[0:03] Good evening everyone, and welcome to the june 10th, 2025 new board of alderman
[0:07] e. The prayer tonight be coordinated by alderman prill. Yep.
[0:12] uh, thank you, mayor. Um, pastor johnson, you arrived just
[0:17] in time. Floor is your
[0:24] all. I can say to god be the glory. Yeah.
[0:32] I want to thank my beloved mond
[0:37] for placing such trust in me to
[0:41] give the opening prayer for this great meeting.
[0:46] and, um, I'm just overwhelmed.
[0:51] thank you, mayor and all for your present
[0:55] here today. Tell me about his,
[1:03] our almighty father in heaven. The, the
[1:08] creator of heaven and earth. The giver of all good and
[1:12] perfect gifts, the giver of life, health,
[1:17] strength, and salvation. Right early
[1:21] this morning, you didn't let us sleep
[1:25] too late, early this morning, you reached
[1:30] down from heaven with all power,
[1:35] from heaven and earth. In your heads,
[1:40] you touched us with your love, your compassion,
[1:44] grace and mercy. You bless
[1:49] us to look on
[1:53] a brand new day, a day we never seen before.
[1:59] you have been mighty, mighty, mighty good to us
[2:03] in this day. Yes. You brought us over the
[2:08] dangers, highways and bows to
[2:12] this city. Council of the meeting.
[2:17] one more day. One
[2:22] more day. You brought us together.
[2:26] we thank you, our father. Thank you lord
[2:30] for one more alderman meeting.
[2:34] we have come from the north, south, east, and
[2:39] west to sit at table
[2:45] in this historic meeting. Yes, we have
[2:49] come out of love, respect for our city,
[2:54] uh, leaders and citizen, all because we are
[2:58] concerned about the health,
[3:03] the wellbeing of our city and citizen.
[3:08] our father. We come before you as an
[3:12] empty picture before a full fountain.
[3:16] look on us with your all. See and eyes.
[3:21] remove every sin from within our heart
[3:25] and soul. Fill us with all your
[3:30] love, your joy, your peace,
[3:35] your unity, that we might be all just like
[3:39] you in this meeting. Our
[3:43] father, give us your
[3:48] peace and unity in this place
[3:52] and in our hearts, all because we are determined
[3:57] to do our best, to represent
[4:02] you and to make a strong, positive
[4:06] impression and difference in our city and in the lives
[4:10] of all of our citizens.
[4:15] in and throughout this meeting. To the end
[4:19] of this meeting and to and
[4:23] beyond, all I say to you today
[4:28] is to god be the glory
[4:32] for all the great things that you are to us.
[4:37] all the great things that you have done for us. Yes. And
[4:41] all the great things you will continue to do for us
[4:46] as we continue to work together and serve you
[4:51] as your people. In the mighty name of our risen savior, we offer this
[4:55] prayer and redeem of the lord. Say amen. Amen. Amen.
[4:59] amen. Thank pastor, if you're able to stand, please do so and pledge. Declare
[5:03] our practice. I pledge allegiance
[5:08] to the flag of the united states of america and
[5:12] to the republic for which it stands. One nation, another
[5:16] god, indivisible, with liberty and I justice all.
[5:24] madam clerk, if you would please call the roll alderman
[5:28] frill. Here. Alderman royal. Here. Alderman
[5:32] aser. Here. Mayor odom. Here. Alderman kenzie. Here.
[5:37] alderman vest. Present. Okay. Board item number three is to approve the agenda.
[5:41] are there any changes you'd like to make?
[5:45] if there's no changes, um, if
[5:49] there's no changes, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as his second.
[5:54] I have a motion a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing
[5:58] none. All those in favor say aye. A a aye. Any opposed? Agendas approved.
[6:02] next is request and petition of citizens. Madam clerk.
[6:15] thank you.
[6:22] first up is nat crosby.
[6:27] thank you. Thank you.
[6:37] hey, y'all. Uh, good evening mayor and uh, board of aldermen.
[6:41] my name is nat mckeller crosby and I'm a resident of ward
[6:46] six, right here in newland. With the time I have, I would like to
[6:50] share an opportunity with all of you. And this opportunity
[6:54] is a viable and sustainable way to increase
[6:58] revenue for this city. Allowing for the funding of pertinent projects
[7:03] like storm water, drainage repair, safer roads for motorists, pedestrians
[7:07] and bicyclists, necessary upgrades for our utilities
[7:13] and our parks and recreation. A new fire station and
[7:17] emergency response center, all while generating a true wealth
[7:21] building economy right here in new this
[7:26] opportunity is the chartering of a public bank, which
[7:30] I've coined. The bank of new. A public bank is a financial
[7:34] institution like any other. So the city can hold its deposits
[7:39] that it usually gives to another institution in its own bank,
[7:43] allowing the bank of newburn to leverage those deposits 10 to one.
[7:48] and that means every 1 million that is deposited, you can put 10 million
[7:53] to work for this city, borrowing the funds needed for
[7:57] the infrastructure and other projects cited previously, and do so
[8:01] without exorbitant fees and interest rates that are typical and hinder these types
[8:06] of projects in the private markets.
[8:10] now, the major difference of a public bank is that it has a legal
[8:14] mandate to act in the interest of the community it serves.
[8:19] and this is the part where it gets good for our citizens. The
[8:23] bank of newburn would use its mandate to build a resilient economy,
[8:28] providing low cost lending opportunities for families to cover
[8:32] housing, education and transportation needs, as well
[8:36] as support our local small businesses, whether that's a startup company or your local,
[8:40] uh, favorite business looking to expand. Also,
[8:44] there are a number of passionate and dedicated nonprofits here in town, working hard
[8:49] to fill some of the gaps. The city could partner with the bank of new bern
[8:54] to create and fund these organizations, meaning programs like youth
[8:58] services, gun violence provision, uh, prevention and addiction support,
[9:03] uplifting our community as a whole with the bank
[9:07] of new bern. We would have the ability to take care of each other right here at home.
[9:13] I'm hoping that you would consider this opportunity as a way to keep our hard earned dollars
[9:17] right here in newbury. The go bonds if issued on the private
[9:21] market, will over the life of the debt, cost the city a minimum of
[9:25] $25 million. And that's just an interest payments alone.
[9:29] not to mention the extra cost of underwriting and the direct cost of issuance
[9:34] that will eat away at the principal amount of that debt. That interest and
[9:38] fees that would be paid out could stay right here in new,
[9:42] to increase our revenue and be put right back to work for us, our
[9:47] citizens and our economy. Now, the process for chartering
[9:51] a public bank begins with an application, um, with the office of the
[9:55] commissioner of banks. And the requirements are outlined in the, uh, general
[9:59] statutes chapter 53 c. And I will provide you all with
[10:04] a preliminary feasibility report that will include more details in the applicable
[10:08] laws and the process, as well as case studies, a timeline, a
[10:12] timeline and monetization options. I urge you all
[10:17] to have an open mind towards this fiscally responsible initiative
[10:22] and an open heart for the prosperity this can bring to the people of new bern and
[10:26] our economy. I thank you for your time, uh, and I
[10:30] wish you all well. Thank you. Thank you. Next is soray
[10:34] bliss.
[10:39] my name is soraya bliss from ward one. For months I've worked to address concerns
[10:44] regarding the historic preservation commission reaching out to offices
[10:48] across the city and every member of the board of alderman. Thank you to those of
[10:52] you who have responded. I have been advised that while the hpc board is
[10:56] responsible for its actions, the alderman are accountable to provide oversight.
[11:01] I respectfully request your leadership to address legal and public interest
[11:05] concerns with the hpc. You've been provided a document detailing
[11:10] some of these concerns, which will also be made available on the dear newburn
[11:14] hpc facebook page. The hpcs issues extend beyond
[11:18] ward one. Issues affect every ward one through six.
[11:22] the hpc is paid for through the general fund. Taxpayers from
[11:27] all wards share the cost of the hpc, including staff
[11:31] legal fees and compliance, such as the maintenance of city buildings.
[11:36] insurance companies calculate premiums using risk pools, not individual
[11:41] wards. When repairs are costly, so are insurance premiums.
[11:46] the hpcs conduct reflects on the city government as a whole.
[11:50] the hpc still fails to comply with the 2021 state mandate
[11:54] to update its enabling statutes. It illegally conducts closed committee
[11:58] meetings. It neglects to maintain or share legally required documents.
[12:03] it demonstrates a lack of understanding of its own governing rules. And it recently con
[12:07] conducted a vote in a design review, uh, pardon me, in a
[12:11] design review meeting and manipulated guidelines to achieve its
[12:15] desired outcome. Moreover, the hpc has not adhered to
[12:19] best practices engaged the public, or despite a devastating
[12:23] hurricane made any guideline updates for 52 months. And that change
[12:28] only addressed site planning compounding this, the hpc
[12:32] asserts unchecked authority stating in its rules of procedure with
[12:36] which it amends with zero oversight. That policies and rules
[12:41] of procedure in this document supersede any rules or
[12:45] procedure that may be referenced in the newburgh historic district guidelines
[12:49] translation. We, the hbc get to make our own rules when we
[12:53] want and how we want. And our rules are the ones that count the current
[12:57] guidelines and practices. Beg legal questions are inconsistently enforced.
[13:02] split the district to have and have nots, ignore sustainability and
[13:07] resiliency and undermine the pc's very purpose, intent, and
[13:11] goal. When confronted with concerns, the hpc
[13:15] dismisses them saying, we have it under control. When press for
[13:19] transparency and public engagement, they responded, put your concerns
[13:24] in writing and maybe we'll even call you. I did exactly
[13:28] as they asked. They publicly denied receiving documents and they
[13:32] never did call. I urge the alderman who are accountable for hpc
[13:36] oversight to direct the hpc to immediately establish a public inclusive
[13:40] guideline work group with a mandate to deliver an actionable plan
[13:44] for review by august 12th. Additionally, I request a moratorium
[13:49] on guideline update discussions or proposals in regular
[13:53] hpc meetings until the hpc demonstrates legal compliance
[13:58] and competency for at least two full hpc meeting cycles.
[14:03] resolving these issues requires no additional funding. Only your
[14:07] decisive leadership should resources be perceived
[14:11] as a barrier. I personally volunteer to coordinate all necessary
[14:16] efforts for guideline updates, ensuring public involvement,
[14:20] regulatory compliance, and tangible outcomes that benefit our community. Thank
[14:24] you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you.
[14:29] next is carla crole.
[14:41] good evening mayor, board of alderman. Thank you for, uh, hearing
[14:45] my comments tonight. My name is carla prole and I am from ward six in the
[14:49] city of new bern. I became aware,
[14:54] uh, of the vacancy in the ward six alderman's position last summer.
[14:58] I have been active in trying to be part of the process to rectify
[15:02] that vacancy. Tonight I would like to ask the board how they
[15:07] intend, what is their plan to,
[15:12] to, to make an understanding of how their positions are interfering
[15:17] with their shared interest that all citizens in new bern
[15:21] deserve and are entitled to representation on this board.
[15:28] when two parties are not able to come to terms, it's usually because they're, they
[15:32] have different positions that are at odds. And the that difference of opinion
[15:38] also makes it difficult for them to understand that they have shared interests at heart.
[15:43] we do have a shared interest in shared governance, and indeed the charter
[15:47] for the city states that it is your obligation and your duty
[15:51] to ensure that all citizens are being represented.
[15:55] six people applied for the seat. Nobody got interviewed.
[15:59] um, there were three attempts to fill the appointment.
