2026-11-02 - City Council Work Session

03:38Well. Good evening. Everyone

03:39would like to call our Monday,

03:42November 2nd work session to

03:44order. I lay my pen down. Um,

03:46welcome those who are joining

03:47us in the audience, those who

03:48are joining us remotely. We

03:51welcome you as well as with

03:53every meeting. We start with

03:55the invocation. Uh, we're going

03:57to ask that, uh, the Reverend

03:59Doctor Stefan Ferguson. Okay.

04:01If you would not mind giving us

04:03take us to the throne, please,

04:04sir. And then after that, if we

04:05could do the Pledge of

04:05Allegiance.

04:10Eternal father, we thank you

04:11for this day. We thank you,

04:12God, for this opportunity that

04:14you have given us. We ask that

04:16you be with us on today. As we

04:18meet, we ask you to open our

04:21eyes, our minds, our hearts, so

04:23that we will make the right

04:24decisions with us, which is in

04:25the best interest of our

04:27residents. In Jesus name we

04:29pray.

04:29Amen. Amen. Allegiance to the

04:33flag of the United States of

04:35America. To the Republic for

04:37which it stands. One nation

04:39under God, indivisible, with

04:42liberty and justice.

04:43For all.

04:45Excuse me. Thank you. Thank

04:49you. Council member Reverend

04:50Ferguson. Um, so Council with

04:52that, as we move forward, we

04:54will look to. Don't know who's

04:57filling in for the city

04:58manager, for the city manager's

04:59report. Uh. They called.

05:05It.

05:07Obviously, they don't have

05:08anything to report. Did it?

05:10Alright, Mr. Gibson. Just got

05:12to work. Welcome. Alright.

05:14Alright. Uh, moving to 5.0 is

05:17the approval of the agenda.

05:18Council will work on our shore

05:19systems and we'll look to

05:22approve the agenda.

05:26Uh.

05:27Move to approve, sir.

05:29All right. Hold on. Okay. All

05:31right. All right. It's a motion

05:32by councilmember here. Is there

05:33a second? Second by Davis.

05:36Discussion on the agenda.

05:38Approval. All right. Thank you

05:41for your vote. All right. Okay.

05:46Motion carries. Unanimous

05:47agenda is approve item 6.01.

05:51Uh, receive and provide

05:52directional code enforcement

05:53collection framework and

05:55resolution. Authorizing

05:57accounting right off and

05:58limited interest and penalty

05:59waiver. So we'll turn this

06:00over. Good evening. Good

06:02afternoon. I'm sorry. Hope it's

06:04not evening when we get out.

06:27I have two things I need to

06:28talk to you about.

06:32Is that on? Okay.

06:34Good afternoon. Mayor and

06:36members of council. Um, I'm

06:38Amanda mott, the assistant CFO.

06:41Over financial reporting for

06:42the city. Today, we're bringing

06:45forward a recommended framework

06:47for how the city administers

06:49and collects code enforcement

06:51assessments. This was

06:52previously presented to Council

06:54Member McNair's committee. What

06:56began earlier this year as an

06:58effort to address longstanding

07:01receivables quickly became a

07:03much broader conversation about

07:05accountability, consistency and

07:08how the city manages these

07:09obligations. As finance began

07:12reviewing outstanding balances

07:15and communicating with property

07:16owners, we identified areas

07:19where clear procedures were

07:20needed not only to strengthen

07:22our collection efforts, but

07:24also to ensure that property

07:26owners are treated fairly and

07:28that public funds are

07:29appropriately accounted for.

07:31This framework we're presenting

07:33today is intended to accomplish

07:35both. Our goal today is to

07:37explain how we arrived at these

07:40recommendations. Walk through

07:42the framework and outline the

07:44limited administrative

07:46authority we're requesting from

07:47Council. At its core, this is

07:50about establishing a process

07:51that's fair, responsible and

07:54consistent while ensuring the

07:56city is fulfilling its

07:57obligation to protect public

07:59resources. We're here today

08:02because the city has spent

08:04public funds performing

08:06necessary work on private

08:07property, including lock

08:09cleanings, clearings and

08:11demolitions. It's important to

08:14understand that these

08:15assessments are not simply

08:17fines or penalties. The

08:18principal balances represent

08:20actual taxpayer dollars. The

08:23city has already spent to

08:24address address conditions on

08:26privately owned properties.

08:28North Carolina General Statutes

08:31authorize the city to intervene

08:33and perform this work when

08:34property owners fail to address

08:36certain conditions. The law

08:38also establishes that the costs

08:41of that work are the

08:42responsibility of the property

08:44owner, and are recoverable

08:46against the property, and

08:47provides mechanisms for the

08:49city to collect those costs

08:51without recovery of these

08:53assessments, the financial

08:54burden of work performed on

08:56private property ultimately

08:58remains, with the city's

08:59taxpayers. That's why this

09:01collection effort is so

09:02important. We have a

09:04responsibility to make this

09:05reasonable effort to recover

09:07those public dollars. These

09:10were not new or the first time

09:12property owners received

09:13communication from the city.

09:15The invoices mailed earlier

09:17this year were reminders of

09:20obligations that were

09:21previously recorded against the

09:23property. It's also important

09:25to emphasize that the

09:27assessments we're talking about

09:28are billed to the property, not

09:30the owner. This means the

09:32amount owed remains attached to

09:34the property, regardless of

09:36changes in ownership. Once

09:38these invoices went out, we

09:40received several hundred calls

09:42and inquiries. Residents had

09:44questions about the age of the

09:46assessment, whether they had

09:48already been paid, what

09:50documentation the city had, and

09:52what options were available to

09:53resolve them. The response from

09:55residents highlighted something

09:57important. Before we expand our

09:59collection effort to other

10:00types of outstanding

10:02receivables. We need a

10:04standardized process for

10:05administering them. The

10:07response also showed action

10:09average collections prior to

10:12mailing the invoices was around

10:14$4,900 per month. In the first

10:1845 days after mailing the

10:20invoices, over 32,000 in public

10:23funds were recovered, and we've

10:25continued to see an increase in

10:26collections. There are three

10:30fundamental principles behind

10:32our recommendation. First, fair

10:34process. If we're going to

10:36pursue an assessment,

10:38particularly one that may be

10:39many years old, we need to be

10:41able to substantiate the

10:43balance and provide property

10:44owners with a clear and

10:46consistent process to dispute

10:48it. The age of the assessment

10:50should not eliminate the

10:51owner's right to question its

10:54validity. Second, responsible

10:56stewardship of public funds.

10:58When the city cleans the

11:00property, clears a lot,

11:01demolishes an unsafe structure.

11:03Taxpayers have already paid for

11:05that work. These assessments

11:08are the mechanism established

11:09by law to recover those costs.

11:11I want to emphasize something

11:14important here. North Carolina

11:16General statute gives

11:17qualifying unpaid nuisance

11:19abatement costs the same lien

11:22priority as unpaid property

11:24taxes, and provides for their

11:27collection in the same manner.

11:29This is a significant

11:30distinction. The General

11:32Assembly has provided these

11:34obligations with collection

11:36protections compared to those

11:38of delinquent property taxes.

11:40They're not just an outstanding

11:42invoice that loses their

11:43importance as they age. Our

11:46responsibility is to make

11:48reasonable efforts to recover

11:49those public dollars, while

11:51ensuring that every assessment

11:53is valid and appropriately

11:55administered. Lastly, strong

11:57financial management. We need

12:00to distinguish between what the

12:01city is legally entitled to

12:03collect and what we can

12:05reasonably expect to recover.

12:07Our financial statements should

12:10accurately reflect the

12:12collectability of these

12:13balances without automatically

12:16eliminating the underlying

12:18obligation. Together, these

12:20principles form the foundation

12:21of the framework we're

12:22recommending to you today. Over

12:26the years, the city has used

12:28different processes and systems

12:30to maintain these assessments.

12:32Some of the older records

12:34predate our current financial

12:35system and require staff to go

12:38back to paper files and

12:39historical documentation. This

12:42makes validation especially

12:44important and challenging. We

12:46don't want to escalate

12:47collections simply because a

12:49balance exists in our

12:50accounting system. We want to

12:52make sure we can support that

12:53balance. Going forward, we're

12:55proposing one consistent

12:57process for how these

12:58assessments are documented,

13:00validated, communicated to

13:02residents, appealed when

13:03necessary, and ultimately

13:05collected. It gives staff clear

13:07procedures to follow and give

13:09residents a better

13:10understanding of what they owe,

13:12why they owe it, and what

13:14options they have to resolve it.

13:17We're proposing one

13:19comprehensive framework. Rather

13:21than treating collections,

13:23appeals, liens, payment plans,

13:25write offs and customer service

13:26as separate issues. All the

13:28pieces work together. Our goal

13:30isn't simply to collect

13:32outstanding balances. It's to

13:34work with residents, address

13:35their concerns, provide

13:38reasonable opportunities to

13:40resolve these obligations

13:41fairly and consistently. One

13:44thing I want to emphasize is

13:46that the recommendation is to

13:49continue collection of valid

13:50assessments. We are not

13:53proposing that we stop pursuing

13:55or forgive older debts simply

13:57because it's old. Forgiving,

14:00older assessments solely

14:02because of their age would

14:04overlook the history of

14:06repeated violations. The

14:08additional public resources

14:10expended and the responsibility

14:13of property owners to reimburse

14:14the city for work performed on

14:16private property. Our review

14:18found that 40% of assessments

14:21older than ten years are

14:23associated with properties that

14:25have outstanding assessments

14:27from within the last ten years.

14:30This means a significant

14:31portion of these older balances

14:34are tied to properties with

14:35additional, more recent

14:37assessment obligations.

14:39Instead, we're proposing a

14:41deliberate process quarterly

14:43statements to keep our

14:44residents informed. Payment

14:46plans give people a reasonable

14:48path to resolution. And when

14:51voluntary collection isn't

14:53successful, we can move to the

14:55collection remedies available

14:56to the city where appropriate.

14:59We've already seen that simply

15:01communicating with residents

15:03produces results. An accounting

15:08right off is not debt

15:09forgiveness. We currently have

15:11approximately 2 million of the

15:133.9 million balance associated

15:16with assessments that are more

15:17than ten years old, as

15:19receivables age, the likelihood

15:21of collection decreases from a

15:23financial reporting standpoint.

15:26We don't want to continue

15:27carrying the amount of the

15:28receivable. If we no longer

15:31reasonably expect to collect

15:33it. So an accounting write off

15:35removes the aged receivables

15:37from our accounting records. It

15:39does not cancel the assessment.

15:41It does not forgive the debt.

15:43And it does not prevent the

15:44city from collecting the amount

15:46later. If the opportunity

15:47arises. The next major piece is

15:52establishing a formal

15:54administrative appeal and debt

15:56validation process. It's

15:58important to clarify that by

16:00the time the assessment reaches

16:02finance for collections, the

16:05property owner has already had

16:07the opportunity to exercise the

16:09appeal rights available through

16:11the original code enforcement

16:12process and, where applicable,

16:15through the City Attorney's

16:16office. Finance is not

16:18proposing to recreate or

16:20replace those appeal processes.

16:23What we're addressing is

16:25different. Once finance begins

16:27collection, particularly on

16:29some of the older assessments,

16:31we may hear from a residents

16:33who question whether the

16:34balance is accurate, whether it

16:36was previously paid, whether it

16:39applies to the correct

16:40property, or whether the city

16:42still has sufficient

16:43documentation to enforce the

16:45amount being collected under

16:47the proposed process. If a

16:50property owner disputes the

16:52assessment, finance would

16:53coordinate a review. The

16:55resident can provide

16:57documentation supporting their

16:58position, and finance can

17:00partner with development

17:01services to gather the city's

17:03documentation that supports the

17:06assessment. Finance would

17:07review both if the

17:10documentation the city has

17:12supports the assessment. The

17:14assessment is upheld. The

17:16resident's final opportunity to

17:19appeal would be to the Council.

17:21The purpose here isn't to

17:23reconsider the original code

17:25enforcement action. It's simply

17:27to validate the debt that

17:29finance is being asked to

17:30collect. The last major

17:34discussion point is

17:35administrative authority, and

17:37I'll spend a little time here

17:39because this is a specific

17:40action we're asking council to

17:42consider today. Staff has no

17:45ability to resolve these

17:46accounts administratively. We

17:49can validate a balance,

17:51establish that an assessment is

17:52legitimate, and work with a

17:54resident on payment. But when

17:56there's a reasonable basis to

17:58consider relief from

18:00accumulated interest or

18:01penalties. Staff does not

18:03currently have delegated

18:04authority to make that

18:06decision. With approximately

18:083800 accounts involved in this

18:11initial effort, we believe

18:13having a defined level of

18:14authority will allow us to

18:16resolve appropriate cases more

18:18efficiently and consistently.

18:20What we're proposing is

18:22intentionally limited. We're

18:24not asking for authority to

18:26waive principal balances or the

18:28amount of public funds used to

18:30complete the work on a

18:31property. The underlying cost

18:33the city incurs remains due.

18:36The authority would apply only

18:38to accumulated interest in

18:40penalties, and would require

18:42the chief financial officer and

18:44the city manager to

18:45collectively review and approve

18:47the request. This would not be

18:49a unilateral decision by one

18:52staff member. The intent is not

18:54to simply waive interest and

18:56penalties because someone asks.

18:58There should be a documented

19:00reason for the decision and

19:02consistent treatment of

19:03residents in similar

19:05circumstances. The proposed

19:07form to be completed for all

19:09requests was also included in

19:11your packet today. So what

19:13we're asking is for a limited

19:15administrative tool with

19:16defined boundaries, joint

19:18approval and documentation that

19:21allows staff to resolve

19:22appropriate cases where council

19:25retains control over the

19:26underlying principal balance,

19:28which equals the actual

19:30contracted cost of the work

19:31completed. I think it's

19:34important to be clear about

19:35what we're not asking council

19:37to do. The framework does not

19:39forgive the principal balance.

19:42It does not eliminate liens. It

19:44does not reduce the city's

19:45legal authority to collect. The

19:47passage of time does not change

19:49the fact that the public funds

19:51were expended, nor does it

19:53automatically justify

19:55forgiveness of those costs.

19:56What it does is give staff a

19:59consistent framework for

20:00collection, improve our

20:01financial reporting, strengthen

20:04our documentation and internal

20:05controls, and gives residents a

20:07clear process for resolving

20:09disputes. And while we're

20:11starting with code enforcement

20:13assessments, the framework

20:15gives us a model that can

20:16ultimately be used for other

20:17city receivables where we're

20:19facing similar collection

20:20issues. So the goal is pretty

20:24simple if a debt is valid, the

20:25city is obligated to make

20:27reasonable efforts to collect

20:29it. If it's disputed, we should

20:30have a fair process to validate

20:32it. And if it's no longer

20:34reasonably expected to be

20:36collected, our financial

20:37statements should reflect that

20:39reality. So today we are asking

20:42council to approve the

20:43administrative framework and

20:46approve the resolution for the

20:48delegation of limited

20:49administrative authority to be

20:51moved to the November 9th.

20:53Consent agenda.

20:55Thank you so much. I did have a

20:57couple of questions.

20:58Councilmember here.

21:00Thank you. Mayor. Um, hopefully

21:02whenever we get ready to move

21:04to, uh, have this approval, I

21:08would like to move forward. Um,

21:11this has been an issue for

21:13years. As you, stated. And I'm

21:18glad that we're putting some

21:20more improved parameters in

21:22place. Uh, nothing is 100%.

21:26Nothing is going to work 100%

21:28for us. But I do have a couple

21:31of questions, and I think you

21:33alluded to it or maybe answered

21:35it. Um, and my question was,

21:38well, the first one was when we

21:41can't collect and I know you

21:44said doesn't go against the

21:45individual. It goes against the

21:47property. Um, and, you know,

21:50we've had some that have been

21:51sitting there, what, ten, 20

21:53years. So where are we from

21:56that? Where are we from at that

21:59point?

22:00Uh, so we still have

22:01significant balances that are

22:04aged at this point. Um, a lot

22:07of times when we see

22:08collections is when a property

22:11sells or a lot sells. Um, we do

22:14get a lot of communication from

22:16real estate attorneys around

22:18the community. Um, that

22:20sometimes just reach out to see

22:22if any of the properties that

22:24they have, um, coming up, have

22:27any assessments. But we also do

22:29see payments at that time. Um,

22:32typically with those aged

22:34items, we don't hear from the

22:36property owners very often.

22:38Okay. Well, thank you for that.

22:40I was happy to hear I think you

22:42said out of did you say out of

22:4510 million? We've collected

22:47about 2 million, a little over

22:492 million.

22:49We have about 3.9 million

22:53outstanding. Um, I said at the

22:56the average prior to sending

22:58invoices was around $4,900 per

23:01month. Um, but we recovered.

23:03Yes, but we we saw a

23:05significant increase after we

23:07mailed those invoices out.

23:09Okay. Now, my last question,

23:10mayor Council, is I received a

23:13call from someone to been some

23:14time ago. He lived out of

23:16state, and his home, where he

23:19was receiving letters, I guess

23:22lien letters? Uh, for whatever

23:25it was. Overgrown yards or

23:28debris or whatever. And he

23:30said, because, you know, they

23:31always tell us. At least tell

23:33me something. Well, that he

23:36wasn't receiving them. And

23:38whenever he came back to

23:40Fayetteville, North Carolina,

23:42he had an enormous amount. Uh,

23:45what do we give the process on

23:51a violation? And just whatever

23:55the process is again, who's

23:57contacted, how they're

23:58contacted or whatever the case

23:59may be?

23:59Sure. Um, I can speak to the

24:02finance side of that. Um, by

24:04the time it gets to finance,

24:06there has been numerous

24:08notifications through the code

24:10enforcement process, and I

24:11believe they're here today. If

24:12they if you have any questions

24:13on that part. Um, finance is

24:15really the last stop. So the

24:17work has now been done because

24:19the resident did not resolve,

24:22um, the conditions that were

24:25noticed. So by the time it gets

24:27to us, us significant time has

24:31passed in the works completed.

24:33So we then build based off of

24:35the address where their tax

24:37bill would have gone to. So we

24:39use the, um, the county's

24:42records for the tax bill

24:44searches. And we mail also to

24:46the same mailing address that's

24:48listed there.

24:49Okay. Then from code

24:51enforcement, if they could, uh,

24:54step up and just give me an

24:57answer from their perspective,

24:59I was just trying to find out.

25:03If the owner, the actual owner,

25:06is living somewhere else. But

25:08the property is here. Does that

25:11owner get a letter or something

25:14from code enforcement or

25:15whomever?

25:16And I think most all of you

25:18know, James Rutherford, Mr.

25:21Russell and, uh, J.R., as we

25:23refer to him, been one of the

25:24first, we'll be able to share

25:26that information of how we do

25:27that. Uh, and just as a

25:30reminder, this is an item that

25:32we saw. And as you indicated,

25:34doctor, here, for years, we've

25:36been trying to collect 15,000

25:39cases, code enforcement cases,

25:40with a dozen people handed out.

25:42Imagine each of you handling a

25:44thousand cases and having to do

25:45all the documentation. Then

25:47they say we're not paying. And,

25:50um, we got to the spot where we

25:52are because they continue to

25:56say that. And they did know.

25:58Most everybody knows on

25:59occasion we find out that

26:01somebody was deployed and did

26:03not know. But overall, J.R. can

26:05tell you the process, and

26:07there's at least there's a

26:09handful of, uh, touches. This

26:11is the last step, as we're

26:13hearing, as you're hearing to

26:15today, uh, working to get that

26:17collection back to a spot where

26:19it should be with many repeat

26:22offenders. Um, same violations

26:25year after year after year in

26:26the city. Pain and have not

26:28intended. Chair feel. Tell em

26:29how they're doing. Oh, sure.

26:31Um. Mayor. Council. Uh, so

26:34typical code enforcement

26:35action, uh, is started with the

26:37issuance of a notice of

26:38violation, and that notice of

26:41violation. Um, contact entity.

26:44Uh, and the the address for

26:46that entity, usually it's a

26:47person. You know, it's an

26:49individual. A lot of cases with

26:51the property could be an LLC, a

26:53corporation, a nonprofit. The

26:56city of Fayetteville could be

26:57anything. Uh, so we send the

26:59notice of violation based on

27:00the records that are provided

27:02from the county tax office. Uh,

27:04those are sent out first class

27:05mail. We also do a physical

27:07posting on the property. It's a

27:09nice yellow placard. You may

27:10have seen those around town.

27:13Um, if the mail comes back as

27:16returned, that triggers

27:18additional work right then and

27:19there from the code enforcement

27:21inspector assigned to that

27:23case. They will use the Nexus

27:26Lexus Accurate database to

27:28search out, uh, better

27:30addresses for the individuals.

27:32Um, they will, uh, check the

27:33property summary through the

27:35tax office to make sure it

27:36hasn't changed hands. And in

27:39some cases, we go to the point

27:40where we actually send a

27:41request for a title search to

27:43the city attorney's office. So

27:46that is just on the notice of

27:47violation side. And then prior

27:48to taking any action for

27:51issuance of a citation or, uh,

27:54assigning for a lock cut, they

27:56repeat that process to make

27:57sure nothing has changed

27:58because it's, uh, a lot of

28:01people know real estate is a

28:02dynamic environment. Stuff

28:04changes hands. Now, if a

28:06property owner has moved out of

28:07state, hasn't changed their

28:08information, accurate, doesn't

28:10pick them up. We don't get

28:12return mail. Then we don't

28:14really have any other

28:15information to work with.

28:16Right?

28:16Right. So, uh, we're we strive

28:20to communicate because that's

28:22when you communicate with

28:22someone. That's when you get

28:23results. Uh, we have a lot of

28:25properties that are, uh, air

28:27properties, uh, deceased

28:30individuals. We find that out

28:31through accurate as well. Um,

28:33and don't forget that, um, not

28:37everyone, but a lot of these

28:39cases are based on people who

28:41aren't, uh, having the intent

28:43of complying with the codes of

28:44the city. So they really they

28:47really don't want to do right.

28:50And thank you, mayor. As I

28:53close my questions out, because

28:55I've already been looked at on

28:57the side of my face and I could

28:58feel something read. But hurry

29:01up with my question. Uh, but my

29:03final thing I just wanted to

29:05post is that we want to be

29:07fair. To fair to the people. So

29:10by hearing what I'm hearing

29:12from finance and what I'm

29:13hearing from, uh, code

29:15enforcement, there's been a

29:17long period of trying to

29:19collect and support and help

29:21them get things done way before

29:23it gets to you. These two

29:24departments. Correct? Okay.

29:27Thank you. Thank you. Mayor.

29:28Thank you. Yes, sir. All right.

29:29Uh, Mayor Pro tem. Thank you,

29:31Mister mayor. J.R., you hit on

29:33part of my question. But first,

29:34I want to back up to Amanda.

29:36Great presentation. Amanda. I

29:38think it's the first time you

29:39presented for council. You did

29:40a great job. Uh, you talking

29:43about the waivers to only be

29:44approved by the city manager

29:45and the CFO? Can you give us an

29:48example of when they would

29:50approve a waiver for penalties

29:52or interest?

29:53Um, sure. In and in your

29:56pocket. There are several, uh,

29:58areas on that form that they

29:59can choose. Um, when requesting

30:02a waiver. So one, um, may just

30:05be that they are they are

30:06financially they're unable to

30:08pay the balance. Not

30:10necessarily. They don't want

30:11to, but it may be a financial

30:13burden to them. Um, so that's

30:15one of the options. Um, they

30:18there is actually another on

30:20there where they could explain

30:21why they're requesting the

30:22waiver. Um, a deceased

30:24individual is one that we do

30:26see quite often. And in other

30:28cases, we have someone they

30:30just may have a lot of them.

30:32Um, there are many repeat

30:34offenders, and we have been

30:36contacted by several that have

30:38said I'm willing to pay if you

30:41waive the interest. Um, so in

30:44some cases, it might just be

30:46the best path for resolution.

30:49Awesome. Now, out of the 3.9,

30:51how much of that is interest?

30:532 million.

30:542 million. All right J.R. Now

30:56she led into what you referred

30:57to when you was talking to

30:58council hair. And it's

31:00something I wanted to hit on

31:01emphasize. And that was

31:02deceased and aired property.

31:04And I'm just going to give you

31:05an example and I'll give you a

31:07personal example. A family

31:10member passes away. They have

31:13property that they owe stuff

31:16on, and it is heir to somebody

31:17else that aired person in

31:20certain states. The state that

31:21I'm talking about. You cannot

31:23pay their bill until that

31:25property is in your name. So if

31:27that's the case in North

31:28Carolina, shouldn't we

31:30automatically stop the

31:31interest? Once that person has

31:33deceased so it doesn't fall to

31:35the person that is going to

31:36inherit that property?

31:40That's a that's a.

31:42That's an Amanda question.

31:43That's an Amanda question or a

31:45well, it's not a question.

31:47I'm not I'm not a city

31:49attorney. Can I deal with a

31:50state sometime? But okay.

31:53Yeah. Um. You may recall, um,

31:58Miss Mott saying the, the

32:01assessment runs with the land.

32:03It's not attached to the

32:04individual. So in your example,

32:06no, we would not. It would, it

32:08would be whoever owns it now.

32:11Um, it would be responsible for

32:13paying the debt. Now.

32:14I'm not going to pay the debt.

32:15I'm talking to paying the

32:16interest on the debt.

32:17I think the interest.

32:18Is the interest is part I'm

32:19talking about. I understand

32:20they still owe the debt. I'm

32:20talking about the interest

32:22because they didn't know that

32:22they had a debt. So how can

32:23they pay interest on something

32:24that they didn't know?

32:25The interest becomes a part of

32:26the debt.

32:27Oh wow. Okay. That's all the

32:32questions I.

32:33Had.

32:33Your taxes still.

32:35All right? Council member

32:37McMillan. Thank you, Mister

32:38Mayor. Thank you. Amanda. I

32:39agree it was a great, great

32:41presentation. I appreciate your

32:43efforts to articulate, uh, your

32:45attempts to try to strike a

32:47balance. And and to be fair

32:49overall, to the people who live

32:50here in Fayetteville, it might

32:51be impacted. Also appreciate,

32:54um, Councilmember Harris

32:55questions because it was

32:56something that was on my mind

32:57that I brought up upstairs. Um,

33:01in terms of liens especially,

33:04and how people could be

33:05impacted. Uh, I have some

33:07concerns still about, uh, the

33:10steps that we take. Uh, and

33:14whether people who are already

33:16already struggling, uh, to

33:19identify and to correct, uh,

33:21code enforcement. Um, the

33:25deficiencies, uh, how they

33:27might even be put further

33:29behind the ball. The eight ball.

33:30And, um, I spoke to somebody

33:32last year that had a lien on

33:34his house because he couldn't

33:36pay for PwC hook up and

33:39assessment. And for him, that's

33:41just something. And all of the

33:43things he was struggling with,

33:44that was something that he held

33:45a grievance towards the city

33:46about. Um, I also appreciate

33:50the questions from Mayor Pro

33:51tem, uh, because what you're

33:54speaking from is a point of

33:56having a personal experience

33:58that you're able to bring to

33:59the dais, able to bring to to

34:01this board. And I'm wondering

34:04if there might be other

34:05opportunities to hear from the

34:07public. Um, and hear more of

34:09those those personal accounts

34:11of how this could be impactful,

34:13either positively or

34:15negatively. And I noticed that

34:17we have the ninth, uh, the

34:18request to put this on the

34:20consent agenda for the ninth.

34:22Is there anything that's, uh,

34:24that's a forcing factor to

34:26expediting this to make a

34:28decision on it in the next

34:29seven days?

34:31Um, so I would say it's a long

34:32time coming for us in the

34:34finance department. Um, we're

34:36the ones that field all of the

34:38phone calls that come in. And

34:40why did I get this? Bill? What

34:41is this for? Uh, and we have

34:43promised resolution, um, to a

34:46lot of residents that we have

34:49made them aware of the

34:50discussion we were having today

34:52with you. Um, and if it passes

34:56that, um, we can offer the

34:59limited authority to waive

35:01penalties and interest. Um, as

35:03well as establishing the

35:05payment plans that we would.

35:07Um, either way, will be

35:09communicating back with them.

35:10Um, but we really would like to

35:12resolve many of those phone

35:13calls that we have kind of just

35:15lingering on a list of, um,

35:18waiting to hear from us.

35:19Yeah, I love that. And I love

35:20that you're thinking about

35:21people who who could see the

35:22positive impacts of this. Yes.

35:25Uh, one of the things we did as

35:26a council was we moved to a

35:28system where we only give the

35:30public, uh, one time a month to

35:33give feedback. And that time is

35:35tonight. Uh, my concern is

35:37people who have to sign up, I

35:38think about five to speak to

35:39tonight. To speak on tonight?

35:42Uh, wouldn't have any any

35:44space. Uh, to be able to come

35:46comment on this publicly. And I

35:48think we might get more from

35:49the public if we if we hold off

35:51at least to one, uh, more

35:53public forum and get some input

35:56from the, from the public. So I

35:59would I would appreciate

36:01holding off until there's at

36:02least another public forum

36:03between us and a decision, uh,

36:06before we move forward on this.

36:07We'd love to hear more more

36:08from the public on it. Thank

36:10you. All right. Thank you, sir.

36:12Council member McNair.

36:13Um. Thank you.

36:14Mayor. Um, first of all, I want

36:17to recognize the committee. Um,

36:20of this.

36:21Um.

36:21Madam chair. Madam chair. I

36:25Mr.. Here. Thank you. Um,

36:28Councilman Ferguson. Councilman.

36:30Davis. Councilman. Um.

36:34McMillan. Is that it? Yes. Uh,

36:37also, I am ready to make a

36:40motion. We voted on this. Any

36:43more questions?

36:44We voted have.

36:44A.

36:45Couple of couple comments and

36:46questions so I can come back to

36:47you. Since you're the chair of

36:48this. And. Okay, I know you.

36:50You wanted to make a motion, I

36:51guess. Council. Councilmember

36:52hair fall back. Um, just a

36:55quick couple quick points to

36:57it. Um, you know, certainly I

36:59understand the need for the

37:01city to recoup, you know, money

37:03spent. You know, we get a lot

37:04of calls about overgrown lots

37:05or houses that are dilapidated.

37:07We we have demo orders that

37:09come out all the time. Um, the

37:11only issue I have is that our

37:14process may not have been as

37:16clean as you're making it now

37:17from 2003. I saw some of these

37:19go back then. So the the

37:22capability of staff to waive or

37:26to make some adjustments. What

37:28guides that what are the

37:30guidelines. How do we know

37:31that? You know, I, I like your

37:32attitude. So I'm going to waive

37:33it. I don't like your attitude

37:35so I'm not going to waive it.

37:36So what are the guardrails to

37:38show that there's consistency

37:39and fairness.

37:40Sure. Um well that's where the

37:41form comes in that we would

37:43have to fill out for every

37:45request. So it it may be a

37:47financial reason that they are

37:49requesting it. It may be that

37:51the property has sold and now,

37:54um, unfortunately, it's sold

37:56without it being resolved. And

37:58now it becomes the new owner's

38:00responsibility. Um, there could

38:03be other extenuating

38:04circumstances. Like the mail.

38:06They moved out of state and the

38:07mail came back. Returned. Um,

38:09we do try to keep records of

38:12returned mail as well, so that

38:14we can see when those kinds of

38:16things happen. Um, so there's

38:19those are the ones I can think

38:20of off the top of my head. Um,

38:23but we would consider all, um,

38:27reasons for that. Somebody

38:30could provide us, but not

38:31necessarily approve all of

38:32them, which is why we are

38:34requesting the dual authority

38:35between the chief financial

38:38officer and the city manager.

38:39Um, so that they can jointly

38:43talk about it and make sure

38:45that there is, um, the reason

38:48why we approve this one isn't

38:52just because they had a good

38:53attitude, because that would

38:54mean every time someone had a

38:55good attitude, we'd be

38:56obligated to waive it. Um, so

38:59that we're very consistent in

39:00how we apply those.

39:02All right. And the other

39:03question I had, since some of

39:05these go back 20, what, almost

39:0725 years or 24 years. Is there

39:11an opportunity to do, as some

39:15said for the older ones?

39:16Because, you know, the the

39:17longer the older the debt is,

39:18the less likely it is to get

39:20paid. So with interest being as

39:23heavy as it is on the total

39:25amount that you said out of the

39:283.922 point something is

39:30interest. Is it an opportunity

39:33to encourage people to pay some

39:35of those older ones with

39:36waiving the interest? I know

39:37that you said people asked

39:39about it and said that, um, is

39:41that a consideration that that

39:43can be. I see the CFO is

39:45walking up, so I must. be must

39:46be getting in her lane..

39:47A friend.

39:49Yes. All right. Um. Good

39:51evening Council.

39:52Um, so the thing.

39:54Is, is that, yes, we have had

39:56several the reach out and

39:57request that if they pay the

39:59principal balance, could we

40:01waive the fees? At this point,

40:02we haven't been able to

40:03communicate back to them

40:04because we don't have the

40:05limited authority to be able to

40:06do that. Um, because of the age

40:09of some of these, we think

40:10that's reasonable. Um, however,

40:13um, we need that authority from

40:15the board to be able to move

40:16forward in that direction. Um,

40:19and just a point of

40:19clarification as it relates to

40:21affordability, to be able to

40:22pay the debt. Um, that's not

40:25essentially a criteria for

40:27waiving a fee. Um, the the

40:31thing that we want to stand on

40:32in reviewing the documentation

40:35as it's provided by the

40:36residents, is is it a valid

40:39debt? Did the city actually

40:41perform the work? And can the

40:44resident be able to show

40:46documentation to validate that

40:48they had one? Um, for example,

40:51paid it. Um, they have

40:53notifications from their, um,

40:56title insurance company that

40:57said that they, um, paid it in

41:00our records, just wasn't

41:01updated. It was applied to the

41:03wrong thing or misapplied. So

41:07we're looking at it from an

41:08administrative standpoint to

41:09make sure that we, the city,

41:11hadn't done anything. Um, by

41:13which we did not clear it. Um,

41:16at one point we had to Hope six

41:17program where we, um, did away

41:20with some of these through that

41:21program. And so we're just

41:22looking at it from an

41:23administrative standpoint. The

41:25resident has to fill out the

41:26form, but also have to provide

41:29documentation to support it.

41:30And then we'll work with

41:32development services to review

41:33their documentation

41:34collaboratively together to

41:36ensure, um, if there's any

41:39validity to move forward with

41:40any waivers.

41:41Right. So I guess last, last

41:44part I'll have in this, I'm

41:45going to go to Council Member

41:46Ferguson. And, um, is there a

41:48way that the staff can present

41:50us a, a policy, say if the if

41:53this debt is, you know, because

41:55this is a BAC collection that

41:57goes back, if this is a debt

41:59and you're not a repeat

42:00violation person, you know, if

42:02you haven't had, you know, more

42:04than one violation in the last,

42:06you know, so many years that if

42:09this is paid the next, you

42:10know, 90 days that the city

42:13will consider waiving it like

42:14something concrete, because

42:15right now what it sounds like

42:16is discretionary. If we if we

42:17grant this, you're able to look

42:19at it on a case by case basis

42:20and make a decision what you'll

42:21do, what you won't do. So is

42:23there a way to put this in more

42:24of a formalized process that

42:26then can be communicated

42:28because, you know, fill out app

42:30application, it'll be reviewed.

42:32We'll let you know. Could get

42:34approved may not you know and

42:35you still may have people with

42:3715 year old debts. But it's

42:39different to me with a person

42:40that has a violation year after

42:42year than than people who may,

42:44you know, kind of like we do

42:45our demo. Um, demolition

42:48program where the city will

42:49demo your property if it's if

42:51it's condemned, as long as you

42:52your taxes are paid and some

42:54other criteria. So is there a

42:56way to formalize any of that so

42:57that it's consistent and fair,

43:00and that it can be explained

43:01particularly on the older

43:02debts? Now, going forward, I

43:04think, you know, you don't want

43:05to encourage people to not pay

43:07it. Wait, wait til five years

43:08in the city of, you know, we'll

43:10cut you a break. But but I'm

43:12saying on the older stuff,

43:13since you're now formalizing,

43:15is it a way to put a little bit

43:16more structure to it?

43:17Um.

43:18We could do whatever the

43:20pleasure of the board is.

43:21However, I would caution

43:22against doing, um, a blanket

43:25waiver for the very reason that

43:27you just, um, stated that you

43:30may have, um, individuals that

43:33know that if council move

43:35forward, a waiver, I just wait

43:36it out and it's going to get

43:38waived so it doesn't encourage,

43:40um, collection. So but we can

43:44do whatever the pleasure of the

43:46board is.

43:46Okay. All right. Councilman

43:48Ferguson.

43:49Thank you. Mayor. Um, that was

43:51really my. My question is

43:53really sort of piggyback off of

43:54that because it did seem like

43:56it was a case by case basis,

43:58and it would, depending on

44:00particular things. But there's

44:02nothing concrete. Um, so just

44:04say, for example, low income,

44:07um, age had something to do

44:09with is there a certain age, is

44:10there a certain, uh, income

44:13amount. And and I know, I know,

44:15you're saying not a blanket,

44:17but something that, um, makes

44:20it more concrete so people will

44:21know, uh, exactly. If they even

44:24qualify to, uh, for that.

44:29We can further define, um, if

44:32that's the pleasure of the

44:32board, I think, um, we did go

44:35through and update our policy

44:36to be able to support the

44:38recommendations that we bought

44:39before. Um, you on today. Um,

44:41but we can certainly further

44:44define at one point to make is

44:45that, um, the resolution that

44:49was developed as a result of

44:50giving us the limit of

44:51authority was by which it had

44:53multiple things in there. Um,

44:55this limited authority to be

44:56able to waive some of the

44:58interest and penalties

45:00associated with these. It did

45:02not have any authority in there

45:04to be able to raise the

45:05principal, because that is

45:07actually the dollars that the

45:09city actually incurred. Costs

45:11associated with the citations.

45:14So there is no recommendation

45:16where we are by, um, requesting

45:19any authority to waive the

45:21costs that, um, the city. Um,

45:24it spends. So I want to make

45:26that point clear. So any, um,

45:30further, um, clarifications

45:32that we make to the policy that

45:34we are presenting and the

45:36resolution, um, would just be

45:39for that the waiver of

45:41principal and interest, I mean,

45:42not principal. My apologies.

45:43The waiver of penalties and

45:45injuries, not principal.

45:46Mr. mayor.

45:48Yes, sir.

45:50Um, I.

45:51Um, Tiffany took it to where I

45:53think it was going to go as.

45:55Well.

45:55But I wanted.

45:55To. just make sure I

45:56understand. Um.

45:58Uh, the staff proposal is to

46:00allow limited authority for us

46:02to be able to waive, um,

46:04interest and penalties to allow

46:07people to pay the debt. Uh,

46:09$3.9 million, I think is what

46:11you said of of which 2 million

46:14is interest in penalties. Um,

46:16but a direct answer to your

46:18question, sir, I think, is that

46:20we'll be happy to bring back

46:22something. Consider the the

46:24waiver of the principal. But

46:26around that is based on what

46:28Amanda had in some of her

46:29earlier slides. I think it's.

