All right, let's stand and say the
pledge.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, liberty and
justice for all.
right, good to see everybody out
here.
Uh, when everybody gets called up, we
need approval of the agenda, please. And
I'd like to make a couple changes
on our quarterly update to get these
guys out of here a little bit quicker.
Let's switch A and B on our regular
agenda.
Then F we need to add uh to amend
2026-20
and then G will be adopt 2026-28
and that'll make more sense when we get
into it. It was some stuff we had in the
consent and we're dragging it back down
here to work on a bit.
>> So I make a motion to approve the agenda
with the modifications.
>> Thank you Brian. Second.
>> I'll second it.
>> Thank you Sandra. Any more discussion on
this agenda
hearing? None. All in favor? I. Any
opposed? Hear none. Uh got call for
public comment. Uh Mr. Schmidt, you're
up.
» Uh I don't have much to say tonight. I
just uh I didn't have time to prepare
anything. So it's on Muaness. I was at a
lawyer's house uh meeting today. Anyhow,
my main thing is I appreciate this three
minutes of time that you give us all to
speak our grievances or to say whatever
or even to uh applaud what you're doing,
right?
The only problem is that that's a good
democratic sort of thing, but it's not
100%. What we really need here is we
really need you guys to be accountable
to us and and we should be able to ask
you guys a question. One question,
that's all.
one question per person per occurrence
and get an answer. I asked you guys a
question last time. I want to know who
was responsible for taking a
planning thing from reszoning a little
bit of 280 and some changes in the
nomenclature to all of a sudden this big
uh UDO pro program that we got now that
we paid $200,000 for. who made that
decision to go from something that was
small and microscopic and approved by
the state
and all of a sudden it becomes this big
program that we're spending all this
money on and the state says no because
you we didn't grant you that.
Somebody made that decision. I want to
know who who did that. I want to know
who's responsible for wasting that money
because it's a waste of money. We're not
going to use Yeah. We we cobble some use
out of it after post after the the
destruction,
but we as taxpayers are not getting
value for our money there. And we ought
to know who was responsible for doing
that. That person should be accountable
to us, whether it be a counselor or one
of the staff who. And I I found a very
interesting law that entitles me to know
who that is. There's a law on the books
in the constitution. This section 18
USC subsection 242. It's called the
deprivation of rights under the color of
law. And if I can kind of put it in my
words for you, it means that you as
officials do not have the right to deny
me my constitutional right of knowing
who is doing what under my name.
and can be in prison for that. So, I
want an answer to my question by next
meeting. You can write me got my
address. I'll write you an official
letter if you'd like asking it. I want
that information.
Yeah. And I would like you to look at
your agenda and try to adapt it so that
you can put a question and answer
period. Just maybe one question. Add
another minute to the three minutes. Do
it. Let's get a democratic process going
here where you guys have got to be
accountable.
>> Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Okay. Anybody else pro comment? That's
the only one I had wrote down. Anybody
else? Going once, twice, three times.
Okay. Uh council comments.
Anybody?
Uh,
so
I know public comment,
you know,
is that even a possibility after hearing
that? I mean, you know, somehow we need
to address some of these things as they
come. you know, some bigger than others,
but can somebody this week somehow get
him an official email to try to answer
that?
>> Yes, sir. Absolutely.
>> I think I mean I think somebody needs to
reach out to him.
>> Okay. Yes, sir.
>> Let us know if you would.
the um to the question about public
comment the um typically from the public
comment period questions are asked then
moving into council comments that's an
opportunity for council to respond okay
to any type of public comment that they
may wish or provide any other comments
that they may wish um at that time um
but yes absolutely we're happy to reach
out and uh see if we can assist with his
questions
>> okay and I think it'd be if it's all
right with you would it be okay for all
the council to get copied in on Yeah,
>> sure.
>> Yeah, thank you.
>> Yeah, typically during the the public
comment, we don't want to get into a
back and forth.
>> I understand.
>> Yeah.
>> One question.
>> Yes, sir. And we've all got emails.
You're more than welcome to email us at
any time. I'll be glad to respond and um
you just anytime. Um and and feel free
to hold us accountable at election time.
>> I'm coming up in two years. I'll hug
your neck, you know,
>> but it's too late for the damage that's
getting done. That's what
>> and that's and you know that's you're
certainly welcome to your opinion and
>> thank you.
>> Anyone else? Anyone? You all good?
>> Major updates.
Thank you, Mayor and Council. Just a few
updates for you. First of all, you may
have seen that uh the fencing around the
North Loop, especially the Meadow area,
has been taken down. Um it's a lot of
work that's been put into making sure
that the North Loop is back in in
preheline conditions. And so right now
the full loop, the full north loop is
open and available for all uh park
patrons to come out and enjoy again. So
we were, you know, we've been sitting
around really trying to work as fast as
possible to make that happen for the
community and we're very thankful that
we're able to do it before the end of
the summer this year. There are going to
be some closures from time to time as we
still work through it. Well, we've we've
accomplished what's called substantial
completion of the construction project,
but there's going to still be some
projects that happen from time to time
back there. As you may see, there's
still some areas that are fenced off in
the middle of the meadow area because
there's a retention pond in there,
sediment uh retention pond, and other
elements that are going to have to be
worked on as we finalize the project.
But for all intents and purposes, we
really want people to come out and enjoy
being able to get access to the river
again and be able to exercise and
recreate back there. And I really want
to thank the staff for all of their hard
work in making that happen. It took a
lot of lot of effort. The uh another
item, the baseball field. Again, I'm
kind of getting ahead of myself a little
bit. We're going to have a major
projects update here in in a few
minutes. Uh but also, we've we've done a
walk through for the baseball field
project as well. So, we're going into
the closeout process of that. So,
there's still going to be some temporary
fencing there as well as we try to get
some, uh, grass growing in that back
area where that French drain is put in,
but uh, for all intents and purposes,
again, being able to open that, being
able to utilize that soon. Uh, just keep
an eye out for, we're going to keep
updates on social media, on our website,
etc. about uh, any potential closures
around that as well. Last, everyone's
favorite topic, auditing. Uh if Kristen
back there, our tax collector would say
taxes are everybody's favorite uh uh uh
topic, but we're right now in the middle
of the audit process. We had the
auditors uh on site last week. I believe
it was last week. Yes. And so um they've
concluded their on-site inspections and
so now they're in the process um of you
know all the other work that is
necessary. They're still on schedule.
We're still expecting them to come in
November uh to present to you. So, and
that concludes my remarks.
>> Great.
Moving on with our consent agenda. We
really didn't pull anything. We had to
set aside any other time. Okay.
>> So, I entertain a motion to approve our
consent agenda.
>> I'll make a motion that we approve the
consent agenda.
>> Thank you, Sandra. Second.
>> All right. Second. Any more discussion
on this consent agenda?
>> Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
opposed?
Hearing none. All right, regular agenda.
We've moved up our quarterly uh fourth
quarter presentation. I guess our
manager will get us started.
>> Yeah, thank you, mayor and council. So,
first I would like to introduce the
Mills River Fire and Rescue's new fire
chief, Bart Travis. I'm going to call
him up here uh to the podium. I just
wanted to in in addition to providing an
update for us, I really just wanted to
introduce him uh you know to council and
to the community. really want to thank
you uh for all the hard work you've been
doing over there and for just the work
in the last few weeks that we've been
working together. It's been really a
great transition so far.
>> Thank you uh for that. Uh thank you for
having me uh uh meeting. So I am 24 days
in to my new assignment. Um and it has
been fantastic so far. Uh everybody
we've met uh from town staff has been
super nice, super helpful. um community
has been very uh open and encouraging
and my wife and I are just thrilled to
be here. Uh so if you ever need anything
from the fire department aspect um
please get up with me uh or the uh um
town manager and we'll make that happen.
Um but all of our interactions have been
great. Um as far as the uh fire
department is concerned um we have uh
finalized a new building in station two.
Um we are working on getting the
financing finalized for that and we have
a special meeting tomorrow to address
that but we think we have all that in
place and hopefully we'll get
construction started uh within the next
month. Um they have told us once it
starts it'll be about 12 months uh
completion uh depending on the weather.
Um people tell me it kind of rains here
every now and then. So we'll see we'll
see how that happens. But uh everything
looks really good with that. We're
really happy with that. Um the month of
September and October are pretty busy
months. We've got fire prevention
starting first week in October and the
theme for that is uh charge into fire
safety. Um and the idea behind it is the
uh storage use and charging of lithium ion batteries uh to prevent
those type of fires. Um so there's going
to be a lot of information coming out
about that. We'll be posting that on the
website uh and getting that out as many
folks as possible. Um we have uh I think
four tours scheduled at the station in
September uh with diff different groups.
Um so we'll be working with that. So if
you would like to come by and speak to
me anytime, please feel free. Uh I'm
usually there Monday through Friday. Um
they didn't tell me going in. They told
me going in I was only have to work
Monday through Friday, but I've worked
every Saturday and Sunday that I've been
here uh because of calls and stuff. But
it's been fun. Uh it's been very
encouraging. Um do you have any
questions for me directly about
anything?
What? Just glad to have you. Yes, sir.
>> Glad to be here. Another logistical
thing, uh we have uh two engines and a
tanker uh that are in the works. We
should have the tanker before the first
of the year, the new engine supposedly
right after the first of the year, and
then the second engine, which would be
the engine that replaced the engine lost
in station two fire this time next year.
So, keep your fingers crossed on that.
But, uh everything we've got now is
working in good shape. And if you need
anything, just let me know.
>> I'm good. You ever been involved in
being a sanator before?
>> A sanator?
>> No, [clears throat] sir.
>> You're getting ready to
>> I'm getting ready [laughter]
for a real mother.
>> Look at Look at Brian. He's like, "Dude,
what?"
>> And there's there's room for our town
attorney. Legit.
>> It's legit.
>> I'll leave it. It'll be a big surprise.
>> Okay. [laughter]
the co get you all. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. This is exciting.
>> Okay. Good.
>> Need to plan a day for it.
>> Perfect.
>> It'll make you glad you moved here.
>> It will.
>> Well, we already are. So, I can't wait
to see what this is.
>> It's interesting.
>> Thank you.
>> I believe our town attorney's invited to
it.
>> Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It might be the
new Santa Claus.
>> Say we can find an outfit.
>> I might I might skip until I know what
it is. [laughter]
>> That's right. That's right. the suit.
>> He's got smile for it. He pull it off.
>> The beard.
>> You don't need one for Mr. Chris.
>> Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that. I
also want to call up uh our friends over
at the Henderson County Sheriff's
Office. Uh Captain Whitaker is joining
us here to provide us an update as well
over the last few months and also uh
other things we need to be looking
forward to in the fall.
>> Good evening. Hope everyone's doing
well. Uh sheriff's office, we've been
pretty busy. Uh the calls that we've had
in the Mills River area, we had last
three months. Um 2,29 calls. We made 30
arrest. We had 265 traffic stops and we
issued 19 citations. Some of the traffic
stops and arrest were coincided and some
war services. Uh some upcoming events um
if y'all don't know about them is of
course the apple festival's coming up.
Um state fair will be here soon and PGA
tournament here. So I think we're going
to have a not really Henderson County is
going to have some traffic challenges,
but y'all might get it coming off of 191
there. So we'll need to keep an eye on
that. Um,
we have permanent, if y'all don't
already know, we have permanent
medication disposal dropboxes. That's
where everybody takes their old
medicines that they don't use, drop in
the box. We have it in four locations at
the sheriff's office, Flesher PD,
Inville Police Department, and Laurel
Park. Um, we've had some requests to
have them put somewhere other than uh
law enforcement buildings, but we we we
don't we try not to do that. So, um, but
those are those are located there for
everybody to use. Um, there will be a
medication tape back and document
shredding. If somebody has a bunch of
papers they need to shred will be at EDA
United Community Bank, that's 50 United
Bank Drive in Edeto on Wednesday,
September 30th, 2026 from 1:00 to 3:00
p.m.
