Regular Meeting

[music]

on council and I would ask that you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

justice for all. First order of business is to adopt the agenda. Do I have a motion to do so? So moved. There is a motion. Second.

And the second. Discussion. All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We now move to recognitions, reports, and presentations. Our only item tonight is recognizing A shift firefighters and I'll recognize interim town manager Russ Overton for this recognition. Thank you, Mayor. Uh would the firefighters from A shift please stand and be recognized?

[applause] [applause]

I think and I think you'll be able to stand through this, but bear with me a second because I'm going to set the stage um for the day and night that they endured. On Monday, February 23rd, just before 6:15 p.m., Cary 911 received a call reporting an apartment building on fire on Summit Ridge Loop in the Camden uh Westwood apartment complex in Morrisville. In addition to Morrisville fire units and an Apex unit, eight Cary fire engines, three Cary ladders, one Cary rescue, and two Cary battalion chiefs responded to this three-alarm fire. Morrisville Fire Department had multiple units on the scene of an active gas leak prior to this call and therefore had less units available to send, uh triggering the heavier Cary response. Typically, the initial response would have been handled more significantly by the Morrisville units, but this kind of details how um there's a lot of interaction between our communities. Cary Battalion 3 arrived on the scene and had heavy fire visible on three floors and ran that was running into the attic of a 30-unit apartment building and windy conditions were contributing to the rapid spread of fire. Initial efforts focused on evacuating the building and trying to slow the fire spread and the first victim was rescued

um from the from the building by Morrisville Engine 21 at 6:20. At 6:28, uh Cary 911 received additional call from a resident stating that they were trapped on the third floor with visible fire outside of their windows. Crews from Ladder 1 and Engine 4 quickly located the caller's apartment and were able to successfully evacuate two adults and a baby from uh building safely. Fire crews continued to work under heavy conditions to ensure all residents were evacuated from the building and that occupants were cleared. Once the building was clear, defensive operation began, uh which really means, I guess in my layman's term, they started uh putting water on the fire to uh help uh calm the fire and suppress it from the outside and control it. Then crews continued to work that in on that unit until 10:00 p.m. until the fire was fully extinguished. Just before 9:15 p.m., however, a a second structure fire occurred in Cary and they were dispatched this time in Cary on West Maryland Circle. Two units from Cary who had been released from the apartment fire were sent to their second fire of the night. Apex fire sent three engines and two battalion chiefs to Cary in addition to the one engine, one ladder, and one rescue from Cary and crews were on the scene until approximately 11:30 to control and investigate that fire. While Cary fire assisted Morrisville, units from Apex Fire Department, Durham Fire Department, and Morrisville covered Cary stations across town to respond to other calls in Cary until our units uh became available. So tonight, we want to recognize this group of firefighters who demonstrated the very best of public service. Uh because of your hard work, courage, training, and teamwork, lives were saved and families were able to return home to the people who love them. On behalf of myself, the mayor and council, as well as the entire community, we thank you for your bravery, your professionalism, and commitment to protecting our community

as well as those in other communities. I need to thank your families. I see many, I believe, that are here tonight that also support you for the work you do and we can't say enough about them as well. Uh I also want to say thank you to the other staff that uh supported you tonight or that night that also included emergency communications as well as police staff, so thank you. Your actions remind us all what true public service looks like and we are deeply grateful to have you all on the Cary team and thank you very much. Well done.

[applause]

We're so blessed and grateful for each and every one of you. Thank you for what you do.

[snorts]

So, next we move to public speaks out. We've included instructions for speaking at this forum online and on the printed agenda. There are three opportunities to participate in public speaks out uh through written comments, by calling in this evening, or by being here in person tonight. And if you are here in person and would like to speak, I would ask that you take a seat in the rows to my right that are highlighted. Public speaks out speakers have up to 3 minutes each for their comments and may speak speak on any town related topic as long as it's not a public hearing and that's your benefit because you get more time at a public hearing. The 3-minute time limit will be enforced not to be rude but to be fair to all of our speakers. There's a timer on the podium. It'll start off with a green light and when it turns yellow means you have 30 seconds remaining and when it flashes red that means your time has expired and again that's when I'll interrupt you not trying to be rude but to be fair to all of our speakers. I would ask that our speakers be respectful in their comments and direct those comments to the entire council and

not an individual. I thank everyone in the audience for understanding that this is a business meeting and please respect that this is a business meeting by not applauding, making remarks from your seats, using props or doing anything else that may distract from the business meeting. So now is the time for Public Speaks Out and first I'll call on our clerk to read any written comments and call on any registered speakers. We had two written comments and these have been emailed to council prior to the meeting, provided to council upon arrival and attached to the online agenda for accessibility. We had three registered speakers. Our first one is Marla Durell followed by Worth Mills and our third registered speaker is Hanif Williams. Good evening, council. My name is Marla Durell and I'm speaking to you tonight as the president of Kids Together, the nonprofit organization that supports Cary's Kids Together Playground. Good things happen in Cary every day. I'd like to tell you about one very good thing that happened recently at Kids Together Playground. On Sunday, March 15, Kids Together hosted Safety Day, a day to celebrate those who work to keep us safe. We invited the Cary Fire Department, the Police Department, and Citizens Assisting Police to join us in the parking lot next to Thurston Drive from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. They accepted our invitation, bringing a fire truck and several firefighters, police cars and police officers, and a table offering free child ID kits. An estimated 140 children, along with

their adult caregivers, climbed aboard the fire truck then met the police officers. The kids loved their new firefighter hats, police badge stickers, and law enforcement activity books. Families completed 37 child ID kits. So today we're sending a great big Kids Together thank you to Cary Fire Station number three, the Cary Police Department, and Citizens Assisting Police for filling our day with smiles and reminding us that they are here to keep us safe. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Durell. Our next registered speaker is Worth Mills. Good evening, mayor and members of council. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners speaking on behalf of Gala Investments LLC as it relates to the Pitter-Sears rezoning REZ-2505. Um I wanted to thank our adjacent neighbors uh and the community leaders for their engagement and their participation throughout the rezoning process. And also thanks to the planning department for their help through the many submittals that we've made along the way. The last time that we were before this council our rezoning was for a TRCU zoning uh and would allow for lot sizes between 6,500 and 8,000 square feet uh for a total of 24 homes. After uh that town council meeting, uh we then revised our application to request an R8 conditional zoning which will require all of those lots to be at least 8,000 square feet in size and we reduced the number of homes from 24 to 23 which brings us to 1.8 dwelling units an acre [laughter] uh gross density. We think that this update is more compatible with the Sequoia Creek lot size which is immediately to our uh northeast and this update furthers the

