here in Wilmington. So I just wanna be clear that we're not making the process harder and folks are still wanting to do business with the city. We have folks who have been incarcerated, who've done their time, they came out, they started a business, they're responsible business owners here in the Wilmington area. And I'm speaking from experience because I've worked with them. I don't want us to continue to make something super hard. I understand when we're working with children and things like that, I totally support that. But I just want us to be aware of what we're saying and doing. Thank you.

Yes ma'am, thank you. And just for clarification in the In the current ordinance, you can see the section involving the credit history checks. In an effort to protect the City's financial assets, credit history checks will be performed on all final applicants of employment for all positions with the ability to change or create City financial records, to collect revenue in any form, including cash, credit, or electronic funds transfer. Additionally, credit history checks will be performed on final applicants for employment for any position appointed by the City Council, all department directors and other position that appoints directly to the city manager. So those are the only positions for which credit history checks are going to be done. The change is to make criminal background checks be applicable to all employees. But the criminal, the credit history checks are remaining the same and are only applying to those positions.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember Andrews.

Yes, so I just wanted to clarify what everybody else is asking right now. What is universal? Criminal background checks are going to be universal? Yes, ma'am. And they're going to also be randomized?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Credit checks are only for certain positions? Correct. And are they also going to be randomized? No. No. Okay. Drug screenings, is that universal or just for the CDLs and the law enforcement?

You mean random drug screens? Pre-employment and random. Everybody undergoes a pre-employment drug screen. I did that when I got here. Every applicant for employment, once you accept that offer for employment, the drug screen is mandatory. The random only applies for a certain group, including CDL drivers and fire and police. Thank you.

Mayor Potea?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So matter on this slide that says criminal background checks, financial crime protections. It says positions this provision applies to any position where the employee would have the ability to change or create financial records or collect revenue. Any position responsible for issuing permits or code violations. Any position or a function of the position includes managing grant funds, anyone directly reporting to the city manager, city clerk, or city attorney. all sworn and non-sworn members of WPD and WFD. Yes, sir. So is that correct or no?

That is correct for the criminal background checks for financial crimes. It's a different category for the credit history checks.

Oh, that's quite ambiguous. I've been stuck on that word for a couple days. Anyway, This is a lot to unpack, and I will piggyback on a few things that have been said before me. And one is about creating systemic barriers for people of this community as we talk about livable wage. So I want to ask you, city manager and anybody else, and I'll even ask myself, could you afford to wait seven years to restart your life if you made a mistake?

If I was convicted of a violent felony offense, it is likely that I wouldn't be able to be off of probation or out of prison within that length of time. That's who those prohibitions are targeted to, not just anybody in the business.

What about a misdemeanor of felony substance charge?

So, again, those specific, the misdemeanor financial crimes, misdemeanor controlled substances prohibitions, those are specifically why there is an appeals process in place, because we recognize that there are extenuating circumstances and that people have rehabilitated themselves and that they are needing to be out and get ready to work again.

The question is, could you wait seven years to restart your life?

I don't know, sir, exactly how to answer that question. It depends on- Yes, I know.

Pick a charge. Could you wait seven years to restart your life?

On a misdemeanor charge, I don't think that you would have to. I think you could still apply for any of these positions. You can make your case for why it shouldn't bar you from employment. It's not going to bar you from applying for any positions with the city. it only applies to certain positions and to, it only applies to as a barrier to employment for certain positions, and you have an opportunity to explain yourself and your situation. And so my response to you would be, I would not wait to restart my life. I would make every effort I could to become gainfully employed again, and if it was with the city, then I would take advantage of that process and explain why I deserved the position I was applying for.

Madam Manager, let me ask you the same question. Could you wait seven years to restart your life if you made a mistake?

I would apply to one of the positions that is not on this list if I was interested in working for the city and I had that conviction.

What if it was your area of expertise? Could you wait?

I don't know how to answer that, Mayor Pro Tem, think that you can restart your life in a variety of ways, but what we're talking about tonight is...

