[Music] [Music] That's all. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Do I do a hunt? Morning. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] I don't know. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] I love [Music] you. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Okay. [Music] Okay. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Down. Down. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Double [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Down every day. [Music] you for joining us. Thank you for joining us. Can we get make sure that we have the city I mean the TV changed to There we are. We have um we're now live streaming on our channel and I want to call to order the consent action review portion of the Charlotte City Council um meeting and we have introductions. We'll start with our city clerk, Billy Tons, deputy city clerk. Council member Tiama Brown. It's a pleasure to serve district 3. Good evening. James Mitchell at large. Good evening. Marjorie Molina, District 5. Good evening. Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to serve district 4. Good evening. Dimple Ed Large. Good evening. Dante Anderson, mayor prom, district 1. Good evening. By LA, mayor. Marcus Jones, city manager. Malcolm ground, district two. Ed Driggs, District 7. Jared six. Lana Mayfield, council member at the heart. Patrick Baker, city attorney. All right. I'm going to ask Marie, is there um any consent? Oh, I'm going to ask the council. Is there any consent items for a separate vote? Miss Mayfield. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for 48 and 49. Marie may have a response, but I want to get a followup on those. Thank you. All right. Are there any ones that for uh Mr. Mitchell? Mayor, it's it's an overall question. So, I don't know uh when you like for me to raise it. You want to wait till we get through all the items being pulled. I it's overall conversation about the consent. That just is troubling to me. Okay. Well, we'll we'll we'll go through it tonight and then come back to you about that. Um and so the next um does is there any Miss Johnson? Yes. Yes. Number agenda item 35 and 39, please. 35 and 39. Yes. Okay. Any others? All right. Do I have a motion to approve consent items 30 through 53 with the following exceptions 35, 39, 48, and 49? So moved. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hands. Anyone opposed? Mr. Mitchell opposes. All right. So, now we'll go into those items that were asked for a separate vote. Mayor, I'm sorry. Just a clarification. I meant 34, not 35. That's great. Okay. All right. So, can we correct that, Billy, on the um 34 instead of 35? Got it. Okay. So, let's go to 34. on landscape equipment maintenance and repair. Miss Johnson, you asked for a re to review this or comment on it. Thank you. So, this is um regarding a a contract. I wanted to ask about the the CBI goals. So, according to this, the contract goals were not established on this contract because there were no certified MWSBEs available to provide the products for the contract. So I have a question about the process and the the uh outreach. I wanted to know if fire contact do the departments contact CBI when these RFPs are going to be Yes, ma'am. And there's a formal requirement I believe y'all instituted it several years ago that anything um even 10,000 and above we reach out specifically. So before there's always been a requirement for the larger, but I believe y'all instituted even 10,000 which is informal. We get multiple quotes and we reach out to um certified vendors even for that. So the actual departments that are requesting the the RFPs reach out to CBI or who reaches out to CBI? So it's either so there's a system and some people have people that know how to use a system enough the internal system and I forgot the name of it B2G now but if not if they don't have somebody that knows how to use that then like I always reach out to Kim Tibs and CBI and she pulls them for me. So yes, there's a system. We have all the registered vendors and also we do this some and we're working even more within CBI to do more outreach of okay, what procurements are coming down the line that we need to be aware of and work towards getting more participation by more people registered than are registered. Like especially like these would be a red flag if we have something that nobody's certified. That was signal to CBI to go out and say, "Okay, this is an area that the city has a need for that we need to grow up businesses for or do more outreach to encourage vendors to register." Yes, ma'am. So, the the short individual departments don't reach out your department or or procurement. No. Yes, ma'am. They do. Okay. I was just saying the smaller departments like mine, I reach out to CBI to help me get who I need to reach out to, but everybody has access. So, they push like Charlotte Water, everybody. They have procurement folks that push them out to everybody that's certified and the vendors go in and certify by code. So like commodity code, I forget the technical name for it. So like if you're using a facilitator, everybody that's registered for a facilitator will get notified based on what they registered for. Okay. In my notes, I wrote triple E. And the reason I wrote that is because um the uh triple E committee which was environment equity and something um engagement we developed an equity framework. Yes ma'am. And I wanted to make sure that these these these procurement applications and process are going through that equity framework. So I would like to see if I can a a checklist or the process. Oh yes. When a uh an RFP is being considered like when is CBI engaged? Is that is that on the front end or back end? Do we allow time for uh targeted outreach? Because there are some industries that we know we have minority contractors and it's just it's it's surprising when we see that there were no um certified MWSBE available. So I'd like so just the bottom line I'd like to ensure that our procurement process is going through the equity framework and also a checklist of what that process is and the time frames if that's okay Mr. Manager. Yep. Okay. Could I add to that? Um, council member Johnson, um, we also have a what we call a strike team that's in place now with CVI, general services procurement, you know, my office as well as the city attorney's office. And one thing I think in the last committee meeting that we learned is CVI isn't far enough on the front end. So what's going to happen is we will go through some growing pains over the course of the next few agendas because we haven't brought them to that beginning point consistently. And then we even talked last week about you know maybe even before the procurement even before that if there are some things that we're trying to do as a city uh whether it is a uh transformational um transportation project or things of that nature. How can you get CVI very early in the process? Okay. Thank you. All right. So, um, do you have a motion to approve item 34? 34. Do I have a motion? Yes. Yes. And we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. All right. The next item that we have on is the um item 39, delinquency letter printing and mailing services. 39. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Same concern and I've spoken to Mr. Jones about this one. Um because it is a printing services. So, we know that we have a handful of printers that are vendors with the city. Um but none were I guess qualified for this specific product. So, I wanted to know what targeted outreach or how or what was done to engage those um vendors. But it sounds like the strike team and changing this the um the sequence I guess of events or the process will be helpful. So if you keep us posted on that. Okay. Thank you. Motion to approve. Thank you. Number 39. Second. We have a second. Second. All right. Thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? All right. Mr. Mitchell is opposed. Okay. The next item that we have is um item 48 um set a public hearing on courtyards at Back Creek properties voluntary annexation. Did I get that one correct, Miss Mayfield? Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And this is the same for 48 and 49. um just specifically that the current plans for both of these when it references units single family units that these will be for sale units not for rent in the plan. So mayor and council colleagues I reached out and I shared this with the manager early in the year. I have a concern with a number the number of rental units whether they are single family or multif family that we have in the city and the potential impact that that can have. I also shared earlier this year with the manager our article on a city that has seen an increase in rental and how it's impacting the tax base as well as the community with having more rental units versus owner occupied since that is the bulk of our taxes come from those who are owner occupied within our city. So I wanted to reach out to ask and ensure that if we're talking about annexing which again incre creates opportunity for us to expand our footprint. I want to make sure that footprint is going to be a tax base that's going to contribute versus cause any potential deficit as we continue to grow and have additional needs because we're going to need to have additional resources with water and other services once this happen. So, thank you for clarifying that these are for sale. Mayor for both. I am going to ask for us to adopt a resolution set in the public hearing for October 28 for courtyards at Back Creek Properties Area voluntary annexation petition. Second. Okay. So, are these on the agenda for um public's hearings? Hearings. So, we'll have to come back, but it it's already on the agenda, I think. So, we just need to We didn't remember we pulled 48 and 49 out for separate vote. Okay. All right. So, all in favor of the motion for 48 and 49, please raise your hand. All right. Anyone opposed? Okay, that passes as well. All right. So, I believe that that carries us through the material. So, Mr. Mitchell wanted to address um the consent items. Yeah. uh and mayor and council and the city manager. I I just I just think we need to be very careful when you looked at the consent items we had today. It was in three different buckets. One one was one bucket soul sourcing, another bucket was uh exception exemption and the third bucket was we can't find them. I got to remind the staff and council, we have changed our policy and now we are in 100 counties. That's all the counties through the state of North Carolina. I could not believe on some of these items that we had here that we could not find any MBE throughout the state of North Carolina. So, let me bring you the one that really uh was upsetting to me on one number 32. Emergency and trans emergency and transportation of fuel. There's a MBE in Greensboro, North Carolina. O a Gregory. And here we are. We asking for an uh the contract is exempt under the CBI program. So my question is staff are we using the old model which is the 16 counties to look at participation or we looking at the new model 100 counties meaning the state of North Carolina we should be looking for ENV participation. Thank you for that. And yes, we are looking at the full range. And just to give you a little bit, we'll definitely follow up and we'll include it in the followup with Miss Johnson and what you're asking as well, but just so that you know that if you mentioned that one in Greensboro, they could definitely apply. We we put this out for quotes and we got two quotes on this one. and and so so Maria that I'm I'm gonna be h how can we how can we confirm that we sent it out to all 100 counties in the state of North Carolina. So we'd only send it out to the C to your point. Yes. Certified vendors. Yes. And and it's published to the public where other people can see it and bid. But we don't if if you're not certified and you're not signed up to get the notices, the only other opportunity would be for you to look at that site where they're posted. So So we're leaving it up to the individual company to go to various job sites to look at opportunities for the city of Charlotte. There's one state one we use and I forgot the name of it. Sorry, but there's one what they're used to looking at for for governments. uh council uh we have made CBI a top priority for this council and I think we owe it to the minority firms that are in the community who are seeking opportunities to grow capacity and give opportunity. I'm just encourage as much as we can to make sure we're are hearing about our policy that we are notifying and getting this out to all 100 counties in the state of North Carolina. And the other part, city man, you touched on to your point and thank you because this is in the BG committee now. How do we change that the CBI the CBI has more direct say so in the very beginning instead of step four and five? So, thank you for for allowing that discussion to take place. But I just want to remind us we need to continue to look carefully on how we saying that we can't find companies and and we can't find MBEs because I I'm not too sure that's the correct narrative we should be sending out. So, thank you, mayor. Thank you for that feedback. All right. Um I think Marie, if we could do some followup and just kind of check in with what Mr. Mitchell said to see if you know maybe call and say hey are you certified and we ought to be chasing people to get certified as well. Uh Mayor Pro Tim. Thank you Madame Mayor. I just wanted to make a quick comment on uh a consent item item number 46 and just highlight um the work that Dream Key Partners is doing within Livian and the YW.CA CA in district 1 to bring about um 80 new units of multif family affordable housing. Uh the YWCA has been a longstanding partner for bringing affordable housing to the community. They have a property directly behind the actual facility that offers affordable housing to families and this will be in addition to that on their front lawn. and they have four acres there on the front lawn that they're bringing this housing. So, I just no need to pull for a extra vote. I just wanted to underscore the good work that's being done by those community partners. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. All right. Um that concludes the portion of our consent agenda. So, now I'm going to turn it over to the city manager for the items that um we have under action review. So, thank you, mayor, members of council. Um I'm going to call an audible right now, mayor. Um and I'm worried a little bit about the time. Yeah. So uh we have three items uh under action review. The American Rescue Plan update, arts and culture governance and faith and housing update. And uh the one that I think has more time sensitivity would be arts and culture. Okay. And um the other two if we we don't have a public forum tonight, but the other two if they had to be under the manager's report, I think I'd rather get this one out in front now if that's okay. All right. Thank you. Let's go. All right. Um so, mayor, members of council, uh Julia Martin is going to give you an update on the arts and culture government in structure. And I'd like to try to frame it before Julia goes up. To me, it's it's it's three items that came up last time. One is a governance structure where um the city the city council and the county board um would make appointments and there would be a pot of money that this new structure would be able to um get out into the public. And that's one of the I think the main thing tonight. There are two other items that I don't believe is as timesensitive as this is. The second one is the conversation we've had around whether the general fund should support these arts and culture uh entities or could it come from another funding source potentially even tourism. A third item that was brought up last time was just in general whether or not we should move forward in the next fiscal year with these types of splits and these types of uh entities. While all three are important, I would say the first one just the governance structure is really what we're asking about tonight. And um I think there's time to have further discussions about the other two. But with that being said, uh, mayor, I'd like to turn it over to Julia. All right, Julia. Thank you. All right. Thank you everyone. Um, so before we go to the governance structure, just a quick reminder about what was discussed um, on September 9th at the action review. A lot of this is repeat information from a memo you should have received this weekend. Um, the first is about the admin fee to the Foundation for the Carolinas. um in FY25 they'll get a 1.7% admin fee for dispersing funds and performance management. Um this is a little bit more than the 1% they received throughout the infusion fund but again we're asking them to do a little bit more this time. Um the second is around Charlotte is creative. I'll spend um a bit more time on that one. Um but just to highlight how was Charlotte is creative selected. This was a big um topic of discussion last time. Um they're one of two organizations in Charlotte designated as a local arts agency with the National Endowment for the Arts. Um the other of which is the Arts and Science Council. Um and they managed the 1.2 million um dollar opportunity fund process through the infusion fund. Um that resulted in a pretty diverse recipient pool. Um some of the um stats that were included in your memo and I'll just remind you here. Half of the awardees um indicated their mission was to serve Alana communities which means um African, Latinx, Asian, Arab or Native American communities. Onethird of the recipients served corridors um communities in the corridors of opportunity and then one serve one-third um served LGBTQ communities. Um so a pretty diverse Oh, thanks Amanda. Um pretty diverse recipient pool. And then I believe council member Watlington had a question around who is appointing the ASCC grants committee. Um that will be appointed by the governance board. Um but this committee will be comprised of cultural professionals with subject matter expertise. This was used during the infusion fund um as and it is a best practice in um the arts um and culture space. And we actually had some of the arts and culture advisory board members started making grant recommendations when we first started the infusion fund. and they actually said, "Wait a minute. I'm a I've been a lifetime banker. Maybe I'm not the best person to be making recommendations around um funding for uh children with special needs." So, we brought in um people who live and breathe arts and culture to help us make recommendations with the arts and culture advisory board making the final say. Um so, that is a process that we've used before with great success. Um and that would be replicated through the governance structure that the ASCC recommends. Um just a reminder about where we've come in terms of arts funding both in the city and the community at large. Um $3.2 million in FY21 that went exclusively to the um arts and science council. Um you know there was a lot of conversation and ad hoc committee. Um through that we developed the infusion fund $36 million over three years. Six million from the city 6 million from the private sector and then to where we are today. um which is really nothing short of remarkable in terms of $21 million for um the the public sector contribution, $11 million from the city, $10 million from the county. Um and really the first time that the two organizations have come together to think about how they fund arts and culture in a holistic way, kind of plugging and filling gaps um where where funding might um exist in the other entities. So really proud of where we've come um in the last four years in terms of um arts funding and collaboration across the sector. Um again just a quick reminder about the infusion fund digging in a little bit more into FY24. Um again 6 million from the city, 6 million from the private sector that those funds were housed at the foundation a 1% admin fee. Um the allocations were determined by um the arts and culture advisory board which was jointly appointed by the council and the private sector. Similar to this year um a bulk of the funds went to support the groups that received the annual operating support and then we had two separate um kind of grant pools. One was managed by Charlotte Creative, which I talked a little bit about earlier. Um, and then one went to the ASC and that was to support really some of their existing, um, grant programs to support artists, individual organizations, capacity building, etc. um, that they have run historically. And so, um, kind of throughout the three years of the infusion fund, most of the, um, funds to support individual artists was distributed through the ASC. Charlotte is Creative came about. um they've been they they have been in existence. They didn't just come about. They've been in existence. Um but they really stepped up to help us in a way that we needed in terms of distributing this opportunity fund in FY24. Um and so when you look across um the arts and culture landscape, there's really kind of two main players. Charlotte is creative um and the ASC. And so moving into FY25, we knew in the spring um that the ASC was going through some changes um with their organizational structure. They're now under the foundation of the Carolinas. Um and so to kind of expedate the process and make sure that we could get um this grant funding out to um individual artists and creatives, what we did through the FY25 budget process um was pre-select Charlotte is Creative as the administrator for those funds. Um and so again, we have $11 million as the city's contribution in FY25, $9 million to support um large organizations. that money has already gone out. Um, and then $2 million to be distributed by Charlotte is Creative. Um, and just before I pause and then we'll go into the governance conversation, just want to bring to your attention some key provisions that