Chatham County uh Cary Joint Land Use Plan which calls for sort of a gentle density increase moving from east to west. Uh just for perspective Sequoia Creek has a gross density of two units an acre. This project would be 1.8 units per acre and Dunhill Estates uh which is to our west has a gross density of 1.4 units an acre. Uh some other things that I'd like to highlight is the new pedestrian connection across Pitter-Sears to the existing multi-use path uh that will connect O'Kelly Chapel Road and the American Tobacco Trail. We're really excited about that. Uh we have offered wider bike lanes along pedes- or along Pitter-Sears for pedestrian safety and offered that each home have a two-car garage that is wired with EV charging stations. And lastly, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this case last month 8-1. Um for these reasons we think the request is reasonable and in the public interest uh and we would respectfully request that this council approve both the rezoning and associated annexation this evening. We are here uh our full team is here if you have any questions but again thank you for your time this evening. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Our next registered speaker is Hanif Williams. Good evening, mayor, council members, madam clerk. Before I begin every moment that I've stood before this council, I have uh yielded my time and I want to reclaim that. Before I get into what I want to say, I want to address uh the past two uh council meetings that I was present. Number one, the uh mayor's town address and 2 weeks ago where we had uh protesters uh some of them was Cary residents and many of them were not

Cary residents. The statements that was mentioned we are Cary residents and American citizens. There's a certain dignity and honor that we have even if we have diversity of thought and to disagree. For these protesters to come up and have personal attacks to this council and specifically the mayor to disrespect the chief of police so truly was standing there. You have the chief of the fire department, Chief Cooper, and it's a profound irony and it is a unbelievable contrast that they are absent when we're honoring the very people that will ultimately protect them of the very things that they fear that have not even happened. To call this man a coward is something that we cannot accept. And I am the person on January 8th which my remarks went viral. So this is not me speaking up as a lawyer to this particular council and the mayor. But that type of behavior can never ever be accepted for residents of Cary. And I hear and I'm I'm I'm going to say what I've already submitted for the record in my email and my statements when it comes to ICE, my official statements that I have sent to this council. Being the fact that you're not a coward. You have a family that watches this. You are a lifetime Cary resident. You're a husband, you're a father, probably a grandfather. For that statement to be made, it's something that is well beyond the scopes of disagreeing and it takes the individual to a point where it's just completely unacceptable. And that's not what Cary is about.

Because the individual may not They're asking you to do something, they should be contacting Deborah Ross and Valerie Fouchi. They are their federal elected officials who represent them in Congress. So on a lighter note uh [laughter] I do want to mention the fact that you can start my time and I appreciate that as well. Um that I want to talk you know Cary is growing of course at 1%. We're going to get 200 We're going to get to 250,000 I have to interrupt.

Just just I'll say this last statement but I want to be I want to make sure that the water supply when we get to 250,000 do we have a succession plan for when that water supply gets to 250,000 that's I guess three decades. Do we have a succession plan for that? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. No additional registered speakers. If you are here in the audience and would like to speak this evening on anything that's not a public hearing uh you're welcome to do so at this time. Anyone else to speak? Okay, we'll close Public speaks out and move on to the consent agenda. For the benefit of people watching our meeting streaming or on TV, I'll take a moment to review our consent agenda items. Please keep in mind that one vote approves all of these items. We have 25 REZ 08, which is 8732 Green Level Church Road statement of consistency and calling for a public hearing. 26 AO1 Macedonia Place minutes. Would council members like any of either of these pulled for discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion to approve. Second.

There's a motion and a second. Discussion. All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Now move to public hearings. Same rules apply for public hearings that apply for

public speaks out with one exception. Speakers now have 5 minutes each for their comments. Our only public hearing this evening is 5.1 Act 40 Land Development Ordinance amendment and assistant development services director Rob Wilson will introduce the item and council will not take action on this rezoning on this LDO amendment tonight, but it will be referred to our planning and zoning board for their review and recommendation and will return to council at a future date. Mr. Wilson. Good evening, Mayor and council. On behalf of staff, I'm pleased to share our recommended Act 40 amendments to the Land Development Ordinance. As a refresher, I'll start by noting our amendment process is rooted in the Imagine Cary Community Plan which articulates the town's vision and values and charts a course for Cary's desired future. The plan's vision to remain a premier community where residents can live, work, and play is what the Land Development Ordinance or LDO is designed to implement and achieve. To stay consistent with state law and continue aligning ordinances with the Imagine Cary vision, the LDO requires ongoing updates. We call these updates acts, which is short for actions. Acts fall into two categories, those that address legally required changes, process improvements, or technical updates and those that implement a policy or plan initiative. Each time we bring an act forward, we reference the Imagine Cary Community Plan for guidance. The amendments proposed tonight include both types. Act amendments follow an established process. They start with an idea or a need that's followed by staff research and analysis. Those topics that staff believes merit consideration are scheduled for a public hearing after which they go to planning and zoning board for a recommendation and then return to council for

consideration. Our agenda this evening includes three proposed amendments. A legal update regarding waiting periods, a process update regarding inactive applications, and a policy initiative regarding retaining walls. Our first proposed amendment stems from an action the North Carolina General Assembly took last year. They amended the state statutes to prohibit local governments from requiring applicants to wait a set period of time before refiling applications that were previously denied or withdrawn. Examples of these types of applications include rezonings, ordinance amendments, and development related applications. The change is likely most impactful to rezonings. The proposed amendment would remove the LDO's 1-year waiting period for a subsequent application for the rezoning of a property that's approved, denied, or withdrawn. As a result, council may find itself considering repeat rezoning requests for the same property sooner than is currently allowed under Cary's regulations. It's important to note that this change does not update our process. So, any new rezoning application will still be required to start at the beginning of the process and meet all procedural requirements, including holding a neighborhood meeting and undergoing staff review participating in a new council public hearing and going to the planning and zoning board for recommendation. Next, we'll talk about item B, inactive applications, which is a process update.