[16:03] three of the members of the board never changed their vote. The
[16:07] other three members of the board seemed open and willing to consider other candidates and
[16:12] endorse under candidates. Meanwhile, the
[16:16] constituents go without representation. This is not a good thing. There
[16:20] is a lot going on. In fact, the mayor acknowledged that when he
[16:24] said he wanted somebody who was ready to go on day one. That
[16:28] was 314 days ago, day one. Indeed
[16:34] during the main meeting when presented with 175
[16:39] legitimate signatures from ward six residents, the,
[16:43] the mayor stated that he wasn't gonna vote for anybody
[16:48] indeed. He then went on to assure us that there was only four more meetings before the, the, the
[16:52] election. In fact, between may 13th and when the next
[16:56] alderman takes the seat, there will have been six regularly
[17:01] scheduled monthly meetings. But beyond that, the alderman have
[17:05] public hearings called meetings and so forth. The work
[17:09] that you do far exceeds merely monthly meetings.
[17:16] we then were told that we were trying to put our hands on the scale
[17:20] of the election by pushing for darlene brown's candidacy.
[17:25] and this was said even after
[17:30] darlene's own words. In her letter to the board were read where
[17:34] she said she was willing to fill the vacancy but would decline running
[17:38] in the election in october. The city
[17:42] attorney sometime ago advised the mayor that when there is a contentious
[17:47] issue being debated, if the mayor wishes
[17:51] to engage in the matter, he is to turn the gavel over to
[17:55] the mayor pro tem. He did not rather,
[17:59] he asserted his opinion forcefully and used the gavel to
[18:03] quell dissent and threaten forcible removal
[18:07] of the dissenters. And so because there was
[18:12] a desire for somebody ready on day one, an incorrect
[18:16] assessment of the number of meetings that were left, and a frankly
[18:20] insulting remark that ward six representatives were tampering
[18:25] with the election. Ward six now faces
[18:29] the reality that we will have been without representation for 496
[18:34] days. Perhaps we do not have a shared interest
[18:39] in equal representation. What
[18:43] is the thank you for your comments. Thank
[18:47] you. Thank you.
[18:55] next
[19:06] good evening, board of alderman and mayor. Good evening. Can you hear me?
[19:10] yes. Yes sir. I don't want to lecture you
[19:15] 'cause you are all grown adults and leaders elected
[19:19] by constituents. But the journey
[19:23] of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
[19:28] these journeys that we all take are different journeys. So
[19:32] we can't assume that each step is equal
[19:37] for me to walk out my door as an african american black
[19:41] man in this country, I may walk out my door
[19:46] and be accused of something or an immigrant
[19:50] may walk out their door and go to work, earn a decent pay,
[19:54] obey all the rules, and be put in prison in
[19:59] the next hour. Each step of us for this journey
[20:03] of a thousand miles is different.
[20:07] so true with a healthy democracy. It begins with
[20:11] you, the board of aldermen, the first governing body for the
[20:15] citizens of new bern, north carolina, where we are all citizens
[20:20] and have the first step is to participate in your election.
[20:24] each of you are elected and represents a certain constituency.
[20:30] each of you were elected and not placed
[20:35] by an autocratic government.
[20:39] unfortunately, our government
[20:43] here in new bern, north carolina and democracy is not healthy.
[20:48] it is not healthy because there is a seat there
[20:53] that has not, that's been vacant for 400
[20:57] some days or will be for 400 some days.
[21:01] so if we expect a healthy democracy for all citizens,
[21:05] a diverse community, how is it that we can
[21:10] start off with an unhealthy governing
[21:14] the citizens and all of its citizens and ward six
[21:19] have not been represented in this board of aldermen
[21:23] and its first government body of new bern, north carolina.
[21:27] the membership of you does not represent me as a
[21:31] resident of new bern, north carolina. The
[21:36] citizens have the opportunity to vote and
[21:40] instead of working on how do we fill this seat,
[21:44] now we are faced instead of why
[21:48] we have not filled this seat. Instead of
[21:53] resolving this miscarriage of democracy, you
[21:57] are now complicit in an unhealthy governing
[22:01] body. We have a vacant seat
[22:06] in ward six, and whether it's one minute before
[22:10] the time is up, or one day the principle still remains
[22:14] the same, it is vacant. I charge each of
[22:19] you to address this issue
[22:24] and explaining to us why
[22:29] you had the opportunity to share with us how now
[22:34] you must share with us why. Thank you. Thank you.
[22:48] next is jen zerbe.
[23:02] good evening mayor, board of alderman. I'm jennifer sbe.
[23:08] uh, so imagine you're a local restaurant, enjoying dinner. Um,
[23:13] let me back up. So I'm requesting, um, a little
[23:17] bit of an amendment to the noise ordinance, as some of you already know. So,
[23:21] so imagine you're at a local restaurant enjoying dinner. Suddenly a door slam someone
[23:25] laughs a little too loudly, nothing out of the ordinary, but under our current
[23:29] current noise ordinance, that brief sound could result in
[23:33] a violation unfairly penalizing the business. So
[23:38] today I'm here to show you why this ordinance needs an an update to ensure fair enforcement
[23:43] in an effort to establish an effective noise ordinance. The city of new bern
[23:47] invested $10,000 to consult noise specialist. However, despite expert
[23:52] recommendations, the adopted ordinance relies on peak noise readings rather than
[23:56] averaging a method widely recognized as more balanced.
[24:00] additionally, noise measurements aren't always taken at appropriate distances,
[24:04] skewing results, which was recommended by the specialist
[24:08] as well. So we proposed practical modifications
[24:13] that maintain order while ensuring enforcement is accurate and fair for both businesses
[24:17] and residents. Something I wanted to illustrate
[24:21] was to show you a live sound meter reading. Um, the read 80 80
[24:26] shows a way to do this. The current, um, decibel readers that
[24:30] both the new bern police department as well as um, us have
[24:35] aren't able to do it. Whereas they show you a low,
[24:39] a high and the average reading the sound,
[24:43] the display that I would've had, would've showed and it was so cool, um, to where
[24:47] you could see the average. So if you clapped your hands, all of a sudden it went up to 80,
[24:52] that would've been a violation. Um, so you would've seen how any little noise where
[24:56] if you coughed or you clapped or the door slammed,
[25:00] um, somebody shut a dumpster door, it would automatically spike
[25:05] that reading and that caused us to garner
[25:09] over $1,500 worth of time regardless. Um,
[25:13] even though the overall sound remains steady and granted, I know that
[25:17] we've had this conversation. I'm not asking for a lot,
[25:21] I'm just asking for a con different face.
[25:26] let me get back on track. Sorry. . Additionally, consider, um,
[25:30] measurement location. In one case, a reading was taken directly outside
[25:34] of business window instead of 25 feet away. As advised,
[25:39] this led to an inaccurate assessment and an unnecessary type citation.
[25:43] these flaws highlight why simple improvement such as average readings
[25:47] and properly defining measurement locations are necessary. So our
[25:52] proposal is straightforward and backed by recommendations. So we, we suggest
[25:56] three key changes. First using three average readings
[26:01] instead of peak measurements. The read r 80 80, as I stated earlier,
[26:05] cal calculates these averages in ensuring accurate enforcement without
[26:09] requiring multiple officers on site. Second, defining the measurement
[26:14] location as half the distance between the complainant's residence and the source of
[26:18] sound, or at least a hundred feet away. A practical compromise to
[26:22] ensure readings reflect real impact. And third, clarifying the appeal
[26:26] process which currently requires individuals to submit their case to the chief of police.
[26:31] this makes this process more transparent, thus ensuring
[26:35] fairness for all those facing citations. Updating this ordinance aligns
[26:40] enforcement with expert recommendation. It ensures fairness and consistent measurement
[26:44] practices and provides businesses and residents with an equitable way to
[26:48] contest citations. The goal is not to weaken the noise regulations, but
[26:53] to improve them so that enforcement is reasonable clear and just so
[26:57] we're just asking the board to amend the ordinance to reflect expert recommendations,
[27:01] establish fair enforcement guidelines and
[27:06] thank you. Thank you. Next is steve.
[27:24] good evening board. Uh, my name is steve skiffington. I'm a resident,
[27:28] uh, newborn in ward ward three. And I'd like to speak to you about
[27:33] a citywide town town hall. It's my understanding, and please
[27:37] correct me if I'm wrong, that several months ago al been
[27:41] aster and the mayor had agreed to hold a citywide town hall meeting.
[27:46] can someone tell us when that has been scheduled for?
[27:57] am I to assume it has not been scheduled? They
[28:01] respond. You can only speak to them. I'm sorry. They
[28:05] don't respond more. Right. Okay. Well it was just on the record
[28:09] that that's what they said. So the question is,
[28:14] we are asking not just me for a citywide town
[28:18] hall meeting. Elections are coming up and people need to hear.
[28:22] it's that simple. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, thank
[28:27] you. Next is
[28:31] al woman isha harris.
[28:38] good evening. Members of the board mayor. Um, I'm just coming here because
[28:43] you know, it's juneteenth week. Um, and I'm representing the committee
[28:47] 'cause they're actually on their way back from raleigh from picking up the,
[28:51] um, john canoe commanders, the dignitaries. Um, but
[28:55] we just wanted to let you guys know that the 11th, 12th, and 13th starts
[28:59] the three day john canoe workshop. It is free. And cra terrace
[29:03] from 10 to two. Please bring the children out. Adults, everybody. I'm making an
[29:07] outfit. Um, friday 13th. Yes, it's a scary
[29:11] day, but go to, um, craven arts council at 5:00 pm
[29:16] it's art walk. It's beautiful, beautiful art. Then the 14th is
[29:20] the parade and festival parade starts at 11 on the dot. If you
[29:24] are in the parade, you better be lined up. 'cause ms. Sharon, let's go. That's
[29:28] how she is. Festival is at 12 o'clock. We have an amazing
[29:33] performance, a lot to do. So please show up and support your community.
[29:37] it is for everybody. Um, and then go home, freshen up
[29:42] and come back with the fireworks at 9:00 pm and then
[29:46] community day is on the 17th, the first a hundred children
[29:50] at the roller land. 4:00 pm get in there for free. Well,
[29:55] we only have max a hundred people, food and everything. Um, and
[29:59] then a lecture series through the cultural center.
[30:03] um, charlotte rome. And then, um, stanley white. Please support,
[30:08] um, our southpaw baseball. I love them. They're awesome. That is
[30:12] on the 20th at 6:00 pm sankofa play is on the 20th
[30:16] at seven 30. And the bonfire july, I
[30:20] mean june 21st. That's at the beasley compound. 8:00 pm that is a
[30:24] ticketed event. $10 online or at the event. And then
[30:28] maafa, um, barbecue is on the 22nd. It is, um, at
[30:32] 6:00 pm down at the gazebo. It is open to everybody. Thank you.
[30:36] thank you. Thank you.
[30:42] okay, board next up is the consent agenda there. Wants the pleasure of the board on items five through 11.
[30:49] mayor, I make a motion to approve the consent a agenda. Second.
[30:53] I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Hearing
[30:58] none. Let's have a roll call sergeant with alderman frill. Alderman frill.
[31:02] yes. Alderman royal. Yes. Alderman naer.
[31:06] yes. Alderman kenzie. Yes. Alderman desk. Yes. Mayor
[31:10] odom. Yes. Motion carries. Next up is item number 12, presentation by
[31:14] the new bern underground railroad coalition. Mr. Hughes. Good
[31:18] evening, mayor and alderman. At this time I'd like to ask ms. Roseanne wilson, president of the african
[31:23] american heritage and cultural center to come up and make her presentation.