I'm talking about if you identified a position with the City of Wilmington and you knew you were a good fit for that position, but yet you'd made a mistake six years prior, seven years prior, five years prior, four years prior. Could you wait? Because we're talking about a livable wage and we're also talking about homelessness, but we're talking about opportunities within this community. So could you wait? And so I'm not talking about anything where you've harmed a child, but I am talking about where maybe you sold drugs or maybe you got caught with some drugs, but that was four years ago, that was five years ago, because in all reality, if you apply right you feel confident you come to the city of wilmington or you get on someone's computer or your phone and you apply for a position and you feel like you know what this is my opportunity to restart my life and the door is shut in your face what would you do what could you do

don't know that the door there there are no doors that are being automatically shut to you so what is going to happen is if you believe that that position is the right fit for you then you have the ability to go all the way through the hiring process and if the city determines that they are willing to make you a conditional offer only at that point will these checks be made and if it comes up that there is something that has occurred within those years a misdemeanor within seven years felony controlled substances at any time in your life, then if you are truly trying to restart your life, then you will have the opportunity to explain that, to explain the circumstances of the mistake that you made and why you're a better person for it now and why you need to be employed with the city.

Right, that's in a perfect world. That's if you could really master articulation and really how to sell your story. I agree, but there are a lot of people who couldn't do that, who cannot do that. They can't sell themselves. Especially, you've applied, you've got a letter, you're anticipating a fresh start, right? You got an interview, you come in for an interview, you knock it out of the park, and then your red flag, oh, find out about that bag of weed you had in your pocket four years ago, not going to happen. You deflate it.

Not necessarily not going to happen. You'll have to go another step.

You'll have to go another step. And that's going to be someone else's decision, right? Yes, sir. And so once this item leaves this dais tonight, we're handing it over to the city manager, to hiring managers, to HR, because we can't touch it. We're not involved in personnel issues. So hey, I'm making an appeal to the city manager that, you know what? Yes, I did. I had the weed. Yes, I punched somebody in the face three years ago. It's up to her.

What I would say, Councilman, Mayor Pro Tem, is that all of the things that you're talking about, about what's going to disqualify you and about not being able to go through the appeals process and those type of things, none of that is being changed. There's only three things that are being changed.

I understand that, but I'm really trying to get you to see from a different perspective. Because maybe this job that you're applying for, figuratively, that you're applying for is just your last thing, the last thing, the last positive thing that you do before you go back to doing something in here that we've red flagged. Because you're trying it. And there are people in the world that experience that. So we are in 2026 and we should be given opportunity, right? We should be. And we cannot forego the safety of people. We cannot. We cannot forego the safety of children. We cannot forego the safety of anybody that we can control. But we can create opportunities. We can create better opportunities for people in this community because we know that people within this community need opportunities. We know that. And to me, this just indicates that we're being a little surgical about some people that we can cut out. I see that. I mean, if we went from chapter one in the city code and went down to what chapter was this, 18? Eight. Eight, OK. And we went and found this. And this is of importance. Because provide me some data where this jumps up from number eight to number two. And what's the sense of urgency? Because otherwise, I'm not feeling it.

I'm happy to speak to that, Mayor Perkins. Please do. We had somebody who had been our employee who then ended up walking off the job, who found out after the fact that they were a violent convicted felon. we had not run a background check on them. And they were amongst our staff. And they then went out and allegedly committed additional crimes. We did not know because we did not complete a criminal background check on them before they were hired for that position. We must keep all of our staff safe. We must keep all of our community safe. And we have an obligation to know who we are hiring and understand the entire picture before they become ours. That is what we are trying to prevent.

Understood, but here's a little slippery slope in there. They were our employee. They quit. They went somewhere and created more crimes?

Within days.

They weren't our employee anymore.

Within days.

They're not our employee anymore. That doesn't reflect on us.

I respectfully disagree.

My concern is that- You could walk off the job and get angry and become a criminal.

My concern is that there was a set of convictions that were violent in their history. And then the actions that they took immediately after leaving our employment showed that there was still a propensity for violence. If we had had the information ahead of time, we would not have employed that individual out of a concern for the safety of their coworkers and the community.

Were they violent while they worked for us?

I can't speak to that.

How can you speak to something that happened after they were not an employee, but you can't speak to something that happened while they were an employee?

I was not with them every moment that they were here. I have no direct knowledge of that, but I do know what they are alleged to have done immediately after.

But there was no allegations of anything that they've done while they were employed with the city of Wilmington?

Mayor Pro Tem, I am not going to apologize for wanting to run from the background checks on our employees.

I'm asking you a question.

I have stated, you asked for data, I gave you data. That is what I have to offer.

But I'm asking, did they commit any crime, violent crime while they worked for the city of Wilmington?

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know.

Council Member Lowell.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm also a little concerned about just wanting to understand the process of the randomness. If there was a suspicion and you found out about it, whoever's doing the random, how would that be addressed? Would that just be thrown in with the random?

