[4:49] All right, let's stand and say the
[4:51] pledge.
[4:53] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[4:56] United States of America and to the
[4:59] republic for which it stands, one nation
[5:02] under God, indivisible, liberty and
[5:04] justice for all.
[5:11] right, good to see everybody out
[5:12] here.
[5:14] Uh, when everybody gets called up, we
[5:17] need approval of the agenda, please. And
[5:19] I'd like to make a couple changes
[5:23] on our quarterly update to get these
[5:24] guys out of here a little bit quicker.
[5:26] Let's switch A and B on our regular
[5:28] agenda.
[5:30] Then F we need to add uh to amend
[5:34] 2026-20
[5:37] and then G will be adopt 2026-28
[5:42] and that'll make more sense when we get
[5:43] into it. It was some stuff we had in the
[5:46] consent and we're dragging it back down
[5:47] here to work on a bit.
[5:50] >> So I make a motion to approve the agenda
[5:52] with the modifications.
[5:53] >> Thank you Brian. Second.
[5:54] >> I'll second it.
[5:55] >> Thank you Sandra. Any more discussion on
[5:57] this agenda
[5:59] hearing? None. All in favor? I. Any
[6:02] opposed? Hear none. Uh got call for
[6:06] public comment. Uh Mr. Schmidt, you're
[6:09] up.
[6:13] » Uh I don't have much to say tonight. I
[6:15] just uh I didn't have time to prepare
[6:18] anything. So it's on Muaness. I was at a
[6:20] lawyer's house uh meeting today. Anyhow,
[6:24] my main thing is I appreciate this three
[6:26] minutes of time that you give us all to
[6:29] speak our grievances or to say whatever
[6:31] or even to uh applaud what you're doing,
[6:34] right?
[6:36] The only problem is that that's a good
[6:38] democratic sort of thing, but it's not
[6:40] 100%. What we really need here is we
[6:43] really need you guys to be accountable
[6:45] to us and and we should be able to ask
[6:48] you guys a question. One question,
[6:51] that's all.
[6:52] one question per person per occurrence
[6:56] and get an answer. I asked you guys a
[6:58] question last time. I want to know who
[7:02] was responsible for taking a
[7:06] planning thing from reszoning a little
[7:09] bit of 280 and some changes in the
[7:12] nomenclature to all of a sudden this big
[7:15] uh UDO pro program that we got now that
[7:18] we paid $200,000 for. who made that
[7:22] decision to go from something that was
[7:25] small and microscopic and approved by
[7:28] the state
[7:30] and all of a sudden it becomes this big
[7:32] program that we're spending all this
[7:34] money on and the state says no because
[7:36] you we didn't grant you that.
[7:39] Somebody made that decision. I want to
[7:42] know who who did that. I want to know
[7:44] who's responsible for wasting that money
[7:46] because it's a waste of money. We're not
[7:48] going to use Yeah. We we cobble some use
[7:51] out of it after post after the the
[7:54] destruction,
[7:56] but we as taxpayers are not getting
[7:59] value for our money there. And we ought
[8:01] to know who was responsible for doing
[8:04] that. That person should be accountable
[8:05] to us, whether it be a counselor or one
[8:09] of the staff who. And I I found a very
[8:12] interesting law that entitles me to know
[8:16] who that is. There's a law on the books
[8:19] in the constitution. This section 18
[8:22] USC subsection 242. It's called the
[8:26] deprivation of rights under the color of
[8:28] law. And if I can kind of put it in my
[8:31] words for you, it means that you as
[8:34] officials do not have the right to deny
[8:39] me my constitutional right of knowing
[8:42] who is doing what under my name.
[8:47] and can be in prison for that. So, I
[8:50] want an answer to my question by next
[8:52] meeting. You can write me got my
[8:54] address. I'll write you an official
[8:57] letter if you'd like asking it. I want
[8:59] that information.
[9:01] Yeah. And I would like you to look at
[9:03] your agenda and try to adapt it so that
[9:05] you can put a question and answer
[9:07] period. Just maybe one question. Add
[9:09] another minute to the three minutes. Do
[9:12] it. Let's get a democratic process going
[9:15] here where you guys have got to be
[9:17] accountable.
[9:18] >> Thank you, Mr. Smith.
[9:21] Okay. Anybody else pro comment? That's
[9:24] the only one I had wrote down. Anybody
[9:26] else? Going once, twice, three times.
[9:28] Okay. Uh council comments.
[9:34] Anybody?
[9:37] Anybody?
[9:41] Uh,
[9:42] so
[9:44] I know public comment,
[9:48] you know,
[9:51] is that even a possibility after hearing
[9:54] that? I mean, you know, somehow we need
[9:58] to address some of these things as they
[10:00] come. you know, some bigger than others,
[10:03] but can somebody this week somehow get
[10:06] him an official email to try to answer
[10:10] that?
[10:12] >> Yes, sir. Absolutely.
[10:13] >> I think I mean I think somebody needs to
[10:15] reach out to him.
[10:16] >> Okay. Yes, sir.
[10:17] >> Let us know if you would.
[10:22] the um to the question about public
[10:25] comment the um typically from the public
[10:28] comment period questions are asked then
[10:30] moving into council comments that's an
[10:32] opportunity for council to respond okay
[10:34] to any type of public comment that they
[10:36] may wish or provide any other comments
[10:37] that they may wish um at that time um
[10:40] but yes absolutely we're happy to reach
[10:41] out and uh see if we can assist with his
[10:44] questions
[10:44] >> okay and I think it'd be if it's all
[10:46] right with you would it be okay for all
[10:48] the council to get copied in on Yeah,
[10:51] >> sure.
[10:51] >> Yeah, thank you.
[10:54] >> Yeah, typically during the the public
[10:57] comment, we don't want to get into a
[10:59] back and forth.
[11:00] >> I understand.
[11:01] >> Yeah.
[11:01] >> One question.
[11:03] >> Yes, sir. And we've all got emails.
[11:05] You're more than welcome to email us at
[11:07] any time. I'll be glad to respond and um
[11:11] you just anytime. Um and and feel free
[11:15] to hold us accountable at election time.
[11:17] >> I'm coming up in two years. I'll hug
[11:20] your neck, you know,
[11:21] >> but it's too late for the damage that's
[11:23] getting done. That's what
[11:26] >> and that's and you know that's you're
[11:29] certainly welcome to your opinion and
[11:32] >> thank you.
[11:35] >> Anyone else? Anyone? You all good?
[11:40] >> Major updates.
[11:52] Thank you, Mayor and Council. Just a few
[11:54] updates for you. First of all, you may
[11:56] have seen that uh the fencing around the
[11:59] North Loop, especially the Meadow area,
[12:01] has been taken down. Um it's a lot of
[12:04] work that's been put into making sure
[12:06] that the North Loop is back in in
[12:09] preheline conditions. And so right now
[12:12] the full loop, the full north loop is
[12:14] open and available for all uh park
[12:16] patrons to come out and enjoy again. So
[12:19] we were, you know, we've been sitting
[12:21] around really trying to work as fast as
[12:23] possible to make that happen for the
[12:25] community and we're very thankful that
[12:26] we're able to do it before the end of
[12:28] the summer this year. There are going to
[12:30] be some closures from time to time as we
[12:33] still work through it. Well, we've we've
[12:35] accomplished what's called substantial
[12:37] completion of the construction project,
[12:39] but there's going to still be some
[12:40] projects that happen from time to time
[12:42] back there. As you may see, there's
[12:44] still some areas that are fenced off in
[12:45] the middle of the meadow area because
[12:47] there's a retention pond in there,
[12:49] sediment uh retention pond, and other
[12:51] elements that are going to have to be
[12:53] worked on as we finalize the project.
[12:55] But for all intents and purposes, we
[12:56] really want people to come out and enjoy
[12:58] being able to get access to the river
[13:00] again and be able to exercise and
[13:02] recreate back there. And I really want
[13:03] to thank the staff for all of their hard
[13:05] work in making that happen. It took a
[13:07] lot of lot of effort. The uh another
[13:10] item, the baseball field. Again, I'm
[13:12] kind of getting ahead of myself a little
[13:13] bit. We're going to have a major
[13:14] projects update here in in a few
[13:16] minutes. Uh but also, we've we've done a
[13:19] walk through for the baseball field
[13:21] project as well. So, we're going into
[13:23] the closeout process of that. So,
[13:25] there's still going to be some temporary
[13:26] fencing there as well as we try to get
[13:28] some, uh, grass growing in that back
[13:31] area where that French drain is put in,
[13:33] but uh, for all intents and purposes,
[13:36] again, being able to open that, being
[13:37] able to utilize that soon. Uh, just keep
[13:40] an eye out for, we're going to keep
[13:41] updates on social media, on our website,
[13:43] etc. about uh, any potential closures
[13:46] around that as well. Last, everyone's
[13:48] favorite topic, auditing. Uh if Kristen
[13:53] back there, our tax collector would say
[13:54] taxes are everybody's favorite uh uh uh
[13:57] topic, but we're right now in the middle
[13:59] of the audit process. We had the
[14:01] auditors uh on site last week. I believe
[14:05] it was last week. Yes. And so um they've
[14:07] concluded their on-site inspections and
[14:09] so now they're in the process um of you
[14:12] know all the other work that is
[14:13] necessary. They're still on schedule.
[14:15] We're still expecting them to come in
[14:17] November uh to present to you. So, and
[14:20] that concludes my remarks.
[14:21] >> Great.
[14:24] Moving on with our consent agenda. We
[14:27] really didn't pull anything. We had to
[14:28] set aside any other time. Okay.
[14:30] >> So, I entertain a motion to approve our
[14:33] consent agenda.
[14:34] >> I'll make a motion that we approve the
[14:36] consent agenda.
[14:37] >> Thank you, Sandra. Second.
[14:38] >> All right. Second. Any more discussion
[14:40] on this consent agenda?
[14:43] >> Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
[14:46] opposed?
[14:48] Hearing none. All right, regular agenda.
[14:50] We've moved up our quarterly uh fourth
[14:53] quarter presentation. I guess our
[14:55] manager will get us started.
[14:56] >> Yeah, thank you, mayor and council. So,
[14:58] first I would like to introduce the
[15:00] Mills River Fire and Rescue's new fire
[15:02] chief, Bart Travis. I'm going to call
[15:04] him up here uh to the podium. I just
[15:07] wanted to in in addition to providing an
[15:10] update for us, I really just wanted to
[15:11] introduce him uh you know to council and
[15:14] to the community. really want to thank
[15:15] you uh for all the hard work you've been
[15:17] doing over there and for just the work
[15:19] in the last few weeks that we've been
[15:21] working together. It's been really a
[15:23] great transition so far.
[15:25] >> Thank you uh for that. Uh thank you for
[15:27] having me uh uh meeting. So I am 24 days
[15:31] in to my new assignment. Um and it has
[15:33] been fantastic so far. Uh everybody
[15:35] we've met uh from town staff has been
[15:38] super nice, super helpful. um community
[15:41] has been very uh open and encouraging
[15:44] and my wife and I are just thrilled to
[15:46] be here. Uh so if you ever need anything
[15:48] from the fire department aspect um
[15:50] please get up with me uh or the uh um
[15:54] town manager and we'll make that happen.
[15:56] Um but all of our interactions have been
[15:58] great. Um as far as the uh fire
[16:01] department is concerned um we have uh
[16:03] finalized a new building in station two.
[16:07] Um we are working on getting the
[16:09] financing finalized for that and we have
[16:11] a special meeting tomorrow to address
[16:13] that but we think we have all that in
[16:16] place and hopefully we'll get
[16:17] construction started uh within the next
[16:19] month. Um they have told us once it
[16:21] starts it'll be about 12 months uh
[16:24] completion uh depending on the weather.
[16:26] Um people tell me it kind of rains here
[16:28] every now and then. So we'll see we'll
[16:30] see how that happens. But uh everything
[16:32] looks really good with that. We're
[16:33] really happy with that. Um the month of
[16:36] September and October are pretty busy
[16:38] months. We've got fire prevention
[16:40] starting first week in October and the
[16:42] theme for that is uh charge into fire
[16:44] safety. Um and the idea behind it is the
[16:49] uh storage use and charging of lithium ion batteries uh to prevent
[16:54] those type of fires. Um so there's going
[16:56] to be a lot of information coming out
[16:57] about that. We'll be posting that on the
[16:59] website uh and getting that out as many
[17:01] folks as possible. Um we have uh I think
[17:04] four tours scheduled at the station in
[17:06] September uh with diff different groups.
[17:09] Um so we'll be working with that. So if
[17:11] you would like to come by and speak to
[17:13] me anytime, please feel free. Uh I'm
[17:15] usually there Monday through Friday. Um
[17:18] they didn't tell me going in. They told
[17:19] me going in I was only have to work
[17:20] Monday through Friday, but I've worked
[17:22] every Saturday and Sunday that I've been
[17:23] here uh because of calls and stuff. But
[17:25] it's been fun. Uh it's been very
[17:27] encouraging. Um do you have any
[17:29] questions for me directly about
[17:30] anything?
[17:32] What? Just glad to have you. Yes, sir.
[17:34] >> Glad to be here. Another logistical
[17:37] thing, uh we have uh two engines and a
[17:40] tanker uh that are in the works. We
[17:43] should have the tanker before the first
[17:44] of the year, the new engine supposedly
[17:47] right after the first of the year, and
[17:48] then the second engine, which would be
[17:50] the engine that replaced the engine lost
[17:52] in station two fire this time next year.
[17:55] So, keep your fingers crossed on that.
[17:57] But, uh everything we've got now is
[17:58] working in good shape. And if you need
[18:00] anything, just let me know.
[18:02] >> I'm good. You ever been involved in
[18:03] being a sanator before?
[18:04] >> A sanator?
[18:05] >> No, [clears throat] sir.
[18:06] >> You're getting ready to
[18:07] >> I'm getting ready [laughter]
[18:09] for a real mother.
[18:10] >> Look at Look at Brian. He's like, "Dude,
[18:13] what?"
[18:14] >> And there's there's room for our town
[18:15] attorney. Legit.
[18:18] >> It's legit.
[18:20] >> I'll leave it. It'll be a big surprise.
[18:21] >> Okay. [laughter]
[18:27] the co get you all. Okay.
[18:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. This is exciting.
[18:32] >> Okay. Good.
[18:32] >> Need to plan a day for it.
[18:34] >> Perfect.
[18:35] >> It'll make you glad you moved here.
[18:36] >> It will.
[18:37] >> Well, we already are. So, I can't wait
[18:38] to see what this is.
[18:40] >> It's interesting.
[18:42] >> Thank you.
[18:42] >> I believe our town attorney's invited to
[18:44] it.
[18:45] >> Yeah. Oh, absolutely. It might be the
[18:46] new Santa Claus.
[18:47] >> Say we can find an outfit.
[18:48] >> I might I might skip until I know what
[18:50] it is. [laughter]
[18:53] >> That's right. That's right. the suit.
[18:56] >> He's got smile for it. He pull it off.
[18:59] >> The beard.
[19:00] >> You don't need one for Mr. Chris.
[19:03] >> Thank you, Chief. I appreciate that. I
[19:05] also want to call up uh our friends over
[19:07] at the Henderson County Sheriff's
[19:09] Office. Uh Captain Whitaker is joining
[19:11] us here to provide us an update as well
[19:13] over the last few months and also uh
[19:15] other things we need to be looking
[19:16] forward to in the fall.
[19:19] >> Good evening. Hope everyone's doing
[19:20] well. Uh sheriff's office, we've been
[19:23] pretty busy. Uh the calls that we've had
[19:25] in the Mills River area, we had last
[19:28] three months. Um 2,29 calls. We made 30
[19:33] arrest. We had 265 traffic stops and we
[19:36] issued 19 citations. Some of the traffic
[19:39] stops and arrest were coincided and some
[19:43] war services. Uh some upcoming events um
[19:47] if y'all don't know about them is of
[19:49] course the apple festival's coming up.
[19:51] Um state fair will be here soon and PGA
[19:54] tournament here. So I think we're going
[19:56] to have a not really Henderson County is
[19:59] going to have some traffic challenges,
[20:00] but y'all might get it coming off of 191
[20:04] there. So we'll need to keep an eye on
[20:06] that. Um,
[20:10] we have permanent, if y'all don't
[20:12] already know, we have permanent
[20:14] medication disposal dropboxes. That's
[20:15] where everybody takes their old
[20:17] medicines that they don't use, drop in
[20:18] the box. We have it in four locations at
[20:21] the sheriff's office, Flesher PD,
[20:23] Inville Police Department, and Laurel
[20:25] Park. Um, we've had some requests to
[20:27] have them put somewhere other than uh
[20:31] law enforcement buildings, but we we we
[20:33] don't we try not to do that. So, um, but
[20:36] those are those are located there for
[20:38] everybody to use. Um, there will be a
[20:42] medication tape back and document
[20:44] shredding. If somebody has a bunch of
[20:46] papers they need to shred will be at EDA
[20:48] United Community Bank, that's 50 United
[20:51] Bank Drive in Edeto on Wednesday,
[20:54] September 30th, 2026 from 1:00 to 3:00
[20:58] p.m.
[21:01] Um, and that's that's about it. Any
[21:04] questions or I know got Captain Galloway
[21:07] here in case there's any questions about
[21:10] anything
[21:11] >> anything
[21:14] we need to be watching for. Anything
[21:16] changed as far as the type of crimes or
[21:18] anything?
[21:19] >> Scams are my phone is blowing up this
[21:21] week with scams, but that's the biggest
[21:23] thing.
[21:24] >> Um
[21:26] I don't know what the trending scam is.
[21:27] Do you know what the the newest?
[21:30] >> There's three or four. I've been getting
[21:32] that one about TransUnion Equifax on my
[21:35] phone. My wife got one today for
[21:38] Facebook. So, just be aware.
[21:41] >> Yeah, just be aware.
[21:43] >> Yeah, federal federal um federal agents
[21:47] or you miss jury or some stuff like
[21:51] that. So, just be aware. It's a We've
[21:54] had quite a few reports this past month
[21:56] being scanned. All right.
[21:59] >> Thanks, sir. appreciation bunch always.
[22:06] » Thank you, gentlemen. Uh so I'm going to
[22:08] turn it over now for Julie to uh jump in
[22:12] here with the financial update. So just
[22:15] as a reminder, they we're we we start
[22:17] with the financial analysis and then go
[22:19] into major projects and initiatives. Uh
[22:20] obviously we've just gone through the
[22:22] public safety partner updates as well.
