2026-10-01 - City Council Special Meeting

04:48Well. Good evening everyone. We

04:49would like to call our October

04:521st special meeting to order.

04:53Thank you. Those who joined us

04:54in the audience, those who may

04:56be joining us remote. We

04:57appreciate you doing so. At

04:59this time. Uh, as with every

05:01meeting, we will start with the

05:03invocation. Uh, we will ask

05:05Council member DJ Hare. Uh,

05:07Elder Hare. Yes, sir. Thank you

05:09ma'am. And immediately

05:11following the prayer, if we

05:11could, uh, repeat the Pledge of

05:13Allegiance.

05:14Thank you. Mayor. Dear Lord

05:16Jesus, just thank you, father.

05:18Once again, we call upon you

05:21just to say thank you for

05:23waking us, letting us inhale,

05:25letting us exhale, letting us

05:27go about our day. Lord, we

05:31thank you for grace and mercy.

05:33Mercy that follows us

05:34everywhere. And we thank you

05:36for alertness and King minds as

05:39we move forward this afternoon

05:41with our city meeting, we ask

05:44you for our minds to be open

05:46and alert as we move forward to

05:49support our citizens of

05:51Fayetteville. Let us remember

05:53all the questions and concerns,

05:56uh, aligned with this topic

05:58tonight that we may ask, that

06:00have been asked of us by our

06:02residents so we can get

06:03positive, clear answers as we

06:06move forward. And we thank you

06:08for so many things. We also,

06:11father, ask you to take care of

06:12our men and women that are

06:13fighting abroad. In Jesus name,

06:16Amen.

06:17Amen. Allegiance to the flag of

06:23the United States of America

06:25and to the Republic for which

06:26it stands. One nation under

06:29God, indivisible, with liberty

06:31and justice for all. Thank you.

06:35Uh, Council member hair. Yes,

06:37sir. Um, and I also like to

06:39acknowledge, uh, miss Don

06:41weeks, uh, director of

06:42Fayetteville Metropolitan

06:43Housing Authority and a board

06:44member, Mr. George Tucker.

06:46Mister Laverne. Uh, good to see

06:48you. And also, um, Mister, uh,

06:52I'm thinking about Damon, man.

06:54LaVar. Uh, see, when I see you,

06:56I see your brother. It's a, uh.

06:58But, uh. LaVar, uh, right.

06:59Thank you for joining us as

07:01well. Um, and so Council as we

07:03call this this special meeting

07:04to order, um, the item for

07:07business to be discussed is the

07:08choice of neighborhoods. Uh,

07:11assignment. Uh, federal

07:12metropolitan housing is here

07:13that will speak to us a little

07:15later. They are, uh, have some

07:17obligations and deadlines that

07:19they must turn in. Some

07:20information. Um, by today and

07:22Miss Weeks may speak with a

07:24little bit more specifics to

07:25that. Uh, but with that council

07:27for some of the initial

07:29discussions, need a motion to

07:31go into closed session for

07:32attorney client privilege as

07:33to, uh, some of the things that

07:34we need to talk about.

07:35So move, sir. Thank you sir.

07:37All right. There's a motion by

07:39Councilmember Hair to going to

07:40a closed session for attorney

07:41client privilege. The second by

07:43Mayor Pro Tem. Is there a

07:44discussion? All right. Council

07:47look to you for your systems

07:48for that. And then we'll move

07:48over to the Lafayette room to,

07:50uh, speak regarding that.

07:54Green.

07:57All right. Uh, Councilmember

07:59Jones, I think he's joining us

08:01remotely. Is he there? Yes. Uh,

08:02so. Councilmember. Yes, sir.

08:04All right. So what's your

08:05pleasure on the, uh, closed

08:06session motion?

08:08Yes, affirmative. I mean green.

08:11All right. All right. So that's

08:12that's unanimous. So with

08:15council, if we can move over to

08:16the Lafayette room for that,

08:18and then we'll we'll be back as

08:20soon as possible. Those who

08:21join us in the audience. Open

1:28:21back up the open session. I

1:28:22think. I think we've got a

1:28:24little echoing. David's going

1:28:26to fix. Hello.

1:28:34Hello.

1:28:38May I must be in the mountains.

1:28:40Something. Hello. Hello. Oh,

1:28:44gosh.

1:28:45Yeah I know. Everybody else. I

1:28:47hear.

1:28:47It twice. Don't turn it down. I

1:28:51did. Hello.

1:29:03Check. All right, well, we'll

1:29:07just.

1:29:08I can't do it.

1:29:10Oh, no.

1:29:10We're not doing.

1:29:14All right, so as we come back

1:29:16into open session. Oh, that's

1:29:19going to be aggravated. So

1:29:21what?

1:29:21What let.

1:29:22Coms get the coms together.

1:29:30I think.

1:29:56Let's try it.

1:29:57Again. Um.

1:30:55All right, David, we're.

1:30:57Good.

1:30:58It sounds.

1:30:58Better.

1:31:00Thank you. Councilmember Jones,

1:31:02can you hear.

1:31:02Us?

1:31:05All right, so Council with that

1:31:07as we come, come back to order.

1:31:09Uh, we have miss Don weeks.

1:31:11We'll ask that her or members

1:31:13of the Federal Housing

1:31:15Authority will come up. The

1:31:16council had a few questions.

1:31:18Um, and as we talk about, uh,

1:31:20well, I'll wait till you get to

1:31:21the podium this week.

1:31:24Lot of questions, Miss.

1:31:25Diane. Mister marvelous.

1:31:28It's don. Always good to see

1:31:30you.

1:31:30Um.

1:31:31So, um, the council. Um,

1:31:35tonight we're talking about the

1:31:37request, uh, that's by, uh,

1:31:40federal metropolitan housing

1:31:41for the Central Park Villas.

1:31:44Um, the. There were a couple of

1:31:46different requests that we were

1:31:47trying to work through. We

1:31:49understood that, uh, the

1:31:51housing authority and Jim Smith

1:31:53were doing a co-development

1:31:55partnership to develop, uh, the

1:31:5784 units, uh, at the northern

1:31:59tip of site one that is

1:32:01approximately 4 to 5 acres of

1:32:03the 16 acre site. And so, um,

1:32:06there was, uh, notifications

1:32:09back in August where Mr. Smith

1:32:11had notified us that he was no

1:32:13longer a part of it. And my

1:32:15understanding is that you, uh,

1:32:17had communicated to the city

1:32:19that you were speaking to North

1:32:20Carolina Housing Finance and

1:32:22FMA or Fayetteville

1:32:23Metropolitan Housing would be

1:32:25the, uh, the developer and the

1:32:27builder and, of course, the

1:32:29owner of the property, which

1:32:30you were going to be. So there

1:32:31were a number of questions

1:32:32tonight about the specific

1:32:33acts, one of which is what is

1:32:35the specific act that was

1:32:37submitted? Um, because we had

1:32:39two versions, there was one

1:32:40that was asked that, um, the

1:32:43option would be assigned to

1:32:46federal metropolitan housing,

1:32:47which would mean the same

1:32:49contract that we had with you

1:32:50and Mr. Smith before. What

1:32:52would be the terms? But then it

1:32:54was it was also discussed that

1:32:56something different was

1:32:57submitted to Mr. Corley. So

1:32:58I'll turn it over to you.

1:33:00Okay. Um, and I know we did

1:33:02with Chris. Uh, we did submit

1:33:04an application to the portal,

1:33:05so I'm not sure if that's what

1:33:06you're talking about. Where you

1:33:07got something I don't don't

1:33:08know about that. Um, but I know

1:33:10we, as you said, we had an

1:33:12agreement, uh, a partnership

1:33:13with Jim Smith. Uh, he dropped

1:33:15off the project, and, uh, you

1:33:17know, we had our attorney look

1:33:18at it and thought that, well,

1:33:21because we're we're the housing

1:33:23authority was one of the

1:33:24participants, and it was Mr.

1:33:25Smith that we still had an

1:33:26agreement. Uh, that would be it

1:33:28didn't last a long time. But,

1:33:31you know, I will say, for the

1:33:32purpose of our application

1:33:32today, it had been before 5:00.

1:33:35We submitted an application. So

1:33:36we didn't lose that

1:33:37opportunity. And, you know, we

1:33:38still have to, I guess, longer

1:33:40term resolve this property

1:33:41issue. I think we had an

1:33:42agreement if we use that same

1:33:43agreement, I believe it ended

1:33:45in maybe the end of the year, I

1:33:47think. So that still wouldn't

1:33:48get us through, you know, to

1:33:50the to this thing was done. Um,

1:33:51but we did submit the

1:33:52application today and got that

1:33:54done. And housing finance, I

1:33:55mean, is behind us. We've got

1:33:57the experience and we've done a

1:33:58lot of development with six

1:34:00different things replaced every

1:34:02year, as you know. Um, and

1:34:03they're fine with it. Uh, and

1:34:05so we were trying to do is just

1:34:06honor our commitment there. And

1:34:08because of the lack of

1:34:09affordable housing and

1:34:10workforce housing here in

1:34:11Fayetteville, that we just

1:34:12proceed with it. Um, and that

1:34:14was what we're asking, that we

1:34:15just get site control. We had

1:34:16to have site control. And

1:34:17that's what we're looking for

1:34:18long term.

