[0:28] Okay, I will call to order the

[0:30] Rollsville Board of Commissioners. This

[0:32] is a regular business meeting um

[0:34] Tuesday, August the 18th, 2026. I want

[0:37] to thank everybody in attendance. We got

[0:38] a good turnout tonight. Appreciate uh

[0:41] appreciate everybody's coming out to the

[0:43] meeting. Uh I think uh a lot of things

[0:45] going on um and I appreciate the public

[0:48] being involved in and part of that. So

[0:53] thank you everybody for coming out

[0:54] tonight. Uh this is our last summer

[0:57] meeting. Uh we are on the summer

[0:59] schedule. So next September we manage

[1:02] the board we go back to the regular

[1:04] agenda business meetings first of the

[1:07] month. And um

[1:11] so uh I think we got a large agenda

[1:13] tonight. So got several public hearings

[1:15] to do and uh and those type things and

[1:18] some business meeting items to take care

[1:19] of. So we will jump right into it. First

[1:22] I want to do an invocation and pledge

[1:24] allegiance. Uh we have uh Steve Davis

[1:27] from here in Roseville. Resident

[1:28] Roseville will lead us in prayer

[1:30] tonight. Uh I think he's retired but I

[1:33] I've heard he's working at Bethlehem

[1:34] Church. I'm not sure but uh

[1:37] >> yeah so uh so we'll have him do

[1:40] invocation but first uh I want everybody

[1:42] to stand for pledge of allegiance if you

[1:43] would come on up Stephen do

[1:45] [clears throat]

[1:49] the flag of the United States of America

[1:52] and to the republic for which it stands

[1:54] one nation

[1:56] indivisibley

[1:58] and justice for all

[2:05] Heavenly Father, we come tonight

[2:11] [snorts]

[2:18] and give them the wisdom they need.

[2:23] Our concerns

[2:26] everyone that are citizens of

[2:32] for each other and our community as a

[2:34] whole. Enable us as we work together

[2:37] your generosity of spirit towards one

[2:39] another in Jesus name. Amen.

[2:51] What's the proclamation title day?

[2:54] >> Purple heart day.

[2:55] which is this month.

[2:58] And um so to make an official board uh

[3:00] we will approve the agenda first if you

[3:02] okay with adding this proclamation to

[3:05] the agenda. So I'll take a motion for

[3:07] approval agenda additional proclamation.

[3:09] I'll have a motion a second. Second

[3:11] >> motion and a second. Any further

[3:13] discussion? Not hearing any. All in

[3:16] favor say I.

[3:17] >> Any opposed? Sounds like eyes have it.

[3:19] Eyes do have. Motion approved.

[3:21] >> So, uh, first uh proclamation is 8U

[3:24] basketball softball coach pitching

[3:27] allstars. I think our to want to read

[3:32] that one for us. April.

[3:34] >> All right. So, forgive me in advance if

[3:36] I don't say your names right. Okay. But

[3:39] if you want to just yell it out after I

[3:41] say it, please do if if I don't get it

[3:44] right. Okay. All right. So, the

[3:46] proclamation of the town of Roseville

[3:47] recognizing the 2026 Roseville 8U coach

[3:51] pitch softball team. Yay.

[3:54] Whereas the 2026 Roseville 8U coach

[3:57] pitch softball team earned the title for

[4:00] runner up in the district 4 Capitol and

[4:03] Northern Pedmont region Tar Hill League

[4:05] tournament through outstanding teamwork,

[4:08] determination, and sportsmanship. And

[4:10] whereas the team qualified to compete in

[4:13] the 2026 Tar Hill League Softball State

[4:16] Tournament held in Laurensburg, North

[4:19] Carolina from July 16th through the

[4:21] 19th, 2026. proudly representing the

[4:24] town of Roseville on the state stage.

[4:27] And whereas although the T team did not

[4:29] capture the state championship, the

[4:32] players demonstrated exceptional

[4:33] teamwork, perseverance, positive

[4:36] character, and community pride

[4:38] throughout the tournament, serving as

[4:40] outstanding ambassador ambassadors for

[4:42] the town of Roseville. And whereas the

[4:45] town of Roseville proudly recognizes the

[4:47] members of the 2026 Roseville 8U coach

[4:50] pitch softball team. Ava Alford, Alford,

[4:54] Reagan Brown, McKenna

[4:57] Calami,

[5:00] Maisie Gallo, Josie Garris, Evelyn

[5:05] Heming, Bianca Aender,

[5:09] Aubrey

[5:11] Lazine,

[5:12] Naa Logan, Charlotte P, Shephard

[5:16] Williams, and Elder.

[5:22] Did I do okay? Butchered them too bad.

[5:25] Sorry. [laughter]

[5:26] Sorry.

[5:29] Along with their dedicated coaching

[5:31] staff, head coach Paul Iender,

[5:35] close maybe. And assistant coaches

[5:37] Savannah Alfred, Chris Brown, and

[5:40] Christina Gallow for their commitment,

[5:43] teamwork, sportsmanship, and outstanding

[5:45] representation of the town of Roseville

[5:47] through the 2026 season. And whereas the

[5:50] volunteer coaches dedicated countless

[5:52] hours of their time, leadership, and

[5:54] encouragement to developing the skills,

[5:56] confidence, teamwork, and sportsmanship

[5:59] of these young athletes, making a lasted

[6:01] lasting impact on and off the field. And

[6:04] whereas the town of Roseville recognizes

[6:06] and celebrates the accomplishments of

[6:08] these players, coaches, families, and

[6:10] supporters whose dedication and

[6:12] commitment contributed to an

[6:14] unforgettable season and exemplifies the

[6:16] values of youth a athletics. Now

[6:19] therefore, be it proclaimed that the

[6:21] mayor and town board of commissioners of

[6:23] the town of Roseville hereby commend and

[6:26] congratulate the 2026 Roseville 8U coach

[6:30] pitch softball team for an outstanding

[6:32] season, their district 4 runner-up

[6:35] finish, and their qualification for the

[6:38] 2026 Tar Hill League softball state

[6:40] tournament. The town expresses its

[6:42] sincere appreciation to the players,

[6:44] coaches, parents, and supporters for

[6:47] representing Rollsville with integrity,

[6:49] teamwork, perseverance, and pride. Their

[6:53] accomplish have bought accomplishments

[6:55] have brought honor to our community and

[6:57] serve as an inspiration for future

[6:59] generations of young athletes. Adopted

[7:01] this 18th day of August, 2026, Mayor

[7:05] Ronnie Iicuran.

[7:07] >> Thank you.

[7:08] >> CONGRATULATIONS.

[7:09] [applause]

[7:14] I I do have a signed document for you.

[7:17] So, if we the coaches and the and

[7:18] players come down front here, we get a

[7:21] picture. So, uh if all the coaches and

[7:23] April let you come down.

[7:27] >> Okay.

[7:38] Yeah.

[7:58] » On behalf of the town of Roseville, we

[8:00] want to wish you all congratulations.

[8:01] You did a great job and we're so proud

[8:03] of all of you.

[8:03] >> Thank you.

[8:04] very much.

[8:05] >> Thank you so much.

[8:23] Jun for the win.

[8:29] So

[8:31] congratulations.

[8:40] It's your future.

[8:44] [applause]

[9:00] » Okay. Um,

[9:03] we got another proclamation due. This is

[9:06] uh National Senior Citizens Day and uh

[9:09] our lays on to the senior citizens. Um,

[9:13] Commissioner Michael Paul, if you would

[9:14] uh read that one for us. Thank you. Day

[9:18] proclamation of the town of Roseville,

[9:19] National Senior Citizens Day. Whereas

[9:22] older Americans have contributed

[9:24] immeasurably to the strength, vitality,

[9:26] and character of our nation through

[9:27] their wisdom, experience, and

[9:29] sacrifices. And whereas National Senior Citizens Day was established in

[9:33] 1988 by President Ronald Reagan to honor

[9:36] the achievements and ongoing

[9:38] contributions of our senior citizens and

[9:40] to raise awareness of issues that affect

[9:42] their quality of life. And whereas

[9:44] today's seniors are active engaged in

[9:46] making significant contributions to

[9:48] their families, communities, and the

[9:50] economy, serving as volunteers,

[9:52] caregivers, mentors, and leaders. And

[9:54] whereas as we celebrate the achievements

[9:56] of senior citizens, we also reaffirm our

[9:59] commitment to supporting their dignity,

[10:01] independence, and well-being through

[10:03] quality health care, accessible services

[10:06] and community involvement. And whereas

[10:08] it is fitting to recognize and express

[10:10] our deepest gratitude to the senior

[10:12] citizens who have shel helped shape our

[10:14] communities and continue to enrich our

[10:16] lives. And whereas we are committed to

[10:19] fostering a community where people of

[10:20] all ages are valued, supported and

[10:23] empower empowered to live healthy,

[10:25] meaningful and fulfilling lives. Now

[10:27] therefore, Ronnie I Curran, Mayor and

[10:30] the board of commissioners do hereby

[10:31] proclaim August 21st, 2026 as National

[10:35] Senior Citizens Day and encourage all

[10:37] residents to honor the older adults in

[10:39] our community by expressing gratitude

[10:41] spending time with senior family

[10:43] members, friends, and neighbors and

[10:45] recognizing the lasting impact they have

[10:47] made on our lives and our future.

[10:49] Adopted the 18th day of August, 2026.

[10:51] Ronnie Iicuran, Mayor.

[10:54] >> Thank you.

[10:54] Mike Paul. Appreciate that.

[10:55] And we'll mention a little bit more

[10:57] about tomorrow when your llays on

[10:59] reports. Yes, sir.

[11:00] >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Um and then

[11:03] the last one, Mike Dant Austin, you got

[11:05] a one you want to read?

[11:07] >> Yes, sir. Proclamation of the town of

[11:09] Roseville recognizing August 7, 2026 as

[11:13] Purple Heart Day. Whereas the Purple

[11:16] Heart is the oldest military decoration

[11:18] in present use and the first American

[11:21] service award made available to the

[11:24] coming soldier. ordinarily established,

[11:27] I'm sorry, originally established by

[11:28] General George Washington in 1782 as the

[11:32] badge of military merit. And whereas the

[11:35] Purple Heart is awarded to the members

[11:37] of United States Armed Forces who have

[11:40] been wounded or killed as a result of

[11:43] enemy action while serving our nation.

[11:45] And whereas since its founding, the

[11:48] Purple Heart has been awarded to well

[11:50] over 1.9 million American service

[11:53] members who bore the physical and

[11:56] emotional scars of comeback in defense

[11:58] of our freedom.

[12:00] And whereas National Purple Heart Day

[12:03] observed annually on August 7th provides

[12:06] an opportunity for our community to

[12:08] pause and honor the brave men and women

[12:11] who have shed blood in our service in

[12:14] service to our country as well as to

[12:17] remember those who gave their lives. And

[12:20] whereas it is fitting and proper that we

[12:23] recognize the sacrifice of these

[12:24] American heroes and express our sincere

[12:27] appreciation for their service. Now

[12:30] therefore, be it proclaim that Mayor

[12:32] Ronnie, our current and the board of

[12:34] commissioners of Roseville, on behalf of

[12:36] all citizens, do hereby proclaim August

[12:38] 7, 2026 as Purple Heart Day in the town

[12:42] of Roseville and encourages all to all

[12:45] residents to join in honoring the

[12:48] courage and sacrifice of our comeback

[12:50] wounded and fallen service members.

[12:53] Proclaim

[12:55] this 18th day, August, 2026. Thank you.

[13:00] Dan.

[13:00] >> Thank you, sir, for allowing me to read

[13:02] it.

[13:02] >> Yep. Okay, that wraps up um our um

[13:06] proclamations. Um we do have a new audio

[13:09] system. Tonight's the first night we're

[13:12] using this. Um it seems like it's

[13:14] working well. I think the old system is

[13:18] hard to hear if you was here in

[13:20] attendance, but it was kind of easier to

[13:22] hear online, I think. So, is everybody

[13:25] hearing okay? Everybody sounds well

[13:27] good. I think it's working then. Great.

[13:30] Appreciate that. Uh so with that, our

[13:32] next item is public comments. This is

[13:35] the time individuals get chance to u

[13:38] speak to the board. Uh you your uh

[13:41] comment should be directed to the board

[13:44] uh professionally and polite with

[13:47] respect and uh and we have to limit you

[13:49] to three minutes to that. We don't have

[13:51] anyone to sign up. Um now we do have a

[13:55] couple public hearings coming up. So, if

[13:57] you want to speak to anything

[13:58] specifically,

[14:00] uh, that'll be fine. But if you want to

[14:01] speak to anything generally to the

[14:03] public, this is time.

[14:09] So, we have a sign up for the public

[14:11] hearing. Um,

[14:24] » okay.

[14:25] So we don't have a public comment

[14:28] person. Anybody want to speak public?

[14:30] But thank you. Appreciate that. We also

[14:32] really welcome to any kind of written

[14:34] comments. If you want to make any kind

[14:35] of comments to the general uh board here

[14:39] on anything to do with the town, we

[14:41] appreciate any type of general comments

[14:43] also. Uh so we'll take any comments that

[14:46] you have. So appreciate that. So moving

[14:48] along, uh our next item is the consent

[14:51] agenda. Uh we have three items on the

[14:53] consent agenda. One is the meetings from

[14:55] July 21, 1926,

[14:58] excuse me, 2026. Uh the other one is a

[15:01] resolution to introduce legislation

[15:03] United uh unique zip code. I think the

[15:06] board has been working on that for a

[15:07] while. So you guys saw that in in

[15:10] package if you if you prefer to any

[15:13] discussion on that, we can pull it. And

[15:15] the other one uh is one that the

[15:16] attorney's been working on a while,

[15:18] roadway reimbursement development

[15:20] agreement with uh with Fowl Road

[15:22] Extension. Both of those been ongoing

[15:24] for several several months. And uh if

[15:27] any anybody want to comment on any of

[15:29] those things, we're welcome to pull it.

[15:31] If not, I will entertain a motion for

[15:33] consent agenda. Move. Is there a second?

[15:36] >> Second.

[15:37] >> Got a motion second. Any further

[15:39] discussion?

[15:40] >> No, sir.

[15:40] >> Not hearing it. All in favor say I. Any

[15:43] opposed?

[15:44] >> Sounds like the eyes have it. The eyes

[15:46] do have it. Motion approved. Thank you

[15:47] very much. Uh lison on reports. uh this

[15:50] is the opportunity where commissioners

[15:52] some of the things that they've been

[15:53] working on to share with the public uh

[15:56] some of the things that's going on

[15:57] generally and kind of what they're

[15:59] focused on. And I'm going to start to my

[16:03] uh left here. Start now with Jen. So

[16:06] Jen, do you have anything from public

[16:07] safety you'd like to comment on? I know

[16:09] we've been working on a few things.

[16:11] >> Yes. Yes. So, we've got some individual

[16:14] updates from fire, police, and then um a

[16:17] comment about the joint public safety um

[16:20] issue that we've been working on. Uh so,

[16:22] the fire department members, they have

[16:23] attended the SFRE conference in Raleigh

[16:26] for training and professional

[16:27] development. So,

[16:29] strong emphasis on continuing um you

[16:33] know, individual development within I'm

[16:35] sorry, I thought my mic just No, I'm

[16:38] okay.

[16:40] Uh the department is still speaking with

[16:42] apparatus vendors to replace engine 153.

[16:45] Recruitment is underway to fill two

[16:47] firefighter vacancies and six candidates

[16:49] have advanced to interviews and um and

[16:52] the fire department did conduct a

[16:54] critical incident stress debrief

[16:55] following the fatal um Willow Tower

[16:58] Court fire. So and there's an

[17:00] afteraction review scheduled for next

[17:03] week too. So I know that that was a

[17:04] tough one for some of the the folks.

[17:07] police department. They met with Wake

[17:09] County Public Schools regarding safety

[17:10] protocols and recruitment is still

[17:13] underway for police officer and sergeant

[17:15] positions. Uh, one thing to note,

[17:18] National Night Out is scheduled for

[17:20] October 6 from 5:30 to 7:30 at Redford

[17:23] Place Park. And the police department

[17:25] continues to offer its internet exchange

[17:28] safe zone at the fire department on the

[17:30] side of the building so that if you're

[17:32] making a marketplace transaction, it's

[17:34] just a safe place to do so. Um the the

[17:38] one issue that we have been working on

[17:40] uh

[17:42] mayor, myself, town manager, both chiefs

[17:46] met with the uh DOT

[17:50] out of nowhere. They blocked off the

[17:53] emergency turnaround at the intersection

[17:56] of um Young and 401. It was something

[18:00] that's been utilized basically since the

[18:03] intersection has been up with no

[18:05] warning. They put up big yellow

[18:10] signs so that they couldn't access that

[18:12] point to be able to get to emergency

[18:13] calls on the other side of 401. Um

[18:18] there wasn't much of a reason for it.

[18:19] So, we have been working with DOT to get

[18:22] a resolution to clear that pathway for

[18:25] our emergency services vehicles to

[18:28] decrease uh call times.

[18:33] » Thank you. Appreciate that. Jean.

[18:37] Okay. Commissioner Wall planning

[18:39] department. Anything?

[18:40] >> Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, we we didn't have a

[18:43] lot to report um from last meeting, but

[18:46] there are a few things that will be

[18:47] coming before us. Um there is the minor

[18:49] subdivision lot frontage that um the

[18:51] planning board um they're beginning

[18:53] conversations on on what that would look

[18:55] like in regards to um the frontage of a

[18:58] minor subdivision based upon the 25th um

[19:02] uh fault 20 foot I want to give it the

[19:05] right wording please uh

[19:10] based upon the 20 ft in width on a

[19:11] public street where there may be some

[19:12] instances where exceptions are

[19:14] reasonable. Um and that is something

[19:15] that we're going to be talking about in

[19:17] general. Next up will also be some

[19:19] technical corrections that we made uh to

[19:21] TA-26.007

[19:23] and there are some conversations that

[19:25] we'll be having about the overlay um

[19:27] around the downtown area. Um over and

[19:30] beyond that, Mr. Mayor, those are all

[19:31] the updates that I have at this time

[19:32] from planning.

[19:33] >> Thank you. Appreciate that,

[19:34] Commissioner. Um next, uh the parks and

[19:38] wreck.

[19:38] >> All right. Yeah,

[19:39] >> we had our meeting on July 22nd and as

[19:43] you just witnessed our um AU girls

[19:47] softball team. So that was uh exciting

[19:51] for them. We have a roughly 349 kids to

[19:55] play baseball and softball. These

[19:57] numbers were as of July 22nd. Soccer

[20:00] roughly 290 kids. Flag flag football

[20:03] roughly 103 kids. So, they are filling

[20:06] up and I'm sure they're more than that

[20:08] right now at this point. And so, that's

[20:11] um exciting to have those fill up. We

[20:14] have on 911 event that's coming up and

[20:19] that there's a 5K and a onemile walk

[20:23] that day as well as honoring and

[20:26] remembrance. and that will happen um on

[20:30] the 12th starting at 8:30 around 8:30 in

[20:34] the morning to 1. You can go to our

[20:36] website for more information for those

[20:37] three events. So, we're looking forward

[20:39] to that. We have a blood drive on

[20:42] September 18th from 10:00 to 3 here in

[20:44] the Roseville Community Center. At that

[20:46] time, the numbers were almost maxed out.

[20:48] May be full now. It is full now. No,

[20:52] still some slots left. Okay. So, you can

[20:54] still get in there to donate blood on

[20:56] September 18th.

[20:58] And there's some senior um updates,

[21:00] which I'm sure Commissioner Paul will

[21:02] take care of that part. Uh the ADA

[21:05] picnic tables uh at the

[21:08] park were taken care of. So, now those

[21:11] are ADA compliant. And we also have our

[21:14] gazebo that was painted and as well as

[21:17] the swings. That's at the Roseville, the

[21:19] main street park.

[21:21] Uh, aside from that, just an update that

[21:24] the farm is in design phase, so we're

[21:27] waiting to hear what's next with that.

[21:29] And that's all that I have.

[21:30] >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner,

[21:32] veterans, uh, commission officer.

[21:35] >> Yes, sir. This month, our nation

[21:37] observed four important military events.

[21:41] On August 4th, we marked the US Coast

[21:43] Guard birthday,

[21:45] celebrating the founding of the Revenue

[21:47] Cutter Service in 1790. the Coast Guard

[21:50] earliest predecessor on August 7th at

[21:53] Purple Heart Day, a day set aside to

[21:56] honor the service members who were

[21:58] wounded or killed in comeback while

[21:59] serving our country. August 16th, we

[22:02] recognize National Airborne Day. Who? We

[22:06] celebrate the first official US Army

[22:08] parachute jump conducted in 1940. Never

[22:12] understood jumping out of a airplane

[22:15] that is not going down.

[22:17] Love my airborne troops though. And on

[22:19] August 29th, we celebrate the Marine

[22:22] Forces Reserve birthday, marking the

[22:24] establishment of the Marine Corps

[22:26] Reserve in 1916.

[22:28] The Wake Forest Purple Heart Foundation

[22:30] on August 15th held its 17th annual

[22:34] Purple Heart banquet. The guest speaker

[22:36] was first lieutenant Patrick McCclary

[22:39] III, United States Marine Corps retired.

[22:42] The Joel fund. The Joel fund here in

[22:44] Roseville which serves as our veterans

[22:46] center held as quarterly recon which is

[22:50] called resource connection on August

[22:52] 15th from 8:30 to 1000 hours at the Joel

[22:55] Center here in town. The conversation

[22:57] focused on resources for military

[23:00] connected kids and teens. If you're

[23:03] wondering what benefits, scholarships,

[23:05] or other resources your children may be

[23:07] eligible for, that event was for you.

[23:10] The next recon is 17 October and the

[23:14] topic is supportive services.

[23:18] Uh the veterans mory committee met by

[23:20] zoom on 30 July uh to discuss the design

[23:24] phase with ADW. So that way we can

[23:28] decide on a proper name, but as well as

[23:32] a trifecta of a justice uh memorial

[23:36] removing moving removing the George

[23:38] Taylor out of the park into the town

[23:40] campus as well as a 911 artifact being

[23:44] on um campus and our veterans memorial.

[23:49] So it should be the first of its kind.

[23:52] And Mr. Mayor and board, that's all I

[23:54] have.

[23:56] Great. Okay. And last, senior citizens.

[24:00] Um, Commissioner Paul.

[24:01] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening,

[24:03] everyone. Again, the senior center is

[24:05] continuing to gain momentum thanks to

[24:08] June Quincy and the rest of the parks

[24:10] and rec staff. Um, we're seeing a steady

[24:13] increase of participants and a number of

[24:15] programs offered. Uh, for what it's

[24:18] worth, my wife Theresa and I attended

[24:20] several line dancing classes and we had

[24:22] a great time. We intend to be regulars

[24:24] in there going forward. Um, tomorrow,

[24:27] August 19th, is the Golden Years Expo to

[24:30] be held at Roseville Baptist Church.

[24:32] Hours are from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

[24:35] There will be dozens of local vendors

[24:37] there to discuss how they can help

[24:38] improve the lives of our senior

[24:40] residents. This event has grown

[24:42] significantly year-over-year, so please

[24:45] come out and see what you've been

[24:46] missing. My understanding is that the

[24:48] mayor will open the event and

[24:49] Commissioner Alustin will be the MC.

[24:53] Finally, the Senior Network is hosting

[24:56] its third annual charity golf tournament

[24:57] Thursday, September 10th at 9:30 a.m.

[25:00] Spots are filling fast, so sign up today

[25:02] for a fun-filled day of golf and

[25:04] laughter. Visit the senioretwork.org for

[25:07] more information to sign up as a sponsor

[25:08] or a player. That's what I have for you,

[25:11] Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

[25:12] >> Thank you. Good job. Appreciate that.

[25:14] And hope everybody come out tomorrow.

[25:16] You're a good appreciate.

[25:19] Um, [snorts] so our next item is uh

[25:23] couple of staff reports. Uh, economic

[25:25] development update. Uh, Michael

[25:26] McFarland. Now, he has a written report.

[25:28] Did you guys have any documents? We're

[25:30] not going to read that tonight. Uh, we

[25:33] are going to get a capital project

[25:34] report update uh verbally from um our town engineer

[25:42] got. So, if you would uh where's Scott

[25:44] at? There he is. Um,

[25:48] do you need uh you need video? You do.

[25:52] [snorts]

[25:58] » While Scott getting uh that set up, we

[26:00] also have a planning department update.

[26:02] Uh that is also a paper report in your

[26:05] packages from Steven Winsman. So you

[26:08] guys have that in your package also. And

[26:11] that will conclude our staff reports.

[26:14] And Scott, it's all yours.

[26:27] I appreciate your time. I'm here to give

[26:28] an update about the farm project.

[26:42] Just some recap on what exactly the farm

[26:44] is. It's it's broken up into a number of

[26:46] phases. The first phase is actually

[26:48] complete. That was the the driveway to

[26:50] the to the farm campus which is really

[26:53] consic

[26:57] parking as well as the entrances to the

[26:59] farm off of 401. That has been

[27:01] completed.

[27:05] So that that phase has been complete. Um

[27:07] we recently uh I think DOT signed off on

[27:10] it and everything was done. So we're

[27:12] moving now and here here's just a

[27:14] picture of what's out there currently.

[27:16] It's just a phase one. Shows the

[27:17] driveway. It's got the loop around and

[27:19] it has two entrances off of 401. So now

[27:23] we are moving into the design phase. And

[27:26] what what is going on is now phase two

[27:28] is going to be the soccer complex. The

[27:31] reason that we've moved the soccer

[27:32] complex up into the next phase that

[27:34] we're going to be working on is because

[27:36] of some of the grants that we have have

[27:38] received. Um, and then they have a

[27:40] three-year shelf life. So, one of them

[27:43] is like a a matching grant from the from

[27:45] Wake County, $3.8 million, which we will be matching that. And we also

[27:50] have gotten some money from the North

[27:52] Carolina football club. Um, I think

[27:54] initially they had pledged like a

[27:56] million dollars. It might be more than

[27:57] that to complete what they what they're

[27:59] going to be doing on the soccer fields.

[28:01] Um, but certainly they have been

[28:02] committed to finish the soccer fields

[28:04] once what it is. So, we're going to get

[28:06] to the the soccer fields to a rough

[28:07] grading stage and then they're going to

[28:09] come in and finish it with putting on

[28:11] the fine grading. Um, you know, putting

[28:13] all the markings down and things like

[28:15] that and they'll complete the the soccer

[28:16] phase. And this phase also is going to

[28:18] be including a parking lot. And I'll

[28:20] kind of go down here. This is this is

[28:23] kind of what this phase looking like.

[28:25] It's going to it's going to extend the

[28:26] loop road. So, it's going to go all the

[28:27] way that center part that is the now

[28:30] what's going to be phase three where the the community center is will be

[28:34] someday. So, the road that is the loop

[28:36] road that kind of completes around

[28:37] there. I think that was important so we

[28:39] could have you know when people are

[28:40] coming in and out of the park if there's

[28:42] games going on people are coming in

[28:44] people are leaving it gives some sort of

[28:46] traffic flow that you know won't cause a

[28:47] lot of congestion in there. So, this

[28:49] phase, it does include the soccer

[28:51] fields. It includes a pavilion down

[28:53] there on the far left side of it in

[28:56] between where the the four soccer fields

[28:57] are. And it's going to it's going to

[28:59] include all of the uh parking that's

[29:01] associated with this particular phase.

[29:03] And it's and each of these phases is

[29:05] going to be designed independently. So,

[29:06] this one has its own water from wells

[29:09] and septic. And so, that's going to be

[29:11] phase two. And here is just some

[29:13] renderings kind of of what that might

[29:15] look like. Here's the soccer field

[29:17] again. um the pavilion. This is just an

[29:20] image that we could that's one of the renderings that they put forth that

[29:23] we can um that we it could possibly look

[29:26] like. But once now that we're in the

[29:27] design phase, we're going to start

[29:28] getting a little bit more details about

[29:30] that.

[29:32] So, now now the multi-use activity center

[29:40] is that is going to be phase three of

[29:42] the project. That's going to be after

[29:44] the soccer fields. Um, this one is

[29:46] estimated to cost a total of $10.4

[29:49] million and that is going to include the

[29:51] activity center itself, the event lawn

[29:53] that's kind of in the middle of that

[29:54] loop road and all the associated

[29:56] infrastructure, you know, well and

[29:58] septic and then things like that.

[30:01] And so here is just some more uh

[30:04] renderings of what the activity center

[30:05] might possibly look like. This includes

[30:07] like uh indoor facilities for

[30:09] basketball, pickle ball, it's going to

[30:11] include bathrooms obviously. Um, and so

[30:14] that's that's what we have envisioned

[30:16] for that. And I think once we get kind

[30:17] of closer to that design phase, that's

[30:19] when we're going to get more of the

[30:20] details and specifically what that

[30:21] building is going to look like. Um, but

[30:23] that's going to start taking place after we I think the design phase will

[30:28] start under once the construction of

[30:30] phase two begins. And I think I'll back

[30:32] up real quick. I don't think I gave you

[30:33] the the dates on that. So, we're

[30:35] expecting the design for the phase two,

[30:37] the soccer fields to be completed by the

[30:39] end of this year. That's I'm hopeful for

[30:41] that. Um, and construction is going to

[30:43] begin in some summer of next year, and I

[30:46] would expect it to take about uh 12

[30:49] months to complete the construction. So,

[30:51] we're looking about opening the soccer

[30:52] fields up in summer 2028, hopefully

[30:55] spring, so we can get use of it a little

[30:58] bit more. So, there's phase three. Uh,

[31:01] here's the activity center. And finally,

[31:03] the last phases is what's called the

[31:04] agro tourism area. It's also been

[31:06] referred to as the orchard. This is

[31:08] going to be um basically a cleaning up

[31:11] of that particular area. I think there's

[31:12] an existing uh farmhouse that may be

[31:15] demolished. I think that's expected to

[31:16] be demolished. Uh there are barns and

[31:19] other structures out there that will be

[31:21] evaluated to see if they're viable

[31:23] because I think it's been expressed if

[31:24] they want to keep those as part of uh

[31:26] you know as part of that phase. Um and

[31:28] so and it's going to include any kind of

[31:30] landscaping and any pedestrian

[31:32] improvements that might be left over. So

[31:34] that would could be some greenway trails

[31:36] um that would surround the rest of the uh the property.

