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 introduce the Reverend James Jamison, pastor of Hope Baptist Church for all nations for the invocation. I ask everyone to stand and remain standing afterwards for the Pledge of Allegiance.

God bless you, Mayor, Council. Blessed are the men and women that stand in harm's way even now to make meetings like this all across the country a safe place to come and agree to disagree, to organize, and to rationalize. Blessed, dear Father God, are the men and women who are elected to serve, sometimes under the threat of bodily harm. We ask your blessings also on our law enforcement and all of our first responders, God, and our citizens of this great city. Bless your holy name. And Lord, lead us and guide us and give us wisdom beyond our years. In Jesus' name I pray, 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 two presentations this evening. The first one is the naming the week of September the 7th through the 13th, 2026 as National Patriotism Week. And it's a proclamation. And I'm gonna go down to the front here. Penny, do you have the proclamation? Thank you, everybody.

That was JC.

Proclamation reads, City of Wilmington, North Carolina proclamation, whereas the benevolent and protective order of the Elks through its constitution is a patriotic order, and whereas the order promotes the ideals that the citizens of this nation live in freedom, won through great sacrifices and many tribulations. which have provided the foundation for a free, prosperous, and independent life. And whereas we realize that each generation must work to maintain this freedom. Otherwise, through carelessness or indifference, the rights and liberties enjoyed may vanish. And whereas it is fitting and proper to recognize this freedom and to honor the nation which provides it. And whereas Elks Lodge number 532 encourages all citizens to fly the American flag during the week to show your pride in america and to take a moment on september the 11th to remember people who lost their lives in the 9 11 attacks now therefore on behalf of the wilmington city council i'm mayor bill safa do hereby proclaim the week of september the 7th through the 13th 2026 as national patriotism week and i just want to say thank you to the elks for everything that you folks have been doing in anticipation of the 250th anniversary of the birth of this great nation and the things that you do to make certain that our citizens understand how important it is to adhere to those values that was created so 250 years ago. So at this time, I'm going to turn it over to you, Exalted Rural. Thank you.

Thanks, I appreciate this. The Elks National Convention was held this year in Chicago, where the memorial was built in 1926. And 70,000 elk members went to World War One. And that memorial has been rededicated for every war since then. And it is a veterans memorial in Chicago. It's unbelievable sight. As far as our local lodge, we will have flags around the inside of the building for all the veterans that are elk members. If you have any old flags, please bring them by the Elks Lodge, okay? And also, we wrote several letters to the veterans in the Kinston home and to other veterans around in the country or overseas. Also, please remember the 911 code. victims and all the first responders had helped during that time. But I truly appreciate this and I know this is for all the elk members of Wilmington Lodge 532. Thank you.

We might as well stay here. Sorry about that, guys. At this time, I'd like to recognize Tom Boland, who's the chairman of the Heritage Tree Award presentation by the Wilmington Tree Commission. Tom, you gonna do it from here, or you gonna do it from here?

Come on over here. Come on over here. Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Temp and members of the council. Sorry. My name is Tom Boland and I'm the chair of the Wilmington Tree Commission. Tonight, I'll be presenting the annual Heritage Tree Awards. The mission of the Wilmington Tree Commission is to support, maintain, and grow our urban forests through increased public education and award programs to encourage a healthy and safe natural environment. The Heritage Tree Awards Program is just one program that seeks to advance this mission. The Heritage Tree Program is a recognition program for special trees in our community. because of their age, rarity, grouping, overall beauty, or historical significance. Trees are a vital part of our city's landscape and are highly valued by the community. I put a call out to you to please, if you have a tree out there that you wanna recognize, please go ahead and submit your submission to the Wilmington Tree Commission and we'll be more than happy to come out and take a look at it and evaluate it. This program increases public awareness and appreciation for the value of heritage and other trees. Heritage trees are recognized and appreciated, but the program does not extend any legal protections against them. With that, I move into our 2026 Heritage Tree Awards. The first one The first one is on 1214 South 4th Street. It's a southern magnolia. The height is approximately 69 feet, circumference 100.6 inches, and the canopy width is 19.68 feet. Our first Heritage Tree Award is for the stunning Southern Magnolia located at 1214 South 4th Street. Its considerable height and canopy spread illustrates its maturity and contribution to the neighborhood character. The nomination was submitted by Diane Farris. At this time, I'd like to recognize Diane and present her with a Heritage Award Certificate. Thank you, Diane, for your commitment in celebrating Wilmington's urban forest. If you're here tonight, we'd like to provide that to you. Okay, well, we will give it to her at a later time. The next one is 4418 Park Avenue. It's a live oak. Its height is 59 feet. Circumference, 14.6 inches. The canopy width is 42.18 feet. Our next honoree is a beautiful live oak at Park Avenue, a classic symbol of coastal North Carolina. Its wide and graceful canopy provides shade habitat and a strong sense of place. The tree was nominated by Kathleen Jewell. I'd like to invite Kathleen Jewell forward and present her with a certificate if she's here, and recognize her efforts to highlight this exceptional live oak, and thank you Kathleen for your dedication to our city's tree canopy. Come here, we got a picture. Just turn around.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you again. Too many papers.

So the next tree,

So the next tree is a persimmon at Olsen Park. It's honored for community significance. It's valued for its form, seasonal color, fruiting habit that connects park visitors with local ecology. The nomination was submitted by Paula Crozer with the Board of Directors at Access of Wilmington. At this time, please come forward to receive your Heritage Tree Award. Thank you for your commitment to Wilmington's urban forest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Last but not least, the live oak at 5814 Master Lane stands out due to its impressive size and structural presence. With a canopy width of over 50 feet, it provides tremendous environmental benefit and exemplifies the longevity of well cared for heritage trees. This tree height is 83 feet, circumference is 206.6 inches, and the canopy width is 50.48 feet. This nomination was submitted by Shane Lepard. Shane, I'd like to recognize you and present your certificate for this year's Heritage Tree Award. Thank you for elevating the visibility of this magnificent live oak. Thank you very much. Got a picture. Sorry.

On the window.

Thank you again. So thank you for your attention for supporting Wilmington's Urban Forest. I'm happy to take questions about your honorees, program criteria, or opportunities for future nominations. On behalf of the Wilmington Tree Commission, thank you for your continued partnership. Thank you. Any questions?

Questions? I'm sure.

Okay. Next item of business is our consent agenda, items one through eight. What are the wishes of council in respect to the consent agenda? We have a motion to approve by Councilmember Andrews, second by Councilmember Clinton Quintana. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The item passes unanimously. That brings us to our next item of business, which is our public information segment, which is we've allotted 30 minutes for that. We have tonight 14 speakers that have signed up to speak We'll try to get as many in as possible. Our first speaker, and each speaker will be allotted three minutes. You'll see the timer there on the dais. And so our first speaker is Ryan Brady, who is a city resident, proposed location of Living Hope Day Center Homeless Day Center Shelter, which is at 19 South 10th Street. Is Mr. Brady here? Mr. Brady?

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Ryan Brady. I live at 213 South 10th Street. I've lived here for 11 years. I want to begin by saying I support helping people experiencing homelessness. Wilmington has a real homelessness problem, and I believe our community needs a meaningful long-term solution. But not every service belongs in every location. My concern is that 19 South 10th Street is not an appropriate location for the operation being proposed, and I believe there is an important zoning question that needs to be answered before this proposal moves forward. Living Hope consistently describes itself as a day center or day shelter. In its response to the city's own request for information, Living Hope identified its primary service as a day shelter. But in zoning verification request, VL-2026-0024, the proposed use for 19 South 10th Street is identified as a, quote, community center. That distinction matters. A day shelter is not simply a generic community center. Section 18-19 of Wilmington's Land Development Code provides a process for evaluating an unlisted use based on its actual function, impacts on adjacent uses, and the type, scale, and nature of the operation. So my question to the city is simple. Are we evaluating this facility based on the label community center or based on what Living Hope itself says the facility will actually do? That question is particularly important because 19 South 10th is located in the urban mixed-use district whose stated purposes include compatible infill, pedestrian-oriented development, and increasing neighborhood safety. This is already a highly pedestrian-oriented area and is surrounded by schools and youth-focused facilities. Wilson Middle School is located directly on South 10th Street. Gregory Elementary is immediately behind the Wilson campus. New Hanover High School is nearby on Market Street. And the newly established School of Wonder at 909 Market Street adds yet another elementary school presence in the immediate area. This is also an area with the Fit for Fun Center, MLK Community Center, Robert Strange Park, the Jewish Community Center, and pedestrian traffic connecting downtown to the Sodepop District. The concern is not simply that there happens to be schools nearby. Children will be walking, biking, getting dropped off, and traveling through this neighborhood every school day. Living Hope has reported serving dozens of people on an average operating day. The city's RFI process contemplated a day shelter operation open multiple days per week. That means we need real answers about parking, pedestrian traffic, congregation outside the building, security, capacity, operating hours, and what happens when that facility reaches capacity. Also believe the city needs to consider Living Hope's current circumstances. The organization is losing its current operation location, reduced its hours after losing funding, and is trying to purchase its address while raising substantial additional money. That does not make Living Hope a bad organization, but it does raise an important question. Is this a stable long-term use that has been adequately planned and funded for this particular location? There's also a history of neighborhood concerns. In 2023, neighbors pushed back against another Living Hope day shelter location on 4th Street. And once again, many residents learned about this proposal through social media rather than a meaningful neighborhood discussion. So I'm asking council to slow this process down, determine exactly how this proposed use is classified under the Land Development Code, determine whether the community center designation accurately reflects the actual operation Living Hope is described, and please consider the impact on school children, nearby residents, pedestrian traffic, parking, public safety, and long-term viability. Please give the neighborhood a meaningful opportunity to be heard. It's not about saying no to helping people experiencing homelessness. It's about saying 19 South 10th Street may not be the right place to do it. I also have with me today signatures from local residents, business owners, and community leaders who respectfully ask for strong consideration regarding this proposed location. Dr. Christopher Barnes, the New Hanover County Superintendent, is attending a school board meeting tonight, but has sent Deputy Superintendent Julie Varnum to hear these concerns in his place, along with a map to outline his proposed location, this proposed location, and its proximity to schools. Can I give you the signatures and the map?

Please, Senator, give it to the city clerk, if you don't mind, Mr. Brady. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker is Ms. Angela Augustine, who is a city resident who will also be talking to us about Living Hope Day Center proposed 19 South 10th Street location and zoning classification. Is Ms. Augustine here? Okay, thank you. Next speaker is Mr. Patrick Sheehan, who is a city resident, future use of the former Sorrow Drowner. Okay, so you're not speaking yet. Okay, thank you. Next speaker is Elaine Morrison, who is a city resident, traffic concerns, safety and vehicles.

Thank you. My name is Denise Shackelford. This is Elaine Morrison. And we've come to talk about the change in the bus traffic in Audubon neighborhood. I'm a native Wilmingtonian and have lived on 42nd Street for 41 years. Worked on many projects, including four-way stops, sidewalks, the Audubon Trolley Park that's been put in our neighborhood.

