[4:49] All right, let's stand and say the

[4:51] pledge.

[4:53] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[4:56] United States of America and to the

[4:59] republic for which it stands, one nation

[5:02] under God, indivisible, liberty and

[5:04] justice for all.

[5:11] right, good to see everybody out

[5:12] here.

[5:14] Uh, when everybody gets called up, we

[5:17] need approval of the agenda, please. And

[5:19] I'd like to make a couple changes

[5:23] on our quarterly update to get these

[5:24] guys out of here a little bit quicker.

[5:26] Let's switch A and B on our regular

[5:28] agenda.

[5:30] Then F we need to add uh to amend

[5:34] 2026-20

[5:37] and then G will be adopt 2026-28

[5:42] and that'll make more sense when we get

[5:43] into it. It was some stuff we had in the

[5:46] consent and we're dragging it back down

[5:47] here to work on a bit.

[5:50] >> So I make a motion to approve the agenda

[5:52] with the modifications.

[5:53] >> Thank you Brian. Second.

[5:54] >> I'll second it.

[5:55] >> Thank you Sandra. Any more discussion on

[5:57] this agenda

[5:59] hearing? None. All in favor? I. Any

[6:02] opposed? Hear none. Uh got call for

[6:06] public comment. Uh Mr. Schmidt, you're

[6:09] up.

[6:13] » Uh I don't have much to say tonight. I

[6:15] just uh I didn't have time to prepare

[6:18] anything. So it's on Muaness. I was at a

[6:20] lawyer's house uh meeting today. Anyhow,

[6:24] my main thing is I appreciate this three

[6:26] minutes of time that you give us all to

[6:29] speak our grievances or to say whatever

[6:31] or even to uh applaud what you're doing,

[6:34] right?

[6:36] The only problem is that that's a good

[6:38] democratic sort of thing, but it's not

[6:40] 100%. What we really need here is we

[6:43] really need you guys to be accountable

[6:45] to us and and we should be able to ask

[6:48] you guys a question. One question,

[6:51] that's all.

[6:52] one question per person per occurrence

[6:56] and get an answer. I asked you guys a

[6:58] question last time. I want to know who

[7:02] was responsible for taking a

[7:06] planning thing from reszoning a little

[7:09] bit of 280 and some changes in the

[7:12] nomenclature to all of a sudden this big

[7:15] uh UDO pro program that we got now that

[7:18] we paid $200,000 for. who made that

[7:22] decision to go from something that was

[7:25] small and microscopic and approved by

[7:28] the state

[7:30] and all of a sudden it becomes this big

[7:32] program that we're spending all this

[7:34] money on and the state says no because

[7:36] you we didn't grant you that.

[7:39] Somebody made that decision. I want to

[7:42] know who who did that. I want to know

[7:44] who's responsible for wasting that money

[7:46] because it's a waste of money. We're not

[7:48] going to use Yeah. We we cobble some use

[7:51] out of it after post after the the

[7:54] destruction,

[7:56] but we as taxpayers are not getting

[7:59] value for our money there. And we ought

[8:01] to know who was responsible for doing

[8:04] that. That person should be accountable

[8:05] to us, whether it be a counselor or one

[8:09] of the staff who. And I I found a very

[8:12] interesting law that entitles me to know

[8:16] who that is. There's a law on the books

[8:19] in the constitution. This section 18

[8:22] USC subsection 242. It's called the

[8:26] deprivation of rights under the color of

[8:28] law. And if I can kind of put it in my

[8:31] words for you, it means that you as

[8:34] officials do not have the right to deny

[8:39] me my constitutional right of knowing

[8:42] who is doing what under my name.

[8:47] and can be in prison for that. So, I

[8:50] want an answer to my question by next

[8:52] meeting. You can write me got my

[8:54] address. I'll write you an official

[8:57] letter if you'd like asking it. I want

[8:59] that information.

[9:01] Yeah. And I would like you to look at

[9:03] your agenda and try to adapt it so that

[9:05] you can put a question and answer

[9:07] period. Just maybe one question. Add

[9:09] another minute to the three minutes. Do

[9:12] it. Let's get a democratic process going

[9:15] here where you guys have got to be

[9:17] accountable.

[9:18] >> Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[9:21] Okay. Anybody else pro comment? That's

[9:24] the only one I had wrote down. Anybody

[9:26] else? Going once, twice, three times.

[9:28] Okay. Uh council comments.

[9:34] Anybody?

[9:37] Anybody?

[9:41] Uh,

[9:42] so

[9:44] I know public comment,

[9:48] you know,

[9:51] is that even a possibility after hearing

[9:54] that? I mean, you know, somehow we need

[9:58] to address some of these things as they

[10:00] come. you know, some bigger than others,

[10:03] but can somebody this week somehow get

[10:06] him an official email to try to answer

[10:10] that?

[10:12] >> Yes, sir. Absolutely.

[10:13] >> I think I mean I think somebody needs to

[10:15] reach out to him.

[10:16] >> Okay. Yes, sir.

[10:17] >> Let us know if you would.

[10:22] the um to the question about public

[10:25] comment the um typically from the public

[10:28] comment period questions are asked then

[10:30] moving into council comments that's an

[10:32] opportunity for council to respond okay

[10:34] to any type of public comment that they

[10:36] may wish or provide any other comments

[10:37] that they may wish um at that time um

[10:40] but yes absolutely we're happy to reach

[10:41] out and uh see if we can assist with his

[10:44] questions

[10:44] >> okay and I think it'd be if it's all

[10:46] right with you would it be okay for all

[10:48] the council to get copied in on Yeah,

[10:51] >> sure.

[10:51] >> Yeah, thank you.

[10:54] >> Yeah, typically during the the public

[10:57] comment, we don't want to get into a

[10:59] back and forth.

[11:00] >> I understand.

[11:01] >> Yeah.

[11:01] >> One question.

[11:03] >> Yes, sir. And we've all got emails.

[11:05] You're more than welcome to email us at

[11:07] any time. I'll be glad to respond and um

[11:11] you just anytime. Um and and feel free

[11:15] to hold us accountable at election time.

[11:17] >> I'm coming up in two years. I'll hug

[11:20] your neck, you know,

[11:21] >> but it's too late for the damage that's

[11:23] getting done. That's what

[11:26] >> and that's and you know that's you're

[11:29] certainly welcome to your opinion and

[11:32] >> thank you.

[11:35] >> Anyone else? Anyone? You all good?

[11:40] >> Major updates.

[11:52] Thank you, Mayor and Council. Just a few

[11:54] updates for you. First of all, you may

[11:56] have seen that uh the fencing around the

[11:59] North Loop, especially the Meadow area,

[12:01] has been taken down. Um it's a lot of

[12:04] work that's been put into making sure

[12:06] that the North Loop is back in in

[12:09] preheline conditions. And so right now

[12:12] the full loop, the full north loop is

[12:14] open and available for all uh park

[12:16] patrons to come out and enjoy again. So

[12:19] we were, you know, we've been sitting

[12:21] around really trying to work as fast as

[12:23] possible to make that happen for the

[12:25] community and we're very thankful that

[12:26] we're able to do it before the end of

[12:28] the summer this year. There are going to

[12:30] be some closures from time to time as we

[12:33] still work through it. Well, we've we've

[12:35] accomplished what's called substantial

[12:37] completion of the construction project,

[12:39] but there's going to still be some

[12:40] projects that happen from time to time

[12:42] back there. As you may see, there's

[12:44] still some areas that are fenced off in

[12:45] the middle of the meadow area because

[12:47] there's a retention pond in there,

[12:49] sediment uh retention pond, and other

[12:51] elements that are going to have to be

[12:53] worked on as we finalize the project.

[12:55] But for all intents and purposes, we

[12:56] really want people to come out and enjoy

[12:58] being able to get access to the river

[13:00] again and be able to exercise and

[13:02] recreate back there. And I really want

[13:03] to thank the staff for all of their hard

[13:05] work in making that happen. It took a

[13:07] lot of lot of effort. The uh another

[13:10] item, the baseball field. Again, I'm

[13:12] kind of getting ahead of myself a little

[13:13] bit. We're going to have a major

[13:14] projects update here in in a few

[13:16] minutes. Uh but also, we've we've done a

[13:19] walk through for the baseball field

[13:21] project as well. So, we're going into

[13:23] the closeout process of that. So,

[13:25] there's still going to be some temporary

[13:26] fencing there as well as we try to get

[13:28] some, uh, grass growing in that back

[13:31] area where that French drain is put in,

[13:33] but uh, for all intents and purposes,

[13:36] again, being able to open that, being

[13:37] able to utilize that soon. Uh, just keep

[13:40] an eye out for, we're going to keep

[13:41] updates on social media, on our website,

[13:43] etc. about uh, any potential closures

[13:46] around that as well. Last, everyone's

[13:48] favorite topic, auditing. Uh if Kristen

[13:53] back there, our tax collector would say

[13:54] taxes are everybody's favorite uh uh uh

[13:57] topic, but we're right now in the middle

[13:59] of the audit process. We had the

[14:01] auditors uh on site last week. I believe

[14:05] it was last week. Yes. And so um they've

[14:07] concluded their on-site inspections and

[14:09] so now they're in the process um of you

[14:12] know all the other work that is

[14:13] necessary. They're still on schedule.

[14:15] We're still expecting them to come in

[14:17] November uh to present to you. So, and

[14:20] that concludes my remarks.

[14:21] >> Great.

[14:24] Moving on with our consent agenda. We

[14:27] really didn't pull anything. We had to

[14:28] set aside any other time. Okay.

[14:30] >> So, I entertain a motion to approve our

[14:33] consent agenda.

[14:34] >> I'll make a motion that we approve the

[14:36] consent agenda.

[14:37] >> Thank you, Sandra. Second.

[14:38] >> All right. Second. Any more discussion

[14:40] on this consent agenda?

[14:43] >> Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any

[14:46] opposed?

[14:48] Hearing none. All right, regular agenda.

[14:50] We've moved up our quarterly uh fourth

[14:53] quarter presentation. I guess our

[14:55] manager will get us started.

[14:56] >> Yeah, thank you, mayor and council. So,

[14:58] first I would like to introduce the

[15:00] Mills River Fire and Rescue's new fire

[15:02] chief, Bart Travis. I'm going to call

[15:04] him up here uh to the podium. I just

[15:07] wanted to in in addition to providing an

[15:10] update for us, I really just wanted to

[15:11] introduce him uh you know to council and

[15:14] to the community. really want to thank

[15:15] you uh for all the hard work you've been

[15:17] doing over there and for just the work

[15:19] in the last few weeks that we've been

[15:21] working together. It's been really a

[15:23] great transition so far.

[15:25] >> Thank you uh for that. Uh thank you for

[15:27] having me uh uh meeting. So I am 24 days

[15:31] in to my new assignment. Um and it has

[15:33] been fantastic so far. Uh everybody

[15:35] we've met uh from town staff has been

[15:38] super nice, super helpful. um community

[15:41] has been very uh open and encouraging

[15:44] and my wife and I are just thrilled to

[15:46] be here. Uh so if you ever need anything

[15:48] from the fire department aspect um

[15:50] please get up with me uh or the uh um

[15:54] town manager and we'll make that happen.

[15:56] Um but all of our interactions have been

[15:58] great. Um as far as the uh fire

[16:01] department is concerned um we have uh

[16:03] finalized a new building in station two.

[16:07] Um we are working on getting the

[16:09] financing finalized for that and we have

[16:11] a special meeting tomorrow to address

[16:13] that but we think we have all that in

[16:16] place and hopefully we'll get

[16:17] construction started uh within the next

[16:19] month. Um they have told us once it

[16:21] starts it'll be about 12 months uh

[16:24] completion uh depending on the weather.

[16:26] Um people tell me it kind of rains here

[16:28] every now and then. So we'll see we'll

[16:30] see how that happens. But uh everything

[16:32] looks really good with that. We're

[16:33] really happy with that. Um the month of

[16:36] September and October are pretty busy

[16:38] months. We've got fire prevention

[16:40] starting first week in October and the

[16:42] theme for that is uh charge into fire

[16:44] safety. Um and the idea behind it is the

[16:49] uh storage use and charging of lithium ion batteries uh to prevent

[16:54] those type of fires. Um so there's going

[16:56] to be a lot of information coming out

[16:57] about that. We'll be posting that on the

[16:59] website uh and getting that out as many

[17:01] folks as possible. Um we have uh I think

[17:04] four tours scheduled at the station in

[17:06] September uh with diff different groups.

[17:09] Um so we'll be working with that. So if

[17:11] you would like to come by and speak to

[17:13] me anytime, please feel free. Uh I'm

[17:15] usually there Monday through Friday. Um

[17:18] they didn't tell me going in. They told

[17:19] me going in I was only have to work

[17:20] Monday through Friday, but I've worked

[17:22] every Saturday and Sunday that I've been

[17:23] here uh because of calls and stuff. But

[17:25] it's been fun. Uh it's been very

[17:27] encouraging. Um do you have any

[17:29] questions for me directly about

[17:30] anything?

[17:32] What? Just glad to have you. Yes, sir.

[17:34] >> Glad to be here. Another logistical

[17:37] thing, uh we have uh two engines and a

[17:40] tanker uh that are in the works. We

[17:43] should have the tanker before the first

[17:44] of the year, the new engine supposedly

[17:47] right after the first of the year, and

[17:48] then the second engine, which would be

[17:50] the engine that replaced the engine lost

[17:52] in station two fire this time next year.

[17:55] So, keep your fingers crossed on that.

[17:57] But, uh everything we've got now is

[17:58] working in good shape. And if you need

[18:00] anything, just let me know.

[18:02] >> I'm good. You ever been involved in

[18:03] being a sanator before?

[18:04] >> A sanator?

[18:05] >> No, [clears throat] sir.

[18:06] >> You're getting ready to

[18:07] >> I'm getting ready [laughter]

[18:09] for a real mother.

[18:10] >> Look at Look at Brian. He's like, "Dude,

[18:13] what?"

[18:14] >> And there's there's room for our town

[18:15] attorney. Legit.

[18:18] >> It's legit.

[18:20] >> I'll leave it. It'll be a big surprise.

[18:21] >> Okay. [laughter]

[18:27] the co get you all. Okay.

[18:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. This is exciting.

[18:32] >> Okay. Good.

[18:32] >> Need to plan a day for it.

[18:34] >> Perfect.

[18:35] >> It'll make you glad you moved here.

[18:36] >> It will.

[18:37] >> Well, we already are. So, I can't wait

[18:38] to see what this is.

[18:40] >> It's interesting.

[18:42] >> Thank you.

[18:42] >> I believe our town attorney's invited to

[18:44] it.

[18:45] >> Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It might be the

[18:46] new Santa Claus.

[18:47] >> Say we can find an outfit.

[18:48] >> I might I might skip until I know what

[18:50] it is. [laughter]

[18:53] >> That's right. That's right. the suit.

[18:56] >> He's got smile for it. He pull it off.

[18:59] >> The beard.

[19:00] >> You don't need one for Mr. Chris.

[19:03] >> Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that. I

[19:05] also want to call up uh our friends over

[19:07] at the Henderson County Sheriff's

[19:09] Office. Uh Captain Whitaker is joining

[19:11] us here to provide us an update as well

[19:13] over the last few months and also uh

[19:15] other things we need to be looking

[19:16] forward to in the fall.

[19:19] >> Good evening. Hope everyone's doing

[19:20] well. Uh sheriff's office, we've been

[19:23] pretty busy. Uh the calls that we've had

[19:25] in the Mills River area, we had last

[19:28] three months. Um 2,29 calls. We made 30

[19:33] arrest. We had 265 traffic stops and we

[19:36] issued 19 citations. Some of the traffic

[19:39] stops and arrest were coincided and some

[19:43] war services. Uh some upcoming events um

[19:47] if y'all don't know about them is of

[19:49] course the apple festival's coming up.

[19:51] Um state fair will be here soon and PGA

[19:54] tournament here. So I think we're going

[19:56] to have a not really Henderson County is

[19:59] going to have some traffic challenges,

[20:00] but y'all might get it coming off of 191

[20:04] there. So we'll need to keep an eye on

[20:06] that. Um,

[20:10] we have permanent, if y'all don't

[20:12] already know, we have permanent

[20:14] medication disposal dropboxes. That's

[20:15] where everybody takes their old

[20:17] medicines that they don't use, drop in

[20:18] the box. We have it in four locations at

[20:21] the sheriff's office, Flesher PD,

[20:23] Inville Police Department, and Laurel

[20:25] Park. Um, we've had some requests to

[20:27] have them put somewhere other than uh

[20:31] law enforcement buildings, but we we we

[20:33] don't we try not to do that. So, um, but

[20:36] those are those are located there for

[20:38] everybody to use. Um, there will be a

[20:42] medication tape back and document

[20:44] shredding. If somebody has a bunch of

[20:46] papers they need to shred will be at EDA

[20:48] United Community Bank, that's 50 United

[20:51] Bank Drive in Edeto on Wednesday,

[20:54] September 30th, 2026 from 1:00 to 3:00

[20:58] p.m.

[21:01] Um, and that's that's about it. Any

[21:04] questions or I know got Captain Galloway

[21:07] here in case there's any questions about

[21:10] anything

[21:11] >> anything

[21:14] we need to be watching for. Anything

[21:16] changed as far as the type of crimes or

[21:18] anything?

[21:19] >> Scams are my phone is blowing up this

[21:21] week with scams, but that's the biggest

[21:23] thing.

[21:24] >> Um

[21:26] I don't know what the trending scam is.

[21:27] Do you know what the the newest?

[21:30] >> There's three or four. I've been getting

[21:32] that one about TransUnion Equifax on my

[21:35] phone. My wife got one today for

[21:38] Facebook. So, just be aware.

[21:41] >> Yeah, just be aware.

[21:43] >> Yeah, federal federal um federal agents

[21:47] or you miss jury or some stuff like

[21:51] that. So, just be aware. It's a We've

[21:54] had quite a few reports this past month

[21:56] being scanned. All right.

[21:59] >> Thanks, sir. appreciation bunch always.

[22:06] » Thank you, gentlemen. Uh so I'm going to

[22:08] turn it over now for Julie to uh jump in

[22:12] here with the financial update. So just

[22:15] as a reminder, they we're we we start

[22:17] with the financial analysis and then go

[22:19] into major projects and initiatives. Uh

[22:20] obviously we've just gone through the

[22:22] public safety partner updates as well.