Um, and that's that's about it. Any
questions or I know got Captain Galloway
here in case there's any questions about
anything
>> anything
we need to be watching for. Anything
changed as far as the type of crimes or
anything?
>> Scams are my phone is blowing up this
week with scams, but that's the biggest
thing.
>> Um
I don't know what the trending scam is.
Do you know what the the newest?
>> There's three or four. I've been getting
that one about TransUnion Equifax on my
phone. My wife got one today for
Facebook. So, just be aware.
>> Yeah, just be aware.
>> Yeah, federal federal um federal agents
or you miss jury or some stuff like
that. So, just be aware. It's a We've
had quite a few reports this past month
being scanned. All right.
>> Thanks, sir. appreciation bunch always.
» Thank you, gentlemen. Uh so I'm going to
turn it over now for Julie to uh jump in
here with the financial update. So just
as a reminder, they we're we we start
with the financial analysis and then go
into major projects and initiatives. Uh
obviously we've just gone through the
public safety partner updates as well.
And so Julie, if you want to drive the
train, I'll click for you.
Good evening, council. It's my privilege
to present tonight's report to you for
the quarter ending June 30, 2026.
Uh just a couple things that we want to
bring to your attention. At the close of
June 30th, fiscal year end, property tax
collections were at 99.68%.
Um total outstanding as of June 30 for
the most recent uh property tax year was
$14,29.
Total collection outstanding for all
years is 58,502.
um wanted to uh let you know kind of
where we stood as of the end of the year
as it relates to our re our revenues and
those compared to what we had budgeted
um the sales tax revenues that you see
here um there is still one more um
dispersement that gets acred back to
June 30 because it runs three months in
a readers. So, um, with the 11 months
that we have presented here, it's at 2.1
million. We budgeted to 2,ion44,000.
Um, the average collection for Mills
River per month is about $150,000. So,
we should see about another 155 $160,000
added to that line item for June 30. Um,
all the other line items you can see
there, the grants were at 100%, power
bill was at 100%. Our miscellaneous
revenues were up slightly over our
budget because the revenues for those
River Day sponsorships was up as well as
the vendors for that event. Um, we
actually actually also had 66,000 in
park revenues. Um so that is a makes it
167% of what we had budgeted. Um and
then our investments were much more
successful than what we anticipated. Um
and so that is why we have 357,000
versus the 280,000 that we originally
budgeted. So without the final sales tax
number, we're at 7.2 million versus our
$7.4 million budget.
and we did not have to use any
appropriate fund balance for that.
Um on our expenditures, you can see that
um several of the line items uh are
slightly below budget. Um the capital
reserves, debt service, lease and fire
are all things that we are required to
pay 100% of what the contracts are. So
that's why those items are shown at
100%. All the other items are there just
slightly below or um within 20% of what
we had originally budgeted. Um as a
reminder, we budgeted expenditures
for staff if they all walked out the
door. So that's why all your major
budgeted expenditure line items for
staff are below budget because that did
not occur. So our budget versus actual
surplus as of June 30 before the last
sales is $460,14
on our fund balance um commitment. You
can see that um as of June 30, our fund
balance at the percent of general fund
expenditures is at 103% of our
expenditures and your requirement is
between 65 and 75%.
So we have been able to put them put
that money aside um as you have
requested for um not only the reserve
but also for the capital projects that
you um are planning in this year and the
future years.
Uh this budget is just umformational to
show you the blue lines are the 2526
or 2425 here and the the the line is the
current fiscal year budget that just
ended. So you can see where those uh
main differences are. Um the the one
decrease that you see there is that um
in 2425
there was nothing budgeted for the lease
agreement um because that was actually
shown in FEMA and this year um because
that there was just a little bit left
this year we left it in the J. Um but
most of the line items with the
exception of um the the miscellaneous
lease agreement there are are fairly
consistent from year to year with the
exception there permit and fees. Um you
can see where it is a lot different from
one year to the other but the other ones
are fairly consistent. Um
and then on the expenditure side, you
can you can clearly see that um we're
staying right along in line with what
you have budgeted in prior years. Um
streets and highways of course is pow
bill funds. Um and there is a um that
the city will the town will actually be
budgeting expenditure to repair the town
streets this year. So that money will be
actually spent in this coming fiscal
year. It was not spent in last fiscal
year
on the capital projects. Uh you can see
where we ended up on the items um that
you had uh directed us to complete for
the uh fiscal year ending June 30. On
the park maintenance facility needs and
assessment. Uh we budgeted $150,000.
That contract came in at $48,000. So
that is uh complete. The town hall
carpeting was u budgeted at 118 and it
came in at 81,000. So you can see in all
of those line items that we um were able
to be right at the budget or just below
the budget. uh the basketball court
resurfacing was actually completed in
this fiscal year and a budget amen
amendment was presented last uh at the
last meeting to move those funds into
the current fiscal year. So that's why
there's nothing shown there. Um this report here just kind of shows you
what uh we have spent on Helen. Our
total expenditures to date are $685,938
of the 2.8 8 million that we have
budgeted anticipating
uh to be expended. Uh the majority of
that of course is in Catg Park
facilities. U most of that is the
riverbank restoration.
Um the main items that we wanted to
bring to your attention were the
contracts and agreements that were
signed during quarter 4, which is April
to June 30. Um, and you can see here,
um, most of these were brought to
council for your approval, but we did
want to just include those as a reminder
for you here. The North Loop Meadow
project, the community survey with ETC
Institute, the audit contract for this
uh, fiscal year that they are auditing
now, the baseball field, and then uh,
one that you might not be aware of is
the U. the federal government came down
with an American with disabilities web
content accessibility requirement. Um,
and so we we had to buy some software in
order to make the town's website and
documents ADA accessible. And so that
was signed on June the 30th and it was
for about 50.
» Thank you, Julie. Uh, we're the next
slides go into the major projects. Are
there any questions so far from council?
Julie, what made the permits and fees
jumped so drastic on revenues?
>> I think what it was the difference
between 24 and 25 is that some things
that were shown in that line item in the
previous year were not truly permits and
fees. Okay.
>> And so we've been moving that correctly.
>> I got
see that balance out next year.
>> Yes, sir. I think it was just a
reporting.
>> Okay.
The revenue was correct. It was just in
>> where it was placed. Yes, I got you.
[clears throat]
>> Oh, I got it.
>> It looks like the library was a little
high. Is there a
>> It was a little bit high because the um
the maintenance um contract for the
maintenance of the library for the
cleaning and things like that was a
little bit higher than what we
originally budgeted. Yes.
And that's one of the contracts that we
hope to go out prepaid for this year.
And also the the Duke Energy uh bills
also included a increase for the Helen
recovery um in the last two months of
that fiscal year which we did not
anticipate when we did the budget for
the library because they have a portion
of that utility bill.
It was both of those funds come up. Uh,
it wasn't in your recording. It's a
little off topic. So, if you don't know,
you don't, that's fine. But are the
solar panels still keeping up with the
electric charging?
>> That would be a cold question.
[laughter]
>> And if it's if it's possible, we can get
you that information if you like.
Absolutely.
>> I don't know if we have it off on hand,
so Okay.
>> But no, it's it's a it's a good
question.
I see you.
All right, moving on. I've already
spoiled a little bit of this and also
just for full transparency, not all of
us fell within Q4. It was Q4 and a
little bit into Q1 of FY27, but I think
it's important enough to try to
highlight where we're currently at. So
the major difference that happened
between Q3 and Q4 and like I said into
Q5 is the process that we've been
working with with FEMA and I know I've
been keeping council a breast of all the
various changes and expectations that
FEMA has had. Uh one of the items though
that we've been able to do is move
towards obligation of the funds at the
current scope uh project scope that FEMA
has put out. Now, we disagree with
almost all of those project scopes that
you have uh that that they have and
we're working through what they call a
versioning or amendment process to make
sure that we actually become whole to
what the actual damages were. But now,
what you'll see on here starting in CAT
C covers and drainage, FEMA has
obligated $25,560
uh for those covert repairs. We do not
believe that that is uh reflective of
the actual damage uh to our covert
repairs. However, that's the first step
before we can get that amended. Um, as
you can see, one of the five coverts was
replaced during the North Loop uh
repairs due to failure. Um, there are
other there's another one that we're
also working on and we're monitoring
right now that we're going to be quickly
jumping on that needs to be repaired as
well. Um, and so we are requesting that
amendment process that first that first
covert just as an example back in the
north loop, it's the uh construction
entrance. I believe that came in around
35,000 385
right right around that uh number. So as
you can see we disagree with the the
FEMA number right now but uh the one
thing that's good is that they will go
and update if there's a scope of work
change and we believe that there is for
obvious reasons. Uh the CAT E project um
FEMA obligated uh uh and we received
just over $5,300. does mirror our cost
minus what we received from insurance.
So, we did become whole on that one. The
total claims from the League of
Municipalities was a little over 23,000.
So, again, we became whole based off of
those two reimbursement strategies.
Uh the CAT D uh utilities, we have
completed the repairs of the well and
the wellhouse. Um, and I really want to
just take a moment and also thank our maintenance staff as well because
they did a lot of work to make sure we
did the final touches on that. So, the
roof and the door, uh, the frame, we got
amazing to come out to work on that, but
really good work there. The there are no
remaining actions on it. FEMA obligated,
as you can see, just over $6,200. Our
total expenses were just over $6,700.
Uh I'm I made the call that ultimately
at the end of the day that $500 was
going to take a lot more time and and staff hours to try to fight that
$500. So we just have decided to move
forward um and and just with that $6,200
amount, 6276 or 67.
The CATG G project, this is where most
of our projects still remain. Park
grounds and features. This is back in
the day, but as as a reminder, the
tennis courts uh FEMA denied our tennis
court request or project. Uh we
disagreed and we put forward a uh a
request to um review that as well and
they then denied that appeal process as
well. However, uh through the Office of
State Budget and Management, there were
funds that would cover the replacement
cost and we were awarded those funds.
Right now, we have yet to move on using
those funds because one of the things
that's one of the silver linings of the
OSBM funds are that they allow for
flexibility on where that needs to be
built. So, right now, since we're in the
park master plan discussion, you know, revisiting where locations
are, we have time to wait on that until
you all get to make a final decision on
whether or not you want to build in the
same location or build in another one.
So, that's why those funds are still
sitting there. the as as you can see,
we're expecting to bring that to you all
in October of the park master plan
update.
The expansion property, as you as uh
Julie was talking about before, it's a
little over $920,000.
We are also put in for another grant uh
from the Division of Water Resources. We
hope to hear about that in October. The
reason why that matters, because a lot
of people may say, "Well, $920,000 is a
lot of money." And it really is uh we're
very fortunate to have that that that
money can only be used for FEMA related
uh repairs. It cannot be for any type of
mitigation work, any work that FEMA did
not put within their scope of work. So
we have to be very careful in setting up
those funds. However, there's another
section of the river that can uh benefit
greatly from mitigation that and that
would greatly benefit when we go forward
on the expansion property. And so from a cost perspective and a bidding out
perspective, we're trying to make sure
that we're putting as many of those
projects together to make one one, you
know, attractive package for people to
bid on. We hope to have that information
uh that decision in October and then we
could start trying to work forward with
potential
uh build starting in the late spring
early summer of next year. So again,
we're waiting but hopefully not too much
longer on that as well.
The one item that's not up here, but
before I get down to the the other two,
uh the kayak launch, FEMA obligated just
over $7,300 for that. we are in um that
appeal process right now as well. It's
slower for that one because of all the
environmental uh factors because it's in
the river. So right now that is in with
FEMA because so that they are trying to
work through all of their processes.
That one's going to take a little while
longer uh just again because of the
environmental impact that it's going to
have with the river.
the contract uh as we as I stated
earlier in early FY27 Q1 really were
able to make sure and sign off on the
substantial completion work in the
meadow and the north loop the parking
lot and the covert that's under the
parking lot. The uh in Q3 you all
approved uh the the formal bid of just
over a million for that work. FEMA has
obligated as you can see just over
$280,000.
