So we don't do that.

Oh, it's seven.

All right, thank you.

Um good afternoon, everyone.

Um, thank you today.

Oh, wait a minute.

What's gonna feel back?

I hear it now.

Okay, Chris.

Okay, I think we're we're set now.

Amanda, thank you so much.

Okay, so I want this is the call to order, and welcome.

This Monday evening is a meeting for us to discuss the work that we've been doing in the committee setting.

Um, and so I with that I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Let's begin to introduce ourselves to we'll start with our clerk.

Ariel Smith, lead city clerk.

Anthony Fox, interim city attorney.

Um, Marjorie Molina, District Five.

Jane Smith at large.

Demple and Schmerz at large.

Ed Drigs, District Seven.

The one of the old council member at large.

All right.

Thank you all for being Oh, I'm sorry.

I think I've just seen Victoria on camera so long today.

So thank you.

No, my apologies, Miss Watson.

Um, so we're going to um have we have had this opportunity, but I thought that we might go ahead and have an update from the City Council Work Group on appointments to the Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority.

And I'm going to recognize the three members of that.

Oh, I I'll have the chair recognize the membership.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh let me recognize the three musketeers who who've been working uh feverishly on on this great assignment that the mayor gave us.

Mr.

A.

Driggs, District 7, and the one and only Councilmember Lawana Mayfield at large.

And so today, Mayor and Council, we gave a great presentation to the Transportation Plan Development.

Through that feedback, I think we have even made the process better based on some recommendations we've made.

So the work group, and we're going to start off with Ken, Liz.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

It doesn't usually be.

While it's fairly long, it does talk about things that may be expansive for your view of what public transportation is, and things like higher capacity vehicles, micro transit, carpools or vampos program, special transportation services that are often run by transit systems can certainly fall within that.

Again, that that's the only direction that the Act gives you for the use of those terms.

The application process, uh, your clerk uh has developed uh an application process which aligns with the application process that this body has used for boards and commissions.

Um the only exception is that that there have been some provisions added to the application process that are dictated by the PAVE Act, things like allowing the applicant to to speak to their qualifications in one of the enumerated fields to speak to uh their demonstrated experience in one of the enumerated fields.

Um the window for applications uh is open now, and it closes on the 13th of October, and then the council makes appointments on or by November 24th of 2025.

I'll yield back to the council member.

Any questions for our interim city attorney?

If there are none lists, can you then uh prepare the work group uh recommendations and we can share that with council?

Thank you, Liz.

So, Liz, if you can go ahead and turn to the first slide if you don't mind.

Uh just remind people how we got here.

Mayor Lyles appointed the work group in an email on September 26th.

She challenged her to divine the process for council could approve appointments by November 8th.

Uh she twisted my arm and asked me to be chair, and I told her I need my sidekicks, Councilmember Driggs and Mayfield.

And the work group, we reported to the TPD today and got a lot of feedback from the committee that I will share with you later on.

So here's the framework for us.

Applicants must reside in the Charlotte City limits.

Stephanie Kelly, thank you so much.

She's been notifying those applicants who only uh reside outside the city.

They need to apply for the county.

City Council, we have 12 appointees total.

Uh we're recommending two mayor appointments and seven council appointments.

One must have small business experience, and one must be an active CATS user per the MOU.

And then we have some partners who are joining us as part of the appointment process.

The Business Alliance will have two, and Foundation of the Carolinas will have one.

Council McGrimm, you brought up a good point to make sure we communicate with our partners, and I have made calls and actually both of them will make their appointments prior to council on November 10th.

October 13th, as the interim city attorney mentioned, application closes, and the city clerk will continue to coordinate with the county clerk to identify any applicants that have applied for both city and county.

More recommendations?

The work group, we're very clear on what expertise and talent that we're looking for based on the PAVAC.

As you can see, law, finance, engineering, public transportation, urban planning, logistic, government architect, and economic development.

Part of our conversation then were, and I give Councilmember Mayfield a lot of credit.

What would be our guiding principle?

And one thing with seven appointees, we have seven districts rep.

And so we would like district representation be part of our guiding principle.

Definitely a transit rider and someone who use it, and more important the skills.

Councilmember Dreaks reminded us that this authority is like setting up a corporation.

So let's make sure we have the right skill sets to be to manage an authority.

Next slide.

So October 16th, we will share all the application that would be verified with the full council.

And then here's the hard work.

And let me thank our work group in advance.

October 20 through the 31st, we have allocated 52 hours to schedule interviews for applicants, 25 minutes per applicant with a 20-minute uh QA questions and a five minute for us to do the evaluation.

We have reserved already room 278 and 280 here at the government center for the application for the interviews to take place.

Councilmember Johnson, you brought up a good point earlier today about transparency.

And so we're gonna set this up like a committee meeting so it would be a virtual options for people to view the uh view the interview.

We we want to show flexibility.

We know some can meet between eight to five, but then we need to set up some evening hours, and so when you look at our schedule, we have two evening uh days per week, uh October 20, 24th, then October 27th through the 31st.

It is our goal, then this work group will provide recommendation to the full council November 6th for you to have considerations.

Then November 10th, uh we will have nominee uh nomination at business meeting with a November 24th final vote, and at that particular time, we should know the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance as well as the Foundation for the Carolinas Discussions any questions for the work group, Miss Assimir.

Yeah, we'll back to the previous line.

So would we before we vote, would we know who is appointed by the alliance and foundation?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

And how about the mayor, mural appointments?

Uh yes.

So we would know ahead of time.

Ahead of time.

And so we make to and I give the committee credit because they said we want to make sure if there's a gaps, then that would help council make the right uh appointments.

Right, exactly.

Would we know county commission's appointees?

Oh no.

So they don't point uh appoint to December the third, December the second.

So we're going first.

The county won't appoint to December the second.

Got it.

Well, there's is outside of the city, so exactly.

Okay, and that's the point council member mayfield brought up because and on your desk, council members, you have as of today, 71 applicants have already submitted applications, and we think that there'd be probably up to about 90 when all said and done by Monday.

Oh, that's all I have.

Thank you.

All right, Miss Watlington.

Okay, I just had a um question about the business appointments process wise.

Are those appointments going to happen through our process or are they just gonna be something that they handle exploring?

Oh, I'm sorry, which ones?

The business appointments like four.

Oh no, they will handle their own process.

Okay, business alliance and financial carolina, yes, ma'am.

We even know before we we would know before who they selected, right?

But they have their own process.

Okay, and I'm just curious, how is that recorded?

How is that required?

Because I mean I can reasonably understand how hours will be made and recorded via the public record and the counties and the legislators and the governors, but then for the private organizations, where does that like procedurally, where does that go?

So I'm gonna try to take a stab and Stephanie, you correct me.

I think we we will receive those nominations and then she will have it for the record.

Those that were received from the foundation for the business alliance.

Did I get that correct?

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Oh, I ate my weedies this morning.

I'm sorry, I just want to understand.

See, did I understand this correctly?

So everyone will apply to the city, and then the alliance and the foundation will have their application packages.

Yes.

So the alliance will have two appointees, foundation Caroline will have one, and they will have their own process separate from ours.

Oh, so okay, so our process it's just strictly for if you stay in districts one through seven.

Got it.

Just for clarification, because I don't even know if I realize that.

Um so the alliance will actually appoint from this list.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

Oh, I'm oh, okay, I thought so.

So this list is just us.

And then they have their own separate and apart okay.

As well as the county and all of the other.

So let me reiterate that.

That's a good point.

Yes.

So foundation of Carolinas will appoint one, and the Charlotte Reason Business Alliance will appoint two, and they have their own process separate from ours.

Okay.

My colleague, Councilman McMahon.

Thank you.

Following up, Councilman Mitchell, and so that we're all on the same page.

What we have recognized is that we may have individuals that have applied and shown interest through all the bodies, through the state, through the county, through us, through the alliance, through foundation.

The reason since they have according to the payback, these designated seats, that's why we're working with them to find out who their people are.

So if those names pop up on ours, we know that they've already been identified.

So along with the ones that we have highlighted here that are outside of the city Charlotte proper limits, that way we can make sure that we're looking at a clean sheet of individuals so that we don't make the mistake of identifying somebody that's already been identified in another space.

And that was also part of the conversation in committee this morning regarding the mayor's appointments.

We want to know so that we can one be very transparent as well as very intentional about who is going to be the voices that are represented in the city of Charlotte.

So even though they have their own process, just like the state did, and they just announced their people, we know that we shouldn't see those people's names pop up on our list.

And let me add another note just in Councilmember Johnson brought this.

I think it was an excellent point.

Starting tomorrow at four o'clock, all names that have applied will be on our website.

And so are they now?

Oh gone, Stephanie.

So they're there now.

So if you if you go to apply uh for this board, and there's another button you can click, you can see all 71 names.

So going forward, it'll be updated every day at 4 p.m.

Where can you find it?

It's on uh Stephanie gave it to me.

Stephanie Tellin.

Go ahead, Stephanie.

Council, you can find the web uh link that includes that PDF at the um where people go to apply for board.

So if they go to the city clerk, apply for a board.

There's an icon on there that says list of MPTA applicants, and it's a PDF of current applicants.

Stephanie, can you come up in a microphone?

Yes.

Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

I'm I'm sorry.

You can go to the city clerk's website where you go to find out information about applying for advisory boards and commissions and click on that link.

And there is an icon there, a button there that says a list of MPTA applicants.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Thank you, Councilman Johnson.

Councilman Graham.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Mitchell.

I want to thank the steering committee for the work they've done thus far.

I think it's good.

We're a couple of questions just for clarification.

And one is to the attorney.

We talked earlier today in reference to the council having the ability to withdraw names once appointed for whatever reason we want to uh take back a recommendation a nominee that serves on the board that we can and that hypothetically if the mayor made an appointment, we wanted to call back a member for reasons we could.

Does that also apply to the and the mayor will make the reappointment?

Right.

Does that also apply to the alliance and the foundation and those three appointments?

I think the termination might apply, but uh the ability to reappoint would still fall within them.

I need to look at the act specific for the termination.

I don't think it limits termination to any particular group, but just gives the council the ability to terminate because even though uh the process provides that all the names of those three parties come through the council, but you must make you must follow their recommendation.

That's fine, and that's the only thing it provides.

I just want to put that on record that we do have that ability, uh, but they will have to make a reappointment for whatever reason for cause we we decide that a particular member needs to be recalled.

We can do that, but that appointment body will make the subsequent reappointment to an individual.

And so thank you.

Um, and also I want to thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for moving so quickly and in reference to reaching out to some of the um uh other organizations who will be making appointments.

I think it's really really important that we kind of know their appointments so that we can fill gaps, right?

And so I'm not sure if you talked to our good friend Governor Stein yet.

Um, but we we it would be nice to for him to do follow suit so we can kind of know uh how the table's being set so we can fill in those gaps as well.

So thank you very much for for moving on that um so quickly.

Uh and then secondly, while we have 70 applications, I know you've already we talked about this that we want quality over quantity, right?

So 70 sounds good, but we need to make sure that those individuals really meet the test um for service uh because it's gonna be a lot of work the first year and a half, two years.

It's gonna be a lot of work, and so we need to make sure people understand that this is not a fluff board, it's gonna be a working board for the first two years setting up the administration of this organization.

So I love the numbers, but I hope that you and your committee will really scrub down to separate the best from the rest.

And I think the interviewing process will alleviate that, and hopefully council members can come and be a part of that.

That's right.

Um, because we all have different criteria, different things are important to us in reference to selecting an individual member.

So I think the process makes sense.

Thank you for your work, and I look forward to supporting it.

Thank you, Councilman Graham.

Councilmember Graham, I just want if I can follow up with you.

I found a specific language in the PAVE Act as relates to removal, and it says each member of the board of the Board of Trustees may be removed with or without cause by the appointing authority.

So since we are the appointing authority for the 12 members, then we would have the ability to remove a member with or without costs.

And then that hypothetically, that was the foundation that we recall they would then reappoint a new member.

Then they would reappoint.

Thank you.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Earlier, I thought that I heard you say that you all that the committee would do the interviewing, and then you would present the top three candidates to full counsel.

Is that what no?

No.

Okay.

No.

We have not settled on the number yet.

No.

Well, top X counsel.

Are are you are we suggesting that this committee will make the final recommendations, or will at some point all of council members be able to ask those questions?

Because that was one of the concerns that was shared earlier that we would want to be able to ask questions of candidates as well.

So let me address the first part, Councilman Johnson.

I don't think we've came to a number how many we will recommend.

I think we're gonna be your recommendation slate.

Okay.

But still council has the ability, like we do the normal process to vote for whoever they would like.

But we we at least wanted to let you all know we have vetted, and this is a slate that we think would make a good authority.

Okay.

So in other processes, the work group would make the recommendations for the slate, and then the full council would interview the members of the slate.

Not the full council.

The work group would be doing the will be interviewing the candidates, council's invited to attend the interview, or the point you brought up earlier earlier, if we want an option to view it virtually.

Okay.

Uh I I would I would want to if you all want to interview the slate and then maybe recommend recommend X number of people, three to five people, and then they come before full counsel.

I mean, I this process was defined by a small group of individuals, not the council.

So is there room to tweak yes?

There's room to tweak the process.

Okay.

So she can you can advocate for anyone on this list that you want to even if they say that's right.

They got people.

We need to take away your ability.

Exactly.

Right, but that that's thank you.

But that wasn't my question.

Oh, or the process suggested.

I think you all understand what I'm saying.

I mean, we've done it numerous times.

We just did it, uh, we just followed the process for the city attorney.

So if there were a work group, and then once there are identified leaders or the top of the pack, then when is full counsel going to have the opportunity to interview those individuals?

Oh, you want to ooh.

I don't think, and I look at the work group, I don't think we factor in, let's say, for example, seven names we bring back, and you and then you want the entire council to interview just the seven we recommending.

So I don't think we fact that in.

So James and Councilmember Johnson, I want to make sure that I think I'm hearing you and James.

It we did actually talk about this, but just briefly in discussion as far as when that 52 hours that's been identified for the interviews, that is the time because again, we were trying to be respectful of people, jobs, family, whatever, for you to be a part of the interviewing process.

My expectation was that that is the opportunity for full counsel to be a part of the interview process to ask questions.

I was not under the impression that we were gonna bring you all back a slate.

We've done the book by identifying here's the criteria that the payback identified.

Here's the criteria that we've identified, focusing on the city, having the conversation and negotiating instead of three and six for us to be able to have seven and two, because we really only had nine seats, not really twelve.

So, how do we be as representative as possible and having seven seats?

Now's the time where based on whether it's the morning, the afternoon, or the evening, or when someone can block out that whole day to be a part of all of them to actually do the interview process and score on your own, because this is just a snapshot.

Each of these applications, and Stephanie correct me, is seven pages.

So 70 plus the resume.

So 70 plus as of today, potentially 10, 7 pages each.

What are some of the criteria on the front end to help streamline this process and then deciding as a body what attributes are we looking for, and how do we try to identify for me, gender parity, ethnicity parity, age parity, demographic parity, as well as someone that not only has some of the skills, but also as a bus rider, not just for when you're coming up town for entertainment purposes, someone that actually utilizes it for your main form of transportation.

So I was thinking that here we presented the initial, but when it comes time for the actual interview process over that 52 hours that we've said we've committed to, mainly they've committed to 52 hours.

That's when all of council gets to be a part, and we do similar to what we recently did and do our own little scoring as far as hey, is there someone that was a standout for you in District 4 based on the skill set, the different districts?

Because honestly, that if we have if we agree with the type of who is our ideal representatives and the diversity of that ideal representative, that would help to lead the conversation.

But it I didn't think that there was an expectation that three of us was gonna narrow down 70 to 100 people and bring back to y'all here's 20 that we think you should look at pick seven.

We did our part with this presentation, but now is the next step is the actual interviewing, which again we've committed up to 52 hours.

We're gonna make sure all the times are available, but that's when full council gets to be a part of the interview process, and we get to do the way we broke it down, we get to actually have discussion about the individual and do our own little scoring.

Right, if that helps.

I want to make sure Miss Mayfield is saying that any council member can come in to this process with having any kind of conversation that you want to have a deeper conversation, if you just want to check off the boxes.

So I think that's really the date and time for the full council to begin.

Oh would have been 52 hours.

52 hours, right?

So um I had Miss Dimple Mashmira, and then follow that.

Ms.

Swatlington, and then Miss Brown.

I want to make sure that I'm clear as to what this working group is doing.