[clears throat]

This second update would clarify an existing LDO reference to the general statutes and would mirror the statute requirement verbatim in the LDO. This approach clarifies the rule, making it more user-friendly. Next, we'll talk about the final and most substantial Act 40 amendment, retaining walls. As you know, to further the Imagine Cary Community Plan's vision of high-quality development many aspects of Cary's

design standards are relatively stringent. However, Cary's current LDO standards for retaining walls are not consistently achieving the same high-quality outcomes and are relatively less restrictive than regional peer communities. This amendment proposes to update the ordinance by limiting all retaining walls to 6 ft in height and expanding material and landscaping requirements. Before reviewing our proposed changes, though, let me share how we got here. Cary's LDO includes a variety of regulations related to retaining walls. Retaining walls located in stormwater facilities have the most standards including a height limitation of 6 ft and detailed requirements regarding the materials and appearance of the walls. Outside of stormwater facilities, lots with detached dwellings and similar residential uses currently have a maximum wall height of 8 ft within applicable setbacks. These walls are not subject to materials or aesthetic appearance requirements. And non-residential and multi-family land uses do not have any height or aesthetic requirements for retaining walls located outside of stormwater facilities. As a result, taller walls with aesthetically monolithic appearance may be constructed in these developments. So, the result of our current requirements is that Cary's most attractive retaining walls are located in our stormwater facilities. And we often see taller walls with lesser quality materials and appearance in non-residential and multi-family As part of our research, staff looked at requirements in nearby jurisdictions. We observed that Raleigh and Winston-Salem have a maximum height of 10 ft with a minimum of 2 ft of separation between walls. While Greensboro's maximum height varies from 4 to 10 ft depending on the land use and the location of the wall. Meanwhile, Durham has a maximum height of 8 ft. Apex limits its retaining walls to 6 ft in height with a minimum separation of 3

ft between walls matching what Cary currently requires in its stormwater facilities. Several municipalities also require landscaping and incorporate aesthetic requirements regarding wall appearance. While Cary has high-quality standards for walls in its stormwater facilities our review of these other jurisdictions led staff to conclude that our lack of requirements for walls outside of stormwater facilities represents a gap in our regulations. The Community Appearance Manual's objective that structures should be human in scale led staff to recommend that expanding the existing retaining wall height requirement in stormwater facilities a maximum of 6 ft would be prudent to apply to all retaining walls throughout Cary. If grading and or topography necessitated a greater transition then multiple retaining walls may be used if they're a minimum of 3 ft apart. The only exception would be in the industrial zoning district where walls that are not visible from a street or greenway could be up to a maximum of 10 ft in height with the same 3-ft separation requirement. Secondly, staff recommends expanding the aesthetic requirements for retaining walls beyond stormwater facilities to non-residential and multi-family developments across Cary. For most uses, retaining walls would be required to have a hand-built appearance characterized by a variety of block sizes, tones, and random patterns. The requirements will be expanded to indicate that walls may be modular, segmental, or poured-in-place as long as these three appearance criteria, block size, tone, and pattern are achieved. The illustrative examples shown here would also be included in the LDO to provide direction and clarity. Staff also recommends requiring landscaping in the tiered spaces between walls when multiple walls are needed to navigate grade changes. And note again, these aesthetic and landscaping changes are only proposed to be applied to non-residential and multi-family developments and thus would not apply to retaining walls on residential lots with detached dwellings.

The Imagine Cary Community Plan provided guidance for staff in preparing these recommended amendments. The Foundations chapter of the plan lays out the vision that Cary will continue to be the model of a highly regarded and well-managed community. The chapter notes value in that an attractive physical setting, including both the natural and built environment, strengthens community pride and encourages private investment. The plan further notes that high-quality design and aesthetics also need to be achieved through the consistent delivery of high-quality community infrastructure, services, and facilities. Additional guidance can also be found in the Live and Shape chapters of the plan. This concludes staff's overview of the Act 40 amendments. I would like to note that in addition to tonight's public hearing, staff has reached out to several members of the development community and will incorporate their feedback and suggestions as we move through the process. Following the public hearing, I will be available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. So, now it's time for a public hearing for LDO amendment and I'll call on the clerk first to call on any registered speakers and read any written comments. No registered speakers and no written comments. If you're in attendance and would like to speak at this public hearing, now's your opportunity and I would invite you forward. Anyone to speak at this public hearing? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to council members for questions or comments. I have a question. Could you describe some of the industrial zoning where the 10-ft may occur? Are you talking about office institutional or like the the short industrial areas maybe west of 55? The true [clears throat] industrial areas, not office. So, this would be like more warehouse, manufacturing. So, can you tell me at the I'm remembering a great big wall by Parkside Town Commons. Mhm.

The So, what is the impact on development? I think that wall might be ft if that's right?

Yes, by the apartments. By the apartments. Yes. So, would that be five tiers with 3 ft in between? Uh if it's 30 ft, uh yes, five tiers of 6 ft with 3 ft in between. So, the loss to the developer would be additional with 3 15 ft?

plus the bricks uh Well, that Yeah, four tiers between five walls, so 12 ft, but yes, you you That's correct. Um there would be uh a certain amount of developable space that would be consumed by the tiers. Not that different than the space that's consumed by streetscapes and other buffers, for example, on a site. So, going down the I'm sorry, going down this road, so they'd have the streetscape, whatever requirement that might be 30 ft, then they'd have this extra 15 ft associated with it as well. Have we heard back from any development? I mean, I think it looks much better. I remember we were talking about what we could do to um scale it, to put plantings, to to make it feel more human scale, but have we not received any feedback yet? We have not received any feedback yet, but we do expect that we'll receive feedback as we move through the process and we'll incorporate that and share that, you know, with the planning zoning board and as we return to council, we we'll add those items as attachments to the staff report. Okay, thank you. So, generated a thought in my head. So, if you have a site plan that includes the retaining wall and you redevelop that building or do something with that building, are you now required to come up to code and change that retaining wall? Well, you get into the uh

[laughter]

Depends on the Depends on what kind of changes are being proposed. Okay. So, if it's a tear down and rebuild, probably Yes. But if you're just

modification Right. Okay. We would let them remain in their existing condition. I have one other question. [music] Um why does the this new standard not apply the retaining wall standard does not apply to um detached residential? The aesthetic and landscaping requirements would not apply. Um we're not recommending that the additional cost that might be associated with those features

Sure. would would not be um we wouldn't burden detached homeowners with those expenses.

requirements, but does the height

the height would apply to them. Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. Other questions? I think the question that Lori asked, I was like, what's your name? I'm already on spring break.