The reason why there's that big
difference there mostly comes down to
uh FEMA needing to add the incidental
debris removal to that project. As you
all may remember, we had to FEMA kept
going it's incidental debris. Now it's
not. Now it is. So
we have in writing that it is incidental
debris. We are pushing them to make sure
that amendment happens. And we believe
that's the majority of where that
difference is. And also, I believe that that $1 million price point, it's
going to be on the high end of what
we're actually seeing uh what we're
actually seeing with actuals coming in.
So, right now, we're working through
that amendment process and hope and and I and I'm hopeful that we're going
to be able to close that gap
substantially.
And then last, but certainly not least,
as I mentioned about the baseball field,
uh FEMA obligated just over $160,000 for
that one. Uh the winning bid for the
actual FEMA related part of that project
was just at $70,000 or 69775.
And then uh there was a $5,700 that we
did additionally because you're going to
replace one foul pole. I I I found out
thanks to Nicole that they don't sell
individual foul poles. They they sell
them in pairs. Makes sense. Uh so we
went ahead and bought the second foul
pole as well. That's why the 5700's
there. So, it just came over to a little
over $75,000
uh for that replacement. And as I
mentioned, it's in the closeout phase
currently.
Any questions about our FEMA projects?
» Do we have to give back like the 70,000
for the baseball field?
>> So, so the short answer is it depends.
These are all considered small projects,
right? So, uh, FEMA C categorizes
anything under a million dollars as a
small project. They're large projects
for us, small for FEMA. So, right now,
some some are a little bit higher, some
are a little bit lower. So, right now,
we're holding on to those funds because
we believe that, let's just say in the
North Loop project, for instance, that
they don't um that they don't come up
and make us whole within that. we can
actually use those remaining funds from
the baseball field to help make us whole
uh across the board. So that's so the
short answer is it really depends on how
all the projects wash out and uh and
then from there where we have to you
know plug holes where we can. So we're
going to have to keep you up to date on
what that looks like as of right now.
The um
yeah so that ultimately that's where
it's at. So from a FEMA perspective,
from the state perspective, they want to
make sure that those funds go towards
those FEMA projects. Small project, they
don't necessarily care how those are
distributed.
>> But we are keeping
>> but because we also like to play very
conservatively. So we are making sure
that everything is uh very much
documented.
Thank you, Julie.
Any more questions? All
right, just going on to other major
projects and initiatives here. Um, as
you can see, a lot of the items now, I'm
just going to briefly go through the
ones that are really new for us here.
Evaluating implementing a new payroll
system that was pushed to FY27. So, that
$10,000 was moved over into FY27.
Um, the AV system in the commons room,
the those updates you all approved in in
Q4.
Updates were just made in FY27. Uh, as a
reminder in the budget, you all budgeted
uh $60,000 for all repairs to any uh AV
equipment going in there. We've done the
first phase, which apparently means that
my voice, which I always thought was
carrying enough to begin with, carries a
little bit more in the off uh in the in
the common room right now. Uh but we're
still working through that. So, phase
two is coming here in a minute. Uh the
and I'll keep council um up to date on
that. It's going to be including
microphones and and some other work
that's going to be going on.
the
uh the next ones that are on the list
for you, the community survey. As you
know, at the last meeting, we had a
conversation with Jason uh Moreno from
the ETC Institute. There was 15,000
budget in FY26. It ended up being at
14,000 awarded. So, we're very happy
that we were able to stay under budget
for that one. The uh and that's still
planned for an uh a September release.
And so, um, there are a couple items
that we need to finalize, but then we'll
be ready to go on that. The council
salary study, you all, uh, during the
budget process, council approved an
increase in December 2026. Uh, we are
looking to conduct a salary study in
FY27 with council included. We are
already having those conversations with
firms to see um which one may be the
right fit for the for the salary review
uh for a community of our size or for an
organization of our size. And then the
la that one over there was the last one
was been completed in Q2.
Any questions from administration?
» All right.
Looking at parks and recreation, the uh
the as you can see quite a bit of those
are now were not applicable by the final
cost because we were moving them into
FY27.
So uh for instance like the space needs
assessment needs to be uh a part of the
larger park expansion discussion. You're
going to see some of that as a park
master plan kind of where that
potentially may fall. looking at the
studying of Hooper Lane, looking at what
that may be uh as a as a future
priority, and then for review and FY27,
creating scholarship opportunities for
programming. So, there were no costs
associated with those three, but they
are um uh we haven't lost them. They're
still priorities. We've just shifted
them to FY27 and beyond. And then
obviously, park accessibility was
earlier on in the year at just over
320,000.
Any
questions?
All right, going on to the next uh the
three items here for planning and
zoning, land preservation program. I
really want to thank uh Mike for his
work when it comes to just diving in
deep to farmland preservation and land
preservation overall. As you can see, he
attended the the state voluntary a
district uh and farmland preservation
conference in July to gather more
information to try to find other
opportunities for us to continue leaning
in on this important project. So, as you
can see later on in the year, looking
for an educational event for these
programs andformational flyers. This is
also information that you all council
directed us as staff to look into. So,
we are working on that into FY27.
the uh UDO and land use code update. Uh
in fact, I think you all received just
uh the final draft right before this
meeting for your review as well. Uh as
you can see in FY27, as I know you all
are well aware of the the amendment to
the UDO contract totaling $32,000 to
make sure that it is downzoning
compliant moving forward. And we are
still on track and on schedule uh to
meet the deadlines that you all set.
Uh the last one on here is town traffic
schedule update and buildout. Um right
now we're just waiting for the
implementation from DOT. Uh and so you
know as council you may remember there
are certain areas within town that may
will have some slight changes within
their speed limits. So, we're looking to
be in the next month or two having those
signs up and then once they're up there,
then we're going to be bringing that
back to you all for formally adopting uh
a traffic schedule that's updated.
>> Okay. For those of you that didn't
figure it out, I've got a question
because I've been told when I lean
forward, everyone knows I've got a
question. Um, so legally, if a speed
limit is in a town,
would the town has to do a concurring
ordinance in order for that to be
enforcable
and then the signs have to be posted?
Don't we need to do the concurring
ordinance before the signs are posted?
Because once the signs are posted,
that's the new speed limit. And the only
way it's enforcable is if we have a
concurring ordinance. That's what we did
before. It seems like
>> Oh, we did.
>> So, that's what we're going to do. Okay.
>> You're awesome.
>> Yeah. Okay.
So, it doesn't have to come back to us
for any ordinance. That's already done.
» Gotcha.
» Any other questions, council?
>> All right.
And then just a couple of those
additional uh improvements as well.
Julie already talked briefly about the
basketball court resurfacing. It has
been completed in FY27 as well as the uh
resealing of cracks and and um and the
improvements on the tennis court as
well. We knocked those two projects out
at the same time. Uh completed in Q4
were the epoxy floors and the hickory
shelter. The uh park expansion project,
as a reminder, was originally budgeted
for $150,000.
Uh the final cost was $267. We expanded
that because it went extended through
December 2026. So instead of it being
just that first phase, it was that first
phase plus for that greater scope all
the way through the potential new master
plan for you all to review. again coming
before council. I just wanted to remind
you that's uh why that uh uh discrepancy
is there. And then the park maintenance
uh facility and upfit right now through
design cost just under $50,000. In fact,
we're going to the next item on the list
you're going to have to hear me drone on
about uh fun exciting things going on
with the with the park maintenance
facility.
Any
questions?
The most important question. Julie, did
I miss anything?
>> No, you bet.
>> Thank you.
» Back to our original a the discussion on
the maintenance facility construction.
Yeah, [sighs]
» we're going to just take one sec here.
self organized.
All right,
mayor and council, I just want to
Julie's also going to be up here walking
us through this, but just as a reminder,
as we've already talked about, in 2024,
um you all approved the Mil River Park
expansion um u you know, expansion
master plan, which outlined those future
amenities and features, right? One of
those items that was on that list was
talking about a new maintenance facility
because as that large as we continue to
expand on the project behind us, the
property behind us, having the
facilities are actually going to meet
those needs. So in FY26, as we just
talked about, $150,000 were set aside.
We worked with WGLA
uh as well as they subcontracted with
ARCA design to come together to help us
with both a needs assessment and then
also with um that first uh concept
sketch concept plan u for your
consideration. And so earlier this year
in May, May 2028, it feels like so long
ago, uh, Tom Jones and Brian Moffet both
came in and provided that preliminary
design for your consideration. And so
tonight's really just that next step.
So, at that time, I mentioned to you all
that I wanted to come forward and talk
through the potential pre-construction
and construction options and
recommendations for moving forward, try
to answer any questions that I can, but
ultimately
look at how we can start moving forward
on getting this um moving this project
forward. So, $275,000 was budgeted in
FY27 and approved by council. Just over
1.3 million, almost 1.4 4 million was
slated for FY28 and about 1.9 million in
FY29 as a part of the CIP. So again that
5-year financial forecasting model as
well as with um and like I said the
overall CIP that does not include uh
right now that does not include
operating cost that is pure new
maintenance facility and the upfitting
of the current maintenance facility.
that is based off of the numbers that
were provided to you all uh with uh uh
during the presentation with WGLA there.
There's additional money in there about
$400,000 for the upfitting of the
maintenance facility. You'll see that
tonight in the design as well. So debt
financing right now what you all have
seen within the budget starting in FY27
going through the next five years is
just over 2, it's 2.66 66 million of
that is slated for um uh for debt
servicing and debt financing. And right
now, uh, based off of the conversation
tonight,
um, depending on the direction that you
all as council wish to take, we are able
to move forward. And the one of the
first steps is to put this out, uh, put
this item out to bed, get these pro, get
this project out there and moving, and
then ultimately get a price point that
the LGC, the local government
commission, is comfortable with for us
to have a conversation about our u our
borrowing power. So Julie has already
done great work on making sure that we
are in uh good financial standing for
the the debt that is potentially going
to be requested. But again, these are
all preliminary numbers. These are all
very preliminary based off of the
concept work uh that has been done so
far. The next phase is really getting
into what the actual uh uh cost will
look like.
already kind of did this without meaning
to. Sorry. In FY26, as you can see,
that's when it really started those
conversations. We've already talked
through the budgeting items as well. And
then again, in May, you will have seen
that document. We're going to switch to
that document here in just a minute. uh
when I get the queue. Uh and like I
said, we'll actually show you a little
bit of uh the very very preliminary
sketch of the community what would be
considered a community building over
there for the maintenance facility.
So Kevin, if you can can you switch over
from to me for the other documents?
All right. So, this is the one uh that
you all uh saw as of May 18th. So, there
have been no changes to the main uh uh
maintenance [clears throat] facility
since that time. So, as you can see,
this is the footprint that's associated
with it. It's just over um 6,600 ft as
you can see on the on the property
there.
And so there has been a little bit of
work making sure that we have entry and
exit points that are coming out as well.
Um, and you can see the connecting point
that's over to the current um, parking
lot. You scroll down for me, Kevin. And
by all means, you all can stop me at any
point. I just don't want to repeat
everything you've already heard. So,
here's just a little bit closer view of
it. There's a a fence line that's in
there. It also shows where some water
options are as well that are a part of
that and also some gating that would be
necessary to protect the site.
This is what the uh the schematic
interior looks like that uh that was
recommended through our discussions from
our needs assessment and then also
working with the designer the uh really
making sure that we have uh adequate
space for uh maintenance of our of our
vehicles but then also the garage
storage which actually have those
passroughs. those bottom two bays
completely pass through. And then the
other one where the lift is is one where
they can actually do more maintenance
work on those vehicles going more
towards a hoteling style uh as well
within the break room uh as well. And
I'm just going to stop. Is it possible
for us to get the temperature turned up
a little bit in here please? And so the
um and so making sure that we have uh
adequate space for that, adequate
storage, but also making sense of where
the small engine and the chemical
storage is for entry and exit points. As
you can see, easy entry and and easy
exit.