I don't think that necessarily that process has been developed yet. We know what we do for drug tests currently. I'm sure that it would be something similar when Ms. Sampson said it's random. It's completely random. It's computer. generated. But what you were talking about is if somebody got some information about somebody, that would be based on a specific suspicion that something had come up that we needed to check into. So that would not be thrown in with all the random checks. We would have to have suspicion to run that check, and we could do that anyway.

Okay, so that would be something that- That'd be separate. You'd have a separate process for?

Yes, ma'am.

The other question is in B, number B, there's a mention of the checks being performed on individuals given permits as vendors, performers, other agents contracted. individuals for city sponsored programs or events where the individual will interact with youth or vulnerable populations.

Can you give me an example of that?

Are we requiring other businesses to do background checks on their employees and how is that enforced?

No, those are for city events. If we are bringing in vendors or performers or whatever as part of our events, then if we are contracting with somebody or asking someone to come in and be at one of our rec centers, then we are asking those people to submit. But no, we're not requiring other businesses to perform them. We are just saying if you want to be here on behalf of the city at an event that we're having and we're asking you to come in, then we're going to ask you to do that.

Okay, so just running down a rabbit hole, humor me. The event with the designers for the park, there was a lot of kids that came through there. Would that be an example of the design teams? since they were there in the community representing that we had picked?

I think it would probably be, the best example would be if we ask for volunteer coaches for one of our youth programs. That's the type of thing that that's meant to cover. If we're asking for community volunteers to come in and help with a youth program that we're doing. So specifically like a youth? Youth program or any other city-sponsored program, yes. So if we're asking people to come in, I don't know exactly what the examples would be, but to come and be a part of our wellness fair or something like that and be on city property and do something on behalf of the city. Maybe we're going to give free massages to people as part of our wellness fair. Then we would ask that individual to go through that. Does that make sense?

Yeah, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Mayor, along the lines of what JC just said, for many years in this community, people who have committed crimes and have come back home and have rehabilitated themselves and were looking to contribute to the community positively. have also faced roadblocks where they're trying to be volunteers, so football coaches or basketball coaches and things of that nature. And so would that be subject to a 101 review?

If we are asking them to come in and do that as part of one of our youth programs, then the ones that apply to youth and interactions with youth would apply.

But if they were looking to participate, like if there was a volunteer coaching position available, is it a no deal or could it be reviewed case by case?

It would still be able to be reviewed.

Okay, thank you.

I want to ask, I know that we have a policy here that we do hire people that have been incarcerated, have had felonies before.

We certainly do.

I'm not sure that we have some currently that are currently working for the City of Wilmington. There's a process in certain departments where we- Right.

Like I said, you're not automatically excluded.

I understand that. I'm coming to the City of Wilmington to apply for a job. I have a prior conviction. I've served time, been out, trying to get my life back together. Give me that process real quick.

you go through the exact same employment process that anybody else does. And if you come out at the end of that process, nothing, the city of Wilmington signed on to the Ban the Box philosophy quite a while ago. And so we don't keep anybody from, we don't run any checks on anybody prior to a final conditional offer of employment. And so if you are the one person that comes out on the end of that process and we decide we're gonna make you an offer, at that point you have to do a drug test and a background check. And if anything comes up that would be a disqualifier for whatever position you are applying to, then you would be notified that there was an issue with your background check or whatever it is, and then have the opportunity to discuss that with the city manager and see if that's something that we can get past. She pretty much has the authority to get past virtually anything other than a violent felony for which you hadn't been released from your obligations within the last seven years.

And Madam Manager, uh, in respect to the, to the individual that you've alluded to that, uh, we had, y'all had some serious concerns about and, and why they were employed with the City Women, you found out later after the fact that there was this issue or was it, it was, was it known before that?

It was not known before that. It was because it wasn't asked or because it was... Because it wasn't a position that we required background checks for, and it was a violent history that resulted in violent actions within days of walking off the job.

Okay. And so this is one of the areas of job descriptions that you all evaluated and feel that there need to be a background check?

So background checks are gonna be done on everybody. That's why we decided that we needed to do them for everybody. Whether it disqualifies you based on your position is a separate question. And so we never knew because we never did a background check because it wasn't in one of those positions that we enumerated in the current ordinance. So the question is not so much did that person commit any violent acts while they were employed as to what if they had. And the city would have been held responsible for not having done that background check. And what if it had been another violent felony assault like was in the previous history and it happened to one of our employees, one of this person's coworkers, And then the city's in a position to have to defend itself for why did you hire this person in the first place? Why did you expose other employees to that potential for violence in the workplace? And we believe that that's a greater concern that we need to deal with.

