[0:01] It is 4 o'clock. So, I will call to
order the second monthly meeting of the
[0:07] Hendersonville City Council, August 26,
2026.
[0:14] Um, you have the agenda in front of you.
Is there anything you would like to uh
[0:21] change on the
>> Yes. Yes. Mayor vote, members of city
[0:25] council,
>> you're getting this nice feedback out
[0:29] here on
>> So, uh, like to make a couple changes to
[0:36] the agenda. Would like to remove item A,
farmland preservation bond referendum
[0:42] update from Henderson County. That will
be a month from today. And I'd like to
[0:47] add a presentation by Father Andreas um,
under item A. And then I would like to
[0:53] add item E, discussion regarding Lenny's
law following the legislative updates.
[1:00] Those are my changes, please.
[1:04] » Right. Council, anything you would like
to have added or removed?
[1:10] If not, a motion
may move the city council approve the
[1:15] agenda as amended.
>> Thank you. Is there any discussion?
[1:20] Not. Those in favor of approving the
agenda as amended say I.
[1:24] » I.
>> Those oppos say no. Eyes have it. We
[1:27] have our amended. Our agenda as amended.
All right. Uh presentations.
[1:34] We have a special
presentation
[1:39] introduction.
So I think most people are you could
[1:43] just come to the podium father. Thank
you. Um and Chief Ward,
[1:49] I think most people know that there was
a fire at Immaculate Conception um
[1:54] during mass on Saturday afternoon. And I
have heard just like a tremendous
[2:00] response from our parishioners and
people in the community and our priest
[2:04] about the response time and how well you
guys handled everything. Everybody was
[2:09] evacuated very quickly and so um we
wanted to thank you but also so did
[2:15] Immaculate Conception and he wanted to
bring a letter of appreciation today.
[2:19] » Yeah, thank you very much. Um it was
just really nice to have the reassuring
[2:24] uh presence uh the professionalism of
the fire department and the police
[2:29] department as well. Um it just brought a
calm and everybody just was not alarmed.
[2:35] There wasn't panic. it was they were
just doing their job and so it it you
[2:40] know it wasn't a huge huge incident but
it was um it was an incident and so it
[2:47] it we lived it through with their help
um in a way that I don't know um it was
[2:53] the best possible outcome that could
have happened in a situation like that.
[2:58] So, just wanted to present a letter of
appreciation to the members of the
[3:03] Hendersonville Fire Department on behalf
of myself uh representing the parish and
[3:09] all our um 2200 families that um
participate and our members of our faith
[3:17] community. So,
[3:22] [applause]
[3:33] No, that's that's all right.
[3:44] » Oh, thank you so much
>> for uh thank you for thanking our fire
[3:50] department.
>> It's great. It's
[3:55] All right. Uh, next we have a
presentation regarding
[4:00] uh, improvements to city board and
commission support.
[4:06] » Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of
council. John and I are going to talk to
[4:10] you about a board and committees
overhaul.
[4:13] the desired outcome for today. We want
some feedback on proposed changes
[4:19] including marketing, training,
onboarding, and the appointments and
[4:24] then hear any of your concerns or
anything that we may have overlooked.
[4:28] » The reason we're doing this is we've had
a pretty significant attrition rate on
[4:33] our boards and commission. Also, I know
that members of um city council have
[4:38] received concerns about maybe how
training, how meetings may be run. Also,
[4:46] um you know, we've had meetings where um
we haven't had quorum a number of times
[4:52] and we want to make sure that our boards
and commissions are running most
[4:55] efficiently as they can and also that
everybody's getting value um not only
[5:01] value from city council, from the advice
you get from the boards and commission,
[5:05] but also from our board and commission
members um who are devoting their time
[5:10] to this work.
[5:14] So, as John mentioned, some of the
reasons why we're uh proposing some of
[5:19] these changes, it was noted in your
strategic plan under the focus area of
[5:24] engaged and educated community. The
overhaul was a big rock that uh was
[5:29] captured um to increase retention of
members and also to empower our staff
[5:36] assist to make sure that they receive
the training that uh helps make the
[5:40] boards and committees more effective.
[5:44] So, a little bit of background. Uh, we
met with staffis and the board and
[5:49] committee chairs. Uh, we actually met
with the staff twice. And some themes
[5:54] that came out of those meetings included
a lack of understanding of role in time
[5:59] obligations, a lack of board specific
training, a desire to have input on
[6:04] applicants, and then overall concerns
with civility.
[6:10] We had I mean I think we it was a good
approach. I had previously interviewed
[6:15] members of the ESB um who had left that
board. Um got a variety of reasons why
[6:21] people left the board um the
resignations and things. Um so um a lot
[6:28] of it came down to uh maybe personality
disagreements or um issues or just time
[6:35] obligations. So, and then when we sat
down with the [clears throat] committee
[6:38] chairs, we received this kind of
feedback, but nothing glaring. Um, but
[6:44] we feel like what we're presenting
tonight or this afternoon will will be a
[6:48] good approach going forward.
[6:52] » So, moving into some suggested actions.
First is to update kind of the marketing
[6:59] of the boards and committees. This
includes introduction videos that are
[7:04] specific to each board and committee,
web pages that clarify roles,
[7:08] responsibilities, what some of their
ongoing projects are, and what typical
[7:13] tasks look like for members. One of the
larger things that we're uh wanting
[7:18] feedback on are the prerequisites.
Uh this would require before applying
[7:25] for potential applicants to either
attend two board meetings or attend one
[7:30] board meeting and then meet with the
staff assist one on- one. This would I
[7:35] think inform them more about kind of
what they're getting into. Um and
[7:40] hopefully since they know what they're
getting into, they're more likely to
[7:43] stay. And the reason we gave two options
is some of our boards only meet
[7:47] quarterly, but we made them attend two
board meetings. You know, it's half a
[7:51] year for they may lose interest. So, we
gave them the option that they can go to
[7:56] one board meeting and then follow up
with the staff to talk about what they
[8:00] saw um and what our um expectations.
[8:08] Increased training is a another large
topic that we heard over and over during
[8:14] our meetings. Um, we would like to do
one-on-one onboarding with the staff
[8:18] assist, which with each of the appointed
members. And then we'd like to do yearly
[8:24] training for not only board members, but
also the staff assist to cover things
[8:28] like procedural roles, civility,
conflict of interest, and attendance
[8:32] requirements. and then for the council
liaison for the boards and committees to
[8:37] really understand the roles and
responsibilities of that position. Uh
[8:41] and then also the school of government
does provide training and uh we think
[8:45] that the city should support board and
committee members to attend those
[8:48] trainings.
>> Um we as we were talking to the chairs
[8:52] about um the council liaison role. We
felt like it's a role that each of you
[8:57] serve on a committee and they they would
like for that role be for liaison to
[9:02] bring back
their goals, bring back what they're
[9:05] doing to the full city council. They
want to make sure there's that two good
[9:09] two-way communication. So, um, we would
like so if they're going off track, the
[9:15] liaison can come back to council, talk
about what they're doing if they are
[9:19] kind of because they're advising the
city council, right? That is their role.
[9:23] One of their roles is to advise city
council. I mean, planning board and
[9:26] board of adjustment um and HPC are a
little bit different because they have
[9:30] statutory requirements or regulatory,
but our others are are strictly advisory
[9:34] for you. And so, we want to make sure um
that they are providing the advice that
[9:39] you want to and going in the direction.
Not that you control what they're doing,
[9:42] but just make sure if they have projects
or initiatives that don't align with our
[9:47] strategic goals and the council's vision
that we can guide them through the
[9:52] council leaison to um to refocus their
energy to prevent frustration farther
[9:58] down the road.