Did you speak into the microphone? Just move over a little bit. Thank you. Sure. Thank you.

There we go. Thank you. And imagine my surprise when recently I woke out and Bus 109 is going down right down in front of my street, both ways up to 12 times a day. When I contacted the, um, transit division, they said this indeed had been approved by city council. No one that I'm aware of in our neighborhood. has been notified about this, and we just have some concerns. Again, Audubon neighborhood is established in the early 1900s. It was a trolley rail from Wilmington to Wrightsville Beach. Lots of narrow streets, comfortable living areas, and it still is today. The city has used that same route to create the river to the seaway trail. And as we have said, the neighborhood streets are very narrow. Our signage you may not be able to see quite as well tonight. And that's what we have identified with the buses going down 42nd Street. The bus is approximately 8.5 feet wide, and so is one half of one lane of 42nd Street. We measured it ourselves at 8.4, but the bus is taking up the entire lane of 42nd Street and off the side of the street from the yellow line to the white line. So we're real concerned about this and wanted to bring this to your attention. And Elaine will finish up for us tonight.

We do not pretend to be experts about city streets. We gathered information by careful measurement and much visual observation. 43rd and 44th streets with an approximate half width are much wider than 42nd. 39th Street off Wrightsville Ave has a thruway with only one stop sign at Park Ave. Then you would go to Oleander, take a left and then a right on 41st. This brings us to our reason for being here tonight, safety for all concerned. The school bus, the waste management vehicles, and mail trucks are departments and services that represent the citizens and professionals of Wilmington. THERE ARE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THAT HANDLE PRESENT AND FUTURE CITY PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION, AND AS WILMINGTON CONTINUES TO GROW, WE ARE LOOKING FOR CLARITY AND HELP IN SHARING OUR DISCOVERIES. WILMINGTON IS GREAT. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR TIME THIS EVENING, BUT WE DON'T THINK THAT 109 ON 42nd STREET IS SAFE. Thank you. Questions, comments, or concerns?

Yes, Mayor Pro Tem.

So you said you reached out to the traffic division and- Well, I just called.

I just called Wave Transit. The first time I saw the bus go by, I'm like, because I thought perhaps it was due to some work they were doing on Wrightsville Avenue, that it was just a temporary change out. And they said that we approved this? The first young lady that I spoke with sent me to someone else. I can't quote her name or indoor title. But she said yes, that the city council had approved this change for the bus route.

and it's 109 coming from- Give me one second. Madam Clerk, can you help me?

sorry i'm not the clerk but i mean no i'm sorry madam manager i'm sorry i'm sorry you're looking at me um i i would presume they meant the wave transit board that does vote on route changes that are recommended by wave staff and council member andrews the city attorney miss everhart myself and our cfo martha wayne all serve on that board so we were half of that decision-making body, but the route changes do not come before City Council. So those changes were approved by the Wave Transit Board, which is made up of Wilmington elected officials and staff, as well as New Hanover County elected officials and staff. I will say, though, looking at the routes, it lists that it should be 41st Street that they're driving on, not 42nd. So we are happy to look into why they are on 42nd Street instead of 41st Street.

That's a great answer and we appreciate it. Thank you.

That's an extraordinary answer.

We look forward to following up with you.

Again, we have school buses, kids getting off school buses, and it's very congested. Thank you so much.

You're welcome. Thank you. And I could point those members out for you if you would like. I'm just kidding.

Thank you.

Is Denise Shackelford here?

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Next speaker is Jared Patterson, who will speak to us about the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge.

Good evening, Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and members of Council. I'm Jared Patterson with the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy. And I want to first express my appreciation for each of you and for the city administration. Having worked for the city, I have great respect for your roles and the challenging decisions that you do face. My comments tonight are offered in that spirit, raising some concerns about Resolution R2 that I hope you'll find constructive. These comments take no position on bridge height, tolls, replacement alternative. Those are all important matters and the city should absolutely make its perspective heard. R2, in my reading, appears to go beyond that to also question the need for a replacement bridge and suggest some departures from a regional and intergovernmental planning process that is central to major infrastructure decisions. For years, the city has maintained that the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is functionally obsolete and the timely replacement is a priority. The city has built that case with the public and our federal and state delegations and agencies. R2 appears to call that position into question by suggesting that upfitting and continued operation of the current structure may be a feasible alternative to replacement. The city is also an important role in the regional transportation process through the WMPO. I attend several of those meetings where Mayor Pro Tem Spears and Councilmember Santa Guida clearly and ably represent the city's interests. R2 risks stepping outside of that planning framework when we are already well into a process that is designed to consider the city's interests and produce the least environmentally impactful practical alternative. That process represents years of work, including work by this council, which helped to secure $325, excuse me, $327 million in committed funds. Changing course midstream creates real risk to that funding with the deadline for obligating federal funds just a year away. I worked for the city during the most recent deck replacement and for weeks traffic was detoured across Wilmington including heavy trucks from the port routed in front of Hoggart High School down College Road past Longleaf Park with Roland Grice and UNCW students crossing back and forth. The next major closure would likely be longer and more disruptive and dangerous and decisions about this bridge they have very real consequences. This is a time, I believe, to measure twice and cut once, and so I believe that the wording of the resolution really matters. I encourage Council to identify significant impacts, to advocate for the City's interests, to work with our partners to secure additional funding, but that need not come at the expense of the positions and the process that has brought us thus far. We are not at the beginning of this race, and we are far from the end, and I do not know where we're going to end up. But I do believe that if we commit to the process and if we advocate together, we will achieve the best possible outcome for this community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Next speaker is Ms. Natalie English, who's a city resident, who will be speaking to us about the agenda item R2, the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and members of Council. Thank you for your time. My name is Natalie English. I'm President and CEO of the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce and a citizen of Raleigh. And I'm here tonight to respectfully ask you to vote no on Resolution R2 as drafted. The Chamber has long considered the City of Wilmington a trusted partner. We may not always agree. but we believe in working together on the difficult decisions that shape this community. Council has made difficult decisions before, including building the Convention Center, Riverfront Park, Riverwalk, Skyline Center acquisition, and making significant investments that recently required raising city taxes. And the Chamber's been a partner through those decisions because we understand that leadership sometimes means making difficult choices today because of what our community will need tomorrow. We believe replacing the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is another one of those moments. The Chamber supports alternative B, the fixed span bridge with 135 foot clearance as the best long term solution because it provides greater reliability, protects access to the federal navigation channel, and is projected to significantly reduce future traffic delays. A reliable bridge matters to the employee commuting from Brunswick County to jobs in Wilmington, to the nurse getting to the hospital, the teacher getting to school, the small business owner traveling to a job, and the people who want to access goods and services in downtown Wilmington businesses. It matters to our entire regional economy. But our primary concern tonight is bigger than which alternative council prefers. It is whether we should disrupt a replacement process that has taken years to reach this point. Resolution R2 appears to reopen the fundamental question of whether this bridge is even needed to be replaced. The city has repeatedly supporting replacing the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. The Greater Downtown Plan recognizes the bridge as vital to our regional economy, and in 2025, city representatives traveled to Washington specifically to advocate for federal funding for its replacement. Cities already recognize the need. Now is the time to focus on how we replace the bridge and how we protect Wilmington's interests in that process, all 125,000 city residents. We understand council's concerns about tolling impacts to downtown, traffic patterns, and construction. Those are legitimate concerns, and the Chamber believes Council should continue advocating forcefully on each of them. But you don't need R2 to do that. Disrupting the process puts our over $320 million in state and federal funding at risk. It adds time and cost. It means our region will rely even longer on an aging bridge. There is no perfect option, but no replacement should not be the option. The Chamber wants to continue being the City's partner on this project and many, many others, so we respectfully ask Council to vote no on Resolution 2, keep the process moving, protect the funding we have secured, continue advocating for Wilmington, and work together to build the best possible bridge for the future of this region. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Alton Banks, who is a city resident, who's speaking to us about justice for Espinoza Sierra.

Elberto Espinoza Sierra was murdered on March 8th this year, 177 days ago by seven police officers who fired 62 rounds. The standard issue pistol that police officers in North Carolina use is a semi-automatic nine millimeter Glock 17, which has a magazine capacity of 17, plus the one in the chamber. If you do the math, three full magazines were unloaded at Elberto's vehicle and then some. He was unarmed earlier that night having been assaulted. Police were looking for a different man who was found later that night. Racial profiling and police brutality is the reason Alberto is no longer with us. The police should have been talking to him to help him. Having been assaulted earlier that night, he was likely terrified and fearing for his life. They should not have been shooting at him. They should not have killed him. His family still has not seen any justice for this grave injustice. The officers responsible for murdering this innocent man with extreme excessive force need to have their names released and be charged. Murderers need to be held accountable and face justice, whether they have a badge or not. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Mr. Tony Perez, who is a city resident, who will talk to us about day center operations. Mr. Perez.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council. First, a quick update. We are currently under contract on the property at the corner of 10th and Docks with our due diligence period ending October 5th. We've already received about half of the funding that we need and the other half is already pledged. We're just checks in the mail. We're also working to finalize a partnership with a regional service provider that would use Living Hope as a hub for peer support services throughout Wilmington. That partnership will create eight new jobs in this city while significantly expanding the services that we offer. I also wanted to address some of the conversations surrounding our proposed location. Before concerns began appearing publicly and on social media, we were already working, working to arrange a community meeting with the surrounding neighborhood. We have identified a location and are working to finalize a date. Once that is set, we will share the details directly with the people who live and work in that neighborhood. I've seen the suggestion that our timing demonstrates a lack of transparency. I understand how it might have looked that way from the outside, but while we were negotiating with the seller, we were also trying to determine whether we could raise the funds. have enough money to purchase the building and a lot of other due diligence issues. We didn't believe it was responsible to raise concerns in the neighborhood over a project that we weren't fully convinced was going to happen. In the meantime, we were doing our homework. We met with law enforcement regarding our proximity to schools and parks. We received our zoning use verification from the city and began planning the neighborhood meeting before this became a public controversy. There are legitimate questions about our operations and we do intend to answer them. But legitimate questions and misinformation are not the same thing. Most troubling has been watching homelessness repeatedly become associated with sex offenders and other crimes. To be clear, there are already 26 registered sex offenders living within a one-mile radius of this neighborhood. Living Hope is not bringing this presence into the neighborhood. It already exists. Being homeless does not make somebody a sex offender, nor does it make somebody a criminal, nor does it make somebody a threat to children. Christine and I, along with our staff and volunteers, have had the privilege of getting to know many of the people others simply refer to as the homeless. To us, they have names and faces. They have families and stories. Some struggle with addiction. Some have criminal records. Some have been made bad decisions. We don't have to pretend otherwise to believe that they are still human beings worthy of dignity and respect. We will listen to our neighbors. We will answer legitimate questions. We will address problems when they arise, and we intend to be good neighbors. But I hope that as this conversation continues, we will not allow fear or stereotypes to cause us to forget that human beings are the center of all of this. People experiencing homelessness aren't coming into our community. People experiencing homelessness are already in our community. Living Hope simply intends to offer hope to those who are looking for help. Thank you.