1:34:19And so just to make sure I'm

1:34:21clear, Mr. Smith and you, it

1:34:23was the two parties, uh, that

1:34:25came to the city for an option

1:34:26with the terms that, uh, were

1:34:28listed in the, in the agreement

1:34:30that the city attorney went

1:34:31over with us. Um, but the

1:34:33options mean that, you know,

1:34:35you had to a certain date. And

1:34:36so what you're saying is that

1:34:38now that Mr. Smith is no longer

1:34:39a part of that, you would your

1:34:42ask, is that the same agreement

1:34:43be amended with just the

1:34:45housing authority without Mr.

1:34:46Smith? Correct. Or was there

1:34:47something different?

1:34:48No, I think that's it. I think

1:34:50essentially that's it. You

1:34:51know, we simply need a site

1:34:52control.

1:34:53Okay.

1:34:54All right. Well, there were a

1:34:55number of questions about some

1:34:56things that were submitted

1:34:58through the portal. And I think

1:34:59that's where it got a little

1:35:01confusing, because some of the

1:35:02questions that are asked during

1:35:04the portal may be different

1:35:05than, you know, because Mr.

1:35:06Smith and Housing Authority

1:35:08came specifically to the

1:35:09council to say we need an

1:35:11option. I think it was last, uh,

1:35:15uh, time is running together.

1:35:16But about a.

1:35:17Year ago. About a.

1:35:18Year ago.

1:35:18Yeah. November, I think

1:35:20November 25th or something like

1:35:22that. And, and so, uh, he

1:35:24needed to get it in to meet it.

1:35:25Uh, deadline and, and basically

1:35:28now he's not a part of it.

1:35:29You're in the same situation.

1:35:31All right, so council member

1:35:32here.

1:35:33Miss, um, miss miss weeks, Don,

1:35:38whenever we did hope six. We

1:35:42had a building partner.

1:35:44Correct? Correct. And that

1:35:46building partner was home.

1:35:47Uh, well, through we did hope

1:35:49six with a local developer, uh,

1:35:52United Developers. Correct. Uh,

1:35:54and they had construction

1:35:55company, you know, development

1:35:57company. All that together.

1:35:58Right.

1:35:59Uh, if we support. Or I support

1:36:05this evening, the request. Will

1:36:09there be a building partner?

1:36:11Yes. Uh, we've actually already

1:36:13issued an RFQ request for

1:36:15qualifications to, uh,

1:36:17contractors. We've gotten the

1:36:18submittals back. And what we'll

1:36:20do is, is use them to go back

1:36:22and price out the the project,

1:36:24because obviously we got old

1:36:25numbers. We can't use those.

1:36:27And from somebody no longer

1:36:28part of the project. So we'll

1:36:29use them. But they'll be part

1:36:29of the team to, you know, help

1:36:32develop this property.

1:36:33And what would the propose. Oh,

1:36:38okay. We got a mic here. What

1:36:41will the propose? Uh, project

1:36:46be? What would it look like?

1:36:47Kind of give us.

1:36:48A well, basically about the

1:36:50same thing. I mean, there'll be

1:36:5184 units of housing over there.

1:36:53Uh, and, of course, that's to

1:36:54serve as replacement housing

1:36:55for the displaced residents

1:36:57that will get first chance at

1:36:58it. That for the CNI project.

1:37:01Um, and that's first and

1:37:02foremost, um, but there'll be,

1:37:04you know, what we had said and

1:37:05I'd sent some information to,

1:37:07to, uh, city manager that we're

1:37:09glad to work with the city as

1:37:10far as how that looks, the face

1:37:11of it, uh, I think there's been

1:37:13some, uh, desire to make it

1:37:15more of an urban look than what

1:37:16we've done in the past, and

1:37:17there's no problem with that.

1:37:18Uh, so we've already agreed to

1:37:19sit down and figure out that

1:37:20also to work with them also, I

1:37:22guess, to for just an overall

1:37:24plan for all the catalyst

1:37:25sites. So this fits in with

1:37:26what's coming in the future

1:37:27with the other property of the

1:37:28city owns. So we're glad to do

1:37:30that as well. I mean, we want

1:37:31to be a good partner to the

1:37:32city.

1:37:33I like I like the way that

1:37:35sounds. This particular

1:37:37project, like unlike many, many

1:37:41other projects that are larger,

1:37:44um, uh, mixed use, uh, maybe

1:37:47even different forms of

1:37:49commercial type tied in there.

1:37:53It does increase values, not

1:37:56just right there in that one

1:37:57spot, but it spreads out

1:37:59through the communities. One of

1:38:01my concerns that I spoke about

1:38:03upstairs, uh, in our pre

1:38:05meeting was to make sure that

1:38:07there's a protection that's

1:38:09there. Uh, which you probably

1:38:11will not be able to. Well, you

1:38:13may have I know I spoke to

1:38:14Chris about it that we protect

1:38:19surrounding communities,

1:38:20property owners that are living

1:38:22whenever values and things like

1:38:24that go up. Uh, which that's

1:38:27going to happen. That's I don't

1:38:28think there's no hold or stop

1:38:29to that. Uh, that we protect

1:38:33those property owners, uh,

1:38:36those homeowners, uh, and

1:38:39that's going to be one of the

1:38:41also one of the goals, if we

1:38:44move forward with this project,

1:38:47uh, we're going to have things

1:38:49in place to help us, uh, do

1:38:52that. And I want a word that's

1:38:53always used. You hear it all

1:38:55over the nation. They call it

1:38:56gentrification. I didn't know

1:38:57so much. Really wanted to use

1:38:59that word. But you understand

1:39:01what I mean? Understand and how

1:39:03we can support. Because I can't

1:39:06support anything that's not

1:39:07going to support that.

1:39:10So well. And I would say that's

1:39:12something that I know we spoke

1:39:13about a lot in the application

1:39:14that Chris has talked about our

1:39:15meetings and our community

1:39:16meetings. This this is not what

1:39:18we do. I mean, our housing is

1:39:20basically just through hood.

1:39:21You know, that's exactly

1:39:22contrary to what they want to

1:39:23see. And that's just not what

1:39:24we do. I mean, our objective is

1:39:26to help the lower income

1:39:27families or workforce housing.

1:39:29Yes. And that's what we do.

1:39:30Yes. So we certainly have no

1:39:31desire to to upset the whole

1:39:33neighborhood and displace

1:39:34people that are there already.

1:39:35Yeah. I just want to throw my

1:39:36rock out there first. Okay.

1:39:38Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

1:39:40All right. Uh, Councilman

1:39:41Davis.

1:39:42Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh.

1:39:44Miss Weeks, did you mention

1:39:45that you guys already submitted

1:39:47what you needed to submit.

1:39:48To the. We submitted today, but

1:39:50the problem is the option that

1:39:51we used was existing. One is

1:39:54only good for, like, another 90

1:39:55days, so that would not. So

1:39:56today was a pre-application.

1:39:58Just a very snippet of what was

1:40:00coming in. On January the 1st

1:40:02week of January. We have to

1:40:03have a full application and of

1:40:05course, so this option wouldn't

1:40:06get us that far, you know. But

1:40:07but if we had not submitted

1:40:08today, we'd lose that

1:40:09opportunity for another year.

1:40:10And we didn't want to do that

1:40:11with the CNI going on. And we

1:40:12just got awarded with that. We

1:40:13were trying to keep that going,

1:40:14that initiative going. So we

1:40:16still need to work out

1:40:17something longer term. On the

1:40:20property.

1:40:20Okay. Thank you.

1:40:22Uh, I don't know, maybe. Is it

1:40:24time? Is it appropriate to call

1:40:25staff up? Yeah, maybe staff can

1:40:27answer this question for me. So

1:40:29as everybody know that that

1:40:31property is in district two.

1:40:32Right and right up the street

1:40:35in Mount Sinai, it floods

1:40:36heavily. Right. And I have a

1:40:39hard time, very hard time

1:40:42putting more housing in the

1:40:45area that we know it's prone to

1:40:47flood. So maybe somebody from

1:40:49staff can answer like, you

1:40:50know, what are the some of the

1:40:52measures that we can take to

1:40:53make sure if this is approved,

1:40:56that there's no flooding or

1:40:57anything because I'm having a

1:40:59hard time because there's as my

1:41:01as a council member, I often

1:41:03see spots in my district and I

1:41:05ask myself why the previous

1:41:07council's zoned that for

1:41:09residential because it's

1:41:10floods, Locks Creek, other

1:41:11areas that are in my district,

1:41:13and I and I questioned past

1:41:16council's decision, and I don't

1:41:17want this to be a decision that

1:41:19council's ahead of us. Question

1:41:22why this happens, and then they

1:41:23happen to deal with the

1:41:24repercussions behind it. So I'm

1:41:25not sure Mr. Manager or someone

1:41:27from staff can answer that

1:41:28question in reference to the

1:41:29flooding in that area. But so,

1:41:33Councilman Davis.