[31:42] And so we're hoping that phase that's

[31:44] going to be obviously that's going to be

[31:45] pushed out a little bit further once the

[31:47] community center, the activity center

[31:48] has been uh underway. And so here's just

[31:51] some more renderings of what that phase

[31:53] of it is. It's uh you know it's got got

[31:56] the trees, it's got the landscaping,

[31:57] it's got the the lawn area and uh as

[32:00] well as some you know pathways greenways

[32:03] that traverse the entire area. I know

[32:06] that some in in some past renderings

[32:08] there's a there's the part the portion

[32:10] that's south of the two ponds out there

[32:13] that still is in consideration but the

[32:16] costs in order to do something on that

[32:18] side of would be high because we would

[32:20] have to really rehabilitate the dams to

[32:23] those particular ponds and that's a

[32:25] really expensive proposition. So, we're

[32:27] going to once we get sort of moving

[32:29] towards that phase of it, we're really

[32:31] going to sit down and do an analysis, a

[32:32] costbenefit analysis of if if it's worth

[32:34] it to to really use that south side of the property. But for now, I just

[32:39] we're going to leave it with with this

[32:41] particular phase.

[32:44] And so, that's my update on the farm.

[32:46] I'd be glad to answer any questions that

[32:48] you might have.

[32:50] >> How many soccer fields are we looking

[32:51] at?

[32:52] >> Four. Four full-size soccer fields.

[32:54] >> Is that consistent? I know we have

[32:56] talked about having some hosting leagues

[33:00] or something. Was that consistent, Eric?

[33:02] >> Yeah, I think five had been talked about

[33:04] at one point, but when our conversations

[33:06] with the football club Junior, you can

[33:08] that four was going to be sufficient for

[33:09] what they needed.

[33:10] >> Okay, thank you.

[33:12] >> And then are we I know at a certain

[33:14] point in and talks there were going to

[33:17] be some baseball fields too. Is that out

[33:19] of the question? Is that another phase?

[33:22] >> That's included in the future phases.

[33:24] It's not going to be done with phase two

[33:25] or phase three, but it's still in

[33:27] consideration. There was there was some

[33:29] renderings that showed the baseball

[33:30] fields kind of over near Weather Soccer

[33:32] Field one, and it was also one kind of

[33:33] on the orchard side of it. That's still

[33:35] into consideration, but it's pushed off

[33:37] into a future phase like the associated

[33:39] with the phase four possibly.

[33:41] >> Okay. And then do you have any kind of

[33:44] goal dates for phase two or no, I'm

[33:47] sorry, phase three with the um activity

[33:49] center.

[33:50] >> What kind of

[33:51] >> like time frames? Um, I would consider

[33:55] design of that once we get under

[33:57] construction of phase two, which I think

[33:58] I said summer of 2027, moved into 28.

[34:01] That's when we would enter the design

[34:03] phase for that. And hopefully, you know,

[34:05] on the heels of the design phase, we'd

[34:06] be moving right into that next phase,

[34:08] which would be 2028.

[34:13] » You mentioned parking. I Great idea. Do

[34:15] you just curiosity, how much parking are

[34:17] you guys? Um, in phase two, I think

[34:19] there was 208 parking spaces. Let me see

[34:22] if I go back here. It's it's very small

[34:26] on the the drawing that I have. Yeah,

[34:28] 208 spaces in phase two.

[34:32] And in phase three, oh, I can't see.

[34:35] It's so small.

[34:38] I

[34:39] >> phase three doesn't pick up.

[34:40] >> It doesn't pick up. That's just going to

[34:42] continuation what's already there. But

[34:43] that part, the the the part that is

[34:45] gravel, that is also part of phase two.

[34:47] They're going to go ahead and pave that

[34:49] and and make make so it's no longer

[34:51] gravel. I think that's like 80 spaces or

[34:53] I think

[34:54] >> so that 80 plus the 208.

[34:56] >> Yes, that's correct. Yep. Yeah, we kind

[34:58] of did the parking for the soccer field

[35:00] so that it would in we really it's a

[35:02] long way from where that other parking

[35:03] lot is. So, we want to make sure we have

[35:05] plenty of spaces for the for the soccer

[35:06] fields in the pavilion.

[35:09] >> Question for you, sir. Um, on this

[35:11] drawing illustration, could you show us

[35:13] the possibility of where the baseball

[35:15] softball field could go?

[35:17] >> Yeah,

[35:20] >> do I have a laser pointer?

[35:22] >> This it's not going to show up on the

[35:24] screen. It's if you look at the top

[35:26] right of that oval where the parking lot

[35:27] is is kind of to the right of it. Right

[35:29] above that, that empty space right there

[35:31] kind of between the parking lot and 401,

[35:34] that's where one of the baseball fields

[35:35] was going to go. And the second one is

[35:37] going to go on the other side of um the

[35:40] community center um kind of the other

[35:42] side of that ring road on the kind of

[35:43] the northeast portion that there's kind

[35:45] of a grayed out area,

[35:46] >> a gray area. I see that.

[35:47] >> Yep. Yep.

[35:48] >> Yes, sir.

[35:51] >> Thank you.

[35:55] » I got one other question about cost.

[35:58] 10.4 million for phase three. Is that I

[36:02] hear that correct?

[36:02] >> That's correct. and then 10.1

[36:05] million for this particular phase, but

[36:08] we have some of that covered by Wake

[36:10] County.

[36:11] >> It's a grant. The 3.8 of that it's going

[36:13] to be reimburseable. So, we're going to

[36:14] have to, you know, pay for it up front.

[36:16] And then, so we're going to match that

[36:18] with our 3.8. And the remainder of it is

[36:20] kind of how to finish out the soccer

[36:21] fields, which is going to be the

[36:22] responsibility of the the football club.

[36:25] I not trying to make everything

[36:27] monetized driven, but is there any other

[36:29] way we can cut some cost in regards to

[36:31] sponsorships or additional grants that

[36:33] we have available that we could not have

[36:35] to take on so much of that 3.8 just out

[36:37] of curiosity?

[36:38] >> Certainly look into that. I think that's

[36:40] the reason that we went after the 3.8

[36:42] with Wake County and when we're always

[36:44] absolutely we could ask our consultants

[36:46] to kind of take a look.

[36:46] >> I I would love to hear just another way

[36:49] to eliminate that 3.8 from us if we can.

[36:51] Um so that would be great to have that

[36:53] conversation. Absolutely. I'll do that.

[36:55] >> Thank you.

[36:59] » Other questions,

[37:03] too.

[37:04] >> Okay. Thank you, Scott, for the update.

[37:06] Any other updates you have?

[37:07] >> Um, I I would like to give just kind of

[37:09] a quick update on Main Street.

[37:11] Obviously, it's a continuing progress

[37:12] that's going on. Um, Fred Smith is

[37:15] continuing to do our punch list items.

[37:17] They they've done quite a bit of it, but

[37:19] they still have some things to complete.

[37:21] It's, you know, they they keep giving us

[37:23] dates and sometimes they meet them and

[37:25] sometimes they don't. But really the

[37:26] things that are down to being finished

[37:28] are they have one section of the

[37:30] greenway that needs to be need some new

[37:32] asphalt because it got torn up a little

[37:33] bit during construction. Um there is

[37:36] quite a bit of cracked sidewalk and like

[37:38] handicap ramps and curbs and things like

[37:40] that. That's one of the things that

[37:41] because that's kind of a lot of hand

[37:42] work and that takes a lot longer to do

[37:45] and that is the reason that kind of the

[37:46] barrels are still in place because they

[37:48] need those there for safety reasons. if

[37:50] they have to block a lane because

[37:51] obviously if they're working on curb

[37:53] right along the the line of that it's

[37:54] kind of dangerous. So there still will

[37:56] be some times when there's going to be

[37:58] lane closures um during Main Street, but

[38:00] it will be during the day and hopefully

[38:02] it won't be all day. I know today was

[38:04] one of those days where we had some

[38:05] lanes and that some of it was Fred Smith

[38:07] and some of it was like AT&T, but some

[38:09] of the other things um that are still

[38:11] left to do, they got to put some of the

[38:13] um reflectors on some of the mediums so

[38:15] at night people can see them. they're

[38:16] more visible and there's a couple of

[38:18] ballards uh that need to be placed on

[38:20] the lower side of the greenway and one

[38:24] of the main things that uh certainly is

[38:26] I keep telling them about is the uh the crosswalk lightings are not some of

[38:30] them are functioning some of them are

[38:32] not and that's due I think some of the

[38:33] batteries that were sent with them

[38:35] that's on the punch list and that is

[38:36] certainly one going to be the priorities

[38:38] getting those things up and running

[38:39] because you don't want to put

[38:40] pedestrians at risk if you don't have to

[38:42] and I've crossed that road at some of

[38:44] these pedestrian crossings and people

[38:47] sometimes people stop, sometimes they

[38:48] don't. So, we'll have to keep our eyes

[38:50] open for that. But that's certainly one

[38:52] of the things we're going to be doing.

[38:55] >> Now, has Fred Smith been

[38:58] engaging?

[39:00] >> Are they engaging? They Yes. Well, let

[39:03] me Would you like me to be more direct

[39:05] or would you because I'm trying has the

[39:08] process with them lately where they've

[39:10] been engaged as you have called and

[39:13] reached out in regards to these punch

[39:14] list items?

[39:16] >> Um because we've had an ongoing problem

[39:18] since we've had this project of that

[39:19] lack of response. I'm just curious if

[39:21] it's a continuation of the same.

[39:23] >> They have been responsive to our punch

[39:25] list items specific. One of the specific

[39:27] ones was like uh some weeds. There was a

[39:29] lot of weeds that were growing in the

[39:30] medium. They did go out there. I kind of

[39:32] walked the median yesterday kind of up

[39:34] and down and you could tell that there

[39:35] were a lot of places where they were

[39:36] pulling up weeds. They did a lot of

[39:38] spraying which means they did they just

[39:39] died and they didn't pull them up.

[39:41] That's going to be another item that's

[39:42] on my list. I want them to come back out

[39:44] here to do another run of the weeds um

[39:46] and just to get it at least spotless but

[39:48] you know before we as the town have to

[39:50] start taking over the maintenance for

[39:51] it.

[39:52] >> And uh have they given a date of

[39:54] completion for these punch list items?

[39:56] >> They keep has telling us they by the end

[39:58] of August

[40:02] optimistic and hopeful that they will

[40:03] stay to that point.

[40:04] >> Interesting. Yeah, because didn't they

[40:05] tell us mid August earlier?

[40:08] >> Yes.

[40:08] >> Yeah. They keep they keep moving the the

[40:10] goal line.

[40:11] >> They keep moving the goal line. They you

[40:13] know they they have told me they're

[40:15] having some problems with their

[40:16] subcontract the concrete people which is

[40:18] a reason that they kind of haven't been

[40:20] out there as much as possible. And yes,

[40:22] we're we are having continued

[40:25] conversations with them about payments

[40:27] and stuff like that of what we can what

[40:29] we can do to speed them up. And so they

[40:32] lately

[40:33] >> I I wish they could be better, but I

[40:36] think they're they're [clears throat]

[40:37] going to get it done and when it's all

[40:38] said and done, it's going to be a good

[40:39] product.

[40:41] >> So I'm not holding you to this, okay?

[40:43] I'm not. But they they have shared with

[40:46] you end of August is the designated time

[40:49] for the completion of the punch punch

[40:51] list.

[40:52] >> That's that is the schedule that they

[40:55] have told me.

[40:56] >> And can you say with your personal uh

[41:00] evaluation? Do you have confidence that

[41:03] the end of August we will be able to say

[41:05] as a town that we can say we're towards

[41:08] the end of this punch list? Don't

[41:09] obligate yourself to get yourself in any

[41:10] trouble, sir. I wish I could say with

[41:12] full confidence, but I'm going to say it

[41:13] may leak into September.

[41:18] » And that once everything's gone, that

[41:20] includes the barrels, the silk fence,

[41:22] >> the pond that's out there. It's it

[41:25] >> for for for for folks to understand

[41:27] because I know for myself, Eric, I I

[41:29] know I bother you about it constantly,

[41:30] but

[41:32] the understanding that all of the orange

[41:34] cones, the barrels, the the fencing,

[41:37] none of that can legally be taken up

[41:39] until the DO,

[41:41] >> correct me, correct me if I'm wrong, the

[41:43] >> DEU, they're the ones in charge of,

[41:46] >> right, that says, okay, checklist,

[41:49] everything is done. and the town says,

[41:51] "Okay, the punch list is is done

[41:52] incorrect." And then

[41:55] >> Yeah.

[41:55] Once the government signs off on

[41:57] their red tape, then all of the orange

[42:01] go over the color orange right now.

[42:02] >> It's potentially the barrels could leave

[42:05] a little area because that's a safety

[42:06] consideration for Fred Smith and its

[42:08] employees. If they're able to finish

[42:09] that work and you no longer do the

[42:11] barrels, they can take those out. But

[42:12] the silk pen is directly tied to their

[42:14] permit with the state.

[42:15] >> Yeah. Okay. because that was a a

[42:17] learning point for myself too. So just

[42:21] for any frustration to understand that

[42:23] it's it's all red tape government red

[42:26] tape.

[42:28] >> Not our government.

[42:29] >> No no not ours.

[42:31] >> Yes.

[42:34] Any other questions board? I don't I

[42:36] don't think we have given them final

[42:38] payment. Have we?

[42:39] >> That that was my question.

[42:41] >> That's and we don't give them final

[42:42] payment to all this.

[42:43] >> Um that's correct. There's correct board

[42:46] for that. We give you a directive.

[42:48] >> Yeah, there's a retainage and then also

[42:50] when it comes to the punch list that is

[42:53] considered to be rework and so there are

[42:54] no additional costs associated with the

[42:56] punch list. Punch listing oftent times

[42:59] when the subcontractor is remobilized

[43:01] that's kind of part of it. um they try

[43:05] to schedule concrete when they have

[43:07] concrete going on in other projects in

[43:09] the area, things of that nature because

[43:11] in some cases the this amount is not

[43:14] enough for a large quantity. So the

[43:16] price will shift on them and so you

[43:18] experience that stuff on place listing

[43:19] where things will be more convenient,

[43:21] but we are holding them to that and

[43:23] trying to get that as documented as

[43:24] possible. Um we know and trust them to

[43:27] be who they've been.

[43:30] >> Say that again. no one trust them to be

[43:31] who they have been for us

[43:33] >> which is the concern

[43:34] >> and so um we are we will continue

[43:37] working all the different angles we've

[43:40] been doing in the past when we haven't

[43:41] been um happy with the expect with the

[43:43] timelines and the delivery

[43:49] the biggest concerns I've heard from the

[43:52] citizens and you we mentioned both of

[43:54] them so there's no need to harper on

[43:55] them one has to do with the fencing the

[43:58] orange fencing that's in people's yards

[44:01] and the barrels that's in the street.

[44:03] They've done a good job of getting them

[44:04] out of the street lately, but those two

[44:06] things those two things from the public

[44:10] has been very vocal. Um, so stay on top

[44:13] of that. And the other one you mentioned

[44:15] has to do with all the weeds that grows

[44:17] in the nice landscaping we did and now

[44:19] there we

[44:22] can't even see the landscaping for

[44:23] weeds. And um it doesn't look like a $23

[44:29] million project when you got weeds out

[44:31] there growing that high. So I've heard a

[44:34] lot of talk about that. So keep on top

[44:37] of them on that. And and you said they

[44:39] were cleaning that up some.

[44:40] >> They had already made one run at getting

[44:42] out the weeds. They pulled some of them.

[44:43] They sprayed some of them and which

[44:45] means they just died. They're brown. I

[44:47] think those need to come out too. So

[44:48] that's that's definitely an item that

[44:50] we're going to continue to be on

[44:51] >> and then at some point we'll take it

[44:53] over.

[44:54] >> That's correct. Our public works

[44:55] department will be responsible for it,

[44:57] you know, moving forward once we accept

[44:58] the project.

[44:59] >> So keep us informed when we take it when we take it over. So we will know

[45:05] that it's not Fred Smith. We waiting on

[45:07] it's public works.

[45:09] >> I am curious about something. If we were

[45:10] to go out and manage the medium, could

[45:14] we bill Fred Smith for our work that

[45:17] we've done?

[45:18] Um, no. And and you could avoid

[45:22] >> But could we avoid a portion of their

[45:23] >> We could void like the warranty punchy.

[45:26] >> Uh,

[45:27] >> so we can keep them asking to do it.

[45:28] They they won't since it's a punch list

[45:30] item, they can't charge us. They're not

[45:31] charging us more every time we call them

[45:33] out there.

[45:34] >> Okay. It's the warranty piece though.

[45:36] Okay. Okay.

[45:39] Thank you.

[45:40] >> Yeah. Appreciate [clears throat] it.

[45:41] Thank you, Scott. Thank you. Um,

[45:46] so, uh, we got a couple business items

[45:48] to do. One of them is the Rolls of

[45:50] Chamber of Commerce. I think Michael

[45:52] McFarland is going to kick that off. So,

[45:54] I see him coming up. Michael McFarland,

[45:57] our economic development manager. So, if

[45:59] you would uh, kind of tell us what's I

[46:01] think that's in our package already. I

[46:03] think I saw that and read that. So, um,

[46:06] something you've been working on for a

[46:07] while.

[46:08] >> Yes. Yes, definitely. Uh, good evening,

[46:10] mayor and town board. Uh this is a

[46:12] continuation of the discussion we had um

[46:15] in July uh where we brought this before

[46:18] the board and there were questions from

[46:21] the town board at that meeting that um

[46:23] the chamber of commerce has responded to

[46:26] and and those responses are in the

[46:28] packet. Um a financial document and a

[46:31] year in review of or or sort of a recap

[46:34] of activities. Um the draft uhou is also

[46:38] in the packet and

[46:40] um tonight if there's any more questions

[46:43] I'm here and the um Malcolm is is here

[46:46] again the executive director of the

[46:48] chamber as well as the chamber board

[46:50] Alan Smith um if there are questions um

[46:54] but I think um we're just looking for

[46:57] guidance either an approval or a denial

[46:59] or a continuation or if there's more

[47:02] questions or more information that's

[47:04] needed we

[47:06] look to provide that as well.

[47:09] >> Sounds good.

[47:13] » Are you going to present or do you just

[47:15] want to know if we have questions? Yeah,

[47:17] there's no other presentation just

[47:20] >> um

[47:26] so first is um

[47:30] who has fiduciary oversight of the

[47:33] chamber? Um so meaning who is

[47:38] keeping track of all this, rectifying

[47:40] books, you know, um because I know

[47:42] there's been some turnover with the

[47:44] board. So, who is do we have a person

[47:48] that is maintaining all of that?

[47:50] >> We do. Um, I'll actually call Alan, but

[47:52] uh uh Kayn is our new uh treasurer and

[47:55] he is a CPA. Um we uh Allan and the

[47:58] team, we've come together to build a board that has professional

[48:02] services as a part of their thing. So,

[48:04] we have we're looking for an attorney.

[48:06] We're looking for a CPA. So, our CPA a

[48:08] CPA is our treasurer now.

[48:10] >> Okay. Good.

[48:12] the documents that you guys will receive

[48:13] in the report will be uh certified.

[48:21] » Oh, and then how how are we accounting

[48:23] for town money as far as being used

[48:27] specific for you know specific items in

[48:31] theou?

[48:33] um how are we accounting for that

[48:34] versus, you know, outside grants, fees,

[48:37] fundraising, all of that, you know,

[48:40] showing that direct division of funds

[48:43] and how they're being used,

[48:44] >> right? So, essentially, you'll get a

[48:46] report for a lot of what we're receiving

[48:50] monies for our events and those events

[48:52] will have a budget attached and you guys

[48:54] will receive that budget and see where

[48:56] your your town funds were allocated to

[48:59] specific things within.

[49:00] >> Okay. And just for clarification, I

[49:02] believe we talked about this last time,

[49:04] but

[49:06] theou money is not handed over in one

[49:09] big check. It's as as each project comes

[49:12] along. And then do we grant it upfront

[49:14] or do we reimburse?

[49:16] >> Uh for the most part reimbursement,

[49:17] they'll have to submit an invoice. Um

[49:19] there's a few instances where there's

[49:21] some preparation like let's say the

[49:23] barbecue bands festival. I think in the

[49:26] past as that's led up to the barbecue

[49:28] bands festival, there needed to be some

[49:30] upfront money. So, um, that took place

[49:32] like that. For the most part though,

[49:34] it's reimburseable

[49:36] >> and yeah, so this would just that pot of

[49:39] money sits in the town's account and as

[49:41] activities and projects happen, as an

[49:44] event happens like the barbecue and

[49:45] bands or as the youth leadership program

[49:48] begins and continues, they would invoice

[49:51] us um for that specific project and then

[49:54] we would reimburse.

[49:57] >> Okay. And Malcolm, I know that you spoke

[49:58] of this at the last meeting, but

[50:02] what are the chambers

[50:05] plan timeline to be able to go

[50:08] independent? Basically, be be selfunded

[50:12] um organization.

[50:13] >> As long as we carry ourselves with the

[50:15] plan that we have, we're about two years

[50:17] out. Uh what you'll see is, you know,

[50:20] potentially as long as everything goes

[50:21] well with the events that we have lined

[50:23] up, as well as getting more membership

[50:25] on board, you'll reduce, you know, our

[50:28] ask based on what we're able to do.

[50:32] » And we're being very aggressive with

[50:34] that. Very aggressive.

[50:37] >> Who's leading the youth leadership this

[50:38] year?

[50:39] >> Um, it's still going to be a

[50:40] partnership. We're still going to talk

[50:42] to Tisha only because of her

[50:43] involvement. Okay. But Sam will probably

[50:46] charge. We have some really, really cool

[50:49] uh programs that we have planned for you

[50:51] on this.

[50:51] >> It's very good.

[50:53] >> We actually um

[50:55] >> Oh my lord. I'm so sorry. [laughter]

[50:58] >> I'm so sorry.

[50:59] >> Forgot what I was going to say.

[51:02] So, forgive me. Um Oh. Um um

[51:07] programs. Uh I believe that the county

[51:10] is looking to partner with Roseville and Eastern Wake for AI projects as part

[51:17] of youth leadership. and curious if that

[51:19] is something that the uh chamber would

[51:21] like for me to continue to take on with

[51:24] a possibility of partnering as part of

[51:26] your youth leadership.

[51:27] >> 100%. And then the other thing is um

[51:29] we're doing um uh there's an office

[51:32] that's coming available in in the space.

[51:34] We're going to flip that into a podcast

[51:36] lounge so that the youth leadership can

[51:38] participate in that as well as members.

[51:41] So place content and things of that

[51:44] nature.

[51:48] Michael, I got a question for you. Theou

[51:50] lists the inind office space at um 200

[51:53] Eon Street with the market value, but it

[51:56] was left blank. Um could you provide me

[51:59] that figure so that way that the board

[52:01] >> might have to defer to the town attorney

[52:04] if we figured that number out yet? Um

[52:06] >> and and do we need that amount before we

[52:09] make a decision?

[52:10] >> That's my second. Last year it was about

[52:12] $6,516

[52:14] I think. So this year we envisioned

[52:17] probably a couple hundred bucks more

[52:19] based on market rate.

[52:21] >> We didn't see it going up too much, but

[52:23] it's in that realm.

[52:24] >> So in order to account for the market

[52:26] value of providing that rent support, we

[52:29] want to track that on ourou as an

[52:31] additional contribution that would

[52:32] otherwise be a cost uh to the chamber of

[52:35] commerce. And to ensure that that's

[52:38] tracking in a reasonable way, the

[52:40] adjustment is uh taking the rent from

[52:42] last year and then adding an escalator

[52:44] that happens to align with the uh

[52:47] escalator that the town itself has seen

[52:49] with regard to the planning department.

[52:54] » The final will have that number in there

[52:57] and then we would circulate this to the

[52:58] chamber to sign off and then it would

[53:00] come back to the town for signature.

[53:04] >> I do have a comment though. um from the

[53:06] growth that we've seen from the chamber

[53:08] of the membership from 100 to what 165

[53:12] and now up to 199 um shows a testament

[53:15] to your leadership and the guidance and

[53:17] the future of where our chamber can go.

[53:20] So it's good that we still or can have

[53:23] this partnership um going forward. But

[53:26] thank you for your leadership and what

[53:28] you have done in the last what 10

[53:29] months. Well, now officially next week

[53:33] will be a year because we we were 10

[53:35] months in June. So,

[53:37] >> congratulations on that. Thank you, sir.

[53:42] » Any other any other questions?

[53:45] >> Only thing I will expand on and I think I heard you say 100%. Maybe I was wrong about that.

[53:51] >> I'm sorry. Say that again.

[53:52] >> On the funding when you asked them the

[53:54] funding question when you have the

[53:55] funding. I think you said 100%. But I

[53:58] think there's a few items we'll always

[54:01] partner them with like the leadership

[54:02] thing. That's something we kind of

[54:05] driving, but they're doing it for us. So

[54:07] we'll always probably always have for

[54:10] some items, right?

[54:11] >> Christmas parade. I think

[54:13] >> Christmas parade is another one that we

[54:14] always probably fund them some for. So

[54:17] it would never be

[54:18] >> Yeah. It's just looking at, you know,

[54:19] bringing that down from Yeah. 40 plus

[54:22] thousand to, you know, a more nominal

[54:26] amount that covers the programs that are

[54:29] specific to, you know, the town like

[54:32] leadership and and Yeah.

[54:33] >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. But I exactly I think

[54:37] we're on the same page because I 100% I

[54:40] kind of took it that we would never at

[54:41] some point we wouldn't fund you no more,

[54:43] but I think it's we got some things that

[54:44] we

[54:45] >> to your point those those programs are

[54:47] like true partnership programs. I'm I'm

[54:50] speaking more about the

[54:52] bands.

[54:53] >> That's an event that once you once you

[54:55] do an event the right way, it undergards

[54:57] itself and if you manage your resources

[54:59] appropriately, you just move what you've

[55:02] made onto the next year. Um, but the

[55:04] reason why barbecue advance is so

[55:06] important for the area is because it

[55:08] becomes a signature event like South by

[55:10] Southwest in Austin, Texas, right?

[55:12] People don't think, you know, when they

[55:14] think South by Southwest, which is a

[55:16] very large festival, they think Austin,

[55:18] Texas and all the programs that come

[55:19] along with. I'm we're trying to

[55:21] establish that same thing for Roseville

[55:23] to create, you know, as we've talked

[55:25] about before, economic impact. So, if we

[55:28] have an event that, you know, depending

[55:30] on what the police department says we

[55:32] can handle, let's say we cap out at, you

[55:34] know, 15,000, well, that 15,000 will

[55:36] yield an economic impact about 2.52.6

[55:40] million perom. So, that's that's really

[55:43] what I came.

[55:45] And I think the last thing I will kind

[55:47] of do a follow-up question on um

[55:49] commissioners asking about the invoices

[55:51] and how we pay out and stuff. [cough]

[55:54] [clears throat] I think just making more

[55:56] clarity and more transparent for the

[55:58] citizens on our side town side that

[56:02] comes out of your department. I think

[56:05] >> and and do you look at every invoice and make sure that the payment is is

[56:10] appropriate because it comes out of your

[56:12] budget I think. Right.

[56:13] >> Right. So you

[56:13] >> invoices are sent to me.

[56:15] >> So as our representative town staff

[56:18] person, you the one that makes sure

[56:20] everything's kind of all

[56:23] >> checking off the invoices and receipts,

[56:24] >> right? Yep.

[56:25] >> Okay.

[56:25] >> Yeah.

[56:26] >> And I I do want to thank you for that

[56:28] because in the time where we've seen

[56:30] where funds are being abused across this

[56:33] great state, um you have been dynamic in

[56:36] your approach to the way that you have

[56:38] managed that. So thank you for being

[56:40] very transparent with that. Is there

[56:41] anything that you guys really would like

[56:43] to see us kind of lean in for you on

[56:45] more as we move forward beyond the

[56:47] motion?

[56:50] >> Okay.

[56:53] » Um I did want to just add two two quick

[56:56] things in regards to Sorry, I want to

[56:58] lean towards the microphone um since

[57:01] it's right here. Um with regards to the

[57:03] invoicing, we do have those internal

[57:05] controls in place. And so the invoice

[57:08] comes in through Michael, um Amy and

[57:11] myself. We also we also sign off on

[57:13] those. When it comes to how the money is

[57:15] distributed, we look at the the

[57:18] partnership funding in two different

[57:20] buckets. One is going to be towards

[57:22] programs, other towards sponsorships.

[57:24] And so when you look at the

[57:25] sponsorships, those those funding those

[57:28] funds are usually released in the weeks

[57:30] leading up to the event so that the

[57:32] event can be possible. when it comes to

[57:34] the program [laughter] like the

[57:35] leadership Roseville, [clears throat]

[57:36] those things happen typically on the

[57:38] back end. And so that's the

[57:39] clarification between the front end and

[57:41] the back end um for that. Um and when it

[57:44] comes to leadership Roseville, we know

[57:46] that the leadership of that is in

[57:48] transition, but I just I wanted to shout

[57:50] out um Jamari Lashley. She's over at

[57:53] Rosewell High School. She was one of the

[57:55] teachers and facilitators within within

[57:57] that. She's the career development

[57:58] coordinator at Rosewood High School. So,

[58:00] she's one of the um she's she's going to

[58:02] be one of the lead facilitators that

[58:04] kind of transitions over and partners

[58:05] with them to make sure there's

[58:07] continuity in the program because um the

[58:11] facilitator last year, Miss Trisha,

[58:13] she's transitioned over with the weight

[58:16] force chamber and she's taking on the

[58:17] president job there and so but we're

[58:19] making sure that there's continuity for

[58:21] the students with that.

[58:24] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys. With so

[58:27] with that, I'll call the question. Um

[58:30] theou uh entertain a motion

[58:34] uh to approve or not to approve.

[58:35] >> So move

[58:37] >> to approve.

[58:39] >> I got a motion to approve. Is there a

[58:41] discussion? Sec. There's a second first.

[58:43] >> I'll second.