Next speaker is Nathaniel Burton, who's a city resident, who will also be speaking to us about justice for Espinoza Sierra.

At Alberto Espinoza Sierra was 21 the night seven WPD and New Hanover County Sheriff's officers killed him March 8th of this year. The night your officers decided he was unworthy of life. The night they put 62 bullets in his car hitting him at least 13 times. June 24th District Attorney Jason Smith decided 62 shots to one 21 year old man isn't considered excessive force. No body cam footage or officers names have been released. No charges and no justice for Ed Alberto Espinoza Sierra. This city wants us to forget Ed Alberto, his name and his story. Let me tell you about this young man. Eroberto, also known as Beto or Betito, was a student at CFCC with plans of starting his own HVAC business. He loved cars, sports, playing video games, and above all, he loved his family. He was hardworking, ambitious, smart, funny, and protective of his siblings. He wanted to have a baby, have a family, and settle down. These cops took that from him and took him from his family. If this city can kill and sweep his murder under the rug, the least you can do is learn how to say his name correctly. It's Ed Ilberto. Edilberto Espinoza Sierra. Thank you.

Next speaker is Carol Bullock, who is a non-city resident, will be speaking to us about resolution on the bridge.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of City Council. I'm Carol Bullock, Executive Director of Historic Wilmington Foundation, and I'm here tonight in strong support of the R2 resolution regarding the bridge. The decision before us is not simply about replacing a bridge. It's about protecting long-term economic health, identity, and vitality of Wilmington. Our historic district is one of this city's greatest economic assets. It draws visitors, supports locally owned businesses, strengthens property values, creates jobs, and distinguishes Wilmington from other communities across the region. People choose to visit, invest, open businesses and live here because of the character and sense of place that generations of Wilmingtonians have worked to preserve. The fixed span alternative with its enormous height and ramps and the shift of the primary north-south corridor from 3rd Street to 5th Avenue could fundamentally alter that character. It will disrupt established neighborhoods and businesses and damage important historic resources and weaken the very qualities that make downtown economically successful. Once those assets are lost, they cannot be rebuilt and the economic consequences would extend far beyond the boundaries of the historic district. This R2 resolution takes a responsible approach. It asks that less costly and less damaging alternatives be fully explored, that the Section 106 process be completed before a decision is made, that Wilmington have a meaningful seat at the table, and that the fixed, excuse me, the fixed span alternative be removed from consideration. A new bridge should improve mobility without sacrificing the historic district that helps drive Wilmington's economy. Transportation progress and historic preservation do not have to be opposing goals. With thoughtful planning, we can achieve both. SO I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION AND PROTECT WILMINGTON'S HISTORIC CHARACTER, ITS BUSINESSES, AND ITS ECONOMIC FUTURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. LAURON MONTGOMERY, WHO IS A NON-CITY RESIDENT, WHO WILL ALSO BE SPEAKING TO US ABOUT THE CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL BRIDGE PROPOSAL.

Good evening, Mayor Saffo, members of the Wilmington City Council, and members of our community. My name is Leroy Montgomery, and I serve as president of the NAACP New Hanover County branch. Tonight, I stand in support of improving the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, but I stand firmly opposed to any proposal that sacrifices our community in the process. Let me be clear. This is not a black issue. This is a Wilmington issue. This is a people issue. We all understand the bridge is aging and that transportation improvements are needed. However, the proposed fixed span bridge threatens to create lasting harm to the very neighborhoods, businesses and families that have helped shape the Wilmington community and generations. the city's own resolution recognizes that the fixed span alternative will have significant negative impacts on the wilmington's community and should be eliminated for further consideration we must ask ourselves who bears the burden of this project will it be the working families who are already struggling to afford housing, groceries, and health care? Will it be the seniors who have spent their entire lives in these neighborhoods? Will it be the small business owners who depend on downtown traffic and local investments to survive? A toll bridge is not the answer. A toll is simply another tax on working people. Every day, residents cross the bridge to get to work, school, medical appointments, and essential services. For families living paycheck to paycheck, those costs add up quickly. The city has already requested that any replacement bridge be exempt from tolling, and I strongly urge Council to continue fighting for that position. The city has invested millions of dollars into downtown revitalization, infrastructure improvements, neighborhood developments, and historic preservation. We cannot support a project that risks undoing those investments and changing the character of Wilmington forever. THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US RECOGNIZES THAT THERE MAY BE LESS COSTLY, LESS DISRUPTIVE ALTERNATIVES THAT DESERVE CONSIDERATION BEFORE A FINAL DECISION IS MADE. THOSE ALTERNATIVES SHOULD BE FULLY EXPLORED. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PEOPLE OF WILMARTON MUST HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE. THE CITY HAS REQUESTED DIRECT REPRESENTATION IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS BECAUSE WILMARTON IS THE COMMUNITY MOST AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT RESIDENTS DESERVE TRANSPARENCY MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT AND SOLUTIONS THAT PRIORITIZE PEOPLE OVER CONVENIENCE THE DECISION MADE TODAY WILL SHAPE WILMARTON FOR GENERATIONS LET US BUILD A BRIDGE THAT CONNECTS OUR COMMUNITY RATHER THAN TO DEVISE THEM. LET US FIND A RESOLUTION THAT MEETS OUR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS WITHOUT DISPLACING FAMILIES. BURDERING WORKERS ARE DAMAGING THE HEART OF OUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF WILMINGTON. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS ROSE CERRIVA, WHO IS A CITY RESIDENT AND WILL ALSO BE SPEAKING TO US ABOUT ESPINOSA SIERRA.

Hi, I'm Rosa Riva, and I want to start with a question. What is the point of a police department? We are told that the police exist to protect and serve their community, but I have to ask, who are they really serving? Who is really being protected? The history of policing in this country cannot be separated from the fact that some of the earliest organized forms of policing were created to capture enslaved people and enforce racial control. Today, the language has changed. We call it protect and serve. But who does that protection actually extend to? Because on March 8th, if those officers were truly protecting and serving their community, we have to ask why Alberto Espinoza Sierra ended up being shot by seven officers. seven officers fired a combined 62 rounds. And yet, after investigation, the DA determined the officers would not be faced with any criminal charges, and specifically after asking if 62 shots consisted of excessive force, they said no. So I have to ask, if 62 shots is not excessive force, then what is? And we could not ignore how Adalberto became a suspect in the first place. Officers were looking for a young Hispanic man. Adalberto was young. Adalberto was Hispanic. Adalberto was innocent. That should force the city to confront a very uncomfortable question. How much did racialist assumptions and the belief that someone looked like the suspect contribute to what happened that night? Why he died? Because looking like a suspect is not the same as being guilty. And that brings me to something that should be fundamental to our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. People should not have to prove that they are innocent after police decide that they look suspicious and they can't defend themselves if they're dead. If an officer witnesses another officer use excessive force, beat someone, commit a crime, or unlawfully kill someone, what obligation do they have to intervene? What systems are actually in place to hold officers accountable when they fail to do that? Because if officers are expected to protect the people from violence, they must also be held accountable when violence is committed by the people wearing the uniform. Otherwise, we don't have accountability. We have a system protecting itself. And that brings me to Alberto's family. You haven't allowed them to grieve. Every memorial that is put up outside Slice of Life near where he was killed gets taken down. We chalk. His family comes. His mother writes down saying, I love you, son, with chalk. And we bring memorials. We put up flyers, posters. We put a little car out because he loves cars. But that was taken away four times. maybe more than that, by the city on our tax dollar money. I don't want my tax dollar money to erase Alberto's name. I don't want police officers going out with spray bottles to erase his mother's writings to him. People wrote his name. People are grieving. When you do that, this tells the people that he doesn't matter. If you're not going to give justice to the family, at least allow them to grieve.

That brings us to the end of the public information segment, but I do have four additional speakers that have signed up to speak, which would be an allotment of 12 additional minutes, and it would be up to the council if we want to waive the rules to allow these four speakers to speak. One, two, three of them are for the bridge, and one is also for the day center. So I have a motion here, Councilmember Andrews, seconded by Councilmember Clinton-Quintana, to allow an additional 12 minutes. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. The rules have been waived. Time has been allotted. So Madam Clerk, will you please set the clock for 12 minutes? And our next speaker is Dr. De Winter, who is a city resident who will be speaking to us about the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and healthcare.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of the City Council. My name is Dee Winter, and I have served this community as an emergency physician for more than 15 years at New Hanover Regional Medical Center. I also serve as the medical director for the Transfer Center, which helps critically injured patients receive the care that they need as quickly as possible. More than 70,000 vehicles cross the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge each day. Those vehicles carry workers, families, visitors, and healthcare professionals. They also carry some of our most vulnerable patients. Every day, ambulances use this bridge to bring patients from Brunswick County and the surrounding communities to New Hanover Regional Medical Center. As our regions Only major trauma center, we care for people with severe life-threatening injuries. Our teams also prepare for patients experiencing strokes and heart attacks while ambulances navigate traffic on their way to reach our doors. Some of our smallest patients cross this bridge in the first hours of their life in a critical care vehicle on their way to our neonatal intensive care unit. We are fortunate to have Airlink helicopters stationed in Brunswick and Columbus County. However, weather and other operating conditions can require ground transportation. When that happens, a safe and reliable route into Wilmington becomes essential. Transport time matters when you face serious injury or illness. The bridge also carries physicians, nurses and other health care workers who travel into Wilmington around the clock, sometimes in the wee hours of the morning to care for this community. This makes Cape Fear Memorial Bridge more than just a transportation issue. It is part of our region's health care and emergency response infrastructure. I believe that the replacement project must continue moving forward. This community has worked hard towards a replacement for many years, and we have made too much progress to create an avoidable uncertainty now. As written, I am concerned that the resolution before you tonight could threaten momentum needed to complete this critically important project. Before supporting R2, I respectfully ask the Council to require clear answers about how this resolution could affect project schedule, federal funding, and long-term reliability. We can address community concerns while protecting the progress we have already made. Please preserve the project momentum and help secure a safe and reliable crossing for our patients, our healthcare professionals, and our community.