[31:27] thank you. They told me there would be a
[31:31] clicker here. So good evening. Um,
[31:35] mayor odom, members of the board of waderman,
[31:40] uh, my name is roseanne wilson and I am the president of the african
[31:44] american heritage and culture center here in newberg. And
[31:48] we are just 1 5 0 1 3 c
[31:52] uh, nonprofit supporting the underground railroad,
[31:57] um, of new bern coalition. Others
[32:01] who are part of, uh, the coalition, either through membership or
[32:06] support, are the historic dry association,
[32:10] the climbers club of of new bern.
[32:14] the, uh, historic, excuse me, uh, new bern historic society,
[32:19] james city historic society. And I'm sure I've left
[32:23] out somebody, oh, the king solomon lodge and tryon
[32:27] palace. Um, you have in your packets copies of
[32:32] some support letters from some of these organizations and also
[32:36] from, um, new bern citizens as well.
[32:42] so why are we here? What is our goal?
[32:47] our goal is to, um,
[32:52] require or not require, acquire recognition
[32:56] of new bern waterfront at, uh,
[33:00] as a national park service underground railroad
[33:05] network to freedom site. That's a mouthful.
[33:10] um, but that's what we, why we are here because we have been
[33:14] working on an application to hopefully get that
[33:18] designation. We are here to gain, um,
[33:22] your support. Um, as, as city leaders,
[33:27] we are not here asking for money. We are not
[33:31] here asking for any kind of signage to go up, um,
[33:36] in the, at the waterfront. The application
[33:40] merely puts us literally on the map. You also
[33:44] have a copy of that map in your folders, the map that
[33:49] shows all the different areas in the united states and
[33:53] several in north carolina, um, who have
[33:57] this designation of being a network to
[34:01] freedom site.
[34:06] so a little bit about how this was established. Um, there was
[34:11] a, a congressional act that was passed in 1998.
[34:16] and through this, um, act, the national park service
[34:20] created programs to recognize, promote, honor,
[34:24] and preserve the history of resistance to
[34:28] enslavement through escape and flight. I'm gonna say that again.
[34:35] resistance to enslavement through escape and flight,
[34:40] which is important. Even frederick douglas knew
[34:44] when he wrote his narrative that he was trying to
[34:49] dismantle this myth of the happy slave.
[34:53] and so what the national park system was trying to do
[34:58] was recognize the, um, underground
[35:02] railroad so that people understood that,
[35:06] you know, folks that were enslaved want did want to be
[35:11] enslaved. The network
[35:16] advances also the idea that all human beings embrace
[35:20] the right to self-determination and freedom
[35:24] from oppression.
[35:31] the underground railroad, uh, new bern coalition, what have we been
[35:35] doing? Well, I've already mentioned that it includes, um, members of
[35:39] the community as well as members of several 5 0 1 3
[35:43] c organizations that are focused on newburn history.
[35:48] um, we've consulted with lisa jones, who is a name that you
[35:52] all might know if you've ever been out to the washington, um,
[35:57] waterfront underground railroad. She applied for,
[36:01] um, this designation back in 2015,
[36:05] I believe it was. And, um, so where she is in
[36:09] washington has been designated and is on that map that
[36:14] again, you have in your folder. Um, and,
[36:18] and no, she did not get money for her little caboose that
[36:22] she has the museum in, if you've ever been there. After she
[36:27] got the designation, she used that knowledge
[36:31] to raise money to actually open the museum that
[36:35] she has there. We, um, have also been guided
[36:39] by the national park service,
[36:43] um, regional manager who they assign different people to
[36:48] guide those who are applying, um,
[36:53] to the, uh, organization and giving, giving them
[36:57] guidance. So we actually had a zoom meeting a couple months ago with some
[37:01] folks, and to be very honest, we weren't sure if they were still around or
[37:05] not. Um, so a couple of weeks ago though, we reached
[37:10] out, and this is, excuse me, this
[37:14] is still happening. There is still someone there that, that we
[37:18] have spoken to, and he's looking forward to our application.
[37:23] um, in fact, we will be hopefully sending
[37:27] a draft to him in another week or two, um, before the
[37:32] deadline so they can read it and give us guidelines. So
[37:36] this is still happening through the, um, national park service.
[37:41] we also, uh, planned and, and had two
[37:45] commu community meetings in april. 'cause we wanted
[37:49] to foster a greater community collaboration and engagement.
[37:54] and that, um, worked. Um, thus so many letters
[37:58] that you have, and I think there's a couple more that you don't have.
[38:03] so now why is this important for new bern? Well,
[38:08] a couple of things. Um, it certainly contribute, would contribute
[38:12] to the preservation and dissemination of the rich
[38:16] history that we have here in new bern. Sometimes some
[38:20] of that history is untold, um, in the african
[38:25] american community. And we all, um,
[38:29] in the coalition, and certainly in my organization, believe that
[38:34] american history is, is everybody's history. It's not just african
[38:38] american history, but we need to keep that in our minds. Keep looking
[38:42] at that clock thinking, it's telling me when to stop mm-hmm . Um,
[38:47] and also of course it would promote the development and, um,
[38:51] growth of our tourism that, um, is something that's
[38:55] very important to the city and will be recognized
[38:59] nationally. Again, that map is a national
[39:04] map of, uh, underground railroad network to freedom.
[39:10] so, looking ahead, well, our plan is to, um,
[39:15] submit the application by july 15th. Um,
[39:20] our hope is that the application will be accepted
[39:24] and that new bern will then be added to the national underground
[39:28] railroad network to freedom website and their resources.
[39:34] and, um, after that, then we will continue as a coalition
[39:39] to, um, create and develop educational resources,
[39:43] share stories, educate the public, and further our
[39:48] re research. So again, I thank you
[39:52] for your attention. We certainly look forward to your support
[39:57] and wonder if you have any questions. Four, have questions.
[40:05] what specifically are you asking of this board,
[40:10] if anything, with regards to this project?
[40:14] um, just support, um, I guess
[40:18] a, I don't know, a letter of support, um, would be good that we could
[40:22] add to our application or just knowing that, uh,
[40:27] this is something that you think will be good for the city.
[40:31] there's a, there's a couple options. Um, a letter, uh, could
[40:35] be done relatively easy and quickly. Uh, the board could
[40:39] sign the letter if you wanted a resolution, which has a little more
[40:44] teeth to it, if you will. Mm-hmm . Uh, we could have one prepared if the board decided
[40:48] to do that, and it could be on our next agenda, then the board could vote on it and then you could
[40:52] use that as a resolution. So there's two options. Um, if you want to think about
[40:56] it with the committee and decide, you can get back to us. Um, either way, I
[41:00] think we can work with that timeline of getting you that information by july
[41:05] the eighth, which is our next board meeting. Okay. That'd be great. Thank you so much.
[41:10] any other questions? Any other questions? Your honor, thank you
[41:14] very much. Have a good evening. You too. Thank you.
[41:25] okay, next up is item number 13. Conduct a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance
[41:29] amending sections 15 15 1 29, basic definitions and
[41:33] interpretations. And 1578 minor subdivision
[41:37] approval of appendix a of land use ordinance for a change in minor subdivision.
[41:42] ms. Ruth. Hi, good evening. Thank you. Evening. Uh, this
[41:46] evening we have a series of three text amendments to present to the board. The first
[41:50] one here, uh, is the two dissects that you just referenced and
[41:54] simply stated, this is a request coming from the public to modify
[41:58] the lot size and land acreage that qualifies as a minor
[42:02] subdivision. So I wanna talk just for a moment and
[42:07] give some context to what we mean when we talk about what a minor
[42:11] subdivision is. The state and general statute says that we have
[42:15] to afford people the ability and our ordinance to simply
[42:19] subdivide a piece of land. What they do not do is tell us how
[42:24] much land that can be and into what size pieces or how many we get to
[42:28] decide that as a community and what's appropriate for us.
[42:32] so typically a minor subdivision, um, is between three and
[42:36] 10 lots for a community our size and up to 10
[42:40] acres of land. Anything within that window would be considered typical of a
[42:44] minor subdivision. And to qualify to be a
[42:48] minor subdivision, the resulting lot created from the parent
[42:53] tract need to be of some, some criteria. So we can't
[42:57] create a new street that cannot happen in a minor subdivision. It
[43:01] can't require easements and it shouldn't require utility extensions.
[43:06] so we're keeping this very simple. They are considered to be very simple,
[43:10] either typically approved by a staff member, whereas in a major
[43:14] subdivision, we would go through our whole process, through our
[43:18] development review committee or our drc, where we bring in all of
[43:22] our departments to look at all of those things that would be impacted like
[43:26] utilities, like how a firetruck gets down the road, like how it gets water,
[43:31] things like that. So when we talk about a minor subdivision, I want you just
[43:35] to think of a rectangle and dividing it up into squares
[43:39] and how many squares that would be because none of those other things
[43:43] would be impacted. Typically this process is available because
[43:48] somebody has a tractor land. Oftentimes it is used, uh, to create
[43:52] conformities when there's multiple structures on one large lot. It's also
[43:56] very often used when somebody wants to, uh, give
[44:01] land to their children and they divide it into pieces like that.
[44:06] it's a very simple explanation of what's being proposed tonight. Uh, currently
[44:11] we allow a five acre tre to qualify as a minor subdivision
[44:15] to be divided into four lots. So that falls into that typical window
[44:20] that I just explained to you. And the proposed change that you're
[44:24] being asked to consider is to change that threshold to allow a six acre
[44:28] track to qualify as a minor subdivision. So adding an acre onto that
[44:32] and to be subdivided, subdivided up into six lots.
[44:38] this is not the entire text amendment. I'm not going to show you all
[44:43] of the changes in all the text amendments that are being proposed tonight. In the spirit of
[44:47] full transparency, that is all in your packet. I've included
[44:51] these slides to just show you that big change of going from
[44:55] five to six and from four to six here.
[45:01] so a text amendment, and we haven't done too many of these, but we do have quite a few
[45:05] coming through. The pipeline right now is processed the same way as
[45:10] a zoning map amendment, which we typically call a rezoning. So
[45:14] the way that that can be initiated is that staff can propose
[45:18] a change to the ordinance. You as the elected body can propose a change to the
[45:22] ordinance or the planning and zoning board can propose the
[45:26] change to the ordinance. In most ordinances, there's
[45:31] a process written out, just like is written in ours for how a citizen and tech
[45:35] would request a map amendment or a rezoning. This exists
[45:40] for a text amendment. While state law allows a citizen
[45:44] to ask for a change through our text, our ordinance doesn't
[45:48] expressly call out that process. So after discovering
[45:52] that, we made sure that this process is going in our new ordinance and when
[45:57] we get requests like this, they have been, um, sponsored by staff
[46:01] such as this one is. And alderman royal asked a good question,
[46:05] uh, last meeting on what is the citizen requested text amendment that's
[46:09] supported by staff. That's why I took the time to explain this to you.
[46:14] and so because that process is the same, I have up on here a recommendation
[46:18] from the planning and zoning board, just like you see with a rezoning request
[46:23] and also a statement of consistency that what is required for
[46:27] the text change just like it is for a map change.
[46:31] and so the staff evaluation of this is that we do support this change. We
[46:35] feel it's very minor. It retains all current standards, um, that we
[46:40] currently have. So we're not changing anything other
[46:44] than the size and the number of lots that can be created.
[46:48] and we do feel like this does offer some opportunity for smaller scale
[46:52] developments to occur without that intense review process of going through
[46:57] the drc or the development review committee and having to go through
[47:01] and have all of those departments look and evaluate
[47:06] a project such as this when it's really unnecessary because
[47:10] the criteria do not allow impacts to water, sewer, utilities,
[47:15] or streets. Would that I stand before you
[47:20] ready to answer any questions you may have. And I believe our applicant is also in
[47:24] the room prepared to answer questions for you as well. Does the board have questions?