46:32Well, but tonight we're today

46:33we're asking for the limited

46:36authority to be able to waive

46:37interest in penalties so that

46:39we can clear up as many of

46:40those as we can. Um, I would

46:43also, though, be remiss if I

46:45did not ask Chris Corley and

46:48Tiffany to confirm, even when

46:50we've used alternative sources

46:52of funds to take down property,

46:54the underlying obligation to

46:57pay is still there. We just

46:59paid the contractor to take it

47:02down, but the demolition cost

47:04is still on the books for the

47:07contractor. Um, I mean, for the

47:10property owner. I think I've

47:13got that right. I didn't want.

47:15To.

47:17Close.

47:18So. So the city used to using

47:22federal CDBG, community block

47:24grant funds, take it down with

47:26no cost to the property owner.

47:28Uh, legal had some challenges

47:31several years ago, and we had

47:32to go back in and retool it

47:34based on their advice. And so

47:36now if they willingly come to

47:39the city and ask for

47:40assistance, we do not place an

47:42assessment. But if council has

47:44to go through the process of

47:46ordering the demolition and

47:47assessment goes on to the

47:48property.

47:53All right. Uh, Councilmember

47:57Green, first go round and then

48:00McNair, uh, back to her for a

48:02second.

48:03Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you

48:05for your comments. Um, this is

48:09a common business practice,

48:10folks. This is not something

48:12that we just made up or we're

48:14discussing for the first time

48:16ever. This has been a common

48:17business practice for as long

48:19as I've been in business, which

48:20has been quite a while. Um, I

48:23think when we make it too

48:24cumbersome for staff, it causes

48:27confusion. And it also causes

48:28issues that go beyond that

48:30scope. Um, and my question is

48:34about auditing. So if let's

48:37just say you get a request to

48:39reduce, take the interest off

48:42to waive the interest and, and

48:44whatever fee has been attached

48:45to that. I'm, I'm hearing you

48:47say you're going to have

48:48basically a form they fill out

48:49and they're asking the why. Why

48:51are you asking for this?

48:52They're answering that for you.

48:55That is going to remain on

48:56file. I would assume that's

48:58going to become part of your

49:00decision. And that will be

49:02there for an audit that would

49:03come up at the end of the year.

49:05And I'm supposing that every

49:07audit at the end of the year

49:08that's done internally and by

49:10the audit company for us, would

49:12that would become part of that

49:13process. So it would be there.

49:15That is correct. Um, one other

49:18point of clarification is, um,

49:20these decisions are not being

49:21made in silo. Um, the um,

49:25resolution requires that not

49:27only myself, but the city

49:28manager has to make those

49:30decisions in conjunction. So,

49:32um, so that there is not one

49:34person making a decision.

49:36Right.

49:36Thank you.

49:38All right. Uh, Council member

49:41McNair.

49:42Is ladies home.

49:45Jones is first.

49:46Oh.

49:46I'm ready.

49:46She's going to make a motion.

49:48Okay. Uh, just one more short

49:50thing. I. I want to share this

49:52information, uh, with some with

49:54my my database. Is there a

49:57number? A number I can eight

49:59one, a city number I could

50:01attach if I wanted, if citizens

50:04wanted to call in to see if

50:05there's some possible

50:06assistance or whatever.

50:08Um, so we're working with

50:11Markham. There's already been

50:12some updates to the website.

50:14Um, but through the City of

50:15Fayetteville website, the

50:17finance page, there's an

50:18assessment lookup tool where

50:21they can type their property

50:22pin number in and see all of

50:24the balances they have

50:25outstanding. There's also a Q&A

50:27there and the phone number that

50:29they can call with.

50:30Any questions.

50:31I was asking what.

50:32Oh what is the phone.

50:33Number.

50:34Um, we will get that number to

50:35you.

50:35I don't.

50:36Have it written down here.

50:37Okay. All right. Thank you.

50:38Thank you. Mayor.

50:39All right.

50:40Madam chair.

50:41Thank you, Mister mayor. I'm

50:42ready to make a motion here.

50:45Um, as the chair of the

50:47community Development and

50:49Revitalization Committee, I

50:51moved that city council

50:53received the code enforcement

50:55collection framework and adopt

50:58the resolution establishing

51:00authority to write off

51:01uncollected accounts and

51:04limited authority to waive

51:06interest and penalty on file.

51:0926-0. 709 version one. And

51:13place it on agenda for November

51:159th, 2026 Regular City Council

51:19meeting.

51:19All right. It's a motion by

51:20chairwoman of said committee,

51:22Councilwoman McNair, seconded

51:24by Davis. Any discussion? We've

51:25had quite a bit. Uh, Council

51:28member McMillan.

51:30Yes. Thank you, Mister Mayor.

51:31Um, wondering if you'd accept a

51:33friendly amendment. Uh, Madam

51:35Chair, uh, for this to be on

51:37the consent agenda in December

51:39instead of seven days from now.

51:41So December 14th is our regular

51:44meeting.

51:44Why is that, sir? Why is that?

51:47Why is that? The, um. As I was

51:50talking to Amanda about

51:51earlier, the public has not had

51:53any opportunity to weigh in on

51:55this, uh, pushing it to consent

51:59in December. Gives us at least

52:01another public forum, uh, to

52:03hear from the public on this.

52:06Well, I don't like to say no to

52:10public forums, but, however, I

52:13don't believe at this time that

52:16we should wait any longer. Uh,

52:21November 9th. Um, is the given

52:23date to date that I agree with.

52:26So I would rather keep it as

52:28is.

52:29All right. All right.

52:31Councilor, look to you for your

52:32votes on the motion. As stated.

52:40All right. Madam clerk 901. Uh,

52:43those who vote in opposition.

52:44Council member McMillan. All

52:46right. Moving. Thank you all.

52:47Good job. All right. Moving to

52:506.02. Amend noise ordinance.

52:58Madam attorney, good afternoon.

53:00Good afternoon.

53:21We have.

53:39Good afternoon, mayor and

53:40members of Council. My name is

53:43Erin Sweeney, police attorney.

53:46And today, the purpose of this

53:50presentation is to provide

53:52recommendations to update the

53:54current noise ordinance found

53:55in chapter 17, with the goal of

53:57providing clarity and removing

53:59redundancy through a comparison

54:01to peer City's. For convenience

54:08purposes, this is a scope of

54:10the recommended changes, which

54:13vary from minor edits to major

54:17revisions. Additionally, you

54:19have in front of you the red

54:21line and a proposed clean

54:23ordinance that also contain

54:25where each proposed revision is

54:28modeled after. For the sake of

54:31time, I will focus on a few

54:34points to highlight. Starting

54:39with the purpose for regulating

54:40excessive and unnecessary noise.

54:44The proposed recommendation to

54:46change would be first with the

54:48terminology. Instead of using

54:50the terms excessive and

54:52excessive, unnecessary noise

54:54changing to unreasonably loud

54:55and disturbing noise.

54:58Additionally, it would be

55:00amending subsection C, which

55:02would provide enforcement

55:03method by city officials for

55:05violations that take place

55:06outside of their presence and

55:08deed recommitting or adding a

55:10recommitment to content neutral

55:12interpretation and enforcement

55:14to avoid infringing upon

55:15constitutional rights. That

55:18would take us to our first

55:22major recommended change, which

55:26would take place in certain

55:27noise and sounds, prohibited.

55:30The recommended change would be

55:31adding a 150ft quiet buffer

55:34around schools, houses of

55:36worship and health care

55:37facilities. This change is

55:39taken from Charlotte, North

55:42Carolina. Additionally,

55:46Winston-Salem, High Point,

55:48Concord, and Raleigh all have

55:51variations of this language.

55:53The second change will be

55:54relocating the prohibited acts

55:56that are now currently found in

55:58subsection or section 1711.

56:01Subsection 19, into this

56:03section. For organizational

56:06purposes. And lastly, adding

56:08two new subsections, D and E,

56:10which would allow allow the use

56:14of a sound meter but not

56:16require it to be to enforce the

56:19noise ordinance violation.

56:20However, if a sound decimal

56:22reader is used, ensuring that

56:24it is department owned and ANC

56:27approved. With the definition

56:35section, it would be adding

56:38seven definitions. These

56:39definitions would be necessary

56:41if Council decides to accept

56:43the recommended changes.

56:44Additionally. Additionally, the

56:46current ordinance does have

56:48terminology used that is not

56:49clearly defined. The maximum

56:57permissible sound levels by use

56:59occupancy section. The

57:01recommended change is for

57:04clarity purposes. The first

57:06recommended change is to

57:07establish a firm time limit of

57:09five minutes for a noise to

57:11constitute a violation.

57:13Secondly, it will provide two

57:15distinct violations one that is

57:17based on if a decimal reader

57:19decimal reader is available,

57:22and when a decibel reader is

57:24not available. When a reader is

57:25not available, we will have a

57:28plainly audible standard of use

57:31or standard for determining

57:32violations. Lastly, it would

57:36provide clarification on where

57:37these sound violations should

57:40be measured. The default would

57:41be from the property boundary

57:43of where the source of sound

57:45emanates from. If that is

57:48inaccessible, then the next

57:51property boundary should be

57:52from the complaining property.

57:55This is the provision that

57:58should be used when the sound

58:00is ongoing. Upon the arrival of

58:02city officials. With these

58:12specific prohibitions. Section.

58:16These are mostly for

58:17organizational purposes. For

58:20example, the loudspeakers,

58:22amplifiers, sound address,

58:25loudspeakers, amplifiers,

58:27public address systems, and

58:28similar devices. They are

58:30currently located are

58:31provisions involving these

58:33items are currently located in

58:34several parts of the ordinance.

58:37In addition to being in this

58:39section, it is also located in

58:41section 17, Dash 16. Now, with

58:49this subsection in particular,

58:50it would only be addressed in

58:52subsection 17-8. Additionally,

58:56with subsection 15,

58:58recreational motorized vehicles

58:59operating off public right of

59:01way, the recommended change

59:02would be to move it to the

59:03motor vehicle section, which

59:05would be the point of interest

59:08that we would next talk about.

59:13With the motor vehicle noise

59:16section. The first recommended

59:18change would be to remove the

59:20numeric decimal limit table. No

59:23other Pierce city uses such a

59:24table. Instead, it would be two

59:27general prohibitions, one that

59:30addresses defective equipment

59:33causing a the noise violation,

59:35the second being activities

59:37causing the noise ordinance

59:39violation, and again the

59:41recreational motorized vehicles

59:43will be relocated to this

59:45section as well. Section 1715

59:57is currently reserved. It would

59:59be the recommendation to change

1:00:02this reserve section into a

1:00:03noise violation, not based on

1:00:05sound level meters. This would

1:00:06provide city officials an

1:00:09enforcement method for

1:00:10violations that occur outside

1:00:12of their presence. It would

1:00:14allow officers to cite, based

1:00:16on complaint evidence. So if

1:00:18people are able to gather

1:00:20videos or if there are witness

1:00:24statements that can be

1:00:25collected, this would provide

1:00:27an enforcement method.

1:00:29Additionally, there will be a

1:00:3012 factor test to ensure that

1:00:31the process remains objective

1:00:33rather than subjective. Factors

1:00:35include looking at the volume,

1:00:37timing, and duration to avoid

1:00:40misuse of this section. There

1:00:42will be a provision stating

1:00:43that it's a violation to file a

1:00:45bad faith noise complaint,

1:00:46knowing that no disturbance

1:00:47exists. And again, this section

1:00:55is mostly for situations where

1:00:57a noise violation is reported.

1:01:01However, by the time city

1:01:02officials arrive, the violation

1:01:04has ceased but could restart

1:01:07once city officials leave again.

1:01:11Noise from radios, tape

1:01:13players, loudspeakers and sound

1:01:16amplifiers. This section would

1:01:17be modified into a

1:01:19non-commercial free speech and

1:01:21sound amplifier section

1:01:22instead. It would allow the use

1:01:24of sound amplifiers for First

1:01:26Amendment purposes, with a

1:01:28regulation on the audibility

1:01:29distance for Council's

1:01:31awareness. Currently, High

1:01:38Point uses 150 150ft, along

1:01:43with Greensboro. However, at

1:01:46the other end of the spectrum

1:01:47is Charlotte. Charlotte uses

1:01:48ten feet in regards to their

1:01:50sound amplifiers and

1:01:52non-commercial free speech. The

1:02:00enforcement, responsibility,

1:02:02and penalties for violation.

1:02:04This is a section that is in

1:02:08need of revisions. Right now,

1:02:11in the current 17-17, which is

1:02:13the enforcement responsibility,

1:02:15it does note that officers may

1:02:17only issue citations, but not

1:02:19physically arrests for

1:02:19violations of 17-7 through

1:02:221716. However, further down,

1:02:26when it speaks upon the

1:02:27exceptions, it allows arrest

1:02:29for violations of section 1713

1:02:33point C and for 17 dash

1:02:35sixteenths. Therefore, there is

1:02:37a conflict within those two

1:02:39provisions, with the current

1:02:42penalties for violation. The

1:02:44current ordinance D speaks upon

1:02:48civil civil penalties assessed

1:02:51in accordance with the fee

1:02:52schedule, and it has a 24 month

1:02:54reset period that is determined

1:02:55by the date of hearing or first

1:02:57violation. Additionally, it

1:02:59lays out the criminal penalties

1:03:00for violations of 1713 point C

1:03:04and 1716. The recommended

1:03:11changes for the enforcement

1:03:13responsibility.

1:03:19Would be to follow the model

1:03:21set by Concord and Greensboro,

1:03:24where it specifically instructs

1:03:26that a warning be required,

1:03:28which would give the violator

1:03:30the chance to remedy the

1:03:31violation. Additionally, it

1:03:34lays out exactly when law

1:03:36enforcement is authorized to

1:03:38arrest, and lastly, it would

1:03:40remove the private cause of

1:03:42action by adding in a provision

1:03:46that would allow city officials

1:03:49to issue citations for offenses

1:03:51that do not occur outside of

1:03:52their presence. The private

1:03:54cause of action could

1:03:56potentially be unnecessary,

1:03:58however, that would be at the

1:03:59discretion of council. A

1:04:01removal would be at the

1:04:02discretion of council. In terms

1:04:05of the penalties for violation,

1:04:08again it would establish a

1:04:09warning for the first

1:04:10violation. The fine would be

1:04:12determined by the number of

1:04:13subsequent violations. The

1:04:17reset period would be removed.

1:04:20Therefore, when someone reaches

1:04:21the highest or when someone

1:04:23reaches the max civil fine, any

1:04:25further violations would be at

1:04:27that maximum fine. Finally, it

1:04:29would add a civil action remedy

1:04:31for the city and form in the

1:04:33form of either an abatement

1:04:34process or an injunction, and

1:04:38this is modeled after

1:04:39Greensboro. So in summary, with

1:04:46the recommended changes,

1:04:48enforcement would no longer

1:04:49require a decimal reader. There

1:04:51would be other options

1:04:52available. There would be a

1:04:54buffer zone near sensitive

1:04:56areas. The there will be

1:04:59clarification on the decimal

1:05:02and audibility. Um, section.

1:05:06The vehicle noise rules will be

1:05:08simplified. There would be

1:05:09better clarity for law

1:05:11enforcement and a more cohesive

1:05:13organizational structure. If

1:05:20council does so, choose to

1:05:24accept the recommendations.

1:05:27There are a few considerations

1:05:29that would need to be decided.

1:05:31First would be the penalty

1:05:33structure. As stated before, it

1:05:35is modeled after Greensboro.

1:05:37However, the penalty structure

1:05:38would be at the discretion of

1:05:39Council. Topics to consider

1:05:42would be the civil penalty

1:05:44amounts, whether or not there

1:05:46should be an escalation for

1:05:47repeat violations, and if the

1:05:50reset period should be, should

1:05:52remain or be set at a different

1:05:54time frame. Other cities use 12

1:05:57months. Fayetteville is the

1:05:58only city that uses the 24

1:06:00month reset period. Second

1:06:03would be the proposed decimal

1:06:06limits. Whether they should be

1:06:08raised, lowered, or kept the

1:06:10same. Third, if Council chooses

1:06:13the to accept the loudspeaker

1:06:16provisions, what the audibility

1:06:18distance should be. As stated

1:06:21before, Charlotte uses ten

1:06:24feet. Greensboro uses 100ft.

1:06:27The distance would be at the

1:06:29discretion of council. And

1:06:31lastly, with the enforcement

1:06:33provisions, whether or not the

1:06:34private cause of action should

1:06:35be removed, points to consider

1:06:38would be the cost of cost of

1:06:39residences for having to file

1:06:41the civil action. Whether or

1:06:43not it would be more convenient

1:06:44to both the city and residents

1:06:47to remove the cause of action

1:06:50and the law enforcement

1:06:53preference. In terms of

1:07:01actions. It would be the

1:07:04request to either accept the

1:07:06amendments to the city code and

1:07:08direct staff to place the item

1:07:10on the November 23rd agenda for

1:07:11adoption, accept the amendments

1:07:13in part and direct staff as the

1:07:15changes that should be made to

1:07:17to the rejected amendments, or

1:07:19do not or do not accept the

1:07:21amendments to the City Code. At

1:07:24this time, I am open for

1:07:27questions.

1:07:28Thank you.

1:07:28Thank you, Madam Attorney. Um,

1:07:30did have just one. I mean, you

1:07:32know, certainly I'm sure I'm

1:07:33not alone, but we all get a lot

1:07:35of calls and emails about, you

1:07:38know, loud noise, burnouts,

1:07:40mufflers, um, various things

1:07:42that kind of disturb, you know,

1:07:45folks. Peace. And so I'm glad

1:07:47to see some movement on it. I

1:07:48was a little curious about, uh,

1:07:51section 1716, where you added a

1:07:57special revision for amplified

1:08:00sound for First Amendment

1:08:01purposes. Yes, sir. So I

1:08:03understand First Amendment

1:08:04rights are something that we

1:08:06all entitled to do and say in

1:08:08the exercise. Why was there

1:08:10special carve out to to use

1:08:12amplified for this? So what? So

1:08:14if you're allowed to say it, I

1:08:16guess the law gives you the

1:08:17platform to do it. Why why did

1:08:19you need to add a special carve

1:08:21out to make it amplify.

1:08:23So this was just the review of

1:08:26the other Pierce city's

1:08:28essentially went city by city,

1:08:31took what provisions they had

1:08:33compared them to what the city

1:08:35of Fayetteville had. Currently,

1:08:36Fayetteville did not have a

1:08:39section dealing specifically

1:08:40with non-commercial free

1:08:43speech, and it seemed pertinent

1:08:44to add it to the current

1:08:45ordinance.

1:08:46So you're saying all the other

1:08:47cities you reviewed had

1:08:48something specific just for

1:08:50that? So if I'm out here having,

1:08:53um, I can't use amplified

1:08:56speech to say anything else.

1:08:59Um, you know, promote my

1:09:00business. I'm standing out with

1:09:01a sign saying, you know, pull

1:09:02over and, you know, buy a car

1:09:04for me today. Or the folks who

1:09:05we talked to were having a

1:09:07special sale that got some, uh,

1:09:10some, some attention of the

1:09:12city for, for that. But is

1:09:16we've got a special provision

1:09:18just for amplified sound for

1:09:20First Amendment, because what

1:09:21I'm trying to say down here, we

1:09:23did a we did a ordinance

1:09:25revision, um, that gave a

1:09:26distance for during outdoor

1:09:29dining hours. Right. And so now

1:09:31what we're saying is we're

1:09:33doing a carve out for that. How

1:09:34does that conflict or coincide

1:09:36with that.

1:09:37Action?

1:09:46Excuse me, mayor Coburn, I just

1:09:47want to clarify. The council

1:09:49did not adopt that buffer

1:09:53scenario we had just for the

1:09:55record.

1:09:55Right. Well.

1:09:56I think I remember some back

1:09:58and forth about ten feet, five

1:10:00feet, three feet, whatever it

1:10:01was. But I guess my point is,

1:10:05is First Amendment the only

1:10:07thing that's included in the

1:10:08ability to use amplified sound,

1:10:10because the downtown district

1:10:11doesn't have I mean, it had

1:10:12some provision of amplified

1:10:14sound after a certain time. And

1:10:15now there is a provision here

1:10:17that carves that out. So my

1:10:19question was, which Pierce city

1:10:21did you pull this from? Are you

1:10:22saying that we're the only city

1:10:23that didn't have something

1:10:24specific to that, or.

1:10:26This was pulled from

1:10:27Greensboro, North Carolina?

1:10:29Okay. But you had Charlotte, so

1:10:31why did this one make it here?

1:10:33That's what I'm asking.

1:10:38I.

1:10:41If it was.

1:10:42Greensboro, based on my notes

1:10:44and high point also had a

1:10:47similar provision in their

1:10:49ordinance along with Charlotte.

1:10:51Charlotte was the city that

1:10:53used ten feet. Everyone else

1:10:55you used 150ft. However,

1:10:58amplified sound would also be

1:11:00addressed in other parts of the

1:11:04ordinance. It was just that the

1:11:07non-commercial free speech was

1:11:10the type of amplified sound

1:11:13that tended to be given its own

1:11:15special section. So, for

1:11:17example, with the current

1:11:20recommended changes under

1:11:23subsection under section 17,

1:11:24dash eight, radios, phonograph,

1:11:28phonographs, etc., that would

1:11:30still be listed in the certain

1:11:34noises and sounds prohibited,

1:11:36so it would not be a. Blanket

1:11:42use of loudspeakers throughout

1:11:44the city. It would be just

1:11:46specifically tailored for

1:11:48non-commercial free speech when

1:11:50dealing with that section. But

1:11:53again, these are recommended

1:11:54changes if council chooses not

1:11:56to accept that recommended

1:11:58change, it can be removed.

1:12:00Okay, thanks.

1:12:02All right. Uh, Councilmember

1:12:03McMillan.

1:12:03Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, thank

1:12:06you for this. Uh, these

1:12:07revisions. Uh, Aaron, I wanted

1:12:09to ask you if you could go back

1:12:11to the letter that ACLU sent in

1:12:152025, and our legislation text

1:12:18does, uh, does note what drove

1:12:21some of these revisions. But

1:12:22I'm wondering if you could put

1:12:23on the record, uh, during, uh,

1:12:26this work session, what that

1:12:29letter said and what it asked

1:12:31us as a city to do.

1:12:34The letter asks for a review of

1:12:38the. Use of amplified sound at

1:12:44the planned No Kings rally

1:12:46protest and. Asked for a review

1:12:51of the city codes. Noise

1:12:53ordinance.

1:12:54Right.

1:12:54And I can give a little bit of

1:12:56background on that. There were,

1:12:58uh, folks who were concerned

1:13:00about their, their their

1:13:02constitutional rights being

1:13:03infringed on. Uh, they wanted

1:13:05to have free political speech

1:13:07and were concerned that the

1:13:09noise of noise ordinance would

1:13:10be used to dampen their their

1:13:13participation and and engaging

1:13:15in their First Amendment

1:13:17rights. And for that reason,

1:13:19the parts of this that address

1:13:21that, uh, to include the carve

1:13:23out for people who are making

1:13:25political speech, uh, I think

1:13:26our are on the right track.

1:13:29Also appreciate the time limit

1:13:32that was added, uh, five

1:13:33minutes and then, uh, the

1:13:35requirement of a warning, which

1:13:36wasn't, wasn't there before.

1:13:38Um, I had some questions about,

1:13:41uh, the purpose of adding

1:13:42criminal penalties to what's

1:13:44usually a civil offense and

1:13:46where that where that came from

1:13:47or what's driving that.

1:13:50The current noise ordinance has

1:13:53the criminal provisions, if I'm

1:13:56not mistaken. But the

1:13:57recommended change, again,

1:13:59comes from Greensboro, North

1:14:01Carolina, as they did with

1:14:03Greensboro. It gave the warning

1:14:05first, which was a positive.

1:14:09Recommended change.

1:14:11Additionally, it again laid out

1:14:15specifically when law

1:14:18enforcement should take arrest

1:14:20actions. As stated prior, there

1:14:21was that conviction. There was

1:14:24that conflicting provision in

1:14:27the current and the current

1:14:28ordinance. But again, if

1:14:30Council chooses to change or

1:14:34chooses to. Or wishes to look

1:14:39at additional peer cities, I do

1:14:42have the ways other peer cities

1:14:44address their penalty sections

1:14:45as well.

1:14:46And I appreciate that. Also had

1:14:49a similar, similar concerns

1:14:51about, uh, the escalation that

1:14:55this represents in arresting

1:14:58people who refuse to ID uh, I

1:15:00wanted to ask what what the

1:15:02current circumstances would be

1:15:04for somebody, somebody to be

1:15:05arrested because they felt

1:15:07their ID and why we added that

1:15:10to, uh, to a noise ordinance.

1:15:12Again, that was taken from

1:15:16Greensboro and Concord,

1:15:20Greensboro, North Carolina, if

1:15:22it's a recommendation that

1:15:24council wishes to reject, that

1:15:28can be amended as well.

1:15:30However, what I can tell you

1:15:32with the peer Cities. Raleigh,

1:15:38Winston-Salem, Durham City,

1:15:42Durham County, High Point,

1:15:45Concord, Wilmington and Cary

1:15:48all have a criminal aspect to

1:15:52their noise. Ordinance.

1:15:55Then, uh, lastly, before, uh, I

1:15:57know some of my colleagues

1:15:58might might have questions or

1:16:00concerns, uh, in terms of, uh,

1:16:05overall applying the buffers

1:16:06around the around the churches

1:16:09and, uh, understanding that

1:16:14that that might be something

1:16:15that something that somebody

1:16:16has complained about. But I'm

1:16:17wondering if there's data to

1:16:19support, uh, that move or any

1:16:21of the other things that this

1:16:22contains. I'm wondering, um, if

1:16:25there's something that is

1:16:27driving this, uh, this driving

1:16:30some of the more stringent more

1:16:31some of the more restrictive

1:16:33additions to this, uh, or if,

1:16:35if maybe some of the things

1:16:36that we've taken in anecdotally

1:16:39are being put into an

1:16:40ordinance.

1:16:41Well, I can't speak on the

1:16:43data. I can speak on the

1:16:45process. It was essentially

1:16:47printing out every peer city,

1:16:49going one by one, section by

1:16:51section, taking provisions that

1:16:54the city of Fayetteville should

1:16:55consider adding into their

1:16:57ordinance. And in terms of this

1:16:59150ft quiet buffalo around

1:17:01schools, houses of worship and

1:17:03health care facilities, the

1:17:06model language came from

1:17:07Charlotte and Wilmington.

1:17:10Additionally, High Point

1:17:12Concord have an excessive noise

1:17:15band with no specific limit on

1:17:17distance. Winston-Salem uses

1:17:19100 100ft, and Raleigh uses

1:17:24150ft. Determination. The

1:17:27terminology used in Raleigh is

1:17:29the noise sensitive area.

1:17:31Rather than specifically saying

1:17:32church, health care in schools.

1:17:34However, if you look at the

1:17:35definition of a noise sensitive

1:17:37area, churches, schools, and

1:17:40health care are included within

1:17:41that definition.

1:17:43And I appreciate the the

1:17:44thorough and intense peer city

1:17:47study that's been brought to

1:17:48this. I'm hearing that there

1:17:50are things that some members

1:17:52may be comfortable with, and

1:17:53some other parts of this that,

1:17:55um, that may not be good for us

1:17:58moving forward. And I want to

1:18:00give my other colleagues some

1:18:02time, but we'd like to come

1:18:03back and ask a couple more

1:18:04questions, if I may.

1:18:05Yes, sir.

1:18:06All right. Thank you,

1:18:07Councilmember Jones.

1:18:09Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just

1:18:10quickly, as it relates.

1:18:11To the camera aspect, think you

1:18:15mentioned that if someone

1:18:16catches something on camera and

1:18:17in lieu of a noise meter, if

1:18:20someone uses a camera to catch

1:18:22a potential noise ordinance,

1:18:25does it also have to still meet

1:18:26that five minute requirement or

1:18:29what? What would that look

1:18:30like.

1:18:31That would fall under a

1:18:33different subsection for? One

1:18:42moment to get to that.

1:18:45Section.

1:18:49B five minute violation

1:18:53specifically addresses when the

1:18:55well. If it's council's

1:19:00direction or is this council's

1:19:02desire for the five minutes to

1:19:03be included in the this

1:19:04subsection as well? That can be

1:19:06done. However, this subsection

1:19:07was more so for violations that

1:19:10are no longer ongoing. When

1:19:12city officials arrive, the five

1:19:15minute timeframe could be

1:19:17considered in the 12 point

1:19:20factor test because it does

1:19:23list in here. The duration of

1:19:29the noise. So it may be that a

1:19:32sound that is not long in

1:19:37duration should not be a

1:19:39violation.

1:19:40Okay, so just to help me

1:19:42understand. So if my brother

1:19:43over here has something going

1:19:45on and I said, okay, it's too

1:19:47loud and I start video

1:19:48recording, he turns it off. I

1:19:51still I've already made a call.

1:19:53He turns it off. By the time

1:19:55officials come there, I can

1:19:56show them that video in lieu of

1:19:59a noise meter, and that may be

1:20:01sufficient to issue him a

1:20:03citation.

1:20:04Yes, sir.

1:20:05But there would also be other

1:20:07factors to consider along with

1:20:09the volume, intensity, nature

1:20:11of the noise, whether it's

1:20:12usual or unusual. So duration

1:20:14under this subsection would be

1:20:16would be one factor. But it

1:20:17doesn't necessarily have to be

1:20:19the determining factor.

1:20:20Gotcha. And how would a roughly

1:20:23how would it be determined that

1:20:25I may have made a bad faith,

1:20:27uh, call on that? What what

1:20:29would be some of the parameters

1:20:32around that to determine that.

1:20:33One hypothetical situation

1:20:35would be if there are multiple

1:20:36people around and only one

1:20:38person is saying that there was

1:20:39a violation, or if law

1:20:45enforcement or city officials

1:20:49do a ride, do arrive and

1:20:51conduct a conduct an

1:20:53investigation and determine

1:20:54that there was no noise

1:20:56ordinance violation.

1:20:58I understood that that would be

1:20:59one of one of my general

1:21:01concerns is that, to me, it

1:21:03pushes it a lot more towards

1:21:04being really, really more

1:21:06subjective. And I know we're

1:21:07even with a meter is still

1:21:09there are some pros and cons to

1:21:11that as well. But that was one

1:21:12of mine. Then lastly, in

1:21:14regards to the uh, what was it?

1:21:18B note 17.3 the muffler

1:21:24provision with the the noise.

1:21:26What is it currently? Uh, there

1:21:29is there a rest aspect with

1:21:31that at this moment.

1:21:34The current violation?

1:21:36Yes.

1:21:38With the current ordinance. It

1:21:45relies heavily on the decimal

1:21:48reader chart, where it speaks

1:21:51on motor vehicles with the

1:21:52manufacturer's gross weight

1:21:54rating. Uh, motor carriers and

1:21:58any combination. And no other

1:22:01pure city takes that approach

1:22:03using that chart.

1:22:03Gotcha. And so before right

1:22:05now, how are we determining

1:22:07that? Is it a visual visual

1:22:09inspection or outside of the

1:22:11the meter or how how are we

1:22:14determined we determining that

1:22:16currently that may be I know,

1:22:18uh, someone from the chief or

1:22:20someone may be able to answer

1:22:22that, but how are we

1:22:23determining that right now?

1:22:25I can't speak on how it's being

1:22:27determined right now, but based

1:22:29off the old ordinance, it also

1:22:32states that it should be free

1:22:33from defects equipped with the

1:22:36muffler or other noise device,

1:22:40or not equipped with any cutout

1:22:42bypass or similar device. So I

1:22:45would think someone would have

1:22:48to examine the vehicle. But

1:22:50again, I cannot speak on that.

1:22:52However, with the recommended

1:22:54changes it becomes more. Of I

1:23:00would say, an ear test because

1:23:04again, you would have two

1:23:06different prohibitions. One

1:23:09that would address equipment

1:23:11causing the noise ordinance

1:23:13violation and one addressing

1:23:15activities.

1:23:16Right. Okay. I'll I'll pause

1:23:17there. I'll wait around you.

1:23:18Thank you.

1:23:20Yes, sir. Um, mayor pro tem.

1:23:22Thank you. Mayor, uh, just two

1:23:24small questions. You were

1:23:26referring to. This policy would

1:23:28be in compliance with, uh, the

1:23:31arrest part of the ordinance

1:23:33from 177 through 1717, but

1:23:39would not be in compliance with

1:23:411713. C, can you explain that?

1:23:44Would that be under the current

1:23:45ordinance?

1:23:46Yes.

1:23:47The current ordinance does have

1:23:48a conflict. And I will go

1:23:52directly to it. If you go to

1:23:59subsection three, um, powers

1:24:02for arrest or citation, any

1:24:04police officer may issue

1:24:06citations and not physically

1:24:08arrest violators of section

1:24:1017-7 through 17. Dash 16. As

1:24:13more specifically set forth in

1:24:15172, 78.3. However, if you go

1:24:20down to the next subsection,

1:24:23officers may not arrest for

1:24:24violations of 17-7 through

1:24:271716, except they do have the

1:24:29power to arrest for violations

1:24:31of 1713 point C. That part is

1:24:34fine. Or section 17-16. That

1:24:38part is the problem. You have

1:24:39one subsection saying that you.

1:24:41Can. arrest another one says

1:24:43you can't.

1:24:43Yes.

1:24:44So would that be under officer

1:24:46discretion.

1:24:47Right now? It shouldn't be

1:24:48under anybody's discretion.

1:24:50Because of.

1:24:50It, because of the conflict.

1:24:52Gotcha.

1:24:54So it would be recommended that

1:24:56we remove both of those or.

1:24:59At the least it would be

1:25:02recommended to change the 1716

1:25:08parts. However, with the

1:25:10recommended changes for this

1:25:12presentation, it would be to

1:25:15specifically lay out the

1:25:17scenarios that would allow law

1:25:21enforcement to arrest if

1:25:23necessary, and if probable

1:25:25cause exist.

1:25:26Clarify that now, because you

1:25:27just said two different things.

1:25:29One is not to arrest and then

1:25:30to lay out where they can

1:25:31arrest.

1:25:34Okay.

1:25:34It would be first the warning.

1:25:39So we're past the first

1:25:41violation. Then if we're

1:25:46dealing with a situation where

1:25:48it's a muffler exhaust

1:25:50modification, specifically

1:25:51laying out that officers do

1:25:53have the authority to arrest in

1:25:55that situation, if a person

1:25:57refuses to identify themselves,

1:26:00giving officers the authority

1:26:02to arrest in that situation,

1:26:04refusal to stop after a

1:26:05citation has been issued. So we

1:26:07would be on the essentially

1:26:10second or third violation at

1:26:12that time, given our

1:26:13enforcement, the the authority

1:26:14to arrest or interfering with

1:26:18enforcement.

1:26:19Tracking my second question, I

1:26:22think I just lost my page you

1:26:26were talking about with the

1:26:28mayor of Amplified Sound when

1:26:31it came to First Amendments.

1:26:32Yes, sir.

1:26:33But you also say in section B

1:26:35the following are unlawful in

1:26:37the city, while within 150ft of

1:26:39the property line of a school

1:26:41where class is. No, that's not

1:26:42what I'm looking for.

1:26:47Uh.

1:26:52I'm sorry, I think I just lost

1:26:53my page. Give me one second.

1:27:12I'll come back because I can't

1:27:13find my page.

1:27:15All right. Uh, Councilmember

1:27:19Ferguson.

1:27:21Thank you. Mayor. My question

1:27:23is, um, so under motor vehicle,

1:27:26you have the proposed, I guess

1:27:28is 76 to 95, and that's

1:27:30dependent upon the weight of

1:27:32the vehicle. Um, but then the

1:27:34question was asked, what is the

1:27:37current, uh, desk when you and

1:27:39you're saying you're not

1:27:40certain or do we have one or

1:27:42that's, um.

1:27:45Currently.

1:27:45With the motor vehicle section

1:27:49under 1713, motor vehicle

1:27:52noise.

1:27:53Right.

1:27:54We have three subsections,

1:27:57subsection A deals with the

1:28:00sound level decimal. And it

1:28:05deals with, be it noise shall

1:28:06be measured at a distance of at

1:28:08least 25m from the near side of

1:28:10the nearest lane. Sort of

1:28:12language that no other peer

1:28:13city uses.

1:28:14Okay, so it's measured, but

1:28:17what is the measurement? Is

1:28:19there a amount? This is 76 to

1:28:2495. It do we have one now that

1:28:26says 52 to 84 I met.

1:28:29So it would be the measurement.

1:28:31Right now it is that.

1:28:33It is 76 to 95.

1:28:37Well one section has speed

1:28:39limit 35mph or less, 91 speed

1:28:44limit over 35mph. 95. That

1:28:47would be the current ordinance.

1:28:49Okay.

1:28:49So it's determined by speed,

1:28:51not sound because I'm talking

1:28:53about decibels. Not speed.

1:28:55And I would say that would be

1:28:57one of the current issues with

1:28:59the ordinance because of the

1:29:00confusion that it can cause.

1:29:03Okay. Uh, and so in my next

1:29:05question is it says officers

1:29:07can cite based on reliable

1:29:09witness or complainant. I know

1:29:11you touched on it evidence, not

1:29:12just a sound level recording.

1:29:14So are you saying that, um, is

1:29:17that saying not just a sound

1:29:19recording level? Is that in

1:29:20addition to or in lieu of?

1:29:23It would be any information

1:29:26available to law enforcement

1:29:29upon arrival.

1:29:30So they can use any information

1:29:33that they get upon arrival to

1:29:36make that enforcement.

1:29:38Yes, sir. Subsection case

1:29:39statements of any complaining

1:29:41witnesses, including any

1:29:43pictures, audio, video

1:29:45documentation produced by the

1:29:47complaining witness. And then

1:29:49you have the other, other

1:29:51factors, including the volume,

1:29:53intensity, duration.

1:29:54So it will be dependent upon

1:29:56the the officer to make that

1:29:58decision based on the evidence

1:30:00that they get at the scene.

1:30:01Yes. There's no stipulations

1:30:04requiring a certain. It's just

1:30:06saying if we see the evidence

1:30:08and we think that that's it's

1:30:09good enough evidence, then

1:30:10we're good.

1:30:11Yes, sir.

1:30:12All right. Thank you.

1:30:13Uh, all right. Thank you,

1:30:15Councilman Ferguson, Council

1:30:16member Hondros.

1:30:18Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank

1:30:19you, Attorney Sweeney. Uh, a

1:30:21couple of questions. So if I

1:30:23heard correctly and understood

1:30:24correctly, churches, schools

1:30:26and homes were protected.

1:30:30With the recommended changes,

1:30:33it would allow for a 150ft

1:30:41buffer around churches, schools

1:30:44and health care facilities.

1:30:46What if it's the church or the

1:30:48school, or the health care

1:30:49facility that's causing the

1:30:50noise?

1:30:51I believe that has actually

1:30:53been. Addressed with case law,

1:30:59and it is a determination of

1:31:02whether or not it's in the

1:31:03ordinary course of business. So

1:31:08if it's the normal sounds that

1:31:10a school health care facility

1:31:12or a church would make, I think

1:31:14one of the examples talked

1:31:16about earlier was church bells.