[58:44] >> Got a motion second. Is there any

[58:46] discussion? Further discussion. [snorts]

[58:49] Not hearing it. All in favor say I.

[58:52] >> Any opposed? Sounds like the eyes have

[58:54] it. Eyes do have. Motion approved. Thank

[58:55] you. Thank you, Michael. Appreciate

[58:56] that. Thanks for coming out tonight.

[58:58] appreciate be good seeing you out

[59:01] tonight. Thank you. Um, next item is

[59:04] personnel policy amendments. Uh,

[59:06] Cassandra Wright, uh, I think I saw her.

[59:08] Yeah, there she is. If you would, uh,

[59:11] come up, um, kind of tell us what you

[59:14] got going on.

[59:15] >> Good evening, mayor and board. My name

[59:18] is Shondaanda Wright. I am the human

[59:20] resources director for the town and I'm

[59:23] coming before you tonight to ask that

[59:26] you will approve uh some modifications

[59:28] to our town personnel policy. In your

[59:31] packets were all of the highlighted

[59:34] changes that have been made. I don't

[59:36] have a presentation for you tonight. Uh

[59:38] but if you've got questions about any of

[59:40] those changes, I'm happy to address

[59:42] those. There are four sort of key or

[59:45] larger changes that we're asking for.

[59:49] The first is to discontinue the practice

[59:53] of offering benefits and approval to our

[59:57] part-time regular part-time employees.

[1:00:00] Uh that is a small group of folks. The

[1:00:03] people that we have on staff right now,

[1:00:06] we are proposing that they retain and

[1:00:09] keep their benefits for the duration of

[1:00:11] time that they are here. But for any new

[1:00:13] people that we hire to uh replace people

[1:00:16] who are leaving, we would like to

[1:00:18] discontinue that practice. I think it's

[1:00:21] fiscally responsible.

[1:00:23] It's sort of above and beyond what is

[1:00:26] customary for part-time positions and we

[1:00:30] want to make sure that we're being

[1:00:32] responsible with town funds.

[1:00:34] >> Andre, how many people are

[1:00:36] >> currently receiving those benefits? I

[1:00:39] believe it's two if I'm not part a small

[1:00:43] group.

[1:00:44] >> How how many part-time positions do we

[1:00:46] have across the board in um within the

[1:00:49] town?

[1:00:51] >> There are a number of part-time

[1:00:52] positions. However, we do make a

[1:00:53] distinction between those that are

[1:00:55] benefit eligible and those that are not.

[1:00:58] So, I believe it's just a handful. It's

[1:01:00] no more than five uh positions that

[1:01:03] right now are targeted as part-time

[1:01:06] eligible for benefits. Well, and if it's

[1:01:09] only a handful and and I know that they

[1:01:11] only they would pay a portion, it would

[1:01:13] only be a prrated amount for healthare.

[1:01:16] >> What kind of cost savings are we talking

[1:01:18] about?

[1:01:18] >> I mean, it's about $6,000 for the

[1:01:21] average kind of part-time

[1:01:23] >> per person.

[1:01:24] per year. That's

[1:01:28] >> Is there an hour requirement like 30

[1:01:30] hours a week full?

[1:01:32] >> 25 is the threshold.

[1:01:36] So, anything above 25, we're required to

[1:01:39] pay benefits.

[1:01:42] >> And we would identify those folks as

[1:01:44] full-time.

[1:01:45] >> Well, I'm sorry. Say, so 25 hours a week

[1:01:48] plus is considered full-time for

[1:01:51] benefits.

[1:01:51] >> 30 plus.

[1:01:52] >> Oh, 30 plus.

[1:01:54] >> So, right now it's basically part-time

[1:01:57] for partial benefits is under 29 hours a

[1:02:01] week.

[1:02:06] plus working a regular schedule because

[1:02:08] again we have some staff that are

[1:02:10] identified as more temporary part-time

[1:02:12] and they're not currently eligible for

[1:02:14] benefits.

[1:02:14] >> Yeah, it's it's just knowing the work

[1:02:17] environment that is as at play, you

[1:02:20] know, in in our economy right now and

[1:02:22] how difficult it can be for some folks

[1:02:24] to find full-time work. to be able to

[1:02:26] have access to a handful of benefits I I

[1:02:30] think is very important and it doesn't

[1:02:33] seem like it's a significant,

[1:02:36] you know, cost-saving

[1:02:39] for the town. You know, whether or not

[1:02:41] they utilize it is is up to that person.

[1:02:43] But if somebody is utilizing it, they

[1:02:45] really need the help with healthc care

[1:02:47] benefits.

[1:02:48] um which is really I think the biggest

[1:02:53] >> that's probably the largest dollar item

[1:02:55] and that's why we are proposing that

[1:02:56] folks who have it will continue to be

[1:02:59] offered those benefits. question from a

[1:03:02] other municipality perspective.

[1:03:05] I know what happens in corporate

[1:03:06] America, but from other municipality,

[1:03:09] are we the outlier? Are we one of a few

[1:03:11] outliers that pays our part-time

[1:03:13] employees?

[1:03:13] >> I believe when I looked there were only

[1:03:16] a handful of other municipalities that

[1:03:19] are offering benefits to their uh

[1:03:22] part-time.

[1:03:23] >> Would you

[1:03:23] >> How many places did you look at?

[1:03:25] >> I believe out of about 40 there were 17.

[1:03:30] >> Just out of curiosity, what was the size

[1:03:32] of those municipalities? Do you know?

[1:03:33] >> It ranged from I believe it was 10,000

[1:03:37] up to 25,000 was the population size

[1:03:40] that I looked at.

[1:03:42] >> Thank you.

[1:03:43] >> What was the motivation for removing the

[1:03:45] benefits? Is it purely financial?

[1:03:48] >> It is primarily financial so that we're

[1:03:51] not out of step and out of line with

[1:03:53] other neighboring municipalities and

[1:03:55] even other part-time employers.

[1:04:00] You said primarily. So what else would

[1:04:01] it be?

[1:04:03] >> That's primarily what it is. Yeah.

[1:04:06] There's there's not really any other

[1:04:07] motivator.

[1:04:08] >> Yeah. I mean in the private sector, you

[1:04:09] don't get benefits of part-time. So I'm

[1:04:12] just but I'm also more curious about how

[1:04:14] many other municipalities are playing

[1:04:16] the game. So thank you.

[1:04:19] >> Next uh item that I'm going to put

[1:04:22] before you is the removal of

[1:04:25] compensatory time from the There's no

[1:04:28] policy. What we're proposing is that

[1:04:30] employees instead of acrewing

[1:04:32] compensatory time will be paid overtime

[1:04:36] directly

[1:04:38] in in funds in cash or per their check

[1:04:41] for any hours that they work over time.

[1:04:44] So we're not suggesting that we don't

[1:04:47] pay them. We're just suggesting that we

[1:04:49] no longer offer the ability to acrue

[1:04:52] comp time.

[1:04:54] >> You explain comp time though to me. I I was just getting kind of confused

[1:04:58] about it. So, what is the current policy

[1:05:01] and how does it work with an example

[1:05:03] versus what um is being proposed today?

[1:05:07] >> So, if a employee who is non-exempt, so

[1:05:10] they're eligible to be paid for

[1:05:12] overtime. If they work, for example,

[1:05:15] five hours in excess of their 40 hour

[1:05:17] schedule,

[1:05:18] >> uh, with compensatory time, they could

[1:05:20] bank that five hours and use it at some

[1:05:23] point in the future,

[1:05:24] >> like for vacation time

[1:05:26] >> for time off,

[1:05:28] >> right? Okay. Yeah. for sometime at some

[1:05:30] point in the future. Uh if they were

[1:05:32] paid directly sort of hour for hour

[1:05:34] within the pay period that it was

[1:05:36] earned, we would pay them at time and a

[1:05:39] half for that five hours that they

[1:05:42] worked in.

[1:05:43] >> So would they do they have do they

[1:05:45] currently have the option to bank to be

[1:05:47] able to utilize for time off or

[1:05:50] basically be paid out at time and a

[1:05:52] half? Is that how it is now?

[1:05:55] >> So they could be paid out. Yes. or they

[1:05:58] can bank it. The problem comes with uh

[1:06:02] sort of kicking the ball down the field

[1:06:04] into the future because as employees

[1:06:08] stay with us uh their earnings increase,

[1:06:11] their salary increases. Now that five

[1:06:13] hours perhaps cost us one hourly rate.

[1:06:17] this year, five years in the future,

[1:06:20] that same five hours will cost us more

[1:06:23] because the employee will be earning

[1:06:24] more and we have to pay it out at the

[1:06:27] rate

[1:06:28] >> in which they

[1:06:29] >> and there's no max I'm sorry there's no

[1:06:31] max on how many they can acrue right

[1:06:34] now.

[1:06:34] >> I believe they can roll over 100 hours.

[1:06:39] >> So somebody can leave in five years with

[1:06:41] a 100 hours that you're going to pay

[1:06:43] them x dollars more an hour for.

[1:06:46] Couldn't we cap it so that they couldn't

[1:06:48] acrewue more than 80 hours or something?

[1:06:51] And it seems like I get if you, you

[1:06:55] know, earn 100 hours comp time today and

[1:06:58] cash out five years from now, it might

[1:07:00] cost more than paying overtime, but

[1:07:03] otherwise the overtime is more

[1:07:04] expensive.

[1:07:06] Paying out directly.

[1:07:08] >> The overtime perhaps is more expensive

[1:07:11] today, but it's not more expensive in

[1:07:14] future dollars.

[1:07:16] depending on cost of living increases,

[1:07:18] what have you.

[1:07:19] >> So, so you're proposing to wave comp

[1:07:22] time alto together.

[1:07:23] >> Comp time. We'd like to encourage our

[1:07:25] hiring managers and supervisors to

[1:07:28] either allow employees to take some flex

[1:07:30] time. So, if they worked two or three or

[1:07:33] five hours over, they can take that time

[1:07:35] off uh in that pay period or they can be

[1:07:38] paid out in that pay period.

[1:07:40] >> Who would determine who would determine

[1:07:41] how that is done? whether it's it's you

[1:07:44] know they they take a few hours flex

[1:07:45] time or if it's overtime pay

[1:07:48] >> we would expect the department director

[1:07:50] or the managers to work with the with

[1:07:53] the staff to do that.

[1:07:54] >> Okay. Because my concern would be,

[1:07:57] you know, for whatever reason they're

[1:07:59] not approving overtime, but yet this

[1:08:01] person has, say, you know, five to six

[1:08:05] hours, because I just see this happening

[1:08:06] a lot with parks and wreck, with police

[1:08:10] and fire and public works just because

[1:08:12] of of activities,

[1:08:14] right, that the town holds. So if

[1:08:18] they're not able to take that flex time

[1:08:20] just because and I know some departments

[1:08:21] are so short that that is not

[1:08:25] a reality.

[1:08:27] I wouldn't want to see anybody being

[1:08:29] pressured into trying to take that flex

[1:08:30] time when that when their their workload

[1:08:33] is already so high instead of giving

[1:08:36] them the time and a half.

[1:08:38] So I mean the employee should have a say

[1:08:41] as to which way they want to

[1:08:43] >> that's right

[1:08:44] >> take this not not somebody else

[1:08:46] dictating it to them.

[1:08:47] >> Yes. So that's why we say we would

[1:08:49] expect the supervisors to work with

[1:08:51] their staff to ensure that there's

[1:08:54] adequate coverage that they're not

[1:08:56] creating sort of a backlog if they're

[1:08:59] allowing people to take time off so that

[1:09:01] the work is maintained. the employee

[1:09:04] would be able to have a voice in which

[1:09:07] they would prefer.

[1:09:08] >> Well, the other piece of this is that if

[1:09:11] they're required to get paid out on

[1:09:13] overtime, they're getting a higher paycheck, so they're getting

[1:09:17] taxed at a higher rate. So, the the

[1:09:21] overtime may not be worth it depending

[1:09:23] on what their taxable rate is. and they

[1:09:26] will be

[1:09:26] >> far better off with comp time to put it

[1:09:29] in on a short week so they get the

[1:09:31] normal pay and don't get taxed at a

[1:09:33] higher rate.

[1:09:34] >> So right now our police and fire and I'm

[1:09:38] maybe making an assumption when you say

[1:09:39] a short week that that to me sounds like

[1:09:42] police and fire because they have those

[1:09:44] alternating schedules

[1:09:45] >> whoever. Yeah,

[1:09:46] >> they don't currently uh acrewue comp

[1:09:48] time right now. So it's uh would be

[1:09:50] largely public works and parks and

[1:09:53] recreation.

[1:09:58] » Oh, so our police and fire

[1:10:00] >> they're right now they are paid

[1:10:02] >> all of the department everybody in the

[1:10:03] department they're they're

[1:10:05] >> overtime reports.

[1:10:07] >> So not comp time.

[1:10:08] >> That's right. So there's a So if if the

[1:10:11] fire department, you know, has to work

[1:10:13] extra because of a festival, they

[1:10:15] automatically get just overtime pay.

[1:10:19] >> Okay.

[1:10:23] » Next is an increase to the tuition

[1:10:26] reimbursement. So right now we have that

[1:10:29] identified for $1,000

[1:10:32] per employee uh per year and we'd like

[1:10:34] to increase that to $3,000.

[1:10:37] Uh obviously tuition and college costs

[1:10:40] have increased over the years and so we

[1:10:43] want to remain competitive so their

[1:10:45] employees can continue to pursue higher

[1:10:47] education and we're offering them a

[1:10:50] competitive incentive for that.

[1:10:53] >> Just curious why 3,000 why not five?

[1:10:57] >> I'm not sure exactly how that number was

[1:10:59] arrived. That was a number uh that was

[1:11:01] in place when I got here. So, I would

[1:11:04] assume that someone looked at our area

[1:11:07] community colleges, at our area

[1:11:09] universities to pinpoint a number that

[1:11:13] was reasonable.

[1:11:16] >> How many employees historically use this

[1:11:19] benefit annually?

[1:11:20] >> I don't have that those numbers, but I'd

[1:11:22] be happy to get that for you if you

[1:11:23] would like.

[1:11:26] >> Um, I sign off on those. Last year was

[1:11:28] three.

[1:11:30] Just three. one out of finance, um,

[1:11:35] two out of finance, one out of

[1:11:36] administration as far, you know, and by administration that's communications

[1:11:41] and then also general administration.

[1:11:42] So, it's three.

[1:11:45] >> Question for you. With with this change,

[1:11:47] does it impact our um approved budget?

[1:11:51] Does it require any

[1:11:59] » Okay.

[1:11:59] >> And the fourth that we'd like for you to

[1:12:01] consider is to remove language that

[1:12:05] offers a probationary pay increase for

[1:12:09] new employees at the conclusion of six

[1:12:12] months of employment. Uh the reason sort

[1:12:15] of behind that is this is a practice

[1:12:18] that was in place that the reason for

[1:12:21] the practice is no longer uh really

[1:12:24] anything that we need to be looking at.

[1:12:27] We used to have to offer 6% or 5% I'm

[1:12:32] sorry. We used to have to offer a 5% pay

[1:12:34] increase to new staff at six months

[1:12:38] because it was at that same moment that

[1:12:40] they begin to contribute to the local

[1:12:43] government retirement system. And that

[1:12:46] uh contribution is a mandatory 6%. So

[1:12:50] the 5% pay increase was put in to offset

[1:12:54] that mandatory contribution to the

[1:12:57] retirement system. Now that There's no

[1:13:00] longer a waiting period to contribute to

[1:13:02] the retirement system so new employees

[1:13:04] begin to contribute immediately from day

[1:13:06] one. Therefore, our philosophy is from

[1:13:09] day one, we want to offer them a salary

[1:13:11] that is competitive and that will allow

[1:13:13] them to contribute. So, we no longer

[1:13:16] need the increase at six months because

[1:13:18] the waiting period is no longer in

[1:13:21] place.

[1:13:22] >> Is that still mandatory?

[1:13:24] >> The waiting period?

[1:13:26] >> No.

[1:13:26] >> Retirement fund.

[1:13:27] >> The retirement contribution. Yes, it is.

[1:13:30] >> So, is that is that in there's a

[1:13:32] recommendation? Is that a recommendation

[1:13:33] in the package here or

[1:13:35] >> the recommendation to remove the

[1:13:37] probationary pay increase is in the

[1:13:39] pack?

[1:13:39] >> It used to be in there. Now, they have

[1:13:40] it read out each

[1:13:41] >> of those uh resolutions.

[1:13:44] >> So,

[1:13:45] that's not option option four. Is that

[1:13:48] what that is?

[1:13:50] >> Yeah, option action four, I guess.

[1:13:52] >> Yes, action four.

[1:13:53] >> Okay.

[1:13:55] All right. Anything else? Anything else?

[1:13:59] I think we'll do this board. That's u if

[1:14:02] you look on page um

[1:14:06] page is it um

[1:14:07] >> 65. Is that what you're looking at?

[1:14:09] You're looking for the the

[1:14:10] >> 55. That's right.

[1:14:11] >> 65.

[1:14:11] >> No, 65. 65.

[1:14:14] >> 65. You see the four actions that um is

[1:14:17] being requested us to consider here.

[1:14:19] Action one which removed ability of for

[1:14:22] regular part-time employees receive

[1:14:24] probated medical insurance and benefits.

[1:14:28] Action two was removal of the comp time.

[1:14:32] Action three was increase the tuition um

[1:14:37] uh reimbursement and then option four

[1:14:40] had to do with the um I keep losing that

[1:14:43] one.

[1:14:44] >> Discont.

[1:14:45] >> Yeah. Yeah, there it is. discontinued

[1:14:47] the practice of adjusting salaries.

[1:14:50] >> So u

[1:14:53] so if any one of those four we need to

[1:14:55] get more clarity on uh we'll pull any

[1:14:59] one of those is does any uh uh

[1:15:03] commissioner have an issue with any one

[1:15:05] of those actions and want to discuss

[1:15:07] some more.

[1:15:08] >> I just have another question for one.

[1:15:10] >> Okay.

[1:15:11] >> Ask it now.

[1:15:12] >> Yeah.

[1:15:12] >> Okay. So, the remove eligibility for

[1:15:15] regular part-time employees, you said we

[1:15:17] currently have two that are eligible,

[1:15:19] but a number of part-time positions.

[1:15:24] So, could any more of those part-time

[1:15:27] positions also be eligible or will it

[1:15:31] always just be those two?

[1:15:32] >> It would just be those two

[1:15:34] >> always.

[1:15:36] Grandpa in

[1:15:38] >> Yeah, but if they should leave and

[1:15:40] somebody were to Is that what you're

[1:15:42] meaning like? like there's only two

[1:15:44] positions that would absolutely qualify,

[1:15:47] not whether or not they're actively

[1:15:48] utilizing. Is that what you're saying?

[1:15:50] >> Right. Out of the entire pool of

[1:15:52] part-time employees, how many could

[1:15:54] potentially

[1:15:56] um taken taken it off the table if they

[1:16:00] leave and come back? You know, how many

[1:16:03] part-time employees could potentially

[1:16:05] qualify for the insurance benefits as it

[1:16:08] is today?

[1:16:10] And there's two. There will only be two

[1:16:13] as it stands right now.

[1:16:14] >> As those and just so that I'm making

[1:16:17] sure that I'm answering the question

[1:16:18] that you're answering, as those people

[1:16:20] leave the organization, those positions

[1:16:23] would no longer be eligible for

[1:16:24] benefits.

[1:16:25] >> Right. I understand that. And just so I

[1:16:27] make sure that

[1:16:32] » I I don't think that your question has

[1:16:34] been answered.

[1:16:34] >> Wait a minute. Hold on.

[1:16:42] The qualifications are that they have to

[1:16:45] be under 30 hours.

[1:16:49] Let's say there are 10 part-time

[1:16:50] positions with the town

[1:16:53] and only two of those positions are

[1:16:55] under 30 hours.

[1:16:57] Is there the potential for any of those

[1:16:59] other eight positions

[1:17:02] >> becoming eligible?

[1:17:04] >> Yes.

[1:17:05] >> No.

[1:17:06] >> Okay.

[1:17:08] But if additional part-time positions

[1:17:10] are added over the years, then those

[1:17:13] could potentially be

[1:17:15] eligible.

[1:17:16] >> You would write those positions so that

[1:17:19] they worked under the necessary hours.

[1:17:22] So

[1:17:22] >> So they they would not be qualified.

[1:17:24] Okay. So there would always be two from

[1:17:27] now on until whenever. Okay. Okay.

[1:17:33] » Any other questions? Um, so looking at

[1:17:36] the four action items, uh, and we can we

[1:17:40] can vote on two, three, all four of

[1:17:43] them. What's the Anybody got any really

[1:17:46] feel like we need to remove one of them

[1:17:48] for right now?

[1:17:49] >> I got question on the comp time. Who's

[1:17:53] going to be upset with this? Is it

[1:17:55] departments? Is it a couple individuals?

[1:17:58] What are we looking at?

[1:18:01] >> I don't think I would identify it as

[1:18:02] upset. I think that there may be a

[1:18:04] learning curve. So I think that

[1:18:06] departments will have to learn how to

[1:18:07] manage the time that their staff is

[1:18:11] working. They'll have to pay maybe a

[1:18:13] little bit closer attention to the hours

[1:18:15] that staff are working. But I think

[1:18:17] that's a good thing. Uh and I think

[1:18:19] staff will need to get used to being

[1:18:22] paid out for any hours worked

[1:18:25] closer to the time that they worked it

[1:18:27] rather than banking it for later. Have

[1:18:29] you done an impact analysis on how much

[1:18:32] it will affect budgets of individual

[1:18:35] departments?

[1:18:36] >> Our finance department is aware of the

[1:18:39] change and they have put a plan in place

[1:18:42] for funding of overtime

[1:18:46] >> to accommodate the change.

[1:18:49] >> Thank you. So the compensation

[1:18:52] change um one of my siblings went

[1:18:54] through at her job. Um it was a learning

[1:18:57] curve and it was a shock at the

[1:19:01] beginning after she had had compensation

[1:19:03] um for so long the compensatory time but

[1:19:07] now she's like it's it's just normal. So

[1:19:09] of course there is that learning curve

[1:19:10] there. But let me ask this question.

[1:19:13] What is the maximum number of hours that

[1:19:17] one employee currently holds in

[1:19:19] compensatory time and what is the total

[1:19:21] number across the staff? Do you know how

[1:19:23] by chance have that?

[1:19:24] >> I don't have those numbers in front of

[1:19:25] me, but it hovers just over a hundred

[1:19:28] because that's how how much they're

[1:19:30] allowed to bring over in any given year.

[1:19:33] So it sometimes it sort of crests over

[1:19:36] that amount during the course of the

[1:19:38] year.

[1:19:39] >> Okay.

[1:19:40] I mean, can't we set limits to how much

[1:19:42] they can carry over then? Because, you

[1:19:44] [music] know, just going from all to

[1:19:46] nothing just I just feel like there's

[1:19:48] got to be a middle road there.

[1:19:50] >> So, any staff that currently have comp

[1:19:53] time will be able to to maintain it.

[1:19:56] They'll be paid out for it. And right

[1:19:58] now, we don't have a plan in place to

[1:20:00] force them to use it within within any

[1:20:03] sort of time restraints. So, we will

[1:20:04] give them the flexibility to use that

[1:20:07] time sort of as they need. So they won't

[1:20:09] lose it.

[1:20:10] >> Okay. They're not going to lose

[1:20:11] >> or lose anything.

[1:20:12] >> So if they have over 100 hours.

[1:20:13] >> Yeah. So So just to clarify, just to

[1:20:15] make sure I understand that part

[1:20:16] correctly, if you if you have over 100

[1:20:18] hours, you're not going to lose it.

[1:20:19] >> That's

[1:20:21] >> And if you're not going to lose it, you

[1:20:22] can use it at any time you want.

[1:20:25] >> And it doesn't have to be tied to a work

[1:20:26] week that you're in.

[1:20:28] >> Just not going to get no more. I guess I

[1:20:30] guess I'm just Yeah, I'm I'm

[1:20:34] to Commissioner Paul's point

[1:20:38] being able to rectify everything within

[1:20:39] that two week time period as far as you

[1:20:41] know taking uh flex time. Well, what

[1:20:45] happens if it's a Wednesday and the pay

[1:20:47] period ends on Friday? How are they

[1:20:48] going to take that flex time? or if it just seems to me like it would make

[1:20:54] more sense financially to be able to

[1:20:56] keep that comp time to use for hours off

[1:20:59] say in 6 months or or for the calendar

[1:21:01] year versus

[1:21:05] you know making them pay out time and a

[1:21:08] half to like what to the points that you

[1:21:10] made commissioner pop

[1:21:13] >> I I do have one more question about that

[1:21:15] um since we are from a municipality

[1:21:18] perspective I've seen changes is like

[1:21:20] this uh at Zebulun, Charlotte, Garner,

[1:21:24] and as well as some other municipalities

[1:21:26] in around the area. How far off are we

[1:21:30] from a compensation perspective from my

[1:21:32] peers? And is this a city or state

[1:21:34] trend, excuse me, that you're seeing? Uh

[1:21:36] because I am hearing this happen in the

[1:21:38] government as well. So, I just kind of

[1:21:40] want to get a gauge of where we are in

[1:21:41] this process amongst others.

[1:21:43] Compton time used to be very pre

[1:21:45] prevalent in government employment and

[1:21:48] it is increasingly less so because

[1:21:52] organizations are realizing that there

[1:21:54] is an increased cost associated with it

[1:21:58] >> and you're you're not losing you get

[1:22:00] paid overtime.

[1:22:00] >> Yeah I I

[1:22:01] >> I know but I'm just making sure that overtime pay happens instead of

[1:22:05] being forced to take flex time

[1:22:07] >> during that two week time period.

[1:22:08] >> Yeah. in in your in your um scenario

[1:22:12] where it's right at the end of the pay

[1:22:14] period, it has to be overtime most time

[1:22:16] I've seen because you ain't you got time

[1:22:18] to take it off.

[1:22:19] >> Okay. I just I just want to make sure

[1:22:20] that there's no issues there as far as

[1:22:22] saying, "Oh,

[1:22:23] >> we don't have it in the budget for

[1:22:25] overtime. So therefore, you must take

[1:22:27] flex time and it's like but I'm you

[1:22:30] know,

[1:22:31] >> yeah,

[1:22:32] >> I don't think you'd have you shouldn't

[1:22:33] lose it."

[1:22:34] >> That's a good that's a good clarifying

[1:22:37] statement. So, we always paid overtime,

[1:22:40] right? In some cases, like um like if

[1:22:43] Fourth of July comes up and public

[1:22:44] works, they say, "Look, I know I got to

[1:22:46] work on this day." They already know

[1:22:48] that it's the 8 hour day.

[1:22:49] >> And if it falls in a weird space between

[1:22:53] um the pay periods, like for instance,

[1:22:56] you reached out about the clean up on

[1:22:58] the parking lot. They were off on them.

[1:22:59] They were off on the Friday, right? And

[1:23:01] so they took the time because the pay

[1:23:02] period ended at a certain time. They

[1:23:05] went in, took the day off in advance of

[1:23:06] the holiday, gave them a chance to rest,

[1:23:10] catch up, hang out with family, and then

[1:23:11] they came in to work on on that day. And

[1:23:13] so, um, the supervisors do work on that.

[1:23:16] The the the occasions in which overtime

[1:23:20] come about are pretty consistent. Mhm.

[1:23:24] >> It's like your fall funfest, it's your

[1:23:27] Fourth of July, it's your Christmas

[1:23:29] parade, it's your blackout dates, you

[1:23:31] know, your blackout dates, all these

[1:23:32] things are are pretty standard. And then

[1:23:34] when we get into the inclement weather,

[1:23:36] the things that pop up, they kind of we we try to be as flexible as possible

[1:23:41] with that. It really comes down to like

[1:23:42] communication with it. And so we don't

[1:23:46] >> we're obligated to pay for the time they

[1:23:48] work. [laughter]

[1:23:48] >> Right.

[1:23:49] And so and sometimes they opt for

[1:23:51] the flex, you know, and say, "Look, you

[1:23:53] know, I work this time. Can I just cut

[1:23:55] out early on Friday?"

[1:23:57] >> Yeah. But some people would rather have

[1:23:59] that time back. Some rather I'm just

[1:24:00] making sure that the like the employee

[1:24:03] agrees to whatever that term is and not

[1:24:05] be strong armed into one option or the

[1:24:07] other is essentially what I'm getting at

[1:24:09] here. You know, if they're putting in

[1:24:10] the extra hours, they should have the

[1:24:12] option to choose time and a half or if

[1:24:15] they want to choose flex time. And

[1:24:17] that's that's just to protect the

[1:24:18] employee within that process,

[1:24:20] >> right?

[1:24:22] >> And that would be done.

[1:24:23] >> Yes.

[1:24:24] >> Okay.

[1:24:24] >> Yeah. I think that we're doing that

[1:24:25] right now because we have a number of

[1:24:27] departments who are already uh receiving

[1:24:29] overtime. So that's a practice.

[1:24:31] >> So overtime is different than comp time.

[1:24:33] >> Yeah.

[1:24:34] >> Kind of.

[1:24:34] >> Yeah.

[1:24:35] >> Different different

[1:24:37] >> different payments different payments

[1:24:39] different different. So, so, so just to

[1:24:41] make sure I understood you correctly,

[1:24:43] you did I hear you say that we're going

[1:24:45] to continue with the compensation and

[1:24:47] flex choice after this decision we make.

[1:24:52] >> That is correct. Those who have it.

[1:24:54] >> Oh, only for those who have it. This is

[1:24:56] for this is going to be going forward.

[1:24:57] Any new hires will come under the new

[1:24:59] policy, but any people before will be

[1:25:01] grandfathered in regards of the

[1:25:03] compensation.

[1:25:03] >> They will not be grandfathered. They

[1:25:05] will start to be paid either overtime or

[1:25:08] allowed to take flex time. But if they

[1:25:11] currently have comp time on their

[1:25:13] record,

[1:25:14] >> they just won't lose it.

[1:25:15] They just can

[1:25:16] use it as they

[1:25:17] >> and they can continue to use it.

[1:25:18] >> But anybody new won't acquire comp time.

[1:25:21] It'll be overtime.