[10:02] » Input on appointments. Uh this came up
both via staffis and the chairs. Um what
[10:08] we are suggesting is that we share the
applications with staff assist and get
[10:14] general comments not recommendations on
appointments but highlights if they you
[10:19] know volunteer with the HPC or they were
previously on a board. Um that way it
[10:24] can better inform your decision on who
to appoint. And then we're also
[10:29] suggesting that we change appointment
months. So right now we appoint in June
[10:34] and December. We're suggesting we change
that to May and November. That will give
[10:40] an additional month which will allow for
that proper onboarding of the new member
[10:45] before their term actually begins.
>> I would add here um we our tradition or
[10:52] my position and and the city attorney I
think agrees with me. Um previously we
[10:58] believe or we still believe that
appointment of boards and commission
[11:02] members are city council appointments.
staff should not be driving that. These
[11:08] these are your appointments. These are
folks in in our community that will be
[11:12] advising you. However,
um and so historically we have just kind
[11:18] of left it and staff has not been
involved at all. We took the
[11:21] applications, we gave you the
applications and let you do what you may
[11:25] with them. Um, but we've also learned
that, you know, there's some things that
[11:30] maybe we can put as general notes,
general comments if people have been
[11:34] active that may help help you make
decisions, help you discern who the best
[11:39] candidates are. Again, as um Jenny said,
you know, somebody who if they want to
[11:45] apply for the ESB and they've been for
the last five years have been working at
[11:48] Hindo Earthfest
and other candidates haven't volunteered
[11:53] their time, that may be good information
for you. doesn't mean you have to
[11:56] appoint that person. That may be good
information. Same for historic
[12:00] preservation. If somebody's or downtown,
somebody took it used their own time and
[12:05] their own money go to go to the main
street conference. Maybe you should know
[12:09] that compared to other folks that are
just filled out a form. Um but it is
[12:13] just want to be clear. It is it is still
our belief that these appointments are
[12:18] your appointments. We just want to give
you the information and the data so you
[12:22] can make good sound decisions.
[12:27] One thing that may help guide the boards
and committees uh and kind of keep them
[12:32] from going off track is we're suggesting
that they create yearly work plans. Um
[12:37] this will identify events, policies,
projects, uh have them submit formal
[12:44] budget requests, identify alignment with
the overall city strategic plan. uh and
[12:49] we'd want to put that in front of you
for adoption uh during the budget
[12:55] ordinance adoption meeting as well. Um
in addition to that, we would like I
[13:00] think we learned quite a bit meeting
with the staff assist and the chairs and
[13:04] we'd like to continue that hosting
semianual meetings with the staff assist
[13:08] and then annual meetings with the
chairs. This will help us kind of keep a
[13:12] thumb on what trends we're seeing if
retention isn't quite where we want it
[13:16] to be and so we can take corrective
action like we're doing today. And then
[13:21] another thing that we are suggesting is
uh offboarding to either do an exit
[13:25] interview or an exit survey to
understand why people are exiting the
[13:29] boards.
I think the thing I would add here as it
[13:32] relates to the work plan is our we our
vision is that happens during the spring
[13:36] of the year um particularly um around
February March maybe it definitely in
[13:43] the early part of the winter or in the
winter so that if there's any financial
[13:47] resource request we can get it in the
budget there's no surprises. Um, and
[13:52] then also have it adopted as part of the
budget so that council can see the work
[13:57] that is being proposed by your boards
and commissions. Again, making sure it's
[14:02] in line with the vision of the city
council in line with our strategic plan.
[14:07] So, if we need to make adjustments of
their work plan, we can do that. Um, and
[14:11] then the work plan will begin July 1.
It'll go for a year. So, you know, we'll
[14:17] start it this January of 27, develop the
plan and their first even though they
[14:22] some of them even the HPC has a work
plan, but it'll be a formal process. The
[14:27] council is aware of what your boards and
commissions and if there's things again
[14:31] projects or initiatives they want to do
that may not align with what we want
[14:37] them to spending their energy on right
now, we can give them that advice and
[14:40] and redirect that energy so again so
they don't become frustrated.
[14:46] And that is all we have for you and we'd
love to hear your thoughts and
[14:50] questions.
[14:54] » Question.
>> I think all of this sounds great.
[14:59] » Fantastic.
>> Um, yeah. No, I think there's definitely
[15:03] some training that needs to happen with
the board members because I get
[15:06] questions a lot of like, can we do that?
Do we need a second for this? and you
[15:11] know, whatever procedural issues that
they may have and like I'm happy to
[15:17] answer them to the best of my knowledge.
Um, but it would be nice if they already
[15:22] knew. And then I also think talking more
about like time and these meetings don't
[15:27] need to be more than an hour and a half
unless it's something like planning
[15:30] board or board adjustment or HBC,
something that has some sort of other
[15:34] thing they need to be doing. But um, and
I like the work plans. I think that'll
[15:38] help the boards also stay on track so
they know like this is our plan for the
[15:42] year and this is what we're going to
work on and this is what we're going to
[15:45] talk about and um I think I think the
require the prerequisite requirements
[15:50] are also because I do think a lot of
people like oh this sounds fun and then
[15:55] they start to do it and they're like oh
this is a lot of work so it'd be nice
[15:59] for them to get an idea of and who knows
maybe they'll find a board that they're
[16:02] interested in that they didn't know they
were interested
[16:06] » yeah I agree with um Councilwoman
Simpson. I think this a good idea
[16:10] because some board members
uh have the impression that they're the
[16:16] voice of the for the public
and um so some clarification on that
[16:23] would really help and then as a leazison
then we know what we're not what we're
[16:27] to do and what we're not supposed to do.
I know we don't have any voting power. I
[16:31] do know that we just act as a bridge
between the city [music] and and the
[16:37] different boards. I definitely think the
training is much needed.
[16:45] » Um I wonder about doing like
personalized applications by board too.
[16:51] I think that some of this like what a
did for us for the last appointments was
[16:57] super helpful and gave us sorry um I
think a good comprehensive look at like
[17:02] all of the related pieces like the
things that John mentioned as examples.
[17:06] I'm wondering if a way to streamline
that might be to have specific
[17:11] applications per
board so that folks who do have specific
[17:16] interests can identify those. Um just
something that I think we the folks that
[17:21] on ESB brought up because there were
things that were being missed in
[17:25] appointments and they were like, well,
I've done this for this many years and
[17:31] council didn't know about it and and
staff may not know about it, too. So,
[17:35] like to reduce the risk of
us overlooking those things as just
[17:40] people who may be wouldn't know.
I mean, I think you could do I don't
[17:45] know how I feel about different
applications for every board just
[17:48] because that sounds logistically like a
nightmare for Jill, but [laughter]
[17:54] I do think that we need to look at the
application because I do think there are
[17:57] questions on there that could be added
like, have you volunteered with the city
[18:01] in the past? Tell us when and for what.
And like then that way we can have that
[18:06] singled out. And I do think that that
spreadsheet
[18:09] » was extremely helpful last time because
then we didn't have to go back and forth
[18:13] like between all the applications like
what who did that and who did this and
[18:16] like you know it was just all there for
us. So I do think we should look at the
[18:20] application and see what else we can
capture as far as information that would
[18:24] be helpful for us to know but um
>> that that's a good happy medium. I don't
[18:29] want to make Jill have
>> I think you're completely right. Also, I
[18:32] think the staff comments will make a
huge difference, which is what you're
[18:35] already suggesting to do.
>> Yeah.
[18:37] » And so,
>> um, you know, if I'm applying for
[18:40] something, I will put my best foot
forward when I'm applying for it. So,
[18:43] I'm going to tell you on my application
what all I have done and but should be
[18:47] on there. And then if we're getting
comments from staff about things that,
[18:51] you know, specifically pertain to a
higher level of education or
[18:54] qualification for that board, then that
helps us to make the better decision.