Thank you, sir. Next speaker. is Mr. Brayton Willis, who will also be speaking to us about the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I spent most of my career with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers working on major civil works projects. I also represented Leland on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the 2045 WMPO Transportation Plan update. Experience has taught me that an engineer's responsibility is not merely to build a project. It's to build the right project for the right reasons within the costs and consequences fully understood. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge must be replaced. However, my concern is with NCDOT's current environmental assessment. The proposed 135 foot clearance is directly tied to the federally authorized Wilmington Harbor project. Yet, the EA says the 100 foot bridge option would accommodate the identified existing vehicles that transit that area. That said, it identifies no vessel no vessel requiring 135 feet and does not tell the public what those additional 35 feet will cost or who primarily benefits. That doesn't prove the 135-foot option is wrong. It just means the case for it has not yet been made. Other major questions also remain in this EA unanswered. Significant traffic diversion into downtown Wilmington because of the tolls, environmental and cultural impacts, military mobility, hurricane evacuation, port freight, and the bridge's regional transportation role. These are central issues and together they raise serious doubt that the present record supports the finding of no significant impact rather than a comprehensive environmental impact statement Tolls are also not inevitable. Massachusetts is financing a $2.4 billion bridge replacement in Cape Cod. The replacement is without tolls and is accomplished through combined federal and state funding. Congressman David Rouser chairs the House Highways and Transit Subcommittees. This is precisely why Wilmington should join other affected communities and ask him to pursue maximum federal funding beyond the previous grant amount of $242 million, as well as having the Corps conduct a formal Section 216 report evaluating the 100-foot option. I have discussed this with your Director of Legislative Affairs as well as elected officials in our impacted area. I am not asking that we delay a necessary bridge. I am asking that we get it right before local motorists pay tolls for decades. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next speaker is, um, Rachel Burkhow, Burkhow? Yes, sir. Who will also be speaking to us about the toll bridge.

Hey there. My name is Rachel Birkenhauer. I am a small business owner. I own Lactation Counseling Services. I've been in private practice for 11 years, and I serve the Wilmington Leland Hampstead community, making home visits to help moms nurse their babies. and figure out that very hard postpartum time. Recently, actually as of today, we had a 30 to 40 percent cut of our rates for reimbursement and lactation. And as a small business, an extra $1,000 to $1,500, I think, is estimated that I would have to pay in order to cross the bridge. I simply do not have. I'm also a mom of two children. Me and my husband work full time, and I think that we do pretty well. But we also added a 16-year-old driver to our household, so you guys can imagine what that did for our insurance rates. So that additional cost has really hit our family among other costs of a box of cereal costs $7.50 nowadays. Don't know if you guys know that. Teenagers eat a lot of cereal. The other concern that I have of crossing this bridge is that my father lives in Southport and I'm also of that sandwich generation. that takes care of my parents. He is on a very fixed income, so this may mean that he has to make hard decisions. Can he come to that volleyball game? Can he come to her play at the Hannah Block Center? And these are decisions that we just shouldn't have to make as citizens here. I'd also like to mirror that our property taxes just went up, so we're paying more. and then you're asking us to pay even more. We just simply don't have it. We're a really great middle-class family, but I can tell you, we just don't have it. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. And our last speaker this evening is David Elligood, who will also be speaking to us about the Day Center.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and council members, I thank you for listening to us tonight about the day center. I come to you tonight as a resident of downtown, as well as the facilities director for First Baptist Church. We housed the Living Hope Center for just over three years. I want to speak on a couple of quick points, but Tony and the Hope Center have been a great neighbor. and have increased my role in our community in those three years by leaps and bounds. I'm an avid bike rider, as most people know, and I love riding around downtown now and seeing our less fortunate friends out on the streets. They wave, they talk, I stop, I bring them water and stuff like that. I don't think that would have happened had it not been for Tony and the Living Hope Center. It's unfortunate that they had to move out of the church. We are approaching a time where we're getting ready to do a major reconstruction of the church. So we even have to move out of our facility for up to 14 months. That is the behind the scenes part of that that most people don't hear about. But overall, them being a neighbor, bringing what they bring into a community is a great thing for any community. We have extra volunteers that have started working on our Tuesday nights because of knowing that the Living Hope Center has been a part of our church. So I encourage everyone to consider that, and I encourage anyone in the community, if the Hope Center does get their way, I encourage them to get out and meet some of these people and realize how great of a community our less fortunate are, and make friends. Come out and volunteer. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. This concludes our public information segment. Our next item of business is our ordinances. Item 01 is an ordinance making supplemental appropriation to the Public Improvement Fund and the Special Purpose Fund for a total of $65,232 for the purchase of crime scene investigation unit equipment. At this time, I'd like to recognize our city manager, Ms. Becky Aug. Ms. Aug.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. This item will be presented by Chief Ryan Zudema.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. This is a JAG grant that is annually awarded to the city. This will be used to buy crime scene technology. It'll help us better detect and collect crime scene evidence as we process a variety of scenes. two fuming chambers that one does porous, one does non-porous surfaces. There's an addition to a ferro scanner that helps us digitally 3D map crime scenes. And then there is a crime light auto that allows us to use this device to go across the spectrum to be able to see things like bruising on skin before it becomes visible to the naked eye, as well as to actually take pictures of fingerprints that aren't necessarily visible to the naked eye. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Yes, Councilmember Joyner.

Thank you, Chief. I support this. I'm going to vote in favor of it. The reason that I'm asking a question is just sort of related to procedure. And so if you have this or if the city manager wants to direct this to whoever. But $65,000 is usually quite less than what has to come to us for any sort of contract approval. So can I just get a procedural update on why this is coming in front of us? I think it's important for us to highlight right now what does and doesn't come in front of us with police budget, especially compared to what's happening at the county commission.

I can handle that one, Mr. Joyner. It's because of the nature of the grant, and anything coming from the government has to come through council for approval.

Meaning that if we accept this from another agency, we have to affirmatively vote to add it to our budget?

Yes, sir. You're having to vote to approve, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. What are the wishes of council with respect to the ordinance? We have a motion to approve by Councilmember Andrews, second by Councilmember Santaguida. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The item passes unanimously on first reading. Is there a motion to waive second reading? Motion made by Councilmember Andrews, second by Councilmember Joyner. Further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That item passes unanimously on first as well as second reading. That brings us to our next item, which is item 02, which is an ordinance reducing the speed limit on a portion of Wrightsville Avenue, which is SR 2782. At this time, again, I'd like to recognize City Manager, Ms. Becky Hawke. Ms. Hawke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of council. This item will be presented by Dennis Volcano. It's our traffic engineer.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council. Attached for your consideration is an ordinance that would reduce the speed limit from 45 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour on the portion of Wrightsville Avenue between Military Cut-Off Road and Eastwood Road. Based on a map describing this section is in your packet. Based on investigation, NCDOT recommends their existing 45 mile an hour speed limit ordinance is repealed along this section of Wrightsville Avenue. As the road is maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, but within the City of Wilmington city limits, a concurring ordinance is required. Approval of this action will result in the entirety of Wrightsville Avenue between Military Cut-Off Road and Eastwood Road being subjected to the statutory speed limit ordinance of 35 miles per hour. Passage of the ordinance is recommended.

Okay.

Any questions for staff?

Okay. One of the wishes of the council in respect to the ordinance, we have a motion to approve by Councilmember Santa Guida, second by Councilmember Clinton Quintana. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Pass the unanimous on first reading. Is there a motion to waive second reading? Chair Greg Musil, Motion made by Council Member Santaguida, second by Council Member Joyner. Discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Chair Greg Musil, Any opposed? Item passed unanimously on first as well as second reading. That brings us to our next item of business, which is item R1, which is a resolution amending the established 2026 schedule of Council's meetings at this time. I'd like to recognize City Manager, Ms. Hawke. Ms. Hawke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. I have our city clerk down for this item, but if she's not prepared to speak to this, I can handle it.

Thank you, Ms. Becky. Not a problem. As council is aware, Kara, our legislative director, pointed out to us that our regular meeting that would be held on the 14th, our gender briefing on the 14th, our regular meeting on the 15th would conflict with the two hearings that are scheduled for the DOT regarding the bridge. So the suggestion is that we move the meetings out by one week from the 14th to the 21st, from the 15th to the 22nd. And Becky and the city attorney both agreed with this, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Very good. Any questions? Okay. Is Ms. Santaguido?

I don't really have a question. I just want to make a comment about, yes, why I'm supporting this. We've heard from so many speakers tonight, and I've heard from a lot of folks in the community about how important this project is. And I've come to learn that the public comment hearings on the 14th and 15th, this is really the last opportunity for the public to speak. I think it's really important for us as elected leaders to be there and hear what everybody has to say. So that's why I'm going to vote in favor of this.

All right, we have a motion to approve by Councilmember Clinton Quintana, seconded by Councilmember Lau. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes unanimously. That brings us to our next item of business, which is item R2, which is a resolution adopting comments on the environmental assessment related to the proposed replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. And at this time, I'd like to recognize our city manager, Ms. Becky Hawk. Ms. Hawk?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. Linda Painter, our planning and development director, is going to lead the discussion, but we have multiple staff members in the room who can help answer any additional questions that council may have. Oh, and one additional item, I apologize. What is being passed out in front of you is a slight amendment to the draft resolution that was in your packet. They are relatively minor updates. We will also be able to put them on the screen for the public to be able to see them as we walk through what those changes are proposed.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. As you may recall, about a month ago, I stood before you on a related item to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, and that was a proposed programmatic agreement related to impacts on historic resources. So you adopted that resolution about a month ago. And a couple of weeks after that action, the state of North Carolina and CDOT and Federal Highway published the environmental assessment for the proposed replacement project. And so we are back here this evening because of that comment period, as has been noted by many speakers, has started with the publication on August 14th. and we'll be running through October 15th for written comments with two public hearings that are scheduled for September 14th and September 15th, one in Wilmington and one in Leland. So as a recap, there are two alternatives that are covered in the environmental assessment that are being considered for replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Alternative A is a movable span bridge, similar to what we have today, which will have 135 feet of vertical clearance when that span is lifted, and 65 feet of vertical clearance at all other times. And that again is consistent with what the bridge that exists today. It would also maintain the current on and off ramp locations for Wooster and Dawson at Third Street. And both alternatives, I will say, Thank you. We'll go from a four-lane section to a six-lane section. So three lanes in each direction, 12 feet wide, a median, and have a multi-use path on the north side. Alternative B is a fixed span with 135 feet of vertical clearance. So by having that 135 feet, it does not need to move up and down. you would be able to traverse freely. It does shift on and off ramp locations from Wooster and Dawson, from Third Street to Fifth Avenue. So to walk you through a couple of things, first we have a map of Alternative A, and both alternatives will be located south of the existing bridge. So where you see that red with the black hatch marks, that is the existing bridge which would come out with the construction of this project. You can see that this does maintain the current ramps at Wooster and Dawson and Third Street. It also maintains the connections to South Front Street. So NCDOT has provided a couple of renderings. The one to your left was provided prior to the release of the environmental assessment, and it shows you the new bridge in context to the existing bridge today. The rendering on your right was provided after the publication of the environmental assessment and shows you what the new bridge would look like after the existing bridge has been demolished. Moving on to Alternate B. This alternative, as I mentioned, would be a fixed span. So one of the reasons that you see this coming further out and showing more of what is located on the west side of the river is because the bridge itself has to be longer in order to accommodate that 135 feet of vertical clearance. It is a longer bridge than what we have today. It also changes how it interacts and intersects with the city street network. So instead of the, when you come off today, you're either going down onto Wooster or you're kind of curving off to go down South Front Street. Now what you see on the right side of the screen are what they call a trumpet interchange. So you basically have, as a layperson, I'll call them loop ramps, where you are going to, If you're heading eastbound and want to go head south on Front Street, you'll be curving underneath the existing bridge to get from that, essentially take that height change to be able to make that turn and go down South Front Street. Similarly, to get on the bridge, you will have another ramp that curves. You can see that where the A is located. on the right side of the screen, and that is the on-ramp coming from South Front Street. As I mentioned, the main change in terms of intersection with traffic is that you will no longer be able to access Third Street when you are coming off the bridge into Wilmington. You are going to have to access downtown from Fifth Avenue. Similarly, you will be able same thing for heading onto the bridge to head westbound. You will be able to get onto the bridge from Third Street, but you will not be able to get off and make a left onto Third Street or a right onto Third Street. You can only use Fifth Avenue. Here are the renderings of Alternate B. The one to the left, again, this is a new rendering that was provided as part of the environmental assessment. And so the view that you're looking at there is the ramp that I was just talking about in terms of access to South Front Street. And so that ramp is located immediately west of Queen Street. So when you start looking at that, you have very tall ramp with a retaining wall that is located right across from some existing homes. The rendering on the right was prepared by staff. I will say our renderings are very approximate. We do not have CAD drawings. We do not have dimensions from DOT. So staff did the best they could to approximate the height of this bridge and what it will look like and provide it in context to the existing Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. The next renderings, again, the one to the left is provided. Excuse me, Linda. Yep.