So from what I understand that you are interviewing all the applicants that applied.

Is that I mean, I know that council members can attend if they want to, but the working group is interviewing all applicants.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Um, I think our original intention, as we talked about it, was that we would identify the people that we thought were most likely to end up being finalists.

But any member of council who doesn't see a name they like on that list would then nominate someone else.

I don't think we're gonna interview every single person because uh there will be some who are obviously really not very competitive, right?

But but nobody's gonna be excluded that another member of council wants to be able to do that.

Okay, so you will all provide us a list and enough time and the times, and enough time to make sure that we can add if you want to uh add an individual.

So take a step further, Ms.

Edmund.

I go, we're gonna meet this week, so our goal is to have that list ready by Friday, and so council can see who is scheduled for interviews.

And how long is the interview slot for per person?

25 minutes for QA and then five minutes for us to do the evaluation.

Total 25.

So I wanted to follow up on something that council member Graham uh brought up, termination.

So can you go back to the slide where you got the city appointments 12 and then I think it was one of the first slides?

There you go.

Yeah.

So I just want to make sure I understood this correctly.

So let's say out of how in a hypothetical scenario, we have a city has 12 appointments total.

Technically it's not 12, it's seven, because well, seven plus three by the mayor or two by the mayor.

So technically it's nine.

Um so Mr.

Fox, you mentioned that.

So let's say if we want to recall one by business alliance, for an example, would it go back to the business alliance or would it come to the city?

Well, the removal provision is only a paragraph long in the act.

So it doesn't get into great specificity about removal.

It just gives and confers upon the appointing authority the ability to remove.

Um if you remove though, then you go back to how do you appoint.

The appointing is specific under the PAVE Act in that the alliance has the ability throughout process to recommend a person or uh individuals for appointment, and the act provides that we must we must appoint those people as recommended by them.

So go back to the appointment process, so it'll go back to the alliance.

Right.

Got okay, Miss Wartlington.

Thank you.

Um that helped answer my question.

Just for reference, I see it under 907 C is where it says that that it goes back to the appointing authority charged with the responsibility for making such appointments pursuant to section 905.

Um yeah, it'll go back to the alliance, but it sounds like we could end up in a do-loop if we keep saying nope, nope, nope.

But that's neither here nor there.

Um two things.

Uh as it relates to this interviewing process, the sense that I got, and I just want to, I know we've we've talked about a few times, but I still feel like there's a couple of different versions floating around.

I just want to make sure that every person who meets the basic requirements here lives and has filled out the application to speak to their qualifications as outlined here is entitled to an interview.

That's not the no.

Uh-oh.

So that for me is a little I struggle with that simply.

Okay, so doc let me see if we can meet you halfway.

I goal was try to, and Councilman Graham touched on it, try to go through all the applicants and try to pick out what we think is the quality of people who serve on authority.

We will show that list to the whole council.

If you see someone on the list who you think should be added, then you can send us an email and say, I think John Doe needs to be added part of the interview process.

And so we're not taking away opportunities, but the work group has agreed to kind of roll up by sleeve and kind of that and make sure we have quality people moving forward.

And so we will see all of the applications in there entirely.

All seven pages and the resume, yes.

You would still see those on November the 10th.

Okay.

Okay, and then um, thank you for that clarification.

And then the only other thing that I wanted to lift up that I because I think you've captured um the items that were laid out in the committee this morning.

Um the only other one is one that I brought up earlier.

I want to make sure that I raised.

I just I have not seen it in here specifically, legal authority to give our appointments to a mayor's seat.

And so if the if the group is good to move forward, I can support, but I just want to lift up that I would not be surprised if that was some challenge at some point simply because of the specificity within which these appointments were made down to the the business community.

You have to make this appointment upon the recommendation of so and so.

So to give appointments away to another body, I just think that we we maybe have a risk there, but and I've heard what the attorney said earlier today, but again, I think this is a little bit different than simply determining whether or not we're gonna whittle down the list through a subgroup or not.

So I just wanted to put that on the record.

But I think um, those are all of the last point from there when you say giving it to another body.

Yeah, sure.

When we what I'm talking about is that the here, I'll just pull it up that way it's directly from the and mayor.

I just for the minutes, I just asked Dr.

Waddlington to clarify her last points of giving it to another body.

I want to make sure I'm understanding.

Yeah, so down here in the appointments, so in 905, well wait, hold on.

So in 905, wait, hold on.

Yeah, yeah, 905, where it talks about the appointments, and it says 12 members appointed by the governing body of the largest municipality in the county that created that authority, which would be the city council, who's the governing body of the largest municipality in the county, the city of Charlotte.

At least three of these appointments must be made upon the recommendation of an entity that represents business interests in the county.

So we've already talked through that.

But uh obviously the appointment itself is made by the raising of the council's hand based on a recommendation.

At least one of the remaining nine appointments by the governing body must be an individual that has experience owning or operating a small business is identified, or excuse me, as defined in subdivision one of the subsection, and then two members appoint, and then it goes into the General Assembly.

So what I'm talking about here is where it says 12 members appointed by the governing body with the business community, even though they have the recommendation, the actual appointment is made by the governing body.

And so when I hear that we are saying that we want to allocate two seats to be appointed by another body, i.e.

the executive office, the mayor, that feels like a departure from what's here.

And again, I I'm prepared to support, but I just am lifting up that this feels like a risk here.

So for clarification, and attorney Fox, you can help with this, because in my interpretation is that because we are a council manager form of government, the mayor is part of the council.

So previous application, the um our current board appointment process gives the mayor's office, whoever the mayor's is the mayor is the mayor's office, a third of the votes.

So that's why it was three votes and us having six, but what we did was reach out and have a conversation with the mayor to say, okay, two, instead of what traditionally has done, been done with our board process, of which she agreed to, which gave us the ability to have seven seats instead of six seats.

So I would say to that to, and I spoke to this a little bit this morning.

The difference to me with that is that our other governing boards or our other boards and commissions either having the bylaws of a nonprofit that you'll have this seat, or we ourselves are deciding what the composition of that board is.

And so that to me is clearly within our authority to decide where those seats come from.

Um, but it sits somewhere in a document, even on boards like um the housing authority that have appointments from different bodies within their governing structure, it says where those appointments come from, and so that's totally fine.

In this case, I'm saying if this is that document, I don't see it here.

And as it relates to the mayor being a member of council, I think that the definitions in general statute 160 would indicate that those are two different offices.

I think what's but again, like I said, just a risk.

Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Yeah, what you're doing, you're parceling out the actual action of this body.

The action be it two from the mayor and nine uh and seven from the council will be the governing body's action that will be forwarded on as well as the three from the authority.

That will be the action of the governing body.

It I I understand what you're what what you're looking at.

You're looking at the power of the mayor versus the power of the council, and you're looking at the the remote language of this, which talks about the governing body making appointments, but the government but the act also allows each of the appointing authorities to establish the appointing process consistent with what their practices are.

The project here has been from a traditional perspective to allow the mayor to have some appointments.

The as I would see it though, the mayor, if if this action were the pass, the mayor would appoint two people.

Those two people would be joined in with the people appointed by this council, and that would represent the action of the governing body going forward.

So similar to what's in here with the business group, would it be upon a recommendation that ultimately the like why wouldn't it follow the process the same way that because I see where you're coming from?

I'm just offering a suggestion.

Could it be then just like where it says at least three of these appointments made upon the recommendation of an entity that represents business interests?

So obviously the official act is us raising our hand based on that recommendation, but just for consistency's sake, could we follow that same process?

The city of Charlotte governing body appoints the following individuals, and there would be 12 of those people, three of which would have been the recommendation of the chamber to if this passed would be the recommendation of the mayor, and the remainder would be the recommendation of the council.

Okay, Miss Brown.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um there's been a lot going on.

So for the record, I I'm not I don't support it at all.

I'm a no, a big no.

But I want to know from all the information that I'm hearing from people reaching out to me.

Why is it and uh I'll be advocating for no in November as well.

But so the PAVE Act shows that you get two appointments?

Okay, I'm asking because I'm sorry.

Yes, uh, I think correctness said the attorney, 27 positions have to be appointed, and we have 12.

And if we don't point our 12, they still gonna set up an authority.

Dr.

Watland is researching that for me since I just got they still will set up an authority.

Okay, all right, got that.

No problem.

And so for you, Miss Malin, I see your name is number one on the list.

I love you, and I think you're amazing and all of that, but uh, this is a red flag for me.

Um, I'm just making a statement.

I'm just making saying for me, it's a red flag.

Um some people have some concerns about that, and it I would be less than the council representative for the people if I didn't ask.

And so with that being said, they've said, where's my other question?

Are you gonna recuse yourself from the list or are you gonna move forward with trying to be appointed?

Oh, okay.

That's a question for you.

Oh, okay.

So first I I'd like to speak to why I'm on the list.

I think that makes the most sense.

Um I'm currently the vice chair of transportation planning and development for the city of Charlotte, and I have a few years of knowledge base that can be absolutely beneficial to this body.

That I mean, I you know, uh, with the I have a day job, so they they're not even paying money to do this.

This is literally me on my own accord saying I have four years of knowledge base where I've actually contributed to this conversation in a leadership role, and I'm willing to offer my time to translate on this body so that there could be continuity in that knowledge base.

I could retire it and go home and spend that time making good money and spending it with my children, which I'm tempted to do based on how this conversation goes.

Um but I so I have to recuse myself, I believe, um, because of what would be considered a conflict.

In other words, I can't vote on myself, right?

So if if I'm one of the people who are selected by this body to move forward, then I would actually have to recuse myself, which actually I've I've been weighing since I, you know, because the reason why I'm at the top of the list is because I was the last person to apply.

It actually they're in order by date.

So that's why I'm at the top because I just applied on October 5th.

Um, one of the things that is a challenge for me is even in order to contribute my knowledge base because of the overlap in time, I have to give up my right to vote, which is more important in some cases than it is for me to actually be on the right to vote in November.

Well, no, no, the right to actually vote on the actual candidates once they're decided by the steering committee.

So the steering committee is going to bring us some suggestions.

And then we have a right to go and see those interviews if we choose when they go through the interview process.

I can't even be a part of that because potentially I could actually be an interviewee.

Um so not only would I it it's it's a risk for me because it actually I I risk losing my voice to offer my information, um, and I I risk being a part of the process.

So it's it's something that um again, I I'm uh it this isn't about I don't need any more titles.

I got all the titles I can take.

I got a lot of education.

I think we've done great work over the last two terms.

I'm very proud of that work, but I can also contribute to this body because I actually currently sit in a leadership role and it'll be over on December the first, and the articles of incorporation for this body won't even happen until weeks later.

So there's there's only about a week overlap from the time that the council will make this decision and the time that I will no longer be a council member.

So it's about a week or two left.

All right, so yeah, so this information is not for me, it's for constituents.

No, I get it.

I'm just asking the questions from the constituents.

So your accolades, you know, that's fine.

You are a phenomenal black woman.

I don't I don't deny that it has nothing to do with the questions that the constituents are asking me to ask, and that's why I'm asking them.

I asked one for the mayor, I asked one from you.

I can understand why people would say no, though.

It's been a lot of chatter this morning.

It seems like a lot of confusion at this day is right now.

And so I can understand why people are are some people are saying no, and me being one of them.

Well, I don't think they said no because of me.

I think they said no because I just want to make sure that's the same.

That's not what I said.

I said the confusion.

Okay.

I didn't say saying no because of you, Melina.

I'm just saying I'm speaking, and whether people like it or not, I'm going to do that in the way that I want to do it.

Because this is my voice.

I have one of the eleven around this day is until December first.

And so I'm going to exercise my right to the fullest.

So that's that's all I have.

All right.

I think she can speak and then uh oh, I actually probably be fitting for me to follow up.

I was gonna say I guess um, you know, while we were talking about this, I want to make sure that I'm clear.

Um I got the language I spoke to Dr.

Watlington today because there was some confusion in the language of what was actually said, and it said that a council member cannot serve concurrently as they serve on this board.

So there is no concurrent service in me assuming this volunteer role um after being on council.

Um like I said, it's it's it's one of those things where I I may even still walk away from this and and take my knowledge base home.

Um it's it's it's a possibility.

Um but I I do have uh in both my public work and my private sector work um something that would be extremely valuable from my years of work on the council and primarily of being vice chair of the actual transportation board for our city.

So um, but that is in no way meant to try to there's always these narratives that just you know try to twist things and turn them into things that they're not.

This isn't something that you're getting paid for.

There's no pay for this.

This is literally I'm saying that hey, we got this very important board, and I understand it very intimately because I've been an intimate part, a very close part of the conversations, and I'm willing to continue that service.

So this is also a decision, it doesn't automatically qualify me.

So if that is, you know, the will of this council or even another entity, then I'm I'm willing to at this point um at this moment, unless that changes be considered for that.

Um and I'll I'll leave that there.

Thank you.

Your accolades are amazing.

Again, the question was it not a personal attack?

I understand.

But I I the narratives that you said, I would have to come back on you with that.

Because I mean it's not for you in particular.

So don't take this as a shot.

This is something that, like you said, we had the conversation in committee this morning.

And there were other colleagues around the table that had very similar concerns.

Okay.

Like what would it mean?

You know, what did the language say?

So you're not the only one.

I don't want to feel or make you feel as though I'm singing, you know, singling you out.

I think it's a valid concern because I am sitting here with you, but the reason why you know I could potentially be also a good candidate to participate in this is because I have been sitting here with you, and I have been in leadership around the transportation conversation, and so being willing to translate that into this board among other leaders, I think could be valuable for the city and the continuity of information in our city and the region.

So that's why I put my name in the hat, of course.

But again, this is a selection process.

I would be, you know, and and I could apply for the county and not even have to go through this.

And they actually would select after I'm off the council.

So it would even be much easier for me to say, hey, county, you know, do this.

But I I think in all transparency, first I wanted to make sure that you knew that I was willing to offer myself in this level of continuity because that's important in the in the spirit of transparency, you know.

I I probably may even consider the county, but I I don't know yet.

But I think, like I told Dr.

Watlington, I think the strongest endorsement, it's like any job that you have, the strongest endorsement are the people that you've actually worked with.

So to say that I've stood among other people in the application process, and if I among these people earn a right to sit in that seat, and I'm properly qualified, and it's an endorsement of my colleagues, and I think that's more powerful.

Thank you for your full explanation.

Thank you.

Ms.

Mirror.

Yes, thank you.

A couple of questions.

So for the working group?

As part of your process, will you be making recommendations for the mayor as well as the council appointments?

Not for the mayor appointments, just for the council appointments.

So you'll be making seven recommendations?

Yes.

Okay.

And council can just like any other board, council doesn't have to follow those recommendations.

They can select whoever they like.

Okay.

Um, was there any conversation about recommendations for the mayoral sports to mayoral sports?

No, there was not.

I you know, I think we're trying to go by what's an advisor handbook uh that the mayor has one third appointment, and we don't have any feedback with the mayor currently now.

So we was trying to model that same behavior.

Okay.

And so this question is from Mr.

Fawkes.

Um, in anywhere in the PAVE Act, does it say anything about the authorities board and uh possible compensation, or does it strictly say it's a volunteer role?

It doesn't say volunteer and it gives the authority the I believe the ability at some point to set compensation if they choose to.

There's nothing in the act that currently sets any compensation for any board members.

Okay, so authority could choose to have a compensation.

Yes, they could.

Nothing prevents them from doing so.

Right.

Okay.

I think that needs to be a factor okay into consideration as we're making appointments.

Um that's all I have.

I'm sure I'll have more questions.

I'll come back to you, Mr.

Attorney.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

All right.

Do you want to wrap?

Is there's a is does anyone else want to have comment?

Um, Mr.

Mitchell, do you want to wrap this up?

And okay.

So, Mayor and Council, here's what I would say.

Um we on the fast track to participate.

I think something is very important for our region and for our community.

And so uh no, is this a perfect system?

It's not, but I do think it's a system that will work and it has the flexibility of getting a recommendation, but also it doesn't take away your power to vote for someone you would like to be on authority.

And I said that's to say it, so I hope that we can get everyone to agree that we need to move forward uh with the process and so we can participate and make sure I-12 are part of the authority.

So, with that, I do believe that I wondered if we should have a motion and a vote so that we can move forward.

I think from the discussions that we've had today, so that we codify this process.

So mayor, I'd like to in a motion that we accept the work group uh process recommendation to make our appointments to the MPTA.

Second.