[1:25:25] I'm pretty sure that everything that you

[1:25:27] were telling us is already been legally

[1:25:31] looked at and in good standings and

[1:25:34] compliance with the fab uh the labor

[1:25:37] standards act and the NC personnel law.

[1:25:41] So I know that

[1:25:43] you were covered.

[1:25:46] >> Still all these items have been reviewed

[1:25:48] by our labor employment team.

[1:25:51] >> That's what I want to make sure.

[1:25:52] [clears throat]

[1:25:52] >> Okay.

[1:25:53] And then I I do have a question. Didn't

[1:25:55] we receive an email that there was um

[1:25:58] changes made to the grievance policy?

[1:26:01] >> There were some So it was just some

[1:26:03] clarifying. It was to clarify it. We

[1:26:05] didn't really change really any of the

[1:26:07] substance of the grievance policy. We

[1:26:10] tried to write it in a format that was

[1:26:12] more clear to any employees who elected

[1:26:15] to use it.

[1:26:17] >> Okay. So is there anything that we

[1:26:20] needed to review on that? because I

[1:26:21] didn't have an original and I don't know

[1:26:23] if it's already updated in the personnel

[1:26:24] policy where it says updates through 8

[1:26:27] 2026. I'm assuming that the the change

[1:26:31] Sorry, my computer's getting wonky.

[1:26:34] There we go. I'm assuming that whatever

[1:26:36] that change was, it is reflected in

[1:26:38] that.

[1:26:38] >> It is reflected in that personnel policy

[1:26:41] update document. Correct.

[1:26:44] But there was there was no need to write

[1:26:45] a resolution because we did not remove

[1:26:48] or add really any provisions to that.

[1:26:51] clarified.

[1:26:52] >> So then I have a question and I don't

[1:26:55] know if it's something that I need to

[1:26:59] ask or discuss after the meeting because

[1:27:01] it's not necessarily directly tied to

[1:27:03] all of this, but um

[1:27:08] actually I'll I'll email you my

[1:27:10] questions and then we can talk about it

[1:27:12] later. Okay,

[1:27:14] >> great. Thank Thank you. Um so with that

[1:27:18] the four the four actions we don't have

[1:27:20] to take we don't have to take action on

[1:27:23] the four actions if you feel like one we

[1:27:25] need to discuss further I think I think

[1:27:28] it's some that is really

[1:27:30] easy so um anybody got any concerns with

[1:27:35] any of the full actions and if so we'll

[1:27:37] take it off and bring it back later

[1:27:39] we'll get some more clarity on

[1:27:41] >> I personally have a problem with the

[1:27:42] part-time benefits

[1:27:43] >> part-time benefits was at uh number one.

[1:27:46] >> Action one.

[1:27:47] [snorts]

[1:27:49] >> I think it's action.

[1:27:50] >> I don't know. I'm not looking at the

[1:27:51] right is action one.

[1:27:52] >> It's action one.

[1:27:53] >> Number one. Okay. So, um

[1:27:58] so any other ones anybody got concern

[1:28:00] with?

[1:28:05] If not, I'll entertain a motion on

[1:28:07] action two, three, and four.

[1:28:11] I move to approve resolution making

[1:28:14] technical changes to the personnel

[1:28:16] policy actions two through four. So I

[1:28:20] got a motion second.

[1:28:21] >> Second.

[1:28:22] >> Got a motion second. Any further

[1:28:23] discussion?

[1:28:25] >> Not hearing it. All in favor say I.

[1:28:26] >> I.

[1:28:27] >> Any opposed? Sound like the eyes have

[1:28:29] it? Eyes do have it. Motion's approved.

[1:28:31] So two two, three, and four is approved.

[1:28:33] Now let's talk about action one so we

[1:28:35] get clarity on that. Um,

[1:28:39] do we do we want to vote on action one

[1:28:43] and see where the vote lands or we just

[1:28:45] want to send it back for some comments

[1:28:48] on on on changes? How do how did board

[1:28:51] want to handle action one?

[1:28:53] >> I say we vote, Mr. Mayor, but we also

[1:28:55] need to have any questions that the

[1:28:56] commissioner has so we can get those

[1:28:58] addressed and I would like to, but if

[1:28:59] not, I think we no need to kick the can

[1:29:01] down the curve any further.

[1:29:03] I just I I don't see where it's a cost

[1:29:05] savings if it's only limited to a couple

[1:29:07] of people and that can make the all the

[1:29:10] difference in the world to those two

[1:29:11] people who actually need these resources

[1:29:14] when it's so difficult in today's time

[1:29:17] frame you know with the cost of

[1:29:19] insurance if they can even get a little

[1:29:21] bit of help on that by working for for

[1:29:23] the town here

[1:29:26] I don't see

[1:29:28] I I I don't see a significant savings

[1:29:31] and all it would doing is hurting, you

[1:29:34] know, a couple of people that actually

[1:29:35] utilize it and and need to utilize it.

[1:29:37] >> So, correct me if I'm wrong, Shandra,

[1:29:39] but they are grandfathered. So, they

[1:29:41] will not lose their current benefits.

[1:29:43] It's only if we hired someone else to

[1:29:45] >> Yeah. And and they don't necessarily

[1:29:47] have to participate within the benefits.

[1:29:50] But if it is only a couple positions

[1:29:52] where that would actually come into

[1:29:54] play, then

[1:29:57] I I feel that, you know, as as a town

[1:30:02] leave it be.

[1:30:04] >> But essentially, we are

[1:30:06] >> Yeah. But I'm saying to

[1:30:09] the next person that takes that

[1:30:11] position,

[1:30:13] if they need to utilize healthc care

[1:30:16] benefits, for example,

[1:30:19] having that option there, we're going

[1:30:21] to, you know, it's just going to be a

[1:30:24] draw for a better qualified person, too.

[1:30:26] But but let me make sure I understood

[1:30:27] this correctly because I I I'm a

[1:30:30] healthcare u advocate. But I also heard

[1:30:32] you say that the hours would be and thus

[1:30:35] that they wouldn't qualify for benefits

[1:30:38] anyway in the part-time.

[1:30:40] >> They would certainly be under the 30 to

[1:30:42] be considered uh full-time and we could

[1:30:46] make efforts to keep them under the uh

[1:30:48] 20 hours

[1:30:52] >> so that they were not

[1:30:53] >> So then that's making it more difficult

[1:30:54] though. Correct. Because you're really

[1:30:57] doing it for two people out of the grand

[1:30:59] scheme of the 100 plus employees that we

[1:31:01] have.

[1:31:02] >> So without getting into the details of

[1:31:04] the positions themselves, was there any

[1:31:08] re was this an incentive to hire people

[1:31:11] to give them this even though the hours

[1:31:12] were lower than full-time? And does that

[1:31:16] if there if it was does that motivation

[1:31:19] make sense in the future where

[1:31:21] Commissioner Bernett's point makes a lot

[1:31:23] of sense? I believe it used to be more

[1:31:25] of a common practice for municipalities

[1:31:28] to offer benefits to their part-time

[1:31:30] staff. Yeah.

[1:31:31] >> And again, just as times have changed,

[1:31:33] that is something and the costs honestly

[1:31:36] have increased on healthcare. The cost

[1:31:38] goes up each year, it's something that

[1:31:41] people are looking at a lot more

[1:31:42] closely.

[1:31:43] >> So, is this a longevity of employment

[1:31:45] issue more than anything else?

[1:31:49] the fact that these individuals have

[1:31:51] been here a long time

[1:31:53] >> and that

[1:31:53] >> absolutely we don't we certainly don't

[1:31:55] want to take anything away from our

[1:31:57] current staff.

[1:31:58] >> Understood. But just trying to find out

[1:32:00] why they were given it in the first

[1:32:01] place and it's just because it was a

[1:32:02] long time ago

[1:32:04] >> and it's cheaper.

[1:32:05] >> Yeah.

[1:32:05] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[1:32:07] >> Yeah. And towns, you know, they whatever

[1:32:11] you guys want to do.

[1:32:12] >> Yeah.

[1:32:12] >> I mean, you know, it's it's up

[1:32:14] [clears throat] to vote of the board.

[1:32:15] Um, I would I would say y'all kind of

[1:32:19] collaborate, figure out if y'all want to

[1:32:21] bring it back to the board in, you know,

[1:32:22] in the future or something.

[1:32:23] >> I don't I don't think why we have to

[1:32:24] wait, Mr. Mayor. I think we can put this

[1:32:26] to a vote.

[1:32:26] >> Oh, if you if board wants to put it to

[1:32:28] vote, we will.

[1:32:29] >> I mean, I think that's the right thing

[1:32:31] to do in this scenario.

[1:32:32] >> Okay. If that's what the board wants to

[1:32:33] do, you guys want to put it vote?

[1:32:36] >> I'll make a motion.

[1:32:36] >> I'll make a

[1:32:38] >> So, I move

[1:32:39] >> You made a motion of what? I was going

[1:32:42] to make a a motion to

[1:32:44] deny the approval of

[1:32:48] >> action.

[1:32:49] one

[1:32:50] >> one. Thank you. Because I don't have

[1:32:52] that proper list in front of me. Um that

[1:32:55] was my motion was to deny.

[1:32:57] >> Okay.

[1:32:57] >> Further action on

[1:32:59] >> Okay. So

[1:33:00] >> whose motion goes first, Mr. Mayor?

[1:33:02] >> What motion goes first?

[1:33:05] >> Who went first? Clerk, you you

[1:33:08] >> he did. All right. So your motion. When

[1:33:10] do you make your motion

[1:33:11] >> to move forward with the mo for action

[1:33:14] one?

[1:33:14] >> I got a motion to approve. Is there a

[1:33:16] second on approval?

[1:33:19] » Wait a minute. So you're you're making a

[1:33:22] motion to approve it?

[1:33:24] >> Yes.

[1:33:24] >> And you're making a motion to just my my

[1:33:27] >> Just to clarify, I think Lynwood's

[1:33:28] motion is to approve that we won't pay

[1:33:33] >> to do away with.

[1:33:33] >> It's a motion to prove what the what the

[1:33:36] personnel department is.

[1:33:39] No, it's a motion not to do it. Uh, so

[1:33:43] is there a second to Lwood's motion?

[1:33:48] All right, that motion dies. So I hear

[1:33:51] next motion. Does someone else want to

[1:33:53] make a motion?

[1:33:54] >> I make a motion to

[1:33:57] deny

[1:34:00] >> action. Action item one.

[1:34:02] >> Action one.

[1:34:05] >> in the personnel policy changes.

[1:34:07] >> I got a motion to deny. Is there a

[1:34:09] second?

[1:34:10] >> I'll second.

[1:34:11] >> I got a motion. Second. Is there any

[1:34:13] further discussion?

[1:34:16] Not hearing any. All in favor say I.

[1:34:18] >> I.

[1:34:19] >> Any oppose?

[1:34:20] >> Nay.

[1:34:21] >> I would like to eyes have it. Eyes do

[1:34:23] have it.

[1:34:24] >> You lose that one.

[1:34:25] >> I.

[1:34:26] >> Thanks. Appreciate it.

[1:34:27] >> Thank you.

[1:34:28] >> Um, okay. Next item

[1:34:33] is um

[1:34:35] legislative hearing. We've been going a

[1:34:37] hour and a half. Is it is the board

[1:34:39] okay? Continue.

[1:34:42] >> All right.

[1:34:43] >> So, um legislative hearing re 25-06

[1:34:48] uh gov whale and re25-1

[1:34:54] and nx26-2

[1:34:58] weight med resoning and annexation.

[1:35:00] Stephen, I think you I see you up there.

[1:35:02] You're taking that off. I'm [snorts]

[1:35:03] gonna hear um

[1:35:06] first of all I'm g hear any comments

[1:35:08] from staff and then I'll take any

[1:35:09] comments from the applicants and then I

[1:35:12] open up the public hearing for any

[1:35:13] comments from the public. So it's all

[1:35:16] you Stephen.

[1:35:20] Okay.

[1:35:43] On

[1:35:45] this side.

[1:36:03] I had this in. This wasn't working. And

[1:36:05] this is

[1:36:13] [snorts]

[1:36:14] how you move.

[1:36:19] advance to the next page.

[1:36:29] » Yeah, if they don't get it right quick,

[1:36:33] we're going to we're going to let them

[1:36:35] work on this technical issue for a

[1:36:37] minute. So, we're going to take a um

[1:36:39] probably about a 10-minute recess. So,

[1:36:41] let's uh let's come back at 8:15. 8:15.

[1:36:44] Thank you, boys. Appreciate it.

[1:37:00] Okay, we will call back to order the

[1:37:01] rollill uh board of commissioner

[1:37:04] meeting. Uh we are on item 10- A,

[1:37:09] legislative hearing, and I think you got

[1:37:12] everything working.

[1:37:13] >> We hope so.

[1:37:13] >> All right, Stephen, it's up to you. All

[1:37:15] right. So, this is the uh the reszoning

[1:37:18] and the annexation for the wake project.

[1:37:21] It's 4801 Burlington Mills grounds. The

[1:37:24] address it's about 31 acres. It's

[1:37:27] currently zoned

[1:37:29] residential. It will be a conditional

[1:37:31] highway a commercial highway conditional

[1:37:34] zoning district

[1:37:37] with the proposed use being hospital.

[1:37:39] That's the use of uses. That's the

[1:37:41] closest land use that matches

[1:37:45] contiguous voluntary.

[1:37:48] So you see in your in your packet there

[1:37:51] were seven listed conditions. I believe

[1:37:56] has an additional one which I will explain. The first one is a list

[1:38:04] of prohibited uses. The second one is

[1:38:09] just compiance with the conceptual plan

[1:38:11] which you'll see tonight

[1:38:14] 140,000 square feet of gross floor area

[1:38:16] for non residential use 150 setback and

[1:38:20] adjoining Bington sub properties a

[1:38:24] maximum building height of 55 a

[1:38:26] perimeter buffer

[1:38:28] with a Bington Hall drive which would be

[1:38:31] a minimum of 50 ft and 50oot undisturbed

[1:38:34] buffer along the common property line

[1:38:37] open

[1:38:38] The eighth condition which

[1:38:44] um which I received late this afternoon

[1:38:47] um has to do with extending

[1:38:51] u

[1:38:53] having a buffer of the ambulance area

[1:38:56] that is equal to our our our loading

[1:38:59] standards

[1:39:00] in in the code which is a pretty

[1:39:02] substantial buffer. So it's it's it's

[1:39:05] increasing the buffer between the

[1:39:06] ambulance loading area and the the

[1:39:09] street because otherwise there's a break

[1:39:12] when the street comes through it leaves

[1:39:14] a break in that buffer yard and the

[1:39:17] street yard is not very robust.

[1:39:20] So

[1:39:22] >> you said you're increasing the buffer

[1:39:23] between

[1:39:24] >> Yeah, they're they're committing to to

[1:39:26] matching the loading standards in our

[1:39:29] code.

[1:39:31] >> Um it's I don't believe it's a distance.

[1:39:33] This is just a landscape provision.

[1:39:38] » Um,

[1:39:38] >> Commissioner Lenwood, uh, Commissioner

[1:39:40] Long, uh, the the provision in the LDO

[1:39:45] that I reviewed and the the condition

[1:39:47] that I reviewed, uh, used the term

[1:39:49] screening, and that may be the term that

[1:39:52] the board is most familiar with, the

[1:39:54] idea of screening, loading, and

[1:39:55] unloading areas. So, uh, while that may

[1:39:58] or may not have been applicable to the

[1:40:00] hospital drive, uh, the condition that I

[1:40:03] reviewed that I assume is now being

[1:40:05] profered is one to treat that area as

[1:40:08] though screening was required as

[1:40:12] provided by the LDO.

[1:40:14] >> Thank you for that clarification.

[1:40:16] This next slide has to do with

[1:40:17] compliance with comprehensive plan.

[1:40:20] um comprehensive plan identifies the

[1:40:23] area as civic and commercial center.

[1:40:27] The civic uses um

[1:40:31] include institutional uses and

[1:40:33] commercial center includes conventional

[1:40:35] commercial uses along primary corridors.

[1:40:40] The Roseville transportation plan

[1:40:43] provides for a Burlington Mills Road

[1:40:45] four-lane divided section with curving

[1:40:47] gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk. Granite

[1:40:50] Falls will have a two-lane section with

[1:40:52] two-way left turn lane, curb and gutter,

[1:40:55] bike lanes and sidewalks, and the

[1:40:57] greenway bike plans on both sides of the

[1:41:00] frontages. So, this would as these roads

[1:41:03] get built out, they will be built to

[1:41:05] those standards

[1:41:08] for how far out because as we all know,

[1:41:12] the middle school, it's a virtual

[1:41:14] parking lot twice a day and it's not

[1:41:16] rush hour. So it doesn't fit in the

[1:41:18] transportation plan.

[1:41:20] >> Yeah. This applies to this property. So

[1:41:23] any any

[1:41:25] portion of these roads that the

[1:41:27] development is responsible for, they

[1:41:28] will have to build to those standards.

[1:41:31] >> Doesn't alleviate the problem down the

[1:41:33] road a little tiny bit.

[1:41:35] >> At this time,

[1:41:38] >> um a traffic impact analysis was

[1:41:40] prepared by Stantech. Matt Peach is

[1:41:43] here. should there be any questions

[1:41:44] regarding that. But the total weekday

[1:41:47] daily trips was 1550.

[1:41:55] Um so in terms of comp plan consistency,

[1:41:58] hospital use along with pro proposed

[1:42:00] conditions of uh approval define a

[1:42:03] project that is consistent with both the

[1:42:05] civic and commercial center land use

[1:42:07] categories. The concept plan illustrates

[1:42:10] side pass bike lanes along

[1:42:11] [clears throat] Burlington Mills Road as

[1:42:13] I just said and the town is prepared to

[1:42:17] um complete uh Granite Falls Boulevard

[1:42:19] in the next year.

[1:42:23] Um [clears throat]

[1:42:26] so I've got a several proposed motions.

[1:42:28] Um, one two of them have to do with the

[1:42:31] reszoning and then one with the

[1:42:34] annexation

[1:42:35] for your consideration. With that is

[1:42:39] here to speak to the proposal.

[1:42:42] >> Any uh questions for the staff?

[1:42:45] >> The what's our current maximum building

[1:42:46] height limit?

[1:42:49] >> I don't know that offh hand.

[1:42:52] >> I mean in general or just for the the um

[1:42:55] >> they're proposing 55 ft. I don't think

[1:42:57] we've approved anything that high yet,

[1:43:00] but I

[1:43:00] >> 60 ft is the max for

[1:43:04] um

[1:43:06] and that that is actually the highest or

[1:43:08] the tallest building allow allowment.

[1:43:12] >> So I was looking through all this

[1:43:13] earlier.

[1:43:15] Yeah, I the commercial highway district

[1:43:18] I I do have questions with because

[1:43:20] general commercial is 35 ft.

[1:43:24] The only other one that is 60 ft is

[1:43:26] business, industrial and technology

[1:43:29] and general industrial.

[1:43:30] >> Uh we approved 45. What's cobblestone?

[1:43:33] Do you know?

[1:43:34] >> I thought it was 60 or or pushing 60.

[1:43:37] >> Cobblestone town center was like four

[1:43:39] stories which typically

[1:43:40] >> well 60 feet I googled it is typically

[1:43:43] four to six stories.

[1:43:47] >> So cobblestone has four. Yeah.

[1:43:51] >> So is this outside of this? You said

[1:43:53] this was highway zoning

[1:43:56] >> commercial highway.

[1:43:57] Is that what you

[1:43:58] said?

[1:43:59] >> Mhm.

[1:44:01] >> So it's 55 ft outside of that or is

[1:44:03] within

[1:44:05] >> I mean don't know that standard off

[1:44:06] hand.

[1:44:07] >> I mean it wouldn't be in compliance if

[1:44:08] it was outside. You [clears throat] mean

[1:44:10] you wouldn't bring it to if it's outside

[1:44:12] of

[1:44:13] >> I mean it yes it must be 60 because we

[1:44:17] don't we're not allowed to go above and

[1:44:18] beyond. So the conditions would only

[1:44:20] restrict things.

[1:44:21] >> Yeah. Yeah, the commercial highway

[1:44:22] district. Um, it's a max of 60 ft with

[1:44:24] sprinklers.

[1:44:26] >> Yeah. So, you know, it wouldn't be in

[1:44:27] front of us if it was outside of the

[1:44:30] >> restricting it by 5t

[1:44:33] >> by condition.

[1:44:35] >> That's right.

[1:44:37] >> Can you just clarify the 40,000 square

[1:44:39] foot? Meaning, is that like total

[1:44:41] development of the property or is that

[1:44:43] per building or we talking about?

[1:44:45] >> That's the building. The ER,

[1:44:48] >> the ER, the standalone ER,

[1:44:50] >> the total development of the property is

[1:44:52] 40,000 inclusive of all buildings.

[1:44:54] >> Yes.

[1:44:55] >> All buildings.

[1:44:56] >> Yes.

[1:44:56] >> Which is the ER, which is the ER, but

[1:44:59] there's also other buildings that

[1:45:00] they're going to be promoting as well as

[1:45:02] part of this. Is there like correct?

[1:45:03] This is not just the ER.

[1:45:05] >> One building proposed on the concept

[1:45:06] plan.

[1:45:06] >> Yeah. So, the one building, the ER

[1:45:08] building is 40,000 square feet, correct?

[1:45:11] Okay.

[1:45:14] Any

[1:45:18] other questions?

[1:45:21] » That's the question.

[1:45:22] >> Okay,

[1:45:23] >> that's where the question came.

[1:45:24] >> If you would uh step up, introduce

[1:45:26] yourself

[1:45:28] who you represent.

[1:45:31] >> And then how do I do you have that on my

[1:45:34] >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:45:36] >> Uh

[1:45:38] getting used to these microphones. Uh

[1:45:40] good evening. Uh Toby Coleman with Smith

[1:45:42] Anderson here on behalf of the property

[1:45:44] owner applicant uh Wake Med. Uh thank

[1:45:47] you for your time this evening and I I

[1:45:50] will endeavor to try to answer the

[1:45:51] questions that have been raised and do

[1:45:53] it in as as efficiently as possible

[1:45:56] which um

[1:45:58] may take a little bit longer than five

[1:45:59] minutes but I'll try to keep it there.

[1:46:01] Um so this is a proposal. This resoning

[1:46:05] is really to facilitate the uh what

[1:46:08] Wiggman calls a health plex essentially

[1:46:10] a standalone emergency department. Um

[1:46:13] see there sort of the basics of it. It's

[1:46:15] a it's a 12 room facility with imaging

[1:46:18] services, lab services, a designated

[1:46:21] ambulance area. Most of the patients are

[1:46:24] treated and sent home. This is the place

[1:46:26] to go when you have broken bones or or

[1:46:28] other sort of urgent uh urgent medical

[1:46:30] needs. Uh that typically right now

[1:46:34] people are driving 20 30 minutes to to

[1:46:36] go to other uh health plexes or to the

[1:46:38] hospital for um and provides sort of

[1:46:41] local access uh to a much needed

[1:46:43] facility here in in town. Um the reason

[1:46:48] that Wake Med is looking to do this is

[1:46:50] it would be the first facility of this

[1:46:52] type in Rollsville would surround would

[1:46:55] uh serve about 18,000 people a year, 50

[1:46:58] people a day. Um would help both uh

[1:47:02] residents of the town as well as other

[1:47:03] folks uh in northern Wake County and the

[1:47:05] surrounding counties. Uh and again, we

[1:47:08] expect that most people will be coming

[1:47:09] by car. Um that's based on the

[1:47:11] experience of the other health plexes uh

[1:47:13] in the county. Um there will be some

[1:47:16] ambulance traffic uh but it'll be like

[1:47:18] 10% of the total traffic. Um just to

[1:47:21] give you a sense on how this fits this

[1:47:23] is uh Wake Med uses a hub and spoke

[1:47:26] model. Um the red there are the

[1:47:29] hospitals um and then you have the

[1:47:32] ambulatory network medical office

[1:47:34] buildings. Uh and then the yellow are

[1:47:36] the health plexus um circled the

[1:47:38] Rollsville one up there at the top. Um

[1:47:41] there's three current health plexes. uh

[1:47:43] one in Brier Creek, one in uh Wendell,

[1:47:47] and one in Apex. Uh that [clears throat]

[1:47:50] we're proposing this one, and then

[1:47:51] there's another uh proposed down in

[1:47:53] Fugquway Verina. Um these are sort of

[1:47:56] the way to sort of get some services uh

[1:47:59] out to folks without bringing the whole

[1:48:01] hospital to you.

[1:48:03] Um

[1:48:05] this is a you I just want to emphasize

[1:48:07] that this is really in line with Wake

[1:48:09] Med's overall mission which is to you

[1:48:11] know improve the health and well-being

[1:48:13] for the community um while providing

[1:48:15] outstanding and compassionate care to

[1:48:17] all. Wake is a nonprofit entity. It's

[1:48:20] been uh the wake the the county's u uh

[1:48:25] health system for the last 65 or so

[1:48:27] years. Um, and so really what we're

[1:48:29] looking to do is is improve the uh

[1:48:31] health care for folks here. Wake me does

[1:48:35] a lot of community benefits uh you know

[1:48:38] a lot of charity care uh and just the

[1:48:41] last year almost 100 million in charity

[1:48:43] care um and provides other community

[1:48:46] benefits uh that that stack up uh over

[1:48:49] the years. Um, in terms of the overview

[1:48:52] to to get to uh a question that

[1:48:54] Commissioner Long uh raised, this zoning

[1:48:58] is just for the ED. So, in other words,

[1:49:00] it will only allow up up to 40,000

[1:49:03] square feet of non-residential space.

[1:49:06] And we envision that'll be a single

[1:49:07] building, about 36,000 square feet. Um

[1:49:11] and uh

[1:49:14] what we've done is in and I'll go into

[1:49:16] this in a little bit more detail, but um

[1:49:18] we've added zoning conditions to really

[1:49:20] address some of the concerns we've heard

[1:49:22] from the neighbors in the Bington

[1:49:23] subdivision, which is immediately to the

[1:49:25] east. Um so that the particular a couple

[1:49:28] of ones that I want to highlight are,

[1:49:30] you know, there's an extra-large minimum

[1:49:31] building setback of 150 ft. um the um

[1:49:36] larger sub u landscape buffers along the

[1:49:39] perimeter of 50 50 feet in width. Um and

[1:49:43] then the other thing to note is is that

[1:49:45] this does not open the door to

[1:49:48] additional development. If if there was

[1:49:49] additional development of any kind on

[1:49:52] this site, we would have to come back.

[1:49:55] The way the zoning conditions are

[1:49:56] written, we'd have to do a new resoning.

[1:49:59] You know, we may not be we may be

[1:50:00] keeping the same sort of commercial

[1:50:02] highway designation, but the idea is is

[1:50:05] when we when we started this process, we

[1:50:07] wanted to make it clear we are asking

[1:50:09] for an emergency department, an

[1:50:10] emergency department only. And if

[1:50:13] there's future development, you know, if

[1:50:15] things took off and and there was a a

[1:50:17] need or a desire for additional um

[1:50:20] services, we would have to come back.

[1:50:21] We'd have to go through the same process

[1:50:23] with the neighbors. We have to go

[1:50:24] through the same process plan commission

[1:50:25] and the board and the board of

[1:50:27] commissioners. So that's that's the

[1:50:29] idea. That's the way we structured it.

[1:50:33] Um, one of the questions we got a lot

[1:50:35] from the neighbors, so I just wanted to

[1:50:37] address it quickly, is why here? Why

[1:50:39] can't you do it somewhere else? Um, and

[1:50:43] you know, there's a lot of there's a lot

[1:50:44] of reasons for that, but we just wanted

[1:50:45] to highlight a couple. Um, it's one of

[1:50:48] the few large undeveloped tracks that's

[1:50:51] sort of designated for civic and

[1:50:53] commercial use under the town's

[1:50:55] comprehensive plan. and it's also right

[1:50:57] next to the existing downtown

[1:50:59] opportunity zone, downtown residential

[1:51:02] zone, which is outlined in purple in

[1:51:03] this map. So, we think this is a an

[1:51:05] excellent site. It's located sort of in

[1:51:08] the central part of town near the

[1:51:09] central business district. The other

[1:51:11] really important part that a lot of

[1:51:12] other sites didn't quite make is is it

[1:51:15] has good road access. So recognizing

[1:51:18] that we've heard some concerns about

[1:51:20] road issues on you know like around the

[1:51:21] schools but these are you know it's at

[1:51:24] the intersection of two two thoroughares

[1:51:27] uh the existing Burlington Mills road

[1:51:30] and then the southern terminus of Grant

[1:51:33] Falls Parkway which will be constructed

[1:51:35] in part as part of this development.

[1:51:39] Um we have met with the neighbors a

[1:51:41] couple times and had other conversations

[1:51:43] outside of neighborhood meetings. Um,

[1:51:45] and you know, I would, we heard a lot of

[1:51:47] concerns from neighbors. I'm sure you'll

[1:51:49] hear some of them again tonight. Um, I

[1:51:51] would put those into sort of generally

[1:51:52] four buckets. Um, one was if you're

[1:51:56] going to be here, move the health plex

[1:51:58] as far away as possible. We've been

[1:52:00] working on that. The zoning condition

[1:52:02] sets sort of a minimum standard of 150

[1:52:03] ft, but as I'll detail, we've been

[1:52:05] working to try to figure out and do more

[1:52:08] than that. Um, on top of that, um, the

[1:52:12] other we also were asked, can you

[1:52:14] provide us additional buffering? That's

[1:52:16] where the perimeter buffers and other

[1:52:18] things come in. Can you help address our

[1:52:20] concerns about we don't want to see it

[1:52:21] out of our backyard and also concerns

[1:52:24] about light impacts, noise impacts,

[1:52:26] things like that? We're also asked, how

[1:52:29] do we how can you help us if we're going

[1:52:31] to have an emergency department here?

[1:52:33] There's a lot of concern about

[1:52:35] ambulances coming in for, you know, a

[1:52:37] facility that's going to be open 24/7.