[22:24] And so Julie, if you want to drive the
[22:27] train, I'll click for you.
[22:30] Good evening, council. It's my privilege
[22:32] to present tonight's report to you for
[22:34] the quarter ending June 30, 2026.
[22:38] Uh just a couple things that we want to
[22:39] bring to your attention. At the close of
[22:42] June 30th, fiscal year end, property tax
[22:46] collections were at 99.68%.
[22:49] Um total outstanding as of June 30 for
[22:54] the most recent uh property tax year was
[22:58] $14,29.
[23:00] Total collection outstanding for all
[23:02] years is 58,502.
[23:08] um wanted to uh let you know kind of
[23:11] where we stood as of the end of the year
[23:13] as it relates to our re our revenues and
[23:16] those compared to what we had budgeted
[23:19] um the sales tax revenues that you see
[23:22] here um there is still one more um
[23:25] dispersement that gets acred back to
[23:28] June 30 because it runs three months in
[23:30] a readers. So, um, with the 11 months
[23:34] that we have presented here, it's at 2.1
[23:38] million. We budgeted to 2,ion44,000.
[23:42] Um, the average collection for Mills
[23:45] River per month is about $150,000. So,
[23:49] we should see about another 155 $160,000
[23:53] added to that line item for June 30. Um,
[23:57] all the other line items you can see
[23:58] there, the grants were at 100%, power
[24:01] bill was at 100%. Our miscellaneous
[24:04] revenues were up slightly over our
[24:06] budget because the revenues for those
[24:09] River Day sponsorships was up as well as
[24:12] the vendors for that event. Um, we
[24:16] actually actually also had 66,000 in
[24:19] park revenues. Um so that is a makes it
[24:23] 167% of what we had budgeted. Um and
[24:27] then our investments were much more
[24:29] successful than what we anticipated. Um
[24:32] and so that is why we have 357,000
[24:35] versus the 280,000 that we originally
[24:38] budgeted. So without the final sales tax
[24:41] number, we're at 7.2 million versus our
[24:44] $7.4 million budget.
[24:48] and we did not have to use any
[24:49] appropriate fund balance for that.
[24:52] Um on our expenditures, you can see that
[24:56] um several of the line items uh are
[24:59] slightly below budget. Um the capital
[25:03] reserves, debt service, lease and fire
[25:06] are all things that we are required to
[25:08] pay 100% of what the contracts are. So
[25:11] that's why those items are shown at
[25:14] 100%. All the other items are there just
[25:17] slightly below or um within 20% of what
[25:22] we had originally budgeted. Um as a
[25:25] reminder, we budgeted expenditures
[25:28] for staff if they all walked out the
[25:31] door. So that's why all your major
[25:33] budgeted expenditure line items for
[25:35] staff are below budget because that did
[25:38] not occur. So our budget versus actual
[25:41] surplus as of June 30 before the last
[25:43] sales is $460,14
[25:49] on our fund balance um commitment. You
[25:52] can see that um as of June 30, our fund
[25:55] balance at the percent of general fund
[25:57] expenditures is at 103% of our
[26:01] expenditures and your requirement is
[26:03] between 65 and 75%.
[26:06] So we have been able to put them put
[26:08] that money aside um as you have
[26:10] requested for um not only the reserve
[26:15] but also for the capital projects that
[26:17] you um are planning in this year and the
[26:20] future years.
[26:24] Uh this budget is just umformational to
[26:28] show you the blue lines are the 2526
[26:33] or 2425 here and the the the line is the
[26:37] current fiscal year budget that just
[26:39] ended. So you can see where those uh
[26:43] main differences are. Um the the one
[26:47] decrease that you see there is that um
[26:50] in 2425
[26:52] there was nothing budgeted for the lease
[26:55] agreement um because that was actually
[26:58] shown in FEMA and this year um because
[27:02] that there was just a little bit left
[27:04] this year we left it in the J. Um but
[27:07] most of the line items with the
[27:09] exception of um the the miscellaneous
[27:14] lease agreement there are are fairly
[27:16] consistent from year to year with the
[27:18] exception there permit and fees. Um you
[27:21] can see where it is a lot different from
[27:24] one year to the other but the other ones
[27:26] are fairly consistent. Um
[27:31] and then on the expenditure side, you
[27:33] can you can clearly see that um we're
[27:36] staying right along in line with what
[27:39] you have budgeted in prior years. Um
[27:42] streets and highways of course is pow
[27:45] bill funds. Um and there is a um that
[27:49] the city will the town will actually be
[27:52] budgeting expenditure to repair the town
[27:55] streets this year. So that money will be
[27:58] actually spent in this coming fiscal
[28:00] year. It was not spent in last fiscal
[28:02] year
[28:05] on the capital projects. Uh you can see
[28:08] where we ended up on the items um that
[28:12] you had uh directed us to complete for
[28:16] the uh fiscal year ending June 30. On
[28:19] the park maintenance facility needs and
[28:22] assessment. Uh we budgeted $150,000.
[28:25] That contract came in at $48,000. So
[28:28] that is uh complete. The town hall
[28:31] carpeting was u budgeted at 118 and it
[28:36] came in at 81,000. So you can see in all
[28:39] of those line items that we um were able
[28:42] to be right at the budget or just below
[28:45] the budget. uh the basketball court
[28:47] resurfacing was actually completed in
[28:50] this fiscal year and a budget amen
[28:52] amendment was presented last uh at the
[28:54] last meeting to move those funds into
[28:56] the current fiscal year. So that's why
[28:59] there's nothing shown there. Um this report here just kind of shows you
[29:04] what uh we have spent on Helen. Our
[29:08] total expenditures to date are $685,938
[29:13] of the 2.8 8 million that we have
[29:15] budgeted anticipating
[29:18] uh to be expended. Uh the majority of
[29:21] that of course is in Catg Park
[29:23] facilities. U most of that is the
[29:26] riverbank restoration.
[29:32] Um the main items that we wanted to
[29:34] bring to your attention were the
[29:36] contracts and agreements that were
[29:37] signed during quarter 4, which is April
[29:40] to June 30. Um, and you can see here,
[29:44] um, most of these were brought to
[29:46] council for your approval, but we did
[29:48] want to just include those as a reminder
[29:51] for you here. The North Loop Meadow
[29:53] project, the community survey with ETC
[29:56] Institute, the audit contract for this
[30:00] uh, fiscal year that they are auditing
[30:02] now, the baseball field, and then uh,
[30:05] one that you might not be aware of is
[30:07] the U. the federal government came down
[30:10] with an American with disabilities web
[30:13] content accessibility requirement. Um,
[30:16] and so we we had to buy some software in
[30:18] order to make the town's website and
[30:21] documents ADA accessible. And so that
[30:24] was signed on June the 30th and it was
[30:27] for about 50.
[30:30] » Thank you, Julie. Uh, we're the next
[30:32] slides go into the major projects. Are
[30:34] there any questions so far from council?
[30:36] Julie, what made the permits and fees
[30:39] jumped so drastic on revenues?
[30:41] >> I think what it was the difference
[30:43] between 24 and 25 is that some things
[30:46] that were shown in that line item in the
[30:49] previous year were not truly permits and
[30:52] fees. Okay.
[30:53] >> And so we've been moving that correctly.
[30:57] >> I got
[30:59] see that balance out next year.
[31:00] >> Yes, sir. I think it was just a
[31:02] reporting.
[31:03] >> Okay.
[31:05] The revenue was correct. It was just in
[31:08] >> where it was placed. Yes, I got you.
[31:10] [clears throat]
[31:11] >> Oh, I got it.
[31:13] >> It looks like the library was a little
[31:14] high. Is there a
[31:16] >> It was a little bit high because the um
[31:19] the maintenance um contract for the
[31:23] maintenance of the library for the
[31:26] cleaning and things like that was a
[31:28] little bit higher than what we
[31:29] originally budgeted. Yes.
[31:34] And that's one of the contracts that we
[31:36] hope to go out prepaid for this year.
[31:40] And also the the Duke Energy uh bills
[31:44] also included a increase for the Helen
[31:48] recovery um in the last two months of
[31:51] that fiscal year which we did not
[31:52] anticipate when we did the budget for
[31:54] the library because they have a portion
[31:56] of that utility bill.
[31:58] It was both of those funds come up. Uh,
[32:01] it wasn't in your recording. It's a
[32:03] little off topic. So, if you don't know,
[32:04] you don't, that's fine. But are the
[32:06] solar panels still keeping up with the
[32:08] electric charging?
[32:11] >> That would be a cold question.
[32:13] [laughter]
[32:14] >> And if it's if it's possible, we can get
[32:16] you that information if you like.
[32:18] Absolutely.
[32:20] >> I don't know if we have it off on hand,
[32:22] so Okay.
[32:23] >> But no, it's it's a it's a good
[32:24] question.
[32:29] I see you.
[32:33] All right, moving on. I've already
[32:36] spoiled a little bit of this and also
[32:38] just for full transparency, not all of
[32:42] us fell within Q4. It was Q4 and a
[32:44] little bit into Q1 of FY27, but I think
[32:46] it's important enough to try to
[32:47] highlight where we're currently at. So
[32:50] the major difference that happened
[32:52] between Q3 and Q4 and like I said into
[32:54] Q5 is the process that we've been
[32:57] working with with FEMA and I know I've
[32:59] been keeping council a breast of all the
[33:01] various changes and expectations that
[33:03] FEMA has had. Uh one of the items though
[33:06] that we've been able to do is move
[33:07] towards obligation of the funds at the
[33:10] current scope uh project scope that FEMA
[33:14] has put out. Now, we disagree with
[33:15] almost all of those project scopes that
[33:17] you have uh that that they have and
[33:20] we're working through what they call a
[33:21] versioning or amendment process to make
[33:23] sure that we actually become whole to
[33:25] what the actual damages were. But now,
[33:27] what you'll see on here starting in CAT
[33:30] C covers and drainage, FEMA has
[33:32] obligated $25,560
[33:36] uh for those covert repairs. We do not
[33:37] believe that that is uh reflective of
[33:40] the actual damage uh to our covert
[33:43] repairs. However, that's the first step
[33:44] before we can get that amended. Um, as
[33:47] you can see, one of the five coverts was
[33:49] replaced during the North Loop uh
[33:51] repairs due to failure. Um, there are
[33:53] other there's another one that we're
[33:55] also working on and we're monitoring
[33:56] right now that we're going to be quickly
[33:58] jumping on that needs to be repaired as
[34:00] well. Um, and so we are requesting that
[34:03] amendment process that first that first
[34:06] covert just as an example back in the
[34:08] north loop, it's the uh construction
[34:10] entrance. I believe that came in around
[34:12] 35,000 385
[34:14] right right around that uh number. So as
[34:17] you can see we disagree with the the
[34:18] FEMA number right now but uh the one
[34:21] thing that's good is that they will go
[34:23] and update if there's a scope of work
[34:26] change and we believe that there is for
[34:27] obvious reasons. Uh the CAT E project um
[34:32] FEMA obligated uh uh and we received
[34:35] just over $5,300. does mirror our cost
[34:39] minus what we received from insurance.
[34:41] So, we did become whole on that one. The
[34:43] total claims from the League of
[34:44] Municipalities was a little over 23,000.
[34:47] So, again, we became whole based off of
[34:49] those two reimbursement strategies.
[34:52] Uh the CAT D uh utilities, we have
[34:56] completed the repairs of the well and
[34:57] the wellhouse. Um, and I really want to
[35:00] just take a moment and also thank our maintenance staff as well because
[35:04] they did a lot of work to make sure we
[35:06] did the final touches on that. So, the
[35:08] roof and the door, uh, the frame, we got
[35:10] amazing to come out to work on that, but
[35:12] really good work there. The there are no
[35:15] remaining actions on it. FEMA obligated,
[35:17] as you can see, just over $6,200. Our
[35:20] total expenses were just over $6,700.
[35:23] Uh I'm I made the call that ultimately
[35:26] at the end of the day that $500 was
[35:28] going to take a lot more time and and staff hours to try to fight that
[35:34] $500. So we just have decided to move
[35:37] forward um and and just with that $6,200
[35:42] amount, 6276 or 67.
[35:46] The CATG G project, this is where most
[35:48] of our projects still remain. Park
[35:50] grounds and features. This is back in
[35:52] the day, but as as a reminder, the
[35:55] tennis courts uh FEMA denied our tennis
[35:58] court request or project. Uh we
[36:02] disagreed and we put forward a uh a
[36:05] request to um review that as well and
[36:09] they then denied that appeal process as
[36:12] well. However, uh through the Office of
[36:14] State Budget and Management, there were
[36:16] funds that would cover the replacement
[36:18] cost and we were awarded those funds.
[36:20] Right now, we have yet to move on using
[36:23] those funds because one of the things
[36:25] that's one of the silver linings of the
[36:27] OSBM funds are that they allow for
[36:30] flexibility on where that needs to be
[36:32] built. So, right now, since we're in the
[36:34] park master plan discussion, you know, revisiting where locations
[36:39] are, we have time to wait on that until
[36:42] you all get to make a final decision on
[36:43] whether or not you want to build in the
[36:45] same location or build in another one.
[36:47] So, that's why those funds are still
[36:48] sitting there. the as as you can see,
[36:52] we're expecting to bring that to you all
[36:54] in October of the park master plan
[36:57] update.
[36:59] The expansion property, as you as uh
[37:02] Julie was talking about before, it's a
[37:03] little over $920,000.
[37:05] We are also put in for another grant uh
[37:08] from the Division of Water Resources. We
[37:10] hope to hear about that in October. The
[37:12] reason why that matters, because a lot
[37:15] of people may say, "Well, $920,000 is a
[37:18] lot of money." And it really is uh we're
[37:20] very fortunate to have that that that
[37:22] money can only be used for FEMA related
[37:26] uh repairs. It cannot be for any type of
[37:30] mitigation work, any work that FEMA did
[37:32] not put within their scope of work. So
[37:34] we have to be very careful in setting up
[37:36] those funds. However, there's another
[37:38] section of the river that can uh benefit
[37:42] greatly from mitigation that and that
[37:45] would greatly benefit when we go forward
[37:47] on the expansion property. And so from a cost perspective and a bidding out
[37:52] perspective, we're trying to make sure
[37:53] that we're putting as many of those
[37:55] projects together to make one one, you
[37:58] know, attractive package for people to
[38:01] bid on. We hope to have that information
[38:03] uh that decision in October and then we
[38:05] could start trying to work forward with
[38:07] potential
[38:08] uh build starting in the late spring
[38:11] early summer of next year. So again,
[38:14] we're waiting but hopefully not too much
[38:15] longer on that as well.
[38:18] The one item that's not up here, but
[38:20] before I get down to the the other two,
[38:23] uh the kayak launch, FEMA obligated just
[38:26] over $7,300 for that. we are in um that
[38:31] appeal process right now as well. It's
[38:34] slower for that one because of all the
[38:36] environmental uh factors because it's in
[38:38] the river. So right now that is in with
[38:41] FEMA because so that they are trying to
[38:43] work through all of their processes.
[38:44] That one's going to take a little while
[38:45] longer uh just again because of the
[38:48] environmental impact that it's going to
[38:49] have with the river.
[38:52] the contract uh as we as I stated
[38:55] earlier in early FY27 Q1 really were
[38:59] able to make sure and sign off on the
[39:01] substantial completion work in the
[39:02] meadow and the north loop the parking
[39:05] lot and the covert that's under the
[39:06] parking lot. The uh in Q3 you all
[39:11] approved uh the the formal bid of just
[39:14] over a million for that work. FEMA has
[39:17] obligated as you can see just over
[39:19] $280,000.
[39:21] The reason why there's that big
[39:22] difference there mostly comes down to
[39:27] uh FEMA needing to add the incidental
[39:30] debris removal to that project. As you
[39:33] all may remember, we had to FEMA kept
[39:35] going it's incidental debris. Now it's
[39:37] not. Now it is. So
[39:40] we have in writing that it is incidental
[39:42] debris. We are pushing them to make sure
[39:43] that amendment happens. And we believe
[39:45] that's the majority of where that
[39:46] difference is. And also, I believe that that $1 million price point, it's
[39:51] going to be on the high end of what
[39:52] we're actually seeing uh what we're
[39:54] actually seeing with actuals coming in.
[39:57] So, right now, we're working through
[39:58] that amendment process and hope and and I and I'm hopeful that we're going
[40:02] to be able to close that gap
[40:03] substantially.
[40:05] And then last, but certainly not least,
[40:07] as I mentioned about the baseball field,
[40:09] uh FEMA obligated just over $160,000 for
[40:12] that one. Uh the winning bid for the
[40:14] actual FEMA related part of that project
[40:18] was just at $70,000 or 69775.
[40:22] And then uh there was a $5,700 that we
[40:25] did additionally because you're going to
[40:26] replace one foul pole. I I I found out
[40:29] thanks to Nicole that they don't sell
[40:30] individual foul poles. They they sell
[40:33] them in pairs. Makes sense. Uh so we
[40:37] went ahead and bought the second foul
[40:38] pole as well. That's why the 5700's
[40:40] there. So, it just came over to a little
[40:42] over $75,000
[40:44] uh for that replacement. And as I
[40:46] mentioned, it's in the closeout phase
[40:47] currently.
[40:49] Any questions about our FEMA projects?
[40:55] » Do we have to give back like the 70,000
[40:59] for the baseball field?
[41:02] >> So, so the short answer is it depends.
[41:05] These are all considered small projects,
[41:08] right? So, uh, FEMA C categorizes
[41:11] anything under a million dollars as a
[41:12] small project. They're large projects
[41:14] for us, small for FEMA. So, right now,
[41:17] some some are a little bit higher, some
[41:19] are a little bit lower. So, right now,
[41:21] we're holding on to those funds because
[41:24] we believe that, let's just say in the
[41:26] North Loop project, for instance, that
[41:28] they don't um that they don't come up
[41:30] and make us whole within that. we can
[41:32] actually use those remaining funds from
[41:34] the baseball field to help make us whole
[41:37] uh across the board. So that's so the
[41:40] short answer is it really depends on how
[41:42] all the projects wash out and uh and
[41:45] then from there where we have to you
[41:48] know plug holes where we can. So we're
[41:51] going to have to keep you up to date on
[41:53] what that looks like as of right now.