We have a second for that, and I think we've had a lot of discussion, but if there's anyone that would like to have further discussion, say anything.

All right, Ms.

Johnson, thank you.

So uh it's just maybe the news is different than District 4.

I don't know.

But we have a challenge, guys, with the perception and with transparency, and I just think we should have worked over time and double time to make sure we that we were moving forward forward with the transparent process.

And um, like I said earlier, the work group wasn't a council directive that was that came from the mayor's office.

The fact that we're pulling two of our appointees for the mayor's office, um, the the fact that and and with all you know with all due respect, the gray area of uh of a council member and the overlapping time member, it's more of the same, and people are tired.

So I won't be supporting this process.

Um yeah, I won't be supporting the process.

I again I don't think that we've listened to the community enough even for the the tax.

So I won't be supporting the process.

Thank you.

Understood.

Thank you very much, Miss Mayfield.

Thank you.

I would just like to ask a clarifying question of Councilmember Johnson.

Do you have a recommendation of something other?

Something other than us receiving an email that there was a work group?

Yes.

So that's why I'm asking for it right now.

Do you have a recommendation of a process?

Because right now, based on the mandate from the North Carolina General Assembly, we have a very short window that we have to make our appointments.

So that's why I'm asking if you have a recommendation of what you would look like so that we can try to figure out how to move forward, because one of the questions that I asked the interim city attorney is okay, what if we don't get because we we thought about any potential scenarios?

Because one of the questions that I asked the interim city attorney is okay, what if we don't get because we we thought about any potential scenarios?

What if we don't get to the point of moving this conversation forward and we don't get to our seven, twelve, whatever that number is, and we don't get to our appointments.

What happens then?

That triggers a whole lot of other things based on the fact that North Carolina General Assembly sent back to us something that was very different than what we asked for.

So if there's a recommendation of a better way for this to be done, that's what I would love to hear.

Well, I talked about before, I think that there should be a very open process.

I've mentioned that before, uh vetting the qualified candidates, putting them in categories, and then you could pull from a lottery system or random drawing.

So that's part of, and I hear the concern as far as why was three people chosen to at least come back and bring a proposal.

But the recommended, but the idea of saying, okay, between the 52 hours, that gives everyone the opportunity to interview.

But let's have a real conversation.

For our regular meetings, and for majority of the meetings, multiple people run anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes late.

We all went through experience something earlier this year because someone just had a whole lot of time on their hands to actually look into our attendance records to show that there were a number of people that were out.

So I and me and Mayor Laues go back and forth every day, all day, and at least two, three times on Sunday.

So when the idea of okay, what are we gonna do?

So we're just making a recommendation, right?

Okay, the recommendation is supposed to come back to full council, but there's a reality that we must acknowledge that people don't come to the regular meetings on time.

You don't come to the committee meetings, and I'm not saying you individually, collectively, we can't be in on time at the meetings now.

So this was in an effort to try to do a good thing.

It was not done in my personal opinion, like a rump, everybody got an opinion.

So this was not done with any malice or any disrespect.

It was, hey, will a couple of y'all get together and start this process so we can move it along.

Sure.

I don't have a life, so why not?

Let's go ahead and spend a number of hours, but with the expectation really was that okay, we're not we gotta have space for our colleagues.

So we're saying we'll commit to these 52 hours.

I'm gonna rephrase that.

They're gonna commit to 52 hours, and that way we gotta make sure that everyone's voice is at the table.

But if we ask Councilmember Driggs and Councilmember Mitchell, I actually asked that question of okay.

Well, how do we actually try to streamline this?

If we're gonna have 70 to 100 people that apply, what are we looking for?

That's a space for full counsel to come around.

And I think that part didn't get expressed.

So if there's a different process where you think we can come together within the next 72 hours when this application closes on the 13th, that's what I would really like to hear.

Because hell, I want to support it.

If it's gonna, if you ain't like this process, give me another process because it can't just be I don't like this.

Right, but even the three of you there she just saw it today.

Yeah, and even the three of you, the council wasn't asked.

Uh they weren't, we didn't all receive calls if you want to participate on this work group.

So again, there's I talk about the machine and how things are done.

And so this this is why people are are first state frustrated and non-trusting of the process.

And when you talk about quality candidates, um, I hope that there's going to be a fact-based or some type of rubrics or some type of scoring before uh we allow you know certain council members to say these aren't quality because we know that there can be uh some level of bias, right?

Yes, so we need to, yeah.

So we want to make a very fact-based um decision before we eliminate individuals, also.

I would think.

So just for clarification, does that mean that what you're saying is you're willing to help create this rubric that you're recommending that we use?

Sure.

Because you can use we we have a whole HR department.

I mean, we can use very objective factors.

So what we don't want to see is the same it just seems pre-designed on who's going to be on the committee.

I definitely don't disagree with you.

Council Member Johnson.

That in a dream world, just for clarification, in a dream world, we would have had 11 appointments, and that way everyone would have at least their one, so speak to the four at large, basically.

So the two at large were saying, you know what?

We're gonna get seven, the seven districts.

We'll try to reach out and have a conversation with you to see if there's someone in the district that we know or if we have any insight, but that's what the hope of after this initial hey, can we move forward?

Then we have that conversation.

But at the end of the day, the great thing is the way this system is set up, it takes six votes.

So the six are gonna move it forward or not, but we gotta have some type of process before the General Assembly comes in and try to appoint all eleven.

We have a motion on the floor.

You got a second, and we have a second.

And that's what we're doing.

And I understand there was a dialogue, and I think there was a but I think that right now we have discussion on the motion.

Discussion on a motion.

Discussion.

Oh, I know Councilmember Mayfield asked for feedback on the process.

I I don't think we discussed this part, but what I would like the working group to do is help us with this person meets this criteria, finance, this person meets engineering, this person meets architecture, this person makes public transit experience versus giving us recommendations.

You tell us, you're giving us the facts to make to council member Johnson's point.

What we need is an objective process, fact-based.

You give us the facts, let the council make a decision so that there is no preconceived motion of oh, here's the candidate that it's sort of been oh, this person is going to get appointed.

I I think what we are looking for is facts.

So right now I have no idea how this from all of these people which one meets what.

Like so I think if we can have that instead of recommendations, that would be helpful so that no one will feel like that DAC was stacked against them or any candidate.

So I don't I didn't, I don't know.

Yeah, so I would like to make a substitute motion that uh provides the council expertise fact-based, uh, that will tell us whether that person meets some of one of these criteria, whether that person meets small business background or public transit experience, and then based on the facts, the council will make the ultimate decision, no recommendations provided, because I think that will take that subjectivity out of this process to council member Johnson's point.

Second, okay.

We have a substitute motion.

Any further discussion on the substitute, Mr.

Driggs.

Um I I understand what the concerns are.

What you're suggesting defeats the purpose.

We can spend very little time and do a tabulation on a spreadsheet and circulate it to you and say, okay, guys, it's up to you.

What's intended here is that thoughtful people, your colleagues, will look and will try to make a preliminary recommendation.

You're gonna get all the facts and then you're gonna get a little comments from us.

Just a recommendation.

The goal is to try and help people zero in where the strongest prospects are.

Uh it doesn't exclude anything, it doesn't limit your ability.

But personally, I don't see why you're better off not hearing the not getting the benefit of uh the work, the hours and hours that we're gonna spend.

You can come to every single interview if you want, 50 hours, book the time, but otherwise we will have done that, and we will have come back, uh, and there's a diverse group among the three of us, and we will come back and just say this person in our mind is a writer, has the stature, satisfies Mr.

Graham's priorities, and so on, and then you can disagree with that.

I don't see how you're better off not knowing that.

Yeah, so here is I I think that's where the subjectivity is because we are trying to take the subjectivity out of this process, right?

What might be strongest candidate for you may not be strongest candidate for council member Johnson.

What might be strongest candidate for Dr.

Watlington may not be strongest candidate for me.

So we are trying to make this process as transparent as objective as possible.

So I personally feel if you give us the facts, I believe we are capable of making a decision.

We are elected by the people.

Um I think we should be the ones making the decision.

And I just feel that's that's not the process that's fact-based, or that's not objective process.

So no interviews, right?

No interviews.

So that work.

So here I'm gonna break it down because I'm right.

I was just thinking about what council member Johnson raised, and this is something that came to mind that is are you wanting this to be exactly like just the business advisory committee where just we have a lot of applications?

That one seems to be a really popular one.

Okay, I think she still has the floor, Mr.

Peter.

I'm just asking her a question.

I'm trying to figure out her substitute motion, as I'm just trying to figure out because I think what she's saying is she doesn't want any filter at all.

You want all the applications to come straight through.

No, what this is what I'm asking.

I would like the working group to give us the facts, and then this council will make the decision.

So right now we need the categories.

Uh you guys, I mean, interviews, you can continue with it because the full council can participate.

You're not telling us not to participate.

So I don't think that process is subjective because we can all participate.

You give us the time and say here, here are the times, these are the candidates that are coming.

You're welcome to come and listen to them, which is fine.

But I'm saying we are not taking that pro that step out of the process.

All we are saying is do not make recommendations, let council make their own decisions based on the facts, based on the interviews everyone heard and listened to um, skip point of the cloud.

I'm sorry, I just uh Mr.

Driggs actually, Miss Ashmira had the floor, Mr.

Drives has the floor, and then you have the floor.

Ms.

Watlington.

So and a certain number of people will be involved in the interviews.

And what are they gonna do?

Write down what?

This is what they said.

We can provide recordings of the interviews and then not uh not opine any further.

So you can have a package that has all of the data, which is 500 pages, and you can have uh 50 hours worth of recordings, each one of you, and then you can decide.

I just don't understand why it isn't clear that if a hundred people apply for this, there are gonna be some people among those applicants who are not gonna make it to the final seven.

Let's be clear.

And uh that's all I have to say.

If that's what you want, it's easier for us.

I'm fine.

Yeah, no, I I understand, but I respectfully disagree.

I personally think this process needs to be as objective, as fact-based, as transparent as possible, so that council makes a decision uh uh without any recommendations, because I I just personally think that what might be important to three of you may not be important to the others.

They might think that strongest person might meet different criteria from different districts.

I I uh so I think this keeps the process fact-based.

Okay, Miss Watlington.

Thank you.

Um for me, this conversation.

Thank you, Councilmember Ashmir, for um for putting this on the table.

I support your motion because I think you're exactly right.

Um what we've gone through here and what we experienced in the transportation committee meeting this morning to me is an exact example of some of the things that Councilmember Johnson is talking about.

We don't need you to explain to us the process.

We understand what your intent is.

What we're very clearly telling you is we don't want your recommendation without the facts for us to make our own recommendation first.

So to me, that's very clear.

I think regardless of whether we're all in the interviews or not, it makes sense.

I mean, sure, you can probably drop that in chat GPT and say read these people's applications and slot them in one of these categories, right?

That can come ahead of the interviews.

Uh, but I think it is very important that we don't start filtering people out on the front end.

I just don't think that is that is a fair process, and I don't think it's necessary at this point.

So I'll be supporting your substitute motion.

So uh I the substitute motion is on the floor.

Do we have a second?

We have a second as well.

Dr.

Watlington.

All in favor, um, Mr.

Graham.

You have a comment?

Yeah, I I do I thank you, madam mayor.

Um two things can be true.

Right.

Um it is it is we need a process that filters through the applications.

Councilmember Mitchell said earlier today that the committee will divide up the applications by categories.

He said that at the Transportation Committee, so we can know which applicant fits which category.

That would be a benefit to the council.

It also will be a benefit to the council if we give them the authority uh to interview, and I'm not a member of the working group, but I think this is so important that I'm gonna make myself available to attend, if not all at least 90% of the interviews, because I think Mrs.

and the reason why I'm doing that because I think Ms.

Ash Mayor is right, what may be important to Councilmember Mitchell may not be important to me, and I even at the committee meeting this morning laid out what's important to me.

Yeah, right.

These are three questions that needs to be asked to satisfy me appointing someone.

So I think we can do that for sure.

And I think we can accommodate with Councilmember Ashmer and Wallington are suggesting and journal um uh Johnson that maybe it's not seven recommendations, maybe it's twelve, maybe it's fourteen, right?

These are the set of um uh applicants that meets the basic requirements through our interview process where every council member has the opportunity to attend and ask their particular question to give the council at least a body of folks to choose from, right?

So it may not be seven, maybe twelve, maybe fourteen, maybe fifteen, and then have the council as we do through our normal um application process choose from that list.

Right, and so I think we can blend council member drags and Mitchell um uh may feel we can blend the two a little bit to get to where we want to go.

Um this is really really important, guys.

And the legislation didn't do us any favor.

I said this before, because it imposes a I think an impossible deadline that a lot of this gotta be done by the end of the year if it passes.

This just it's just a lot going on, but we gotta do it.

Right.

And I think we have to be very thoughtful about how we do it.

We have to be very strategic about how we do it.

That's why I think council member Mitchell, we need to have everybody place their cards on the table so we can fill in gaps where they exist uh and really give all our council members the the feeling, more than a feeling, uh that they are a part of the process, and that we're not hiding anything or uh that this things are a bait.

Um so I I would hopefully that there's a a way that we can blend this.

Um, and I think the substitute motion may accomp accomplish that, maybe, Mr.

Mitchell?

I would hope that the um idea around how we use technology that we're gonna have a process that I think it was all of the people on this list has they have the opportunity to be interviewed if they should come in and talk and discuss it, and that maybe at this place is that this something that we actually have council members have the ability to see it virtually or sign up for any part of this, because I know it can be a lot of work to get in and out of every place, but I think that what you're saying is that everyone should have the opportunity to have this discussion and have it in a way I believe that is 20 minutes and five minutes, and then you have fair fairness among everybody on this set for doing that.

So I'm gonna there's no there's a um a motion.

There's a substitute motion on the floor, and council member Graham made a suggestion I wanted to ask a follow-up question for clarification.

So council member Graham I just want to understand.

So you would like recommendations from the committee?

Is that what you're asking for?

I I think the committee can give us recommendations.

I think we have seven appointments.

I think we can go more than seven recommendations, right?

And then allow the council to filter through 15, 16, I'm just throwing out a number, right?

Based on those interviews, those criteria.

That's that's the work.

Right.

That's what we all signed up to do, right?

That's the work.

That's where I'm thinking.

Like I'm trying to figure out how many help me out.

I'm trying to how many recommendations that you are looking for, Councilmember Graham.

Because here I'm trying to figure out a difference here.

So over here, one side, no recommendation.

Here they want to give seven seven recommendations.

I'm trying to figure out what is it that you're looking for?

Because ultimately it's going to take the majority to move this forward.

If I can, I don't think the substitute will need clarification because I was talking with the clerk when we're trying to understand what is the what is accomplished in the substitute.

So I think it needs to have some meat on it is the substitute to adopt the recommendation of this the committee, but for making recommendations and only providing objective criteria on the pool of candidates that are being presented.

Yeah, I think you nailed it.

You nailed it.

Uh we are okay with what the committee is doing in terms of the interview process.

What we would like to do, at least for me, is no recommendations made to the council.

And the category that it each candidate meets.

This is important work for this this board because it's I mean it's gonna set the future of this authority.

You might want to then allow the committee to put it in buckets, maybe most qualified, qualified, or least qualified in terms of categories but not rankings, and still allow you as a council to select from within that that that coupling of the candidates that you want to do.

And obviously that will include how those candidates otherwise qualify and the areas that they qualify in.

And you know, and whether it's this is a candidate for law, these are five candidates from law.

I don't know.

You you need to figure out that structure.

I hear what you're saying.

So I think that's where we have to define what most qualified means versus least qualified versus in the middle to make sure that the in a decision is fact-based again, and then it's objective versus we are getting recommendations based on um so there is a lot that need to be worked out still.

I I just feel that um that I don't say I'm good.

Mayor.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Just say you will get all the data.

Everybody will have all the data, right?

You can read or not read the recommendations.

They're not binding.

No, the idea is simply to provide assistance in reducing a large number rather than have 11 people look at a hundred applications.

That's all right.

So the application deadline is 1013, right?

Monday.

That's a week from today.

Yes.

You're asking us to really get down in the weeds and and work out some process.

Can we defer this vote for another week?

And then we have work out the bugs and a process, and then we can vote on it next week.

We can I don't know if we leave the substitute motion hanging or how this works.

I think we have uh a substitute motion on the code.

You know, we want to be somewhere in the middle, but you're asking for details today that I think we're taking a lot of.