What's her face?

[laughter]

Well, I was I was going to try to call you something else. Something else, yeah. It was a nice something else. Um So, I was just thinking, you know, what I was going to ask you if you could speak about how in line these recommendations would be with what's already typically happening. So, the question that you asked was helpful to kind of think of scenarios. And I was was thinking, would it be cost prohibitive? Like And so, I mean, just getting additional feedback um from developers that, you know, could be affected. You know, I remember the Harris Teeter at Is that Maynard? The new Harris And that was a significant discussion way back when because I think that's a 20-ft um maybe It seems When you're short, when you're 5 ft, everything looks 20 ft, but it's quite tall. And I know we had a discussion about that and wanted it it to be screened in some way, and I I wonder if that would have been a usable development if they

had to go back, you know, what what 3 ft in between, you know, go up 6 ft, go three back, and then another 6 ft because that was quite large. So, that would be a significant investment. Although, at the same point, it would look much better from from the street. What would be the process for a developer who says, "I don't really want to do that" or is is that during rezoning or is that done done at site plan? Uh rezonings and we've actually seen some conditions regarding the height and appearance of retaining walls in with some of our recent MXD rezonings. MXD rezonings and PDD rezonings would have the ability to ask for flexibility in these areas, whether for the whole site or for portions of the site, um depending on their needs. But those are the only two zoning categories that would have flexibility to do that. Um otherwise, as currently proposed, um someone would need to request a variance to and would need to demonstrate they don't have a practical alternative. And the variance comes in during the rezoning plan time or is that during site plan? It would during be during the development plan process. It would be handled by the zoning board of adjustment. Hm. Okay. So, we would do it concurrently while we're reviewing the plan. And for the record, the thing I was going to call you was mayor pro tem, but my brain wasn't working.

[laughter]

Thank you. I have a question about um not really the technicality of what you're presenting, but more on the impact at the staff level. So, sorry I'm sounding like a horse today, and it's because I have allergies. I'm not sick, so if these two get sick, it's not my responsibility.

[clears throat]

You're making [laughter] me cough now. Sorry, Lori. Um so, if the um looks like the one-year timeline will change, and probably it's going to be shorter, would that impact the staffing in the department? Um you mean in terms

of plan review? Mhm. I not much, like since

we're looking at retaining walls on plans today. Um in some ways, these suggested changes actually make it clearer what's allowed and what's not allowed. So, our hope would be by making it clearer, uh we actually have greater compliance earlier in the review of plans. Um but we're already looking at every retaining wall on a site as part of plan review, so that wouldn't change. Let me rephrase the question now

Sure. in um a different aspect of it. So, let's say if there's a, you know, what will that increase the time for response for other projects that are in the queue? Um or that's something that's not going to get impacted, you think? Does it Does it make Would it take longer to review a plan because of these requirements? No, because there are more projects now and they don't wait for 1 year. They just can come back in 2 months.

I understand. Um

So, would that increase the time of review for other projects that are already in progress and they're they're viable projects? It could. We don't expect a whole lot of activity in that area as it relates to development plan review. We we think it's more likely, if it shows up, it'll show up in the zoning realm. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thanks for asking that question. Yeah, I know. My apologies. I thought you were following up on the retaining wall question. I didn't realize you

No, I was talking about the one-year

The waiting period.

Yeah, the waiting period. How does that impact the staffing because we're discussing budget, so does that we have to incorporate some of this in the budgeting, so that that was my perspective. Mhm. Other thoughts or comments? [snorts] Just had one other question about the the waiting period as well. Now, I admit I I relied on staff to do my homework here. I didn't read the statute. I didn't read the law myself. Um and so, what I want to understand is is it limited to um altering or amending our ability to have waiting periods just on these three things listed here in the staff report,

or was it broad language where we might have to make other changes and there might be other things that this law applies to? I'm going to let the town attorney respond to your question. Um the wording in the statute speaks in statute speak to things like development regulations. What we've done in the staff report and in our ordinance is translated that into the terms we use in Cary, rezonings, development plans, um and that sort of thing. So, we think with the amendments we've done, we've captured everything we need to capture. I assumed as such. Thank you for doing the work. I appreciate that. That's all I got. It may help the council for context that during the last decade, we've only had maybe a couple of instances where we've had folks where this has been applicable and been an issue. Sure. So, it's not a a regular occurrence. Okay. Other questions or comments? All right. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. The next step for this, uh item is going to the Planning and Zoning Board for their review and recommendation, and it will return to us at a future date. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. We are now at discussion items. Our first and second discussion item is 25 A-03 Pittard Sears Road annexation and 25 R-8-05 Pittard Sears rezoning. And they will be presented together by Aaron Puckett. Thank you. And good evening, Council. This is a request to annex and apply initial Cary zoning to approximately 12.6 acres at 606 and 694 Pittard Sears Road. You held a public hearing for this request in August of last year, and tonight you may take action. The site is located in Chatham County on the northwest side of Pittard Sears Road, approximately 0.3 miles east of the American Tobacco Trail. And the site is surrounded by detached residential development. The site is currently within Chatham County and is zoned residential one. And the applicant proposes an initial

Cary zoning of residential 8 conditional use or R-8-CU. The applicant has also offered several zoning conditions. Some of this will be a repeat from what you just heard at public speaks out, so bear with me. They've offered limiting development of the site to a maximum of 23 detached dwellings, which is about 1.8 units per acre. Ensuring the lot size will be calculated exclusive of stream buffers, which would otherwise be allowed by the North Carolina General Statutes. Providing a two-car garage for each unit and wiring each garage for future electric vehicle charging. Ensuring all perimeter buffers will be within common open space. Increasing the required site frontage improvements to accommodate a 5-ft wide bike lane. Removing the temporary turnaround to the north on Matasso Drive as that street connect into the site. And installing a mid-block pedestrian crossing to include a rectangular rapid flashing beacon or RRFB. Staff's analysis against the Imagine Cary Community Plan found that policies in multiple chapters apply along with the guidance [snorts] of the Chatham Cary Joint Land Use Plan. And the full details of that analysis were provided in your staff report. As seen on this slide, the site is within the low-density residential area of the Chatham Cary Joint Planning Area. These areas recommend a maximum density of two units per acre. And as previously mentioned, this request proposes 1.8 units per acre. The plan also underscores the importance of transitions within these areas. And in this case, the request proposes lot sizes and a density generally consistent with those northeast of the site and somewhat denser than development to the west. There [snorts] has been a significant There has been significant public feedback throughout this rezoning. Which I will briefly summarize. And again, more details were provided in the report. A neighborhood meeting was held in June of last year, and 72 members of the public attended. A public hearing