One thing that was on the previous page,
we don't have to go back, but we also
tried to design this to make sure it
actually will last
uh through growth. So, there are a
couple areas in there that are actually
designed for storage, but will be able
to be uh fitted for offices if we need
to actually expand um um our footprint
even more with additional staff. This is
the exterior version based off of what
the current standards are when we were
looking at uh making sure that it would
fit within the uh the UDO confines that
we had. And so again, there may be
changes based off of this, based off of
what may be adopted by council moving
forward, but that's the current model
right there. Can you scroll down for me,
please, Kevin?
Again, just a couple of other images for
you. As a reminder, we had a
conversation with uh you all had a
conversation with Brian Moffett and Tom
Jones about like the little popup window
areas and other amenity features and
that can all be worked out again moving
forward.
That also that bay that's exterior right
there can also be boxed in and made it
to a third bay as well if needed.
Scroll on down Kevin.
All right. So moving going down to the
next one for me. So right now this is
what the latest one again very early
highle sketches. There's not a lot based
off of the size of that space can be
done uh when it comes to recreational
uses. Quite a bit can be done when it
comes to programming uses. So that's why
it's called a community room as of right
now. Um re redoing the entryway where uh
the gravel road is for a lot and then
having an exit out the back with a
potential patio and sitting area as well
on the outside. Again, very preliminary.
I know this is the first time you all
are seeing this, but ultimately, this is
kind of showing what could be done in
there to try to expand the footprint out
to have both indoor and outdoor type
programming in that space, which will
act ultimately ease the burden right on,
you know, on this room right now, which
is being used for quite a bit.
Uh there you go. They again just concept
very high level concepts uh from Arca
Design as well. Ultimately though, these
are preliminary. These are these are
sketches.
The the next step is actually going and
hiring an architectural firm and working
through the actual you know those next
steps. This is about when I was talking
to ARCA design recently some you know
somewhere between 10 and 15% of actual
design. So there's still quite a bit of
time to actually talk through what what
you all as council actually want to see
here. This is just showing what could be
done to meet the needs uh that were
identified through the assessment.
Kevin, can you go back for me to the
presentation? Unless there are questions
specifically on what you all have seen
here so far.
I got a lot of questions at some point
>> and in looking for repairing or
upgrading the current maintenance shed
to a community space. Mhm.
>> Um, I think you and I had talked before
about maybe looking at a place to maybe
make it
maybe a chance for the library to move
down there to open this up for office
space here to keep the staff all in one
building.
And then, you know, at looking at adding
offices to the new maintenance shop
that's still going to have, you know,
they already had one up there and then a
work space for them. Are are they
looking to put more offices up there?
>> So, uh, thank you for the questions,
council member. the the the first answer
is we did look into that and it's my
understanding that the current footprint
of the of the library is bigger than
what the footprint of that maintenance
facility is. So, so even right now they
would that library would have to
downsize in order to fit within that
space especially when you include the office spaces that are in there. So,
as of right now, I have not had
conversations with the uh with the
county on whether or not that would be
an amunable space for them. just from a
square footage perspective, it would it
would I think it would potentially
hinder their work instead of expanding
what their work is within that space.
>> The and I'm just looking back at Nicole
to make sure I I am correct on that.
the
um for the maintenance facility in the
back. What we right now we have uh space
down in the current uh maintenance shed,
a maintenance facility where there are a
couple of like three uh places for
people to sit for our parks maintenance
staff to use. And the new uh and the new
design, the [clears throat] office is
designed for the supervisor. Uh and then
the then we would have a hoteling type
situation where again they there will be
dedicated spaces for them to use but
they won't have like a an assigned desk
or a space or an office because most of
the time when our park maintenance staff
are coming uh coming in to check they're
coming to check something real quick and
heading back out. So instead of using
that space for offices more of an a
hoteling type option.
Any
other questions before we move forward?
>> I'll wait for
>> Okay.
All right. Came back. Uh
I know as council knows there are three
main main core delivery models here. And
so the first one that we're so we're
very familiar with is the design bid
build method, right? So essentially a
design we bring a designer on uh through
a procurement process uh or an RFP
process. They we pick them, they design
it for us, then we go out to bid for the
construction, the lowest qualified
bidder for the construction then builds
it. So that's the design bid build
method. So you can see there is
potential risk there of change orders
that happen because right now the
designer and the um and the uh
contractor are not necessarily in the
room and everything's happening at the
same time. Uh the design build is a
single point opportunity. It is provided
to us as you can see within the general
statute. Uh it's where you can actually
bid out one item as a single point where
you can do both design and construction
at the same time. There are benefits to
that because the contractor and the
designer are talking to each other. Most
of the time that means change orders are
going to be done you know before you
actually start building the project. Um
so it really does help with meeting
speed. The thing is is that that means
one person one entity is reporting to us
the contractors are ultimately reporting
to the designer. Right? So that provides
a little bit less oversight but it does
provide opportunities there. Like I
said, the one thing that's big about
design build is that we must meet NC
general statutes for use. One uh I'm a
personally a fan of design build
whenever when possible. Um but we have
to answer some very specific questions
in order to do so. Right. And so as of
right now, the this project in in my
estimation and when talking uh with
Julie does not meet those uh the general
statute definitions for that. The third
option is what's called a Seymar
process, which is a a construction
management at risk model. And so it's a hybrid model where essentially
you would have a designer, we would put
out a bid for a design and then we and
we'd put out a bid for a contractor, but
it would be a construction management or
construction manager at risk. So then
they would be reporting to us both, but
they would be in the room together
working through uh any design elements,
any other types issues that are there to
try to again make sure we're not going
into, you know, any issues or change
orders or any other types things that
can happen later on within the process.
It does change the model though. It it
really does change the model where um
the way it's been explained to me and
from others that have used it quite a
bit is that usually in design bid build
the lowest price is at the beginning of
the process. So you set the price and
you know what happens after that you
know it tends to go up from there. You
try your best to keep it down from the
Seymour approach. As you can see they
have something called a guaranteed
maximum price. So through the process
with bringing the designer on the
contractor who wins the RFQ on working
through and negotiating based off of the
schematic which I would recommend around
50% you would get the design up to about
a 50% schematic design then you would be
able to use that uh they we would look
at them to put together a co uh project
cost at that point and we would lock
them into what's called a guaranteed max
price and that guaranteed max price then
ultimately Again,
there can be some
uh some change orders that can happen
through that process, but again, it the
goal is that since they've been walking
through the process together and talking
through that process, you don't get
there. And then there are also some um
benefits as well because there's
contingency monies that are within that
within the CMR as well that are designed
also to help cover anything that may
come up that was unintentional or
through the process.
It's it's a right now for a project such
as this the and I've had a lot of
conversations with a lot of peers around
the state about this is that a
maintenance facility overall does not
necessarily fall to where you would
absolutely necessarily need a semar for
that process. looking at staff staff capacity, looking at our um uh
again our timeline for this, but then
also looking at the uh the fact that we
also had the upfit that we would want to
bid this out as one project together,
right? That it felt like the best
approach for this, especially because
it's over right now the projections are
over $3 million. And usually again with
my conversations that three $3.5 million
is the range where Seymours are starting
to really show up now. They're usually
they used to be in major complex
projects. By the way, I'm saying all
this knowing that the mayor is a is a
builder. And so I'm waiting for you to
tell me that I got something wrong. But
the um but at that three to three.5
million, we're starting to see Seymours
being used much more at a lower level of
cost just because of that conversation
that can happen at the beginning and
also that guaranteed max price. So those
are the three right now in my in in my
opinion. Design vid build and semar are
the two options that you have available
we have available for us on this uh on
this project. And Julie, I'm going to
look at you to tell me anything I
missed.
here just from the contract structures.
I've already talked about this a little
bit. Um you do have separate contract
with the architect and the builder with
design bid build. They are separated out
projects. They are the lowest qualified
bidder within each one. Ultimately at
the end of the day depending on if
there's a contractor that disagrees with
the designer designer ends up with the
contractor. Uh
usually the town is stuck in the middle
on those kinds of issues. Design build
obviously again as we've talked about
doesn't allow for that. um we don't
think it's an allowable use for this
project. And then the seamount uh
seamount wow semar structure as you can
see here really is a partnership
collaborative approach. Um when I've uh
and when I've talked to some of my uh
like I said some of my peers on some of
the projects that they didn't use Semar
um they wish they had.
But ultimately this is you this is your
project. I'm only providing my
recommendation for your consideration
and for discussion. Right? So the um
ultimately you all get to choose and
decide on how best to approach this that
you all would like to see. The
construction manager at risk as you can
see they are used as a trusted adviser
during this for pre-construction because
they report to us. Um we also do have on
call engineering services as well. Also
depending on um you know what the type
of situation is, we can also lean on our
on call engineering uh contract to also
just make sure that we're not missing
something to make sure that we're not
seeing anything or that we're missing
anything or there are any gaps through
this process.
My recommendation as you can see here
once design would reach 50% uh that's
when the the um that's when the uh
construction manager at risk would
negotiate what that guaranteed max price
is. So the goal of that getting closer
to that 50% allows us to have a little
bit more of an understanding of what
that high value could be or should be
for that. I've seen some seams that have
it at 30%. I think that that's low for
us especially because we're risk adverse
when it comes to these types of projects
and rightfully so. That that 50% method
is one that I uh uh I feel comfortable
with.
So Julie, you put uh I'm going to turn
it over to you because you also did
great work on the pros and cons list and the work behind this.
>> Sure. So what this slide here refers to
is um the benefits of using a CR and the
cons of using a Seymour. Uh just so that
you could you could see them all in one
place uh for ease. Um there's cost
certainty with a semar because you have
the most price that you could pay. Um
the one thing that um in a lot of the
classes that I have taken in a lot of
the documents that I have read from the
general statutes
um the security bond requirement for a
semar is 100% of your project cost. And
I know you've had problems with other
projects in the past where there was
disagreements. Um, this requires the
contractor to to cover 100% of the cost.
If they walk away, you have the money
there to finish the project. Um, the
Semark does require open accounting
requirements. uh they have to have um
they have to be willing to open their
books for financial transparency for us
to look at anything u related to that
project.
Um it in increases collaboration
and create greater efficiency and
shorter time
bidding because if you have your
engineer and your architect and your
design construction firm working
together to come up with that price, you
have a better idea of what those value
added costs need to be when you're
estimating that project. Um the cons are
it is a liability for the town because
you have to make sure that your design
is completely 100% on point before they
go to the bidding part. Um it does have
an increased administration burden
because you are um collaborating with
all the parties u making sure that
everything is exactly the way it needs
to be and the way you want it and what
the way it meets the needs of the town.
Um there is a con that if you have an
inexperienced um construction manager
that you could result in construction
deficiencies, but if you do the correct
RFQ process
would eliminate uh you could eliminate
those deficiencies by making sure that
you're selecting the cor the qualified
individual to do.
So just as a project cost recap as I you
know we've already talked about here on
the left hand side uh preliminary cost
was approximately $3.1 million. Now
again I cannot stress enough the term
preliminary within this discussion
also with the current maintenance
facility upfit of approximately
$450,000.
Now is that you know what you all as
council are looking at looking for
giving us direction and guidance on
meeting the needs and expectations that
you all see for this that's a part of
this discussion as well but ultimately
we're trying to find an approach that is
transparent that makes sure that if we
are going to spend this money to help
benefit the community and help benefit
the town that we can be confident that
it is going to result in a project and a
product that we can be proud of. And so
that's a
and so that's just I wanted to go over
that a little bit right there.
>> So Matt, who s who who evaluated these
numbers? Who who generated these
numbers?
>> Uh these numbers were uh presented to us
by WGLA with ARCAD design. So again,
those were our two firms that came
together to pull together these number
uh the design, the needs assessment,
everything.
been accused of not speaking up before,
so I'm going to speak up. There's no way
in the world I'm going to sign up for a
$3.1 million maintenance bill. Everybody
hear me? I ain't going to do it. And if
you think them numbers are legit, I do
this every day.