I think that the attorney was suggesting a process that was not necessarily detailed, it was just defining buckets and whatever.

That's that's what I heard him say.

But if the application process is not even over until next Monday, we can't do anything before then.

Oh, right.

That is correct.

That's true.

But I a point of clarification.

I just wanted to make sure that I was clear.

It sounded, in my opinion, that you two were attempting to try to come to a consensus.

And I think based on what I heard, and maybe it was interpretive, that you landed somewhere close to the same thing.

You said that there was you know, an ability to bring forward more than just seven in it, not just be solely, you know, a recommendation by the three members of you know, um, the board, and you are asking for transparency in you know how those you know, recommendations are being qualified, right?

And I I agree with council member Graham.

I believe both things absolutely can be true at the same time.

And I don't think we put a stipulation on that number.

There may be, you know, between now and next week, 20 people, 30 people who are qualified.

And I think if that means in this 52 hour window where there are 20 minute increments where they're attempting to try to be, and and then it's over a certain amount of time as well, then any one of us that are interested in available to this process can be a part of, and it's going to be streamed online, so it's going to be available online for the public consumption.

So it's going to be available online for the public consumption.

It any council member can actually be in the room.

Um all of the names are already online.

And and I get it.

I I live in the same world as you guys do.

I understand the need for transparency, and we are bleeding when it comes to transparency and operation.

And so any opportunity that we can get to allow our trustees to say, hey, we want you to know what's going on.

So I'm your point is not lost on me, and I'm struggling with how to make sure that what you're asking, which is absolutely valid in my mind, you know, how do we achieve what you would like to do?

And even taking the friendly amendment suggestion from council member Graham and saying we could do both.

I believe we could do both.

And I I'd like to even make a friendly ask to you that you summate that, say, look, there's no amount, right?

If if at the end of this process they come up with based on these qualifications that they're 30 members, right?

That for what and I'm just being hypothetical, but not putting a limit on what that looks like.

And we have criterion that we have to pay attention to.

So I think you like I said, make a valid point in suggesting criterion.

If they're going to make a suggestion to us, there's no limit on the amount.

It's all available to us.

Again, it's streamed online.

Any one of the council members that are you know available to go to these meetings can then the council can from is that something that sounds correct, council member Mitchell.

Um help me so that we can it because uh in my mind, and maybe I'm hearing it differently, but it sounds like the two of them are almost there.

Go ahead.

And and I'm not sure we're we're gonna solve this around the table tonight.

Yeah, and and and I and I think Councilmember Johnson makes a good point that you know we got another week.

Councilmember Mitchell.

I know you put a lot of work into it, and so I'm just asking that we use this next week, yeah, to really refine what you're what you hear tonight, right?

And accommodate some of that so that we can all be on the same fitting on next Monday.

Yeah, and I I think there's a way for B you, Dimple, um, Victoria to come together and put something together that makes sense for everybody.

Yeah.

So and and it's not that I think fairness to the council, we're just hearing this tonight.

And so if we can put some furniture polish on it to make sure that everyone's comfortable with it and use this week to kind of talk and and kind of you know negotiate with one another to a point where we're all satisfied, I think it'll be a couple of days well worth spent.

Yeah, so we have a I just wanted I I was just going to suggest that council member Graham, you read my mind.

I really like the idea that Mr.

Fox suggested where we come up with some criteria as most qualified, qualified, least qualified, like buckets.

Uh that will help that would be fact-based, objective, and as transparent as possible without putting the subjectivity of recommendations into the process.

Uh so if we if the working group can consider that uh and bring back bring back the process next Monday, that would be helpful.

It sounds like there's some appetite for deferral.

You have two questions.

That's what I was gonna say.

We have a two motions on the floor.

We agree to withdraw.

So we have to withdraw the motion, withdraw a motion to put something on the floor.

Thank you for the motion was Councilmember Ashmara and Ms.

Walton.

You agree to withdraw, and then you want make a substitute motion to defer.

So I will withdraw my motion, substitute motion, and we'll make a motion to defer this to next Monday, where we can finalize the process next Monday based on feedback from my colleagues.

And that feedback would go to the group that's working on this.

Okay, all right.

Is everybody clear on that?

Yeah, I just want to make sure that whatever the process is takes into consideration objectivity fact-based as transparent as possible.

So we're taking this objectivity out of this process from the committee.

Okay.

All right, that's all I have to do.

We have a motion.

You had a motion and second.

Second, all in favor, please raise your hand.

Anyone opposed?

All right, that passes.

Okay.

Um now let's go for a next item, which is an um the housing trust fund recommendations.

Oh, Mr.

Driggs.

Okay, so we I didn't.

I thought I had the housing trust fund to come up next.

So all right.

So the Yes, there will be committee report out.

Yes.

We're gonna have committee report out.

So let's we'll start with this.

Council committee discussions.

Yeah, you get two agenda items.

You were going to do the housing trust fund then go back to the report out.

That's what I think.

Okay, don't confuse.

Oh, okay, because that was supposed to be part of the housing trust fund recommendations.

Who's leading that effort?

Is it this?

Mayfield housing trust company.

Ms.

Wattlington.

Housing trust Ms.

Mayfield.

Yes, ma'am.

Um Housing Trust Fund or that recommendations.

Well, she just pointed to her vice chair.

Oh, so y'all y'all work it out.

Oh maybe y'all are gonna be eagles for the rest of the night.

Do I do it?

Do we do it now?

Yes.

Okay.

Mr.

Mitchell.

Housing and neighborhood services.

It's beginning.

You're supposed to be doing something.

Madam Mayor, am I to understand that we're going to cover the rest of the update later on?

Okay, doing that now.

Item the housing trust fund recommendations.

Fantastic.

Okay.

Um, due to a potential conflict of interest, I'm going to have to request recruit recusal from this conversation and the subsequent vote on October 27th.

I'd like to make a motion we recuse Council Dr.

Walletton from this conversation.

Second.

All right.

Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor that she be excuse accused.

Excuse.

Um, so all in favor, please raise your hand.

Anyone oppose?

No.

And so we'll let you walk outside.

Thank you so much.

Next time I say I'm sick and all right.

So, Miss Mayfield.

Okay, so I guess there we go now.

So thank you, everyone.

We are going to try to be very brief because we want to be respectful of time.

So I am turning this right over to our director, Miss Rebecca Yapner.

Thank you.

And good evening, Mayor members of council.

Um, Rebecca Hefner, the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services.

I have with me this evening Warren Wooten, the assistant director for affordable housing.

Uh and I just want to also acknowledge in the room quite a few of our affordable housing development partners who are here tonight.

Uh none of this work happens without them.

Uh they have been working hard to um bring us proposals that are responsive to your investment priorities and your affordable housing funding policy.

Um so I'm glad so many of them were able to join us tonight.

Um if any if anyone happens to go back and uh see any of the housing safety and community committee meeting, you will find that it is entirely possible for me to talk at double speed.

Uh I went through this very quickly in committee, uh, and I'll I'll try to um to move move just as quickly uh but maybe not talk quite so fast.

So tonight we're going to uh review the staff recommendations for affordable housing development support requests that were received in response to the most recent housing trust fund request for proposals.

Um this is the second funding cycle uh following the expansion of the housing bond and city council's adoption of the affordable housing funding policy.

So previously in April, uh we brought forward to you the first round of recommendations.

In this round, you received a total of eight proposals, uh totaling just under 20 million dollars in investment asks.

Uh there are um proposals in here for multifamily rental development, home ownership, and supportive housing.

Uh on last Thursday on October the second, there was a memo and report uh in your council packet summarizing the proposals received.

Uh and um in addition, you will receive the full booklet.

So we we refer to it as the HTF booklet, um, but you'll get a spiral-bound booklet with detailed information about every proposal that will come out to you the week before uh council action, and then the vote is scheduled currently for October 27th.

Um the recommended investments will be on the council business agenda um for consideration.

As a reminder, uh in the most recent uh housing funding policy you adopted, uh you are really focused not just on creating units and counting units, but on a set of goals for affordable housing, and those goals are uh economic mobility, neighborhood affordability, and residential stability.

So as staff evaluate proposals and as we work with our development partners to bring forward to you the best proposals, we're really looking through this lens.

We want residents to have access to safe quality and affordable housing, to have access to diverse housing options across many neighborhoods, and to have access to services that contribute to economic mobility.

That's represented here across the bottom, rental housing production, home ownership, etc.

And the dark green within there, it represents what has already been allocated to date.

So you'll see that in the first round, you allocated funds across rental housing production, home ownership, and rental housing preservation and anti-displacement.

We'll talk a little bit about how we're activating the rest of the bond as well.

But I just want to make a note also the winter round, which was the April investments that you all voted on.

That's the round that typically tax credit projects are brought forward for consideration because it's aligned with the state's tax credit schedule.

And so within that $13.9 million in rental housing production, there were several tax credit developments.

One you approved two 9% projects, one of them was with home funds, one of them was with housing trust fund, and that what did receive tax credits from the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, so that's moving forward.

And then the 4% deals are in the queue for allocation of 4% bond and tax credits in early 2026.

So everything that you approved previously is moving forward.

Just a couple of notes about the different ways that staff are working to activate the $100 million housing bond.

So in many years past, the housing trust fund RFP was the primary way to activate the bond.

But with so many different types of investments now that you all are making, there are actually many different ways to activate the bond depending on the investment category.

So that may be the housing trust fund RFP.

That may be we also have a rolling RFP for home ownership.

We have different programs like the House Charlotte program, the Small Landlord Retrofit Program and HVAC pilot under housing rehab and emergency repair, for example, you'll see a request for proposal that's coming forward at the also at the October 27th meeting for your consideration.

So there are a lot of different components to the bond and a lot of different ways to activate your investments.

So just to put it in context that the housing trust fund recommendations as part of the RFP are just one piece of the way that we work to activate those investments for you.

In this particular round, we're not recommending any awards with federal funds, it's all housing trust fund bond money, but you have seen those in the past.

The proposals also are evaluated for alignment with the again the affordable housing funding policy.

And within that policy, you all have identified five specific investment priorities.

So we actually work with our partners to propose and share in those proposals how they address your priorities.

So that's priority populations, specifically home buyers, lower wage workers, households at risk for displacement and vulnerable populations.

We take a look at location priorities, working with our partners to incentivize locations where investment increases housing choice.

We're also looking for strong proposals around resident services.

How are we able to link housing and services to really create those stronger outcomes to really meet the affordable housing funding policy goals?

We evaluate partnerships and leverage, and then we look for innovation.

The schedule, the just uh where we are today.

We started with the request the release of the request for proposals in June.

The proposal submission deadline was the end of July.

We had a brief committee discussion earlier today, and then tonight we're of course talking all together in full council.

And then city council approval is scheduled for October 27th.

So there's a little bit more time in here than usual.

We want to make sure that you all have an opportunity to ask questions and get additional information if needed.

But that vote is scheduled currently for October 27th.

And just as a reminder, the next RFP cycle, I mean, we just start right up again.

Um so that that RFP will be released likely in November or early December, and you'll see those applications next April 2026.

And as a reminder, those in that winter round will include the tax credits again.

So the summary of the development proposals that were received.

Here you can see on the screen.

You had eight proposals total, three of those in the rental housing production category requesting just uh 9.86 or so million dollars.

You had three proposals in the home ownership category, $3.8 million, and two proposals in supportive housing totaling $6.25 million.

Overall, you can see by category what type of funding is currently available in the bond.

You have committed 31.389 and change to date, um, leaving 68.6 million dollars available.

The total funding request is just under 20 million, and um so so we don't leave anyone hanging.

I'll I'll go straight to the point, which is that tonight's staff are recommending approval of all eight of these proposals.

So we're gonna start with rental housing production.

Um the rental housing production includes uh new multifamily, um it also includes mixed use and mixed income, missing middle production.

Um tonight you're gonna see three proposals totaling 9.86 million in investment requests.

Two of the developments have actually been previously funded and are seeking additional investment, but I'll share more details about those requests as we go along.

The first the first development is Kendall Crossing.

This is a 4% tax credit senior, so age-restricted affordable housing that's brought forward by the PACES Foundation.

This is located in District 3.

You may recognize this.

It was deferred in the first housing trust fund round in April.

One of one of the things about a highly competitive round like what you had in April was that we had an opportunity to really uh fine-tune some of the proposals.

So the ones that were deferred did some work to come back with even stronger proposals.

And and Kendall Crossing did just that.

They brought us back a proposal that's much better aligned with your investment priorities, uh, and so today staff are recommending this.

I'll also note so this occurred in the last round, but one of the things that your staff does is work very hard to make sure that you're getting the best deal you can.

Um, and so the original ask on this one was six million dollars, um, and your team has negotiated the ask down already to just under $5 million.

So Kendall Crossing, um, if you can imagine this, it's near the interchange of Moore's Chapel Road and I-485.

So this is an area where you don't have a lot of affordable housing investment.

Um, that the site has an overall location score of 21.5.

It's a directly adjacent to a shopping center with a grocery store and a pharmacy.

Um, this particular site is not directly adjacent to a bus route.

It is in a planned micro mobility zone.

So if that that work proceeds, um, it will be in that zone, but it is not on a bus route.

The Paces Foundation, they are a tax credit developer based in Georgia, but they partnered locally with us previously.

They developed the legacy at Carr Heights.

That was a partnership with the West Charlotte Land Trust.

They are in good standing.

One of the things that we do when we receive applications is check with our asset management team and make sure that our partners are in good standing and doing the things that they've committed to.

So we're excited to see them proposing another development here in Charlotte.

I will say they were very responsive to the feedback as it relates to your investment priorities.

So in terms of priority populations, Kendall Crossing is serving seniors.

They reserved 10 units within the community for Roof Above's Link Program.

In particular, seniors who rely on disability or Social Security income.

So some of the more vulnerable seniors who are on fixed incomes and within Kendall Crossing, the resident services will be provided by Roof Above and will be tailored to the needs of seniors, including case management, benefit enrollment, and connection to health care and transportation resources.

And so I want to say we've heard from several of you and from community members about some of the long-term affordability in tax credit developments for seniors.

So I want to go ahead and address that.

NCHFA and the tax credit program, we could we refer to it as LITEC for short.

They're specifically designed to manage and moderate rent increases.

But that doesn't mean that rents are capped.

Housing doesn't have fixed expenses, and so rent goes goes up.

But through the program, it the tax credit program and NCHFA, and then through your deed restrictions, the amount that rent increases goes up, is managed and moderated each year.

What we know is that for particularly vulnerable seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, the best practice and the best strategy is exactly what's been proposed here.

To work with programs that help pair rental subsidies with deeply affordable units.

Some of the things they have planned for the development are a dog park, urban gardens, and then for to accommodate some of the resident services and on-site health exam room.

So that's Kendall Crossing.

The next two rental housing proposals are ones that you have seen before that are coming back in for additional investment.

And council, you have been typically very conservative about additional investment.

So I'll walk you through why staff are excited about the continued investment in these two projects.

The first is River District.

This is proposed by Laurel Street Residential.

Of course, you're familiar with the river district, the master planned community, mixed-use community that's underway by Crescent.

So there are nearly 5,000 residences planned out at the river district.

The first model homes out there are coming online now.

It was just a concept.

And you funded it early on purpose with the specific goal of ensuring that some of the first housing out in the river district would be affordable housing.

And so with this additional support, Laurel Street expects that they would be able to close financing in November and actually start construction in December.

So that they are just about ready.

So previous investment plus what's currently asked if applicable.

So it's it's it does reflect the all-in amount.

And in this case, the all-in overall city investment with this addition would be 6.7 million, putting the cost at just over 7,000 per unit.

So you'll also note on here this is not a tax credit development.

So it does require that higher level of support.

And I'll note also that as part of coming back in for additional funding, staff were able to work with Laurel Street to negotiate an increase in the affordability period.

It was originally approved at 30 years, and the Laurel Street has committed to a 99-year affordability period, which as a reminder is the longest affordability allowed under North Carolina law.

So 16% of the units are three bedrooms, and that's really important to serve families, and it's getting harder and harder.

A lot of your new developments proposed have very few, if any, three-bedroom units.

So Laurel Street has kept that commitment in here.

So staff recommends approval of this to advance the previously funded development, especially being so close to ability to close, and it will ensure affordability out in the river district as originally intended by city council.

The next one you'll have to cast your mind even further back because River District was approved in 2021.

Weddington Road Apartments was originally approved in 2016.

So another one, many of you have seen this one before.