was then held in August, at which there were five written comments and five speakers. Since [cough] and concerns voiced during both of these meetings included concerns about traffic, including site access, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and connections to adjacent developments. Concerns around drainage, loss of open space and tree canopy, and overall concerns with the proposed lot size and density. I do also want to note that at the time of the neighborhood meeting and the subsequent public hearing, the proposed zoning district was transitional residential conditional use. With smaller lot sizes than would be allowed under the current request, which is residential 8 conditional use. Following the neighborhood meeting and public hearing, staff also received a number of emails from area residents. And we also met with members of [snorts] the Dunhill HOA. Prior to this evening's meeting, staff was also made aware that questions have come up regarding an adjacent parcel to the west of this rezoning assemblage. This parcel is outside of Cary's jurisdiction and would need to be annexed and rezoned to a Cary zoning district in order for it to be used for any improvement or additional lots associated with this project. And at this time, we have not received an application for this parcel. Following the public hearing, the applicant changed the request from TRCU to R-8-CU, which guarantees a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Previously, with the TRCU request, the applicant had offered a minimum lot size of 6,500 feet. The maximum number of lots was also reduced by one. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this request at their February meeting. They had questions and comments around the current cross-section of Pittard Sears Road, clarifying questions around the site density and required transportation improvements, and a general observation about the benefit of changing the request to R-8-CU to attempt to address concerns from residents and Council.

And the board found the request consistent with the plan by a vote of 8 to 1. The one member voting against consistency did not specifically state the reason for his vote, but generally expressed concerns about the inconsistent Pittard Sears Road improvements. Staff finds the overall density is consistent with that recommended in low-density residential areas of the Chatham Cary Joint Land Use Plan. And the proposal for detached residential lots with the change to an R-8-CU zoning district addresses live and shape policies, while a commitment to a pedestrian crossing helps address move, and providing perimeter buffers within common area at least modestly addresses enrich policies. And for these reasons, staff does recommend approval of the request. This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you, Ms. Puckett. Um I guess I'll start it off. This is one of those where I could go either way, so I'm dying to hear what my colleagues say. Uh I did focus a lot on density on this one. Uh and I remember when the plans were created back in the day, one to three units was low density, four to eight was medium, and above eight was low uh high. And so, this since we're averaging would fit in the low density, the feel would be five units an acre, which I think is a bit much than what we kind of anticipated when we created the plan years ago. Um so, those are the pros and cons. The another pro would be as you go north to south, it does transition to less density. As you go east to west, it does transition to less density. And so, that's kind of where I am, and I'm looking for somebody to convince me one way or the other. So, I'll turn it over to my colleagues. So, I think this is one of those

projects that, you know, is a classic example of how we can improvise the project based on the residents' feedback. Last year, there was a lot of um um feedback from I know you mentioned five residents. But But those five residents really represented the HOAs of different five different communities, so uh more than about 3 to 400 residents there. So, the feedback was around storm water issues, um about the uh road improvements. Um density was one of them. Um Dana Scott and I actually She's shaking her head, so you know, we

[clears throat]

sat down in their living room for 3 hours. We answered every question that they had. And we made sure that, you know, the information is shared with the um applicant. The applicant worked very closely with them. They're making an investment to improve the storm water in that area. Currently, in that area, from what I understand, the water gets

[clears throat]

um into other um residents' yards because of the grading issue. So, the applicant actually bought this um parcel um 2 and 1/2 acres just to build the storm water pond. It's not I understand it's not part of this application, but that was the plan that was discussed uh with me.

[clears throat]

So, this is going to address the storm water issues in this entire area. And I feel like the way they have they're planning to build the storm water by the road, it's the with the gutters, the water will flow from uh when it rains into those gutters. So, it's a win-win for that area in my view. Um yes, I feel like the density could be

one of the things, but then um I was on the call with ahem

[clears throat]

all those people and the applicant on Wednesday. And the applicant shared um um the project and, you know, whatever improvements they're going to make. Uh one of the things, Mayor, based on your advice, I did get on the call and I did offer them that if they have any questions and they want to verify anything, they uh the residents can come back to our department, uh planning and zoning, and very for like, you know, in case if they have they want to verify anything. So,

[clears throat]

I don't think you heard anything back from any resident, right, Ms. Puckett? We've not heard anything in advance of this meeting. No. So, um I didn't hear any negative feeling on that call on Wednesday morning. I felt that there there are a lot of positives with this project um for that area. It's going to improve the storm water I'm just concerned about one thing which is not directly related to this project.

[clears throat]

Is the traffic study that needs to be done. Um As per the residents that spoke in our last meeting one of the concern was that they're not able to make a left turn from O'Kelly Chapel on Pitt Street. But that's really not related to this project. It's a general feedback that we have to do a traffic study. I haven't seen that but I will not hold that against this project. That's where I am. Um sure. Well, first off I was not at the first public hearing but got an opportunity to watch the planning and zoning board and watch the public hearing and as I was sitting there I was thinking well, I don't understand why this is TRCU. Um so, I really commend the applicant for listening, engaging, and acting to change it from TRCU to R8 because I

think while I watched um my fellow council members uh look at it and deliberate that seemed to be a of great concern to everyone. So, I appreciate that they're all a minimum of 8,000 square foot lots. Um I was also really excited um about the two-car garages with the wiring for EV charging but really for me it's about the five-foot bike lane. Um anyone who rides bikes um our current minimum I believe is four feet