[22:24] And so Julie, if you want to drive the

[22:27] train, I'll click for you.

[22:30] Good evening, council. It's my privilege

[22:32] to present tonight's report to you for

[22:34] the quarter ending June 30, 2026.

[22:38] Uh just a couple things that we want to

[22:39] bring to your attention. At the close of

[22:42] June 30th, fiscal year end, property tax

[22:46] collections were at 99.68%.

[22:49] Um total outstanding as of June 30 for

[22:54] the most recent uh property tax year was

[22:58] $14,29.

[23:00] Total collection outstanding for all

[23:02] years is 58,502.

[23:08] um wanted to uh let you know kind of

[23:11] where we stood as of the end of the year

[23:13] as it relates to our re our revenues and

[23:16] those compared to what we had budgeted

[23:19] um the sales tax revenues that you see

[23:22] here um there is still one more um

[23:25] dispersement that gets acred back to

[23:28] June 30 because it runs three months in

[23:30] a readers. So, um, with the 11 months

[23:34] that we have presented here, it's at 2.1

[23:38] million. We budgeted to 2,ion44,000.

[23:42] Um, the average collection for Mills

[23:45] River per month is about $150,000. So,

[23:49] we should see about another 155 $160,000

[23:53] added to that line item for June 30. Um,

[23:57] all the other line items you can see

[23:58] there, the grants were at 100%, power

[24:01] bill was at 100%. Our miscellaneous

[24:04] revenues were up slightly over our

[24:06] budget because the revenues for those

[24:09] River Day sponsorships was up as well as

[24:12] the vendors for that event. Um, we

[24:16] actually actually also had 66,000 in

[24:19] park revenues. Um so that is a makes it

[24:23] 167% of what we had budgeted. Um and

[24:27] then our investments were much more

[24:29] successful than what we anticipated. Um

[24:32] and so that is why we have 357,000

[24:35] versus the 280,000 that we originally

[24:38] budgeted. So without the final sales tax

[24:41] number, we're at 7.2 million versus our

[24:44] $7.4 million budget.

[24:48] and we did not have to use any

[24:49] appropriate fund balance for that.

[24:52] Um on our expenditures, you can see that

[24:56] um several of the line items uh are

[24:59] slightly below budget. Um the capital

[25:03] reserves, debt service, lease and fire

[25:06] are all things that we are required to

[25:08] pay 100% of what the contracts are. So

[25:11] that's why those items are shown at

[25:14] 100%. All the other items are there just

[25:17] slightly below or um within 20% of what

[25:22] we had originally budgeted. Um as a

[25:25] reminder, we budgeted expenditures

[25:28] for staff if they all walked out the

[25:31] door. So that's why all your major

[25:33] budgeted expenditure line items for

[25:35] staff are below budget because that did

[25:38] not occur. So our budget versus actual

[25:41] surplus as of June 30 before the last

[25:43] sales is $460,14

[25:49] on our fund balance um commitment. You

[25:52] can see that um as of June 30, our fund

[25:55] balance at the percent of general fund

[25:57] expenditures is at 103% of our

[26:01] expenditures and your requirement is

[26:03] between 65 and 75%.

[26:06] So we have been able to put them put

[26:08] that money aside um as you have

[26:10] requested for um not only the reserve

[26:15] but also for the capital projects that

[26:17] you um are planning in this year and the

[26:20] future years.

[26:24] Uh this budget is just umformational to

[26:28] show you the blue lines are the 2526

[26:33] or 2425 here and the the the line is the

[26:37] current fiscal year budget that just

[26:39] ended. So you can see where those uh

[26:43] main differences are. Um the the one

[26:47] decrease that you see there is that um

[26:50] in 2425

[26:52] there was nothing budgeted for the lease

[26:55] agreement um because that was actually

[26:58] shown in FEMA and this year um because

[27:02] that there was just a little bit left

[27:04] this year we left it in the J. Um but

[27:07] most of the line items with the

[27:09] exception of um the the miscellaneous

[27:14] lease agreement there are are fairly

[27:16] consistent from year to year with the

[27:18] exception there permit and fees. Um you

[27:21] can see where it is a lot different from

[27:24] one year to the other but the other ones

[27:26] are fairly consistent. Um

[27:31] and then on the expenditure side, you

[27:33] can you can clearly see that um we're

[27:36] staying right along in line with what

[27:39] you have budgeted in prior years. Um

[27:42] streets and highways of course is pow

[27:45] bill funds. Um and there is a um that

[27:49] the city will the town will actually be

[27:52] budgeting expenditure to repair the town

[27:55] streets this year. So that money will be

[27:58] actually spent in this coming fiscal

[28:00] year. It was not spent in last fiscal

[28:02] year

[28:05] on the capital projects. Uh you can see

[28:08] where we ended up on the items um that

[28:12] you had uh directed us to complete for

[28:16] the uh fiscal year ending June 30. On

[28:19] the park maintenance facility needs and

[28:22] assessment. Uh we budgeted $150,000.

[28:25] That contract came in at $48,000. So

[28:28] that is uh complete. The town hall

[28:31] carpeting was u budgeted at 118 and it

[28:36] came in at 81,000. So you can see in all

[28:39] of those line items that we um were able

[28:42] to be right at the budget or just below

[28:45] the budget. uh the basketball court

[28:47] resurfacing was actually completed in

[28:50] this fiscal year and a budget amen

[28:52] amendment was presented last uh at the

[28:54] last meeting to move those funds into

[28:56] the current fiscal year. So that's why

[28:59] there's nothing shown there. Um this report here just kind of shows you

[29:04] what uh we have spent on Helen. Our

[29:08] total expenditures to date are $685,938

[29:13] of the 2.8 8 million that we have

[29:15] budgeted anticipating

[29:18] uh to be expended. Uh the majority of

[29:21] that of course is in Catg Park

[29:23] facilities. U most of that is the

[29:26] riverbank restoration.

[29:32] Um the main items that we wanted to

[29:34] bring to your attention were the

[29:36] contracts and agreements that were

[29:37] signed during quarter 4, which is April

[29:40] to June 30. Um, and you can see here,

[29:44] um, most of these were brought to

[29:46] council for your approval, but we did

[29:48] want to just include those as a reminder

[29:51] for you here. The North Loop Meadow

[29:53] project, the community survey with ETC

[29:56] Institute, the audit contract for this

[30:00] uh, fiscal year that they are auditing

[30:02] now, the baseball field, and then uh,

[30:05] one that you might not be aware of is

[30:07] the U. the federal government came down

[30:10] with an American with disabilities web

[30:13] content accessibility requirement. Um,

[30:16] and so we we had to buy some software in

[30:18] order to make the town's website and

[30:21] documents ADA accessible. And so that

[30:24] was signed on June the 30th and it was

[30:27] for about 50.

[30:30] » Thank you, Julie. Uh, we're the next

[30:32] slides go into the major projects. Are

[30:34] there any questions so far from council?

[30:36] Julie, what made the permits and fees

[30:39] jumped so drastic on revenues?

[30:41] >> I think what it was the difference

[30:43] between 24 and 25 is that some things

[30:46] that were shown in that line item in the

[30:49] previous year were not truly permits and

[30:52] fees. Okay.

[30:53] >> And so we've been moving that correctly.

[30:57] >> I got

[30:59] see that balance out next year.

[31:00] >> Yes, sir. I think it was just a

[31:02] reporting.

[31:03] >> Okay.

[31:05] The revenue was correct. It was just in

[31:08] >> where it was placed. Yes, I got you.

[31:10] [clears throat]

[31:11] >> Oh, I got it.

[31:13] >> It looks like the library was a little

[31:14] high. Is there a

[31:16] >> It was a little bit high because the um

[31:19] the maintenance um contract for the

[31:23] maintenance of the library for the

[31:26] cleaning and things like that was a

[31:28] little bit higher than what we

[31:29] originally budgeted. Yes.

[31:34] And that's one of the contracts that we

[31:36] hope to go out prepaid for this year.

[31:40] And also the the Duke Energy uh bills

[31:44] also included a increase for the Helen

[31:48] recovery um in the last two months of

[31:51] that fiscal year which we did not

[31:52] anticipate when we did the budget for

[31:54] the library because they have a portion

[31:56] of that utility bill.

[31:58] It was both of those funds come up. Uh,

[32:01] it wasn't in your recording. It's a

[32:03] little off topic. So, if you don't know,

[32:04] you don't, that's fine. But are the

[32:06] solar panels still keeping up with the

[32:08] electric charging?

[32:11] >> That would be a cold question.

[32:13] [laughter]

[32:14] >> And if it's if it's possible, we can get

[32:16] you that information if you like.

[32:18] Absolutely.

[32:20] >> I don't know if we have it off on hand,

[32:22] so Okay.

[32:23] >> But no, it's it's a it's a good

[32:24] question.

[32:29] I see you.

[32:33] All right, moving on. I've already

[32:36] spoiled a little bit of this and also

[32:38] just for full transparency, not all of

[32:42] us fell within Q4. It was Q4 and a

[32:44] little bit into Q1 of FY27, but I think

[32:46] it's important enough to try to

[32:47] highlight where we're currently at. So

[32:50] the major difference that happened

[32:52] between Q3 and Q4 and like I said into

[32:54] Q5 is the process that we've been

[32:57] working with with FEMA and I know I've

[32:59] been keeping council a breast of all the

[33:01] various changes and expectations that

[33:03] FEMA has had. Uh one of the items though

[33:06] that we've been able to do is move

[33:07] towards obligation of the funds at the

[33:10] current scope uh project scope that FEMA

[33:14] has put out. Now, we disagree with

[33:15] almost all of those project scopes that

[33:17] you have uh that that they have and

[33:20] we're working through what they call a

[33:21] versioning or amendment process to make

[33:23] sure that we actually become whole to

[33:25] what the actual damages were. But now,

[33:27] what you'll see on here starting in CAT

[33:30] C covers and drainage, FEMA has

[33:32] obligated $25,560

[33:36] uh for those covert repairs. We do not

[33:37] believe that that is uh reflective of

[33:40] the actual damage uh to our covert

[33:43] repairs. However, that's the first step

[33:44] before we can get that amended. Um, as

[33:47] you can see, one of the five coverts was

[33:49] replaced during the North Loop uh

[33:51] repairs due to failure. Um, there are

[33:53] other there's another one that we're

[33:55] also working on and we're monitoring

[33:56] right now that we're going to be quickly

[33:58] jumping on that needs to be repaired as

[34:00] well. Um, and so we are requesting that

[34:03] amendment process that first that first

[34:06] covert just as an example back in the

[34:08] north loop, it's the uh construction

[34:10] entrance. I believe that came in around

[34:12] 35,000 385

[34:14] right right around that uh number. So as

[34:17] you can see we disagree with the the

[34:18] FEMA number right now but uh the one

[34:21] thing that's good is that they will go

[34:23] and update if there's a scope of work

[34:26] change and we believe that there is for

[34:27] obvious reasons. Uh the CAT E project um

[34:32] FEMA obligated uh uh and we received

[34:35] just over $5,300. does mirror our cost

[34:39] minus what we received from insurance.

[34:41] So, we did become whole on that one. The

[34:43] total claims from the League of

[34:44] Municipalities was a little over 23,000.

[34:47] So, again, we became whole based off of

[34:49] those two reimbursement strategies.

[34:52] Uh the CAT D uh utilities, we have

[34:56] completed the repairs of the well and

[34:57] the wellhouse. Um, and I really want to

[35:00] just take a moment and also thank our maintenance staff as well because

[35:04] they did a lot of work to make sure we

[35:06] did the final touches on that. So, the

[35:08] roof and the door, uh, the frame, we got

[35:10] amazing to come out to work on that, but

[35:12] really good work there. The there are no

[35:15] remaining actions on it. FEMA obligated,

[35:17] as you can see, just over $6,200. Our

[35:20] total expenses were just over $6,700.

[35:23] Uh I'm I made the call that ultimately

[35:26] at the end of the day that $500 was

[35:28] going to take a lot more time and and staff hours to try to fight that

[35:34] $500. So we just have decided to move

[35:37] forward um and and just with that $6,200

[35:42] amount, 6276 or 67.

[35:46] The CATG G project, this is where most

[35:48] of our projects still remain. Park

[35:50] grounds and features. This is back in

[35:52] the day, but as as a reminder, the

[35:55] tennis courts uh FEMA denied our tennis

[35:58] court request or project. Uh we

[36:02] disagreed and we put forward a uh a

[36:05] request to um review that as well and

[36:09] they then denied that appeal process as

[36:12] well. However, uh through the Office of

[36:14] State Budget and Management, there were

[36:16] funds that would cover the replacement

[36:18] cost and we were awarded those funds.

[36:20] Right now, we have yet to move on using

[36:23] those funds because one of the things

[36:25] that's one of the silver linings of the

[36:27] OSBM funds are that they allow for

[36:30] flexibility on where that needs to be

[36:32] built. So, right now, since we're in the

[36:34] park master plan discussion, you know, revisiting where locations

[36:39] are, we have time to wait on that until

[36:42] you all get to make a final decision on

[36:43] whether or not you want to build in the

[36:45] same location or build in another one.

[36:47] So, that's why those funds are still

[36:48] sitting there. the as as you can see,

[36:52] we're expecting to bring that to you all

[36:54] in October of the park master plan

[36:57] update.

[36:59] The expansion property, as you as uh

[37:02] Julie was talking about before, it's a

[37:03] little over $920,000.

[37:05] We are also put in for another grant uh

[37:08] from the Division of Water Resources. We

[37:10] hope to hear about that in October. The

[37:12] reason why that matters, because a lot

[37:15] of people may say, "Well, $920,000 is a

[37:18] lot of money." And it really is uh we're

[37:20] very fortunate to have that that that

[37:22] money can only be used for FEMA related

[37:26] uh repairs. It cannot be for any type of

[37:30] mitigation work, any work that FEMA did

[37:32] not put within their scope of work. So

[37:34] we have to be very careful in setting up

[37:36] those funds. However, there's another

[37:38] section of the river that can uh benefit

[37:42] greatly from mitigation that and that

[37:45] would greatly benefit when we go forward

[37:47] on the expansion property. And so from a cost perspective and a bidding out

[37:52] perspective, we're trying to make sure

[37:53] that we're putting as many of those

[37:55] projects together to make one one, you

[37:58] know, attractive package for people to

[38:01] bid on. We hope to have that information

[38:03] uh that decision in October and then we

[38:05] could start trying to work forward with

[38:07] potential

[38:08] uh build starting in the late spring

[38:11] early summer of next year. So again,

[38:14] we're waiting but hopefully not too much

[38:15] longer on that as well.

[38:18] The one item that's not up here, but

[38:20] before I get down to the the other two,

[38:23] uh the kayak launch, FEMA obligated just

[38:26] over $7,300 for that. we are in um that

[38:31] appeal process right now as well. It's

[38:34] slower for that one because of all the

[38:36] environmental uh factors because it's in

[38:38] the river. So right now that is in with

[38:41] FEMA because so that they are trying to

[38:43] work through all of their processes.

[38:44] That one's going to take a little while

[38:45] longer uh just again because of the

[38:48] environmental impact that it's going to

[38:49] have with the river.

[38:52] the contract uh as we as I stated

[38:55] earlier in early FY27 Q1 really were

[38:59] able to make sure and sign off on the

[39:01] substantial completion work in the

[39:02] meadow and the north loop the parking

[39:05] lot and the covert that's under the

[39:06] parking lot. The uh in Q3 you all

[39:11] approved uh the the formal bid of just

[39:14] over a million for that work. FEMA has

[39:17] obligated as you can see just over

[39:19] $280,000.

[39:21] The reason why there's that big

[39:22] difference there mostly comes down to

[39:27] uh FEMA needing to add the incidental

[39:30] debris removal to that project. As you

[39:33] all may remember, we had to FEMA kept

[39:35] going it's incidental debris. Now it's

[39:37] not. Now it is. So

[39:40] we have in writing that it is incidental

[39:42] debris. We are pushing them to make sure

[39:43] that amendment happens. And we believe

[39:45] that's the majority of where that

[39:46] difference is. And also, I believe that that $1 million price point, it's

[39:51] going to be on the high end of what

[39:52] we're actually seeing uh what we're

[39:54] actually seeing with actuals coming in.

[39:57] So, right now, we're working through

[39:58] that amendment process and hope and and I and I'm hopeful that we're going

[40:02] to be able to close that gap

[40:03] substantially.

[40:05] And then last, but certainly not least,

[40:07] as I mentioned about the baseball field,

[40:09] uh FEMA obligated just over $160,000 for

[40:12] that one. Uh the winning bid for the

[40:14] actual FEMA related part of that project

[40:18] was just at $70,000 or 69775.

[40:22] And then uh there was a $5,700 that we

[40:25] did additionally because you're going to

[40:26] replace one foul pole. I I I found out

[40:29] thanks to Nicole that they don't sell

[40:30] individual foul poles. They they sell

[40:33] them in pairs. Makes sense. Uh so we

[40:37] went ahead and bought the second foul

[40:38] pole as well. That's why the 5700's

[40:40] there. So, it just came over to a little

[40:42] over $75,000

[40:44] uh for that replacement. And as I

[40:46] mentioned, it's in the closeout phase

[40:47] currently.

[40:49] Any questions about our FEMA projects?

[40:55] » Do we have to give back like the 70,000

[40:59] for the baseball field?

[41:02] >> So, so the short answer is it depends.

[41:05] These are all considered small projects,

[41:08] right? So, uh, FEMA C categorizes

[41:11] anything under a million dollars as a

[41:12] small project. They're large projects

[41:14] for us, small for FEMA. So, right now,

[41:17] some some are a little bit higher, some

[41:19] are a little bit lower. So, right now,

[41:21] we're holding on to those funds because

[41:24] we believe that, let's just say in the

[41:26] North Loop project, for instance, that

[41:28] they don't um that they don't come up

[41:30] and make us whole within that. we can

[41:32] actually use those remaining funds from

[41:34] the baseball field to help make us whole

[41:37] uh across the board. So that's so the

[41:40] short answer is it really depends on how

[41:42] all the projects wash out and uh and

[41:45] then from there where we have to you

[41:48] know plug holes where we can. So we're

[41:51] going to have to keep you up to date on

[41:53] what that looks like as of right now.