So Weddington Road Apartments is a 4% tax credit.

Staff recommended deferral at that time.

So DreamKey was able to modify some of the financials.

They've reduced the current ask to just under $4 million.

One way they've done that is also to increase their sponsor loan, which means that they're actually putting more of their own money into the development.

But a couple of really important things to note about Weddington Road apartments.

So this is located in District 7.

There's no other affordable housing nearby.

Meaning this is going to be some of the only affordable housing anywhere around.

So if you're familiar with Weddington Road, right now this is a vacant grassy lot.

So it's across the street from Socrates Academy.

It's just about a mile south of the new 485 interchange at Weddington, you know, nearby shopping at Weddington and McKee.

There's a YMCA branch there, it's close by to Beatty Park.

But $84,000 a unit.

This site is not located within a qualified census tract.

So we think about tax credits.

And Warren was helping me with this earlier and looked it up.

So it's designed to incentivize putting more affordable housing in areas that already have more affordable housing.

And so it it is this is what it costs to develop affordable housing outside of that qualified census tract.

I'll also say a couple of things.

DreamKey has been very committed to this development.

Originally it was 72 units, they brought it back in at 85, so they're they're they're putting additional units out there.

And you see the unit mix, they have capped the incomes at 60% AMI, and of course, including the 20% at 30% AMI.

So this is a deeply affordable development in an area with very little affordable housing.

Same as I mentioned with River District, they've kept their commitment to three bedroom units.

So in this case, 19% of their units are three bedrooms.

Sorry, one thing to note because I know this came up last time.

We did extend the deadline for a community engagement meeting that will be conducted prior to the vote, and we'll provide any substantial feedback to you at that time.

But counts we we do recommend staff recommends approval to advance this previously funded development.

I think it is already in costs in this for the land acquisition.

But DreamKey has indicated that if we're unable to find a solution here, they're likely to not be able to use this site.

Alright, I'm going to shift gears.

We're going to move into home ownership.

And just as a as a reminder, the 25 million overall committed to home ownership in the in the current housing trust fund bond.

We have three proposals for you tonight.

The first again is one you've seen before.

So Abiline at Newell Town Homes.

This is a DreamKay Partners Home Ownership Development.

It is part of part of your faith in housing initiative.

It's been proposed in partnership with Newell Presbyterian Church at land on land they own.

And this was approved just in the last housing trust fund round in April.

And they're asking for an additional 72,000.

And this is this is one that arose based on kind of the timing that occurs with the way we we bring you housing trust fund recommendations.

So when the proposals come in to us, they have been through sketch plan review with planning, but not full planning review.

They identified some changes that needed to be made in stormwater mitigation and in sidewalk improvements.

Specifically, they needed to shift some of the stormwater mitigation onto the site and and would have would have lost some of the 54 units.

So they're requesting an additional 702,000 to keep the original 54 units as designed.

The investment per unit is 58,000, so it's a little bit higher than average, but it's still feasible.

You do have capacity in your homeownership investment category for it.

And again, this is a faith in housing partnership that you all supported, and so staff recommends approval of these additional funds as well.

Alright, so everything else is net new.

So the starting with Ellington Town Homes, this is another DreamKey Partners proposal.

It's part of a master planned mixed income community in Greer Heights that DreamKey is proposing, actually constructing already some of it on land owned by Mecklenburg County.

So this is a site located in Greer Heights.

So the infrastructure for the whole master plan community is already underway.

So that work is already underway.

Again, this is county-owned land.

Simple for these four sale units.

Both scattered within Greer Heights and then also in this neighborhood.

So affordable homeownership is in is in great need there.

In addition to the housing, the site plan includes multipurpose green space, an internal trail network, and greenway connection, and a playground.

So a part of the part of the broader community out there in that in that location.

Alright, your last home ownership proposal is Unity Oaks.

This is a proposal from Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region.

And this is actually a mixed income development.

So 71 total town homes are proposed.

This is also in the Newell area, also District 4.

And actually not too far from Avaline at Newell.

This is off Greer Road and WT Harris, so across from CPCC's Cato campus, also very near the Reedy Creek Nature Preserve.

One exciting thing about this is it's really bringing together several organizations who are partnering to create affordable housing and to create it for sustainably for the long term.

So this is Habitat for Humanity, the Marankus Foundation, and True True Homes.

And Habitat is seeking housing trust fund investment for 31 of the 71 town homes out in the mixed income development.

One of the things you'll note about the habitat model is they are they are able to serve down to 60% AMI through their program.

So it's a little bit divided up between 60%, 70%, and 80%.

And then of course there's 40 market rate units, but just note that all of the calculations here are only based on the affordable units.

99 year restriction that these would be owner-occupied and that they would be subsequent buyers would be at or below 80% AMI.

Habitat maintains a right of first refuse, or sorry, excuse me, a right of first purchase for 45 years.

You know, you're familiar with their with their model and the work that they do to get to get residents ready for home ownership.

But they've really been working recently to prioritize public sector employees, and they have a program called Money Matters that's a financial literacy course that they've been offering to employees specifically at the Charlotte Douglas Airport and Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools.

Alright, shifting gears.

We're going to talk about two proposals for supportive housing and shelter capacity.

This category, as a reminder, includes both single use and scattered site permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelter capacity.

You have $9 million allocated in your bond for this category.

You have not received any proposals or made any investments yet in this category.

Tonight I'll share with you two proposals that have come in seeking a total of 6.25 million in investment.

The first proposal is the Dream Center campus.

This is transitional housing, that's been proposed by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Dream Center, which is a nonprofit.

This is located in District 2.

You can see in this rendering, and the Dream Center actually is a multi phase development on a 13 acre campus.

Their plan is to create 32 transitional homes.

So we have to do a little bit of math here.

So each of those homes has six bedrooms and six bathrooms, so in individual units, creating a total of 192 rooms.

So that's the whole the whole plan.

Talk a little bit about that.

But the development is a partnership between again the Dream Center, which is a nonprofit and True Homes.

That's who's their development partner.

In addition to the housing units, and you can see some of it here, the campus is intended to include a 20,000 square foot clubhouse with a variety of services for the residents.

In addition, some the future phases, I think there's there's a three-year plan for this, and future phases include a playground, recreational facilities, and additional open green space.

So again, this is 48 48 rooms, but it's transitional housing that's dedicated to individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and that includes chronic chronically homeless, unaccompanied young adults, displaced families, and individuals in re-entry.

And one of the strengths of this proposal is the resident services and the partnerships that they that they have formed.

So they're intending to provide wraparound services, including mental health and addiction recovery, but there's also going to be a teaching kitchen, gardens and farms, and a woodworking area.

The goal is to teach a variety of job and life skills.

And they're also proposing daycare services on site and telehealth services that will be available on site through a partnership with Atrium Health.

And so the the other component of this is that True Homes through their proposing to build these homes at cost.

So just another way to keep this affordable.

So we'll provide we'll provide any substantial feedback that we get prior again to your vote on October 27th.

And the this is this is the last the last one I'll share.

So we're home stretch here.

This is intended to be non-congregate shelter, and Mecklenburg County has submitted this as a partnership opportunity to the city.

So a couple of things to note.

Originally, the Mecklenburg County Continuum of Care identified an urgent need for non-congregate shelter.

In 2024, this conceptual idea came forward to the housing safety and community committee.

At that time, the committee reviewed the concept and asked asked for staff to come back when there was a more tangible plan for both the site and the shelter operations, and and there is that now.

I would also note that in May of this year, so a couple of months ago, Sean Heath provided an update to housing safety and community committee on this concept.

At that time committee expressed support for a project funding request to be presented to full council once a specific site was identified and a more specific cost was determined.

So that that time is now and the need really continues to be urgent.

Um the the number of people, so Mecklenburg County has has what they call a one number.

So the number of people who are engaged in the homelessness system is currently uh at 22,586.

Um so and and it's on the rise.

This continues to be an urgent need.

And when this was shared with you in in May, um there are a couple of key aspects.

One that there would be a city county collaboration to fund the acquisition and renovation of an existing building.

Two, the private sector has committed to fund the first three years of operating costs for the shelter itself, and three, a qualified and experienced service provider would be selected through a national search to operate the shelter.

And so this is the proposal that is now before you.

Um Mecklenburg County identified a site, um, they have negotiated a purchase sale agreement, and they're currently in the due diligence phase.

This is located off of Banner Elk Drive near Batty's Ford and Sunset.

Um the ask here is for 4.25 million dollars, which is half of the capital cost.

So the total project cost is eight estimated at 8.5 million, and 5.5 million of that is for acquisition, and the and three million is for rehabilitation.

And we did have a question about this earlier in committee, so I want to share a couple of the things that are included in that renovation budget.

So this is a hotel with 62 rooms, and again, just to clarify again, the language is a little bit confusing when it comes to shelter and transitional housing.

Um, this is 62 rooms, and it's non-congregate shelter, meaning it's serving residents in those individual rooms, and also offers an opportunity for families to stay together within the shelter.

But the renovation budget includes items such as additional costs for safety and security, additional lighting, um the renovation and in this case construction of some of the communal spaces like a kitchen and a cafeteria, um, rooms for counseling, rooms for health on-site health care, space for staff, um, some of the exterior improvements, cameras, lighting, um, and um access to the site.

So it it's um there is quite a bit involved in that renovation scope.

Um, so again, Mecklenburg County would maintain ownership of the building, they would assume the responsibility for ongoing property maintenance.

The plan here is a 62-room non-congregate shelter.

Um, and and the key piece of this is that it is on-site access to health and mental health services, especially for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness.

And so this uh this concept is directly connected to the conversations that you all have been having about public safety and quality of life.

Uh one of one of the important things about this proposal, and uh it will what we think of as mission critical, one of the reasons that that staff supports this is that some of the shelter capacity would be reserved for direct referrals from the city and county's street outreach partners.

And so we're often working through our street outreach partners with uh unhoused individuals who are not always willing to go to a shelter.

Um, but one of the things that we know from from talking with them is that one of the primary factors that they um that they note is that they would be more likely to go to shelter services if it were in a non-congregate setting.

Uh so we think this this is a proposal that meets um quite a few of those needs.

Um I will note that the private fundraising for the shelter operations is underway.

Um, an RFI was put out earlier this year just to see would would there be capacity from partners experienced and qualified partners to do this, would there be interest?

Um, and two responses were received.

Um so the next step would be a um to solicit for a provider through a full request for proposal.

So that's eight proposals.

We had a lot more proposals than that last time.

So again, you know, two things.

One is that it's not the tax credit round, so there are fewer proposals typically in this round, but also there's a lot of uncertainty and there's uncertainty in the in the housing market.

Our partners are facing uncertainty.

We're facing uncertainty.

So it makes sense that there would be a smaller number of proposals.

In summary, again, uh you have three proposals in for rental housing production, uh, three proposals in for home ownership, and two for supportive housing and shelter capacity.

Uh you can see here the the cost per unit, um, comparing all of all of those proposals.

Just as a reminder, um, when you think about the AMI um breakdown and the rent and sales price ranges, um we wanna make sure that that you can you can see what those actual rent ranges would be.

Uh again, very difficult to find housing at uh at these rates throughout Charlotte.

Um and just a note here again, three of these are coming back in for additional support.

Um, so that 226 of the units here are um are representing um developments that you've funded previously.

So just to take a look at where you are with your with your uh housing trust fund balance, um, again uh after the um earlier round of investments, you have about 68.6 million dollars out of the hundred million bond remaining with with these eight developments totaling just under 20 million.

Uh your if these were approved, um, your housing trust fund ending balance would be about 48.6 million.

So thinking about um where we are in the bond cycle, that's about half the bond remaining at about the midway point.

This is just another way of looking at it by investment category, and so one thing to think about is if these recommendations were approved, what would your next round look like?

So it's important to take a look there, and in rental housing, you would have a little over 11 million dollars remaining, which is close to the amount that you recommended for approval last time.

Uh you would have a little over 14 million in home ownership, three and a half million in rental housing preservation, uh, 2.75 in supportive housing and shelter capacity, and then in the other categories looking across uh housing rehabilitation and emergency repair site acquisition and the innovation fund, you're looking at 16.8 million remaining again if these recommendations were to be approved.

And as a reminder, when we're talking about the housing development fund following council approval, there's also financial closings, design and permitting.

Um developments can take quite some time after council approval to actually come online.

Um just at that uh that reminder, and that is your full presentation for tonight, and I would be happy to answer questions and and uh also have Warren here to help help me with some of the more details that you may be interested to know.

Thank you, Rebecca and Madam Mayor.

So, unfortunately for our committee, because of the conversations that we had today, we only had about 10 minutes to actually go through.

So this is the first time that even the committee members are seeing the full presentation, but I would start off with a good bit of the conversation.

If we can go back on the slides, the county hotel conversion piece it goes not there, thank you, is a concern.

We had a couple more questions.

One, let's just one, we love the idea of partnering with the county.

The idea of cost per bed and 137,097 or the breakdown of the investment per bid of 68,548 for a space that's already a hotel, and we didn't get at the in committee, we didn't have the details of okay, this is including security, lighting, communal space.

It was also a question regarding us splitting this cost down the middle as far as also what of our partners or in the corporate community are contributing to this.

That was a question.

A question I have as previously in this market as we move forward when we come to multifamily, and then we can go back towards the end where we had the breakdown that we just reviewed.

So go one more go back on.

Thanks.

Okay, right there.

So when we we in committee didn't even have a chance to go through all of this.

But let's just look at the reality.

Um right now, I have seniors at Rodin Square apartments.

Those apartments are apartments that we help fund.

It is a senior community.

The federal government, because those are Litech deals.

You can earn up to 26,000.

I have a senior who brings home 987 a month.

You're not even bringing home 12,000 a year.

Your 30% should be 291 dollars.

Her rent has gone up to 475, plus the out of state company, because it's some developer out of South Carolina that owns this building, you've now added a fee for processing.

So that's an additional $7.95.

You bring home $987.

So if we're gonna sit up here and tell the community 30% of AMI, but of what you're doing is the national numbers of up to 26, but we have residents who are not receiving additional subsidies, who are living only on the income that they bring in, and if their 30% is not what their rent is based on, because if we truly built diverse price point housing, then there will be a balance of 30, 50, 80 up to market rate.

There's a problem because in a very short period of time, we are gonna have a number of elders who are about to be homeless in our community because of our pricing model, mainly because of the limitations that we have in our pricing model based on LITEC and others.

Now we have some proposals in here where they're coming back for additional funds, and I do want my fellow members of committee to be able to share their concerns regarding coming back because we've already given money, and in one or two cases, we may have already given money twice, and now here's the third time.

For me, of course, I'm gonna say, yay, I'm finally happy the river district is finally happening.

We put a lot of work into that on the front end.

Yet the challenges that came up is how can we do something different?

Because 589 seems great, unless you're that elder that's bringing home less than 1,000 a month, and we're taking almost half of your monthly income, which is leaving you very little to eat, which you know, people like to do on a regular basis, and or get your medication and or possibly pay for transportation.

So those are some of the challenges, but I know my colleagues, both councilmember Johnson as well as councilmember Ashmir had concerns regarding the additional funding as well as others, so I definitely want to give Councilmember Johnson and afterwards, Councilmember Ashmira, a moment to share because again, this is the first time we got to see the full presentation, but I do.

Thank you, manager, thank you, staff for bringing it to committee.

We have to look at doing something very different than what we've been doing.

That you madam mayor.

Thank you.

She's absolutely right.

I mean, we know this SSI amount, I think it's $900 a month.

So, yeah, 30% AMI.

I I don't know if the state will allow us to do something differently, but people are hurting.

I mean, I I say that I don't know where people are supposed to live.

I say that all of the time.

I met someone who was just placed in uh low income housing, and he had been on a wait list for 14 years.

So I I just don't know what uh what we're gonna do if we're not build building or really really increasing our inventory.

I appreciate the opportunity to go to Boston because we learned that Boston had inclusionary zoning of up to 20 percent.

So imagine if 20 percent of all of this explosive growth was required to be affordable, we could really put a dent into the uh the deficit.

But um thank you for the presentation, Rebecca.

I wanted to know who is the provider or do we know yet of the dream center?

The provider that's going to be providing the supportive services.

Has it has that provider been identified?

Yes, so that is that is a um uh development in partnership with Noble Food in Pursuit, they'll be providing the Noble Food and Pursuit.

It's Jim Noble's um nonprofit arm.

The restaurant tier, yeah.

What are they gonna?

He's providing well if I might add yep, please.