[snorts]

um and then we take advantage of that area by the curb and so it kind of feels like five feet but having five feet plus the curb I really hope and I can't remember in the bike plan if there's a recommendation to move to five feet. Hopefully there is but that really makes people feel a lot more safe. And although there were some concerns by some of the um homeowners that they were concerned about the bike lane there. I really think that extra foot plus the curb and gutter is going to make residents feel much more comfortable to use it. So um it's a feels me um a little bit more dense but I think being at a minimum of 8,000 similar to the other um neighboring communities is it is it absolutely perfect? No, but I would have be afraid that um good would get in in the way or perfect would get in the way of good. Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah. So, um so I'm at this point with the and then the pedestrian crossing that I feel comfortable um supporting this. Mayor, if you'll allow me I'll just piggyback on Lori's comments because mine are so similar. Uh you know, you've you've asked for some compelling arguments and so I feel the same way. Is this perfect? Probably not but my more tenured colleagues can probably tell me have we ever seen the

perfect proposal? I don't know if it exists. Uh and so Mayor, would R12 have been preferable? Maybe. Uh you know, I shared with the applicant that I would have loved to have seen some tree canopy considerations perhaps included in the conditions especially when we're in Chatham County and uh the natural character and the rural character is a a big draw for living there. But ultimately I think the applicant was really responsive to community concerns. I think uh changing the zoning request and and going to R8 bumping up that minimum uh lot size, speaking to the drainage concerns, uh you know, single family here wedged in between single family is a natural use for this area and so for me it might come short of perfect like most proposals if not all of them uh but it it checks enough boxes that it makes sense to me for for this parcel. Okay. Other comments? I would love to um appreciate uh councilwoman Bonso. She mentioned about the lot that triangle uh parcel purchased by the applicant. That's really solve only not only this uh this uh neighborhoods storm water system drainage system uh issue but also the round other neighborhoods. That's really um like for the public in- interest. So, um I'm pretty uh like that cuz in District C uh storm water system is really a issue and in District D I know more density and uh cuz Cary has limited land. We can we don't have a lot of land to develop it so that's the compromises and I'm um

I think that applicant has um invest more for the public interest which I really like it. And like um Mayor Pro Tem Bush I remember that.

[laughter]

About the bike lane, I like that too especially it's five feet wide. Um at least two case can uh ride together, right?

So, that's really a very good uh feature uh especially also for the EV charging. I have electric cars so that's uh I don't have to if I'm the resident future resident, I don't have to pay more to install EV charger uh in my house. That's really cool. Um so, I Other than that, I I'm pretty like this project. I would just like to weigh in because I I'm cognizant of the fact that we're talking about the triangle um piece of property and looks like um Miss Packett was going to weigh in but we're not um allowed to consider that as part of this rezoning. So, although it is great and I appreciate that they're moving forward with it it should not um weigh enter into your decision-making process because it is not a condition, they don't own it and it's not part of it. Although if it happens, I would I agree with you that would be great but it shouldn't weigh on your um thoughts. Did I get that correct?

That's correct. Yes. Thank you. Other thoughts?

You saved me a couple of sentences.

[laughter]

Yeah, me too. Oh, did I? Triangle is safe. I I do like that they that the applicant incorporated feedback and the adjustment was made to density and I did speak with council member Bonso yesterday after the the meeting with the applicants and residents and and and talking with her it it didn't

seem like a reasonable compromise had been had been reached. So, um I'm I'm feeling that that I'll be supportive. I'll just share that um I'd like to know what my colleagues idea of a perfect

[laughter]

project is. For serious. Uh because I think it would be helpful to understand what sort of that North Star um really is. Um I've got four years of rezoning applications to compare this to and this project I said okay. Like the it would um I got to I got to say I believe that when an applicant is responsive to the feedback from the neighbors and from council um that makes me see the project very positively and that is the case here and that that was one of the the primary with the with the project being you know, a a very reasonable transition. I hear this council for the last four years talk about transitions ad nauseam for lack of a positive way to say it but at every single one of these um these hearings we they talk about the transitions. This seems to really fit the spirit of what that really is and and really smart putting in the the EV charging capability. I tell you what I've got an electric car and I don't have wiring for um my electric car so it spends a lot of time on the drip charger at 1% an hour. So, I wish that when I had remodeled my home I wired it for EV. So, it's I do notice it when it's there and I'm like that's I'm glad to see that included. Mayor, I'll just add one more thing here. Um I appreciate the comments and support for this project but I will say that um this is the first time I've worked so closely with our staff and the commitment that Scott, Dana, and

Miss Packett has shown towards the project. And it may seem as a small project but I have seen them live in action. Their patience like they just sat there and they're like bring it on. They will answer every question and I want to thank you for that because I know for us it's probably an project but for them for those residents it's their daily lives and how it this project will impact it. And I've seen you work very very hard with patience um and I want to thank you for that. So, the the answer to the perfect question, there are seven different definitions

[laughter]

of what perfect is. Uh but I think we're ready for a motion. Um it sounds pretty positive, so I will have to say and you have show of hands, but I think this is going to be pretty easy. Uh so, I'd ask for a motion for the annexation

Please.

Okay. This is my first time. So, I move that we adopt the following documents attached the online agenda annexation ordinance for 25 A 0 3, the statement of consistency for 25 R E Z 0 5, and rezoning ordinance 25 R E Z 0 5. Second. There's a motion and a second.

Second. Uh discussion. All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carried unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Parker.

Thank you. Our last discussion item is fiscal year 2026 street improvements project bid award transportation engineer manager, David Spencer, will present the item and council may take action. Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening and good evening, Council. Um I'm excited to bring forward the construction bid award for the FY 26 street improvement projects. Uh the reason I'm excited is we weren't able to do this project last year uh due to managing our budget constraints. So, awarding this project for this year does recommence our investment uh in our

transportation network. So, I know it's often easy to think about this as simply a resurfacing project, but the improvements that are provided with this program are so much more than that. For example, with every project, um existing pedestrian curb ramps are upgraded to meet accessibility requirements. We also consider areas where rejuvenator can be used to help preserve and extend the life of the asphalt surface, and this obviously leads to improvements in maintenance costs. Also, as a Vision Zero community, safety improvements are considered such as um upgrading our existing pavement markings to meet current standards. This includes replacing existing crosswalks with high visibility markings as shown here um and adding appropriate warning signs. And finally, multimodal devices uh including rectangular rapid flashing beacons like we heard recently uh can be provided as a part of this project. Um these are used to help enhance visibility for those pedestrians that will be crossing our streets. Our annual pavement condition survey is used uh to score our streets. Uh every year, we review all 525 miles of Cary-owned streets, and we rate them on a scale from 0, which means very poor, to 100, which is very good. Streets are rated based on their condition and taken to account defects that you commonly see like rutting and cracking. In addition to the condition of the asphalt, uh we also collect data on the those pavement markings, the signs, and the curb ramps, and we use that to help us make our decisions on which items, which locations will be selected. So, about 10 years ago, Cary established um neighborhood paving groups seen here in blue to begin selecting streets through the neighborhood approach. The goal of neighborhood approach is to identify paving groups with streets