[18:57] So, I think that's great.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I think staff also gives
[19:00] us a good insight of like it would be
really nice if we had a person that had
[19:03] a background in this for this board.
Yeah. Yeah.
[19:07] » Thank you. Perfect. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[19:15] » Okay. Uh next the draft data center
moratorum plan.
[19:27] Good evening, Madame Mayor, members
members of council. Um,
[19:32] gonna start with uh privilege of the
podium to introduce uh Nico Amy. Uh,
[19:40] Nicholas Nico is our UNC School of
Government fellow this year. Um, he
[19:46] joins us uh from Fagatville. He's a
graduate of Wake Forest and he is uh
[19:52] interested in the field of law. Uh
Daniel has yet to swerve him away from
[19:56] it, but [laughter]
uh may continue to try. Um Nico is
[20:01] working with us and working with the
community development department uh
[20:04] helping on a number of projects
associated with our strategic housing
[20:09] plan and he is with us for a year. So he
is with us through June 30th. I'm sure
[20:14] you'll see him again. And he comes free
to us although he is getting paid. uh
[20:21] the school of government uh has a
relationship with Americanore and he is
[20:26] uh supported via that program which is
wonderful. So just wanted to take the
[20:32] opportunity to introduce Nico. He's been
wonderful. He started with us at the
[20:36] beginning of August and has hit the
ground running. So um
[20:43] so at the beginning of the month uh at
your uh August regular meeting uh Mr.
[20:50] speaker introduced the review authority
for a moratorum and we spoke about uh
[20:57] what was required for that and how it
could be enacted uh and uh specifically
[21:05] as it relates to data centers and what I
am presenting this evening is a highle
[21:11] review of what staff uh in an initial
assessment see as what would be required
[21:21] during the moratorum to put together a
zoning text amendment basically that
[21:27] would then allow us to regulate data
centers going forward. So I'm going to
[21:30] talk about um that in the context of the
uh moratorum
[21:37] requirements that are established via
statute by the state. So, um, and I
[21:45] won't go back over that statute, but if
if we do need to talk about that, we
[21:49] can. It's U 160D 107, and that was some
of what, um,
[21:57] Angie talked about last month or earlier
this month. So, um, what I'll
[22:02] specifically be looking at are the quote
unquote required statements, including
[22:07] the identification of the problem. What
what is why is a mortorium necessary?
[22:13] What is the problem? What's the timing
suggested for the moratorum? What
[22:18] actions will we take uh during that
time? And what approvals are affected?
[22:25] So um background first uh
terms of the problem, we don't have data
[22:33] centers defined in our zoning ordinance.
Um, we don't have the term in the zoning
[22:40] ordinance. It's not listed as a use. Uh,
and there's no associated uh, CZD or
[22:47] special use um, that's specifically
called out or even just a permitted use
[22:52] uh, for data center. So, if a data
center were to come, uh, you know, that
[22:59] that presents an issue right off the
bat. uh and because there's no use to
[23:04] find I don't have districts that where
it's permitted or prohibited uh and then
[23:10] furthermore there are no standards
associated with data centers and looking
[23:15] in of quickly across the state at what
uh is happening in other communities.
[23:22] There are various conversations
basically around the scale uh of the
[23:27] data centers themselves. So literally
the square footage that they occupy and
[23:32] then uh the various uh impacts to
utilities, most notably power and water
[23:39] uh that those differing sizes uh uh you
know impact to the kinds of things that
[23:46] they have. And so many communities are
looking specifically at scale design
[23:51] requirements and impact analyses uh and
requiring those for submitt. So we've we
[23:59] don't currently have any of those things
and so that's the problem. Uh we don't
[24:03] currently have a way of dealing with the
potential impacts of a data center. Uh
[24:09] and then in terms of consideration for
the moratorum itself, why would you do
[24:13] that? We will not be able to bring a
zoning text amendment to you next month
[24:18] that would tackle the complexity of that
amendment. Right? So the nature of the
[24:25] use is such that we may need to talk
with Duke to understand what their
[24:31] reality is. Certainly we'll be talking
with our water sewer folks to understand
[24:34] and what their concerns might be for a
large use. uh and then looking uh more
[24:40] specifically at the typical zoning
standards and I'll talk more about um
[24:46] what those are those categories on sort
of the last slide when I talk about what
[24:51] we look at while we did uh the study and
then what is the impact of the mortorium
[24:58] we would not issue zoning compliance
permits for standalone data centers so
[25:03] data center as a primary not be issued
during theorium
[25:08] Other things that we are looking or
paying attention to or watching, there
[25:12] are two state bills. One that appears I
I'm not sure
[25:18] defer to Mr. Conet in terms of whether
or not either of them are moving, but uh
[25:23] Senate Bill 7:30 seems the the one that
has more life. That's the rateayer
[25:28] protection
uh act. And uh I would note that it is
[25:35] tackling very large facilities. Um the
definition that they have uh is a
[25:45] uh facility that's a 100 megawatt
facility which I was like what's 100
[25:49] megawatts? Uh it's enough to power
75,000 to 100 homes. So it's basically
[25:56] enough to power the city of
Hendersonville probably. um including
[26:01] all of our commercial uses. So uh
they're at the state level looking at a
[26:08] particular scale of data center and I've
heard it called uh yeah that's the
[26:15] hypers scale. So
I so we obviously we would need to
[26:20] understand what does that actually mean
because that's what they're focused on.
[26:24] It would suggest that they're not
regulating data centers via that bill
[26:29] that are drawing less power than that.
So if the power draw was half the city
[26:36] of Hendersonville's power requirement,
the state law, this particular state law
[26:41] wouldn't impact it. So we're going to
keep paying attention to that. There's
[26:44] another one, House Bill 1189, which was
more related, it was a two-year
[26:49] moratorum and related to the sales and
use tax benefits that I think some of
[26:55] the existing data centers that were put
in place
[26:59] had advantage of. uh and I I don't know
again the status of that one either but
[27:05] we will continue to uh
follow those as the process goes
[27:13] forward. So in terms of proposed plan
this is what we're suggesting. Um you'll
[27:23] notice that the the actual timeline
that's proposed is about 10 months. Um
[27:28] it is delivering
the adoption to city council ahead of
[27:35] the recommended moratorum time length
which is 12 months. Um
[27:41] call that a contingency fee. Um you know
just to make sure that we do have the
[27:46] time to work through it. I do think that
uh the proposed timeline here is one
[27:52] that will allow us to um fully review
and develop a zoning text amendment that
[27:57] is appropriate for the city of
Hendersonville and continue to manage
[28:02] the workload that we have um in the
community development department as as
[28:08] it currently stands. Um,
and so I offer that I outline kind of
[28:15] what we would propose to do during those
time frames and uh am happy to answer
[28:21] any questions we you have about that. in
terms of what we would specifically be
[28:26] looking at during that time frame. Um
[28:31] these are some of the you know potential
ordinance elements and again this is
[28:37] reflective of a effort on my part just
to
[28:41] you know understand how these are being
regulated in other locations here in
[28:46] North Carolina and elsewhere. Uh so some
of these may be uh things that we would
[28:51] want to uh
not consider or consider at a higher
[28:58] level. Uh so obviously the use
classification would be one whether or
[29:02] not we differentiate
uh scale of impact. You know um
[29:08] currently with our commercial buildings
we have a CZD standard that uh if a
[29:12] building exceeds 50,000 square feet it
has to go through the conditional zoning
[29:16] process. if it's under 50,000, there are
variety of uh different processes that
[29:21] apply. Um, and so we could look at that
level specifically as it relates to data
[29:27] centers, looking at which districts it
would be appropriate in, where would we
[29:31] want to see it located, uh, if um, you
know, around the city. Uh and um and
[29:40] then any you know special use permits,
conditional zoning, things along those
[29:45] lines that we might want to add in. Um
and then in terms of the site
[29:51] requirements and infrastructure
standards, I' I've listed a couple
[29:54] there. Things that uh I think are unique
to data centers that I came across while
[30:00] reviewing those. Um there's a lot of
discussion obviously about the
[30:07] electrical requirements but then
pretty notably then about the backup
[30:12] electrical requirements and number of
conversations or discussions around
[30:18] noise requirements. You have diesel
generators that are turning on if the
[30:23] power goes out for these things. It's
you know if you've been around the
[30:27] diesel generator at the fire station
when it turns on when the power goes out
[30:30] it's you know it's pretty If you've got
30 of those running in a data center, I
[30:35] can imagine that could be pretty loud.