You're concerned about the risk assessment to this? I mean, obviously. Yes, sir. In the event something happens, then the city's going to be the one that is going to be sued.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Council Member Clinton Quintana.

I get your point, Meredith. I just want to piggyback off of the Mayor. Good people commit crimes to their backs are pushed against the wall and they walk off jobs and they do crazy things and may have a past or may not have a past. So I just wanna, I'm playing devil's advocate because that's what I do and I try to look at everything from a wider perspective but I just wanna put that out there. This person could have been a good person, could have been a bad person, it could happen to anyone.

Yes, ma'am, understood. And I think that the only response to that would be we just want to be able to have all the information possible so that we can know what we're up against when we offer someone employment.

I understand. And, you know, to Mayor Pro Tem's point, he was asking and I don't know if you can give out this information and maybe that's something that you all can come back to us with. I wish we had that example prior to this being presented. It would have maybe given us all some background so that we can make an informed decision, but You know, I can't. I'm done. Thank you.

I mean, I get both sides here. And I understand what the Mayor Pro Tem is saying in regards to giving people a second chance. You know, a lot of people have been denied jobs because of some history, something that happened maybe even in their youth. And sometimes people are not given that chance and they end up doing other things to make a living that may not be legal and they just go down the spiral. I mean, that was why we wanted to ban the box and why we wanted to give people a second chance. I also understand the city's position and concerns in respect if we have somebody that's within our midst may have a violent background history and that we should have been aware of it and something did happen. And we're not saying it did, but if something did happen to workplace, then we would be held responsible. And in this, in this era that we find ourselves in, especially with lawsuits, you see them all the time. We even, we get tons of them here. People have been just tripping over sidewalks. I see both sides of it and I want to be fair to people because I know that we have hired people and we continue to hire people that have had some past history and that's fine. I've met some of these folks and they're good people and they work hard for our community, but I get both sides of the discussion here. I want to be fair and equitable and I just don't want it to be arbitrary. that it may be that could be arbitrary. And I want to make sure that we try to eliminate that. I don't know if there's any mechanism to be able to do that.

Can you address that? I think that the things that we can do is that when something is random, it truly needs to be random, and we've got a computerized system for that for the drug test now, and that's what we would intend to use to make this random so that it doesn't appear that we are targeting any particular position or any particular employee. It'll be random as far as that goes. Again, we are already doing criminal background checks for an awful lot of positions in the city. This will just make it uniform so that everybody gets one just like everybody has to take a drug test now. There's a sense of uniformity there. I think that it is also uniform to make, I don't think it's unreasonable to have current employees who are applying for a separate position go through the same process that external employees are having to go through, and that's really what this is doing, to make sure that they're having to re-up their criminal background check, but the people they are competing against are having to do the same if they were to be offered the job.

I'm gonna ask a stupid question, but I don't think it's stupid, but so you have these vape shops all over town. And the way the state of North Carolina gets around it is it has a certain level of THC, I think 3% or whatever it is. So if somebody goes to one of these vape shops and smokes something that is legally sold on the streets in this state and then they get into a random drug test and then it's flagged, how do we deal with that since it's legal on the street? I'm just curious about, I've always wondered about that.

That is a very interesting question that courts are struggling with now and Councilman Joyner might be able to, I don't know if he's seen that, but my understanding is we have a zero tolerance policy for current employees who fail drug tests. THC, at a level that it's supposed to be, should not be able to build up in your system enough to pop that random drug test. However, there are studies that show that repeated daily use of THC can build up over time, but the city has no idea you know, whether you've been taking it daily or having a THC drink every day for the last six months, we have no way to differentiate that. However, what we do have is doctors and experts who do the drug tests for us, and they run them at different levels, and you have to be above a certain level that is determined by the medical professionals. to be a level that would not register for just casual use of THC at an acceptable level. It's not zero.

I understand that, but I'm looking at now the most popular drinks are THC-infused drinks. Okay, it's 3%. I get it. Let's just say you have another 3% and another 3%. You're not breaking the law, but you're drinking it at a volume that becomes 9%, 10%, 15%. So I just...

So what I'm saying though is that the level that is required on a random drug test for that to show quote positive is not zero. It's not any level. It's set at a particular level. There's one level for like CDL drivers and then there's a higher level for most other And so it's got to be at a level that would not be indicative of casual use. And so the baseline for what we would consider a positive test is not just zero. It's not you went to, you had a THC drink last night with dinner and you come in the next day and you have a random drug test. That would not show up at a level that would result in a quote positive test that would be sufficient for them to report back to us.