[41:55] The um

[41:58] yeah so that ultimately that's where

[42:00] it's at. So from a FEMA perspective,

[42:01] from the state perspective, they want to

[42:02] make sure that those funds go towards

[42:04] those FEMA projects. Small project, they

[42:06] don't necessarily care how those are

[42:09] distributed.

[42:11] >> But we are keeping

[42:13] >> but because we also like to play very

[42:17] conservatively. So we are making sure

[42:19] that everything is uh very much

[42:22] documented.

[42:24] Thank you, Julie.

[42:27] Any more questions? All

[42:30] right, just going on to other major

[42:33] projects and initiatives here. Um, as

[42:36] you can see, a lot of the items now, I'm

[42:38] just going to briefly go through the

[42:40] ones that are really new for us here.

[42:42] Evaluating implementing a new payroll

[42:43] system that was pushed to FY27. So, that

[42:45] $10,000 was moved over into FY27.

[42:48] Um, the AV system in the commons room,

[42:52] the those updates you all approved in in

[42:54] Q4.

[42:55] Updates were just made in FY27. Uh, as a

[42:58] reminder in the budget, you all budgeted

[43:01] uh $60,000 for all repairs to any uh AV

[43:04] equipment going in there. We've done the

[43:06] first phase, which apparently means that

[43:08] my voice, which I always thought was

[43:10] carrying enough to begin with, carries a

[43:12] little bit more in the off uh in the in

[43:14] the common room right now. Uh but we're

[43:16] still working through that. So, phase

[43:17] two is coming here in a minute. Uh the

[43:20] and I'll keep council um up to date on

[43:23] that. It's going to be including

[43:24] microphones and and some other work

[43:26] that's going to be going on.

[43:28] the

[43:30] uh the next ones that are on the list

[43:31] for you, the community survey. As you

[43:33] know, at the last meeting, we had a

[43:35] conversation with Jason uh Moreno from

[43:37] the ETC Institute. There was 15,000

[43:40] budget in FY26. It ended up being at

[43:42] 14,000 awarded. So, we're very happy

[43:44] that we were able to stay under budget

[43:46] for that one. The uh and that's still

[43:49] planned for an uh a September release.

[43:53] And so, um, there are a couple items

[43:54] that we need to finalize, but then we'll

[43:56] be ready to go on that. The council

[44:00] salary study, you all, uh, during the

[44:02] budget process, council approved an

[44:04] increase in December 2026. Uh, we are

[44:07] looking to conduct a salary study in

[44:09] FY27 with council included. We are

[44:12] already having those conversations with

[44:13] firms to see um which one may be the

[44:16] right fit for the for the salary review

[44:19] uh for a community of our size or for an

[44:22] organization of our size. And then the

[44:24] la that one over there was the last one

[44:26] was been completed in Q2.

[44:29] Any questions from administration?

[44:35] » All right.

[44:37] Looking at parks and recreation, the uh

[44:41] the as you can see quite a bit of those

[44:43] are now were not applicable by the final

[44:45] cost because we were moving them into

[44:48] FY27.

[44:49] So uh for instance like the space needs

[44:52] assessment needs to be uh a part of the

[44:54] larger park expansion discussion. You're

[44:56] going to see some of that as a park

[44:58] master plan kind of where that

[45:00] potentially may fall. looking at the

[45:02] studying of Hooper Lane, looking at what

[45:05] that may be uh as a as a future

[45:08] priority, and then for review and FY27,

[45:11] creating scholarship opportunities for

[45:13] programming. So, there were no costs

[45:14] associated with those three, but they

[45:16] are um uh we haven't lost them. They're

[45:20] still priorities. We've just shifted

[45:21] them to FY27 and beyond. And then

[45:24] obviously, park accessibility was

[45:26] earlier on in the year at just over

[45:27] 320,000.

[45:29] Any

[45:31] questions?

[45:37] All right, going on to the next uh the

[45:40] three items here for planning and

[45:41] zoning, land preservation program. I

[45:43] really want to thank uh Mike for his

[45:46] work when it comes to just diving in

[45:48] deep to farmland preservation and land

[45:51] preservation overall. As you can see, he

[45:53] attended the the state voluntary a

[45:55] district uh and farmland preservation

[45:57] conference in July to gather more

[46:00] information to try to find other

[46:01] opportunities for us to continue leaning

[46:03] in on this important project. So, as you

[46:06] can see later on in the year, looking

[46:08] for an educational event for these

[46:09] programs andformational flyers. This is

[46:11] also information that you all council

[46:13] directed us as staff to look into. So,

[46:15] we are working on that into FY27.

[46:19] the uh UDO and land use code update. Uh

[46:22] in fact, I think you all received just

[46:24] uh the final draft right before this

[46:26] meeting for your review as well. Uh as

[46:29] you can see in FY27, as I know you all

[46:32] are well aware of the the amendment to

[46:34] the UDO contract totaling $32,000 to

[46:37] make sure that it is downzoning

[46:38] compliant moving forward. And we are

[46:41] still on track and on schedule uh to

[46:43] meet the deadlines that you all set.

[46:46] Uh the last one on here is town traffic

[46:48] schedule update and buildout. Um right

[46:52] now we're just waiting for the

[46:53] implementation from DOT. Uh and so you

[46:57] know as council you may remember there

[46:59] are certain areas within town that may

[47:01] will have some slight changes within

[47:02] their speed limits. So, we're looking to

[47:04] be in the next month or two having those

[47:06] signs up and then once they're up there,

[47:09] then we're going to be bringing that

[47:10] back to you all for formally adopting uh

[47:12] a traffic schedule that's updated.

[47:15] >> Okay. For those of you that didn't

[47:17] figure it out, I've got a question

[47:19] because I've been told when I lean

[47:20] forward, everyone knows I've got a

[47:21] question. Um, so legally, if a speed

[47:27] limit is in a town,

[47:30] would the town has to do a concurring

[47:32] ordinance in order for that to be

[47:34] enforcable

[47:36] and then the signs have to be posted?

[47:39] Don't we need to do the concurring

[47:40] ordinance before the signs are posted?

[47:43] Because once the signs are posted,

[47:45] that's the new speed limit. And the only

[47:47] way it's enforcable is if we have a

[47:49] concurring ordinance. That's what we did

[47:51] before. It seems like

[47:52] >> Oh, we did.

[47:53] >> So, that's what we're going to do. Okay.

[47:56] >> You're awesome.

[47:58] >> Yeah. Okay.

[48:00] So, it doesn't have to come back to us

[48:02] for any ordinance. That's already done.

[48:06] » Gotcha.

[48:10] » Any other questions, council?

[48:14] >> All right.

[48:16] And then just a couple of those

[48:18] additional uh improvements as well.

[48:20] Julie already talked briefly about the

[48:22] basketball court resurfacing. It has

[48:23] been completed in FY27 as well as the uh

[48:27] resealing of cracks and and um and the

[48:30] improvements on the tennis court as

[48:31] well. We knocked those two projects out

[48:32] at the same time. Uh completed in Q4

[48:35] were the epoxy floors and the hickory

[48:37] shelter. The uh park expansion project,

[48:41] as a reminder, was originally budgeted

[48:43] for $150,000.

[48:46] Uh the final cost was $267. We expanded

[48:49] that because it went extended through

[48:51] December 2026. So instead of it being

[48:53] just that first phase, it was that first

[48:55] phase plus for that greater scope all

[48:59] the way through the potential new master

[49:01] plan for you all to review. again coming

[49:03] before council. I just wanted to remind

[49:05] you that's uh why that uh uh discrepancy

[49:09] is there. And then the park maintenance

[49:11] uh facility and upfit right now through

[49:14] design cost just under $50,000. In fact,

[49:17] we're going to the next item on the list

[49:18] you're going to have to hear me drone on

[49:20] about uh fun exciting things going on

[49:22] with the with the park maintenance

[49:24] facility.

[49:28] Any

[49:32] questions?

[49:35] The most important question. Julie, did

[49:37] I miss anything?

[49:38] >> No, you bet.

[49:42] >> Thank you.

[49:46] » Back to our original a the discussion on

[49:48] the maintenance facility construction.

[49:50] Yeah, [sighs]

[49:53] » we're going to just take one sec here.

[50:03] self organized.

[50:06] All right,

[50:09] mayor and council, I just want to

[50:11] Julie's also going to be up here walking

[50:13] us through this, but just as a reminder,

[50:16] as we've already talked about, in 2024,

[50:19] um you all approved the Mil River Park

[50:21] expansion um u you know, expansion

[50:24] master plan, which outlined those future

[50:26] amenities and features, right? One of

[50:27] those items that was on that list was

[50:29] talking about a new maintenance facility

[50:30] because as that large as we continue to

[50:33] expand on the project behind us, the

[50:36] property behind us, having the

[50:37] facilities are actually going to meet

[50:38] those needs. So in FY26, as we just

[50:41] talked about, $150,000 were set aside.

[50:44] We worked with WGLA

[50:47] uh as well as they subcontracted with

[50:50] ARCA design to come together to help us

[50:53] with both a needs assessment and then

[50:54] also with um that first uh concept

[50:59] sketch concept plan u for your

[51:01] consideration. And so earlier this year

[51:05] in May, May 2028, it feels like so long

[51:08] ago, uh, Tom Jones and Brian Moffet both

[51:12] came in and provided that preliminary

[51:13] design for your consideration. And so

[51:16] tonight's really just that next step.

[51:17] So, at that time, I mentioned to you all

[51:19] that I wanted to come forward and talk

[51:21] through the potential pre-construction

[51:22] and construction options and

[51:24] recommendations for moving forward, try

[51:26] to answer any questions that I can, but

[51:28] ultimately

[51:29] look at how we can start moving forward

[51:32] on getting this um moving this project

[51:34] forward. So, $275,000 was budgeted in

[51:37] FY27 and approved by council. Just over

[51:40] 1.3 million, almost 1.4 4 million was

[51:43] slated for FY28 and about 1.9 million in

[51:47] FY29 as a part of the CIP. So again that

[51:50] 5-year financial forecasting model as

[51:53] well as with um and like I said the

[51:56] overall CIP that does not include uh

[51:59] right now that does not include

[52:01] operating cost that is pure new

[52:05] maintenance facility and the upfitting

[52:07] of the current maintenance facility.

[52:08] that is based off of the numbers that

[52:10] were provided to you all uh with uh uh

[52:13] during the presentation with WGLA there.

[52:17] There's additional money in there about

[52:19] $400,000 for the upfitting of the

[52:21] maintenance facility. You'll see that

[52:23] tonight in the design as well. So debt

[52:27] financing right now what you all have

[52:28] seen within the budget starting in FY27

[52:32] going through the next five years is

[52:34] just over 2, it's 2.66 66 million of

[52:38] that is slated for um uh for debt

[52:42] servicing and debt financing. And right

[52:44] now, uh, based off of the conversation

[52:47] tonight,

[52:48] um, depending on the direction that you

[52:50] all as council wish to take, we are able

[52:52] to move forward. And the one of the

[52:54] first steps is to put this out, uh, put

[52:57] this item out to bed, get these pro, get

[52:59] this project out there and moving, and

[53:01] then ultimately get a price point that

[53:04] the LGC, the local government

[53:06] commission, is comfortable with for us

[53:08] to have a conversation about our u our

[53:11] borrowing power. So Julie has already

[53:13] done great work on making sure that we

[53:15] are in uh good financial standing for

[53:18] the the debt that is potentially going

[53:20] to be requested. But again, these are

[53:22] all preliminary numbers. These are all

[53:24] very preliminary based off of the

[53:27] concept work uh that has been done so

[53:29] far. The next phase is really getting

[53:32] into what the actual uh uh cost will

[53:36] look like.

[53:42] already kind of did this without meaning

[53:44] to. Sorry. In FY26, as you can see,

[53:46] that's when it really started those

[53:48] conversations. We've already talked

[53:49] through the budgeting items as well. And

[53:51] then again, in May, you will have seen

[53:53] that document. We're going to switch to

[53:55] that document here in just a minute. uh

[53:57] when I get the queue. Uh and like I

[53:59] said, we'll actually show you a little

[54:01] bit of uh the very very preliminary

[54:05] sketch of the community what would be

[54:06] considered a community building over

[54:08] there for the maintenance facility.

[54:12] So Kevin, if you can can you switch over

[54:14] from to me for the other documents?

[54:27] All right. So, this is the one uh that

[54:30] you all uh saw as of May 18th. So, there

[54:33] have been no changes to the main uh uh

[54:36] maintenance [clears throat] facility

[54:37] since that time. So, as you can see,

[54:39] this is the footprint that's associated

[54:42] with it. It's just over um 6,600 ft as

[54:46] you can see on the on the property

[54:47] there.

[54:48] And so there has been a little bit of

[54:51] work making sure that we have entry and

[54:53] exit points that are coming out as well.

[54:55] Um, and you can see the connecting point

[54:57] that's over to the current um, parking

[55:00] lot. You scroll down for me, Kevin. And

[55:03] by all means, you all can stop me at any

[55:04] point. I just don't want to repeat

[55:06] everything you've already heard. So,

[55:08] here's just a little bit closer view of

[55:09] it. There's a a fence line that's in

[55:12] there. It also shows where some water

[55:13] options are as well that are a part of

[55:16] that and also some gating that would be

[55:18] necessary to protect the site.

[55:23] This is what the uh the schematic

[55:26] interior looks like that uh that was

[55:28] recommended through our discussions from

[55:30] our needs assessment and then also

[55:31] working with the designer the uh really

[55:36] making sure that we have uh adequate

[55:39] space for uh maintenance of our of our

[55:42] vehicles but then also the garage

[55:44] storage which actually have those

[55:45] passroughs. those bottom two bays

[55:46] completely pass through. And then the

[55:48] other one where the lift is is one where

[55:51] they can actually do more maintenance

[55:52] work on those vehicles going more

[55:54] towards a hoteling style uh as well

[55:57] within the break room uh as well. And

[56:01] I'm just going to stop. Is it possible

[56:02] for us to get the temperature turned up

[56:04] a little bit in here please? And so the

[56:07] um and so making sure that we have uh

[56:12] adequate space for that, adequate

[56:13] storage, but also making sense of where

[56:15] the small engine and the chemical

[56:16] storage is for entry and exit points. As

[56:18] you can see, easy entry and and easy

[56:20] exit.

[56:24] One thing that was on the previous page,

[56:25] we don't have to go back, but we also

[56:27] tried to design this to make sure it

[56:29] actually will last

[56:31] uh through growth. So, there are a

[56:33] couple areas in there that are actually

[56:34] designed for storage, but will be able

[56:36] to be uh fitted for offices if we need

[56:40] to actually expand um um our footprint

[56:43] even more with additional staff. This is

[56:46] the exterior version based off of what

[56:48] the current standards are when we were

[56:51] looking at uh making sure that it would

[56:53] fit within the uh the UDO confines that

[56:57] we had. And so again, there may be

[56:59] changes based off of this, based off of

[57:01] what may be adopted by council moving

[57:03] forward, but that's the current model

[57:05] right there. Can you scroll down for me,

[57:06] please, Kevin?

[57:08] Again, just a couple of other images for

[57:11] you. As a reminder, we had a

[57:12] conversation with uh you all had a

[57:14] conversation with Brian Moffett and Tom

[57:16] Jones about like the little popup window

[57:18] areas and other amenity features and

[57:21] that can all be worked out again moving

[57:23] forward.

[57:25] That also that bay that's exterior right

[57:27] there can also be boxed in and made it

[57:29] to a third bay as well if needed.

[57:33] Scroll on down Kevin.

[57:35] All right. So moving going down to the

[57:37] next one for me. So right now this is

[57:41] what the latest one again very early

[57:44] highle sketches. There's not a lot based

[57:47] off of the size of that space can be

[57:50] done uh when it comes to recreational

[57:53] uses. Quite a bit can be done when it

[57:56] comes to programming uses. So that's why

[57:58] it's called a community room as of right

[58:00] now. Um re redoing the entryway where uh

[58:05] the gravel road is for a lot and then

[58:09] having an exit out the back with a

[58:11] potential patio and sitting area as well

[58:14] on the outside. Again, very preliminary.

[58:16] I know this is the first time you all

[58:17] are seeing this, but ultimately, this is

[58:19] kind of showing what could be done in

[58:21] there to try to expand the footprint out

[58:23] to have both indoor and outdoor type

[58:25] programming in that space, which will

[58:27] act ultimately ease the burden right on,

[58:30] you know, on this room right now, which

[58:32] is being used for quite a bit.

[58:35] Uh there you go. They again just concept

[58:38] very high level concepts uh from Arca

[58:41] Design as well. Ultimately though, these

[58:44] are preliminary. These are these are

[58:47] sketches.

[58:48] The the next step is actually going and

[58:53] hiring an architectural firm and working

[58:56] through the actual you know those next

[58:58] steps. This is about when I was talking

[58:59] to ARCA design recently some you know

[59:02] somewhere between 10 and 15% of actual

[59:05] design. So there's still quite a bit of

[59:07] time to actually talk through what what

[59:08] you all as council actually want to see

[59:10] here. This is just showing what could be

[59:12] done to meet the needs uh that were

[59:14] identified through the assessment.

[59:18] Kevin, can you go back for me to the

[59:20] presentation? Unless there are questions

[59:22] specifically on what you all have seen

[59:23] here so far.

[59:27] I got a lot of questions at some point

[59:31] >> and in looking for repairing or

[59:36] upgrading the current maintenance shed

[59:40] to a community space. Mhm.

[59:43] >> Um, I think you and I had talked before

[59:46] about maybe looking at a place to maybe

[59:50] make it

[59:55] maybe a chance for the library to move

[59:57] down there to open this up for office

[59:59] space here to keep the staff all in one

[1:00:02] building.

[1:00:03] And then, you know, at looking at adding

[1:00:07] offices to the new maintenance shop

[1:00:11] that's still going to have, you know,

[1:00:12] they already had one up there and then a

[1:00:14] work space for them. Are are they

[1:00:17] looking to put more offices up there?

[1:00:20] >> So, uh, thank you for the questions,

[1:00:22] council member. the the the first answer

[1:00:24] is we did look into that and it's my

[1:00:26] understanding that the current footprint

[1:00:28] of the of the library is bigger than

[1:00:30] what the footprint of that maintenance

[1:00:32] facility is. So, so even right now they

[1:00:35] would that library would have to

[1:00:36] downsize in order to fit within that

[1:00:38] space especially when you include the office spaces that are in there. So,

[1:00:42] as of right now, I have not had

[1:00:44] conversations with the uh with the

[1:00:47] county on whether or not that would be

[1:00:48] an amunable space for them. just from a

[1:00:50] square footage perspective, it would it

[1:00:52] would I think it would potentially

[1:00:54] hinder their work instead of expanding

[1:00:56] what their work is within that space.