[1:52:39] How do you address that? How can we

[1:52:41] address that? And then finally, we heard

[1:52:43] about traffic um

[1:52:46] you know, concerns about not just

[1:52:48] Burlington Mills um although you know

[1:52:51] the as as been noted um the TIA found

[1:52:54] generally that there wasn't going to be

[1:52:56] significant impact on existing

[1:52:58] Burlington existing traffic on

[1:53:00] Burlington Mills. Um, we also heard a

[1:53:03] lot of concern from uh Bington neighbors

[1:53:05] about how this was going to impact them

[1:53:07] because that portion of Granite Falls

[1:53:09] Parkway that that is supposed to go

[1:53:10] through Bar Bington has not been built

[1:53:13] yet. It's something that's on that the

[1:53:15] town is going to do. But we did hear a

[1:53:17] lot of concerns about oh now you're

[1:53:18] bringing us traffic through to us and we

[1:53:20] and so that sort of one of the things

[1:53:22] talked a lot the neighbors about and the

[1:53:24] town got involved and talked a little

[1:53:26] bit about the town's plans as well.

[1:53:30] um in terms of the minimum setback. So

[1:53:32] you can see here um what we've done is

[1:53:36] establish a minimum 150 foot building

[1:53:38] setback which is that that uh black

[1:53:41] north south line. Um and it is zoning

[1:53:45] condition number four. Um the idea there

[1:53:48] is it's about you know about six times

[1:53:51] what would normally be required under

[1:53:52] the LDO. And the idea there is just to

[1:53:55] set a minimum that the building can't

[1:53:57] get too close.

[1:53:59] But what we always told the neighbors

[1:54:01] was we will try to get further away from

[1:54:03] you. But we don't quite know what that's

[1:54:06] going to be because we need to do

[1:54:07] additional work um geotechnical surveys

[1:54:11] uh to figure out what we can do. Um I

[1:54:14] think as has been mentioned in all the

[1:54:16] meetings and I know this is something

[1:54:17] that you all are familiar with uh

[1:54:19] there's a lot of rock around here and so

[1:54:22] we didn't want to make promises we

[1:54:24] couldn't keep which is why we set a

[1:54:26] minimum 150 foot standard and said we're

[1:54:28] going to work to move it further and so

[1:54:31] ever since the neighborhood meetings in

[1:54:32] the spring um we've been Wake and its

[1:54:36] team has been doing geotechnical surveys

[1:54:38] to try to figure out you know is are we

[1:54:41] able to move the building further

[1:54:43] uh west away from Bington. And the good

[1:54:46] news is is those the information from

[1:54:49] those surveys has started coming back

[1:54:50] and Wakeman is very optimistic that it

[1:54:52] will be able to move it further uh

[1:54:55] further up. Um the uh further to the

[1:54:58] west and to the north. Um exactly how

[1:55:01] far we don't know because we haven't

[1:55:03] done the site planning yet. But we are,

[1:55:06] Wake is committed to doing that and and

[1:55:10] trying to move it as far as possible

[1:55:12] both to be good neighbors um and to you

[1:55:16] try to address those concerns from

[1:55:17] neighbors.

[1:55:20] Um

[1:55:22] the in terms of the large landscape

[1:55:24] buffer um you know basically this was a

[1:55:27] request from neighbors um again for you

[1:55:30] know as much buffer as possible. Um the

[1:55:33] standard would be in the LDO would be 25

[1:55:35] feet of landscape buffer. We basically

[1:55:37] doubled that. Um there's two different

[1:55:40] types of buffers that you're seeing. Um

[1:55:42] on the north side of Grant Falls is a

[1:55:45] large landscape buffer with undisturbed

[1:55:48] vegetation. Those are because there's

[1:55:49] existing trees. The idea is is we're not

[1:55:52] going to mess with that. South of uh

[1:55:55] basically future Grant Falls, there are

[1:55:57] no tree existing trees. So that'll be

[1:55:59] landscaped. that's going to be uh a

[1:56:01] pretty heavily planted area. Um that

[1:56:04] goes that's we took the standard

[1:56:07] planting requirements and we put in um

[1:56:10] an additional uh set of evergreen trees

[1:56:12] as a requirement uh nine per 100 ft. So

[1:56:15] the idea there is is that um you know in

[1:56:18] addition to having you know a buffer

[1:56:21] during you know fall, spring and the

[1:56:24] summer those evergreen trees will help

[1:56:25] ensure that they have a year round

[1:56:27] opaque buffer.

[1:56:31] Um and then finally we did add another

[1:56:34] we have proposed another uh zoning

[1:56:36] condition. Um it came up this was a

[1:56:40] request that sort of came up through the

[1:56:43] neighbors and some communications uh

[1:56:45] with staff about uh you know the desire

[1:56:48] that if we were going to have the

[1:56:50] ambulance drop off you know currently in

[1:56:52] the concept plan the ambulance drop off is shown on the eastern side of

[1:56:56] the building. Um and so there was a

[1:56:58] concern that there would not be adequate

[1:57:01] screening for that ambulance drop off

[1:57:05] particularly

[1:57:08] excuse me

[1:57:11] particularly right here basically where

[1:57:14] Granite Falls meets the property line

[1:57:17] and the reasoning there is

[1:57:19] um and so the the request was can you

[1:57:22] add additional screening for an

[1:57:24] ambulance drop off that is there so

[1:57:26] we've proposed a zoning an an additional

[1:57:28] zoning condition number eight that

[1:57:31] basically provides that for any

[1:57:32] ambulance drop off that's within 150 ft

[1:57:35] of Granite Falls Parkway. So not the

[1:57:37] property line but the actual road will

[1:57:40] have to meet the screening standards

[1:57:41] that are in in the LDO for loading docks

[1:57:45] or other sort of things like that. So um

[1:57:49] and the idea there is

[1:57:52] that that should provide significant

[1:57:54] additional screening if the ambulance

[1:57:57] drop off is there. Again, one of the

[1:57:58] things that that Wake me is committed to

[1:58:01] doing as part of the site plan process

[1:58:04] if this resoning is approved is to look

[1:58:08] at moving the ambulance drop off to the

[1:58:10] other side of the building, which should

[1:58:12] also help address some of the concerns

[1:58:14] from neighbors about that.

[1:58:17] And just so you know, there's obviously

[1:58:19] a concept. This is all coming from a

[1:58:21] concept plan that's attached to the

[1:58:23] resoning. I want to emphasize

[1:58:26] just like um I want to emphasize that

[1:58:29] the concept plan is not binding in terms

[1:58:32] of the location of the building. You

[1:58:34] know, the idea there is it gives people

[1:58:36] an idea of what can be done, but it

[1:58:39] doesn't prevent us from moving the

[1:58:40] building further away. So, if you

[1:58:42] approve the resoning, you're not saying

[1:58:44] the building has to be here. We can move

[1:58:46] the building west. We can put the

[1:58:49] ambulance entrance on the other side of

[1:58:51] the building. Um, it it allows for all

[1:58:53] that and we will continue to work with

[1:58:55] neighbors and keep neighbors updated uh

[1:58:58] about that process.

[1:59:00] In terms of ambulance um noise and

[1:59:04] sirens, this was a concern we heard. Um,

[1:59:07] one of the things that I personally

[1:59:09] learned that I I wasn't fully aware of

[1:59:10] is is that um, Wake EMT, which is our

[1:59:13] which is the ambulance provider for Wake

[1:59:15] County, um, has largely been moving away

[1:59:18] from having its ambulances run sirens

[1:59:20] and run um, its lights. Um, this has

[1:59:24] been something that's been happening

[1:59:24] over the last couple of years. The

[1:59:26] background is is basically they found

[1:59:28] that in a lot of cases it causes more

[1:59:30] problems than it helps. And so our

[1:59:33] expectation would be that uh consistent

[1:59:35] with other health plexes most people

[1:59:37] would be coming in private car without

[1:59:39] sirens or lights about 80 90% of people.

[1:59:42] That means about 5 to 10 ambulances

[1:59:44] every 24 hours. And based on those uh

[1:59:48] standards most of those ambulances would

[1:59:50] not be running lights or sirens when

[1:59:52] they arrive. So hopefully that would

[1:59:54] reduce the impact of that.

[1:59:58] Neighbors were very concerned about

[1:59:59] that. And so one of the things we did

[2:00:01] was work to connect neighbors with uh

[2:00:04] WakeMS so they could have have

[2:00:08] conversations directly with WakeMS about

[2:00:10] those concerns.

[2:00:14] Um finally I want to note a couple other

[2:00:16] things. Um we heard sort of in addition

[2:00:19] to all the other impacts we heard some

[2:00:21] concerns about site lighting, parking

[2:00:24] lot lighting and other things impacting

[2:00:25] neighbors.

[2:00:27] We looked at, you know, should do we

[2:00:29] need to do a zoning condition and

[2:00:31] ultimately what we concluded was your

[2:00:33] LDO already handles a lot of these

[2:00:35] issues. So, um, your LDO has a

[2:00:38] requirement that all the building and

[2:00:40] parking lot lights have to be cut off

[2:00:41] lighting, so they can't be shooting up

[2:00:43] in the air. Um, the, uh, there's

[2:00:46] [clears throat] a restriction. We can't

[2:00:47] put outdoor lighting within 52 feet of

[2:00:49] the shared property line. And although, uh, parking lot lighting poles

[2:00:56] can be up to 30 feet tall in the middle

[2:00:59] of a parking lot. You have a requirement

[2:01:01] that basically requires the poles go

[2:01:03] down and get lower as you get to the

[2:01:04] edge. And so as you get closer to

[2:01:07] Bington, the tallest parking lot white

[2:01:09] lighting poles could be would be 12 to

[2:01:11] 15 ft. So we felt like that was

[2:01:14] sufficient to address a lot of the

[2:01:15] concerns related to lighting. Um this

[2:01:19] again is just sort of an overall summary

[2:01:21] of the uh traffic impacts. Um, a lot of

[2:01:25] where the what the TIA calls for are

[2:01:27] improvements and turn lanes onto Granite

[2:01:29] Falls from Bington Mills and or excuse

[2:01:33] me, Burlington Mills and um some turn

[2:01:36] lanes into the site from Granite Falls

[2:01:39] Parkway. Um the um you know again there

[2:01:44] is a there's sort of a um two-phase set

[2:01:49] of improvements along Granite Falls that

[2:01:51] be part of this development. Wake Med

[2:01:53] would be doing the improvements for

[2:01:55] Granite Falls on its portion of the road

[2:01:58] of uh the property. So in other words,

[2:01:59] from Burlington Mills up to the Bington

[2:02:03] subdivision property line that would be

[2:02:06] built by Wake Med as part of the

[2:02:08] development.

[2:02:09] >> Can you show me where that is? Because

[2:02:10] that was a question that I had. Sure. If

[2:02:12] you all were building part of that,

[2:02:14] >> the the the portion outlined in blue

[2:02:16] >> the blue part

[2:02:17] >> is is wake the blue part

[2:02:19] >> is w meds. The portion that's outlined

[2:02:21] in red

[2:02:22] >> is the right of way that has been

[2:02:24] dedicated for Granite Falls in in the

[2:02:27] Bington subdivision, but for whatever

[2:02:30] reason, and I don't I don't know the

[2:02:32] reason, was not required to be built at

[2:02:34] the time of development,

[2:02:35] >> right?

[2:02:35] >> And so, as a result, it doesn't exist

[2:02:37] right now. Mhm.

[2:02:39] >> Um, we've had some conversations and

[2:02:42] obviously, you know, staff can speak to

[2:02:44] this better than we can, but it's our

[2:02:46] understanding that the town does have a plan in place to construct that

[2:02:51] portion of Grand Falls has has sort of

[2:02:55] set that aside in your capital budget.

[2:02:57] Um, so that is a project that the town

[2:02:59] will be undertaking in the next few

[2:03:01] years. There are some we did hear some

[2:03:04] com some concerns from neighbors about,

[2:03:06] you know, How can you fit it all?

[2:03:08] Because the the Granite Falls Parkway

[2:03:11] cross-section that the town wants is

[2:03:14] relatively wide, wide sidewalks, things

[2:03:17] like that.

[2:03:19] What was dedicated in Bington may not be

[2:03:22] sufficient to accommodate all that. The

[2:03:25] town is aware of that as I understand it

[2:03:28] and we'll work to accommodate that what

[2:03:30] they've got.

[2:03:32] Um,

[2:03:34] so that's about it. We are available for

[2:03:36] questions. Um, I'll be remiss in in not

[2:03:38] mentioning that I've got Tom Cavender uh

[2:03:42] with Wake Med, Nanny Curtis with Wake

[2:03:44] Med, as well as um [clears throat] our

[2:03:47] team from Timley Horn if you have any

[2:03:48] engineering or traffic questions.

[2:03:52] >> Okay, thank you. Um, do you have plans

[2:03:55] for anybody to present anything else or

[2:03:57] just answer questions? So, um, so before

[2:04:01] I open up public hearing, does the board

[2:04:03] have any questions for the attorney here

[2:04:06] or anybody from Wake Med? And y'all know

[2:04:08] Matt. He's a transportation engineer.

[2:04:12] Um, anybody have any questions?

[2:04:14] >> Yes, here.

[2:04:15] >> I have one question. I I didn't I was

[2:04:18] still trying to get back to um you you

[2:04:21] leaned into some things that why

[2:04:23] Roseville was chosen,

[2:04:24] >> but I'm more curious of the data that

[2:04:27] was used because there was data driven

[2:04:28] decisions to choose Roseville. I I heard

[2:04:31] you say the location of tri proximity of

[2:04:33] traffic and those things, but I didn't

[2:04:35] really hear what numbers were being used

[2:04:38] to make that evaluation. Would you be

[2:04:40] speaking to that or would that be the

[2:04:42] weight team? Tom

[2:04:46] >> because I think that's one of the things

[2:04:47] that the citizens will want to know is

[2:04:49] um beyond

[2:04:51] um

[2:04:52] roads and traffic um why us? So what

[2:04:55] kind of data was driven to make that

[2:04:56] decision? We were [clears throat] felt

[2:04:58] that Roseville was an underserved area

[2:05:00] medically and that with its location and

[2:05:03] proximity to Wickman North and to

[2:05:06] Raleigh campus which is what 30 minutes

[2:05:08] south of 401, this area needed health

[2:05:13] care brought to their community in the

[2:05:15] form of of an emergency department to

[2:05:17] take care of those people in critical

[2:05:19] need that prevented them from having to

[2:05:22] travel distances to see medical to seek

[2:05:24] high level medical care. So that was it

[2:05:27] was a business plan based on need of

[2:05:31] this community and of this region.

[2:05:33] >> Was it were the demographics included?

[2:05:35] Was it based upon you know seniors

[2:05:37] coming to the area like what what type

[2:05:39] of again

[2:05:40] >> demographics age growing population

[2:05:43] travel distance time travel distance on

[2:05:46] radiuses. We have a corporate planning

[2:05:48] department that does all of those kind

[2:05:50] of analytics that drives where we like

[2:05:54] to place these kind of high these highly

[2:05:57] functional facilities.

[2:05:58] >> And I'm assuming with those analytics

[2:06:00] there's like a top five that you say hey

[2:06:02] these meet the marks before we do that.

[2:06:08] >> I would say there's there's those

[2:06:09] analytics have the top five like you

[2:06:11] said but there's a little bit of gut ant

[2:06:14] anticipation.

[2:06:15] >> Okay. We know that the Roseville area is

[2:06:18] a fast growing community. I think it's

[2:06:21] like 8% projected and growing beyond

[2:06:24] where we are today. And we felt that

[2:06:26] this was a great location and a great

[2:06:28] time to bring this kind of service to

[2:06:30] this community that can have that has

[2:06:32] the capacity to serve and match the

[2:06:34] growing needs of this group.

[2:06:37] >> Thank you.

[2:06:38] >> Did you introduce yourself? Did I miss?

[2:06:40] >> I will. Tom [clears throat] Cavender.

[2:06:42] I'm the VP of construction and

[2:06:44] facilities for Wake me.

[2:06:46] >> Tom, Tom Tom, one follow-up question to

[2:06:48] um Commissioner Long's question there

[2:06:51] about how it got to Roseville. I think

[2:06:55] you know, you did a good job answering

[2:06:56] demographics, all that stuff, but it's a

[2:06:59] competitive process at the state level

[2:07:00] to get a hospital or emergency facility

[2:07:03] anywhere. So, it was like a competitive

[2:07:06] process with several other medical

[2:07:10] providers and Wake Med uh got the

[2:07:14] approval to put it here. Is that right?

[2:07:16] [clears throat]

[2:07:17] >> You're correct on a portion of that. The state medical facilities plan has

[2:07:23] several different categories. One is a

[2:07:25] competitive process which is like

[2:07:27] operating rooms, patient beds and then

[2:07:30] there's other services and the emergency

[2:07:32] these standalone emergency departments

[2:07:34] do require a co that became that got

[2:07:37] approved by the state. Um and that the

[2:07:41] state looks at the demographics. They

[2:07:45] look at the need and and and what will

[2:07:47] this do to this community as part of

[2:07:49] their state review. Um, but there's but

[2:07:53] it did but it did include a certificate

[2:07:55] of need to be able to to be awarded this

[2:07:58] location.

[2:08:00] >> Thank you. Any other questions for Tom?

[2:08:02] If not,

[2:08:03] >> I have a couple of questions, but I'm

[2:08:06] This is probably more engineering

[2:08:08] related,

[2:08:09] >> but uh

[2:08:11] I understand that you guys have already

[2:08:13] been looking at like the soil

[2:08:14] composition and being able to determine

[2:08:17] if the site can be moved further to the

[2:08:22] west side.

[2:08:24] How much more time is needed to be able

[2:08:26] to determine um the the availability of

[2:08:30] the land use plus the um and how much

[2:08:33] more time is needed to determine the

[2:08:34] feasibility of moving um the ambulance

[2:08:37] bay from the east side to the west side

[2:08:41] >> moving the ambulance bay [clears throat]

[2:08:43] is something we can do relatively

[2:08:44] quickly because what we would

[2:08:46] essentially do is invert the design and

[2:08:48] structure the soil the soil

[2:08:50] investigations are ongoing. We know that

[2:08:53] there's a ridge of rock that goes

[2:08:55] through a portion of that

[2:08:56] >> and we're trying to position the

[2:08:59] facility to help help us with our cost

[2:09:04] for sure

[2:09:05] >> as well as position it so it's still

[2:09:08] accessible on the site itself

[2:09:11] >> um from future granite Falls Parkway.

[2:09:14] So, and then uh I guess the other

[2:09:16] question too is that if if we do approve

[2:09:18] tonight,

[2:09:21] how do we know what kind of conditions

[2:09:24] can we set forth to

[2:09:27] make sure that this is still being

[2:09:29] pursued? You know, because really the

[2:09:31] ultimate setup would be that the

[2:09:33] ambulance bay is on the other side and

[2:09:34] the building is pushed further to the

[2:09:36] west. Um

[2:09:40] you know, if we were to approve today,

[2:09:41] then you can just say, "Yep, here we go.

[2:09:43] we've got the plan, we can't move

[2:09:44] anything. You know, what insuranceances

[2:09:47] would we have that you would still be

[2:09:49] pursuing um changing

[2:09:52] the location of this to a more optimal

[2:09:55] site for residents and neighbors?

[2:09:59] >> I [clears throat] think it's a situation

[2:10:00] where we are going to do we respect the

[2:10:03] neighborhoods

[2:10:04] >> and we respect what and in the time that

[2:10:06] as Toby indicated the public hearings we

[2:10:09] had or the neighborhood meetings we had.

[2:10:11] uh we understand the challenges that

[2:10:13] this facility may provide

[2:10:16] >> and we'll we'll strive to do whatever we

[2:10:18] can do to minimize and mitigate those.

[2:10:21] Um I don't So it's essentially a trust

[2:10:24] factor.

[2:10:25] >> Okay. And just because I didn't write it

[2:10:27] down, could you tell me again just um

[2:10:29] how much longer [clears throat] it's

[2:10:30] going to take with the feasibility

[2:10:31] studies of the land? I do not have that

[2:10:34] timeline for when we'll make a a defined

[2:10:37] uh position or or approval

[2:10:40] >> yet, but I know that we're completing

[2:10:42] all those soul borings as as we speak.

[2:10:45] >> Okay.

[2:10:46] >> I would say 30 days maybe. Okay. Five

[2:10:49] days.

[2:10:50] >> Like between one to two months.

[2:10:52] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[2:10:58] » Okay. Uh attorney, do you have a

[2:11:00] comment? I do. Uh based upon uh comment

[2:11:05] for by the attorney uh for the applicant

[2:11:08] uh there was a comment about uh being

[2:11:11] able to shift the building and the

[2:11:13] drives to the west and northwest. The

[2:11:16] way the conditions were submitted uh to

[2:11:19] the town

[2:11:21] that's arguably not permitted. that is

[2:11:23] the concept plan is the concept plan and

[2:11:25] those are committed elements and drive

[2:11:28] location and building location is to be

[2:11:31] where the board is shown it is to be uh

[2:11:34] I would suggest uh to the applicant and

[2:11:37] to the town that condition uh have a

[2:11:40] sentence added to it if that's the will

[2:11:42] of the applicant um and the board uh

[2:11:46] that it include the sentence

[2:11:48] notwithstanding the foregoing building

[2:11:50] and drive locations may be shifted west

[2:11:52] and to the northwest to increase

[2:11:55] distances between such committed

[2:11:57] elements and the eastern property line

[2:12:01] so that

[2:12:02] >> so

[2:12:02] >> we don't close that off

[2:12:04] >> you the staff cannot

[2:12:07] >> even if it's a great idea and wakeed or

[2:12:10] the uh future hospital that that runs it

[2:12:14] uh wants to go farther as written I

[2:12:17] don't know that that would be allowed so

[2:12:19] I I would suggest that that small

[2:12:21] revision and I'm comfortable with that

[2:12:22] language as as recited.

[2:12:24] >> That is that is fine. Yeah, we're more

[2:12:27] than fine with that. We had we had

[2:12:29] attempted and obviously this is a team sport in a lot of ways. We

[2:12:33] attempted to try to try to achieve that

[2:12:35] with the current version number two, but

[2:12:37] I think that that

[2:12:39] more clarifies it,

[2:12:41] >> excuse me, clarifies it better. Um,

[2:12:44] excuse my language. Um the um the other

[2:12:47] thing I want to note is is that we have

[2:12:49] been in communication

[2:12:51] um with the uh Bington neighborhood

[2:12:53] leadership uh the HOA leadership. Um and

[2:12:57] one of the things we've talked about

[2:12:58] Commissioner Bernard is that you know

[2:13:01] where the rubber is really going to hit

[2:13:02] [clears throat] the road in terms of

[2:13:03] location is going to be with the site

[2:13:06] plan. And so we we've already started

[2:13:08] talking with the neighborhood about how

[2:13:11] do we keep you all informed about the

[2:13:14] site plan process because it is

[2:13:16] administrative and so how do we make

[2:13:18] sure that that they're getting access

[2:13:21] and seeing that and know that that is

[2:13:22] there. And so we're we're committed to

[2:13:24] that. um both because we want to be good

[2:13:27] neighbors but also because we recognize

[2:13:29] that if this site ultimately grows if

[2:13:33] there's other things that happen here we

[2:13:35] will be coming back

[2:13:38] and I would anticipate that if we come

[2:13:40] back there'll be somebody with memory

[2:13:42] here and they'll be looking at it and

[2:13:44] saying if we don't work with the

[2:13:46] neighbors you said you were going to

[2:13:47] work with the neighbors last time and so

[2:13:50] we we recognize there's long memories

[2:13:52] and that there's both reasons as

[2:13:54] neighbors to do it, but also practical

[2:13:56] reasons to get it done.

[2:13:59] >> You guys considered a portal for

[2:14:01] Barington just to have them strictly for

[2:14:04] them to see u development? Well, I mean

[2:14:07] really for anyone, but to designate for

[2:14:09] them a portal that will help them

[2:14:12] identify and see your site plans on the

[2:14:15] go. So that way the administratively you

[2:14:17] don't have to do it consistently and

[2:14:19] they can go back to it. And then in that

[2:14:20] section, us as the board will also have

[2:14:22] access to it as well. So that way it

[2:14:24] keeps everyone informed. It's digitized

[2:14:26] and it gives you an opportunity to keep

[2:14:27] real-time updates. Is that possible?

[2:14:30] >> That's certainly possible. I think I'd

[2:14:32] want to talk with uh your planning staff

[2:14:34] because I know that with your new

[2:14:35] system, a lot of that stuff has become

[2:14:37] more available through the city through

[2:14:40] the town system.

[2:14:42] >> Anytime there's an approved plan or an

[2:14:44] action by the board, all that gets

[2:14:46] loaded up to the planning page of the

[2:14:49] website. So there will be a already is

[2:14:52] probably uh a growing

[2:14:56] item for Wake Med. So

[2:14:59] >> but but I'm really was just referring to

[2:15:01] the Barington

[2:15:04] >> just really for those leadership that

[2:15:06] you were mentioning. Yeah.

[2:15:07] >> Obviously we have access to the

[2:15:09] dashboard but to to accommodate their

[2:15:12] angst. Is that something that you would

[2:15:13] be willing to do if you will?

[2:15:15] >> I I don't know. That's something that

[2:15:16] the the the Bington residents will have

[2:15:19] to sign off on, but just trying to come

[2:15:21] up with ways to alleviate um some

[2:15:24] administrative but also some some peace

[2:15:26] of mind with communication.

[2:15:27] >> Yeah, I think that's a great idea and I

[2:15:29] think I was just looking over at the

[2:15:31] Wakeman team just to make sure they're

[2:15:32] comfortable with it and they are. Um, I

[2:15:35] think what we'd want to do, um, is

[2:15:38] figure out, again, work with your staff

[2:15:40] to figure out what is the best way to do

[2:15:41] that to make sure that

[2:15:44] there's confidence

[2:15:46] that they're getting all the information

[2:15:48] and it's coming. I think the more that

[2:15:49] it can come from the town and the town

[2:15:52] can say this is the stuff that we have

[2:15:53] in our

[2:15:55] um in our system as the as things are

[2:15:57] going through the process, I think the

[2:15:59] more helpful that'll be. Um, that's just

[2:16:02] based on my experience of, you know,

[2:16:04] sometimes people suspect that if you if

[2:16:07] it's coming straight from the applicant

[2:16:08] that they're giving you just what what

[2:16:10] they want you to see sort of thing.

[2:16:13] >> Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate that. An

[2:16:15] email of the question.

[2:16:16] >> Uh, Matt,

[2:16:22] how are you this evening, Matt?

[2:16:24] >> Doing well. Um, my name is Matt Peach,

[2:16:26] Stantech Consulting Services, uh,

[2:16:28] traffic engineer. Very happy to be in

[2:16:30] front of you tonight. happy to answer

[2:16:32] any questions you may have. Commissioner

[2:16:34] Paul,

[2:16:35] >> so have you ever been stuck in the

[2:16:37] traffic of the parents picking up their

[2:16:39] children from the middle school?

[2:16:41] >> Uh uh yes, I have. Uh well, my

[2:16:45] daughter's currently in elementary

[2:16:46] school, so I do get caught in a parent

[2:16:48] carpool quite often, only at a

[2:16:50] elementary school.

[2:16:51] >> I'm talking on Burlington Mills Road.

[2:16:53] >> On Burlington Mills Road, I have not.

[2:16:55] >> Okay. I've been stuck there literally

[2:16:57] for 20 minutes not moving a single foot.

[2:17:01] So, and it's a safety hazard. It

[2:17:04] shouldn't happen, but it does twice a

[2:17:07] day.

[2:17:08] >> How does that factor into the 1500 plus

[2:17:13] uh vehicles that are going to come in

[2:17:15] and out of the Wake Med campus every

[2:17:18] day?

[2:17:18] >> Yes. So

[2:17:19] >> because it's not rush hour, 2:20 in the

[2:17:21] afternoon is not rush hour. So it

[2:17:22] doesn't factor into your analysis, but

[2:17:24] it is a huge problem. And my

[2:17:28] understanding is that someday Burlington

[2:17:31] Mills will be a four-lane road. My guess

[2:17:33] is it's probably not for another 15 or

[2:17:35] 20 years.

[2:17:37] >> Correct. Um so there's there's a couple

[2:17:39] of different ways we go about looking at that and then those concerns. Um,

[2:17:45] obviously we study both the the morning

[2:17:47] peak and the evening peak, right? Uh,

[2:17:49] the evening peak doesn't overlap with

[2:17:51] the middle school. Um, because the

[2:17:53] evening peak typically occurs from 400

[2:17:55] p.m. to 6 p.m., right? Um, so in 4 p.m.

[2:17:59] to 6 p.m. we actually see better

[2:18:00] operations along Burlington Mills Road

[2:18:03] than we do from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

[2:18:06] because of exactly the middle school,

[2:18:08] right? Um, so what [clears throat]

[2:18:09] you'll see in the study is we do see

[2:18:11] longer delays in the morning. Um, but

[2:18:14] that's attributed to middle school

[2:18:15] traffic, right? Um, now what I will say

[2:18:18] about this facility is that this

[2:18:20] facility and and you know, please don't

[2:18:22] quote me on this, but this is a facility

[2:18:25] that's going to be open 24 hours a day,

[2:18:28] seven days a week. Um, so I would, you

[2:18:31] know, from from my per personal and

[2:18:33] professional opinion, I would to expect

[2:18:35] to see some staff changes. Um would

[2:18:38] those staff changes occur right when uh

[2:18:41] the middle school is running a morning

[2:18:43] carp pool? That that I can't say. Um

[2:18:46] what I will say is what we studied um in

[2:18:49] the traffic study and you saw it on the

[2:18:51] earlier slide was actually medical

[2:18:53] office building. Uh the reason we did

[2:18:55] that uh was because as part of the LDO

[2:18:59] uh during any reasonzoning we're

[2:19:01] required to study a range of uses that

[2:19:03] are proposed and we intentionally select

[2:19:06] the highest generating use. Um so

[2:19:09] there's there is data that says that a

[2:19:12] freestanding emergency department

[2:19:14] generates so much traffic. It's actually

[2:19:17] less than what we studied in the traffic

[2:19:19] study because of the way the LDO is

[2:19:21] written. Um, so we study medical dental

[2:19:23] because not only does it generate more

[2:19:25] traffic throughout a day, it generates

[2:19:28] more traffic during those peak hours. So

[2:19:30] we wanted to kind of get the highest um

[2:19:33] generating impact during that am peak

[2:19:36] hour because we know operations along

[2:19:38] Burlington Mills Road is not great

[2:19:40] whenever the middle school is is in

[2:19:42] session. Um,

[2:19:42] >> yeah. And my concern is that parent who

[2:19:44] has a child with a broken leg or broken

[2:19:46] arm and they get stuck in that 2:20 in

[2:19:49] the afternoon traffic and can't move.