So things like that that are pretty
[30:38] unique to the nature of the user. Um all
of those would be uh the kinds of
[30:44] potential requirements that we would
investigate and try to determine what
[30:49] the viability of those impacts would
actually.
[30:54] So, um
[31:02] I have other examples of these that I
can offer, but um what I really wanted
[31:06] to highlight was kind of the overview.
And so I I think at that at this point
[31:11] I'm going to stop and see if there are
any questions that you all have.
[31:16] » Lou, I think the only thing I would ask
and make make sure I'm correct for Angie
[31:21] correct me. you know, we're not allowed
to, and this is for the public that may
[31:25] be listening, and we'll say this again
next week at the public hearing. Um,
[31:29] we're not allowed to do an outright ban,
I think. Am I wrong about that? I
[31:38] » I don't know. I I'm not going to say yes
or no on that right now. That's an issue
[31:42] in our
>> Friday, I think. So,
[31:45] » okay. So,
>> anyway,
[31:48] » so maybe maybe not. Um, currently, so
we'll see. Um um so well I just lost my
[31:55] whole train of thought there. So anyway,
we're you know we're going to ask
[31:58] council um you know traditionally we've
not been able to do an out traditionally
[32:03] been able to do an out outright ban. I
mean if you can't do an outright ban to
[32:08] sexually oriented businesses I don't
think you could do an outright ban.
[32:13] So she's going to disagree with me of
more data centers. But anyway,
[32:17] historically, that may be changing case
law, things like that, whatever the case
[32:21] may be. So, public hearing, council can
make their decision next week as it
[32:27] relates to that.
>> Um, and one thing I just wanted to say
[32:29] about why why do a moratorium? You know,
that's a big question. Why? Um, and
[32:35] because the statutes were amended
several years ago for permit choice, but
[32:40] you could undertake and do all of this
study over the course of a year without
[32:44] doing a moratorum. And if somebody came
in and applied for one in the meantime,
[32:48] they get to choose which version of our
ordinance they um get to apply. And so
[32:53] it could allow somebody to kind of
bypass whatever you're getting ready to
[32:57] put in place. And so that would be a
reason to do a mortorium if you so
[33:03] choose.
[33:06] And sexually oriented businesses have a
first amendment
[33:14] protection. Ah, thank you. That's why
you're an attorney and I'm a city
[33:18] manager. [laughter]
[33:21] » So, not asking for any action tonight.
Um, requires a public hearing and so um
[33:30] just want to um
if you had any questions or any
[33:34] direction at this point.
>> I just want to thank y'all for the
[33:38] amount of work that has gone into this.
I know it's like a constantly changing
[33:41] landscape that's taking a lot of
digging. I just pulled up both of those
[33:44] bills and they're both extremely dense
and I don't know what's happening with
[33:48] them. So, thank you all for the work
that you're doing to make sense out of
[33:51] it.
>> I completely agree. The only thing I
[33:55] would like to ask is um is there a way
in an ordinance to address a evolving or
[34:03] changing
[34:08] um because so many things are changing
with data centers and the technology is
[34:13] getting it like it seems like it changes
and improves within three to six months
[34:18] sometimes. And so when we're drafting an
ordinance um and which I am supportive
[34:23] of a moratorium, but can we is there a
way to add something like that to where
[34:29] if the technology is changing then we
can amend things as we go or
[34:36] if we do this then there's no changing
it.
[34:38] » I mean you can always amend things as
you go but it depends on how it's
[34:42] crafted. So if you have some triggers in
there that for instance
[34:47] uh electricity usage and or water usage
and the technology becomes such that
[34:52] those aren't triggered any longer then
you know they may not be fall under
[34:59] those restrictions. And so um you would
want to stay a breast of that though
[35:03] because you know something on that scale
and just in terms of business size you
[35:07] want to have some sort of separation
setback minimal things I think but um
[35:14] but yes we can we can try and do
consider that.
[35:23] » So then is the plan to do the public
hearing next week? Okay.
[35:29] Awesome.
>> We thought we would just give the
[35:32] council and the public um the idea of
what the plan may propose
[35:37] » so they would have that ahead of time so
they could speak to that at the public
[35:42] hearing if they felt like that was that
so moved them.
[35:51] » Thank you.
[35:56] » Okay. Um, legislative update.
[36:04] » There it is. Thank you,
>> Tom's team. I thought I'd take a few
[36:09] minutes. Uh, we participated or I
participated in the league's end of the
[36:15] and mayor may have been on it last week,
end of the year session wrapup. Did all
[36:22] of you participate? If you did, we'll
just move on. No.
[36:25] » Okay.
>> I did not. Okay. Did anybody else
[36:28] besides the mayor and I sitting at the
dis? Okay. All right. Well, then I'm
[36:31] gonna keep going. So, I just thought we
would give you a short wrap up kind of
[36:36] let you know um what happened in Raleigh
this past year um and what we have to
[36:41] look forward to um probably assuming um
elections um the short session or the
[36:47] long session next year.
Uh just using their outline. I'll skip
[36:53] over the governmental affairs outline.
That's typical boilerplate stuff from
[36:57] the league, but also share some
political landscape session wrap up and
[37:02] any questions you may have for me or
Angie or or anybody else in the room.
[37:09] Skip this. Uh
so political landscape just kind of I
[37:14] thought this was interesting information
regarding growth in North Carolina that
[37:19] our population um is now over 11.2 2
million as the 25 estimate. Um since
[37:26] 2020 and last um since for five years we
added over 750,000
[37:33] people to our great state. That's a
percent increase of 7.2 which is high
[37:39] high growth rate. We're the third
fastest um state fastest growing state
[37:45] in the country. Um not only in number
but also in percentage. And currently
[37:50] we're the ninth largest state, but by
2030 we're projected to surpass uh
[37:55] Georgia and Ohio to be in the top seven
um as largest states in the union.
[38:04] But um most of that growth is in seven
of the f or in the seven of the 10
[38:10] fastest growing North Carolina cities.
Um um and they were in most of them,
[38:16] excuse me, seven out of 10 of the
fastest growing are in the triangle and
[38:19] we did see and this was I thought this
was an interesting point that those of
[38:24] us in the west
that you'll see that we due to Helen we
[38:29] had a decline in population. Um we are
down here in the green. So we are still
[38:34] growing in Henderson County and
Hendersonville in our area but anywhere
[38:39] um along the French Broad and area
around Asheville um there you see we saw
[38:44] a decline um in population um from 24 to
25.
[38:49] » What's up there to the west of
Asheville? Is that Wesville?
[38:56] » What did I just do? Alison.
Oh, sorry. It It's It's fine.
[39:01] » It's error. It's [laughter]
Sorry.
[39:03] » It's error. User user error. You talk
right over here.
[39:07] » And there's a blue dot behind the S or a
green dot,
[39:09] » right? That green dot. I think that's
probably Wesville.
[39:12] » Okay.
>> Canton Canton would be the brown dot.
[39:15] Wesville would be the green dot.