we included in the funding for FY25. Um, so one of the things we heard loud and clear was about the u annual operating support. What are these organizations doing for us? And so there's levels of of performance measures that are required based upon how much funding you get. The more funding you get, the more is required of you. Um but you have to have um pre-select performance measures that align with the Charlotte Arts and Culture Plan. Um, importantly, organizations in city-owned facilities must deliver on that sentence below, um, which says, "Ensure city, county, um, own facilities are available for affordable use by local artists and arts and culture organizations." And so for us, that includes the two mint museums, um, the Gant Museum, the Blumenthal, Discovery Place, and the Beckler. And then when it comes to um the $2 million for grant making in some of our preliminary conversations with Charlotte is creative um they had planned to use things like grant writers and coaches um which is something they had learned through the opportunity fund was really valuable um to these smaller groups and individuals when they're trying to apply for a grant. um translation services to make sure that the application um was as widely available as possible to the many diverse um communities in our city and widespread marketing and outreach efforts. Um and they had talked about you know we want to host events in every district at least one um making sure that we can get a really broad reach um and pool of people to apply for these funds. So, I will pause here before we go into the governance conversation. Um, and I'll turn it over to I have two people that have asked me, but we'll finish Mr. Jones. Yeah. So, thank you, uh, mayor, members of council. So, um, what Julia just presented was just the the thinking of how we got to where we are. However, if it's the will of the council to RFP these remaining $2 million, that's not going to be an issue. I don't want that to be the issue that stops the council from moving forward on the governance piece. But I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood what we were trying to do is make some assumptions. I know we make assumptions that if everything fell through, if the county didn't come through, if the foundation for the Carolinas couldn't get the county and the city to at least discuss some type of governance model, then $11 million could if the ASC was not around, then $11 million could still go out seamlessly into the ecosystem much like it did the previous three years. But that was it. And it's not that we are sticking a steak in the ground and say that's the only way this can happen. There there are multiple ways that this can happen. Okay. Okay. So I have Miss Watlington followed by Miss Mayfield. Me and Miss Asher. Well, if we're going to proceed through the rest of this, I can wait till slide 11. All right, Miss Mayfield. I just wanted to clarify going back to slides three and four. So we initially which we once had we had public private support. So the private sector contributed a considerable amount but now we're saying all funds are coming from government either the city and county. Yes. and the through the infusion fund um the private sector has selected to take um a different approach in terms of helping support endowments, helping to support capital um raising for some of our facilities and institutions. So they have said we're we're ready to step back maybe from some of the operational stuff but we still have a really important role to play in terms of sponsorships um again endowments setting up to make sure that some of our organizations can be financially sustainable for the long term. So they're so they are certainly not stepping back. So I have a challenge, one of many. When we go back before we got here in the conversations, corporate community was a major supporter because you were able to identify through your pay schedule, whether it's bi-weekly, monthly, you were able to allocate funds to support. And this is actually a comment that Dr. Wington made a while ago when we started these conversations that stayed with me that we in essence through government are saying okay we're going to mandate through our t through tax dollars the allocation to this with the public sector reimagining how they're going with the private sector my apologies reimagining how they're going to support then when we go to the next slide on four when we look at these uses. I'm trying to understand. We have in here 1.3 million opportunity fund via Charlotte is creative. This includes a 13% administrative fee. Help me understand this 13% and this 15% administrative fee. Sure. So, um, as compared to the 1% with the foundation where it was essentially cutting checks, Charlotte is creative and the ASC are doing more of a real service in terms of meeting individually with potential applicants, walking them through the application, reviewing applicants. They scheduled and pulled together all of the um, grant review panels, which were quite lengthy. They looked at every single proposal. We got over 200 proposals. Um so it is making sure that they um are fairly compensated for the work that they're doing to support these um grant programs and it's more than it's much more than just um writing a check which is what the foundation was doing for us. So it will be helpful to know exactly what that contractual amount is versus a percentage but this goes back to the conversation that we had previously regarding this should have been an RFP. Whether Charlotte is creative would have been the organization that won the RFP or not. the fact that they are getting a 13 and a 15% administrative fee and the fact that we're not tracking that I have a concern with because when we break down back to the question that my colleague initially asked regarding who makes up this board, we have individuals that are not elected by the community, that are not held accountable by the community. we are and then we have now allocated this money over to our organization. They've identified who is around the table to help disperse the dollars. I the only thing I've heard about is the 1% fee to foundation for the Carolinas. This is the outside of receiving the information this weekend and this presentation now. This is the first time that I'm learning about this 13 and 15 15% admin fee without there being an actual number or without that coming to council and there being an actual RFP process for it to go out cuz maybe it would have been them because of the experience they have. Maybe it would have been another organization. Maybe we would have looked at if they had to be the lowest responsive bidder the way we do with everything else. Do we even know if this administration fee that we've identified is equitable? So, I have concerns and would like additional information on exactly how much of this funding that we've identified to support our local artists is being spent in administration fees. That is always a concern for me if a considerable percentage is going to the administration versus the actual artist and the actual work that they are producing in the community. Thank you. Yes sir. So, Council Member Mayfield, maybe I can help a little bit. Julia, can you find the slides that show the last four years of So um we have prior to the infusion fund, money would go over to the ASC, private sector, public sector, and there would be a portion of those dollars that went to the ASC for admin. And I'm convinced it's in that range of the 12 to 15%. So even with the infusion fund when the money went over to that body that the city and the private sector appointed same concept there was money that would go to let's say the ASC I believe if I'm right Julia the first couple of years of the infusion fund and they had an admin fee. So, if we go back to the slide that Julia just had up, that's the last year of the infusion fund and that 6 million plus the six million went over to that board. That board got money out into the public outside of the 8.5 which we called hardwired and whether Charlotte is creative or the ASC, there were some admin fees attached to it. And I do remember that we had admin fees. Thank you for that, Mr. Manager. The question that I have for clarification today is we no longer have that private sector support. So when we had that private sector along with public sector that was a fee that was distributed between we shared that whereas now we're looking at again tax dollars where private has decided to go a different direction. We have these admin fees. I want to clarify exactly what that dollar amount is and we say an additional 350,000 for cultural plan development and marketing. So when we start adding all of these numbers up, the question is how much of this funding is actually making it to the artist and to community. When we know that artists not only need supplies but it's also a very competitive process. And when we looked last time, there was some questions that some of us were outreached to where there's a concern of how organizations are identified and who is identified as legacy organizations and the opportunities for newer organizations to be a part of the growth and the diversity of our city. Thank you. council member. Thank Yes. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um Julia, thank you um for this presentation. A lot of our questions are being addressed in the first two slides. I appreciate that. Uh also wanted to recognize we have Matt Matt Olen here from Charlotte is Creative. uh they do great work in our community in um some of us have had attended some of their events and I appreciate how they have brought all the creatives together under one roof. Uh so it's great to see that they will be part of uh uh getting the funds out because they already have relationships established with our creative talent in our community. Um I know a couple of years ago or actually not this question keeps coming back up council member Watlington had asked about uh funding and I know at some point we were discussing the source of funding Mr. Jones. Uh, are we committing this amount from the general fund or that's something still to be determined at a later time? Do you do you want me to just jump ahead? Well, let me ask whatever time. I'm sorry. So, yes. Um, there is a referral in committee. Oh. about is there an opportunity to use other force other sources other than the general fund to support this 11 million. Okay. So the committee is going to make uh recommendations. Okay. Um I see on slide number five we have so approve outside agency and MSD contracts. So Julia if you can just explain what MSD contracts are we referring to and how would they be contributing to this arts and cultural governance structure? Totally not relevant. There's a whole bunch of other entities below action H. I just pulled the snippet that relates to the arts and culture sector. So, this was included in the RCA um on June 10th, but in that action was included the MSDS, but not relevant for this discussion. Okay. I was just um and I know council member Mayfield brought this up about legacy versus new and I think every time we discuss arts and cultural funding, this topic comes up, right? Certainly we have responsibility to support the facilities that city owns and operates but at the same time we have creative talent in our community uh that and we need to support that ecosystem. Uh so are we committing ourselves to legacy organizations that we approved in the past or would the new organization would be would have um an opportunity meaningful opportunity to apply for this funding. So council member I'll do a couple of things. Julie, can you go back to the slide that shows the years again? Okay. So, um, one of the things that's important, that's why Julia wants to jump ahead, but let's make sure we answer all the questions first is, um, that $12 million that was in the infusion fund for the last few years, um, private sector in the city. When you come over to what's proposed now, which been approved by both the county and the city, you see the city's contributions is basically 11 million. One of the things that is happening now is the city is no longer funding the operational support for the ASC which is worth about $900,000. So that's why that 12 is uh basically 11. So earlier when I I tried to frame the conversation, we have the governance piece, we have the piece about whether or not this should be a part of uh the general fund, the referral that both uh Dr. Watlington and Council Member Mayfield have referenced. And the third piece is what happens in FY26. And in FY26, um, Julia, can we get to a 92 split on one of these slides? Um, whether or not you want to continue to Yeah. So, the 9 million, and I have to give credit to a couple of council members with the terminology, became hardwired. Yes. it became hardwired so that it would whether it's 38 organizations, 33 organizations, um that money would never be determined by anybody other than this body because many of those institutions we pay debt on tens of millions of dollars in in debt on those those buildings. What we're really talking about and Julia, can we go to the city county split? What we're really talking about is this remaining $2 million which again at the beginning if the RFP process is an issue which I believe it is we can go RFP but what we're really saying is council man in the future how much of that 9 million do you want hardwired into what groups but then there's a 2 million that is really for other organizations for collaboration is for individual artists. And if you go to the city, county, you know, 21, that's the story that we haven't been able to really have a good conversation with that there are so many organizations that are non-traditional that's in that 21 million that really addresses a bunch of the concerns that we've been discussing for months. And it's actually the the county that's putting a lot of money in to those nontraditionally funded organizations mainly because one of the things we've said over and over again to keep the lights on in our facilities we have to have life in the facilities to keep the lights on to pay the debt. So So just to follow up on that Mr. Jones um sort out of $11 million 9 million would be hardwired just to support the organizations that we have a responsibility correct uh that there actually 33 organizations and I would say there's probably half of them that you may want to consider is this something that shouldn't be funded out of let's say the nine but could it be funded out of something in the blue section. We have organizations that I think are as low as what, Julia? 15 grand. Yeah. So 15 grand that are being treated much like organizations that we put almost 2 million in. So it gives us a a a time to look at this as 21 million, not two, not nine, but an opportunity to maybe some organizations go over to other buckets. What I will say, we were at 38 or so, but the county said they'd like to pick up all the organizations that were outside of the city. So, the county put an extra million dollars to support those organizations that had been supported by the city. So, it's some collaboration that's already happening. So, I guess um what I hear you say, obviously, there is more funding than there ever was, and that's that's great. uh we got to support the arts and cultural ecosystem that we have in our community. So what I hear you say that it the decision as to who gets the funding whether it be hardwired or not will be up to the governance board governance which is the a the ACC governance board. No not the hardwired the hardwired is your decision. It's hardwired is cities. So that would be reviewed at every budget discussion. Correct. Okay. But rest of the money will be up to the board. Okay. So at our annual budget discussion, we could say to council member Mayfield's point um as to whether what allocation do we get to do between legacy versus new. Am I correct? Correct. The one thing I would caution is that there and I hate to use word to legacy. There are some large and mediumsiz organizations, especially some large ones like the Harvey Gan Center that I just can't imagine this council would defund it because again we're we're paying debt on these buildings. But I guess what I'm trying to say obviously we are we are going to support the facilities that have debt on it because they were previously funded by the city dollars. So, we have a responsibility to do so. But I'm talking about other organizations um that may not have may may not be in the similar in a similar situation, but then we also want to open doors to new organizations that have never received arts and cultural funding in the past, but they do great work. And I'm sure each one of us can think of couple that does great work, but they never get funding from the city. And the and and the perception is that we are awarding grants to the same organization who have always received it. And how do we change that? And how do we make sure that all arts organizations get an equal opportunity to apply for funding? That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Quick question. I'm going to go back to the corporate support and you know so obviously public private partnership has always been the hallmark of this city and so and I I understand your explanation in terms of how they will be supporting that. How do we measure that? How do we how do we determine how do they determine where and who and how they're going to support what type of dollars are we talking about annually by annually? I mean, what's who determines all that? So, Council Member Graham, I um agree with you. This council should ask for an annual accounting of this concept of whether it's sponsorships or endowments or or what have you that there should be some mechanism that's reported back so that we can see that the private sector is living up to their part of the bargain. So, how are we communicating? So, let me back up. So I I heard you say, "So how who is that being communicated to that there's an expert uh a a a requirement for a yearly annual report?" And I'm just kind of puzzled about who's going to put this puzzle together on the corporate side and do they know what their responsibilities are? Uh and I'm I'm just puzzled. So I I agree with you. Um what has been shared uh has been that there's comparable contributions, but you'd like to see it in writing is what you're saying. So whether it comes to this body or whether it comes to the committee or whether it comes to the foundation for the Carolinas, I think that it's just something that this body should ask and demand. I think one if I killed Mr. Graham, I think with the legacy organizations that we have that we support, they could actually tell us how did they get money and have a funding and we could see that on our budget session to say, okay, how who gave what to what and that I think would really be good information to have as well. Yeah, I I'm operating um trust but verify and you know we went from an environment where there was almost 80 95% corporate support to zero in the in the traditional way that's been done in the past right through this new um outline. So I'm just just throwing the question out publicly. It's been a couple of years since that has taken place. I don't think that we've ever really seen that in the last four to five, six years. Um that even when this thing got started, it was because we knew that we were not going to get anything from the private sector. Correct. Years ago, gradual decline for sure. Uh but now it's at zero. Well, I I think it wasn't even gradual. I think they pretty much that's what that's what this whole thing is about. And we've been working at it two years now to make a decision. So two years of it if I can remember when we were having dinner somewhere and people were trying to figure out how is this going to work and it's I know it's been at least two to three years. I I just want to suggest Mr. Graham can I Mr. Ed can I is yours directly to his point uh I think we need to acknowledge the corporate participation in the infusion fund. So right for three years they came in with $6 million having dribbled down to almost nothing. So, I think you're right that we're uh I know but but I'm just saying so we don't talk about them being absent. They were there. Okay. I acknowledge their words. Mr. Graham, let me speak please. No, I just want you trying to twist my what I'm saying. So, I'm No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out a fact. The fact is I'm prettyated in the uh in that I know that also the question lecture. I know that. May I speak please sir? It's actually my turn. Uh I have my hand. I'm just pointing it out. That's all. It's a fact and I think they deserve to be recognized. All I'm saying though is that dialogue took place mainly through uh the foundation for the Carolinas as a kind of contact and I had discussions with a couple corporate leaders. Uh one time I was told that one contributor to the infusion fund went to an event where there was a lot of infusion fund funding and there were signs for their competitor who had been a sponsor all around. So they said we don't want to be in a situation where we miss out on that incidental benefit of being recognized and that's how that happened. I completely agree with you that we should uh demand more accountability around the general undertaking that they will provide sponsorships. There's no disagreement about that. Okay. All right. Um I think the next speaker or the next person I want to recognize is Miss Johnson. Thank you, Madame Mayor. I just want to say for the record that the headline is not that we're trying to defund the Gant Center. I we're looking at account um holding all of the legacy organizations accountable such as the Mint Museum in Beckler, Discovery Places, Displace, Discovery Place, and others. Um I'd I'd like to ask a question. What does the support entail of these organizations? What does that entail? Is that the mortgage and the utilities and the taxes? I mean, what all Yeah, I'd like a list, I think, of what support entails. um because there may be opportunity to scale back some of that support so that it's more equitable and we do have more for smaller organizations. So I could I know that they're our buildings and we have to um take care of our buildings, but I think that council and the public should know what does that support entail. So can we get a a list of that? Council member Watlington said school closed. I'm sure there's something to that. So, I really would like to know, do we because I've heard that we pay the utilities for the larger buildings. Is that true? So, what I can tell you is prior to the infusion fund, all of this was run through the ASC. And I'm not sure that we had accounting in that way. Okay. So, Julie saying no. So we have three years of um the infusion fund and I think we started to get some better data from the organizations and we could uh figure out exactly how much of that is um spending what ways. Yeah. because if there's opportunity I mean when you look at equity um if if we are paying the utilities and operations and and mortgage for these larger organizations and they're still earning you know money and have the private support versus organizations that aren't receiving any funding. There's just I think there's a way to really work toward uh an equitable approach a more equitable approach on this. Thank you. Okay. I don't have anyone else. Um, Miss Watlington, I was anyone else before Miss Watlington wanted to wrap this up, I think. Is that correct? Okay. Council member Watlington. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, yeah, a few things. Um, I just want to make sure firstly based on what we're seeing today, what changed since the last presentation or was this just a recap? because I didn't see anything directly that had changed. So I before I ask the rest of my questions, I just want to make sure I didn't miss it. So as uh Julia kicked it off, it seemed to be three buckets of questions that were out there that was around um the selection of who would ever be the grant making body. Uh there was a question around Julia, can you go back? um Charlotte is creative and um whether or not this should be an RFP and they had some questions around admin fees. So that is um the bulk of trying to answer the questions that came up last but nothing actually changed out of the recommendation in response to the questions and concerns. Like this is the same thing I saw last month. Yeah. I I don't know if there was anything that would change other than trying to address the questions that came up. Okay. And I sent out a memo on Thursday with that too. Okay. All right. So, clarifications, but no change. Okay. Um I want to talk about this private sector piece because as council member Mayfield said earlier, absolutely this is a movement from workplace giving that was done voluntarily to now we're essentially garnishing your wages to pay for the same thing. um by pulling it out of your property tax, right? And I know there's going to be a discussion as to where that ultimately comes from. Um but right now, I have a fundamental issue with the way we're setting this up because of much of what like council member Graham said when it comes to the private sector because we ultimately cannot require the private private sector to do anything. We can audit, but we have absolutely no means to enforce and require them to do anything additional. Um, so that for me is a struggle because to Council Member Johnson's point, we're paying the mortgage, we're paying the utilities, it feels like we're paying for the groceries and the school clothes and everything else and then we still have to pay to go through the door if we actually want to use it. And for me, this feels like an overs subsidy of a particular industry versus others. Yes, very important, but I do feel that we're already doing our part. And if we're going to talk about continuing to support in these particular ways, I would need to see by organization what their revenue is and what public revenue is as a percentage of their overall revenue. Because if if we're having conversations about sustaining, there needs to be some level of scrutiny as to how can we operate whether it's colllocating organizations or whatever else there. I I for personally just need to better understand how they're spending their funds before we continue to pay for everything because virtually is a virtually completely public organization when we're starting to look at some of these legacy groups at that point. um and that that just doesn't feel sustainable and it doesn't feel responsive to what the demand is in the market. Yes, arts is important. We want to have something, but it needs to be right sized and we need to be leveraging our resources where the priorities are within the community. So, I think there's work to be done there. Um the other piece is on slide 11. I'm still not clear about the appointees appointing appointees. Um, so for me that's like a non-starter here. When we talk about this ACC grants committee, um, if I remember from last time, there was kind of a circular thing going here where the governing board was appointing these and then the these folks were moving over here and then these appointees were then appointing the governance board. And it sounds like if I'm understanding that no significant change has been made, that's still the case. So that that's a significant issue for me. Um, I'm definitely open to RFPing for the organizations with the administrative fees. So, if that's something that gets put in here, I'm fine with that. Um, as I think about the discussion we're about to have in a little while with financial partners, um, and trying to put some more rigor around that process and accountability, it just seems inconsistent to then not expect something of that nature to show up. Even as we talk about these legacy organizations, the hardwired ones, it's still it's it seems that there should be some consistency in how we assess those year-over-year um for all of the reasons that I mentioned ahead. So for me, I've got far too many concerns at this point to support. Um but I absolutely am willing to get some clarification if I misunderstood something. All right, Mr. Jones. Um, so let me um try to get us to a place where I think we can move forward. Um, so 9 million has 11 million has gone over to the Foundation for the Carolinas. 9 million has gone out to those uh organizations um 33 organizations, legacy organizations, however you want to say it. There's $2 million that still remains. Um I I really don't want to make this recommendation, but I'm going to make it. So, we did it this way just in case we couldn't move forward. So, if you if the council RFP the remaining 2 million, the 11 million would be out. The governance question will still be out there. the funding question, whether it's the general fund or tourism, and then what you do in FY26, but I don't think you can get to one because you're not comfortable with issues two and three. So, if we just RFP the the final 2 million, the 11 million would be out and it gives you time to think about how you'd like to proceed in this governance structure. Mayor Prom. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I I um I really want uh city manager for us to ensure that the 2 million of of this 11 million which is for the smaller uh small to mid artists and institutions that are bootstraps. They need the funding and the assistance. uh I want to make sure that they don't get lost in this conversation and I absolutely hear that we want to spend more time on governance structure and other aspects but the distribution of the 2 million to the grassroots smaller artists community I think we should um proceed with the distribution of that whether it's an RFP um totally fine. But I think the longer that we hold on to those dollars while we try to figure out governance, overall governance, we have um grassroots artists that are really unable to move forward with some of the plans that they have. And so I just I don't want I don't want our governance conversation to then be a barrier to getting the money to the to the actual artists who desperately need it. I'm not addressing the 9 million. I'm speaking to that 2 million. Thank you. All right. Anyone else for comment? Miss Brown? Um, unrelated. Can you turn the heat on? The heat. Okay. I don't think he knows exactly how to do it. We have to call somebody. That's That's what I think he's We'll get We'll get I see Sean walking that way, so we'll go. Nobody else say anything. We're taking care of it. Yeah. Okay, Mr. All right, Mr. Graham, did you want Yeah, just one last question, I guess. and and you know we've had this on our docket for for weeks now and so you know when what more do we have to do with the governance structure? Some folks like it, others don't. I mean we can go back and forth. At what point are we going to vote this thing up or down? I mean I mean yes I mean if it fails then we go back to the drawing board but if six people like it then we move forward. We It's been on our docket for for weeks. Okay. Just a question. It's valid. So, is there a motion? Well, I'm and serious. I think that unless there's a comment, is there a motion of an action to be taken? I think Mayor Prom said the 2 million for individual artists was important. Yes. Um, and so a motion, Miss All right, Mr. Bari. Yeah. I'm not going to have a motion, but I'll just make a quick comment. I think there are some good things that have been developed and that have progressed to this point and some big things that have to be figured out. So, I guess my only point would be when we decide on the 2 million as one example and an RFP versus something else. I think the problem we have there is um one is kind of well here's a process and it will take more time and it will be more more bureaucratic but like it also it also loses the incentivization that we're asking the foundation for the Carolinas and the private sector to do and that's to me the second biggest problem which is we need mechanisms and goals and incentives to inspire the private sector to come up and take the this huge mantle we're handing them to take it to the next level so that we can show that bar going forward has grown. So I think when the more we tie their hands, the harder it's going to be for them to do it. We've got a $9 million portion of this fully baked, a $2 million one that we were like, "Oh, well maybe you could pilot and this could be this or that." Now we're saying, "No, we're going to bake that one, too." And so like if we leave the private sector with no tools, they're just an admin function that's handing the money out for us that we could literally do probably ourselves to some extent. So my my recommendation, I have problems with the governance model, but once again, that's more important for next year and the year after. It's not that important now because everything's pretty baked. So my recommendation would be we have less bureaucracy around the 2 million, but we set out expectations to a great partner in the foundation for the Carolinas. Put your own governance and and and monitoring approach around this. Present it back to us as a pilot. Show us where not only the money went, but how you were creative in bringing in private sector dollars to be able to to to start that bar up and bring that back. and then we'll set in stone some go forward model based on those experiences. But the more you bake it, the more you're going to hand them something that their hands are tied and they're just essentially a logistics arm for us. So I think we've got to move forward in some way. But I I also think tying more strings to it en I' I'd rather tie objectives to it of things we'd like to see them try to accomplish as a pilot. Mr. Jones, any comment towards Mr. Bari's thought? Well, I I like what Council Member McCari said. Can we go back to the 2 million so I'd make sure that we're all locked step. So the green the foundation has it all right now. 11 million. Nine has gone out. Hold back of 1.7% admin fee. The other two million in in this transition time isn't going to be caught up in any type of governance structure. It is basically going to be put out into the community either by the ASCC or by Charlotte is Creative. So I I agree with you 100%. It's just I don't want to call it baked, but what they said this 2 million wouldn't go up to this board right now because it's not even developed. So, it's almost as if how do we make sure that this body has an opportunity to think through how they'd like to be a part of this governance structure, even if it's a pilot or or a test. And I'm not so sure I want to put you in a position to have to vote on it up or down when there's so many questions still out there. But what I'm recommending is through an RFP, finish the last 2 million, get it out to the ecosystem as quickly as we can, and give you some time to figure out governance and where the money comes from and what happens in FY26. All right, you've heard the manager's recommendation to um move forward. The question I have of the two million going out, who would who would process and administer that? It would be an RFP and there would be an organization much like all the money for the last 20 years have gone out. Okay. Okay. Does everybody hear? Well, if I could just address council member Wington's point about um the grants committee and that circular nature. The grants committee will be appointed before the bottom box ASC grant committee. So it would be 15 members appoint the grants committee. Once they have the grants committee, the board would select two members to represent the grants committee. Does that answer your question about we're appointing people to appoint people to appoint people? I think it sounds like this conversation is going to be tabled anyway. So Mr. Graham. Well, well that's the point. And you know what she was saying, I'm sorry, Miss Watlington, I don't I don't want to put words in your mouth. So I think that what you were talking about is the 17 member board would have five city appointees. Is there something else that you wanted to recognize? Um, no. I think I think the Steph's got the gist of my concern. Um, I think this is going to be something that's going to continue to be discussed. So we can we can handle that offline, but I think that the two million is probably what the motion is about to be. go ahead and get that going. And I'm supportive of that. Before there's a motion, I'm sorry, Miss the agenda. Does the agenda allow us to vote tonight? It just says receive an overview. I don't know that we actually had a council member. Did the council member make a motion? Well, I I thought I was being recognized but Okay, I know, but I was just looking. I thought Miss Amir. Okay. I'm sorry. Can you can you just recommendations? So as I started off there three things what we're trying to do is get go back one Julia just the governance okay this one. Yes. So, we were trying to deal with governance tonight, but it seems like future allocations and the funding vehicles are so much of an issue for the body that it's very difficult for you to get to the governance issue tonight. And so, the second thing that seems to be the issue is the remaining 2 million and whether it just goes out as planned in the budget or having an RFP. And I've heard more people say they're would would have would like to see an RFP. And so I it is just trying to get the body to a place where we can get the 11 million in play and give you time to sort through these last three. So Miss Mayfield, before Mr. Graham had his hand up and well again madame mayor and council I I I think council member Wall said it minutes ago where this is basically the same presentation that we've seen before and so who's going to do the work? Where's where is it going so we can analyze, discuss, strategize and make a recommendation for council to to move forward on a strategy? Right. right now it seems to be in this wonderland and I just think we need to be decisive about what we're going to do and how that's Do we I tell you I think I've had so many decisive moments for this that it's kind of hard to figure out what they are and I think what I heard was Mr. Bari saying and the manager agreeing 2 million out in an RFP pro uh process that doesn't necessarily side with what Mr. Bari was saying in terms of working with the arts and science council but help me understand where we are as a council and someone I think if you have a motion then we can probably start talking about it. Mr. Bkari. Yeah. I would just say so like the word RFP sounds nice but like who's going to set the parameters for the RFP? Who's going to go about saying this is what we're looking to seek and what we're calling for? And then when people come in, who's going to make the decisions based on what factors like for the fact of two million bucks and what's there and the time that we'll add paired with the fact that we're all then going to start arguing about all the RFP sub points and all these things. And so I mean that's one point like we have a we have an opportunity here to punt on the future funding vehicles and sources the future allocations even punt a little bit on the governance model right now because at the end of the day we can make a simple statement which is foundation for the Carolinas and Charlotte is creative. You guys have done this before and you foundation put some pilotbased oversight and governance onto this to show us how you can do a couple things that are our objectives. Find private sector dollars that come in, fulfill our stated objectives as a city, like just highlevel things that aren't so prescriptive that we're running around here and then in a proven fashion get it out there. show the impact, the ROI, all the things that occur and maybe in doing so come back with something that shows us here's the answer for the governance model in effect because I will tell you if our one of our main ultimate goals is to use this massive set of taxpayer dollars to incentivize the private sector to jump in. If there's a board out there comprised of 15 to 18 of our friends that we all appointed, there's no skin in the game from the private sector to go in and actually do this. So, we've got to incentivize them to come and do this. So, I think that the the motion should be I won't make it, but someone probably should that we should have take a stand, man. I'm it'll it'll hurt the motion more than it helps it. Miss Mayfield, I know Lana and then you. Okay. I think we should do that. All right. Miss Mayfield. Thank you, Madame May. Mr. Jones. So I believe what you recommended is what we have in next steps. I'm just trying to understand for this 2 million that we're talking about. First of all, I'm in complete support of that 2 million going out into the community. I think what we're talking I don't necessarily want us to go out to RFP because I don't want us wasting money on yet another administrative piece over the 2 million. 2 million is not a lot. We know that today it is not going to have the impact that we possibly want it to have. If we're then issuing a RFP for a couple hundred thousand or whatever it is, that's just eating away for it. I personally don't have a problem with us using the current model as long as they get the request for proposals out and we still have a process, but we do need to have a conversation later as we actually break this down. But for the recommendation you have with the begin solicitation process for selecting the B the vendor to administer the 2 million, I'm more concerned about what those vendor fees may be because I would prefer the fees not to be eaten out of the 2 million if possible. We identified that 350,000. We say 13%, we say 15%. We got the 9 million that's hardwired. If we're saying two million and if there are administrative fees, I would like for us to be honest with the community of exactly how much do we really have. If it's not really 2 million, if we got to take these fees out of it, I want us to be as transparent as possible for what the actual amount is so that when artists do submit their proposals, they're very clear as far as what is the financial commitment from the city. I do have the concern that the public the private sector has already told us where they at which got us to this conversation. The idea that we're going to do something that's going to incentivize them to come back to the table that's a very different conversation. We got to figure out what is our role getting those numbers back for the hard services. what financial responsibilities we actually have. And it would be helpful if through our city attorney's office, if our attorney were to for the hard services, we have some contractual commitments out there. really looking at those to see if there's any flexibility with restructuring some of our contracts based on if we get the numbers back and if they're doing a little better financially with their private fundraising and where we might be able to make some adjustments based on needs in the community. All right, Miss Ash I mean Mr. Mitchell and then Miss Amira. Thank you. And then um I know that we I want you to know that we have a number of people that are um waiting in the chamber. Some of them who we have invited and and they will need us to get down there. So let's see if we can um figure out. You might want to let our city attorney speak because it might save some time. Huh. If our our city attorney had his hand up. No, I have Mr. Mitchell and then Miss Asira. Mr. Mitchell. So So mayor, I'm going to try to take a stab at this. So I I I I have uh two I have one motion but I have two parts if if that's okay. Uh the first part will be to create a RFP for 30 days made up the following representative to design RFP one representative from the city one representative from the county representative from the um foundation of Carolina. And the second uh B was refer this structure item to jobs and economic ask the mayor to refer this structure question to the job and economic development committee for November time frame. All right, you heard Mr. um Mitchell's motion. All right, let's go to Is there a second? Second. All right, we have a second before we do the So hold on, Mr. So, this isn't on your agenda. Uh, you by your rules, you need to add this to your agenda. Uh, and it needs to be unanimous to add it to the agenda. Otherwise, it would need to be added on at a separate meeting. So, we won't be doing this unless it's unanimous. And then I think it agenda to put it on the agenda. Put it on the for tonight. All right. For tonight, if we are going to do it tonight, we have to put it on the agenda. So I'm going to ask Miss Sajira asked this for you wanted to make a statement or well um will amendment to Mr. Mitchell or it'll have to come back. Okay. Because council member Johnson just said that it's not going to be unanimous. So we'll just have to bring it back. Is there a motion to put this item on the agenda for action tonight? All right. We have a motion and a second. I'm going second. Um, all in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. All oppose. All right. So, okay. I really I know this is he just got council member please. there. I know that this has been a long day and it's been a lot of um talking and and work on, but downstairs we have people that um we're recognizing from the um western part of the state, people in our community that went up and helped out. We've got a few other folks, ADA people. So, I'm going to ask if we can go down to the um council room and get started with our regular agenda, but a lot of this is recognition time. Okay. [Music] Baby daddy daddy daddy gy. Tonight, [Music] [Music] [Music] Here [Music] everybody. [Music] [Music] Well, I think it's still not afternoon. It may not be. It might be evening. The way that we have been working um this afternoon with a number of issues, um we really appreciate the fact that you guys stayed and um you're here today. I want to welcome you all to the Charlotte City Council business meeting for October the 14th. And as soon as I get myself together here, we'll go right into our agenda. Okay. Good evening. I'd like to now um call this meeting to order and we'll start with um introductions and we'll start with our city clerk. Good evening, Stephanie Kelly, city clerk. Good evening, Dimple Ashura at large. Good evening, Marjorie Molina, District 5. Good evening everyone. James Mitchell at large. Marcus Jones, city manager. By LA's, mayor. Good evening, Dante Anderson, mayor prom and district 1. Malcolm Graham, District 2. Ed Driggs, District 7. Jar, District 6. Good evening, Lana Mayfield, council member at large. Good evening. Victoria Watlington, council member at large. Patrick Baker, city attorney. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. Renee Johnson and I'm honored to represent district 4. Council member T1 Brown. It's a pleasure to represent district 3. Okay. All right. Before we start our agenda tonight, I want to recognize a number of people who are here with us tonight, who over the past several weeks have spent considerable amount of time serving our community as well as serving our neighbor communities in western North Carolina. As you know, parts of North Carolina were devastated by Hurricane Helen with western North Carolina bearing the brunt of the storm. In Charlotte, we fared much better, but we were not unscathed. Anthony Taylor lost his life when a tree fell on his home, and dozens of homes on Riverside Drive were flooded, creating immeasurable loss and suffering. Before, during, and after the storm, I'm proud to say that the city of Charlotte staff were helping people and were hard at work serving our community. And I also want to recommend that this work is not done. There's still a lot of work to be done here in Charlotte and lots of work to be done in western North Carolina. In fact, many members of the Charlotte City staff who are still in western North Carolina are still in West Western North Carolina and there's still work to be done right here in Charlotte for our neighbors on Riverside Drive. To learn more about how you can do and be helpful, go to charlottnc.gov/reoververy. GV/reoververy. We have some people here tonight, but let's start with the video. Okay. So, [Music] [Music] [Music] free afterwards. I guess [Music] [Applause] [Music] Wow. [Music] Thank you everyone. Oh, we still have additional make sure I still see portions and visioned or stories here. So, I want to say that um this has been a teamwide effort for our organization, but I do want to recommen recognize several departments in particularly Charlotte Fire Department and Charlotte Meckllinburgg Emergency Management. Thank you. Charlotte Meckllinburgg Police DEPARTMENT [Applause] [Music] Charlotte Meckllinburgg Police Department. Thank you. [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Now, I know it's always hard to have an organization named general services, but in this case, I want to say really thank you. [Music] Sometimes we take an airport for granted, but in this case, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, we thank you. and a big hand for Charlotte Water who went up there and took supplies and I don't mean like a screwdriver but pipes and things that made a true difference. So, thank you Charlotte Water. [Music] [Applause] You know, we're all grateful to have a great Department of Solid Waste Services. They keep our city clean and they make sure that we're safe. Imagine what they're doing in the in the eye of the hurricane. Thank you very much, Charlotte Solid Waste Services. And then there's the Charlotte Department of Transportation. When people said there were no roads to go on, that there were places that needed to be repaired, this group and organization stood proudly to be able to access and make a difference. Thank you very much. [Music] And then finally, our last recognition is for our housing and neighborhood services. The people that really help people get back to a place that they can have and recognize that they have a place to live. Now, there are many others in this community, but let's recognize our housing and neighborhood services as well. So sometimes when we're sitting around this disas and we're just thinking about what we have to do, what's important for us and what's important for us to serve you. I'm really glad tonight and I think every member of the city council before you now really recognizes how important it is for governmental services to be available when people are down and out when it's no place to go. You'll find that the people in this room stood up, worked hard, and made a real difference. So, I want you to all all of us to say thank you to them if we will stand for you. [Applause] There's much work to do do in the future, but what we've done has been absolutely remarkable. Thank you all. And now we're going to go ahead and start our council meeting. And I want to um we did our re our introductions and now we would like to have um a moment of prayer. Um I shouldn't say prayer, I should say that we have a moment of time that we allow our das or the people that we have in our community or at this disord spoken by one of our colleagues here. just to remind us that this is very important work that we do for this community and tonight I'd like to thank you thank you mayor and council let us all bow our heads please wise and gracious father we thank you for another blessing for the city of Charlotte heavenly father we ask that you bless all family members who are represented here at this das bless all the many employees who work each and every day to make our city better. Heavenly Father, let your blessings fall upon all the citizens who call Charlotte home. And last and not least, continue to pray for those cities who've been devastated by by the hurricane. Well, all believers underneath my voice, say, "Amen." Amen. And amen. Amen. All right. So, now we're going to go ahead and say the pledge of allegiance if you choose to. 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. I think I have a script. Yes. All right, madame clerk there quick. We have a number of awards and recognitions that we would like to have today. And I believe that I actually had the opportunity to ask several members of the council to address and um begin with us. So, let's start with um Council Member Watlington. Awesome. Well, I will be reading the proclamation today for Indigenous People's Day. Whereas throughout the centuries, American Indians have shared their knowledge of land and resources while continuing to play a role in the development of the city of Charlotte, the state of North Carolina, and the nation. And whereas North Carolina is home to more than 204,000 American Indians, and has eight historic tribes legally recognized by the state of North Carolina. Kohari, Eastern Band of Cherokee Haliwa Saponyi Lumbi Miharin, Okanichi Band of Saponyi, Saponyi, and Waka Masuan. And whereas the city of Charlotte enjoys a positive relationship with American Indian citizens, recognizes and encourages the acknowledgement of historic contributions and sacrifices of indigenous people, and respects the cultural and economic contributions that American Indians continue to make. And whereas the city of Charlotte promotes the closing of the equity gap for indigenous peoples through policies and practices that reflect the experiences of indigenous peoples, ensure greater access and opportunity, and honor the nation's indigenous roots, history, and contributions. And whereas Indigenous People's Day was proposed in 1977 by a delegation of Native Nations to the United Nations sponsored international conference on discrimination against indigenous populations in the Americas. Now therefore, by Alexander Laus, Mayor of Charlotte, does hereby proclaim October 14th, 2024 as Indigenous People's Day in Charlotte and commend its observance to all citizens. [Music] And I'd like to ask the chairperson of the Metroina Native American Indian Association to come down and receive it from Council Member Watlington. Council member Driggs, would you read a proclamation? Yes, Madame Mayor. Um, this proclamation is about polio. It's personal for me because my mother and sister were both survivors of polio. So, uh, I' I've seen its effects. Joint proclamation. Whereas World Polio Day is observed annually on October 24th to commemorate the birth of Jonas Sulk, who led the first team to develop a vaccine against polomiolitis, the global effort to eradicate polio has been one of the most successful public health initiatives reducing polio cases by over 99% since 1988. Whereas Rotary International, the World Health Organization, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UNICEF, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have led the global polio eradication initiative. Whereas polio is a highly infectious disease that can cause paralysis and sometimes even death, primarily affecting children under the age of five. Thanks to extensive vaccination efforts, polio is now endemic only in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it remains a threat until it is eradicated everywhere. Whereas the eradication of polio will prevent an estimated 10 million cases of par paralysis in children over the next 40 years and will save over $40 billion in health care costs, particularly in low-income countries. Continued v vigilance and immunization are essential to ensure that polio does not return to poliop-free countries. Whereas the residents of Charlotte and Meckllinmberg County are encouraged to support polio eradication efforts and raise awareness about the importance of vaccination. On this World Polio Day, we honor the dedication and efforts of healthcare workers, volunteers, and organizations who strive to eliminate this disease and improve global health. Now therefore, they via Alexander Lyles, Mayor of Charlotte, and George Dunlap, chair of the Meckllinburgg Board of County Commissioners, do hereby proclaim October 24th, 2024 as World Polio Day in Charlotte and Meckllinmberg County, and commend its observance to all citizens, witness our hands in the official seal of the city of Charlotte and Meckllinmberg County. And mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Peacock if you would go around that way and so that Mr. Peacock can meet you right there. Former council member Edwin Peacock. If he'd like to come and take my seat, that might be a good idea tonight. So, Edwin, thank you so very much. All right. And now I want to recognize Council Member Molina to read a proclamation. Thank you, Madame Mayor. And so the proclamation that I'll be reading tonight is for Charlotte uh women's small business month. Um and the proclamation states, "Whereas womenowned small businesses are an economic engine and own 39.1% of all US businesses employing 8% of the private sector with over 12 million people and generating $2.7 trillion. 66% of American female business owners are the sole owners of their companies. And whereas North Carolina ranks number two in the US as the best state for womenowned businesses. And whereas a pro hold on did I skip one? Okay. No. Whereas the Charlotte metro area ranks number one in North Carolina for womenowned firms for growth in number and economic clout. And whereas approximately 92,500 womenowned businesses, womenowned small businesses in the Charlotte metro area are generating 13.3 billion dollar in sales and employing 70,000 people. And whereas the city of Charlotte values local womenowned small businesses and celebrates the diversity of ownership and goods and services they provide as well as the contributions they make to our community. And whereas October has been designated a national women's small business month to celebrate the achievements of women business owners and is also designated as Charlotte Women's Small Business Month to celebrate the achievements of women business owners in the Charlotte region. Now therefore, by Alexander Lyles, Mayor of Charlotte, do hereby proclaim October 2024 as Charlotte Women's Small Business Month in Charlotte and commend its observance to all citizens and urge all citizens, businesses, and community organizations in Charlotte to join the salute to women business owners by encouraging and promoting the celebration of the achievements of all women business owners as they contribute daily to our economic, civic, and cultural goals and livelihood. [Applause] I would like to have the members of the Association of Women Business Owners in Charlotte, the National Association of Women Business Owners in Charlotte, come down and please, and Miss Molina will provide you your proclamation. [Applause] So I have a name. It's Relle Stewart, Christine Jarrett, Nicole Raina, and Melinda Val McValen. Thank you very much for doing Marina Ivanth. This is really terrible. um Charlotte and John Raina and Shereice Floyd and Mindy Henson. Thank you guys for what you do to contribute to our economy. And our final proclamation today is um being read by Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mayor. Whereas the city of Charlotte is committed to fostering an inclusive community that values diversity, recognize the contribution of all individuals, including those with disabilities. And whereas October has been designated as National Disability Employment Awareness Month to bring attention to the importance of ensuring that people with disabilities have equal opportunities in employment thereby strengthening our workforce and economy. Whereas the theme for this year, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, access to good jobs for all highlights the need for continued efforts to create inclusive environments where all individuals regardless of disability can succeed and thrive. Whereas by working together to raise awareness, advocate for people employment opportunities for people with disabilities, we strengthen our community and contribute to the overall economic growth and development of Charlotte. Now therefore, I by Alexander L, Mayor of Charlotte, do hereby proclaim October 2024 as National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Congratulations. [Music] I'd like to ask Rachel Jansen, Kendall Carrick, Bill Cruz, and Blair Johnston to come down and accept. Yes. [Applause] SP. [Applause] Thank you everyone. Um, sometimes we just need to recognize that we're doing great things in this community and I think tonight was truly one of those. That was um, amazing. So, thank you all. Um, now we will go ahead and begin our I don't think we have a speakers list for the beginning of our um, meeting, but we will have speakers that would like to speak on the I77 South Express Lanes when we get to that item on the agenda. But right now, I want to turn it over to the manager. Oh, I'm sorry. We have the public hearings. Number 10. Number 10. We have a public hearing on a resolution to close a portion of Jimmy Olro, conduct a public hearing, and adopt a resolution. Do we have any speakers, madam clerk? No ma'am. Hearing no to approve A and B. We have a motion to approve A and B. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your hands. Second. It's unanimous. Anyone? Well, there I don't think anybody was opposed. Okay. So, the next item is a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Charlotte Storm Water Ordinance, conducting a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the stormwater ordinance chapter 18 of the city code and adopt an ordinance amending the Charlotte um code chapter 18 of the city code. Um do I have move for approval of mayor A and B? We have a motion for A and B and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. The next item is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Charlotte Tree Ordinance. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed clerical and technical amendments to the Charlotte Tree ordinance which is in chapter 1 21 of the city code. Um, and we have no speakers. And so, do I have a motion to uh conduct the public hear? Well, close the public hearing. So moved. Okay. We have a motion. I'm sorry to close the mo close. Do we have a motion to close the motion? That's exactly where I'm going tonight. Okay. And so all in favor um please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? That's unanimous. And let's move on to the next item, which is our city manager report. Thank you, Mayor and members of council. Mayor, I did mention in uh 267 that we could move um some of the items to the manager's report. I'd like to do another audible and uh see because we have uh something on business and something on policy that's going to take some time and I don't want to get us keep us here so much long and and the other two reports are so important but they're not time pressing so I'd like to get them both on on the 28th that works with the council. Um, but before I turn it back over to you, mayor, I do want to uh introduce uh to some and present to others our newest assistant city manager, Monica Allen. And so it's may look familiar to many of you because uh she previously worked for the county in her role as the director of the office of stratei strategy and innovation and I think that we've been talking a lot about that over the course of the last you know 10 months or so. So we really welcome a Monica. She's uh been with the county for 17 years and she served a key role of um overseeing strategic business planning, performance measurement, and evaluation initiatives. It's a homecoming of sorts because Monica spent some time in CMPD. So, welcome back. And so, we um really enjoy having um Monica here to round out the team. She has a bachelor's and masters in psychology and a PhD in organizational management. So, do I have to call you doctor? You should. You better. So, it's great to have you, uh, Dr. Allen. She has a a great portfolio. And welcome back to the city. Thank you. All right. Um, is that the end of your report? We got everything covered. So the next item on our agenda is item 14 and it comes out of a council committee. Um so it is referral I I guess we'll just go right into Miss Amira to address and talk us through this item. So for those that are watching us on TV, it is to adopt a policy for use throughout the annual budgeting process related to financial partner applications and funding consistent with the budget governance and intergovernmental relation committee's recommendation. Thank you chair. Thank you madame mayor. So this this is a new financial partner policy. So the city council had asked the BGIR the budget governance and intergovernmental relations committee to put some structure around our financial partner process and that's what we have done. We have put some structure we have some performance measurements in place. We have accountability in place and um this is more than just the number. This is about making a greater impact with our financial partners to address uh to address some of the issues and concerns that we deal with on a day-to-day basis. So, I want to first thank our staff uh Sherry Smith and Marie Harris for their work and also I want to thank the committee members um vice chair um Mr. Bukari, committee members, Miss Mayfield, Miss Brown, and Mr. Mitchell. We had a passionate discussion on this and that's why it took us um couple of months to arrive at consensus, which I am very proud of the work the committee has done to build consensus. Um, and also, Councilwoman Brown provided her insight as as she has been serving in a nonprofit capacity for several years. So uh we had we had input uh from all perspectives nonprofit to private to public sector. So what you see here is the consensus that we arrived at and I hope that my colleagues will support this. All right. So I make a motion to adopt and approve the recommendations of the committee. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Miss Molina. Thank you Madame Mayor. Um and um first of all, I'd like to thank the committee for your work on this. Um and and I don't want it to go without saying that I I brought up some concerns and I don't want my concerns to stop the overall objective. So I'm going to make sure that for the first time where I have to do this uh for the record state exactly what I'm concerned about. Um so um to establish parameters for how we um deliver financial uh resources uh to our community is is a great thing. It actually is something that is long overdue, something that we've needed to do. But if you look at the explanation um and we talk about um the review. So organizations funded through the financial partners process must uh must be active nonprofit organizations. Organizations that are actively seeking nonprofit status can also apply. Um contracts will not be finalized unless nonprofit status is active. And so although that on its on the surface doesn't sound like an issue, what it what it does state is that we would actually choose someone who doesn't yet have their status over someone who does potentially. And so I I I weighed that in a way that I look, if staff is saying that we're willing to take that on um and there not be anything, you know, um that results until someone is able to achieve that status, I understand that point. Um but then at the same time you got a project that's on hold with a potential that you're waiting on in status according to what type of project you're talking about. So that was one that brought me concern. There's also not enough definition in my opinion. Um when you say um that uh someone can reapply after 5 years or can someone reapply after 5 years? This basically there's framework that says five years but does that mean that someone can you know come like get five years of funding and then they not get year six and then they reapply and re year seven. I mean so for me in order for this to be a policy it wasn't as definitive as I would have liked for it to be. Um also um the the it seems to in some ways insinuate that once you've completed those five years although there's some you know malleability in in how you could word it or interpret it there seems to be um an understanding that once you've completed five years then you could possibly become um a financial partner. Um and actually I see that that had actually been updated. So, that's one concern that I had that's been updated. Um, because that's actually a discretionary decision. But, um, five years, I guess I I think that would be we're voting on this, but I'm I'm just wondering like would, you know, is that a definitive five years? I I didn't get that from the language or can you do five years and then come away and then come back um and then, you know, with the nonprofit status. And again, I you know, when we had the council discussion, it was almost delivered as if I was saying that someone who was in that process, I've been that person. I I started a business from nothing. Um and so I know what it's like to struggle and and piece things together to make ends meet. Um so that point will never it doesn't matter if you're forprofit or nonprofit. Those are things that anybody who has started a small business understands. Um, and so if if there's an opportunity and you're ready, but then there's someone who's favored and they're not ready and they get that contract, but you've done everything that you should do, then what does that say to the person who's done everything that they should do to the person who's in transit to doing what they could do? So, I mean, again, those were concerns, but the overall uh objective of putting parameters around um how we deliver taxpayer dollars to the public is something that I found to be um worthy of my support. But I do have reservations about those points. And I and I think um I've said it and I'm saying it again. I I think it's unfortunate to say that I would that I would not support the overall objective because those two items aren't definitive, which is unfortunate because I' I've voiced this, but I'm in the minority in voicing that. So, um, that's all I have. Madame Mayor, thank you. Um, we have two other speakers. Um, Council Member Johnson, followed by Council Member Brown. Thank you, Madame Mayor. We did have this discussion last week and and I was with council member Molina and thank you for bringing that up because we you know I have a nonprofit grassroots organizations and I've been a a huge advocate for grassroots organization but I'm with you as far as process. So, I sent an email to the our legal department and and simply asked the question if an organization can even be awarded a grant uh without having their 501c3. Um and um Mr. Attorney, can you respond to that? Yes. So, anytime you're dealing with a a corporation that they need to have an an actual incorporation of some sort um if it's a nonprofit certification or what have you. Otherwise, you're just dealing with an individual, right? So, if you're going to deal with a corporation, they actually have to have that certificate, right? So, from a processing perspective, if we're looking at efficiencies, I mean, would we want to consider an organization that doesn't have their 501c3 if we cannot award the the the award, right? When I used to sell real estate, it doesn't matter how much you like the person or how nice the person are or how many opportunities there are. If they weren't if they didn't have their financing, then you didn't get in the car, right? Or you didn't consider it. So, we I think we should look at this from an effective perspective um and processing perspective. I I cannot I I like the idea, I guess, of being able to apply when when the 501c3 is pending, but I think instead of the word finalized, if if that word is perceived as will not be awarded unless the nonprofit status is active. So, if we need to change that, I actually had something not to interrupt you, but I had something to Okay, go ahead. Yeah, if we want to change that or if we just just know that the word finalized is synonymous with awarded. So that's up to the council to decide. But we can't. She's already done. Well, no, never mind. I just know that we need something and she can do this later that clarifies not finalized, but it needs to say approved. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Brown. Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Mayor. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to grassroot efforts because that's exactly what I am and what I stand for and what I represent. And so I want to be crystal clear when it comes to um the financial responsibility and the language of how we came out of committee with council member Mayfield, council member Mitchell, um with all due respect, council member Dr. Watlington was not there. She was absent. And um council member Ashamir, we talked and we toddled over this. It was a tough conversation. And so I remember when we were going through the work and we were talking about what we were going to do for grassroot efforts and how we were going to make it easy for them to come in to build their foundation and their structure. Doesn't mean that we give them money. because they don't have a 501c3 doesn't mean that they'll be awarded. We address all of that. If there is some discrepancy in language, then that is something that we need to address. But I am always going to be an advocate for a person that is on the ground starting from nothing trying to build their foundation and moving forward to getting to the opportunity to be able to walk in be registered with the IRS doing everything that they're supposed to do and then get awarded the bigger fundings. For far too long, um, in this city, in the city of Charlotte, grassroot efforts are on the CARES team. Grassroot efforts are showing up in neighborhoods. Grassroot efforts are called upon to help our unhoused population. We're called upon to do everything. But when you are writing a format, it's written to keep them out. And so I can't support that. While I hear council member Johnson that says she is an advocate for grassroots and she's been in grassroot efforts for a while, I also hear my colleague Molina, Council Member Marjorie Molina, with all due respect, speaking on forprofit or nonprofit. We are missing The principal foundation here we are saying if someone is coming with an idea that is worthy through our betting system and they make it through, we should be willing to give them a hand up. They're not looking for a hand out. And far too often our nonprofit, our grassroot efforts starting at the bare minimum, like the foundation is nothing. They have an idea. They're pregnant with an an idea or a business plan that they want to adapt. And I'm solid with that. When it comes to that, when it comes to the grassroot effort, when it comes to people that take their life experience, I'm an expert at that. when it comes to people that have a passion for this community where they want to dig into um their dreams and help people that may not know how to help themselves and then in turn those people become the people that are helping people. So I don't know what we need to do but I think I'm still sticking with what we came out of the committee. We didn't come out the committee flawed and scarred as if we want to give money to people that were not registered and don't have um their paperwork intact with the IRS. Let's be crystal clear on that. But I did advocate for people that have a dream, that have an idea that want to see it birthed and come into and I'm going to still stick with that. And so that's all I have to say. Thank you, Miss Mo. Miss Amira, did you Yes. Thank you, madame mayor. I just wanted to provide some context around how we came to this consensus. So, we heard from several grassroots organizations that they weren't getting funding. Um the perspective we often hear is the same organizations, legacy organizations, the status quo keeps getting funded. Uh so this is an this is a way to meet in the middle while being fidiciary uh responsible uh while providing an opportunity to those organizations that are grassroots but they will not get funding unless and until they have 501c. So I think this is where the committee decided this is the middle ground and this is where we can help some of the newcomers that are doing the grassroots work uh while also ensuring that we are being good stewards of our public dollars. And if you look at the financial reporting requirements, it is just last bullet point you will see that we have very strict reporting requirements which we didn't have in the past. We are requiring organizations to have a financial audit done by CPA if they got funding over 100 thou over $100,000 and that wasn't a requirement in the past. uh additionally those organizations that get lesser funding they will be still be required to provide financial statements. So there is stricter financial reporting requirements which gives me a comfort uh as someone who has worked in a uh worked as certified public public accountant for a number of years which gives me comfort that I think our taxpayers dollars will be used wisely. um and most important um outcome that came out of this committee is the performance measures. Um you know this is the first time where we are saying that if the performance measures are not met we can delay the payments which we didn't have in the past. So suddenly there is more teeth to this. I hear the concerns raised by my colleagues, Council Member Johnson and Council Member Molina. Uh, and let me tell you, not all committee members agreed. I I think some of them would agree with you, but I think this is just the consensus that we have to arrive uh to push this out of the committee. So, this is where where we are. Thank you. All right, Miss Molina. Thank you, u Madame Mayor. And I just want to clarify because again I don't want the headline to be um you know miscommunicated that I am somehow not uh in support of grassroots organizations. Um I think I and I don't want to speak for Council Member Johnson, but I think the both of us can align with the fact and I and I'm very adamant that every last one of us sitting here are here because we believe that we can make the city better. I have no doubt that none of us are here for anything other than that reason. Um but the the actual action that the um that the uh body took has been answered and and that's not what I disagree with. Right. So, you know, adopting a policy that that that provides a bud a project a process for budgeting uh for our potential financial partners to and put time constraints, right? Although I don't see them as definitive, I you know to put some sort of time constraint and to allow others into the process, I am absolutely in favor of. Right. Um and that's not a fiduciary comment. That is a comment that says we're putting process around how we disperse the taxpayer dollars that are a part of our fiduciary responsibility. I have no quarrel with that. The only issue that I've brought are two things and I again which bears repeating so that there's no miscommunication in what I've said or there being anything being miscommunicated based on what the other comments are saying as a rebuttal. Um, my comment is strictly around nonprofit organizations that have not been awarded their status. And as mentioned by our attorney, if you don't have status, technically you are an individual until you have some type of status, whether that be for-profit or nonprofit, right? Um, and so basically what we're saying is that we are in a situation with someone who is an individual coming in with people who are actually qualified as nonprofit at the time of decision-m. We're going to decide that an individual in process of gaining their tax status can be considered in a process against nonprofits. And again, that that's just something that we can tighten up with words. That's not, you know, a saying that that's not, you know, something that we should do, but we can tighten that up with words to protect us as an organization to make sure that we're being responsible as we make this compromise. That's the only thing that I've put on the table. Um, in addition to that, I wish, you know, and I I I don't have any language that I've established in doing any type of pre-ereading on this to say did the did the did the uh committee mean 5 years definitively or is that a malleable 5 years? I I still don't understand what that means, but I'm sure that's for another time in another day. But once we said yes, we've said yes. And there is an idea and a possibility that year six somebody could take off and year seven they could come back based on the the the holes that I see in this language from what I've read. But I'll stick to what I'm the most concerned about which is um something like I said that we can clear up with a word and and I agree with council member Johnson if it's you know let's not rehash it at the deis let's just go from approved of or from finalized or takeaway approved takeaway final takeaway finalized and add approved in the language where are you saying because I had something totally different very first organizations that are right here they will not be approved will not okay contracts will not be approved unless nonprofit status is active. Does everyone see that in their agenda item under the explanation? And instead of it saying um contracts will not be finalized unless nonprofit status is is active. We could just slash that and say contracts will not be approved unless nonprofit status is active. Second. Is that a I I'm heard you say second. So, I'm assuming she said you said a motion. All right. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Um, Miss Mayfield wanted to Well, since that's an amendment to our motion, don't don't we need to clear that up before we have any additional discussion since my discussion is on the original. Okay. So, um let me make sure that um what we're saying is that we have a motion on the floor from the committee which is automatically um put on the table and now we have a substitute motion. Do you want me to repeat the motion or we need to No, I think it was the the substitute motion was to take out the section that says contracts will not be finalized unless No, we're not taking out a section. We're just changing one word. One word. Okay. Okay. Where is the one word is just instead of it saying contracts will not be finalized unless nonprofit status effective, we'll just say contracts will not be approved unless nonprofit status. So contracts will not be approved unless nonprofit status is available. Yeah. Okay. All right. Has there been a second to that motion? Yes. Yes. So now the discussion is on the substitute. So the motion now we're discussing from the new substitute motion. Any comments on the substitute motion? Yeah, I I got a comment. Of course I do. Um I I'm just trying to figure out what what's the difference in the language. There's not a big difference in the language. So I'm just I think we clarified that they would not walk away with any funding taxpayer dollars. Yeah. unless they had their status actively finalized, approved, sealed, done the right way, taking it to the IRS being sealed. So, I'm just trying to understand why we're fine to that. All right. I can answer that. All right. I think Johnson has a response to that. Yeah. Because when it was presented last week, it was presented as that the grant could be approved and be held up to 6 months, right? Be held up to 6 months until that organization received their 501c3. So that that we asked a question, how long could it be held? It was up to six months. And so and it was um that's what we were talking about. an organization who did who did have their 501c3 could be denied and an organization whose 501c3 was pending could be awarded. So that's how it was presented. So that's what we're saying. That's how it was understood. And so that's what we're saying that they cannot receive that on the date of the decision that they must have an active 501c3. And that's I think that that that language we're just tweaking it to be clear because it it was it could be confusing otherwise. Okay. So, we have a substitute motion on the floor and I think the um substitute motion makers have explained what they see and I also think that the committee has explained as they see it. So, this is just a vote that we need to take on this item. So, is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? All right. No one else. So, all in favor of the substitute motion which um addresses the issue of the finalization for the um documentation that's necessary um please raise your hand. One, two, three. We have three. All right. Um all of those who opposes the substitute motion, please raise your hands. One, two, three. I think that the um committee has agreed to proceed or the council has agreed to proceed with the committees. Um Jack, so you want to document. So let's go back to the next motion on the substitute motion. Sorry. Now let's go back to the original motion which is from the We still have discussion motion. Yes, we still have some discussion time. So um any discussion down here from the chair anymore? Okay. All right. So, Miss Raise your hand. Mayor Proim and then Miss Mayfield. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just as a point of clarification from the city manager, um to be clear with the language that we're about to vote, I mean, yeah, I'm sorry, city attorney. Um the manager's over there. Sorry about that. He used to say that to to be clear about the language we're about to vote on. No one can receive an execution of a contract distributions of funds, city funds can be done to an individual. Correct. They would have to have an incorporation status, whether it's 501c3 or any other corporation status. Correct. We won't have a corporate entity until that occurs. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that clear. Okay. Any further discussion, Miss Mayfield? Thank you, Madame Mayor. And I do want to also thank our committee and thank our committee chair. For clarification, we've been having this conversation for a number of years doing different leadership. Council member Driggs and I started this conversation many years ago and we all received the packet over the weekend. And some may have had the chance to reveal it, some may not. But we have some partners on here that we've had for 32 years, 19 years, 15 years, 37 years. So when we started this conversation just so that there's clarity what we have in here the requested funding amount should be no more than 30% of the organization's budget because we noticed that there were periods of time over these number of years decades that some organizations the bulk of their funding came from the city. We want to help you be self- sustaining and identify other funding sources. Also, I had presented to previous council years ago a model that I believe Philadelphia and some other cities utilize with having a window 5 to seven years. We have the language in here to give us the flexibility that we need. Yet what we say in today's language, funding for an organization can continue for up to 5 years, which still must be approved by council after the financial partnership period determination can be made if ongoing service contract is appropriate. What that does is one, tonight's language finally gives us a framework that we haven't really had before for us to have other conversations in committee. we can have hopefully we will be able to get a recommendation because there's a good possibility that some of our partners really shouldn't fall under the financial partner funding that it's actually a different line item that they should be identified under because some of our legacy partners we have partners on here that are under that are under $50,000. We have a couple that are over a couple of hundred thousand, but we have a major partner that has received 550. Do we have them in the right category? Is it as a financial partner listening? Is this really the right place? Because honestly, this particular partner also provides housing as well as a number of other services that directly impact the community and that hits eight if not 10 of our goals. So by us moving forward, if it is the will of council tonight, we've now created a framework that we did not have before, that at least helps not only us to move forward, but it also helps our partners to have a much better understanding when they're applying what to expect. And then we're able in committee and then get get the conversation back to full counsel for us to have a much deeper conversation regarding what are the alternatives for some of these organizations that have been legacy and how are we making sure that we are staying committed to the goals and the priorities that council has already identified. So, I hope everyone understands that this is a beginning point, but this isn't the first time we've had this conversation. We've had a lot of conversations over numerous years. The committee had very detailed and long conversations with staff. There was some confusion as far as the interpretation of what this is. I'm not going to get into that. But if we just look at the language for what we're doing tonight, I hope the majority of my colleagues will support the original motion that the chair moved forward and I seconded and one of my and also I believe council member Brown seconded and understand that we have a better opportunity to redefine some of our partners moving forward, but we need to start with the clarifying language on the front end. And as far as the five years doesn't start back over, we have the ability to determine if ongoing service contract is appropriate and if it's actually in the right category. But we cannot for me in good conscience continue with 43 years, 37 years, 32 years, 19 years in this particular model. we might have a better way to allocate and to account for the support we give to the community and how that support actually feeds the goals that council has identified. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Thank you. I have a question for Marie if that's okay. Miss Harris, thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Good evening. I just really want to understand the process for the award because we just wanted to change one word versus awarded and finalized. So with this recommendation, if an organiz excuse me, organization does not have a 501c3, can they be approved for a grant? So madame um Johnson, sorry. This this is not a grant. It's a contract. So yes, you technically the way it's written, you could you could appropriate funding, but the contract would not be finalized. So we wouldn't have a legal contract with them until and just one thing I need to clear for the record. It doesn't have to, and I know y'all know this just for the record, it doesn't have to be a 501c3. It could be a 501c nonprofit that just So they're IRS paperwork. So they can they can be awarded as an indivi individual. So budget can be allocated and approved. Okay. But not really awarded email that you didn't believe it would take more than six months for the certification. So so for the process then it would be uh two organizations. One has their appropriate paperwork. One does not. we might choose the one with the appropriate paperwork and hold that hold it for up to however well however long it took or whatever that finite period was. Meanwhile, the organization that had their paperwork was declined. So there's always a lot more applicants than are funded. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So that that's what I thought. Now from an efficiency perspective, um Mr. manager. Um would we and we'll go with council's position, but if we're looking at reviewing um an application for an organization that potentially could not be awarded, I just think that that's something that that Miss U Molina and I were arguing and that's the reason. It's not because we don't advocate for grassroots organizations. We're looking at the process and the efficiency of the process. So legally they can't be awarded or or financed or allocated. But what we're saying with this policy is that we're willing to review it and possibly award it and potentially hold it for 6 months. Meanwhile, an organization that has their uh paperwork in order might be declined for an organization that's on hold. So that was our concern. But okay, that's all I will. Thanks, Madame Mayor. Thank you. All right. I'll be brief. I don't know about you, Miss Molina. Thank you, Madam Mayor Brown. And um you know, just so first of all, I I read my information. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying. Um and and more importantly, so I again, I preface my statement with the overall deliverable for the committee I'm in total agreement with. Right. And like most bills that are probably at a different level than what we are, they're not municipal governance. there's a compromise, right? So, do I believe that we should put constraints on like some of the examples that have been given? I think that goes without saying and I and I want to make sure that I'm absolutely clear in saying that that part that work that was done by the committee is not lost on me to provide parameters and um um um actual you know uh uh rules as to how we you know disperse those funds that work. I'm in total agreement with um I just you know and I'm not going to hold it up. I'm because this is the will of our council. I'm going to give you my yes, but I am telling you that that part right there, I wish it would have been tightened up a lot better because we are also whether we like it or not as we give because see the one thing that I've always said when we talk about economic mobility is that we hyperfocus on one area of what mobility looks like and most of the time it is an access point. It is not an outcomedriven mindset because once someone comes from, you know, a place where they're in need, they go to a place where they're actually in that continuum and they have to survive. So then they get into a, you know, competition with someone and then they're denied because they got all their stuff right now, but then the new person's coming along and now they're being denied because that person doesn't have status and you got status and you don't know what it's like to have your ducks in order and to be denied by someone. And so it's depending on where you're talking and to what extent you're talking, we can never, I guess, include everyone all at once. Someone's going to lose out. And in this case um potentially it could be someone who has done the hard work of being prepared and they may not get that opportunity as opposed to someone who is in the beginning stages of that you know continuum and they are getting that opportunity which is still a good thing but what happens when they progress we never think about the outcome status we only think about an access point. So um again not to belabor the point the work that the committee done to put parameters around how we establish financial partners is not lost on me. It's just that part and around I I did read the definition of what it meant and it being a discretionary exchange from being um uh a five-year partner and then that becoming permanent based on a decision or not, but it doesn't say whether that's definitive. So, I mean, I guess that's a time for another council to decide. Right, Miss Brown? Yes. With all due respect, I do respect um both of my colleagues, Johnson and um Molina, I just want to um just say that I'm not saying that they don't advocate for nonprofits. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying my and stated my position on it. So, for the record, as it's being typed, I'm not saying they don't advocate for it. I'm saying what I advocate for and and my lane to how I felt about it. Okay? So, I want to clear that up for the record. All right, we have a motion on the floor. I'm going to call to the question. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. All right, anyone opposed? Thank you very much. The motion passes. All right, the next item on our agenda is for the item n item 15 and I77 South Express Lanes project. Direct the vote of the car Charlotte's representative of the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization Board to support the North Carolina Transportation Department of Transportation's plan for a public private partnership service model delivery delivery model for managed lanes along Interstate I77. Um so I have several speakers um before and they are my speakers I know that um Mr. Boss Boss Joe Boss Cat Ctham and Tanya Jameson and Garland Green would you um Mr. Boss will be first in our speaker class followed by Cat Cauman followed by Tanya Jameson and Mr. Green will wrap it up for us. We got through that last item so efficiently. This one should Yeah, this should speed right through. We process this one sufficient. Cue the monologues. Let me go. Thank you. You have three minutes, but you don't have to take them all. I I I assure you I won't take them all. Uh, good evening, Madame Mayor, members of council. Thank you for your leadership in transportation planning across the region. My name is Joe Bost. I'm the chief advocacy officer for the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance. The business community has been following the the I77 South discussions very closely and most recently the committee's discussions last week and the impact to residents, businesses in the region. The transportation experts have spent months on this question and have provided our community with an answer. There is a path forward. There is $600 million available in the state's transportation budget right now. There is a real timeline that forecasts I77 South with new lanes in the next decade. For the first time since planning started, there is a plan. That timeline does not come uh that that timeline does come with a decision. A public private partnership is the only financially feasible path forward. to pass on what experts have provided would would be to lose the $600 million and to take a proposal take a proposed 10-year timeline and make it indefinite. The uncertainty of the corridor's future would also cost $und00 million per year due to delays. I77 South is continuing to show its age and prove its ineffectiveness. Peak hours are continuing to extend and reliable travel times are no longer attainable. This is not unexpected. The corridor the corridor was last widened in the 1990s. We all know that population increases we have experienced and we all know that population estimates that will continue into the future. An untouched I77 South does not help any resident. It does not help any existing business. It does not support the recruitment of any new business and it does not provide the best showing of our great city to travelers. So, I would ask you tonight to vote yes to ensure the planning process for the I77 South corridor remains ongoing. Our community has an opportunity to mold the interstate's future and ensure it remains navigable for residents, businesses, both current and new to come in and our region for decades. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much, Miss Cotam. Cat Kaufman. Yes. Uh, good evening. My name is Cat Cotman and I am the senior vice president of corporate real estate for LPL Financial. LPL is a financial services firm, a Fortune 500 company, and we're proud to have our largest corporate headquarters location in Fort Mill. We're a leader in the advisor mediated wealth management marketplace with a network of over 23,000 financial adviserss and 1.5 trillion in assets under management operating in all 50 states. We have more than 9,000 employees across the country with about 3600 based in our Fort Mill campus. As a Union County resident, uh, I travel I77 South corridor to work at our campus along with roughly 1,500 of my co-workers who reside in North Carolina. Our interest in uh, speaking tonight is largely on behalf of them. Quality quality of life for our employees is a critical ingredient to our ongoing success and access to great talent across the entire Charlotte region is at the heart of our ability to grow here. We've added more than 200 employees to our Carolina's campus over the last decade with many of these positions being filled by students coming out of North Carolina universities as well as long-term residents of the region. Uh our employees and their families appreciate time as a resource. And as I77 South becomes more congested and peak hour traffic is extended, commuting delays become lost time with children, with spouses, and with friends. In addition, this corridor is in many ways the first impression that newcomers have to Charlotte and the region. Uh, LPL has thousands of visitors to our campus yearly, from potential clients to employees from other regions to our board of directors who all land at Charlotte Douglas International Airport. Their first impression of the region is I77 South. And that ride from the airport to our campus really sets the stage for their experience. LPL, like many businesses, has made the Charlotte region its home, and we've appreciated being able to grow here. Uh, however, we recognize that our existing transportation infrastructure needs investment to support the growth of the region. In order to continue to be a world-class city, we need worldclass transportation. LPL supports the proposal for a public private partnership to create a long-term solution to congestion that will enable us to continue to attract talent and support Charlotte's vibrancy. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, our next speaker is Tanya Jameson. Hello. Good evening. I'm Tanya Jameson. I'm the director of civic advancement at Leading on Opportunity. Last week I had the opportunity to speak to the uh housing and safety committee regarding the new Cheddy data. As many of you know, we went from 50th to 38th and we were number three in overall progress. But the reason we're seeing this progress is because of this results of policies and practices, investments that were done back in the early 2000s. So the decisions that you all are making now are affecting our young adults in the future. The I77 Express project is one of those types of pivotal investments. Our opportunity task force report identified transportation as a consistent barrier for lowincome families. I'm talking about the families on Nations for Road. Some of those families on Airwood. They could use the ease of congestion on I77. The I77 South corridor is important to our region. Is part of a comprehensive transportation and transit network. Supports economic opportunity and connected communities. Our workers must be able to travel from home to work and back again. NC DOT has made it clear that the only financial viable solution for I77 is a public private investment partnership. Doing nothing is not an option. Our families need options. This presents an opportunity to negotiate for community priorities. You all are making decisions that will transform our city for years to come. These are decisions that will show up in the next economic mobility studies, but these are decisions that are going to impact people's lives every day. You've been responsive to current needs. You voted to increase the housing trust fund if voters approve it. You voted for the Eastland Mall redevelopment, but you've also been visionary. You've acquired the O line and hopefully soon a public private partnership for the I77 South Express Lane project. In 10 years, we will look back on these decisions that affect economic mobility. The question will be whether we are back to 50, whether we stay 38, or whether we continue to improve. and I'm asking you to be courageous and continue to make decisions that will help improve our economic mobility. Thank you. All right, I think you're our last speaker, Mr. Green. You have three minutes. Thank you so much. My name is Garland Green. I live in South Charlotte. Councilman Driggs is my representative. Uh I don't really have a hard position on uh whether you go forward with this project or not, but I suspect that we'll see toll roads on South 77 in the near future or let's say the future. uh what I really came to ask today because I really you don't you don't get the details of a lot of things like you do until such time you come to one of these meetings and then you see it all in front of you on a piece of paper and don't know how much public input you've had on it prior to this but my question is I have questions that are kind of food for thought and uh since you're going to make some decisions uh you know all in you've 31 of 68 votes on the bigger committee. So, first thing I wanted to ask about or talk about a little bit is long-term partnership. Uh, it's a very expensive project, 1.3 billion. Uh, North Carolina Department of Transportation can come up with 600 million. The partners going to come up with a 700 million. That's a lot of money. They're going to want a return on their investment. So my question here is, is the partnership forever or is it a more limited partnership? Will the partner eventually turn the roads over to NC and North Carolina Department of Transportation or even better, will the tolls one day come off the roads? The second question that I have food for thought is who will pay for maintenance and repairs? Is this going to be a shared situation or uh how does all that work? And then thirdly, and I think this is more dear to me than anything else, is the Charlotte Transportation Department money. Uh I've talked to engineers that are responsible for North Carolina Department of Transportation on a regional basis and they tell me that sometimes the city shares in some of these projects turn away. And my concern has to do with the regional sales tax that we've been talking about on the 40 40 20 plan. Is any of this money going to be used for this project? I'm not in favor of that. I don't want this project to suck up a lot of that 40% money. I think it could be better used elsewhere. And that's what I have to say. And I hope you'll consider those points. I Mr. agree. I think that the one thing we all want to do is make sure that that 40 cents does things that build up for our own infrastructure and it's certainly not that. Now, other than that, you have a terrific representative here who will address every last one of your other questions and we'll be sure to add give him the information and and he will maybe y'all could have coffee or something. All right. All right, Mr. Mr. Driggs, do you want to have any other remarks besides scheduling coffee? Uh, no. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Um, so I I will briefly say the project cost is 3.7 billion. There's a finite term to the contract after which all tolls revert to North Carolina. Uh, the state owns the road. All expenses from the tolls are uh paid for by the private partner and there is no sales tax involvement. So, uh, Garland, you and I can get together and go into more detail, but I just since you raised those questions, I wanted my colleagues to hear the answers. Um, now, uh, basically what's happening this week on the 16th is that the CRTPO is going to vote on a resolution concerning I77. And, uh, we discussed this at some length. I'm going to try and just paraphrase briefly here, but the conclusion of NC do's analysis was there were two possibilities. And uh by the way, I don't know if he'll appreciate this, but I would like to point out Brett Kip who was up there and commend him for the outstanding work that he did in providing analysis and information to CRTPO to get us to a point where I I think most of us feel that we can proceed, we can move another step with confidence. So, Mr. Can I thank you? Um the simple choice is uh we can proceed to explore further the idea of a P3. Uh and that means that we would uh basically work with NC DOT, the CRTPO would work with NC DOT to develop an RFQ and the discussion around that would address a lot of questions that have been raised because the RFQ would have in it provisions that would address and uh define what can happen on a number of important topics. So then the question will be uh once that draft has been developed, will this body ask me to vote in support of it on a subsequent vote on the CRTPO? Uh I think you've heard there is a $600 million state funding commitment that exists right now that could go away if we don't move on this. They want to see some action on this thing. Otherwise, there are a lot of uses they could find for that money. Um, you all received uh emails and uh documents about this, a memo. You saw the slideshow from NC DOT. You got uh the material that NC do prepared in response to questions that were raised during our last meeting. And um I just want to uh you also got and I'm going to read one sentence from this the actual draft of the resolution that's being considered and the title of the resolution is request that NC do move forward with a P3 delivery process for the I77 South Express Lanes with the understanding that CRTPO can resend support at any time up until NC do advertises a request. for qualifications and that date is expected to be about 8 to n months in the future. So really we're just deciding about whether or not to keep working on this or not and if we don't frankly we have no plan. I think I've made my position on it clear. I hope I will have your support uh in asking me to vote on the CRTPO in favor of moving this next step. So the action that Mr. Um, Driggs has said is he to direct the vote of him as for him as our representative on the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization Board to support the NC DOT transportation plan for continuing the public private partnership service delivery model for managed lanes on Interstate 77. And I believe Mr. Driggs made a motion to do that. I did make a motion. Yes, you did. And madam, mayor prom said second. And um are there any other people that would like to make a comment? Mr. Graham, followed by Mr. Graham. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh I overwhelmingly support uh the recommendation to grant um council member directs the authorization uh to move ahead with this uh I77 South, especially between Morehead and Westinghouse, historically has always been a bottleneck for the city of Charlotte. uh as the state uh leaders begin to uh uh work on figure out how to resolve outstanding issues based on the recent hurricanes up in the mountains. Um transportation dollars will be scarce. Uh the general assembly just recently uh last week appropriated millions of dollars from the rainy day fund to support western North Carolina. They will more than likely do so again after the election. in concert with federal dollars. Um therefore, there'll be a lot of state leaders looking for local municipalities to find ways to self-support uh local initiatives like this because obviously the the focus for the foreseeable future will be to provide resources uh to build roads, bridges, and highways in the west that was impacted by the recent hurricanes. Certainly $600 million uh over the next decade to resolve this issue with no dollars coming from the city of Charlotte uh is something that I think we should take advantage of and send a clear message uh to members of the general assembly and the North Carolina Department of Transportation that this is something that we really need to and should move on for worth. uh in addition uh the the public private partnership that's uh outlined is one that really makes sense for the residents of our community and in fact uh 40% of the ridership on that on that stretch um lives in South Carolina works in South Carolina and so uh they will be helping us fulfill the obligation to repair the roads uh as well as to help maintain the roads as Mr. Dre has indicated moving forward. So, I hope the council would um really begin to think strategically um in terms of how do we put our best foot forth with working with a a state partner who we should have a a more formal relationship with coming in the near future on a wide variety of transportation uh initiatives. And this is one that I think we ought to raise our hands very high right now and say yes we want to move forward with this u particular initiative. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Graham. Miss Azmeir. Thank thank you. First let me thank uh by let me start by thanking Mr. Drikes. Uh Mr. Driggs put in a lot of work into this. I'm sure most of you received calls from him over the weekend. I got calls a couple of times since I picked up my call. Um, and I appreciate how he got all of us up to speed because there is a time sensitivity behind it. So, um, thank you Mr. Drikes uh, for your work and also NC DOT uh, appreciate um, your work. I know that your department is certainly dealing with crisis in western North Carolina. Um so you being here um certainly we appreciate that. Well I I agree with what's already been said by my colleagues. Um the reason we need to support this is we do not want to lose $600 million in North Carolina Department of Transportation funding and also just to relieve congestion and traffic. Uh we talk about equity all the time. Uh so this is really an equity issue because how do we ensure that we are being equitable in relieving congestion in all parts of our city. Uh this specifically uh is uh focused probably in district three the most probably the entire segment where we it's one of our opportunity corridors Arowwood and nation's forward corridor. So really helps us invest in one of our underinvested areas. So I'll be supporting this and I look forward to uh uh I look forward to uh hearing positive news from CARPOS vote. When is that schedule? Uh the meeting this week is on Wednesday in the afternoon. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Uh Miss Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Um, I will be supporting the vote also. Um, I did ask some questions last week and had asked for some information and I want to thank um, NC DOT for providing that information. I'd ask information about the analysis of the lessons learned from 77 North, the utilization rates, the uh, the DBE rates, the safety rates, and I did receive all of that information. So, if anyone wants to wants a copy, I'll send it to them or we can send it to them. But I just want to um I look forward to supporting this. I live in the the north side. So I have the benefit of the 77 north toll lanes and it really does relieve some of that congestion. So um from an equitable perspective, from a a growth perspective, um I look forward to to to the next step in supporting the uh initiative. So thank you, Miss Brown. Miss Brown. Miss Brown, thank you so much. Yes, got Mayor Pro Tim running the show. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Um, so I have some notes from my constituents. I will be supporting. I'm going to let Mr. Driggs know that. So, um, he did answer some tough questions for me. I had a lot, didn't I? And I called back several times. I want to go down to um the concerns that some of my constituents had, which they were addressed, but I want them on for the record. I'm looking for them. So although 77 is is pretty much my entire district, once you get past Morehead Street and come under the bridge to Wickson Boulevard all the way down to almost Carowinds Boulevard, um which some parts of that is my district. One of my constituents wanted to um address and I don't know who can answer this but probably you Mr. Driggs, you've done your homework. the overall um segments of the expansion and improvements will be in my district yet does not consider much needed area road or infrastructure improvements demand and need to improve the quality of life in communities affected by the highway improvements and so can you address that for me? So, one of the reasons the project is so expensive is because of all of the improvements that are needed around it, the bridges and and things like that, and I believe people in your district will benefit from having more mobility along this major corridor than they have today. You you can hardly get on I77 at any time of day now and be certain of uh getting through quickly. I voted yes because I've been using 77 all my entire life. Um, when I started using 77, I lived off Nation Fort Road in Treetop. It's no longer Treetop. That's not the name of it anymore, but I grew up I started using 77 from there and Remount Road, Southside Homes Housing Project. So 77 is a disaster. I take I'll take a helicopter down to Steel Creek before I get on 77. I'll stick a skateboard, whatever. You know, even a back a ride on your back, but I'm not getting on 77. I'll pick you up. It is a disaster. Not doing anything is not an option for 77. And I want to just share with the history that I've learned in my research. It's been nothing done in 10 years. 2014 is when negotiations started. We're now in 2024. We're going to sit here into 2034 and not have anything done. So for me, it's it's a yes. especially after you spent extensive time with me on the phone explaining and telling me about the history of it before I came onto the council. And so I think stagment for 10 years is unacceptable and to lose $650 million and is it another $100 million may maybe supplement somehow. The 100 million is the escalation in cost that would occur as a result every year as a result of our not acting now. So uh if if we don't act now, then the estimate for the cost escalates by 100 million a year. So if we came back three years from now, the estimate would have gone up from 3.7 billion to 4 billion. There needs to be something done about 77. Thank you, Mr. Driggs, for all your hard work. um taking everybody's phone call, making it an individual project and just really digging into it and um just doing your research and your homework on that. I I honor and respect you for the way that you handled delivering the information to me and I'm sure some of our other colleagues. So, thank you for that. I have to give credit where it's due. I appreciate you on I77. I'm voting in favor of whatever the proposition is so that we can move forward and try to make it better for everybody that's using that interstate. And again, it does affect district 3. I won't be here forever, but I'm sure the people that's coming behind me will want to see improvements as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Ah, shucks. I got to give Egg Driggs a big compliment. Come on, it won't hurt. just say it tough. This is tough. Uh on a serious note, thank you sir for your leadership. I just want to echo some of the comments uh with my colleagues and and so I'll be supporting it. You know, just one question Ed because it says here NC DOT will issue the RFQ. So will we get a chance this body to see the RFQ before it is out on the street? Yes, that's the process going forward is there will be engagement between NC DOT and the CRTPO as the thing is developed. I will report back to council from time to time. But critically uh the CRTPO will vote uh on whether or not to move with that RFQ and my vote then as it is now will be pretty decisive because we have 31. And I will come back to council and show everybody the RFQ and ask for your guidance. And and the last Thank Thank you. I'm going to say to Tanya Jameson for a comments. Tanya, you're exactly right when we talking about how we move our city and more important mobility and DBE participation. We heard you loud and clear. We use at the BG meeting. So, thank you for sharing your passion today. So, thank you, Mayor Pro Tim, and great job, Ed. Thank you. Were there any other comments, Mr. Bardi? Yeah. Um, so I I hate everything about this situation and as usual, we're in a catch 22 with our backs against a wall. I really hate the idea of toll roads just in concept. And I've talked to a whole lot of folks over the last week in in my district and it's really hard to explain to residents in South Charlotte who pay a majority of taxes that run this entire city why we can't prioritize our existing dollars to this important corridor without tolls. And it's even harder when we are proposing taxes for an additional 20 billion in transportation right now completely separate from all this. But but I do understand the importance of not letting this 600 million in state transportation funds disappear. So I'll support the motion moving forward tonight for the sake of finding an innovative way to make a public private partnership work. But I am completely unsupportive of an approach like we saw on the northern portion of this corridor. So I hope everyone will do their best and use these next 60 days to think outside of the box. And if we're unable to find a creative solution, we shut this thing down at that point. Thank you, Mr. Bari. Um, I'd like to make a comment as well. I I have the honor of um working with Mr. Driggs um as his alternate on Caro. So, he and I work very closely on these efforts and he does a phenomenal job of of representing the council. Um so, thank you, Mr. Driggs, for that. I'd like to thank all of the speakers that came out, but in particular, Miss Cotman. I think you did a wonderful job of articulating why I believe this is an economic mobility decision. Um, we have our corporations and our private partners throughout the city who choose Charlotte to either uh have the Queen City be their headquarters or a regional outpost for them. and the our ability to address the ease of congestion and the ability to attract and more importantly retain talent here um that organizations like LPL and and some of our other partners um can provide good paying jobs to charlatans is a direct uh relationship with economic mobility. um as Miss Jameson mentioned. So I think there's this is a an opportunity to address I77 South which has not been touched in a long time as uh Miss Brown mentioned but also in doing so because of the um the space um issues. We will be able to address some of what I call troublesome exchanges along I77 uh south to improve them. we will be able to address and improve bridges. And so overall, you're really getting a faceelift on I77 in just one particular aspect and motion around toll roads. So I think it'll be a win-win for not only Miss Brown's district, uh, but the entire city of Charlotte to continue to, uh, attract and retain our corporate partners, um, and keep talent here as well. So I will be joining in a positive affirmative yes for this vote as well and hope that my colleagues will. Thank you madame mayor. All right. I don't think that is there any further person that council member that would like to speak hearing none. So we have a motion. Um I believe that Mr. Driggs made this motion and we appreciate what you do. So, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. All right, I think that's unanimous, but I'll ask is anyone opposed in opposition to it? All right, I don't see. All right, so thank you very much. Um, thank you all for the support and the comments that you've given us. Um, this is just the beginning. So just continue to um reach out and make sure that we are making it possible for people to understand. Um Mr. Green, thank you for coming down and asking those questions. I'm sure that there are many people in this community that are wondering why would we do this again? So thank you. Is wait a minute. Is this the last item? 16. We have and we have nominations too. Remember the last item. So, um, item 16 is adopt a resolution supporting a project at the intersection of Brookshire and Rosel's Ferry, Nance Cove Road to enhance traffic flow, reduce congestion, and improve safety. Do I have a motion? Second and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone in opposition? That's unanimous. The next item is accepting alternatives to violence program funds, authorizing the manager to accept 250,000 for Mechmberg County's Office of Violence Prevention to support the continued implementation of the alternatives to violence program and adopt a budget ordinance appropriating the funding to the neighborhood development grants fund. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please raise your hand. Anyone in opposition? unanimous. The next item is to accept Living Civ C's grants for corridors of opportunity breaking barriers to business initiative to accept a grant in the amount of $100,000 from living cities to support the breaking barriers barriers to business initiative in the corridors of opportunity. Adopt the budget ordinance funding the same accept and adopt. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please raise your hand. Anyone in opposition? Thank you. The next one is accept sponsorship for corridors of opportunities from Lowe's Home Improvement accepting an amount of $39,000 from Lowe's home improvement for quarters of opportunity programming and adopt a budget ordinance for the same amount. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion hearing? None. All in favor, please raise your hand. Anyone in opposition? Thank you. Our next item is West Summit Avenue Railroad Quiet Zone feasibility study authorizing the manager to execute agreement with FHNC 1420 South Mint LLC for the West Summit Avenue Railroad Quiet Zone feasibility study and adopt a budget ordinance for $50,000 in contributions from that organization to do this work. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. We have a second. Any discussion? Mr. Graham. Thank you. Quick. I'm going to support the the um the um item in front of us, but I was just asking staff in reference to some of the same issues along Hoskins and Rosel's Ferry. Is there any type of um support uh planning um for that area town as well? They've been complaining about noise for years. Mhm. Good evening, council. Good evening, mayor. Mr. Graham, I appreciate your question. I'm Debbie Smith, Department of Transportation. Um, we don't have any current plans or studies, but what I do want to share with you is that we are looking into some grant opportunities. We believe that there might be a wider net that has been cast for grant opportunities related to this train noise. So, we're very well aware of it. So how specifically for Hoskins and Rosal Fairies or that would be one of the areas that we are most interested in? Absolutely. So how do we begin to uh raise the the level of this being a priority? Absolutely. Great question, Mr. Graham. We conducted an evaluation citywide. We have about 160 railroad crossings that intersect at grade, but we know that there are some areas that experience um some very significant issues related to that train horn noise. So, we'd love to follow up with you after this and get you some more information on how we would lift that up. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right. Um so, let's see. We have a motion on the table and all in favor please raise your hand. Anyone oppose? Miss Mayfield opposes. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Miss Brown opposes as well. Thank you. The next item is 21. Affordable housing development support reallocation request for up to $540,000 of housing trust fund from Laurel Street residential Valentine Senior Multifamily Affordable Housing Develop to further support the Springhouse Square at Alttersgate multif family mixed income housing development. Do I have a motion? Move for approval. We have a second. Second. All right. Any discussion? Yes, I I have questions. Miss Asher. So, for staff for housing and neighborhood staff. I see. I think Sean. Yeah, Rebecca is Oh, Rebecca's coming down. Rebecca home run hitting. Come on, Rebecca. Hit a home run for us. Thank you. Amen. Oops. So, this one is a reallocation of h housing trust funds from Laurel Street's Valentine Senior project to um to another project. So, what happens to the residential project for multifamily that is um that will be part of Valentine Reimagine? Good evening everyone. Rebecca Hefner, Housing and Neighborhood Services. So, if I understand your question, um, are you're asking about the Valentine Seniors affordable housing community, which has been completed, and the request is to reallocate funds that were unused as part of that community to a another development from the same developer, uh, Laurel Street. Okay. Well, that's great. We don't hear usually overage. It's usually they come back for a second round. So that's great. Well, whoever did that development, I I Laurel Street certainly kudos to them for for good planning and keeping the project uh within budget or under budget. So great work. Well, that's all I have. All right. Just wanted to highlight we have a motion on the floor and have a question. I just want to clarify that I heard what I heard. Right. So this is reallocation from the Ballentine re-imagined to another project, right? To the to the Springhouse Square project at the Outdoors Gate community. Okay. In district one. So it's it's project savings from one development are moving to another that's already been approved for funding. I don't think that I've Is it Valentine re-imagined? I don't Valentine Seniors. Valentine Seniors. It's not It's not Okay. Okay. All right. Valentine Seniors concert venue and all those. There was one project in Valentine that I was that I voted against some years ago. So, I just wanted to and that is complete, right? The Valentine. It's completed September 2024. Money away from district 7. Okay. Good. Okay. Mr. Andre said that we're not taking money too much money away from district 7. Okay. All right. All in favor, please raise your hand. I Oh. Is anyone opposed? Hearing none, let's move forward to the next item. Decision on an amendment of the Steel Creek Presbyterian Church and Cemetery Historic Landmark Designation. And the action is to adopt an amendment with an effective date of October the 14th ddd designating all of the land and structures associated with the property known as Steel Creek Presbyterian Church and Cemetery with the exception of tax parcels 141 to 1129 including the structures improvements and features located therein including the interior and exterior of the building and approximately 3.5 acre portion of the tax parcel 44121. 11 and 01A. Um, and so with that, do I have a motion? Yes, Miss Brown. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Yes. All right, Miss Mayfield. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually have questions for staff on this because I'm trying to get some clarification. We I believe all of council and staff is making their way to the front. I'm assuming somebody from the airport. Somebody can answer the question regarding the website. I think Miss Dentry is here from the airport. So, we have received numerous emails, some from the same individuals, some from other residents in the area. It I'm trying to understand two different things. one hearing is the airport if we were to move forward tonight. What is the commitment to investigating the land since it has been mentioned that grave sites have been identified on parts of the land? Good evening, Madame Mayor, Mr. Manager, and council members. Um, I believe Councilwoman Brown was going to speak to some of this. So, if I if if I step on something you're going to say, wave at me and I'll and I'll wait on you. That's all right, Miss Brown. Oh, yeah. That's an extensive conversation I need to have tonight about this for the community members, council members. I I've been I spent a lot of lot of time on this. This is very very near and dear to me. And so yes, I won't it's just I need to speak extensively on this which is gently answering question so it can go on record with the city. I'll give you a brief recount. The information that you received this evening specifically um is not fully accurate. Um we are familiar with the idea that there is a graveyard in the area. Um, there are studies that have been going on at the airport since 1978 regarding that matter. The most recent study was 19 Well, let me back up. I'm going to recap the most recent amount of time. 1997, there was a study that was done as part of the environmental impact statement for the runway at that time. There were no conclusions discovered at that time. 2007 there was an independent study by a Wake Forest professor that came down that the airport worked with and um helped him commission his study. There were no conclusive evidence at that time. 2018 the area in question was again surveyed as part of taxiway construction again commissioned by the airport with no conclusive results. And in 2022, the area in question was reviewed again and all of the previous studies were summarized as part of the runway that we're currently building that environmental process. That study was commissioned by the airport and concurred by the HLC, the Meckllinburgg County Historic Association, and the state historic preservation office. Note for you to be aware of, the property in question, which is Still Creek Presbyterian Church tonight, is located approximately one mile from the area where it is believed that the cemetery exists. We have been very familiar with this, as I said, since the late 70s. It is something that is also on the HLC's radar as an approximate location and there has never been any conclusive EF affirmation that it exists. Thank you for that. And if you can explain to me why would we designate a portion of the property? Okay. This is not my area of expertise. This is the recommendation from the historic landmarks committee. be happy to let Stuart Gray speak to that from the HLC just so I don't mislead you in any way on the Thank you. particulars. Good evening, Madame Mayor and City Council. Um, I'm Stuart Graham, the director of Mechmberg County's Historic Landmarks Department, and we facilitate the work of the Charlotte Meckllinburgg Historic Landmarks Commission, which is one of your historic preservation commissions. Um, uh, Council Member Mayfield, I'll go ahead and address what I think is the, uh, the question of why designate the a portion 23 acres versus the 14.245. So, Foundry, and I don't want to butcher the name, but Foundry Development. Foundry is the developer. Hold it. foundry came to the landmarks commission with a proposal for a development around the Steel Creek Church. Part of that development plan was an adaptive reuse of the historic sanctuary. Um, and we were very concerned about the sanctuary. The Steel Creek Pian Church congregation sold the property to the airport several years ago. This church building has been vacant. Uh, that's not good for a historic building. So when they came forward with a proposal for development around it that would involve the ddesation of a portion of the property where the warehouses are going to go that we do not want that to be part of the landmark but if we need to um if and this was my uh summation of what the landmarks commission decided to do. Again it was the decision by the commission D-Dating that portion of the designated property was an appropriate compromise in order to secure a preservation plan for the sanctuary. So, we're going to have preserved the historic cemetery. I think it's going to total about overall about 14 acres of preserved property remaining. And you'll have the historic cemetery. You'll have the historic setting of the church which is several acres including the uh large open space in front of the church and we would have an adaptive reuse of the church building with she built this city um which is a nonprofit which is slated to take over the sanctuary. So, the landmarks commission looked at that proposition and decided that it was a reasonable compromise to recommend to Charlotte City Council that the uh additional acreage, which I believe adds up to 23 acres, uh be dd designated so that development could go in could proceed. Um we don't and again I think the commission felt that if this development doesn't succeed will be back to the drawing board. The church will not have any kind the church the historic church building will not have any kind of um good path toward preservation. Um and so that it was time to go ahead and support a project that promised to uh treat the church sensitively and preserve uh and support they're supporting the designation by nonating the church and also potentially helping the financing of his moving another historic house which is in danger onto the property. So that package just appeared to be appropriate for lack of a better term. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. So, Miss Brown, I'm going to go last. I have a lot to say. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Speak before Miss Brown does. Anybody any questions? No questions. Any Miss Miss Johnson? You. Okay. Miss Brown. Yeah, I was going to say leave my Thank Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, first let me just thank by let me first say thank you to historic landmark commission's director. Uh you were here even at our last meeting when we had this on our agenda and you provided clarity on this topic because this was being confused with the other um other historic landmark designation because um it didn't come to in front of us and that created distrust in the community where they felt like that the city wasn't uh following the process and it didn't come in front of us and it was demolished. We lost a very important part of our history. So, I understand the community's concerns here. Uh I I have also worked with district council member Tijuana Brown. Uh and what I worry about is that if we don't do something about this today, I'm afraid that this will be another piece of historic property that we will lose. Um, so I will let the district council members speak first. Um, but I do look forward to supporting district council members recommendations today. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you council members that have spoken. Thank you so much. Um, so there's so much to say and um, I have stood with uh, Still Creek community. Stephanie is a phenomenal leader, advocate for the community, persistent. She's strong. Um, she does her research. She's intelligent. She goes out and when she send me something, I'm there. I have spent an extensive amount of time with the community. There is no doubt that I'm a community advocate. Um, I want to address some of the concerns that they had. They said they don't have a voice. You're going to always have a voice as long as I sit at this day. That is just what it's going to be. I'm always going to address your concerns. I'm always going to bring them to the forefront. And I want to ask what? Our attorney left. I want to ask him something. I need to ask him something. I'll take it. I really do. They have a legitimate concern. I need to ask who we we have. We have someone from Do you have anybody from the legal team? Lena, we're trying to locate. Okay, no problem. So, I'll move forward with what I want to ask. The community wanted to know, and I think I reached out to one of my council members, if they could get a MOA between um Foundry, she built the city and their community on what should happen. And I said that I didn't think that was something that we could do um based off another council member sharing that with me and our attorney just came in. But we would have to do that for every project that we move forward with. So, I want to be I want to ask that question. The community was asking could there be an MOA um with Foundry with their community and she built this city before they move forward with not want any opposition. And I'm not saying that's what we're doing. I'm asking the questions of the members of the community as they've asked me to present them. I'm not aware of an MOA being presented like this in in a situation like this. I'm not saying that it can't be done. It's just that I've never heard of it uh done before. So, I'd need I'd need to talk to the folks on the uh historic preservation committee and the folks at the le Is someone here from I just want to be able to address all concerns. Mr. Green is here. Yeah, Mr. He's here. Mr. Stewart is here which I spoke to in detail today and I think council member Mayfield and I had discussion about the MOA. Maybe she could speak. MOU the memorand I'm sorryou did you want to speak on what you said to me today okay I asked the attorney and I apologize since I came from the back what was the we were I was trying I when council member Brown and I were speaking I didn't think that community could request a with a business that we're partnering with, but I think we need a clarification. I've never heard of that before is is the the thing. I've never even looked at that before. It's never been discussed. That's what I thought and that's why I shared with Council Member Brown that that's not what we and so they were also asking for an independent study to be done, but I think Miss Gentry went down the list of all the studies that had been done. And so in my research as well, I also found out that Foundry did their own independent study um in 2023 and nothing was discovered and I think the HLC shared that with us. Is that correct? And so I wanted to go back to Stephanie. Stephanie and I had a dialogue about this. I um even when we what date was it? I don't have the exact date. Maybe somebody can help me. When we were here in in a W was it August? We were here in August and because of the the the lack of transparency which I stood on and I was firm on being honest with the community and making sure the community understand everything that is going on that they need to be involved that when the historic mans was torn down. I think there was some history before I came along, but I take full ownership because I am now on the council. So, I was very upset that that somehow missed the council and didn't make it to us. And there was not um thorough communication. We've already said that. And that the lack of transparency is why they are standing so firm. I'm not going to be long, but I do need to say what I need to say. I have showed up for the community. I've showed up at the airport. I've called Haley. I've asked tough questions. I've been at the meeting. And for me, the balance is community working together. This is a tough decision for me. But I think the right decision is not to have foundry suffer because of this and she built this city. And so I would ask my colleagues with everything that I've shared with you to stand with me in favor of moving forward. It does not mean that the community loses. It does not mean that Foundry and She Built this city wins. I hear some chatter back there, but there's no one that can say to me that I do not stand with community. There's a tough decision for me. It's not an easy decision, but I think it's a fair decision based off of all of my time, all of my research, all of the questioning, standing up to Haley and her airport staff, asking tough questions, showing up for meetings, always showing up. I'm always there. There is no one under the sound of my voice that that is looking at me can say I do not show up for community. So, I'm not I'm not going to accept that. I know that it may be a challenge to hear this, but I'm going to ask my colleagues to stand with me as I move forward. Not going to spend a whole lot of time on it because I've been in community and I don't think that she built this city who is a phenomenal nonprofit where Foundry is going to I think it's three years. Is somebody here from Foundry? Nobody's here from Foundry. Colin. Colin, can you come down for a minute, please? People get a chance to talk. Oh, boy. I'm sorry, sir. I'm just asking for clarification of what Foundry is doing. Now, sir, with all due respect, Stephanie has been your voice. She's been very visible. She's been very vocal. And so, this is the first time, which I I'm I love to see community inside of the chambers, but she's been coming alone for a very very long time. And so if there was some language or if there was a message that you wanted to get through, Stephanie will deliver that message with you. I've did interviews. I've driven through Steelberry. I've seen some of the markers. I've seen your historic homes. I rolled through there myself. I've been through Steelberry. I stand with Steelberry. It it it would be unfair to say that I don't care. But it also is something that I need to move forward with based off the information that I have seen, off of the information that I have asked for, off of the research that I have asked from HLC, off of uh the the reports from Foundry. Now, that doesn't mean that Miss Lance can't move forward with an independent study. My my my colleague, Council Member Mayfield, asks, "If there is a discovery, what are we going to do? We're not going to build over historic markings and where it might be human remains." And we have said that that is not the case. But you don't have to pay for that, Miss Lance. That is a part of the HLC. That's something that can be done. I need you calling. I was just I didn't see you come down. If you can just just give me the specifics of what they're doing for She Built This City. It's something that has never been done before. It is very it's an economic driver for nonprofits and especially African-American women that are providing jobs for manual labor, painting, warehouse. Um I I've did a lot of I spent a lot of time with she built the city executive director as I've spent with the community. I hear you. And we as as a council, as a city, as the airport staff, we have got to do a better job with being transparent and making sure that our constituents can build trust like Stephanie and I have done. And so, if you can share with everybody that's listening on the sound of your voice what I just want you just to speak on. She built the city and what they're going to stand from. I don't want the Presbyterian church to demolish from being abandoned and no work being done to it. Vandals, which Stephanie has reported to me before. So, if you can speak on what you're going to do for She Built the City. Sure. Can you give me some more? Um, and I'm probably not the best person to speak on She Built the City and they're they're a fantastic nonprofit in Charlotte. Yes. And so what's in place for She Built the City that that so the partnership between She Built the City and Foundry will be essentially to allow the existing sanctuary on the property to be preserved that would function as their their headquarters. Uh they attended our community meeting, spoke to the community as well. So they are um of course a nonprofit that is engaged in working with people in the community providing with the job training especially in construction. Uh they think that is an excellent location. So they would move into the um the facility. You know what you don't want, as Stuart said, is to have a a historic building with nothing going on. So it's a tremendous opportunity to protect a very special um building and to bring a very important nonprofit into the community and give them a home. Talking about the nonprofit, thank you so much for speaking on that. And so there's still um while I move forward with my decision um and listening to my colleague uh my constituents which I hear them very well. I do not ignore them. I take the phone calls. I take phone calls on vacation. Hold on one second. I took a phone call on vacation. My vacation was interrupted this weekend. My mom turned 70. And I don't know many people that will spend time on the phone researching over the weekend getting a phone call at the 11th hour doing what I did. I think it's very unfair to my mother and my family, but I did it anyway. Um, this seat does not belong to me. It belongs to the constituents and I do my best to try to lead with my heart, but I also have to also go sometimes with factual statements, research, and the things that I've done. So, I would like to share that they said that they think and somebody help me out here. Um, I want Haley, can you speak to this? There's, you know, there's a question that I wanted to share with you that I didn't get to when you and I were speaking today that the church and uh the Douglas home can be torn down. There's a legal right to tear it down. Um, I can't speak for the Douglas house. We don't own that property. That is a proposed property to be moved on to this property that would be designated historic, but the airport does not own that property. As for the sanctuary, we own the sanctuary and we have done everything in our power to preserve the sanctuary and find someone to be a future re to have a future reuse of it. So, no, there is no no plan by the airport to in any way tear that church down. We have worked very hard and spent a lot of money to preserve it. Hence our agreement with Foundry. Okay. So for the record, that's on the record and it's being documented here. Um I just want to say that I think in good faith um with me being transparent and open and honest. I've done all that I could for community. I fought for community. I went to the airport meetings. I asked the tough questions. I went in the neighborhood. I did several interviews and about the man's property. It would felt it was ignorance to me because I didn't know anything about it. It didn't come before council. I don't want to confuse the two. While there is transparency concern and I do admit that and we as a team got to do better, I think I'm making the right decision um for community and sometimes we have to make tough decisions and this is one of those tough decisions that I'm making tonight. So, with that being said, fighting for um community the way that I do, answering the tough questions, taking the interviews, working on days that I'm not being compensated, and taking calls on my vacation, I'm going to move forward with asking my colleagues to please support me in this effort. So, Miss Brown made a motion on the action. That's item 22, second by Dante. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please raise your hand. I'm sorry. Ed, I'm just saying yes. Eager. Y'all kicked me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? No. There is no opposition. So, that item is approved. All right. That was item 22. 23. It's time to move on to nominations for the alternative compliance review board. Madame clerk. [Applause] Yes, ma'am. For the alternative well for several committees I might say to begin with there are um nominations more than six nominations were received. So at the conclusion, you can by one vote um appoint those individuals if you so choose. for the alternative compliance review board. Ethan Garner, Michael Paul James, and William McNab al received nine nominations for Melvin Segue received nine nominations for the uh there were no um applications received for the business advisory committee for the Charlotte Business Inclusion Advisory Committee. Arian Martinez Castro received nine nominations as did Chris Jarrett. And finally for the Keep Charlotte Beautiful Committee, Maggie Brackett, Ayah Homer, and Ronald Spake all received nine nominations. side. Move to appoint second. Have a motion and a second. Miss Johnson. Yes. I I wanted to nominate and I'll show you. I wanted to nominate just Justin Judson Stringfella for the alternative compliance board. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah. There were uh I showed everyone there were five there were five positions and he's the fifth. um candidate. There was one opportunity to nominate someone. So, there's a there's a blank um position right now. So, I'd like to nominate him to fill that position. That's okay. Second, do you Okay. I don't know the procedure since we usually advertise them and then post them. But, Madame Clerk, tell me if this is So, Mr. Jud Mr. uh Stringfellow received two nominations. So, that would technically carry over to the next meeting. for there to be six votes. Um he received enough to move it forward for that additional um seat. Okay. So consideration if he have the votes we can Yeah, he has if he has the votes and you would make you would have to make that I just wonder about the advertisement that we do and how we do it. So Madame Clerk has said you know he would come forward for the next meeting if that's okay with everybody. Um, can we I mean is is is that okay to do that tonight? So I I I don't I didn't hear what the what the clerk said about the the process. I was just saying that he received two nominations. The process is if an individual gets two nominations, they move forward to the next uh process by which they have to obtain six votes. Okay. Are there any other me people that got more than got two or more votes? Yes. in that section in that for that area. The others received nine nominations. They all got appointed. They all were. Well, this is the only one. Once you vote, okay, it will be okay. I I just if you saw it, I don't know who kept that who we passed it down. Who if you if she sees it, she'll understand. But that's pass it back, please. Well, if you look at it, if you look at it, we have an opportunity to nominate somebody. Here it says other. So, I was just nominating him. But if it's too complicated, we can wait. I just want to make sure we follow the same. We're consistent with show next week. Is that what you're saying? Council member next time. He'll come back. Just next week. We can just send a recommendation. Okay. All right. We'll come back. And so, um, I believe that is that all of our nominations? This may vote. I'm asking if this is all of our nominations. All in favor of those who receive the appropriate amount um for the nominations tonight, please um accept. And all in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Anyone opposed? Anybody opposed? Mr. Graham's opposed. All right. Thank you. Mayor, we we we got an important uh important what thing we got to bring up. John C. Smith homecoming is this weekend and we're seven and zero and and and undefeated undefeated. Councilman Graham said he was going to invite several of us to the game. I want all y'all to come say that. I heard I'm inviting everyone who's a graduate of Johnson. I ain't ready. I had a family member that graduated. Huh? Okay. You got Oh, active student said I could come. Everyone's welcome. Everybody's welcome. Who y'all playing tonight? Who y'all playing Saturday? Malcolm, are you treating us all after? Yes, he is. Council member Graham sitting there for a So, you have a parade Saturday morning then right? [Music]