[41:55] The um
[41:58] yeah so that ultimately that's where
[42:00] it's at. So from a FEMA perspective,
[42:01] from the state perspective, they want to
[42:02] make sure that those funds go towards
[42:04] those FEMA projects. Small project, they
[42:06] don't necessarily care how those are
[42:09] distributed.
[42:11] >> But we are keeping
[42:13] >> but because we also like to play very
[42:17] conservatively. So we are making sure
[42:19] that everything is uh very much
[42:22] documented.
[42:24] Thank you, Julie.
[42:27] Any more questions? All
[42:30] right, just going on to other major
[42:33] projects and initiatives here. Um, as
[42:36] you can see, a lot of the items now, I'm
[42:38] just going to briefly go through the
[42:40] ones that are really new for us here.
[42:42] Evaluating implementing a new payroll
[42:43] system that was pushed to FY27. So, that
[42:45] $10,000 was moved over into FY27.
[42:48] Um, the AV system in the commons room,
[42:52] the those updates you all approved in in
[42:54] Q4.
[42:55] Updates were just made in FY27. Uh, as a
[42:58] reminder in the budget, you all budgeted
[43:01] uh $60,000 for all repairs to any uh AV
[43:04] equipment going in there. We've done the
[43:06] first phase, which apparently means that
[43:08] my voice, which I always thought was
[43:10] carrying enough to begin with, carries a
[43:12] little bit more in the off uh in the in
[43:14] the common room right now. Uh but we're
[43:16] still working through that. So, phase
[43:17] two is coming here in a minute. Uh the
[43:20] and I'll keep council um up to date on
[43:23] that. It's going to be including
[43:24] microphones and and some other work
[43:26] that's going to be going on.
[43:28] the
[43:30] uh the next ones that are on the list
[43:31] for you, the community survey. As you
[43:33] know, at the last meeting, we had a
[43:35] conversation with Jason uh Moreno from
[43:37] the ETC Institute. There was 15,000
[43:40] budget in FY26. It ended up being at
[43:42] 14,000 awarded. So, we're very happy
[43:44] that we were able to stay under budget
[43:46] for that one. The uh and that's still
[43:49] planned for an uh a September release.
[43:53] And so, um, there are a couple items
[43:54] that we need to finalize, but then we'll
[43:56] be ready to go on that. The council
[44:00] salary study, you all, uh, during the
[44:02] budget process, council approved an
[44:04] increase in December 2026. Uh, we are
[44:07] looking to conduct a salary study in
[44:09] FY27 with council included. We are
[44:12] already having those conversations with
[44:13] firms to see um which one may be the
[44:16] right fit for the for the salary review
[44:19] uh for a community of our size or for an
[44:22] organization of our size. And then the
[44:24] la that one over there was the last one
[44:26] was been completed in Q2.
[44:29] Any questions from administration?
[44:35] » All right.
[44:37] Looking at parks and recreation, the uh
[44:41] the as you can see quite a bit of those
[44:43] are now were not applicable by the final
[44:45] cost because we were moving them into
[44:48] FY27.
[44:49] So uh for instance like the space needs
[44:52] assessment needs to be uh a part of the
[44:54] larger park expansion discussion. You're
[44:56] going to see some of that as a park
[44:58] master plan kind of where that
[45:00] potentially may fall. looking at the
[45:02] studying of Hooper Lane, looking at what
[45:05] that may be uh as a as a future
[45:08] priority, and then for review and FY27,
[45:11] creating scholarship opportunities for
[45:13] programming. So, there were no costs
[45:14] associated with those three, but they
[45:16] are um uh we haven't lost them. They're
[45:20] still priorities. We've just shifted
[45:21] them to FY27 and beyond. And then
[45:24] obviously, park accessibility was
[45:26] earlier on in the year at just over
[45:27] 320,000.
[45:29] Any
[45:31] questions?
[45:37] All right, going on to the next uh the
[45:40] three items here for planning and
[45:41] zoning, land preservation program. I
[45:43] really want to thank uh Mike for his
[45:46] work when it comes to just diving in
[45:48] deep to farmland preservation and land
[45:51] preservation overall. As you can see, he
[45:53] attended the the state voluntary a
[45:55] district uh and farmland preservation
[45:57] conference in July to gather more
[46:00] information to try to find other
[46:01] opportunities for us to continue leaning
[46:03] in on this important project. So, as you
[46:06] can see later on in the year, looking
[46:08] for an educational event for these
[46:09] programs andformational flyers. This is
[46:11] also information that you all council
[46:13] directed us as staff to look into. So,
[46:15] we are working on that into FY27.
[46:19] the uh UDO and land use code update. Uh
[46:22] in fact, I think you all received just
[46:24] uh the final draft right before this
[46:26] meeting for your review as well. Uh as
[46:29] you can see in FY27, as I know you all
[46:32] are well aware of the the amendment to
[46:34] the UDO contract totaling $32,000 to
[46:37] make sure that it is downzoning
[46:38] compliant moving forward. And we are
[46:41] still on track and on schedule uh to
[46:43] meet the deadlines that you all set.
[46:46] Uh the last one on here is town traffic
[46:48] schedule update and buildout. Um right
[46:52] now we're just waiting for the
[46:53] implementation from DOT. Uh and so you
[46:57] know as council you may remember there
[46:59] are certain areas within town that may
[47:01] will have some slight changes within
[47:02] their speed limits. So, we're looking to
[47:04] be in the next month or two having those
[47:06] signs up and then once they're up there,
[47:09] then we're going to be bringing that
[47:10] back to you all for formally adopting uh
[47:12] a traffic schedule that's updated.
[47:15] >> Okay. For those of you that didn't
[47:17] figure it out, I've got a question
[47:19] because I've been told when I lean
[47:20] forward, everyone knows I've got a
[47:21] question. Um, so legally, if a speed
[47:27] limit is in a town,
[47:30] would the town has to do a concurring
[47:32] ordinance in order for that to be
[47:34] enforcable
[47:36] and then the signs have to be posted?
[47:39] Don't we need to do the concurring
[47:40] ordinance before the signs are posted?
[47:43] Because once the signs are posted,
[47:45] that's the new speed limit. And the only
[47:47] way it's enforcable is if we have a
[47:49] concurring ordinance. That's what we did
[47:51] before. It seems like
[47:52] >> Oh, we did.
[47:53] >> So, that's what we're going to do. Okay.
[47:56] >> You're awesome.
[47:58] >> Yeah. Okay.
[48:00] So, it doesn't have to come back to us
[48:02] for any ordinance. That's already done.
[48:06] » Gotcha.
[48:10] » Any other questions, council?
[48:14] >> All right.
[48:16] And then just a couple of those
[48:18] additional uh improvements as well.
[48:20] Julie already talked briefly about the
[48:22] basketball court resurfacing. It has
[48:23] been completed in FY27 as well as the uh
[48:27] resealing of cracks and and um and the
[48:30] improvements on the tennis court as
[48:31] well. We knocked those two projects out
[48:32] at the same time. Uh completed in Q4
[48:35] were the epoxy floors and the hickory
[48:37] shelter. The uh park expansion project,
[48:41] as a reminder, was originally budgeted
[48:43] for $150,000.
[48:46] Uh the final cost was $267. We expanded
[48:49] that because it went extended through
[48:51] December 2026. So instead of it being
[48:53] just that first phase, it was that first
[48:55] phase plus for that greater scope all
[48:59] the way through the potential new master
[49:01] plan for you all to review. again coming
[49:03] before council. I just wanted to remind
[49:05] you that's uh why that uh uh discrepancy
[49:09] is there. And then the park maintenance
[49:11] uh facility and upfit right now through
[49:14] design cost just under $50,000. In fact,
[49:17] we're going to the next item on the list
[49:18] you're going to have to hear me drone on
[49:20] about uh fun exciting things going on
[49:22] with the with the park maintenance
[49:24] facility.
[49:28] Any
[49:32] questions?
[49:35] The most important question. Julie, did
[49:37] I miss anything?
[49:38] >> No, you bet.
[49:42] >> Thank you.
[49:46] » Back to our original a the discussion on
[49:48] the maintenance facility construction.
[49:50] Yeah, [sighs]
[49:53] » we're going to just take one sec here.
[50:03] self organized.
[50:06] All right,
[50:09] mayor and council, I just want to
[50:11] Julie's also going to be up here walking
[50:13] us through this, but just as a reminder,
[50:16] as we've already talked about, in 2024,
[50:19] um you all approved the Mil River Park
[50:21] expansion um u you know, expansion
[50:24] master plan, which outlined those future
[50:26] amenities and features, right? One of
[50:27] those items that was on that list was
[50:29] talking about a new maintenance facility
[50:30] because as that large as we continue to
[50:33] expand on the project behind us, the
[50:36] property behind us, having the
[50:37] facilities are actually going to meet
[50:38] those needs. So in FY26, as we just
[50:41] talked about, $150,000 were set aside.
[50:44] We worked with WGLA
[50:47] uh as well as they subcontracted with
[50:50] ARCA design to come together to help us
[50:53] with both a needs assessment and then
[50:54] also with um that first uh concept
[50:59] sketch concept plan u for your
[51:01] consideration. And so earlier this year
[51:05] in May, May 2028, it feels like so long
[51:08] ago, uh, Tom Jones and Brian Moffet both
[51:12] came in and provided that preliminary
[51:13] design for your consideration. And so
[51:16] tonight's really just that next step.
[51:17] So, at that time, I mentioned to you all
[51:19] that I wanted to come forward and talk
[51:21] through the potential pre-construction
[51:22] and construction options and
[51:24] recommendations for moving forward, try
[51:26] to answer any questions that I can, but
[51:28] ultimately
[51:29] look at how we can start moving forward
[51:32] on getting this um moving this project
[51:34] forward. So, $275,000 was budgeted in
[51:37] FY27 and approved by council. Just over
[51:40] 1.3 million, almost 1.4 4 million was
[51:43] slated for FY28 and about 1.9 million in
[51:47] FY29 as a part of the CIP. So again that
[51:50] 5-year financial forecasting model as
[51:53] well as with um and like I said the
[51:56] overall CIP that does not include uh
[51:59] right now that does not include
[52:01] operating cost that is pure new
[52:05] maintenance facility and the upfitting
[52:07] of the current maintenance facility.
[52:08] that is based off of the numbers that
[52:10] were provided to you all uh with uh uh
[52:13] during the presentation with WGLA there.
[52:17] There's additional money in there about
[52:19] $400,000 for the upfitting of the
[52:21] maintenance facility. You'll see that
[52:23] tonight in the design as well. So debt
[52:27] financing right now what you all have
[52:28] seen within the budget starting in FY27
[52:32] going through the next five years is
[52:34] just over 2, it's 2.66 66 million of
[52:38] that is slated for um uh for debt
[52:42] servicing and debt financing. And right
[52:44] now, uh, based off of the conversation
[52:47] tonight,
[52:48] um, depending on the direction that you
[52:50] all as council wish to take, we are able
[52:52] to move forward. And the one of the
[52:54] first steps is to put this out, uh, put
[52:57] this item out to bed, get these pro, get
[52:59] this project out there and moving, and
[53:01] then ultimately get a price point that
[53:04] the LGC, the local government
[53:06] commission, is comfortable with for us
[53:08] to have a conversation about our u our
[53:11] borrowing power. So Julie has already
[53:13] done great work on making sure that we
[53:15] are in uh good financial standing for
[53:18] the the debt that is potentially going
[53:20] to be requested. But again, these are
[53:22] all preliminary numbers. These are all
[53:24] very preliminary based off of the
[53:27] concept work uh that has been done so
[53:29] far. The next phase is really getting
[53:32] into what the actual uh uh cost will
[53:36] look like.
[53:42] already kind of did this without meaning
[53:44] to. Sorry. In FY26, as you can see,
[53:46] that's when it really started those
[53:48] conversations. We've already talked
[53:49] through the budgeting items as well. And
[53:51] then again, in May, you will have seen
[53:53] that document. We're going to switch to
[53:55] that document here in just a minute. uh
[53:57] when I get the queue. Uh and like I
[53:59] said, we'll actually show you a little
[54:01] bit of uh the very very preliminary
[54:05] sketch of the community what would be
[54:06] considered a community building over
[54:08] there for the maintenance facility.
[54:12] So Kevin, if you can can you switch over
[54:14] from to me for the other documents?
[54:27] All right. So, this is the one uh that
[54:30] you all uh saw as of May 18th. So, there
[54:33] have been no changes to the main uh uh
[54:36] maintenance [clears throat] facility
[54:37] since that time. So, as you can see,
[54:39] this is the footprint that's associated
[54:42] with it. It's just over um 6,600 ft as
[54:46] you can see on the on the property
[54:47] there.
[54:48] And so there has been a little bit of
[54:51] work making sure that we have entry and
[54:53] exit points that are coming out as well.
[54:55] Um, and you can see the connecting point
[54:57] that's over to the current um, parking
[55:00] lot. You scroll down for me, Kevin. And
[55:03] by all means, you all can stop me at any
[55:04] point. I just don't want to repeat
[55:06] everything you've already heard. So,
[55:08] here's just a little bit closer view of
[55:09] it. There's a a fence line that's in
[55:12] there. It also shows where some water
[55:13] options are as well that are a part of
[55:16] that and also some gating that would be
[55:18] necessary to protect the site.
[55:23] This is what the uh the schematic
[55:26] interior looks like that uh that was
[55:28] recommended through our discussions from
[55:30] our needs assessment and then also
[55:31] working with the designer the uh really
[55:36] making sure that we have uh adequate
[55:39] space for uh maintenance of our of our
[55:42] vehicles but then also the garage
[55:44] storage which actually have those
[55:45] passroughs. those bottom two bays
[55:46] completely pass through. And then the
[55:48] other one where the lift is is one where
[55:51] they can actually do more maintenance
[55:52] work on those vehicles going more
[55:54] towards a hoteling style uh as well
[55:57] within the break room uh as well. And
[56:01] I'm just going to stop. Is it possible
[56:02] for us to get the temperature turned up
[56:04] a little bit in here please? And so the
[56:07] um and so making sure that we have uh
[56:12] adequate space for that, adequate
[56:13] storage, but also making sense of where
[56:15] the small engine and the chemical
[56:16] storage is for entry and exit points. As
[56:18] you can see, easy entry and and easy
[56:20] exit.
[56:24] One thing that was on the previous page,
[56:25] we don't have to go back, but we also
[56:27] tried to design this to make sure it
[56:29] actually will last
[56:31] uh through growth. So, there are a
[56:33] couple areas in there that are actually
[56:34] designed for storage, but will be able
[56:36] to be uh fitted for offices if we need
[56:40] to actually expand um um our footprint
[56:43] even more with additional staff. This is
[56:46] the exterior version based off of what
[56:48] the current standards are when we were
[56:51] looking at uh making sure that it would
[56:53] fit within the uh the UDO confines that
[56:57] we had. And so again, there may be
[56:59] changes based off of this, based off of
[57:01] what may be adopted by council moving
[57:03] forward, but that's the current model
[57:05] right there. Can you scroll down for me,
[57:06] please, Kevin?
[57:08] Again, just a couple of other images for
[57:11] you. As a reminder, we had a
[57:12] conversation with uh you all had a
[57:14] conversation with Brian Moffett and Tom
[57:16] Jones about like the little popup window
[57:18] areas and other amenity features and
[57:21] that can all be worked out again moving
[57:23] forward.
[57:25] That also that bay that's exterior right
[57:27] there can also be boxed in and made it
[57:29] to a third bay as well if needed.
[57:33] Scroll on down Kevin.
[57:35] All right. So moving going down to the
[57:37] next one for me. So right now this is
[57:41] what the latest one again very early
[57:44] highle sketches. There's not a lot based
[57:47] off of the size of that space can be
[57:50] done uh when it comes to recreational
[57:53] uses. Quite a bit can be done when it
[57:56] comes to programming uses. So that's why
[57:58] it's called a community room as of right
[58:00] now. Um re redoing the entryway where uh
[58:05] the gravel road is for a lot and then
[58:09] having an exit out the back with a
[58:11] potential patio and sitting area as well
[58:14] on the outside. Again, very preliminary.
[58:16] I know this is the first time you all
[58:17] are seeing this, but ultimately, this is
[58:19] kind of showing what could be done in
[58:21] there to try to expand the footprint out
[58:23] to have both indoor and outdoor type
[58:25] programming in that space, which will
[58:27] act ultimately ease the burden right on,
[58:30] you know, on this room right now, which
[58:32] is being used for quite a bit.
[58:35] Uh there you go. They again just concept
[58:38] very high level concepts uh from Arca
[58:41] Design as well. Ultimately though, these
[58:44] are preliminary. These are these are
[58:47] sketches.
[58:48] The the next step is actually going and
[58:53] hiring an architectural firm and working
[58:56] through the actual you know those next
[58:58] steps. This is about when I was talking
[58:59] to ARCA design recently some you know
[59:02] somewhere between 10 and 15% of actual
[59:05] design. So there's still quite a bit of
[59:07] time to actually talk through what what
[59:08] you all as council actually want to see
[59:10] here. This is just showing what could be
[59:12] done to meet the needs uh that were
[59:14] identified through the assessment.
[59:18] Kevin, can you go back for me to the
[59:20] presentation? Unless there are questions
[59:22] specifically on what you all have seen
[59:23] here so far.
[59:27] I got a lot of questions at some point
[59:31] >> and in looking for repairing or
[59:36] upgrading the current maintenance shed
[59:40] to a community space. Mhm.
[59:43] >> Um, I think you and I had talked before
[59:46] about maybe looking at a place to maybe
[59:50] make it
[59:55] maybe a chance for the library to move
[59:57] down there to open this up for office
[59:59] space here to keep the staff all in one
[1:00:02] building.
[1:00:03] And then, you know, at looking at adding
[1:00:07] offices to the new maintenance shop
[1:00:11] that's still going to have, you know,
[1:00:12] they already had one up there and then a
[1:00:14] work space for them. Are are they
[1:00:17] looking to put more offices up there?
[1:00:20] >> So, uh, thank you for the questions,
[1:00:22] council member. the the the first answer
[1:00:24] is we did look into that and it's my
[1:00:26] understanding that the current footprint
[1:00:28] of the of the library is bigger than
[1:00:30] what the footprint of that maintenance
[1:00:32] facility is. So, so even right now they
[1:00:35] would that library would have to
[1:00:36] downsize in order to fit within that
[1:00:38] space especially when you include the office spaces that are in there. So,
[1:00:42] as of right now, I have not had
[1:00:44] conversations with the uh with the
[1:00:47] county on whether or not that would be
[1:00:48] an amunable space for them. just from a
[1:00:50] square footage perspective, it would it
[1:00:52] would I think it would potentially
[1:00:54] hinder their work instead of expanding
[1:00:56] what their work is within that space.