[1:00:59] >> The and I'm just looking back at Nicole

[1:01:01] to make sure I I am correct on that.

[1:01:04] the

[1:01:05] um for the maintenance facility in the

[1:01:08] back. What we right now we have uh space

[1:01:11] down in the current uh maintenance shed,

[1:01:13] a maintenance facility where there are a

[1:01:15] couple of like three uh places for

[1:01:18] people to sit for our parks maintenance

[1:01:20] staff to use. And the new uh and the new

[1:01:24] design, the [clears throat] office is

[1:01:25] designed for the supervisor. Uh and then

[1:01:28] the then we would have a hoteling type

[1:01:31] situation where again they there will be

[1:01:33] dedicated spaces for them to use but

[1:01:36] they won't have like a an assigned desk

[1:01:38] or a space or an office because most of

[1:01:41] the time when our park maintenance staff

[1:01:42] are coming uh coming in to check they're

[1:01:45] coming to check something real quick and

[1:01:46] heading back out. So instead of using

[1:01:48] that space for offices more of an a

[1:01:50] hoteling type option.

[1:01:55] Any

[1:02:02] other questions before we move forward?

[1:02:05] >> I'll wait for

[1:02:07] >> Okay.

[1:02:16] All right. Came back. Uh

[1:02:19] I know as council knows there are three

[1:02:20] main main core delivery models here. And

[1:02:24] so the first one that we're so we're

[1:02:27] very familiar with is the design bid

[1:02:29] build method, right? So essentially a

[1:02:32] design we bring a designer on uh through

[1:02:35] a procurement process uh or an RFP

[1:02:38] process. They we pick them, they design

[1:02:42] it for us, then we go out to bid for the

[1:02:44] construction, the lowest qualified

[1:02:46] bidder for the construction then builds

[1:02:48] it. So that's the design bid build

[1:02:50] method. So you can see there is

[1:02:52] potential risk there of change orders

[1:02:53] that happen because right now the

[1:02:55] designer and the um and the uh

[1:02:58] contractor are not necessarily in the

[1:02:59] room and everything's happening at the

[1:03:01] same time. Uh the design build is a

[1:03:04] single point opportunity. It is provided

[1:03:06] to us as you can see within the general

[1:03:08] statute. Uh it's where you can actually

[1:03:11] bid out one item as a single point where

[1:03:14] you can do both design and construction

[1:03:15] at the same time. There are benefits to

[1:03:17] that because the contractor and the

[1:03:19] designer are talking to each other. Most

[1:03:21] of the time that means change orders are

[1:03:22] going to be done you know before you

[1:03:24] actually start building the project. Um

[1:03:28] so it really does help with meeting

[1:03:29] speed. The thing is is that that means

[1:03:32] one person one entity is reporting to us

[1:03:35] the contractors are ultimately reporting

[1:03:36] to the designer. Right? So that provides

[1:03:40] a little bit less oversight but it does

[1:03:43] provide opportunities there. Like I

[1:03:44] said, the one thing that's big about

[1:03:46] design build is that we must meet NC

[1:03:48] general statutes for use. One uh I'm a

[1:03:51] personally a fan of design build

[1:03:53] whenever when possible. Um but we have

[1:03:56] to answer some very specific questions

[1:03:57] in order to do so. Right. And so as of

[1:04:00] right now, the this project in in my

[1:04:04] estimation and when talking uh with

[1:04:05] Julie does not meet those uh the general

[1:04:09] statute definitions for that. The third

[1:04:11] option is what's called a Seymar

[1:04:13] process, which is a a construction

[1:04:15] management at risk model. And so it's a hybrid model where essentially

[1:04:21] you would have a designer, we would put

[1:04:24] out a bid for a design and then we and

[1:04:26] we'd put out a bid for a contractor, but

[1:04:28] it would be a construction management or

[1:04:30] construction manager at risk. So then

[1:04:32] they would be reporting to us both, but

[1:04:34] they would be in the room together

[1:04:36] working through uh any design elements,

[1:04:39] any other types issues that are there to

[1:04:41] try to again make sure we're not going

[1:04:44] into, you know, any issues or change

[1:04:46] orders or any other types things that

[1:04:48] can happen later on within the process.

[1:04:50] It does change the model though. It it

[1:04:53] really does change the model where um

[1:04:56] the way it's been explained to me and

[1:04:58] from others that have used it quite a

[1:05:00] bit is that usually in design bid build

[1:05:03] the lowest price is at the beginning of

[1:05:06] the process. So you set the price and

[1:05:08] you know what happens after that you

[1:05:10] know it tends to go up from there. You

[1:05:12] try your best to keep it down from the

[1:05:15] Seymour approach. As you can see they

[1:05:17] have something called a guaranteed

[1:05:19] maximum price. So through the process

[1:05:21] with bringing the designer on the

[1:05:23] contractor who wins the RFQ on working

[1:05:26] through and negotiating based off of the

[1:05:28] schematic which I would recommend around

[1:05:31] 50% you would get the design up to about

[1:05:33] a 50% schematic design then you would be

[1:05:36] able to use that uh they we would look

[1:05:39] at them to put together a co uh project

[1:05:42] cost at that point and we would lock

[1:05:45] them into what's called a guaranteed max

[1:05:47] price and that guaranteed max price then

[1:05:49] ultimately Again,

[1:05:51] there can be some

[1:05:53] uh some change orders that can happen

[1:05:56] through that process, but again, it the

[1:05:59] goal is that since they've been walking

[1:06:00] through the process together and talking

[1:06:01] through that process, you don't get

[1:06:03] there. And then there are also some um

[1:06:05] benefits as well because there's

[1:06:06] contingency monies that are within that

[1:06:09] within the CMR as well that are designed

[1:06:12] also to help cover anything that may

[1:06:14] come up that was unintentional or

[1:06:17] through the process.

[1:06:20] It's it's a right now for a project such

[1:06:23] as this the and I've had a lot of

[1:06:26] conversations with a lot of peers around

[1:06:28] the state about this is that a

[1:06:30] maintenance facility overall does not

[1:06:33] necessarily fall to where you would

[1:06:36] absolutely necessarily need a semar for

[1:06:39] that process. looking at staff staff capacity, looking at our um uh

[1:06:46] again our timeline for this, but then

[1:06:48] also looking at the uh the fact that we

[1:06:51] also had the upfit that we would want to

[1:06:52] bid this out as one project together,

[1:06:55] right? That it felt like the best

[1:06:58] approach for this, especially because

[1:06:59] it's over right now the projections are

[1:07:01] over $3 million. And usually again with

[1:07:03] my conversations that three $3.5 million

[1:07:06] is the range where Seymours are starting

[1:07:08] to really show up now. They're usually

[1:07:09] they used to be in major complex

[1:07:11] projects. By the way, I'm saying all

[1:07:12] this knowing that the mayor is a is a

[1:07:14] builder. And so I'm waiting for you to

[1:07:16] tell me that I got something wrong. But

[1:07:18] the um but at that three to three.5

[1:07:22] million, we're starting to see Seymours

[1:07:23] being used much more at a lower level of

[1:07:26] cost just because of that conversation

[1:07:28] that can happen at the beginning and

[1:07:29] also that guaranteed max price. So those

[1:07:32] are the three right now in my in in my

[1:07:35] opinion. Design vid build and semar are

[1:07:37] the two options that you have available

[1:07:39] we have available for us on this uh on

[1:07:41] this project. And Julie, I'm going to

[1:07:43] look at you to tell me anything I

[1:07:45] missed.

[1:07:56] here just from the contract structures.

[1:07:57] I've already talked about this a little

[1:07:59] bit. Um you do have separate contract

[1:08:01] with the architect and the builder with

[1:08:03] design bid build. They are separated out

[1:08:05] projects. They are the lowest qualified

[1:08:07] bidder within each one. Ultimately at

[1:08:09] the end of the day depending on if

[1:08:11] there's a contractor that disagrees with

[1:08:13] the designer designer ends up with the

[1:08:15] contractor. Uh

[1:08:17] usually the town is stuck in the middle

[1:08:19] on those kinds of issues. Design build

[1:08:22] obviously again as we've talked about

[1:08:24] doesn't allow for that. um we don't

[1:08:26] think it's an allowable use for this

[1:08:28] project. And then the seamount uh

[1:08:30] seamount wow semar structure as you can

[1:08:33] see here really is a partnership

[1:08:36] collaborative approach. Um when I've uh

[1:08:39] and when I've talked to some of my uh

[1:08:40] like I said some of my peers on some of

[1:08:42] the projects that they didn't use Semar

[1:08:44] um they wish they had.

[1:08:49] But ultimately this is you this is your

[1:08:52] project. I'm only providing my

[1:08:54] recommendation for your consideration

[1:08:56] and for discussion. Right? So the um

[1:09:00] ultimately you all get to choose and

[1:09:01] decide on how best to approach this that

[1:09:03] you all would like to see. The

[1:09:06] construction manager at risk as you can

[1:09:07] see they are used as a trusted adviser

[1:09:11] during this for pre-construction because

[1:09:12] they report to us. Um we also do have on

[1:09:15] call engineering services as well. Also

[1:09:17] depending on um you know what the type

[1:09:20] of situation is, we can also lean on our

[1:09:22] on call engineering uh contract to also

[1:09:25] just make sure that we're not missing

[1:09:26] something to make sure that we're not

[1:09:28] seeing anything or that we're missing

[1:09:30] anything or there are any gaps through

[1:09:32] this process.

[1:09:33] My recommendation as you can see here

[1:09:35] once design would reach 50% uh that's

[1:09:39] when the the um that's when the uh

[1:09:42] construction manager at risk would

[1:09:44] negotiate what that guaranteed max price

[1:09:46] is. So the goal of that getting closer

[1:09:48] to that 50% allows us to have a little

[1:09:50] bit more of an understanding of what

[1:09:52] that high value could be or should be

[1:09:55] for that. I've seen some seams that have

[1:09:58] it at 30%. I think that that's low for

[1:10:02] us especially because we're risk adverse

[1:10:03] when it comes to these types of projects

[1:10:05] and rightfully so. That that 50% method

[1:10:08] is one that I uh uh I feel comfortable

[1:10:11] with.

[1:10:17] So Julie, you put uh I'm going to turn

[1:10:19] it over to you because you also did

[1:10:21] great work on the pros and cons list and the work behind this.

[1:10:24] >> Sure. So what this slide here refers to

[1:10:28] is um the benefits of using a CR and the

[1:10:32] cons of using a Seymour. Uh just so that

[1:10:34] you could you could see them all in one

[1:10:36] place uh for ease. Um there's cost

[1:10:40] certainty with a semar because you have

[1:10:43] the most price that you could pay. Um

[1:10:47] the one thing that um in a lot of the

[1:10:50] classes that I have taken in a lot of

[1:10:52] the documents that I have read from the

[1:10:54] general statutes

[1:10:56] um the security bond requirement for a

[1:10:59] semar is 100% of your project cost. And

[1:11:02] I know you've had problems with other

[1:11:04] projects in the past where there was

[1:11:06] disagreements. Um, this requires the

[1:11:10] contractor to to cover 100% of the cost.

[1:11:12] If they walk away, you have the money

[1:11:15] there to finish the project. Um, the

[1:11:17] Semark does require open accounting

[1:11:20] requirements. uh they have to have um

[1:11:24] they have to be willing to open their

[1:11:26] books for financial transparency for us

[1:11:28] to look at anything u related to that

[1:11:30] project.

[1:11:32] Um it in increases collaboration

[1:11:38] and create greater efficiency and

[1:11:40] shorter time

[1:11:42] bidding because if you have your

[1:11:45] engineer and your architect and your

[1:11:47] design construction firm working

[1:11:49] together to come up with that price, you

[1:11:51] have a better idea of what those value

[1:11:54] added costs need to be when you're

[1:11:56] estimating that project. Um the cons are

[1:12:00] it is a liability for the town because

[1:12:03] you have to make sure that your design

[1:12:05] is completely 100% on point before they

[1:12:08] go to the bidding part. Um it does have

[1:12:11] an increased administration burden

[1:12:13] because you are um collaborating with

[1:12:17] all the parties u making sure that

[1:12:19] everything is exactly the way it needs

[1:12:22] to be and the way you want it and what

[1:12:24] the way it meets the needs of the town.

[1:12:28] Um there is a con that if you have an

[1:12:30] inexperienced um construction manager

[1:12:34] that you could result in construction

[1:12:36] deficiencies, but if you do the correct

[1:12:38] RFQ process

[1:12:40] would eliminate uh you could eliminate

[1:12:44] those deficiencies by making sure that

[1:12:47] you're selecting the cor the qualified

[1:12:49] individual to do.

[1:12:55] So just as a project cost recap as I you

[1:12:58] know we've already talked about here on

[1:13:00] the left hand side uh preliminary cost

[1:13:02] was approximately $3.1 million. Now

[1:13:05] again I cannot stress enough the term

[1:13:08] preliminary within this discussion

[1:13:12] also with the current maintenance

[1:13:13] facility upfit of approximately

[1:13:15] $450,000.

[1:13:18] Now is that you know what you all as

[1:13:21] council are looking at looking for

[1:13:23] giving us direction and guidance on

[1:13:25] meeting the needs and expectations that

[1:13:27] you all see for this that's a part of

[1:13:29] this discussion as well but ultimately

[1:13:32] we're trying to find an approach that is

[1:13:35] transparent that makes sure that if we

[1:13:37] are going to spend this money to help

[1:13:39] benefit the community and help benefit

[1:13:41] the town that we can be confident that

[1:13:45] it is going to result in a project and a

[1:13:47] product that we can be proud of. And so

[1:13:49] that's a

[1:13:51] and so that's just I wanted to go over

[1:13:54] that a little bit right there.

[1:13:55] >> So Matt, who s who who evaluated these

[1:13:59] numbers? Who who generated these

[1:14:01] numbers?

[1:14:02] >> Uh these numbers were uh presented to us

[1:14:05] by WGLA with ARCAD design. So again,

[1:14:08] those were our two firms that came

[1:14:09] together to pull together these number

[1:14:11] uh the design, the needs assessment,

[1:14:14] everything.

[1:14:16] been accused of not speaking up before,

[1:14:18] so I'm going to speak up. There's no way

[1:14:20] in the world I'm going to sign up for a

[1:14:24] $3.1 million maintenance bill. Everybody

[1:14:27] hear me? I ain't going to do it. And if

[1:14:30] you think them numbers are legit, I do

[1:14:32] this every day.

[1:14:34] That's way more than double for that

[1:14:37] building. I know I can't build it

[1:14:39] because I'm sitting in this seat, but

[1:14:41] there is no way. Part of that 6600's

[1:14:44] open shed, that open shed from there

[1:14:47] over, concrete, post, uh, red iron and

[1:14:51] all, you're probably looking at probably

[1:14:53] $27,000

[1:14:55] from that for that over. It's good to

[1:14:58] have it, but these numbers are highly

[1:15:01] inflated somewhere. now where I don't

[1:15:04] know and I mean WGL I mean they was here

[1:15:07] I didn't say a whole lot before but I've

[1:15:10] been accused of not speaking up so I'm

[1:15:12] speaking up now

[1:15:14] and you could build this whole other

[1:15:16] building right here for forfeit

[1:15:19] let's update it I mean I don't get it I

[1:15:22] don't know what's I don't know I do know we're sitting in a municipal

[1:15:28] situation here and I know how that works

[1:15:31] uh but if I'm looking after my people.

[1:15:34] These numbers are highly inflated in my

[1:15:36] opinion. I'm only one, but I'm speaking

[1:15:39] up now.

[1:15:43] » Yes, sir. And understand,

[1:15:45] understandable. It's it's one of those

[1:15:46] numbers, and I mean, I don't want to

[1:15:48] speak uh for all the staff that was on

[1:15:50] there, but it was surprising as an

[1:15:52] understatement when we saw these numbers

[1:15:54] as well. That's why, again, they're very

[1:15:57] preliminary for that reason. And one of

[1:15:59] the things that I liked about the

[1:16:01] Seymour process as well is that there

[1:16:04] are um clauses that are in there that if

[1:16:07] you go out to the RFQ and and those

[1:16:09] guaranteed max prices are let's just say

[1:16:11] the guaranteed max prices are in these

[1:16:13] numbers and you all as council do not

[1:16:15] wish to move forward with that. What

[1:16:16] that means is that we are going to go

[1:16:17] back to the drawing board and find other

[1:16:19] approaches for it. So it's these you're

[1:16:21] not locked in to these values.

[1:16:24] >> Problem with it Matt is we're having to

[1:16:26] pay somebody to draw this stuff. We're

[1:16:28] paying big money to have it draw at

[1:16:30] least a 50%

[1:16:33] >> to to

[1:16:35] get these numbers back. So, we're going

[1:16:38] to have a lot of money in it to maybe go

[1:16:40] back to the drawing board again. And we

[1:16:42] just heard tonight that that bothers

[1:16:45] some people. Um,

[1:16:50] » I got one quick question of this.

[1:16:53] So what we've been presented the design

[1:16:56] so far is what percent you you said

[1:16:59] earlier you have to get to 50% in the

[1:17:01] SEAR model before you can

[1:17:04] >> put it out percentage are we at now like

[1:17:07] what would you say that now?

[1:17:09] >> So I I when I talked to Arcad design

[1:17:10] they said you know maybe 10 maybe 15

[1:17:13] tops depending on which one you're

[1:17:14] looking uh if you're looking at the

[1:17:16] maintenance facility.

[1:17:18] >> Okay. Um, okay. Because would it not be

[1:17:23] if we went with that model, would it not

[1:17:25] be beneficial to come back and be like,

[1:17:29] here's our wish list, here's our budget,

[1:17:33] but have that have that both of those

[1:17:38] lists or, you know, that number going

[1:17:41] into it. Not I don't know. It does feel

[1:17:43] a little bit backwards, like

[1:17:46] >> we should go into it with a budget

[1:17:48] >> versus just, oh, what is this going to

[1:17:51] cost? Um,

[1:17:54] I'm not in the construction business, so

[1:17:57] I don't I mean, it does seem very high.