[2:19:51] There's no way to go around it.

[2:19:53] >> Yes.

[2:19:54] >> And no way to turn around and go

[2:19:55] backwards. So that's not a statistic for

[2:19:59] your TIA. It's a fact that's going to

[2:20:02] happen at some point if there's nothing

[2:20:04] to remediate that.

[2:20:06] >> That is correct and that that is that is

[2:20:08] definitely a definitely a concern. Um I

[2:20:11] will say that the uh Granite Falls

[2:20:14] extension will will help in providing

[2:20:16] another route. Right.

[2:20:17] >> Of course. Now for someone west of the

[2:20:20] Wake Med Center on Burlington Mills.

[2:20:22] >> That is also correct. So yes, west west

[2:20:24] of there the the connectivity is is not

[2:20:27] as great as it is to the east.

[2:20:29] >> Okay, that's all I got for you. Thank

[2:20:31] you, sir.

[2:20:32] >> I have a question. Yes, ma'am.

[2:20:34] >> You have a question? No.

[2:20:35] >> Go right ahead. Okay. So, um,

[2:20:39] in the past when the traffic analysis

[2:20:41] were done, they were based on 2% growth.

[2:20:45] >> And in this one, I saw 1%.

[2:20:47] >> That's correct.

[2:20:48] >> Is why is that? I don't want to

[2:20:49] speculate.

[2:20:50] >> Yeah. So, historically, we have chosen

[2:20:52] 2% in Rollsville because, as you know,

[2:20:54] Rollsville is is growing. Um, in in this

[2:20:57] instance, we we chose 1% because of the

[2:21:00] excessive amount of development in this

[2:21:02] area, right? Not only do we have

[2:21:05] Wahbrook, we have Wahbrook Flats and and

[2:21:08] other kind of developments in the area.

[2:21:10] So, we intentionally chose a lower kind

[2:21:14] of background growth rate, if you will,

[2:21:16] because we were accounting for so many

[2:21:18] known developments in the area. Pierce

[2:21:20] Farm, um gosh, there's there's a few

[2:21:23] others.

[2:21:23] >> Is that like catchup catchup numbers?

[2:21:26] Cat t catch up, not ketchup. Um, is that like um because the pool is so

[2:21:35] big right now? That is that why 2%

[2:21:38] wasn't used and the 1% was

[2:21:40] >> because the known developments are so

[2:21:42] large. Yes, that's correct.

[2:21:44] >> Okay.

[2:21:44] >> Well, I heard the applicant talk about

[2:21:46] an 8% growth rate and that was the part

[2:21:48] of the attraction to be here.

[2:21:50] >> And then you're using a 1%

[2:21:53] >> well a 1% flat rate applied to to every,

[2:21:57] you know, intersection in the study

[2:21:59] area. But on top of that, what traffic

[2:22:02] we know is coming from, you know, the

[2:22:03] Pierce Farms and the Wall Brooks and

[2:22:05] etc., we factor that in too. So the

[2:22:08] actual growth rate is much much higher.

[2:22:10] >> Yes.

[2:22:10] >> Um now I I will say Commissioner Sne um

[2:22:13] we studied uh an opening year of 2027 as

[2:22:17] that was what was directed to us. So

[2:22:20] using a 1% versus a 2% growth rate isn't

[2:22:23] going to make a substantial difference

[2:22:25] in the results because of the short time

[2:22:27] horizon.

[2:22:27] >> And those other developments, all of

[2:22:29] those other developments were already

[2:22:30] factored in. You said

[2:22:31] >> correct.

[2:22:32] >> Okay.

[2:22:32] >> Y

[2:22:34] >> that's all I have. Thank you.

[2:22:36] >> Any other questions for Matt?

[2:22:38] >> Thank you, Matt.

[2:22:39] >> Thank you.

[2:22:39] >> Any other questions? See you, Matt.

[2:22:41] >> Thank you.

[2:22:41] >> Any other questions for the applicant?

[2:22:46] Lovely.

[2:22:46] >> Not for the staff and we'll open up the

[2:22:48] public hearing.

[2:22:51] Uh, anything closing comments from the

[2:22:54] staff before I open up public hearing?

[2:22:56] >> No, sir.

[2:23:13] Thank you. Appreciate that.

[2:23:16] Okay, I will open up the public hearing

[2:23:22] and um this is for legislative hearing

[2:23:24] RZ25-06

[2:23:27] and RZ25-1

[2:23:30] and ANX26-2.

[2:23:34] Um we [snorts] have one person to sign

[2:23:36] up and uh Terry Keenan come on down. uh

[2:23:42] we limit to three minutes but being we

[2:23:44] don't have one person it's not really

[2:23:47] >> a lot of people to speak so um

[2:23:51] >> but keep you [laughter]

[2:23:53] keep it brief as as possible thank you

[2:23:55] >> keep as brief as possible um

[2:23:58] >> good evening mayor commissioners um as

[2:24:00] most of you know my name is Tony Kenyan

[2:24:02] I'm a Rosewood resident I'm a Rosewood

[2:24:04] business owner I'm also the Bington HOA

[2:24:06] dire one of the Barington HOA directors

[2:24:09] um I want to begin by making one thing

[2:24:11] very Clear. I support Wake coming to

[2:24:13] Roseville. Our growing community

[2:24:14] deserves timely access to highquality

[2:24:16] emergency care. My concern tonight is

[2:24:19] not whether we need this facility. My

[2:24:20] concern is whether the zoning decision

[2:24:22] being made tonight adequately protects

[2:24:24] our community. Not only the project

[2:24:27] being not only for the project being

[2:24:29] presented today, but for the future. I

[2:24:31] have three specific questions. May not

[2:24:34] ask all three because a lot of those

[2:24:35] were already answered. Jen kind of was

[2:24:37] all in my Kool-Aid. Um, first is

[2:24:40] traffic. The traffic impact analysis

[2:24:42] summary shows conditions at Burlington

[2:24:44] Mills Road and Old Burlington Mills

[2:24:46] Road, Wallbook Flats, is changing from a

[2:24:49] level of service E with 44.3 seconds of

[2:24:52] delay in the no build scenario to a

[2:24:54] level of service F with 61.6 seconds in

[2:24:57] the build scenario. The more detailed

[2:25:00] analysis also shows the southbound left

[2:25:02] turn delay increasing from 98.3 seconds

[2:25:05] to 144.3 seconds while remaining level

[2:25:08] of service F. Yet the report ultimately

[2:25:12] concludes that no improvement is

[2:25:13] required at this location and that the

[2:25:15] applicable town standard is satisfied. I

[2:25:18] am not a traffic engineer and I do not

[2:25:20] want to misinterpret the technical

[2:25:22] standard. So before voting, I

[2:25:24] respectfully ask the board to have their

[2:25:26] traffic engineer explain how these

[2:25:28] results satisfy section 8. E of

[2:25:31] Roseville's land development ordinance.

[2:25:34] Um also to speak to Michael Pauls, if

[2:25:37] you look at the build loss at Wal Co and

[2:25:40] Burlington Mill, it goes from a level B

[2:25:42] to a D. That is a decline. I don't know

[2:25:44] what numbers they use, but that's not

[2:25:46] great. Second is the commercial highway

[2:25:47] conditional zoning. I understand that

[2:25:49] this approval specifically proid

[2:25:52] prohibits several uses normally

[2:25:54] associated with commercial highway

[2:25:55] zoning. I appreciate those restrictions.

[2:25:58] However, I would like to know which

[2:26:01] non-medical commercial highway uses

[2:26:03] remain permitted under this approval and

[2:26:06] whether any of those could those uses

[2:26:08] could replace or supplement the hospital

[2:26:10] in the future without another

[2:26:13] legislative resoning hearing. If the

[2:26:15] purpose of this resoning is to

[2:26:17] accommodate a hospital and related

[2:26:19] medical services, I respectfully ask the

[2:26:21] board to consider whether the permitted

[2:26:23] uses should reflect that purpose. Second

[2:26:25] is the commercial highway conditional

[2:26:27] zoning and the future use future use of

[2:26:30] this property. I understand that Wake

[2:26:32] Med has stated that it does not intend

[2:26:34] to develop the site into a fullervice

[2:26:36] hospital and I appreciate that

[2:26:37] clarification. However, zoning decisions

[2:26:40] last much longer than current

[2:26:41] development plans. The traffic impal

[2:26:44] impact analysis itself evaluates a

[2:26:47] future fullervice medical center

[2:26:49] scenario on this property. I also

[2:26:51] understand that this larger scenario was

[2:26:53] requested by the town as he just

[2:26:55] mentioned and was not presented by Wake

[2:26:57] Med as its current development plan.

[2:27:00] Before voting, I respectfully ask the

[2:27:03] board to clarify those things and

[2:27:05] recommended recommendations

[2:27:07] um and to make sure that they have been

[2:27:09] incorporated in the final enforcable

[2:27:12] zoning conditions. If they have not,

[2:27:14] which protections are not included and

[2:27:16] why?

[2:27:17] >> Thank you, Tony. Um any other comments

[2:27:21] from the public for against

[2:27:24] um

[2:27:25] Come on up, state your name. wants to

[2:27:29] tighten tighten me down. [clears throat]

[2:27:36] » Your name and address, please.

[2:27:38] >> Excuse me, sir.

[2:27:39] >> State your name and address.

[2:27:40] >> My name is Elfie Shock. I live at 521

[2:27:42] Kenton Mill Court, which is in the town

[2:27:46] homes, the the towns at Bington.

[2:27:49] Um, I respectfully ask that before you

[2:27:53] make any decisions or take any kind of

[2:27:55] vote, y'all are invited to come over to

[2:27:58] our community, which is literally just

[2:28:01] walk out this door right here, go

[2:28:03] through the woods, and it's right there.

[2:28:06] And take a look at the extension. the

[2:28:08] developer that built and I'm I'm sure

[2:28:13] your attorney is familiar with the

[2:28:15] history.

[2:28:16] He didn't leave any room to do that

[2:28:19] extension. When I say he didn't leave

[2:28:21] any room, it's it's wide enough for a a

[2:28:24] bike path, a foot path, but I think you

[2:28:28] would have to take some town homes and

[2:28:30] destroy them and take them by eminent

[2:28:32] domain to be able to get a road through

[2:28:35] there, especially the one that was

[2:28:37] proposed initially when you um were

[2:28:40] first given the information tonight.

[2:28:43] >> Thank you. Appreciate that.

[2:28:44] >> So, please come over and see how much

[2:28:47] space you have to work with.

[2:28:49] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[2:28:50] >> Thank you.

[2:28:50] >> Any uh anybody else?

[2:28:57] » Evening. My name is Aaron Sullivan. I

[2:28:59] live at 230 Bridgeoint Drive, which is

[2:29:01] the very first townhouse um where the

[2:29:04] new extension is supposed to go. Um I

[2:29:08] moved to this town, bought my Honda or

[2:29:10] townhouse

[2:29:12] February of last year. um moved to a

[2:29:15] small town in a growing area. But um

[2:29:20] just would like you all to consider the

[2:29:22] fact that

[2:29:24] having a

[2:29:26] facility like that in my backyard um

[2:29:30] with the lights and sirens and

[2:29:32] everything else um is not something that

[2:29:35] I was looking forward to when I decided

[2:29:38] to become a citizen of this town. Um I

[2:29:42] think that

[2:29:45] um it is going to be a burden on the

[2:29:50] community as far as um the amount of

[2:29:55] traffic um if the road does go through

[2:29:59] um it will cause additional traffic

[2:30:03] issues through our neighborhood. Um I

[2:30:06] haven't

[2:30:08] in all of these meetings um my neighbors

[2:30:10] with children have gone up and

[2:30:13] presenting their presented their

[2:30:15] concerns to um

[2:30:18] Wake Med. I don't even have kids but

[2:30:22] kids are all over the neighborhood. Um

[2:30:26] they spend a lot of time in that area.

[2:30:29] Um and it's just something that needs to

[2:30:33] be considered. I'm not a parent, but I

[2:30:35] am a proponent of the fact that we have

[2:30:37] a lot of active young children in the

[2:30:39] neighborhood. Um, so just would like to

[2:30:42] ask you to keep that in mind for your

[2:30:44] decision.

[2:30:46] >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Anybody else

[2:30:48] want to speak?

[2:30:53] » My name is William Een Johnson. I live

[2:30:54] at 532 Bington Hall Drive. Um, and so

[2:30:57] I'm here to respectfully oppose this

[2:31:00] proposed resoning. Uh first the change

[2:31:02] is inconsistent with the intent of civic

[2:31:03] zoning. Civic use land is generally

[2:31:05] intended for low impact public functions

[2:31:07] like schools, libraries, etc. A

[2:31:09] standalone emergency department is a

[2:31:11] high intensity 24-hour medical facility.

[2:31:13] Uh a lot of data shows that standalone

[2:31:15] emergency departments often generate

[2:31:17] multiple times the daily amount of

[2:31:18] traffic and use than that of typical

[2:31:20] civic use buildings. Uh this would

[2:31:22] significantly increase traffic on

[2:31:23] residential streets that were never

[2:31:25] designed for that volume. Um, our two

[2:31:27] older children play uh with their

[2:31:29] friends throughout our neighborhood as

[2:31:30] was mentioned earlier. Uh, they often

[2:31:32] travel among the homes down to the town

[2:31:33] homes on foot, bike, sled when the

[2:31:36] winter provides us some snow. Um, and

[2:31:39] this in this increased traffic would

[2:31:41] prevent a significant safety hazard for

[2:31:43] our kids as well as anyone in the in the

[2:31:45] neighborhood. Um, especially with the

[2:31:47] completion of the Granite Falls

[2:31:48] Boulevard uh that's intended at some

[2:31:50] point in the next couple of years. Uh,

[2:31:52] second, noise and operational impacts

[2:31:54] are unavoidable. Um, emergency

[2:31:55] departments operate around the clock.

[2:31:57] They do involve in some cases sirens,

[2:31:59] emergency vehicles, people traveling at

[2:32:01] high speeds, um, and high intensity

[2:32:03] lighting. Uh, research shows that this,

[2:32:05] um, that residents adjacent to emergency

[2:32:07] facilities routinely experience noise

[2:32:09] levels that exceed safety thresholds.

[2:32:12] Uh, third, there are measurable public

[2:32:14] safety and crime related considerations.

[2:32:15] Studies in urban planning and law

[2:32:16] enforcement cons consistently show that

[2:32:18] highintensity 247 facilities

[2:32:20] particularly those associated with

[2:32:21] emergency medical services tend to

[2:32:23] attract increased calls for police

[2:32:25] services, loitering and opportunistic

[2:32:26] crime uh compared to low impact civic

[2:32:29] uses. Uh fourth, property values are our

[2:32:32] impacts are well documented. Uh real

[2:32:34] estate and land use studies indicate

[2:32:35] that proximity to high-intensity medical

[2:32:37] or emergency facilities can reduce

[2:32:38] nearby residential property values by 5

[2:32:40] to 15% depending on traffic, noise and

[2:32:43] visual impact. For a lot of families,

[2:32:45] their home is their primary or largest

[2:32:47] financial asset. This resoning would

[2:32:48] introduce a risk that was not there when

[2:32:50] many of us purchased our homes. Uh

[2:32:52] fifth, from a plan perspective, this

[2:32:53] resoning sets a concerning president.

[2:32:55] Changing zoning for a single property

[2:32:56] allows or to allow for more intensive

[2:32:58] use undermines the predictability and

[2:33:00] stability that zoning is meant to

[2:33:01] provide. If approved, it becomes

[2:33:02] difficult to deny similar requests in

[2:33:04] the future, gradually eroding the

[2:33:06] residential character of the area.

[2:33:08] Finally, uh we are not opposed, as has

[2:33:10] been mentioned, to healthcare

[2:33:11] infrastructure in our community.

[2:33:12] Emergency services are essential,

[2:33:14] especially to seniors, families with

[2:33:15] young children like my family. Both

[2:33:18] groups that are represented throughout

[2:33:19] our community and the town home

[2:33:20] community. Um, however, location

[2:33:22] matters. Commercial corridors and areas

[2:33:24] with existing infrastructure are better

[2:33:26] suited for this type of facility without

[2:33:28] imposing a disproportionate impact on

[2:33:30] residential on our residential

[2:33:31] neighborhood. For these reasons, I would

[2:33:33] urge the board to deny this resoning

[2:33:36] request. I'm ready to take your

[2:33:37] questions now if you have any. So,

[2:33:38] >> thank you.

[2:33:39] >> No, I'm just kidding. I really

[2:33:39] appreciate your time. Thank you. Sorry

[2:33:40] for speeding through. Yeah. Um,

[2:33:44] [snorts] anybody else?

[2:33:47] Okay. Uh, I'll close the public hearing.

[2:33:51] And couple points I just I think we

[2:33:54] brought up. I just want to make sure we

[2:33:56] clarify. Um, and maybe the first one

[2:33:59] either either Stephen, you or her can

[2:34:01] speak on. Um, the Granite Falls that

[2:34:05] goes through that neighborhood is not

[2:34:06] part of this project.

[2:34:09] That's that's a town project, right?

[2:34:12] So, I I think it was brought up by a

[2:34:14] couple concerned people that if we

[2:34:17] didn't approve this project, that's not

[2:34:19] going to happen. But that's a town

[2:34:20] project, right? That's not a it has

[2:34:22] nothing to do with Wake Med pretty much.

[2:34:25] Is that correct?

[2:34:26] >> Correct.

[2:34:27] >> Okay. Um, another another point was

[2:34:30] brought up I think uh Tony brought up uh

[2:34:33] has to do with um

[2:34:36] has to do with the uses and I I don't

[2:34:38] remember what the first didn't the first

[2:34:40] condition address some of the uses that

[2:34:43] we could be afraid of wait it didn't go

[2:34:45] in or something.

[2:34:46] >> I think the question is what other uses

[2:34:47] that were not prohibited would be

[2:34:49] allowed to go to the table of uses

[2:34:51] >> to pull up that

[2:34:52] >> but what was the first condition? I

[2:34:54] don't recall. I thought the first

[2:34:55] condition had something some something

[2:34:57] >> prohibited principal uses. Examples such

[2:34:59] as gas station, shopping center, and

[2:35:00] vehicle minor services and major

[2:35:02] service.

[2:35:02] >> So those probably things that could go

[2:35:04] in there if it's a highway commercial

[2:35:07] type thing. Is that right?

[2:35:08] >> These are the probably the worst offense

[2:35:11] type uses that could go there if it

[2:35:14] weren't for this condition.

[2:35:15] >> Right.

[2:35:15] >> But there are many other uses that still

[2:35:18] could go in which is their concern. And

[2:35:20] uh I think that was her question was um

[2:35:24] >> can we eliminate those other uses

[2:35:26] >> which they are which they are kind of

[2:35:28] >> specifically is can we just hold it

[2:35:30] strictly to hospital?

[2:35:33] >> Yeah. And that's that's the question.

[2:35:35] It's the question is can we

[2:35:38] keep it hospital

[2:35:41] and can

[2:35:49] » the normal practice is to restrict the

[2:35:52] other uses that you could otherwise

[2:35:54] have. Um but there's no legal

[2:35:56] prohibition upon just stating a single

[2:35:58] use. Um it's just not the normal way

[2:36:00] that uh conditions are drafted. You you

[2:36:03] take all the uses one can make under the

[2:36:05] ordinance and you narrow you take the

[2:36:09] use you can make of a piece of land and

[2:36:11] you constrain it but by increasing the

[2:36:13] buffers or the screening. So you go from

[2:36:15] broad to narrow. Um drafting it that way

[2:36:18] would be one particular thing. Um not inappropriate but I suppose the

[2:36:25] normal way to do it is you just list

[2:36:27] >> all the things you don't want.

[2:36:29] >> Yeah. um or or just the ones you do want

[2:36:32] >> or just the ones you do want. Whereas if

[2:36:34] something should happen and Wake Med

[2:36:36] wants to sell the land, it's only for a

[2:36:38] hospital uses. Somebody else would have

[2:36:40] to come upon the board to

[2:36:43] change the AC, you know, ask for a

[2:36:44] change in the exception on the land,

[2:36:47] right?

[2:36:47] >> Totally within the judgment of the

[2:36:50] applicant and uh the town. Uh the town

[2:36:54] doesn't have the authority to

[2:36:55] unilaterally impose conditions,

[2:36:58] >> but uh I suspect that I'm not well I

[2:37:01] don't know. Let Wake Med speak for

[2:37:02] themselves. I I doubt they would have a

[2:37:04] preference either way.

[2:37:05] >> Okay, we'll come we'll come back to

[2:37:07] that. Let them kind of You all heard

[2:37:09] y'all heard the question. Uh, and then

[2:37:11] the last one I think I heard, um,

[2:37:16] had do with you, Matt. I think he was

[2:37:18] called out specifically to come up here

[2:37:20] and explain this intersection thing and,

[2:37:24] you know,

[2:37:24] >> road improvements,

[2:37:25] >> huh,

[2:37:26] >> and road improvements,

[2:37:26] >> the degradation of certain

[2:37:28] intersections.

[2:37:29] >> Yes. The intersection in question was

[2:37:31] the intersection of um, Burlington Mills

[2:37:35] Road at Old Burlington Mills Road and

[2:37:37] the Walberrook Flats access. Um the

[2:37:39] statement made was was accurate. We are

[2:37:41] showing increases in delay going from a

[2:37:44] level of service E to a level of service

[2:37:46] F. And as you all know that is a trigger

[2:37:48] in the LDO for for improvement. So um

[2:37:51] kind of the way the report continues um

[2:37:54] is that we evaluated two potential

[2:37:56] improvements. Uh the first was

[2:37:58] installation of a traffic signal at at

[2:38:01] that location. Uh we did not recommend

[2:38:03] that due to the spacing between it and

[2:38:07] the intersection at Main Street. Um this

[2:38:10] simply too close. Um as you all know

[2:38:12] traffic signals stop traffic. When you

[2:38:15] stop traffic you have traffic then that

[2:38:17] then cues back. Uh our concern was

[2:38:20] stopping traffic and then having it

[2:38:21] queue back out onto Main Street and

[2:38:23] causing cascading delays and and you

[2:38:26] know if if that gets bad enough that's

[2:38:27] what results in gridlock. So we didn't

[2:38:29] recommend uh installing traffic signal.

[2:38:32] Uh the other thing we recommended um

[2:38:35] because really what's seeing the high

[2:38:36] delay is the left turns. Uh so we

[2:38:39] evaluated restricting uh access for

[2:38:42] those two side streets to right turns

[2:38:44] out only. Right? So if we say the left

[2:38:47] turns are really bad, let's restrict

[2:38:49] access, say no left turns and let's

[2:38:51] force everyone to take a right turn

[2:38:53] because those move more freely. Uh what

[2:38:56] happens there? uh as we saw through uh

[2:38:59] evaluation is that we either end up

[2:39:02] forcing U-turns where they probably

[2:39:04] shouldn't be forced, right? So if you

[2:39:06] can no longer turn left out of say

[2:39:08] Walbrook Flats, uh you have to turn

[2:39:10] right and then somehow get your way back

[2:39:14] west on Burlington Mills Road, right?

[2:39:17] So, if drivers were turning right out of

[2:39:20] Wahberg Flats and they want to go west,

[2:39:22] they'd then have to be making U-turns

[2:39:24] down at Main Street. Uh, which that

[2:39:27] intersection for larger vehicles simply

[2:39:28] isn't really designed for it. Um, so we

[2:39:31] didn't feel that that was uh a a good

[2:39:34] recommendation to make um in that sense.

[2:39:37] So, we eliminated that as well. Um, so

[2:39:40] where we landed was just to say we'll do

[2:39:43] nothing, which we understand shows high

[2:39:45] delays for the left turns, but again,

[2:39:48] what we're seeing is that it's only

[2:39:50] tripped in the morning when school is in

[2:39:52] session, right? That gets back to your

[2:39:54] point, Commissioner Paul, about uh the middle school and the middle school

[2:39:57] traffic. So, um it's really only a

[2:40:00] condition in the morning. Um we don't

[2:40:02] really see that those level of delays

[2:40:05] for left turns uh in in the evening. Um,

[2:40:08] and I would also like to say that uh so

[2:40:12] Wal Wahber Flats only has one op one

[2:40:15] option to come out. Uh, the neighborhood

[2:40:18] uh actually has other options. They can

[2:40:20] go up to Main Street uh and make a right

[2:40:23] turn out onto Main Street if they wanted

[2:40:25] to to go various places. So, the

[2:40:27] neighborhood does have options to go

[2:40:29] elsewhere if left turn delays are

[2:40:32] substantial and they don't feel like

[2:40:34] waiting to make a left turn.

[2:40:36] Any

[2:40:39] questions for Matt?

[2:40:40] >> Matt, just

[2:40:44] I don't I don't want to come off um

[2:40:47] trying to tell you how to be engineer.

[2:40:50] >> I know

[2:40:52] >> good,

[2:40:52] >> but I I think you're uh you're giving me

[2:40:54] great engineer speak. I I Can you

[2:40:58] simplify it for me in in this capacity

[2:41:00] from this perspective? Excuse me.

[2:41:03] I hear all the things that we cannot do,

[2:41:06] but as an engineer, there is always a

[2:41:09] way and to improve something. So, do you

[2:41:12] see just there's a better way from a

[2:41:15] traffic perspective that we can increase

[2:41:17] or decrease the pain of that

[2:41:19] intersection outside of what the numbers

[2:41:21] and the data just in your gut, man. Tell

[2:41:23] me what you think.

[2:41:26] >> Well, well, in my professional opinion,

[2:41:27] I didn't recommend doing anything there.

[2:41:29] So, I I I see the best path as remaining

[2:41:33] as is for that for that specific

[2:41:34] intersection. Right.

[2:41:35] >> Okay.

[2:41:36] >> Um like I said, I I think if if the

[2:41:39] neighbors concern is long left turn

[2:41:42] delays, I think there's other options

[2:41:45] and alternate routes that that they can

[2:41:47] take.

[2:41:47] >> Um the other recommendations, uh

[2:41:50] installing a signal or restricting left

[2:41:52] turns will cause second order effects

[2:41:54] that I believe are worse than the

[2:41:56] current condition.

[2:41:57] Well, if I recall correctly, and I may

[2:42:00] be wrong, is we're really uh constrained

[2:42:04] to not allow an intersection to degrade

[2:42:07] from an E to an F. And that's what we

[2:42:10] have in at least one of them at one of

[2:42:12] the peak periods. So, that goes against

[2:42:16] our LDO. I believe the B TOD there's an

[2:42:19] argument on that and I I appreciate some

[2:42:22] of that is improved efficiency but when

[2:42:24] you look at the time frames going from

[2:42:27] 93 seconds to 144 I think is one of them

[2:42:30] that Miss Kenyon so uh eloquently stated

[2:42:35] um that's a problem and we don't have a

[2:42:38] solution. I mean, a solution is make

[2:42:42] Burlington Mills a fourlane to the west

[2:42:44] of the middle school. That's not a

[2:42:47] viable option because no one wants to

[2:42:48] pay for it. I get that. But that's

[2:42:50] really what needs to happen.

[2:42:52] >> Right.

[2:42:52] >> And that we need to look at that because

[2:42:55] we've got an untenable situation that

[2:42:58] we're proposing with no solution.

[2:43:01] >> Right. Right. And to your point,

[2:43:03] Commissioner Paul, widening Burlington

[2:43:05] Mills Road would alleviate a lot of that

[2:43:06] delay. It

[2:43:07] >> sure would. And I get it. That's not

[2:43:10] your anyone here's problem, but it is

[2:43:13] because that's creating the problem that

[2:43:16] we're talking about.

[2:43:17] >> Correct. I mean, what we're presenting

[2:43:18] is the study are the impacts associated

[2:43:20] with the development that's proposed,

[2:43:22] not a greater plan to alleviate traffic

[2:43:24] along Burlington Hills Road.

[2:43:26] >> Yep.

[2:43:26] >> I appreciate that, but it doesn't fix

[2:43:29] the problem that we're talking about

[2:43:30] right now.

[2:43:32] So

[2:43:33] >> which does get back to me just this

[2:43:35] narrative of is there another way to

[2:43:38] alleviate the traffic? I mean beyond

[2:43:40] what you stated, I I just I'm looking

[2:43:42] for ideas here to to really rattle in in

[2:43:46] my head there's got to be another access

[2:43:48] way. If there's not, there's not. But

[2:43:51] you know, if if you're saying that do

[2:43:53] nothing is the best result and then

[2:43:55] we're going from a an an E to an F, that

[2:43:57] just just seems like there's got to be

[2:43:59] another way with this project. So what

[2:44:03] would

[2:44:07] ultimately you're saying that this is

[2:44:08] it? This is the best of what you got. Is

[2:44:10] that what I'm hearing?

[2:44:13] [clears throat]

[2:44:14] >> Um in in my professional opinion, having

[2:44:17] done the evaluation uh with the

[2:44:20] constraints that we that we have, um

[2:44:22] yes, I I would I would say so. Um, but

[2:44:26] are are there potentially other options

[2:44:29] that would involve things that Wake Med

[2:44:32] may not be able to commit to? That's

[2:44:34] always possible.

[2:44:36] >> I'd be interested in knowing what that

[2:44:37] would look like just on the table. Um,

[2:44:41] because it might be skin of the game

[2:44:43] that it could help with the the the

[2:44:46] neighbors themselves and for us as well.

[2:44:48] No offense to the Wake Med team, but I

[2:44:50] I'm just trying to think outside the box

[2:44:52] in terms of eliminating where we can.

[2:44:54] So, thank you. I I will be interested in

[2:44:56] knowing what that will look like uh as

[2:44:58] well.

[2:45:02] » Any other questions for Matt?

[2:45:05] >> Thank you, Matt.

[2:45:06] >> Thank you.