[1:00:59] >> The and I'm just looking back at Nicole
[1:01:01] to make sure I I am correct on that.
[1:01:04] the
[1:01:05] um for the maintenance facility in the
[1:01:08] back. What we right now we have uh space
[1:01:11] down in the current uh maintenance shed,
[1:01:13] a maintenance facility where there are a
[1:01:15] couple of like three uh places for
[1:01:18] people to sit for our parks maintenance
[1:01:20] staff to use. And the new uh and the new
[1:01:24] design, the [clears throat] office is
[1:01:25] designed for the supervisor. Uh and then
[1:01:28] the then we would have a hoteling type
[1:01:31] situation where again they there will be
[1:01:33] dedicated spaces for them to use but
[1:01:36] they won't have like a an assigned desk
[1:01:38] or a space or an office because most of
[1:01:41] the time when our park maintenance staff
[1:01:42] are coming uh coming in to check they're
[1:01:45] coming to check something real quick and
[1:01:46] heading back out. So instead of using
[1:01:48] that space for offices more of an a
[1:01:50] hoteling type option.
[1:01:55] Any
[1:02:02] other questions before we move forward?
[1:02:05] >> I'll wait for
[1:02:07] >> Okay.
[1:02:16] All right. Came back. Uh
[1:02:19] I know as council knows there are three
[1:02:20] main main core delivery models here. And
[1:02:24] so the first one that we're so we're
[1:02:27] very familiar with is the design bid
[1:02:29] build method, right? So essentially a
[1:02:32] design we bring a designer on uh through
[1:02:35] a procurement process uh or an RFP
[1:02:38] process. They we pick them, they design
[1:02:42] it for us, then we go out to bid for the
[1:02:44] construction, the lowest qualified
[1:02:46] bidder for the construction then builds
[1:02:48] it. So that's the design bid build
[1:02:50] method. So you can see there is
[1:02:52] potential risk there of change orders
[1:02:53] that happen because right now the
[1:02:55] designer and the um and the uh
[1:02:58] contractor are not necessarily in the
[1:02:59] room and everything's happening at the
[1:03:01] same time. Uh the design build is a
[1:03:04] single point opportunity. It is provided
[1:03:06] to us as you can see within the general
[1:03:08] statute. Uh it's where you can actually
[1:03:11] bid out one item as a single point where
[1:03:14] you can do both design and construction
[1:03:15] at the same time. There are benefits to
[1:03:17] that because the contractor and the
[1:03:19] designer are talking to each other. Most
[1:03:21] of the time that means change orders are
[1:03:22] going to be done you know before you
[1:03:24] actually start building the project. Um
[1:03:28] so it really does help with meeting
[1:03:29] speed. The thing is is that that means
[1:03:32] one person one entity is reporting to us
[1:03:35] the contractors are ultimately reporting
[1:03:36] to the designer. Right? So that provides
[1:03:40] a little bit less oversight but it does
[1:03:43] provide opportunities there. Like I
[1:03:44] said, the one thing that's big about
[1:03:46] design build is that we must meet NC
[1:03:48] general statutes for use. One uh I'm a
[1:03:51] personally a fan of design build
[1:03:53] whenever when possible. Um but we have
[1:03:56] to answer some very specific questions
[1:03:57] in order to do so. Right. And so as of
[1:04:00] right now, the this project in in my
[1:04:04] estimation and when talking uh with
[1:04:05] Julie does not meet those uh the general
[1:04:09] statute definitions for that. The third
[1:04:11] option is what's called a Seymar
[1:04:13] process, which is a a construction
[1:04:15] management at risk model. And so it's a hybrid model where essentially
[1:04:21] you would have a designer, we would put
[1:04:24] out a bid for a design and then we and
[1:04:26] we'd put out a bid for a contractor, but
[1:04:28] it would be a construction management or
[1:04:30] construction manager at risk. So then
[1:04:32] they would be reporting to us both, but
[1:04:34] they would be in the room together
[1:04:36] working through uh any design elements,
[1:04:39] any other types issues that are there to
[1:04:41] try to again make sure we're not going
[1:04:44] into, you know, any issues or change
[1:04:46] orders or any other types things that
[1:04:48] can happen later on within the process.
[1:04:50] It does change the model though. It it
[1:04:53] really does change the model where um
[1:04:56] the way it's been explained to me and
[1:04:58] from others that have used it quite a
[1:05:00] bit is that usually in design bid build
[1:05:03] the lowest price is at the beginning of
[1:05:06] the process. So you set the price and
[1:05:08] you know what happens after that you
[1:05:10] know it tends to go up from there. You
[1:05:12] try your best to keep it down from the
[1:05:15] Seymour approach. As you can see they
[1:05:17] have something called a guaranteed
[1:05:19] maximum price. So through the process
[1:05:21] with bringing the designer on the
[1:05:23] contractor who wins the RFQ on working
[1:05:26] through and negotiating based off of the
[1:05:28] schematic which I would recommend around
[1:05:31] 50% you would get the design up to about
[1:05:33] a 50% schematic design then you would be
[1:05:36] able to use that uh they we would look
[1:05:39] at them to put together a co uh project
[1:05:42] cost at that point and we would lock
[1:05:45] them into what's called a guaranteed max
[1:05:47] price and that guaranteed max price then
[1:05:49] ultimately Again,
[1:05:51] there can be some
[1:05:53] uh some change orders that can happen
[1:05:56] through that process, but again, it the
[1:05:59] goal is that since they've been walking
[1:06:00] through the process together and talking
[1:06:01] through that process, you don't get
[1:06:03] there. And then there are also some um
[1:06:05] benefits as well because there's
[1:06:06] contingency monies that are within that
[1:06:09] within the CMR as well that are designed
[1:06:12] also to help cover anything that may
[1:06:14] come up that was unintentional or
[1:06:17] through the process.
[1:06:20] It's it's a right now for a project such
[1:06:23] as this the and I've had a lot of
[1:06:26] conversations with a lot of peers around
[1:06:28] the state about this is that a
[1:06:30] maintenance facility overall does not
[1:06:33] necessarily fall to where you would
[1:06:36] absolutely necessarily need a semar for
[1:06:39] that process. looking at staff staff capacity, looking at our um uh
[1:06:46] again our timeline for this, but then
[1:06:48] also looking at the uh the fact that we
[1:06:51] also had the upfit that we would want to
[1:06:52] bid this out as one project together,
[1:06:55] right? That it felt like the best
[1:06:58] approach for this, especially because
[1:06:59] it's over right now the projections are
[1:07:01] over $3 million. And usually again with
[1:07:03] my conversations that three $3.5 million
[1:07:06] is the range where Seymours are starting
[1:07:08] to really show up now. They're usually
[1:07:09] they used to be in major complex
[1:07:11] projects. By the way, I'm saying all
[1:07:12] this knowing that the mayor is a is a
[1:07:14] builder. And so I'm waiting for you to
[1:07:16] tell me that I got something wrong. But
[1:07:18] the um but at that three to three.5
[1:07:22] million, we're starting to see Seymours
[1:07:23] being used much more at a lower level of
[1:07:26] cost just because of that conversation
[1:07:28] that can happen at the beginning and
[1:07:29] also that guaranteed max price. So those
[1:07:32] are the three right now in my in in my
[1:07:35] opinion. Design vid build and semar are
[1:07:37] the two options that you have available
[1:07:39] we have available for us on this uh on
[1:07:41] this project. And Julie, I'm going to
[1:07:43] look at you to tell me anything I
[1:07:45] missed.
[1:07:56] here just from the contract structures.
[1:07:57] I've already talked about this a little
[1:07:59] bit. Um you do have separate contract
[1:08:01] with the architect and the builder with
[1:08:03] design bid build. They are separated out
[1:08:05] projects. They are the lowest qualified
[1:08:07] bidder within each one. Ultimately at
[1:08:09] the end of the day depending on if
[1:08:11] there's a contractor that disagrees with
[1:08:13] the designer designer ends up with the
[1:08:15] contractor. Uh
[1:08:17] usually the town is stuck in the middle
[1:08:19] on those kinds of issues. Design build
[1:08:22] obviously again as we've talked about
[1:08:24] doesn't allow for that. um we don't
[1:08:26] think it's an allowable use for this
[1:08:28] project. And then the seamount uh
[1:08:30] seamount wow semar structure as you can
[1:08:33] see here really is a partnership
[1:08:36] collaborative approach. Um when I've uh
[1:08:39] and when I've talked to some of my uh
[1:08:40] like I said some of my peers on some of
[1:08:42] the projects that they didn't use Semar
[1:08:44] um they wish they had.
[1:08:49] But ultimately this is you this is your
[1:08:52] project. I'm only providing my
[1:08:54] recommendation for your consideration
[1:08:56] and for discussion. Right? So the um
[1:09:00] ultimately you all get to choose and
[1:09:01] decide on how best to approach this that
[1:09:03] you all would like to see. The
[1:09:06] construction manager at risk as you can
[1:09:07] see they are used as a trusted adviser
[1:09:11] during this for pre-construction because
[1:09:12] they report to us. Um we also do have on
[1:09:15] call engineering services as well. Also
[1:09:17] depending on um you know what the type
[1:09:20] of situation is, we can also lean on our
[1:09:22] on call engineering uh contract to also
[1:09:25] just make sure that we're not missing
[1:09:26] something to make sure that we're not
[1:09:28] seeing anything or that we're missing
[1:09:30] anything or there are any gaps through
[1:09:32] this process.
[1:09:33] My recommendation as you can see here
[1:09:35] once design would reach 50% uh that's
[1:09:39] when the the um that's when the uh
[1:09:42] construction manager at risk would
[1:09:44] negotiate what that guaranteed max price
[1:09:46] is. So the goal of that getting closer
[1:09:48] to that 50% allows us to have a little
[1:09:50] bit more of an understanding of what
[1:09:52] that high value could be or should be
[1:09:55] for that. I've seen some seams that have
[1:09:58] it at 30%. I think that that's low for
[1:10:02] us especially because we're risk adverse
[1:10:03] when it comes to these types of projects
[1:10:05] and rightfully so. That that 50% method
[1:10:08] is one that I uh uh I feel comfortable
[1:10:11] with.
[1:10:17] So Julie, you put uh I'm going to turn
[1:10:19] it over to you because you also did
[1:10:21] great work on the pros and cons list and the work behind this.
[1:10:24] >> Sure. So what this slide here refers to
[1:10:28] is um the benefits of using a CR and the
[1:10:32] cons of using a Seymour. Uh just so that
[1:10:34] you could you could see them all in one
[1:10:36] place uh for ease. Um there's cost
[1:10:40] certainty with a semar because you have
[1:10:43] the most price that you could pay. Um
[1:10:47] the one thing that um in a lot of the
[1:10:50] classes that I have taken in a lot of
[1:10:52] the documents that I have read from the
[1:10:54] general statutes
[1:10:56] um the security bond requirement for a
[1:10:59] semar is 100% of your project cost. And
[1:11:02] I know you've had problems with other
[1:11:04] projects in the past where there was
[1:11:06] disagreements. Um, this requires the
[1:11:10] contractor to to cover 100% of the cost.
[1:11:12] If they walk away, you have the money
[1:11:15] there to finish the project. Um, the
[1:11:17] Semark does require open accounting
[1:11:20] requirements. uh they have to have um
[1:11:24] they have to be willing to open their
[1:11:26] books for financial transparency for us
[1:11:28] to look at anything u related to that
[1:11:30] project.
[1:11:32] Um it in increases collaboration
[1:11:38] and create greater efficiency and
[1:11:40] shorter time
[1:11:42] bidding because if you have your
[1:11:45] engineer and your architect and your
[1:11:47] design construction firm working
[1:11:49] together to come up with that price, you
[1:11:51] have a better idea of what those value
[1:11:54] added costs need to be when you're
[1:11:56] estimating that project. Um the cons are
[1:12:00] it is a liability for the town because
[1:12:03] you have to make sure that your design
[1:12:05] is completely 100% on point before they
[1:12:08] go to the bidding part. Um it does have
[1:12:11] an increased administration burden
[1:12:13] because you are um collaborating with
[1:12:17] all the parties u making sure that
[1:12:19] everything is exactly the way it needs
[1:12:22] to be and the way you want it and what
[1:12:24] the way it meets the needs of the town.
[1:12:28] Um there is a con that if you have an
[1:12:30] inexperienced um construction manager
[1:12:34] that you could result in construction
[1:12:36] deficiencies, but if you do the correct
[1:12:38] RFQ process
[1:12:40] would eliminate uh you could eliminate
[1:12:44] those deficiencies by making sure that
[1:12:47] you're selecting the cor the qualified
[1:12:49] individual to do.
[1:12:55] So just as a project cost recap as I you
[1:12:58] know we've already talked about here on
[1:13:00] the left hand side uh preliminary cost
[1:13:02] was approximately $3.1 million. Now
[1:13:05] again I cannot stress enough the term
[1:13:08] preliminary within this discussion
[1:13:12] also with the current maintenance
[1:13:13] facility upfit of approximately
[1:13:15] $450,000.
[1:13:18] Now is that you know what you all as
[1:13:21] council are looking at looking for
[1:13:23] giving us direction and guidance on
[1:13:25] meeting the needs and expectations that
[1:13:27] you all see for this that's a part of
[1:13:29] this discussion as well but ultimately
[1:13:32] we're trying to find an approach that is
[1:13:35] transparent that makes sure that if we
[1:13:37] are going to spend this money to help
[1:13:39] benefit the community and help benefit
[1:13:41] the town that we can be confident that
[1:13:45] it is going to result in a project and a
[1:13:47] product that we can be proud of. And so
[1:13:49] that's a
[1:13:51] and so that's just I wanted to go over
[1:13:54] that a little bit right there.
[1:13:55] >> So Matt, who s who who evaluated these
[1:13:59] numbers? Who who generated these
[1:14:01] numbers?
[1:14:02] >> Uh these numbers were uh presented to us
[1:14:05] by WGLA with ARCAD design. So again,
[1:14:08] those were our two firms that came
[1:14:09] together to pull together these number
[1:14:11] uh the design, the needs assessment,
[1:14:14] everything.
[1:14:16] been accused of not speaking up before,
[1:14:18] so I'm going to speak up. There's no way
[1:14:20] in the world I'm going to sign up for a
[1:14:24] $3.1 million maintenance bill. Everybody
[1:14:27] hear me? I ain't going to do it. And if
[1:14:30] you think them numbers are legit, I do
[1:14:32] this every day.
[1:14:34] That's way more than double for that
[1:14:37] building. I know I can't build it
[1:14:39] because I'm sitting in this seat, but
[1:14:41] there is no way. Part of that 6600's
[1:14:44] open shed, that open shed from there
[1:14:47] over, concrete, post, uh, red iron and
[1:14:51] all, you're probably looking at probably
[1:14:53] $27,000
[1:14:55] from that for that over. It's good to
[1:14:58] have it, but these numbers are highly
[1:15:01] inflated somewhere. now where I don't
[1:15:04] know and I mean WGL I mean they was here
[1:15:07] I didn't say a whole lot before but I've
[1:15:10] been accused of not speaking up so I'm
[1:15:12] speaking up now
[1:15:14] and you could build this whole other
[1:15:16] building right here for forfeit
[1:15:19] let's update it I mean I don't get it I
[1:15:22] don't know what's I don't know I do know we're sitting in a municipal
[1:15:28] situation here and I know how that works
[1:15:31] uh but if I'm looking after my people.
[1:15:34] These numbers are highly inflated in my
[1:15:36] opinion. I'm only one, but I'm speaking
[1:15:39] up now.
[1:15:43] » Yes, sir. And understand,
[1:15:45] understandable. It's it's one of those
[1:15:46] numbers, and I mean, I don't want to
[1:15:48] speak uh for all the staff that was on
[1:15:50] there, but it was surprising as an
[1:15:52] understatement when we saw these numbers
[1:15:54] as well. That's why, again, they're very
[1:15:57] preliminary for that reason. And one of
[1:15:59] the things that I liked about the
[1:16:01] Seymour process as well is that there
[1:16:04] are um clauses that are in there that if
[1:16:07] you go out to the RFQ and and those
[1:16:09] guaranteed max prices are let's just say
[1:16:11] the guaranteed max prices are in these
[1:16:13] numbers and you all as council do not
[1:16:15] wish to move forward with that. What
[1:16:16] that means is that we are going to go
[1:16:17] back to the drawing board and find other
[1:16:19] approaches for it. So it's these you're
[1:16:21] not locked in to these values.
[1:16:24] >> Problem with it Matt is we're having to
[1:16:26] pay somebody to draw this stuff. We're
[1:16:28] paying big money to have it draw at
[1:16:30] least a 50%
[1:16:33] >> to to
[1:16:35] get these numbers back. So, we're going
[1:16:38] to have a lot of money in it to maybe go
[1:16:40] back to the drawing board again. And we
[1:16:42] just heard tonight that that bothers
[1:16:45] some people. Um,
[1:16:50] » I got one quick question of this.
[1:16:53] So what we've been presented the design
[1:16:56] so far is what percent you you said
[1:16:59] earlier you have to get to 50% in the
[1:17:01] SEAR model before you can
[1:17:04] >> put it out percentage are we at now like
[1:17:07] what would you say that now?
[1:17:09] >> So I I when I talked to Arcad design
[1:17:10] they said you know maybe 10 maybe 15
[1:17:13] tops depending on which one you're
[1:17:14] looking uh if you're looking at the
[1:17:16] maintenance facility.
[1:17:18] >> Okay. Um, okay. Because would it not be
[1:17:23] if we went with that model, would it not
[1:17:25] be beneficial to come back and be like,
[1:17:29] here's our wish list, here's our budget,
[1:17:33] but have that have that both of those
[1:17:38] lists or, you know, that number going
[1:17:41] into it. Not I don't know. It does feel
[1:17:43] a little bit backwards, like
[1:17:46] >> we should go into it with a budget
[1:17:48] >> versus just, oh, what is this going to
[1:17:51] cost? Um,
[1:17:54] I'm not in the construction business, so
[1:17:57] I don't I mean, it does seem very high.