Um the Dream Center is itself its own 501c3 nonprofit organization who does have staff that is currently providing um homeless services and case management to the population.

So they will be providing some of their own services.

So the dream the Dream Center is a 501c3, is that what you say?

And they've been operating for a number of years here in in Charlotte.

They actually uh used to you know be the arms behind King's Kitchen, so the the staff that were working there that was part of Dream Center's operation.

Uh the do feeding programs and case management for currently homeless individuals.

And they're currently operating in community space in the Thomas Borough-Hoskins neighborhood.

So this proposal provides both the transitional housing but also the dedicated space for those resident services.

Hoskins Park Ministries?

Are they doing no okay?

We can okay.

Um, and then you mentioned Dream Key and a transitional housing project.

Is that you which what project was that?

I thought there was another.

No, the the Dream Dream Center is the transitional housing development, and that is the Charlotte Mecklenburg Dream Center is the nonprofit.

Okay.

Uh and they're also partnering out there with True Homes.

That's separate and distinct from the other proposals that have come in from Dream Key Partners.

Um, Dream Key Partners is the developer of Weddington Road Apartments, uh, Ellington Town Homes and Abiline at Newell.

I think did I get all the Dreamkeep uh developments?

Okay.

It was Mecklenburg County that's going to be looking for a provider.

Yes, so the so the non-congregate shelter uh and and again there's a a a commitment from the private sector to fund the first three years of shelter operations, which are estimated to be between nine and ten million dollars.

Um so that private sector fundraising is um currently underway uh when um when mecklenburg county is able to acquire and renovate the building that they will have a uh time estimate for when the shelter could become operational and that and an RFP will be put out at that time.

Previously, a request for information um was sent out to solicit both interest and make sure that the budget they had identified uh was appropriate.

Okay, and we talked earlier about the cost, the total cost for the the shelter.

You said eight.

Yeah, so eight point five million is the total capital cost.

Um that's five point five million dollar acquisition cost um for the building and the and the site, uh, and then a three million dollar renovation budget um to convert um the currently 62 room hotel into non-congregate shelter, including the upgrades to the rooms and then all of the other um components to operate uh a shelter.

Okay, and of that 8.5 million, the city is going to um pay for the county has requested 4.25 million, which is half of the capital cost.

And then you meant I heard United Way earlier.

Is United Way putting up any of the upfront capital costs?

So this was originally proposed as part of the uh home for all initiative, and United Way was leading the private sector fundraising.

Oh, so this is the home for all problem.

Initially, initially it was part of that conversation, and and that's why United Way has taken the lead to date on the private sector fundraising.

But this is a mecklenburg county proposal.

Okay.

Um I appreciate the homeownership, as I said, in District 4.

I wanted to ask you, you said that Greer Heights, the average price is $500,000.

So the the median sales price in that area is nearly $500,000 right now.

Now, are those for new homes or has the market increased for existing homes to that point?

That's the median price for all sales.

So let me ask you do we have programs because we know $500,000 is is gentrifying the neighborhood.

Do we have anti-displacement dollars?

Uh, because that's that's what's happening when the taxes are increasing for those folks who've been there for a long time.

What resources or what tools do we have from our toolbox, Mr.

Jones, uh, for in residents in in Greer Heights and other neighborhoods like this?

I'm sorry, three things are going at one time.

What was the question?

So we took this is a great presentation for affordable housing, but what's happening folks are being displaced because of you know gentrification.

So what specifically she said Greer Heights was $500,000.

What tools do we have for residents who who would be struggling because of the tax increase?

Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

Um the city has related to what the city can do and which is permissible by state law.

So there are senior and disabled uh tax relief programs.

There are some pilots that we've done over the past few years, like the homes program.

But we can give you a a list of what we have been doing and what's available based on what the state allows.

Okay, and I know that's off subject today, but when you said Greer Heights, $500,000, you know, folks are hurting.

So not just for me, if we make sure the residents know what services are available, um, because again, we know that we have people fixed incomes, um, individuals who are not earning a lot of money, so minimum wage is still $725, and we just need to know what resources are available.

In that vein, Councilmember Johnson, I would just highlight that the Mecklenburg County Homes Program is open that provides property tax relief to current homeowners.

Uh, and then um you we're also excited about things like the new uh ADU program that offers financing for homeowners uh to build ADUs, which is uh an interesting uh opportunity um for existing homeowners to uh be able to actually get additional income if they have um you know uh space available.

So there are a lot of things actually that are built into your housing bond that that are anti-displacement initiatives.

Uh it's just that when when we bring forward the um the proposals from the RFP, it's typically um new construction or or rental preservation.

So we always talk about we can't build our way build our way out of the housing crisis, but if we continue to do what we're doing, we're just we're never gonna get out of it.

I I don't know where people are supposed to live.

And I say that all the time, you know.

Like we know our and I talked to council member Graham about this the other night.

I mean, we know that there's a population of folks that live in motels and hotels, and now those are being developed.

So uh is there an overlay where we're gonna protect people?

I mean, I I heard you say the 2586 um individuals who are homeless, but that's not counting the ones who are living in their cars, and I mean it's it's a it's a problem.

So um, yeah, I I think we should if we can, we really need to talk about the and when we do, but the anti-displacement if Greer Heights is $500,000, and we know that what are we what are we doing?

So thank you.

So as again, again, we ran out of time, so personally from the committee conversations and discussions of which we definitely want to hear from Councilmember Asmera.

I personally have concerns about us.

Okay, we're just gonna present this committee without a lot of this conversation would have been able to be held in committee, and just for full transparency, the idea of reconcentrated privacy poverty is something that I never wanted.

I never want us to see a development that just has 30 in it or even 30 and 50.

There we need the diversity because also that's gonna make it a much more sustainable.

But when we're talking about potential good partners, and when we're looking at a business that has created habit in parts of our community, a business that has targeted specifically African American businesses, and yes, I'm talking about Noble on Freedom Drive, where when we did development and we identified our corridors of opportunity, the only African American owned business that was actually left and able to maintain on the Freedom Drive corridor when all of that development happened was run out because of this one businessman, even though City wrote a contract that clearly identified some language, and now we fast forward a few years and you get to present something that is ultimately at the end of the day it's gonna benefit you and your family.

It's a business deal.

But the most vulnerable are the people who will be living in this space.

And if I'm already saying we're having challenges where we have elders and we have others in our community who honestly are in fear, and don't share everything that's going on in their living conditions because of fear of truly being homeless.

If we have multiple news articles, multiple complaints, and we know that this is a challenge, and we're comfortable then coming back and say, Oh, but we're gonna fund you to do this and have the most vulnerable be dependent on you, we're failing.

Councilman Asmir had something.

I know.

Miss Ashmira.

Thank you, madam mayor.

So a lot has been said about some of the conversations we had at the committee level.

Um Rebecca gave an overview at the beginning of the committee meeting about home program.

Uh, we are in unprecedented times with government shutdown and some of our federal funding challenges.

Our resources are limited, and we need to be very thoughtful about how we allocate our additional housing trust resources.

Because council member Johnson is right.

Where are we gonna keep people that need affordable housing if we start paying 70 and 80,000 per unit?

Um we need to be very careful about spending 70, 80,000 per unit when we build affordable housing.

That means we are gonna have less to build more affordable housing.

Some of these proposals that I just see is 70,000 plus, 80,000 plus per unit.

And and the proposal that council member Mayfield raised where you get for $60,000, 60, sorry, 68,000, 548 dollars, you get one bed.

I mean, it's just I you know we need to understand that when we are out on uh in the communities, people often ask about oh, where where are this all this affordable housing?

Where I don't see anything.

I'm applying, I'm not able to get any housing because if we build more and more and housing prices per unit continues to rise, that means we are delivering less.

That means we are we are helping less families.

That means our dollar doesn't stretch as far.

So we need to go back and start having some really tough conversations with some of these proposals.

Uh I appreciate the work of our affordable housing developers because they have to work with limited amount of resources that they have, but at the same time, we are getting questions from residents where there is very limited amount of affordable housing.

And we need to address that.

So I when I see a proposal where it's 70, 80,000 per unit, and they have come to us not once, but twice, or maybe three times, that is a concern.

And I think at some point, staff, you need to draw a hard line.

We cannot go back to council.

We approved once or twice.

This cost per unit is way too high.

And at the end of the day, we are evaluated, our performance is evaluated on number of units, number of families that we are able to support, a number of children that we are able to support.

So the lesser families that we support, lesser children that we support, we have nothing to show for.

I was a few weeks ago, I was on a campaign trail, and there I talked to a single mom, have two children that go to CMS.

She shared her experience, she had applied to eight different housing.

And she hasn't been able to get any housing opportunity.

They are living in a motel with two children, uh, going to CMS, no stability whatsoever when it comes to housing.

So if we continue to pay so much more per unit, we we are going to fail some of these residents that depend on us to produce more, produce more housing.

Uh it breaks my heart when I see young children that we are not able to support, like their families, we're not able to support.

And it's happening everywhere.

And then when people missed, I'm sorry, when they're getting evicted, we're harming them because they're in places they can't afford.

Uh I just wanted to follow through on one question.

So I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

So on Dream Center campus, uh, is which nonprofit you mentioned?

That's it's the Charlotte Mecklenburg Dream Center.

So that's Gene Noble.

Is that the one?

No, that's a separate nonprofit.

So which which nonprofit was the one that council member makes sense?

So dream dream center campus, and and Warren, feel free, feel free to answer again for me here.

So Jim Noble's was one of the founding influences behind the Dream Center.

He he's not the executive director, he's not on staff there, he's just a supporter of that organization.

It's run by uh an executive director who has a staff that works with this population.

And and Noble Food and Pursuit, along with precision plumbing and interstate electric are some of the employment partners that are part of the campus.

Okay.

So on slide number 21, you talked about united way to answer councilmember Johnson's question that they were leading private sector fundraising.

How much did they raise?

So there are not commitments to date.

They've been working closely with um the Charlotte Executive Leadership Council and the Foundation for the Carolinas, and I think there's a little bit of um you know the private sector is interested to see will there be a hotel, um, you know how how how will these conversations go with the county acquisition and before firm commitments are made.

Um but private sector partners haven't indicated a interest in a willingness to um partner for those first three years of shelter operations.

Okay, I'm sorry.

So there is no private sector dollars raised as of right now?

Not no commitments yet to date.

Okay.

And I'm I'm gonna look at Sean to just confirm.

I think the way you characterize it is accurate.

We were clear in May that that would be a necessary reading law and disauthorized by us.

Well, that's always the case.

But I I mean, yeah, that we always are asked to put the seed money, which is fine, but if you're not getting any private sector commitment, I mean you're paying $68,000 per bed.

And you see some of these other housing, even housing opportunities that are 40,000, 50,000.

I it just it's difficult for me to make sense of 68,000 per bed when there is no private sector match.

So uh one one thing I just want to put in context is that one one of the things we do is you know line line line all of the proposals up together.

Um and they're not necessarily apples to apples comparisons, right?

There are you know you you invest as a council in a wide range of housing types across the entire spectrum from supporting the unhoused anti-displacement all the way through to home ownership, and all of those activities cost different amounts, and they cost different amounts in different places.

Um and so even even 84,000 is not outside of the realm of what you might invest in say of down payment assistance or other types of programs.

Um then when when you look at things like supportive housing uh and and shelter, oftentimes those activities can be more expensive.

So uh I I acknowledge the um certainly the the concern that you're raising.

I just want to note that they're not always apples to apples comparison.

Um some of the projects might be more deeply affordable than others.

Um one of the things that staff does in evaluation um is look at you know the the investment per unit per year along with the affordability uh to to determine if it's kind of within the within the parameters and within the range of feasibility, and also uh look at those, you know, evaluated against what's available in um in each category.

So the member Rebecca, I understand it's not an apple to apple comparison because a lot depends on the location, uh other financing, whether that's SliTech, whether that's other money that when it's involved, like when it's faith in housing, we know that faith community is putting up land, so that's why the cost per unit would go down.

I I get all that.

So I you know, we used to look at leverage.

How much are we leveraging other financing?

I I don't see that on here.

Like for this hotel conversion, it's great because we need to expand the capacity.

But what is the other source other than the county?

Uh because I remember when we did in the middle of the pandemic when we had a deal with roof above, the per bed cost was lot a lot lower than this, because there were other sources that were involved.

So we need to look at it that way as well, and we need to look at how are we leveraging other sources.

And the and the leverage is not on the slides today, but it is evaluated and it's um included in your more detailed packet um in the in that HDF booklet.

So we'll make sure that you get all of that.

So the manager would like to comment on this.

And then thank you, Mayor, members of council.

And I'll try to do my um best um explanation of this um city-county uh opportunity.

So as you know, your hundred million dollars in the HCF, you set aside about nine million dollars for supportive housing and shelter capacity.

So whatever your projects are, there's a um there's an opportunity of nine million dollars for these types of projects.

But um, Rebecca said is true based on the type of service level, um, it's difficult to take one look at a cost per unit.

What's interesting about this one, if we go back to a home for all, um, which had some bold concepts about um homelessness in 2025, and we're almost in 2026.

Okay, so this started back during the pandemic.

Um you achieved one of the goals by getting your housing trust fund up to 100 million dollars.

Um this non-congregate shelter is very different.

And Sean, if I'm way off, let me know.

Okay.

Um it's not designed to just have someone live there forever.

This is designed so that it is um short-term giving opportunities for individuals to have um opportunities to maybe one at one point have home ownership, home ownership.

When this began, the concept was seven million dollars from the city, seven million dollars from the county, nine million dollars from the private sector.

So the county went out and acquired a piece of property, and it appears that this public sector contribution, instead of being 14 million, will be 8.5.

The private sector in their fundraising needed to see something before they would really go deeply into this.

And again, this something is not exactly what we have seen here in Charlotte as it relates to a non-congregate shelter.

Again, these are going to be when I started doing this decades ago, it was SRO's single room occupancy, but let's not call it that either.

Because the concept is people will be there over a shorter period of time to find other avenues for getting to a better condition as it relates to housing.

So that's was I close, Sean?

So I have a question.

So you said 14 million.

I had can I know that Mr.

Graham was next.

I just want to make sure I understood.

Yes.

So again, years ago, this concept, before anybody located a piece of property or a hotel to have a conversion, the concept was a belief that this may be $14 million to find it, purchase it, renovate it.

But fortunately, it's a lot less because the county has found the property, purchased the property, and the upfit with everything that Rebecca said earlier, instead of being $14 million, appears to be $8.5 million.

When we started off again in this journey, the three-year carry from the private sector was $9 million.

So the $9 million investment from the private sector and the $14 million investment from the public sector.

Now the public sector's investment is closer to $8.5 million.

So what's the private sector's investment?

So again, as we started off, and it'll be whatever it takes to carry this for three years.

And the estimate early on was nine million.

So I don't know what it will be, but the commitment is to fund the operations for those first three years.

I'm sorry.

So first three years of operations, that that's the county's funding.

That would be the private sector.

Private sector will fund the operations for first three years.

Absolutely.

So once we put in 4.2, and the other half is paid by the county, the operations will be paid by the private sector.

Do we know what that amount is?

Yeah, I get it.

For three years.

But what what is that amount for the three years?

We don't know what the amount is for the three years.

What was estimated this private sector's investment would be that nine million dollars.

Right, but if you don't know how how much the operations would cost for the first three years.

Yeah, I don't know if it would be 12.

I don't know if it would be six.

I think it's the commitment from the private sector.

One thing I'll offer is that the reason that a RFI was published earlier this year was to assess the um to to confirm the estimates that were made.

And uh based on the responses to the RFI, um, the that nine million could potentially uh cover three years of operating.

So we don't have an exact number, but um the our partners have been have been thoughtful about making sure along the way uh that the original estimates are reasonable.

All right, Ms.

Murray done.

Mr.

Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I I told Kim this was gonna be a short meeting, and we're still here.

Um so um I want to thank the committee and the staff for us for bringing this to us.

Um I think affordable housing continues to be our top priority, and the way the committee initially set this up with the hundred million dollars, talking about production, ownership, and supportive housing was the right thing to do.

I think Rebecca took the the words right out of my mouth, which is this is all things are different, right?

Um, different location, different housing spec, different costs.

Um I support the river district um project that's up there, but it's the river district, so it's gonna cost more, I suspect.

But I really want to draw our attention to the supportive housing, the shelter capacity.

And a lot of this conversation with the home for all started when we have people living in tents in uptown Charlotte.