So what happens if somebody likes the THC drinks and they have them every evening when they go home?

I think if you're an employee who is subject to random drug tests, because right now, that is not everybody.

I'm just asking a question. I don't want anybody to get fired because they had a THC drink.

Right. That's CDL drivers and fire and police, and they do those things at their own peril. And they know that when they sign on for the job. Okay. Right now, those are the ones who are randomly drug tested. Okay. And so, and those rules are, the rules for CDL drivers are out of our control. Those are set by federal standards. Okay. But our employees levels is about twice what it is for CDL drivers for what we would consider a positive test. Okay, all right.

Quit drinking those drinks, Mr. Mayor.

You're not in a category that requires random drug testing. You're fine.

I want to revisit this scenario. I'm not going to be the dead horse, but I do want to say this. I don't think we can fairly make the assessment of what a person does. after they are no longer employed with us, especially if they have not shown any indication of being violent while working for us. I can tell you right now, the moment that I quit being on the City Council, I am going to punch Corporal Michael Scott in the face.

Just hope he hasn't had a THC drink.

And we have these discussions quite often. And so he's anticipating that. But I'm not displaying any indications of violence and have not done so in many, many, many years. But Michael's going to get it when I'm done. When I'm done. So I get it. Again, safety, top priority. But I don't think we can fairly make that assessment. you know that the person was no longer an employee of ours um and and no one can positively confirm that they displayed any of those uh behaviors while working with the city of wilmington and so i i don't think we should allow that to block someone else or other people from working for this organization

I understand the concern. I would say as an attorney, from my perspective, the concern is not so much what they did after as the fact that something like that could have happened with one of our employees. Whether it did or not, it could have. We would not have been in a position to be able to make a judgment based on that. That is my concern, the liability that it creates by us not having that piece of information.

Well, we do pay you a good amount of money to handle situations like that.

Sir, and I'm grateful.

You're welcome.

Council Member Andrews?

I think I had all my questions answered. When you were mentioning vape shops, it just reminded me that you and I went to a ribbon cutting once where they were selling slushies.

As long as Corporal Scott doesn't have one, everybody else is fine. We're good? Okay. All right.

No, I didn't. No, but I did have... I will. No, I'll tell you because this is just how ubiquitous it is. There was a little tent sign at the Tidal Creek Co-op saying try this locally made drink. No, a drink. And I'll tell you, people should not be messing with this stuff. That's all.

Councilmember Clinton Quintana.

No, I did not have a slushie or been in a vape shop.

This horse is feeling pretty dead. Are you going to beat me some more?

I'm not going to beat the dead horse. I was actually going to suggest that we maybe deny the approval of the new ordinance, but come back and provide what we would, the instructions on changes. That was my statement to council.

Council Member Santaguido.

Thanks, Mayor. Councilmember Quintana, I think my suggestion is similar, maybe slightly different. I'm wondering if it is possible for us to move forward with these changes with respect to violent crimes and revisit the discussion and how we work through what happens if a controlled substance issue comes up at a background check. I don't know if we can split those. From my perspective, I think most of the I don't want to speak for other members of Council. From my perspective, I think it's important we address the liability concerns that you've expressed with regard to violent crimes and keeping our employees and the public safe as best we can.

So I would just add that none of those provisions are That's not what's changing? Correct. So that would be, if you wanted to go, if you see the options on your screen, you could approve the new ordinance, which just extends criminal background checks to everyone who is a final applicant for employment and implements the random criminal checks. Let's see, go back to the...

So it's the criminal background checks will be required for all applicants, criminal background checks will be required for current employees applying for a new position, and then random criminal background checks will be introduced. Yes.

And so the limits and the what's a felony, what's a misdemeanor, the time limits, all of those things. So if you wanted to go ahead and approve this ordinance tonight and as it is for these three changes, then we could certainly come back to you. We wanted to change these now in the process due to the safety concerns. We can always come back to you at a later date. I did send out an email to council several weeks ago with a lot of the same explanations. I did not receive any feedback for potential other changes. I know you guys had to have a chance to digest this and wanted to see the presentation as well. but we could do that at a later date and bring it back if people have suggestions on how to modify the areas that are not being changed.

So I'm ready to make a motion that we approve these changes that are listed on this slide under the condition that we come back and revisit the rest of this ordinance at a future date.

Okay. Council Member Maloney, you also have a comment.

I'm going to withdraw my request to speak since we are moving forward.

Okay. All right. Any further comments? We have a motion on the floor by Councilmember Santaguida, second by Councilmember Joyner. Any further discussion?