1:31:19That has its own specific

1:31:21section in here. I believe

1:31:23under 17. Dash eight. Um,

1:31:28children playing outside if

1:31:30they get loud, that would be

1:31:32part of the normal course of

1:31:34the, um, facility in question.

1:31:38Yeah, I'm thinking more, you

1:31:39know, if a resident, whether it

1:31:40was at their home or if they

1:31:42rented a venue and had a

1:31:43celebration. Right. And then

1:31:45the music, we got to festive.

1:31:48The music got too loud and it

1:31:49violated the ordinance. Um, if

1:31:52it was a commercial for rent

1:31:55venue, would that be the course

1:31:56of doing business? I guess. And

1:31:58then similarly similar noise

1:32:01and sound from a celebration,

1:32:02if that came from a church,

1:32:04would that be normal for the

1:32:06church, even though it only

1:32:08happens once a week or certain

1:32:11celebrations during the year?

1:32:13I would say it is normal for

1:32:15the church, but based upon the

1:32:18ordinance, if there's ever a

1:32:19question a person could, if I'm

1:32:21not mistaken, apply for a

1:32:23permit that would allow a

1:32:25relief from the ordinance.

1:32:27Special use permit or

1:32:28something. Yes, special event

1:32:29permit. Um, so we talked about

1:32:33the churches, schools and um,

1:32:35homes. Uh, and we talked about

1:32:37amplified sound. Um, both for

1:32:42commercial uses as well as, um,

1:32:45First Amendment. Um, uses

1:32:48talked about the mufflers and

1:32:49the vehicles. Um, and then the

1:32:53with or without, uh, a decibel

1:32:56meter. So without a decibel

1:32:59meters that, um, distance, the

1:33:02measuring we would use to

1:33:04measure without a decibel

1:33:05meter.

1:33:06It would fall in the, the

1:33:07plainly audible standard and a

1:33:09plainly audible would be

1:33:11defined in section 17-9. Any

1:33:15sound or vibration caused by

1:33:17sound that can be detected by a

1:33:19reasonable person of ordinary

1:33:21sensitivities, using their

1:33:23unaided hearing faculties. Any

1:33:25noise that can be heard, any

1:33:27noise that can be clearly

1:33:28heard, is plainly audible.

1:33:31Words or phrases do not need to

1:33:32be discernible, plainly audible

1:33:34noise include face

1:33:36reverberation and bass tones.

1:33:39This was taken from Raleigh and

1:33:41I believe the best example I

1:33:42could give is just earlier

1:33:44during the work session when we

1:33:46heard Tevin Campbell being

1:33:48played outside.

1:33:50What did you do, sir?

1:33:53An officer may not have a

1:33:55decimal reader available to

1:33:57them on hand. However, using

1:34:00the unaided ear you could hear

1:34:02clearly the words coming from

1:34:04the sound coming from the car.

1:34:06That would be a violation of

1:34:07the ordinance. Under the

1:34:09recommended changes.

1:34:10Yes. So you just mentioned

1:34:11Raleigh prior to that. In this

1:34:14presentation, we heard

1:34:15Charlotte, Greensboro and High

1:34:16Point. Um, and you may have

1:34:18covered this at the beginning,

1:34:19but I think this kind of came

1:34:21to us from a council member

1:34:22request several months ago, and

1:34:25I can't remember which came

1:34:26first. I think since then there

1:34:28was another, um, council member

1:34:30request where we kind of

1:34:31codified, uh, Pierce city's did

1:34:34council asked for peer city

1:34:35review on all of these? Um, as

1:34:37far as each element of this. So

1:34:40we're hearing parts of what

1:34:42Greensboro does or high Point

1:34:43does, parts of what, um, um,

1:34:46Raleigh or Charlotte does, but

1:34:49can we get I think for me, and

1:34:51from some of the questions from

1:34:52my colleagues, I'm hearing on

1:34:53each of these items, if we can

1:34:54see what our peer cities are

1:34:56doing, that may help guide us

1:34:58on how we want to move forward,

1:35:01if that makes sense.

1:35:02On the red line, each section

1:35:05does have where it was taken

1:35:08from, or at least it should,

1:35:11and I apologize if that's not

1:35:13on there.

1:35:13It does.

1:35:15Okay. But in terms of, I guess,

1:35:18your next part of your question

1:35:19is essentially why we are here.

1:35:23The last time this ordinance

1:35:25was amended was in 2018. A lot

1:35:28has changed since 2018, and I

1:35:32would say it was the city's

1:35:33attorney's office taking the

1:35:35initiative because at one

1:35:36point, as stated, there was

1:35:38that conflict with the arrest

1:35:41provision. Yes, ma'am. And that

1:35:43led to a review or, you know,

1:35:46led to a review of the entire

1:35:48ordinance picking out which

1:35:50parts were good, which parts

1:35:52could have been and could be in

1:35:54need of strengthening or

1:35:55changes.

1:35:56Yes. So I'm looking at the red

1:35:58line now that has, as you

1:35:59mentioned, um, where that

1:36:03proposed revisions coming from,

1:36:05whether it's Concord, I've seen

1:36:06a bunch of other Wilmington's

1:36:08in here. So did the attorney's

1:36:10office. Did you all review all

1:36:12of them and then pick out the

1:36:13one that you're recommending,

1:36:15or I guess my question has a

1:36:18complete peer city review for

1:36:19all of these items been done.

1:36:21For each of the pier cities. We

1:36:25took the Pier City, printed it

1:36:27out, highlighted the provisions,

1:36:30and decided or highlighted the

1:36:35provisions and placed what

1:36:39Fayetteville should be

1:36:40considered or used. Those

1:36:43highlighted provisions to make

1:36:46recommendations on what

1:36:48Fayetteville should add to the

1:36:50current ordinance or how

1:36:53Fayetteville differs from other

1:36:56pier cities. Again, one example

1:36:58would be the 24 month reset

1:37:02period. Again, the other pier

1:37:04cities either use 12 months or

1:37:07no reset period. Fayetteville

1:37:09was the only city using 24

1:37:11months. Fayetteville was the

1:37:13only city using the chart

1:37:16located in the motor vehicle

1:37:19section, so it was finding

1:37:22provisions like that.

1:37:23Yes. So you all had that chart,

1:37:24but I don't think we've seen it.

1:37:25Right. Council hasn't seen it

1:37:27or have we.

1:37:27The chart for motor.

1:37:29Vehicles.

1:37:29The chart for all of these

1:37:31items. It just shows. Like I

1:37:35said on the red line, it just

1:37:36shows the proposed revision of

1:37:37where it came from. I'm

1:37:39guessing the attorney's office

1:37:41made that recommendation, but

1:37:43council hadn't seen what all

1:37:45the other nine cities are doing

1:37:47for each of these items. Right?

1:37:49There was not a chart. It was

1:37:53because, personally, I'm a

1:37:54paper person printing them out

1:37:57and going through each section.

1:38:00However, if council, for

1:38:05example, wanted to see how all

1:38:07the pier cities treat the

1:38:12different penalties, for

1:38:14example, I do have a chart

1:38:17mapping out how each pier city

1:38:21use addresses those, but if

1:38:25that's something council would

1:38:27like to see.

1:38:28Yeah, I think we've all heard a

1:38:29lot of things that we like, and

1:38:30I agree that, um, if this

1:38:32ordinance hasn't been revised

1:38:33since 2018, it's definitely

1:38:36worth revising. Um, I guess

1:38:38it's more of a question for my

1:38:39colleagues. Is this something

1:38:41we want to take the attorney's

1:38:42recommendation, or if we want

1:38:44to see that, um, Pier City

1:38:47comparison before we move

1:38:49forward. Thank you, Mr.

1:38:49Councilor.

1:38:50Thank you, Councilmember

1:38:51Hondros. And as we continue to

1:38:52make their way through the

1:38:53discussion, because it's a lot.

1:38:55And so to the attorney's point,

1:38:58if she had ten cities, uh,

1:39:00ordinances to review with,

1:39:03what, 17 sections? I mean, I'm

1:39:05sure that's that's a huge

1:39:06spread. So she's a paperwork

1:39:08person. I don't know, I don't

1:39:10like that much paperwork, but.

1:39:11but I guess the point is, is

1:39:13that maybe, uh, as you all make

1:39:16your rounds to to to talk,

1:39:18let's see if there's some

1:39:19points of agreement,

1:39:21particularly on some of the

1:39:22minor revisions. You know,

1:39:23language inconsistencies and

1:39:25some of the other stuff, the

1:39:26things that we may need a

1:39:28little bit more information on.

1:39:29Let's let's test them with, uh,

1:39:31bringing that back and maybe

1:39:33that'll narrow her work down so

1:39:34that she's not, you know, if

1:39:35there's an inconsistent word

1:39:37and she's got a great color

1:39:39code on the front, you know,

1:39:40minor added, you know, it could

1:39:41be a language thing. And so I

1:39:42don't think pulling ten city

1:39:44ordinances to look at a minor

1:39:46wordsmith edit is what you're

1:39:49intending to say. But, um, so

1:39:51I'll go to Councilmember Davis,

1:39:52who hasn't had first round, uh,

1:39:54then Councilman uh, Ferguson.

1:39:58Second, I believe first. It's

1:40:00your first. Oh, you turn your

1:40:01light off. All right. McMillan

1:40:02definitely second. And then

1:40:04what we'll do is, um, I'll,

1:40:05I'll go over some of these

1:40:07minor edits, and then we can,

1:40:08we can kind of work our way.

1:40:09And see if there's any

1:40:10alignment. All right,

1:40:11Councilman Davis and then

1:40:12McMillan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:40:13I just have two questions.

1:40:14Uh.

1:40:15Because I heard you say

1:40:16earlier.

1:40:16That, you know, some officers

1:40:18can go out to the scene and

1:40:19determine, you know, is there

1:40:20another process to determine

1:40:22the sound, uh, issues? Well, I

1:40:24know you guys use the decimal

1:40:25readers, but is there something

1:40:28another process that you guys

1:40:29can use because of opinions?

1:40:31You know, my my ears may not be

1:40:32the same as, uh, Councilmember

1:40:34Hondros ears. And so how do you

1:40:36determine that from being a

1:40:38violation versus not.

1:40:42I'm sorry. Um.

1:40:49Well, to speak on that. If it

1:40:58is. Decimal readers would

1:41:06likely be the most of ejective

1:41:10way of handling a noise

1:41:13ordinance violation. However, I

1:41:17don't know how many officers

1:41:19are currently employed.

1:41:20That's my next question is for

1:41:22the I guess for the chief is,

1:41:23you know, does not does every

1:41:24officer have one or, you know,

1:41:26how much are they? Do they need

1:41:28them so that we can make sure

1:41:29that they have those so they

1:41:30won't opinions won't get in the

1:41:32way of a decimal reader.

1:41:34Good afternoon.

1:41:35Mayor Council.

1:41:36Uh, in reference to that, we do

1:41:38have decibel readers, but we do

1:41:39not have decibel readers. For

1:41:41every officer. And so, you

1:41:44know, I think that if you you

1:41:47look at the current ordinance

1:41:49right now, which is it's very

1:41:52conflicting and it really

1:41:55doesn't hurt. I mean, it

1:41:56doesn't help us in being able

1:41:58to enforce it. So with the

1:42:00changes that they're looking

1:42:00at, it's going to give us a

1:42:01little bit more flexibility and

1:42:03being able to enforce it. Um,

1:42:05especially where we won't need

1:42:07to have a decibel reader. I

1:42:08mean, there's there's many

1:42:09times that you can, um, observe

1:42:13or listen to when a vehicle

1:42:15passes by. You don't

1:42:17necessarily need a decibel

1:42:19reader to know that that

1:42:20vehicle is extremely loud in

1:42:22terms of the the music or the

1:42:24muffler. Um, again, um, you

1:42:27know, we we see it here all the

1:42:30time when we're sitting in

1:42:31this, uh, city council meeting

1:42:33and you'll have, uh, vehicles

1:42:35that are, you know, with their

1:42:36music or their muffler really

1:42:38loud. As a matter of fact,

1:42:39today, um, I'm sitting in my

1:42:42office and the music is

1:42:45vibrating that much? I can feel

1:42:46it in my office. So, I mean,

1:42:48it's it's not. I don't think

1:42:49you need to have a decibel

1:42:51reader to be able to articulate

1:42:53that. That situation.

1:42:55I get it, but thank you, sir.

1:42:58All right. Uh, Councilmember

1:43:00McMillan, second round.

1:43:01Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I

1:43:02appreciate you, Aaron. I know

1:43:04this, uh, a lot of questions.

1:43:06Uh, there's a lot of concerns

1:43:07around this. I want to talk

1:43:09about some of those concerns,

1:43:10and then I'm prepared to make a

1:43:11motion as well. Mr. mayor. Um,

1:43:15yeah, I've seen this as as a

1:43:17problematic ordinance for a

1:43:18long time. I've seen it

1:43:21enforced in ways that raised

1:43:23some questions about, um,

1:43:25especially about targeting a

1:43:27free speech. Um, in terms of

1:43:31any interactions between law

1:43:32enforcement and residents,

1:43:34those are always potentially

1:43:35lethal. Uh, always. And for us

1:43:39to have a very restrictive

1:43:41ordinance that, uh, that

1:43:43increases those lethal,

1:43:44potentially lethal

1:43:45interactions, uh, is a concern

1:43:47of mine. And I would want to

1:43:50spend a lot more time with this

1:43:52understanding the parts of this

1:43:53that drive us towards those,

1:43:55those unnecessary interactions

1:43:58and also the the parts of this

1:44:00that drive us towards

1:44:00criminalization of things that

1:44:02are clearly, uh, civil in

1:44:04nature. Um, I'm concerned about

1:44:08this, uh, also being used in a

1:44:12retaliatory fashion between

1:44:14neighbors. I couldn't envision

1:44:16people having a good time at a

1:44:18cookout. Uh, in their in in

1:44:21their backyard and having beef

1:44:23with neighbors who who utilize

1:44:25this in a, in a retaliatory

1:44:27fashion. Um, and I would, would

1:44:32like to say that there are some

1:44:34good parts of this that I, that

1:44:36I'm confident, uh, are the

1:44:38right, right move and the right

1:44:39way ahead. Uh, similarly to

1:44:42the, uh, the finance, uh,

1:44:44portion that we just made a

1:44:46decision on, I would love to

1:44:48hear the public's input on

1:44:49this. And my question for you,

1:44:52I have two questions. One, has

1:44:53there been a litigation review

1:44:55on this? Uh, if not, I hope

1:44:58that's something that's

1:44:58possible. And then, too, is

1:45:00there anything that's forcing

1:45:01us, uh, a forcing function?

1:45:03That's that's forcing us to

1:45:04decide on that this on this

1:45:07ordinance this month.

1:45:09There's nothing forcing the

1:45:11ordinance to be acted upon on

1:45:13this month. And in terms of

1:45:14litigation review, we have been

1:45:17following the heavy City of

1:45:19Asheville case, which was

1:45:20settled in March of 2026.

1:45:25Okay.

1:45:25And I read a little bit about

1:45:27that, too. Um, I would be

1:45:29interested as, as part of us

1:45:31moving forward on this, uh, for

1:45:32us to have a more in-depth

1:45:34litigation review and then

1:45:36also, uh, Legal Sufficiency

1:45:38memo, uh, that that is a part

1:45:40of any changes that are made.

1:45:42And, uh, Mr. Mayor, are we

1:45:45ready to move towards, uh, am I

1:45:46ready to make a motion or is

1:45:48there any more discussion than

1:45:49you'd like to facilitate?

1:45:50I don't I just had one

1:45:52question. You certainly afraid

1:45:53to make your motion, and then

1:45:54we'll see the outcome of that.

1:45:55And I'll ask council maybe if

1:45:56they wanted to unpack this,

1:45:58depending on the outcome of

1:45:59that. Uh, just a question I

1:46:00have on the buffer zones, does

1:46:02that apply to the operational

1:46:06hours? So in other words, uh,

1:46:08is it always buffered, uh, for

1:46:11churches, schools, uh,

1:46:13childcare and other places

1:46:15that, uh, regardless of 24

1:46:18hours, seven days a week or, or

1:46:19what was the clarification

1:46:21that, uh, for that ordinance

1:46:22you pulled that from? I guess

1:46:23that was one of the peer cities

1:46:25had that.

1:46:26Yes, sir.

1:46:28With the school specifically,

1:46:29it notes that it disturbs or

1:46:32threatens to imminently disturb

1:46:33those classes or activities

1:46:34which suggest that it would be

1:46:37when school is in session.

1:46:39Health care facilities are

1:46:41typically open 24 over seven,

1:46:42so that would be around the

1:46:45clock restriction. And with the

1:46:49House of.

1:46:50Work.

1:46:52With the House of worship, it

1:46:55does state where a service is

1:46:56occurring.

1:46:57Okay.

1:46:57All right. That was my

1:46:58question. Thank you. All right.

1:47:01Uh, Councilman McMillan Jones,

1:47:02you had a question?

1:47:03Yes. Just, uh, thank you, Mr.

1:47:04Mayor. Uh, before you make

1:47:05your, uh, motion, uh,

1:47:07Councilmember McMillan, I

1:47:09wanted to see if we could. The

1:47:10mayor had a good point. If we

1:47:11could possibly get some points

1:47:14of agreement where if we if we

1:47:16decide to remand it back to

1:47:18staff, at least they would know

1:47:19what to work on. So I want to

1:47:21know, is that possible? That

1:47:22was a good suggestion. Thank

1:47:23you, Mr. Mayor.

1:47:24Yes, sir.

1:47:26Yes, sir.

1:47:28Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

1:47:29Mayor. Thank you as well. Uh,

1:47:31Councilmember Jones. So we got,

1:47:34uh, four different options in

1:47:35front of us. The second option

1:47:37was to accept the accept the

1:47:39amendments in part and direct

1:47:40staff to changes that should be

1:47:42made to rejected amendments.

1:47:45Uh, the third option was to not

1:47:48accept amendments to the city

1:47:50code, and I'm leaning towards

1:47:51that. But I'd like to make a

1:47:52motion on the second one, just

1:47:54because I do see some things I

1:47:56think we can't agree on

1:47:57tonight. I move that the

1:47:59council accept, in part, the

1:48:01proposed amendments to the city

1:48:02code, section 17, Dash seven

1:48:05through 1718, limited to the

1:48:09following. Uh, the new section,

1:48:12which is 1716, which permits

1:48:16sound amplification for

1:48:17noncommercial First Amendment

1:48:19speech without a permit,

1:48:21together with content

1:48:22neutrality. Language and

1:48:25section 17-7. And I would like

1:48:28to break this up, if I may, uh,

1:48:29Mr. Mayor, so put that as a

1:48:31separate motion on agreement

1:48:32for consensus room.

1:48:33All right. Clarify that. I

1:48:35heard you say the sections and

1:48:36then you added a statement. So

1:48:38which part did you want?

1:48:39Separate it. So I have three

1:48:42different things that I think

1:48:43we're going to be able to agree

1:48:44on. But I want to split those

1:48:46up so that we're not voting. So

1:48:48nobody's voting against all

1:48:50three. And the first one I want

1:48:51to put on the table is just

1:48:53this new section 1716, which

1:48:57permits sound amplification for

1:48:58noncommercial First Amendment

1:49:00speech without a permit.

1:49:01All right. So your motion is to

1:49:03approve or you're doing this

1:49:05one by one.

1:49:06We're doing it one by one. I

1:49:07have three of these because

1:49:08that is the.

1:49:09First one okay okay.

1:49:10All right. So your motion is to

1:49:12approve 1716 which allows for

1:49:16it as printed.

1:49:18So I'm going to read it again.

1:49:20My I move that the council

1:49:22accept in part the proposed

1:49:24amendments to the city code

1:49:25section 17-7 through 1718

1:49:30limited to the following. This

1:49:32is the first one, uh, the first

1:49:33one is the new section 17-16,

1:49:37which permits sound

1:49:38amplification for noncommercial

1:49:41First Amendment speech. And,

1:49:43uh, other thing I wanted to

1:49:44mention to as you're you're

1:49:46thinking about this or

1:49:47considering supporting this,

1:49:49uh, I know that we got a note

1:49:51saying we wanted to vote on

1:49:52this in November. Uh, the date

1:49:54I would like to attach to this

1:49:56is December 14th. The regular

1:49:59meeting, which allows for us

1:50:01to.

1:50:01Have a meeting on the 14th.

1:50:02Okay. Uh, do we have a regular

1:50:04meeting in December 7th? Okay.

1:50:07It would, it would be the the

1:50:10seventh if that's after a a

1:50:12public forum. I do want the

1:50:13public to be able to weigh in

1:50:14on this. I know there's a lot

1:50:15of people watching this.

1:50:17All right. So, Councilman

1:50:18McMillan, just to make sure.

1:50:19I'm clear, you said that you

1:50:22wanted to adopt these sections

1:50:24that that you mentioned 17,

1:50:26seven through, uh, 1718, but

1:50:32it's limited to the just the

1:50:34specific things you said. So

1:50:36really, you're not adopting the

1:50:37entire thing. You're just going

1:50:38to adopt those three specific

1:50:39things starting with 1716.

1:50:41Right?

1:50:42Okay.

1:50:42So so.

1:50:43Okay.

1:50:44So just.

1:50:44Council just.

1:50:45To make sure you understand. So

1:50:46really you're not adopting the

1:50:47broad. He's what he's really

1:50:48asking for is to adopt each one

1:50:51of these that he's saying one

1:50:52by one. Only. He said because

1:50:54it's limited to that. So that's

1:50:56where the conflict came in. You

1:50:57said, I want to adopt, you

1:50:58know, the motion to adopt it,

1:51:00but limit it to what I'm about

1:51:01to say.

1:51:03Yeah, I think it's if there's

1:51:05any if anybody's not clear on

1:51:08that, I can explain. The

1:51:09marriage just laid it out. But

1:51:11we're just voting on one. I see

1:51:12some confused looks. We're just

1:51:15voting on one portion of it

1:51:16right now. The only portion

1:51:18that I'm putting on the table

1:51:20is one that I think we have

1:51:21alignment on. Uh, it's the new

1:51:23section. It's 17-16 if you want

1:51:26to take a look at it, which

1:51:28permits sound amplification for

1:51:30noncommercial First Amendment

1:51:32speech without a permit.

1:51:34All right. So that's the

1:51:35motion. Let me pause right

1:51:36there. All right. So his motion

1:51:37is to adopt 1716 and and and

1:51:41then he'll proceed after that.

1:51:43All right. Is there a second to

1:51:44that, sir?

1:51:46I'm sorry. I just wanted to

1:51:48clarify your motion. Councilman

1:51:50McMillan, um, is to adopt the

1:51:53new 1716 as recommended on

1:51:58December 7th, after a public

1:52:01hearing.

1:52:01Thank you. Place the ordinance

1:52:03on the December 7th, 2026,

1:52:06which is a regular meeting

1:52:07agenda for adoption.

1:52:08After a separate public

1:52:09hearing. Or do you just mean

1:52:11after? Because we won't have

1:52:12another public forum is on the

1:52:15seventh.

1:52:16We will have to hold a public

1:52:18forum because if you have a

1:52:20meeting on a in a month, you

1:52:23must have a public forum.

1:52:24So public forum will be on

1:52:25December 7th with our special

1:52:27meeting.

1:52:29Um, okay.

1:52:30Thank you for clarifying that.

1:52:32I would be looking to push this

1:52:33to January then, uh, with any,

1:52:36any type of approval. Uh, just

1:52:38because I do recognize that the

1:52:40public needs to weigh in on it,

1:52:41and it will weigh the first and

1:52:43only opportunity the public can

1:52:44weigh in on, on any of these is

1:52:46in December.

1:52:47So, Mayor Kevin, if I may just

1:52:49I just want to make sure we're

1:52:50good. Now, we're. You are

1:52:52moving. Um, you're asking for

1:52:55consensus of council to adopt

1:52:57the new 1716 as recommended.

1:53:02Effective date.

1:53:03In January, after.

1:53:04One.

1:53:05With an effective date in

1:53:06January. After the public

1:53:08forum.

1:53:09Yes. And place. Uh, the the

1:53:11ordinance on the December the

1:53:141st regular meeting of December

1:53:16for adoption.

1:53:19Well, we wouldn't be able to do

1:53:20that. If you want to have the

1:53:21public forum first.

1:53:23Public forum to respond to

1:53:25this, to weigh in on this is

1:53:26going to be in December.

1:53:28Okay. So you are I'm sorry.

1:53:29That's okay.

1:53:30That's all right. I got it.

1:53:32Okay.

1:53:32We got it. So so I guess if

1:53:35there's a consensus that this

1:53:38would, uh, set up a public

1:53:40forum or public hearing public

1:53:42forum in after the public forum

1:53:44in December, uh, for effective

1:53:47date of January is what what I

1:53:49hear him saying. All right. So

1:53:51is there a second to that? All

1:53:56right, all right. Council

1:53:58seeing none. All right. So

1:54:00fails for lack of a second. Um,

1:54:03Councilmember McMillan.

1:54:04Uh.

1:54:04I do have two other ones.

1:54:06All right. I was going to try

1:54:07to get it a little easier, but

1:54:08I'll let you get these out.

1:54:09Of way.

1:54:09That's okay. This this one

1:54:10should be smoother. Now that

1:54:11you all understand what I'm

1:54:12trying to do, I move that the

1:54:13council, accept in part, the

1:54:16proposed amendments to the city

1:54:17code sections. And this one is

1:54:20going to be section 17, Dash

1:54:2317, that an officer issue a

1:54:25warning and allow an

1:54:26opportunity to correct before

1:54:28any citation is issued. And

1:54:33place that ordinance on the

1:54:35first regular meeting agenda in

1:54:38January for adoption.

1:54:43All right. You had a question.

1:54:44Was that he's got a motion I

1:54:46need to I need to get that

1:54:48straight first. All right. Is

1:54:49there a second on that? All

1:54:52right. Second by Ferguson. All

1:54:54right. Question. Councilman

1:54:55Davis.

1:54:55Yeah.

1:54:56City attorney, uh, for the.

1:54:58other parts that he's not

1:55:00approving, once we work them

1:55:02out, we'd have to have another

1:55:03public hearing on those as

1:55:04well, because I don't want us

1:55:06to have, like five public

1:55:07hearings on different each

1:55:08topics.

1:55:09The public hearings, or in his

1:55:11case, he's really just saying,

1:55:13let's do it after a regular

1:55:14public forum. So he's not

1:55:15asking for a special public

1:55:17hearing. But as it relates to

1:55:18public hearings, no public

1:55:19hearings are required.

1:55:21Okay. Thank you.

1:55:22All right. So most by

1:55:24Councilmember.

1:55:25Question on the motion.

1:55:25Mr. Mayor.

1:55:26All right, counselor.

1:55:27Just for the attorney, you

1:55:28specified to us the only area

1:55:30that needed that had ambiguity

1:55:32was 17.16. That was for us to

1:55:35identify the warning. Number

1:55:37two, to have the authority

1:55:39number, warning number one to,

1:55:41uh, change the authority number

1:55:43two and citation issue number

1:55:44three. Do I have that correct.

1:55:47Where the conflict was when

1:55:50officers can arrest 17-16.

1:55:53That's the one that was that

1:55:54was the conflict area that you

1:55:55specified to us, correct?

1:55:56Yes.

1:55:56Thank you ma'am.

1:55:57Thank you.

1:55:58Councilman Hair.

1:55:58Thank you. Thank you mayor.

1:56:00We'll make sure I'm

1:56:01understanding the the motion is

1:56:04on the floor. Um, you're asking

1:56:08to accept the updates on 17,

1:56:1418. Is that the maker of the

1:56:16motion? If that's correct, what

1:56:17I'm understanding 17.

1:56:20And 17. 17. So I'm specifically

1:56:23addressing one part of all of

1:56:25the things that she presented.

1:56:27And that part is to issue a

1:56:29warning and allow opportunity

1:56:31to correct before any citation

1:56:33is issued.

1:56:34Right now, I have no problem

1:56:36with that. And that is what

1:56:37your recommendation is.

1:56:38Yes, sir.

1:56:39Okay. I have no problem with

1:56:40that. But let me also make sure

1:56:43I'm understanding. Are we

1:56:46looking this evening to go

1:56:52through each item of change for

1:56:57up or down votes? Because

1:56:59that's all I'm hearing right

1:57:01now. Because I don't I'm not

1:57:02hearing like a section. So

1:57:05where are we?

1:57:06Yeah, we're planning to do

1:57:07that. He's going to he's got

1:57:08one more item that he's

1:57:10specifically asking council to

1:57:12to pass. And then my goal is to

1:57:15let us address minor. If

1:57:17there's any issues, then we'll

1:57:18go to the next section because

1:57:20she's got it kind of grouped

1:57:21off.

1:57:22And so so if I'm understanding

1:57:23that correctly and just what

1:57:25you also said mayor, then uh,

1:57:29seeing where we, where we party

1:57:33together at on an item if we

1:57:36were to accept this one, would

1:57:38that be what you would be?

1:57:40I mean, it's it's a part of

1:57:42this. It's probably considered

1:57:43one of her major changes, but.

1:57:45Because I like the her. Yes.

1:57:49I mean, anything.

1:57:50We can support that one.

1:57:52Anything supported during

1:57:53Councilman McMillan's request.

1:57:55Of course we don't have to

1:57:56address that when I come behind

1:57:57it. But you've got several

1:57:59other sections here that that

1:58:00we need to.

1:58:01Yeah, need to cover.

1:58:02Speaking of that, section 1717.

1:58:06Yeah, that's fine. All right.

1:58:07Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

1:58:09Not here.

1:58:10I'd ask the, um, team in the

1:58:12back if y'all could put up. I

1:58:13don't know, Aaron, if you're

1:58:14showing the mayor was reading

1:58:16it from it, the scope of

1:58:16recommended changes on your

1:58:18slide. And if you look at that,

1:58:20that really covers section by

1:58:22section. Um, uh, of your

1:58:26PowerPoint I think is the third

1:58:27slide in and then the second to

1:58:29the last slide. Also, um, you

1:58:31may have to backtrack some on

1:58:33your keyboard right there.

1:58:35Yeah. And I think, mayor,

1:58:37that's what you were reading

1:58:37from that shows you that, uh,

1:58:40from the staff perspective.

1:58:42Well, she staffers here,

1:58:43Aaron's here. But I think that

1:58:44slide captures what the mayor

1:58:45was saying. And then if you

1:58:47also go to the second to the

1:58:48last slide under summary, if

1:58:50you're looking for a summary of

1:58:52the real changes. And if I

1:58:54interpreted your PowerPoint

1:58:55correctly, those are the

1:58:57reasons why what looks like on

1:59:00the scope of recommended

1:59:01changes as well boil down to

1:59:03six areas.

1:59:04Yes sir.

1:59:07I can read my motion again.

1:59:09Yes, sir.

1:59:10Yep. Thank you doctor. You. I

1:59:13moved at the council except in

1:59:16part the proposed amendments to

1:59:18the city code sections, and

1:59:20this limited the limited to the

1:59:22following. The requirement in

1:59:24section 1717. Then an officer

1:59:29issue a warning and allow an

1:59:30opportunity to correct before

1:59:31any citation is issued. And

1:59:34placed. That ordinance

1:59:36amendment on the first regular

1:59:38meeting in January. Agenda for

1:59:39adoption.

1:59:41All right. As a motion by

1:59:42Councilmember McMillan.

1:59:43Repeated, seconded by Ferguson.

1:59:46You still okay? All right.

1:59:47We've had discussion Council

1:59:48look to you for that. And this

1:59:50is the effective date of

1:59:52January. I stated.

1:59:57Uh.

2:00:04All right. Motion carries. All

2:00:08right. So next we'll go to

2:00:11Councilmember McMillan for the

2:00:12last one.

2:00:12One more. I appreciate your

2:00:14patience. I moved that the

2:00:15council accept, in part, the

2:00:17proposed amendments to the city

2:00:18code, section 17, through 17,

2:00:22seven through 17, Dash 18,

2:00:25limited to the following. And

2:00:26this one is the five minute

2:00:28duration requirement that's in

2:00:29section 17, dash ten and placed

2:00:33the ordinance amendments on the

2:00:35first regular meeting in

2:00:36January for adoption. So this

2:00:41is 17 Dash ten. The five minute

2:00:44duration requirement.

2:00:4617 dash ten.

2:00:47So basically just to clarify,

2:00:49because it roundabout way, this

2:00:51is specifically for 1710

2:00:53because you said to adopt the

2:00:54ordinance but limit it to okay.

2:00:56All right. So this is 1710

2:00:58where it says uh two

2:00:59violations. Currently it says

2:01:00two violations based on DB

2:01:01readings. It adds a firm time

2:01:04and it adds two distinct

2:01:05violations based on distance or

2:01:07DB reading. Uh, all right. Any

2:01:10questions on 1710. All right.

2:01:13Is there a second to that.

2:01:16Second.

2:01:17Second Ferguson. All right.

2:01:19Counselor, look to you for

2:01:20action on 1710. Right. Who are

2:01:32we missing? Okay. All right.

2:01:34Motion carries on. 1710.

2:01:36Consensus motion. All right.

2:01:38Thank you, Councilmember

2:01:39McMillan. All right, so,

2:01:39council, if you go back, um,

2:01:42and this excludes sort of two

2:01:44successful ones we have with

2:01:451710 and and which one was the

2:01:48previous motion from.

2:01:48That 17.

2:01:50No, 17 failed.

2:01:541717 and 1710 Mayor Coleman but

2:01:57I'm and I'm Councilman

2:01:58McMillan. I want to make sure

2:02:00for 1717 I had only as it

2:02:03related to the warning and for

2:02:041710 I had only as it related

2:02:07to the five minutes. So it

2:02:08wasn't adopting all the

2:02:10recommended changes. It was

2:02:11just those two provisions in

2:02:13each. Right?

2:02:13Yes. Oh. Oh.

2:02:16Okay. Well, that's the

2:02:17consensus motion. So I don't I

2:02:19think, I think no. Well this

2:02:21this is not this is a work

2:02:22session. So this is consensus.

2:02:23So you got an opportunity to

2:02:24fix it okay. All right. So it

2:02:26was specific only to those

2:02:27things that were just stated by

2:02:29the attorney. So that's that's

2:02:31a little different. All right.

2:02:33So 17 all right. So council as

2:02:35we uh, as we look to um, the

2:02:39third slide in um, 17.7 said

2:02:45minor edits 1712 were no

2:02:49changes exemptions, no changes.

2:02:531714 was no change.

2:02:57Yes, sir.

2:02:58All right. So, um.

2:03:01Well, like to say, if you want

2:03:03to look over the minor edit for

2:03:04a minute, it's basically

2:03:05terminology replacement.

2:03:07Excessive versus unreasonable.

2:03:09Uh, provide enforcement method.

2:03:11Uh, whether, um, where it was

2:03:14not as clear. So if, um, if we

2:03:17could get a motion for those

2:03:19items. So 177 was a minor edit.

2:03:2312 and 14 had no changes.

2:03:27Yeah. Right. So yeah. All

2:03:31right. Yeah.

2:03:32All right. As a motion. by pro

2:03:34tem, seconded by, uh, here.

2:03:36Yes, sir.

2:03:36Any discussion?

2:03:39To clarify, sir, is this motion

2:03:41going to go on to the January

2:03:44meeting with the others?

2:03:45I think this can be.

2:03:46Effective November 23rd. Yeah.

2:03:47Okay. Yeah.

2:03:48Thank you. Keep the normal

2:03:49pattern because I think there

2:03:50was some ambiguity in it. It

2:03:53kept law enforcement in a, in

2:03:55a, in. a in a pause posture.

2:03:58All right. So, um, so there's a

2:04:00motion and a second council

2:04:02look to you for action on.

2:04:03The discussion.

2:04:04Okay. Councilmember McMillan.

2:04:06Yes. Uh, we would ask everybody

2:04:08to consider we've we've had

2:04:10quite a few people come through

2:04:11here this year to talk about

2:04:12First Amendment speech, to talk

2:04:15about, um, the sense of

2:04:17persecution that this noise,

2:04:19noise ordinance has been used

2:04:20in a, in a way that's

2:04:21retaliatory. Uh, I would

2:04:23recommend that, that any

2:04:25changes that we make be on the

2:04:27other side of the public's, uh,

2:04:29ability to weigh in. Uh,

2:04:33there's quite a few times this

2:04:35year. Where we've made

2:04:37decisions and in a hasty

2:04:39manner. And I get home and I

2:04:41got a text or an email, or I

2:04:44see somebody in the mall, uh,

2:04:46and hear the other side and

2:04:49hear what people really think.

2:04:51And for something of this

2:04:52magnitude that could impact

2:04:53people and, and, uh, in a

2:04:56drastic way, I would recommend

2:04:58that any of these be on the,

2:04:59the other side of a public

2:05:00forum, the next public forum

2:05:02where they really have a

2:05:03reasonable opportunity to

2:05:05respond to this would be in

2:05:06December.

2:05:07All right.

2:05:08Thank you. Councilmember

2:05:09McMillan. Mayor Pro Tem.

2:05:10Thank you. Mayor. I think the

2:05:11motion was for 17, seven, 17,

2:05:1312 and 1714, which either had

2:05:16minor edits or no changes. So I

2:05:19think that, uh, statement could

2:05:22have been made at another

2:05:23motion, but this is just to do

2:05:24something that's already in the

2:05:26ordinance that hasn't had any

2:05:28changes. So can we call for the

2:05:30vote on those three items? Mr.

2:05:31Mayor?

2:05:32All right. Councilman Davis.

2:05:33You had a second. Second,

2:05:34right.

2:05:34All right.

2:05:36Councilman McMillan.

2:05:37Second row, uh, Mayor Pro tem,

2:05:40um, this is an ordinance that's

2:05:41already had people with input

2:05:45that was negative. As it is

2:05:48written. That's what I'm saying

2:05:49is, if your rubber stamping

2:05:52approval of what's already in

2:05:53the text realize that for years

2:05:55people have been talking about

2:05:57this ordinance and the fact

2:05:59that it needed to change. And I

2:06:01would I would hope that you

2:06:02would want to hear, uh, some of

2:06:04the suggestions that people

2:06:06have, even on the things that

2:06:07are already written, that are

2:06:09already adopted and already in

2:06:10practice, and by waiting until

2:06:13January to adopt, waiting until

2:06:15you have a period of public

2:06:17forum in December, uh, you you

2:06:19would you would open yourself

2:06:21to hearing, uh, some of the

2:06:22things that people have

2:06:24problems with as it is written.

2:06:25And there are quite a few.

2:06:27All right.

2:06:28All right. Council look to you

2:06:29for your votes on it.

2:06:37Um.

2:06:39All right. Motion carries eight

2:06:41two. All right. So council now

2:06:43as we look at the moderate

2:06:46revisions that includes 17.9

2:06:50and 17.11 okay. If you take the

2:06:55time to look at that nine uh,

2:06:59revision of definitions,

2:07:01amplified sound versus ambient

2:07:02sound classification of use.