[2:45:06] >> I hearing you. Um so th those are the

[2:45:09] things I heard. So maybe uh maybe I'll

[2:45:12] call back the applicant. Uh you heard

[2:45:14] the the deal with the the first

[2:45:19] condition where eliminating some usages

[2:45:21] but not everything. I don't think you

[2:45:24] may not you may be more familiar with

[2:45:26] that than I am.

[2:45:27] >> Uh yeah, we did leave some uh uses u

[2:45:33] untouched. U so for instance uh bank use

[2:45:37] would still be permitted. I'm just I'm

[2:45:39] reading this off so forgive me. um u

[2:45:42] commercial parking,

[2:45:44] um eating establishment,

[2:45:46] u event center,

[2:45:50] lodging is a special use,

[2:45:53] um and a neighborhood size retail sales

[2:45:56] and services. Um and then basically

[2:46:01] office and medical uses that you would

[2:46:02] expect. So, dental facility, uh, medical

[2:46:05] facility, hospital, hospital is a

[2:46:08] catchall within the within the LDO,

[2:46:11] basically any sort of medical services.

[2:46:13] It doesn't necessarily mean a big point

[2:46:15] hospital um and professional office and

[2:46:18] urgent care. So, those are the main ones that um are

[2:46:22] still permitted uh under zoning

[2:46:25] conditions. And we would submit that um

[2:46:28] those are all fairly consistent with a

[2:46:30] you know if you had you know again this

[2:46:32] resoning only allows 40,000 square feet

[2:46:35] of non-residential period. So there's

[2:46:38] not a lot that can be done beyond what

[2:46:39] we're proposing in terms of the ED.

[2:46:42] We're we're sort of leaving some of the

[2:46:44] other uses on the table so that if if

[2:46:48] came back for more development with a

[2:46:52] larger plan at some point in the future

[2:46:54] that at that point some of those

[2:46:57] additional uses could be on the table.

[2:47:00] you know, if you had a larger

[2:47:01] development, whether it was, you know,

[2:47:04] Rollsville Hospital or medical office

[2:47:06] building, you would probably want some

[2:47:08] of some of that other sort of types of

[2:47:10] uses um within that development.

[2:47:14] >> What about another TIA? Would that be

[2:47:16] required?

[2:47:18] >> Uh yes, another TIA would be require

[2:47:20] presumably be required if it's triggered

[2:47:22] because again, we only have 40,000

[2:47:23] square feet. So if you if you were

[2:47:25] upzzoning to allow for more uh more

[2:47:28] density and development then basically

[2:47:31] your uh the LDO would likely be

[2:47:34] triggered. Again, you guys would do the

[2:47:36] analysis at that point, but this this

[2:47:39] was triggered and and the TIA did look

[2:47:41] at, again, not our plan, but uh staff

[2:47:45] did ask that uh uh Matt and his team

[2:47:48] over at Stantech to look at uh

[2:47:51] development of up to 400,000 square feet

[2:47:53] on the site. So, there's some

[2:47:55] information about that.

[2:47:57] >> Does your client have access or option

[2:47:59] for the rest of the farm?

[2:48:02] Uh, are you talking about the other 30

[2:48:04] acres?

[2:48:05] >> Yeah,

[2:48:05] >> we do not. No.

[2:48:09] » Mayor Kern,

[2:48:11] >> just real real quick uh for Mr. Coleman,

[2:48:15] the if the if Wake Med needs to come

[2:48:18] back for a reasonzoning anyway given the

[2:48:21] condition on the concept plan,

[2:48:25] >> what is the point of keeping anything

[2:48:26] other than hospital? I'm not I'm not

[2:48:28] following the logic of that. If you

[2:48:30] limit it to hospital, then you clear the

[2:48:33] special use permit text amendment very

[2:48:35] clearly because now it's permitted.

[2:48:37] >> Yeah.

[2:48:37] >> And even though we normally write in the

[2:48:39] negative for restrictions, it would seem

[2:48:41] to be clearer and cleaner for Wake Med

[2:48:44] to just say

[2:48:46] limited to hospital. Then it's permitted

[2:48:49] and you're going to have to come back

[2:48:50] for a reasonzoning anyway.

[2:48:54] You're never going to be able to do the

[2:48:56] other things unless wakeed flips this

[2:48:58] and turns it into a hotel site that

[2:49:00] looks exactly like an ER,

[2:49:03] which would be a really cool [laughter]

[2:49:07] >> I'll let you um

[2:49:10] I think the short answer is is that is again that I think what we were

[2:49:15] trying to think what we were trying to

[2:49:17] do was

[2:49:19] um both with this resoning say make it

[2:49:23] clear that this is for one use and one

[2:49:24] use only but not but also not make it a

[2:49:27] reasonzoning where it was so limited

[2:49:30] such that it was just you know in in

[2:49:34] sort of was solid cystic in looking at

[2:49:36] just that one use and so what the idea

[2:49:38] was is that you know it's 30 acres at

[2:49:41] some point it may be something

[2:49:43] additional and so we wanted to start at

[2:49:44] least building around in terms of the uh

[2:49:46] the zoning entitlements as to what would

[2:49:49] be what what could be permitted and what

[2:49:51] cannot again it all has to come back to

[2:49:54] the board. So, you know, if if if

[2:49:57] something came back beyond the 40,000

[2:49:58] square feet, you know, what I would say

[2:50:00] in response to, you know, why don't you

[2:50:02] just make it just a hospital use is,

[2:50:05] >> you know, at that point, the same

[2:50:07] conversation would be on the table. And,

[2:50:09] you know, the question of,

[2:50:11] >> all right, we're concerned about this

[2:50:12] use or that use could be addressed with

[2:50:15] more information and more specific

[2:50:18] um knowledge about what might

[2:50:20] additionally might be there.

[2:50:24] Is that an argument for addressing the

[2:50:26] concern and just limit it to hospital or

[2:50:28] an argument against?

[2:50:29] >> Argument against

[2:50:31] it

[2:50:31] >> sounds like he wants to to do you want

[2:50:33] to just leave them on the table for any

[2:50:35] possible future conversations that you

[2:50:37] have. You know that okay I I can already

[2:50:40] I already have a bank

[2:50:42] >> in I believe you a bank was one of them.

[2:50:44] Yes. um in the in the zoning so I can

[2:50:48] now approach banks with certainty that

[2:50:50] this will be allowed instead of having

[2:50:52] to come back later and ask and it

[2:50:54] possibly be a no when you already have a

[2:50:56] bank waiting. I think the more idea was

[2:50:58] is that that um that that this could be,

[2:51:02] you know, if this ultimately were

[2:51:04] developed for more than an ED and

[2:51:08] ultimately these are there would need to

[2:51:10] be more than just a single set of uses

[2:51:14] as within the resoning. Again, whether

[2:51:17] and this is any zoning district, right?

[2:51:19] You don't have there's no zoning

[2:51:21] district in the town of Rollsville or

[2:51:22] really anywhere else in the triangle

[2:51:24] where it's like you have one use and one

[2:51:25] use only. it create it can create issues

[2:51:28] and so I think what we were trying to do

[2:51:30] was was be thoughtful about taking out

[2:51:33] the negative impacts taking out things

[2:51:34] that would undermine what we were what

[2:51:38] we we envisioned for the site so we

[2:51:39] didn't we were using the you know we

[2:51:41] used a zoning uh designation that is an

[2:51:45] imperfect fit but then we're trying to

[2:51:47] take out a lot of the uses that didn't

[2:51:49] make sense next to be bington and try to

[2:51:52] leave in some of the uses that play well

[2:51:55] with a medical office or or other things

[2:51:58] if if and if such things ever came to

[2:52:01] pass.

[2:52:02] >> So to kind of go with the format that

[2:52:07] attorney tells us we usually use. Did

[2:52:09] you hear any not you want to take you

[2:52:11] want to take the bank out? You want to

[2:52:12] take any of those out because we can

[2:52:14] request and take those out.

[2:52:16] >> Uh do you don't want to you want to take them out? We can

[2:52:21] >> we just like I need to review the list

[2:52:23] again like the full

[2:52:27] >> full permitted list today was the

[2:52:30] applicant is proposing.

[2:52:33] >> I I guess my you you you said in case

[2:52:37] you want to do something else

[2:52:40] but I I thought this is just going to be

[2:52:42] ED and a health. So like what more else

[2:52:45] could you do if you're not going to do

[2:52:46] anything? this wig man is coming here

[2:52:48] and we're just going to do a hospital

[2:52:49] then I can't imagine it going beyond

[2:52:52] other hospital health. Mhm.

[2:52:55] >> So, I guess from I'm sorry, man. I'm I'm

[2:52:58] too too logical sometimes. Please

[2:53:00] forgive me. But if that's what it's

[2:53:02] going to be, how come we can't just call

[2:53:05] that out? You got to come back to tours

[2:53:06] anyway.

[2:53:07] >> Mhm.

[2:53:07] >> So, just make it easier for everyone in

[2:53:09] my opinion. It just doesn't it's not

[2:53:12] >> it just it just seems like something

[2:53:13] else is is kind of being talked about or

[2:53:15] planned, you know, on the back end when

[2:53:18] really what we're talking about here is

[2:53:20] just an ED. So

[2:53:22] >> why why would you not want to pull out

[2:53:24] all of those other provisions

[2:53:28] » except for say medical, you know,

[2:53:31] physician offices, dentist offices, that makes sense. ER, but you know,

[2:53:37] >> maybe an eating establishment. I I would

[2:53:39] submit that. Well, you know, like

[2:53:41] something within I mean, I don't know. I

[2:53:43] haven't talked to staff about

[2:53:45] cafeteria within a within the building.

[2:53:47] That's

[2:53:47] >> But a cafeteria that's that's

[2:53:49] >> But wait a minute. Does it have to be on

[2:53:50] that list in order for it to be part of

[2:53:52] the building if you had like

[2:53:54] >> No. Okay.

[2:53:55] >> Those would all be accessory.

[2:53:57] >> Oh,

[2:54:03] » so I would point.

[2:54:04] >> Are we discussing this amongst ourselves

[2:54:06] yet?

[2:54:07] >> Oh, let's see what they're going to

[2:54:08] propose.

[2:54:13] » Um,

[2:54:15] we're happy to to discuss that. We may

[2:54:17] need a few minutes to discuss if if uh

[2:54:20] if the council is willing to give us

[2:54:22] that time. We obviously don't want to

[2:54:23] waste your time. We recognize it's 9:30

[2:54:25] at night.

[2:54:25] >> Well, and that's that's where because

[2:54:28] this might save a few minutes here

[2:54:32] >> on the [clears throat]

[2:54:37] uh we got a lot lot to cover tonight.

[2:54:41] So, um, so decision can be made by the

[2:54:43] board if you want more information, if

[2:54:46] they need to collaborate or something.

[2:54:48] >> Well, I I personally do not feel

[2:54:50] comfortable approving this tonight

[2:54:52] without having the exact site plans,

[2:54:55] seeing the ambulance bay moved and

[2:54:56] knowing what conditions the um lay on

[2:55:00] the west side of of the land, you know,

[2:55:02] about pushing the the the um facility as

[2:55:06] far away as possible. So to be honest,

[2:55:09] you know, until I want to see those

[2:55:11] things in concrete writing because just

[2:55:13] as as um Dave mentioned earlier, if we

[2:55:17] approve it now, well, that that's what

[2:55:20] we're approving. So, I am not

[2:55:23] comfortable

[2:55:24] moving forward with the resoning tonight

[2:55:27] until and and to their own um comments,

[2:55:31] it would take about 30 maybe 60 days to

[2:55:34] finalize,

[2:55:35] you know, all of the soil tests and

[2:55:38] seeing if they where they could feasibly

[2:55:40] move the facility to. So, within that

[2:55:44] amount of time, then that would give

[2:55:45] time to review the other prohibited

[2:55:47] uses. Other

[2:55:50] comments? No,

[2:55:52] >> I agree.

[2:55:57] Um,

[2:56:01] they have to request the continuation of

[2:56:04] we just we can just use the motion. We

[2:56:06] can just use the motion ourselves, can't

[2:56:08] we?

[2:56:09] >> The board can always continue.

[2:56:11] >> Yeah. Um, anybody object to continuing?

[2:56:18] Good.

[2:56:20] >> On your benefit.

[2:56:22] >> But you guys heard heard the

[2:56:24] commissioners, you know, ask they ask

[2:56:27] for some things.

[2:56:29] >> Um

[2:56:31] a better site plan on the location of

[2:56:33] the building. I think

[2:56:35] >> more information on um

[2:56:38] >> putting the ambulance bay as far apart.

[2:56:40] >> Yeah.

[2:56:40] >> Um prohibited uses. And I think that

[2:56:44] motion that that first that first uh

[2:56:49] that first condition really look hard at

[2:56:51] that. I think that was one of the things

[2:56:52] that

[2:56:53] >> I you know again I don't think we're

[2:56:55] going to be in a position until we get

[2:56:57] to site plan to be able to say exactly

[2:56:59] where the building's going to move. I

[2:57:01] think it's going to be an addition of a

[2:57:02] sentence to condition number two which

[2:57:04] has already been outlined by the town

[2:57:06] attorney. Um and I think is ready for

[2:57:09] prime. you know, you guys obviously make

[2:57:11] the decision, but that's that's where we

[2:57:13] are. We're not going to we're not going

[2:57:14] to have the information, all the

[2:57:16] information ready

[2:57:18] um to to create an updated concept plan

[2:57:21] in say two weeks or four weeks. Um and

[2:57:24] we and it this is this is something

[2:57:26] we're we're trying to get done as soon

[2:57:27] as possible. So,

[2:57:28] >> we understand that, but we are also

[2:57:30] trying to protect the interests of the

[2:57:33] people that do live in Bington. And if

[2:57:35] it's going to take another 30 to 60 days

[2:57:37] for you guys to determine that, I would

[2:57:39] rather that happen before we gave a con

[2:57:41] a conditional approval on this project,

[2:57:43] that may have some more um

[2:57:47] major issues involved if you can't get

[2:57:49] it done the way that that we're looking

[2:57:51] to see this project,

[2:57:54] you know, be completed. So

[2:57:57] I I in the grand scheme of things, 30 to

[2:57:59] 60 days does not seem

[2:58:01] like a long time to be able to ensure

[2:58:04] these neighbors here that we're doing

[2:58:06] our best to try to make sure that this

[2:58:08] is moved as far to the west and the

[2:58:10] ambulance bay moved plus making sure

[2:58:13] that we're not going to get any surprise

[2:58:15] development going on in the back end of

[2:58:17] this property that has not been

[2:58:18] discussed with this project thus far.

[2:58:22] So, there's three conditions there. And

[2:58:25] I for one am not If you want me to vote

[2:58:27] tonight, then you're not going to like

[2:58:29] my my vote if that's what you're going

[2:58:31] to push me to do.

[2:58:33] I thought Dave, your language took care

[2:58:37] of the issue of the hospital being moved

[2:58:41] west and

[2:58:44] >> north north and west.

[2:58:45] >> Uh, Commissioner Se probably not. it it

[2:58:48] allows them to move. Currently, the the

[2:58:50] way the concept plan condition is

[2:58:52] written, it commits an applicant when

[2:58:55] they submit a concept plan to build

[2:58:57] things the way they show you they're

[2:58:58] going to build things. Yes. Otherwise,

[2:59:00] it's just a story.

[2:59:02] >> Uh and that certainly is something

[2:59:04] that's happened in the history of zoning

[2:59:05] law. You see pretty pictures. They're

[2:59:08] not a commitment. So, if there's a

[2:59:10] commitment to a concept plan, the

[2:59:12] expectation is that they're committing

[2:59:13] to that plan. And the language we use

[2:59:16] allows minor adjustments to those

[2:59:18] committed elements.

[2:59:19] >> Got it.

[2:59:20] >> When we think minor adjustments under

[2:59:22] 160D, we probably don't think about what

[2:59:27] is being proposed as hopefully what Wake

[2:59:30] Med can achieve.

[2:59:32] >> So we want to open we want to provide

[2:59:34] some flexibility

[2:59:36] so that something that would help the

[2:59:38] neighbors isn't something that the staff

[2:59:40] is forced to say no, you can't do.

[2:59:42] >> Yeah,

[2:59:42] >> that would have been a terrible

[2:59:43] situation. And that's all I was trying

[2:59:45] to get to.

[2:59:45] >> Okay.

[2:59:50] » I mean, if if the issue, you know,

[2:59:52] again, I'll be really frank with you. If

[2:59:53] the issue is that that we need to

[2:59:57] severely cut back the permitted uses and

[3:00:00] I can have five minutes with my client,

[3:00:02] I can probably come back with an answer

[3:00:03] on that tonight. But, you know, again,

[3:00:07] the I think our concern is is that um

[3:00:11] asking for more and more and more detail

[3:00:13] on a concept plan is is is frankly

[3:00:17] getting into site planning issues that

[3:00:19] we think can be addressed at site

[3:00:21] planning and doesn't need to be

[3:00:22] addressed at this point.

[3:00:23] >> Well, you already heard what Dave said

[3:00:24] and I don't agree with that. I want to

[3:00:25] know exactly where this is going to land

[3:00:28] >> before I give my approval on anything.

[3:00:30] The other part of that, Commissioner

[3:00:31] Bernett, is talking about flipping the

[3:00:34] building and putting the ambulance uh

[3:00:38] station on the west side where it's

[3:00:40] currently on the east side and moving it

[3:00:42] north and west. That is a site plan

[3:00:45] issue that uh your current one doesn't

[3:00:48] accommodate those modifications. So,

[3:00:52] >> well, I I mean it that's that's what

[3:00:54] we're hearing now. I I'll tell you

[3:00:55] frankly, we've had conversations where

[3:00:57] we were given different indications than

[3:00:59] what we're hearing today. But but that

[3:01:01] all that to be said, we're happy to add

[3:01:02] the language that has been suggested by

[3:01:04] the town attorney to to address that

[3:01:06] very concern because we you know, we we

[3:01:09] have been working towards trying to

[3:01:11] address all these issues for for months.

[3:01:14] And you know, while we can't give you

[3:01:16] definitive answers now, we are committed

[3:01:19] to addressing these very concerns.

[3:01:22] um recognize that that is sort of an

[3:01:24] unusual position to be in. Uh but it is

[3:01:27] the position we are we are in. And

[3:01:29] again, if if if

[3:01:32] this board can look to look at us making

[3:01:35] changes the changes recommended by the

[3:01:37] town attorney and is willing to give us

[3:01:39] a few minutes to discuss whether we can

[3:01:42] further, you know, whether we can

[3:01:44] address the uh board's concerns related

[3:01:46] to um the uses. Um I think we could have

[3:01:51] we have something free today as opposed

[3:01:53] to having to wait four or six weeks

[3:01:54] because again my my main concern is is

[3:01:57] that we're going to get pushed out and

[3:02:00] we're not going to have, you know, other

[3:02:02] than maybe moving a box around, we're

[3:02:04] not going to have a whole lot of

[3:02:05] additional answers on specifics on

[3:02:07] exactly where's the building going to

[3:02:08] be, how is it going to be than what we

[3:02:10] have today.

[3:02:13] » So Dave, what do we need on the concept

[3:02:15] plan?

[3:02:18] >> Concept plan is not a requirement. There

[3:02:20] doesn't have to be that condition at

[3:02:22] all.

[3:02:24] The concept plan is something that was

[3:02:25] tendered by the applicant that commits

[3:02:27] them to building what they showed you in

[3:02:29] the picture.

[3:02:30] However, what they've promised you is we

[3:02:33] promise we won't we won't build you what

[3:02:35] we've shown you in the picture. We're

[3:02:36] going to build something different than

[3:02:37] that that's better, but we don't know

[3:02:41] exactly where.

[3:02:42] >> Right. So I was trying to save the

[3:02:44] condition to allow it to get as good as

[3:02:47] it might be able to get if that's what

[3:02:49] WakeD wanted to do in the future because

[3:02:52] otherwise the staff which can only

[3:02:54] follow the ordinance is forced to tell

[3:02:57] the applicant no. You have to build in

[3:02:59] the place that angers the neighbors the

[3:03:01] most which then causes the elected

[3:03:04] officials to be very unhappy with the

[3:03:06] staff and the town attorney.

[3:03:11] But the condition doesn't

[3:03:13] >> doesn't force them to do what we're

[3:03:16] talking about.

[3:03:18] >> The the challenge is it is hard to write

[3:03:19] an ordinance that says the applicant

[3:03:22] shall move it to the west or to the

[3:03:25] northwest as far as they practically can

[3:03:28] after they find out how far that is.

[3:03:32] Something something blah blah. It's hard

[3:03:34] to I don't know what that is.

[3:03:39] So, where are we at? Um, I think Jan is

[3:03:43] asking for a continuation. I'm not sure

[3:03:45] if the board wants to continue this or

[3:03:47] not. Um, where we at? Um, what's the um

[3:03:54] consensity of the board?

[3:03:55] >> I think at this point that's the best

[3:03:57] option.

[3:03:59] Continuence.

[3:04:02] >> Agree. All right. I would need a motion

[3:04:04] for that. Uh, I motion to continue res

[3:04:08] 25-06 waked to a future town board

[3:04:11] meeting.

[3:04:13] Uh,

[3:04:14] >> we ought to have a date.

[3:04:15] >> Christie,

[3:04:17] >> October 8th,

[3:04:19] November 5th. I didn't know if September

[3:04:21] 1st would be too soon based on

[3:04:23] discussion.

[3:04:28] » I don't know. September 1st.

[3:04:32] I mean I I would say October 8th and if

[3:04:35] Wake Med is not ready to come forward

[3:04:37] with the conditions that we've asked

[3:04:38] then they can ask for um to move it to a

[3:04:40] later date.

[3:04:53] Um, how does that fit our schedule?

[3:04:56] Eric,

[3:04:57] >> October,

[3:04:59] >> Christie,

[3:05:02] >> I would say October 8th. And

[3:05:05] >> how does that fit our schedule?

[3:05:07] >> Um, October, November 5th.

[3:05:10] >> They look good.

[3:05:13] >> And you you wouldn't be ready by

[3:05:15] September 1st, I thought, would you?

[3:05:19] That's it in two weeks.

[3:05:20] >> I'm asking

[3:05:22] >> two weeks.

[3:05:38] » We would obviously we would prefer

[3:05:40] September 1st.

[3:05:41] >> Okay.

[3:05:42] >> Are you going to be able to have those

[3:05:43] answers that I've I've asked? because

[3:05:45] I'm being told 30 to 60 days before you

[3:05:47] finish the soil compositions. If it

[3:05:49] brings us right back to this same place,

[3:05:51] then it it I I know for myself it won't

[3:05:53] be a favorable vote. If you cannot

[3:05:55] provide me with the information that I'm

[3:05:56] asking for tonight and you want two more

[3:05:58] weeks,

[3:06:00] just don't bother unless you can answer

[3:06:02] those questions that I proposed.

[3:06:07] » Okay? If you want September 1st, great.

[3:06:10] Make it happen. I suggest you get the

[3:06:12] engineers out there and start digging in

[3:06:13] the dirt to make sure that you get the

[3:06:15] answers that are needed

[3:06:18] >> because otherwise it's just going to be

[3:06:19] wasting our time again if you don't have

[3:06:20] those questions answered

[3:06:23] >> and I would hope if they don't have them

[3:06:25] they will ask for a further continuence

[3:06:27] before

[3:06:28] >> precise before the meeting comes about.

[3:06:30] >> Yes. I mean again some of these some of

[3:06:33] the some of the questions I want to I

[3:06:35] want to make clear the exact location of

[3:06:37] the building is not going to be

[3:06:38] determined in any concept plan. It is

[3:06:41] not I think I want to say it again. I've

[3:06:43] said it before but I want to say it

[3:06:44] again. We will try to address it as best

[3:06:47] we can

[3:06:49] uh likely mainly with the language

[3:06:52] suggested by your attorney. Um, and we

[3:06:54] may look

[3:06:55] >> we were already told that it was going

[3:06:56] to take 30 maybe up to 60 days to get

[3:06:59] that finalized soil report with knowing

[3:07:01] where the granite is and where it isn't.

[3:07:04] So, what is it? Is it 30 to 60 days? Is

[3:07:06] it is it is it 6 months? What is it?

[3:07:10] >> Hold on. Hold on. Let's let's kind of

[3:07:12] settle down a little bit. Um,

[3:07:15] I think what Dave is saying is the site

[3:07:19] plan has to be where there's minimum,

[3:07:23] and he he's right. Over the years, it's

[3:07:25] hard to describe what minimum

[3:07:27] jurisdiction the planning department has

[3:07:29] for a site plan adjustments. It doesn't

[3:07:32] have to be exact, but I think what he's

[3:07:33] saying is too far off today,

[3:07:36] >> right? It's too far off today. So, it's

[3:07:39] just a matter of flip. Somebody used the

[3:07:41] term flip-flop. Just a matter of

[3:07:43] flip-flopping everything.

[3:07:44] >> That's for the ambulance bay.

[3:07:45] >> Yeah. And you don't need you don't they

[3:07:47] don't really need so bowling to do that.

[3:07:49] No.

[3:07:50] >> But I think what you maybe you two get

[3:07:52] together and you describe what you know

[3:07:54] min what you call it minimum minimum

[3:07:57] adjustments or whatever.

[3:07:58] >> It it is my understanding that the

[3:08:00] applicant is telling us today that 150

[3:08:02] foot minimum is the most they can safely

[3:08:05] commit to and that's where the applicant

[3:08:08] has told us they are.

[3:08:11] I believe that we're also hearing two

[3:08:13] different things based upon that was

[3:08:15] something was mentioned by the architect

[3:08:17] that implied that geotech would be back

[3:08:19] in 30 to 60 days and that implied that

[3:08:23] at the end of that time there would be

[3:08:25] knowledge that would allow the 150 ft to

[3:08:29] be increased.

[3:08:30] >> Awesome.

[3:08:31] >> That could be a significant change to

[3:08:33] their conditions.

[3:08:36] And I'm this is me guessing based upon

[3:08:39] what I heard. None of this is going to

[3:08:42] matter in terms of a condition that can

[3:08:44] be written other than either increasing

[3:08:47] the 150 to some other number because

[3:08:49] there's now a greater safety margin on

[3:08:52] the west or the northwest that could be

[3:08:55] rewritten as a legally enforceable

[3:08:56] minimum or uh enough time has passed

[3:09:00] such that they've essentially written a

[3:09:02] new sketch plan that provides them

[3:09:05] functional knowledge as to where it's

[3:09:07] practically going to be such that the

[3:09:09] only movement is going be plus or minus

[3:09:11] 10 or 20 feet anywhere. That would be a

[3:09:15] minor adjustment that gets approved by

[3:09:17] staff or a field condition that's

[3:09:19] approved by staff and that's allowed

[3:09:21] under our LDO. Th those things don't

[3:09:23] come back to the board when it's a

[3:09:26] meaningless field adjustment. The road

[3:09:28] isn't exactly like this. It's a little

[3:09:30] bit like this, but honestly, if two

[3:09:32] people were to look at it, they would

[3:09:34] not be able to tell. That's a minor

[3:09:36] adjustment. But we're also talking about

[3:09:41] moving the ambulance bay from the east

[3:09:43] side to the west side.

[3:09:45] >> Sounds like it is unlikely, based upon

[3:09:47] what we've heard, it is unlikely that knowledge will be in something that

[3:09:51] the applicant would commit to in 60

[3:09:54] days.

[3:09:56] >> Is that accurate?

[3:09:57] >> Is that true? the

[3:09:59] >> I'll be honest, I'll be honest with you.

[3:10:00] The what what your town attorney is

[3:10:03] saying is completely different from the

[3:10:05] guidance we received from staff as to

[3:10:08] what what is what is flexible and what

[3:10:10] is not. And so part of what we're going

[3:10:12] to have to do is figure out what we are

[3:10:15] comfortable providing you to ensure that

[3:10:18] we're addressing your concerns, but also

[3:10:20] not getting caught up in some confusion

[3:10:22] within town hall about what's allowed

[3:10:24] and what's not. And so I can give you

[3:10:27] some answers, but frankly I don't have

[3:10:29] all the answers because I what I thought

[3:10:31] I knew when I walked in here is

[3:10:33] different than what is being told to you

[3:10:38] what I'm hearing right now.

[3:10:39] >> I'm sorry that confusion has happened.

[3:10:41] >> Yeah. So

[3:10:42] >> So what you're saying is the plan

[3:10:44] department and attorney is not on the

[3:10:46] same page.

[3:10:48] >> I that is that you know I I don't want

[3:10:51] to say anything. All I'm saying is is

[3:10:53] that we had a different understanding

[3:10:54] coming in. I don't want to say anything

[3:10:56] about who did what because, you know,

[3:11:00] we're all human. Um but um we will

[3:11:03] endeavor um to use our time wisely to

[3:11:07] address to address the issues and

[3:11:09] concerns. We hear you loud and clear.

[3:11:11] We're not trying to hide the ball. We're

[3:11:13] just trying to be responsible and and recognizing this is an iterative

[3:11:16] process. The concept plan is not the

[3:11:18] step the site plan. So what I'm trying

[3:11:22] to do is make sure that and I think this

[3:11:24] is frankly what what uh town attorney

[3:11:26] Neil is trying to do is make sure that

[3:11:28] the concept plan doesn't create a box

[3:11:31] that this development can't get out of.

[3:11:33] >> Y

[3:11:34] >> and so I think being sensitive to that

[3:11:37] and and I think the perfectly good I I

[3:11:40] me saying what I said is not in any way

[3:11:42] criticism of anybody on staff. is rather

[3:11:45] it is a develop you know a developing

[3:11:47] knowledge uh knowledge and understanding

[3:11:49] and I think it'll allow us to all be

[3:11:51] more comfortable that we've provided

[3:11:53] what we can figure out how to provide

[3:11:55] the commitments we can because I think

[3:11:57] what we're ultimately talking about is how do we give you more of a sense of

[3:12:02] what is the you know sort of do dash

[3:12:05] dotted line where this building will be

[3:12:08] and where where are the things that we

[3:12:10] can address or give some some

[3:12:13] information on that are of concern to

[3:12:14] neighbors. Specifically, for instance,

[3:12:16] the ambulance drop off zone. Can that be

[3:12:18] on the west? Can we say can we either

[3:12:20] with a condition or something else say

[3:12:22] this will be on the western side of the

[3:12:24] building? Again, some of that is

[3:12:26] complicated by the fact that as as Tom

[3:12:29] Cavender said, they don't even know

[3:12:31] quite what the orientation of the

[3:12:32] building is going to be, right? So

[3:12:34] that's where that's why I was I wasn't

[3:12:37] when I said there's some of the stuff

[3:12:40] that we can't completely do whether it's

[3:12:41] in 30 or 60 days. It's not because we

[3:12:43] won't have the geotech information. It's

[3:12:46] because you've got architects, geotech,

[3:12:47] you know, you've got all these things

[3:12:48] being layered on top of each other. And

[3:12:51] so I think it's just us figuring trying

[3:12:53] to be as thoughtful and smart in

[3:12:56] collaboration with again your really

[3:12:58] good staff.