All in favor of that ordinance, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. That passes five to two. Five to two. Five to two on first reading.

I voted in the affirmative. I don't have the ability on my touch pad to do it right now. Okay.

Here we go. All right. Five to two. First reading. Is there a motion to waive second reading? Motion made by Councilmember Santaguida, seconded by Councilmember Lau. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion? Okay, that fails for lack of a unanimous, so we'll hear this at our next meeting. That brings us to our next item of business, which is item 02A, which is a resolution authorizing city manager to accept Great Trail State grant award for the replacement of the Lyons Bridge in Greenfield Park. And then item 02B, which is the ordinance making the supplemental appropriation in the amount of $500,000 for the Great Trails State Grant Award for the replacement of Lyons Bridge in Greenfield Park. At this time, I'd like to recognize the City Manager, Ms. Hogg. Ms. Ong.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Members of Council. This item will be presented by our Assistant Director of Asset and Property Management, Sally Thigpen.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council. This is to request authorization to accept the Great Trail State Grant Award to support the phase one replacement of Lyons Bridge in Greenfield Park in the amount of $500,000. I have a brief presentation. I almost pushed the button. Sorry. Thank you. All right. Lyons Bridge was located on Greenfield Lake on Squash Branch. You can see the arrow pointed here. It was the only major structure crossing Greenfield Lake and has been identified by the Greenfield Master Plan as a high priority for replacement. The bridge was evaluated by a third party engineer in 2023 and identified as a safety hazard, requiring the city to shut it down permanently. In 2025, it was determined that it needed to be demolished. Here's an image of what it looks like today with no bridge. Working with an engineering consultant, we were able to get a conceptual design with probable cost. We went after the Great Trail State Grant and we're very excited to be awarded the grant last year. And at this time, we would like to have authorization to accept the grant to move forward with design. I'm happy to take any questions.

Council Member Santaguido.

I just want to say this is fantastic news. Um, this bridge is used was used by so many people in our community. Um, I have a kid at home who's going to be so stoked that this is coming back. Um, so thank you for, um, working through the process to get this grant. Not only are we going to get it replaced, but somebody else is going to help us pay for it. That's incredible. So I just want to say thank you for the work on this. I'm very excited.

Anybody else? Okay. Are we ready to vote on the resolution? Okay, what are the wishes of council in respect to 02A? We have a motion to approve by Mayor Pro Tem Spears, second by Councilmember Santagueta. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes unanimously on the only reading that we need on that. And then item 02B is the ordinance making the supplemental appropriation in the amount of $500,000 for the Great Trail State Grant Award for the replacement of Lyons Bridge and Greenfield Park. What are the wishes of council in respect to the ordinance. We have a motion to approve by Councilmember Joyner, second by Councilmember Santaguida. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes unanimously on first reading. Is there a motion to waive second reading? Motion made by Councilmember Santaguida, second by Councilmember Andrews. Discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Item passed unanimously on first as well as second reading. Good work. This concludes the regular agenda. Are there any items brought forward by our City Attorney?

Yes, sir. We do have a closed session when you're at that point.

Okay, very good. Our City Manager?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, we do have one item that will be presented by our division engineer for Vision Zero, Andy Thompson. This would be a resolution adopting a letter of support for the UNC Highway Safety Research Center application to the US Department of Transportation for a 2026 Safe Streets and Roads for All Supplemental Planning Grant.

And Mr. Mayor, because this is a walk-on item, you'll need to have a motion to waive the rules to allow this item to come before you tonight.