[1:17:58] I I did build
[1:18:00] a very nice part of my house for a lot
[1:18:02] less than this, but um I I yeah, I I
[1:18:07] just think we need to come up with like
[1:18:08] a reasonable budget first
[1:18:11] >> and then see what we can check off of
[1:18:13] our list that we we want.
[1:18:16] >> Understood. Yes, sir. So, the the the
[1:18:19] direction that we received was to go
[1:18:21] through the needs assessment and to see
[1:18:22] what would meet those needs. So as of
[1:18:25] right now that this is what's been
[1:18:28] presented to us through the engineering
[1:18:30] firm. That being said, and Julie can
[1:18:32] speak more to this as well through the
[1:18:34] research is that the um you can and in
[1:18:38] fact right now technically as council
[1:18:40] you all have set the budget that
[1:18:42] reflects this based off of the FY27 actu
[1:18:47] budget and then the fiveyearcip.
[1:18:51] Um, so we have built in this into the
[1:18:53] model that
[1:18:55] ultimately though the and I believe
[1:18:58] through some CMRs that we've seen as
[1:19:00] well go in there with a budget set that
[1:19:02] says this is the number. This is the
[1:19:04] high end of the number. This is what
[1:19:06] we're going to do and that's it. And
[1:19:09] that's a legitimate approach. And I'm
[1:19:12] going to turn over to Julie.
[1:19:15] City of Charlotte actually has three out
[1:19:18] there and they they said for the for the
[1:19:21] three projects, these are the three max
[1:19:23] prices. So, people aren't going to bid
[1:19:25] if they're not going to be willing to
[1:19:27] meet those those price points.
[1:19:30] >> I did have one other quick question. Is
[1:19:33] there a timeline deadline that you can
[1:19:36] have in Semar? You can put in there,
[1:19:39] here's my budget, you know, Mr.
[1:19:42] Contractor. And also
[1:19:45] um you have you know by
[1:19:49] July 2028 I don't know some date it has
[1:19:52] to be done
[1:19:55] >> delivery date that's what you're asking.
[1:19:57] Yeah. Like the delivery date for CO.
[1:19:59] >> Yeah. So you that part of this is that
[1:20:02] part of this
[1:20:04] >> as long as it was a realistic number,
[1:20:05] you could you'd have to give him some
[1:20:08] weather date days and stuff like
[1:20:10] >> Yeah. But I'm just saying you could in
[1:20:12] the Sea model, you could put in that
[1:20:16] they could bid on that with a date. So
[1:20:20] right now at least from uh my research
[1:20:23] and discussions on it the RFQ highlights
[1:20:26] when the when the construction wants uh
[1:20:29] the expected construction begin date. So
[1:20:32] when the uh through the process the
[1:20:34] Seymour puts together the project scope
[1:20:37] and the cost and then it presents that
[1:20:40] to the to uh to the organization to the
[1:20:43] town. And so ultimately at that point
[1:20:46] that's when the negotiations also happen
[1:20:49] because it can be we want to start
[1:20:51] January 2028 as an example and we want
[1:20:54] it to be done by you know October of
[1:20:57] 2028 and then working with them to make
[1:21:00] sure that meets that timeline.
[1:21:03] >> That's a reasonable thing to
[1:21:05] >> it may not be during the RFQ process. Uh
[1:21:07] now we can I think we can put it in
[1:21:09] there as what we uh what our you know
[1:21:11] what our expected end date is but
[1:21:14] ultimately through the process is when
[1:21:16] they would design it and then we would
[1:21:18] have to negotiate on what that um that
[1:21:21] project timeline would look like.
[1:21:31] So,
[1:21:32] if we were to choose the design, bid
[1:21:36] build
[1:21:37] >> model, then we pay the money for the
[1:21:40] design, then we put it out for bid.
[1:21:44] >> Then the contractor that gets the bid
[1:21:46] would build it. Someone has to make sure
[1:21:50] someone has to do the inspection
[1:21:52] and make sure everything is done
[1:21:55] correct. That' take a lot of time,
[1:21:56] wouldn't it? I mean, that's pretty much
[1:21:58] have to be there anytime the
[1:21:59] contractor's there. Is that something we
[1:22:01] would contract out or we do that
[1:22:03] inspection in house?
[1:22:05] >> I would highly recommend for a project
[1:22:07] such as this that if we did that, we
[1:22:09] would we would go through an owner's uh
[1:22:11] representative model for design, bid,
[1:22:13] build. And so we would bring in either
[1:22:15] an owner's representative model where we
[1:22:17] would bid out to find someone or we
[1:22:19] would lean very heavily on our on call
[1:22:20] engineering services and do a task order
[1:22:22] for them to do project management to
[1:22:24] that point to be on site throughout
[1:22:26] because uh yes council member the uh
[1:22:29] making sure that we have eyes uh on that
[1:22:33] project throughout that project making
[1:22:35] sure that you know corners aren't being
[1:22:36] cut that we're getting what we're paying
[1:22:38] for is vitally important.
[1:22:41] Is that the Is that the route we went
[1:22:43] with the last shelter?
[1:22:45] >> We went design bid, build on the last
[1:22:47] shelter.
[1:22:49] >> We didn't have We really didn't have
[1:22:51] anybody overseeing that.
[1:23:01] » So if going back to the Seymour
[1:23:03] approach, if we tell them you got $3.1
[1:23:06] million to bid to build this
[1:23:11] I mean, from I I've got very limited
[1:23:14] experience with Seymour. Um, that was
[1:23:17] done when I worked at the city of
[1:23:18] Asheville. And
[1:23:21] the the people that I mean, someone's
[1:23:24] going to take the risk. Someone's going
[1:23:26] to take the risk. That's why I like
[1:23:28] having state employees to maintain our
[1:23:30] roads because rather than putting out a
[1:23:33] contract where they're paying more, they
[1:23:35] just work extra time to do it. So, they
[1:23:37] take the risk. Um, if someone is bidding
[1:23:40] in that risk,
[1:23:42] you know, they're they're going to bid
[1:23:43] that risk and that's adjust that's going
[1:23:46] to affect the price. The 3.1 million is
[1:23:49] turnkey with us not doing anything but
[1:23:52] saying build it. Correct. That's that
[1:23:55] includes the Semar cost and everything
[1:24:00] >> the 3.1. So,
[1:24:02] >> or is that just the materials and the
[1:24:04] labor? This is this is a very
[1:24:08] preliminary number
[1:24:10] >> should be everything.
[1:24:11] >> Yeah. So so this included yeah the
[1:24:13] grading of the of the property. Yeah.
[1:24:16] The the site prep the whole on your but
[1:24:18] again incredibly preliminary
[1:24:21] >> design and construction costs and
[1:24:25] inspection and overseeing. That's the
[1:24:27] total cost.
[1:24:30] >> They they built in their total cost when
[1:24:32] Yeah. That was their total cost
[1:24:33] projection. They they did build in so
[1:24:37] the model that the WGLA approached us on
[1:24:40] which is a model uh uh they they leaned
[1:24:43] in on one which was the design bid build
[1:24:45] model. So the timeline that you saw
[1:24:47] previously was the design build a design
[1:24:49] bid build timeline. So there is
[1:24:52] contingency that was built into that
[1:24:54] preliminary number uh etc. Now you know
[1:24:57] there as I mentioned the reason the
[1:24:59] reason why I wanted to bring this to
[1:25:00] your attention because I know it's a new
[1:25:02] approach and I know that it's Um, I
[1:25:05] wanted to put be put on your radar of
[1:25:07] what those possibilities and options
[1:25:09] are. As I mentioned though, the it is a
[1:25:12] different model because the guaranteed
[1:25:15] max price comes before construction
[1:25:18] begins. So, but that being the highest
[1:25:20] number that you're going to see can
[1:25:22] sometimes be very, you know, very
[1:25:24] difficult relative to the lower number.
[1:25:26] But then working through the change
[1:25:27] order process, not one one approach
[1:25:30] isn't necessarily like going to change
[1:25:34] uh uh drastically the the work. It just
[1:25:37] depends to your point as you mentioned
[1:25:39] who who's going to take and accept the
[1:25:40] risk that is associated with that. And
[1:25:42] so I would recommend because of our past
[1:25:45] experience and also just because of
[1:25:46] staff capacity that we we would do at
[1:25:50] minimum if we did a design bid build
[1:25:52] having an owner's rep that would be
[1:25:55] speaking on our behalf to ensure like an
[1:25:58] engineer to ensure that we are also not
[1:26:01] missing anything from our end. So we
[1:26:03] don't run into issues that we've had in
[1:26:04] the past which is you know those uh
[1:26:08] those arguments that we're then as a
[1:26:10] town stuck in the middle of.
[1:26:12] >> Typically they do those for a
[1:26:13] percentage.
[1:26:14] >> Sure.
[1:26:16] [clears throat]
[1:26:16] >> So if if our budget is $3.1 million
[1:26:21] but the Seymar can get a price a lot
[1:26:24] less than that
[1:26:26] then we take the price. So
[1:26:29] >> Huh. I don't think I No, I think we're
[1:26:31] >> if we tell them we got $3.1 million,
[1:26:33] it's going to come in at $3.1 million.
[1:26:35] No matter who gets paid, right? Or do
[1:26:39] they say, you know, we can bid, you
[1:26:42] know, when we bid that out, it comes in
[1:26:43] at $2.5 million including their fees,
[1:26:48] then we don't have to spend the whole
[1:26:49] 3.1. That's what I'm saying. I If if you
[1:26:52] send me Let me close this so my wife
[1:26:55] can't hear me. If she sends me to the
[1:26:56] store with $50 to come back with
[1:26:58] groceries, I'm not bringing any money
[1:27:00] back, right? Because I'm gonna I'm gonna
[1:27:04] when I run out of milk and bread and
[1:27:07] everything else, then we might go over
[1:27:08] to the Doritos and the snack area. So,
[1:27:12] I'm just saying if we tell them $3.1
[1:27:14] million and it comes back at $3.1
[1:27:17] million, whereas it could have come back
[1:27:19] a whole lot less, is that a reasonable
[1:27:23] is that my three minutes
[1:27:24] >> to me in my experience and that never
[1:27:26] happens.
[1:27:27] >> Okay.
[1:27:28] >> Just from bidding projects that we do,
[1:27:30] >> we all know what they have as far as
[1:27:32] money to spend on the project. No one's
[1:27:34] going to put that amount in because you
[1:27:36] want the business. So you're gonna try
[1:27:37] to cut the other person and the other
[1:27:39] person's gonna say, "Well, I know old
[1:27:41] John, he always goes 10% below, so I'm
[1:27:43] gonna go 15 because I want business."
[1:27:44] Sure.
[1:27:44] >> So it nobody's gonna come in at 3.
[1:27:46] >> So it's not going to come in at 3.1
[1:27:48] million. They're not going to say, "Oh,
[1:27:50] there's a budget. I'm going to hit that
[1:27:51] budget."
[1:27:52] >> So okay, that was one of my concerns is
[1:27:54] that, you know,
[1:27:56] >> and the other thing I'll say, Mills
[1:27:58] River Station 2, the last I heard is two
[1:28:01] bays drive-thru, which is exactly what
[1:28:02] this is. same square footage, you know,
[1:28:05] living room, two bedrooms, kitchen, very
[1:28:07] similar to this setup. It's more than
[1:28:09] twice this.
[1:28:11] So, I don't think 3.1 is actually
[1:28:14] it's going to be close.
[1:28:17] If I if I may, just real quick, with
[1:28:20] this with this design also being 10 to
[1:28:22] 15%. This is showing what could be with
[1:28:25] the potential cost meeting the needs
[1:28:27] assessment. But again, we would be
[1:28:29] putting out as a part of this process
[1:28:31] bringing in a designer, an architectural
[1:28:33] firm, just like you would during design
[1:28:36] to build. You'd bring them in, but you
[1:28:38] would then bring in the con, you would
[1:28:40] bid out the construction manager at risk
[1:28:41] at the same time. And so you bring both
[1:28:43] of them into the room at the same time.
[1:28:45] So this design, the layout, the
[1:28:48] structure, all of it can look different
[1:28:50] by the time it's done as well because
[1:28:53] you all it ultimately it's your decision
[1:28:55] as council what it is. isn't meeting the
[1:28:58] needs that it is before it even goes out
[1:29:00] to what the actual guaranteed max price
[1:29:02] is. So again, that 50% we're using 3.1
[1:29:05] million right now based off of what you
[1:29:06] see before you and what their
[1:29:07] estimations are does not necessarily
[1:29:09] mean that that's what is going to
[1:29:11] actually go out
[1:29:13] uh as a guaranteed max price at the time
[1:29:15] because this can very much change with
[1:29:17] that extra 40%
[1:29:19] and bringing those people in together to
[1:29:21] talk about it. that just a caveat.
[1:29:25] >> Who's going to be overseeing the project
[1:29:27] if we do it with Semar?
[1:29:30] Is it going to be the engineering firm
[1:29:32] that's putting all this stuff together?
[1:29:34] >> So, the Seymour process is uh is it's
[1:29:38] ultimately a collaborative process. So,
[1:29:39] we'd have a team inhouse, right? That
[1:29:42] would be there.
[1:29:43] >> Staff
[1:29:43] >> that would that would be staff uh and it
[1:29:46] would be because of because of the size
[1:29:47] and scale of the project would be myself
[1:29:48] and staff that would be on there. And
[1:29:50] then it would also be um the
[1:29:52] architectural firm and the Seymar. So
[1:29:55] those all those entities would be
[1:29:57] working in tandem. Ultimately we're the
[1:29:59] owner. Ultimately we are the decider and
[1:30:02] the one that signs off on these
[1:30:03] projects. So um overseeing it ultimately
[1:30:06] falls to us. So um but it like I said
[1:30:10] it's a collaborative approach from the
[1:30:12] beginning to try to make sure that we're
[1:30:13] not going to be running into any issues
[1:30:14] and try to work those out beforehand.
[1:30:16] And I know I said this before, but I
[1:30:18] just want to reiterate as well. The one
[1:30:20] benefit of this process as well again if
[1:30:23] you all wish to go with this route is
[1:30:26] the fact that let's just say it gets up
[1:30:28] to that 50%. 30% whatever that number
[1:30:31] would be and it goes up to bit and it
[1:30:34] just comes out way higher than what we
[1:30:37] you all as council wish to spend at that
[1:30:39] time. We have changing priorities that
[1:30:41] have happened since then. There's
[1:30:43] discussions that have to happen. Yes,
[1:30:44] there's money that's within those
[1:30:45] schematics that we would have and that
[1:30:47] we would we would be able to have um
[1:30:50] moving forward, but we may have to take
[1:30:51] a step back and have a conversation
[1:30:53] about timing of this uh prioritization
[1:30:57] of of the project. Where do we need to
[1:30:59] scale back and change based off of it?
[1:31:01] Those conversations continue to happen
[1:31:03] throughout. But to the mayor's point,
[1:31:05] yes, you are putting in uh uh expenses
[1:31:09] into getting it up to that to that 50%
[1:31:12] level. It's not like a design bid build
[1:31:14] though where it gets up to that to that
[1:31:16] 100% level before you then bid it out as
[1:31:18] well.
[1:31:19] >> Well, I've got a lot of heartburn with
[1:31:22] $3.1 million to store lawnmowers and
[1:31:26] equipment. I mean, that's a lot.
[1:31:31] » That's my question here is we're
[1:31:32] spending taxpayer money, not our
[1:31:35] taxpayer money. And
[1:31:39] you know,
[1:31:41] I I
[1:31:43] You know, I can see where we could spend
[1:31:46] some of this money. We're talking about
[1:31:47] spend on this building and other aspects
[1:31:49] of this park. I know we got to we can't
[1:31:52] get the cart in front of the horse, but
[1:31:54] I don't know we got to have a
[1:31:57] thoroughbred racehorse,
[1:31:59] you know. I don't know that we got to
[1:32:01] have that.
[1:32:07] this thing is uh I know it meets it's my
[1:32:10] understanding it meets uh architectural
[1:32:12] review
[1:32:14] but you know I don't know
[1:32:18] and we'll have to do so because we're
[1:32:19] within a th00and ft of uh 190 run
[1:32:23] correct
[1:32:25] Mike can you come up and want to join us
[1:32:38] uh the language council adopted in the
[1:32:41] UDO requires architectural elements for
[1:32:45] any non-residential building in the
[1:32:47] town. The way when we brought this up I
[1:32:50] think back when it was drafted that we
[1:32:52] wanted to be very clear on that that any
[1:32:54] non-residential building must meet the
[1:32:57] new architectural standards. the
[1:32:58] distance was done away with.
[1:33:00] >> But you don't think that'll be a down
[1:33:02] zoning issue?
[1:33:04] >> Well, because it's only applied to new
[1:33:05] development.
[1:33:07] >> Doesn't create nonconformities. Doesn't
[1:33:09] apply to anything except someone who
[1:33:11] applies to develop if the UDO is
[1:33:14] adopted.
[1:33:17] » If not, it's still within FE.
[1:33:21] >> It's only 500 ft capital. But again,
[1:33:23] that that was something we tried to
[1:33:25] bring up with council. Gosh, I think it
[1:33:26] was December or November. Um because I
[1:33:29] knew that was probably going to be a
[1:33:30] sensitive topic.
[1:33:31] >> Gotcha. U
[1:33:36] look at our town attorney. I mean, do
[1:33:38] you agree with that? Is that not a
[1:33:40] downzoning issue? It seems to me like
[1:33:42] you're putting a new restriction on
[1:33:45] someone's property, be it commercial or
[1:33:47] not, but
[1:33:49] >> downzone is specific to three types of
[1:33:52] things. None. Okay. Right. just uh less
[1:33:55] uses making something nonconforming and
[1:33:59] I'd have to look at
[1:34:00] >> density
[1:34:01] >> and density. Yeah. So architectural
[1:34:03] standards wouldn't create a down zoning
[1:34:05] scenario.