rated in very poor condition as well as the nearby neighborhood streets that are rated as poor. The benefits of this approach include reduced mobilization for our contractors, which does lead to the lower bid prices. It also minimizes the recurring disruption within the neighborhood, uh results in a better aesthetic for our streets, and prevents construction traffic on freshly paved streets in subsequent years. The FY 26 projects have identified over 10 miles of streets to be improved. The selected uh paving groups include Stonewater, Copperleaf, McDonald Woods, Ren Drive, and East Chatham Street in downtown. We received bids from four contractors at our February 26 bid opening. Those were from Turner Asphalt, Blythe Construction, Cardinal Civil Contracting, and the Fred Smith Company. Due to pricing discrepancies in their line items, though, Turner Asphalt had to make the the tough decision to rescind their bid, uh which resulted in Blythe Construction as the lowest responsible bidder coming in at a cost of around 4 and 1/2 million dollars. I'm also happy to say these bids came in within budget and under our engineering estimates. If council takes action tonight to approve the bid award, our next steps will include executing our construction agreements and contracts, complete a communication plan with our 311 staff, begin public outreach to directly notify residents who will be impacted by the project, and then start construction at the beginning of summer of this year. So, that said, staff recommends council award the FY 26 street improvement project to Blythe Construction for a cost of $4,565,648.65.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. My colleagues know I geek out on this stuff. So, I'll go ahead and do my geek out stuff real quick, then I'll open it up to my colleagues. Uh for those that don't know, all your major streets, your thoroughfares, are mostly DOT. They have a different level of that 0 to 100. They're somewhere in the 60s, which means they're okay with cracking and potholes, and Cary roads are in better shape. They're in the 70s, mid-70s. And there's a benefit not only to having better roads to ride on, but it's better economically, too, because as you wait, it doesn't get linearly worse, it gets exponentially worse. So, as you wait, and it what we call slips category, it's exponent exponentially I can't say that word. exponentially more expensive. Uh so, I really appreciate staff and and my colleagues if they approve this. Taking care of things, being proactive on the front end rather than waiting till they get to that exponentially more expensive uh fix in the end. So, I think this was a wonderful report, and I very much appreciate it, and I hope my colleagues support it. I I just want to say if you had told me 4 years ago that I would get really enthusiastic about paving and roads and such, I would have been like, yeah, that's not happening. But really and truly, believe it or not, you started talking about it with zeal, and I was like, well, this is interesting. And so, I really did start learning about this and really understanding, you probably you know, recall my my colleagues recall, and probably others have heard me talk about, hey, we need to make sure that we are taking care of these roadways, not just because we want good roads. It really is I believe a fiscally responsible approach to invest in them before the the fixing of the streets becomes

absurdly expensive, and said it's just moderately expensive. But one of the questions I have um about this when I you see I see that bid, I just learned in a work session the price of rebar has gone down. Also weirdly excited about that.

[laughter]

What what if any effect would an increase in the cost of the materials used in these projects? How would that affect this bid award? Like if it does increase, would the the uh Blythe Construction have to eat the difference in the cost, lose their whatever margin they have, or would would the process require coming back and asking us to um award more money um in that case? I just want to make sure I understand, and for others that are listening, cuz I know sometimes it happens that we approve something or we've got a plan, and then it just doesn't seem to always cost exactly what we think it's going to cost, especially lately. So, I just wanted to ask that question, so I'm super clear on it, and so others understand it as well. Yeah, happy to. That So, when they submit these are competitive bids, so they are expected to meet the unit price, and at the time of bid, it is accepted, and that's what they charge for it. If it ends up costing them more on their side, then they will have to eat that, but what we will be paying is what the unit cost is for however much quantity they put out. Sounds like a dangerous business. Especially nowadays. We talked at our work session about um recently in our budget discussion since like we need somewhere between 8 million or more every year No, 14 million. 14 million to 14 Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the the Withers and Ravenel recommendation said $8.6 million per year, and the up I guess this is a year old, so maybe it in cost have gone up. Yeah, I think some 14 million floating around here. But we're we're doing And it also the report said something about our need to resurface 27

miles per year to maintain this 20-year cycle. Does that mean you'll be coming back with more in the you know, in the next few months, or what does that look like to keep up to that recommended number? So, the numbers you were mentioning before, that there's a rule of thumb on like the amount the recommended amount of maintenance for that, and that was the the $8 million. The the $14 million dollars from a lot of the analytics that is run with all the data to keep the payment ratings where we want them to be. So, a lot of that is to improve it, to get it back to where we were wanting it to be. So, that's where some of the discrepancies might be. Um as far as what comes in the future, um we are looking forward to doing the next payment condition rating and see where we sit. Um and that again, hopefully with the consultant that will end up selecting, they'll give us some more recommendations on how much we can handle uh going forward and where that puts our our future payment rating. Okay. And just since he already got a chance to geek out,

[laughter]

when it comes to the payment um rating, are we using technology on our, you know, trash trucks and stuff like that to do it so that we don't have to hire a company to do it for us? Yeah, one of the method the acceptable methods is to to have someone who's trained in identifying what the condition looks like and they give it a score themselves. There there's a an established um metric for how they do that, but right now we are using human eyes. Okay, cuz we the reason I bring it up is at Smart Cities Connect, there were multiple cities talking about changing from this type of methodology to putting cameras and using AI to do that [clears throat] significantly cheaper and to leverage the fact that our trucks go over this same piece of road, you know, every week. And so, we might be able to have a little bit of insight. It'd be great to see what what those case studies look like. And what a lot of people do use that. Sorry to interrupt, but do we do our PCIs every year, every other year?

Every year. Right now, it's every year.