[47:29] yes, I do. You've cited several scenarios
[47:34] potentially for citizens to want this,
[47:38] uh, amendment. Any of those fit the citizen
[47:42] that initiated this request, I'm gonna let the applicant
[47:47] answer that for you. I feel it's that that's an appropriate question for him. Thank
[47:51] you, mr. Attorney. Do we need to have
[47:55] the applicant do that now or under the public hearing? Um, the public
[47:59] hearing would be great. Okay. So arm roy, when we open the public hearing,
[48:03] the applicant can then come forward and answer. Thank you. Board. Have
[48:08] any more questions for staff?
[48:12] okay. At this time I will open a public hearing on item number 13. If you would like
[48:16] to come forward, please do so at this time.
[48:29] good evening board. I'm wendy card with newburn now.com. And I'm
[48:33] here just to clarify a few things and I appreciate your time.
[48:38] um, in march,
[48:43] I can't remember the date, but in march the planning and zoning board,
[48:47] uh, it was said that
[48:52] the amendment was requested by the new
[48:56] bern preservation foundation and that the president of that foundation
[49:01] was in the audience to answer any questions.
[49:06] they didn't. An attorney spoke on their behalf that
[49:11] president was also a member of the historic preservation
[49:15] commission, which is a quasi-judicial public body.
[49:20] and I'm just, I'll get to my question in a little bit so
[49:24] that that's what happened. And one of the planning and zoning board members
[49:29] had took issue with the amendment not necessarily 'cause of the request,
[49:33] which I'm not real clear about because I didn't have all the information
[49:39] that was given to the board right prior.
[49:43] so what was said in the public was the change was
[49:47] being requested. So structures
[49:52] would, could be conforming with the
[49:56] law if the amendment was, was passed, they
[50:00] needed that amendment. So it could be a conforming
[50:04] structure. Um, so
[50:09] I guess my question number one is what is your,
[50:14] what's the policy for the conflict of interest for, uh, historic preservation
[50:19] quasi-judicial commissioner to also be the president of the preservation
[50:24] foundation? I kind of
[50:28] see some, you know, if this comes before that preservation
[50:32] commission, I just don't see how that is not
[50:36] a conflict of interest and I'd like clarification. And who will
[50:40] benefit from this change? Is it the public at large or just one
[50:45] per one citizen to make their
[50:50] structure conforming? And is that normally how we do
[50:54] business is just to change the law to suit one person's or one
[50:58] group's need. Uh, thank you very much. Thank you.
[51:09] can we pause here with attorney davis to respond? Sure. If you'd like to ask him a question.
[51:14] yes, ma'am. Um, lot, lots to unpack there. Um, first of all,
[51:18] this has nothing to do with the historic preservation commission
[51:22] at all. Um, the preservation foundation
[51:26] owns some properties that you're going to hear about where this rule
[51:31] would, if adopted, would apply to them and allow
[51:35] them to subdivide their property into six
[51:40] lots and avoid the expense of having to go through the
[51:44] major subdivision process. If they had four
[51:48] homes, they wouldn't be here because
[51:52] the current rule allows four separate lots
[51:56] to be divided as a matter of right through the minor subdivision process.
[52:00] they have a unique situation, um, where they have six.
[52:04] so that, that's the genesis of all of this. And I, and I wanna repeat again
[52:09] this subtle but important notion. Every citizen
[52:13] has a right to reach out to staff to reach out to the
[52:18] planning and zoning board and to reach out to you to propose their
[52:22] ideas. They have a right to do that. They do not have
[52:26] a right to cause a text amendment to be initiated,
[52:31] right? Just because someone asks doesn't mean that staff
[52:35] or p and z or you agree. So this
[52:40] is a situation where the preservation foundation approached
[52:44] staff with their dilemma staff reviewed it, as jess mentioned,
[52:49] concluded that the proposal made a lot of sense for the very simple
[52:53] reasons that jess explained. The current rule allows
[52:58] four lots to be divided as a matter of right out of a five
[53:02] acre track. If it's on a public street and there is
[53:07] no new sewer or water service required, and the
[53:11] proposed rule would change the five acres to six acres and the
[53:15] four lots to six, this has nothing to do with creating
[53:20] a conformity. Right? This doesn't, this doesn't magically
[53:24] fix someone's existing problem.
[53:29] all it does is it creates an off ramp for a
[53:33] minor subdivision to decrease the cost for developers
[53:38] who want to divide a six acre parcel, um,
[53:42] uh, into six lots. Does that make sense? Bottom
[53:46] line, there is no conflict of interest. No, ma'am.
[53:52] thank you. Good evening, sir. Go ahead.
[53:56] uh, good evening, mayor and alderman. My name is eric remington. I'm with the law firm of
[54:00] warden smith, and y'all have met me before. I'm here representing the
[54:04] new bern preservation foundation. And, uh, as mr. Davis
[54:08] said, uh, it was us that went to the staff and,
[54:12] and brought this issue to their attention. Uh, because in this
[54:17] ordinance, specifically within section 15 dash
[54:21] 78 e, the board of alderman had already created
[54:25] an exception to the minor subdivision rule, which allowed
[54:30] parcels that had more than two homes on them to
[54:34] be subdivided, but it only allowed for the four.
[54:39] and there's a very important parcel in town that has
[54:43] buildings on it over off of pasture street that is owned by the preservation
[54:47] foundation. And that parcel has on it what we
[54:51] refer to as the six sisters. And they are six, uh, road buildings
[54:55] there that are, that have been, they're on one lot right now and
[55:00] they're essentially rented out, uh, as low income housing.
[55:04] um, this exception, uh, that basically,
[55:09] you know, uh, was created. The problem was that it did not allow
[55:13] for a subdivision of the, that particular lot
[55:17] to allow those six houses to remain in place and not
[55:21] have to be able to not have to tear down, uh, some of those houses.
[55:26] so what we did was we went to the, um, the staff and we talked
[55:30] about that, and we talked about other ways of trying to, to, uh,
[55:34] reached a goal that the preservation foundation was, and that is to
[55:39] have each of these houses be an individual ownership.
[55:43] and, um, these, again, these houses have historic significance.
[55:48] um, they are, we believe that this is
[55:52] consistent with the long range plans of new bern city, of new bern.
[55:57] if, uh, you look at, uh, the consistency with those plans, the
[56:01] city's urban design plan actually reflects this
[56:05] property in the plan and talks about it. It is
[56:10] a prominent feature in the city's urban design plan. The river
[56:14] station neighborhood plan includes three images
[56:18] of this property in it because that's how significant this, these
[56:22] six sisters are to this, uh, area, uh, the river station area.
[56:27] what the historic preservation this amendment would allow is for the
[56:31] historic preservation, uh, foundation to then subdivide
[56:36] this, these six, uh, homes. Instead of them being on one
[56:40] lot and being essentially rental properties, they would be able to be in, in
[56:44] individual ownership. And that would one, allow them to be
[56:48] better treated and, and take care of rehabilitated. And it two
[56:52] would increase the tax base for the of the city. Um, so we're asking the
[56:56] board of alderman to approve this, uh, amendment, this tax amendment.
[57:01] it, it's not going to create issues because as mr. Davis says,
[57:05] uh, if there is some parcel out there that it's gotta meet all
[57:10] the requirements, it's gotta have all houses that were built on it before 1953.
[57:14] and I can tell you I have looked and I have not found another, uh, parcel
[57:19] in town that this would uh, affect. So it, there
[57:23] is, this is really, um, if somebody
[57:27] has a lot out there that is six acres and they want to subdivide it,
[57:32] they're gonna have to conform with all of the requirements. But
[57:36] this would allow these six particular sub, you know, the subdivision
[57:40] of this parcel into six lot. So we ask you to approve it
[57:45] and I'm happy to answer any kind of questions that you have before, have any questions.
[57:51] assuming that, um, this
[57:56] amendment gets approved, and I don't know whether you can
[58:00] answer this or whether it's a question more of a, a member
[58:04] of the preservation foundation, um,
[58:10] will the preservation foundation
[58:14] be putting covenants and restrictions on each of these
[58:18] homes, um, prior to their going
[58:23] out or up for sale that a future owner
[58:28] must comply with? That's, that's a good question. Uh,
[58:33] alderman, um, I have with me, uh, president of, of the foundation,
[58:37] uh, richard parson. And, um, I'll let him answer that question.
[58:41] uh, but my understanding is yes, that's what the case will be.
[58:48] thank you mr. Mayor. Board of alderman. Uh, yes,
[58:52] mr. Peel, it is our intention to covenant all six of these
[58:57] individually to be owner occupied and to
[59:01] prohibit any major change to the exterior so that they will remain in their
[59:06] basic historic fabric. But the, the goal is
[59:10] to have individually owned owner occupied structures.
[59:14] that that's what our covenant is intended to say is owner
[59:18] occupied. And will the, the preservation
[59:22] foundation, are you going to be making any improvements
[59:27] to the structures prior to them being put on the market
[59:31] for sale or will, um, that be up to the,
[59:36] the new owners to, um, cover the cost
[59:40] of any improvements? We have already have covenants on
[59:44] 70 properties downtown. Uh, many of those have passed
[59:48] through our hands. And our, uh, usual way of acting is to
[59:53] sell it as is with a preservation agreement
[59:57] that it runs parallel with the covenant that the people agreed to,
[1:00:01] uh, fix 'em up to a certain minimum standard. And then they're
[1:00:05] allowed to go beyond that as much as they want to.
[1:00:11] the, and, and as a previous conversation that you and
[1:00:15] I have had, um,
[1:00:19] as is part of, or the part of the covenants and restrictions,
[1:00:24] uh, is that going to require the, the future property owners to
[1:00:28] only use the rear property for parking? Not, not
[1:00:32] out front. That is our intention. Yes, sir. That will
[1:00:36] be part of the, to eliminate the confidence and restrictions, eliminate resident parking
[1:00:41] on pastor street? Yes, sir. Okay.
[1:00:46] nothing further, mayor, thank you. Any more questions from the board?
[1:00:55] thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this topic?
[1:01:09] good evening. Just a general question for the attorney. In those, uh, behind the amendment,
[1:01:14] would this only affect those, uh, partials as mentioned or would it affect any other
[1:01:18] parties in the city?
[1:01:23] this rule applies citywide to any property, six acres or less,
[1:01:28] to be divided into five watts. What's getting us confused is that
[1:01:32] in this particular specific case, there happens to be houses
[1:01:36] built already and that makes it confusing. So this would affect
[1:01:41] all housing. It it affect anyone who has any acreage,
[1:01:45] six acres or less. This? Yes. Who checks the
[1:01:49] boxes? You have a, you're on the street. Yes. No extensions of sewer or
[1:01:54] water. This rule would apply to you if you currently have that acreage
[1:01:58] instead of four lots. You could do six and fast track it through
[1:02:02] the minor process. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank
[1:02:06] anyone else?
[1:02:13] see none. Board I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing if that's what you desire.
[1:02:17] honor. Second. I have a motion to second to close the public hearing. Is there further
[1:02:21] discussion on that? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
[1:02:26] aye. Any opposed? Public hearing is now closed. What is the
[1:02:30] pleasure of the board? On item number 13,
[1:02:40] mayor, I'll make a motion, um, to
[1:02:45] adopt an ordinance amending sections 15 dash 15 1 29,
[1:02:50] basic definitions and interpretations and 15 dash 78
[1:02:56] minor subdivision approval of appendix a of the land use ordinance
[1:03:00] for a change in minor subdivision. Second. I have
[1:03:04] a motion and a second. Is there further discussion?