[1:34:06] >> I got okay
[1:34:23] this tor
[1:34:25] you know be honest with you I won't be
[1:34:27] here when this takes place so
[1:34:32] make sure we make wise decisions with
[1:34:34] this money
[1:34:37] would there be additional cost if we get
[1:34:39] to the 50% and then we see it and you
[1:34:42] know they get some bits back and and
[1:34:45] then we go whoa you know we want to
[1:34:48] change x y and z whether that's less or
[1:34:50] more
[1:34:52] um does that restart the design? You
[1:34:55] know, then then you're going to get
[1:34:56] another fee for it. Um
[1:34:59] >> generally speaking, uh I can speak very
[1:35:02] generally, uh is that the once it goes
[1:35:07] out to bid once the design is at a 50%
[1:35:10] threshold and and and oh, sorry, then
[1:35:13] the guaranteed MA max price happens and
[1:35:15] then like I said, they work through
[1:35:16] that. the um
[1:35:20] the the design at that point is what the
[1:35:22] design is going to be at that point. So
[1:35:24] like at that 50% threshold the the
[1:35:27] Seymar is taking the risk of that other
[1:35:29] 50% but usually at that what from my
[1:35:32] understanding and from my experience
[1:35:33] that 50% is a it's a very conservative
[1:35:36] number about what you should expect to
[1:35:38] see at least on the big ticket items.
[1:35:40] >> Yes. This building here the the the
[1:35:44] chance of a change order is very slim.
[1:35:47] It's so basic on the inside. You know,
[1:35:49] there's the whole garage area is
[1:35:51] nonheated as far as I'm as I understand.
[1:35:54] And then you got the open space. You got
[1:35:57] uh 3,20 ft of garage unheated.
[1:36:02] You got 1635 heated and you've got 1945
[1:36:07] outside.
[1:36:09] So, I mean, that outside is what it is.
[1:36:12] you, you know, other than if you wanted
[1:36:14] to paint something a different color
[1:36:15] after you seen it go on, it is what it
[1:36:18] is. The inside of that garage, you know,
[1:36:20] we'll get some details on how it's going
[1:36:22] to be finished on the inside. I'm sure
[1:36:24] it's going to be sheetrock
[1:36:26] uh for fire coat. Um and the other is
[1:36:29] basically like a house. you know,
[1:36:32] if you took uh you know, Champion Hills
[1:36:37] numbers and put $435
[1:36:40] a square foot on that heated part.
[1:36:43] And I mean, the garage section, you
[1:36:47] know, I don't know. But then you just
[1:36:48] got to figure out all the great and all.
[1:36:50] See, we're going to have, you know, we
[1:36:52] know there's going to be a lot of fuel
[1:36:53] over there. Probably some geo grid, some
[1:36:55] fancy footings to hold this building up.
[1:36:59] So, where there's a lot of unknowns.
[1:37:00] I'll be honest about the unknowns, but I
[1:37:04] just don't see I don't know. I just
[1:37:07] don't see it in it, you know.
[1:37:09] >> Yeah, Mayor, you bring up a very good
[1:37:11] point when it comes to the change
[1:37:12] orders. Again, it goes back to Mr.
[1:37:13] Moore's, Council Member Moore's
[1:37:15] comments. It just really depends on
[1:37:17] where you all as council wish to put the
[1:37:19] risk associated with that. And so,
[1:37:22] again,
[1:37:23] >> there's not necessarily having a
[1:37:26] somebody look over it. I'm not opposed
[1:37:29] to that at all. I'm not.
[1:37:31] >> Uh but you know, I think council and
[1:37:34] whole, the five of us need to decide if this is the design we want or do we
[1:37:41] think maybe it's a little bit much or,
[1:37:44] you know, I me personally, I could live
[1:37:46] without the roof popping through on a
[1:37:48] maintenance building. I mean, I know
[1:37:50] we're going to get a little light
[1:37:51] through there. Uh but you know it would
[1:37:55] be way cheaper to put a backup generator
[1:37:56] over there than to pop that roof
[1:37:58] through.
[1:37:59] >> So
[1:38:02] we got you know I think there's a few
[1:38:03] things we just need to think about a
[1:38:06] little bit before we
[1:38:08] Yeah. And and it's just like this is a
[1:38:11] kind of like our first concept. This is
[1:38:13] really the only one we've seen and we
[1:38:15] really can't I don't want to pay to have
[1:38:17] 15 of them brought in here either. But
[1:38:19] if we need to tweak on it, I'd rather
[1:38:21] tweak on it before it goes to bid than
[1:38:23] it go to bid. Let's come back and try to
[1:38:25] change it because really
[1:38:27] it makes the bid process almost start
[1:38:29] all over again.
[1:38:31] >> If I may, mayor and I very good points.
[1:38:33] The so normally in a normal Seymour
[1:38:37] process, you bid out the design first.
[1:38:41] You work with that designer a little bit
[1:38:43] to get that needs assessment done, the preliminary sketches done and then
[1:38:48] you bring in and you bed out the Seymour
[1:38:51] and then through that process they work
[1:38:53] together and then changes happen, right?
[1:38:56] Again, coming before you, talking with
[1:38:58] you about what those design elements
[1:38:59] look like, understanding what you want
[1:39:01] and what what you want to get rid of.
[1:39:03] All of that is still part of that what
[1:39:05] would be a normal traditional Seymour
[1:39:06] process. We did it slightly differently
[1:39:09] because we thought that again bas based
[1:39:12] off a council's direction that you all
[1:39:14] wanted to see those concepts and and
[1:39:16] understand what again what a potential
[1:39:18] price and what the needs assessment was
[1:39:20] first. So we've done that through our on
[1:39:21] call engineering services. So we haven't
[1:39:24] bid that out right we did that through
[1:39:26] the RFQ for engineer on call engineering
[1:39:28] which is one of the things that they can
[1:39:29] do. So we have this before you. So to
[1:39:32] your point, mayor, yes, this is the only
[1:39:33] one that you all have seen. The the when
[1:39:37] we bid out or if we go this route and we
[1:39:40] bid out the for the architectural firm,
[1:39:42] they'll get this 10% piece, they'll get
[1:39:45] the needs assessment documents that have
[1:39:47] been all pulled together and then it's
[1:39:50] their job that to also then take it to,
[1:39:52] you know, and continue working through
[1:39:54] that. That's why my recommendation would
[1:39:55] be that if we did this to actually do
[1:39:57] Seymar and design at the same time
[1:39:59] because we've already done what the
[1:40:00] designer would have done normally on the
[1:40:02] back end to get it to this point. But
[1:40:05] to your point, I think Brian Moffett
[1:40:07] when he was here for the Arc of Design
[1:40:09] even stated it's like the we can get rid
[1:40:11] of the the the um the sunlights in
[1:40:15] there. We can get rid of the the type of
[1:40:17] sighting and go with a different type of
[1:40:19] siding if it's uh if it's helpful. If
[1:40:21] there's a layout change, those things
[1:40:23] can still happen. Uh and you all will be
[1:40:26] vi will be shaping that discussion as
[1:40:28] well through that process.
[1:40:33] This will be a part this would be a part
[1:40:34] of the bid packet, but they would not be
[1:40:36] bidding on building this specific thing.
[1:40:39] It's building bringing them on to you
[1:40:42] know at a 10% phase to see what you know
[1:40:45] to go and move forward through the
[1:40:47] actual construction.
[1:40:55] If you'd like, we can also continue
[1:40:56] using ARCA design for on call
[1:40:59] engineering to continue tweaking this
[1:41:01] concept. It does just we will have to
[1:41:04] bid out
[1:41:05] >> the arch
[1:41:06] >> the architect. Yeah, we we are not able
[1:41:08] to use them for much more than what
[1:41:10] we've really been using them for now. So
[1:41:11] that's where we have to be careful.
[1:41:19] So we could have a another meeting with
[1:41:22] them and say, "Hey, what can you do to
[1:41:23] this to make it a little simpler?" You
[1:41:26] know, still meet our needs and bring the
[1:41:28] cost down, but keep it at 10%.
[1:41:32] >> It's just it's just a concept plan.
[1:41:34] >> Yeah, you can you can do that. And like
[1:41:36] I said, you can also you can do it
[1:41:38] either through that this phase or you
[1:41:40] could do it with the actual
[1:41:41] architectural firm if you bid it out. Um
[1:41:44] the same conversations can happen either
[1:41:46] way. Just it would be whether or not we
[1:41:48] want to move forward with seeing what
[1:41:50] the actual staying on the timeline that
[1:41:52] was proposed.
[1:41:58] » The trick to this whole thing is getting
[1:42:00] the max amount of biders that we can.
[1:42:03] Honestly,
[1:42:05] you know,
[1:42:08] that'll be the trick for this.
[1:42:11] I'll change the subject just a little
[1:42:13] bit, but I need to know. And we pretty
[1:42:16] much through our needs assessment, we've
[1:42:18] determined that there's no way to use
[1:42:22] the building in the back or that we
[1:42:24] think the building in the back has some
[1:42:26] effect on our master plan. What was
[1:42:28] that? I know we've had that discussion
[1:42:30] before, but just bring it back up for
[1:42:32] me.
[1:42:32] >> The the dairy farm and the and the open
[1:42:34] air
[1:42:34] >> facing the twotory building.
[1:42:37] >> Yeah. So, and I'm going Nicole, if I
[1:42:39] may, I'm going to ask you to come up
[1:42:40] here as well because you have much more
[1:42:41] knowledge than me on this as well. For
[1:42:43] the needs assessment piece, didn't
[1:42:45] looked at what the needs were for us
[1:42:47] expanding out there. Um, there had there
[1:42:50] was no look specifically at the
[1:42:52] buildings because that work has been
[1:42:53] done prior.
[1:42:55] >> Yeah, as part of the original master
[1:42:56] plan process, we did have a structural
[1:42:58] engineer come out and look at those
[1:42:59] facilities and they were just not built
[1:43:01] in a design um to meet the standards for
[1:43:05] public use. So they're just
[1:43:07] unfortunately
[1:43:08] more than what we're using them for
[1:43:10] which is just storing material
[1:43:11] underneath it. We can never house staff
[1:43:14] in those. We can never do any of those
[1:43:16] sort of things in those existing
[1:43:18] facilities because of the standard they
[1:43:19] were built to.
[1:43:21] >> Now that sepic system that's down there,
[1:43:24] you know, that thing is rated for to
[1:43:26] handle 500 kids per weekend. It was
[1:43:30] designed for agurism.
[1:43:32] Are we are at any point are we trying to
[1:43:36] save that for any use for anything? Is
[1:43:38] it
[1:43:40] >> we during um the park master plan
[1:43:43] expansion the work we're doing with
[1:43:45] weather right now utilities all that has
[1:43:47] been looked at and those are some of the
[1:43:49] things that they've looked at of what of
[1:43:51] that can be saved because even some of
[1:43:52] the the well is something that we're
[1:43:54] looking at potential irrigation right
[1:43:56] that could save us a city of Henderson
[1:43:58] bill if we can repurpose that well. So
[1:44:00] that is something that we're currently
[1:44:02] working through to look at to see what
[1:44:03] we can reuse for those facilities.
[1:44:06] >> Okay.
[1:44:13] » So council's pleasure which way you want
[1:44:15] him to move forward with this.
[1:44:17] >> If I may may I just briefly just go to
[1:44:19] this last slide. This is kind of what
[1:44:21] the the timeline that we put together.
[1:44:24] Again, this is all depending on if you
[1:44:26] on the direction you give me give us,
[1:44:29] but you know, we can bid out both of
[1:44:31] these items together at the same time
[1:44:33] actually in September. Going through
[1:44:35] that, we could actually bring you all uh
[1:44:38] we believe uh in November and actual for
[1:44:42] council approval the firms for both the
[1:44:44] design and the semar. So again,
[1:44:46] depending on what that is ultimately is
[1:44:49] your choice if you if you wish to move
[1:44:50] forward or not. And then it's a quick
[1:44:54] process. So, I'm going to say it's
[1:44:56] contingent on design completion. As you
[1:44:58] can see down here, we don't necessarily
[1:45:00] have to meet the January timeline. We
[1:45:01] actually got some clarification uh with
[1:45:03] the LGC, but the LGC won't will not look
[1:45:06] at uh our financial u options when it
[1:45:11] comes to debt service until we have a
[1:45:14] GMP guaranteed max price. So, December,
[1:45:18] January, potentially getting you all to
[1:45:21] that point, whenever that is, our goal
[1:45:22] is to try to get it in front of the LGC
[1:45:24] by uh February or March. It doesn't mean
[1:45:26] we obviously have to spend the money.
[1:45:27] It's just them getting the uh getting on
[1:45:30] their work. And Julie can talk much more
[1:45:32] about that process as well if you'd
[1:45:34] like.
[1:45:48] well as with our property tax valuation
[1:45:53] what we have the potential to borrow. Um
[1:45:57] if you remember when we talked about um
[1:45:59] all of this stuff during the strategic
[1:46:01] plan last year's audit showed that we
[1:46:05] had a potential up to $10 million for um
[1:46:09] based on property values that the res
[1:46:13] had at that point. um don't know what
[1:46:16] that number will be yet because it's
[1:46:17] based on their final analysis of all the
[1:46:21] values for 2026. So it could be up
[1:46:24] slightly or could be down just slightly
[1:46:25] from that. Um but they take all of that
[1:46:28] into consideration and look at the audit
[1:46:30] to see if there's any findings um that
[1:46:33] would impact their decisions. Um and
[1:46:36] then they look at um that grossing
[1:46:41] max price and determine that based on
[1:46:45] the financial stability of the town as
[1:46:47] to whether or not they approve
[1:46:50] for any debt.
[1:46:53] >> Is it that was that 10 million um
[1:46:56] additional or that's like 10 million
[1:46:58] indebtedness minus what you already
[1:47:01] have? It's your maximum amount
[1:47:05] >> that you can that the town can carry.
[1:47:10] » So essentially that goes up every year
[1:47:12] anyway. You're paying down other debt.
[1:47:16] >> Yeah. And just as a reminder for council
[1:47:18] briefly as well, the reason why we're
[1:47:20] looking at debt financing and debt
[1:47:22] service for this is be to free up cash
[1:47:25] and capital for the actual expansion
[1:47:27] project because it's easier uh to borrow
[1:47:30] against the facility than it would be
[1:47:32] against the park expansion. So that's
[1:47:34] why trying to trying to be uh
[1:47:37] financially conscious on how we're
[1:47:39] balancing both future funds and current
[1:47:41] funds.
[1:47:43] Matt, how much of these two uh
[1:47:47] structures
[1:47:49] u weigh into that fiveyear tax increases
[1:47:53] because we was going to have to raise
[1:47:54] how much was it?
[1:47:56] >> So two full cents or if I remember
[1:47:59] correctly two and a half. So if property
[1:48:02] taxes stay the same based off of 2026
[1:48:05] valuations or 2020 2025 valuations uh
[1:48:09] because we're using that for 26 the uh
[1:48:11] it would be 2 cents over 5 years so 17
[1:48:14] to 19 in a stairst step model. Now again
[1:48:17] that is subject to change based off the
[1:48:20] actual valuation of the properties.
[1:48:27] » Yeah. So yeah,
[1:48:28] >> but there was other factors that uh
[1:48:32] other than these two. Oh yeah.
[1:48:34] >> Yes sir. Absolutely. So that so it
[1:48:35] included this, it included all the
[1:48:37] operating costs that we projected out to
[1:48:39] run this facility, to run that facility,
[1:48:41] the new uh a new staff member or two to
[1:48:44] help with that. Uh it also took into
[1:48:47] account the actual phase one approach
[1:48:49] for park expansion as well. So all of
[1:48:52] that all of the projects that we have
[1:48:54] baked in. In fact, I think it also
[1:48:56] included, and I apologize, not the
[1:48:58] budget in front of me, um, preliminary
[1:49:00] work on the town hall expansion piece as
[1:49:02] well for staff. Yeah, thank you. And 31.
[1:49:05] I knew Knew it snuck in there right at
[1:49:06] the very end. Um, so it included all of
[1:49:08] those major projects and initiatives
[1:49:10] over the next five years.
[1:49:15] » Reason I bring that up is, you know,
[1:49:16] with the county raising theirs, I'm
[1:49:18] hearing a lot about it from especially
[1:49:21] the older residents. No,
[1:49:23] >> this might just a little bit tougher on
[1:49:24] the taste income. So,
[1:49:39] » I'd be in favor of putting a RFQ out for
[1:49:41] an architect.
[1:49:45] » You looking for a motion on this or just
[1:49:47] the consensus or how Probably motion
[1:49:49] would be better on this one, would it?
[1:49:51] Uh, I'm going to look at our clerk for
[1:49:53] uh her guidance on this.
[1:49:58] >> Yeah.
[1:50:00] It does. If you're going to give
[1:50:02] them guidance to throw out the RFQ,
[1:50:05] uh, you can do it by motion. There's no harm
[1:50:09] >> in doing that.
[1:50:11] >> Yeah. Thanks.
[1:50:14] in the form of a motion or
[1:50:16] >> well do we want to go with Seymour or we
[1:50:17] going to do bid
[1:50:20] >> design bid build or Seymour?
[1:50:22] >> Okay.
[1:50:26] » Well, I think I think the time you
[1:50:29] hire someone to oversee everything, the
[1:50:32] design bid build is not going to save
[1:50:33] you much money over the sea.
[1:50:36] And at least the semar we've got the
[1:50:39] guaranteed maximum price.
[1:50:42] So,
[1:50:43] I would say the design firm of the
[1:50:46] Seymark.
[1:50:49] That's my thoughts.
[1:50:56] » Would that alleviate the problems we've
[1:50:58] had in the past?
[1:51:00] >> I believe it would.
[1:51:02] >> It depends on it. Depends on that
[1:51:05] person.
[1:51:07] >> It's going to be betting
[1:51:10] those folks.
[1:51:12] Um the the biggest problem we've had in
[1:51:15] the past is
[1:51:18] architectural design
[1:51:21] and it come to
[1:51:24] tuition with what we actually got. So
[1:51:30] I don't know and you can see it happen
[1:51:33] here folks. You got that maximum bid. So
[1:51:37] just be prepared. Tell's up front. I
[1:51:39] won't be here, but I'm telling you
[1:51:41] what's could happen is as they see
[1:51:43] they're getting close on that number,
[1:51:45] say if materials increase dramatically
[1:51:48] from the time it's bid till the time
[1:51:50] it's built because you got a few months
[1:51:52] in there. Concrete goes up, paving goes
[1:51:55] up, whatever.
[1:51:57] They have to cut corners because they've
[1:51:59] got a maximum number there. None of
[1:52:01] this, nobody's going to eat any of this.
[1:52:03] They're going to figure it out. They'll
[1:52:06] change wire size. They'll change type of
[1:52:10] light fixtures. They'll they'll cut
[1:52:14] corners.