2:07:05Uh, was the old language

2:07:06decibels, where it had

2:07:08commercial establishment

2:07:09disturbing noise. Uh,

2:07:11reasonable person, uh, noise

2:07:15sensitive zones and plainly

2:07:18audible and unreasonable loud

2:07:22noise. Um, so, Madam Attorney,

2:07:24the use or

2:07:27The replacement of this

2:07:29language comes to what section

2:07:31in particular is there not?

2:07:33I'm sorry, it's not a

2:07:34replacement. It's an addition.

2:07:36Currently there are six

2:07:38definitions within the

2:07:39ordinance. These seven would be

2:07:41added.

2:07:41So would have six plus seven.

2:07:43Yes.

2:07:43So a total of 13 that all of 13

2:07:47of these things as it relates

2:07:49to this ordinance.

2:07:50Yes, sir. Okay.

2:07:51And is there. a portion of the

2:07:55ordinance. So I guess it's

2:07:56sporadic to where each of these

2:07:58applies.

2:07:59Yes, sir. Okay.

2:08:00Was that in and was that

2:08:02anything significant talked

2:08:04about today or. This is just

2:08:06just adding more definition to

2:08:08to something that's not clearly

2:08:10defined.

2:08:11Well, for example, noise

2:08:14sensitive zones was mentioned

2:08:15in the current ordinance, but

2:08:17it was never specifically

2:08:20defined in the current

2:08:21ordinance. So we would add that

2:08:23definition.

2:08:24Noise sensitive zone. I don't

2:08:25see that under the.

2:08:276123456.

2:08:30It's under the revised.

2:08:31The okay..

2:08:32Six one.

2:08:32Down okay. Okay.

2:08:35But in terms of the other

2:08:36definitions added, for example,

2:08:39amplify again amplified sound

2:08:41was referenced in the current

2:08:43ordinance, but it was not

2:08:44defined. Uh, commercial

2:08:47establishment I believe, was in

2:08:48the current ordinance and it

2:08:49was not defined. If the

2:08:52terminology is changing from.

2:08:58An excessive and unnecessary to

2:09:02unreasonably loud and

2:09:03disturbing, um, unreasonably

2:09:07loud and disturbing would need

2:09:08to be added to the current

2:09:10ordinance. That would be the

2:09:11basis for the changes.

2:09:12So so counsel for these, um,

2:09:16you know, you're adding 13

2:09:17definitions that maybe.

2:09:20Are.

2:09:21Used in different components,

2:09:23but we don't really have where

2:09:25that overlays in this. Um, so

2:09:28that that one could be one that

2:09:30we, uh, could, you know, have

2:09:33further discussion on, if you

2:09:34choose, uh, I guess we'll look

2:09:36at 17, 11.

2:09:39Just adding 7 to.

2:09:40600 limit.

2:09:41Yeah, six are in there, but

2:09:42she's adding seven more

2:09:43definitions that may apply

2:09:46throughout the ordinance. And,

2:09:47you know, she just gave one

2:09:48example. But, you know, uh, the

2:09:51definition of, of of uh, let me

2:09:53go back to it.

2:09:54Of course, the.

2:09:54Mayor that's definition of a

2:09:56reasonable person. Right. Like

2:09:57what is the context in which

2:09:59that's used in here? Because

2:10:00that's, that's a new word added

2:10:02to the six. And so without

2:10:04having that to be able to

2:10:06overlay to see exactly, you

2:10:08know, so in other words,

2:10:09council, there could be, you

2:10:11know, wherever a reasonable

2:10:12person is, is used. You know,

2:10:14it could have been a red line

2:10:15area, you know, and I know she,

2:10:17she, she's looking for some

2:10:19guidance. But, you know,

2:10:20because this is a sweeping

2:10:22change that it may be some

2:10:24areas that, that, that we can't

2:10:26get to today that, that will

2:10:28work back toward. But that's an

2:10:29example. So you had a question,

2:10:30Councilman here.

2:10:31Yeah, I was I was following you

2:10:33there. I was just wondering if

2:10:35and just looking at the

2:10:37attorney as she was nodding

2:10:38while you were speaking. So

2:10:40each one of these revised, uh,

2:10:43to the right and 17-9, you

2:10:48don't have those itemized out

2:10:53in a definition anywhere

2:10:55throughout the entire packet.

2:10:57This this is new. And you have

2:10:59to do you have to add

2:11:02definitions to them.

2:11:04Or if changes are recommended

2:11:06to the ordinance.

2:11:07Yes, ma'am.

2:11:09And for example, with a with

2:11:13changing the standard from

2:11:16excessive to disturbing, the

2:11:18public needs to be put on

2:11:19notice as to what disturbing

2:11:22would mean.

2:11:23Um.

2:11:24Mayor Colvin, if I may, please,

2:11:27um, I want to answer the

2:11:28question directly, Councilman,

2:11:29here in your packet, you have

2:11:31the red line versions and the

2:11:33clean versions. All of this is

2:11:35there, right. Um, so the

2:11:37definitions are there. Um, but

2:11:40to the mayor's point, if the

2:11:41council would like more time to

2:11:43see where they appear and to

2:11:45talk more about the actual

2:11:47definitions, we're happy to

2:11:48come back at a later time with

2:11:49those, um, for discussion. But

2:11:51there is a lot here. So we were

2:11:53hoping to at least present it

2:11:55and get, you know, get your

2:11:56feedback.

2:11:57Yeah.

2:11:57I for for me, yes. The answer

2:12:00to that is yes. I would like to

2:12:02sort of kind of unpack this one

2:12:05and that there are others, but

2:12:06especially this one because as

2:12:09I look at the parallel between

2:12:10the two, um. Would be would we?

2:12:17And I guess that's going to be

2:12:18left up to us be using well,

2:12:23would the be request be to be

2:12:26using all of the new revised,

2:12:29uh, or where they might relate

2:12:35and changing a word of the six

2:12:39on the left.

2:12:42The six on the left have not

2:12:44changed. Those already in the

2:12:46ordinance. The seven on the.

2:12:48Right.

2:12:49Right.

2:12:49Right.

2:12:52And so to answer to that, yes,

2:12:55I mean, I would like to kind

2:12:56of, at least with this one here

2:12:57for me, sort of unpack this and

2:13:00have a little bit more, uh, uh,

2:13:03discussion on it. Let's see

2:13:05which way the, uh, the motion

2:13:08goes.

2:13:10All right.

2:13:11So I'm kind of in agreement

2:13:14with, with Councilman hair on

2:13:16that one, uh, special

2:13:18provisions that y'all want to

2:13:19look at.

2:13:19That when.

2:13:19You say ambient. Let's see what

2:13:21I means.

2:13:22So special provisions, 18

2:13:24specific prohibitions. Now, is

2:13:27this in lieu or in addition to

2:13:29what's currently there.

2:13:31Which.

2:13:32Uh, 1711.

2:13:36Currently you do have the 18

2:13:38specific prohibitions and five

2:13:40general prohibitions. The

2:13:42changes recommended to this

2:13:44section are purely organization

2:13:48for organizational reasons. For

2:13:51example, with the loudspeakers,

2:13:53amplifiers, public address

2:13:55systems. They are addressed in

2:13:56this subsection, but they're

2:13:58also addressed in subsection

2:14:0117-16. So to make it easier for

2:14:04the public, just getting

2:14:06everything within one section,

2:14:10that would also have been the

2:14:11reason for moving 15 into the

2:14:13motor vehicle section. Um,

2:14:16radios, television sets,

2:14:17musical instruments and similar

2:14:18devices that would have moved

2:14:21to section 178, which deals

2:14:26with prohibited noises.

2:14:30So in other words, are you just

2:14:32relocating them?

2:14:33Yes.

2:14:34Okay, so there is no adding or

2:14:36omitting or replacing. This is

2:14:38just taking it from one

2:14:39section, putting it in another

2:14:40section.

2:14:41Sir. Okay.

2:14:42All right counselor, any

2:14:44questions about that. So

2:14:45basically she's re categorizing

2:14:47this to the section that it

2:14:49belongs, not adding or taking

2:14:50away from anything. Are you

2:14:55okay?

2:14:56There. Uh.

2:14:59All right. Uh, nine I, I would

2:15:01kind of want to see because

2:15:02you're adding seven more

2:15:04classifications.

2:15:05That.

2:15:06You may have and some impact

2:15:09that is not quite clear.

2:15:11Um.

2:15:11At the moment, but 11 if you

2:15:13could separate 11 from nine.

2:15:15For me. Yeah. I.

2:15:18Councilman. Yes, sir. I'm

2:15:19agreeing with it. I was just I

2:15:21know, I know what we have in

2:15:22our docket, but I was just

2:15:24looking up for example, the the

2:15:27ambient sound or ambient sound,

2:15:29whichever way is best said. And

2:15:33the sound is coming from

2:15:35different directional

2:15:37backgrounds. And then I'm

2:15:39looking over here and I'm

2:15:42looking at amplified sound and.

2:15:48You can have an amplified sound

2:15:51that it may you may think it's

2:15:53coming from one area, but it

2:15:56could be just like what the

2:15:59ambient or the ambient, uh,

2:16:02sound is. So, I mean, I don't

2:16:04want to nitpick it, but I was

2:16:06just kind of going through

2:16:07these, looking up and pulling

2:16:08them up and kind of googling,

2:16:10googling some sounds because I

2:16:11couldn't find them that quick

2:16:12in my, uh, in my docket there.

2:16:15So I wish that we can kind of

2:16:17look at that one a little bit

2:16:19more. But, you know, that's.

2:16:21Uh.

2:16:21Well, and to that.

2:16:23Point, direction.

2:16:24Adding this in 1709, you'll

2:16:27have both ambient and

2:16:29amplified. Yeah. In the, in the

2:16:31ordinance and.

2:16:31So and.

2:16:32, and so if you could, if you

2:16:34could separate 11. Can I ask

2:16:35you a question? If 11 was just

2:16:36re re replacing or removing

2:16:40things to re categorize it, why

2:16:42was that not a more of a

2:16:45moderate change a simple

2:16:46change. Yeah.

2:16:47Monitoring it could be. It was

2:16:50just a lot of movement.

2:16:50I got you. all right. You know

2:16:52once it had that other color

2:16:53code. So it made it a little

2:16:54different okay. So Council if

2:16:56you could separate nine and 11

2:16:57I'm.

2:16:58Uh.

2:16:59Maybe take.

2:17:00Now.

2:17:01Now before we go there, you

2:17:04made a very good point with if

2:17:08we're adding the revise to the

2:17:12six. I mean that's you know,

2:17:16that's including I guess I

2:17:18could that would be a lot more

2:17:23tools for those that are out

2:17:26there inspecting it. And I

2:17:27don't know if that's the police

2:17:28department or so I could be

2:17:33easily persuaded. Uh, to go

2:17:37there. Yeah. So I'm not going

2:17:43to be burned out about pulling

2:17:45the, uh, 179 out from this

2:17:49evening just due to the

2:17:50statement that you just said.

2:17:52Because that's why I'm glad

2:17:53that we have a work session

2:17:54here where we can all kind of

2:17:56sit down and talk and think

2:17:58about conversations we've had

2:17:59with residents and among

2:18:01ourselves to kind of work this

2:18:02thing through that. That's

2:18:03that's what a work session is.

2:18:05So, uh, I could be a little bit

2:18:08more laid back and accepting

2:18:11this one also. Now 179.

2:18:15Okay.

2:18:15All right, Councilman Jones,

2:18:16you're here.

2:18:17Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If

2:18:18you did keep it that way. Um,

2:18:20excuse me, Councilman hair, I

2:18:22would still be in agreement

2:18:23with. I still think 179 needs

2:18:25that needs to come back to us

2:18:27just for a little bit more

2:18:28context. So I don't think

2:18:29anything was wrong with that.

2:18:30I, I would agree with that.

2:18:32That part.

2:18:32Yeah. I'm. I'm alright. I'll,

2:18:34I'll be easy. I'll be okay.

2:18:35All right. Mayor Pro Tem, you.

2:18:36Got your question, mayor. For

2:18:37all these items that we don't

2:18:39agree with, where are they

2:18:39going back to it. They coming

2:18:40back to policy. They're going

2:18:41back to another work session.

2:18:42Where are they going?

2:18:43Okay.

2:18:44Well, I think that.

2:18:46Um.

2:18:47We probably could could use a

2:18:49work session just the same way

2:18:50she did her edits in the green.

2:18:52Now that the things that we've

2:18:53passed are no longer relevant,

2:18:57items that need to be

2:18:58highlighted, if there's moving

2:18:59something from one section to

2:19:00another that that no longer

2:19:02needs to be highlighted. but to

2:19:06to have something that points

2:19:08out where these new 13 terms

2:19:12now apply, uh, on a document

2:19:15and then what the other things

2:19:17that council has talked about

2:19:18tonight, um, that we wanted to

2:19:20have further discussion on that

2:19:22that same type of document

2:19:23that, that you had, that had it

2:19:25in green or the, the color

2:19:26coded changes? Um, I think that

2:19:29can be that can be a work

2:19:30session. I mean, right now

2:19:31we're giving giving staff some

2:19:34guidance as, as to which

2:19:36direction to go. And then, you

2:19:37know, because it's a

2:19:38complicated, complex ordinance

2:19:39changing one term may have

2:19:42implications that we don't

2:19:44foresee. So, um, that's the

2:19:45reason why we were kind of

2:19:46taking it in in, uh, sections.

2:19:49So we'll come back to another

2:19:50work session, I guess is the

2:19:52long short of it. You already

2:19:53have a couple of things coming

2:19:54back to take effect in January.

2:19:57Um, but you'd have an

2:19:59opportunity to have some of

2:20:01this return before, uh, you

2:20:03know, maybe by the next work

2:20:04session.

2:20:04Uh, a good job, though. Yeah.

2:20:06This is a lot, it's a lot.

2:20:07Yeah. Very good job.

2:20:10All right, so if we can, uh,

2:20:11mayor pro tem me you good on

2:20:13your question.

2:20:14I'm going on a question, mayor.

2:20:15I'm. I'm I'm just practical on

2:20:18her giving us the information

2:20:20and reviewing the information,

2:20:24especially when it comes to

2:20:25simple, minor stuff, as she

2:20:27described, that could have been

2:20:28in that category. I'm still

2:20:31fine with 17.9, but if this

2:20:33council wishes to bring it back

2:20:35to another work session, then I

2:20:37would move that. We get

2:20:38consensus on 1711 and move 179

2:20:42to the next scheduled work.

2:20:43Yeah, that was the plan. So if

2:20:44you.

2:20:44If you.

2:20:45Let's, let's, let's take it on

2:20:461711 first see if there's

2:20:48consensus, then uh, if there's

2:20:50a consensus as we kind of

2:20:52hearing the discussion, nine

2:20:53can be one of those, uh,

2:20:55pending changes. And then we

2:20:56still have a couple more on

2:20:58the, on the color code sheet.

2:20:59All right. So is there a motion

2:21:01for 1711 mayor pro tem?

2:21:02Yes, mayor. All right. 1711.

2:21:05All right. The most pro tem on

2:21:061711 is moving from one section

2:21:09to a more applicable section.

2:21:10Is there a second?

2:21:11Councilmember McMillan okay.

2:21:13Of course not.

2:21:14All right. Is there a second,

2:21:15Councilman Davis. Davis a

2:21:16second discussion? McMillan.

2:21:18Yes.

2:21:19Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Pro

2:21:21Tem, um, would you be willing

2:21:23to make an amendment to move

2:21:24this one to January so the

2:21:26public can have input?

2:21:29So say that.

2:21:30What? 17.

2:21:3111? Yes.

2:21:32Okay.

2:21:33Right on.

2:21:33All right. Councilors look to

2:21:35you for your votes on 1711.

2:21:37This is changing from one

2:21:38section to applicable sections.

2:21:40All right. All right.

2:21:45All right. Motion carries. All

2:21:47right. Now Council, we know

2:21:49nine. And then just. a quick

2:21:51check in. So everything else is

2:21:54major. Um 1781317, 18 and ten.

2:22:04Uh and then I guess the, uh,

2:22:07uh, 15, I think we, we had some

2:22:11action on 16 already, but this

2:22:13would be to Madam Attorney. Do

2:22:16you have a little bit more

2:22:17clarity on some things now? And

2:22:20tell us what, uh, the next

2:22:22conversation could look like

2:22:23from your office?

2:22:24Yes, sir. Mayor Colvin, um,

2:22:26just to recap, I have 17-7 and

2:22:3017-11 adopted. Um, as of 1123,

2:22:34that'll be on, um, that agenda.

2:22:37And then pretty much, um, let

2:22:41me let me not say that. Let me

2:22:42go back to McMillan's motions

2:22:44that passed 17-7 as to the

2:22:48warning and 1710 as to the five

2:22:51minutes. Those are yes votes.

2:22:54Um, to be effective in January.

2:22:56Those are the only parts. of

2:22:59ten and seven. that he

2:23:01specified.

2:23:02Yes, sir. That council gave

2:23:03consent.

2:23:03So when we come back, council

2:23:05members that didn't understand

2:23:06it was just specific to those

2:23:07two things. Um, when we

2:23:09actually codified this with a

2:23:11vote on Monday, we have the

2:23:13option to, to to deal with that

2:23:15or not.

2:23:17Um, and we'll be back in

2:23:21January. Those two particular

2:23:25okay components, um, and then

2:23:28everything else, which would be

2:23:30your, um, the 17 dash nine,

2:23:36which is your definitions. And

2:23:38then the major revisions and

2:23:40the new sections minus what

2:23:43we've already given consensus

2:23:44for, will come back at a future

2:23:46work session, likely January.

2:23:48And we will make sure we show

2:23:51you where in the code each

2:23:52change or definition appears.

2:23:54And we will have that in the

2:23:55presentation.

2:23:56All right. And, uh, Mayor Pro

2:23:58Tem had a, had a, had a point,

2:24:01uh, since 1707 and 1710 only

2:24:07had what are those two things

2:24:08specifically?

2:24:11Five minutes on one and can't

2:24:13remember what the other.

2:24:13One was. 17, 17?

2:24:17Yeah. It's. Yeah. So 1717 the

2:24:21only, uh, effective portion

2:24:24that will come back in January

2:24:26was the warning correct? The

2:24:29requirement for a warning.

2:24:31So based on the consensus

2:24:34motion that one is is has

2:24:36passed. and we bring back.

2:24:37The rest. It was the other.

2:24:38Yeah. Tell me everything else,

2:24:39other two that you mentioned

2:24:40that it had specifics. It had

2:24:42five minutes.

2:24:43Oh that was 17, ten.

2:24:45Ten and seven. Right.

2:24:4817-17 for the warning. 17 dash

2:24:52ten for the five minutes.

2:24:54Correct.

2:24:55Okay. All right.

2:24:55So if I may, Mr. Mayor. Okay.

2:24:58Madam attorney, I wanted to

2:24:59clarify. We have already passed

2:25:0117, seven, 11, 12 and 14.

2:25:04Correct.

2:25:08Aye, sir. 12 and 14, uh, had no

2:25:12changes. We really, really

2:25:13didn't need to bring those.

2:25:14I did, but that was part of the

2:25:15motion. I just want to make

2:25:16sure we was clear when you only

2:25:17said 17 and 11. So, mayor, can

2:25:20we just go ahead and approve

2:25:21everything that was exempted

2:25:22from 17, ten and 1717?

2:25:27Okay. And he's got the other

2:25:29two.

2:25:29He has the other two that's

2:25:30coming back in January, the

2:25:32five minutes and the.

2:25:33Because I think some council

2:25:34members didn't realize that the

2:25:37specific excluded. Yeah.

2:25:39Did you take.

2:25:40So civil penalties.

2:25:42And I want to make a separate

2:25:43motion on nine okay. Because

2:25:45it's so light. It's so light.

2:25:46All right.

2:25:47Oh hold on, hold on Catherine.

2:25:49Have you got it? All right. So

2:25:52counsel, are we are we

2:25:54understanding what the ask is?

2:25:56Okay. 17, 17 and ten were

2:26:01specific.

2:26:02To five minutes. I'm sorry.

2:26:03Yeah.

2:26:04Go ahead. Go ahead. Five

2:26:05minutes for ten was already

2:26:07moved to January. I want to

2:26:09approve everything else in

2:26:101710, 177 was his warning. I

2:26:14wouldn't approve everything

2:26:15else. In 1717.

2:26:18Right. Because right now, as

2:26:20is, those things were left out

2:26:21of the consent.

2:26:22Exactly.

2:26:23All right. So is the motion. Is

2:26:25there a second? Seconded by

2:26:26Davis. All right. Mr.. Do you

2:26:28have a question?

2:26:29Yes, sir. So the consistent

2:26:31motion you voted on will be put

2:26:32on next meeting for.

2:26:35Yeah, yeah, it's we're gonna

2:26:36we're gonna clean all this up.

2:26:37I know it's a lot. All right,

2:26:39all right. So council look to

2:26:40you for action on that. And

2:26:42this is those items that were

2:26:44excluded. Are we missing. All

2:26:54right. All right. So motion

2:26:56carries. All right. So that

2:26:58cleans that cleans that up. We

2:26:59have January tracking for those

2:27:01two specific requests that had

2:27:03already passed. And then um

2:27:06Madam Attorney um you have

2:27:08everything else according to

2:27:10your summary that your office

2:27:11will be able to come back with

2:27:12those items that we still need

2:27:15a little bit more discussion

2:27:16on. Councilman here.

2:27:17Okay. Let me, uh, gently run

2:27:22this by council once more. And

2:27:25I do appreciate the the support

2:27:27and the dialogue from my

2:27:29colleague, uh, to the

2:27:31colleagues up. Uh, but if we,

2:27:33as we look at section 179, and

2:27:38it's basically, uh, defining

2:27:44or, or the definitions of some

2:27:47of the new on the right, and

2:27:50they're, they're, they're very

2:27:52soft. They are very soft

2:27:54changes. Um, I know how I felt

2:27:57in the beginning, but once I

2:28:00heard some of my colleagues

2:28:02speaking of it, I can I think

2:28:05that we could adapt with

2:28:09incorporating those, even if

2:28:12there's somewhat overlapping

2:28:14the same definition. So I would

2:28:17just like to, uh, see if

2:28:19there's a consensus to move

2:28:22forward. What in adding the

2:28:24revive to the current and 17-9.

2:28:31So okay. And so I'll, I'll

2:28:34circle back to you on the on

2:28:35your motion here in just a

2:28:36minute. I think where it where

2:28:39it was coming in Councilman

2:28:40hair was that it was not

2:28:43necessarily the words

2:28:45themselves that they're adding

2:28:46because the words themselves

2:28:48mean, you know, as you said,

2:28:50it's it's. But what you don't

2:28:53know is how it applies to this

2:28:54ordinance when it says a

2:28:55reasonable person. What does

2:28:58that mean? In here we

2:28:59understand what a reasonable

2:29:01person means. But you're adding

2:29:02seven new terms that you don't

2:29:04know, okay. Where it has its

2:29:06impact in this. You know,

2:29:08something about disturbing

2:29:09noise. Is it disturbing noise

2:29:11that may have some subsection

2:29:13that we haven't seen. So what

2:29:14they were going to do was add

2:29:16these terms and then then red

2:29:18line or highlight somehow, um,

2:29:21where it applies and what it

2:29:23actually means. Because right

2:29:24now we just have words without

2:29:26okay, context.

2:29:27And I get it, I get it. Like I

2:29:28say, this one of our the the

2:29:32purpose for work sessions is

2:29:34yes for this dialogue.

2:29:35So. Oh definitely.

2:29:36Working now. Yeah this getting

2:29:38worked out but it's good. It's

2:29:39been sitting on the table what,

2:29:40since 18.

2:29:41Yeah.

2:29:42Yeah. So it's it's we know what

2:29:44we did within the policies. Yes

2:29:46sir. Yeah. So I'll stand down

2:29:47on that. I'll stand down okay.

2:29:49All right. So it looks like

2:29:50we've got it. City attorney's

2:29:52nodding. Um, counsel, let's,

2:29:54uh, let's take a break. We've

2:29:55got Park View, uh, next. So I

2:29:58want to make sure. Councilman

2:29:59here.

2:29:59I'm sorry. We need an actual,

2:30:01um, consensus motion for 179.

2:30:04I thought we had five votes on

2:30:05this.

2:30:05You guys.

2:30:0617, 17, nine is coming back in

2:30:07her revision.

2:30:08Yes.

2:30:09Coming back.

2:30:09Well, they gotta bring it back

2:30:11to work session, right?

2:30:12Anything that we didn't take

2:30:14action on is coming back.

2:30:16Yeah, we're working.

2:30:16For the only so he can stretch

2:30:18his hips.

2:30:21He sees his upstairs.

2:30:22All right. Just five minutes.

2:30:25All right.

2:30:29That was one.

2:30:33It was the age gap.

2:30:34Okay. The age gap. It's that I

2:30:37tell you here. The 60. That's

2:30:39the age gap. I'm sorry. I.

2:38:08Our council call. our call our

2:38:10meeting. Back to order. Um,

2:38:12item 6.03 is the park view

2:38:15Owner's Association. Uh, MSD.

2:38:19Miss Sabina, you presenting?

2:38:20Oh.

2:38:21Okay.

2:38:22Okay. All right, Mr. Corley,

2:38:26it's your show.

2:38:38All right, there we go.

2:38:41Afternoon, mayor. Council. Um,

2:38:43so this was an item, uh, that

2:38:45was requested to come see the

2:38:46work session from the public

2:38:48hearing we had on October 26th.

2:38:51Uh, residents of Park View

2:38:53owners associations, both the

2:38:55townhomes and the condominiums

2:38:56have been have requested to be

2:38:58removed from the downtown

2:38:59municipal service district.

2:39:01That is about 49 or exactly 49

2:39:04residential units at 301

2:39:06Braddock Boulevard. And, uh,

2:39:08tonight, I'm just going to talk

2:39:10to you a little bit about what

2:39:11that process looks like. What

2:39:12the the the MSD map looks like

2:39:15and what those funds are used

2:39:17for and the implications, um,

2:39:19and, uh, provide any

2:39:21information that you guys might

2:39:23need. Uh, so overall, here is

2:39:25the downtown Municipal service

2:39:27district boundary. Um, it was

2:39:29established back in the 70s.

2:39:31Um, it has not changed

2:39:33materially since then. You can

2:39:35see it extends over a couple

2:39:36of, uh, roads that we might

2:39:38think of as major, including,

2:39:40uh, Bragg Boulevard, Rowan and

2:39:42Grove, Russell Street, uh, Park

2:39:46View, you'll see on this map is

2:39:47at the western edge of it,

2:39:49highlighted in blue. Uh, so

2:39:56the, municipal service district

2:39:58tax rate is 14.80 $0.09 per

2:40:01$100 of assessed valuation. Uh,

2:40:05that goes to fund enhanced

2:40:06services for business

2:40:07development, marketing, public

2:40:09art, uh, special events, and

2:40:11coordination of the downtown.

2:40:14Um, uh, unique to downtown's.

2:40:16When one business owner does

2:40:18something, it affects a bunch

2:40:19of other ones all around them.

2:40:20And so there's a little bit of

2:40:22working with all those

2:40:23different stakeholders. And

2:40:24that's what we invest in MSD

2:40:26dollars in. Uh, we do that

2:40:27through Cool Spring, which is

2:40:29under a five year contract with

2:40:30the city through June of 2028.

2:40:35Uh, just to give you an idea

2:40:36about the numbers, the total

2:40:37budget for the Municipal

2:40:39Service District was almost

2:40:41$340,000 for this year. Now,

2:40:44only 280,000 and change of that

2:40:46is from the actual municipal

2:40:48service. District tax. About

2:40:5048,000 49,000 was transferred

2:40:53from the general Fund to help

2:40:54support those operations. Uh,

2:40:58just to kind of reiterate what

2:41:00the Missile Service District

2:41:01does in a little bit more

2:41:02detail here, uh, our contract

2:41:04with Cool Spring has five

2:41:05categories to it. You'll see

2:41:07those on the left hand side

2:41:08here. It covers everything from

2:41:10business, recruitment and and

2:41:12development to public art and

2:41:13holiday displays, downtown

2:41:15promotion and branding, events,

2:41:17festivals and street

2:41:18activities, and then working

2:41:20with those property owners, um,

2:41:22and, uh, cleanliness and safety.

2:41:27Uh, that $322,000 we talked

2:41:32about, uh, is pretty much made

2:41:34up of $300,000 to Cold Spring

2:41:36and then about $22,000 in

2:41:38utilities for our two parking

2:41:40decks downtown. Uh, we spoke a

2:41:42little bit at the public

2:41:43hearing about the revenue

2:41:45impact versus the service

2:41:47impact. And so I wanted to call

2:41:48that out a little bit here. Uh,

2:41:49we know that assuming all

2:41:51things being equal, that

2:41:53removal will be 28,000 and

2:41:55change, um, from that total

2:41:57budget. What we don't know is

2:41:59how we would make that up or

2:42:00what that would look like. That

2:42:02could be a service reduction,

2:42:04that could be an additional

2:42:05transfer from the general fund.

2:42:07There's lots of different ways

2:42:08that that through the budget

2:42:09process, we would propose to

2:42:12council through the manager's

2:42:13recommended budget to address

2:42:14that. Uh, there is a statutory

2:42:18standard for considering

2:42:20removing, uh, parcels from the

2:42:22Municipal service district, and

2:42:24that reads as this I don't

2:42:25normally like to read the

2:42:26slides, but I'm going to read

2:42:27this one that the parcels do

2:42:28not need the district services,

2:42:30facilities or functions to a

2:42:32demonstrably greater extent

2:42:34than the remainder of the city.

2:42:36So I put this here as this.

2:42:37This would be the finding that

2:42:39council would need to determine

2:42:41and residential use alone does

2:42:44not establish eligibility for

2:42:45removal. So there's a very

2:42:49specific procedure for removal.

2:42:52Uh, first up is the owner has

2:42:54the right to request a public

2:42:56hearing. That council has to

2:42:57hold. That hearing was

2:42:58completed on October 26th for

2:43:01all 49 parcels. Uh, council

2:43:03would make the finding that we

2:43:04referenced on the previous

2:43:05slide and, uh, instruct the

2:43:08staff to create a parcel

2:43:10specific boundary ordinance.

2:43:12Uh, that removal ordinance

2:43:14would have to be passed at two

2:43:15separate council meetings, and

2:43:18it would be effective at the

2:43:19fiscal year end. So what that

2:43:22means is any decision we made

2:43:23today would then be

2:43:25incorporated into the fiscal

2:43:27year 28 budget. Um, and the tax

2:43:32bills that go out upon adoption

2:43:33of that. So I just put a couple

2:43:38of things up here for council

2:43:40discussion and direction, uh,

2:43:42to determine whether the

2:43:43required funding is supported.

2:43:45If removal is desired, direct

2:43:47staff to the preparation of an

2:43:49ordinance. Uh, council can

2:43:51consider the analysis that

2:43:53we've contracted with Barry

2:43:54Dunn for the review of the MSD

2:43:56boundaries and the services

2:43:57provided with those funds, and

2:43:59then council would ultimately

2:44:01address any 2028 service and

2:44:04funding changes through the

2:44:05budget process. With that, I'm

2:44:07happy to take any questions.

2:44:08Question.

2:44:09Thank you. Mr.. Thank you

2:44:10mister. Councilman. Here.

2:44:13Thank you, mayor. Mr.. Kiley,

2:44:17out of all of the time that

2:44:20they have set up under the.

2:44:24Under the district, the

2:44:26downtown district and we were

2:44:31not doing the trash pickup. I

2:44:36think something came up about

2:44:38repairing potholes or whatever

2:44:40other items that it was with

2:44:44our staff. No one notice out of

2:44:49our however many years I can't

2:44:50remember. It was that, uh, they

2:44:54were not receiving those

2:44:55services, actual services, or

2:44:58did it take this? Did it take

2:45:01the community coming forward

2:45:03for us to be where we are

2:45:04today?

2:45:05So using the Municipal service

2:45:06district funds, we we do not do

2:45:09trash pickup and removal. We we

2:45:11don't pay potholes or do any of

2:45:14those physical things. This

2:45:15money goes largely to Cole

2:45:17Spring to promote an arts and

2:45:19entertainment district prior to

2:45:21Cool Spring in 2017, we had

2:45:24city staff that did the

2:45:26downtown management business

2:45:28relationship. Things. Um, and

2:45:31so I think to that degree, it

2:45:34would be council's

2:45:36determination if part of you

2:45:38benefits or experiences that

2:45:40arts and entertainment

2:45:41district.

2:45:41Okay. Let me make sure I'm

2:45:43understanding probably more for

2:45:44me than my colleagues. So. Up

2:45:50under what is done in the

2:45:53downtown district, through

2:45:56services through the city of

2:45:57Fayetteville.

2:45:58Okay.

2:45:59Are you saying that those

2:46:01particular type of services

2:46:03would not have been done by the

2:46:04city? Uh, services? Anyway? I

2:46:09know that. What is it? Downtown

2:46:11considered commercial? I mean,

2:46:13I know the trash pickup and

2:46:15stuff. I don't think that I

2:46:15don't know if that's the city.

2:46:16I don't think, um, so help me

2:46:19understand. Within that

2:46:22district, what is provided by

2:46:26the city. And of course, I

2:46:28understand that they. Well, I

2:46:29was a part when that happened.

2:46:31You know, they had the the

2:46:32additional tax, uh, for

2:46:34different things that's only

2:46:36used for downtown. Explain that

2:46:38to me.

2:46:39Yes, sir. So I'm going to try

2:46:41and run it this this way. So

2:46:42bear with me. Uh, so the the

2:46:45statutory standard for removal

2:46:46says that the parcels do not

2:46:48need the district services. And

2:46:50so what we're what we're

2:46:52showing is that the district

2:46:54services is what Cole Spring

2:46:56provides, is that arts and

2:46:57entertainment district that

2:46:59promotes promoting marketing,

2:47:01branding and putting on those

2:47:03events downtown.

2:47:06So those those particular

2:47:08items, I was just speaking of,

2:47:09you didn't say anything about

2:47:10that.

2:47:11Uh, that. Yeah. Trash pickup

2:47:14downtown. Um, we've got a

2:47:16couple of different things.

2:47:17Normally, all those businesses

2:47:18would have rollback carts or

2:47:20their own separate dumpsters.

2:47:21We do have some groups that

2:47:23have banded together and have

2:47:24one dumpster that they all pay

2:47:26into. Um, I think we've got

2:47:28two, maybe three of those in

2:47:29the downtown. Uh, potholes and

2:47:32street paving and things like

2:47:33that, that they're, they're

2:47:34public street. So that's done

2:47:35through the city's general fund

2:47:37and Powell bill funds and, and

2:47:39our other normal operations.

2:47:41So and I guess I'm only

2:47:43speaking for myself here. So

2:47:45for better clarity for me then

2:47:49the normal things that we

2:47:51receive, uh, residents would

2:47:55receive, unless this is, you

2:47:59know, commercial or it's a

2:48:03multiple, I think we don't do 4

2:48:08or 6 units. We don't do trash

2:48:11pickup. Right. You know,

2:48:12because I lost some. And so.

2:48:17What is the what is the

2:48:19provision? Well, what does it

2:48:21provide? Are you saying there

2:48:23additional tax that they

2:48:26requested? I don't know if this

2:48:27place was there at the time.

2:48:29Uh, you know, when they started

2:48:31doing that, I think the hotel

2:48:32may have still been there. Um.

2:48:37What? I don't I don't

2:48:39understand what I mean. What

2:48:41what do they do? I mean, what's

2:48:43is it all through the downtown

2:48:45district that would be taking

2:48:46care of that?

2:48:47Yeah. So the additional tax

2:48:49levy of about $0.14 per $100

2:48:52pays for the services provided

2:48:54by Cool Spring.

2:48:55Okay.

2:48:55Yeah. So that's a 1 to 1. Um,

2:48:59if you lived on a private road

2:49:01or you had streets in your

2:49:02neighborhood that were not

2:49:03accepted into the city, uh, the

2:49:05city would not pave those

2:49:07streets or, you know, resurface

2:49:09them or anything like that. Um,

2:49:11on the solid waste. I think

2:49:13that is an interesting

2:49:14question. And I'm not the

2:49:15expert to speak on the solid

2:49:16waste policies, but that's

2:49:19that's also right now, what

2:49:21they're asking for is to be

2:49:22removed from that additional 14

2:49:23cent tax. Right? Right. Yes,

2:49:25sir.

2:49:25All right. And just one more

2:49:27question, man. So they want to

2:49:29be removed from that tax, which

2:49:34is a tax that was requested, if

2:49:37I'm correct, by the downtown

2:49:39district, is that the tax

2:49:41you're speaking of? I think it

2:49:42started out at five cent. I

2:49:43think it went to $0.10. I'm not

2:49:46sure what. What is it now? What

2:49:47you say.

2:49:48It's about 14 now. It started

2:49:49in like 78.

2:49:50Yeah. Yeah I mean I think it

2:49:52started like $0.05 and $0.10 in

2:49:53there. Yeah. Well but whatever.

2:49:55Okay. All right. Yes, sir.

2:49:57Thank you, thank you. Mayor.

2:49:58Councilman Davis.

2:49:59Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh,

2:50:01Chris. So, one of the the

2:50:04process for them being removed,

2:50:07they have to give, I guess,

2:50:09parameters of why they don't

2:50:11need the services or why they

2:50:12don't need to be in the MSD

2:50:13text. Is that correct? And we

2:50:16have to determine that.

2:50:18Yes, council has to determine

2:50:19that that they can make an

2:50:21argument that all they need to

2:50:22do is make a request for a

2:50:24council to consider it, uh, for

2:50:25council to remove it. Council

2:50:27has to determine that the

2:50:30parcels do not need the the

2:50:31enhanced services of the

2:50:32district.

2:50:33Can you explain why they

2:50:35weren't receiving any extra,

2:50:36um, services that they're

2:50:38supposed to have been getting

2:50:39from? I guess Cool Springs are

2:50:40supposed to be responsible for

2:50:41it. Is that correct?

2:50:43Um. So I'm not. I'm not sure I

2:50:52could answer the way that it's

2:50:54it's framed. Right. So. So

2:50:55cool. Springs puts on events

2:50:57and things in the downtown. And

2:51:00this property, rightfully so,

2:51:02is across the street from the

2:51:04main downtown core. There's

2:51:06other properties around the

2:51:07district that are in the same

2:51:09position. Right. Like when you

2:51:10look on Grove and, um, on

2:51:13Russell as well, where you've

2:51:14got four lanes and then some

2:51:16more properties. Right. Um, and

2:51:18so, I don't know, I haven't

2:51:21lived there. I can't say

2:51:22whether they are enjoying those

2:51:24events and festivals and

2:51:26marketing and promotions from

2:51:27the downtown. Uh, I'm, I'm, I

2:51:30can't tell you from a real

2:51:31estate perspective if it if

2:51:33their property goes up or down

2:51:34in value because of the

2:51:35downtown. Well, those are

2:51:36things that that.

2:51:37I'm asking because, I mean, to

2:51:40be honest, they're not the only

2:51:42ones who are saying they're not

2:51:43getting what they're putting in

2:51:44for. Um, that's across the

2:51:46downtown area. So I guess one

2:51:48of the options. Can you go back

2:51:50to your options, the five

2:51:52options I think.

2:51:52You have.

2:51:52Oh, well, these are just

2:51:53discussion points, right? Yeah.