Okay. So I'm going to ask for it to waive the rules. We have a motion by Councilmember to waive the rules so that we can hear this particular item. We have a motion by Councilmember Andrews, second by Councilmember Clinton Quintana. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by just saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Passing unanimously. The rules have been waived. Sir? Mike is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. Thank you all for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Andy Thompson. I'm with the Department of Transportation. I'm a division engineer and the Vision Zero manager. What we have here tonight is the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center Safe Streets and Roads for All supplemental grant that they have invited us to be a part of. This would develop a speed management study specific to the City of Wilmington. Basically an overview here, USDOT is accepting Safe Streets for All applications through the end of the month. WMPO has previously gotten a grant through this Safe Streets for All to develop a safety action plan, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. Thank you. Basically, this speed management plan would be supplemental to that. And the City of Wilmington, we're not asking, or they have not asked us for a cash match. It is simply to provide our staff time and active participation in the project task force as an in-kind donation. So that is very good news. Some of you all have seen these slides in the past. We did get a Vision Zero policy adopted last September. Basically, Vision Zero is an ideology that traffic deaths are preventable as opposed to inevitable. We want to prevent all serious and fatal crashes. Basically, no one should die or suffer serious injuries in a traffic collision. That is our ultimate goal. This is treated as a systems approach instead of individual responsibilities, and it kind of is the notion that saving lives is not expensive. It doesn't have to be if you look at the systems approach. And here we have the systems approach. It starts with safer people, education, safer vehicles, that's manufacturing and features. Safer speeds and safer roads are where we're gonna spend the predominant amount of time focusing. Everyone makes errors, and obviously post-crash care is also important. So everyone makes errors, that's acknowledged. The system should be forgiving, meaning one of these five pieces should be able to step up and hopefully prevent a fatality or serious injury. So we want to design our streets to reduce harm to the users. And in this case, it's a lot of pedestrians and cyclists as well. Lower speeds can also help affect that. So why would we want to pursue this study? Again, safer speeds is one of the five focus areas that's listed in the safe systems approach. The draft safety action plan has identified many priority locations in the city of Wilmington that specifically recommend speed management. It's five of those recommended actions as well tie somewhat to a speed management plan from safer roads and safer speeds. Also, speeding is one of the top concerns reported in traffic engineering. We hear multiple a day, and this is something we would like to add tools to our toolbox to be able to analyze and ultimately prioritize and implement solutions as we can. And this plan, again, it looks at citywide and targeted speed management strategies. So again, some of you all may have seen these before, but they're very important and worth quickly going through. We've had 143 fatalities since 2015 in Wilmington. Higher speeds, we've had 143 fatal crashes since 2015. Yeah, so this is higher speeds, and again, a lot of these have to do with pedestrians and bicycles. So higher speeds greatly increase the risk of pedestrian death. So this graphic shows, you know, at 25 miles an hour, you have a 25% chance of being fatally injured if you're a pedestrian, whereas at 40 miles an hour, you have a 75% chance of a fatality. The cone of vision, this is another thing that supplements that. It's basically explaining at slower speeds, you're able to look at your periphery a lot more. You're able to analyze a lot more of what you're seeing in front of you, as well as off to the side. Whereas higher speeds, you have more tunnel vision. Essentially, you're focusing further down the road. You're not able to pay attention as much to what's on the side, which could be pedestrians, children, bicycles, anything, parked cars, whatever could be along the side of the roadway. So slower speeds allow you to see more. Other benefits, there will be other communities as a part of this grant if awarded. and we would be able to collaborate with them and learn from other places as well and other strategies. It also aligns with the statewide speed management plan that NCDOT is currently working on. It gives us additional chances for data collection and community engagement, specifically related to speeds, which is, again, what we hear a lot of. on a daily basis. It also identifies new strategies, helps us analyze existing strategies and establish best practices. So we want to ultimately develop templates and standardize our approach as well as display dashboards with that data for others to see. This is a direct benefit to the Vision Zero Action Plan that we will be putting forth once a task force is established. This will certainly help be a good tool in the toolbox. And again, there's no cash costs associated with this, only staff time and active participation. So what we're asking is that council adopt a letter of support for Wilmington's participation in the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center Safe Streets and Roads for All grant application to develop a community-specific speed management plan for Wilmington, if awarded. Thank you for your time. I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions?

Good stuff. Glad to see the department going after this. Yes, sir. Mayor Pro Tem does have a question, sir. I'm sorry.

So is it staff that helps to identify the streets or do you already have the streets in mind?

We have the streets in mind that have been reported so far, so we take public calls and emails, and so we are taking note of what is reported to us, and we are also deploying what we have, speed minder signs that tracks either stealth radar or feedback radar to gather speed data on the roadways. Depending on what that data comes back as, roads can get prioritized for countermeasures. Currently, we're doing the speed hump initiative, which are some roads that had been identified previously with higher speeds that were selected to try this. So that is one tool for the toolbox. Again, we're putting those out this year, the speed humps, in 2026. As we get them out and implemented, we'll be gathering data to see their effectiveness and making further determination about how we want to incorporate them or not later on, just depending on the data and the feedback. Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor to accept this. We have a motion by Councilmember Andrews, seconded by Councilmember Joyner. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes unanimously. Madam Clerk, are there any items? Do you have anything to say or have any comments? No, sir. Okay. Councilmember Santaguido.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say happy birthday to our city manager.

Oh, yeah. Council Member Andrews?