>> But we are seeing some growth. I mean,
[39:19] if you looked at some statewide um the
folks down in Mon County around
[39:23] Franklin, that Atlanta influence is
creeping up there. So, you're seeing
[39:27] some growth there. But you see majority
of growth is around the big cities, the
[39:31] big metros um which ultimately will um
you'll see here urban and halo counties
[39:37] are growing rapidly while the rural
counties are losing population. We still
[39:41] are showing growth, positive growth. Um
ours did slow because of Helen. Um and
[39:47] cities and towns continue to drive
population growth across the state, but
[39:52] the metro areas are getting bigger. um
certain pockets of rural areas where you
[39:58] may have influence um from Atlanta, like
I said, in western North Carolina or
[40:03] Myrtle Beach, the beach area, or
Virginia Beach, Tidewater area um in
[40:08] Northeast. But um that's where your
growth is across the state of North
[40:12] Carolina.
Uh Charlotte gained um more people in
[40:17] 2425 than any other city and they're now
the 14th largest city um in the country
[40:23] with almost a million people. Um in
Charlotte proper um Robbie's population
[40:28] now exceeds 500,000 with of course the
triangle is what is is over a million as
[40:34] a region
of course Charlotte is too um 70% of all
[40:39] North Carolina municipalities added
population
[40:42] um that percentage was higher um the
prior year I think you that also is um
[40:48] related to Helen causing many of our
North Carolina cities in 2425.
[40:53] You can see some of the fastest growing
cities in in North Carolina being around
[40:58] the triangle, Windendell, Zebulun,
Angela, Edger, Four Oaks, um,
[41:03] Rollsville, um, and then you got
Bolivia, which is on the coast down in
[41:08] Brunswick County, and then again back to
the triangle and Charlotte region there.
[41:12] NASA is also down in Brunswick County.
[41:18] What does that mean for us as it relates
to growth? Um everybody's moving toward
[41:23] from a electoral standpoint. Um this is
your current breakdown of our
[41:27] delegation. Um our rural congressional
delegation is 10 Republicans. Um um all
[41:34] in the large rural districts, four
Democrats only in one only one of them
[41:40] in a rural district. whereas um that
show you're seeing that your Republican
[41:47] um concentrations are in the more rural
suburban areas. Uh urban uh general
[41:53] assembly representation um 30% or of the
seats are in top three counties,
[41:58] Meckllinburgg, Wake and Guilford. You'll
see there that they the number of
[42:03] senators and reps in those three big
districts. What does that mean?
[42:08] Everybody's eyeing 2030 and 2031
2030 census and 2031 redistricting.
[42:16] Whichever party um holds um the majority
in the general assembly at that time
[42:21] will be able to control that um
redistricting process um and who will
[42:26] decide. And of course we all know that
with redistricting comes litigation
[42:31] which is par for the course there. We
expect an additional congressional seat
[42:36] in the state. Um, we have 11 now. So, we
could probably pick up a 12th. Um, and
[42:41] also reallocation of representation in
the general assembly and rebalancing for
[42:47] those municipalities in counties that
have districts in 2030, you would have
[42:52] to rebalance. We are not, we're at
large. Um, so we would not have to
[42:56] rebalance our districts.
[42:59] uh federal delegation as you see here um
mentioned um two senators both are GOP
[43:07] and 14 house members 10 GOP for
Democrats. Um district one was redrawn
[43:13] in 2025 which I think is a competitive
district as well as is currently seated
[43:19] by um Congressman um Don Davis um who's
a Democrat there. It's a competitive
[43:26] district and of course district 11 where
we are has now shaping up to be a
[43:31] competitive district here. So also be
dealing with the impact of Louisiana
[43:38] versus Callus. I won't dare try to take
the city attorney's thunder about what
[43:43] all that means. But it that case was
related to um the voters's right the
[43:48] voting right rights act and its
implication in redistricting. That's as
[43:53] much as I'm gonna say about that.
Uh our legislature now um Republican
[44:00] have a super majority in the Senate as
you know 3020 close to a super majority
[44:06] um in the House uh 7149
but with the two Democrats that became
[44:14] unaffiliated
of sometimes voting with the House that
[44:17] they can have a super majority if those
two folks vote with the Republicans. So
[44:23] that is the current makeup. All this
leads us to November. Um and will this
[44:29] story stay the same or will it change?
Um and the next three or four months
[44:34] we'll we'll see. Um but that is um what
the election is all about is the control
[44:42] particularly in North Carolina of our
seats in the general assembly um by
[44:47] parties as well as um the congressional
seats. Are they able Republicans able to
[44:52] hold on to the number of congressional
seats in North Carolina and maybe try to
[44:57] pick up one or without losing?
Political trends. Um
[45:03] couple things here. Um the process for
getting laws passed at the general
[45:08] assembly is very much truncated. Um they
are only working about two days a week.
[45:13] They're only making law about two weeks.
Two days a week. Previously, they would
[45:19] come in on Monday nights. They would
work Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and
[45:23] leave late Thursday night. Now, they're
coming in on Tuesday, doing a little bit
[45:28] of business on Tuesday, doing business
all day on Wednesday, and then
[45:33] taking off on uh late Wednesday or early
30. So, they're really shortening it
[45:38] down to about two days of work versus
the three, three and a half that that
[45:42] was tradition previously. Um it is we're
seeing fewer laws passed in 25 and I'll
[45:49] show that graph in a minute and al also
some of the impacts of the one big
[45:54] beautiful bill.
Uh they talked about the league folks
[45:59] talked about we had the first
comprehensive budget since 23. Um
[46:04] there's growing Medicaid pressure on the
state and feds for that matter. Uh we're
[46:09] still fighting for her h her lane
hurricane Hela relief. Um and there's a
[46:14] strong desire
um in the general assembly to lower
[46:18] income tax which is what they were
focused on which was a lot of the budget
[46:22] discussions were tied to the lower
income taxes and the comprehensive
[46:26] budget. That was a lot of the debate
between the house and the senate the
[46:31] last couple years.
uh practical impacts for us. Um very
[46:36] unpredictable.
Um we're seeing a lot of um fewer number
[46:42] of bills, a lot of ominous bills where
they take a single bill, strip it out,
[46:48] and throw a lot of everything but the
kitchen sink into that one bill. U which
[46:53] and it typically does not go through a
normal committee process.
[46:57] um it comes out maybe late on Tuesday
night and they're sending it through to
[47:03] the floor um on Wednesday morning and
there's very little ability to see
[47:09] what's in the in the bills and react to
it. Um very hard and I talked about the
[47:14] the gut and replace that we're seeing
there um seeing contradictory results um
[47:20] and some hostage taking. I will not
leave that editorial I will don't touch
[47:25] that editorial comment. But one thing
we're hearing from even folks that have
[47:28] been around the general assembly a lot.
It's really hard to stop um bad things
[47:32] from happening whichever party you're in
once it gets in its rolling um without
[47:38] much knowledge. And there's some
examples of that as it relates to the
[47:41] budget bill that I'll talk about in a
minute. Um here are the historical look
[47:46] at bills being introduced from 85 to the
present. Um you can see there we hit a
[47:53] peak um prior to 200 um around 2007208
there and you've seen a gradual decline
[48:01] in the number of bills. The lowest point
was in 2324
[48:06] but we've seen a little bit of an uptick
the last couple years but still nothing
[48:10] like we were seeing prior to the great
recession.
[48:17] And I think one caveat I just said to
that is um and this is by no means a
[48:22] partisan also that is directly related
to um when the Republicans took control
[48:29] of the general assembly in 2011. So
there's a direct I mean obviously a
[48:34] direct correlation in how they want to
govern and reduce um passing of bills
[48:40] and laws.
Uh here's what's actually passed in a
[48:45] regular session. you know, all-time lows
only passed. They had 20 of 2,300 bills
[48:50] introduced, only 151 were passed. Now,
some of those 151 took a number of the
[48:58] 200 of the 2,334
bills um and put them in a single bill.