That's way more than double for that
building. I know I can't build it
because I'm sitting in this seat, but
there is no way. Part of that 6600's
open shed, that open shed from there
over, concrete, post, uh, red iron and
all, you're probably looking at probably
$27,000
from that for that over. It's good to
have it, but these numbers are highly
inflated somewhere. now where I don't
know and I mean WGL I mean they was here
I didn't say a whole lot before but I've
been accused of not speaking up so I'm
speaking up now
and you could build this whole other
building right here for forfeit
let's update it I mean I don't get it I
don't know what's I don't know I do know we're sitting in a municipal
situation here and I know how that works
uh but if I'm looking after my people.
These numbers are highly inflated in my
opinion. I'm only one, but I'm speaking
up now.
» Yes, sir. And understand,
understandable. It's it's one of those
numbers, and I mean, I don't want to
speak uh for all the staff that was on
there, but it was surprising as an
understatement when we saw these numbers
as well. That's why, again, they're very
preliminary for that reason. And one of
the things that I liked about the
Seymour process as well is that there
are um clauses that are in there that if
you go out to the RFQ and and those
guaranteed max prices are let's just say
the guaranteed max prices are in these
numbers and you all as council do not
wish to move forward with that. What
that means is that we are going to go
back to the drawing board and find other
approaches for it. So it's these you're
not locked in to these values.
>> Problem with it Matt is we're having to
pay somebody to draw this stuff. We're
paying big money to have it draw at
least a 50%
>> to to
get these numbers back. So, we're going
to have a lot of money in it to maybe go
back to the drawing board again. And we
just heard tonight that that bothers
some people. Um,
» I got one quick question of this.
So what we've been presented the design
so far is what percent you you said
earlier you have to get to 50% in the
SEAR model before you can
>> put it out percentage are we at now like
what would you say that now?
>> So I I when I talked to Arcad design
they said you know maybe 10 maybe 15
tops depending on which one you're
looking uh if you're looking at the
maintenance facility.
>> Okay. Um, okay. Because would it not be
if we went with that model, would it not
be beneficial to come back and be like,
here's our wish list, here's our budget,
but have that have that both of those
lists or, you know, that number going
into it. Not I don't know. It does feel
a little bit backwards, like
>> we should go into it with a budget
>> versus just, oh, what is this going to
cost? Um,
I'm not in the construction business, so
I don't I mean, it does seem very high.
I I did build
a very nice part of my house for a lot
less than this, but um I I yeah, I I
just think we need to come up with like
a reasonable budget first
>> and then see what we can check off of
our list that we we want.
>> Understood. Yes, sir. So, the the the
direction that we received was to go
through the needs assessment and to see
what would meet those needs. So as of
right now that this is what's been
presented to us through the engineering
firm. That being said, and Julie can
speak more to this as well through the
research is that the um you can and in
fact right now technically as council
you all have set the budget that
reflects this based off of the FY27 actu
budget and then the fiveyearcip.
Um, so we have built in this into the
model that
ultimately though the and I believe
through some CMRs that we've seen as
well go in there with a budget set that
says this is the number. This is the
high end of the number. This is what
we're going to do and that's it. And
that's a legitimate approach. And I'm
going to turn over to Julie.
City of Charlotte actually has three out
there and they they said for the for the
three projects, these are the three max
prices. So, people aren't going to bid
if they're not going to be willing to
meet those those price points.
>> I did have one other quick question. Is
there a timeline deadline that you can
have in Semar? You can put in there,
here's my budget, you know, Mr.
Contractor. And also
um you have you know by
July 2028 I don't know some date it has
to be done
>> delivery date that's what you're asking.
Yeah. Like the delivery date for CO.
>> Yeah. So you that part of this is that
part of this
>> as long as it was a realistic number,
you could you'd have to give him some
weather date days and stuff like
>> Yeah. But I'm just saying you could in
the Sea model, you could put in that
they could bid on that with a date. So
right now at least from uh my research
and discussions on it the RFQ highlights
when the when the construction wants uh
the expected construction begin date. So
when the uh through the process the
Seymour puts together the project scope
and the cost and then it presents that
to the to uh to the organization to the
town. And so ultimately at that point
that's when the negotiations also happen
because it can be we want to start
January 2028 as an example and we want
it to be done by you know October of
2028 and then working with them to make
sure that meets that timeline.
>> That's a reasonable thing to
>> it may not be during the RFQ process. Uh
now we can I think we can put it in
there as what we uh what our you know
what our expected end date is but
ultimately through the process is when
they would design it and then we would
have to negotiate on what that um that
project timeline would look like.
So,
if we were to choose the design, bid
build
>> model, then we pay the money for the
design, then we put it out for bid.
>> Then the contractor that gets the bid
would build it. Someone has to make sure
someone has to do the inspection
and make sure everything is done
correct. That' take a lot of time,
wouldn't it? I mean, that's pretty much
have to be there anytime the
contractor's there. Is that something we
would contract out or we do that
inspection in house?
>> I would highly recommend for a project
such as this that if we did that, we
would we would go through an owner's uh
representative model for design, bid,
build. And so we would bring in either
an owner's representative model where we
would bid out to find someone or we
would lean very heavily on our on call
engineering services and do a task order
for them to do project management to
that point to be on site throughout
because uh yes council member the uh
making sure that we have eyes uh on that
project throughout that project making
sure that you know corners aren't being
cut that we're getting what we're paying
for is vitally important.
Is that the Is that the route we went
with the last shelter?
>> We went design bid, build on the last
shelter.
>> We didn't have We really didn't have
anybody overseeing that.
» So if going back to the Seymour
approach, if we tell them you got $3.1
million to bid to build this
I mean, from I I've got very limited
experience with Seymour. Um, that was
done when I worked at the city of
Asheville. And
the the people that I mean, someone's
going to take the risk. Someone's going
to take the risk. That's why I like
having state employees to maintain our
roads because rather than putting out a
contract where they're paying more, they
just work extra time to do it. So, they
take the risk. Um, if someone is bidding
in that risk,
you know, they're they're going to bid
that risk and that's adjust that's going
to affect the price. The 3.1 million is
turnkey with us not doing anything but
saying build it. Correct. That's that
includes the Semar cost and everything
>> the 3.1. So,
>> or is that just the materials and the
labor? This is this is a very
preliminary number
>> should be everything.
>> Yeah. So so this included yeah the
grading of the of the property. Yeah.
The the site prep the whole on your but
again incredibly preliminary
>> design and construction costs and
inspection and overseeing. That's the
total cost.
>> They they built in their total cost when
Yeah. That was their total cost
projection. They they did build in so
the model that the WGLA approached us on
which is a model uh uh they they leaned
in on one which was the design bid build
model. So the timeline that you saw
previously was the design build a design
bid build timeline. So there is
contingency that was built into that
preliminary number uh etc. Now you know
there as I mentioned the reason the
reason why I wanted to bring this to
your attention because I know it's a new
approach and I know that it's Um, I
wanted to put be put on your radar of
what those possibilities and options
are. As I mentioned though, the it is a
different model because the guaranteed
max price comes before construction
begins. So, but that being the highest
number that you're going to see can
sometimes be very, you know, very
difficult relative to the lower number.
But then working through the change
order process, not one one approach
isn't necessarily like going to change
uh uh drastically the the work. It just
depends to your point as you mentioned
who who's going to take and accept the
risk that is associated with that. And
so I would recommend because of our past
experience and also just because of
staff capacity that we we would do at
minimum if we did a design bid build
having an owner's rep that would be
speaking on our behalf to ensure like an
engineer to ensure that we are also not
missing anything from our end. So we
don't run into issues that we've had in
the past which is you know those uh
those arguments that we're then as a
town stuck in the middle of.
>> Typically they do those for a
percentage.
>> Sure.
[clears throat]
>> So if if our budget is $3.1 million
but the Seymar can get a price a lot
less than that
then we take the price. So
>> Huh. I don't think I No, I think we're
>> if we tell them we got $3.1 million,
it's going to come in at $3.1 million.
No matter who gets paid, right? Or do
they say, you know, we can bid, you
know, when we bid that out, it comes in
at $2.5 million including their fees,
then we don't have to spend the whole
3.1. That's what I'm saying. I If if you
send me Let me close this so my wife
can't hear me. If she sends me to the
store with $50 to come back with
groceries, I'm not bringing any money
back, right? Because I'm gonna I'm gonna
when I run out of milk and bread and
everything else, then we might go over
to the Doritos and the snack area. So,
I'm just saying if we tell them $3.1
million and it comes back at $3.1
million, whereas it could have come back
a whole lot less, is that a reasonable
is that my three minutes
>> to me in my experience and that never
happens.
>> Okay.
>> Just from bidding projects that we do,
>> we all know what they have as far as
money to spend on the project. No one's
going to put that amount in because you
want the business. So you're gonna try
to cut the other person and the other
person's gonna say, "Well, I know old
John, he always goes 10% below, so I'm
gonna go 15 because I want business."
Sure.
>> So it nobody's gonna come in at 3.
>> So it's not going to come in at 3.1
million. They're not going to say, "Oh,
there's a budget. I'm going to hit that
budget."
>> So okay, that was one of my concerns is
that, you know,
>> and the other thing I'll say, Mills
River Station 2, the last I heard is two
bays drive-thru, which is exactly what
this is. same square footage, you know,
living room, two bedrooms, kitchen, very
similar to this setup. It's more than
twice this.
So, I don't think 3.1 is actually
it's going to be close.
If I if I may, just real quick, with
this with this design also being 10 to
15%. This is showing what could be with
the potential cost meeting the needs
assessment. But again, we would be
putting out as a part of this process
bringing in a designer, an architectural
firm, just like you would during design
to build. You'd bring them in, but you
would then bring in the con, you would
bid out the construction manager at risk
at the same time. And so you bring both
of them into the room at the same time.
So this design, the layout, the
structure, all of it can look different
by the time it's done as well because
you all it ultimately it's your decision
as council what it is. isn't meeting the
needs that it is before it even goes out
to what the actual guaranteed max price
is. So again, that 50% we're using 3.1
million right now based off of what you
see before you and what their
estimations are does not necessarily
mean that that's what is going to
actually go out
uh as a guaranteed max price at the time
because this can very much change with
that extra 40%
and bringing those people in together to
talk about it. that just a caveat.
>> Who's going to be overseeing the project
if we do it with Semar?
Is it going to be the engineering firm
that's putting all this stuff together?
>> So, the Seymour process is uh is it's
ultimately a collaborative process. So,
we'd have a team inhouse, right? That
would be there.
>> Staff
>> that would that would be staff uh and it
would be because of because of the size
and scale of the project would be myself
and staff that would be on there. And
then it would also be um the
architectural firm and the Seymar. So
those all those entities would be
working in tandem. Ultimately we're the
owner. Ultimately we are the decider and
the one that signs off on these
projects. So um overseeing it ultimately
falls to us. So um but it like I said
it's a collaborative approach from the
beginning to try to make sure that we're
not going to be running into any issues
and try to work those out beforehand.
And I know I said this before, but I
just want to reiterate as well. The one
benefit of this process as well again if
you all wish to go with this route is
the fact that let's just say it gets up
to that 50%. 30% whatever that number
would be and it goes up to bit and it
just comes out way higher than what we
you all as council wish to spend at that
time. We have changing priorities that
have happened since then. There's
discussions that have to happen. Yes,
there's money that's within those
schematics that we would have and that
we would we would be able to have um
moving forward, but we may have to take
a step back and have a conversation
about timing of this uh prioritization
of of the project. Where do we need to
scale back and change based off of it?
Those conversations continue to happen
throughout. But to the mayor's point,
yes, you are putting in uh uh expenses
into getting it up to that to that 50%
level. It's not like a design bid build
though where it gets up to that to that
100% level before you then bid it out as
well.
>> Well, I've got a lot of heartburn with
$3.1 million to store lawnmowers and
equipment. I mean, that's a lot.