1:41:34Um, as they're getting that

1:41:36together, um, when the city

1:41:37bought that, we they did not do

1:41:39an environmental study. And

1:41:41when Roble had that site

1:41:43listed, every developer that

1:41:46had any interest in it well

1:41:49before Trust Neighborhoods, and

1:41:52it was only a few wanted an

1:41:54environmental study, which was

1:41:55done. So so Robert has a an

1:41:57environmental study that shows

1:41:59that the 6 to 7 acres, um,

1:42:03inclusive of the area that

1:42:04they're talking about was is

1:42:06not prone to flood. And that

1:42:07was the engineering study.

1:42:08There was there was parts at

1:42:09the end that that didn't.

1:42:11So I understand, but it's still

1:42:14challenging. Um, but I'm open

1:42:16to hear from staff.

1:42:17Okay.

1:42:27Mayor. Council. Um, so the the

1:42:31property in question here is,

1:42:32is roughly a third of the total

1:42:35catalyst site. It is the only

1:42:38portion of the site that is

1:42:39outside of the 500 year flood

1:42:42plain. Uh, there's a little bit

1:42:44of it that goes into the 500

1:42:47and, uh, the developer, the

1:42:49housing authority in this case

1:42:50would be responsible for

1:42:52engineering and designing to

1:42:53make sure that they are

1:42:55protecting that from flooding.

1:42:57Um, that that would be part of

1:42:59the development process for the

1:43:01engineering for the site.

1:43:02And who is the new developer?

1:43:04You don't have them on.

1:43:06That's the housing.

1:43:06Board.

1:43:08Developer, not the.

1:43:10Builder builder.

1:43:12Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr.

1:43:13Mayor.

1:43:14All right. Um, miss Don, I was

1:43:18looking at, uh, you know, as we

1:43:20we talked before, um,

1:43:23obviously, uh, with the, the

1:43:25choice neighborhoods, this area

1:43:27is in the middle of of all of

1:43:29that corridor. Um, and, uh,

1:43:32housing was a big component to

1:43:33it. In fact, you all are cold.

1:43:35Grant t because of the work

1:43:38that you committed to do for

1:43:39housing. Uh, and just some of

1:43:41the statistics. Um, so the, the

1:43:44housing that you concentrate on

1:43:46or is looking here, if I don't,

1:43:47if I know if I have it right.

1:43:49Mr. Smith was looking at 60 to

1:43:5280% ami kind of a mix between

1:43:54those two. That's correct. Um,

1:43:55demographics.

1:43:56Right. That's correct.

1:43:57And am I being average median

1:43:59income, which for 60% is about

1:44:0136,000 and for 80% is about

1:44:0348,000. That's correct. And the

1:44:06average median income in that

1:44:09corridor, uh, according to the

1:44:11latest stats, is about 26,000.

1:44:14So those are the maxes that

1:44:17someone can have to qualify.

1:44:18But certainly if if the average

1:44:21of that is well below that,

1:44:23then that means it's a good

1:44:25chance that private development

1:44:27is not going to displace, uh,

1:44:30at least 90 of the residents.

1:44:32So what was it, 84 units.

1:44:3384 units? That's correct.

1:44:3584 units. Right. Which was an

1:44:37important part of making this

1:44:38case to HUD, who concentrates

1:44:39on, you know, low to median

1:44:42income.

1:44:43Well, and I would say HUD is

1:44:44very keen on to make sure

1:44:46anybody that is living in

1:44:47either Elliott Circle or

1:44:48Merchant Town houses gets

1:44:49relocated, and we have to we'll

1:44:51help them with that and

1:44:52handhold all the way through

1:44:53and get them from point A to

1:44:54point B. Of course, Elliott

1:44:55Circle has got to be demolished

1:44:57before we can do anything over

1:44:58there. And for those you know,

1:44:59we've already talked to the

1:45:00board. Uh, we'll work with them

1:45:01in section eight and public

1:45:03housing to get them relocated.

1:45:05Right. And I appreciate that,

1:45:07but and I'm I mentioned this to

1:45:08my colleagues and I'm just

1:45:10going to be straight up about

1:45:12it. Um, we have seen to to

1:45:14Councilmember Harris point, uh,

1:45:16communities, once the public

1:45:18starts making investment that

1:45:20the developer developers come

1:45:23in, they buy land at fraction

1:45:25of the cost. And then you look

1:45:27at it and, uh, average income

1:45:31of 26,000 can't pay for a

1:45:34$300,000 house, correct? 75% of

1:45:37them are already paying more

1:45:38than the 30% for somewhere to

1:45:40stay. And so if there are no

1:45:43protections, then Murchison

1:45:45Road becomes an area just like

1:45:48northwest Washington, DC, right

1:45:50before the city made its

1:45:51investment. Uh, now northwest

1:45:54DC, uh, doesn't have any of the

1:45:56character of what it had

1:45:57before, nor the residents

1:45:58because they're priced out.

1:46:00Right. And so, uh, if that's a

1:46:02concern, which is certainly a

1:46:03mine, because this is home for

1:46:04me, that, uh, I'm going to

1:46:07fight against displacement, uh,

1:46:10because it's everything that we

1:46:11stand for now. Although, uh,

1:46:13and when the city made the

1:46:14commitment to apply for the

1:46:16choice neighborhoods with you,

1:46:17this project was added to it.

1:46:19That was it was mentioned at

1:46:21least five times that I've read

1:46:23the pages for my colleagues

1:46:24where reference this particular

1:46:26project. And so I say that if,

1:46:28if, if developers wanted to

1:46:30come, um, this land was eminent

1:46:35domain back since the early

1:46:372000, there were residents up

1:46:39and down Durham Street. I knew

1:46:40the Bethune and several other

1:46:41people that I knew there. There

1:46:43was a there was a laundromat

1:46:44that was there. That was the

1:46:45only access for people to wash

1:46:46their clothes because they

1:46:47didn't have washers and dryers

1:46:49in the house. And there was a

1:46:50grocery store called V point

1:46:51that that was the only option

1:46:53that they had to shop. All

1:46:54that's gone. And and when those

1:46:56houses in that land was bought,

1:46:58it was told that this was going

1:46:59to be something catalytic that

1:47:01would spark something. And so

1:47:02it took from 2000 through the

1:47:06Marshall Eisler plan, who named

1:47:08the catalyst site right all the

1:47:10way up to Red Rock global,

1:47:12who's come up several times

1:47:13tonight in 2015 and 16, and not

1:47:16a single developer walked over

1:47:17there and said, I want to

1:47:18invest over here. But now, when

1:47:20the federal government says

1:47:21that we're going to give you

1:47:23money because you made a case

1:47:24for us to improve and

1:47:27community, now all of a sudden

1:47:28we want to put it back on the

1:47:29market and say that we're not

1:47:31getting the highest and best

1:47:32use. So I'm disappointed in

1:47:33that, and I'm hopeful that, uh,

1:47:36the colleagues will see it,

1:47:37that we have to preserve the

1:47:38character of that and not allow

1:47:39people who are disadvantaged

1:47:41not to have some presence in

1:47:43their own community. So thank

1:47:44you. Uh, Councilmember Jones.

1:47:48Thank you so much. My question

1:47:50probably would be for staff.

1:47:53Um, Mr. Colley, if you could.

1:47:55And again, I'm not there

1:47:56tonight. I have a, uh, creative

1:47:59professional development

1:48:00training this week that I've

1:48:02let everyone aware of. Well, in

1:48:03advance. Uh, so my question,

1:48:06uh, because I have some

1:48:07residents, uh, we had a meeting

1:48:09earlier this week that are

1:48:11really confused. So mine is

1:48:12going to circle around the

1:48:14choice neighborhoods, and I'm

1:48:15going to be very direct as

1:48:17well. Uh, again, a hook for my

1:48:19understanding a HUD team is

1:48:21there is going to work with the

1:48:22city, uh, to make sure we did

1:48:24what we said, said we were

1:48:26going to do. Uh, so for me, I'm

1:48:27going to ask you some questions

1:48:29that probably will, uh, touch

1:48:31on city manager or city

1:48:33attorney. So whichever one of

1:48:34you want to do that is totally

1:48:36fine. So my first question very

1:48:39plainly is catalyst one, an

1:48:41official part of the

1:48:45neighborhood choice

1:48:46neighborhood housing plan?

1:48:51No, no, it is not, sir, none of

1:48:54the $25.1 million from choice

1:48:57are part of the Central Park

1:49:00Villas development. The housing

1:49:02plan for choice neighborhoods

1:49:04is redevelopment of Elliott

1:49:06Circle and Murchison Townhouses.

1:49:08All right, so, Madam Attorney,

1:49:10for me, I'm. I'm in real estate

1:49:11as well. And we know about

1:49:12material facts, things of that

1:49:13nature being that cat one was

1:49:16mentioned along with federal,

1:49:17state and some of the other

1:49:18things that were being done

1:49:19along that corridor. Um, being

1:49:23that cat one was not mentioned

1:49:26materially for how the housing

1:49:28plan or the other plan. What is

1:49:30your take on, uh, the effect of

1:49:35that $25 million and not doing

1:49:40anything on Cat one tonight?