[49:06] Um so they, you know, put them in an
ominous bill and one bill. So those
[49:10] bills are made. Some of those
legislative actions are included in the
[49:14] 151 um just to reduce the number that
were actually approved. But that's what
[49:18] we're seeing. Fewer bills um after
they're introduced.
[49:23] What happened? Um what what they do? Um
so we did pass the budget. They overrode
[49:29] some vetos. Still a couple vetos out
there. We've added two more
[49:32] constitutional amendments that will be
on the ballot. There'll be three on the
[49:36] ballot. Um this November they redrew the
congressional map and a little bit more
[49:43] um issues they talked about was property
tax, infrastructure investment, budget
[49:49] special provisions, downzoning,
preeemption of local government
[49:53] authority, land land use zoning,
deanexation, local elections, and local
[49:57] government oversight. Uh we all are
familiar with the House Select Committee
[50:03] on Property Tax Reduction Reform that
met. Uh Brian and I um were were
[50:09] involved in a working group of managers
staying on top of that. We drove to
[50:14] Raleigh a couple times to committee
meetings to just stay a breast because
[50:19] that is our one local revenue source um
that we have that we have the only we
[50:25] have control of. um our only revenue
source we have control of. So uh reform
[50:30] in the local property tax system does
have direct impacts on our ability to
[50:35] provide services to our citizens. So we
stayed on top of it. There was a working
[50:40] group in the Senate which got a whole
lot less attention. They did not have
[50:44] any public meetings. Um uh membership
was only one party. Um and most of the
[50:51] folks there had priority or had prior
local government experience. But again,
[50:55] no public meetings. Um, not a lot of
action.
[51:00] Nobody knows really what their method
is. We assume it's it's in some of the
[51:05] bills that were passed related to
property tax. Um, there that working
[51:09] group was put together um at the end
right before the primary election
[51:15] um as President Prom Burgerer was in a
tough uh primary fight.
[51:21] Here's what we have in November.
constitutional amendment. Um, this is
[51:25] what it says. Um, very ambiguous and
vague and general. Um, that will be on
[51:30] the ballot. The general assembly shall
enact general laws limiting the amount
[51:34] by which the levy of taxes on property
may increase, which may include
[51:39] exceptions.
So, when you go to the pools polls,
[51:43] you'll be asked to vote on that. Um,
so there you have it. um if that um is
[51:52] approved, which I don't know of, you
know, we're North Carolinians and proud
[51:57] and who's not going to vote for le
limiting the amount of taxes we pay. So,
[52:03] all anticipations is that that
constitutional amendment will pass and
[52:08] then they'll come back into long session
um to develop legislation um
[52:14] to address that constitutional mandate.
Um, also in there, um, is, uh, that is
[52:21] moving forward and I let my
[52:32] a bill that is moving through um, and
close to adoption or passing is a truth
[52:38] um, and taxation bill. It is a bill
rated basically related to notifying
[52:43] that this city council if approved. All
cities and counties will have to do
[52:47] this. Um will be an additional um
requirement when we adopt our budget uh
[52:52] every during the reval years. You will
have to um if we intend to um go above
[53:01] revenue neutral, we will have to hold a
separate public hearing in addition to
[53:06] the typical budget ordinance public
hearing. um they can occur
[53:11] simultaneously
um or in order I guess um but you'll
[53:16] have to have two public hearings. We'll
have to send out first class mailed
[53:19] notices to all taxpayers letting them
know that you are proposing to adopt a
[53:24] budget um that will um include a tax
rate that is above revenue neutral
[53:31] during the rebal year. Um and there's a
couple other notification processes
[53:35] there, but um that is Yes, ma'am. Um
just to understand the timeline. So next
[53:41] year's reval,
right, for Henderson County, but this
[53:46] would not have the chance of actually
capturing next year's reval in that
[53:49] truth and taxation. Correct.
>> Um let's see here if they've got an
[53:53] effective date here. Um it would you are
correct. It would not be it would be for
[53:58] fiscal years beginning on or after July
1 of 27. They would not be um so
[54:04] subsequently reval years. we would have
to do that. But thank you for that
[54:08] question.
So, so stay tuned on property tax and um
[54:17] uh the TRA truth and taxation laws.
[54:23] Here is the property tax reappraisal
moratorum does not impact us. So, I'll
[54:27] keep on going from there. There was one
positive bill that was adopted related
[54:32] to affordable housing. And there was a
loophole that if a private developer um
[54:37] had a partner as small as a very small
percentage as small as 1%
[54:44] um a nonprofit was a partner of that
small they could get uh some of the
[54:48] property tax um exemptions that that
nonprofit. So, um, this actually was a
[54:54] positive that that came out of the
property tax subcommittee. Um, and they
[54:59] identified that early on and enacted
legislation to close that loophole. Very
[55:03] positive.
Uh, other things as it relates to
[55:08] earmarks or infrastructure investments,
very few directed grants. Um, only over
[55:13] just over a million in the budget. Um I
think that's you're seeing um the
[55:18] one-time money or extra money that what
we all saw coming out of COVID um is now
[55:24] been spent. So the earmarks are dropping
dramatically. Um our PAL bill was
[55:30] protected which was very positive for
us. Charlotte was able to get a regional
[55:34] transit tax. Um fully funded federal
grant programs that we use a great deal
[55:40] in our utility system. So that's
positive. fully funded the state
[55:43] revolving loan and community development
block grants that help support um
[55:48] business in the industry and our utility
system and also contracting um the new
[55:54] DEI DEI laws. Um that bill is still out
there has been vetoed by the governor
[56:00] waiting a veto override but they did
eliminate the the hood office.
[56:08] So here are the things talking about
what gets added to and this this has
[56:12] some implications for us. Um some some
things that were dropped into the budget
[56:17] that nobody was aware of until after the
budget was adopted. Some positive, some
[56:21] negative. Um I want to point to the SNAP
error rate payment for county and
[56:27] municipal sales tax. So um traditionally
the federal government has covered SNAP
[56:32] payments um and any errors related to
that. But in the big beautiful bill,
[56:38] they passed um a part of that um made
the dec made the decision that any
[56:43] errors assoc if if a county or state and
then ultimately counties because the
[56:48] county administer the SNAP program have
a high error rate, they were required to
[56:53] pay penalties back to the federal
government um to cover that um those
[56:59] errors, potential fraudulent um pe
people getting the the benefit don't not
[57:05] eligible things like that. So, the
federal government passed it to the
[57:09] state. North Carolina chose to fund that
by uh reducing if your county has a
[57:19] certain error rate. They will reduce
your sales tax distribution before it
[57:25] comes back to the local level. Um,
no one's quite sure how that's going to
[57:31] work yet. Um but um it does impact so if
you take sales tax off the top before
[57:37] it's redistributed to North obviously it
reduced the big pie the big pie which
[57:42] will reduce our distribution
um at the city level even though we have
[57:47] no involvement in the SNAP program and
have no say as it relates to um the
[57:53] error rate who gets so we um maybe um
but we will be a be could receive
[58:02] receive or receive a less amount of our
sales tax. It could drop our sales tax,
[58:07] which is concerning considering
everything else that is going on related
[58:11] to the property tax levy. Um, just
reducing our flexibility to provide
[58:15] services, but we are working on that.
That does not go into effect until
[58:19] October of 2027.
U, we will continue to monitor that. I
[58:24] know the league is working and the
county commissioners association because
[58:28] that is also impacting the counties,
right? I mean, the county has had to
[58:30] fund that. Um, so, um, looking for
potential opportunities for that relief
[58:37] at the state and federal level. So, stay
tuned for that. But something we're
[58:42] working on, but it could reduce your
revenue. Our law enforcement officers
[58:45] got a 700 $1,750 bonus. Congratulations,
Chief. Um, everybody, all certified
[58:52] officers get that. Um, it's being
funneled through the SBI. We're still
[58:56] trying to figure out the logistics of
that. Um but it's it's coming directly
[59:01] um it will come to our law enforcement
officers. Uh new requirement to report
[59:06] economic development expenditures
related uh anything over 25,000 um to
[59:11] the state auditor.