» That's my question here is we're
spending taxpayer money, not our
taxpayer money. And
you know,
I I
You know, I can see where we could spend
some of this money. We're talking about
spend on this building and other aspects
of this park. I know we got to we can't
get the cart in front of the horse, but
I don't know we got to have a
thoroughbred racehorse,
you know. I don't know that we got to
have that.
this thing is uh I know it meets it's my
understanding it meets uh architectural
review
but you know I don't know
and we'll have to do so because we're
within a th00and ft of uh 190 run
correct
Mike can you come up and want to join us
uh the language council adopted in the
UDO requires architectural elements for
any non-residential building in the
town. The way when we brought this up I
think back when it was drafted that we
wanted to be very clear on that that any
non-residential building must meet the
new architectural standards. the
distance was done away with.
>> But you don't think that'll be a down
zoning issue?
>> Well, because it's only applied to new
development.
>> Doesn't create nonconformities. Doesn't
apply to anything except someone who
applies to develop if the UDO is
adopted.
» If not, it's still within FE.
>> It's only 500 ft capital. But again,
that that was something we tried to
bring up with council. Gosh, I think it
was December or November. Um because I
knew that was probably going to be a
sensitive topic.
>> Gotcha. U
look at our town attorney. I mean, do
you agree with that? Is that not a
downzoning issue? It seems to me like
you're putting a new restriction on
someone's property, be it commercial or
not, but
>> downzone is specific to three types of
things. None. Okay. Right. just uh less
uses making something nonconforming and
I'd have to look at
>> density
>> and density. Yeah. So architectural
standards wouldn't create a down zoning
scenario.
>> I got okay
this tor
you know be honest with you I won't be
here when this takes place so
make sure we make wise decisions with
this money
would there be additional cost if we get
to the 50% and then we see it and you
know they get some bits back and and
then we go whoa you know we want to
change x y and z whether that's less or
more
um does that restart the design? You
know, then then you're going to get
another fee for it. Um
>> generally speaking, uh I can speak very
generally, uh is that the once it goes
out to bid once the design is at a 50%
threshold and and and oh, sorry, then
the guaranteed MA max price happens and
then like I said, they work through
that. the um
the the design at that point is what the
design is going to be at that point. So
like at that 50% threshold the the
Seymar is taking the risk of that other
50% but usually at that what from my
understanding and from my experience
that 50% is a it's a very conservative
number about what you should expect to
see at least on the big ticket items.
>> Yes. This building here the the the
chance of a change order is very slim.
It's so basic on the inside. You know,
there's the whole garage area is
nonheated as far as I'm as I understand.
And then you got the open space. You got
uh 3,20 ft of garage unheated.
You got 1635 heated and you've got 1945
outside.
So, I mean, that outside is what it is.
you, you know, other than if you wanted
to paint something a different color
after you seen it go on, it is what it
is. The inside of that garage, you know,
we'll get some details on how it's going
to be finished on the inside. I'm sure
it's going to be sheetrock
uh for fire coat. Um and the other is
basically like a house. you know,
if you took uh you know, Champion Hills
numbers and put $435
a square foot on that heated part.
And I mean, the garage section, you
know, I don't know. But then you just
got to figure out all the great and all.
See, we're going to have, you know, we
know there's going to be a lot of fuel
over there. Probably some geo grid, some
fancy footings to hold this building up.
So, where there's a lot of unknowns.
I'll be honest about the unknowns, but I
just don't see I don't know. I just
don't see it in it, you know.
>> Yeah, Mayor, you bring up a very good
point when it comes to the change
orders. Again, it goes back to Mr.
Moore's, Council Member Moore's
comments. It just really depends on
where you all as council wish to put the
risk associated with that. And so,
again,
>> there's not necessarily having a
somebody look over it. I'm not opposed
to that at all. I'm not.
>> Uh but you know, I think council and
whole, the five of us need to decide if this is the design we want or do we
think maybe it's a little bit much or,
you know, I me personally, I could live
without the roof popping through on a
maintenance building. I mean, I know
we're going to get a little light
through there. Uh but you know it would
be way cheaper to put a backup generator
over there than to pop that roof
through.
>> So
we got you know I think there's a few
things we just need to think about a
little bit before we
Yeah. And and it's just like this is a
kind of like our first concept. This is
really the only one we've seen and we
really can't I don't want to pay to have
15 of them brought in here either. But
if we need to tweak on it, I'd rather
tweak on it before it goes to bid than
it go to bid. Let's come back and try to
change it because really
it makes the bid process almost start
all over again.
>> If I may, mayor and I very good points.
The so normally in a normal Seymour
process, you bid out the design first.
You work with that designer a little bit
to get that needs assessment done, the preliminary sketches done and then
you bring in and you bed out the Seymour
and then through that process they work
together and then changes happen, right?
Again, coming before you, talking with
you about what those design elements
look like, understanding what you want
and what what you want to get rid of.
All of that is still part of that what
would be a normal traditional Seymour
process. We did it slightly differently
because we thought that again bas based
off a council's direction that you all
wanted to see those concepts and and
understand what again what a potential
price and what the needs assessment was
first. So we've done that through our on
call engineering services. So we haven't
bid that out right we did that through
the RFQ for engineer on call engineering
which is one of the things that they can
do. So we have this before you. So to
your point, mayor, yes, this is the only
one that you all have seen. The the when
we bid out or if we go this route and we
bid out the for the architectural firm,
they'll get this 10% piece, they'll get
the needs assessment documents that have
been all pulled together and then it's
their job that to also then take it to,
you know, and continue working through
that. That's why my recommendation would
be that if we did this to actually do
Seymar and design at the same time
because we've already done what the
designer would have done normally on the
back end to get it to this point. But
to your point, I think Brian Moffett
when he was here for the Arc of Design
even stated it's like the we can get rid
of the the the um the sunlights in
there. We can get rid of the the type of
sighting and go with a different type of
siding if it's uh if it's helpful. If
there's a layout change, those things
can still happen. Uh and you all will be
vi will be shaping that discussion as
well through that process.
This will be a part this would be a part
of the bid packet, but they would not be
bidding on building this specific thing.
It's building bringing them on to you
know at a 10% phase to see what you know
to go and move forward through the
actual construction.
If you'd like, we can also continue
using ARCA design for on call
engineering to continue tweaking this
concept. It does just we will have to
bid out
>> the arch
>> the architect. Yeah, we we are not able
to use them for much more than what
we've really been using them for now. So
that's where we have to be careful.
So we could have a another meeting with
them and say, "Hey, what can you do to
this to make it a little simpler?" You
know, still meet our needs and bring the
cost down, but keep it at 10%.
>> It's just it's just a concept plan.
>> Yeah, you can you can do that. And like
I said, you can also you can do it
either through that this phase or you
could do it with the actual
architectural firm if you bid it out. Um
the same conversations can happen either
way. Just it would be whether or not we
want to move forward with seeing what
the actual staying on the timeline that
was proposed.
» The trick to this whole thing is getting
the max amount of biders that we can.
Honestly,
you know,
that'll be the trick for this.
I'll change the subject just a little
bit, but I need to know. And we pretty
much through our needs assessment, we've
determined that there's no way to use
the building in the back or that we
think the building in the back has some
effect on our master plan. What was
that? I know we've had that discussion
before, but just bring it back up for
me.
>> The the dairy farm and the and the open
air
>> facing the twotory building.
>> Yeah. So, and I'm going Nicole, if I
may, I'm going to ask you to come up
here as well because you have much more
knowledge than me on this as well. For
the needs assessment piece, didn't
looked at what the needs were for us
expanding out there. Um, there had there
was no look specifically at the
buildings because that work has been
done prior.
>> Yeah, as part of the original master
plan process, we did have a structural
engineer come out and look at those
facilities and they were just not built
in a design um to meet the standards for
public use. So they're just
unfortunately
more than what we're using them for
which is just storing material
underneath it. We can never house staff
in those. We can never do any of those
sort of things in those existing
facilities because of the standard they
were built to.
>> Now that sepic system that's down there,
you know, that thing is rated for to
handle 500 kids per weekend. It was
designed for agurism.
Are we are at any point are we trying to
save that for any use for anything? Is
it
>> we during um the park master plan
expansion the work we're doing with
weather right now utilities all that has
been looked at and those are some of the
things that they've looked at of what of
that can be saved because even some of
the the well is something that we're
looking at potential irrigation right
that could save us a city of Henderson
bill if we can repurpose that well. So
that is something that we're currently
working through to look at to see what
we can reuse for those facilities.
>> Okay.
» So council's pleasure which way you want
him to move forward with this.
>> If I may may I just briefly just go to
this last slide. This is kind of what
the the timeline that we put together.
Again, this is all depending on if you
on the direction you give me give us,
but you know, we can bid out both of
these items together at the same time
actually in September. Going through
that, we could actually bring you all uh
we believe uh in November and actual for
council approval the firms for both the
design and the semar. So again,
depending on what that is ultimately is
your choice if you if you wish to move
forward or not. And then it's a quick
process. So, I'm going to say it's
contingent on design completion. As you
can see down here, we don't necessarily
have to meet the January timeline. We
actually got some clarification uh with
the LGC, but the LGC won't will not look
at uh our financial u options when it
comes to debt service until we have a
GMP guaranteed max price. So, December,
January, potentially getting you all to
that point, whenever that is, our goal
is to try to get it in front of the LGC
by uh February or March. It doesn't mean
we obviously have to spend the money.
It's just them getting the uh getting on
their work. And Julie can talk much more
about that process as well if you'd
like.
well as with our property tax valuation
what we have the potential to borrow. Um
if you remember when we talked about um
all of this stuff during the strategic
plan last year's audit showed that we
had a potential up to $10 million for um
based on property values that the res
had at that point. um don't know what
that number will be yet because it's
based on their final analysis of all the
values for 2026. So it could be up
slightly or could be down just slightly
from that. Um but they take all of that
into consideration and look at the audit
to see if there's any findings um that
would impact their decisions. Um and
then they look at um that grossing
max price and determine that based on
the financial stability of the town as
to whether or not they approve
for any debt.
>> Is it that was that 10 million um
additional or that's like 10 million
indebtedness minus what you already
have? It's your maximum amount
>> that you can that the town can carry.
» So essentially that goes up every year
anyway. You're paying down other debt.
>> Yeah. And just as a reminder for council
briefly as well, the reason why we're
looking at debt financing and debt
service for this is be to free up cash
and capital for the actual expansion
project because it's easier uh to borrow
against the facility than it would be
against the park expansion. So that's
why trying to trying to be uh
financially conscious on how we're
balancing both future funds and current
funds.
Matt, how much of these two uh
structures
u weigh into that fiveyear tax increases
because we was going to have to raise
how much was it?
>> So two full cents or if I remember
correctly two and a half. So if property
taxes stay the same based off of 2026
valuations or 2020 2025 valuations uh
because we're using that for 26 the uh
it would be 2 cents over 5 years so 17
to 19 in a stairst step model. Now again
that is subject to change based off the
actual valuation of the properties.
» Yeah. So yeah,
>> but there was other factors that uh
other than these two. Oh yeah.
>> Yes sir. Absolutely. So that so it
included this, it included all the
operating costs that we projected out to
run this facility, to run that facility,
the new uh a new staff member or two to
help with that. Uh it also took into
account the actual phase one approach
for park expansion as well. So all of
that all of the projects that we have
baked in. In fact, I think it also
included, and I apologize, not the
budget in front of me, um, preliminary
work on the town hall expansion piece as
well for staff. Yeah, thank you. And 31.
I knew Knew it snuck in there right at
the very end. Um, so it included all of
those major projects and initiatives
over the next five years.
» Reason I bring that up is, you know,
with the county raising theirs, I'm
hearing a lot about it from especially
the older residents. No,
>> this might just a little bit tougher on
the taste income. So,
» I'd be in favor of putting a RFQ out for
an architect.
» You looking for a motion on this or just
the consensus or how Probably motion
would be better on this one, would it?
Uh, I'm going to look at our clerk for
uh her guidance on this.
>> Yeah.