Yeah, I just wanted to recognize that this coming Monday is Memorial Day and I know everybody has plans and I want them to stay safe, but this year as an Air Force veteran, I'm gonna have the privilege of participating in the Memorial Day ceremony aboard the battleship North Carolina, where I will be honoring my fellow airmen, Second Lieutenant Fred Lorenzo Brewer Jr. of Charlotte, who is one of the famed Tuskegee Airmen. And Lieutenant Brewer is just 23 years old. when he died in 1944 while flying a P-51 Mustang over Italy, protecting allied bombers during World War II. And his aircraft malfunctioned in difficult weather and he gave his life while carrying out that mission. And his remains were not identified and returned home to North Carolina until 2023. nearly 80 years later. So that really struck me as, you know, that there are families who are missing their service members for longer than we can imagine. So I encourage everybody to be safe this weekend and just take a moment to remember those who have given their lives for our country.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Yeah, I'm just going to say people of this community, of all communities, wherever you may be, I think it's really essential to get involved with what's going on in your local government. in your community in general. Your intake, your input is extremely important. And there are decisions being made about your lives that are gonna happen whether you say anything or not. So it's really imperative that you get active. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir.

Council Member Quintana.

Mayor Pro Tem, I echo those comments. I'd also like to say happy birthday to Becky. I hope your day has been amazing. I didn't get a cupcake. I heard you had cupcakes today. I didn't get a cupcake. And also congratulations Mayor Pro Tem on completing your master's degree. I am very proud of you. There have been many times that I have reached out to you and you didn't pick up my call or you said you were busy. So I'm grateful that now you can pick up those calls. But congratulations, I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Thank you, thank you. Council Member Long?

Mr. Mayor, yes, happy birthday to our city manager. You're welcome for keeping you here this late on your very special day. I wanted to share that I was earlier today up in Raleigh at the governor's mansion for a housing advocate gathering for him to sign an executive order and announce that he has created a new position of a senior advisor for housing policy. So right now there's not a separate housing policy person at the state level. So they didn't, instead of creating a whole new department, which was not a good idea, they created one position that's gonna help pull different departments together that have something related to housing. Because when you think about housing, Everybody needs housing so it overlaps so many different issues domestic violence substance abuse. I mean even energy standards, so Having a person on his staff who is kind of helping pull all those housing issues together I think over time is really going to make a big difference in how our state is looking at housing issues and making strategies that are That are you know comprehensive, so I was excited to hear that and stay tuned as I learn more. I'll certainly share it I Council Member Joyner?

Not tonight, thank you.

Okay, and again, happy birthday, Becky, and many more. I did have an opportunity to meet with some of the folks from the UNC Health System this past week, and there's gonna be an opportunity for this entire community to weigh in on the additional 225 beds that the state is allocating for this area. Novant is gonna be building an additional 200 beds. on their campus on 17th Street, so that's over 400-some beds that'll be built here in this community, and that's because of the increase in population of this surrounding area, southeast of North Carolina. 25% of the people right now that are currently in the hospital here are not even from this area, are not even from New Hanover County, and so that'll just tell you the population explosion that's happening in southeast of North Carolina, but you will have an opportunity to weigh in on that, and I hope that each person that's hearing this or here tonight does because we've heard a lot about healthcare in our community and the access to healthcare and more competition in healthcare is always good for everybody. And so I would hope that when that opportunity comes that you share your opinions and your concerns with the state about this particular allocation of beds. In addition to that, I guess on Thursday, we will finally find out once and for all if the University of North Carolina Wilmington will be getting a medical school. We feel positive at this point in time, but if they do, it would be a great day for our community and for this city and for this region because we are way under on the number of doctors that are needed for our community, for our entire state. I think we're down 7,000 doctors. So it is something that is desperately needed, and that is why the university system is looking to bring in additional medical schools to our communities to help us all. So this is a big day for our community, and hopefully we're gonna get it, and if we do get it, It all ties in with all of the other medical stuff that's happening. It's a great day in our community. I want to just say thank you to everybody that's really worked hard to bring this to fruition, especially the chancellor, the university, the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Governors that will be ultimately making this With that, I'm going to ask for a motion to enter into a closed session pursuant to the provisions of North Carolina General Statute Section 143-318.11 in order for the City Council to instruct staff regarding the City's negotiating position concerning the possible acquisition of real property. The closed session will be held in the Charlie Rivenbark room behind the Council Chambers. And at the end of the closed session, Council will reopen its public session and adjourn at that time. So we have a motion to approve by Councilmember Lyle, second by Councilmember Santaguida. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We will now go into closed session.