Yeah. And so, when you're doing them that often, it makes sense to do more cameras. We we did talk about that, uh Council member Bush, and I believe it was tried to stand up and it was uh not done and I don't believe the resources were put to it. Or we've had a discussion uh about how much it might cost to stand it up on an initial cost. And I agree it could be cheaper in the long run. So, yeah, might be a future discussion. Yeah, it might be worth checking out to see what other municipalities are doing and what the pros and cons are. At the Smart Cities conference, the city of Alexandria mentioned that they are doing a an analysis on the various methods to do that. So, we're I have contact and we will look forward to talking with them when that's done. I saw you presented. You were there, so that's why I thought I'd ask.

[laughter]

So, I'll piggyback on um all these comments. I have to say I'm right where Councilwoman Khan-Johnson is. Like, you know, if you asked me 3 years ago, I would be excited about the maintenance of the road. I would not know what that means, but, you know, thank you, Mayor. You have been educating us and kind of showing us why it is important. We have an expert on the team, which makes life easier. Um uh in my campaign, one of the things that I really was passionate about was keeping the infrastructure, maintaining the infrastructure with the growth. And I think that's very important, but what I in my view that meant was that building new roads, making sure we're making road improvements as we expect um you know, the growth in the district, in my district specially, because it's the fastest growing right now. Um but I think you taught me the importance of maintaining it and why it is important. And the more we push this, the more expensive it becomes and the wear and tear becomes like a little bit more difficult. So, this is such an easy one to get behind and I think, you know, um I would I would not have a problem even in future to talk about what are

the roads that require maintenance. And I think we need to ask Cary have like a and I think Mayor Pro Tem mentioned this in the work session that we as Cary have to understand what what is the threshold that we need. And you know, kind of make sure that we're putting investment. And I'm very impressed by Councilwoman um Wong. She mentioned during quarterly that, you know, those are basic things that we should not compromise on. These are the basic you know, stuff that we have to keep up with and we have to maintain. And, you know, I I love that made an impact on me, because as we're thinking about how we're growing, I think we cannot lose sight of what exists. So, um I'm pretty happy with this. Uh I I love hearing this, because hearing from [laughter] other municipalities, I can say some in this state have a huge backlog, because they don't fund their maintenance and it becomes a real issue. And not being there is exciting.

[laughter]

Well, I'll share too, just that I think the accessibility improvements are I I've noticed several of the intersections that have had work done downtown, how much more accessible they really are and it does make a significant difference. So, I'm just really glad that that's part of these projects and we're not forgetting about not the middle of the road and the sides of the roads. I think it's great. I'm sorry. No, you're fine. I'll I'll still get to say it. Too much Too much caffeine. I I would sup- support the street improvements regardless, but there's no surprise that some of these roads are in my district. When you're thinking about the age um neighborhoods aging and the roads, um my neighborhood was one that was improved 2 3 years ago, possibly. Sometimes it's a It couldn't have been three, cuz I was on council. But um and so, the ages of the neighborhoods are approximately the same. And one of these roads I travel every day as I go to school. Many of my students live there and it's time.

Um I I also just wanted to mention, because sometimes I think people it I think I feel like it's been clearly stated here that we're looking at the condition of the roads and that's how we decide what to make improvements. I don't know how other communities do it. I hope that's the way other communities do it, but I wanted to point out an issue also that's important to me is that um it it is an equitable process, cuz some of these neighborhoods that are being improved here are some of our lower income areas and they deserve all of the same upgrades as other places. So, I just thought that was important to mention that these older neighborhoods don't have some of the upgrades that our newer our newer um neighborhoods that are being built today have and all District B's old.

[laughter]

Mature. Mature. She's She's a good word. She's in your community. To answer your questions, a lot of communities I'll I'll just use the phrase run to fail. And if you think about Kildaire Farm Road, which I have to drive every day with the potholes, dodging them and and Tryon Road, you have to dodge a pothole there, especially around Chick-fil-A where I live. Um it's that's is the mentality and that's way down below 50 and that's when you're paying multiple times more than you would if you're just maintaining it in a higher level. So, that is again good reason for us to do this. But thanks for bringing that up. Other I love to share my experience, cuz last year was uh for Brittany and uh Crissa, we uh our campaign knocking on doors, I've drove most of the roads in District C. So, I have experienced good roads, but also a lot of roads needs improvement. And this maintenance really help those neighborhoods. And I still remember that uh resident I knocked on her door, she said, "Oh, it's it's kind of dangerous for you to come out to knock on doors, cuz just after the a

storm." And she's afraid of my safety and my kids' safety, cuz we're knocking on doors together. And I'm so I'm so glad to see this we invest in maintenance. And yeah, I appreciate like this. But one question is, could you uh please let us know how difficult or how competitive is this bidding? Cuz uh the public might be uh don't have any idea or how those numbers come out. Are there 100 applications [cough] and we pick four or there are only four or what kind of process? It it's it is usually competitive. Um we are bidding sort of out time of the outside of the time we would normally bid for a project uh like this. Uh so, there are a lot of contractors that are already sort of they've got their seasons where we're beginning the paving season now. Uh they may have been under construction already and NCDOT does um take in a lot of those contractors from us, but having four is great. We consider that to be completely as competitive as it needs to be and those most of those numbers were really close to one another, too. Great. Thank you. Brittany, anything to add? I think you've said it all, but I will commend Council member Craig for your comments on equity. I will say that was not a uh lens I was bringing to this and I think that's fantastic to point that out. I just want to say my dad loves Cary roads. And the reason why he visits me from New Jersey is because he loves the roads. And then he loves the you know, trails and he likes to go on walks. So, thank you for giving this opportunity, because my parents visit me because of that reason.

[laughter]

Okay, sounds like we're ready for a motion. I'll I'll make a motion to award the FY 2026 street improvement project to Blythe Construction Inc. for $4,565,648.65. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

We now need a motion to go go into closed session. Hey, pursuing to to GS 143-318-11A1, 3 and 6, I move that we hold a closed session to consult with attorneys employed by and or retained by the town in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorneys and the town to prevent the disclosure of information that is made privileged or confidential pursuant to the laws of the state or not considered a public record within the meaning of chapter 132 of the general statutes and to consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of one or more individual public officers or employees. Is there a second? Second. Second. Discussion. Just so you know, Mayor Pro Tem Bush has memorized a lot [laughter] of this motion. That's why we always let her do it. That's why I always look at you. She's memorized it. Go ahead. Okay, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and we will go into closed session. That way. And one of

Mhm.

We'll reconvene our council meeting at this time. We have no further business tonight, so I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor, please say "Aye." Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, and we are adjourned. Thank you.