It does. If you're going to give
them guidance to throw out the RFQ,
uh, you can do it by motion. There's no harm
>> in doing that.
>> Yeah. Thanks.
in the form of a motion or
>> well do we want to go with Seymour or we
going to do bid
>> design bid build or Seymour?
>> Okay.
» Well, I think I think the time you
hire someone to oversee everything, the
design bid build is not going to save
you much money over the sea.
And at least the semar we've got the
guaranteed maximum price.
So,
I would say the design firm of the
Seymark.
That's my thoughts.
» Would that alleviate the problems we've
had in the past?
>> I believe it would.
>> It depends on it. Depends on that
person.
>> It's going to be betting
those folks.
Um the the biggest problem we've had in
the past is
architectural design
and it come to
tuition with what we actually got. So
I don't know and you can see it happen
here folks. You got that maximum bid. So
just be prepared. Tell's up front. I
won't be here, but I'm telling you
what's could happen is as they see
they're getting close on that number,
say if materials increase dramatically
from the time it's bid till the time
it's built because you got a few months
in there. Concrete goes up, paving goes
up, whatever.
They have to cut corners because they've
got a maximum number there. None of
this, nobody's going to eat any of this.
They're going to figure it out. They'll
change wire size. They'll change type of
light fixtures. They'll they'll cut
corners.
So, it's not like it's not like it's an
out out. You know, the the picnic
shelter down here is supposed to have a
tongue and groove. Well, it ended up
getting the 4x8 boards installed
instead.
Uh but that was just one of them things
that she just said, "Oh, it looks okay."
and let it slide. You know, it was drawn
one way. They installed something else,
but she was okay with it. She checked
the box.
You still have a little this happen, but
not much because the the architectural
design of this building. This thing has
got to pass code. So, it's going to have
county inspections. It's going to have
fire regulations because you got a
garage attached to office and break
rooms. So, you're going to have a
firewall. You're going to have a lot of
things that can't be changed even if
somebody wanted to.
But just know that you're whoever you
get and it can happen with the with the
uh first one also if we hired someone.
We got no guarantees that it'll all be
called looked over. So you just got to
go where you go.
>> We'll be council will be the one
selecting the architect, right? So it's
on us to do our due diligence to get the
right person.
>> Yeah. So yeah. So you all would be uh
ultimately deciding on the RFQ. We'd
bring it with you with our you know
there would be design standards. We
would bring it forward with
recommendations on uh on what that would
be. But yeah ultimately you would have
those options.
>> But then in a semar who is going to be
who then is boots on the ground to make
sure that we paid for five inches of
concrete and we didn't get three and a
half
>> the Seymour consultant or someone that
works for them. But somebody is
reliable.
>> Yeah,
>> that's why that's the 100% sure.
>> Yeah, but they do add that to the price.
They're not eating that either. So,
>> just know I'm just telling you up front
how it works. I mean, you're asking for
that security bond and it's a great
thing to have, but they're charging us
for it basically, you know, but it's not
a bad thing. It's like an insurance
policy we're have to pay for.
As I mentioned, this this this process
is one of the most conservative
approaches just because again that
guaranteed max price because of what
you're looking at. Um there is not
foolproof. It is based off of the RFQS
and how they're written. It's a based
off of how they are um the the responses
that come in. But ultimately both the
designers and the arch I'm both the
architectural firm and the semar report
to the town similar to the design bid
build uh which ultimately puts the the
and on us to be able to to ensure the
quality that's necessary whereas again
the design bid would not. But the one of
the benefits of this is at least
hopefully and from my understanding with
talking with many others who have done
this is that getting them in the room to
talk at the same time, the architectural
firms and the construction manager at
risk at the same time alleviates a lot
of those concerns and ultimately
hopefully cuts out a lot of those
cutting corners later on because those
conversations have happened as a part of
the guaranteed bid I mean uh the
guaranteed max price as well. So nothing
is foolproof. Are you guys used guys are
you guys getting assistance on uh
writing the RFQ?
>> Yes. And also we have ALS we also have
great assistance right over here and uh
Mr. Brian Golden as well helping us with
that.
>> The only thing I'd say is I hope council
no matter which way we go right here
before this motion is actually
officially made is just we work on
trying to work with the architectural
firm to reduce some of this cost if
possible.
you know, not move this over this tax
burden onto our taxpayers and and hear
about it. I mean, we need the facility,
but we don't need uh a firehouse to to
work maintenance out of. Okay. Well,
let's just work with it. See what we can
figure out. There's anywhere we can cut
it, not hurt it. We need the space. We
need all the space we can get.
So that's going to involve lots of talks
with you all to make sure that we're
meeting your needs.
» Okay, I'll entertain a motion.
>> So I make a motion to uh allow staff to
create the RFQ for architect design firm
in the Seymour.
You
>> need authorization to sign
no sir. Hey, you you all are the
authority to sign. Second.
>> Yeah, I'll second that.
>> All right. Any more discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor?
>> I'll see it.
>> Any opposed?
None. All right.
Thank you, council.
All right. Uh whenever staff gets
resituated, we'll move on to our
appointment of our board of adjustment
board member and second alternate
position. We got three applicants.
Okay. On the board of adjustment, um you
have a board member and a second
alternate position to fulfill. And these
would be terms that um current they had
someone and the person had to resign.
One person moved out of town, the other
one had to resign for unknown reasons.
But these would be to complete those
terms
and council's been given the um
applications.
» Yes, sir.
>> Some good applications.
>> They were good applications.
Which one are you looking at doing
first? The board of adjustments.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. We're on We're onbody
got a recommendation.
>> So, I'll make a motion to appoint Sonia
McCall to
uh fill out the position resigned by
uh term expiring in November 18, 2027.
that the Brad Burton position. I guess
he was on He was actually Yeah. Okay. I
was trying not to say it.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Thought
motion by second.
>> So, we're doing two. This is two one one
board and one.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, there's two positions open. I'm
just right now I'm doing the first
position, which is the three the
three-year term expiry. So,
which would be a board member.
» Uh yeah, a second is one.
>> Second.
>> Okay. Any discussion?
Yes.
All right. All in favor? I
>> Any opposed? Fair enough. Okay.
All right.
Look at our second hold in a position
that that's been open for a a while,
right?
>> Uh that's Mr. Ross.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> So,
>> um I make a motion for Jacob Hagerdorn.
>> Okay.
>> For the alternate for the board of
adjustments.
>> I'm looking for a second.
I got one more question again. Uh did we
tell them that that this could either be
an alternate or a board or we didn't say
>> um
>> they applying were these three
applicants applying for a board member
or alternate?
>> I just brought you the applications that
I had on file.
» Second.
>> Okay. Discussion. Uh does anybody talk
to Was you able to talk to Jacob?
>> I did reach out and speak with him. Uh,
did he mention he is okay with the
alternate position or did it ever get to
that?
>> I didn't ask that.
>> Okay.
All right. Any more discussion? Second.
All in favor?
>> I. Any opposed? Hearing none.
Right. Uh, let's move on down to D,
appointment of the egg advisory uh,
committee. Currently, Bert Limus.
I make a motion that we keep Bert Limus
on the agricultural ward.
>> Okay, you got a first. How about a
second?
>> Second.
>> All right, got a second. Any discussion?
>> All in favor? I
» Okay, moving on to e uh appointment of
the agra culture advisory committee for
Bradley Johnston.
My understanding Bradley does not want
to serve that. Anybody else served that?
>> I did.
>> Okay. Two.
>> Okay.
>> I'd like to appoint Mr. Hoy to the
board.
>> All right.
>> August second.
>> Got a motion. Got a second. Uh
all in favor or any discussion? Anybody
got any discussion on that one?
>> All for Mills River Residents.
>> Peace. What?
>> I said I'm all for Mills River
residence.
>> Okay. All right. All in favor?
>> I I
» All right. Uh, if we can keep going
here, we're on roll. Uh, we'll need to
amend the 2026-20.
We'll need a little help with that one.
Got it right here somewhere.
just
so on last meeting's consent consent
agenda um there was a resolution to use
state contract for um the John Deere
mower going through that process we've
um learned we're also eligible for
source well so we are um there's Both
are really good pricing. We're not sure
kind of which one's coming back lower.
So, we would like just permission to do
both of those. So, we can just go with
the low speed. So, pretty much as simple
as that. We want to have both options
and then we'll
>> amend it to allow for both
>> to both.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh I think we've got something here on
our paper.
>> Yeah. So, I move to amend resolution
2026-20.
Let's presented amended resolution
2026-20.
Uh motion.
» So all the was just add or source well.
>> Okay. And that's good catch. Might save
it all.
>> Yep.
All in favor.
>> All right. Any opposed? Hearing none.
>> Okay. We're moving on to G to adopt
2026-28.
Um this goes along with the um contract
that you approved in the consent agenda.
We are trying to move away from global
payments for financial and customer
service reasons. Um because of software
restraints, all paid could take on our
civic wreck and smart go software. Tyler
Technologies only allows two uh merchant
processors, the credit card processors
to fully integrate with their system and
global payments is one and their own
Tyler payments is the other. The bonus
of doing Tyler payments is that we can
actually do e checks which would be I
think 250
um which a lot of our residents have
been asking for the last few years
because the county does them. So, it' be
a nice service to offer.
>> And just as one final note, Tyler
Technologies is also the the financing
system that we currently use in house
for uh for both uh finance and tax. So
>> and the credit card fees with global
payments has gotten to be astronomically
unattainable for
residents to carry burden for that. So
uh item J was to move city direct and
smart go as Christine mentioned and this
will lessen that burden um on the
residents using Tyler Tyler payments for
the
>> technology credit card. use of tax
collection.
>> Okay.
>> I move to adopt resolution 2026-28 as
presented.
>> Second.
>> I'll second.
>> Any discussion?
Everybody understand? All right. All in
favor?
>> I. Any opposed? Thank you.
I entertain a motion to adjourn our
regular meeting.
>> Make a motion to adjurnn a regular
meeting.
>> Second.
>> That's it.
All in favor? I. Any opposed?
>> Make a motion to enter a business
meeting.
>> And James second. All in favor?
>> Any opposed? You're not.
>> Yeah. So, mayor and councel, there's
nothing in the business meeting for
tonight of that that we had identified.
Uh so really for you all whether or not
there's any items that you have any
questions about or anything you would
like for us to look at moving forward.
You can see we did put both September
10th September 24th meetings. These are
very preliminary. Uh I feel like that's
the word of the night. Um agendas as
well, but just showing you what we as
staff are working on right now. Uh so if
you have questions about that or any
other items, we're happy to discuss.
like to discuss uh specifically
warehouse heights in either in the UDO
or
uh possibly like a moratorum to get
through it. But um there's a lot of
chatter about some of that and I think
we need to
proactively look at it. I would like um
if
we could get what it is now, what the UI
has in it, you know, as it stands right
now, what we can do that's not a down
zone. Um
I'd like to weigh our options on that
one.
So I would make me have a question.
Could we um the town attorney answer if we do that could we exclude portions
of the town like could we not put a
moratorium on like our Franklin Park
where it's a a business
area anyway?
So right, there's some certain things
that you all have to consider when
you're looking at uh adopting or passing
a moratorum. And and the first thing is
what is the evil you're trying to
prevent? And so if generically we were
going to say no commercial warehousing
buildings,
what is it that we're trying to prevent?
Right? So some some people now the big
thing are these data centers. So the
moratorium on the data centers but if we
are trying to prevent largecale tall
warehousing buildings we could limit it
to moratoriums on height and size of
buildings but still other small
warehousing buildings. Me I want to
build a warehouse uh for my lawnmowers.
uh and if it's less than 2500 square f
feet, I ought to be able to do it as
opposed to having all warehousing
buildings uh under this moratorum. So,
Councilman Canrell, you said height,
right? If that if that's what you're
worried about, uh it could be over three
stories, over two stories, over 30 feet,
over 35 feet. If you're Brian, if you're
worried about uh large buildings over
25,000 square feet, you know, you could
come up with a number, there needs to be
because in the moratorum, you have to
identify what it is you are trying to
prevent and how much time you're going
to need to find that cure. And again, I
don't know, Mr. Malichek's going to tell
us like what the new UDO says about
certain warehousing buildings and size.