And a lot of this conversation with the home folk all started when we have people living in tents in uptown Charlotte, rat infested tents in uptown Charlotte.

When the city and the county and the private sector came together to produce the study, a home for all.

But we said that we were gonna make this our top priority to ensure uh that people had safe, clean housing who needed in an emergency situation.

We are in an emergency situation for our community for this type of housing, which is a different from your typical affordable housing, right?

It's it's emergency housing, it's needed housing when we try to use the word really, really loosely, right?

Run people from Battysford Road, we gotta rent them to services, we gotta run them to housing, we gotta run them to resources.

Our capacity space throughout the city is limited.

This helps with that, and it comes with a cost that I think we gotta pay.

We gotta be respectful of the tax per dollars that we're not overpaying, but it comes with a cost.

And so I would hope that we would um respect that our corporate community uh when acts has come forward to support us.

I mean, years ago when the mayor asked them to match 50 million dollars, they did.

They made a commitment to be a part of the home for all and said that they would work with the city and the county.

I think they will.

And so I think what's before us, and I'll talk specifically to Mack County Hotel, then we'll talk about the other one later, right?

Because I I hear you, right?

Um, but this relationship with the county and uh for housing and wrap around services is something that we've been talking about doing for years, and I think we we gotta go ahead and write the check to support people who are living literally living on the street and need someplace temporary to go until we find a permanent solution.

And this starts a really new dialogue with the county about how we can work together, and we've been saying that we wanted to do that for years as well.

So I think that's a good really first step.

I I support this.

This in District 2.

Um, the county is gonna be the property manager, it's gonna be maintained appropriately, uh, and they're gonna provide the type of service internally that I think our citizens need and deserve.

So I think this we should do this.

The other one is very interesting as well.

Uh it's in district two.

Um, I asked the question to who was the developer, who's who's kind of doing the day-to-day umperations of this.

And so could you answer that question one more time for me?

Hit it, Warren.

So this is a 501c3 nonprofit organization called the Dream Center.

Okay.

It's run by a professional staff that has case managers, and they're they're already providing services to homeless men and women in our community.

This would become a permanent campus for them where they'd be able to provide uh supportive services from the site and also the build-out that you saw on the slide.

So that's much part of that conversation.

So with transparency we're gonna say who it is, and we're also gonna say who that founding is and recognize the impact that you have had in community.

So it is part of the Noble Foundation.

Okay, point take for the minutes.

Point taken.

Um putting that aside for a second, not permanently, right?

But this is what we need, because part of it is goes directly to the issue that we've been dealing with for the last four or five weeks, which is public safety.

We gotta have a facility to host and house individuals who need help.

And this provides that.

Uh certainly I'm willing to ask some tougher questions, Councilmember Mayfield.

I hear you.

Um, but in terms of the transitional housing that that is needed in this community, the shelters that's needed in this community.

How do we get people off the streets into safe, clean, affordable housing?

This is different from affordable housing, but this is shelter housing to increase our capacity.

It's a public safety initiative.

It's a housing initiative.

And it's helping people, Councilmember Johnson, when you said sleeping in the cars.

Some of these people are sleeping in the cars.

And we get an opportunity to congregate them in that shelter and process them out to a long-term solution.

And if we have to have people transition in the campus environment with wraparound service already there, I think it's the price worth paying.

Thank you.

So I wanted to just say that when we talk about this campus site, it's absolutely one of the most things.

And I think Ms.

Hajmira talked about children.

And their ways that we can do this, that this community voted for the 100 million dollars.

And they've never turned us down in terms of what we are trying to do and accomplish.

And I think the campus idea being able to actually have a safe place to live, have your kids be able to get off of a school bus or whatever in a certain place.

If we walk out of here tonight and you go a certain distance, people will be sleeping.

And they'll be looking for some place to be.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

There's there's been a lot said around the dais, and um I think there have been some great points.

Um I the one thing that I've said my entire time serving is that I've I've always believed that government is an access organization.

Um and we intend to inform outcomes, and I think outcomes are based on a number of different things.

If this is temporary shelter opportunity for three years where we have multiple stakeholders at because we need the whole community, right?

My mind says we need the resources of Mecklenburg County because the resources within Mecklenburg County are they have different funding and they have a different funding mechanism to be able to do more than what we can with you know uh for mental health services, for an example, access to you know, human services and and that type of funding.

So I I think it's unique to have a conversation where we have now Mecklenburg County at the table.

Um I I get hit hard because of you know um uniquely uh because of relationships in the private sector, but there is no such thing as affordable anything unless we bring the private sector to the table.

They have to be stakeholders in every single conversation that we have.

They have to be willing to provide the jobs to the residents that are continuing to come to our cities, our city, our region.

Um they have to we hope that they because they don't have to.

We hope that they remain willing to continue to partner with us in this endeavor because it's a problem that we all hold.

I mean, crime ends up on all of our doorsteps, so we either get in on the front end or we are on the receiving end of what becomes crime as a result of people in need.

Um, so it is all of our challenge, and I am always heartened when I see a diversity of stakeholders as a part of our solutions, and so um Mecklenburg County as actually listed as a developer, I think is a unique um even listing for Mecklenburg County and our partners.

Not and one of the things that I endeavored to do when I was initially elected was I looked at our budget as opposed to their budget and what they have as far as allocation is concerned.

And Mecklenburg County, actually, this is a leap for them because the largest portion of their allocation is for educational purposes.

Central Piedmont is one of their largest stakeholders, you know, CMS is one of their largest stakeholders, and then their health and human services, and then they do have economic development money, and they're saying we want to bring that to bear in addition to this.

So, like I said, that's one of many.

I also want to make sure that as a single mother, I've I've been a single mother for quite a few years with two children, and um I that that can mean different things for different people.

And I that that can mean different things for different people.

And I remember checking that I had a bachelor's degree in their application.

And I remember being told that wow, that's not something we see often.

You know, as far as people who need resources.

They sent me to a GED class, and they told me I had to sit there.

And I remember thinking, and I told the woman in the class, I went to like three of the classes for services.

And I remember the lady telling me, well, this is a part of what we do, and I was like, Well, ma'am, I have a bachelor's degree, and I'm a project manager, and you know, I you know, I I got all of these things.

And there's a point to this.

What I'm saying is is that we I don't like to make these decisions in a monolith because we meet humans at different intervals of their lives, and some humans need very temporary resources that get them right back on track, something like this.

Like a mother who is in a detriment, but maybe she's not, you know, completely low on her resources, may need something temporary so that she can stabilize, right?

Or we have humans who are completely homeless.

We have families in CMS that have absolutely nowhere to go.

That is a completely and totally different signal for help, right?

And so um I challenge because I I know that we have over 13,000 areas of need, and I know that we don't have enough money.

We our need outmatches our money.

Um, and so I I'm always on the side of where we can help, I think we should.

I I think we should stretch our dollar as far as our dollar will go, and I think that we should take our dollars to be of assistance, and I think it'll be an incremental help.

I don't I we're taking stabs at a at a really big issue, like a really huge issue.

And so um I just think that um I'm I'm afraid to make someone believe that we're affecting total outcomes with my language, right?

When I speak in definition and I say definitively that this can be resolved, we don't have enough money to resolve the issue.

And I think making sure that we set that expectation and tell people a hundred million dollars is a lot of money, but it is not enough money to even close to resolve the the amount of need in our growing region, right?

So I just no ahead, continue.

Okay.

Um, so I I just wanted to make sure that I I was clear in saying that um, you know, these are temporary resources, I think, you know, notwithstanding the amounts that may differ based on location and a number of different other things, I like the idea of incremental resources.

I like the idea that we're gonna meet humans in different places along, you know, and and it will have over the top uh other opportunities for permanent situations, but I think temporary situations are also important because there are people out there.

I can speak from personal experience, right, who experience difficulties and and they're very resilient.

Someone like me, I can't say single mother the same way that someone who don't have the education and experience that I have, right?

So I'm not even gonna pretend that just because I say that that I embody their experience.

Does that make sense?

Um it means something temporary and different for me as opposed to someone else.

So I think that's why I shared that portion of my story to say being completely um you know cognizant of the fact that we're gonna meet humans at different places, sometimes temporary sources are very, very necessary.

Um and then maybe getting them from an outcome perspective, right?

I I think the outcome is we're we are we intending to see somebody through to where they have a different outcome, or are we just saying, you know what, we put them in something, yay, and that's kind of the the way things are handled most of the time.

It's like, oh, we pat ourselves on the back, something's done, you know, but that's not with the outcome in mind.

So I'll digress because I'm rambling, but I said all that to say that the idea of transitional, the idea of temporary is a gap.

It's a gap that not is not always you know recognized as a solution, but it's a part of a solution.

I always said if you grow an inch, you've grown.

It doesn't mean you haven't grown, right?

If if I intend to grow, you know, a meter, I gotta grow an inch first, right?

And I gotta, you know, give myself you know a pat on the back if I make it an inch, understanding that I intend to, you know, land at a meter, right?

So um analogously, I like the idea of some temporary solutions that are a part of our portfolio of offerings.

I do want to remind the council that um we still have a committee discussion part of us, and as well, we have a closed session that we have to do.

Oh, but that wasn't on a we didn't get that.

That wasn't no memo about that.

We didn't get the closed, we didn't get no memo about that, seriously.

But the other side, Mayor, for this hopefully soon we will be able to present something because luckily we're having conversations with the county regarding us doing something to me, turning this whole conversation around housing upside down on its head, and how we really can do some work together.

I highlighted the Mecklenburg County Hotel conversion because that's where the energy and committee on the conversation was without having the full details.

Yes, corporate community needs to be at the table because this is all hands on deck.

That other piece, I'm not touching that.

I'm just gonna say now there's no version of any alternative universe where I'm gonna support putting our most vulnerable in any connection with something that long term can hurt you even more.

I am not doing that.

Yet the county and the city are getting ready to start some very real conversations, but what we also need to think about and have clear understanding on is if we're supporting anything, whether we're trying to push for a home for all or whatever it is, if it is not going to accept families, meaning that mother and father and child, that mother with a son and a daughter, because what we're doing currently are splitting, we're saying that the young man cannot go with their parent and their female sibling.

You're not sending your child to a homeless shelter by themselves.

It is unsafe.

So you have couples that the women can only go here, men can go there.

So less is gonna some less we're going to clearly have the language identified where families get to stay together, get to be unified, get access to the services that they need.

That is what I would consider supporting.

Other than that, the millions that we have put into this, we can be doing it better between the city and county because we'll have more control when we pull some of those light tax out of it.

Okay, Mr.

Jones.

So uh thank you, Mayor, members of council.

I I guess the slot nine.

I really appreciate what uh council member may feel said earlier.

Um there had been some discussion last we went through these rounds that we didn't go to committee first, but having the committee have an opportunity to discuss this, I think is extremely important.

Um we have a business meeting next week.

So on the 13th, if we need to bring this back again so that you don't have to not talk about it before the 27th.

So I think this has created some flexibility for good discussions and for count for the staff to be able to give you feedback on some of the questions.

But again, there's an opportunity for us to discuss this next week too.

Okay.

Okay, does everyone feel comfortable that we will continue this discussion and the committee?

I don't know if some people can the three of us show it, we good.

All right, thank you.

All right, so with that, um, let's go on to where we had our committee discussions and um ask anyone that would like to share additional information.

Um, and we'll start with Mr.

Dreggs.

Excuse me for so uh it's late, and therefore I'm gonna take uh the other topic that we had in community day and compress it, basically following the uh deferral of the vote on the community area plans until November by 60 days.

Um the the committee discussed today where we are and how we want to proceed.

Just wanted the council to know that the work is being done on that.

The staff briefed us today on how we got to where we are.

They went again over all the outreach that had been done.

Uh they mentioned that we will receive packages with all the comments and with the staff reaction to all the comments, so you will see that.

And uh they did talk in particular about work engagement they've had with the Cherry and Steelberry Acres neighborhoods.

And I would just like to say again, we're keeping it brief tonight, but in the next two weeks, if you can bring forward any new new input that you want to provide to the staff, and if we can conclude our council comment period in two weeks' time so that they have time then to act on whatever they hear and to engage with whichever residents need to be discussed, we will try to target that date that we established before this council uh dissolves in order to get those plans adopted.

I repeat again, these do not modify the UDO.

They're just an attempt and all of those different 14 areas to somewhat fine-tune the plan and be responsive to concerns that we're hearing from people that the one size fits all plan does not is not responsive for them.

Um that's kind of where we are.

I think for now I'll leave it at that.

I'll mention our cons uh the members of our committee are uh myself, Ms.

Uh Ms.

Melina, uh Mr.

Graham, Ms.

Johnson, and Ms.

Waddlington.

So that's what I have to say about that.

All right, Mr.

Graham.

Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted to comment?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jones.

One of the things I'd like to see, uh, when we had the webinars, they were very successful.

We had really good attendance.

I think that what I would like to see for the plans that affect or impact District 4.

If we could do, if we could have a webinar where I could be present, I think it would be great for for council members to participate in these webinars to hear what changes are proposed, and to have the residents participate as well.

Because the problem is not we didn't delay it simply to delay it.

We want residents want to ensure that they are they're being heard.

And we gave an example of the Cherry neighborhood where individuals had been involved since the very beginning, and those changes weren't being incorporated.

And that's not the only neighborhood.

So what I would like to do, I'd like to hear from the residents with staff on the line, so that I would like to ensure that District 4 residents and the three plans that uh encompass District 4.

I I would like a webinar or some type of meeting.

I think I think webinar is a great uh forum.

It worked with the uh presentation of the plans.

We had over a hundred participants, so I I think it's a good format.

And and um I think it's a good idea if the other council members could, I mean, it's up to you all, but participate and hear from the residents.

And then you would then you would know why we advocate it to delay the vote.

I uh I don't question that we did delay it, but I think the staff did explain to us today in some detail the amount of engagement they'd had with the tri with residents in Cherry and some pretty significant changes they made, which in their opinion uh were accepted as being responsive by the residents.

If you think that was a misstatement, then uh but that's what they told us, and they showed us how they had dialed back the intensity of the industrial type of development that was contemplated in in a fairly large area there.

Uh so uh I will just say again, what what I'd like to ask colleagues, all of us to do is just as as members of this body and and for the benefit of the staff, just get whatever it is that you think needs to be resolved or needs to be done into them in the next two weeks, and then uh if we have to by a council vote, then we will tell them what they need to do.

But I'm hoping that we can just sort of bring this process down.

There has been an enormous amount of outreach, and and that's one thing, hundreds and hundreds of different uh efforts by the staff to connect and to hear thousands, a thousand responses that came in.

And I think the suggestion that the staff hasn't done enough work to try to connect with the public is unfair to the staff, frankly.

The public has to do something on its own in order to engage, and they did in the case of Cherry and the staff talk to them.

But the numbers were but the numbers were over 2500 comments, and only I don't remember what the number was, but very few of a small percentage was important.

Every single comment, and you can decide if any of those comments deserved a different reaction from the one they got, and in the next two weeks, if you would please put forward.

I've expressed what I'd like to see for District 4.

Thank you.

Okay.

That's it.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um the jobs and economic development committee had a a really uh eventful meeting today, and I want to try to go through a lot of information in a relatively short period of time given the time.

Given given the time allotment that we have, uh the first major item on the uh agenda was the Bank of America Stadium Monetization Ground Lease Update.

Um as you know, the 650 million dollars investment in Bank of American Stadium that we approved a year ago uh over the last year.

The city attorney's office uh the Panthers, our finance department have been working to dot I've crossed T's on the agreement itself.

Uh they have finally come to a uh a conclusion where all of the elements of the agreement that the council wanted has been signed off on by both the Panthers as well as our city attorney.

Uh I really want to thank him, uh Attorney Fox and his staff for the work they've done over the last year to get us to this point.

The finance department has been heavily engaged in ensuring uh that financially that we are doing all the right things per the agreement.

Everything that the council has asked for in the original agreement has been signed off by the Carolina Panthers, including the 27% minority women's development goal.

Uh at today's meeting, um, the president of the Panthers uh was in attend attendance with her staff, Christa Coleman, which I didn't uh I think demonstrates uh a willingness to uh partner with the city, be a part of what we're doing.

In short, uh we are ready now uh to present the final um draft of that contract for council for uh their approvement approval so we can send it to the local government commission and Raleigh um beginning on September 13th and the 27th.

That's a two vote process that we have to vote.

This is not the first time you've heard are hearing this.