[1:03:09] hearing none. Let's have a roll call starting with alderman royal. Alderman
[1:03:13] royal? Yes. Alderman aser. Yes. Alderman kenzie.
[1:03:17] yes. Alderman best? Yes. Alderman frill. Yes.
[1:03:22] mayor odom? Yes. Motion carries. Item number 14, conduct
[1:03:26] a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance amending sections 15 1 36 residential
[1:03:31] districts established 1546 table of permissible uses
[1:03:35] and 15 1 63 particular uses of appendix a
[1:03:39] of the land use ordinance for flexibility in mobile food vendors.
[1:03:43] ms. Ruth. Alright, thank you so much. And the sections you just described
[1:03:47] are all connected to how we regulate food trucks. If we were
[1:03:51] to say that very simply. So what we are asking for tonight
[1:03:55] is a, uh, a change proposed to you that would allow mobile
[1:04:00] food vendors also known more regularly as food trucks in
[1:04:04] all of our zoning districts, rather than just our commercial zoning districts.
[1:04:10] staff is in support of the proposed text amendment for the following
[1:04:14] reasons. Um, it's retaining all of our regulations that apply
[1:04:18] already to food trucks as temporary uses. It promotes a little more
[1:04:22] flexibility on where we can use and allow food trucks. And
[1:04:26] this is very consistent with planning trends throughout the country.
[1:04:31] broadening accessibility for mobile food vending.
[1:04:36] um, as in the last text amendment, I am required to tell you the planning and zoning
[1:04:40] board has reviewed this. They did unanimously recommend
[1:04:44] making this change and found it to be consistent with all of our
[1:04:48] planning documents. Oops.
[1:04:52] and with that I can answer any questions for you. Board have questions?
[1:05:00] jessica, was this uh, amendment requested by
[1:05:04] any entity in particular or is this just no, sir. This was a, an
[1:05:08] administrative text amendment. We have a lot of public spaces that are
[1:05:13] actually, uh, zoned residential and this makes
[1:05:17] it, uh, them available for food trucks to go for special events.
[1:05:24] jessica, I just have one question. I know. Um, currently,
[1:05:29] regardless of the zoning or where it's located, we don't allow food trucks on public property unless
[1:05:34] it's a special event. That will not change. That will not change. So this means that
[1:05:38] a residential neighborhood, if this were to pass, you can't set up a food truck on
[1:05:42] a public street? That is correct. Okay. It has to be on private property. Okay. Yes.
[1:05:46] thank you. Any other questions?
[1:05:53] hearing none. I will open the public hearing on item number 14. If anyone would like
[1:05:57] to come forward and speak, please do so at this time,
[1:06:08] hearing, make motion, public hearing. Second, have a motion and a second
[1:06:12] to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion?
[1:06:17] hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[1:06:21] okay. Public hearing is now closed. What is the pleasure of the board? On item number 14,
[1:06:28] mayor, I make a motion to consider adopting an ordinance amending sections
[1:06:33] 15 dash 1 36 residential districts established
[1:06:37] 15 dash 46 table of permissible uses and
[1:06:42] 15 dash 1 63 particular uses of appendix
[1:06:46] sale of the land use ordinance for flexibility in mobile food vendors.
[1:06:52] second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
[1:06:58] hearing none. Let's have a roll call starting with alderman astor. Alderman astor.
[1:07:03] yes. Alderman kenzie. Yes. Alderman best.
[1:07:09] alderman prill. Yes. Alderman royal. Yes. Mayor
[1:07:13] odom? Yes. Motion carries. Next up is item
[1:07:17] number 15. Conduct a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance amending
[1:07:21] section 15 1 63 particular uses of article 11
[1:07:26] supplemental use regulations of appendix a of the land use ordinance
[1:07:30] to remove registration and separation requirements for short term rentals.
[1:07:34] ms. Ru, thank you so much. This is an amendment that
[1:07:38] is being requested for consistency with state law.
[1:07:44] lemme get recalibrated here. This is an amendment to our section called
[1:07:48] particular uses and this is the section of the ordinance that houses
[1:07:52] our regulation on short term rentals. And a few years ago,
[1:07:56] I believe it was in 2022, there was a case that came out of the city of wilmington
[1:08:01] that made some determinations on what was and was not constitutional
[1:08:05] when it came to regulating short term rentals. So what this
[1:08:09] amendment that is for your consideration this evening would do
[1:08:13] would remove our language and our short term rental law
[1:08:18] that, uh, requires registration for short term rentals because that
[1:08:22] has been found to be unconstitutional. And also remove the separation
[1:08:26] requirements. We currently require that they're 250 feet apart and
[1:08:31] that is no longer considered constitutional based on this case law.
[1:08:35] no other changes to our short term rental requirements would occur.
[1:08:40] it is simply streamlining our ordinance to be consistent with what
[1:08:44] the courts have said is and is not allowable.
[1:08:48] staff is recommending approval of this, um, due for that case law
[1:08:52] consistency. And the planning and zoning board is recommending this unanimously
[1:08:57] as well based on consistency, not only with our adopted plans, but with that
[1:09:01] case board. Have questions for staff? Yes.
[1:09:05] for the benefit of our public. What are some examples of short-term
[1:09:10] rentals? It's typically, uh, homes that are rented as airbnbs
[1:09:14] or bbos. However, in land use
[1:09:18] language that we use fancy, we call 'em str or short term rentals.
[1:09:23] thank you. Any other questions
[1:09:27] further? Okay.
[1:09:32] at this time we will open a public hearing on item number 15. If you would like to speak
[1:09:36] regarding this item, please come forward at this time.
[1:09:46] mayor, make a motion to close the public hearing. Second,
[1:09:51] I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there further discussion?
[1:09:55] hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Public
[1:10:00] hearing is now closed. What is the pleasure of the board? On item number 15,
[1:10:04] I would like to make a motion to adopt an ordinance amending
[1:10:09] section 15 1 6 3 particular
[1:10:13] uses of article 11 supplemental use regulations
[1:10:18] of appendix a of the land use ordinance to remove
[1:10:22] registration and separation requirements of short
[1:10:26] term rentals. Second, I have a motion
[1:10:30] and a second. Is there further discussion? I
[1:10:34] just had one comment or question. Uh, mr. Attorney, I know you've said oftentimes
[1:10:39] that we don't necessarily want to be the one to set
[1:10:43] the rules in the standard. Is this a situation where maybe
[1:10:47] we were a little proactive ahead of the game and case law
[1:10:51] came back and said what we did was basically incorrect? We were a great question, mary.
[1:10:55] thank you. Um, our, um, our ordinance was consistent with
[1:10:59] others statewide. Um, typically wilmington and asheville
[1:11:04] are the ones that, uh, lead the charge in defending because there's no clear
[1:11:08] rules as to what you can or can't do. Um, in this case,
[1:11:12] the court came back and of the six or eight elements of our ordinance,
[1:11:16] two of those, um, were struck. Since that decision, we've
[1:11:20] obviously not enforced those two provisions and this just tidies up
[1:11:25] so that we're all consistent. Maybe you may remember many years ago, same thing happened with group home
[1:11:29] legislation. Um, you know, when you don't have the robust case
[1:11:33] law, you do your best until the court tells you otherwise. Okay. Thank you.
[1:11:38] is there any further discussion? Hearing none
[1:11:42] unless have a roll call, sir, with alderman kenzie. Alderman kenzie? Yes.
[1:11:47] alderman best? Yes. Alderman reel? Yes. Alderman royal?
[1:11:52] yes. Alderman aser? Yes. Mayor odom? Yes.
[1:11:56] motion carries. Next is item number 16. Consider a resolution
[1:12:00] authorizing the municipal service district advisory committee to proceed with projects. Mr. Hughes
[1:12:05] mayor on may 20th. The msd advisory committee met to discuss a variety
[1:12:09] of projects and they came up with several recommendations to the governing board.
[1:12:14] those projects include, uh, purchasing two downtown digital
[1:12:18] kiosks that cost of $62,000, allocating
[1:12:22] funds to the broad street parking for the river walk pier in the amount of $300,000
[1:12:28] brick crosswalk project for eight, for eight locations downtown, namely
[1:12:33] on p*****k street south front street, and then the half blocks of craven
[1:12:37] and middle street at the amount of $750,000.
[1:12:42] and, uh, stall center armrest on downtown benches. And
[1:12:46] this is a phase. So the first phase is $15,000 purchase,
[1:12:50] 16 four foot benches to go, uh, on certain areas of
[1:12:55] downtown that don't have benches. Amount of $20,000 and purchase eight
[1:12:59] additional trash cans in the amount of $8,000. All of these would match the
[1:13:03] existing trash cans and benches in the downtown if approved these funds
[1:13:07] for these projects would come from the municipal service district fund. Happy to answer
[1:13:11] any questions you may have or have questions.
[1:13:17] mayor. I would just point out that I had reached out to, um, foster
[1:13:21] and brenda earlier today. Um, the, the way that
[1:13:26] the resolution had been worded, um, was
[1:13:30] that they were being authorized to proceed with these
[1:13:34] projects. But given the fact that the msd advisory committee
[1:13:39] is only advisory in nature, um,
[1:13:43] they recommend projects for the board's consideration
[1:13:47] and if approved, then the city is the implementing
[1:13:52] agency for these approved projects. So, um,
[1:13:56] I ask that that resolution, um, be
[1:14:00] reworded, which it was, um, just to make it clear that
[1:14:06] the any approved project, um, will
[1:14:10] be the city's responsibility to initiate n execute,
[1:14:14] not the advisory committee. Okay.
[1:14:18] any other comments?
[1:14:23] it's pleasure of the board on item number 16.
[1:14:27] now I'll make a motion to approve a resolution authorizing the
[1:14:31] municipal service district. Well actually
[1:14:35] not the advisory committee, I guess make a motion to approve
[1:14:39] the recommended projects. From the municipal service district advisory
[1:14:43] committee. Thank. Okay, I have a motion to second. Is there further discussion?
[1:14:49] hearing none. Let's have a roll call starting with
[1:14:53] alderman best? Alderman best, yes. Alderman prill.
[1:14:58] yes. Alderman royal? Yes. Alderman asher? Yes. Alderman
[1:15:02] kenzie? Yes. Mayor odom. Yes. And just to be clear, that is
[1:15:06] to approve the updated resolution that was circulated to the board before the meeting.
[1:15:10] is that? Yes sir. Very good, thank you. Okay, next
[1:15:14] up is item number 17. Consider adopting orders authorizing 2025
[1:15:19] general obligation bonds, ms. Ostrom.
[1:15:24] okay, so over the past year we have been working towards seeking
[1:15:28] voter approval for three bond separate general obligation bonds.
[1:15:33] one was the $10 million for the sidewalk street and sidewalk improvements,
[1:15:37] 8 million for parks and recreation, and 6 million for storm water improvements.
[1:15:42] at the last meeting, you authorized the submission of an application
[1:15:46] to the local government commission for these proposed bonds. Part of that
[1:15:50] process requires a notice of intent to file an application to be published
[1:15:54] in the local paper. That notice was published in the sun journal on may 17th.
[1:15:59] the next steps of this process require that the board approve
[1:16:04] the introduction of the three bond orders and the adoption of the first reading
[1:16:09] call for a public hearing to be held on july 8th. Designate
[1:16:13] and authorize the filing of two required statements and authorize
[1:16:17] the city clerk to file copies of the statements with the local government
[1:16:22] commission and publish the bond orders and related notice of public hearing.
[1:16:27] so you have a lot in your packet tonight and we're gonna take a moment to go through that.
[1:16:32] the first, you should have the three bond orders.