[1:17:58] I I did build

[1:18:00] a very nice part of my house for a lot

[1:18:02] less than this, but um I I yeah, I I

[1:18:07] just think we need to come up with like

[1:18:08] a reasonable budget first

[1:18:11] >> and then see what we can check off of

[1:18:13] our list that we we want.

[1:18:16] >> Understood. Yes, sir. So, the the the

[1:18:19] direction that we received was to go

[1:18:21] through the needs assessment and to see

[1:18:22] what would meet those needs. So as of

[1:18:25] right now that this is what's been

[1:18:28] presented to us through the engineering

[1:18:30] firm. That being said, and Julie can

[1:18:32] speak more to this as well through the

[1:18:34] research is that the um you can and in

[1:18:38] fact right now technically as council

[1:18:40] you all have set the budget that

[1:18:42] reflects this based off of the FY27 actu

[1:18:47] budget and then the fiveyearcip.

[1:18:51] Um, so we have built in this into the

[1:18:53] model that

[1:18:55] ultimately though the and I believe

[1:18:58] through some CMRs that we've seen as

[1:19:00] well go in there with a budget set that

[1:19:02] says this is the number. This is the

[1:19:04] high end of the number. This is what

[1:19:06] we're going to do and that's it. And

[1:19:09] that's a legitimate approach. And I'm

[1:19:12] going to turn over to Julie.

[1:19:15] City of Charlotte actually has three out

[1:19:18] there and they they said for the for the

[1:19:21] three projects, these are the three max

[1:19:23] prices. So, people aren't going to bid

[1:19:25] if they're not going to be willing to

[1:19:27] meet those those price points.

[1:19:30] >> I did have one other quick question. Is

[1:19:33] there a timeline deadline that you can

[1:19:36] have in Semar? You can put in there,

[1:19:39] here's my budget, you know, Mr.

[1:19:42] Contractor. And also

[1:19:45] um you have you know by

[1:19:49] July 2028 I don't know some date it has

[1:19:52] to be done

[1:19:55] >> delivery date that's what you're asking.

[1:19:57] Yeah. Like the delivery date for CO.

[1:19:59] >> Yeah. So you that part of this is that

[1:20:02] part of this

[1:20:04] >> as long as it was a realistic number,

[1:20:05] you could you'd have to give him some

[1:20:08] weather date days and stuff like

[1:20:10] >> Yeah. But I'm just saying you could in

[1:20:12] the Sea model, you could put in that

[1:20:16] they could bid on that with a date. So

[1:20:20] right now at least from uh my research

[1:20:23] and discussions on it the RFQ highlights

[1:20:26] when the when the construction wants uh

[1:20:29] the expected construction begin date. So

[1:20:32] when the uh through the process the

[1:20:34] Seymour puts together the project scope

[1:20:37] and the cost and then it presents that

[1:20:40] to the to uh to the organization to the

[1:20:43] town. And so ultimately at that point

[1:20:46] that's when the negotiations also happen

[1:20:49] because it can be we want to start

[1:20:51] January 2028 as an example and we want

[1:20:54] it to be done by you know October of

[1:20:57] 2028 and then working with them to make

[1:21:00] sure that meets that timeline.

[1:21:03] >> That's a reasonable thing to

[1:21:05] >> it may not be during the RFQ process. Uh

[1:21:07] now we can I think we can put it in

[1:21:09] there as what we uh what our you know

[1:21:11] what our expected end date is but

[1:21:14] ultimately through the process is when

[1:21:16] they would design it and then we would

[1:21:18] have to negotiate on what that um that

[1:21:21] project timeline would look like.

[1:21:31] So,

[1:21:32] if we were to choose the design, bid

[1:21:36] build

[1:21:37] >> model, then we pay the money for the

[1:21:40] design, then we put it out for bid.

[1:21:44] >> Then the contractor that gets the bid

[1:21:46] would build it. Someone has to make sure

[1:21:50] someone has to do the inspection

[1:21:52] and make sure everything is done

[1:21:55] correct. That' take a lot of time,

[1:21:56] wouldn't it? I mean, that's pretty much

[1:21:58] have to be there anytime the

[1:21:59] contractor's there. Is that something we

[1:22:01] would contract out or we do that

[1:22:03] inspection in house?

[1:22:05] >> I would highly recommend for a project

[1:22:07] such as this that if we did that, we

[1:22:09] would we would go through an owner's uh

[1:22:11] representative model for design, bid,

[1:22:13] build. And so we would bring in either

[1:22:15] an owner's representative model where we

[1:22:17] would bid out to find someone or we

[1:22:19] would lean very heavily on our on call

[1:22:20] engineering services and do a task order

[1:22:22] for them to do project management to

[1:22:24] that point to be on site throughout

[1:22:26] because uh yes council member the uh

[1:22:29] making sure that we have eyes uh on that

[1:22:33] project throughout that project making

[1:22:35] sure that you know corners aren't being

[1:22:36] cut that we're getting what we're paying

[1:22:38] for is vitally important.

[1:22:41] Is that the Is that the route we went

[1:22:43] with the last shelter?

[1:22:45] >> We went design bid, build on the last

[1:22:47] shelter.

[1:22:49] >> We didn't have We really didn't have

[1:22:51] anybody overseeing that.

[1:23:01] » So if going back to the Seymour

[1:23:03] approach, if we tell them you got $3.1

[1:23:06] million to bid to build this

[1:23:11] I mean, from I I've got very limited

[1:23:14] experience with Seymour. Um, that was

[1:23:17] done when I worked at the city of

[1:23:18] Asheville. And

[1:23:21] the the people that I mean, someone's

[1:23:24] going to take the risk. Someone's going

[1:23:26] to take the risk. That's why I like

[1:23:28] having state employees to maintain our

[1:23:30] roads because rather than putting out a

[1:23:33] contract where they're paying more, they

[1:23:35] just work extra time to do it. So, they

[1:23:37] take the risk. Um, if someone is bidding

[1:23:40] in that risk,

[1:23:42] you know, they're they're going to bid

[1:23:43] that risk and that's adjust that's going

[1:23:46] to affect the price. The 3.1 million is

[1:23:49] turnkey with us not doing anything but

[1:23:52] saying build it. Correct. That's that

[1:23:55] includes the Semar cost and everything

[1:24:00] >> the 3.1. So,

[1:24:02] >> or is that just the materials and the

[1:24:04] labor? This is this is a very

[1:24:08] preliminary number

[1:24:10] >> should be everything.

[1:24:11] >> Yeah. So so this included yeah the

[1:24:13] grading of the of the property. Yeah.

[1:24:16] The the site prep the whole on your but

[1:24:18] again incredibly preliminary

[1:24:21] >> design and construction costs and

[1:24:25] inspection and overseeing. That's the

[1:24:27] total cost.

[1:24:30] >> They they built in their total cost when

[1:24:32] Yeah. That was their total cost

[1:24:33] projection. They they did build in so

[1:24:37] the model that the WGLA approached us on

[1:24:40] which is a model uh uh they they leaned

[1:24:43] in on one which was the design bid build

[1:24:45] model. So the timeline that you saw

[1:24:47] previously was the design build a design

[1:24:49] bid build timeline. So there is

[1:24:52] contingency that was built into that

[1:24:54] preliminary number uh etc. Now you know

[1:24:57] there as I mentioned the reason the

[1:24:59] reason why I wanted to bring this to

[1:25:00] your attention because I know it's a new

[1:25:02] approach and I know that it's Um, I

[1:25:05] wanted to put be put on your radar of

[1:25:07] what those possibilities and options

[1:25:09] are. As I mentioned though, the it is a

[1:25:12] different model because the guaranteed

[1:25:15] max price comes before construction

[1:25:18] begins. So, but that being the highest

[1:25:20] number that you're going to see can

[1:25:22] sometimes be very, you know, very

[1:25:24] difficult relative to the lower number.

[1:25:26] But then working through the change

[1:25:27] order process, not one one approach

[1:25:30] isn't necessarily like going to change

[1:25:34] uh uh drastically the the work. It just

[1:25:37] depends to your point as you mentioned

[1:25:39] who who's going to take and accept the

[1:25:40] risk that is associated with that. And

[1:25:42] so I would recommend because of our past

[1:25:45] experience and also just because of

[1:25:46] staff capacity that we we would do at

[1:25:50] minimum if we did a design bid build

[1:25:52] having an owner's rep that would be

[1:25:55] speaking on our behalf to ensure like an

[1:25:58] engineer to ensure that we are also not

[1:26:01] missing anything from our end. So we

[1:26:03] don't run into issues that we've had in

[1:26:04] the past which is you know those uh

[1:26:08] those arguments that we're then as a

[1:26:10] town stuck in the middle of.

[1:26:12] >> Typically they do those for a

[1:26:13] percentage.

[1:26:14] >> Sure.

[1:26:16] [clears throat]

[1:26:16] >> So if if our budget is $3.1 million

[1:26:21] but the Seymar can get a price a lot

[1:26:24] less than that

[1:26:26] then we take the price. So

[1:26:29] >> Huh. I don't think I No, I think we're

[1:26:31] >> if we tell them we got $3.1 million,

[1:26:33] it's going to come in at $3.1 million.

[1:26:35] No matter who gets paid, right? Or do

[1:26:39] they say, you know, we can bid, you

[1:26:42] know, when we bid that out, it comes in

[1:26:43] at $2.5 million including their fees,

[1:26:48] then we don't have to spend the whole

[1:26:49] 3.1. That's what I'm saying. I If if you

[1:26:52] send me Let me close this so my wife

[1:26:55] can't hear me. If she sends me to the

[1:26:56] store with $50 to come back with

[1:26:58] groceries, I'm not bringing any money

[1:27:00] back, right? Because I'm gonna I'm gonna

[1:27:04] when I run out of milk and bread and

[1:27:07] everything else, then we might go over

[1:27:08] to the Doritos and the snack area. So,

[1:27:12] I'm just saying if we tell them $3.1

[1:27:14] million and it comes back at $3.1

[1:27:17] million, whereas it could have come back

[1:27:19] a whole lot less, is that a reasonable

[1:27:23] is that my three minutes

[1:27:24] >> to me in my experience and that never

[1:27:26] happens.

[1:27:27] >> Okay.

[1:27:28] >> Just from bidding projects that we do,

[1:27:30] >> we all know what they have as far as

[1:27:32] money to spend on the project. No one's

[1:27:34] going to put that amount in because you

[1:27:36] want the business. So you're gonna try

[1:27:37] to cut the other person and the other

[1:27:39] person's gonna say, "Well, I know old

[1:27:41] John, he always goes 10% below, so I'm

[1:27:43] gonna go 15 because I want business."

[1:27:44] Sure.

[1:27:44] >> So it nobody's gonna come in at 3.

[1:27:46] >> So it's not going to come in at 3.1

[1:27:48] million. They're not going to say, "Oh,

[1:27:50] there's a budget. I'm going to hit that

[1:27:51] budget."

[1:27:52] >> So okay, that was one of my concerns is

[1:27:54] that, you know,

[1:27:56] >> and the other thing I'll say, Mills

[1:27:58] River Station 2, the last I heard is two

[1:28:01] bays drive-thru, which is exactly what

[1:28:02] this is. same square footage, you know,

[1:28:05] living room, two bedrooms, kitchen, very

[1:28:07] similar to this setup. It's more than

[1:28:09] twice this.

[1:28:11] So, I don't think 3.1 is actually

[1:28:14] it's going to be close.

[1:28:17] If I if I may, just real quick, with

[1:28:20] this with this design also being 10 to

[1:28:22] 15%. This is showing what could be with

[1:28:25] the potential cost meeting the needs

[1:28:27] assessment. But again, we would be

[1:28:29] putting out as a part of this process

[1:28:31] bringing in a designer, an architectural

[1:28:33] firm, just like you would during design

[1:28:36] to build. You'd bring them in, but you

[1:28:38] would then bring in the con, you would

[1:28:40] bid out the construction manager at risk

[1:28:41] at the same time. And so you bring both

[1:28:43] of them into the room at the same time.

[1:28:45] So this design, the layout, the

[1:28:48] structure, all of it can look different

[1:28:50] by the time it's done as well because

[1:28:53] you all it ultimately it's your decision

[1:28:55] as council what it is. isn't meeting the

[1:28:58] needs that it is before it even goes out

[1:29:00] to what the actual guaranteed max price

[1:29:02] is. So again, that 50% we're using 3.1

[1:29:05] million right now based off of what you

[1:29:06] see before you and what their

[1:29:07] estimations are does not necessarily

[1:29:09] mean that that's what is going to

[1:29:11] actually go out

[1:29:13] uh as a guaranteed max price at the time

[1:29:15] because this can very much change with

[1:29:17] that extra 40%

[1:29:19] and bringing those people in together to

[1:29:21] talk about it. that just a caveat.

[1:29:25] >> Who's going to be overseeing the project

[1:29:27] if we do it with Semar?

[1:29:30] Is it going to be the engineering firm

[1:29:32] that's putting all this stuff together?

[1:29:34] >> So, the Seymour process is uh is it's

[1:29:38] ultimately a collaborative process. So,

[1:29:39] we'd have a team inhouse, right? That

[1:29:42] would be there.

[1:29:43] >> Staff

[1:29:43] >> that would that would be staff uh and it

[1:29:46] would be because of because of the size

[1:29:47] and scale of the project would be myself

[1:29:48] and staff that would be on there. And

[1:29:50] then it would also be um the

[1:29:52] architectural firm and the Seymar. So

[1:29:55] those all those entities would be

[1:29:57] working in tandem. Ultimately we're the

[1:29:59] owner. Ultimately we are the decider and

[1:30:02] the one that signs off on these

[1:30:03] projects. So um overseeing it ultimately

[1:30:06] falls to us. So um but it like I said

[1:30:10] it's a collaborative approach from the

[1:30:12] beginning to try to make sure that we're

[1:30:13] not going to be running into any issues

[1:30:14] and try to work those out beforehand.

[1:30:16] And I know I said this before, but I

[1:30:18] just want to reiterate as well. The one

[1:30:20] benefit of this process as well again if

[1:30:23] you all wish to go with this route is

[1:30:26] the fact that let's just say it gets up

[1:30:28] to that 50%. 30% whatever that number

[1:30:31] would be and it goes up to bit and it

[1:30:34] just comes out way higher than what we

[1:30:37] you all as council wish to spend at that

[1:30:39] time. We have changing priorities that

[1:30:41] have happened since then. There's

[1:30:43] discussions that have to happen. Yes,

[1:30:44] there's money that's within those

[1:30:45] schematics that we would have and that

[1:30:47] we would we would be able to have um

[1:30:50] moving forward, but we may have to take

[1:30:51] a step back and have a conversation

[1:30:53] about timing of this uh prioritization

[1:30:57] of of the project. Where do we need to

[1:30:59] scale back and change based off of it?

[1:31:01] Those conversations continue to happen

[1:31:03] throughout. But to the mayor's point,

[1:31:05] yes, you are putting in uh uh expenses

[1:31:09] into getting it up to that to that 50%

[1:31:12] level. It's not like a design bid build

[1:31:14] though where it gets up to that to that

[1:31:16] 100% level before you then bid it out as

[1:31:18] well.

[1:31:19] >> Well, I've got a lot of heartburn with

[1:31:22] $3.1 million to store lawnmowers and

[1:31:26] equipment. I mean, that's a lot.

[1:31:31] » That's my question here is we're

[1:31:32] spending taxpayer money, not our

[1:31:35] taxpayer money. And

[1:31:39] you know,

[1:31:41] I I

[1:31:43] You know, I can see where we could spend

[1:31:46] some of this money. We're talking about

[1:31:47] spend on this building and other aspects

[1:31:49] of this park. I know we got to we can't

[1:31:52] get the cart in front of the horse, but

[1:31:54] I don't know we got to have a

[1:31:57] thoroughbred racehorse,

[1:31:59] you know. I don't know that we got to

[1:32:01] have that.

[1:32:07] this thing is uh I know it meets it's my

[1:32:10] understanding it meets uh architectural

[1:32:12] review

[1:32:14] but you know I don't know

[1:32:18] and we'll have to do so because we're

[1:32:19] within a th00and ft of uh 190 run

[1:32:23] correct

[1:32:25] Mike can you come up and want to join us

[1:32:38] uh the language council adopted in the

[1:32:41] UDO requires architectural elements for

[1:32:45] any non-residential building in the

[1:32:47] town. The way when we brought this up I

[1:32:50] think back when it was drafted that we

[1:32:52] wanted to be very clear on that that any

[1:32:54] non-residential building must meet the

[1:32:57] new architectural standards. the

[1:32:58] distance was done away with.

[1:33:00] >> But you don't think that'll be a down

[1:33:02] zoning issue?

[1:33:04] >> Well, because it's only applied to new

[1:33:05] development.

[1:33:07] >> Doesn't create nonconformities. Doesn't

[1:33:09] apply to anything except someone who

[1:33:11] applies to develop if the UDO is

[1:33:14] adopted.

[1:33:17] » If not, it's still within FE.

[1:33:21] >> It's only 500 ft capital. But again,

[1:33:23] that that was something we tried to

[1:33:25] bring up with council. Gosh, I think it

[1:33:26] was December or November. Um because I

[1:33:29] knew that was probably going to be a

[1:33:30] sensitive topic.

[1:33:31] >> Gotcha. U

[1:33:36] look at our town attorney. I mean, do

[1:33:38] you agree with that? Is that not a

[1:33:40] downzoning issue? It seems to me like

[1:33:42] you're putting a new restriction on

[1:33:45] someone's property, be it commercial or

[1:33:47] not, but

[1:33:49] >> downzone is specific to three types of

[1:33:52] things. None. Okay. Right. just uh less

[1:33:55] uses making something nonconforming and

[1:33:59] I'd have to look at

[1:34:00] >> density

[1:34:01] >> and density. Yeah. So architectural

[1:34:03] standards wouldn't create a down zoning

[1:34:05] scenario.