May I approach and answer the question?

Linda, can you go?

This slide.

So when you show the beginning of alternate B, does it start in the same place on Brunswick County as where we start now?

It's larger. So if you, so that was one of the things I was mentioning here. So you can, it's, The bridge itself is longer. You'll be getting on the bridge prior to where you are now. And I'm going to see if I can. I do not have the ability to show this right now. But if you look at where.

I see where it says begin bridge. Begin bridge.

That's the red portion. So that is further to the west of where you begin the bridge today. Right.

I was in all of the WMPO meetings when we talk about this, I always suggest that we start earlier in Brunswick County. I mean, we can go as far back to the Piggly Wiggly if we need to, so we can just land wherever we need to land over here in Wilmington, and we'll be fine. No? Yes?

I am not an engineer, so that is not a question I can answer, Mayor Pro Tem.

Okay. I mean, honestly, I've said that repeatedly because I believe that it makes sense. But, yeah, just what happens if we go with alternate B, the dynamics for the Wilmington side from 3rd to 5th Avenue are definite no. So just wanted to ask that question. Sorry.

And Mayor Pro Tem, one of the things to note about that is you still have a grade transition coming down. So if we're trying to clear 135 feet of height, regardless of where that is, even when you start back further, then you might intensify the slope of the bridge landing in order to try and do that. And then it compromises bus traffic and things like that because they just can't manage more than 8% grade. So those are also considerations.

Well, I'm not in favor of alternate B anyway.

Understood.

So going back to the renderings, the one on the left is from NCDOT, which shows what it would look like when you are heading south on Third Street. So you can see essentially the overpasses that you would be going under. The one that is in the foreground is your entrance to the bridge from Wooster Street. The one that is in the background would be the off ramp that is heading on to Dawson. The rendering again to the right is one that staff prepared again to provide some context in terms of what we anticipate the bridge will look like with the understanding the scale of the existing bridge. And so this was done from Dramtree Park. And last renderings, the top two NCDOT has provided, one is for Alternate A, which again is the lift bridge, and then Alternate B, both views from the Riverwalk. Staff has again provided a Riverwalk location as well, slightly different location on the Riverwalk from NCDOT's. But again, just giving you context of what Alternate B would look like as compared to the scale of the existing bridge. As part of the environmental assessment, NCDOT has also included an evaluation matrix that helps compare the impacts of the two alternatives. So we've provided this here, but it goes through several of the environmental factors that the NCDOT and Federal Highway are considering So you can look at the differences in those impacts between the two alternates. You'll see the bridge is longer. The wetland impacts, floodplain impacts are greater for Alternate B. Primarily that happens on the west side of River Eagles Island because of the wetlands and, again, the additional construction that you're seeing there. The number of parcels that would be impacted are 63 under alternate B as compared to 22 for alternate A. The same community resource they have identified as Dollar General, and they have identified that because of the fact that they believe that serves as a food source for many residents on the south side. And so any impact to that during construction that put possible shutdown could endanger food availability for residents. What you will notice is that historic resources and that line as well as section 4F also apply to historic resources. It says TBD and that was the focus of your resolution in August because they have not done the analysis of all of the impacts. They are waiting to select an alternative before they determine the total impacts that this will have on historic and cultural resources and the appropriate mitigation. In terms of noise, Alternate B identifies that there will be 102 receptors impacted versus 50. And there's also three hazardous material sites as opposed to two in terms of impacts.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, ma'am.

Let me ask a question. Yes, ma'am. Linda, you said that they're waiting to select an alternative before they do the historic impact analysis?

Yes. So in part, because they don't know which impact, Going back and looking at what was presented as part of that programmatic agreement, because they don't know which alternative is being selected, they have opted to use this route of the programmatic agreement for the Section 106 process instead of doing the full evaluation on both alternatives. So in terms of the resolution that you have before you, and I'm gonna run through these slides and then I will ask Scott to pull up the actual strike through and underline for the resolution that you have before you. But there were six recommendations or requests in the original resolution to you. The first one was a request that the city be centered in conversations about the project and the process related to it, including direct representation on the merger team. The second request was that additional and potentially much less costly alternatives be explored that could meet our future transportation needs beyond the two that are currently identified and evaluated in the environmental assessment. Options include modernization operation and or ongoing maintenance of the existing Cape Fear Memorial Bridge with or without the construction of an additional bridge in another location. Other operable designs, including different bridge types, those of a lesser span and or those reusing existing ramps and pilings. These alternatives are likely to prove less costly and quicker to deliver. The third request is to eliminate the fixed span bridge alternative in or near the alignment of the existing bridge from further consideration due to its projected cost and negative impacts on the Wilmington community. The fourth request is postponing identification of the selected alternative until all activities within the environmental assessment and section 106 process are complete. So that gets to the question, Councilwoman Andrews asked previously, which is essentially saying please do this analysis and use it to help select the alternative as opposed to selecting the alternative and then saying here's how we'll mitigate the impacts. The fifth request is to exempt any bridge that replaces the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge from funding via tolling, especially as less expensive alternatives for replacement would mitigate the funding needed in addition to any grants awarded and or available. What is struck on the bottom of your screen, and this is one of the changes that you will see that is in the substitute resolution that you have been provided, is deleting the request that you formally endorse staff comments that will be issued in response to the environmental assessment. We are recommending that that be struck because we will bring comments back to you, detailed comments on the environmental assessment back to you for endorsement on October 6th in order to meet that October 15th written comment deadline.

We have a question here from Mr. Jordan.

Looking at point four of what we've got on the screen currently. Postponing until all the activities in the 106 and EAA are complete. Help me understand all this noise around we have to be shovel ready by a certain deadline early next year.

I think that is with the current schedule that NCDOT has identified. I'm going to let Mr. LeCarrie, our Chief of Staff, respond.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Joiner. Good evening. The reality of the situation is right now we're in a public comment period. We're actively not holding anything up. They are supposed to be pausing to receive the public comments.

Can you pull your microphone forward just a little bit? Yes, sir. Sorry.

Thank you. Yes. We are actively in a public comment period. there isn't anywhere, shouldn't be any work proceeding because they're waiting to hear public comment. So we're asking during the time of the public comment that we have the space to evaluate and propose potential alternatives to this and that those then would be available to be considered and evaluated. on the same basic playing field as the alternatives that have been identified to this point. And so with that, then we would suggest that any alternative that we would potentially collaborate on and agree to collectively be subjected to that full analysis prior to the work starting rather than reversing the order. So it's it's simply going back to what we said in the earlier resolution that we have concerns about the programmatic agreement and the approach we signed on so that we could try and participate in in that process. But we still think cart and horse should be reversed.

Then my specific question is about the timing of a deadline in early 2027. So my understanding is that there's somewhere out there, there's information about the federal 200 and some million dollar grants that still leaves us with a $700 million deficit, or excuse me, delta for the state of North Carolina, not the city of Wilmington, state of North Carolina. But the federal grant has some sort of expiration date or timeline if we're not shovel ready by this date relatively early next year. That's what I want to understand on this point.

We believe we can connect those things up and still meet any deadlines there are for the grant. That's our belief as of now.

So can somebody clearly state for me the grant, or excuse me, the deadline?

I don't have that information right now. We can get it. But nobody.

Before we take any vote, I need that said out loud. Like, that's an important part of the whole discussion we're doing tonight.

If I can just offer what I know about this. We've talked about this a little bit at the WMPO. I believe that we have to have the funds from the grant obligated by October of 2027, but we have to have a decision about which direction we're going to go with those by spring of 2027. That's the current timeline that's been shared with us. Please correct me, Mayor Pro Tem Spears, if I'm wrong on that. February, March-ish, spring time for determining how we'll move forward with the federal grant and then October of 2027 for obligating that. That's my current understanding.

Thank you, Council Member Sandeguita. You're saying that your understanding is WMPO has to have endorsed an option.

When I say we, I mean for the project to move forward and make use of that federal grant, by February a decision has to be made about which direction that's going.

And I guess my question is, and I think you and I have had this conversation before, by who? Who has to make that decision? Every time this comes up, this is what I harp on.

Yes, there's a lot of moving parts. And I think the WMPO is definitely going to have input in terms of how we think we should approach funding and how this should be programmed in the SIPP. I think the WMPO gives input on other things related to the project. But in terms of the alternative that's chosen, A versus B, my understanding that that's an NCDOT decision.

Ultimately, that would fall to the merger team.

The merger team. That's a merger team decision?

Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Ultimately, that would fall to the merger team. And I think part of this is we don't have a ton of clarity because we've also heard things around there's flexibility in those dates. No one to this point has said if you don't do X by Y, the funding absolutely evaporates.

Who's the chair of the merger team?

It's made up of members from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NCDOT, uh, WMPO, and others, and they're entities, so they're able to actually swap out people based on the expertise that are, that's needed at that time. Yeah. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Uh, Mayor Pro Tem.

So, so there, I, I talked to Mike yesterday, and there will be two members of the WMPO on the merger team. But also, I think this is an important fact, right? Not that it negates what we're discussing at present time, but also just the tolling aspect of this bridge. If the NC legislature does not approve tolling of a State Road, you know, it changes the dynamic of what's going to happen here. So I don't want us to forget that aspect of this part of what we're doing, because I think it's important. So I feel like there's a lot of talk, there's a lot of activity when I'll say that I trust the information and the decisions that the WMPO or the executive director has given since I've been on the WMPO and ever since we've learned about the replacement of this bridge. I think Mike does an excellent job of informing us and telling us we can do this. We can we can explore this and we can always explore the option of getting off before we're committed to anything. So I think that's very important for us to tell the citizens of this community and even have a conversation amongst ourselves where we understand that because the I mean, we're moving pretty fast as if things have been solidified and they haven't.