1:49:49Um, Councilman Jones, uh, as I

1:49:52read the grant agreement, which

1:49:54is a required for the city to

1:49:56execute in order to receive the

1:49:57funds from HUD. Um, there are

1:50:00certain areas of the grant

1:50:05agreement that state if you

1:50:07change these portions of your

1:50:10plan, you must notify HUD. And

1:50:14the mention of the villas is

1:50:17not in any of the areas that

1:50:19would require us to report to

1:50:21hood. So it would not be a

1:50:23material change to our

1:50:24application.

1:50:25All right. So basically this

1:50:27for you, Mr. Corley. Uh, that's

1:50:29where I wanted to start. So

1:50:30with the housing, the housing

1:50:32portion told HUD, this is what

1:50:35we're going to do, how we're

1:50:36going to spend the $25 million.

1:50:39So with that being said, have

1:50:41you been notified by HUD that

1:50:42if we do not do anything with

1:50:44catalyst one, which we

1:50:45mentioned, uh, in in the

1:50:48application, but was not part

1:50:49of the housing plan that we

1:50:51would not receive this $25

1:50:55million.

1:50:56Uh, no, sir. And I took that a

1:50:58step further, because this

1:50:59isn't something that we can be

1:51:01unsure about. And I asked a

1:51:03choice neighborhood expert that

1:51:04we had employed to help win

1:51:06this grant. Uh, she went

1:51:08through the application and the

1:51:10grant agreement and was able to

1:51:11confirm that this the the

1:51:13question tonight that council

1:51:14has in front of them does not

1:51:15risk the choice neighborhood

1:51:17funding.

1:51:18Okay, then my last question and

1:51:20I'll close this down. Uh,

1:51:21relocation was mentioned and I

1:51:23know, uh, housing said that's

1:51:25part of the plan. That is part

1:51:26of the housing plan, correct.

1:51:27Mr. Corley, the relocation that

1:51:31took for my understanding when

1:51:33we first submitted it some

1:51:34years ago, that would have been

1:51:35a part. And it's a part of it

1:51:37now.

1:51:38Yes, sir. Not only does the

1:51:39housing authority in the city

1:51:40of Fayetteville take

1:51:42displacement, uh, very

1:51:43seriously, but the federal

1:51:44government has federal laws

1:51:46against it as well. Uh, so they

1:51:47require us to come up with a

1:51:49relocation plan to ensure we do

1:51:50not permanently displace

1:51:51residents. Uh, that relocation

1:51:54plan will be due in the coming

1:51:56several months. Um, Central

1:51:58Park Villas was considered as

1:52:00part of that relocation plan,

1:52:02but for the current

1:52:04construction timeline that we

1:52:06have for the the first phase of

1:52:08the choice neighborhood

1:52:09housing, it's very unlikely

1:52:12that Central Park Villas would

1:52:13be available for that. Um, and

1:52:16so regardless of council's

1:52:18decision tonight, the housing

1:52:19authority and our choice

1:52:21partners and along with the

1:52:22city have to come up with a

1:52:23relocation plan to ensure that

1:52:25displacement does not occur.

1:52:26Okay. Thank you. So that so

1:52:28basically our priority based on

1:52:29what we were given, uh, this

1:52:31week, that plan, the relocation

1:52:33plan, the acquisition of

1:52:35Elliott Circle and that

1:52:36development plan is pretty much

1:52:38the the next steps.

1:52:40Absolutely. Yes, sir.

1:52:42All right. And again, Madam

1:52:44Attorney, just wanted to circle

1:52:45back to you based on your, uh,

1:52:47professional opinion, based on

1:52:49what you've heard, what you've

1:52:51read, what you've had to

1:52:52review, which is in the natural

1:52:53course of your duties. You

1:52:56said, based on what you've

1:52:57read, if we do not move on.

1:53:00Catalyst one that would not

1:53:04jeopardize the $25 million

1:53:07because we're partly due, not

1:53:10necessarily because, but

1:53:11because the Cat one site was

1:53:13not specifically in the housing

1:53:15plans or the terms of basically

1:53:18what we were going to do.

1:53:22That's correct sir.

1:53:24All right. Thank you so much.

1:53:25Oh, go ahead, ma'am.

1:53:26I was just to say there's

1:53:27nothing changed with my first

1:53:29answer.

1:53:30Okay. Thank you, thank you.

1:53:32Thanks so much, Mr. Mayor.

1:53:33All right, Councilwoman green.

1:53:35Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, Mr.

1:53:37Corley, you turned your back

1:53:39half a second too soon. Um, I'm

1:53:44going to basically just ask you

1:53:45the same things I ask you in

1:53:46closed session, because I think

1:53:48it's important that everybody

1:53:50here, um, where we're at

1:53:51tonight. So, um, if we did not

1:53:56agree to, to move forward with

1:53:59the ask from the Fayetteville

1:54:02Metropolitan Housing Authority

1:54:03this evening with what they

1:54:06have applied for, when is that

1:54:09next cycle? Um, and what would

1:54:13that what does that look like?

1:54:15I don't have the exact date on

1:54:17me, but it is in early January.

1:54:19They will have another low

1:54:21income housing tax credit

1:54:22application cycle for 4% credit

1:54:24tax credits.

1:54:25So basically October 1st to

1:54:27sometime the deadline would be

1:54:30January.

1:54:31Yes.

1:54:31At some.

1:54:31Point is the deadline for one

1:54:33cycle in January is a deadline

1:54:35for the upcoming cycle. The

1:54:36next cycle.

1:54:37Okay. So in your, um,

1:54:41professional opinion, if we

1:54:44we've

1:54:44You've already established, Mr.

1:54:46Jones, questions to you that

1:54:48this was not a part of our

1:54:50application. But if we wanted

1:54:54to do what we said in the

1:54:56original agreement that, you

1:54:58know, or what we were trying to

1:54:59do with Mr. Smith and the

1:55:01Housing Authority, if we were

1:55:03to do another project like

1:55:04that, do you believe that, um,

1:55:08there is an alternate location,

1:55:11possibly within the city and,

1:55:13and in that area, because it's

1:55:15it's important that it stay in

1:55:16that area for a lot of reasons.

1:55:19Um, and if there is an

1:55:21alternative site, then

1:55:23basically what I think I heard

1:55:24the attorney say was that we

1:55:25would just need to notify HUD

1:55:28that, hey, this piece of what

1:55:31we provided earlier can't be

1:55:33done or we've chosen to do

1:55:35something differently. So this

1:55:38is what we're proposing to do

1:55:40differently. That becomes, um,

1:55:42does that put us in any

1:55:44jeopardy in any way?

1:55:45So there's.

1:55:45A couple there's a lot of

1:55:46questions.

1:55:46I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. I think

1:55:48I got it, though. So there's a

1:55:49couple of pieces there. And,

1:55:51uh, you know, US government

1:55:53officials love nuance, right.

1:55:55And so Central Park Village was

1:55:56absolutely part of the

1:55:58application. It was not part of

1:56:00the housing plan. If we changed

1:56:02the housing plan, we have to

1:56:04ask HUD if that's okay, right.

1:56:07This was something that was

1:56:08mentioned in our application,

1:56:09along with lots of other

1:56:10investments. It's something

1:56:12that it was is a sign that the

1:56:14city is interested in investing

1:56:15in this area. Um, are there

1:56:19other sites that are available?

1:56:22Um, I, I, I know some of y'all

1:56:25are commercial realtors, but

1:56:26I'm not I'm not sure about

1:56:28that. Um, there are sites that

1:56:31the city is currently working

1:56:32on to look at potential

1:56:34partners, and the housing

1:56:35authority could very well be a

1:56:36partner with with those sites

1:56:38as well. Um, within that

1:56:40neighborhood itself, within the

1:56:42Marcus and Corridor? Know

1:56:43within the downtown kind of

1:56:45catchment area? Yes. There's

1:56:46there's one site in particular

1:56:47that that could potentially be

1:56:49an option. Um, but, uh. That

1:56:55hasn't really been discussed at

1:56:57this point. And so I think the

1:56:58last and final kind of portion

1:57:00of your question was, um,

1:57:03whatever council does tonight

1:57:04does not jeopardize choice.

1:57:07Okay. That's that's basically

1:57:09what I wanted to know. Um, and

1:57:12I think we've already answered

1:57:13this, but have you ever had,

1:57:16um, seen in your years of

1:57:18working with HUD? Um, them have

1:57:21a precedent of asking for money

1:57:23to be returned? Grant money?

1:57:30So I, I think it can be applied

1:57:32to just about every year that,

1:57:35um, we, you know, society has

1:57:37been around that we live in

1:57:38unprecedented times, right? Um,

1:57:40having said that, um, outside

1:57:43of some, some very unusual

1:57:45political circumstances, one of

1:57:48which just occurred yesterday,

1:57:49that, um, but it usually you're

1:57:52usually looking at a fairly

1:57:54egregious violations that can't

1:57:56be remedied when HUD pulls

1:57:58money back.

1:57:59Okay. Thank you.

1:58:00All right. Uh, mayor pro tem.