We heard it about two weeks ago, and so we're ready now to to formalize the document so that we can prepare it, sending it on to Raleigh to begin to release in the funds to begin construction on the stadium itself.

That's item number one.

Item number two was uh uh executing uh a lease with cats for uh a lot um that uh the Panthers will need to stage construction, and so our second uh item was we discussed that uh which is again um this is not new news for the council.

We've talked about this before.

Uh we're bringing this forward for a formal vote uh for the council, but again, this is really dotting I's and crossing T's.

Again, at least agreement um for the CAT slots for the Panthers to stage construction related activities.

And the third item, which is something I think was really good news, uh the Panthers announced uh again uh that they will be uh um constructing a 44 inches seat capacity um performance venue uh on the north uh northwest side of the stadium on Graham Street.

Uh it's approximately two acres.

Uh the council approved um the building of such a facility with the rezoning that we approved in April, in April of this year.

It should be noted that there is no public funding for the construction or the operation, no incremental land added to the ground lease for the stadium or the field house.

Activation of the stadium and its concept shared with the council in 2024.

So we did talk about this in general.

Now we're talking very specifically about what it is, a performance center, where it's located.

Um again, no council funding, no council lease arrangement for the land.

They will use the existing parking that's in close proximity to the facility itself.

Uh again, multi-faceted local benefits, jobs, hospitality and tourism, supporting more tax revenue, supports up-to-prancy, and fills a void in the local venue inventory.

Now that's a short explanation for a lot of work that we did for the last year from the attorney's office.

Uh again, we've heard this two weeks ago.

You're hearing it again tonight.

Uh, this was voted out of the council with a five, oh, the committee rather, I'm sorry, with a five-zero vote in favor to move it on to the council for your consideration.

Councilmember Graham, I think you stated September 17th and September September 13th and the September or October.

October, I'm sorry.

I was just wondering.

Um, 17th and October 27th.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, next week and then the 27th.

Uh for council the first to take their first initial vote and then the the last vote on the 27th.

So I'll pause to see if any committee members want to chime in in reference to the I just wanted to note that the team demonstrated the importance of the lease amendment by winning yesterday.

I know wasn't that kind of good.

Yeah.

No, yeah.

That was it.

They knew they were coming before Council.

We don't know.

We just try our best.

Okay, Mr.

Mitchell.

Anything?

No, any comments in reference to this.

Oh no, no.

All right.

So that's the Panthers.

I think we're in a good place with them.

I mean, Christy, President Coleman, uh, and I have been talking frequently, and they are really excited about what's happening about to happen over there.

And again, Mr.

Fox uh came in and provided a lot of energy in reference to the negotiations.

I'm gonna thank you personally for that.

Uh second item was um uh we identified several funding requests that came before the the council, if I can find my notes uh in reference to the historic Excelsiors club.

Uh the second item was for greater, as well as the uh Spangler market.

Uh they both came to us seeking funding from our ARCO dollars, and I just place my notes.

You want to see those slides?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, thank you.

Um from our um ARCO dollars and they're requested um uh funding that we again with a five zero vote um uh supported uh 1.5 million dollars for uh restoration of the historic accessors club, five hundred thousand dollars for the states for grocery store or the spangler market, uh, and then another seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars for due greater Charlotte.

Um this would um exhaust our AUCO dollars.

Um but uh the council this committee recommended with a five zero vote uh that we move this along to council for consideration, as you know the historic excelers club, based for road, rich in history, legacy, and tradition.

We're not investing in the club.

We're investing in the revitalization of the historic Beatty Fort Road quarter along with the other investments we've already made on the quarter on the corner of Bailey Fort Road and LaSalle.

This investment is on the Baysford Road uh in Oakline, and hopefully in 2026, there'll be an additional investment at the five point near Johnson C.

Smith University.

The Statesville grocery store is a partnership.

I should mention uh that the county as well will put in 1.5 million dollars for the historic Excelsior Club.

Uh the Statesville grocery store again addresses a food desert uh on that side of the town.

Uh it was presented to the council, the committee today.

Uh, the county also is a partner.

I think the county is going to pay in 1.5 million dollars to support the grocery store.

Our investment will be $500,000.

Uh the committee heard a presentation today uh from staff and again voted $50 to advance this to the council for more consideration.

And then lastly, uh do greater uh was seeking a $750,000 uh investment to finish their construction project.

They have a number of community partners already invested with them.

Um as you know, they've already have one site.

Uh this will be their uptown location.

Uh and again, this is what's our second time hearing this particular presentation uh in reference to um um seeking our investment.

So the committee advanced all three with a favorable um outcome.

Again, the historic excelsior club, 1.5 million dollars.

County will match that as well with 1.5 million.

The state show grocery store, 500,000 from the city.

The county will put in 1.5 million dollars, and then do greatish um, which is a 750,000 dollars commitment that we signed off on, and I'll pause to see if my committee members have any other questions.

Mrs.

Mira.

So how about the institute?

Because that's on the slide.

Yes.

So we're going to redefer that conversation.

Uh that conversation more than likely we'll be picked up next year.

This probably was our last ED committee meeting of the year.

And there's some issue.

There's some um we have to talk about that in reference to recent emails we received from our federal authorities, etc.

We we just gotta look at that with um clear eyes.

Okay.

And I know you mentioned ARPA funding source for all three.

But I see on slide number 13 you got PAGO for so how much was it ARPA and how much was it from PAGO for Excel Club and Splank Spangler's Market?

And it could be part of the follow-up report.

Just the manager takes that so you have a little bit over two million dollars left for ARPA and in the corridors there was a million dollars that were associated with these types of projects these um P3 projects public private partnerships so um you pull the have the million dollars from the corridors for these types of projects plus a little bit over two million would cover these three projects so I'm sorry we're I guess how much of it will come from Pago that that's what I'm asking one million.

Okay.

Okay and the remaining is from ARPA.

So we exhausted out of our dollars so there's nothing left for the there's another ask or whatever okay all right no more that's all I have okay and the third item vice chairman you want to take that one I'm gonna do it with my colleague this was a uh Molina and Mitchell amendment we went to Seattle what four years ago?

It's been two three three years ago we saw I make a presentation of kiosk and so councilmember and I got excited we came back we said we need to do this and our corridors and our MSD so it's no cost to the city and I think Councilmember Drigs you asked a great question what's the annual revenue we can expect like 9720 about 17 million over 20 year period of time city manager thank you for being creative and calling the pilot uh somebody like me wanted to roll out 120 to compete with Raleigh but you say slow your roll and so thank you Mr.

Chair for pushing this through and I think this is going to be great for our corridors and for our municipal service districts so we get revenue from this with no cost.

No cost hey I hate to drag this out but what is it it's kiosk like this the display um directions restaurant restaurant I guess it's even got an internet connection yeah that you can have the phone you could it's got it's it's got um uh advertisements all of that yeah there are a lot of ads on here I guess when we have our formal vote on this there'll be a lot more information for and a lot it'll be a lot slower presentation I'm sorry hello no cost to us uh there there will be some sort of restrictions on certain content right yeah they control the content yeah they have constrictions you know no exactly yes we're not gonna be doing that yeah uh miss mayfield this mayfield did you have a comment or question well yes thank you madam mayor so for clarification one thank you committee chair vice chair and members for going through this I think somewhere along the line conversations start to blur so I do have sadness about the fact that once we do this what we have left in ARPA is completed yet at the same time I'm happy to hear that because I think county had already allocated all their ARPA a while ago I wanted in which chairman you can have staff or someone follow up with me later we started the conversation regarding new grader back in 2023 for whatever reason we're now in 2025 but during that time the new opportunity with Excelsior because I believe I asked staff at your last meeting there was some money that we put in with the last buyer I think it was like 2500 or so did we get that money back yes so that 250 is going towards this 1.5 ask or we're saying this 1.5 ass is coming out of PAGO and ARPA where's that 250 that we originally put yeah I I believe council member may feel that that 250 came out of uh just the general fund and went back to the general fund last fiscal year but I can give you an accounting of where that will be helpful if we took that out of general fund for that conversation either way if we got the money back where is the money when we're looking at this I'm hoping also Mr.

Either way, if we got the money back, where is the money when we're looking at this?

I'm hoping also, Mr.

Manager, now that we have leadership in the economic development department, that we don't find ourselves in this type of position again, where conversations are started, and there's not a clear trail and a timeline from your office down of expectations of moving things forward because now we have these three conversations and hearing about Spangles Market, that was the first sign that I've heard anything about it.

But so for them to even be considered in this conversation when we've had these other two big pieces that have been out there for a number of years that we've been working with or working around on some level is a little bit challenging versus less support staff creating an actual process where there's a timeline of movement, and if there's challenges, then we know this is put to the side while they work on it so that we're not caught unaware, or something new is brought to the table when we have an outstanding conversation that should have been identified and moved forward one way or another.

But I am happy and excited that for those of us that had the chance to go to Boston and hear what some of the things that they're doing, knowing that we had some amazing opportunities right here on the ground to support to make transformational change.

I am happy to hear that out of committee, it was unanimous to move it forward, and I do look forward to all of us supporting the funding requests for not only do greater and the work that Mr.

McNeely is doing, but also for the Excelsior and the corridor work that Mr.

Kennedy is doing.

Okay, and then lastly, uh and quickly, uh, we did take out the referral that the mayor sent to us.

Obviously, we were exhausted with time, but each count um committee member gave our perspective on how we need to lean in to the utilization of small businesses, uh, especially in light of the email we received over the weekend.

Uh, and um our ED director indicated um that he is almost done with the small business report, uh, and I think we'll have further conversations about that moving forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Mitchell.

Mayor, and I apologize to council uh because I wanted to ask Mr.

Chair uh Councilman Drake the question, TPD.

I remember the last time we had conversation about the area plan.

Uh one thing that I think was a sticky point for a lot of us were we had 2500 comments.

Did you all have any kind of conversation about uh qualifying for the process for them going to the plan?

I think there was discussion.

We had a lot of comments, only 14 made it to the plan.

So did you all talk about justifying or process how a comment goes to the process to get to the area plan?

And if you just know it's the answer.

The staff talked to us, it's 2500, right?

So they talked to us in broad terms about how they uh how they it basically sorted the comments, right?

Some of the comments were just observations, okay, and some of them were not really actionable because they were things like we've got to stop the growth in Charlotte entirely.

And and then they had a shorter list of the ones that uh that they responded to by saying, okay, we have done this.

Okay.

They made changes that affected, I think about six or seven percent of the land area of Charlotte.

Uh actual modifications.

And uh the key benefit of all this is we now have uh we will have area plans for the entire city, whereas right now uh some high percentage of the city only has 20 and 30-year-old plans that were adopted.

Uh so uh I think the best thing is you will receive from the staff, they're gonna circulate electronically everything, all the all the comments you can scan them, look at them, you can see the staff responses, and as I said, if if in the next two weeks we could get uh feedback from council to the extent that there is something that's been left out or is requires further attention, and the staff is also actively engaging not only in the uh in these two uh conversations but in other engagement with presidents on uh specific issues that have been raised.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I believe that pins our discussion political.

Two more committees.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Gonna do housing and BGIR.

Housing has to be I thought we just didn't.

We can do that.

BGIR.

Yes, and I thought housing BFP items.

So we all needed housing trust funds.

But the how about the first item about the funding, federal funding challenges as well as the quality of life.

May I promise I can do that one in three minutes.

I'm I'm with you.

I'm still here.

You ready?

For uh housing report out, of which we would gladly send the email out to everyone.

Thankfully, staff just gave us an update.

We are actually looking better than was anticipated as far as the federal government.

We actually are talking about not funding home, but that isn't gonna hurt us as much based on where we are in the community.

The other great opportunity in it is we actually received 283 million dollars more than what was anticipated or some of our funds, which is puts us in a really good position.

We wanted to make sure that regardless of what happens financially in the government, we will be able to continue to help our community and our partners.

So we are taking that very seriously.

Then the last piece is we had our quality of life update of which that one is our policy referral for community safety, the partnerships that we have, which is also we can make sure the staff sends that out to share with everyone.

But it is the sequential intercept model through Charlotte Mecklenburg, so yet another partnership with the county.

So we are actually doing a lot more with the county today than in previous years, but it was really a great breakdown of the models going back to 2015 to where we are today, and learning that it takes all of us at the end of the day.

But of course, Dr.

Wallington was really excited when she got to see the breakdown since you know her ad love numbers and charts.

So this right here is really a great way of looking at law enforcement emergency services, initial detention, court hearings, jail and courts, even though there's challenges around eliminating cash bail, re-entry and community corrections.

Some of this actually ties right into some of the housing requests.

We just need a little bit more clarification on it.

Those were the recommendations regarding our policy referral.

Nothing actually needed to be referred out to come to committee, everything was just basically an update, and that is the condensed version of the report.

Well, I I thought the police officers were really really helpful in the discussion, and the captain that was on the end really did a good job.

So I just wanted to say that.

Um so now I think this is our last report.

Yes, Mira.

Yes, so I'll before we go into closed session.

Okay, so we had three items uh for our BGIR committee.

First, we got a report from internal audit.

Okay.

Uh Miss Adams walked us through the audits that's been completed, uh, status of each audit and uh what's in plan, as well as um we provided feedback to Ms.

Adams about uh what we what we have heard from constituents, council member Johnson had sent this request over to me from District 4 residents about need for putting RFP out there for external auditors because we have been using um the same audit team for external audit for a while, and that's just the standard business practice.

So we will be getting a follow-up report on that.

And we also got um insight.

I mean several constituents are interested in uh providing sort of uh community input in our audit process.

So we discussed that to see what other cities are doing to uh to engage community in our internal audit process.

So there will be some discussion on that.

Our follow-up report.

Uh second item we had was um the quality of life referral and public safety issue, which is really focuses on our uh what tools and legislative support that we need to strengthen our public safety because we know the conversation is not just about policing, but it's about uh trust accountability across all levels across the entire system.

So uh DA courts, mental health, and uh there were several items that were discussed, including supporting our law enforcement.

Uh to be all of these items to be included in our legislative agenda or some sort of letter that will uh we are uh we discussed in uh collaborating with our housing and safety committee.

Uh but we know that um district attorney's office is getting 10 additional district attorneys, it's just a drop in the ocean.

Uh, we know to operate at full capacity, we will need at least 144 uh prosecutors to get to where we need to be.

Uh, we also talked about investment in mental health.

Uh we talked about strengthening qualification for magistrates to ensure that uh they have the training and qualification because they are the first line of defense for a lot of judicial decisions, and we also talked about re-establishing local uh juvenile center.

Uh we know that uh we lost that facility during COVID.

Uh so our youth are being transported away, away from the support system, like family schools.

So that would also be part of our request so that state can invest in reopening a facility that provides wraparound services for a juvenile.

Uh but in closing, it was just all about how we can work across various other uh agencies, especially a general assembly, the county, the DA's office, our judicial system to put together a comprehensive package.

So more to come on that, but the committee asked staff to pull together a summit uh similar to the housing summit we had done a few years ago, uh, that will bring together all the parties, all stakeholders that I mentioned, and um, and then the we will discuss uh a shared ecosystem of public safety.

So more details to come on that.

Um, and we will share with full counsel.

I and uh councilwoman Watlington plan on um meeting next week to discuss what that looks like along with yes, um along with council member Graham and last but not the least.

Uh we had a policy referral on financial stewardship thanks to the mayor.

So, you know, the committee worked on financial partner policy for at least as long as I remember.

So we're trying to have adopt that process for all nonprofits.

So whether you apply with through financial partners or other agents or other departments, there should be one policy across all departments.

So staff is going to gather information, they are going to bring it to us for recommendations, so more to come on that, but just stay on the lookout uh for financial stewardship.

That's all I have.

Okay, Miss Johnson.

You mentioned 144 was the full staffing for the district attorney's office.

How many do they have now?

So I'll tell you the number is I have it written down.

So currently they are operating at 84.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So that ends our committee meeting discussion.

Um, I'm now gonna ask our um attorney.

Oh sorry.

All right, so go ahead.

So I'm gonna ask us, we're gonna go in closed session, and I'm gonna ask our attorney to um give us a yes.

Uh the if I can have a motion go into closed session by the council pursuant to North Guard Journal Statute 143-3181186 to consider the qualifications, competence, performance care to fitness, and conditions of employment or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee.

That's the motion.

So we have a motion and a second.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Anyone in opposition?

Anyone in opposition?

I don't see anyone in opposition.

So we will now um have those folks with