[1:16:37] um, the purpose description and amount on each bond is located
[1:16:41] in section one of each bond order. The remainder of that
[1:16:45] document contains the same general language for each bond order and it pledges to
[1:16:49] the tax levy tax revenues to pay for the debt.
[1:16:53] it states that the sworn statement of debt has been filed with the city clerk and is
[1:16:57] available for public inspection. And the statement of disclosures will
[1:17:02] be filed with the local government commission and posted to the city's website.
[1:17:06] it also calls for the public hearing to be held at the next board meeting on july 8th.
[1:17:11] and that bond order will take effect when approved by voters in october.
[1:17:18] then you have the next two pages. In the public notice is the public notice
[1:17:22] that we will be published in the sun journal. It includes three,
[1:17:26] the three bond orders that we just reviewed. And in the last paragraph of section
[1:17:30] four, it also provides the total of all three proposed bonds in
[1:17:34] the amount of 24 million. The estimated interest
[1:17:39] of all three bonds in the amount of 13,466,888
[1:17:44] $880. That calculation consists of
[1:17:48] the safe harbor rate of 5.344%, which is determined by
[1:17:52] the local government commission for calculating estimated interest.
[1:17:56] it's the highest rate charge for similar tax exempt debt for over the last 20 years.
[1:18:01] it also provides the estimated property tax rate increase of 2.75 cents
[1:18:07] per $100 of assessed valuation to pay for the debt of all three bond
[1:18:11] orders if they were all passed. The next three pages
[1:18:15] you will see the statement of disclosures. The
[1:18:19] purpose of the statement is to provide transparency to voters about the potential
[1:18:24] cost and financial implications of the geo bond referendum.
[1:18:28] it is informing the public of what we are considering adopting in july
[1:18:32] and requests their opinion that the next board meeting prior to adopting
[1:18:36] it is filed with the local government commission and posted on the city's website.
[1:18:40] this document breaks out each bond order and its respective
[1:18:45] estimated interest and estimated property tax rate increase if
[1:18:49] approved by the voters and is issued. The information provided includes
[1:18:53] the streets and sidewalk bond for 10 million with estimated interest of $5,611,200
[1:19:00] and an estimated tax rate increase of 1.51 cents per hundred dollars of
[1:19:04] assessed valuation. The parks and rec bond in the amount of 8 million
[1:19:08] with an estimated interest of $4,488,960
[1:19:13] in the estimated tax rate increase of 75 cents. And
[1:19:17] the storm water bond in the amount of 6 million with an estimated interest of $3,366,720
[1:19:24] and an estimated tax rate increase of 49 cents per a hundred dollars of assessed value.
[1:19:29] if all three bond orders were to be approved, the total estimated tax rate
[1:19:34] increases $2 and 75 cents per a hundred dollars of assessed value.
[1:19:40] the sworn statement of debt follows with the next two pages. This document is
[1:19:45] required to be filed with the local government commission and reports to the city's current reports
[1:19:49] on the city's current debt and author, any authorized bonds they have not been issued.
[1:19:55] I'm officially submitting to the city clerk assigned copy of those of the sworn statement
[1:19:59] of debt and the statement of disclosures. Lastly, the
[1:20:03] following three pages consist of the bond referendum with with each ballot
[1:20:08] question. As you can see, each one is voted on individually.
[1:20:12] looking forward, we are planning on holding four meetings during the months of august and
[1:20:16] september to educate our citizens and taxpayers provide information and answer
[1:20:20] questions on, on these bonds. And, and tonight
[1:20:24] our bond attorney john, my and with bol bond and dixon and ted cole
[1:20:29] and the city's the city's financial consultant, davenport, are here to answer any questions
[1:20:33] that you may have about what's presented to you tonight regarding the geo bonds.
[1:20:38] the have questions.
[1:20:46] kim? I have, I have a few. Uh, first off, can you tell us how much the total
[1:20:51] interest would be on all three of the bonds if approved?
[1:20:57] if it's based off of the safe harbor rate? Mm-hmm .
[1:21:01] I have it right here.
[1:21:06] it was $13,466,880.
[1:21:11] okay. And 24 million is the total
[1:21:15] for all three bonds referendums? Yes. Okay. Um,
[1:21:20] I'm assuming that the language, uh, since we have consultants that have helped craft
[1:21:25] these, um, say things like up to
[1:21:29] this amount not to exceed, to make sure that we're protected in a
[1:21:33] situation where a project starts and it costs more, we can't spend
[1:21:37] but as much money as what was authorized. Correct? Correct. Okay.
[1:21:41] and then the last one was taxi taxes are
[1:21:45] levied. At what time of the process is
[1:21:49] it when the projects start and the money is pulled? Um, I
[1:21:53] know, I know it's not when the bond is approved, it's when the projects
[1:21:57] start, but I'm just asking the timeframe. So for example, if
[1:22:01] these just say all three of 'em were approved on october,
[1:22:06] um, I'm sure some of these projects are somewhat shovel ready, some
[1:22:10] will take some design and planning. I just wanna give the public the idea
[1:22:15] of when they could potentially see a tax
[1:22:19] increase for these projects. I don't think it would be all at once was my point.
[1:22:26] okay. Good evening. Um, ted cole with davenport, the, uh,
[1:22:31] the analysis that we've run for the potential tax increases,
[1:22:35] assume that the, um, the new revenue through a
[1:22:39] tax adjustment would be done as part of the fy 27 budget.
[1:22:43] mm-hmm . Um, ultimately it could be done later, but it
[1:22:47] may be at a higher total impact. This was
[1:22:51] one of two approaches we analyzed and I think had shared with you all at some
[1:22:55] point fy 27, the first budget following the vote.
[1:23:04] and kim, thank you for that. And kim, uh, to clarify, you said
[1:23:08] $2 in change for every a hundred dollars in valuation.
[1:23:12] um, could you maybe give just a quick example of
[1:23:17] what a average tax bill, if you were to have $300,000
[1:23:21] in property value, what that would equate to? So
[1:23:25] yes, I can. So we had, lemme just wanna get the right dollar amount.
[1:23:32] it was $2 and 75 cents per a hundred dollars of assessed value. That's $27
[1:23:37] and 50 cents for every a hundred thousand dollars of assessed value.
[1:23:41] okay. Thank you.
[1:23:46] does board have any other questions? Kim, can you break that out? So just
[1:23:51] say for the instance, somebody owns a home that's $300,000 mm-hmm .
[1:24:07] 82 50 for 300,000. Okay.
[1:24:21] or have any other questions? I do. Um, I might be
[1:24:25] piggybacking off of what you had already asked, mayor.
[1:24:29] um, but listening to the beginning of
[1:24:33] the taxation, you said fiscal year 2027 mm-hmm
[1:24:37] . And I, we know we said previously that
[1:24:42] all the money would not be borrowed at the same time.
[1:24:47] it would be staggered over the 20 year period, correct?
[1:24:53] no, a four year, yeah. Period of borrowing fiscal 26
[1:24:57] through 29. 26 through 29. Thank you. So
[1:25:01] then looking at, let's say for the sidewalks, 10 million
[1:25:06] at 0.0151 per year
[1:25:11] over a span of how many years again?
[1:25:17] well, we paid the debt back over a span of 20 years. Mm-hmm .
[1:25:23] I'm not sure that I understand your question. The tax begins in 2027,
[1:25:27] is that correct? Yes, that's correct. The estimates that we provided
[1:25:32] for tax increases would be effective fy 27 if the
[1:25:36] referendum's approved. Okay. And then the span would be for four
[1:25:40] years? Is that what you said? The, if, if all three bond orders
[1:25:44] were approved by the voters or bond questions, we would expect,
[1:25:49] part of our planning work is that you would issue in fiscal year issue the
[1:25:53] debt not all at once, but over a four year period every
[1:25:57] time you issue the debt, we're assuming the payback is a
[1:26:01] 20 year term. Um, and that the
[1:26:05] tax rate dedicated to the repayment of the debt would run for
[1:26:09] the term of the debt.
[1:26:15] I'm trying to follow you, you want me to say that
[1:26:19] please. Okay. Repeat that. So, so there are three bond questions mm-hmm
[1:26:23] . Those will be voted on separately. Um,
[1:26:28] if they were to be approved, then the city would
[1:26:33] with your approval or the, the board at that time. Right. The, the approval of the
[1:26:37] bonds by the voters does not clear the path for issuing the
[1:26:41] debt. It has to come back to the board each time you issue the debt. The
[1:26:45] planning work that we've done with your staff assumes that we would issue
[1:26:50] $2 million of bonds in fiscal 26 16,000,027,
[1:26:55] 2.8 and 28 and 3 million in 29th. So
[1:27:00] by fiscal 29, the 24 million of bonds will
[1:27:04] have been issued and the city will have received that money for
[1:27:08] projects. Each of those four bond issues, 26, 27, 28, 29,
[1:27:14] we've assumed the term of the debt. The repayment period
[1:27:18] is a four is a 20 year term, which is pretty standard. It's like
[1:27:22] a, having a 20 year mortgage. We're gonna repay that debt over 20
[1:27:26] years. And as that new debt come,
[1:27:31] debt service, annual debt service comes online, we've
[1:27:35] calculated that we would need the equivalent of 2.75
[1:27:40] pennies on the tax rate to make those payments and that
[1:27:44] that revenue would need to be in place for the term of the debt.
[1:27:49] thank you. I just want to simplified for the public so that
[1:27:53] they could hear and get clarity. And I know that going forward we're
[1:27:57] going to have some opportunities to engage the public also in
[1:28:01] our public hearing that, uh, is scheduled for july 8th.
[1:28:05] I just wanted simplified, so to make sure that our public understands
[1:28:10] and can follow. Thank you.
[1:28:14] okay. Any other questions?
[1:28:24] if not, um, I would consider, um, listening
[1:28:28] to a motion on item number 17. If
[1:28:33] one would like to be made,
[1:28:37] mayor will make a motion to and, and help me with
[1:28:41] the wording that we are, um,
[1:28:46] adopting the orders authorizing 2025
[1:28:50] general vacation bonds. Is that accurate? Okay. So moved.
[1:28:54] alright, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a
[1:28:58] second. Is there further discussion on the motion?
[1:29:03] hearing none, let's have a roll call. Starting. Hold one second. Hold one second, ma'am.
[1:29:07] kim? Yes. Lets verified. There has to be a separate vote for each one.
[1:29:12] you do all. Okay. Um,
[1:29:17] let's have a roll call starting with alderman prill.
[1:29:22] alderman frill. Yes. Alderman royal. Yes.
[1:29:26] alderman astor. Yes. Alderman mckenzie. Yes. Alderman best?
[1:29:31] no. Mayor odom. Yes. Motion carries.
[1:29:35] moving on to item number 18. Consider adopting a resolution approving a memorandum
[1:29:39] of understanding with the drug enforcement administration, chief gallagher.
[1:29:45] thank you mayor ford. Um, I'm pleased to be here today,
[1:29:50] um, to request an opportunity to participate with
[1:29:54] the federal, uh, task force officer program with
[1:29:58] the, uh, department of, uh, the drug enforcement agency.
[1:30:03] the, uh, new bern police department for decades have been investigating
[1:30:08] and trying to combat, uh, the spread
[1:30:12] and the distribution of dangerous drugs in our community.
[1:30:17] in 2024, uh, we saw an increase of
[1:30:21] over 50% more drug arrests than
[1:30:25] the previous year and almost 25% more drug arrests.
[1:30:29] over a four year period, we've been given this opportunity to partner with
[1:30:34] the dea through the federal task force officer
[1:30:38] program to leverage additional resources, training, and intelligence
[1:30:43] and assign tfo would work out of the newburn police department's
[1:30:48] narcotics office, and our focus would be,
[1:30:52] um, on new bern,
[1:30:56] uh, um, uh, or investigations within new bern. Now the task
[1:31:00] force officer would also be responsible if needed, uh, by
[1:31:04] the dea for regional investigations.