1:58:02Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I

1:58:04just want to go through a

1:58:05timeline, Mr. Corley, because

1:58:07when I first got on council, we

1:58:08have been talking about HUD

1:58:10choice for a while. I think we

1:58:12even took a trip to Virginia. I

1:58:15don't know who was. I think I

1:58:16was the only one here that took

1:58:17the trip to Virginia to look at

1:58:19their, uh, you went with me.

1:58:20You that, um, you went also.

1:58:23That's true. So we did not get

1:58:26the award back. Uh, the last

1:58:29time we applied. What do you

1:58:30think? Attributed to us not

1:58:32getting that award and what

1:58:34recommendations that we did? I

1:58:36think we hired somebody and

1:58:37paid them $400,000. I think it

1:58:39was to help us write our next

1:58:41award. And what were their

1:58:42recommendations to help us get

1:58:43over the hump?

1:58:44Uh, no. We've spent quite a bit

1:58:46of money, but we we luckily, we

1:58:48have not paid anybody that that

1:58:50kind of money. Uh, we we've

1:58:51done a lot of things. We've

1:58:52hired economists to do market

1:58:54studies and analysis on retail

1:58:56development and housing. We

1:58:57spend a lot of money on a lot

1:58:58of different things to prepare

1:59:00this application. But, um, we

1:59:03did hire a grant writer who had

1:59:04been successful for now, five

1:59:06times at winning this grant.

1:59:08Um, that's principally one of

1:59:10the changes that we made. Um,

1:59:12the other one was that we

1:59:13brought in a nationally

1:59:15recognized mixed income housing

1:59:17developer who has multiple

1:59:19choice awards as well. And

1:59:21that's in Penrose, um, we also

1:59:23did not score well the first

1:59:25time around in the people

1:59:26aspect of our plan. And, uh, we

1:59:29were able to dramatically

1:59:30improve those scores by

1:59:32speaking specifically towards

1:59:33job skills training and

1:59:34economic mobility for the

1:59:36impacted residents.

1:59:37So do you think this project

1:59:40contributed to us getting a

1:59:41higher score and winning this

1:59:42award?

1:59:44So about a year ago, when we

1:59:47were working, when we had just

1:59:49gotten an announcement that

1:59:50this grant was coming back and

1:59:52available, um, I told council

1:59:54that Central Park Villas would

1:59:56would be very impactful towards

1:59:59meeting the housing leverage

2:00:01portion of the grant. Um, once

2:00:03we hired the grant writer and

2:00:04brought in an experienced

2:00:06developer, they went through

2:00:08the rules. They asked HUD and

2:00:10said that that that would not

2:00:12apply because the housing

2:00:14implementation entity. So

2:00:16Penrose and the Housing

2:00:17Authority as a joint was not

2:00:19part of Central Park Villas.

2:00:20And so that's why when we talk

2:00:22about it being in the grant

2:00:23application, it is, but it's

2:00:24not in the housing plan. And so

2:00:27had that been the case, that

2:00:28would have been a huge boost. I

2:00:31think what mattered in this

2:00:34application, on top of all of

2:00:35y'all's advocacy and the

2:00:37involvement of the community,

2:00:39is the amount of other

2:00:40investments that were

2:00:41happening, $531 million, of

2:00:45which Central Park Villas was,

2:00:46I think, 23. So it was

2:00:48definitely part of it, and I

2:00:49don't want to take that away.

2:00:51Thank you so much. And I just

2:00:52want to add that under the

2:00:54current administration, there

2:00:56has been a lot of cuts across

2:00:57the board. Whether you want to

2:00:59talk about housing, whether you

2:01:00want to talk about NIH, whether

2:01:01you want to talk about Snap, it

2:01:04just goes on and on. I don't

2:01:05think I would ever want to take

2:01:06the chance of us losing this

2:01:08opportunity to revitalize a

2:01:10community that has been

2:01:11deprived for so long. So thank

2:01:13you, Mr. Mayor.

2:01:14Thank you.

2:01:15So, Miss.

2:01:15Colin, before I go to council.

2:01:17I'll go to council member here.

2:01:19He's been waiting patiently.

2:01:20With his purple shirt on.

2:01:25Well, the question that's been

2:01:26asked 2 or 3 times, um, and I

2:01:30don't I don't want to. If the

2:01:33answer is no, the answer is

2:01:34just no. But when we went to

2:01:37the HUD, when we went to HUD

2:01:40Secretary HUD's office, and we

2:01:43spoke to, uh, the

2:01:46undersecretary and we helped

2:01:47sell Fayetteville with all the

2:01:49work that our team had done, we

2:01:54did sell them. Of the proposed

2:01:5984 units that was in Catalyst

2:02:02Site one. So I'm just saying

2:02:06that was the part of our

2:02:07proposal, even though it's not

2:02:09in this footprint here. So I

2:02:12just just saying that that. And

2:02:17we can't use any of that

2:02:18funding for Catalyst Site one.

2:02:21I just wanted to make that

2:02:22statement. Mayor.

2:02:23All right. So, Mr. Kelly, um, I

2:02:25want to pick up on a couple of

2:02:27things that had come up as far

2:02:29as timeline.

2:02:31Um.

2:02:31So roughly around December

2:02:332020, the city was awarded the

2:02:35planning grant. That's the

2:02:37$500,000 in. And Miss Leake and

2:02:40others went to work, uh, and

2:02:42worked through planning, uh,

2:02:43with community meetings. And

2:02:45there were a number of a lot of

2:02:46work put into that. Um, then in

2:02:49March of 2023, Murchison Choice

2:02:52Neighborhood Transformational

2:02:53Plan was finalized. The plan

2:02:55projected $531 million in total

2:02:58investments, public and

2:02:59private. As you admit it, uh,

2:03:01this was a part of it, right?

2:03:04There was over 500 million

2:03:05because that's in our that's in

2:03:06our press release that this

2:03:07leverages $500 million worth of

2:03:09investment.

2:03:10Absolutely. I'm not sure that

2:03:11was in the 23 plan. But.

2:03:12Well .. You're right. Okay. So

2:03:14leverage leverage is 500

2:03:15million. Yes, sir. Part of that

2:03:1723 million certainly is a is a

2:03:19part of that conversation.

2:03:20Right. Uh, then in roughly, uh,

2:03:25May of 2025, we received, uh,

2:03:29notice that we were a finalist

2:03:30but not selected. And one of

2:03:32the remarks in that, in that,

2:03:36uh, notification was, you know,

2:03:39Fayetteville was close. Uh, but

2:03:42in order, you know, and and to

2:03:44win next time, you should show

2:03:45us that you're already moving

2:03:47forward. Uh, and and to, to

2:03:50have some projects, uh, in the,

2:03:53in the works. Okay. And so

2:03:54that's May of 2025. So city

2:03:57received that guidance HUD

2:03:58visited. And so in November of

2:04:0025 when Mr. Smith and Miss

2:04:03Weeks came to the council to

2:04:04talk about investing in this

2:04:06project for $23 million, um,

2:04:11the shortly thereafter, in

2:04:13March of this year, the city

2:04:14resubmitted that application.

2:04:16And, of course, we know, um, it

2:04:19explicitly named Central Park

2:04:21Villa five times. It says

2:04:24Central Park Villa is a part of

2:04:25the approved transformational

2:04:26plan. That's on page 72. Such

2:04:29Park Villa provides relocation

2:04:30options or could provide

2:04:31relocation options for the

2:04:33Elliott Street Properties

2:04:35residents. That's on page 73.

2:04:3823.3 million the center of

2:04:40Central Park Villa Investment

2:04:42is a part of the $500 million

2:04:44leverage that the city has

2:04:45talked about mixed income

2:04:47housing strategy includes

2:04:49Central Park Villa as a

2:04:50foundation. That's on page 71

2:04:51and 72, and Central Park Villa

2:04:54as a neighboring investment,

2:04:55supports phase one and two

2:04:57relocation sequencing. Or it

2:04:58could page 72. So technically,

2:05:03as you said, that, uh, you

2:05:05know, it didn't specifically

2:05:06say that the 25 million and

2:05:08that's what the housing part of

2:05:09that because this your the

2:05:10choice neighborhoods was three

2:05:12components, right. It was

2:05:13housing neighborhood and

2:05:14people. Yes, sir. Right. So

2:05:16technically any investment that

2:05:18didn't include Rosemary or

2:05:20Murchison townhomes and Elliott

2:05:22Street, uh, rebuilding, uh,

2:05:25both rental and it's not a part

2:05:26of the housing plan. It didn't

2:05:28it didn't mean it wasn't a part

2:05:29of the choice package presented

2:05:31when you said it's not a part

2:05:32of the plan, that means the

2:05:34money was not going to be spent

2:05:35for this because it already had

2:05:37its funding. Is that right?

2:05:39Uh, no, sir, I just, um,

2:05:42adjusted Councilmember Green

2:05:43statement that when she said it

2:05:44was not part of the application

2:05:46to say that it in fact was part

2:05:47of the application, it was not

2:05:49part of the housing portion.

2:05:51Right. Which which was

2:05:52identified funds to build those

2:05:54projects. So, so to

2:05:56Councilmember Jones's point,

2:05:58when he sent out the email that

2:05:59basically said it wasn't part

2:06:01of that, I want to clarify.