2:51:55Right.

2:51:56I like the number three option

2:51:58for discussion point. Um,

2:52:01because I think it's time for

2:52:03the boundaries to be reset. Um,

2:52:06because as they're residential,

2:52:08which I understand, but there

2:52:09are residential places that are

2:52:11in the MSD that feel the same

2:52:13way they feel. But my only

2:52:15issue with this is I don't want

2:52:16to create a president's

2:52:17presence, that we're going to

2:52:19continue to do that for every

2:52:20person that comes to us,

2:52:21because I've gotten phone calls

2:52:23and emails, this is nothing

2:52:24against the applicants. You

2:52:25know, I hope council decides

2:52:26what they want to do today. But

2:52:28when you allow one to do it,

2:52:30the rest are going to come and

2:52:32they're coming after this to be

2:52:34removed. Um, and so I guess I

2:52:36want council to have a holistic

2:52:37approach about how we're going

2:52:38to go about doing this, because

2:52:40this is not going to be the

2:52:41only request that's coming. Uh,

2:52:43I have one more question. So,

2:52:45yeah. So I think you guys have

2:52:47very done doing the study

2:52:48already, correct? Yes, sir. And

2:52:49is that a part of that contract

2:52:50to do the MSD boundaries or do

2:52:52we need that? Uh.

2:52:53It absolutely is. Yes, sir.

2:52:54Okay. So you know when that

2:52:56will come back.

2:52:57Um, we're targeting they're

2:52:58going to come back, um,

2:53:00sometime in January or

2:53:02February. We're targeting

2:53:03March, April for council

2:53:05adoption of a plan.

2:53:06Okay.

2:53:06And I think number four needs

2:53:08to be addressed as well because

2:53:11it is a budgetary impact as

2:53:12well for the MSD and some of

2:53:15those business owners are

2:53:16property owners downtown are

2:53:18going to experience, uh, the

2:53:21increase in property tax. I

2:53:22mean, an MSD tax. So that's

2:53:24just my, uh, conversation. I, I

2:53:26don't know what council goal is

2:53:28today for this, but I just want

2:53:30to make sure that council

2:53:30understands that once we make a

2:53:32decision today, there's other

2:53:34things following this once we

2:53:35make a decision. Thank you, Mr.

2:53:36Mayor.

2:53:37Thank you. So, Mr. Kelly, I

2:53:40want to clarify something. So I

2:53:42have I have a property in

2:53:45downtown. I got property not

2:53:47downtown. Now property

2:53:50downtown. Uh, I don't have any

2:53:52black curly pots in front of my

2:53:54business on Murchison Road. I

2:53:56don't have any, um, any brick

2:53:59pavers that every year the city

2:54:01puts 2 or $300,000 in redoing

2:54:04the brick pavers. There are

2:54:06trash cans located downtown

2:54:09that are in front of businesses

2:54:10that get emptied and serviced.

2:54:11And when things happen,

2:54:13downtown city crews come and

2:54:15pick the streets up. That

2:54:16doesn't happen everywhere

2:54:17throughout the city. So there,

2:54:19there, there are dollars being

2:54:21spent. $159,000 is being spent

2:54:24on horticulture, right?

2:54:26According to last year's

2:54:26budget. So I think we need to

2:54:29clarify that just because the

2:54:31dollars that you're collecting

2:54:32from the MSD tax, right, is

2:54:35300,000, doesn't necessarily

2:54:37mean that's all of the services

2:54:39that are being spent. If you're

2:54:40downtown, because I don't have

2:54:42a trash can that the city comes

2:54:43to empty in front of my place,

2:54:45and nor are many parts of the

2:54:46city. So I want to make sure

2:54:48that we don't present this as

2:54:51that. There's no extra benefit

2:54:53because. Because there is, you

2:54:55know, uh, there's underground

2:54:57utilities downtown, right? You

2:54:59know, that's colored sidewalks.

2:55:01You know, we would only wish

2:55:03that it was public art in some

2:55:04of these other places, but it's

2:55:06specific to downtown because

2:55:08that's kind of our front porch.

2:55:09So. So there's more than

2:55:10$300,000 worth of things that

2:55:12take place down there. So I

2:55:14don't want to say that. The

2:55:19only thing, the only enhanced

2:55:21service is what Cool Springs

2:55:23does, because businesses

2:55:24benefit from that. Now, this,

2:55:25on the other hand, is different

2:55:27because it's in a it's across

2:55:28the street. It's in the corner

2:55:30of the district. And then it

2:55:32doesn't have any of those

2:55:33special things. It doesn't have

2:55:34any brick pavers in the in the

2:55:36middle of the complex, doesn't

2:55:37have trash cans. That city goes

2:55:38in and empties and it doesn't

2:55:40have underground utilities and,

2:55:42and strip sidewalks with, with

2:55:44artwork on it or public art

2:55:45displays. So it is treated

2:55:47differently. But the taxes

2:55:48still go in to, to the funding

2:55:49of it. Yes, sir. So I think

2:55:51that this is significantly

2:55:54different, even if other places

2:55:56make it. I think your paragraph

2:55:58included in here that basically

2:56:01says. Can. Let me get to it.

2:56:08The parcel does not need

2:56:11district services, facilities

2:56:13or functions to the extent that

2:56:17to a greater extent than

2:56:18anywhere else, because you

2:56:19could go anywhere around the

2:56:20city and find townhouse

2:56:22complexes that get the same

2:56:24thing from us, but they're

2:56:26paying the extra tax. So I just

2:56:28want to make make that clear,

2:56:29because it kept being said

2:56:30today there was only, you know,

2:56:31this money is for Cold Springs.

2:56:33And since Cool Springs provides

2:56:36entertainment and somehow they

2:56:38are beneficial of the

2:56:38entertainment, but they are

2:56:40uniqueness that people get that

2:56:42are on the other side of the

2:56:43railroad tracks, that this this

2:56:45group doesn't get. And so I

2:56:47wanted to make sure we pointed

2:56:48that out.

2:56:49Yes, sir. I believe in the

2:56:50budget. Last year there was a

2:56:52substantial number that talked

2:56:53about the city's investment in

2:56:54downtown. Uh, you know, that

2:56:57unfortunately, that substantial

2:56:58number is not impacted by this

2:56:59is just.

2:57:00This I understand about the

2:57:01tax. Yeah, but we're talking

2:57:02about benefits versus non

2:57:03benefits. Fair. Yeah. All

2:57:04right. Councilmember Green and

2:57:06Hondros Hondros and green I'm

2:57:07sorry.

2:57:10Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Mr.

2:57:11Corley thank you for the

2:57:12presentation. Can you go back

2:57:14to, uh, either slide 3 or 4? I

2:57:16think they both had kind of

2:57:17maps on it. So, um, as was

2:57:23already stated, the you know,

2:57:25if we take the one property

2:57:27out, I'm for, I think my

2:57:28colleague of who represents the

2:57:30district mentioned taking a

2:57:32more holistic approach. If you

2:57:33look at this map, I mean,

2:57:35everything west of Robeson,

2:57:37everything north of Rowan,

2:57:39everything south of Russell,

2:57:40everything east of Ann Street

2:57:43and Dick Street, you know,

2:57:45could argue the same argument

2:57:46that they're not getting, um,

2:57:48the enhanced services from the

2:57:50activities that are going on

2:57:52downtown. Um, since I've been

2:57:53on council, the conversation

2:57:55has been twofold. You know, how

2:57:57do we expand downtown? And then

2:58:00also, how do we, um, how do we

2:58:03expand the level of service? Or

2:58:05is the MSD receiving, um, the

2:58:08level of service or the benefit

2:58:09from the additional tax that

2:58:11they, that they wish to

2:58:12receive? My question on this

2:58:14map, do we know approximately

2:58:15how many parcels are in the

2:58:17current MSD? Individual

2:58:20parcels?

2:58:21Uh, not right off. No, sir.

2:58:23So then we don't know how many

2:58:24are, um, out of the total

2:58:27parcels. How many of the

2:58:28parcels are, uh, only

2:58:30residential.

2:58:31I've got a report on my desk,

2:58:32but not with me.

2:58:33Yeah, because this this isn't

2:58:34the only partial. That's, uh,

2:58:36that's 100% residential in

2:58:39downtown in the in the MSD

2:58:41footprint, right?

2:58:42Most of it clusters around, uh,

2:58:44pen mark, place behind 300.

2:58:46Hey, um, those are the primary,

2:58:49primarily residential.

2:58:50So to the the point about, um,

2:58:53maintaining maintenance, like

2:58:55fixing potholes and those

2:58:56things or even trash removal.

2:58:59Uh, our ad valorem tax rate in

2:59:01the city of Fayetteville, I

2:59:02think, is around 46 cent per

2:59:04$100 worth of value. Right.

2:59:06Everyone pays that, even

2:59:08non-residential. So you're a

2:59:09commercial industrial. Your

2:59:11apartment complexes, they pay

2:59:13the same rate, but the city

2:59:14doesn't empty trash for any of

2:59:16those people. All apartment

2:59:17complexes, commercial,

2:59:18industrial have their own

2:59:20refuse removal, right? Similar

2:59:22with, as we mentioned, pothole

2:59:24repair. We don't do that on

2:59:25private property. So in, uh,

2:59:27apartment complexes, driveways,

2:59:30parking areas, it's up to them

2:59:31to maintain the landscaping and

2:59:32all of those things. So, um,

2:59:34you know, I'd argue the benefit

2:59:36of this, uh, this property

2:59:38being the MSD is location to

2:59:40downtown, the proximity to it.

2:59:42And if I'm not mistaken, I

2:59:43think the developers petitioned

2:59:44to be in it if it wasn't

2:59:45already in it. Um, but either

2:59:47way, all of those individual

2:59:49owners, when they purchased

2:59:50that property, they knew it had

2:59:52HOA. They knew it was in the

2:59:53city. They would pay city and

2:59:54county taxes. They knew it was

2:59:55MSD, and they would pay an

2:59:57additional MSD tax. So they

2:59:59either knew where they should

3:00:00have known. Um, I'm for looking

3:00:02at a holistic look on both the

3:00:04MSD footprint as well as the

3:00:06services that the city

3:00:08provides, or what benefit those

3:00:10property owners receive for

3:00:11that additional tax. Um, and

3:00:14doing it holistically. But, you

3:00:16know, looking at a request one

3:00:18at a time, um, it's a heavy

3:00:20lift for me. Thank you.

3:00:22All right. Councilmember Green.

3:00:24Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, this

3:00:30request was back from March. I

3:00:33think we required them to bring

3:00:34some more information to us,

3:00:36which we got in August. I, um,

3:00:41was around when the Saint James

3:00:43Hotel was sitting in that spot,

3:00:45and it was clearly a large

3:00:47commercial property. And I feel

3:00:50certain that that is why it was

3:00:52included. Um, because it was a

3:00:55commercial property, not

3:00:56because it was a residential

3:00:57property. The commercial

3:00:58property would have had more

3:01:00use and more benefit drawn,

3:01:02more benefit from being in the

3:01:05MSD. So the fact that there are

3:01:09other this is across Brock

3:01:12Boulevard. So to me we need to

3:01:15give them relief and remove

3:01:17them from this. They're the

3:01:20only one across Bragg

3:01:21Boulevard. If you look at the

3:01:22map yourself, they're the

3:01:24absolute only one across Frog

3:01:26Boulevard. I mean, are we going

3:01:28to what are we going to do when

3:01:29the next one comes up? I can

3:01:31make the argument that the

3:01:32other residential area, as Mr.

3:01:35Corley pointed out, they're in

3:01:37the center of downtown. They

3:01:39are clearly getting the

3:01:39benefits of being in the MSD in

3:01:42the smack center of it. They

3:01:44paid for that location. They

3:01:46wanted to be in the center of

3:01:47downtown, and that's the

3:01:50difference. And um, to me,

3:01:54they've asked for relief

3:01:57because this took place before

3:01:59that was built there. I would

3:02:01be in favor of allowing them to

3:02:03be removed. Thank you.

3:02:06All right.

3:02:08Thank you. Mayor. Um, I don't

3:02:11know the history of when it was

3:02:12a hotel and when it was built

3:02:14to be a residential.

3:02:17Lounge.

3:02:18The only thing I know is about

3:02:21services. Services that are

3:02:22provided. And if the

3:02:24constituents feel as though

3:02:25they don't need or haven't

3:02:27received the services that they,

3:02:29uh, that was supposed to be

3:02:30given to them, then why are we

3:02:32charging them an extra tax? We

3:02:34talked about the cost of

3:02:35everything, why they didn't

3:02:36apply prior. I we can't answer

3:02:39that. The only thing we can

3:02:39know is what we have in front

3:02:40of us today, and what we have

3:02:42in front of us today is two HOA

3:02:44agencies asking for relief to

3:02:46come out of the MSD, and I'm

3:02:48willing to make a motion, Mr.

3:02:49mayor, if there's no other

3:02:50questions.

3:02:51All right. Councilman McMillan.

3:02:53Yes, I second that motion.

3:02:55All right. So motion by

3:02:56Councilmember uh, Mayor pro

3:02:57tem, seconded by McMillan. All

3:02:59right. Just go ahead.

3:03:01Discussion. All right. Council

3:03:03look to you for your votes on.

3:03:04Madam Attorney. You're looking

3:03:05at me. Do I need to make it

3:03:06formal and read it? Well, I

3:03:09will move that.

3:03:10You're not deferring to the

3:03:11district rep.

3:03:12Say again.

3:03:14Just I would I would defer to

3:03:16the district.

3:03:16I would ask that we get

3:03:17consensus to remove the

3:03:19properties owned by the members

3:03:20of the Parkview Owners

3:03:21Association from the MSD.

3:03:24All right. Clear on a motion.

3:03:26All right, all right. Council

3:03:28look to you for action on that.

3:03:32Item to the screen. Uh. All

3:03:39right.

3:03:41Motion.

3:03:42Who are we missing? All right.

3:03:46Motion carries six for those

3:03:47voting opposition. McNair.

3:03:49Ferguson. Davidson. Hundreds.

3:03:52All right, all right, motion

3:03:53carries. All right. Moving to

3:03:566.04. Fake connect status

3:03:58update.

3:04:06I'm sorry if I could just for

3:04:08the last item, I just want to

3:04:09clarify for council, we do have

3:04:11to draft an ordinance. It will

3:04:12have to come back and be

3:04:14considered at two meetings. And

3:04:15there's a specific finding the

3:04:17council must make that will be

3:04:18included in your next agenda

3:04:20item. Just want to clarify that

3:04:21this is not the end of it.

3:04:22Gotcha.

3:04:22Yes, ma'am. All right. They

3:04:29connect..

3:04:30Mr. mayor.

3:04:32Ma'am.

3:04:32Can we make certain that that

3:04:33will come back so that they

3:04:35can. This will be finished and

3:04:36completed by December 31st so

3:04:38they can get this relief.

3:04:40Yeah. Madam. Madam attorney.

3:04:42Yeah. All right.

3:04:46All right.

3:04:46Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

3:04:47Yes, ma'am. Hello.

3:04:50Good evening, Colonel Michael.

3:04:53Good evening.

3:04:54Mr. Mayor.

3:04:55Mayor Pro tem.

3:04:56Council management. Um, I'm

3:04:59Laura Smith, your m

3:05:00coordinator. Um, I think you

3:05:02know Mr. Scott behind me and

3:05:05Mr. Henry. Um, so together, we,

3:05:09um, took on the council request

3:05:10for a robust notification

3:05:12system. Um, that was deemed Fe

3:05:15connect. And when we first

3:05:17started looking into it, we

3:05:19wanted to see what we already

3:05:21have in place. And we didn't

3:05:24want to have to introduce

3:05:26another system, another

3:05:27contract. If we didn't have to.

3:05:32So what we found out is that

3:05:34the need is valid. Um, there's

3:05:38definitely a need for us to be

3:05:39able to communicate with our

3:05:40residents, but how do we need

3:05:41to go about doing that?

3:05:43Currently, we have in place our

3:05:45average system that we contract

3:05:47with that. Uh, Fayetteville PD

3:05:49uses internally. Fayetteville

3:05:51Fire Department uses internally

3:05:52as what we use to communicate

3:05:54with our employees. And, um,

3:05:57Parks and Rec uses it to

3:05:58communicate with their parents

3:06:01on sports registrations,

3:06:03cancellations and delays. We

3:06:05also have in place the Fe Fix

3:06:06It app. Next request for public

3:06:10records. And we also have the

3:06:12Trans Loc app that our transit

3:06:14um users utilize for routes and

3:06:17all that good stuff. So knowing

3:06:21that what we already have, what

3:06:22do we need? We already have the

3:06:26Ever Bridge, which is a web

3:06:27based platform that

3:06:28communicates internally. So we

3:06:30could also add on to our

3:06:32contract and do that

3:06:34externally. So the biggest gap

3:06:36that we saw in the coordination

3:06:37was maybe our residents don't

3:06:39know where to go to look for

3:06:41all of these services. So

3:06:44developing an umbrella on our

3:06:46home page where we could put

3:06:48all of these services in one

3:06:49location. So it was one stop

3:06:50shop. This is what this does.

3:06:52This is where you need to go.

3:06:53So the biggest gap was our

3:06:56coordination. So we need some

3:06:57governance. Um, resident

3:06:59enrollment because it will not

3:07:00be successful without

3:07:02enrollment. Different types of

3:07:04subscription categories, public

3:07:06awareness and service routing.

3:07:11So why does this matter? So

3:07:13part of your one of your

3:07:14strategic priorities was

3:07:15engagement with your residents

3:07:17and getting them involved. And,

3:07:19um, just the connectivity of it

3:07:22all. So it provides engagement,

3:07:26transparency and stronger

3:07:27participation. It gives gives

3:07:31us a way to communicate with

3:07:32those residents that don't

3:07:33always look for our social

3:07:34medias or go to our homepage to

3:07:37get information. And on my side

3:07:41of the house, it helps me

3:07:43promote emergency preparedness

3:07:45and resiliency and all those

3:07:47good things. So before we buy,

3:07:52um, we already yes, we already

3:07:55do have the system in place. So

3:07:57do we need to explore

3:07:58additional vendors, determine

3:08:00some sort of implementation.

3:08:02But what we recommend is

3:08:04looking at what we have

3:08:06extending on our our current

3:08:08ever bridge contract. Um, and

3:08:11developing a some types of

3:08:13subscriptions, such as what

3:08:14Parks and Rec does with their

3:08:17game registrations. And we

3:08:20could notify folks of council

3:08:23meetings and those things.

3:08:30Yes.

3:08:32So what this is, is providing

3:08:34that residents experience where

3:08:36we have a hub of information.

3:08:39So we have, um, every bridge

3:08:41that can do alerts and

3:08:42subscriptions. So what that

3:08:43would be look like is residents

3:08:46would go online, um, subscribe

3:08:48to what is it the needs, um,

3:08:50that they wanted to receive the

3:08:52notifications about. And we'll

3:08:53go into those a little more and

3:08:55also put in five piece sit

3:08:56there, a five piece that we all

3:08:57know that residents can, um,

3:09:00identify certain um, services

3:09:02throughout the community, such

3:09:03as graffiti on the wall or

3:09:05potholes in the, um, on

3:09:07streets. They can put that

3:09:08request in their faith to which

3:09:10is handled through our call

3:09:11center. Then a public records

3:09:13request starts next request

3:09:15where um, residents can enter.

3:09:17Our community members can enter

3:09:19certain public records

3:09:20requests. And then trend block

3:09:22app, um, through transit. So

3:09:28it's really creating a whole

3:09:29web landing page for all this

3:09:31information to be housed under.

3:09:33And along with our social media

3:09:35and press releases.

3:09:40So these are the phases with

3:09:42the current products that we

3:09:43have in place. So every bridge

3:09:44that we currently use for and

3:09:46like I said, our internal

3:09:48communications, um, so the

3:09:51proof is in the pudding. Right?

3:09:52So Parks and Rec has over 6000

3:09:55parents who have voluntarily

3:09:57signed up to receive

3:09:58information just on sports

3:10:00registration, cancellations and

3:10:02delays. Let me just emphasize

3:10:04that as voluntary registration,

3:10:07um, and in addition to that,

3:10:10they've I opened up their

3:10:12portal and they've been using

3:10:13it for six months since

3:10:15February of this year. So it's

3:10:17a really good success. Rates on

3:10:18that part. So when you couple

3:10:20that with what we currently

3:10:22have existing with our faith,

3:10:23fixing next request and our

3:10:24trans lock, I think that it

3:10:27meets the whole goal of what

3:10:29fake connect was intended for.

3:10:36So in the original Fe connect,

3:10:37it was a multi model

3:10:40communication, which is voice,

3:10:42text, email, social medias and

3:10:44other supported channels. Geo

3:10:47targeting using districts,

3:10:48neighborhoods and GIS targeting

3:10:50where supported which I can do

3:10:51within the bridge platform. Um,

3:10:54just for just for example,

3:10:58currently in every bridge I've

3:10:59taken the files, the shapefiles

3:11:02for all of our police districts

3:11:04or council districts, our city

3:11:07own dams, our fire districts,

3:11:08and all of those shapefiles are

3:11:10built into our ever bridge

3:11:12platform. Currently.

3:11:14So we can do a targeted

3:11:17messaging if we needed to.

3:11:19Accessibility and inclusion. We

3:11:22every bridge does have a

3:11:25platform where you can actually

3:11:26have your text messages read to

3:11:27you. For those who have

3:11:29difficulty reading. Um, you can

3:11:31also do a translation service

3:11:33for it. Interoperability. It

3:11:40does currently work with

3:11:41everything. Everything working

3:11:43together I think works really

3:11:44well. Each one serves us on

3:11:45purpose, but like David said,

3:11:49having that landing page will

3:11:50help us route residents to the

3:11:51right service and with two way

3:11:54communication was one of the

3:11:55asks. Um, they can use faith,

3:11:57fix it to communicate like the

3:11:59potholes, graffiti and all of

3:12:01those good things. But what we

3:12:02could do with the bridge system

3:12:03is if we wanted to create a

3:12:06subscription that would allow

3:12:08our residents to sign up for

3:12:10types of surveys that that we

3:12:13put out to get opinion, we

3:12:15could actually link that survey

3:12:16into the message, and the

3:12:19responses to that survey would

3:12:20just be automatically routed to

3:12:22the appropriate person. Consent

3:12:26and privacy. Just again,

3:12:31residents would have the

3:12:32opportunity to opt in and opt

3:12:34out of the information that

3:12:36they wanted to receive. The

3:12:38only thing that I would make

3:12:39mandatory or asked to be

3:12:41mandatory would be emergency

3:12:43notifications. When I talk

3:12:45about emergency notifications.

3:12:47We have interruptions to city

3:12:49operations due to inclement

3:12:51weather, or if something needed

3:12:52to be evacuated. Your question

3:12:56may be what about like tornado

3:12:58warnings and all of those good

3:12:59things? Wireless emergency

3:13:02alerts? Are we a messages or I

3:13:04pause messages? I pause

3:13:06messages are sort of like those

3:13:07Amber. They're the Amber

3:13:08alerts. There's a system

3:13:09through there. You don't have

3:13:10to sign up to get those. We,

3:13:12um, messages are sent through

3:13:14the National Weather Service.

3:13:16They have a list of different

3:13:18types of weather events that

3:13:20are automatically sent out to a

3:13:22geofence area. Like, for

3:13:24instance, I live on the east

3:13:25side of the county. I do not

3:13:27get the tornado warning. It was

3:13:30just for geo fenced area. Those

3:13:32are automatically sent through

3:13:34the weather service. So I would

3:13:37ask that residents not be given

3:13:40an option to opt out of that

3:13:41sort of information. We would

3:13:42talk about emergencies, but

3:13:45they should be allowed to opt

3:13:46in to those services that they

3:13:48do have interest in. And what

3:13:50that does is just prevent our

3:13:52residents from receiving

3:13:54information that they don't

3:13:55want it becoming a nuisance and

3:13:57they just ignoring the

3:13:58information that they do want.

3:14:00When they do get it.

3:14:01Okay.

3:14:03And one thing going based on

3:14:05all of that, every bridge

3:14:07allows the user to create a

3:14:09login. And so they're able to

3:14:11if they decide if they want

3:14:12more information, they're able

3:14:13to go in on the, um, the front

3:14:15end, log in and check out opt

3:14:18out of certain things, and then

3:14:19opt in on certain things. And

3:14:20like Laura said, more messages

3:14:22do not automatically mean, um,

3:14:24better communication. I think

3:14:26we have to be intentional and

3:14:27deliberate, and that is why,

3:14:29um, we're going to ask for

3:14:30departments to tell us some

3:14:33information. What is the

3:14:34information that you're trying

3:14:35to put out and see if this is

3:14:37the right platform for those?

3:14:44So more Just Ask continues.

3:14:46When you talk about analytics

3:14:47and reporting, every bridge

3:14:48does have a tool. We can see

3:14:49how many messages were sent

3:14:51within a time period, how many

3:14:53folks received it. Um, and even

3:14:56when we talk about metrics and

3:14:58deciding what type of

3:14:59subscriptions we should do, we

3:15:00can run metrics through, um,

3:15:02Facebook and from our social

3:15:04media platforms to to see what

3:15:06type of, of those posts got the

3:15:09most interaction. So when we

3:15:13call model, we already have

3:15:15every bridge. And just for a

3:15:16little bit of perspective, last

3:15:19fiscal year, our contract with

3:15:20AV bridge was 29,000. In order

3:15:23to adopt this outward facing

3:15:25platform, it would be an

3:15:26additional $15,000. In lieu of

3:15:34a steering committee. We feel

3:15:36that adoption of a policy

3:15:39talking about opt in, an

3:15:40internal policy, uh, addressing

3:15:43how employees were to use the

3:15:44system and addressing privacy

3:15:46concerns would be more

3:15:48beneficial. Public education is

3:15:51important just to campaign. Let

3:15:54everyone know what's out there,

3:15:55how you sign up, what it's for,

3:15:57what security would define user

3:16:01access. That means that folks

3:16:02that are actually sending the

3:16:03messages. So currently I manage

3:16:06the average contract and I

3:16:08manage most of the users. Um,

3:16:10Fayetteville PD does have

3:16:11someone that manages theirs. So

3:16:13managing that user access and

3:16:15authentication. Anyone who

3:16:17signs in to send a message,

3:16:18it's multifactor is

3:16:20automatically turned on. So

3:16:21they have to do it. Um, so

3:16:24their permissions can be

3:16:26controlled. Uh, vendor

3:16:28safeguards, anything like that.

3:16:30You know, every bridge is

3:16:31really proactive in reporting

3:16:34phishing and those types of

3:16:36things. Again, governance, I

3:16:39think with an overarching

3:16:41policy that would be sufficient

3:16:43in the system. We could define

3:16:48rollout milestones. We could

3:16:50tell you, you know, is there an

3:16:52interest in this service that

3:16:54we don't have a subscription

3:16:55for? And can we get rid of

3:16:59subscription that no one's

3:17:00interested in? So we can set

3:17:02milestones and reporting out

3:17:04every six months, 18 months,

3:17:06whatever council would feel

3:17:08would be appropriate. And then

3:17:11we feel like the entire thing

3:17:13could be rolled out, or

3:17:14platform could be rolled out

3:17:15within 18 months. With Parks

3:17:17and Rec already utilizing the

3:17:19system for six months, I feel

3:17:21like we're at a good point in

3:17:23determining that it does work,

3:17:25and, um, just determining what

3:17:27those other subscriptions would

3:17:29be is where we need to be. So I

3:17:37just want to reiterate that

3:17:40residents would not have the

3:17:42option to opt out of critical

3:17:43alerts, such as emergency

3:17:45warnings, imminent threats,

3:17:46protective actions, or time

3:17:48sensitive public safety

3:17:49information. Those would be

3:17:51anyone who signed up would

3:17:52receive those messages.

3:17:54Subscription updates this is

3:17:56what where your residents

3:17:57choose what matters to them.

3:17:59This could be city sponsored

3:18:01meetings, such as when Doctor

3:18:03Hewitt has this dug into

3:18:05districts, parks and

3:18:06recreation. Any kind of traffic

3:18:07and road closures, events,

3:18:09transit service disruptions,

3:18:13and then just department

3:18:15updates. Again, this is just a

3:18:21further breakdown of the types

3:18:22of subscriptions..

3:18:24And what we can do is to narrow

3:18:27this down is meet with our

3:18:28departments. And going back to

3:18:31what is it the information that

3:18:32needs to be put out, and is

3:18:34this the appropriate platform

3:18:35for that?

3:18:41So with that, we can build a

3:18:42citywide policy. So who

3:18:44administers the system and the

3:18:45program? Who can send what

3:18:48information you don't want that

3:18:50many people, um, sending out

3:18:53having access to be able to

3:18:55send messages. You do want it

3:18:56very controlled environment

3:18:58accessibility with Ada in

3:19:00multilingual expectations again

3:19:04with even with permissions data

3:19:05and privacy goes in. So we

3:19:06talked about opt in retention

3:19:08and approved uses message

3:19:10standards. So how often are we

3:19:12sending messages out. Because

3:19:14even if someone opts into a

3:19:16message, they're not going to

3:19:17want to know every single

3:19:18detail about a certain

3:19:20department. So what type of

3:19:22messages from that department

3:19:23is important to them? And then

3:19:25measurement. So all of those

3:19:27can be defined within city wide

3:19:29policy. So we talk about

3:19:31measurement of analytics and

3:19:32reporting cadence. All of that

3:19:33can be.

3:19:36Rolled in.

3:19:39So recommended roadmap would be

3:19:41the foundation. So document our

3:19:43current license modules users

3:19:45and eternal use which I've kind

3:19:46of gone over with. You talk

3:19:48about our public descriptions

3:19:49was which David meant mentioned

3:19:51would be to meet with our

3:19:52departments and determine what

3:19:54their need would be, what kind

3:19:55of messages they would want to

3:19:57to send out. And we talk about

3:19:58integration and education, and

3:20:01that's where we would build a

3:20:02social media and just media

3:20:05campaign to announce our new

3:20:08product. And then in about 6 to

3:20:1112 months, let's measure some

3:20:12gaps and see what we need. If

3:20:13we need something more, if we

3:20:14need something less. The

3:20:18proposed name was Fe connect.

3:20:21Um, working collectively, we

3:20:25are recommending a name change

3:20:27to Fe connect for 365 because

3:20:29it's all things Fayetteville

3:20:30365 days a year. Um, with the

3:20:33tagline your city, your updates

3:20:35your way.

3:20:39That logo is not the final logo.

3:20:46Progress.

3:20:47I just needed a pretty visual.

3:20:52You go ahead.

3:20:55So actually you go ahead and

3:20:56I'll do the recommendation.

3:20:59Okay. So some recommended next

3:21:00steps is confirm that council

3:21:03would like Fe connect 365 as

3:21:05the working brand direction.

3:21:07Again continue to audit our

3:21:09license modules and limits and

3:21:11capabilities. And that includes

3:21:12not only with every bridge but

3:21:13with Fe fixing next request and

3:21:15the trans Loc app confirm the

3:21:17workflows of Fe, fix it and

3:21:18next request. Draft the

3:21:21overarching policy. Build the

3:21:24subscriptions, and then pilot

3:21:26measure and adjust as needed.

3:21:32So Council, our asked today is

3:21:34to receive this update and

3:21:37provide consensus for staff to

3:21:39continue developing the fake

3:21:40connect 365 resident engagement

3:21:42strategy. And that means staff

3:21:44can return for a future work

3:21:45session or council meeting. Um,

3:21:47with all this information

3:21:49that's needed.

3:21:51All right. Thank you.

3:21:52Councilmember Ferguson.

3:21:54Thank you, mayor. Um, first let

3:21:57me say thank you. Thank you to

3:21:59the staff. Thank you to, uh,

3:22:01uh, Missus Feltz. Mr. Henry,

3:22:04David, Miss David, and, um, and

3:22:06Miss Laura Smith for for your

3:22:08due diligence. We've met on a

3:22:10few occasions, and we, um, um,

3:22:13my vision in the Saint was in

3:22:15the same way we prioritize

3:22:17connectivity, um, in our

3:22:18physical community, especially

3:22:20with the advances of technology

3:22:21that I thought I felt it was

3:22:23imperative that we prioritized

3:22:24digital connectivity. Um, so

3:22:27the addition of this robust

3:22:29notification system, what what

3:22:31I do want to point out is if

3:22:33you saw, um, recognize that it

3:22:36was the social media websites,

3:22:37these are all places we already

3:22:39have in place that people can

3:22:41actually go to faith, fix it.

3:22:44Um, next request trans like all

3:22:46of those are things that people

3:22:48can go surf on. The the

3:22:49distinct thing about this is it

3:22:51is a notification system. So it

3:22:53comes to you as opposed to you

3:22:55having to go and look and

3:22:57search. So it comes

3:22:58automatically to you. And you

3:23:00can, as they stated, you can

3:23:02pick whichever one that you,

3:23:03uh, whatever you want, not

3:23:05only, um, this is not good only

3:23:07for us, but to each for each

3:23:08other in the community and

3:23:10engaging the notifications. Go

3:23:12directly to your cell phones. I

3:23:14did want to ask a question. I

3:23:15know landline wasn't in there,

3:23:17but I'm certain that it's part

3:23:18of it. Okay, so for those who

3:23:20don't have a don't have a

3:23:23digital connection or may not

3:23:25be have a mobile phone, um, or

3:23:28email, it can go to your

3:23:29landline. And I notice a lot of

3:23:31that, uh, during the campaigns

3:23:32is every source of

3:23:33communication they choose. And

3:23:35they can opt out to the ones

3:23:37they receive. Um, and I do want

3:23:39to mention that staff has

3:23:40really went above and beyond,

3:23:41really my even my expectations

3:23:43on this. And they're ready to

3:23:45move. And I and I hope that we

3:23:47can as a council consist, uh,

3:23:49have a consensus for staff to

3:23:51continue with the

3:23:52implementation plan for Fe

3:23:53connect resident engagement

3:23:55strategy.

3:23:57If I may, um, as we expand this

3:24:01program here, and if we do have

3:24:03consensus to move forward, it's

3:24:05identifying those staff

3:24:06members. And, um, as we expand

3:24:09may require maybe an additional

3:24:10staff. So.

3:24:15All right. Uh, I thought

3:24:19Council Member John. Okay.

3:24:20Councilmember Jones.

3:24:21Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, first

3:24:22of all, great, great job. You

3:24:24all, uh, who that decision to

3:24:26use the the, um,

3:24:28cross-functional implementation

3:24:30group. Kudos for that. I mean,

3:24:32that that's it just fits what

3:24:34you all are doing. So whoever's

3:24:35decision was to do that, I

3:24:37commend you for that. Uh, one

3:24:39question, uh, in that regards

3:24:41to the two factor

3:24:42authentication, uh, do you have

3:24:44an idea of what that may look

3:24:45like? And what I'm looking at

3:24:47is, uh, user friendliness. I

3:24:49like that we're going to have

3:24:49the landing page there. They'll

3:24:51be able to to easily identify

3:24:53where they need to go. But can

3:24:54you just speak very quickly to

3:24:56the two factor authentication

3:24:58and how easy, how easy would

3:25:00that be? I know it can get

3:25:01very, uh, intense depending on

3:25:04the level of security, but can

3:25:05you kind of speak to what that

3:25:06may look like?

3:25:07Right. That portion would only

3:25:08be for those that are

3:25:09authorized to send messages,

3:25:11and it's just an added security

3:25:13measure in case a password gets

3:25:15stolen or something like that.

3:25:16And when you set up your

3:25:18account to actually send

3:25:20messages, you, you know, of

3:25:22course, put in a password, but

3:25:23then you download the app of

3:25:25your choice for the

3:25:26multi-factor.

3:25:27So on the user, and it wouldn't

3:25:29prompt them to do that. I know

3:25:30some apps typically.

3:25:31No, not on the on the on the

3:25:32resident end when you when they

3:25:34sign in they would just go to

3:25:35this portal and actually create

3:25:37their own account. And that

3:25:39would be the extent. And then

3:25:40they would have the option to

3:25:41opt in or opt out of different

3:25:43types of messages.

3:25:44Appreciate that. And then, uh,

3:25:45have a brother in law that

3:25:46that's visually impaired as

3:25:48well. So when you spoke to the

3:25:49Ada compliant, they were also

3:25:51have tools there that they

3:25:52would be able to utilize as

3:25:54well. All right. Thank you so

3:25:55much, Mr. Mayor.

3:25:56Council member McMillan.

3:25:58Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh,

3:25:59I want to shout out strong

3:26:01towns. Uh, and other folks that

3:26:05are doing this. They're doing

3:26:06what you're talking about. The

3:26:08informal way is already, um. I

3:26:11want to shout you all out and

3:26:13show appreciation, because

3:26:15y'all, y'all are taking it to

3:26:16the next level and allowing us

3:26:18to go to an official source,

3:26:19uh, for important information.

3:26:21I actually thought about this,

3:26:23uh, during the last round of

3:26:24tornadoes, uh, looking at the

3:26:26the group chat, uh, and

3:26:29understanding who was affected

3:26:30in different ways, seeing some

3:26:32pictures. But, you know, what's

3:26:33the official word? You know,

3:26:35what? What is EMS saying about

3:26:36this? What our first responders

3:26:38saying about this? Uh, I think

3:26:39it'll be wonderful in terms of

3:26:41people being able to point to

3:26:42an official source, especially

3:26:44in those times, uh, my Spidey

3:26:46senses started tingling when I

3:26:48when I saw the word geo

3:26:49targeting. I've been having a

3:26:51lot of a lot of conversations

3:26:53with neighbors who are uneasy

3:26:56about mass surveillance, uneasy

3:26:58about all the ways that their

3:26:59data can be accessed. Um,

3:27:02uneasy about a loss or an

3:27:04infringement on constitutional

3:27:06rights that come about as, uh,

3:27:07as a result of giving up data

3:27:09and that being used in other

3:27:10ways. Sometimes to criminalize

3:27:12us. Um, I'm wondering if y'all

3:27:15put any thought into ways to

3:27:17make guarantees about where

3:27:19your data will not go. Um,

3:27:22guarantees about the security

3:27:24of the data that people are

3:27:25voluntarily giving up as they

3:27:27sign up for these services.

3:27:32Mayor Council, uh, a tremendous

3:27:35amount of effort has been

3:27:36placed on security, uh, not

3:27:38just multi-factor

3:27:39authentication, but encryption

3:27:42as the information is leaving

3:27:44the source as well as its, uh,

3:27:48landing zone, what's called at

3:27:49risk. So we're thinking about

3:27:51all things security. Uh, we're

3:27:54looking at the integration, the

3:27:55authentication, the whole nine

3:27:58yards. Uh, when it comes to

3:27:59this platform, the good thing

3:28:00is that every bridge already

3:28:02has a lot of that built in.

3:28:04It's just a matter of the

3:28:05enhancement for the public.

3:28:07Okay.

3:28:08I appreciate that. I want to

3:28:10offer up to something that this

3:28:11council has discussed before

3:28:13this. The non pillars of

3:28:14technology policy, uh, through

3:28:17the IACP, uh, the International

3:28:19association.

3:28:20And that has been incorporated

3:28:22into all pieces of this.