[1:31:08] part of the, um, asset of this relationship
[1:31:13] would be reimbursement for buy money and also additional
[1:31:17] focus on investigations into vape shops and,
[1:31:22] uh, their relationship with illegal contraband. We
[1:31:26] currently have relationships with the federal government through
[1:31:30] tfos with the fbi, the us marshal service
[1:31:34] and the state of north carolina's commerce department
[1:31:38] participation in this program would not remove any uniformed
[1:31:43] officers from the operations division. This collateral assignment
[1:31:47] would be, um, assigned to a plainclothes
[1:31:51] detective who is currently in the narcotics unit.
[1:31:55] um, and, uh, the reality is whether we have
[1:31:59] a formal agreement with the dea or not, we've been working with the
[1:32:03] dea, um, on drug investigations for years.
[1:32:08] this would just benefit our agency greatly, um, because
[1:32:12] of the formalized relationship would give us the additional resources, um,
[1:32:17] to leverage, um, our investigations and hopefully have a bigger impact
[1:32:21] on drug distributions in new bern. So I'm happy to answer any questions
[1:32:25] regarding this relationship. Does the board have questions?
[1:32:31] if not, may, I'd like to make the recommend, or excuse me, I'd like to make a motion that we
[1:32:35] adopt a resolution approvement a mo you with the
[1:32:39] drug enforcement administration. Second, I have
[1:32:43] a motion to second is there further discussion. Chief,
[1:32:48] you have me at vape shops. So let's
[1:32:52] have a roll call starting with alderman roy alderman memorial?
[1:32:56] yes. Alderman aser. Yes. Alderman kinzie.
[1:33:00] yes. Alderman best? Yes. Alderman crell. Yes.
[1:33:05] mayor oda? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next
[1:33:09] up is considered, uh, adopting a resolution authorizing the
[1:33:13] submission of an application for the 2025 bureau of justice assistant
[1:33:18] bulletproof vest grant chief gallagher. Yes, this is very similar
[1:33:22] to the, um, request that we make annually, um,
[1:33:26] in order to, uh, sustain the, um, bulletproof
[1:33:31] rest, uh, rotation and for new officers, um,
[1:33:35] of 23 vests, that liability to the city is
[1:33:40] $32,982 to participate
[1:33:44] in this grant. And if we receive this grant, uh, our liability would be cut
[1:33:49] in half to $16,491. This is
[1:33:53] a, uh, 50 50 match and again, this is the exact language that
[1:33:57] we've had for the past four years since I've been the chief here board.
[1:34:01] have questions? There's no questions. I make a motion
[1:34:06] to adopt the resolution authorizing the submission of an application for
[1:34:10] the 2025 year of justice assistant bulletproof vest
[1:34:14] grant. Second? Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is
[1:34:18] there any further discussion? Hearing none once.
[1:34:22] have a roll call sergeant with alderman asher. Alderman asher? Yes. Alderman
[1:34:27] mckenzie? Yes. Alderman desk? Yes. Alderman frill. Yes.
[1:34:31] alderman royal? Yes. Mayor odom? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you chief.
[1:34:36] next up is item number 20. Consider doubting an ordinance for the demolition of 10
[1:34:40] 14 grace street. Ms. Ru.
[1:34:47] good evening again. Staff is seeking an approval of an ordinance to demolish
[1:34:51] the dwelling and accessory structure located at 10 14. Grace street
[1:34:56] staff has sent the owner of record an initial minimum housing letter as is
[1:35:00] required on january 9th, 2023, stating
[1:35:04] that the dwelling and structures located at 10 14 grace street have deficiencies
[1:35:09] constituting violations of our minimum housing code. Staff further attempted
[1:35:13] to contact the owners via the us postal service and certified letters were sent
[1:35:18] and returned and non-certified letters were delivered, but received no
[1:35:22] response, no working contact information, phone numbers,
[1:35:26] email addresses, or relatives were identified in our staff investigation.
[1:35:31] so staff filed a complaint and a notice of hearing on september 16th, 2024
[1:35:36] and neither of the defendants attended. The defendants, sorry,
[1:35:41] attended the october 15th, 2024 hearing given
[1:35:45] this on october 17th, 2024 in order of the billing inspector
[1:35:49] was served to the owners to bring the dwelling back into compliance with minimum
[1:35:53] housing standards established by chapter 38 of our city code with
[1:35:57] an expiration date of december 16th, 2024.
[1:36:02] to date, there has been no contact from the owners, no permits have been applied for,
[1:36:06] and the dwelling and the accessory structure as well remain non-compliant.
[1:36:12] both the complaint and the obi were published in the newspaper and posted on the dwelling
[1:36:16] to ensure notification requirements were fulfilled. The demolition
[1:36:21] estimate on this property from our public works department is $10,330.
[1:36:26] this excludes asbestos testing and at this
[1:36:30] point utility terminations have not yet been completed. I will
[1:36:35] point out this property is in an ae flood zone and
[1:36:39] if adopted would be eligible for cbbg funding for demolition.
[1:36:44] given that mr. Easel is available this evening to provide
[1:36:48] additional details or provide answers to questions you may have on this case.
[1:36:52] does the board have questions?
[1:36:58] I have one on the, um, demolition estimate and
[1:37:02] that's a pretty specific number. Are you using that something by square foot or how'd you come
[1:37:06] up with that number patrick? Correct. That comes from public works themselves. They have a
[1:37:10] formal to do that. Okay. Um,
[1:37:14] for those that have been on the board for any length of time, that that number seems to be quite
[1:37:19] a bit higher than what we would typically see. Do you know, have we changed that calculation
[1:37:23] recently? And it's mostly in tipping fees is what we'll see with that. Okay.
[1:37:30] that was all the questions I have. Ms. Board have any, there's no more questions
[1:37:34] by the board. I make a motion to adopt an ordinance for the
[1:37:38] demolition of 10 14 grace street. Second. I
[1:37:43] have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on item number 20?
[1:37:48] hearing none. We'll have a roll call starting with the alderman kenzie. Alderman kenzie?
[1:37:53] yes. Alderman best? Yes. Alderman frill. Yes.
[1:37:58] alderman royal? Yes. Alderman aster? Yes. Mayor odom?
[1:38:02] yes. Motion carries. Moving on to item number 21. Consider adopting the
[1:38:06] final budget ordinance amendment for fy 2025. Ms. Osland,
[1:38:11] this budget ordinance allows for the final budget adjustments for fiscal year
[1:38:15] 25 to ensure sufficient budget for projected expenses and
[1:38:19] alignment of revenues overall, the budget general
[1:38:23] fund amendment includes an increase of 655,000 for health insurance
[1:38:28] costs 104,000 for the replacement of the peg channel equipment,
[1:38:33] which is part of the insurance claim. Reimbursement costs were partially
[1:38:37] offset with reductions in budgets across several divisions with the largest being
[1:38:41] 320 through $20,000 for debt payments,
[1:38:46] um, that was budgeted. But since we delayed financing the capital,
[1:38:50] um, the debt payments will begin next fiscal year.
[1:38:55] the result appropriates $430,000 from fund balance for the general
[1:38:59] fund. The water fund reflects an increase of $350,000,
[1:39:04] which includes an increase in health insurance, utility costs,
[1:39:09] water meters, pipes and fittings, and $39,000
[1:39:13] for the write off of skys sale tap fees due to bankruptcy and
[1:39:17] an increase of 6,000 for inter fund transfers with reduction of
[1:39:21] 225,000 insured services charges. The result appropriates
[1:39:26] $170,000 from fund balance. The
[1:39:30] sewer fund reflects an increase of 80,000 for health insurance. $75,000
[1:39:35] for the right off of sky sale tap fees, 15,000 for
[1:39:40] inter fund transfers. These increases were offset by $170,000
[1:39:44] for the reduction sheet services and no additional fund balance is appropriated.
[1:39:49] the electric fund reflects an increase of 3,000,010
[1:39:53] hold on, $10,000 for the increased cost
[1:39:57] for purchase power and the amount of 2.7 million $400,000
[1:40:01] for transformers, cables devices and an increase in overtime
[1:40:06] salaries and health insurance. Cost of shared services and
[1:40:10] inter fund transfers increased by 87,000 in debt consulting costs
[1:40:14] by 89,000. The result of these adjustments appropriate 3,186,000
[1:40:19] from electric funds fund balance. The
[1:40:23] employee's benefit insurance fund reflects an increase of 2,287,000
[1:40:27] for health insurance claims and the other in other post post-employment
[1:40:32] benefits fund is amended to reflect the transfer of a hundred thousand dollars.
[1:40:36] do you have any questions? Board have questions?
[1:40:44] could you provide some clarity on the sky sale
[1:40:48] bankruptcy that we're writing off, if you have any? Yeah. So
[1:40:53] we received, um, the papers
[1:40:57] for the bankruptcy for sky sale and we have to dismiss those bad debt charges.
[1:41:02] so essentially we're writing them off. I have not personally seen it. It was with
[1:41:06] um, scott and our council revenue person. So
[1:41:10] who's filing bankruptcy? We're gonna have to ask the city attorney to
[1:41:14] to answer that question. Marva, can you, can you give him, I'm just curious because
[1:41:19] all I hear is every time a unit gets on the market in sky sale, it sells quickly.
[1:41:23] so I'm curious on who filed bankruptcy and who still owes us money for tap
[1:41:27] fees. I would've thought the tap fees would've been paid for a long time ago.
[1:41:34] they unsecured debt kim? Hmm. Tap fees, unsecured
[1:41:38] debt. It's just, it's um, amounts
[1:41:42] that are owed and it goes to bad debt. Write off mr. Davis.
[1:41:47] the question I had was about the sky sale bankruptcy. Yes sir.
[1:41:52] the bankruptcy, um, removed. Was it 60 some thousand dollars of debt
[1:41:56] for sewer t fees? Those were unsecured claims and in bankruptcy,
[1:42:00] those unsecured claims go unpaid. I wanna say we might have gotten pennies on
[1:42:04] a dollar. I don't remember what it was. 10 20 cents on a dollar for unsecured claims.
[1:42:09] and this is, so it goes back 15, 10, 15 years. Okay. That was
[1:42:13] my question. Listen, this is a long, long time ago. Okay. Yeah. Alright.
[1:42:19] why did they owe us tap fees for 15 years?
[1:42:23] they probably owed 'em 15 years ago and didn't pay 'em. That's why they filed eee. Exactly,
[1:42:28] exactly. The project went upside down during the bust
[1:42:32] around oh seven and um, and we, we received
[1:42:36] about half of our te payments when they filed bankruptcy.
[1:42:40] so the remaining balance was stripped.
[1:42:47] okay. Any other questions from the board?
[1:42:52] mayor, I'll make a motion to adopt the final budget ordinance amendment for fiscal
[1:42:56] year 2025. Second. I
[1:43:00] have a motion a second on item number 21. Is there further discussion?
[1:43:07] hearing none? Let's have a roll call starting with alderman best? Alderman
[1:43:11] best? Yes. Alderman creel? Yes. Alderman royal?
[1:43:15] yes. Alderman ster? Yes. Alderman kenzie? Yes.
[1:43:20] mayor o? Yes. Motion carries. Next up is
[1:43:24] appointments. Does anyone have an appointment tonight? I do, sir.