2:06:02It's a part of the plan, but it

2:06:04was not a part of the this is

2:06:05what we're going to use, the

2:06:07$25 million for. It was a part

2:06:09of the leverage. Huge.

2:06:10As part of the neighborhood

2:06:11leverage.

2:06:11It's part of the neighborhood

2:06:12leverage. Yes, sir. And so I

2:06:14wanted to bring that up to

2:06:16simply say that it plays a

2:06:18role, because what we did, we

2:06:20presented it to the federal

2:06:21government that we've got an

2:06:22ecosystem that includes

2:06:24Fayetteville State, that it

2:06:25includes the city that includes

2:06:28the county. It includes NCDOT.

2:06:31When their road improvements

2:06:32and sidewalks improvements. And

2:06:34it included FM, a, is that

2:06:37right?

2:06:37Yes, sir. Okay.

2:06:39Yeah. All right. Councilmember

2:06:41McMillan.

2:06:41Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

2:06:43I have a question for you, Miss

2:06:45Weeks. This was about the the

2:06:48proposed plan and land

2:06:50acquisition. Yes. Uh, going

2:06:52back to the plan with the coal

2:06:54developer, Mr. Smith, before he

2:06:56dropped out. Uh, there was a

2:06:59land purchase, uh, piece that

2:07:01was in there. Do you remember

2:07:02how much the land was going to

2:07:04be purchased for?

2:07:05I believe, $545,000? Okay, I

2:07:09think.

2:07:10Okay. And can you explain the

2:07:12difference in terms of the land

2:07:14acquisition, the value of the

2:07:16land between the the plan

2:07:18that's been presented now and

2:07:20the the plan before the coal

2:07:22developer ended up dropping

2:07:23out?

2:07:25Well.

2:07:25I think now, of course, you

2:07:27know, we would always ask the

2:07:29housing Authority that if we

2:07:30could get it, you know,

2:07:31provided to us at no cost.

2:07:33That's great. That keeps our,

2:07:34our, our, you know, uh,

2:07:36financing plan more controlled.

2:07:38Um, and I think before, uh, my

2:07:40understanding was in the

2:07:41previous plan, it was a matter

2:07:42of, you know, we also came to

2:07:43you offer some funding. And so

2:07:45if the property cost over half

2:07:47million dollars, then we're

2:07:47going to ask you to include

2:07:48that in the amount we're going

2:07:49to ask from you. And I think

2:07:50that was done. So as we're kind

2:07:52of is all equates to about to

2:07:54me, the same thing depending on

2:07:55how you look at that. Um, but I

2:07:58think now and again the other

2:07:59piece of this is going to be

2:08:00that once we get of course,

2:08:01today was the pre-application

2:08:03deadline, uh, in early January

2:08:05would be the, the final

2:08:06application, because then I've

2:08:07got to have contractors and

2:08:09engineers, and we got a lot

2:08:10more work to get to that piece.

2:08:11And all the floor plans and

2:08:13etcetera, that will have to be

2:08:14done as part of that

2:08:15qualifying, uh, application.

2:08:18But I think then by that time

2:08:19in the next couple of months, I

2:08:20should know how much it's going

2:08:21to cost us. I mean, I can't use

2:08:23the old numbers that my partner

2:08:24used. So I'll have those and

2:08:26I'll come back to city council

2:08:28again to see, okay, we need

2:08:29this help. I don't know what

2:08:30those numbers look like yet.

2:08:32And that that leads me to my

2:08:33next question. If we don't pick

2:08:35up on this option tonight, um,

2:08:40what would be the next time

2:08:41that you'd be able to apply.

2:08:43Uh, another.

2:08:44Year.

2:08:45A year from now?

2:08:46Because, again, today was a

2:08:47pre-application that has to be

2:08:49prerequisite to the final

2:08:50application in January.

2:08:52Okay. And I'm a little

2:08:55confused. Uh, just because we

2:08:57we had some, some conversation

2:08:59prior to this about, uh, cycles

2:09:01of application, uh, opening up

2:09:04a couple of times a year. Um,

2:09:08and I'm going to ask Chris if

2:09:09you could, um, talk about the

2:09:13cycles as you understand them

2:09:14for application, why that

2:09:16wouldn't apply in this in this

2:09:18case, why we really do need to

2:09:19make a decision that could

2:09:21impact us for you.

2:09:24Yes, sir. If you just give me

2:09:25one moment.

2:09:26Here, okay? No problem. That

2:09:28this is something I want to

2:09:29hear. Definitely need to get

2:09:30right. And. And while Chris is

2:09:32looking that up, uh, this

2:09:33week's want to. I want to

2:09:35explain. We're trying to make

2:09:36the best decision. Um, uh, I

2:09:38used to play football. We run a

2:09:40lot of two minute drills. We

2:09:42practice what we're going to do

2:09:43at the end of the game, and we

2:09:44only have two minutes left. How

2:09:45we're going to score. Uh, it's

2:09:47important to know whether we

2:09:48have two minutes or not or not

2:09:50in this case, especially when

2:09:51we're making a decisions that

2:09:53are going to impact probably

2:09:54generations, uh, for this area.

2:09:57Um, we came in with, uh, with

2:09:59the framing that we may lose

2:10:01the, the choice grant and, uh,

2:10:04have have received some

2:10:06confidence, uh, some expert

2:10:07advice that that, uh, that's

2:10:09not in jeopardy as a result of

2:10:11this decision. That's great.

2:10:14Uh, I understand the urgency of

2:10:16our affordable pricing houses

2:10:18that you that you and your,

2:10:20your team face every day. Um,

2:10:24even having said that, this is

2:10:25a huge decision for us as a

2:10:27council to make in two minutes.

2:10:29And if if we don't have to make

2:10:30it in two minutes, that's

2:10:31that's something we need to

2:10:33distinguish.

2:10:44So what I'm doing right now is

2:10:46attempting to look at next

2:10:47year's, uh, qualified

2:10:49allocation plan from the

2:10:49Housing Finance Agency. Um, but,

2:10:54um, that's belts and

2:10:56suspenders. Um, every year the

2:11:00Housing Finance agency, you can

2:11:02see this on their website. If

2:11:03you look at it. And when you're

2:11:05not trying to do it on a tiny

2:11:06screen, um, they have a, uh,

2:11:09two rounds, they have a round

2:11:11that begins in January for 9%

2:11:14and 4% tax credits, and then

2:11:17they have a round in October

2:11:18for 4% tax credits. Yes, sir.

2:11:23Yeah.

2:11:24Uh, Council Councilmember

2:11:26Hondros.

2:11:27Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is

2:11:29anybody here from public

2:11:31services? Um, someone mentioned

2:11:35that on Monday's work session.

2:11:37There's a stormwater

2:11:39improvement project that could

2:11:41positively impact cats. I one.

2:11:45Yes, sir. I'm. I did that

2:11:46earlier. So definitely not a

2:11:48stormwater engineer. Um. Uh,

2:11:51but, um, uh, stormwater has

2:11:54been working cross-departmental

2:11:55with quite a few departments on

2:11:56the impact of the project that

2:11:59you've seen a couple of times

2:12:00on. Um, the improvement of flow

2:12:04on Cross Creek through

2:12:05downtown. Right. And so their

2:12:07modeling shows the, um, the

2:12:10potential if that project were

2:12:11funded, engineered, permitting

2:12:13and built to pull quite a bit

2:12:15of water off of the catalyst

2:12:16site to the point that we may

2:12:19look for a map revision from

2:12:20FEMA to bring a lot more of

2:12:22that site out of the

2:12:23floodplain.

2:12:23But we don't have, um, a

2:12:25timeline for that.

2:12:26You would have on Monday night.

2:12:27I don't have it on me right

2:12:29now. No, sir.

2:12:29Because to my colleague who

2:12:31inquired about the stormwater,

2:12:32you know, the fact that this,

2:12:34um, may not be in FEMA's, um,

2:12:37floodway, um, the entire

2:12:40Caddoan sites in the 500 year

2:12:42floodplain, which doesn't

2:12:43really matter. I mean, you can

2:12:44build on a 500 year flood

2:12:46plain. Uh, there's a tiny bit

2:12:48of it that's in the floodway

2:12:49that you can't get a permit to

2:12:50build. And then there's a swath

2:12:52of it that's in the 100 year

2:12:54floodplain, which you can

2:12:56permit to build in the hundred

2:12:57year flood plain. But you got

2:12:58to have, um, flood insurance.

2:13:00Whoever occupies those units

2:13:03would have to have flood

2:13:03insurance, which a lot of times

2:13:05it's 3 or 4 times what your

2:13:07regular, um, hazard insurance

2:13:09or resident insurance, uh,

2:13:10renters insurance is, um, which

2:13:12that can be engineered out.