Um, right? Because again, you're talking
about making non-conform you're making
non-conforming uses, uh, decreasing
density and the the number of uses
allowed on on property. So size of the
building may not create a uh
nonconforming or a downzoning situation.
But but moratoriums aren't just designed
to
prevent all commercial buildings
until we get the UDO passed. We are
working towards some regulations on the
UDO. I just don't know what the concerns
are. But moratoriums are designed to
pump the brakes so that we can address
the evils that are lurking out there. We
just have to figure out what those evils
are.
>> Uh Mr. Malachic,
» how many evils can be in one moratorium?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, [laughter]
so I mean the the the height and the
square footage of a of a building. I
mean, we don't want I if you are worried
about someone coming in putting in a
sevenstory warehouse building that is
30,000 300,000 square feet I that that
seems huge but I mean it could happen um
that those two evils in a moratorum
could be prevented but if you were to
say any warehouses and I don't know why
I'm call saying warehouses but if you're
going to say no warehouses
um in the town of Mills River under this
moratorum. We would have to be very
specific why we're saying no warehouses
at all because if I wanted again build a
warehouse for my
car and uh riding lawnmower
um that moratorium would prevent that
and is that really what we're looking to
prevent? So I think the biggest
complaints was obviously
that banner farm schoolhouse which one
>> sorry. Yeah.
>> Um
>> so what is the current regulations or
what was that built to?
>> So current [clears throat] zoning rules
for light industrial allow up to 80 foot
tall structures or buildings. So that
was was what was applied to that uh
development. And [clears throat] then
because we required the architectural
drawings, excuse me,
I actually looked them up. That building
runs between 38t to 42 feet tall
depending upon which corner you're
measuring from. It's [clears throat]
slightly It looks slightly higher, too,
because they put two to three feet of
fill on the site because there was a
high water table. So, the storm water
device wasn't going to function
correctly. Um, so that contributed to it
as well. The original UDO which was
invalidated had decreased the light or
sorry the industrial uh zoning district
height to 35 feet or two stories but
[clears throat] as part of the
downzoning amendment the final draft
sent out to you guys today we preserved
all the dimensional standards that are
in our current zoning district. So the
draft UDO says 80 ft and I would defer
back to the town attorney, you know, is [clears throat] being stricter with
dimensional requirements for a building.
Is that a down zoning?
In our approach, the consultant and I,
you know, we were very conservative and
so we preserved uh setbacks, heights,
basically any dimensional standard in
the code. Now,
» did you want to address that?
>> Yeah. So, the the I I was just I'm I'm
pulling up the exact language of 607.
» Yeah. So, our approach to amending the
UDO to become downzone and compliant. We
took very conservative approach, you
know, to avoid any type of legal
challenge. So the dimensional standards
in our code now again setbacks, height,
building separation, whatever it may be,
those are all carried forward into the
new amended UDO down zoning compliant
the draft that was just sent to you guys
today. So it's 80 ft in that draft. It
was 35 ft or two stories in the
rescended or nullified version.
I mean, the specific language of 160D
601 uh specifically talks about
downzoning decreasing the de development
density of the land to be less dense by
reducing the permitted uses of the land
uh to fewer than were allowed under the
previous usage or creating any type of
nonconformity on land not in a
residential zoning district.
>> That may be the one.
But but you're you're talking about new
development going forward.
>> But the but the zoning district
dimensional standard period across the
board while it's applied to new
development.
>> Okay.
>> The threshold lower.
>> I think that's was the concern.
>> Yeah. Not but but but the MRMU is a
residential district because it allows
res
>> No, mixed use is a is a commercial.
>> You don't allow any residential uses in
the mixeduse district. No, we allow
residential uses, but we allow
everything else
>> by creating a type of non-conformity on
land, not in a residential zoning
district. Do you allow residential
structures to be built in the MRMU?
>> We do, but I think we're also talking
about industrial
I don't
>> would you I mean, so here here is the
argument. this this downzoning
legislation as poorly written as it is
right says that you can't create
nonconformities
on land not in a residential zoning
district. If the MRNU MRMU is a
residential zoning district because it
allows residential uses
by decreasing the height or the size of
a of a warehouse. Are we creating a
nonconformity on land not in a
residential zoning district? You can
have warehouses in NM MRMU. You can have
structures, residential structures
built. So I I can't tell you here
because there is no case law as to say
residential zoning districts. So I think
what Mike's saying is he and Chad were
trying to be very conservative. Can you
still do a moratorium on it until you
could come up with the
either answer for that or some other
call it workaround? You know, I want to
be able to see the sun on your property
for more than four minutes.
>> Yeah. If if that is and I just pulled
out some old nodes. Again, it it in
order to adopt a uh moratorum, you have
to have the statement of the problem or
conditions necessitating the moratorum.
So could you still adopt a moratorum to
prohibit heightened size of those
facilities if that is if there is a
specific problem or condition
necessitating the moratorum and then it
says you have to have a statement of the
development approvals subject to the
moratorum and how those approvals will
address the problems and conditions. So,
I don't know that you could say we want
a moratorum so the town's attorney can
do some legal research.
>> I wouldn't say that. I would leave that
up to you. [laughter]
>> Well, um, so again, I I mean, there are
municipalities out there that have
allowed residential structures in all of
their districts so that they can try to
get around this
downzoning prohibition. So in MRLI we
don't allow residential,
>> right?
>> So if we allowed residential in MRLI,
then we avoid this.
That is
>> that is a potential legal argument that
you could make, but you don't allow it.
Right? So that fits exactly to what this
says by creating a type of nonconformity
on land, not in a residential zoning
district. If the light industrial
doesn't allow resident residential
structures, it's not a residential
zoning district. So you can't create any
type of nonconformity,
which would be reducing the height or
the size of a building.
>> But if those are the tallest buildings,
the tallest warehouses in LA industrial
and we know they're less than 45 ft
tall, could we change that max from 80
to 45? We haven't created a
nonconformity and we're a little better
off than having 80 foot tall warehouses.
» You you could try that. The only thing
that I'm saying is there is no case. All
this down zoning legislation this
downzoning legislation is so new hasn't
been challenged in court.
>> If somebody wants to challenge it,
>> they can. So if we want to do a
moratorium on commercial warehouses with
a height building height restriction of
45 ft
>> anything a moratorium for those
buildings over 45 ft
>> for 6 months.
>> Yeah. Yes, I think you could do that.
>> Okay.
>> As long as we can come up with statement
of the development approval subject to
the mortorium and how the moratorum on
those approvals will address the
problem.
>> What about 30 ft?
was 45 ft what we got and all we hear is
about those. I'm just trying to I'm just
trying to There's a lot of chatter that
more of those are coming and I'm trying
to make them a little bit more
beautiful.
>> I'm
Yeah. 45 ft 30 feet. if there is a
particular evil that you're trying to
address
because of that.
>> I mean,
>> yeah, I'm just I'm I'm trying to like
reasonably not, you know, be more than
11 ft,
but it seems like those are too tall for
what we would want to see.
I mean
if it gets challenged it's defensible.
We would have to create a moratorum that
satisfies all of the statutory
requirements under 160d
107 I think
and then we would have to create a
reasonable solution as to what we are
trying to prevent. So, and I and if I
was going to challenge it, I'm no lawyer
by no means, but you know, I would take
into consideration some of the height of
the houses around. You know, I'd say,
man, you got my warehouse to where I
can't have it as high as my neighbor's
house. You know, 30 feet sounds tall,
but a lot of people's houses from front
door to the front peak is over 30 fairly
easy anymore, especially in the
mountain, especially, you know.
>> What's the maximum current for
residential building?
>> I was just going off a twotory or 212
>> and that's across multiple districts.
Okay.
>> 50 feet is the maximum height for
residential homes in many of our
districts.
>> May I get a clarifying question from the
uh ask a clarifying question to the town
attorney real quick? council the uh the fact that we're still in the UDO
process in and of itself I have seen
used as um as rationale for moratoria
because
the UDO process in and of itself will
bring potential changes through that
process. We have not adopted a new UDO
yet. So a moratorum on let's just say
something as specific as that could be
trying to stop the evil of um the the
evil that would be stopped essentially
is that you we are working through a
process to update our codes and our
ordinances in order to you know adopt a
new UDO is that I've seen that used
before. Is that what are your thoughts
on that?
>> Then your moratorium would only be 30
days.
>> Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. So, I'm
just I'm just thinking through what
those other options are, but I've just
seen that. So, I want
>> And but by the time you drafted the
moratorum, got it in front of council
for the proper hearing, it'd be on the
same
>> But there's no guarantee that we're
going to pass the UDO. So, we can make
the moratorum say 6 months or until the
passage of a UDO.
>> Well, that's a good question. I don't uh
No, I think there's going to have to be
a a specific
>> date.
>> I can't just make a so moved motion and
this goes into effect
>> in the [snorts] public hearing.
>> Sorry.
» I knew I knew where the humor was coming
from.
>> I think I still think we need to explore
this further. I would like to see we're
in the business meeting. I would like to
see this on a regular agenda meeting
because I think we should have this
queued up
anyway.
>> I agree with James.
» We we toyed around with it a couple
times and keep pushing it back. I I I
think it's time well spent to
Yeah. have it.
>> And we probably need to talk about data
centers while we're in that.
Mike, can you
about Yeah, about the data center since
they had the UDO in front of them.
>> Um, data centers are listed as
prohibited
>> in our in the new down zoning compliant
UDO.
The the reason for that is because again
while taking a conservative approach the
mixeduse district says all uses are
allowed
that [clears throat] doesn't mean anyone
can pick a use under the rainbow and
it's going to be permitted by right.
It's the uses identified in the
ordinance itself.
Um
and so since data centers are not
identified as a use in the ordinance um
we felt it was something that could be
regulated through a prohibition.
>> So basically the only uses that are
allowed in MRMU are uses that exist in
other zoning districts.
>> Correct. Called out anywhere in the
ordinance. Even if there's a definition
of and it you know and it's not even
permitted anywhere. It's a use
identified in the ordinance. It says all
uses.
That's the equation we use basically.
>> Is that something that can be challenged
like as a board of adjustment thing?
>> Every everything can be challenged when
you adopt the ordinance. It wouldn't go
to the board of adjustment. It would be
challenged to superior court directly
through some kind of declaratory
judgment action
>> right within the specific time. And and
the reason I agree with Mike on on what
he's saying because there's new uses
that happen all the time. For example, I
was advised Oregon has a silly site a
mushroom eating facility. So if you want
to go ahead and and eat some mushrooms,
you can go into this new facility. Who
the heck would have ever thought that
that's going to that that's not a
permitted use that anybody would have
ever thought about.
>> Well, just since we since I've been
sitting in one of these chairs, the the
vapes and all have come along and all.
So we we've seen that develop like where
>> Yeah. Yeah, vape shops are a little
different. That's retail. That's right.
But but when you're talking about coming
in into a into a a designated area to do
legalized
mushrooms,
>> but how do you not how does he not argue
if I come to him and say that's a
restaurant? How does he argue that it's
not? I guess by the definition of what a
restaurant would be in the uh planner's
dictionary,
>> I would have to make a staff
determination and categorize your use.
And if you disagreed, you'd appeal my
decision to the board of adjustment.
» That's That's easy.
>> Well, I'm paying food for I'm paying
money for food. I mean, that's going to
be fun. It's not a restaurant,
but I think we do need to
What's the rest of you want to do? Look
at it.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
And I'll just say too, the
building height thing across the code,
the approach we took was just to take
what's in the current ordinance. So if
this triggers a discussion about
building height in all the zoning
districts,
let's just note that.
>> Mhm.
» Anything else?
» I make a motion to journ.
>> Thank you.
>> Second.
Thank you, James.
All in favor?