We're questioning Mayor Pro Tem and to Councilmember Santagueta. It's my understanding that the WMPO is going to vote to whether we toll it or not. It comes from the WMPO. I mean, I know there's already been two votes taken for that. So I know ultimately the legislature will ultimately make the final decision on the toll, but on the proposal for which proposal to go with A or B, that ultimately then is made by the state or is it made by the WMPO?

so in theory the state should not toll a replacement utility so from the standpoint of if they're replacing a section of road or replacing an existing bridge it's really not something that should be told tolls are basically been they've basically been used to fund new infrastructure so additional infrastructure another lane on a highway a third bridge here those are those are the opportunities but an act of the legislature can obviously Do whatever an act of the legislature chooses to do.

And it seems like that's what the legislature has done is gone back, change the statute by adding lane miles to a particular existing road. They can thereby toll it because they consider it new so they can define it any way they want to. But ultimately, the decision as to which alternative they go with is not made by the WMPO. I understand the WMPO votes to determine whether they should toll it or not. But the actual alternative as to which one they, whether it be a lift span or fixed span, ultimately is made by the state?

It's made by that merger team that's overseeing the project.

Okay. And I guess the question I'd like to go back to is, is it the fixed span, the 135, Linda, which seems to direct the traffic onto Fifth Avenue? Yes. And I guess that's the bigger concern that we have, one of the big concerns, in addition to the area of study that has been narrowly focused, but they can expand that study in the shaded area. We just converted Fifth Avenue to a two-lane street from a four-lane street. Since that is a city street, and let's just say they decided they wanted to route this traffic down Fifth Avenue, would we have any say in that? Or could they come in the Arbor Trail and just say, this is for the public good of everybody and we're gonna just convert Fifth Avenue into a four lane facility?

So I think part of that is response to, if this bridge does land there and if the traffic is sent down Fifth, it has to one way or another accommodate those cars. And so working to see whether or not that becomes a state utility, whether the state takes that road over or whether we have to go out there and paint over bike lanes and turn it into vehicular travel lanes again is, those are the sorts of downstream impacts.

So I guess I'm speculating here. The current bridge is carrying about 65,000 cars a day. And since it's not toll, there's no mitigation issue because most people are crossing it free. And the concern we've always had is that once it is told, depending on what that number is going to be and how it fluctuates, because I think on the meeting that we had yesterday, they kind of tied into some kind of consumer price index. The concern that we've all had is people diverting going down to the Isabel Holmes drawbridge here. thereby that's why Fifth Avenue seems to be one of the focal points that they're looking at. I guess the concern that I have is as fast as this thing is moving and the concerns that everybody has to keep this thing on track, I would have imagined that they would have gone ahead and done that study they had the time to look at it. And I'm sure there's been some internal discussions as to this particular roadway and how do we divert the traffic north, whether it be Third Street, Fifth Avenue, or other streets. And I guess that's the concern that a lot of people in those neighborhoods have. We have a right as elected leaders to answer their concerns. That's our job here. I understand everybody's concerns from the economic side, to the traffic side, to the emergency side of getting people to and from the bridge. We know this bridge is going to have to be replaced. But that bridge is anticipated, if I'm not mistaken, based on some projections that I've seen, maybe you can share this with me, to carry eventually 95,000 cars a day. So if we're going from 65,000 cars per day to 95,000 cars per day, the protection of those neighborhoods are paramount to the elected leaders here. That's our responsibility. Just like the folks in Brunswick County, when we were talking about the Southern Bridge, and rightfully so, I think the DOT got it right, we should've had a Southern Bridge, because even with the Southern Bridge, the anticipated crossing numbers were gonna be 75,000 at the memorial. But because that went away, because of the concerns of those neighborhoods and those elected leaders stepping up and standing up for those people in those communities, we have every right to be heard also. I hope nobody takes this personally, and I feel like some people are. But we have a responsibility as elected leaders here to address those concerns before, to be determined, because I'll say this, based on what I have seen with the interchange at Eastwood and Military Cut-Off, once this public hearing is done on the 14th and 15th, it's done. And if they want to go in there and change anything, they can. And there's very little that we're going to be able to do. Yeah, we could raise a stink, and yeah, we could say a lot of things. But ultimately, they're going to do what they want to do. I'd like to have at least those things addressed as soon as possible. And I think they have the resources to be able to do that. And I just want to have an honest discussion and answer to those questions. I think it's fair. This community, the city of Wilmington is going to take the brunt of this. It wasn't supposed to be that way. But because we're going to be taking the brunt of 95,000 cars eventually through this community every single day, how that traffic is moved through this city will determine what the city's going to look like. Because it's not only going to affect Wooster and Dawson, it's going to affect Oleander Drive and Third Street. People getting to and from the beaches, getting to and from the airport, getting to and from their places of business. So this is a very important decision for all of us. We want to work in a collaborative fashion with the state, with our members, with everybody involved. And I've always said that. I think we're all in the same church, but maybe in different pews. But we have a responsibility. And I hope people understand that. And I hope we can get the answers to those questions so we can help move this project forward also. But I share the concerns of the community because I'm hearing it from them. And I just want to be able to address them and tell them it's going to be okay or we've got a problem here and let's see what we can do to alleviate that. Go ahead, continue.

So these are the recommendations. So, Scott, if you can just change and put up the strikethrough and underlined version of the resolution. I apologize, I'm having trouble with the mouse over here.

Cassidy, did you have a question? I'm sorry.

I did.

It's okay.

Thank you. Thank you all. Council Member Ramirez.

Linda, I'll let you go ahead and get through this and then I can ask my question because it's in here. I'm going to put it again so we don't forget though.

There were a couple of additions to the whereas clauses. So one is whereas the city council has remained consistent in its desire to have all practical bridge design alternatives evaluated as evidenced by the resolution passed on March 4th, 2025. And whereas the city wishes to engage its state and federal partners in good faith to identify and explore these alternatives. have been added. And then one deletion, which was the original number six that staff comments that are issued in response to the EA be considered formally endorsed by this resolution. Again, we are striking that because we will bring back detailed staff comments for you to endorse in October.

Thank you, Linda, for this presentation. I have a number of questions. I'll say two questions. The first question, I know we've heard concerns about this resolution or any comments that we may provide delaying this process. Dennis, am I correct in understanding what you just answered earlier, that there's nothing in here that would delay any part of this process?

We don't believe so based on where we are in the process.

Okay. Thanks for that confirmation. I want to dig into number three here a little bit, this paragraph about the fixed band bridge, and it might be more useful to bring up the map. Cuz I kinda wanna get into some details. I can't claim to have read every page of the environmental assessment appendices, but I have read many hundreds of those pages. And one of the things that, and we've heard this, one of the things that is most concerning to me is this bridge landing at Fifth Avenue. When I read through the appendices, it says that over 15,000 cars a day, additional cars a day, will be traveling north on Fifth Avenue from the bridge. And I'm curious about the capacity of Fifth Avenue to manage that level of traffic. Do we have capacity for that increase on Fifth Avenue?

Not as it's currently configured.

Okay, and then in the environmental assessment itself, and I appreciate that there was a little bit of traffic impact analysis outside of the study area, and I appreciate that. But one of the things that I noticed is that Fifth Avenue is predicted in this analysis to go to four lanes in the future.

do we have any plans to expand fifth avenue to four through lanes is that anywhere on our project list we do not no the work that we just did and the investment we just made is our preferred vision for fifth avenue

OK. I think maybe it's worth including in our comments, or I can include this in my personal comments, that the assumption that Fifth Avenue will be widened to four lanes I think really impacts the capacity level of Fifth Avenue. And that's an incorrect assumption. And I think that needs to be corrected and addressed. I guess the other question that I have related to an additional 15,000 cars a day headed north on Fifth Avenue, I believe not only that road but additional surrounding streets do not have the capacity for that level of traffic. I am I guess I just want to state and I think it's important for us to talk about the economic impact of that to our downtown. My understanding is that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars haven't been invested in downtown and when we start dumping cars where we don't have capacity off of a monster bridge, I think we start to put at risk the economic investment that the taxpayers in this city have made in this city. And I would really love to see some projections and some data that show what happens to downtown when we've got folks taking back roads, winding through downtown to get to a concert on the northern part of downtown or to go to Thalian Hall or all of the other, go to the new museum that just opened, which is incredible by the way. I really wanna understand what the impacts are to our downtown when we've got folks weaving in and out. Economic impacts, safety impacts, impacts to residents, businesses, all of that. So I don't know if that's something that our staff can provide as part of our comments or if that's something that we need to go back to DOT and ask for further study on. Um, but I think that's going to be really critical. Um, it is, I am very concerned that that we are on a path of a finding of no significant impact just understanding this one intersection. So thank you all. I appreciate it as well.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate adding the whereas in the new one. I took that off. But the one, the last one in our new version that we've remained consistent in our desire to have all practical bridge design alternatives evaluated last March. You have your mic on? Yeah. Oh, good.

I'll move it. How's this?

Yeah.

So in, replacing something for me, but is this better? So I appreciate you putting, adding that in and I'm definitely in favor of that. The thing I'd like us to consider is that paragraph two under the therefores I guess it's not written. And you had it in the bullet points, but I wanted to see it in the, yeah, thank you. In line number two, unlike the other therefores, it has a lot of detail. And I think that detail would be a little bit more meaningful in the context of the staff comments when we get it. So I wanted the council to consider deleting the second sentence of that paragraph. So it pretty much reads, consider options that might be cheaper since we don't have enough money to build this bridge, which I think is a reasonable request.

Is everybody okay with that?

Can I just clarify so that it would read additional and potentially much less costly alternatives that can meet future regional transportation needs, be explored beyond the too advanced by the EA. These alternatives are also likely to prove less costly and quicker to deliver.

Yeah, that last sentence might need to be wordsmithed a little bit, but yeah, that's basically the idea. And I think that's a lot of what's confusing people. And I think it would be a little more meaningful once we get those staff comments that they're working on and have that level of detail in the staff comments. I think in that context, it might make more sense.

Mr. Joyner.

My question may help shed some light on that paragraph too. I have a couple of things I have been very eager to start asking. So let's jump to paragraph three here for me to get started. The proposed project alternative of a fixed span bridge in or near the alignment of the existing Cape Fear Memorial Bridge be eliminated from further consideration and evaluation due to its projected cost and the negative impacts to the Wilmington community. So when I first got this document, I read that to mean eliminate option B. But in conversation with staff, I don't know that that was what the author intended this to actually mean. And the reason I'm bringing this up is, number one, my preference is option A over option B, and I'll get into that in a bit. But we're submitting public comment. Our public comment needs to be understandable by the people receiving it. And if that's what I thought it meant from the jump, I don't feel like that would be clearly communicated.