[1:52:15] So, it's not like it's not like it's an
[1:52:19] out out. You know, the the picnic
[1:52:21] shelter down here is supposed to have a
[1:52:23] tongue and groove. Well, it ended up
[1:52:26] getting the 4x8 boards installed
[1:52:29] instead.
[1:52:31] Uh but that was just one of them things
[1:52:34] that she just said, "Oh, it looks okay."
[1:52:37] and let it slide. You know, it was drawn
[1:52:39] one way. They installed something else,
[1:52:42] but she was okay with it. She checked
[1:52:44] the box.
[1:52:45] You still have a little this happen, but
[1:52:48] not much because the the architectural
[1:52:50] design of this building. This thing has
[1:52:52] got to pass code. So, it's going to have
[1:52:54] county inspections. It's going to have
[1:52:57] fire regulations because you got a
[1:52:59] garage attached to office and break
[1:53:01] rooms. So, you're going to have a
[1:53:03] firewall. You're going to have a lot of
[1:53:05] things that can't be changed even if
[1:53:07] somebody wanted to.
[1:53:10] But just know that you're whoever you
[1:53:13] get and it can happen with the with the
[1:53:16] uh first one also if we hired someone.
[1:53:20] We got no guarantees that it'll all be
[1:53:22] called looked over. So you just got to
[1:53:24] go where you go.
[1:53:25] >> We'll be council will be the one
[1:53:26] selecting the architect, right? So it's
[1:53:28] on us to do our due diligence to get the
[1:53:30] right person.
[1:53:30] >> Yeah. So yeah. So you all would be uh
[1:53:33] ultimately deciding on the RFQ. We'd
[1:53:34] bring it with you with our you know
[1:53:37] there would be design standards. We
[1:53:38] would bring it forward with
[1:53:40] recommendations on uh on what that would
[1:53:42] be. But yeah ultimately you would have
[1:53:44] those options.
[1:53:45] >> But then in a semar who is going to be
[1:53:50] who then is boots on the ground to make
[1:53:52] sure that we paid for five inches of
[1:53:54] concrete and we didn't get three and a
[1:53:56] half
[1:53:56] >> the Seymour consultant or someone that
[1:53:59] works for them. But somebody is
[1:54:03] reliable.
[1:54:04] >> Yeah,
[1:54:06] >> that's why that's the 100% sure.
[1:54:08] >> Yeah, but they do add that to the price.
[1:54:11] They're not eating that either. So,
[1:54:14] >> just know I'm just telling you up front
[1:54:16] how it works. I mean, you're asking for
[1:54:18] that security bond and it's a great
[1:54:20] thing to have, but they're charging us
[1:54:22] for it basically, you know, but it's not
[1:54:25] a bad thing. It's like an insurance
[1:54:27] policy we're have to pay for.
[1:54:34] As I mentioned, this this this process
[1:54:36] is one of the most conservative
[1:54:39] approaches just because again that
[1:54:40] guaranteed max price because of what
[1:54:42] you're looking at. Um there is not
[1:54:44] foolproof. It is based off of the RFQS
[1:54:47] and how they're written. It's a based
[1:54:48] off of how they are um the the responses
[1:54:52] that come in. But ultimately both the
[1:54:55] designers and the arch I'm both the
[1:54:57] architectural firm and the semar report
[1:54:59] to the town similar to the design bid
[1:55:02] build uh which ultimately puts the the
[1:55:06] and on us to be able to to ensure the
[1:55:10] quality that's necessary whereas again
[1:55:12] the design bid would not. But the one of
[1:55:15] the benefits of this is at least
[1:55:17] hopefully and from my understanding with
[1:55:19] talking with many others who have done
[1:55:21] this is that getting them in the room to
[1:55:22] talk at the same time, the architectural
[1:55:24] firms and the construction manager at
[1:55:26] risk at the same time alleviates a lot
[1:55:29] of those concerns and ultimately
[1:55:31] hopefully cuts out a lot of those
[1:55:34] cutting corners later on because those
[1:55:36] conversations have happened as a part of
[1:55:37] the guaranteed bid I mean uh the
[1:55:39] guaranteed max price as well. So nothing
[1:55:43] is foolproof. Are you guys used guys are
[1:55:46] you guys getting assistance on uh
[1:55:48] writing the RFQ?
[1:55:50] >> Yes. And also we have ALS we also have
[1:55:53] great assistance right over here and uh
[1:55:55] Mr. Brian Golden as well helping us with
[1:55:57] that.
[1:56:00] >> The only thing I'd say is I hope council
[1:56:01] no matter which way we go right here
[1:56:03] before this motion is actually
[1:56:04] officially made is just we work on
[1:56:07] trying to work with the architectural
[1:56:09] firm to reduce some of this cost if
[1:56:12] possible.
[1:56:14] you know, not move this over this tax
[1:56:17] burden onto our taxpayers and and hear
[1:56:19] about it. I mean, we need the facility,
[1:56:22] but we don't need uh a firehouse to to
[1:56:26] work maintenance out of. Okay. Well,
[1:56:28] let's just work with it. See what we can
[1:56:30] figure out. There's anywhere we can cut
[1:56:33] it, not hurt it. We need the space. We
[1:56:36] need all the space we can get.
[1:56:40] So that's going to involve lots of talks
[1:56:43] with you all to make sure that we're
[1:56:45] meeting your needs.
[1:56:52] » Okay, I'll entertain a motion.
[1:56:56] >> So I make a motion to uh allow staff to
[1:56:59] create the RFQ for architect design firm
[1:57:02] in the Seymour.
[1:57:04] You
[1:57:04] >> need authorization to sign
[1:57:07] no sir. Hey, you you all are the
[1:57:10] authority to sign. Second.
[1:57:12] >> Yeah, I'll second that.
[1:57:14] >> All right. Any more discussion?
[1:57:17] Hearing none. All in favor?
[1:57:20] >> I'll see it.
[1:57:21] >> Any opposed?
[1:57:24] None. All right.
[1:57:27] Thank you, council.
[1:57:31] All right. Uh whenever staff gets
[1:57:34] resituated, we'll move on to our
[1:57:36] appointment of our board of adjustment
[1:57:38] board member and second alternate
[1:57:41] position. We got three applicants.
[1:57:50] Okay. On the board of adjustment, um you
[1:57:53] have a board member and a second
[1:57:55] alternate position to fulfill. And these
[1:57:58] would be terms that um current they had
[1:58:01] someone and the person had to resign.
[1:58:04] One person moved out of town, the other
[1:58:05] one had to resign for unknown reasons.
[1:58:08] But these would be to complete those
[1:58:09] terms
[1:58:11] and council's been given the um
[1:58:14] applications.
[1:58:21] » Yes, sir.
[1:58:23] >> Some good applications.
[1:58:25] >> They were good applications.
[1:58:27] Which one are you looking at doing
[1:58:29] first? The board of adjustments.
[1:58:30] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:58:31] >> Yeah. We're on We're onbody
[1:58:37] got a recommendation.
[1:58:39] >> So, I'll make a motion to appoint Sonia
[1:58:40] McCall to
[1:58:43] uh fill out the position resigned by
[1:58:47] uh term expiring in November 18, 2027.
[1:58:53] that the Brad Burton position. I guess
[1:58:55] he was on He was actually Yeah. Okay. I
[1:58:58] was trying not to say it.
[1:58:59] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:59:02] >> Thought
[1:59:06] motion by second.
[1:59:07] >> So, we're doing two. This is two one one
[1:59:12] board and one.
[1:59:13] >> Yeah.
[1:59:13] >> Well, there's two positions open. I'm
[1:59:15] just right now I'm doing the first
[1:59:16] position, which is the three the
[1:59:18] three-year term expiry. So,
[1:59:22] which would be a board member.
[1:59:34] » Uh yeah, a second is one.
[1:59:39] >> Second.
[1:59:40] >> Okay. Any discussion?
[1:59:42] Yes.
[1:59:45] All right. All in favor? I
[1:59:48] >> Any opposed? Fair enough. Okay.
[1:59:52] All right.
[1:59:55] Look at our second hold in a position
[1:59:58] that that's been open for a a while,
[2:00:01] right?
[2:00:01] >> Uh that's Mr. Ross.
[2:00:03] >> Yes. Yeah.
[2:00:05] >> So,
[2:00:06] >> um I make a motion for Jacob Hagerdorn.
[2:00:10] >> Okay.
[2:00:10] >> For the alternate for the board of
[2:00:12] adjustments.
[2:00:14] >> I'm looking for a second.
[2:00:16] I got one more question again. Uh did we
[2:00:19] tell them that that this could either be
[2:00:21] an alternate or a board or we didn't say
[2:00:25] >> um
[2:00:26] >> they applying were these three
[2:00:27] applicants applying for a board member
[2:00:29] or alternate?
[2:00:31] >> I just brought you the applications that
[2:00:32] I had on file.
[2:00:37] » Second.
[2:00:38] >> Okay. Discussion. Uh does anybody talk
[2:00:42] to Was you able to talk to Jacob?
[2:00:44] >> I did reach out and speak with him. Uh,
[2:00:47] did he mention he is okay with the
[2:00:49] alternate position or did it ever get to
[2:00:50] that?
[2:00:51] >> I didn't ask that.
[2:00:52] >> Okay.
[2:00:54] All right. Any more discussion? Second.
[2:00:57] All in favor?
[2:00:58] >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none.
[2:01:04] Right. Uh, let's move on down to D,
[2:01:06] appointment of the egg advisory uh,
[2:01:08] committee. Currently, Bert Limus.
[2:01:12] I make a motion that we keep Bert Limus
[2:01:15] on the agricultural ward.
[2:01:19] >> Okay, you got a first. How about a
[2:01:20] second?
[2:01:21] >> Second.
[2:01:22] >> All right, got a second. Any discussion?
[2:01:25] >> All in favor? I
[2:01:30] » Okay, moving on to e uh appointment of
[2:01:33] the agra culture advisory committee for
[2:01:36] Bradley Johnston.
[2:01:39] My understanding Bradley does not want
[2:01:40] to serve that. Anybody else served that?
[2:01:43] >> I did.
[2:01:44] >> Okay. Two.
[2:01:45] >> Okay.
[2:01:47] >> I'd like to appoint Mr. Hoy to the
[2:01:52] board.
[2:01:52] >> All right.
[2:01:54] >> August second.
[2:01:57] >> Got a motion. Got a second. Uh
[2:02:01] all in favor or any discussion? Anybody
[2:02:03] got any discussion on that one?
[2:02:05] >> All for Mills River Residents.
[2:02:07] >> Peace. What?
[2:02:08] >> I said I'm all for Mills River
[2:02:09] residence.
[2:02:09] >> Okay. All right. All in favor?
[2:02:12] >> I I
[2:02:17] » All right. Uh, if we can keep going
[2:02:20] here, we're on roll. Uh, we'll need to
[2:02:22] amend the 2026-20.
[2:02:26] We'll need a little help with that one.
[2:02:28] Got it right here somewhere.
[2:02:40] just
[2:02:47] so on last meeting's consent consent
[2:02:50] agenda um there was a resolution to use
[2:02:53] state contract for um the John Deere
[2:02:55] mower going through that process we've
[2:02:58] um learned we're also eligible for
[2:03:00] source well so we are um there's Both
[2:03:03] are really good pricing. We're not sure
[2:03:05] kind of which one's coming back lower.
[2:03:06] So, we would like just permission to do
[2:03:08] both of those. So, we can just go with
[2:03:09] the low speed. So, pretty much as simple
[2:03:11] as that. We want to have both options
[2:03:13] and then we'll
[2:03:14] >> amend it to allow for both
[2:03:16] >> to both.
[2:03:18] >> Yeah.
[2:03:20] >> Uh I think we've got something here on
[2:03:23] our paper.
[2:03:24] >> Yeah. So, I move to amend resolution
[2:03:26] 2026-20.
[2:03:28] Let's presented amended resolution
[2:03:29] 2026-20.
[2:03:31] Uh motion.
[2:03:35] » So all the was just add or source well.
[2:03:39] >> Okay. And that's good catch. Might save
[2:03:42] it all.
[2:03:42] >> Yep.
[2:03:43] All in favor.
[2:03:45] >> All right. Any opposed? Hearing none.
[2:03:48] >> Okay. We're moving on to G to adopt
[2:03:51] 2026-28.
[2:04:10] Um this goes along with the um contract
[2:04:14] that you approved in the consent agenda.
[2:04:16] We are trying to move away from global
[2:04:18] payments for financial and customer
[2:04:21] service reasons. Um because of software
[2:04:24] restraints, all paid could take on our
[2:04:28] civic wreck and smart go software. Tyler
[2:04:32] Technologies only allows two uh merchant
[2:04:36] processors, the credit card processors
[2:04:38] to fully integrate with their system and
[2:04:41] global payments is one and their own
[2:04:44] Tyler payments is the other. The bonus
[2:04:46] of doing Tyler payments is that we can
[2:04:48] actually do e checks which would be I
[2:04:51] think 250
[2:04:53] um which a lot of our residents have
[2:04:54] been asking for the last few years
[2:04:56] because the county does them. So, it' be
[2:04:59] a nice service to offer.
[2:05:02] >> And just as one final note, Tyler
[2:05:04] Technologies is also the the financing
[2:05:06] system that we currently use in house
[2:05:08] for uh for both uh finance and tax. So
[2:05:13] >> and the credit card fees with global
[2:05:14] payments has gotten to be astronomically
[2:05:18] unattainable for
[2:05:21] residents to carry burden for that. So
[2:05:25] uh item J was to move city direct and
[2:05:28] smart go as Christine mentioned and this
[2:05:30] will lessen that burden um on the
[2:05:34] residents using Tyler Tyler payments for
[2:05:38] the
[2:05:39] >> technology credit card. use of tax
[2:05:41] collection.
[2:05:42] >> Okay.
[2:05:44] >> I move to adopt resolution 2026-28 as
[2:05:47] presented.
[2:05:48] >> Second.
[2:05:49] >> I'll second.
[2:05:50] >> Any discussion?
[2:05:52] Everybody understand? All right. All in
[2:05:54] favor?
[2:05:55] >> I. Any opposed? Thank you.
[2:06:00] I entertain a motion to adjourn our
[2:06:02] regular meeting.
[2:06:04] >> Make a motion to adjurnn a regular
[2:06:05] meeting.
[2:06:06] >> Second.
[2:06:08] >> That's it.
[2:06:09] All in favor? I. Any opposed?
[2:06:13] >> Make a motion to enter a business
[2:06:14] meeting.
[2:06:16] >> And James second. All in favor?
[2:06:20] >> Any opposed? You're not.
[2:06:22] >> Yeah. So, mayor and councel, there's
[2:06:25] nothing in the business meeting for
[2:06:27] tonight of that that we had identified.
[2:06:30] Uh so really for you all whether or not
[2:06:34] there's any items that you have any
[2:06:35] questions about or anything you would
[2:06:36] like for us to look at moving forward.
[2:06:38] You can see we did put both September
[2:06:40] 10th September 24th meetings. These are
[2:06:42] very preliminary. Uh I feel like that's
[2:06:44] the word of the night. Um agendas as
[2:06:47] well, but just showing you what we as
[2:06:49] staff are working on right now. Uh so if
[2:06:51] you have questions about that or any
[2:06:52] other items, we're happy to discuss.
[2:06:55] like to discuss uh specifically
[2:06:58] warehouse heights in either in the UDO
[2:07:02] or
[2:07:04] uh possibly like a moratorum to get
[2:07:08] through it. But um there's a lot of
[2:07:12] chatter about some of that and I think
[2:07:14] we need to
[2:07:17] proactively look at it. I would like um
[2:07:20] if
[2:07:22] we could get what it is now, what the UI
[2:07:26] has in it, you know, as it stands right
[2:07:29] now, what we can do that's not a down
[2:07:32] zone. Um
[2:07:36] I'd like to weigh our options on that
[2:07:39] one.
[2:07:49] So I would make me have a question.
[2:07:53] Could we um the town attorney answer if we do that could we exclude portions
[2:08:02] of the town like could we not put a
[2:08:04] moratorium on like our Franklin Park
[2:08:07] where it's a a business
[2:08:11] area anyway?
[2:08:16] So right, there's some certain things
[2:08:19] that you all have to consider when
[2:08:20] you're looking at uh adopting or passing
[2:08:24] a moratorum. And and the first thing is
[2:08:26] what is the evil you're trying to
[2:08:28] prevent? And so if generically we were
[2:08:30] going to say no commercial warehousing
[2:08:34] buildings,
[2:08:36] what is it that we're trying to prevent?
[2:08:37] Right? So some some people now the big
[2:08:39] thing are these data centers. So the
[2:08:41] moratorium on the data centers but if we
[2:08:44] are trying to prevent largecale tall
[2:08:47] warehousing buildings we could limit it
[2:08:50] to moratoriums on height and size of
[2:08:53] buildings but still other small
[2:08:56] warehousing buildings. Me I want to
[2:08:58] build a warehouse uh for my lawnmowers.
[2:09:02] uh and if it's less than 2500 square f
[2:09:04] feet, I ought to be able to do it as
[2:09:06] opposed to having all warehousing
[2:09:08] buildings uh under this moratorum. So,
[2:09:13] Councilman Canrell, you said height,
[2:09:15] right? If that if that's what you're
[2:09:16] worried about, uh it could be over three
[2:09:19] stories, over two stories, over 30 feet,
[2:09:21] over 35 feet. If you're Brian, if you're
[2:09:26] worried about uh large buildings over
[2:09:29] 25,000 square feet, you know, you could
[2:09:32] come up with a number, there needs to be
[2:09:36] because in the moratorum, you have to
[2:09:38] identify what it is you are trying to
[2:09:40] prevent and how much time you're going
[2:09:42] to need to find that cure. And again, I
[2:09:46] don't know, Mr. Malichek's going to tell
[2:09:48] us like what the new UDO says about
[2:09:52] certain warehousing buildings and size.
[2:09:55] Um, right? Because again, you're talking
[2:09:57] about making non-conform you're making
[2:10:00] non-conforming uses, uh, decreasing
[2:10:03] density and the the number of uses
[2:10:06] allowed on on property. So size of the
[2:10:10] building may not create a uh
[2:10:12] nonconforming or a downzoning situation.