3:28:24Okay. That, that that's it for

3:28:26right now. Those nine universal

3:28:28non universal standards that we

3:28:30look for to make sure that

3:28:31we're very transparent about

3:28:33what we're doing with these

3:28:34tools. Uh, and especially the

3:28:36part about data, there would be

3:28:38a lot of people who are

3:28:38concerned that their data is

3:28:39not going to places like

3:28:41federal agencies, like Ice is a

3:28:43good example. A lot of people

3:28:45might be okay with that. Many

3:28:46of us are not okay with that.

3:28:47And we need to know that before

3:28:49we're we're giving up our data.

3:28:51So the one thing we will say is

3:28:53that because every bridge is an

3:28:55emergency response system, it

3:28:57is it has all the compliance

3:28:59that we've asked for from

3:29:00Frederick. Uh, FedRAMP, gov

3:29:03ramp, etcetera, etcetera, as

3:29:04well as sieges. We only hope

3:29:06that it remains secure. But

3:29:08once again, we will do our part

3:29:10and our due diligence to ensure

3:29:11that it is alright.

3:29:13Thank you.

3:29:13All right. Mayor Pro.

3:29:14Tem thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr.

3:29:16Wooley, I know you'll do your

3:29:17part because I know you do a

3:29:18good job at your job, but

3:29:20nothing is ever 100%. So we

3:29:22want to make sure that we're

3:29:23thankful that you take

3:29:24precautions that you do. But at

3:29:26least to my question, which is,

3:29:28I know every brite is doing

3:29:29every bridge is doing a great

3:29:30job. But why did you choose

3:29:31them? Because you already have

3:29:32a subscription with them. And

3:29:34did you venture out to see if

3:29:35anybody else provide the same

3:29:36services?

3:29:37We could not find one program

3:29:41that provided all of the

3:29:42services that we currently

3:29:43offer. And yes, because we do

3:29:46have a current contract with

3:29:47them and comparison wise, an

3:29:50additional $15,000 is a great

3:29:55deal less than what it would be

3:29:56to adopt another program or buy

3:29:59another module or something

3:30:01like that. So we're trying to

3:30:02be good stewards with the

3:30:03city's money on that part.

3:30:04And I'm glad you are, because I

3:30:05know any program that's going

3:30:08to give us better communication

3:30:09with our constituents, reach a

3:30:12broader spectrum of people,

3:30:14even outside the city is

3:30:15beneficial. But my other

3:30:17question is, why do we have to

3:30:18wait 12 to 18 months to

3:30:20implement this?

3:30:23My apologies for not being

3:30:24super clear. The 12 to 18

3:30:26months would just be to come

3:30:27back to see how it's working.

3:30:30Gotcha. We would already have

3:30:31subscriptions established, at

3:30:34and identifying any type of

3:30:36gaps. What do we need? Do we

3:30:37need to take anything away? Do

3:30:38we need to add anything you

3:30:39know, or folks complaining

3:30:41about receiving too many

3:30:42messages? Those sorts of

3:30:43things.

3:30:44I'm glad you clarified that.

3:30:45Thank you, mayor.

3:30:46Council member McNair.

3:30:49Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think

3:30:51it was David. You mentioned

3:30:52that it's a possibility or that

3:30:55we may need, uh, staff, more

3:30:58staff.

3:30:59Um, so it's identifying. So we

3:31:01want to make sure our messaging

3:31:03is consistent and it is

3:31:05filtered. You know, just when

3:31:06people have these updates in

3:31:07these departments that we have,

3:31:10we can create ten message

3:31:11templates. But if there's any

3:31:13other information that comes

3:31:14through, we have that dedicated

3:31:16someone to look at those

3:31:17messages, because we want to

3:31:18make sure that we're sending

3:31:19out, um, accurate messaging.

3:31:22And also just, um, like I said,

3:31:25just verifying that messaging.

3:31:26And, um, how can I say this,

3:31:30making sure that it's, we're

3:31:34we're proud and it has our city

3:31:36standards. So, okay, so not

3:31:39necessarily an additional step,

3:31:40but I will say as we expand

3:31:42upon this program here, we are

3:31:44looking at, you know, who is

3:31:46going to be responsible for

3:31:47this here. And is that going to

3:31:49require another staff member.

3:31:50So as we look into coming back

3:31:53to you all, we'll have the

3:31:55information there.

3:31:56All right. Thank you David.

3:31:59All right. Councilmember

3:32:01Ferguson.

3:32:01Thank you. Mayor. Um, if

3:32:03there's no more questions or

3:32:06discussion, I would like to

3:32:07say, though, before I presented

3:32:09this to council, I did do a

3:32:10little research. So I had I did

3:32:12meet with, um, Mrs. Phelps, the

3:32:14city manager, and they told me

3:32:16that we already had

3:32:17eventbridge. So, um, we were

3:32:19good with that. But I would

3:32:21like to move, make the move. If

3:32:23we would move forward. Um, get

3:32:25a consensus from, uh, for staff

3:32:27to continue with this

3:32:29implementation plan for Fe

3:32:30connect resident engagement

3:32:32strategy.

3:32:32All right. Motion back.

3:32:34Councilmember Ferguson second

3:32:35by Jones, I believe discussion

3:32:39discussion.

3:32:39Mr. Mayor.

3:32:40All right.

3:32:41Yes. Uh, funding source. Uh,

3:32:44was this something that made

3:32:45our cut for the budget last

3:32:47year? And I'm not sure who I

3:32:49would even ask that to. Um,

3:32:52maybe Jeff, I'm sorry that that

3:32:56wasn't a question before, but I

3:32:57do want to want to make sure

3:32:58that we have already allocated

3:33:00these funds..

3:33:03Every bridge as a system is

3:33:04already in place. So we, um,

3:33:08the funding for our normal

3:33:10usage. As mentioned, Parks and

3:33:11Rec uses and employees use it.

3:33:13That's included. So the

3:33:14additional $15,000 or whatever

3:33:17that number is, um, wouldn't it

3:33:19be insurmountable? But we

3:33:20already have a contract. It's

3:33:22already been implemented. It's

3:33:23stood up. It's in place. So

3:33:25these will just be incremental

3:33:27additions to that.

3:33:28Thank you.

3:33:30All right, counselor, look to

3:33:31you for your votes. All right.

3:33:40Thank you. Good job. Uh. All

3:33:45right. Council, uh, we are

3:33:48probably 29 minutes out from,

3:33:52uh, start of our next meeting.

3:33:53So we'll we'll try to get

3:33:55through this next 6.05, and

3:33:57then we have three council

3:33:58member requests. See what, uh,

3:34:00636.

3:34:0115 minutes with three council

3:34:02members.

3:34:02All right.

3:34:04All right, Councilman.

3:34:05Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This

3:34:06next item is the item that came

3:34:09from policy. It is. Item

3:34:14155.5.4. This is the naming of

3:34:19individuals to city properties.

3:34:21Uh, what we have done as we

3:34:23have added the items that are

3:34:24in blue, that is in everybody's

3:34:25cam. And I can read it so

3:34:27everybody can have

3:34:28clarification and it reads in

3:34:30certain circumstances, the city

3:34:31reserves the right on

3:34:32reasonable grounds to revoke

3:34:34and terminate its obligations

3:34:35regarding a naming, with no

3:34:37financial responsibility for

3:34:39returning any received

3:34:40contributions. If relevant.

3:34:42These actions and the

3:34:43circumstances that prompt them

3:34:44may apply to an approved naming

3:34:46that has not yet been acted

3:34:48upon, or a referring conferring

3:34:50name. If the honorary

3:34:52reputation changes

3:34:53substantially so that the

3:34:54continued use of the name may

3:34:55compromise the public trust,

3:34:57dishonor the city's reputation

3:34:59and standards, or otherwise by

3:35:01contrary to the best interests

3:35:02of the residents. The naming

3:35:03may be revoked. Caution should

3:35:05be exercised when, with the

3:35:07passage of time, the standard

3:35:08and achievements deemed to

3:35:09justify a naming action may

3:35:11change, and observers of a

3:35:13later age may deem those who

3:35:16conferred a naming honor at an

3:35:19early age to have earned a

3:35:21naming should not be altered

3:35:23simply because of observers

3:35:25would have made different

3:35:27judgments, and naming may be

3:35:28revoked for any of the

3:35:29following. Failure to comply

3:35:31with the city code of ethics

3:35:32for calls. Cause as determined

3:35:34by the City Council, may

3:35:35include, but is not limited to,

3:35:37any conduct prejudicial

3:35:41prejudicial to the effect and

3:35:43efficient operation of the city

3:35:44or any of its departments.

3:35:46Mister reputation and securing

3:35:48the naming. Engaging in conduct

3:35:50that could result in justified

3:35:51unfavorable criticism to the

3:35:53City of Fayetteville. Violation

3:35:54of state or federal law

3:35:56procedures for relocating, of

3:35:59naming, revocation of naming if

3:36:02the honoree does not comply

3:36:04with the provisions of D one

3:36:05through three, a complaint may

3:36:06be filed with the City

3:36:07Attorney's Office requesting

3:36:09the removal of the honoree. If

3:36:10the recommendations of the City

3:36:12Attorney's offices revocation,

3:36:14the decision shall be submitted

3:36:16to the City Council for final

3:36:17decisions at its next regular

3:36:19scheduled meeting.

3:36:21All right.

3:36:23Uh, Council McMillan.

3:36:26Yeah. Thank you, Mister mayor.

3:36:28I know a lot of work has gone

3:36:29into this, uh, through the

3:36:30policy committee, and I commend

3:36:32you all for several revisions

3:36:35of this. Uh, I had a question

3:36:37about, uh, any type of, uh,

3:36:40process that allows families,

3:36:42uh, or even, um, folks who are

3:36:46impacted by the decisions, uh,

3:36:49to appeal, uh, or be notified

3:36:52if there's going to be a

3:36:54revocation or if that's been a

3:36:56discussion at all.

3:36:57That might have to go through

3:36:58the attorney's office, because

3:37:00once the complaint gets filed,

3:37:01it goes to the attorney's

3:37:02office.

3:37:08And madam Attorney, would there

3:37:09be any any, uh, way to redress

3:37:13for anybody that's impacted by

3:37:15decision to revoke?

3:37:18Um, Councilman McMillan, as the

3:37:21policy is proposed, there is no

3:37:24infrastructure for that.

3:37:25However, it would just be a

3:37:26recommendation to the council.

3:37:27And I suppose at that time the

3:37:29council could consider, um,

3:37:31comments from family members.

3:37:33But as it's proposed. No, sir.

3:37:38All right.

3:37:39And I move. We accept the

3:37:41changes for, uh, naming of city

3:37:44properties. Uh, item 155.04.

3:37:49All right. It's a motion by

3:37:50Councilmember by Mayor pro tem.

3:37:51Is there a second? Second by

3:37:52Ferguson? Discussion.

3:37:54Discussion? Yes, sir. What? I

3:37:56would appreciate it through

3:37:57policies committee if there was

3:37:59something that was looked at in

3:38:00terms of redress for impacted

3:38:02families and people who are

3:38:04subject to revocation.

3:38:07All right. Counsel. Seeing no

3:38:09further discussion, I look to

3:38:10you for your vote. All right.

3:38:18Motion carries.

3:38:19Thank you. Mayor. Next item is

3:38:21110 .01. I don't think it's

3:38:24necessary to read this one.

3:38:25This one is pretty much

3:38:26self-explanatory. What council

3:38:28has. What policy committee has

3:38:30decided? It's all the, uh. Uh,

3:38:33committees that have vacancies.

3:38:38The alternates would be

3:38:40recommended to fulfill the

3:38:42vacancies before the

3:38:43applicants. That way, those

3:38:45alternates who have already

3:38:46been at committee meetings, who

3:38:48have already have knowledge on

3:38:50what the committee does, will

3:38:51have first dibs as long as they

3:38:53apply for it. We thought that

3:38:54would be sound judgment to do

3:38:56that.

3:38:56All right. Councilmember Green.

3:39:00Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Pro

3:39:02Tem, I would like to thank you

3:39:03and your committee for looking

3:39:04at this and reviewing it. There

3:39:06was a lot of confusion and a

3:39:08lot of the boards across across

3:39:10the board, pun intended. Um, in

3:39:13this, because they were unsure

3:39:14of who who went in the seat,

3:39:16did the alternate automatically

3:39:18go to the alternate go in the

3:39:19seat? So I think this will

3:39:21clarify a lot. And if you're

3:39:22going to make a motion, I'm

3:39:23happy to make that second.

3:39:24Thank you. Let me make one

3:39:25clarification. Jennifer.

3:39:26Correct me if I'm wrong. They

3:39:27still have to put in an

3:39:29application to submit correct

3:39:32or no.

3:39:32Yes, sir. That is correct. The

3:39:34only time that they wouldn't

3:39:35have to do that is if there

3:39:37becomes a vacancy that is not

3:39:40during the time frame, which is

3:39:42from somebody being removed or

3:39:45resigning, then we would

3:39:46automatically move the

3:39:48alternate, whichever one has

3:39:50met the requirements into.

3:39:52That position.

3:39:52We just can't arbitrarily move

3:39:54somebody from an alternate to a

3:39:55permanent position. They still

3:39:56have to put in the application

3:39:58to be considered. Thank you,

3:40:00mayor.

3:40:01All right. All right. So a

3:40:04motion by did you make a motion

3:40:07on that one?

3:40:08Mayor, I move that we accept

3:40:11the provisions in items 110

3:40:13.01.

3:40:14All right. Motion by Mayor pro

3:40:15tem, second by green. All

3:40:17right. Discussion. All right.

3:40:18Council look to you for your

3:40:19votes. All right. Motion

3:40:24carries. All right. Good job.

3:40:26Council. All right. Council.

3:40:27Moving to the, uh, Council

3:40:30member request. Uh, ten minutes

3:40:33are allotted, uh, for members

3:40:36to, uh, make the presentation.

3:40:39Their ask is for consensus. Uh,

3:40:42a lot of the specifics will not

3:40:44be solved, but this is to

3:40:45engage. Uh, staff, uh, for the

3:40:48next steps. If such item is

3:40:50supported. So with that, we

3:40:51will go to Council Member Green

3:40:55and the clock is set.

3:40:57Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't

3:40:58think mine will take that long

3:40:59because it's going to be a

3:41:00little bit of an amended, um,

3:41:02and probably much quicker to

3:41:03discuss. Um, my original, um,

3:41:06request was for us to look at

3:41:08and consider different options

3:41:10on the catalyst site, one,

3:41:13which is the parcel of land

3:41:15basically at the intersection

3:41:16of Rowan merkerson, Robinson,

3:41:20Bragg Boulevard. Um, the large

3:41:22parcel that was cleared over

3:41:24the years. Um, but council took

3:41:26an action several weeks, months

3:41:28ago. I don't know how many

3:41:30weeks ago. Anyway, we took an

3:41:31action that, um, allow

3:41:33Fayetteville Metropolitan

3:41:34Housing Authority to, um, move

3:41:37forward with the project that

3:41:40Jim Smith was not able to

3:41:41complete. So, um, that part of

3:41:44the parcel is not available

3:41:45anymore. So what I would like

3:41:47to see us do, and I spoke with

3:41:50Mr. Corley about this, and I

3:41:52know he can't speak during

3:41:53this, but he and I have had

3:41:55several conversations around

3:41:56this, and I know that some of

3:41:57this he's already planned, um,

3:41:59one of the things that keeps

3:42:01coming up when we have the

3:42:02discussion is we discuss, well,

3:42:04if if we can put something

3:42:06there, can we put that there

3:42:07because we're not sure we can

3:42:08put that there because we don't

3:42:09know if it's in a flood zone.

3:42:10Steel. Because we've never had

3:42:12it formally looked at after the

3:42:15road renovations were done. Um,

3:42:18around where V point and all of

3:42:20that used to sit. So I would

3:42:22like to, um, address that, let

3:42:25staff come back. I really just

3:42:27want to refer this to staff,

3:42:29um, to specifically Mister

3:42:31Callie's office, and let them

3:42:33look at getting a survey

3:42:35completed for that site so that

3:42:37we'll know if it's in a flood

3:42:38zone. So then we know what can

3:42:40and cannot go on the rest of

3:42:41the parcel, because we already

3:42:44know that the, um, the Housing

3:42:46authority is going to use part

3:42:47of that. So my my question is

3:42:50and my concern is that we get

3:42:53what should be there in place

3:42:56for the remainder of that site.

3:42:57Is it commercial? Is it green

3:42:59space, is it um, there's just

3:43:01been a lot of things. Is it an

3:43:02educational site where, you

3:43:04know, like a hub? Um, so that's

3:43:07basically my request.

3:43:09So, Councilmember Green, just

3:43:11to be just to be clear on that.

3:43:12So what's enclosed in the

3:43:14packet is, is no longer the

3:43:16request. What it is, is based

3:43:18on what you just said.

3:43:19Exactly.

3:43:19So it's not to a specific party

3:43:21to do it. It's just more for

3:43:23staff reference.

3:43:23Correct. Because I think when

3:43:24we used up the whole large

3:43:26parcel or partial part of that

3:43:28larger parcel, it there's not a

3:43:30need necessarily for Red Rock

3:43:32to be here. I mean, I'm not

3:43:34going to turn down Red Rock

3:43:35coming. But at the same token,

3:43:37I don't think it's necessary

3:43:39for this site any longer.

3:43:41Um.

3:43:41The only question I have, I

3:43:44know that, um, economic

3:43:48development did a, a phase two,

3:43:53uh, in environmental flooding

3:43:55impact study. Okay, so there

3:43:57may be there may be some stuff

3:43:58we've already paid for that was

3:44:00there because when the parcel

3:44:03was up, up for sale, a couple

3:44:05of interested parties acts for

3:44:07the, uh, for the environmental

3:44:10and and then it was done. So,

3:44:12um, I guess if you know, only,

3:44:14only request I would have is

3:44:16that we utilize what we've

3:44:18already have paid for before

3:44:20we.

3:44:21Right. Well, if we're sending

3:44:22it back to Mr. Crawley's

3:44:23office, he works closely with

3:44:25Rebozo. I. I would imagine he

3:44:27could still accomplish that.

3:44:28You know what I requested and.

3:44:30Okay. And us having

3:44:32conversations moving forward

3:44:34because I think that's the

3:44:35important key is that, like we

3:44:37did the Blunt Street, Gillespie

3:44:38Street, um, project and we had

3:44:41this the residents in that area

3:44:42come in and have a discussion

3:44:44one evening at the site. Maybe

3:44:46this is something that could be

3:44:47done on this site as well.

3:44:48All right. Uh, had a couple of

3:44:50questions. Councilman Herring

3:44:51and Davis.

3:44:52Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, just

3:44:55for clarity, and I don't know

3:44:57how far it goes back. I mean,

3:44:59well, I don't I don't know how

3:45:00far it goes back, but whenever

3:45:01we look back at the Marvin

3:45:03plan, we look back at the

3:45:04economic plan that the mayor

3:45:05just spoke of. We also look

3:45:07back as far as the Marshall

3:45:09Plan, which basically came up

3:45:11with the sites being named,

3:45:14what they are did not. We have

3:45:17those studies already in

3:45:20already have those studies in

3:45:22place? Um, Marvin's plan, the

3:45:25economic wealth first, the

3:45:29initial plan, the Marvin plan,

3:45:31and then the economic plan

3:45:34study that the mayor spoke of.

3:45:37Also, did we not also have

3:45:40whenever we did the flooding

3:45:43issue from Washington drive all

3:45:47the way up through that creek

3:45:49base, because we had this creek

3:45:50base that it was straight, but

3:45:51we went in there. And if I'm

3:45:53saying the word correctly,

3:45:55Miranda raised the, uh, the

3:45:58creek basin to also hold the

3:46:02flooding. And I think the

3:46:04additional, uh, large 24 inch,

3:46:0830 inch piping were put in

3:46:11doing that major construction.

3:46:13So my, uh, for flooding. So my,

3:46:15my, my issue is did we already

3:46:16have those things done? And,

3:46:19uh, pay for.

3:46:20If I.

3:46:20Can, I.

3:46:22Um, council member here, the I

3:46:24think the most recent study I'm

3:46:26familiar with all those

3:46:27studies, but I think the most

3:46:28recent study was actually the

3:46:29Red Rock study. And that study

3:46:31is now ten years old. So that

3:46:33was my concern that we just

3:46:34updated that a bit. And then to

3:46:36your point, I think there

3:46:38probably is some information

3:46:41out there about the condition

3:46:44of that flood zone and if it

3:46:45even exists anymore. But every

3:46:47time we get here, we have

3:46:49exactly the same conversation.

3:46:51Where has some can somebody

3:46:53show us that it is or is not?

3:46:55So that's that's my concern.

3:46:57When you ask them. So you're

3:46:59asking staff to bring back what

3:47:02has already been done.

3:47:04Whatever they need to do to

3:47:06determine if the if a survey is

3:47:08needed or and, and Mr. Crawley

3:47:10may already know we just can't

3:47:12he can't speak during this. I

3:47:14don't think.

3:47:14Okay. Thank you.

3:47:16Thank you.

3:47:16Councilman Davis.

3:47:17I got the rules.

3:47:19I was just saying in the motion

3:47:20that she made, sir.

3:47:21All right. all right.

3:47:24Thank you.

3:47:24Mayor Pro tem.

3:47:25Uh, so when did you want that

3:47:27to come back? Councilwoman

3:47:28green, do you want to give him

3:47:30some time frame?

3:47:31February? I mean, I don't think

3:47:33there's any huge rush, and I

3:47:35know December is very. We have

3:47:37only one meeting, and then

3:47:38January is going to get crowded

3:47:40because we don't have December.

3:47:41So I'm I'm fine with February

3:47:42or whatever time frame Mr.

3:47:45Cawley puts behind.

3:47:45I just want to make sure we had

3:47:46it on the schedule. Thank you

3:47:47ma'am.

3:47:49All right. Um, all right.

3:47:51Council look to you for action

3:47:53on that. This is the Senate,

3:47:54Mr. Collins office to come back

3:47:56with those details. Right. Who

3:48:12we missed. Okay. All right.

3:48:13Motion carries. All right,

3:48:1666.07. Uh, Councilmember

3:48:19McMillan.

3:48:20Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I do

3:48:21have some slides for this. It's

3:48:24also provided in the cam.

3:48:33Uh.

3:48:42And., Madam Clerk, will the,

3:48:45um, folks at home be able to

3:48:46see the slides? Okay, I

3:48:52appreciate it. All right. Thank

3:49:09you so much. Thank you, Mr.

3:49:11Mayor. The purpose of this

3:49:12briefing is to give staff and

3:49:14counsel a model work plan for a

3:49:16data center moratorium. This

3:49:18includes suggested components

3:49:20drawn from best practices from

3:49:21across North Carolina and

3:49:22beyond. Bottom line up front,

3:49:24the moratorium process gives

3:49:26the city the time to address

3:49:27the conditions, the concern our

3:49:29residents to address the

3:49:31limited capacity of our water,

3:49:33sewer and our power systems to

3:49:35mitigate potential harms and

3:49:36protection of our precious

3:49:38water, air and land, and make

3:49:40sure that when a decision this

3:49:42size is made, the people who

3:49:43will live next to it pay the

3:49:45bills for it and drink the

3:49:46water downstream of it have

3:49:48been heard first. This is an

3:49:50information item with no motion

3:49:52required. The next several

3:49:53minutes we will review what the

3:49:55statute requires. Where much of

3:49:57the rest of North Carolina is,

3:49:59and offer a list of possible

3:50:01components and deliverables.

3:50:02Next slide please. Two points

3:50:05from 160 Delta Dash 107. First,

3:50:08the duration doesn't have to be

3:50:10decided tonight and not

3:50:11necessarily at the yet to be

3:50:13scheduled data center

3:50:15moratorium hearing. The

3:50:16ordinance must include and I'm

3:50:18quoting at the time of

3:50:19adoption, a termination date

3:50:21and why that duration is

3:50:22reasonably necessary and it may

3:50:25not exceed the period of time

3:50:27necessary to resolve the

3:50:28conditions. The length is set

3:50:31when we adopt, and it is set in

3:50:33accordance with the work

3:50:35identified in a moratorium.

3:50:37Statement of actions. Delta

3:50:39four is the portion of the

3:50:40statute that requires both the

3:50:42statement of actions and a

3:50:43schedule. My hope is that this

3:50:45model gives staff options for

3:50:47the components of that

3:50:48statement. Next slide please.

3:50:51The statute requires the

3:50:53ordinance to name the condition

3:50:54that necessitates a moratorium

3:50:56and why the alternatives are

3:50:58not adequate. Our condition is

3:51:00a capacity. Can our limited

3:51:02water, sewer and electric

3:51:04systems support the massive

3:51:06demands of a hyperscale data

3:51:07center, the likes of which we

3:51:09saw in the pre-application for

3:51:11the Custer Avenue Data Center?

3:51:13It's 300MW, with one megawatt

3:51:16being the approximate usage for

3:51:171000 households. Who pays for

3:51:19upgrades? What happens to the

3:51:21household bills? The October

3:51:2426th amendments were an

3:51:25alternative. We are

3:51:26considering, or have

3:51:27considered. They are a set of

3:51:29general site standards. The Udo

3:51:32amendments themselves do not,

3:51:33however, even add a gallon of

3:51:36water or megawatt of capacity

3:51:39to our limited resources. The

3:51:41U, n c School of Governments

3:51:43guidance on this statute,

3:51:45authored by Adam Lovelady in

3:51:46the February 2023 edition of

3:51:49Koch Canon, says a moratorium

3:51:51for the purpose of addressing

3:51:52public safety or adequacy of

3:51:55public infrastructure is

3:51:56authorized. Key takeaway here

3:51:58is that zoning, text and system

3:52:00capacity are different

3:52:02problems, and adopting the

3:52:03first does not resolve the

3:52:05second. Next slide please. More

3:52:07than 50 North Carolina

3:52:10communities have paused data

3:52:11center approvals. Five of the

3:52:13seven largest cities are under

3:52:15a moratorium right now.

3:52:16Fayetteville and Winston-Salem

3:52:18are the only two that are not.

3:52:19And according to statewide

3:52:20trackers, only two of the 50

3:52:22that I can find have finished

3:52:23and adopted permanent rule

3:52:26rules post moratorium. The

3:52:28overwhelming majority are still

3:52:30in their moratorium window,

3:52:31which is why post moratorium

3:52:33standards, the setbacks, the

3:52:35decibel limits, etc. are very

3:52:37hard to find. Municipalities

3:52:39are taking their time to do

3:52:40this work. Uh, beyond it is the

3:52:42plain truth. The industry's

3:52:43appetite for land, water and

3:52:45power is unlimited, and our

3:52:47resources are not. Next slide

3:52:52orienting you to this slide on

3:52:54the left are even the largest

3:52:57cities in the state by

3:53:00population. Then left to right

3:53:02you see the date of the first

3:53:03moratorium hearing. Adoption

3:53:05length and the extension if

3:53:06applicable. Five cities have a

3:53:09moratorium. Uh, Winston-Salem

3:53:11and Fayetteville do not. One

3:53:12thing the table does not show

3:53:14is speed. Uh, Charlotte went

3:53:16from council member first

3:53:17calling for a moratorium to

3:53:19adoption in 48 days. Raleigh

3:53:2221, Greensboro voted one down

3:53:25in July and adopted one later.

3:53:2828 days later. Uh, we first

3:53:30asked this council to have this

3:53:32staff study a moratorium at a

3:53:34work station on March 2nd.

3:53:36Staff put the option in front

3:53:37of us on April 13th. That was

3:53:39203 days ago. Uh, but better

3:53:43late than never. Uh, next

3:53:45slide. The critical component

3:53:47that moves us forward could be

3:53:49a data center task force seated

3:53:51in the first period of our

3:53:52schedule to provide contacts.

3:53:54Charlotte's is a great model.

3:53:5519 members, 11 of them

3:53:58residents, plus uncW,

3:53:59Charlotte, clean air and Sea.

3:54:01The Water Advisory Committee,

3:54:03business partnerships and the

3:54:05Planning Commission. Uh,

3:54:07represented. Excuse me.

3:54:08Residents are in the majority

3:54:10with the experts at the table.

3:54:11It met weekly, heard from

3:54:14Charlotte Water and energy

3:54:15officials in its first week,

3:54:16and was able to incorporate

3:54:17free research from the

3:54:18nonprofit World Research

3:54:20Institute, World Resources

3:54:22Institute. Within five weeks,

3:54:24members and the staff said the

3:54:26window was too short and rules

3:54:28will be written all at once,

3:54:30not piecemeal. Council listened

3:54:33and extended their moratorium

3:54:35on the 26th of October. Who

3:54:38sits on our data center task

3:54:40force is now something for our

3:54:41staff in this council to shape

3:54:43and determine. Next slide

3:54:44please. Here's a list of

3:54:46possible components. Each is

3:54:48something residents have asked

3:54:50for. That zoning alone does not

3:54:52answer. Each is being done

3:54:53somewhere already. Three answer

3:54:56their capacity condition very

3:54:57directly. The capacity study a

3:54:59large water usage ordinance and

3:55:02a review of CCS rate policy. If

3:55:05PwC's economic development

3:55:07writer incentivizes any new

3:55:09load of one megawatt or more

3:55:12for a discount, we should

3:55:15consider excluding hyperscale

3:55:16data centers from that sort of

3:55:18incentives or abatement and

3:55:20instead make them pay for the

3:55:22capacity they ask for. Key

3:55:24takeaway here is that the gap

3:55:26closes during the moratorium,

3:55:28and not after. I could spend an

3:55:30hour on this slide alone, but

3:55:32I'll move on to the next slide.

3:55:34So what kind of neighbors are

3:55:36we? Are we the type who takes a

3:55:37whole bowl of Halloween candy

3:55:40without asking? As good

3:55:41neighbors, we should consider

3:55:42non annexation agreements with

3:55:44communities like that of

3:55:46Eastover and collaborate

3:55:48regarding definitions and

3:55:49thresholds with the county. We

3:55:52should consider a protective

3:55:53ordinance like our neighbors to

3:55:55the west in Clay County, which

3:55:57ran a 12 month moratorium, and

3:55:59then in January adopted a

3:56:01permanent prohibition on

3:56:03commercial data centers of two

3:56:05megawatts or more. Uh, none of

3:56:07these have been challenged to

3:56:09date in court. The task force

3:56:12staff and city attorney should

3:56:14aid in exploring the protective

3:56:15ordinance for the city of

3:56:16Fayetteville. Next slide please

3:56:18may help to review a potential

3:56:20schedule in five periods. We

3:56:23need time to set up, study and

3:56:24listen, report and coordinate,

3:56:26draft, adopt the Community

3:56:28Benefits Framework comes

3:56:29towards the end and the zoning

3:56:31rules come last on purpose.

3:56:33Once the study and the task

3:56:35force report are in, we go back

3:56:37through the UDL text amendments

3:56:38and we tighten up in accordance

3:56:40with the evidence that is

3:56:42supportive. Next slide. Today

3:56:45I'm asking council to do three

3:56:46three things. First, receive

3:56:48the model work plan is

3:56:50information. Give staff any of

3:56:53any of our feedback on

3:56:54priorities missing deliverables

3:56:56and concerns residents have

3:56:58raised with you and then allow

3:57:00our very capable staff to carry

3:57:02that feedback into the draft

3:57:03ordinance. Statement of

3:57:04actions. Saying of actions is

3:57:06where this comes together to

3:57:08address our bottom line. Making

3:57:10time to answer what our

3:57:11residents are acting, asking to

3:57:13know what our systems can carry

3:57:15to protect what cannot be

3:57:18replaced, and to hear from the

3:57:19people before it's decided.

3:57:21Penny your questions. This

3:57:22concludes my brief, and I'd

3:57:24like to open up the floor for

3:57:25your questions and input.

3:57:27All right. Uh, Councilmember

3:57:30McMillan, um, you you made your

3:57:33presentation. You got about a

3:57:34minute. 38 um, was it just you

3:57:36said it was informational

3:57:37purposes?

3:57:38Yeah. The floor is open for any

3:57:39input or questions.

3:57:40All right.

3:57:46Uh, Councilmember Andrews.

3:57:49Yes. Uh, slide seven of your

3:57:52presentation. Item 12 is asking

3:57:54to reverse the decision Council

3:57:56made. Last meeting.

3:58:00This will not reverse the

3:58:03decision council made last

3:58:04week. But you know what we will

3:58:05do? We'll review the UDL text

3:58:07amendments as part of this

3:58:08process.

3:58:12All right, Councilman Jones.

3:58:15Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Madam

3:58:16attorney, uh, in regards to the

3:58:18process that you outlined for

3:58:20us, where does this fit in the

3:58:22scope? This fits what I see.

3:58:23And again, you can correct me

3:58:25where I'm wrong. Uh, and to

3:58:27draft a moratorium ordinance,

3:58:30you get direction from council

3:58:32as far as what that would look

3:58:33like, what would, um, what we

3:58:37would be doing during that time

3:58:39goes back to planning. Planning

3:58:40has a public hearing. Then it

3:58:42comes back to city council. So

3:58:44where would this fit? Would

3:58:45this fit within the parameters

3:58:47of what would be added? What

3:58:49would be looked at during an

3:58:50actual moratorium period when

3:58:53you all are drafting that out?

3:58:56Um, Councilman Jones, um, I do

3:58:59want to clarify the text.

3:59:02Amendments go to planning the

3:59:05map amendments go to zoning

3:59:06following Council member

3:59:08process questions. Last

3:59:11meeting. Um, my staff reviewed

3:59:15a moratorium ordinance is not

3:59:17required to go to planning, but

3:59:19since planning does see all of

3:59:21your development regulations

3:59:22for chapter 30, you may want

3:59:24to. You don't have to. So I

3:59:25want to clarify that, um, in

3:59:27terms of timeline, I mean, we

3:59:28can do all of this. It's really

3:59:30up to council. It's really

3:59:32whatever you would like in your

3:59:33moratorium ordinance. All of

3:59:35these things can be considered,

3:59:37um, you know, we can go as fast

3:59:40as you want or as slow as you

3:59:42want. Um, the only thing that

3:59:45would, um, tie us up is if it's

3:59:48longer than 60 days. The

3:59:49moratorium is longer than 60

3:59:51days. We do have to publish it

3:59:52for two weeks. Two consecutive

3:59:53weeks? Um, in terms of the

3:59:55public hearing before we have

3:59:57the public hearing. But, I

3:59:58mean, you're you're right that,

4:00:00you know, as I said last week,

4:00:02generally we have these

4:00:04discussions at a work session.

4:00:06We're not going to have a true

4:00:07work session until January.

4:00:09However, if you would, if you

4:00:11would like to speed it up, and

4:00:12we have some of these

4:00:13conversations at the special

4:00:14meeting, which will be a

4:00:15regular meeting, we could do

4:00:16that. We are here to do

4:00:18whatever council would like for

4:00:19us..

4:00:20And lastly, that was what I was

4:00:22just asking.

4:00:22Yes, sir.

4:00:23Time's up on this. So all right,

4:00:28um, Councilman McMillan, we

4:00:29need action because we still

4:00:31got to give fairness to.

4:00:32No action is required. But

4:00:33thank you for your time. All

4:00:34right. I appreciate this.

4:00:35All right. Item 6.08. Uh,

4:00:40Councilmember Parks.

4:00:41Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, real

4:00:43quickly, I think we can, uh, I

4:00:45understand we're really

4:00:46stepping up as a community and

4:00:48trying to create a community.

4:00:50We want. And I applaud, uh, my

4:00:52colleagues for that effort. But

4:00:53I also want to make sure that

4:00:54we plan appropriately, that we

4:00:56learn and that, uh, and I think

4:00:58the only way we're going to

4:00:59truly grow in that way is to

4:01:02make sure that we have

4:01:03accountability as it relates to

4:01:06the events that we have, the

4:01:07outside events. My mother

4:01:09always drilled into me that,

4:01:10you know, the largest room in

4:01:11the world is room for

4:01:12improvement. And I think it's

4:01:14imperative that, uh, you know,

4:01:16we be strategic and learn how

4:01:18to do things a little better.

4:01:19Uh, in some instances, while

4:01:21still supporting community

4:01:22events. Um, so with that said,

4:01:25I'm asking for, um, I think in

4:01:28the way that we do that, it has

4:01:30to be structured process to

4:01:32review an event, and we need to

4:01:34know what went well, what

4:01:36didn't go well, uh, what

4:01:38lessons we learned, how we can

4:01:39apply that to the next time and

4:01:42have that reported back to

4:01:43council. So I'm asking for a

4:01:44consensus from council to

4:01:45direct staff to create a policy

4:01:47to present to the policy

4:01:48committee that provides for an

4:01:50after action report of reviews

4:01:52of city sponsored events, uh,

4:01:54within an appropriate period of

4:01:56time following the event, not

4:01:57to exceed 30 days when

4:01:58possible, and I'll be more than

4:02:00happy to answer any questions

4:02:01you might have.

4:02:02All right. Councilman Ferguson,

4:02:04so, um, you ask, is, uh, staff

4:02:07to review a process that brings

4:02:09back, uh, after action reviews

4:02:12and some accountability when

4:02:14they are sponsorships.

4:02:15Right outside. Yeah.

4:02:16Outside sponsorships.

4:02:18Or inside sponsorships. Uh.

4:02:20Activities, city related. I

4:02:21mean, city driven. So, yeah.

4:02:23Are you talking about, like,

4:02:24when the city puts on

4:02:24something, you're not talking

4:02:25about that you're talking about

4:02:26if there's an outside.

4:02:27Right that we fund.

4:02:28Oh, right.

4:02:29Right, right. Yeah.

4:02:29Okay. All right. So council uh.

4:02:32All right. Got a couple of

4:02:33questions. Uh, Councilmember,

4:02:35mayor pro tem and then

4:02:36Councilmember Jones and Davis.

4:02:38I thought he turned your mic

4:02:39off.

4:02:39I just wanted clarification,

4:02:40mayor, because in his example,

4:02:42he put the 900 zero fest, and

4:02:44they had a thorough after

4:02:45action review already with

4:02:47staff. Did you just that's

4:02:48something that you want them to

4:02:49bring to council or you want

4:02:51them to bring the policy or.

4:02:52from where you want it.

4:02:53To go?

4:02:53I'm sorry for my understanding.

4:02:55They did not have a thorough

4:02:56after action review. They were

4:02:58basically coming together to

4:02:59make sure that everything was

4:03:01handled from that. Um.

4:03:03Also.

4:03:03They had an after action

4:03:05review, but it was not to the

4:03:07point where, uh, they even

4:03:09asked for people, uh, different

4:03:11people to be present that knew

4:03:12about the industry because it

4:03:14was clear that they didn't, uh,

4:03:16they weren't present. So it's I

4:03:18think that we do need a, a

4:03:19solid after action review, but

4:03:22I think that dealt mainly with

4:03:23finances. Which you're

4:03:25referring to.

4:03:25But where do you want it to

4:03:26come to? Do you want to come to

4:03:27policy?

4:03:28I wanted to come to.

4:03:28So my my request is that it go

4:03:31to um, the staff and direct

4:03:37staff to create a policy that

4:03:38will then go to the policy

4:03:40committee that will come to us

4:03:41for review.

4:03:42Okay.

4:03:43And this is applicable to.

4:03:45Applicable to all.

4:03:46Of.