2:13:14That's why I was asking about

2:13:15the stormwater project,

2:13:16because, um, even if it's not

2:13:18in the hundred year flood plain

2:13:19with a 500 year flood plain, as

2:13:21we saw with the last two

2:13:22hurricanes, there's there's

2:13:24areas that can flood given

2:13:26certain conditions, whether

2:13:28they're in FEMA's flood map or

2:13:30not. That's why those maps get

2:13:31updated from time to time. So,

2:13:33um, I mean, that that is a

2:13:34concern. And then the other, um,

2:13:39question I think is for Mrs.

2:13:40Weeks. So for modification and,

2:13:47and my colleagues and the

2:13:48residents that are either in

2:13:50attendance or, or following

2:13:51along virtually, what is the

2:13:54asked tonight? Is it the

2:13:56option? As I understand it, the

2:13:58original option with Mr. Smith,

2:13:59with the partner that's no

2:14:01longer involved is terminated.

2:14:03So is the ask for a new option

2:14:05under the same terms and

2:14:06conditions, or is it a new

2:14:08option with different terms and

2:14:10conditions?

2:14:11Well, let me say it like this.

2:14:12Because I'm not an attorney.

2:14:13Uh.

2:14:13You know, we need site control.

2:14:15Uh, and my understanding was

2:14:17what we had was a shorter term

2:14:18site control. Uh, and, uh, but

2:14:22I think that would be something

2:14:23probably our my attorney and,

2:14:24you know, your attorney would

2:14:25need to discuss as far as the

2:14:27best means to do.

2:14:28This.

2:14:28But I need site control in

2:14:30order to proceed with these

2:14:32applications. And how that

2:14:35works. Uh, you know.

2:14:37Right. Well, a good way to get

2:14:38site control is to purchase the

2:14:39property. Right? So that's what

2:14:41the the option agreement is a

2:14:43path to that. So my question I

2:14:46guess is are the terms and

2:14:47conditions of the option that

2:14:50you're proposing today the same

2:14:52or are they different than the

2:14:54option terms of the previous

2:14:56original agreement?

2:14:58Well, of course in the the

2:15:00document that we have, there is

2:15:01a purchase amount in there, a

2:15:04$545,000. Yes, ma'am. And with

2:15:07the information that we

2:15:08submitted, we if we could

2:15:09discuss alternate arrangements,

2:15:10that's fine. But what we have

2:15:11today is $545,000 to purchase

2:15:15it with. I mean, that's that's.

2:15:17I guess, the confusion for, for

2:15:19myself and some of the

2:15:20colleagues was the staff

2:15:22mentioned an application or

2:15:25some, um, correspondence from,

2:15:28uh, your organization in the

2:15:29city? Um, about the the

2:15:31purchase for a dollar, which is

2:15:33quite different than the 545.

2:15:35So that's what I'm trying to

2:15:36see are the terms and

2:15:37conditions. Um, you guys are

2:15:39proposing in the, in the new

2:15:40option, the same as the

2:15:41previous option or the terms

2:15:43and conditions changing?

2:15:44Well, let me say we really

2:15:46haven't gotten that far. Uh,

2:15:47I've tried to communicate with

2:15:49staff about how best to proceed

2:15:52with this, and I'm still kind

2:15:54of at a point that I haven't

2:15:56gotten a lot of feedback on

2:15:57that. So we really haven't had

2:15:59a conversation about the, you

2:16:01know, the amount if it would be

2:16:02different, if it would be we

2:16:03hadn't gotten that far. Uh,

2:16:04I've been trying to get to

2:16:05tonight to get site control to

2:16:07proceed with an application,

2:16:09and I just haven't gotten a lot

2:16:10of feedback. So I think, you

2:16:13know, there's a lot of

2:16:14possibilities. But, um, I

2:16:16haven't had that conversation

2:16:18with staff as far as how that

2:16:20would be the best situation to

2:16:22have.

2:16:22So do you see do you see our

2:16:24challenge though? So we're

2:16:25we're going to be asked before

2:16:27the the conclusion of this

2:16:28meeting to support or not

2:16:30support moving forward. And not

2:16:32only do we not know the terms

2:16:33and conditions, from what

2:16:34you're saying, you don't know

2:16:36the terms and conditions.

2:16:37Well, uh, I mean, I don't have

2:16:39some exacts on it, I do not.

2:16:41Now, again, the agreement that

2:16:42we have right now is a purchase

2:16:43price of $545,000. Uh, and we

2:16:47haven't agreed. Nobody's agreed

2:16:48to anything different than

2:16:49that. Gotcha. I'm just saying.

2:16:50But it could be that we would

2:16:51want to talk about that. Uh,

2:16:53but right now, with the

2:16:54agreement that we went along

2:16:55with has $545,000 purchase

2:16:58price. So for lack of anything

2:17:00else, that would be.

2:17:01So if we move forward with

2:17:02that, um, in that direction

2:17:04this evening, how would we

2:17:05change those terms later?

2:17:07Well, uh, again, I'm just

2:17:11saying what we have right now

2:17:12is the it's just point out it's

2:17:13a 545,000. If that's what we

2:17:15have, that's what we have.

2:17:17Okay. All right. So thank you.

2:17:19Okay.

2:17:20All right. Um, miss Don and

2:17:23Chris, you said it before, um,

2:17:25before I go to, uh, I think

2:17:26Councilmember Green and Davis,

2:17:28uh. Oh, yeah. Um, in the

2:17:32previous application, even

2:17:33though Mr. Smith, when he was a

2:17:36part of that, asked to pay it,

2:17:38pay 545,000 fair market value.

2:17:41How much money was he asking

2:17:43the city for out of home funds

2:17:45and other? And what were the

2:17:46terms of those dollars?

2:17:51So I'd have to go back and pull

2:17:53the council agendas to, to

2:17:55confirm. But I, I would give

2:17:56you pretty close numbers. So

2:17:59um, they asked for $2.88

2:18:02million in loans from the city.

2:18:05Um, I believe they were 40 year

2:18:06term loans, and they were

2:18:08interest only payments until

2:18:09the end of the term. Uh, one

2:18:11loan was $1.88 million from our

2:18:16home investment partnership.

2:18:18Um, and that one had a term of

2:18:21one, uh, our interest rate or

2:18:221%. And I believe the other one

2:18:24was $1 million from our general

2:18:27obligation bond. And that I

2:18:30believe, and this is where I'm

2:18:31a little fuzzy, I believe, had

2:18:32a 2% term interest rate.

2:18:35But both both were interest

2:18:37only for 40 years.

2:18:39Yes, sir.

2:18:39So basically, city was going to

2:18:42loan him the money that he was

2:18:43going to use to buy the

2:18:44property at fair market.

2:18:45Value loan, loan to

2:18:46development. Right? Yeah. And

2:18:49okay. Yeah, there's definitely

2:18:51a net math involved in that.

2:18:52Right. So if you net out then

2:18:54the city, the city is putting

2:18:562.2 million towards it. Right,

2:18:58right. Mhm.

2:18:59If so I've given it for a

2:19:00dollar as hypothetically as

2:19:04Councilmember brought up. Yeah.

2:19:06The city keeps the other 2.2

2:19:07million to deploy for other

2:19:09things.

2:19:10If they're only asking us to

2:19:12support the land. But my

2:19:13application has a $4 million

2:19:15request from the housing

2:19:16authority to support this

2:19:17development. Okay.

2:19:18Well, I know Mister Miss Weeks.

2:19:21Uh, do you know what he's

2:19:22talking about there? Because

2:19:23that did come up. So for is it

2:19:26a dollar or is it same terms? I

2:19:28mean, that's.

2:19:29Well, as far as, uh, the ask of

2:19:31you all later as far as, uh,

2:19:33financially, uh, as I said

2:19:34earlier, we're working right

2:19:35now to hire a contractor, and

2:19:37we've issued RFQ. We're

2:19:38evaluating now, and they'll

2:19:40come up and price out the, the,

2:19:41the development the same as it

2:19:43was going to be before. Uh, and

2:19:44give us the numbers and then

2:19:45we'll have that as we've told

2:19:46staff that will come back to

2:19:47you when we have firm numbers.

2:19:48I don't have that yet. If

2:19:51that's helpful. Okay. Could I

2:19:52ask my attorney, would you

2:19:53mind? My attorney's here and

2:19:55maybe that would help clear up

2:19:56some of the property stuff. And

2:19:57that would be better for all of

2:19:58us..

2:20:05As mayor, council.

2:20:08You had a question?

2:20:10Yeah. I mean, so there was a

2:20:13there was an ask for a dollar

2:20:14for the land. Uh, the previous,

2:20:17previous agreement that the

2:20:19joint venture between Housing

2:20:21Authority and Mr. Smith had

2:20:22that he would pay 545,000 as,

2:20:26uh, fair market value. But that

2:20:28was with the city loaning him

2:20:302.88 million for 40 years at

2:20:33interest. Only between one 1%

2:20:36and 2%. So I guess it came up

2:20:38that there was $4 million

2:20:40mentioned, and there was give

2:20:42the land for a dollar, which

2:20:43that means that city would have

2:20:46two point. Whatever the

2:20:47difference is for other things.

2:20:49So what is the exact.

2:20:50Number the, the, the deal right

2:20:52now is the lease. The ground

2:20:55lease option that the city

2:20:58entered into with, uh, JBS

2:21:02developers and the Fayetteville

2:21:04Housing Authority. That's the

2:21:05only agreement that's in place.