[1:34:06] >> I got okay

[1:34:23] this tor

[1:34:25] you know be honest with you I won't be

[1:34:27] here when this takes place so

[1:34:32] make sure we make wise decisions with

[1:34:34] this money

[1:34:37] would there be additional cost if we get

[1:34:39] to the 50% and then we see it and you

[1:34:42] know they get some bits back and and

[1:34:45] then we go whoa you know we want to

[1:34:48] change x y and z whether that's less or

[1:34:50] more

[1:34:52] um does that restart the design? You

[1:34:55] know, then then you're going to get

[1:34:56] another fee for it. Um

[1:34:59] >> generally speaking, uh I can speak very

[1:35:02] generally, uh is that the once it goes

[1:35:07] out to bid once the design is at a 50%

[1:35:10] threshold and and and oh, sorry, then

[1:35:13] the guaranteed MA max price happens and

[1:35:15] then like I said, they work through

[1:35:16] that. the um

[1:35:20] the the design at that point is what the

[1:35:22] design is going to be at that point. So

[1:35:24] like at that 50% threshold the the

[1:35:27] Seymar is taking the risk of that other

[1:35:29] 50% but usually at that what from my

[1:35:32] understanding and from my experience

[1:35:33] that 50% is a it's a very conservative

[1:35:36] number about what you should expect to

[1:35:38] see at least on the big ticket items.

[1:35:40] >> Yes. This building here the the the

[1:35:44] chance of a change order is very slim.

[1:35:47] It's so basic on the inside. You know,

[1:35:49] there's the whole garage area is

[1:35:51] nonheated as far as I'm as I understand.

[1:35:54] And then you got the open space. You got

[1:35:57] uh 3,20 ft of garage unheated.

[1:36:02] You got 1635 heated and you've got 1945

[1:36:07] outside.

[1:36:09] So, I mean, that outside is what it is.

[1:36:12] you, you know, other than if you wanted

[1:36:14] to paint something a different color

[1:36:15] after you seen it go on, it is what it

[1:36:18] is. The inside of that garage, you know,

[1:36:20] we'll get some details on how it's going

[1:36:22] to be finished on the inside. I'm sure

[1:36:24] it's going to be sheetrock

[1:36:26] uh for fire coat. Um and the other is

[1:36:29] basically like a house. you know,

[1:36:32] if you took uh you know, Champion Hills

[1:36:37] numbers and put $435

[1:36:40] a square foot on that heated part.

[1:36:43] And I mean, the garage section, you

[1:36:47] know, I don't know. But then you just

[1:36:48] got to figure out all the great and all.

[1:36:50] See, we're going to have, you know, we

[1:36:52] know there's going to be a lot of fuel

[1:36:53] over there. Probably some geo grid, some

[1:36:55] fancy footings to hold this building up.

[1:36:59] So, where there's a lot of unknowns.

[1:37:00] I'll be honest about the unknowns, but I

[1:37:04] just don't see I don't know. I just

[1:37:07] don't see it in it, you know.

[1:37:09] >> Yeah, Mayor, you bring up a very good

[1:37:11] point when it comes to the change

[1:37:12] orders. Again, it goes back to Mr.

[1:37:13] Moore's, Council Member Moore's

[1:37:15] comments. It just really depends on

[1:37:17] where you all as council wish to put the

[1:37:19] risk associated with that. And so,

[1:37:22] again,

[1:37:23] >> there's not necessarily having a

[1:37:26] somebody look over it. I'm not opposed

[1:37:29] to that at all. I'm not.

[1:37:31] >> Uh but you know, I think council and

[1:37:34] whole, the five of us need to decide if this is the design we want or do we

[1:37:41] think maybe it's a little bit much or,

[1:37:44] you know, I me personally, I could live

[1:37:46] without the roof popping through on a

[1:37:48] maintenance building. I mean, I know

[1:37:50] we're going to get a little light

[1:37:51] through there. Uh but you know it would

[1:37:55] be way cheaper to put a backup generator

[1:37:56] over there than to pop that roof

[1:37:58] through.

[1:37:59] >> So

[1:38:02] we got you know I think there's a few

[1:38:03] things we just need to think about a

[1:38:06] little bit before we

[1:38:08] Yeah. And and it's just like this is a

[1:38:11] kind of like our first concept. This is

[1:38:13] really the only one we've seen and we

[1:38:15] really can't I don't want to pay to have

[1:38:17] 15 of them brought in here either. But

[1:38:19] if we need to tweak on it, I'd rather

[1:38:21] tweak on it before it goes to bid than

[1:38:23] it go to bid. Let's come back and try to

[1:38:25] change it because really

[1:38:27] it makes the bid process almost start

[1:38:29] all over again.

[1:38:31] >> If I may, mayor and I very good points.

[1:38:33] The so normally in a normal Seymour

[1:38:37] process, you bid out the design first.

[1:38:41] You work with that designer a little bit

[1:38:43] to get that needs assessment done, the preliminary sketches done and then

[1:38:48] you bring in and you bed out the Seymour

[1:38:51] and then through that process they work

[1:38:53] together and then changes happen, right?

[1:38:56] Again, coming before you, talking with

[1:38:58] you about what those design elements

[1:38:59] look like, understanding what you want

[1:39:01] and what what you want to get rid of.

[1:39:03] All of that is still part of that what

[1:39:05] would be a normal traditional Seymour

[1:39:06] process. We did it slightly differently

[1:39:09] because we thought that again bas based

[1:39:12] off a council's direction that you all

[1:39:14] wanted to see those concepts and and

[1:39:16] understand what again what a potential

[1:39:18] price and what the needs assessment was

[1:39:20] first. So we've done that through our on

[1:39:21] call engineering services. So we haven't

[1:39:24] bid that out right we did that through

[1:39:26] the RFQ for engineer on call engineering

[1:39:28] which is one of the things that they can

[1:39:29] do. So we have this before you. So to

[1:39:32] your point, mayor, yes, this is the only

[1:39:33] one that you all have seen. The the when

[1:39:37] we bid out or if we go this route and we

[1:39:40] bid out the for the architectural firm,

[1:39:42] they'll get this 10% piece, they'll get

[1:39:45] the needs assessment documents that have

[1:39:47] been all pulled together and then it's

[1:39:50] their job that to also then take it to,

[1:39:52] you know, and continue working through

[1:39:54] that. That's why my recommendation would

[1:39:55] be that if we did this to actually do

[1:39:57] Seymar and design at the same time

[1:39:59] because we've already done what the

[1:40:00] designer would have done normally on the

[1:40:02] back end to get it to this point. But

[1:40:05] to your point, I think Brian Moffett

[1:40:07] when he was here for the Arc of Design

[1:40:09] even stated it's like the we can get rid

[1:40:11] of the the the um the sunlights in

[1:40:15] there. We can get rid of the the type of

[1:40:17] sighting and go with a different type of

[1:40:19] siding if it's uh if it's helpful. If

[1:40:21] there's a layout change, those things

[1:40:23] can still happen. Uh and you all will be

[1:40:26] vi will be shaping that discussion as

[1:40:28] well through that process.

[1:40:33] This will be a part this would be a part

[1:40:34] of the bid packet, but they would not be

[1:40:36] bidding on building this specific thing.

[1:40:39] It's building bringing them on to you

[1:40:42] know at a 10% phase to see what you know

[1:40:45] to go and move forward through the

[1:40:47] actual construction.

[1:40:55] If you'd like, we can also continue

[1:40:56] using ARCA design for on call

[1:40:59] engineering to continue tweaking this

[1:41:01] concept. It does just we will have to

[1:41:04] bid out

[1:41:05] >> the arch

[1:41:06] >> the architect. Yeah, we we are not able

[1:41:08] to use them for much more than what

[1:41:10] we've really been using them for now. So

[1:41:11] that's where we have to be careful.

[1:41:19] So we could have a another meeting with

[1:41:22] them and say, "Hey, what can you do to

[1:41:23] this to make it a little simpler?" You

[1:41:26] know, still meet our needs and bring the

[1:41:28] cost down, but keep it at 10%.

[1:41:32] >> It's just it's just a concept plan.

[1:41:34] >> Yeah, you can you can do that. And like

[1:41:36] I said, you can also you can do it

[1:41:38] either through that this phase or you

[1:41:40] could do it with the actual

[1:41:41] architectural firm if you bid it out. Um

[1:41:44] the same conversations can happen either

[1:41:46] way. Just it would be whether or not we

[1:41:48] want to move forward with seeing what

[1:41:50] the actual staying on the timeline that

[1:41:52] was proposed.

[1:41:58] » The trick to this whole thing is getting

[1:42:00] the max amount of biders that we can.

[1:42:03] Honestly,

[1:42:05] you know,

[1:42:08] that'll be the trick for this.

[1:42:11] I'll change the subject just a little

[1:42:13] bit, but I need to know. And we pretty

[1:42:16] much through our needs assessment, we've

[1:42:18] determined that there's no way to use

[1:42:22] the building in the back or that we

[1:42:24] think the building in the back has some

[1:42:26] effect on our master plan. What was

[1:42:28] that? I know we've had that discussion

[1:42:30] before, but just bring it back up for

[1:42:32] me.

[1:42:32] >> The the dairy farm and the and the open

[1:42:34] air

[1:42:34] >> facing the twotory building.

[1:42:37] >> Yeah. So, and I'm going Nicole, if I

[1:42:39] may, I'm going to ask you to come up

[1:42:40] here as well because you have much more

[1:42:41] knowledge than me on this as well. For

[1:42:43] the needs assessment piece, didn't

[1:42:45] looked at what the needs were for us

[1:42:47] expanding out there. Um, there had there

[1:42:50] was no look specifically at the

[1:42:52] buildings because that work has been

[1:42:53] done prior.

[1:42:55] >> Yeah, as part of the original master

[1:42:56] plan process, we did have a structural

[1:42:58] engineer come out and look at those

[1:42:59] facilities and they were just not built

[1:43:01] in a design um to meet the standards for

[1:43:05] public use. So they're just

[1:43:07] unfortunately

[1:43:08] more than what we're using them for

[1:43:10] which is just storing material

[1:43:11] underneath it. We can never house staff

[1:43:14] in those. We can never do any of those

[1:43:16] sort of things in those existing

[1:43:18] facilities because of the standard they

[1:43:19] were built to.

[1:43:21] >> Now that sepic system that's down there,

[1:43:24] you know, that thing is rated for to

[1:43:26] handle 500 kids per weekend. It was

[1:43:30] designed for agurism.

[1:43:32] Are we are at any point are we trying to

[1:43:36] save that for any use for anything? Is

[1:43:38] it

[1:43:40] >> we during um the park master plan

[1:43:43] expansion the work we're doing with

[1:43:45] weather right now utilities all that has

[1:43:47] been looked at and those are some of the

[1:43:49] things that they've looked at of what of

[1:43:51] that can be saved because even some of

[1:43:52] the the well is something that we're

[1:43:54] looking at potential irrigation right

[1:43:56] that could save us a city of Henderson

[1:43:58] bill if we can repurpose that well. So

[1:44:00] that is something that we're currently

[1:44:02] working through to look at to see what

[1:44:03] we can reuse for those facilities.

[1:44:06] >> Okay.

[1:44:13] » So council's pleasure which way you want

[1:44:15] him to move forward with this.

[1:44:17] >> If I may may I just briefly just go to

[1:44:19] this last slide. This is kind of what

[1:44:21] the the timeline that we put together.

[1:44:24] Again, this is all depending on if you

[1:44:26] on the direction you give me give us,

[1:44:29] but you know, we can bid out both of

[1:44:31] these items together at the same time

[1:44:33] actually in September. Going through

[1:44:35] that, we could actually bring you all uh

[1:44:38] we believe uh in November and actual for

[1:44:42] council approval the firms for both the

[1:44:44] design and the semar. So again,

[1:44:46] depending on what that is ultimately is

[1:44:49] your choice if you if you wish to move

[1:44:50] forward or not. And then it's a quick

[1:44:54] process. So, I'm going to say it's

[1:44:56] contingent on design completion. As you

[1:44:58] can see down here, we don't necessarily

[1:45:00] have to meet the January timeline. We

[1:45:01] actually got some clarification uh with

[1:45:03] the LGC, but the LGC won't will not look

[1:45:06] at uh our financial u options when it

[1:45:11] comes to debt service until we have a

[1:45:14] GMP guaranteed max price. So, December,

[1:45:18] January, potentially getting you all to

[1:45:21] that point, whenever that is, our goal

[1:45:22] is to try to get it in front of the LGC

[1:45:24] by uh February or March. It doesn't mean

[1:45:26] we obviously have to spend the money.

[1:45:27] It's just them getting the uh getting on

[1:45:30] their work. And Julie can talk much more

[1:45:32] about that process as well if you'd

[1:45:34] like.

[1:45:48] well as with our property tax valuation

[1:45:53] what we have the potential to borrow. Um

[1:45:57] if you remember when we talked about um

[1:45:59] all of this stuff during the strategic

[1:46:01] plan last year's audit showed that we

[1:46:05] had a potential up to $10 million for um

[1:46:09] based on property values that the res

[1:46:13] had at that point. um don't know what

[1:46:16] that number will be yet because it's

[1:46:17] based on their final analysis of all the

[1:46:21] values for 2026. So it could be up

[1:46:24] slightly or could be down just slightly

[1:46:25] from that. Um but they take all of that

[1:46:28] into consideration and look at the audit

[1:46:30] to see if there's any findings um that

[1:46:33] would impact their decisions. Um and

[1:46:36] then they look at um that grossing

[1:46:41] max price and determine that based on

[1:46:45] the financial stability of the town as

[1:46:47] to whether or not they approve

[1:46:50] for any debt.

[1:46:53] >> Is it that was that 10 million um

[1:46:56] additional or that's like 10 million

[1:46:58] indebtedness minus what you already

[1:47:01] have? It's your maximum amount

[1:47:05] >> that you can that the town can carry.

[1:47:10] » So essentially that goes up every year

[1:47:12] anyway. You're paying down other debt.

[1:47:16] >> Yeah. And just as a reminder for council

[1:47:18] briefly as well, the reason why we're

[1:47:20] looking at debt financing and debt

[1:47:22] service for this is be to free up cash

[1:47:25] and capital for the actual expansion

[1:47:27] project because it's easier uh to borrow

[1:47:30] against the facility than it would be

[1:47:32] against the park expansion. So that's

[1:47:34] why trying to trying to be uh

[1:47:37] financially conscious on how we're

[1:47:39] balancing both future funds and current

[1:47:41] funds.

[1:47:43] Matt, how much of these two uh

[1:47:47] structures

[1:47:49] u weigh into that fiveyear tax increases

[1:47:53] because we was going to have to raise

[1:47:54] how much was it?

[1:47:56] >> So two full cents or if I remember

[1:47:59] correctly two and a half. So if property

[1:48:02] taxes stay the same based off of 2026

[1:48:05] valuations or 2020 2025 valuations uh

[1:48:09] because we're using that for 26 the uh

[1:48:11] it would be 2 cents over 5 years so 17

[1:48:14] to 19 in a stairst step model. Now again

[1:48:17] that is subject to change based off the

[1:48:20] actual valuation of the properties.

[1:48:27] » Yeah. So yeah,

[1:48:28] >> but there was other factors that uh

[1:48:32] other than these two. Oh yeah.

[1:48:34] >> Yes sir. Absolutely. So that so it

[1:48:35] included this, it included all the

[1:48:37] operating costs that we projected out to

[1:48:39] run this facility, to run that facility,

[1:48:41] the new uh a new staff member or two to

[1:48:44] help with that. Uh it also took into

[1:48:47] account the actual phase one approach

[1:48:49] for park expansion as well. So all of

[1:48:52] that all of the projects that we have

[1:48:54] baked in. In fact, I think it also

[1:48:56] included, and I apologize, not the

[1:48:58] budget in front of me, um, preliminary

[1:49:00] work on the town hall expansion piece as

[1:49:02] well for staff. Yeah, thank you. And 31.

[1:49:05] I knew Knew it snuck in there right at

[1:49:06] the very end. Um, so it included all of

[1:49:08] those major projects and initiatives

[1:49:10] over the next five years.

[1:49:15] » Reason I bring that up is, you know,

[1:49:16] with the county raising theirs, I'm

[1:49:18] hearing a lot about it from especially

[1:49:21] the older residents. No,

[1:49:23] >> this might just a little bit tougher on

[1:49:24] the taste income. So,

[1:49:39] » I'd be in favor of putting a RFQ out for

[1:49:41] an architect.

[1:49:45] » You looking for a motion on this or just

[1:49:47] the consensus or how Probably motion

[1:49:49] would be better on this one, would it?

[1:49:51] Uh, I'm going to look at our clerk for

[1:49:53] uh her guidance on this.

[1:49:58] >> Yeah.

[1:50:00] It does. If you're going to give

[1:50:02] them guidance to throw out the RFQ,

[1:50:05] uh, you can do it by motion. There's no harm

[1:50:09] >> in doing that.

[1:50:11] >> Yeah. Thanks.

[1:50:14] in the form of a motion or

[1:50:16] >> well do we want to go with Seymour or we

[1:50:17] going to do bid

[1:50:20] >> design bid build or Seymour?

[1:50:22] >> Okay.

[1:50:26] » Well, I think I think the time you

[1:50:29] hire someone to oversee everything, the

[1:50:32] design bid build is not going to save

[1:50:33] you much money over the sea.

[1:50:36] And at least the semar we've got the

[1:50:39] guaranteed maximum price.

[1:50:42] So,

[1:50:43] I would say the design firm of the

[1:50:46] Seymark.

[1:50:49] That's my thoughts.

[1:50:56] » Would that alleviate the problems we've

[1:50:58] had in the past?

[1:51:00] >> I believe it would.

[1:51:02] >> It depends on it. Depends on that

[1:51:05] person.

[1:51:07] >> It's going to be betting

[1:51:10] those folks.

[1:51:12] Um the the biggest problem we've had in

[1:51:15] the past is

[1:51:18] architectural design

[1:51:21] and it come to

[1:51:24] tuition with what we actually got. So

[1:51:30] I don't know and you can see it happen

[1:51:33] here folks. You got that maximum bid. So

[1:51:37] just be prepared. Tell's up front. I

[1:51:39] won't be here, but I'm telling you

[1:51:41] what's could happen is as they see

[1:51:43] they're getting close on that number,

[1:51:45] say if materials increase dramatically

[1:51:48] from the time it's bid till the time

[1:51:50] it's built because you got a few months

[1:51:52] in there. Concrete goes up, paving goes

[1:51:55] up, whatever.

[1:51:57] They have to cut corners because they've

[1:51:59] got a maximum number there. None of

[1:52:01] this, nobody's going to eat any of this.

[1:52:03] They're going to figure it out. They'll

[1:52:06] change wire size. They'll change type of

[1:52:10] light fixtures. They'll they'll cut

[1:52:14] corners.