I think the intent is to remove alternative B from consideration.

Is there any intent by the author of this with paragraph three to also remove alternative A?

Not in and of itself, no. Okay. No, because that is operable, but what we're getting at overall is that we believe there may be a less expensive operable option. Sure. Right, because the choice between 1.1 billion and 1.2 billion when you have 300 million is still not really much of a choice.

Yeah. Okay. So I guess the first point that I wanted to make is I would support option A over option B. I think the plain language of this needs to be easily digestible by the people receiving the public comment. So if what we mean is let's remove option B, I would like this to say let's remove option B. The next point that I would make is going up to what Councilmember Lyle was asking about here on paragraph two. I agree with the spirit of we don't really like option A or option B. We would prefer a third bridge. We would prefer all of these other options and alternatives. But as somebody who has responsibility to actually getting something done in this community, I don't believe that our partners are gonna engage with us in good faith to go back and revisit some of these decisions. That were made without us. That were made against the input that we put. But I don't realistically expect that some of these groups are gonna come back, this merger team is gonna come back and revisit us. And if that is a likely outcome, this is the moment for me to be convinced. Like this conversation, this meeting is the moment for me to be persuaded and I'm open to being persuaded. But what I'm seeing is, Let's grab each other by the hand and walk in the direction of let's have a conversation with the group that may not have a conversation with us. If there's an actual plan or a proposal, I'm more than willing to go down that road, but I haven't seen that. And I genuinely would rather say option A sucks, but I can get something with option A, then these all suck and I am not gonna participate and nobody's gonna participate in good faith.

So I think that's fair, but I think in good faith to your point, we haven't been engaged in some of these conversations and some of the conversations that we've had around a process forward includes the potential to revisit concurrence point two, which would be evaluating the alternatives. And so with that, it certainly doesn't hurt our community to inquire about the potential of a third bridge. And if that gets ruled out immediately, that gets ruled out immediately. However, I don't think there's any world in which we think fewer bridges is better than more bridges, right? So if there is the potential, especially now with Shipyard being able to potentially take that traffic, if that is something that is open to evaluation, we would like to know and rule that in or out. And if it's ruled out quickly, it's ruled out quickly. But we do think that there's merit to at least asking the question because we do believe at some point in the future, a third bridge is going to be necessary regardless of what happens to Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. If you bear out all of their projections, the number of lanes that would need to service New Hanover County is more than what we're talking about. So having six lanes and another location and four lanes here Might be better than just having six lanes here. So that's a conversation piece. And then beyond that, what are the alternatives that we might be able to propose? We were asked directly. What alternatives do you have? And so we're working with the consultant to identify potential alternatives that we can advance for that conversation rather than simply just saying. OK, we'll figure out a way to make alternative A less bad. We're asking the question, is there another option that maybe has not been explored to date that can solve everybody else's needs? And can we rule that in or out quickly so that, again, we're not holding anything up, but doing that work, doing that due diligence now during the public comment period, and then being able to say, here's something that we would like you to look at.

Okay. And the public comment period ends?

October 14th, 15th, yes.

And we had the DOT elected officials, local leaders call with Leland, Brunswick Commission, New Hanover Commission, you know, Caroline Beach, everybody, and they said that they were going to do a one-month turnaround on public comment. They're already looking at how quick they want to get through all these comments, which makes me question their sincerity and how thoroughly they want to review all these comments, but that's a different story. Last thing, and I'll, you know, yield back whatever. Can we pull up Table 14 on the evaluation? Table 14, Evaluation Matrix. So when I was reading the environmental study, this was my aha moment. And just as an aside, environmental study may catch your ear to make you think they're talking about a natural environment and wetlands and endangered species, and that's in there. But it's not an environmental study in that sense. It's the environment of this region, this portion of Southeast North Carolina. But anyway, this table was my aha moment. of the striking comparison between 1.4 and 20.8 acres, 1.2 and 10.8 acres, that along with the noise pollution saying that alternative A would likely put up noise barriers and alternative B simply it was gonna be too much to even try, that was sort of my aha moment on I'm ready to say no on B and yes on A. And I think at the end of the day, Yes, there's an 80-something million dollar difference between these two, but for either one, we're talking about a 700-something million dollar delta that the state of North Carolina has chosen not to fund, but rather to put on the backs of the people who live in this community. And so the people of this community ultimately, in my view, should be able to choose, is that gonna happen through a local option sales tax that's put up to a referendum, or is that gonna happen by the legislature and the WMPO saying, we're voting for a toll? That's where I'm at. I'm ready to vote in favor of removing alternative B. Whatever we do tonight, my personal comments are going to say that I'm in favor if we go with one of these two, go with A. And that's where I'm at. Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Andrews.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to agree with everything that's been said here. We've heard that alternatives A and B provide essentially the same traffic capacity and have approximately comparable construction costs because we don't know what either of these is going to be at the end. But what I haven't heard is what specific transportation or other benefit that alternative B would provide. over alternative A that would justify all of these greater impacts on Wilmington. And what I haven't heard, and I asked this question yesterday, we had a meeting just for elected officials, a virtual meeting, And I asked, how many times has the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge actually opened for marine traffic in each of the last five years? And what was the duration of those openings? Because we heard tonight some thought that this could affect emergency operations. But it's my understanding that the actual openings have been very limited since the Kinder Morgan facility is no longer in operation. And we still don't have that information. And so again, it is very hard for me to justify alternative B with all of the negative things in this chart and all of the things that we've heard from the community. So I have a lot of other questions, but for the purpose of tonight, those are my important comments.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Yeah, I want to go back to something that Councilmember Joyner said, and I believe that the revision do clearly state that we want to eliminate alternate B. I mean, that's how I read it. But and also just, I mean, I'm certain the people that would receive these comments or receive this resolution from us are accustomed to much higher level language than most of us. Maybe not you, but most of us. I think that they would understand that we do want to eliminate aid, but historically there have been multiple conversations about a third bridge. And the mayor would know that more than anybody in this room for as long as he was on WMPO. And he also references the conversation about eliminating the third bridge that we would actually be driving across by now had Brunswick County not wanted it. And that was over, what, 20 years ago? Right. So that was a conversation and an action that took place over 20 years ago. So we can see the impact of that conversation. So I agree with what he's saying now that, you know, it is bold enough. We should be bold enough to say that we don't want this. And maybe I was thinking a little bit differently earlier, not that I was in support, again, of Alternate B, but, you know, the fact that we do need a bridge replacement. But even if there's a third option, we still have to replace the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. But we have to do it with something that does not impact this community in a negative fashion. Right? Because we're concerned about the residents of this community. We're concerned about the businesses of this community. And we have been. And I want to stress that because I'm not certain that that's not getting lost in the conversation that's being had. The points that have been made that are being made more now, they have been being made for the period that I've been on the WMPO. And I mean, honestly, the mayor swapped with me to get on the WMPO so I could really express the fact that we were opposed to a toll. We are opposed to the impact that Alternate B would have. Fifth Street is not prepared. I mean, the state that Fifth Street is in right now, One lane and a bike lane, right? So imagine 15,000 cars coming down Fifth Avenue. Today, on my way coming home from work, I came over to Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. I went up Carolina Beach Road to go to Harbor Freight, and then I was coming back home. And I was like, well, I'm not going to take MLK. And I came down Red Cross. And I tell you what, pardon my language, but those damn brick streets, That's not it. So I mean, the infrastructure that we currently have is not prepared to take on any additional traffic. It's just not. So I think we're all in favor of a swap. I think it's fair to say that. Let's just get a fair swap of what we have. and move forward rather than to have something that negatively impacts this community in the manner that it will. Um, and I just wanted to, to put that out there because I think some of that information is being lost. Great.

Councilmember Santaguida.

Thank you. I have a, I have a question. I think I know the answer to this, but I want to ask it anyway. Um, uh, so public comment ends on October 15th. There are these public hearings that are taking place September 14th and 15th. We've been told that's last, this is public comment. That's the last public hearing. Um, and, and I understand that to be true. Does that, does that include the city as well? Is this our last opportunity to, respond to what we've seen and to offer comment on the record and our concerns and the direction that we would like to go. My understanding is that's what this time period is for. And I just want to confirm that this is the last opportunity that we have as a city. It's not just the final opportunity for residents.

That is our understanding based on the process and where it is today is this is our opportunity to provide the comments on the

Okay, so this is this is our opportunity to follow the process, put everything that we have based on what we know right now. Um, put it all on the record on behalf of the people that we serve in the city of Wilmington and what we think is best for the city of Wilmington. This is it. Speak now forever. Hold our peace. Correct. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Councilmember Clinton Quintana.

Good evening. It's been a very interesting night to say the least and especially regarding this bridge. But I want to be clear and just let everyone know that we need a bridge. But I think everyone up here agrees that option B is not the bridge that we want. Option B is definitely going to impact Wilmington. And as you've heard tonight, several members and the public have spoke about how that impacts Fifth Street, Third to Fifth Street. I've been in Wilmington since 2019 and I've seen changes and I've heard the mayor say multiple times. That we're only 51.4 square miles, is that correct? So when I think about option B and the bill that comes up over our neighborhoods, how it affects our businesses. These are our children, our grandchildren, our grandchildren's children. And having a fixed bridge at 135 feet, We can't come back later and say, we made a mistake. We should have gone a little bit higher or maybe we shouldn't have gone that high. So we really need to think about the impacts that are gonna hurt Wilmington. And I'm not talking about just Wilmington, the city, because the city is made up of Wilmington humans, people, children, schools, small businesses, everything here in Wilmington that makes Wilmington so great. Not only that, That traffic on 3rd through 5th cannot hold the existing traffic that we have today. And we're talking about people who move here, and I know they're moving here, several people every month because I see it on social media. Hey, I just moved here. Where can I go to find something good to eat? Hey, I just moved here and I found this cute restaurant. I just want everyone to know that I do not support option B. I support option A. I think that you should also, but that is not for me to convince you. I just want you to do your research. Thank you.

Council Member Andrews.

Yeah, thank you. I just had to say one more thing because Council Member Clinton Quintana got me inspired to say, It feels sometimes like, you know, yes, this is a regional transportation project, but it feels sometimes like Wilmington's being treated as an obstacle in this Wilmington, in this regional transportation project. And Wilmington's the reason that this bridge needs to be here, you know, and I think that protecting our neighborhoods and our businesses and our residents and our environment, those aren't things that are getting in the way of progress. Those are the reason that we're here to make these public comments. And they're the reason that this regional project exists to consider those issues. So I'm very much in favor of passing this resolution tonight. Council Member Lau.