[2:10:17] But but moratoriums aren't just designed
[2:10:20] to
[2:10:22] prevent all commercial buildings
[2:10:25] until we get the UDO passed. We are
[2:10:28] working towards some regulations on the
[2:10:31] UDO. I just don't know what the concerns
[2:10:33] are. But moratoriums are designed to
[2:10:35] pump the brakes so that we can address
[2:10:38] the evils that are lurking out there. We
[2:10:40] just have to figure out what those evils
[2:10:42] are.
[2:10:44] >> Uh Mr. Malachic,
[2:10:48] » how many evils can be in one moratorium?
[2:10:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, [laughter]
[2:10:54] so I mean the the the height and the
[2:10:56] square footage of a of a building. I
[2:10:58] mean, we don't want I if you are worried
[2:11:01] about someone coming in putting in a
[2:11:03] sevenstory warehouse building that is
[2:11:07] 30,000 300,000 square feet I that that
[2:11:11] seems huge but I mean it could happen um
[2:11:15] that those two evils in a moratorum
[2:11:18] could be prevented but if you were to
[2:11:20] say any warehouses and I don't know why
[2:11:22] I'm call saying warehouses but if you're
[2:11:24] going to say no warehouses
[2:11:27] um in the town of Mills River under this
[2:11:30] moratorum. We would have to be very
[2:11:32] specific why we're saying no warehouses
[2:11:34] at all because if I wanted again build a
[2:11:37] warehouse for my
[2:11:39] car and uh riding lawnmower
[2:11:43] um that moratorium would prevent that
[2:11:46] and is that really what we're looking to
[2:11:48] prevent? So I think the biggest
[2:11:50] complaints was obviously
[2:11:52] that banner farm schoolhouse which one
[2:11:55] >> sorry. Yeah.
[2:11:56] >> Um
[2:11:57] >> so what is the current regulations or
[2:11:59] what was that built to?
[2:12:00] >> So current [clears throat] zoning rules
[2:12:02] for light industrial allow up to 80 foot
[2:12:05] tall structures or buildings. So that
[2:12:08] was was what was applied to that uh
[2:12:10] development. And [clears throat] then
[2:12:11] because we required the architectural
[2:12:13] drawings, excuse me,
[2:12:16] I actually looked them up. That building
[2:12:18] runs between 38t to 42 feet tall
[2:12:22] depending upon which corner you're
[2:12:23] measuring from. It's [clears throat]
[2:12:26] slightly It looks slightly higher, too,
[2:12:28] because they put two to three feet of
[2:12:30] fill on the site because there was a
[2:12:32] high water table. So, the storm water
[2:12:34] device wasn't going to function
[2:12:36] correctly. Um, so that contributed to it
[2:12:38] as well. The original UDO which was
[2:12:41] invalidated had decreased the light or
[2:12:44] sorry the industrial uh zoning district
[2:12:47] height to 35 feet or two stories but
[2:12:50] [clears throat] as part of the
[2:12:51] downzoning amendment the final draft
[2:12:54] sent out to you guys today we preserved
[2:12:58] all the dimensional standards that are
[2:13:00] in our current zoning district. So the
[2:13:03] draft UDO says 80 ft and I would defer
[2:13:06] back to the town attorney, you know, is [clears throat] being stricter with
[2:13:12] dimensional requirements for a building.
[2:13:14] Is that a down zoning?
[2:13:18] In our approach, the consultant and I,
[2:13:20] you know, we were very conservative and
[2:13:22] so we preserved uh setbacks, heights,
[2:13:25] basically any dimensional standard in
[2:13:27] the code. Now,
[2:13:33] » did you want to address that?
[2:13:35] >> Yeah. So, the the I I was just I'm I'm
[2:13:38] pulling up the exact language of 607.
[2:13:43] » Yeah. So, our approach to amending the
[2:13:46] UDO to become downzone and compliant. We
[2:13:48] took very conservative approach, you
[2:13:51] know, to avoid any type of legal
[2:13:52] challenge. So the dimensional standards
[2:13:54] in our code now again setbacks, height,
[2:13:58] building separation, whatever it may be,
[2:14:00] those are all carried forward into the
[2:14:02] new amended UDO down zoning compliant
[2:14:05] the draft that was just sent to you guys
[2:14:07] today. So it's 80 ft in that draft. It
[2:14:10] was 35 ft or two stories in the
[2:14:12] rescended or nullified version.
[2:14:17] I mean, the specific language of 160D
[2:14:20] 601 uh specifically talks about
[2:14:22] downzoning decreasing the de development
[2:14:25] density of the land to be less dense by
[2:14:27] reducing the permitted uses of the land
[2:14:31] uh to fewer than were allowed under the
[2:14:33] previous usage or creating any type of
[2:14:37] nonconformity on land not in a
[2:14:39] residential zoning district.
[2:14:42] >> That may be the one.
[2:14:44] But but you're you're talking about new
[2:14:46] development going forward.
[2:14:48] >> But the but the zoning district
[2:14:49] dimensional standard period across the
[2:14:52] board while it's applied to new
[2:14:53] development.
[2:14:55] >> Okay.
[2:14:55] >> The threshold lower.
[2:14:57] >> I think that's was the concern.
[2:15:00] >> Yeah. Not but but but the MRMU is a
[2:15:04] residential district because it allows
[2:15:06] res
[2:15:07] >> No, mixed use is a is a commercial.
[2:15:09] >> You don't allow any residential uses in
[2:15:11] the mixeduse district. No, we allow
[2:15:12] residential uses, but we allow
[2:15:14] everything else
[2:15:17] >> by creating a type of non-conformity on
[2:15:19] land, not in a residential zoning
[2:15:21] district. Do you allow residential
[2:15:24] structures to be built in the MRMU?
[2:15:26] >> We do, but I think we're also talking
[2:15:28] about industrial
[2:15:30] I don't
[2:15:31] >> would you I mean, so here here is the
[2:15:34] argument. this this downzoning
[2:15:36] legislation as poorly written as it is
[2:15:39] right says that you can't create
[2:15:41] nonconformities
[2:15:43] on land not in a residential zoning
[2:15:45] district. If the MRNU MRMU is a
[2:15:49] residential zoning district because it
[2:15:51] allows residential uses
[2:15:54] by decreasing the height or the size of
[2:15:57] a of a warehouse. Are we creating a
[2:16:01] nonconformity on land not in a
[2:16:03] residential zoning district? You can
[2:16:05] have warehouses in NM MRMU. You can have
[2:16:09] structures, residential structures
[2:16:12] built. So I I can't tell you here
[2:16:15] because there is no case law as to say
[2:16:18] residential zoning districts. So I think
[2:16:20] what Mike's saying is he and Chad were
[2:16:23] trying to be very conservative. Can you
[2:16:25] still do a moratorium on it until you
[2:16:28] could come up with the
[2:16:31] either answer for that or some other
[2:16:34] call it workaround? You know, I want to
[2:16:36] be able to see the sun on your property
[2:16:38] for more than four minutes.
[2:16:40] >> Yeah. If if that is and I just pulled
[2:16:42] out some old nodes. Again, it it in
[2:16:45] order to adopt a uh moratorum, you have
[2:16:49] to have the statement of the problem or
[2:16:50] conditions necessitating the moratorum.
[2:16:53] So could you still adopt a moratorum to
[2:16:59] prohibit heightened size of those
[2:17:01] facilities if that is if there is a
[2:17:04] specific problem or condition
[2:17:06] necessitating the moratorum and then it
[2:17:09] says you have to have a statement of the
[2:17:10] development approvals subject to the
[2:17:12] moratorum and how those approvals will
[2:17:15] address the problems and conditions. So,
[2:17:17] I don't know that you could say we want
[2:17:20] a moratorum so the town's attorney can
[2:17:23] do some legal research.
[2:17:25] >> I wouldn't say that. I would leave that
[2:17:27] up to you. [laughter]
[2:17:29] >> Well, um, so again, I I mean, there are
[2:17:33] municipalities out there that have
[2:17:36] allowed residential structures in all of
[2:17:40] their districts so that they can try to
[2:17:43] get around this
[2:17:45] downzoning prohibition. So in MRLI we
[2:17:49] don't allow residential,
[2:17:50] >> right?
[2:17:50] >> So if we allowed residential in MRLI,
[2:17:53] then we avoid this.
[2:17:55] That is
[2:17:57] >> that is a potential legal argument that
[2:18:00] you could make, but you don't allow it.
[2:18:02] Right? So that fits exactly to what this
[2:18:04] says by creating a type of nonconformity
[2:18:07] on land, not in a residential zoning
[2:18:10] district. If the light industrial
[2:18:12] doesn't allow resident residential
[2:18:14] structures, it's not a residential
[2:18:15] zoning district. So you can't create any
[2:18:18] type of nonconformity,
[2:18:20] which would be reducing the height or
[2:18:22] the size of a building.
[2:18:24] >> But if those are the tallest buildings,
[2:18:28] the tallest warehouses in LA industrial
[2:18:32] and we know they're less than 45 ft
[2:18:34] tall, could we change that max from 80
[2:18:37] to 45? We haven't created a
[2:18:39] nonconformity and we're a little better
[2:18:41] off than having 80 foot tall warehouses.
[2:18:46] » You you could try that. The only thing
[2:18:48] that I'm saying is there is no case. All
[2:18:50] this down zoning legislation this
[2:18:52] downzoning legislation is so new hasn't
[2:18:54] been challenged in court.
[2:18:57] >> If somebody wants to challenge it,
[2:19:00] >> they can. So if we want to do a
[2:19:01] moratorium on commercial warehouses with
[2:19:05] a height building height restriction of
[2:19:06] 45 ft
[2:19:08] >> anything a moratorium for those
[2:19:10] buildings over 45 ft
[2:19:12] >> for 6 months.
[2:19:15] >> Yeah. Yes, I think you could do that.
[2:19:16] >> Okay.
[2:19:17] >> As long as we can come up with statement
[2:19:18] of the development approval subject to
[2:19:20] the mortorium and how the moratorum on
[2:19:22] those approvals will address the
[2:19:24] problem.
[2:19:24] >> What about 30 ft?
[2:19:27] was 45 ft what we got and all we hear is
[2:19:30] about those. I'm just trying to I'm just
[2:19:34] trying to There's a lot of chatter that
[2:19:36] more of those are coming and I'm trying
[2:19:38] to make them a little bit more
[2:19:40] beautiful.
[2:19:42] >> I'm
[2:19:45] Yeah. 45 ft 30 feet. if there is a
[2:19:48] particular evil that you're trying to
[2:19:50] address
[2:19:52] because of that.
[2:19:54] >> I mean,
[2:19:57] >> yeah, I'm just I'm I'm trying to like
[2:19:59] reasonably not, you know, be more than
[2:20:03] 11 ft,
[2:20:07] but it seems like those are too tall for
[2:20:10] what we would want to see.
[2:20:16] I mean
[2:20:19] if it gets challenged it's defensible.
[2:20:23] We would have to create a moratorum that
[2:20:25] satisfies all of the statutory
[2:20:28] requirements under 160d
[2:20:30] 107 I think
[2:20:32] and then we would have to create a
[2:20:36] reasonable solution as to what we are
[2:20:41] trying to prevent. So, and I and if I
[2:20:44] was going to challenge it, I'm no lawyer
[2:20:46] by no means, but you know, I would take
[2:20:49] into consideration some of the height of
[2:20:52] the houses around. You know, I'd say,
[2:20:55] man, you got my warehouse to where I
[2:20:57] can't have it as high as my neighbor's
[2:21:00] house. You know, 30 feet sounds tall,
[2:21:03] but a lot of people's houses from front
[2:21:06] door to the front peak is over 30 fairly
[2:21:09] easy anymore, especially in the
[2:21:11] mountain, especially, you know.
[2:21:13] >> What's the maximum current for
[2:21:16] residential building?
[2:21:19] >> I was just going off a twotory or 212
[2:21:22] >> and that's across multiple districts.
[2:21:24] Okay.
[2:21:26] >> 50 feet is the maximum height for
[2:21:29] residential homes in many of our
[2:21:31] districts.
[2:21:34] >> May I get a clarifying question from the
[2:21:36] uh ask a clarifying question to the town
[2:21:38] attorney real quick? council the uh the fact that we're still in the UDO
[2:21:43] process in and of itself I have seen
[2:21:47] used as um as rationale for moratoria
[2:21:53] because
[2:21:54] the UDO process in and of itself will
[2:21:57] bring potential changes through that
[2:21:59] process. We have not adopted a new UDO
[2:22:02] yet. So a moratorum on let's just say
[2:22:06] something as specific as that could be
[2:22:09] trying to stop the evil of um the the
[2:22:14] evil that would be stopped essentially
[2:22:15] is that you we are working through a
[2:22:17] process to update our codes and our
[2:22:18] ordinances in order to you know adopt a
[2:22:21] new UDO is that I've seen that used
[2:22:25] before. Is that what are your thoughts
[2:22:27] on that?
[2:22:28] >> Then your moratorium would only be 30
[2:22:30] days.
[2:22:31] >> Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. So, I'm
[2:22:32] just I'm just thinking through what
[2:22:34] those other options are, but I've just
[2:22:36] seen that. So, I want
[2:22:37] >> And but by the time you drafted the
[2:22:39] moratorum, got it in front of council
[2:22:43] for the proper hearing, it'd be on the
[2:22:45] same
[2:22:46] >> But there's no guarantee that we're
[2:22:47] going to pass the UDO. So, we can make
[2:22:49] the moratorum say 6 months or until the
[2:22:52] passage of a UDO.
[2:22:55] >> Well, that's a good question. I don't uh
[2:22:58] No, I think there's going to have to be
[2:22:59] a a specific
[2:23:01] >> date.
[2:23:02] >> I can't just make a so moved motion and
[2:23:04] this goes into effect
[2:23:08] >> in the [snorts] public hearing.
[2:23:09] >> Sorry.
[2:23:15] » I knew I knew where the humor was coming
[2:23:17] from.
[2:23:18] >> I think I still think we need to explore
[2:23:21] this further. I would like to see we're
[2:23:24] in the business meeting. I would like to
[2:23:25] see this on a regular agenda meeting
[2:23:29] because I think we should have this
[2:23:32] queued up
[2:23:34] anyway.
[2:23:36] >> I agree with James.
[2:23:40] » We we toyed around with it a couple
[2:23:41] times and keep pushing it back. I I I
[2:23:44] think it's time well spent to
[2:23:49] Yeah. have it.
[2:23:50] >> And we probably need to talk about data
[2:23:51] centers while we're in that.
[2:24:02] Mike, can you
[2:24:04] about Yeah, about the data center since
[2:24:05] they had the UDO in front of them.
[2:24:07] >> Um, data centers are listed as
[2:24:10] prohibited
[2:24:11] >> in our in the new down zoning compliant
[2:24:16] UDO.
[2:24:17] The the reason for that is because again
[2:24:21] while taking a conservative approach the
[2:24:24] mixeduse district says all uses are
[2:24:26] allowed
[2:24:28] that [clears throat] doesn't mean anyone
[2:24:30] can pick a use under the rainbow and
[2:24:32] it's going to be permitted by right.
[2:24:33] It's the uses identified in the
[2:24:35] ordinance itself.
[2:24:37] Um
[2:24:39] and so since data centers are not
[2:24:42] identified as a use in the ordinance um
[2:24:45] we felt it was something that could be
[2:24:46] regulated through a prohibition.
[2:24:49] >> So basically the only uses that are
[2:24:51] allowed in MRMU are uses that exist in
[2:24:53] other zoning districts.
[2:24:55] >> Correct. Called out anywhere in the
[2:24:57] ordinance. Even if there's a definition
[2:24:59] of and it you know and it's not even
[2:25:01] permitted anywhere. It's a use
[2:25:02] identified in the ordinance. It says all
[2:25:04] uses.
[2:25:06] That's the equation we use basically.
[2:25:10] >> Is that something that can be challenged
[2:25:12] like as a board of adjustment thing?
[2:25:14] >> Every everything can be challenged when
[2:25:16] you adopt the ordinance. It wouldn't go
[2:25:18] to the board of adjustment. It would be
[2:25:20] challenged to superior court directly
[2:25:22] through some kind of declaratory
[2:25:24] judgment action
[2:25:26] >> right within the specific time. And and
[2:25:28] the reason I agree with Mike on on what
[2:25:30] he's saying because there's new uses
[2:25:32] that happen all the time. For example, I
[2:25:36] was advised Oregon has a silly site a
[2:25:40] mushroom eating facility. So if you want
[2:25:43] to go ahead and and eat some mushrooms,
[2:25:45] you can go into this new facility. Who
[2:25:47] the heck would have ever thought that
[2:25:49] that's going to that that's not a
[2:25:51] permitted use that anybody would have
[2:25:53] ever thought about.
[2:25:54] >> Well, just since we since I've been
[2:25:56] sitting in one of these chairs, the the
[2:25:58] vapes and all have come along and all.
[2:26:00] So we we've seen that develop like where
[2:26:03] >> Yeah. Yeah, vape shops are a little
[2:26:05] different. That's retail. That's right.
[2:26:06] But but when you're talking about coming
[2:26:08] in into a into a a designated area to do
[2:26:16] legalized
[2:26:17] mushrooms,
[2:26:19] >> but how do you not how does he not argue
[2:26:21] if I come to him and say that's a
[2:26:23] restaurant? How does he argue that it's
[2:26:25] not? I guess by the definition of what a
[2:26:27] restaurant would be in the uh planner's
[2:26:30] dictionary,
[2:26:31] >> I would have to make a staff
[2:26:32] determination and categorize your use.
[2:26:34] And if you disagreed, you'd appeal my
[2:26:36] decision to the board of adjustment.
[2:26:40] » That's That's easy.
[2:26:44] >> Well, I'm paying food for I'm paying
[2:26:46] money for food. I mean, that's going to
[2:26:47] be fun. It's not a restaurant,
[2:26:54] but I think we do need to
[2:27:00] What's the rest of you want to do? Look
[2:27:03] at it.
[2:27:04] >> Yeah.
[2:27:07] >> Okay.
[2:27:08] And I'll just say too, the
[2:27:11] building height thing across the code,
[2:27:13] the approach we took was just to take
[2:27:15] what's in the current ordinance. So if
[2:27:17] this triggers a discussion about
[2:27:18] building height in all the zoning
[2:27:20] districts,
[2:27:21] let's just note that.
[2:27:22] >> Mhm.
[2:27:32] » Anything else?
[2:27:35] » I make a motion to journ.
[2:27:37] >> Thank you.
[2:27:37] >> Second.
[2:27:39] Thank you, James.
[2:27:41] All in favor?