4:03:46Us outside. Yes.

4:03:47Okay. All right. Sorry. So so

4:03:50Councilmember.

4:03:51Events.

4:03:53What you were saying.

4:03:54It's pretty much what's on on

4:03:56uh, the chief to all events,

4:03:58community events, city funded

4:04:00community events.

4:04:01All right. Councilman Dave

4:04:03Davis.

4:04:04The city attorney, did.

4:04:05Next have a meeting with you

4:04:06all recently from our.

4:04:08Last week.

4:04:09Yeah.

4:04:09That's the one he was

4:04:10referring.

4:04:11One second, sir.

4:04:11Right.

4:04:12So your turn.

4:04:12Yes, sir.

4:04:13And what was the discussion of?

4:04:15Was it that like a after action

4:04:17review? Because I know there

4:04:17was some outstanding stuff and

4:04:19yada yada yada, but what was

4:04:20the actual meeting about?

4:04:23Um, we did some lessons

4:04:25learned. Um.

4:04:27So as an action review, kind of

4:04:28like. Right.

4:04:29The manager ran that meeting. I

4:04:31did participate remotely, but

4:04:32the manager was responsible for

4:04:34that. The team, the

4:04:35Fayetteville next executive

4:04:36board came in. We talked about

4:04:38the good, the bad, the ugly,

4:04:39what we might do differently if

4:04:41it happens again. Um, but we

4:04:44did not use Council Member

4:04:45Ferguson suggested framework.

4:04:47If there's one.

4:04:48So. Okay.

4:04:48Thank you. Just want to make

4:04:49sure that that one. Thank you

4:04:50sir. Let me thank you sir.

4:04:51All right. Uh, Council

4:04:54McMillan.

4:04:54Yeah. Just, uh, do you want to

4:04:57lend support to this idea and

4:04:59also lend the idea of maybe

4:05:00having a written report, uh,

4:05:02that can be shared with

4:05:03everybody. Uh, following the

4:05:05AR. Thank you.

4:05:07All right. Yes, sir.

4:05:10I'm good.

4:05:11I'm getting ready.

4:05:13Thank you.

4:05:13Mayor.

4:05:13All right, just for

4:05:15clarification. Yes. Um, when I

4:05:17submitted that they had not had

4:05:19a meeting and it had been 30

4:05:21days, so they had the meeting

4:05:22the next morning, so they

4:05:24didn't have the meeting, but at

4:05:26the same time, it wasn't, uh,

4:05:28as solid as it should be.

4:05:30All right. But again, uh, this

4:05:34will be an overall policy. So

4:05:36it's not just Fayetteville

4:05:37next. We've had sponsorships

4:05:38we've done with, you know, jazz

4:05:40festivals. Uh, other things. So

4:05:42this is just absolutely. All

4:05:45right. So look to you for

4:05:46consensus for Mister Ferguson's

4:05:49item. For staff to come back

4:05:53with that. Uh, how we miss him,

4:06:02Madam Clerk.

4:06:03You.

4:06:03Sir, are all right. Motion

4:06:06carries. Thank you. All right,

4:06:08all right. So, um, Council,

4:06:11with that, we will now keep

4:06:14rolling. 0615. Okay. All right,

4:06:19so the 7.0, the announcements

4:06:20and recognitions are scheduled

4:06:22to begin at 615. We have about

4:06:24ten minutes. So we will recess

4:06:25and start back at 75615 for our

4:06:30announcements and recognition.

4:06:31Mayor Colvin.

4:06:32Okay.

4:06:32Ma'am.

4:06:33May we, um, could you please

4:06:35entertain a motion for a closed

4:06:36session for attorney client

4:06:37privilege and personnel?

4:06:39Now, um, yeah.

4:06:41We need. Do you want to do.

4:06:42It.

4:06:42After this? We need to. We need

4:06:43to, you know, be good stewards

4:06:45of these folks. Times at 615.

4:06:47We'll talk about.

4:06:48That, okay?

4:06:48All right.

4:06:49Thank you. I only need it two

4:06:50minutes from mine, but. Okay.

4:06:51I've never seen a closed

4:06:52session go that fast, but okay.

4:06:53All right. Let's do it. Yeah.

4:17:31Where is it?

4:17:32All right. Counsel, we will

4:17:35call our meeting back to order.

4:17:37We will begin now. Our

4:17:40announcement recognition

4:17:41session. So with that, we have

4:17:44a few presentations that we

4:17:46will award tonight. And so as

4:17:50we settle into our seats, we

4:17:51will I will go to Council

4:17:54Member Ferguson as a

4:17:57certificate.

4:17:58Thank you. Mayor. Is Mr.

4:18:00Christopher Butler Jr. And

4:18:03Christopher Butler Jr. Okay.

4:18:06He's not here. Uh, at this

4:18:08time. So we'll.

4:18:09Want to read it.

4:18:10I know.

4:18:11I can, or he may come in.

4:18:13Okay.

4:18:14All right. So. All right, with

4:18:18that, we'll move to, uh,

4:18:20certificate of appreciation.

4:18:22Uh, if I can ask Miss Laura

4:18:24Smith if she would meet me at

4:18:26the podium.

4:18:41Hello again.

4:18:43Hello.

4:18:44This certificate.

4:18:46Is in reference to Team

4:18:48Rubicon, in. It reads in

4:18:51sincere appreciation of your

4:18:53outstanding volunteer service

4:18:54and cleanup efforts following

4:18:56the tornado that impacted the

4:18:58city of Fayetteville on October

4:19:0011th, 2026. Your compassion,

4:19:03generosity, and commitment to

4:19:05helping affected residents

4:19:07demonstrated true spirit of

4:19:09community service. Signed Mayor

4:19:12Mitch Colvin.

4:19:13Let's give her a round of

4:19:14applause.

4:19:26We appreciate.

4:19:27The city of Fayetteville for

4:19:28letting us come in and continue

4:19:29to help. As Fayetteville is my

4:19:31home where I'm from and a lot

4:19:32of us are from, so we were

4:19:34happy to help out.

4:19:35Thank you, thank you, thank

4:19:36you, thank you, thank.

4:19:37You.

4:19:41Our next certificate is for

4:19:43Baptist on Mission. This

4:19:49certificate reads in sincere

4:19:51appreciation of your

4:19:52outstanding volunteer service

4:19:54and cleanup efforts following

4:19:56the tornado that impacted the

4:19:57City of Fayetteville on October

4:19:5911th, 2026. Your compassion,

4:20:01generosity, and commitment to

4:20:03helping effective residents

4:20:04demonstrate the true spirit of

4:20:06service and community. Signed

4:20:08Mayor Mitch Colvin.

4:20:09Alright, good job.

4:20:11Thank.

4:20:15It was a pleasure to show God's

4:20:17love to the city of

4:20:18Fayetteville, and hopefully we

4:20:20won't need to do this anytime

4:20:21soon. But we're always, always

4:20:23available.

4:20:24Thank you.

4:20:30And this next award. Mayor, if

4:20:32you're ready, give me a little

4:20:34leeway. This is for a good

4:20:36friend of mine, Mr. Duncan

4:20:37Hubbard. Come up front, would

4:20:38you, please? And I'm gonna

4:20:40start as he comes, Mr. Mayor

4:20:43Duncan Hubbard, a lifetime of

4:20:45service, leadership and

4:20:46commitment to community. For

4:20:49decades, Duncan has

4:20:50demonstrated an extraordinary

4:20:52commitment to Fayetteville.

4:20:53Through his leadership in

4:20:54public service, dedication to

4:20:56his church, professional

4:20:58contributions, and willingness

4:20:59to serve others whenever a

4:21:01needs arise. A longtime member

4:21:03of Fayetteville community and a

4:21:04graduate of 1986 of Terry

4:21:06Sanford High School, Duncan has

4:21:08spent much of his life

4:21:09investing his time, talents,

4:21:11and resources into making his

4:21:13hometown a safer, stronger, and

4:21:15more compassionate place to

4:21:17live. His contributions extend

4:21:19far beyond professional

4:21:20responsibilities or

4:21:21organizational titles, from

4:21:23supporting law enforcement and

4:21:24strengthening community

4:21:25partnerships to respond to

4:21:26emergencies in the middle of

4:21:27the night. Duncan exemplifies

4:21:30the spirit of service that

4:21:32makes Fayetteville special. His

4:21:34dedication to public safety

4:21:35also extends the Downtown

4:21:36Business Watch, where he has

4:21:38helped foster cooperation

4:21:40between local businesses and

4:21:42law enforcement to address

4:21:43safety concerns in downtown.

4:21:45Furthermore, demonstrating his

4:21:47commitment to understanding and

4:21:48social local law enforcement,

4:21:50Duncan completed the

4:21:51Fayetteville Citizen's Police

4:21:52Academy in 2018. Through

4:21:56decades of involvement, Duncan

4:21:57has consistently worked to

4:21:59strengthen trust,

4:22:00communication, and cooperation

4:22:01between those who protect our

4:22:03community and those residents.

4:22:05He serves. Duncan's

4:22:07relationship with Schneider

4:22:08Memorial Baptist Church began

4:22:09in childhood and has continued

4:22:11throughout his life. His

4:22:13contributions has included

4:22:14teaching Sunday School,

4:22:15participating in puppet

4:22:17ministry, assisting with the

4:22:18Singing Christmas tree, and

4:22:20supporting numerous missions,

4:22:22including those responders to

4:22:23communities devastated by

4:22:25Hurricane Katrina. For Duncan,

4:22:27serving his church has never

4:22:28been limited to Sunday

4:22:30mornings. It's been a lifelong

4:22:32commitment of time, talent, and

4:22:34a willingness to do whatever is

4:22:36needed. Duncan's commitment to

4:22:37serving others was particularly

4:22:39evident during an incident in

4:22:41early 2026 on a cold, rainy

4:22:44night, a fire at a local hotel

4:22:46displaced residents who had

4:22:48nowhere to go and lacked

4:22:50transportation. At

4:22:51approximately 2:00 in the

4:22:52morning, Duncan received a call

4:22:54requesting assistance. Without

4:22:56hesitation, he got out of bed,

4:22:58retrieved a truck from

4:22:59Schneider Memorial Baptist

4:23:00Church, and provided displaced

4:23:02residents with temporary

4:23:03shelter from the elements. Once

4:23:05arrangements was made, he

4:23:06transported them to locations

4:23:08where they could find safe and

4:23:10accommodations. This act of

4:23:12compassion exemplifies Duncan's

4:23:14character. When his community

4:23:16needed someone, he answered the

4:23:18call. Duncan's commitment to

4:23:20helping others extends beyond

4:23:21Fayetteville. Following the

4:23:23devastation caused by Hurricane

4:23:25Helene in western North

4:23:26Carolina in September 2024,

4:23:29Duncan helped lead home

4:23:31security systems disaster

4:23:32relief efforts, mobilizing

4:23:34resources and coordinating

4:23:35assistance for communities

4:23:36facing tremendous hardship.

4:23:38Through his involvement, Duncan

4:23:39helped extend the generosity

4:23:40and compassion of Fayetteville

4:23:42to the North Carolina, to the

4:23:45fellow North Carolinians during

4:23:47an extraordinary time of need.

4:23:49Duncan has dedicated decades of

4:23:50his professional life to home

4:23:52security, a long standing,

4:23:54locally owned family business

4:23:55committed to providing homes,

4:23:58protecting homes, businesses

4:23:59and families. As Duncan, as

4:24:02director of Operations, his

4:24:04responsibilities and leadership

4:24:05have contributed to companies,

4:24:06continued service to the

4:24:07community and his commitment to

4:24:09public safety. Through this

4:24:11involvement, he has helped

4:24:12advance professionalism,

4:24:16education, industrial standards

4:24:18and public safety across North

4:24:20Carolina. Duncan has been and

4:24:22always remained a cornerstone

4:24:24of this community, and the

4:24:25Fayetteville community.

4:24:27Cumberland County Crime

4:24:28Stoppers program. Dedicating

4:24:30years of service to ensure law

4:24:31enforcement has the continued

4:24:33intelligence necessary to solve

4:24:35major crimes. He currently

4:24:37serves as president of the

4:24:38Fayetteville Cumberland County

4:24:39Crime Stoppers Board of

4:24:40Directors, having previously

4:24:42served as his vice president.

4:24:44Driving the annual barbecue

4:24:45fundraiser. The program largest

4:24:47source of funding the program's

4:24:52largest funding source is the

4:24:53annual Crime Stoppers Barbecue,

4:24:55held each spring at the

4:24:56Highland Century parking lot.

4:24:58Under Duncan's leadership, this

4:24:59massive logistic undertaking

4:25:01has thrived. His involvement

4:25:03demonstrates a willingness to

4:25:04engage in the heavy lifting of

4:25:06grassroots fundraising to

4:25:07ensure the program has the

4:25:08capital it needs to function.

4:25:10The barbecue celebrates its

4:25:1242nd year this year. Hubbard

4:25:15serves as a consistent public

4:25:16face for the organization,

4:25:18working closely with law

4:25:19enforcement across Cumberland

4:25:20County to promote the

4:25:21effectiveness of Crime

4:25:22Stoppers. He routinely

4:25:24emphasizes the core mission of

4:25:25residents, reinforcing every

4:25:28anonymous tip that helps keep

4:25:30our community safe. What makes

4:25:33Duncan contributions especially

4:25:35meaningful is not simply the

4:25:37number of organizations he

4:25:38served or leadership position

4:25:40he.

4:25:40Has held.

4:25:41It is the consistency of his

4:25:43commitment and his willingness

4:25:44to do the work that often goes

4:25:46unseen. Whether supporting law

4:25:48enforcement, maintaining church

4:25:50vehicles, helping families, and

4:25:52crisis organizing, disaster

4:25:54relief or strengthen community

4:25:56partnership, Duncan has

4:25:57repeatedly demonstrated that

4:26:00service is not simply that he

4:26:01does is part of who he is. His

4:26:03legacy is reflected not only in

4:26:05the organization he has helped,

4:26:07but also in the countless

4:26:09hours, professional sacrifices

4:26:10and everyday acts of kindness

4:26:12that has been benefit the City

4:26:13of Fayetteville and community

4:26:15beyond.

4:26:15Mayor Pro Tem.

4:26:16Duncan getting tired this crap.

4:26:21Duncan represents the very best

4:26:23of community citizenship.

4:26:25Someone who sees a need takes

4:26:28responsibility and acts without

4:26:30waiting for recognition. That's

4:26:33why he is deserving of

4:26:34Fayetteville top honor. The key

4:26:36to the city.

4:27:06Being Duncan.

4:27:06Mrs. Hubbard. Come on.

4:27:07Up, Mr. Wheeler. Come on up.

4:27:13I'm gonna call his dad. Come on

4:27:14up. I didn't see.

4:27:15You over there. Oh, yeah. How

4:27:21you doing? Wait for. Is that

4:27:24what? Wait for me, dad. Come

4:27:29on, come on. Every time there.

4:27:33He will.

4:27:33Come over here.

4:27:34By his dad. By his.

4:27:35Son. You want to go get over

4:27:37there by your son? You don't

4:27:38get over here, okay?

4:27:54Thank you.

4:27:59Stay right there. You stay

4:28:00right there. Thank you so much.

4:28:28This floor is yours.

4:28:31Mayor and.

4:28:32Fellow council members, thank

4:28:34you for this. Thank you for

4:28:37this evening. It's my pleasure

4:28:40to serve our city. It's my

4:28:41pleasure to help those in need.

4:28:43Um. I certainly appreciate the

4:28:45recognition from a great dear

4:28:47friend of mine from many, many

4:28:49years. Um, unfortunately, it

4:28:52took a little longer than I

4:28:53thought it would take. Um, but.

4:28:57But I do appreciate you. I

4:28:58appreciate the city's support

4:28:59with the Crime Stoppers

4:29:01program. I appreciate the

4:29:02opportunity to be able to help

4:29:03in other areas. Um, thank you

4:29:05so much. I'd like to thank my

4:29:07employer. Uh, because without

4:29:08my employer, I probably would

4:29:10not have been able to have done

4:29:11many of these things. So I'd

4:29:12like to certainly say thank you

4:29:13to Steven and Luke of Home

4:29:15security systems. Um, thank you

4:29:17again.

4:29:26Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Pro

4:29:27tem. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

4:29:28Thank you for your many, many,

4:29:32many contributions to the

4:29:34community. And, uh, over the

4:29:35years and to all of your

4:29:37family, certainly. Who who

4:29:38support your efforts here in

4:29:40the city. Uh, at this time. Uh,

4:29:42just before I turn it over to

4:29:44the city manager for his words.

4:29:46Council member Ferguson. Uh, I

4:29:49think your, uh, honoree is

4:29:51here.

4:29:51Yes, sir. Thank you. Mayor. Uh,

4:29:52Mr. Christopher Butler jr.

4:29:54Could you come to the front?

4:29:56Meet me at the podium.

4:30:02Yeah.

4:30:04That's why we had to go out

4:30:05like.

4:30:05This. We're going to turn

4:30:09around.

4:30:12Mister Christopher Butler

4:30:13junior is a junior at Pine

4:30:16Forest High School. Um. And he

4:30:19is, um, 3000 people were

4:30:24applied for this position. Only

4:30:2824 across the state of North

4:30:30Carolina, where selected and

4:30:32Mr. Christopher Butler junior

4:30:34was one of 3000 people selected

4:30:37out of only.

4:30:3824.

4:30:43We're presenting him with the

4:30:45Certificate of Excellence

4:30:47presented to Christopher Butler

4:30:48Junior, in recognition of your

4:30:50selection to serve on the North

4:30:52Carolina Superintendent Student

4:30:54Advisory Council as a junior at

4:30:56Pine Forest High School,

4:30:57representing the Sandhills

4:30:58region. Your leadership and

4:31:00commitment to student advocacy

4:31:02are commendable. Signed

4:31:04district one Council Member

4:31:05Stephan Ferguson and our mayor

4:31:07Mitch Colvin.

4:31:09Who.

4:31:14I'm gonna ask if his parents

4:31:15can.

4:31:15Come up.

4:31:29His mom is.

4:31:29Back there.

4:31:31If his parents will come.

4:31:33Up or. his mother and his

4:31:37brother. Good. Come on up. Um,

4:31:45okay.

4:32:06I thank you very much.

4:32:21Good evening. Members of the

4:32:22city council. Okay. Good

4:32:25evening. City members of the

4:32:27city council and members of the

4:32:29Fayetteville community. Thank

4:32:30you for this honor and

4:32:31recognition tonight. Serving as

4:32:33the Sandhills region

4:32:33representative on North

4:32:35Carolina's superintendent,

4:32:36student Advisory Council has

4:32:38has both the it's both the

4:32:40privilege and a responsibility

4:32:42that I take deeply to heart. My

4:32:44passion has always been

4:32:45centered on education, student

4:32:47advocacy, and building a

4:32:48stronger foundation for the

4:32:50next generation. As a student

4:32:52at Pine Forest. I am I am proud

4:32:54to bring the voices,

4:32:55perspectives, and need and

4:32:56needs of Cumberland County and

4:32:58the surrounding Sandhills

4:32:59community to the state level.

4:33:01My goal is my goal is to ensure

4:33:03that our educational system

4:33:05truly serves every student and

4:33:07empowers them to reach their

4:33:09full potential. I agree. I

4:33:10greatly appreciate your

4:33:12continued support to our local

4:33:13schools and you as and I and I

4:33:17look and I look forward to

4:33:18serving our community. Thank

4:33:20you so much for the support.

4:33:33Thank you. Councilman Ferguson,

4:33:35again, congratulations to you.

4:33:37Mr. Butler, thank you for

4:33:37representing our region. In

4:33:39this very prestigious honor on

4:33:42the state's students, the

4:33:44superintendent, state

4:33:45superintendent, student

4:33:46advisory council. Uh, with

4:33:47that, I would also like. Uh,

4:33:50City of Fayetteville, like you

4:33:51to know, the city of

4:33:51Fayetteville recognizes

4:33:53November as military family

4:33:55appreciation month with a new

4:33:56online resource web page. The

4:33:59link can be found on our City

4:34:00of Fayetteville website's home

4:34:02page. So please go to our city

4:34:04link. Look for the Military

4:34:06Family Appreciation Month link.

4:34:08Uh, to participate. Also, the

4:34:10Economic and Community

4:34:11Development Department will

4:34:13host two stakeholder engagement

4:34:15sessions focused on the

4:34:17upcoming annual Action Plan.

4:34:19Notice of Funding availability

4:34:20on November the 5th at 2 p.m.

4:34:23and at 6:30 p.m.. These

4:34:25webinars can be registered for

4:34:27on the City of Fayetteville

4:34:28website, uh, under ECD or

4:34:31Economic Community Development.

4:34:32And what's happening? So those

4:34:34are two, uh, items that you can

4:34:38participate by going to our

4:34:39City of Fayetteville website

4:34:41frequency and to find those

4:34:43things. So we thank you so much

4:34:45for that. And with that I will

4:34:47turn it over to Doctor Doug

4:34:49Hewitt, uh, the city manager.

4:34:51Thank you, mayor, and thank you

4:34:52for those announcements. Um,

4:34:54just very briefly, um, what as

4:34:56we've done in the past, I'd

4:34:57like to recognize, um, retirees

4:35:01for the month of November and

4:35:03would ask council to be so kind

4:35:04as to read them into the

4:35:06minutes of this meeting. Um,

4:35:08for, uh, for further

4:35:10recognition. Those two

4:35:12employees are Dale Autry, a

4:35:14police officer who started with

4:35:17the city of Fayetteville on

4:35:19March 23rd of 1998 and retires

4:35:22on November 1st with 28 years

4:35:25of service. And Mr. Antonio

4:35:27Lugo, who started with the city

4:35:29in 2011 and retires as a

4:35:33skilled senior skilled trades

4:35:34technician. Also on November

4:35:361st, with 15 years of service.

4:35:38Um, please join me in

4:35:39congratulating them on their

4:35:41term of service to the City of

4:35:43Fayetteville and that.

4:35:43Citizens.

4:35:52Thank you, Doctor Hewitt, for

4:35:54that. And congratulations again

4:35:56to, uh, Officer Autry, 28 years.

4:35:59And to Mister Lugo. Thank you

4:36:00for your service to the city

4:36:02and to the community. Uh,

4:36:03Council. With that, we will

4:36:05move into our public forum.

4:36:07City Council Policy one 20.9,

4:36:11which is the public forum per

4:36:13city council policy. This is a

4:36:14time that residents may have an

4:36:16input and a voice in what goes

4:36:17on in their city. The public

4:36:18forum will last no longer than

4:36:20one hour. Each speaker is

4:36:21limited to three minutes each.

4:36:23To address the City Council on

4:36:24issues related to the City of

4:36:25Fayetteville, no time will be

4:36:27yielded to any other speaker by

4:36:29another speaker. Any remaining

4:36:31speakers on the public forum

4:36:32list that did not have an

4:36:33opportunity to address the City

4:36:34Council will have that option

4:36:36to have their name placed at

4:36:37the beginning of the next

4:36:38scheduled public forum. List of

4:36:39speakers. All non-residents are

4:36:42placed at the end of the list

4:36:43of speakers. Individuals unable

4:36:45to attend in person may mail

4:36:47written comments or email

4:36:49public comments at federal NC

4:36:51gov. Written comments will be

4:36:52summarized by the City Clerk

4:36:54during the meeting with that

4:36:55Madam Clerk, we will open up

4:36:56the public forum. I'll look to

4:36:58you to call you first. Speaker.

4:36:59Mayor, we have 25 speakers and

4:37:01one written comment. Our first

4:37:03speaker is Mr. Abraham

4:37:05Jefferson. Mr. Abraham

4:37:08Jefferson, not present. Our

4:37:11next speaker is Mr. Thomas

4:37:13Adams. Mr.. Thomas Adams, not

4:37:18present. Our next speaker is

4:37:20Mr. Jose Cardona.

4:37:25Good evening, Mr. Cardona.

4:37:27Good evening. Good evening.

4:37:28Ladies and gentlemen. Members

4:37:31of the City Council. Mr. mayor,

4:37:32I am Jose Cardona. I live at

4:37:35233 Addison Street in the city

4:37:37of Fayetteville. Today I'm

4:37:39going to go out of my norm.

4:37:40Today, I would like to give a

4:37:42shout out to a group of people

4:37:43called Gate Beautiful, Gate

4:37:47Beautiful. It's a nonprofit

4:37:48group trying to do what is left

4:37:51on the side. Maybe that fall on

4:37:52the side, and they need as much

4:37:54support and help that they can

4:37:56from the people, from anybody

4:37:58that would like to donate.

4:37:59Donate as much as you can,

4:38:01whatever you can. As far as

4:38:02clothing, as far as baby

4:38:04diapers, as far as work,

4:38:05whatever you can, what do they

4:38:07do? Well, they take care of

4:38:08with child trafficking. They

4:38:10take care of people who are

4:38:11being abused, beat up women,

4:38:14children and dogs and everybody

4:38:17else in between. Uh, the city

4:38:20of Fayetteville. The last time

4:38:21I talked to or somebody in

4:38:22here, mister police officer.

4:38:26Thank you. I heard that he has

4:38:27picked up a little bit on the

4:38:30task force. He has put a task

4:38:31forward, you know, to help out

4:38:33these people. Also, I'd like to

4:38:36give a shout out to Mr. Jones.

4:38:38Mr. Jones, you put something in

4:38:39the in the Facebook about

4:38:41transparency. That's good.

4:38:43You're not even on my Facebook.

4:38:45But you hear him. Okay. But

4:38:47anyway, uh, anything that you

4:38:49could do. Who what areas did

4:38:50these people take care of? They

4:38:52take care of all areas. The

4:38:53main concern that they have

4:38:55always have had is merchants

4:38:56and road, Johnson Street, Bragg

4:38:59Boulevard, not to say they are

4:39:02concentrating on race of

4:39:04people. They're concentrating

4:39:06on needy people. Regardless of

4:39:08who you are, where you're from

4:39:10and so forth and so on. I

4:39:12myself, I am not affiliated

4:39:14with them in no way, shape or

4:39:16form. But I would like for you

4:39:17to really dig into your minds,

4:39:19dig into your pockets and, you

4:39:21know, say, hey, you know, we

4:39:23could do we could do better

4:39:24than this. Your oh CS agency.

4:39:27Last time I said they give

4:39:29$10,000 out of for three

4:39:32agencies. They're one of them,

4:39:34but they surely would need a

4:39:35little bit more. Remember,

4:39:37right now there's about 40

4:39:39cases. Or should I say helping

4:39:4240 cases. Some of them unsolved

4:39:45cases. I need to remind you

4:39:47that we got people in this town

4:39:48that I'm missing, and more will

4:39:50go. We're not talking about

4:39:52adults. We're talking about

4:39:53children. The adults, when they

4:39:55go missing in this city, you

4:39:56find them in the river. Okay?

4:39:59That's flat out. They find them

4:40:00dead. So again, thank you for

4:40:04having me. Please. Think.

4:40:06Think. Help, help get

4:40:09beautiful.

4:40:10Thank you.

4:40:11Thank you.

4:40:15Madam clerk.

4:40:17Mayor, our next speaker is Miss

4:40:18Melissa Williams.

4:40:23Miss Williams, hello.

4:40:25Hello. Good evening everybody.

4:40:27Um, so I'm back. Um, when I was

4:40:29here last month, um, Mayor

4:40:32Colvin, you, um, said that this

4:40:38particular forum that the

4:40:41council is, um, not going to

4:40:46respond to any questions, um,

4:40:49that anybody might ask up here.

4:40:51And I totally get that. Um, but

4:40:54I think I've been pretty clear

4:40:56about the fact that this

4:41:00government doesn't have, at

4:41:02least not to my knowledge. No

4:41:04one's made me aware of it.

4:41:06There is no mechanism to

4:41:08address the problem that I have

4:41:10and that my neighbors have. And

4:41:11it is a problem. Um, I have a

4:41:15sense that perhaps some people

4:41:18in this government thinks that

4:41:21this is like a personal thing

4:41:23or a personality thing. It is

4:41:25not. There is an actual

4:41:27problem. So I guess my question

4:41:29tonight is after, I don't know,

4:41:32what's this like the fifth time

4:41:33I've been up here to, um, talk

4:41:37about this and I've yet to hear

4:41:40anything from anyone in this

4:41:43government. No one. Not a call,

4:41:46not an email, nothing. So, um,

4:41:50I know when I was here last

4:41:51time, someone said something

4:41:52about hiding behind decorum.

4:41:55Um, I would hope that that is

4:41:57not what's going on. If there

4:42:01is no other mechanism. Um,

4:42:04provided by this government to

4:42:06address my problem, then you

4:42:07give me no choice but to come

4:42:09here and to ask you. So this is

4:42:11like the fifth or sixth time

4:42:13that I've asked you. Um, and

4:42:15I'm going to ask you again. We

4:42:18have a problem on my street and

4:42:21my neighborhood, and I need

4:42:24someone in the city of

4:42:26Fayetteville government to

4:42:27actually address the problem,

4:42:31because you don't have a

4:42:32mechanism in place already.

4:42:34Doesn't mean that there's not a

4:42:35problem. It just means you just

4:42:36don't have a mechanism in

4:42:38place. So you know what? What

4:42:42is the taxpayer supposed to do?

4:42:44Because you don't have a way to

4:42:45address it. And that means that

4:42:47we can't get our problem fixed.

4:42:49Or does that mean that you need

4:42:50to come up with a mechanism to

4:42:52address it? I'm fairly

4:42:56disgusted. I mean, you all seem

4:42:58like decent people. The people

4:43:01in my neighborhood, we have

4:43:02been mistreated, we have been

4:43:04ignored. I have asked you, um,

4:43:10city manager, I've asked your

4:43:13supervisor. He's your

4:43:15assistant. City manager's very

4:43:16pertinent questions. Good

4:43:19questions. I've yet to get an

4:43:21answer. So I'm here again.

4:43:24Who's going to help me?

4:43:27All right, all right.

4:43:28Thank y'all. Know how to reach.

4:43:29Me? Yeah.

4:43:32Yeah, I think they've they've

4:43:33had some correspondence.

4:43:35So, um.

4:43:36That was what we had.

4:43:37Asked to happen last time, so.

4:43:39All right, madam clerk.

4:43:40Mayor, our next speaker is Miss

4:43:42Christina McCormick. Miss

4:43:46Christina McCormick, not

4:43:49present. Next speaker is Mr.

4:43:51Benjamin Holmquist.

4:43:54Yeah.

4:44:04Good evening sir.

4:44:05Hello. Good evening. I'm sorry

4:44:08I missed last month, and I hope

4:44:09you missed me as well.

4:44:11So, miss.

4:44:14All right, so.

4:44:14My name is Ben Holt from

4:44:16Township, Fayetteville, and I'm

4:44:17here to talk about car

4:44:19dependency. Uh, it's coming

4:44:21around, but, uh, in front of

4:44:22you are three rankings showing

4:44:24the worst cities above 200,000

4:44:26people for walkability, transit

4:44:28and bike ability in America and

4:44:31Canada. We're the second least

4:44:33walkable city is the second

4:44:34least likable city. And don't

4:44:36even register a transit score.

4:44:38Since the least walkable city

4:44:40and least likable cities are

4:44:41not the same, it is clear we

4:44:43are the most car dependent city

4:44:45in America. I have talked many

4:44:47times about our need to remove

4:44:48parking minimums to reverse

4:44:50this trend, but we don't need

4:44:51to worry about that anymore

4:44:53because the state took care of

4:44:54that for us. Starting in

4:44:56January, developers will no

4:44:57longer be mandated by law to

4:44:59build a certain number of

4:45:00parking spaces. However, in the

4:45:03most car dependent city in

4:45:04America, it would be a bad

4:45:06business model to not provide

4:45:08significant parking.

4:45:10Walkability requires a certain

4:45:11level of density, so

4:45:13destinations are within walking

4:45:14distance, and transit relies on

4:45:16walkability, at least around

4:45:18transit stops. We can improve

4:45:20our the density to improve

4:45:22these options. If businesses

4:45:24and housing still require large

4:45:26parking lots, we also inherited

4:45:29overly wide and fast streets

4:45:31that are dangerous to cross on

4:45:33foot. However, we can take

4:45:35these lemons and squeeze the

4:45:37lanes to make delicious bike

4:45:39lanes. While hardly any

4:45:42destinations are within walking

4:45:44distance for most residents,

4:45:46most destinations are within

4:45:48biking distance. As we increase

4:45:50bike ability and reduce car

4:45:51dependency, the need for large

4:45:53parking lots reduces as well.

4:45:55This allows for more density

4:45:56that we can focus around bus

4:45:57stops to improve walkability

4:45:59and transit options. Creating a

4:46:01feedback loop that further

4:46:02reduces car dependency. While

4:46:05it is embarrassing to be the

4:46:06most car dependent city in

4:46:08America, this isn't about

4:46:09pride. It is about equity,

4:46:11affordability, and attracting

4:46:13new residents and businesses to

4:46:15Fayetteville. One third of the

4:46:17residents can't drive because

4:46:19they are too young, too old to

4:46:21poor or too disabled. Of those

4:46:24that can't afford to drive,

4:46:25transportation is usually their

4:46:27second highest expense after

4:46:28housing. Poverty is at the root

4:46:32cause of most of our problems

4:46:33here in Fayetteville. It is the

4:46:35main reason for our

4:46:36underperforming schools, our

4:46:38violent crime and our

4:46:39homelessness, among others.

4:46:41While the state doesn't give

4:46:42you the authority to raise the

4:46:43minimum wage to a livable wage,

4:46:45you can drastically reduce

4:46:47people's expenses for about

4:46:49half the cost of a baseball

4:46:51complex on MacArthur or the

4:46:52controversial police cameras

4:46:54and drones. You can reverse the

4:46:56cycle of car dependency,

4:46:57increase affordability, and

4:46:59make this city thrive. Thank

4:47:01you.

4:47:08Madam clerk.

4:47:09Mayor, our next speaker is Miss

4:47:11Constance Pratt.

4:47:15Hello, miss Pratt.

4:47:17Good evening, Mayor Colvin.

4:47:19Members of the city council.

4:47:22City of Fayetteville staff and

4:47:24fellow residents. My name is

4:47:26Constance Pratt, a resident

4:47:28from district three. And I am

4:47:30here because I believe

4:47:32leadership includes a simple

4:47:34principle. First, do no harm. I

4:47:39am not opposed to progress. I

4:47:42am opposed to making decisions

4:47:44about our community. Before we

4:47:47fully understand the

4:47:49consequences. WRAL News

4:47:54coverage. You can count on

4:47:56published Governor Stein

4:47:58supporting tariffs on data

4:48:00center companies and produced

4:48:03multiple stories featuring

4:48:05cities and counties with and

4:48:08without moratoriums, fighting

4:48:11back with one seeking a state

4:48:13moratorium. WRAL also produced

4:48:18an investigative report. All

4:48:21stakeholders should be required

4:48:23to watch. A moratorium is not a

4:48:26rejection of progress. It is a

4:48:29pause for responsible planning.

4:48:32North Carolina's Energy Policy

4:48:34Task Force has identified the

4:48:36need to examine large

4:48:38electricity users, utility

4:48:41costs, tax exemptions and

4:48:44better reporting of energy and

4:48:47water consumption. We should

4:48:49not have to make long term

4:48:51decisions. While critical

4:48:53information remains incomplete.

4:48:57I am asking this council to

4:48:59support a meaningful, time

4:49:02limited moratorium on new data

4:49:04center development approvals.

4:49:06While comprehensive,

4:49:08enforceable protections are

4:49:11developed during that pause.

4:49:14Let us require independent

4:49:16assessments, transparent

4:49:18financial analysis, meaningful

4:49:21community participation,

4:49:24neighborhood protection. Also

4:49:27establish accountability so

4:49:30that commitments made by

4:49:32developers are commitments they

4:49:34must honor. Our responsibility

4:49:37is to protect the people who

4:49:39will have to live with the

4:49:41consequences of today's

4:49:43decisions. The burden should

4:49:46not fall on the public to prove

4:49:48that a project will cause harm.

4:49:51I urge you, support the

4:49:54moratorium. Do the work, put

4:49:56enforceable protections in

4:49:58place before moving forward.

4:50:01Because when the future of our

4:50:03community is at stake, the

4:50:06first responsibility of

4:50:09leadership is clear. First, do

4:50:13no harm. Thank you.

4:50:22Mayor. Our next speaker is Miss

4:50:25Rosemary Harris. Oh, you said

4:50:30that. I apologize, ma'am.

4:50:32Good evening. What am I, ma'am?

4:50:34Yes. Good evening.

4:50:36I want to follow up on Miss

4:50:38Pratt. Um, I'm asking for the

4:50:42council to support a one year

4:50:46moratorium, and I've got some

4:50:49facts and some probabilities to

4:50:53denote. Um, many tech companies

4:50:56right now are overleveraged,

4:50:57and profit goes to IPO on

4:51:03November 16th this year. Um,

4:51:06the debt accumulation major

4:51:09tech firms have collectively

4:51:11added around $350 billion in

4:51:14debt to fund their data center

4:51:16expansions. By early 2026, the

4:51:21US tech companies had over $850

4:51:25billion. In future lease

4:51:26commitments for data centers.

4:51:28Economists warned that massive

4:51:29debt tied to uncertain AI

4:51:31profits could spread for

4:51:32financial risk across the

4:51:34industry. There's also a

4:51:35problem with construction

4:51:37delays because supply chain

4:51:40problems, are the US technology

4:51:44companies have pushed their

4:51:45future data center least

4:51:47agreements past 850 billion.

4:51:53And in order to put an IPO, you

4:51:56have to do a risk factor for

4:51:58investors. The problem now is

4:52:00the investors are getting cold

4:52:02feet because they're hearing so

4:52:05much, and just like we are

4:52:06every day, there's a new, uh,

4:52:10revealing of information to

4:52:13build AI to harness cognition.

4:52:16Cognition itself and anything

4:52:18so powerful can be used for ill

4:52:21as well as good, wrote the

4:52:22company's founders in a letter

4:52:24to prospective shareholders in

4:52:26the IPO field. Filing. Because

4:52:29they have to do this because

4:52:31they can't put the investors in

4:52:32jeopardy. Some potential

4:52:35liabilities are many. They

4:52:37range from mundane the

4:52:39possibility it won't be able to

4:52:41retain key staff or navigate

4:52:43regulatory roadblocks to

4:52:45involvement in cyber attacks

4:52:47and the spread of dangerous

4:52:49information. I've got a lot.

4:52:50I've got.

4:52:51A.

4:52:52Um. The possibility that we

4:52:57will lose jobs in Fayetteville

4:52:59because if the local companies

4:53:01start using AI, they'll lay off

4:53:03people that have menial, well,

4:53:07jobs and and the other thing

4:53:10is, we need to learn more.

4:53:15Legislators across the country,

4:53:17the world, are concerned that

4:53:19they don't know enough to to

4:53:21do, um, qualified ordinances.

4:53:26I'm going to leave the two

4:53:27articles that I have. So I'm

4:53:29not talking from me. I'm

4:53:31talking from stuff that I

4:53:32researched. Thank you.

4:53:47Madam clerk.

4:53:49Uh. Yes, sir. Our next speaker

4:53:51is Fern Davis. Fern Davis, not

4:53:57present. Our next speaker is

4:53:59Angela Tatum.