I wanted to follow up with what some of the other council members said and bring it home to the Wilmington taxpayer. because the instead of the traffic coming out on the third street which is a dot road it's going to come out on the fifth street which is a city-owned road so that means we're obligating the city taxpayer to more road improvements than if we had approved the other had approved uh alternative a so that needs to be really high in the conversation is what um how that impacts the people who live here as the way it's already been articulated, but also down to the financial obligation and the investments that have already been made into downtown. I have one other question, request. We go back to the renderings. Which ones? The first, there it is, yes, yes. So the one on the far left, that DOT provided to us, and even the one that the staff did, which is exciting. And when I saw that, I was like, oh, could they do what I want them to do? Do you have enough information from the site plans and the construction plans to do a rendering of what is happening when the bridge lands? It's really confusing from the site plan.

We're trying. Again, we are limited by what has been put out in the EA in terms of the maps that you have seen tonight, as well as a diagram that kind of shows the heights of the two. We don't have dimensions. We don't have CAD drawings. So our urban designer is doing the best he can with the information he has to approximate what those impacts are. So he is working on the ramps to see if he can render that, but again, it's going to be approximate because we don't have the data that they do.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, Mayor Pro Tem again.

I just want to say this. As a person that drives across either one of these bridges, the Capefield Memorial Bridge or the Isabel Stelen Holmes Bridge, what we're not talking about is the impact to 421 between the bridges. Even when you get off of work right now, the moment that you get on 421 off of 74, it's traffic. Right, so from there to the bridge and even the light at the Isabel Holmes, the light and you can just make a right. But the number of people that just go all the way down until they get almost to the light and then cross over, I'm not one of those people, before they make the right to get on the bridge. Right. So that even that infrastructure is not prepared for what's going to take place. And then how long before the Isabel Holmes bridge becomes obsolete?

And that's a fair question. And obviously the the impacts to the bridge, Isabel Holmes Bridge, get exacerbated in a scenario where the replacement bridge is told because people will go out of their way to avoid the toll. And so you'll see additional traffic diverting to Isabel Holmes because people will try and avoid paying the toll to get across Cape Fear.

That's a great point, Dennis. But this is so this is also a talking point that I've had in WMPO meetings because Just because you avoid the toll doesn't mean it doesn't cost you more money to go out of your way to get to work or to get to go eat at a restaurant or to go to the hospital or whatever just because you're avoiding a toll. You're spending more money in gas, more wear and tear on your car, your tires, whatever. uptick in expenses that is just associated with this bridge in general. Correct. There's no way that we can avoid it.

Correct. And I think you'd be surprised how many people stand on principle and coming out of Charlotte and seeing the impact of the 77 toll lanes. I was born in Pittsburgh. I'm used to tolls. It's a fact of life in the northeastern part of the United States. If I was in downtown Charlotte and I had to be in a meeting at Davidson at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, I would use the toll lanes because I needed to get to where I was going. But I would be alone because the residents who were opposed to the tolls in Mecklenburg County would rather sit gridlocked in three lanes northbound on I-77 than pay the toll. And they made that choice every single day despite the impact of their time, despite the cost of their fuel and the wear and tear on their car. They would avoid the toll out of principle.

It's just a negative impact all the way around. I think so many of us have said it, all of us have said it, but we just have to have the wherewithal to have the proper planning for what happens in this community. And again, I just can't stress that enough for the people that are listening, the people that are anticipating. And also, again, to the mayor's point, what happened 20 years ago, had somebody had that wherewithal, we would have a third bridge. So maybe we wouldn't particularly be in this situation, but they chose not to do that. So it's just, I think we're, we're here, we're now, um, just a decision that we have to make, but it's, it's more so, it's definitely option A, alternate A versus alternate B. Just because of the significance.

Council Member Malau.

I wanted to follow up and see if there were other council members who wanted to modify number two. As I mentioned, I didn't get a feel for that.

JC, I'm honest. I was a little confused by what you were saying.

Take out the confusing part of number two. I don't think I was confused until you asked us to take it out.

Mayor Bartim, if I may. Please. The way that I've got the changes written down for what you would be voting on right now if you took a vote based on Councilmember Lyle's input and the rest of Council's as well would be on the revised R2 that you were handed out tonight. Number two, at the end under the that clause would take out the second sentence that reads, these options may include modernization, operation, et cetera, and would leave the first sentence in the third sentence. So that one would now read, additional and potentially much less costly alternatives that can meet future regional transportation needs be explored beyond the two advanced by the EA. These alternatives are also likely to prove less costly and quicker to deliver. And then in number three, it would be specified, as Mr. Joyner suggested, the proposed project alternative B of a fixed-band bridge in or near the alignment of the existing Cape Fear Memorial Bridge be eliminated from further consideration and evaluation due to its projected cost and, I'm sorry, should be eliminated due to its projected cost and the negative impacts to the Wilmington community. And those would be the two changes that I've got recorded so far.

Council Member Sandeguini has a comment.

I'm comfortable with that with one modification on number two in the sentence that says these alternatives are also likely to prove less costly and quicker to deliver. Just say likely. I would just say remove the less costly and because it's redundant from the first sentence. So I would just say these alternatives are also likely to prove quicker to deliver. Is that correct, Grammar? Okay.

That works for me. Thanks. I'm comfortable with that, yep.

Okay. Council Member Joyner?

And just to clarify, we anticipate having something actually to offer to them as a proposed alternative by the end of the public comment period. And that's going to come back to us as staff comments for us to take another vote on.

That is correct.

Got it. I'm good with that then. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? OK. City Manager Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've been messaging with our Director of Legislative Affairs, Kara Spencer, and she indicated that she has some of the details that Councilmember Joyner was asking about related to the wording of the federal funding. Wanted to make sure that that was shared with Council.

Yes, good evening, Council. I wanted to let you know that it certainly can be confusing some of the deadlines and what's due to who by when. But just to recap, many of us were together in July 2024 when we stood under the current bridge and got excited about that $242 million grant. Like so many other things, grants do expire, and there's something called a grant agreement. So at the time, that was about half of what we thought a new bridge would cost. So it was about 50%, which was pretty awesome. The grant agreement is what really matters here. So there is a budget period that the Federal Highways Administration has, and the only way to change the grant agreement would be federal action. um which is incredibly rare um so if funds are not obligated by september they are legally terminated of what year 2027. thank you thank you cara for that clarification anybody else anything else

OK. We have a motion to approve by Councilmember Andrews, seconded by Councilmember Santaguida. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes unanimously. That brings us to our next item of business. And our last item of business is the report of Counselor's Evaluation Committee. And at this time, I'd like to recognize Mayor Pro Tem Spears, who is chairman of that Counselor's Evaluation Committee, to present the recommendations from the entire City Council.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the last meeting, we had an evaluation on the performance of our three direct reports being the city manager, the city clerk, and the city attorney. Council met to evaluate their performances. Over the past fiscal year, all three have met or exceeded the expectations of the City Council, and Council thanks them for all of their continued service. With that said, do I have a motion to set the base annual compensation rates for Council's three appointed positions for the current fiscal year at $288,400.32 for the City Manager, Becky Hawke. $121,303.78 for the city clerk, Penelope Spicer-Sidberry, and $215,083.70 for city attorney, Meredith Everhart.

We have a motion to approve by Councilmember Andrews, seconded by Councilmember Clinton Quintana. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item passes unanimously. This concludes the regular agenda. Are there any items brought forward by our city attorney?

No, sir.

Okay. Our city manager?

No, sir.

Okay. Our city clerk? No, sir. I'm good. Thank you. Ms. Santaguida?

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to acknowledge Labor Day coming up. It's a really special holiday, I think, for a lot of folks in our country, particularly workers. I am very grateful for the workers who risked a lot and sacrificed a lot to make sure that we have things like weekends and regular work weeks and children not working in mines. So I'm really grateful for Labor Day and the work of all the labor folks who came before us.

Thank you. Council Member Andrews?

Yes, I wanted to announce that September is National Preparedness Month, which is particularly important for those of us who live here on the coast. And the city, in partnership with AARP North Carolina, is offering a free disaster preparedness education series beginning this Friday, September 4th, at the MLK Center and the Davis Center. And it's designed to help residents prepare for emergencies, know where to get reliable information, and understand what to do afterward. And so as we move through the heart of hurricane season, it's also a good time for all of us to make sure that we have a plan, that we know how we're going to receive emergency alerts, and to check on neighbors who might need a little extra help. And I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Labor Day weekend.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes, sir. On Friday, I had the privilege of being able to participate in the renaming ceremony of both gyms at the Martin Luther King Center. One gym named after William E. Murphy III, and the new gym expansion was named after coach Ron E. Davis. I mean, amazing, just an amazing thing. So I want to thank you staff and congratulate you on a job well done and such an amazing turnout from this community. You would only hope, and I forgot to say this on Friday,

Shakima was making me cry.

I forgot to say this, but you would only hope that you would live your life in a manner where you serve your community, that they would show up for you in such a fashion after you have passed on. So kudos to Coach Ron and Coach Murphy. Job well done. And thank you, City.

Very well said. Council Member Clinton-Quintana?

He cried like a baby. I only said that because he's lying on me again. I would like to point out that Mayor Pro Tem has a birthday this month. He probably wasn't going to share that with everyone, so I'll just be the one to share that. It's September 26th. So you all make sure you wish him a happy birthday at some point. I'm gonna take this moment to, we all have this nice little piece of paper up here that's talking about NCDOT is hosting two public hearings. The doors open at 4.30 p.m. for an open house and the formal presentation begins at six. If you would like to speak and sign up, it will be held in person beginning at 4.30 p.m. Each speaker is allotted three minutes. This is Monday, September 14th. Your Wilmington City Council members, as many of us that can attend, will be there. At Cape Fear Community College, Daniels Hall, 502 North Front Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. And then again on Tuesday, September 15th, This is in Leland at the Leland Cultural Arts Center at 1212 Magnolia Village Way in Leland, North Carolina. And if you can't attend, you can still comment because NCDOT is accepting public feedback through October 15th. So you can email them. at Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, publicationinput.com. Phone number is 984-205-6615 and enter project code 10626. You can submit a comment online through the NCDOT's Cape Fear Memorial Bridge public input portal. I cannot stress this enough. that this is very important. So tell everyone and invite everyone to watch our council meeting over again tonight. You can find it on YouTube. This is an important project. We need everyone's voice. We need you to show up, go back to your neighborhoods, tell your friends, family, Anyone that you can think of that's going to be impacted by this bridge here in Wilmington and surrounding areas, I need for you all to show up. Your voice matters. And we will also be posting this on our city page. Some of our council members have pages. We'll be sharing that on our Facebook pages over and over again so that you don't miss this. And don't forget to tell Mayor Pro Tem happy birthday on September 26. Thank you.

Council Member Lau.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The problem with going nearly last after all these brilliant and thoughtful other council members is that they've already said all the good stuff pretty much. So I usually say I don't have anything, but I wanted to add to the Mayor Pro Tem's report on our evaluations. What a great staff we have, the three that report to us directly and also the rest of the city because they lead of course, the rest of the staff. So thanks for all your hard work, and it's an honor to work with you. Mr. Member Joyner.

Happy Labor Day. Happy local summer. Thanks very much. Okay.

With that, we stand adjourned.