That is what it says. There's no clear
[59:16] guidance of what is an economic
development expenditure. So we're trying
[59:20] to work out that in technical
corrections and figuring out exactly
[59:23] what what do we have to report to the
state audit. They did merge um a number
[59:28] of u into the department of labor the
three building code councils. There were
[59:32] three building codes. So they merged
that into one and that will impact
[59:36] building inspections, fire code, those
kind of things. Uh interbasin transfer
[59:42] moratorium and study. um two
high-profile cases. One on the Kataba
[59:48] River basin related to Charlotte and the
Hickory area over the water in the
[59:53] Kataba basin and also a similar down on
the Capefere around Fable related that
[59:58] is more related to um Pifos and um
things of that related to pollution
[1:00:04] there. And then they also shifted some
powers from the governor. So you see
[1:00:08] some things that were special
provisions, good, some good, some not so
[1:00:13] good, that were in the budget that um
there was no opportunity for debate.
[1:00:17] There's no opportunity to try to talk to
our legislators, which is concerning um
[1:00:22] because there's some in some of these
things, as you can see with them in this
[1:00:25] the SNAP error rate, there's some
unintended consequences that will impact
[1:00:29] local governments.
[1:00:32] uh downzoning uh no action as it relates
to the downzoning provision that was
[1:00:38] passed in 2024. There was some movement
um in the Senate um in early um May of
[1:00:46] 2025.
We didn't see any action in the short
[1:00:49] session. In fact, Senate Bill 587 was
stripped of the downzoning and now it's
[1:00:57] related to wave surfing. So um we will
have to start over as it relates to um
[1:01:03] that also impacted Mills River. You may
have read that Mills River had gotten a
[1:01:08] special provision in 25 to adopt their
UDO that was repealed um right before
[1:01:13] the end of the session this year. But
we're seeing these oneoffs. So still
[1:01:18] need to um that will be that's
problematic for us because we know we
[1:01:22] need to update our zoning ordinance. We
did our we've completed our comp plan.
[1:01:27] It's in great shape. Lou's been
challenged with uh updating our zoning
[1:01:31] ordinance, but the law prohibiting um
downzoning and non-conforming
[1:01:37] um uses is is um is problematic and
we're trying to work through how we how
[1:01:43] we deal with the the drastic need to
update our zoning.
[1:01:50] And here's some pree uh preemptive
issues that some were passed, some were
[1:01:56] not. Some pertain to us, some do not.
Most of these um I'll go through. Um
[1:02:04] some of are caught up in the 53 page of
the regulatory reform act of 2026.
[1:02:10] Um minimum lot size does not pertain to
us. Residential and commercial and light
[1:02:16] duty does not pertain to us. ADUs do not
pertain to us. Vested rights do pertain
[1:02:23] to us. It extended the vested right from
one year to three years. Angie, is that
[1:02:27] right?
Two years ago, they adjusted that. U
[1:02:33] permit choice um became law in the
budget. Um there was an attempt to put
[1:02:38] shot clocks on development. That did not
pass. We are required to put fee
[1:02:43] schedules online which we do anyway. Um
but so those were the things in the
[1:02:47] regulatory reform but all that was as I
talked about the ominous bills that was
[1:02:53] those things are included in a 50 page
53 page bill um that was ultimately put
[1:02:58] forth there. Um did see a change as it
relates to homebased businesses.
[1:03:04] uh we must allow we cannot control um
homebased businesses as long as they
[1:03:09] have no impact that is um prohibit or
now um provided by right cannot be
[1:03:15] regulated
my understanding and then the big one
[1:03:20] here that you'll hear about and I think
everybody pay attention to parking
[1:03:25] minimums um have been repealed
um in residential and single family or
[1:03:32] is it across the board. Is it across the
board, Lou, or is it just residential?
[1:03:39] Okay, I think so. I think I think it's
across the board. So, uh we cannot
[1:03:44] provide parking minimums. So, um I know
we have lots of conversations that come
[1:03:49] to the city council with conditional use
about is a developer providing enough
[1:03:55] parking, those kind of things. Those
conversations are been taken out of our
[1:03:59] hands. um there. So, storm water
calculations or redevelopment, it's
[1:04:05] minor amendment there that really um
deals with the redevelopment. So, the
[1:04:10] things that impact you going forward in
the city council uh land use litigation.
[1:04:15] Um Angie can talk about this as it
relates to, you know, sending
[1:04:19] administrative zoning decisions. Um
instead of going to the board of
[1:04:23] adjustment, they can go straight to the
courts.
[1:04:27] Uh the general assembly gave standing to
statewide associations um or such as the
[1:04:35] homebuilders association or um board of
realtors or somebody like that may
[1:04:41] appeal a zoning decision even if a
developer or local individual chooses
[1:04:45] not to. Right.
Um here's the extended the time appeal
[1:04:50] for zoning decisions from one to three
years. Um Angie mentioned permit choice
[1:04:57] vesting rights decisions. Um adds
mandatory award of this is big when
[1:05:03] mandatory award of cost the prevailing
party in a zoning decision. So if
[1:05:08] someone challenges a zoning decision by
council and they are found to be the
[1:05:14] agreed party and the zoning is reversed
then we would be required to pay
[1:05:20] attorney's fees and legal cost.
and also prohibits withholding zoning
[1:05:26] permits to compel employment agreements.
I'm not exactly sure what that means.
[1:05:33] So, um but so you see some things
whittling away at the city council's
[1:05:38] authority um as it relates to um manage
development and growth in our community.
[1:05:47] And then there's a homeless bill HB437
which is out there been vetoed by the
[1:05:53] governor um waiting to be um see if that
will be overridden. Um it does prohibit
[1:06:01] um public camping.
um also allows we may establish
[1:06:07] regulated camps. It's um very similar to
what you may do for
[1:06:13] migrant type facilities is governed by
the board of of by the department of
[1:06:17] labor. But it also gives our residents
and business owners the ability to sue
[1:06:21] local governments if we do not address
public camping. Um I think an important
[1:06:27] component of that and I don't know the
answer to this is what is defined as
[1:06:30] public camping um is sleeping on a bench
public camping. Um so something to stay
[1:06:37] tuned if that bill passes and as it
relates to additional um
[1:06:45] responsibilities for our law enforcement
folks and how they interact with our
[1:06:49] unhoused
particularly in our downtown areas
[1:06:54] or across the city for that matter. Uh
number deanexation bills nothing really
[1:07:00] pertains to us here. I think the key
thing here is typically to deanex
[1:07:05] property, you have to go to the general
assembly. There's no local provision to
[1:07:08] do that, but um the league and some
other folks worked on a bill uh to get
[1:07:14] that changed. Um that bill is still
pending, but that would give the
[1:07:18] authority that you could deanex property
here locally in the same way that you
[1:07:23] annex property.
[1:07:28] uh local elections there. Seeing more
and more local elections either going
[1:07:32] partisan or shifting the elections
similar to us to um even years versus
[1:07:39] odd years, moving those municipal
elections to the even years.
[1:07:44] Um and then there is a local government
oversight committee. A number of our
[1:07:48] peers across the state were called
before the general assembly to answer
[1:07:53] questions for a variety of things um
there at the general. So that is new
[1:08:00] um in the last couple years and the
general assembly is taking it they are
[1:08:05] using it and calling folks to Raleigh to
testify before their committee.
[1:08:15] Uh that's just showing where the HP437
is. Um and just us that is the
[1:08:22] environment we are in. Um you know um
y'all know Aaron is our director of
[1:08:27] government affairs but kind of give you
an update of where we are and what got
[1:08:33] passed and what will be potentially
impacting us going forward.