4:54:02Thank you, Miss Tatum.

4:54:04Good evening. Mayor.

4:54:06Um, city.

4:54:07Council.

4:54:08Um.

4:54:09My name is Angela Tatum.

4:54:11And.

4:54:11Um. I live in district five,

4:54:15which I want.

4:54:15To.

4:54:16Thank my district leader for

4:54:17being consistent in.

4:54:18Supporting a.

4:54:19Moratorium. Um, I often

4:54:21wondered why. And I'm not going

4:54:23to go over the points. We have

4:54:25heard some really good points

4:54:25tonight, but I often wondered

4:54:27why in the world, you know,

4:54:29y'all were vehemently against

4:54:32setting a moratorium. Um, and

4:54:35direct staff into, you know, to

4:54:38be able to do the impact

4:54:39studies that we need, engage in

4:54:41the community longer than one

4:54:43day. Really? Um, to be able to

4:54:47protect the community as you're

4:54:49seeking to usher in developers.

4:54:51Um, and then my question was

4:54:53answered last Monday when I

4:54:55overheard council member for

4:54:57district four state that in

4:54:59front of me that we would not

4:55:02get a moratorium when he walked

4:55:04off. But we do have six members

4:55:09who have stated by their vote

4:55:11that they wanted to direct the

4:55:13staff city attorney to create

4:55:15the moratorium language, um,

4:55:17and to move forward and to be

4:55:19able to correct what was messed

4:55:22up in the subsequent vote. When

4:55:24you went ahead and adopted

4:55:26those, um, text amendments. So

4:55:28I'm going to focus on the

4:55:29timeline that was given first.

4:55:31This does not have to, as it

4:55:33was stated, it does not have to

4:55:34go to a work session. We

4:55:36already know what needs to

4:55:37happen and why. Um, it was

4:55:38stated during the presentation,

4:55:40I believe that the timing can

4:55:42be discussed at the time that

4:55:44you go to take the vote, so you

4:55:46don't have to wait and have

4:55:47anything discussed beforehand

4:55:49in setting the public hearing.

4:55:51Um, the only thing that's

4:55:52needed is the length of the

4:55:55moratorium and the vote to

4:55:57implement it. This can be done

4:55:59in the same night as the public

4:56:00hearing. So just keep that in

4:56:01mind. Also, per NCG, um

4:56:05subsection 160-107 for

4:56:08moratoria, for moratoriums that

4:56:10are more than 61 days as. And

4:56:12I'm thankful that our city

4:56:13attorney did clarify this. Um,

4:56:15but the two weeks notice, it is

4:56:18two weeks, but it's no less

4:56:19than ten days, but also no

4:56:21longer than 25 days. So please

4:56:24keep that in mind as you're

4:56:25thinking about the date that's

4:56:26going to be set. Um, and that's

4:56:29you can find that language in,

4:56:31um, 160D-- 601. Um, also, I

4:56:37want to acknowledge, uh, for

4:56:39you giving the timeline that

4:56:41will let you see that it

4:56:42doesn't have to go to February

4:56:44or January like it was

4:56:45mentioned. Um, and just make

4:56:48sure that we consider that we

4:56:50listen to the people. Y'all

4:56:52have heard us. You know, what

4:56:53is needed and what we, um, have

4:56:57heard from. Not just the

4:56:58people, but your own staff.

4:56:59They have told you, you're

4:57:00rushing them, give them the

4:57:02time to do the work that they

4:57:03do. Well, and then we can get a

4:57:05good product that protects the

4:57:06community. Thank you.

4:57:13Mayor. Our next speaker is Miss

4:57:15Lorena Murray.

4:57:20Good evening, Miss Murray.

4:57:21Good evening. Good evening.

4:57:23Council members and staff and

4:57:26residents. We've had a lot of

4:57:29discussion about data centers

4:57:32since 1st January. Maybe. And

4:57:34thinking has been changing. And

4:57:37as mega data centers have been

4:57:38built, municipalities have been

4:57:40dealing with them, and lessons

4:57:42are being learned and they're

4:57:43still being learned, aren't

4:57:44they? So much, so much change.

4:57:47Um, some questions in my mind.

4:57:49Uh, one is, do we have

4:57:52environmental studies of our

4:57:53portion of the Cape Fear River

4:57:55Valley, yet? Uh, have we

4:57:57created those studies on how

4:57:58mega data centers would affect

4:58:00our particular environment? Um,

4:58:03another question is, do we have

4:58:05any requirements in place or

4:58:08proposed for community benefits

4:58:10for mega data centers so that

4:58:12we can balance the negatives

4:58:14with the positives? Um, another

4:58:18question. Are we still wanting

4:58:19to put the mega data centers in

4:58:21a warehouse district rather

4:58:23than having industrial?

4:58:25Because, you know, these guys

4:58:26generate a lot of diesel fuel

4:58:28smoke for their testing and for

4:58:31their backup. When the power

4:58:32goes out. Our neighborhoods are

4:58:34not going to like that. Did you

4:58:37know that in Cumberland County

4:58:38we already have increased

4:58:40asthma rates compared to the

4:58:41rest of North Carolina? I have

4:58:45asthma. I couldn't go out most

4:58:46of the summer and take my walks

4:58:49because pollution levels were

4:58:50up, and we're talking about

4:58:52bringing in more pollution

4:58:53without studies. I'm concerned

4:58:55about that. I know that city

4:58:58staff have worked hard on their

4:59:00research, and as it was

4:59:02mentioned that last week's

4:59:03Monday meeting issues around

4:59:05mega data centers keep changing.

4:59:08Why don't we put together a

4:59:09group of residents and experts,

4:59:12including environmental

4:59:13experts, legal experts, to look

4:59:16at these issues together and

4:59:19transparently? And let's put in

4:59:21a moratorium to protect our

4:59:23residents while we continue to

4:59:25engage the community. Because

4:59:29right now, we are unprotected

4:59:32from mega data centers. I don't

4:59:37know about you. I've been

4:59:38trying to go on some social

4:59:40media, and there are so many

4:59:44complaints about our city

4:59:45council, and I don't like to

4:59:47read them. A barrage of

4:59:51complaints about the city

4:59:53Council not being transparent

4:59:56and not caring about the

4:59:57residents, and that there are

4:59:59other motivations involved in

5:00:01these kinds of decisions. I

5:00:03don't agree with it. I don't

5:00:05like it. But how can you all

5:00:08show the community that you are

5:00:10being transparent? How can you

5:00:12show the community that you are

5:00:13engaging the residents,

5:00:15listening to us, but also using

5:00:17our input to make decisions?

5:00:19Hiring environmental experts,

5:00:21getting it done? We are the can

5:00:24do city, but if our people

5:00:25don't think we care, then what

5:00:26are we doing?

5:00:27Thank you ma'am.

5:00:33Mayor, our next speaker is Mr.

5:00:34Isaac Alfaro.

5:00:43Good evening sir.

5:00:45Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good

5:00:48evening. Council and staff. Um,

5:00:51Isaac Alfaro with the DTA. I

5:00:53have two issues I would like to

5:00:54talk about. Um, first is being

5:00:57charitable giving, and the

5:00:58second is the transparency of

5:01:01the metrics involving police

5:01:03response time. Um, on the first

5:01:05one, um, being a business and,

5:01:08um, landowner in downtown

5:01:11Fayetteville. Um, it's hard not

5:01:12to notice, uh, the amount of

5:01:15charitable giving that happens

5:01:17every single day. Well-meaning

5:01:19people pass by and deliver food

5:01:22and different products. And I,

5:01:25as an individual, I understand

5:01:28it. I empathize. Um, sometimes

5:01:31what have noticed is, um,

5:01:33there's a distribution of more

5:01:35than just food. We've noticed

5:01:37people get plates with where

5:01:40they pull out some money and,

5:01:44um, there is clearly a mental

5:01:46health and drug issue, um, that

5:01:50plagues, um, these downtown

5:01:53neighbors. Um, we are concerned

5:01:56that there might be more than

5:01:58just food. Uh, and it's being

5:02:00used as a drug. Um, avenue. Um,

5:02:05the kind of the issue with that

5:02:07is that there is actually not a

5:02:09lot of rules on that, and it's

5:02:11this unregulated charitable

5:02:14giving where people could be

5:02:16giving out expired food. They

5:02:17could be giving out drugs and

5:02:20or using it as the avenue for

5:02:23delivering or picking up after

5:02:25people have sold drugs. Um, for

5:02:28example, I spoke with, Mr.

5:02:30Azhar Ali from the Ali

5:02:32Foundation, who delivers food.

5:02:35Um, he says, other than, you

5:02:37know, battling with the county

5:02:39or the city on where they can

5:02:40give, um, there's not really

5:02:43much else that he has to go off

5:02:45of. He says he he's asked the

5:02:47city, um, for more

5:02:50communication, but has not

5:02:52received that. So really would

5:02:54be calling for a joint city and

5:02:56county. Clearly, it's not just

5:02:58a city issue assessment. Within

5:03:0160 days on what should or could

5:03:04be done legally. Um, obviously

5:03:07people are doing this out of

5:03:08the goodness of the heart most

5:03:10of the time. But, uh, it's also

5:03:13creating a dependence on

5:03:15downtown, where many of these,

5:03:18uh, unhoused residents are not

5:03:21going to the resource center.

5:03:22And seeing all the official

5:03:24resources. The second is we did

5:03:28an information request, NC

5:03:30public records request 263785

5:03:33and were rejected and told

5:03:35that, uh, police response time

5:03:37is not a metric that is kept,

5:03:39uh, in the annual snapshot, the

5:03:42police response time was

5:03:44anywhere from 7 to 10 minutes.

5:03:47Um, for priority one calls.

5:03:49That has not been our

5:03:50experience. We want

5:03:51transparency on that. Thank you.

5:03:57Madam clerk.

5:03:58Mayor, our next speaker is Miss

5:04:01Deborah Nixon.

5:04:14Good evening. I'm Deborah

5:04:15Nixon, and I'm a resident of

5:04:17Tarlton Plantation. I'm here

5:04:20tonight to ask the city

5:04:21council, city staff and the

5:04:23public to carefully consider

5:04:24the proposed plan to connect a

5:04:26new apartment complex to our

5:04:28neighborhood, specifically, the

5:04:30proposed access point into

5:04:32Darlington Plantation is

5:04:33located at the intersection of

5:04:35Winton Drive and Scenic View

5:04:37Drive. Placing this connection

5:04:39directly within our existing

5:04:41residential community. Let me

5:04:44be clear this is not opposition

5:04:46to growth, development or new

5:04:48housing. We understand our

5:04:50community is growing. Our

5:04:51concern is that the impacts of

5:04:52this development are being

5:04:54directed toward an established

5:04:56residential neighborhood. When

5:04:57there appears to be another

5:04:59option available. To

5:05:01plantation. I've been a

5:05:03resident for 22 years. It is a

5:05:06quiet, primarily single family

5:05:08neighborhood where families

5:05:09have invested their savings and

5:05:11built their lives. Residents

5:05:12chose this community because of

5:05:14its safety, walkability, family

5:05:16atmosphere, and proximity to

5:05:18excellent schools. We are

5:05:20concerned about increased

5:05:22traffic, safety risks, noise,

5:05:24drainage issues, and the

5:05:25potential impact on property

5:05:27values. The proposed connection

5:05:29at the intersection would place

5:05:31additional pressure on an area

5:05:34that is currently used by

5:05:35neighborhood residents,

5:05:36families, children and

5:05:38pedestrians. Residents already

5:05:40experience congestion during

5:05:42school hours and any additional

5:05:44connection to a large apartment

5:05:46community raises legitimate

5:05:47concerns about the long term

5:05:49effect on our neighborhood. I

5:05:51also want to address a point

5:05:52that may be raised in support

5:05:54of this proposal. Some may say

5:05:56that the connection through our

5:05:58neighborhood would be for

5:05:59emergency access only. However,

5:06:02even if that is true, the

5:06:03question remains is access

5:06:05through our neighborhood

5:06:06necessary at all? The the

5:06:09apartment complex is already

5:06:11planned to have an entrance

5:06:12from Brinkman Road near that

5:06:15planned instrument entrance is

5:06:17a substation, and what appears

5:06:19to be sufficient space for a

5:06:20second access point from

5:06:22Brinkman Road as well. If two

5:06:25access points can be provided,

5:06:27there seems to be no reason to

5:06:28route any secondary entrance,

5:06:30including emergency access

5:06:32through Tarlton Plantation. If

5:06:34emergency access requirements

5:06:36can be met without connecting

5:06:38to an existing residential

5:06:39neighborhood, then that option

5:06:41should be pursued first. The

5:06:44residents of Charleston

5:06:45Plantation are not asking this

5:06:47development be stopped. We're

5:06:49asking that it be designed

5:06:50responsibly and that

5:06:52unnecessary impacts to existing

5:06:54homeowners be avoided when a

5:06:56reasonable alternative may

5:06:58already exist. Thank you.

5:07:07Madam clerk.

5:07:08Mayor, our next speaker is Miss

5:07:09Janet Mensah. Miss Janet Minsk,

5:07:15not present. Our next speaker

5:07:17is Mr. Austin Joseph.

5:07:26Good evening sir.

5:07:28Good evening.

5:07:29Good evening, Mayor Colvin. Uh,

5:07:31members of City council and my

5:07:32fellow citizens. Uh, it's my

5:07:35pleasure to serve on the

5:07:36planning commission here in the

5:07:37city. Um, I wanted to take a

5:07:39moment to offer some

5:07:40perspective on the work. The

5:07:41Planning Commission has

5:07:42undertaken in regard to the

5:07:44data center and our Unified

5:07:46Development Ordinance. Uh, when

5:07:48the matter came to us, um, we

5:07:50shared many of the same

5:07:51concerns expressed by our

5:07:52citizens protecting our

5:07:54neighborhoods, managing

5:07:55infrastructure demands, water

5:07:57consumption, and preserving the

5:07:58character of our community. Um,

5:08:00after all, we are citizens of

5:08:01Fayetteville too. We are your

5:08:03neighbors, and we have just as

5:08:05much invested in this city's

5:08:06future as anyone else. Um,

5:08:08that's why we took this matter

5:08:09seriously. Our goal was to

5:08:11address the gaps in the

5:08:12existing ordinance while

5:08:13establishing clear standards

5:08:15for a responsible development.

5:08:17One important consideration was

5:08:20retaining the data centers

5:08:21within the existing warehouse

5:08:23storage classification, with

5:08:25additional requirements

5:08:26governing, uh, where they would

5:08:28operate. This approach was

5:08:30intended to provide safeguards

5:08:31for surrounding communities

5:08:33while giving developers clear

5:08:36expectations. Now I understand

5:08:38the appeal for the moratorium.

5:08:39Some, sometimes additional time

5:08:41is necessary, but I would offer

5:08:43this for consideration. After

5:08:45months of additional study,

5:08:47discussion and deliberation.

5:08:48There's a very real possibility

5:08:51that this council will find

5:08:52themselves right back

5:08:54substantially at the same

5:08:55conclusion that the city staff

5:08:58and the Planning Commission has

5:08:59already reached. And that's the

5:09:01bottom line. A moratorium may

5:09:04buy us time, but this does not

5:09:05necessarily resolve the

5:09:06regulatory question before us.

5:09:08We also have a responsibility

5:09:10to ensure our ordinance is

5:09:13consistent with North Carolina

5:09:14law and provide clear, legally

5:09:16defensible standards. The last

5:09:18thing we want is an avoidable

5:09:20land use dispute, because our

5:09:21regulations weren't properly

5:09:23established. Now, I'm not

5:09:25suggesting that every data

5:09:26center belongs in Fayetteville,

5:09:28nor that the economic

5:09:29development should come at the

5:09:31expense of our neighborhoods.

5:09:32But I do believe the

5:09:34responsible for growth

5:09:36requires, you know, a

5:09:38responsible planning. And if

5:09:40the framework we've developed

5:09:42needs refinement, then by all

5:09:43means, let's refine it. But

5:09:46let's also recognize the work

5:09:48that's been accomplished and

5:09:49the concerns that have already

5:09:50been considered. This was the

5:09:54the the work that city staff

5:09:58has already done. This was a 17

5:10:01page report that the city staff

5:10:05gave to the Planning

5:10:06Commission, along with the

5:10:08senior planner. A detailed

5:10:10report on what their plan was,

5:10:13along with the five additional

5:10:14amendments to the Ido. It was

5:10:16well thought out. I want that

5:10:18to be taken into consideration

5:10:22because, you know, good

5:10:23government isn't simply

5:10:24About deciding what we don't

5:10:25want. It's about establishing

5:10:27the rules for the kind of

5:10:28community we want to build.

5:10:29Thank you all kindly.

5:10:30Thank you.

5:10:31Sir.

5:10:39Mayor. Our next speaker is Miss

5:10:41Arlene Fields.

5:10:52Good evening, Miss Fields.

5:10:54Good evening.

5:10:55Mayor Colvin.

5:10:56Mayor pro tem Thompson, city

5:10:59council members. Hello. From

5:11:02one of those people who always

5:11:04show up to speak. My name is

5:11:06Arlene Fields, and I've lived

5:11:08in district one since 1999. And

5:11:12first, I have a public service

5:11:13announcement. Uh, Angela Tatum

5:11:15says that she would like to

5:11:17apologize to council member

5:11:18hair and correct that she meant

5:11:20council member Thompson and

5:11:22District six. So on the October

5:11:2722nd, wide morning show, Mayor

5:11:29Colvin, you said that people

5:11:31who show up the meetings

5:11:32demanding a moratorium. Quote,

5:11:35none of them have reduced

5:11:36anything credible, any

5:11:38empirical data. I know that

5:11:40Fayetteville Freedom for all,

5:11:42as well as other community

5:11:44organizations, and I would

5:11:47trust your own city staff, have

5:11:49provided you with numerous

5:11:51studies and articles detailing

5:11:53the potential risks and

5:11:54benefits of large data centers.

5:11:56Even Doctor Jerald Newton, head

5:11:59of planning services for the

5:12:00City of Fayetteville, told you

5:12:02in August. And last Monday

5:12:05that, quote, zoning cannot

5:12:08cover all the items that need

5:12:09covered. There are items that

5:12:12should be addressed that a

5:12:13moratorium can address, that we

5:12:16cannot cover with the zoning

5:12:17regulations that are in chapter

5:12:1930, saying that we are

5:12:22unprotected without passing the

5:12:24zoning text. Amendments, aka

5:12:26UDS is a scare tactic. Even if

5:12:29data centers can comply with

5:12:31existing zoning ordinances,

5:12:33they know that those gray areas

5:12:35that were addressed by attorney

5:12:37Nick Tosco at last Monday's

5:12:39meeting could sink their plans.

5:12:41One of the things that no

5:12:43ordinance can address is the

5:12:45future of the AI tech industry

5:12:47itself. To expand on what Miss

5:12:49Harris said, AI giant anthropic

5:12:53has yet to turn an annual

5:12:54profit, and their recent

5:12:56initial public offering, or IPO

5:12:58document. Of the 335 pages

5:13:02outlining anthropic finances,

5:13:0493 pages are developed. Excuse

5:13:06me, devoted to risk factors,

5:13:08the things that could hurt

5:13:09potential shareholders,

5:13:10investments. In comparison, the

5:13:12risk factors disclosure for

5:13:14space X, you know, Elon Musk

5:13:16exploding rocket company took

5:13:18up only 38 pages. Alphabet, the

5:13:21parent company of Google,

5:13:23released their third quarter

5:13:24report just a few days ago.

5:13:26They reported disappointing AI

5:13:27search revenue, and their stock

5:13:29plunged 12%. That doesn't sound

5:13:31like a lot, but it represents

5:13:33almost half $1 trillion in lost

5:13:35market value. You've heard it

5:13:37over and over. We do not want

5:13:38large data centers in our

5:13:39community. An abandoned AI

5:13:42warehouse would be a far

5:13:44greater scar on our city's

5:13:46landscape. And this council's

5:13:47legacy than any half

5:13:49constructed fire station or

5:13:50abandoned tennis court. You

5:13:52have all expressed a desire to

5:13:53get this right. I urge you to

5:13:55do what it takes to get it

5:13:56right. Institute a moratorium.

5:13:59Thank you.

5:14:04Madam mayor, our next speaker

5:14:06is Miss Stacy Graybill.

5:14:14Good evening, Miss Graybill.

5:14:18Hello.

5:14:18Good evening, mayor and members

5:14:20of City Council. I am a

5:14:22business owner downtown and

5:14:24also the director of community

5:14:26safety for the Downtown

5:14:27Alliance. I am here once again

5:14:30to address the ongoing

5:14:32violence, excessive noise and

5:14:34dangerous activity affecting

5:14:36downtown Fayetteville. Over a

5:14:38year and a half ago. I stood

5:14:39before this council raising the

5:14:41same concerns as a downtown

5:14:43resident. My husband and I own

5:14:45two businesses downtown. We

5:14:47love this community. We have

5:14:48invested in it, and we believe

5:14:50in its future. Yet we

5:14:52ultimately felt forced to stop

5:14:54living downtown because of the

5:14:56very issues that I'm discussing

5:14:57today. Again. And it only got

5:15:00worse. We have witnessed

5:15:02violent physical altercations

5:15:04outside a particular

5:15:05establishment. These are not

5:15:08simply disagreements or

5:15:09harmless confrontations. They

5:15:11are serious brawls, many of

5:15:13which that have been recorded

5:15:15and circulated publicly on

5:15:16social media. Dozens of these

5:15:19fights have resulted in damage

5:15:21to a neighboring business

5:15:22owners patio, knocking over

5:15:24gates, barriers, tables and

5:15:26chairs. A business that has

5:15:28been there in that location for

5:15:30over 20 years and is now

5:15:31suffering because of the

5:15:33reoccurring issues of a

5:15:34business next door. And here's

5:15:36what I find particularly

5:15:38frustrating. Other residents,

5:15:40business owners and I have

5:15:41followed the guidance of city

5:15:43council members. The

5:15:44Fayetteville Police Department

5:15:45and the Sheriff's office. We

5:15:47documented incidents. We

5:15:49reported disturbances, attended

5:15:51meetings and followed the

5:15:52channels recommended to us.

5:15:54We've done what we've been

5:15:55asked to do. Yet this

5:15:57establishment remains open and

5:15:59the problems continue to

5:16:00escalate. I do want to

5:16:02recognize captain Gale and

5:16:03Officer Nazario Santiago of the

5:16:06Fayetteville Police Department

5:16:07through our downtown Community

5:16:09Watch meetings. We have

5:16:10developed a wonderful working

5:16:12relationship with these

5:16:13officers and I, and sincerely

5:16:15appreciate their dedication to

5:16:16this community. But our police

5:16:19department can only do so much.

5:16:21Fayetteville already has

5:16:22ordinances addressing excessive

5:16:24noise, nighttime disturbances

5:16:26and vehicle noise under chapter

5:16:2817. These laws exist. So why do

5:16:31these problems continue? Which

5:16:33brings me to nuisance

5:16:35abatement. Has the city

5:16:37formally evaluated whether

5:16:39these repeated incidents a

5:16:41warrant, nuisance abatement

5:16:42proceedings, and if so, what

5:16:44action has been taken?

5:16:46Residents, owner, business

5:16:48owners and police officers are

5:16:49actively working towards

5:16:50solution. And at what point

5:16:52does the responsibility shift

5:16:54from those of us who

5:16:55continually reporting these

5:16:56problems to the city, taking

5:16:58further action? We constantly

5:17:00discuss attracting visitors,

5:17:01businesses and residents

5:17:03downtown, but how can we

5:17:04encourage people to live

5:17:05downtown when those who love

5:17:07this community have already

5:17:08felt compelled to leave?

5:17:09Downtown Fayetteville deserves

5:17:11a vibrant nightlife, but

5:17:12nightlife and public safety

5:17:13should not be mutually

5:17:14exclusive. We followed the

5:17:16process. We have done our part.

5:17:17Now we're asking the city to do

5:17:19their part. Thank you.

5:17:29Madam clerk.

5:17:31Mayor. Our next speaker is Mr.

5:17:33Ed Crute. Mr.. Ed Crute not

5:17:38present? Our next speaker is

5:17:40Mr. Joseph Jackson. Mr.. Joseph

5:17:44Jackson, not present. Next

5:17:47speaker is Miss Gwendolyn

5:17:48Fuller. Miss Gwendolyn Fuller,

5:17:53I'll present. Our next speaker

5:17:55is Mr. Dale Deese.

5:17:59You may, sir.

5:18:00Hello, everyone.

5:18:01My name.

5:18:02Is Dale Dees. I live a short

5:18:03distance on Coaster Avenue,

5:18:05down from where there's

5:18:08considering putting the data

5:18:09center. Um, everyone kind of

5:18:12spoke about the things I had in

5:18:13my mind, so I'm just gonna

5:18:14throw out some kind of random

5:18:16things here. Um, I was at the,

5:18:18uh, coming county commissioners

5:18:21meeting this morning, and, uh,

5:18:23afterward, I talked to some of

5:18:24the folks there. And as

5:18:25everybody knows, they already

5:18:27have a moratorium in effect.

5:18:29Um, I'm sorry. Um, they already

5:18:32have a moratorium in effect,

5:18:34and it expires, uh, December

5:18:3815th. So I was talking with the

5:18:40chairman, and, um, I said,

5:18:42well, what happens after that?

5:18:43He said, well, you know, if we

5:18:44need to, we'll do another

5:18:45moratorium. So they've got one.

5:18:48They're willing to do another

5:18:50one, and we can't get anything

5:18:53out of you guys on this. Um, I,

5:18:56I'm not even gonna try to

5:18:57understand why. I've heard all

5:18:58kinds of reasons. I've heard

5:18:59all types of, uh, I'll say

5:19:02excuses. I'm sure they're more

5:19:04valid than that. To to you, but

5:19:08if they can do it, it seems

5:19:09like you guys could do it. Um.

5:19:12Which makes people, you know,

5:19:15wonder why they ask why. And,

5:19:17you know, they come up with all

5:19:18types of, you know, some may be

5:19:21out there, you know, to the

5:19:22extreme. Some may be actually

5:19:24the truth, I don't know. None

5:19:26of us know, but we're asking.

5:19:29We have been up here. I don't

5:19:31know how many times I've been

5:19:32here. And everybody that comes

5:19:33up here is against this. Or at

5:19:35least they want a moratorium. I

5:19:37think maybe 1 or 2 people have

5:19:39stood up here in favor of a

5:19:40data center. I mean, it's got

5:19:42to be obvious what the people

5:19:45want, and. Cumberland County

5:19:51commissioners are they listen

5:19:53to us. They talk to us. They've

5:19:55taken suggestions on, um,

5:19:59restrictions, if you want to

5:20:00call them that or, you know,

5:20:01there's different words that go

5:20:02around for the the limitations

5:20:05on them. Um, they've had a

5:20:08bunch of people emailing in

5:20:09what they want to see as far as

5:20:11setbacks and that sort of

5:20:12stuff. If you guys have done

5:20:14that, maybe I've missed it. I

5:20:15haven't been coming to all of

5:20:16these, but I haven't seen that

5:20:18from the city council. If I'm

5:20:20wrong, uh, I'm wrong on that.

5:20:22But it just.

5:20:24It.

5:20:24That's all I can say. It just

5:20:26doesn't make sense to us. Um,

5:20:28that's what we're asking for.

5:20:30That's what we want. It seems

5:20:32reasonable to me. Um, you know,

5:20:35to to to have a moratorium. And

5:20:38just from the last few seconds

5:20:39to give you an idea of how

5:20:40things got last meeting the

5:20:42mayor and someone that lives

5:20:44out there in our area got into

5:20:46a heated discussion, which is

5:20:49completely unlike this fella. I

5:20:51know him fairly well. I ask him

5:20:53about that. He said, you know

5:20:53what? I'm not I'm not proud of

5:20:55what I said, but that's that's

5:20:57the amount of frustration and

5:20:59passion that's been generated.

5:21:01And we just wish you guys

5:21:02would, would listen to us.

5:21:03Thank you.

5:21:04Thank you, Mr..

5:21:05Deeds.

5:21:10Mayor. Our next speaker is Mr.

5:21:12Christopher Cruz.

5:21:18Good evening, Mr. Cruz.

5:21:19How's it going, sir? Uh, I want

5:21:21to thank.

5:21:21That guy.

5:21:22Over there for turning.

5:21:23Off the AC.

5:21:24I know.

5:21:25Got pretty.

5:21:26Cold.

5:21:27Uh, good evening, mayor.

5:21:28Members of the city council and

5:21:29everyone in attendance. Uh,

5:21:32first, thank you for the

5:21:33opportunity to speak with you

5:21:35today. Uh, my name is Chris

5:21:36Cruz. I'm a representative with

5:21:37family Heritage, a company

5:21:39specialized in supplemental

5:21:41insurance benefits. Before

5:21:42entering this industry. I

5:21:44proudly served over 11 years in

5:21:45United States Army, including

5:21:47here at Fort Bragg. My military

5:21:48career. I learned that, uh,

5:21:51something that I've learned

5:21:51that stayed with me is that

5:21:52taking care of people isn't

5:21:54just a responsibility. It's a

5:21:56commitment. Uh, and that's the

5:21:57same commitment I bring to your

5:21:59to my work every day. I'm here

5:22:01because, uh, I like family

5:22:03heritage to be considered as an

5:22:06approved supplemental insurance

5:22:07for the city of Fayetteville.

5:22:09Uh, let me explain why. Uh,

5:22:11think about someone you know

5:22:13who's experienced cancer, heart

5:22:14attack or a serious injury.

5:22:16Unfortunately, most of us know

5:22:18someone who's experienced one

5:22:19of those things. And while we

5:22:22often focus on the medical

5:22:23challenges that can be just as

5:22:27devastating, there's another

5:22:28challenge that can be just

5:22:29devastating. The financial

5:22:30burden that comes with those

5:22:31things. Right? Uh, when someone

5:22:33becomes seriously sick or

5:22:35injured, their health insurance

5:22:36may cover medical expenses. But

5:22:38what about their mortgages?

5:22:39Their car payments, their

5:22:41groceries, or the income that

5:22:42they lose because they can't go

5:22:44to work? Uh, those bills don't

5:22:46just stop just because someone

5:22:48gets sick. That's where family

5:22:50heritage comes in. We offer

5:22:52supplemental insurance policies

5:22:53that pay cash benefits directly

5:22:55to employees when they

5:22:57experience cover illnesses or

5:22:58injuries. That money can help

5:23:00families maintain financial

5:23:01stability during difficult

5:23:03times. We offer protection for

5:23:05cancer, heart attacks, strokes,

5:23:06accidents, and other other

5:23:08qualifying medical events. Uh,

5:23:10one of our most unique features

5:23:11in our policies to return of

5:23:13premium. Uh, we qualify with

5:23:15qualifying policies, employees

5:23:17who maintain coverage for the

5:23:18required period may receive a

5:23:21full refund of their money tax

5:23:22free. 100% of it. Um, now,

5:23:26here's what the most important

5:23:27part of the city. I'm not

5:23:28asking the city to replace its

5:23:30current benefits or contribute

5:23:33towards the additional

5:23:34insurance premiums that y'all

5:23:35may already have. Um, providing

5:23:37additional volunteer and paid

5:23:40benefit. Uh, employees would

5:23:42have the freedom to decide

5:23:43where the coverage is best for

5:23:45them or their families, our

5:23:47policy, or our police officers,

5:23:48firefighters, sanitation

5:23:49workers, uh, public work

5:23:51employees and administration

5:23:53staff dedicate themselves to

5:23:54serving the community. I

5:23:55believe we should continue

5:23:56looking for ways to serve them

5:23:57in return. Uh, so my question

5:24:00is simple. I'm respectfully

5:24:02asking for the opportunity to

5:24:03meet with the appropriate city

5:24:04officials, whether that's the

5:24:06human resources, uh, city

5:24:08manager office or whoever

5:24:09oversees the employees

5:24:11benefits. I'd like to present

5:24:13our programs, answer questions,

5:24:14and learn what steps are

5:24:15necessary for family heritage

5:24:16to become an approved vendor.

5:24:18Uh, so I'll leave you with

5:24:18this. Is that we can't prevent

5:24:20every illness. We can't prevent

5:24:22every accident. Uh, but we can

5:24:24help people prepare financially

5:24:26for the unexpected. Right after

5:24:28serving this country. And

5:24:29that's it. Thank you so much.

5:24:40Mayor. Our next speaker is Mr.

5:24:43Joshua Reed.

5:24:48Madam clerk, what's our.

5:24:50Time.

5:24:51Sir, we have, um, 27 more

5:24:54minutes.

5:24:55Good.

5:24:55Okay, Mr. Reed. Good evening.

5:24:58Hmm hmm. Mhm. My name is Joshua

5:25:01Reed. Um, I'm a member of the

5:25:04Communist Party USA, but before

5:25:06that, I'm a member. I am a

5:25:07member of this city and this

5:25:09county. Um, once again, I would

5:25:12like to start my time by saying

5:25:13that the city council owes

5:25:14Carol Olinger a public apology

5:25:16for the way that y'all treated

5:25:17her a few months ago. I'm not

5:25:19going to let that go. Um, and

5:25:22the same sentiment should be

5:25:23extended to every individual

5:25:26whom y'all have rudely

5:25:27interrupted, including myself.

5:25:29The way some of you treat the

5:25:31people of Fayetteville is now

5:25:33carrying over into the way

5:25:35y'all treat your colleagues.

5:25:37Last week was embarrassing for

5:25:38some of y'all. Um, a couple of

5:25:42you really lost your tempers,

5:25:44and I. I understand right? You

5:25:47have really big feelings when

5:25:50the people of the city and your

5:25:52colleagues won't put up with

5:25:54your BS, but that doesn't mean

5:25:56you get to yell out of anger.

5:25:58It doesn't mean telling

5:25:59someone. Let's take it outside

5:26:01is ever okay. I know your mom

5:26:04has raised you better than

5:26:06that. I would like to make a

5:26:08point about the decorum rules.

5:26:10Um, now, I know I'm not as

5:26:12educated as the not data center

5:26:14lawyer who has been helping

5:26:16y'all screw us over. But. In

5:26:19our own that. But throwing

5:26:22people out of the building for

5:26:23expressing their disgust with

5:26:25you doesn't seem very fair.

5:26:27When you get to lie to the

5:26:28people's faces saying you

5:26:30haven't seen any empirical

5:26:31evidence proving data centers

5:26:32are harmful. And one final note

5:26:36then I'll be done. I know some

5:26:37of you really hate me. I'd just

5:26:40like to address the staff,

5:26:42commend you for all the hard

5:26:43work that you've done. I

5:26:44appreciate the people who, you

5:26:46know, make this city run and

5:26:48make it, you know, make make my

5:26:50home run. Um, I just like to

5:26:53remind y'all that just as it

5:26:55isn't Congress's job to keep

5:26:57the president happy, it is not

5:26:59the staff's job to to stroke

5:27:01the mayor's ego to keep him

5:27:02happy. I think some of y'all

5:27:04have forgotten that. So y'all

5:27:06have the damn day. You deserve.

5:27:13Madam clerk.

5:27:14Mayor, our next speaker is Mr.

5:27:16Joseph Schwab.

5:27:23Mr. Schwab. Good evening.

5:27:24Good evening. Mayor. Good

5:27:25evening.

5:27:26Council.

5:27:27It's already November. I just

5:27:29want you all to realize.

5:27:31That the city.

5:27:31Had put a moratorium on data

5:27:34centers. Instead of working on

5:27:35us amendments behind closed

5:27:38doors. A whole year of highly

5:27:40organized, methodical

5:27:43moratorium process would have

5:27:45taken place. The end result

5:27:47would have been a comprehensive

5:27:49policy that guarantees the

5:27:50protection of the people of

5:27:51Fayetteville and the community,

5:27:53benefits that favor our

5:27:54residents far more than that of

5:27:56center developers. It's not too

5:28:00late to do this, though. We can

5:28:02do it the right way. I know the

5:28:05majority of you want to do the

5:28:07right thing for Fayetteville.

5:28:10Council member here I agree

5:28:11with you. The setback needs to

5:28:12be 1000ft and that is what the

5:28:15community wants. Councilmember

5:28:18Honduras, I agree with you. The

5:28:19state and the federal

5:28:20government need to do more. But

5:28:22we can we can make sure

5:28:24Fayetteville is protected right

5:28:25now with well-thought out local

5:28:26plan. Council member McNair,

5:28:29Councilmember Davis, you both

5:28:31know these shows do not include

5:28:34the best practice you learned

5:28:35in about in Virginia. We can do

5:28:37better. Council Member

5:28:40Ferguson, I appreciate your

5:28:41discussions with me on data

5:28:42centers. I think your six month

5:28:44moratorium is a reasonable

5:28:46compromise based on what the

5:28:47community wants. Now, overall,

5:28:49the community doesn't really

5:28:50want data centers so

5:28:52overwhelming. The community

5:28:54probably prefer a three year

5:28:55moratorium. So I want to repeat

5:28:57a six month moratorium. Is the

5:28:59community compromise. Council

5:29:02member Green, Jones and

5:29:05McMillan, I thank you for

5:29:06listening to the community on

5:29:07this. I ask that all of you

5:29:11agree to a compromise of six

5:29:13month moratorium. Use these six

5:29:15months to give staff a well

5:29:17planned out agenda. So so they

5:29:19can put in as many protections

5:29:21in place as possible at the

5:29:23fifth month. Please look at the

5:29:25work. If it looks complete, the

5:29:27protections go into effect. If

5:29:29you think it needs more sign,

5:29:30just extend the moratorium

5:29:32another six months. So let's

5:29:33get this done for Fayetteville.

5:29:34Thanks.

5:29:40Madam mayor. Our next speaker

5:29:42is Miss Angela. Mona. Miss

5:29:45Angela, Mona. Not present. Um,

5:29:50our final item is a written

5:29:52comment from Miss Eric Harris

5:29:54or Mr. Eric Harris. He

5:29:57expresses support for proposed

5:29:59data centers and believes

5:30:01projects could bring

5:30:03significant private investment

5:30:04and expand the local tax base.

5:30:06Tax base? Um, create

5:30:09opportunities for surrounding

5:30:10businesses. And. But he

5:30:13acknowledges the importance of

5:30:14evaluating impacts on

5:30:17neighborhoods, public utilities

5:30:18and environment, and encourages

5:30:21council to establish

5:30:22safeguards.

5:30:23Thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank

5:30:24you all who have spoken.

5:30:26Counselor, look to you. We'll

5:30:27close the public forum and look

5:30:28to you for a motion to adjourn.

5:30:32Oh.

5:30:32Uh.

5:30:35Yeah, I think the attorney

5:30:37needs some direction.

5:30:42Um.

5:30:43Will like a motion to go in a

5:30:45closed session for attorney

5:30:46client privilege. At a minimum,

5:30:47we don't have to do the other

5:30:48one. If you don't want.

5:30:49All right. so move. All right.

5:30:53Motion by Councilman Davis. Is

5:30:55there a second? Second. About

5:30:58hair. Uh, show of hands. Going

5:31:00to a closed session with Mitch.

5:31:01The hall for attorney client

5:31:03privilege.

5:31:03Thank you.