[1:52:15] So, it's not like it's not like it's an

[1:52:19] out out. You know, the the picnic

[1:52:21] shelter down here is supposed to have a

[1:52:23] tongue and groove. Well, it ended up

[1:52:26] getting the 4x8 boards installed

[1:52:29] instead.

[1:52:31] Uh but that was just one of them things

[1:52:34] that she just said, "Oh, it looks okay."

[1:52:37] and let it slide. You know, it was drawn

[1:52:39] one way. They installed something else,

[1:52:42] but she was okay with it. She checked

[1:52:44] the box.

[1:52:45] You still have a little this happen, but

[1:52:48] not much because the the architectural

[1:52:50] design of this building. This thing has

[1:52:52] got to pass code. So, it's going to have

[1:52:54] county inspections. It's going to have

[1:52:57] fire regulations because you got a

[1:52:59] garage attached to office and break

[1:53:01] rooms. So, you're going to have a

[1:53:03] firewall. You're going to have a lot of

[1:53:05] things that can't be changed even if

[1:53:07] somebody wanted to.

[1:53:10] But just know that you're whoever you

[1:53:13] get and it can happen with the with the

[1:53:16] uh first one also if we hired someone.

[1:53:20] We got no guarantees that it'll all be

[1:53:22] called looked over. So you just got to

[1:53:24] go where you go.

[1:53:25] >> We'll be council will be the one

[1:53:26] selecting the architect, right? So it's

[1:53:28] on us to do our due diligence to get the

[1:53:30] right person.

[1:53:30] >> Yeah. So yeah. So you all would be uh

[1:53:33] ultimately deciding on the RFQ. We'd

[1:53:34] bring it with you with our you know

[1:53:37] there would be design standards. We

[1:53:38] would bring it forward with

[1:53:40] recommendations on uh on what that would

[1:53:42] be. But yeah ultimately you would have

[1:53:44] those options.

[1:53:45] >> But then in a semar who is going to be

[1:53:50] who then is boots on the ground to make

[1:53:52] sure that we paid for five inches of

[1:53:54] concrete and we didn't get three and a

[1:53:56] half

[1:53:56] >> the Seymour consultant or someone that

[1:53:59] works for them. But somebody is

[1:54:03] reliable.

[1:54:04] >> Yeah,

[1:54:06] >> that's why that's the 100% sure.

[1:54:08] >> Yeah, but they do add that to the price.

[1:54:11] They're not eating that either. So,

[1:54:14] >> just know I'm just telling you up front

[1:54:16] how it works. I mean, you're asking for

[1:54:18] that security bond and it's a great

[1:54:20] thing to have, but they're charging us

[1:54:22] for it basically, you know, but it's not

[1:54:25] a bad thing. It's like an insurance

[1:54:27] policy we're have to pay for.

[1:54:34] As I mentioned, this this this process

[1:54:36] is one of the most conservative

[1:54:39] approaches just because again that

[1:54:40] guaranteed max price because of what

[1:54:42] you're looking at. Um there is not

[1:54:44] foolproof. It is based off of the RFQS

[1:54:47] and how they're written. It's a based

[1:54:48] off of how they are um the the responses

[1:54:52] that come in. But ultimately both the

[1:54:55] designers and the arch I'm both the

[1:54:57] architectural firm and the semar report

[1:54:59] to the town similar to the design bid

[1:55:02] build uh which ultimately puts the the

[1:55:06] and on us to be able to to ensure the

[1:55:10] quality that's necessary whereas again

[1:55:12] the design bid would not. But the one of

[1:55:15] the benefits of this is at least

[1:55:17] hopefully and from my understanding with

[1:55:19] talking with many others who have done

[1:55:21] this is that getting them in the room to

[1:55:22] talk at the same time, the architectural

[1:55:24] firms and the construction manager at

[1:55:26] risk at the same time alleviates a lot

[1:55:29] of those concerns and ultimately

[1:55:31] hopefully cuts out a lot of those

[1:55:34] cutting corners later on because those

[1:55:36] conversations have happened as a part of

[1:55:37] the guaranteed bid I mean uh the

[1:55:39] guaranteed max price as well. So nothing

[1:55:43] is foolproof. Are you guys used guys are

[1:55:46] you guys getting assistance on uh

[1:55:48] writing the RFQ?

[1:55:50] >> Yes. And also we have ALS we also have

[1:55:53] great assistance right over here and uh

[1:55:55] Mr. Brian Golden as well helping us with

[1:55:57] that.

[1:56:00] >> The only thing I'd say is I hope council

[1:56:01] no matter which way we go right here

[1:56:03] before this motion is actually

[1:56:04] officially made is just we work on

[1:56:07] trying to work with the architectural

[1:56:09] firm to reduce some of this cost if

[1:56:12] possible.

[1:56:14] you know, not move this over this tax

[1:56:17] burden onto our taxpayers and and hear

[1:56:19] about it. I mean, we need the facility,

[1:56:22] but we don't need uh a firehouse to to

[1:56:26] work maintenance out of. Okay. Well,

[1:56:28] let's just work with it. See what we can

[1:56:30] figure out. There's anywhere we can cut

[1:56:33] it, not hurt it. We need the space. We

[1:56:36] need all the space we can get.

[1:56:40] So that's going to involve lots of talks

[1:56:43] with you all to make sure that we're

[1:56:45] meeting your needs.

[1:56:52] » Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

[1:56:56] >> So I make a motion to uh allow staff to

[1:56:59] create the RFQ for architect design firm

[1:57:02] in the Seymour.

[1:57:04] You

[1:57:04] >> need authorization to sign

[1:57:07] no sir. Hey, you you all are the

[1:57:10] authority to sign. Second.

[1:57:12] >> Yeah, I'll second that.

[1:57:14] >> All right. Any more discussion?

[1:57:17] Hearing none. All in favor?

[1:57:20] >> I'll see it.

[1:57:21] >> Any opposed?

[1:57:24] None. All right.

[1:57:27] Thank you, council.

[1:57:31] All right. Uh whenever staff gets

[1:57:34] resituated, we'll move on to our

[1:57:36] appointment of our board of adjustment

[1:57:38] board member and second alternate

[1:57:41] position. We got three applicants.

[1:57:50] Okay. On the board of adjustment, um you

[1:57:53] have a board member and a second

[1:57:55] alternate position to fulfill. And these

[1:57:58] would be terms that um current they had

[1:58:01] someone and the person had to resign.

[1:58:04] One person moved out of town, the other

[1:58:05] one had to resign for unknown reasons.

[1:58:08] But these would be to complete those

[1:58:09] terms

[1:58:11] and council's been given the um

[1:58:14] applications.

[1:58:21] » Yes, sir.

[1:58:23] >> Some good applications.

[1:58:25] >> They were good applications.

[1:58:27] Which one are you looking at doing

[1:58:29] first? The board of adjustments.

[1:58:30] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:58:31] >> Yeah. We're on We're onbody

[1:58:37] got a recommendation.

[1:58:39] >> So, I'll make a motion to appoint Sonia

[1:58:40] McCall to

[1:58:43] uh fill out the position resigned by

[1:58:47] uh term expiring in November 18, 2027.

[1:58:53] that the Brad Burton position. I guess

[1:58:55] he was on He was actually Yeah. Okay. I

[1:58:58] was trying not to say it.

[1:58:59] >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:59:02] >> Thought

[1:59:06] motion by second.

[1:59:07] >> So, we're doing two. This is two one one

[1:59:12] board and one.

[1:59:13] >> Yeah.

[1:59:13] >> Well, there's two positions open. I'm

[1:59:15] just right now I'm doing the first

[1:59:16] position, which is the three the

[1:59:18] three-year term expiry. So,

[1:59:22] which would be a board member.

[1:59:34] » Uh yeah, a second is one.

[1:59:39] >> Second.

[1:59:40] >> Okay. Any discussion?

[1:59:42] Yes.

[1:59:45] All right. All in favor? I

[1:59:48] >> Any opposed? Fair enough. Okay.

[1:59:52] All right.

[1:59:55] Look at our second hold in a position

[1:59:58] that that's been open for a a while,

[2:00:01] right?

[2:00:01] >> Uh that's Mr. Ross.

[2:00:03] >> Yes. Yeah.

[2:00:05] >> So,

[2:00:06] >> um I make a motion for Jacob Hagerdorn.

[2:00:10] >> Okay.

[2:00:10] >> For the alternate for the board of

[2:00:12] adjustments.

[2:00:14] >> I'm looking for a second.

[2:00:16] I got one more question again. Uh did we

[2:00:19] tell them that that this could either be

[2:00:21] an alternate or a board or we didn't say

[2:00:25] >> um

[2:00:26] >> they applying were these three

[2:00:27] applicants applying for a board member

[2:00:29] or alternate?

[2:00:31] >> I just brought you the applications that

[2:00:32] I had on file.

[2:00:37] » Second.

[2:00:38] >> Okay. Discussion. Uh does anybody talk

[2:00:42] to Was you able to talk to Jacob?

[2:00:44] >> I did reach out and speak with him. Uh,

[2:00:47] did he mention he is okay with the

[2:00:49] alternate position or did it ever get to

[2:00:50] that?

[2:00:51] >> I didn't ask that.

[2:00:52] >> Okay.

[2:00:54] All right. Any more discussion? Second.

[2:00:57] All in favor?

[2:00:58] >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none.

[2:01:04] Right. Uh, let's move on down to D,

[2:01:06] appointment of the egg advisory uh,

[2:01:08] committee. Currently, Bert Limus.

[2:01:12] I make a motion that we keep Bert Limus

[2:01:15] on the agricultural ward.

[2:01:19] >> Okay, you got a first. How about a

[2:01:20] second?

[2:01:21] >> Second.

[2:01:22] >> All right, got a second. Any discussion?

[2:01:25] >> All in favor? I

[2:01:30] » Okay, moving on to e uh appointment of

[2:01:33] the agra culture advisory committee for

[2:01:36] Bradley Johnston.

[2:01:39] My understanding Bradley does not want

[2:01:40] to serve that. Anybody else served that?

[2:01:43] >> I did.

[2:01:44] >> Okay. Two.

[2:01:45] >> Okay.

[2:01:47] >> I'd like to appoint Mr. Hoy to the

[2:01:52] board.

[2:01:52] >> All right.

[2:01:54] >> August second.

[2:01:57] >> Got a motion. Got a second. Uh

[2:02:01] all in favor or any discussion? Anybody

[2:02:03] got any discussion on that one?

[2:02:05] >> All for Mills River Residents.

[2:02:07] >> Peace. What?

[2:02:08] >> I said I'm all for Mills River

[2:02:09] residence.

[2:02:09] >> Okay. All right. All in favor?

[2:02:12] >> I I

[2:02:17] » All right. Uh, if we can keep going

[2:02:20] here, we're on roll. Uh, we'll need to

[2:02:22] amend the 2026-20.

[2:02:26] We'll need a little help with that one.

[2:02:28] Got it right here somewhere.

[2:02:40] just

[2:02:47] so on last meeting's consent consent

[2:02:50] agenda um there was a resolution to use

[2:02:53] state contract for um the John Deere

[2:02:55] mower going through that process we've

[2:02:58] um learned we're also eligible for

[2:03:00] source well so we are um there's Both

[2:03:03] are really good pricing. We're not sure

[2:03:05] kind of which one's coming back lower.

[2:03:06] So, we would like just permission to do

[2:03:08] both of those. So, we can just go with

[2:03:09] the low speed. So, pretty much as simple

[2:03:11] as that. We want to have both options

[2:03:13] and then we'll

[2:03:14] >> amend it to allow for both

[2:03:16] >> to both.

[2:03:18] >> Yeah.

[2:03:20] >> Uh I think we've got something here on

[2:03:23] our paper.

[2:03:24] >> Yeah. So, I move to amend resolution

[2:03:26] 2026-20.

[2:03:28] Let's presented amended resolution

[2:03:29] 2026-20.

[2:03:31] Uh motion.

[2:03:35] » So all the was just add or source well.

[2:03:39] >> Okay. And that's good catch. Might save

[2:03:42] it all.

[2:03:42] >> Yep.

[2:03:43] All in favor.

[2:03:45] >> All right. Any opposed? Hearing none.

[2:03:48] >> Okay. We're moving on to G to adopt

[2:03:51] 2026-28.

[2:04:10] Um this goes along with the um contract

[2:04:14] that you approved in the consent agenda.

[2:04:16] We are trying to move away from global

[2:04:18] payments for financial and customer

[2:04:21] service reasons. Um because of software

[2:04:24] restraints, all paid could take on our

[2:04:28] civic wreck and smart go software. Tyler

[2:04:32] Technologies only allows two uh merchant

[2:04:36] processors, the credit card processors

[2:04:38] to fully integrate with their system and

[2:04:41] global payments is one and their own

[2:04:44] Tyler payments is the other. The bonus

[2:04:46] of doing Tyler payments is that we can

[2:04:48] actually do e checks which would be I

[2:04:51] think 250

[2:04:53] um which a lot of our residents have

[2:04:54] been asking for the last few years

[2:04:56] because the county does them. So, it' be

[2:04:59] a nice service to offer.

[2:05:02] >> And just as one final note, Tyler

[2:05:04] Technologies is also the the financing

[2:05:06] system that we currently use in house

[2:05:08] for uh for both uh finance and tax. So

[2:05:13] >> and the credit card fees with global

[2:05:14] payments has gotten to be astronomically

[2:05:18] unattainable for

[2:05:21] residents to carry burden for that. So

[2:05:25] uh item J was to move city direct and

[2:05:28] smart go as Christine mentioned and this

[2:05:30] will lessen that burden um on the

[2:05:34] residents using Tyler Tyler payments for

[2:05:38] the

[2:05:39] >> technology credit card. use of tax

[2:05:41] collection.

[2:05:42] >> Okay.

[2:05:44] >> I move to adopt resolution 2026-28 as

[2:05:47] presented.

[2:05:48] >> Second.

[2:05:49] >> I'll second.

[2:05:50] >> Any discussion?

[2:05:52] Everybody understand? All right. All in

[2:05:54] favor?

[2:05:55] >> I. Any opposed? Thank you.

[2:06:00] I entertain a motion to adjourn our

[2:06:02] regular meeting.

[2:06:04] >> Make a motion to adjurnn a regular

[2:06:05] meeting.

[2:06:06] >> Second.

[2:06:08] >> That's it.

[2:06:09] All in favor? I. Any opposed?

[2:06:13] >> Make a motion to enter a business

[2:06:14] meeting.

[2:06:16] >> And James second. All in favor?

[2:06:20] >> Any opposed? You're not.

[2:06:22] >> Yeah. So, mayor and councel, there's

[2:06:25] nothing in the business meeting for

[2:06:27] tonight of that that we had identified.

[2:06:30] Uh so really for you all whether or not

[2:06:34] there's any items that you have any

[2:06:35] questions about or anything you would

[2:06:36] like for us to look at moving forward.

[2:06:38] You can see we did put both September

[2:06:40] 10th September 24th meetings. These are

[2:06:42] very preliminary. Uh I feel like that's

[2:06:44] the word of the night. Um agendas as

[2:06:47] well, but just showing you what we as

[2:06:49] staff are working on right now. Uh so if

[2:06:51] you have questions about that or any

[2:06:52] other items, we're happy to discuss.

[2:06:55] like to discuss uh specifically

[2:06:58] warehouse heights in either in the UDO

[2:07:02] or

[2:07:04] uh possibly like a moratorum to get

[2:07:08] through it. But um there's a lot of

[2:07:12] chatter about some of that and I think

[2:07:14] we need to

[2:07:17] proactively look at it. I would like um

[2:07:20] if

[2:07:22] we could get what it is now, what the UI

[2:07:26] has in it, you know, as it stands right

[2:07:29] now, what we can do that's not a down

[2:07:32] zone. Um

[2:07:36] I'd like to weigh our options on that

[2:07:39] one.

[2:07:49] So I would make me have a question.

[2:07:53] Could we um the town attorney answer if we do that could we exclude portions

[2:08:02] of the town like could we not put a

[2:08:04] moratorium on like our Franklin Park

[2:08:07] where it's a a business

[2:08:11] area anyway?

[2:08:16] So right, there's some certain things

[2:08:19] that you all have to consider when

[2:08:20] you're looking at uh adopting or passing

[2:08:24] a moratorum. And and the first thing is

[2:08:26] what is the evil you're trying to

[2:08:28] prevent? And so if generically we were

[2:08:30] going to say no commercial warehousing

[2:08:34] buildings,

[2:08:36] what is it that we're trying to prevent?

[2:08:37] Right? So some some people now the big

[2:08:39] thing are these data centers. So the

[2:08:41] moratorium on the data centers but if we

[2:08:44] are trying to prevent largecale tall

[2:08:47] warehousing buildings we could limit it

[2:08:50] to moratoriums on height and size of

[2:08:53] buildings but still other small

[2:08:56] warehousing buildings. Me I want to

[2:08:58] build a warehouse uh for my lawnmowers.

[2:09:02] uh and if it's less than 2500 square f

[2:09:04] feet, I ought to be able to do it as

[2:09:06] opposed to having all warehousing

[2:09:08] buildings uh under this moratorum. So,

[2:09:13] Councilman Canrell, you said height,

[2:09:15] right? If that if that's what you're

[2:09:16] worried about, uh it could be over three

[2:09:19] stories, over two stories, over 30 feet,

[2:09:21] over 35 feet. If you're Brian, if you're

[2:09:26] worried about uh large buildings over

[2:09:29] 25,000 square feet, you know, you could

[2:09:32] come up with a number, there needs to be

[2:09:36] because in the moratorum, you have to

[2:09:38] identify what it is you are trying to

[2:09:40] prevent and how much time you're going

[2:09:42] to need to find that cure. And again, I

[2:09:46] don't know, Mr. Malichek's going to tell

[2:09:48] us like what the new UDO says about

[2:09:52] certain warehousing buildings and size.

[2:09:55] Um, right? Because again, you're talking

[2:09:57] about making non-conform you're making

[2:10:00] non-conforming uses, uh, decreasing

[2:10:03] density and the the number of uses

[2:10:06] allowed on on property. So size of the

[2:10:10] building may not create a uh

[2:10:12] nonconforming or a downzoning situation.

[2:10:17] But but moratoriums aren't just designed

[2:10:20] to

[2:10:22] prevent all commercial buildings

[2:10:25] until we get the UDO passed. We are

[2:10:28] working towards some regulations on the

[2:10:31] UDO. I just don't know what the concerns

[2:10:33] are. But moratoriums are designed to

[2:10:35] pump the brakes so that we can address

[2:10:38] the evils that are lurking out there. We

[2:10:40] just have to figure out what those evils

[2:10:42] are.