2:21:08Everything else is just let us

2:21:11know what you anticipate could

2:21:13be, uh, and ask and all of you

2:21:16that are in the development

2:21:17business and the real estate

2:21:18business know that we're in

2:21:19highly inflationary times. And

2:21:22you're talking about a project

2:21:23that will be developed over two

2:21:25years. You know, those of you

2:21:27that are in this business, and

2:21:28I think most of you are in the

2:21:29real estate business, know that

2:21:31the cost of lumber that comes

2:21:32out of China is through the

2:21:34wall because of tariffs. You

2:21:36know, the cost of steel,

2:21:37everything is going up. So you

2:21:38have to plan, you know, what is

2:21:41this going to cost. And the

2:21:42staff is the one that asks,

2:21:44give us the estimate by going

2:21:45through the portal. But that

2:21:47has nothing to do. What's what

2:21:49with what's before you tonight,

2:21:50which is simply whether or not,

2:21:53uh, the city is going to, uh,

2:21:58you know, honor the option

2:22:01agreement that's in place. And

2:22:04the option agreement doesn't

2:22:05expire until March. That's the

2:22:08only that's the only issue.

2:22:12Councilmember Green and Davis.

2:22:16I would have to disagree. I

2:22:18understand you're an attorney.

2:22:20I am not an attorney.

2:22:22But people disagree with me

2:22:23all.

2:22:24The time. Our agreement was

2:22:27never with solely Fayetteville

2:22:30Metropolitan Housing Authority.

2:22:32Our agreement was with Mr.

2:22:33Smith and the authority. So

2:22:36therefore, that contract

2:22:38terminated when he terminated.

2:22:40All due respect.

2:22:42According to our attorney

2:22:43understanding.

2:22:44But and you know, that's why we

2:22:45have lawyers. Because, you

2:22:46know, she can argue both sides

2:22:48of it. I can argue both sides

2:22:50of it. But the reality of it is

2:22:53this the agreement as drafted,

2:22:57the city is the lessor.

2:23:00Everybody knows what that is.

2:23:01That means this is the party

2:23:02that owns the property that's

2:23:04leasing it. The agreement

2:23:08identifies two lessees, not

2:23:11coalesces, two lessees. One was

2:23:15JBS developers, the second was

2:23:18the Fayetteville Housing

2:23:19Authority, and that lease

2:23:21option has not been terminated.

2:23:25It has not been terminated. It

2:23:27wasn't terminated when, uh,

2:23:30Mr.. Uh, uh, Mr. Smith, you

2:23:34know, withdrew from the, the,

2:23:37uh, the development and and

2:23:41what's really interesting about

2:23:43this whole thing is that when

2:23:45Mr. Smith withdrew, he said,

2:23:47I'm going to support and it's

2:23:49in his emails and he said, I

2:23:51know, I don't know if this

2:23:52week's has it, but it's in his

2:23:53emails. It says we'll support

2:23:55this project. And this week

2:23:57Stan went to Mr. Farmer, who's

2:24:00the director of the North

2:24:01Carolina Housing Finance

2:24:02Agency. He told her, Don, the

2:24:06Federal Housing Authority has

2:24:08successfully completed a number

2:24:09of tax credit projects, and you

2:24:11can have your staff call him

2:24:12and confirm this. Okay. He said

2:24:15you can successfully complete

2:24:17it even with the hope. Six and

2:24:20this is the city should be

2:24:21proud of this. The one of the

2:24:23only projects hope six

2:24:24developments in the country

2:24:25that came in on time within

2:24:28budget and no controversy. Look

2:24:31at all the housing authorities

2:24:32in the state of North Carolina.

2:24:34See how much, how many of them

2:24:35are either troubled or had, or

2:24:38it had some controversy around

2:24:40that stuff. But what I'm

2:24:42telling you is, uh,

2:24:43Councilwoman Green and you,

2:24:45you're in this business. I'm

2:24:46looking at the agreement on my

2:24:48phone. And I'm not going to

2:24:53read it to you because I know

2:24:54that you you probably looked at

2:24:56it, but I can tell you it says

2:24:58two things. This is a ground

2:25:00lease, 99 year groundless. And

2:25:04the price is to be determined.

2:25:07Means that the city can dictate

2:25:09how this thing turns out in

2:25:12connection with what

2:25:13commitments it makes

2:25:15financially to support the

2:25:16project. That's the way it

2:25:17always works. You know what

2:25:18makes housing affordable? Is a

2:25:20development cost. That's what

2:25:22makes it affordable. All right.

2:25:23The cheaper you can develop the

2:25:26property, the rents then get

2:25:28pushed down. But if it's a

2:25:29market rate, you're paying

2:25:31market rate for everything. And

2:25:33affordable housing, you get tax

2:25:35rebates on your supplies. All

2:25:37those things push the prices

2:25:39down. And that's what makes it

2:25:40work. And that's why cities and

2:25:43counties make low interest

2:25:45loans for affordable housing,

2:25:46because otherwise it wouldn't

2:25:47work. But that's the challenge.

2:25:50Then I just want to respond to

2:25:52one thing, too. Um, the city

2:25:55attorney is not she's not

2:25:59incorrect in her statement that

2:26:02the, uh, the catalyst site is

2:26:05not was not part of the housing

2:26:07plan. Right? Chris. And so

2:26:11she's right on that. But the

2:26:14nuance to this is that the

2:26:16decision was made to award this

2:26:19contract, this grant agreement

2:26:21to the housing authority based

2:26:23on the leverage. Is that not

2:26:25right?

2:26:26In part?

2:26:28Well, I'll tell you, it is.

2:26:30Right. Okay. And I have it

2:26:33right here on my phone. The

2:26:36fact of the matter is, if you

2:26:38don't, the fact of the matter

2:26:40is that this contract was

2:26:44scored based on commitments

2:26:46made to HUD and commitments

2:26:49made to the public about having

2:26:52this housing there and the

2:26:54leverage is what counted. And

2:26:57even if you don't require the

2:26:58prior consent of HUD in terms

2:27:02of pulling Central Park Villas

2:27:05out of the project, you have an

2:27:08obligation to notify from a

2:27:10compliance perspective, HUD,

2:27:13when you're not going to meet

2:27:14your leverage requirements. Is

2:27:18that correct?

2:27:19This we're not going.

2:27:20To be doing. Yes. Okay.

2:27:21And so you have to be very

2:27:23careful in this. I do this

2:27:25stuff all day every day, not

2:27:28part time with it. And I'm

2:27:30saying to you again, the city

2:27:32attorney was correct, except

2:27:34that there's this nuance called

2:27:36the leverage that requires

2:27:38compliance on the part of the

2:27:40city, but the city is in

2:27:42control of it. So, Miss Green,

2:27:44to your point, in terms of what

2:27:47the city gives, and Mr.

2:27:49McMillan to to your point, in

2:27:51terms of what the city is

2:27:53committed to financially,

2:27:55there's no commitments made

2:27:57yet. That's all part of the

2:27:59negotiation. It may be that

2:28:01none or may or it could be that

2:28:03allotment, but right now you're

2:28:05not on the hook for any amount.

2:28:08I mean, at all. You can't point

2:28:10to a document that says that

2:28:12anybody committed to pay

2:28:14545,000. It says in the

2:28:17agreement it will be negotiated

2:28:19based on the appraisal if you

2:28:21want. And I can tell you that

2:28:22the the section of the

2:28:23agreement that it deals with,

2:28:25it deals with paragraph three,

2:28:28purchase price.

2:28:32All right. Um, thank you,

2:28:34Councilmember Davis.

2:28:35Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, you

2:28:37know, listening to Miss Weeks

2:28:39speaking, you know, there's a

2:28:40there's still a lot of

2:28:42unanswered questions, right?

2:28:45But I want to give this time to

2:28:47our city attorney to follow up.

2:28:49I know this isn't the

2:28:50courtroom, but I know we do

2:28:51need to hear from you in

2:28:52reference to what was just

2:28:54stated by, um, their attorney.

2:28:56So if you would please address

2:28:57this, please.

2:28:58Thank you. Councilman Davis.

2:29:00Um, there was a lot to unpack

2:29:02there. Um, I think I'll start

2:29:05with the fact that it is my

2:29:07responsibility to make sure my

2:29:09city council is making informed

2:29:11decisions based on facts, and

2:29:16perhaps Mr. Charleston is

2:29:18speaking of a lease agreement

2:29:20with the town of Spring Lake or

2:29:22something. But the agreement

2:29:24that this council made with the

2:29:27buyer, the buyer being the

2:29:28Housing authority and Jim Smith,

2:29:31collectively, um, not

2:29:33individually, is is a purchase

2:29:36option. And that is for

2:29:41$545,000. That price is

2:29:44explicitly listed in the option

2:29:46agreement. Um, there is nowhere

2:29:49in our option agreement that

2:29:51says the price will be

2:29:52determined a later date. So I'm

2:29:53not sure what document he's

2:29:54referring to, but, um, that is

2:29:56not the document this council

2:29:58has authorized. Um,

```*