[1:08:40] land use,
um, budgets,
[1:08:44] revenue, things like that.
>> When does long sessions,
[1:08:49] » when does the long session could start
February, March they go back? Yeah, I
[1:08:56] think. Yeah, it probably take it'll be
March before they really start. I have
[1:09:00] to go and get organized
because the the Senate will have to
[1:09:05] elect a new president pro Tim which will
be a change there and get organized
[1:09:10] particularly and don't know if there's
any changes in the house obviously it'll
[1:09:15] be dependent on the election too.
[1:09:20] There you have it.
Not to depress everybody
[1:09:24] » and and you did it quicker than Aaron
did.
[1:09:26] » Thank you.
[1:09:31] All right. Any questions on that?
Comments on that?
[1:09:39] We are
under the thumb of the general assembly
[1:09:45] and we just best we can do is keep up
and try to lobby for the things that are
[1:09:51] going to be best for our citizens.
Okay. Lenny's law. you wants wants to
[1:09:58] start with it.
>> So I will Alison I dropped that in the
[1:10:01] folder late. There should be a should be
a resolution
[1:10:07] from the town of Wooden there as a
draft. So I'm going to turn this over to
[1:10:12] Mayor Pro Tim Hinsley. I will say that
um because she knows a lot more details.
[1:10:18] I think we've been requested from a
group um from Woodin or a coalition of
[1:10:23] folks um Bunkham um county and Madison
County maybe to um adopt a resolution
[1:10:30] supporting this potential law. So
>> yeah, I I got contacted about it uh
[1:10:36] several weeks ago and it's um
it didn't seem like something that we
[1:10:43] should get involved in. My suggestion
was since we do have a um committee
[1:10:50] looking at at uh you know bikes and
pedestrian that they could look at it
[1:10:56] see if it would be something that would
relate to
[1:11:01] something that they are working on
and
[1:11:07] I didn't hear anything more back from
the folks in Woodfin until
[1:11:14] you they got in touch with you.
>> So, this is less about the town of
[1:11:20] Woodin. Um, the city councilman, I
think, that contacted you is trying to
[1:11:26] form a an additional bicycle safety
coalition that he's wanting the city of
[1:11:32] Hendersonville to participate in. and I
um he called and asked to speak to me on
[1:11:36] Friday and I told him that we would have
that conversation at council, but I felt
[1:11:40] like we were already doing um many
bicycle safety type things here and that
[1:11:46] it wasn't necessarily something that we
would want to take on additionally. I
[1:11:49] mentioned um council me council member
Baxter that she was the other person
[1:11:55] that represented the council that was
serving on the bike plan and I didn't
[1:11:59] know the capacity of a joining an
additional coalition when I felt like we
[1:12:03] were kind of already correlating and um
but Lenny's law is a separate uh request
[1:12:11] that was brought to the no last week and
it is um so that is a resolution from
[1:12:18] Woodin Then Lenny's law is a separate uh
thing that was in that email attachment,
[1:12:23] John. And so Lenny and Telli and Jacob
Hill were the two cyclists who were
[1:12:30] riding um alongside the French Broad
River who were struck by a commercial
[1:12:36] vehicle last summer and they were both
killed. And um so Maddie Bar, who is
[1:12:42] Lenny's fiance, is um attempting to
create some more
[1:12:50] better policies around bicyclists and
safety.
[1:12:53] And then given the incident at Milikin
College with their cycling team, um and
[1:13:01] so basically what Lenny's law is, um
allowing is to make a recommendation
[1:13:07] that there's more signs posted in
frequently used bicycle zones. Um they
[1:13:15] would like to see bicycle safety zones
created in higher cycling trafficked
[1:13:21] areas with better signage for um
motorists to see that they're this is a
[1:13:27] this is a higher density of cyclist on
these roads. And we have them in
[1:13:30] Henderson County where there are there
are roads in Henderson County where we
[1:13:34] know that there are a lot more cyclists.
And so the hope is is that they would um
[1:13:39] place more signage for motorists to be
more aware and then potentially
[1:13:44] eventually have a higher penalty for
speeding in those bicycle safety zones.
[1:13:50] Um and so that was brought to the MO
last week and the MO um unanimously
[1:13:58] adopted supporting Lenny's law in the
context of creating a bicycle safety
[1:14:04] zone signage and um and not that we
would enact speed changes or um fees,
[1:14:12] but that it would then be taken to the
general assembly for them to evaluate to
[1:14:17] see if that was something that they
wanted to take up. Um but so they're
[1:14:21] asking um if local governments would
support moving Lenny's law towards the
[1:14:27] general assembly to create these bicycle
safety zones.
[1:14:34] » That sound
>> I think that's correct. And so we
[1:14:38] and and NPO talked about it two times I
think. Originally it got a luke to the
[1:14:43] mayor's point originally you had a
lukewarm reception the first time
[1:14:47] » and then some other discussion some
other events occurred
[1:14:51] » correct
>> and um it came back and it was unanous
[1:14:55] was the second time is
>> yes last Thursday it was unanimously
[1:14:59] adopted at the NO to support Lenny's law
>> and what Mattiey's trying to do right
[1:15:04] now is just get local government support
for it and nothing more
[1:15:08] » correct no legislative changes No impact
any municipalities,
[1:15:14] » nothing now. And it's just like, hey,
would you support us going to Raleigh
[1:15:18] and requesting um these additional signs
be required in areas that are higher
[1:15:26] bicycle trafficked zones?
[1:15:31] My opinion is I don't know that it could
I don't know that it hurts um at least
[1:15:35] having this analyzed on a higher level.
Um I will say in these both of these
[1:15:41] incidences speed was not a factor. It
was um impairment um and maybe even
[1:15:48] intent in one of the accidents. And so
um
[1:15:54] he because I think they've actually said
now in the for the Milligan College that
[1:15:58] the driver did not apply any brakes at
all before he hit flew of cyclists and
[1:16:04] um and then in Lenny's law the driver
was impaired and so speed would not have
[1:16:10] made a difference in these accidents but
maybe had there been more awareness by a
[1:16:16] motorist that this is an area where you
really need to be paying attention
[1:16:19] because there's you narrow shoulders and
a lot more cyclists known to travel in
[1:16:23] this area. Um that could potentially
save cyclist life.
[1:16:29] I am a cyclist and I've been on out on
the roads many times and there are rural
[1:16:32] roads in Henderson County that scare me
to death um with how close cars have
[1:16:38] gotten to me.
I mean, I think it aligns with a lot of
[1:16:43] the work that we're already doing
without um
[1:16:47] duplicating it in this particular
instance, but I do I think that it
[1:16:51] speaks to a pattern that we see of
cyclists being
[1:16:56] at higher risk in the past few years. I
don't know if it's higher density or
[1:17:00] what it is, but it does seem and I'm
supportive of whatever we can do to
[1:17:07] help address it as long as it um you
know can move that forward without
[1:17:12] putting us in a spot where you know
there's no tough decision there for us
[1:17:15] as a city right now.
[1:17:20] So would
uh like to
[1:17:24] propose that uh staff bring this to
council meeting for
[1:17:31] put it on our agenda.
Any any objection to
[1:17:36] » ma'am and if it's okay I'll
>> putting that on
[1:17:38] » since you discussed it today I'll just
put it on the consent agenda and then if
[1:17:43] there's concerns if you feel or or I'm
open for guidance if you want it on a
[1:17:48] new visit is consent okay or you want it
okay I'll put it on the consent and you
[1:17:55] have questions we can we can pull it off
and discuss it at that point
[1:18:01] » thank you
[clears throat] All right.
[1:18:05] Okay. That is the end of our agenda.
Unless someone has something they want
[1:18:09] to to bring up.