[2:10:44] >> Uh Mr. Malachic,

[2:10:48] » how many evils can be in one moratorium?

[2:10:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, [laughter]

[2:10:54] so I mean the the the height and the

[2:10:56] square footage of a of a building. I

[2:10:58] mean, we don't want I if you are worried

[2:11:01] about someone coming in putting in a

[2:11:03] sevenstory warehouse building that is

[2:11:07] 30,000 300,000 square feet I that that

[2:11:11] seems huge but I mean it could happen um

[2:11:15] that those two evils in a moratorum

[2:11:18] could be prevented but if you were to

[2:11:20] say any warehouses and I don't know why

[2:11:22] I'm call saying warehouses but if you're

[2:11:24] going to say no warehouses

[2:11:27] um in the town of Mills River under this

[2:11:30] moratorum. We would have to be very

[2:11:32] specific why we're saying no warehouses

[2:11:34] at all because if I wanted again build a

[2:11:37] warehouse for my

[2:11:39] car and uh riding lawnmower

[2:11:43] um that moratorium would prevent that

[2:11:46] and is that really what we're looking to

[2:11:48] prevent? So I think the biggest

[2:11:50] complaints was obviously

[2:11:52] that banner farm schoolhouse which one

[2:11:55] >> sorry. Yeah.

[2:11:56] >> Um

[2:11:57] >> so what is the current regulations or

[2:11:59] what was that built to?

[2:12:00] >> So current [clears throat] zoning rules

[2:12:02] for light industrial allow up to 80 foot

[2:12:05] tall structures or buildings. So that

[2:12:08] was was what was applied to that uh

[2:12:10] development. And [clears throat] then

[2:12:11] because we required the architectural

[2:12:13] drawings, excuse me,

[2:12:16] I actually looked them up. That building

[2:12:18] runs between 38t to 42 feet tall

[2:12:22] depending upon which corner you're

[2:12:23] measuring from. It's [clears throat]

[2:12:26] slightly It looks slightly higher, too,

[2:12:28] because they put two to three feet of

[2:12:30] fill on the site because there was a

[2:12:32] high water table. So, the storm water

[2:12:34] device wasn't going to function

[2:12:36] correctly. Um, so that contributed to it

[2:12:38] as well. The original UDO which was

[2:12:41] invalidated had decreased the light or

[2:12:44] sorry the industrial uh zoning district

[2:12:47] height to 35 feet or two stories but

[2:12:50] [clears throat] as part of the

[2:12:51] downzoning amendment the final draft

[2:12:54] sent out to you guys today we preserved

[2:12:58] all the dimensional standards that are

[2:13:00] in our current zoning district. So the

[2:13:03] draft UDO says 80 ft and I would defer

[2:13:06] back to the town attorney, you know, is [clears throat] being stricter with

[2:13:12] dimensional requirements for a building.

[2:13:14] Is that a down zoning?

[2:13:18] In our approach, the consultant and I,

[2:13:20] you know, we were very conservative and

[2:13:22] so we preserved uh setbacks, heights,

[2:13:25] basically any dimensional standard in

[2:13:27] the code. Now,

[2:13:33] » did you want to address that?

[2:13:35] >> Yeah. So, the the I I was just I'm I'm

[2:13:38] pulling up the exact language of 607.

[2:13:43] » Yeah. So, our approach to amending the

[2:13:46] UDO to become downzone and compliant. We

[2:13:48] took very conservative approach, you

[2:13:51] know, to avoid any type of legal

[2:13:52] challenge. So the dimensional standards

[2:13:54] in our code now again setbacks, height,

[2:13:58] building separation, whatever it may be,

[2:14:00] those are all carried forward into the

[2:14:02] new amended UDO down zoning compliant

[2:14:05] the draft that was just sent to you guys

[2:14:07] today. So it's 80 ft in that draft. It

[2:14:10] was 35 ft or two stories in the

[2:14:12] rescended or nullified version.

[2:14:17] I mean, the specific language of 160D

[2:14:20] 601 uh specifically talks about

[2:14:22] downzoning decreasing the de development

[2:14:25] density of the land to be less dense by

[2:14:27] reducing the permitted uses of the land

[2:14:31] uh to fewer than were allowed under the

[2:14:33] previous usage or creating any type of

[2:14:37] nonconformity on land not in a

[2:14:39] residential zoning district.

[2:14:42] >> That may be the one.

[2:14:44] But but you're you're talking about new

[2:14:46] development going forward.

[2:14:48] >> But the but the zoning district

[2:14:49] dimensional standard period across the

[2:14:52] board while it's applied to new

[2:14:53] development.

[2:14:55] >> Okay.

[2:14:55] >> The threshold lower.

[2:14:57] >> I think that's was the concern.

[2:15:00] >> Yeah. Not but but but the MRMU is a

[2:15:04] residential district because it allows

[2:15:06] res

[2:15:07] >> No, mixed use is a is a commercial.

[2:15:09] >> You don't allow any residential uses in

[2:15:11] the mixeduse district. No, we allow

[2:15:12] residential uses, but we allow

[2:15:14] everything else

[2:15:17] >> by creating a type of non-conformity on

[2:15:19] land, not in a residential zoning

[2:15:21] district. Do you allow residential

[2:15:24] structures to be built in the MRMU?

[2:15:26] >> We do, but I think we're also talking

[2:15:28] about industrial

[2:15:30] I don't

[2:15:31] >> would you I mean, so here here is the

[2:15:34] argument. this this downzoning

[2:15:36] legislation as poorly written as it is

[2:15:39] right says that you can't create

[2:15:41] nonconformities

[2:15:43] on land not in a residential zoning

[2:15:45] district. If the MRNU MRMU is a

[2:15:49] residential zoning district because it

[2:15:51] allows residential uses

[2:15:54] by decreasing the height or the size of

[2:15:57] a of a warehouse. Are we creating a

[2:16:01] nonconformity on land not in a

[2:16:03] residential zoning district? You can

[2:16:05] have warehouses in NM MRMU. You can have

[2:16:09] structures, residential structures

[2:16:12] built. So I I can't tell you here

[2:16:15] because there is no case law as to say

[2:16:18] residential zoning districts. So I think

[2:16:20] what Mike's saying is he and Chad were

[2:16:23] trying to be very conservative. Can you

[2:16:25] still do a moratorium on it until you

[2:16:28] could come up with the

[2:16:31] either answer for that or some other

[2:16:34] call it workaround? You know, I want to

[2:16:36] be able to see the sun on your property

[2:16:38] for more than four minutes.

[2:16:40] >> Yeah. If if that is and I just pulled

[2:16:42] out some old nodes. Again, it it in

[2:16:45] order to adopt a uh moratorum, you have

[2:16:49] to have the statement of the problem or

[2:16:50] conditions necessitating the moratorum.

[2:16:53] So could you still adopt a moratorum to

[2:16:59] prohibit heightened size of those

[2:17:01] facilities if that is if there is a

[2:17:04] specific problem or condition

[2:17:06] necessitating the moratorum and then it

[2:17:09] says you have to have a statement of the

[2:17:10] development approvals subject to the

[2:17:12] moratorum and how those approvals will

[2:17:15] address the problems and conditions. So,

[2:17:17] I don't know that you could say we want

[2:17:20] a moratorum so the town's attorney can

[2:17:23] do some legal research.

[2:17:25] >> I wouldn't say that. I would leave that

[2:17:27] up to you. [laughter]

[2:17:29] >> Well, um, so again, I I mean, there are

[2:17:33] municipalities out there that have

[2:17:36] allowed residential structures in all of

[2:17:40] their districts so that they can try to

[2:17:43] get around this

[2:17:45] downzoning prohibition. So in MRLI we

[2:17:49] don't allow residential,

[2:17:50] >> right?

[2:17:50] >> So if we allowed residential in MRLI,

[2:17:53] then we avoid this.

[2:17:55] That is

[2:17:57] >> that is a potential legal argument that

[2:18:00] you could make, but you don't allow it.

[2:18:02] Right? So that fits exactly to what this

[2:18:04] says by creating a type of nonconformity

[2:18:07] on land, not in a residential zoning

[2:18:10] district. If the light industrial

[2:18:12] doesn't allow resident residential

[2:18:14] structures, it's not a residential

[2:18:15] zoning district. So you can't create any

[2:18:18] type of nonconformity,

[2:18:20] which would be reducing the height or

[2:18:22] the size of a building.

[2:18:24] >> But if those are the tallest buildings,

[2:18:28] the tallest warehouses in LA industrial

[2:18:32] and we know they're less than 45 ft

[2:18:34] tall, could we change that max from 80

[2:18:37] to 45? We haven't created a

[2:18:39] nonconformity and we're a little better

[2:18:41] off than having 80 foot tall warehouses.

[2:18:46] » You you could try that. The only thing

[2:18:48] that I'm saying is there is no case. All

[2:18:50] this down zoning legislation this

[2:18:52] downzoning legislation is so new hasn't

[2:18:54] been challenged in court.

[2:18:57] >> If somebody wants to challenge it,

[2:19:00] >> they can. So if we want to do a

[2:19:01] moratorium on commercial warehouses with

[2:19:05] a height building height restriction of

[2:19:06] 45 ft

[2:19:08] >> anything a moratorium for those

[2:19:10] buildings over 45 ft

[2:19:12] >> for 6 months.

[2:19:15] >> Yeah. Yes, I think you could do that.

[2:19:16] >> Okay.

[2:19:17] >> As long as we can come up with statement

[2:19:18] of the development approval subject to

[2:19:20] the mortorium and how the moratorum on

[2:19:22] those approvals will address the

[2:19:24] problem.

[2:19:24] >> What about 30 ft?

[2:19:27] was 45 ft what we got and all we hear is

[2:19:30] about those. I'm just trying to I'm just

[2:19:34] trying to There's a lot of chatter that

[2:19:36] more of those are coming and I'm trying

[2:19:38] to make them a little bit more

[2:19:40] beautiful.

[2:19:42] >> I'm

[2:19:45] Yeah. 45 ft 30 feet. if there is a

[2:19:48] particular evil that you're trying to

[2:19:50] address

[2:19:52] because of that.

[2:19:54] >> I mean,

[2:19:57] >> yeah, I'm just I'm I'm trying to like

[2:19:59] reasonably not, you know, be more than

[2:20:03] 11 ft,

[2:20:07] but it seems like those are too tall for

[2:20:10] what we would want to see.

[2:20:16] I mean

[2:20:19] if it gets challenged it's defensible.

[2:20:23] We would have to create a moratorum that

[2:20:25] satisfies all of the statutory

[2:20:28] requirements under 160d

[2:20:30] 107 I think

[2:20:32] and then we would have to create a

[2:20:36] reasonable solution as to what we are

[2:20:41] trying to prevent. So, and I and if I

[2:20:44] was going to challenge it, I'm no lawyer

[2:20:46] by no means, but you know, I would take

[2:20:49] into consideration some of the height of

[2:20:52] the houses around. You know, I'd say,

[2:20:55] man, you got my warehouse to where I

[2:20:57] can't have it as high as my neighbor's

[2:21:00] house. You know, 30 feet sounds tall,

[2:21:03] but a lot of people's houses from front

[2:21:06] door to the front peak is over 30 fairly

[2:21:09] easy anymore, especially in the

[2:21:11] mountain, especially, you know.

[2:21:13] >> What's the maximum current for

[2:21:16] residential building?

[2:21:19] >> I was just going off a twotory or 212

[2:21:22] >> and that's across multiple districts.

[2:21:24] Okay.

[2:21:26] >> 50 feet is the maximum height for

[2:21:29] residential homes in many of our

[2:21:31] districts.

[2:21:34] >> May I get a clarifying question from the

[2:21:36] uh ask a clarifying question to the town

[2:21:38] attorney real quick? council the uh the fact that we're still in the UDO

[2:21:43] process in and of itself I have seen

[2:21:47] used as um as rationale for moratoria

[2:21:53] because

[2:21:54] the UDO process in and of itself will

[2:21:57] bring potential changes through that

[2:21:59] process. We have not adopted a new UDO

[2:22:02] yet. So a moratorum on let's just say

[2:22:06] something as specific as that could be

[2:22:09] trying to stop the evil of um the the

[2:22:14] evil that would be stopped essentially

[2:22:15] is that you we are working through a

[2:22:17] process to update our codes and our

[2:22:18] ordinances in order to you know adopt a

[2:22:21] new UDO is that I've seen that used

[2:22:25] before. Is that what are your thoughts

[2:22:27] on that?

[2:22:28] >> Then your moratorium would only be 30

[2:22:30] days.

[2:22:31] >> Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. So, I'm

[2:22:32] just I'm just thinking through what

[2:22:34] those other options are, but I've just

[2:22:36] seen that. So, I want

[2:22:37] >> And but by the time you drafted the

[2:22:39] moratorum, got it in front of council

[2:22:43] for the proper hearing, it'd be on the

[2:22:45] same

[2:22:46] >> But there's no guarantee that we're

[2:22:47] going to pass the UDO. So, we can make

[2:22:49] the moratorum say 6 months or until the

[2:22:52] passage of a UDO.

[2:22:55] >> Well, that's a good question. I don't uh

[2:22:58] No, I think there's going to have to be

[2:22:59] a a specific

[2:23:01] >> date.

[2:23:02] >> I can't just make a so moved motion and

[2:23:04] this goes into effect

[2:23:08] >> in the [snorts] public hearing.

[2:23:09] >> Sorry.

[2:23:15] » I knew I knew where the humor was coming

[2:23:17] from.

[2:23:18] >> I think I still think we need to explore

[2:23:21] this further. I would like to see we're

[2:23:24] in the business meeting. I would like to

[2:23:25] see this on a regular agenda meeting

[2:23:29] because I think we should have this

[2:23:32] queued up

[2:23:34] anyway.

[2:23:36] >> I agree with James.

[2:23:40] » We we toyed around with it a couple

[2:23:41] times and keep pushing it back. I I I

[2:23:44] think it's time well spent to

[2:23:49] Yeah. have it.

[2:23:50] >> And we probably need to talk about data

[2:23:51] centers while we're in that.

[2:24:02] Mike, can you

[2:24:04] about Yeah, about the data center since

[2:24:05] they had the UDO in front of them.

[2:24:07] >> Um, data centers are listed as

[2:24:10] prohibited

[2:24:11] >> in our in the new down zoning compliant

[2:24:16] UDO.

[2:24:17] The the reason for that is because again

[2:24:21] while taking a conservative approach the

[2:24:24] mixeduse district says all uses are

[2:24:26] allowed

[2:24:28] that [clears throat] doesn't mean anyone

[2:24:30] can pick a use under the rainbow and

[2:24:32] it's going to be permitted by right.

[2:24:33] It's the uses identified in the

[2:24:35] ordinance itself.

[2:24:37] Um

[2:24:39] and so since data centers are not

[2:24:42] identified as a use in the ordinance um

[2:24:45] we felt it was something that could be

[2:24:46] regulated through a prohibition.

[2:24:49] >> So basically the only uses that are

[2:24:51] allowed in MRMU are uses that exist in

[2:24:53] other zoning districts.

[2:24:55] >> Correct. Called out anywhere in the

[2:24:57] ordinance. Even if there's a definition

[2:24:59] of and it you know and it's not even

[2:25:01] permitted anywhere. It's a use

[2:25:02] identified in the ordinance. It says all

[2:25:04] uses.

[2:25:06] That's the equation we use basically.

[2:25:10] >> Is that something that can be challenged

[2:25:12] like as a board of adjustment thing?

[2:25:14] >> Every everything can be challenged when

[2:25:16] you adopt the ordinance. It wouldn't go

[2:25:18] to the board of adjustment. It would be

[2:25:20] challenged to superior court directly

[2:25:22] through some kind of declaratory

[2:25:24] judgment action

[2:25:26] >> right within the specific time. And and

[2:25:28] the reason I agree with Mike on on what

[2:25:30] he's saying because there's new uses

[2:25:32] that happen all the time. For example, I

[2:25:36] was advised Oregon has a silly site a

[2:25:40] mushroom eating facility. So if you want

[2:25:43] to go ahead and and eat some mushrooms,

[2:25:45] you can go into this new facility. Who

[2:25:47] the heck would have ever thought that

[2:25:49] that's going to that that's not a

[2:25:51] permitted use that anybody would have

[2:25:53] ever thought about.

[2:25:54] >> Well, just since we since I've been

[2:25:56] sitting in one of these chairs, the the

[2:25:58] vapes and all have come along and all.

[2:26:00] So we we've seen that develop like where

[2:26:03] >> Yeah. Yeah, vape shops are a little

[2:26:05] different. That's retail. That's right.

[2:26:06] But but when you're talking about coming

[2:26:08] in into a into a a designated area to do

[2:26:16] legalized

[2:26:17] mushrooms,

[2:26:19] >> but how do you not how does he not argue

[2:26:21] if I come to him and say that's a

[2:26:23] restaurant? How does he argue that it's

[2:26:25] not? I guess by the definition of what a

[2:26:27] restaurant would be in the uh planner's

[2:26:30] dictionary,

[2:26:31] >> I would have to make a staff

[2:26:32] determination and categorize your use.

[2:26:34] And if you disagreed, you'd appeal my

[2:26:36] decision to the board of adjustment.

[2:26:40] » That's That's easy.

[2:26:44] >> Well, I'm paying food for I'm paying

[2:26:46] money for food. I mean, that's going to

[2:26:47] be fun. It's not a restaurant,

[2:26:54] but I think we do need to

[2:27:00] What's the rest of you want to do? Look

[2:27:03] at it.

[2:27:04] >> Yeah.

[2:27:07] >> Okay.

[2:27:08] And I'll just say too, the

[2:27:11] building height thing across the code,

[2:27:13] the approach we took was just to take

[2:27:15] what's in the current ordinance. So if

[2:27:17] this triggers a discussion about

[2:27:18] building height in all the zoning

[2:27:20] districts,

[2:27:21] let's just note that.

[2:27:22] >> Mhm.

[2:27:32] » Anything else?

[2:27:35] » I make a motion to journ.

[2:27:37] >> Thank you.

[2:27:37] >> Second.

[2:27:39] Thank you, James.

[2:27:41] All in favor?

Town Council Meeting - August 27, 2026

Transcript