[3:13:00] How do we do that in a way that

[3:13:01] addresses your concerns, addresses the

[3:13:03] neighborhood's very valid concerns, and

[3:13:05] ensures that we all have appropriate

[3:13:08] flexibility so that what we think is the

[3:13:12] right way to go in a concept plan when

[3:13:15] we realize maybe we need to make tweaks

[3:13:17] in the site plan, when I say we, I mean

[3:13:21] the sort of editorial we everybody um we

[3:13:25] have the flexibility to do that. And so

[3:13:27] that's I think what I'm taking out of

[3:13:29] this. Understand the desire to reduce

[3:13:32] the uses. Understand the desire to

[3:13:34] address the ambulance area and the the

[3:13:38] building location. And we'll look for

[3:13:40] the best ways to do that. And there's

[3:13:41] some really smart people that are going

[3:13:43] to have to tell me how to do that. So

[3:13:46] >> okay. So are you still good with

[3:13:48] September 1st?

[3:13:49] >> September 1st is our preference. Yes.

[3:13:50] >> Okay. So you know if you ask you need a

[3:13:52] delay, you can ask the through the

[3:13:54] planning department. You all know the

[3:13:55] process. We won't we will certainly be

[3:13:57] in in a lot of touch with your planning

[3:13:59] department. So I don't think our

[3:14:01] timeline will will continue to be

[3:14:02] >> I think Chris Mr. Burn you started the

[3:14:05] two did you start? So add add the date

[3:14:08] >> to provide the certain date then we're

[3:14:10] saying September 1st right

[3:14:14] >> uh is there a second

[3:14:15] >> second

[3:14:16] >> got a motion second no discussion not

[3:14:19] hearing. All in favor say I. Can I ask a point of clarification for with my

[3:14:24] fellow commissioner

[3:14:25] >> Bernett

[3:14:26] >> between the two, moving the ambulance

[3:14:30] bay to the west side or moving the

[3:14:33] building north and west of its current

[3:14:36] location? Is one more important than the

[3:14:39] other?

[3:14:43] » I understand. And I'm just try and I'm

[3:14:47] >> both.

[3:14:48] >> We're looking after you guys. So, we're

[3:14:50] Okay, then we'll leave it that way.

[3:14:51] >> Well, the geography is going to preclude

[3:14:53] one or the other. If you put the bay on

[3:14:56] the west side, by definition, the

[3:14:58] building can no longer be as far to the

[3:14:59] west.

[3:14:59] >> Bottom line,

[3:15:00] >> correct?

[3:15:01] >> Yeah,

[3:15:03] >> that's a good point.

[3:15:04] >> Yeah,

[3:15:07] » yes, good point.

[3:15:08] >> Within reason, but yes.

[3:15:10] >> So, uh any further discussion? Not not

[3:15:12] hearing it. All in favor say I. Any

[3:15:15] opposed? Sounds like eyes have it.

[3:15:17] >> Thank you. Thank you, board. Thank you

[3:15:19] guys. Appreciate y'all coming out. U

[3:15:22] apologize for any confusion our staff

[3:15:24] and attorney gave you. I mean, that's unfortunate. So, thank you for

[3:15:29] coming out.

[3:15:32] Um, next item we have is ANX26-1-825

[3:15:41] a road annexation. I think Steve, you

[3:15:44] want to kick that off? I'm going to do

[3:15:46] this is a this is a continuation.

[3:15:50] So, um

[3:15:55] » Thank you. Appreciate that. Uh this is a

[3:15:58] continuation. So, um kind of bring you

[3:16:01] up to speed where we at with that. I did

[3:16:04] close the public hearing.

[3:16:05] >> No, sir. This a new one.

[3:16:07] >> This is This is brand new, sir.

[3:16:11] >> This is 825, right?

[3:16:13] 101 is where you would think about the

[3:16:15] continuation.

[3:16:17] >> The what?

[3:16:17] >> 1101.

[3:16:20] 1101 11.

[3:16:22] >> Okay.

[3:16:23] >> All right. So, this is a new one then.

[3:16:25] >> That's correct.

[3:16:26] >> All right. So, this is ANX26-1-825

[3:16:30] A Road Annexation. And Stephen, you

[3:16:33] going to uh uh kind of give us a staff

[3:16:36] report. And then after that, uh if there

[3:16:39] any applicant want to give a report,

[3:16:41] we'll hear that. Then I open up the

[3:16:42] public hearing.

[3:16:46] » So this is uh 825 A Road. It's the Hope

[3:16:50] Baptist Church. Their petition to annex

[3:16:53] into the town. This is an existing

[3:16:55] church site. I believe they have a

[3:16:58] desire to add on to their building and

[3:17:00] make some adjustments, but they want

[3:17:02] access to sewer, which is the primary

[3:17:04] motivation for

[3:17:06] um this annexation.

[3:17:09] and we get the sewer from the

[3:17:11] development from behind. Um, so this is

[3:17:15] just an ordinary annexation petition.

[3:17:17] Um, I got the pin number there. It's

[3:17:20] roughly 10 acres. It's a place of

[3:17:21] worship and again we want access to

[3:17:24] public utilities which is the

[3:17:25] motivation.

[3:17:28] Um, this is voluntary annexation

[3:17:31] petition uh accepted on April 28th 26th.

[3:17:36] The board of commissioners um ordered

[3:17:38] the clerk to investigate the sufficiency

[3:17:40] at the June 16th, 2026 on the consent

[3:17:43] agenda.

[3:17:55] » The uh clerk found the the petition

[3:17:58] sufficient on July 21st, 2026, and the

[3:18:00] board of commissioners set a public

[3:18:02] hearing for tonight.

[3:18:06] So with any annexation, the board needs

[3:18:08] to consider the the cost benefit of

[3:18:10] annexation and um in this case there's

[3:18:14] no re measurable measurable impact to

[3:18:16] the town because public works, parks,

[3:18:19] fire and police, code enforcement, it

[3:18:22] really would have no impact on any of

[3:18:23] those measurably.

[3:18:26] Um if now if we had a utilities

[3:18:28] department that that was our own, that

[3:18:31] would be a consideration.

[3:18:33] you know, would it impact our ability to

[3:18:35] provide those services? But that's a

[3:18:36] rale function.

[3:18:43] So, um the proposed motion is to to

[3:18:48] either approve or deny the voluntary

[3:18:50] annexation petition by adopting the

[3:18:53] ordinance in your packet.

[3:18:59] If I'm thinking correctly and I'm going

[3:19:02] northbound or southbound down A, it's

[3:19:04] literally the church in between

[3:19:07] uh KB and Powder. Elizabeth Springs is right there on the left hand side.

[3:19:13] >> It's on the same side.

[3:19:13] It's the same

[3:19:15] size as Elizabeth Springs. Literally

[3:19:16] right there in the Yeah. North. Yeah.

[3:19:18] Okay.

[3:19:18] >> Thank you.

[3:19:25] Is there a presentation from the

[3:19:27] applicant?

[3:19:29] >> Paul, Stephen, it is okay.

[3:19:36] » How you

[3:19:36] >> Hey, good evening. John Fraser with FLM

[3:19:38] Engineering. We're at 8951 Harvest Oaks

[3:19:41] Drive, sweet 205 in Raleigh, 27615.

[3:19:45] I'm uh civil engineer working with the

[3:19:47] church. We've got some church

[3:19:48] representatives as well. Uh but as

[3:19:50] Stephen mentioned, this is a standard

[3:19:53] annexation request. Uh the church does

[3:19:56] have some um plans and and

[3:19:59] considerations for improving their

[3:20:01] campus, but before they can even begin

[3:20:03] that, they need to know that they have

[3:20:05] access to utilities because currently

[3:20:06] they have septic system on site that

[3:20:09] would present pre prevent any expansions

[3:20:11] or anything like that. So, we've had

[3:20:13] discussions with planning staff, city of

[3:20:15] Raleigh staff. City of Raleigh's

[3:20:16] reviewed some preliminary utility

[3:20:19] connection plan. So, we we feel that we

[3:20:22] have an approvable

[3:20:24] um you know, plan to to make these

[3:20:26] connections and and this is really just

[3:20:27] a first step to know that we we can do

[3:20:29] it and the church can then start to to

[3:20:32] explore the possibilities for

[3:20:34] improvements to their campus. Uh but

[3:20:36] we're happy to answer any questions that you guys may have uh tonight.

[3:20:43] Yeah. And I I think we've we've annexed

[3:20:46] properties before because request for

[3:20:48] water and sewer. Um I guess I guess for

[3:20:51] the board uh Raleigh will not hook up

[3:20:54] unless it's been annexed in some partner

[3:20:57] city. So um only way they can get water

[3:21:00] and sewer is for us to annex them.

[3:21:02] >> That's correct. Um typically um

[3:21:07] typically it means you know it's a tax based thing but the church is

[3:21:13] nonprofit so um it simp we don't we

[3:21:17] would do this not on the desire to

[3:21:19] collect any taxes probably but um

[3:21:23] >> in good faith

[3:21:24] >> huh

[3:21:25] >> it's in good faith

[3:21:26] >> yes in good faith but um

[3:21:28] >> if [clears throat] there's no downside

[3:21:29] to it then

[3:21:30] >> yeah yeah only you know I don't I think

[3:21:33] there's only

[3:21:34] >> Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a move then

[3:21:35] please. I move to approve voluntary

[3:21:37] annexation petition annex 26-002 by

[3:21:41] adopting ordinance 2026-001.

[3:21:45] >> I think I got to open the public hearing

[3:21:47] first.

[3:21:49] >> So can you hold that commissioner if you

[3:21:51] would?

[3:21:52] >> Uh utilities are approximate to the

[3:21:54] property, right?

[3:21:55] >> Anything else you want to add? Um

[3:21:58] >> I'll answer Mr. Mr. Paul's question. So

[3:22:00] um there there's a small sewer extension

[3:22:03] that will be required from the preserve

[3:22:05] and agreement is already in place for

[3:22:07] that sewer easement but water is in a

[3:22:10] road. So just some minor extension

[3:22:13] >> it is okay. Thank you.

[3:22:15] >> So you have access to it.

[3:22:17] >> Right. Right.

[3:22:17] >> I would think that probably anything

[3:22:19] else you want to add uh presentation

[3:22:21] wise?

[3:22:22] >> No but again I'm happy to answer any

[3:22:24] other questions you may have.

[3:22:25] >> Okay. Well just stay right there for a

[3:22:26] minute. I'm open to public hearing.

[3:22:28] Anybody here in favor? Maybe check the

[3:22:31] sheet for me, Christie. No one.

[3:22:33] [laughter]

[3:22:33] Okay. U last chance. Anybody want to

[3:22:37] speak? Okay. I'll close the public

[3:22:39] hearing now.

[3:22:42] If it's any questions for staff or um or

[3:22:46] John, um this is time. If not, I will

[3:22:49] entertain a motion.

[3:22:50] >> Commissioner Long.

[3:22:52] >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion,

[3:22:55] please. I move to approve voluntary

[3:22:57] annexation petition A&X26-002

[3:23:02] by adopting ordinance 2026-XX

[3:23:07] » 001 number

[3:23:10] >> 001

[3:23:11] >> 00001 Okay so I have a motion on table

[3:23:14] is there a second

[3:23:15] >> second

[3:23:16] >> I think commissioner Paul got

[3:23:19] >> uh got a motion second any further

[3:23:21] discussion

[3:23:22] >> no sir

[3:23:23] >> not hearing any all in favor Say I.

[3:23:26] >> Any oppose?

[3:23:28] >> I sound like the eyes have it. So, thank

[3:23:30] you. Good to see you, bud. I haven't

[3:23:31] seen you.

[3:23:32] >> Welcome back to Rollsville.

[3:23:34] >> Thank you.

[3:23:35] >> Congratulations.

[3:23:36] >> Um, very good.

[3:23:40] Thank you, commissioners. Um, next item

[3:23:43] is TA. Anybody want to take a break or

[3:23:45] we want to roll through this?

[3:23:47] >> Let's get through this.

[3:23:48] uh TA26-6

[3:23:51] and res-26-00004

[3:23:55] downtown lake. So, um

[3:23:59] it's it's it's up to you.

[3:24:03] >> Thank you, mayor. Um this overlay

[3:24:07] district is a long time coming. It's

[3:24:08] been talked about. Um, it primarily

[3:24:12] deals with building orientation,

[3:24:14] parking, buffer, setbacks, and that sort

[3:24:17] of thing. Um, which I'll get into more.

[3:24:21] Um, we've broken it into the areas in

[3:24:24] light blue, and then there's sort of a

[3:24:25] purple color, which is a core area.

[3:24:27] There's one distinction between the two

[3:24:29] areas.

[3:24:31] Um the areas highlighted in red

[3:24:35] on both ends of of of that area are

[3:24:39] different than what's in your packet.

[3:24:41] After the packet went out, this map was

[3:24:44] shared with the downtown development

[3:24:47] um RDDA and uh it was suggested that the

[3:24:52] overlay extend to all four corners of

[3:24:54] those intersections.

[3:24:56] Um which so this map reflects what we

[3:24:59] would like the board to adopt for the

[3:25:00] reasonzoning.

[3:25:02] Um, the core area is the walkable the

[3:25:05] most walkable core area and essentially

[3:25:07] that's there's a restriction on

[3:25:09] drive-thrus

[3:25:11] in that area. So, I'll get I'll get to

[3:25:14] the next. Um, the chapter

[3:25:18] discusses four different areas. There's

[3:25:19] the introductory provisions, which was

[3:25:21] my first slide. There are permitted and

[3:25:23] special uses in the downtown overlay.

[3:25:27] There are prohibited uses. And then

[3:25:29] there's design standards. And I'll get

[3:25:32] into the design standards in a second.

[3:25:34] Um, I want to point out though that we

[3:25:36] do still have this uh downzoning

[3:25:39] provision in the legislature which

[3:25:41] restricts us from downzoning any

[3:25:44] property. And so there is a clause in

[3:25:46] this ordinance that should any of these

[3:25:48] provisions

[3:25:50] um presenting down zoning, they don't

[3:25:53] apply. So in some cases, this will be

[3:25:56] aspirational.

[3:25:58] If a land owner, you know, they want to

[3:26:00] comply, they will. If they get really

[3:26:03] pushy, they may say the downzoning

[3:26:06] provision protects me. So, for instance,

[3:26:10] we have in the pedestrian area, this

[3:26:12] walkable core, we want to bring the the

[3:26:16] development signs down from 12 feet down

[3:26:18] to six feet, which is a more pedestrian

[3:26:20] scale. But in the end, if they really

[3:26:24] want that 12 foot sign, there's probably

[3:26:25] nothing we can do, at least until the

[3:26:27] down zoning provision gets um eliminated

[3:26:32] in legislation

[3:26:35] in the design standards. Um building

[3:26:37] orientation. So really the buildings

[3:26:39] would have to orient the streets. Um

[3:26:43] parking would be located the side of the

[3:26:45] rear buildings. We we'd be eliminating

[3:26:48] perimeter buffers since this is all

[3:26:49] walkable commercial area. So we don't

[3:26:51] need to buffer it from itself. It's

[3:26:52] meant to all be complimentary.

[3:26:54] Um street buffers are are eliminated

[3:26:58] because the buildings are going to be

[3:26:59] brought up to the street. Um

[3:27:03] it'll be a 5 to 20 foot setback

[3:27:06] and only where where a building steps

[3:27:11] back further they will have to maintain

[3:27:13] the street edge.

[3:27:16] Okay. Um, drive-throughs again are not

[3:27:19] allowed in the walkable clear area. That

[3:27:20] was the purple area. Otherwise, located

[3:27:23] to the side or rear of buildings. Um,

[3:27:26] vegetation preservation is a U part of

[3:27:29] the code which really wouldn't make

[3:27:31] sense in the downtown core, so it's not

[3:27:34] required. And then mailboxes for

[3:27:37] requiring them to be located internally

[3:27:39] or clustered along Main Street.

[3:27:44] Um, there are, if you look in your

[3:27:46] packet, there was minor edits to the

[3:27:49] other overlay section, other parts of

[3:27:51] the overlay, and that's really just

[3:27:53] textual fixes, clarity, typos.

[3:27:57] Um, and with that, I've got two proposed

[3:28:01] motions. One is to approve or deny the

[3:28:03] overlay ordinance,

[3:28:05] finding it consistent or inconsistent

[3:28:07] with the plan, and please give examples.

[3:28:10] for uh a motion to approve or deny the

[3:28:14] um the the map, the corresponding map.

[3:28:21] » Question. Can I ask my question?

[3:28:26] » Okay. So, um in the overlay district I

[3:28:29] it the permitted special uses

[3:28:33] had included lodge and private club. Is

[3:28:36] that because of Granite Falls? Is

[3:28:37] Granite Falls in that area? And it had

[3:28:40] also had bars and nightclubs, which I

[3:28:42] understand there's the tavern and

[3:28:44] greenway. So that's why that's still on

[3:28:46] there. So, but the lodge and private

[3:28:49] clubs, what is that? Is that Oh, that new building, um, Pinelow, that's

[3:28:55] private. Is that considered a private

[3:28:57] club?

[3:28:58] >> Not sure that's considered private club.

[3:29:03] » What was it? said

[3:29:05] >> it was the Elks Club, the Moose Club,

[3:29:08] >> the the Masons.

[3:29:10] >> Oh, that's the one that's behind the

[3:29:11] >> Jeffrey Clubs.

[3:29:12] >> That's not in there. That's not in there.

[3:29:15] >> But would Granite Falls under that? That

[3:29:17] was a good point.

[3:29:18] >> Is Granite Falls in that area? Like a

[3:29:20] private club because you have to pay

[3:29:21] membership.

[3:29:22] >> He said it's it's not in there.

[3:29:24] >> I don't think it's in that. I don't

[3:29:25] think it's in that overlay.

[3:29:26] >> Oh, it's not.

[3:29:26] >> Okay.

[3:29:27] >> This is pretty much

[3:29:27] >> That's pretty much Main Street. Yeah.

[3:29:29] >> Yeah. So then lodge and private club can

[3:29:31] come out then.

[3:29:34] Um, if you would like them to come out.

[3:29:37] >> Are you seeking to prevent

[3:29:40] >> So, what's a I know a private

[3:29:41] >> along Main Street,

[3:29:43] >> a lodge and a private club. A lodge such

[3:29:45] as what kind what kind of lodge? Like a

[3:29:48] >> hotel, boutique.

[3:29:50] >> No, these the the description is going

[3:29:52] to be of uh dinner club, supper club,

[3:29:55] membership club, moose lodge, uh elks

[3:29:58] club, rotary that has

[3:30:01] >> cigar club.

[3:30:02] >> Yeah. cigar club, these sort of things.

[3:30:06] >> Got it. Okay.

[3:30:08] >> Yeah.

[3:30:14] [laughter]

[3:30:16] >> Keep going. Keep going.

[3:30:18] >> I think Main Street Tavern is a private

[3:30:20] club, isn't it?

[3:30:21] >> It is.

[3:30:22] >> Is it?

[3:30:23] >> Oh, yeah. What is it? A dollar?

[3:30:26] >> It's a dollar.

[3:30:26] >> It used to be and North Carolina just

[3:30:28] recently got rid of the private club

[3:30:30] law. So

[3:30:31] >> but but prior to then it was a dollar

[3:30:33] >> but still

[3:30:34] >> but then at the end of the day

[3:30:38] » go ahead.

[3:30:40] >> Yeah. So it's just looking for a motion

[3:30:43] for both the text amendment and the

[3:30:44] reasoning.

[3:30:48] » So any additional work has to be done on

[3:30:50] this or

[3:30:53] >> it's all kind of done and this clause

[3:30:56] about I know um just down thrown in kind

[3:30:59] of

[3:31:01] held this up for a long long time. So

[3:31:03] this clause fixed all that. Then

[3:31:06] >> you know where somebody have a issue

[3:31:07] with you, they just challenge it.

[3:31:09] >> We would just back down. We say that the

[3:31:11] clause, you're right. The clause is

[3:31:14] there. You can build your 12oot sign.

[3:31:17] So you know, we're hopeful that that down zoning will go away at some

[3:31:20] point.

[3:31:23] Clause is protecting us.

[3:31:25] >> I just have one more question. So if

[3:31:28] there is in the overlay district. There

[3:31:31] is a building that is industrial

[3:31:35] that

[3:31:37] they will still if it's sold, somebody

[3:31:39] new bought it.

[3:31:41] It's still zoned industrial even though

[3:31:44] it's in the overlay district.

[3:31:45] >> That clause fixes them. That's what the

[3:31:48] clause is for.

[3:31:49] >> So it's now they're now required to do

[3:31:52] this

[3:31:53] >> only if they expand. It's only new

[3:31:54] development really.

[3:31:56] >> Oh, wait. because everyone else is legal

[3:31:59] non-conforming.

[3:32:01] >> Legal non-conforming. So, if you're

[3:32:02] going to expand, your expansion would

[3:32:03] have to meet these standards unless you

[3:32:06] challenge it because of the down zoning

[3:32:07] clause. Um,

[3:32:11] so

[3:32:11] >> so as long as the building stays the

[3:32:13] same and everything, nothing else if

[3:32:15] they don't build out any or change it in

[3:32:20] >> persists legal for me.

[3:32:21] >> Okay, got it.

[3:32:24] >> Good clarity.

[3:32:27] After you got this, no one who can do

[3:32:30] something today will not be able to do

[3:32:32] it tomorrow. Everyone who can do

[3:32:34] something today will still be able to do

[3:32:36] it tomorrow. No one can lose their

[3:32:38] ladies rights based upon the action you

[3:32:40] take.

[3:32:40] >> Okay.

[3:32:43] » So they could do whatever they wanted to

[3:32:45] in the industrial zoning.

[3:32:47] >> Correct.

[3:32:47] >> Even though it's

[3:32:49] >> this. So it's not fixed.

[3:32:52] >> It's just an overlay.

[3:32:53] >> North Carolina doesn't allow it. So

[3:32:55] right if it's industrial it could be a

[3:32:57] vacant industrial site the day after you

[3:33:00] adopt this

[3:33:02] if they were willing to move forward

[3:33:04] with the zoning that we currently have

[3:33:06] industrial zone they would not have to

[3:33:09] come before you and they would not be

[3:33:10] subject to any

[3:33:13] >> but if they wanted to change the zoning

[3:33:15] this is the only thing they could change

[3:33:16] it to

[3:33:17] >> if if they wanted to come in for a

[3:33:19] reasonzoning on their own then

[3:33:21] essentially they're they're deciding

[3:33:22] they'd like to be part of a brave new

[3:33:25] Yeah.

[3:33:25] >> Okay.

[3:33:27] >> Gotcha.

[3:33:28] >> Yeah. Anything coming in the future has

[3:33:31] got to

[3:33:32] >> if they want to do something, they have

[3:33:33] to do it this way

[3:33:34] >> unless they unless they're protected by

[3:33:37] >> already.

[3:33:38] >> Yeah.

[3:33:38] >> Unless they already have it.

[3:33:40] >> No one is losing. No one loses. If

[3:33:43] someone were to walk up to you, let's

[3:33:45] say this tomorrow and say, you know,

[3:33:49] government regulates me to death. I

[3:33:51] can't believe you're taking away my

[3:33:52] rights. That

[3:33:54] Everybody is completely grandfathered in

[3:33:56] unless they consent to be reserved.

[3:33:58] >> Okay, got it. I understand.

[3:34:01] >> I do think this is important because

[3:34:02] I've I've had a a potential developer

[3:34:04] say, "Well, we want to do what the town

[3:34:06] wants." So, you're going to find some

[3:34:09] voluntary compliance.

[3:34:11] >> Absolutely.

[3:34:11] >> As you go through,

[3:34:12] >> you I'm sure you hear that. I wish I

[3:34:15] wish the town would just tell me what

[3:34:17] the town wants.

[3:34:23] » Ready for a motion, sir?

[3:34:24] >> Yeah, I'm ready for a motion.

[3:34:26] >> Move to approve TA-26-006

[3:34:29] downtown overlay district because it is

[3:34:32] consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[3:34:35] >> Is there any

[3:34:38] provide an example?

[3:34:39] >> Anybody want to second that?

[3:34:42] >> Second.

[3:34:44] Uh I think uh I think the attorney I

[3:34:47] mean not attorney but uh the planning

[3:34:50] director gave some examples how

[3:34:52] consistent with what

[3:34:54] >> he actually said it was consistent

[3:34:56] didn't he?

[3:34:57] >> He stated that. So um

[3:34:59] >> using the examples

[3:35:00] >> yeah use his

[3:35:02] >> really [snorts]

[3:35:03] best example that bringing the downtown.

[3:35:08] » Yeah.

[3:35:10] >> So I got a motion second. Any

[3:35:12] discussion? No.

[3:35:13] >> All in favor say I.

[3:35:15] >> Any oppose?

[3:35:16] >> I sounds like they have it. They do have

[3:35:18] it. Uh then

[3:35:21] >> uh the map. Who did the motion?

[3:35:25] >> I did.

[3:35:25] Move to approve reszoning 26-004

[3:35:30] official zoning map update for the

[3:35:33] downtown Overlay district because it is

[3:35:35] consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[3:35:37] >> Second.

[3:35:38] >> Got a motion. Second. Any discussion?

[3:35:41] Not hearing. All in favor say I. I.

[3:35:43] >> Any oppose?

[3:35:44] >> Sounds like eyes have it. Eyes do have

[3:35:46] it. Motion's approved. Thank you.

[3:35:48] Appreciate that.

[3:35:50] >> Okay, moving along. Communications with

[3:35:53] uh town town manager Eric. Anything you

[3:35:56] want to um communicate?

[3:36:00] Thank you. Thank you,

[3:36:04] Stephen. Thank you.

[3:36:06] Appreciate. Go ahead, Eric.

[3:36:09] >> Um, nope. don't have any updates. They

[3:36:11] were covered in the seniors update and

[3:36:14] also in the public safety update as far

[3:36:16] as national night out and also the

[3:36:18] seniors expo is coming up.

[3:36:22] >> All right. Thanks. Any update? Dave

[3:36:24] Neil, town attorney.

[3:36:26] >> The only item is something in which

[3:36:37] » Thank you, Mr. Manager. Uh the only

[3:36:39] thing that I have is the proposed close

[3:36:42] session for a personnel matter if that's

[3:36:44] uh the board's pleasure and the form of

[3:36:46] motion is in your inbox.

[3:36:51] Any other thing any questions for

[3:36:53] attorney or Eric? Anything from clerk?

[3:36:56] Any any comment? Um

[3:36:59] she's working on 911 contest. So um

[3:37:03] that's uh that's going to be here pretty

[3:37:06] soon. So

[3:37:06] >> that's right.

[3:37:09] September 1st.

[3:37:11] >> Yeah, that'd be at the meeting.

[3:37:13] >> That'd be at the meeting September 1st.

[3:37:16] Um, we will go back to our new schedule

[3:37:19] or our

[3:37:22] normal schedule in September.

[3:37:25] Um, so with that, I will entertain a

[3:37:29] motion for executive session.

[3:37:32] >> Mr. Mayor, I have a motion, proposed

[3:37:35] form of motion for closed section. I

[3:37:37] move that the board go into close

[3:37:38] session to preserve the attorney client

[3:37:40] privilege pursuant to chapter 143

[3:37:43] section 318.11a6

[3:37:46] of the Northcon general statutes to

[3:37:47] discuss a personnel matter

[3:37:51] I have a motion to second. Is there any

[3:37:53] discussion?

[3:37:54] >> Second.

[3:37:56] >> Got a motion second. Any discussion? All

[3:37:58] in favor say I.

[3:38:00] >> Any oppose? Eyes have it. And we will

[3:38:02] adjourn into close. not ajourned for

[3:38:05] recess and close session. Thank you.

[3:38:22] Okay, we have come out of executive

[3:38:26] session. Um, it's pretty late tonight.

[3:38:28] We spent uh a pretty good while in

[3:38:31] meetings tonight. We had a couple public

[3:38:33] hearings to do and a couple of business

[3:38:35] items to take care of. Uh this is the

[3:38:39] last big long meeting we'll have board.

[3:38:41] So I hope you appreciate us meeting uh

[3:38:44] just one time a month during the

[3:38:46] summertime. It as you can see by the

[3:38:49] clock sometimes it's going to take a

[3:38:50] while to do it but we will be back on

[3:38:52] this on the regular schedule in

[3:38:54] September. Um and hopefully we'll get

[3:38:57] out of here much earlier. But just want

[3:38:59] to appreciate all the work the board put

[3:39:01] in today. Uh we got a lot of things

[3:39:04] accomplished. We still got a lot more

[3:39:05] things accomplished especially making

[3:39:08] decision around the hospital. Um we want

[3:39:11] to get it right but at the same time we

[3:39:13] want to support a hospital need a

[3:39:14] hospital in Missouri in my opinion and

[3:39:17] uh we need to figure out how to do that

[3:39:18] make it make it the right thing to do.

[3:39:21] So with that any comments from from

[3:39:24] staff or whatever any comments from

[3:39:26] board? Appreciate it. Just want to

[3:39:28] remind everybody tomorrow we have this

[3:39:30] senior citizens uh uh expo. So uh make

[3:39:34] sure you come out for that. We'll meet

[3:39:36] again before 911, but the big 911 events

[3:39:39] coming up too. So thank you. Appreciate

[3:39:41] board. Thanks a lot. We are ajourned.

Rolesville Council Meeting - August 18, 2026

Transcript