[1:43:28] alright, lemme get honor mckenzie first. Go ahead sir. Uh, I'm be
[1:43:32] appointing uh, tim thompson
[1:43:36] to the hpc. Okay. I
[1:43:40] have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. I have a motion to second to,
[1:43:44] I believe that's a reappointment of tim thompson. It is. Okay. Is any
[1:43:48] further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
[1:43:52] any opposed? Okay. Be reappointed. Is that all sir?
[1:43:57] I have uh, another appointment, a new appointment, uh,
[1:44:02] place in marcus with uh, I think this
[1:44:06] is john.
[1:44:11] I don't wanna mess his name up. Schnee snead. Okay. I would,
[1:44:15] I would think to the, um, hpc.
[1:44:20] okay. And that's it. Alright.
[1:44:24] sergeant mckenzie's made a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. I have a motion and a
[1:44:28] second. Is there further discussion? Hearing none. All those
[1:44:32] in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. He is
[1:44:36] appointed. Is that all you had, sir? That's it. Okay. Alderman astro, I think you had
[1:44:40] one. Uh, yes. Um, I would like to reappoint tim to, to
[1:44:44] back tab tabak. Tabak tabak. Yeah. Thank you to
[1:44:49] the board of adjustments. And I would also like
[1:44:53] to, let's, let's do him first. Okay. So we have a motion to reappoint tim
[1:44:57] tabak to the board of adjustments. Do we have a second? Second. Have a second. Is there further
[1:45:01] discussion? Hearing none? All those in favor say aye. Aye.
[1:45:05] any opposed? Okay. Mr. Tabak is reappointed now go ahead with your second one sir. Alright.
[1:45:10] and the hpc mr. Jim bisbee is, um, no longer
[1:45:14] able to be reappointed. So in his place I would like to appoint
[1:45:19] ross bebe.
[1:45:23] do we have a second to nomination? Second. Okay, we have a second. Is there further discussion?
[1:45:28] hearing none? All those in favor say aye. A aye. Any opposed? Okay. Mr.
[1:45:33] bebe is appointed. Anyone else have a appointment? Yes.
[1:45:37] I would like to a motion to reappoint ms. Kathleen
[1:45:41] marty to the board of adjustments she served previously.
[1:45:45] she says she would love to serve another term.
[1:45:49] okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second for ms. Marty? Second. I have a motion
[1:45:53] to second to reappoint. Ms. Marty. Is there further discussion? Hearing
[1:45:57] none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ms. Marty is
[1:46:02] reappointed. Anyone else?
[1:46:08] okay, I'll move on to attorney's report. Uh, nothing before tonight. Mayor, city
[1:46:12] manager's report if you have to update you on, um, our aquatic center
[1:46:16] was scheduled to open, um, memorial weekend about three
[1:46:21] days before that occurred. The pump malfunctioned. Um, unfortunately
[1:46:25] the type of pump we have in a spoon pool is not when you can go out to a walmart
[1:46:30] or a local pool supply company to replace. And so we have
[1:46:34] had to work with a local pump company and they have had to skew,
[1:46:39] literally scour the united states to find the parts and the motors to basically
[1:46:43] rebuild this. So, um, staff has had conversations with them
[1:46:47] this week. The, all of the parts are supposed to be in place tomorrow.
[1:46:52] the pump company has, has told us that the pump should be, um,
[1:46:56] put back together by friday. If that occurs, staff will install
[1:47:00] the pump friday at some point. And the goal is for the aquatic center to be open on
[1:47:04] saturday. So I want to let you know that, uh, the riverwalk fishing pier, we
[1:47:08] had our grand opening on friday, may 23rd. Uh, staff was
[1:47:12] still in the process of installing the lights. Those got turned on on may 28th.
[1:47:17] and so the fishing pier has been active. We've had a lot of good comments from
[1:47:22] the citizens and visitors. The fishing, uh, is available on the pier
[1:47:26] 24 7. Uh, and it is free to fish on the pier, so
[1:47:30] I'm gonna let you know that. Uh, just a reminder, the employee appreciation election
[1:47:34] will be on thursday, june 12th at the west river recreation center from 11 to one.
[1:47:39] and also, uh, we've got 4th of july coming up. So just a reminder, city offices will
[1:47:43] be closed on july 4th. The 4th of july celebration will occur at lawson
[1:47:47] creek park. Events kickoff at 5:30 pm we'll have live music,
[1:47:51] entertainment and fireworks will be held at promptly at nine 15.
[1:47:57] that's all we have, sir. Okay. Next is new business alderman pri. Uh,
[1:48:01] nothing tonight though. Alderman royal? Yes, mayor.
[1:48:06] I would like to make a motion to reallocate,
[1:48:10] uh, my remaining a rp funds for ward two
[1:48:15] for the following projects. Number one,
[1:48:19] a screening around the existing pump
[1:48:24] station at the evergreen cemetery. Uh, it would
[1:48:28] provide a wood fence and landscaping between the new shelter
[1:48:32] and the retention pond at a cost of $10,000.
[1:48:37] uh, the second item is to pave trent
[1:48:41] street in the pembroke community at an estimated
[1:48:46] cost of $50,000. Uh, the third
[1:48:50] one is to contribute $10,000
[1:48:55] towards the total cost of the restroom project
[1:48:59] at henderson park. And the fourth one
[1:49:03] is to contribute approximately $2,400
[1:49:08] to the duffy field neighborhood sign. Uh, the total
[1:49:12] proposed project is estimated at approximately $72,400.
[1:49:21] okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second.
[1:49:25] is there further discussion?
[1:49:29] um, since we're just given direction, a resolution's gonna have to come back to spend the funding
[1:49:33] correctly. So we would take a no, I don't need a resolution, but
[1:49:37] if we can repeat those amounts, I would appreciate it. The clerk can we, we
[1:49:41] we've got, she you've got all the amounts? Yeah. Okay. So we good with, um,
[1:49:47] a voice vote since we're not doing a resolution here? Mm-hmm . Okay, just minutes.
[1:49:51] all those in favor say aye a aye. Any opposed? It's unanimous.
[1:49:56] okay, thank you. Is that all you have, ma'am? That's all. Alright,
[1:50:00] thank you. Harm master. Uh, yes ma'am. Um, first thing I,
[1:50:04] I wanted to ask the city manager, do we have any, um,
[1:50:09] update on removing the traffic out on landscape in
[1:50:13] carolina colors by the school to make a turning lane for any people to go
[1:50:17] into the school parking lot? We do not have an update, but I can get you one. We'll
[1:50:22] send something out to the board tomorrow morning and let you know. Okay, great.
[1:50:26] and also, um, as you know, with all this road construction that's taking
[1:50:30] place over and on the james city side, um,
[1:50:35] there's been a tremendous amount of traffic using old airport road and
[1:50:39] they're coming up, uh, down to, to burna
[1:50:43] way and making a left to go out that way or make it a right to go
[1:50:48] out and continue down old airport road. Uh, as a result of that,
[1:50:52] I would, I like to, um, use $6,000 of,
[1:50:56] uh, a rp funds for the the electronic,
[1:51:01] uh, flashing stop sign. We've had some issues
[1:51:06] there. Uh, I've got several complaints of, um, people
[1:51:10] actually running the, the, the stop sign through there. Talk to george
[1:51:15] chows about it. And this was the solution that we come up with.
[1:51:19] so I would like to ask the board to authorize, uh, not to exceed $6,000
[1:51:24] in the electronic stop sign. So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
[1:51:29] second. Wait a minute. Hold. I'm gonna ask, is that one? I think it was just
[1:51:33] one, yeah, one sign. I'm sorry. Okay. We have a motion? We have a second.
[1:51:38] any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in
[1:51:42] favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
[1:51:46] anything else? Nothing. Thank you. Okay, all mckenzie, uh, tonight. Thank you allman.
[1:51:51] best? Yes. Um, officer, do you have any idea when on tv
[1:51:55] three would be back, back up and running? So with the budget amendment
[1:52:00] that just occurred that you had just approved purchase order will be cut
[1:52:04] tomorrow morning. Staff will order that, that those supplies, we'll,
[1:52:08] we'll send that update out tomorrow. They'll give us an estimated eta on when that equipment will arrive.
[1:52:13] so we'd like to say within the next few weeks we'll receive the equipment that our
[1:52:17] it folks will put it all together, test it. So it would be great
[1:52:21] if it, it would be great if it was by the july meeting. I don't know if that'll happen, but
[1:52:25] I think definitely by the august meeting it'll be back up. Alright, thank you. But we'll give you an
[1:52:29] update on that. Thank you so much. That's it. Okay. Um, just
[1:52:34] one question, comment, request. Um, foster, I think you
[1:52:38] had mentioned that you and maybe colleen, were gonna work on
[1:52:42] some collateral to show what areas within the city is open
[1:52:46] to fish. Um, there seems to be a lot of confusion, uh,
[1:52:50] in the community about, uh, the only place to fish in the city
[1:52:54] of new vern is the new fishing pier that we have. Um, some of you may have received
[1:52:59] a, um, petition that was signed, uh, by a lot of folks that
[1:53:03] are not in the city limits, but a lot of people not even in the state. Um,
[1:53:07] and, and the, the petition was very well crafted
[1:53:12] except it left out one integral part and that was the fact that we added a fishing gear.
[1:53:16] so all it talked about was what we took away. It didn't talk about what we added. And as we all
[1:53:20] know, there was a lot of places around the city that is open to the public for fishing.
[1:53:25] um, and I think if we had a map, uh, to show those areas, it would be very beneficial.
[1:53:30] we are, we're actually working with the public information officer and parks and recreation
[1:53:34] who is going to be putting out a robust campaign. But, but just to cover that information
[1:53:38] for you, mayor fishing is allowed anywhere where there's
[1:53:42] water access at glen burnie park. It's, it's allowed at any of the three ponds
[1:53:47] in martin marietta park at any locations around there, even in the canal
[1:53:51] that goes out to new the noose river at lawson creek park. While we do have designated
[1:53:55] areas, it's available at any part of the water or on along lawson
[1:53:59] creek park as well as on the river walk on lawson creek park all the
[1:54:04] way up to council bluff green. So there are several areas. The only
[1:54:08] area that we do not allow fishing now is basically from,
[1:54:12] I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Palace point commons is where it's allowed. We
[1:54:16] do not allow fishing from council bluff green basically to,
[1:54:21] uh, it stops at for simmons, uh, right there where the housing is.
[1:54:25] you have not had the opportunity to fish at union point park.
[1:54:29] you will not be able to fish. Um, basically from the convention center to the
[1:54:33] railroad tracks. Um, the main reason
[1:54:38] we have built a pier is to allow a better opportunity for those to
[1:54:42] fish out in the water. Now I will tell you that, uh, based on
[1:54:46] comments we have seen, we, we had a lot of issues with trash fishermen
[1:54:51] not picking up, uh, bait, things like that. So it was a constant issue
[1:54:55] with city staff having to go out on a daily basis to, to clean up
[1:54:59] a, a lot of mess. We had a lot of complaints from adjoining residents and
[1:55:03] so building the pier was a much better option. Uh, it,
[1:55:07] it lets them focus on fishing on that pier itself and it also gives our
[1:55:11] citizens and visitors an opportunity to go out on that pier. Enjoy nature
[1:55:15] and sightseeing as well. Ms. Fishing, thank you for that. Do
[1:55:20] we need a closed session? Uh, yes sir. A number of issues. Um, we need to a closed session
[1:55:24] to discuss a personnel matter, so to 1 43, 13, 11 a six.
[1:55:28] and we have several legal issues, uh, pursuant to 1 43 13 11 83.
[1:55:34] do we have a motion to go into closed session? So moved. Mayor second.
[1:55:39] I have a motion to second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing
[1:55:43] none. All those in favor say aye. A aye. Any opposed? We're in
[1:55:47] closed session.