A general government meeting.

Um would the city clerk please call the role for the committee, please.

Chair Chairwoman Mayor Pratim Adams.

Here.

Vice Chair.

Councilmember Joyner.

Present.

Councilmember Burke.

Here.

And Councilmember Hall.

Here.

Thank you so much.

As you know, we have two parts to our agenda.

We have a consent agenda and a general agenda.

And today we have two consent items and we have seven general agenda items.

If there are any uh questions or want any consent items pulled, uh let that be known from the committee or the council members.

And if not, may I have a motion to receive and accept the consent agenda?

Make a motion.

Second.

It's the mood and properly seconded to accept the consent agenda items.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

And it passes.

Item G1 update on fire classification market study.

And that would be assistant city manning Wolfia.

Manager Wolfia.

Yes, uh, good afternoon.

Um committee members and uh council member Burke, can you hear us okay in the room?

Councilmember Burke, can you hear the assistant city manager?

Is she please?

What's going on?

All right, we'll we'll work on we'll work on that.

Um in the meantime, I want to kind of key this item up and I'll turn it over to Dr.

Kina Cofield Jones, our human resources director, and Matt Reese with Piemont Triad Regional Council or PTRC.

So this item is a follow up to some of the conversations we had earlier this summer with the adjustments to the accruals for the fire department and the discussions of the what we call the third, third, third, um, updating our classification and compensation studies.

We had committed to looking at a third of our employees each year.

So over the span of three years, we would have evaluated class classification and compensation for all of our employees over the three-year period with the adjustments to the fire accruals to bring their accrual rates on par with the rest of the city employees.

We agreed to look at the fire department um classification in that first round.

So we have hired PTRC to do that work.

So Dr.

Keena Cofield Jones and Matt Reese will go through.

You want to if you want to go to the so they'll cover just kind of an overview of the work that was done, the cities or fire departments that were included in the compensation comparisons, um, provide a summary of the analysis and the results of that initial analysis, and then we'll talk through next steps.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Keena and Matt.

I have a question, please.

Um I guess again, going back, we did have a study done years ago.

Uh it was a part one, part two deal uh that would have gotten where we are now if we had voted to do it.

Uh, my concern is or my question is I know you're doing uh fire department first.

Uh I'd like to know how did you come to do that?

And does that tell the public that the firemen are the most disparaged of salaries out of all of our employees, or is it that we just decided to do them?

Uh and from the perception of the community, it might look one way, but when we know, I know that when I got on this council in 09, it wasn't public safety and others that were making the least amount of money.

It was the people that were doing the hardest jobs and the jobs that nobody wanted, such as utilities, landscaping, sanitation, and those type things.

So again, my question is did we make the decision based on the disparaging the disparity of the salaries based on market study, or do we make it because we chose to pick firemen first?

Let me take that one, uh Mayor Bertam.

The I and none of us that are here are part of this can speak back to what happened in the original ones that you were talking about.

There were an overall classification study that was done that was started before I arrived that we completed that was completed after I got here, and that set a baseline.

And city council had been doing a variety of things to move various individual uh positions up to make them competitive in the market.

Plus, you did a lot of things in terms of the lower end of the scale in changing our the the lowest salary point that that people could have the minimum wage, so to speak, for city employees.

So there's been a lot of activity that has happened by this council, or particularly by the most recent council in terms of moving things along.

As a part of that last study that we did, we made the emphasis that we could not make a study and then just stop and then hope that everything worked out.

That we needed to continue to move forward, and the proposal was to do uh the what we call a one-third study, so that in essence every position would be studied over a three-year period, and that should be ongoing uh in reality forever, so that we're making sure that we're staying competitive in the marketplace for all the positions that we have in the city, because you are absolutely right.

There are a lot of disparate positions in the city, and uh and you I think your perception is also correct that public safety gets a lot of emphasis.

So there had been actions by this council to help on the public safety area because we were having a hard time finding police officers and firefighters uh pre particularly during the pandemic or pre-pandemic.

That has changed to some extent, but we're still recruiting for all kinds of positions.

So the the one third, one third, one third study was basically all the positions, and and Dr.

Jones could could talk about that more, have been set into three categories.

To your specific question on fire, fire was chosen to be in the first category because council asked us to do that.

So when we were looking at some of the other implementation changes that happened in our HR benefits to bring some parity on the benefit side of what we were doing, the the council at that time or at that point said we would like for firefighters to be included in the first round of the study.

So that that is why they got placed in that position.

We are also doing all of our CDL drivers, and there's probably a whole series of other folks that we'll be looking at in this facet.

That means we will still get to the other parts, the three biggest departments are fire police and utilities, and those will probably be it's probably in that order, fire police and then utilities, I believe, and is how we're how we'll break them up, and then all the other departments will be a part of those as we go along.

So I I think your your assumptions are correct and and what you're talking about, and and we can talk more about how we're doing what we're doing.

I'd like to make one more comment again.

I need everybody to understand that when we make these kinds of changes that affect across the whole spectrum of our employees and their perception, we need to make sure that we are meeting with them and helping them to understand what is taking place.

This cannot be a macro decision going forward, basically on anything that we do anymore.

If we don't accept start listening to the people that are affected the most, again, we do a lot to try to engage and make everybody feel valued here with the city of Winston.

But again, like I tell people that could be railroaded by perception that if I feel like that I'm not being looked at or heard because maybe I'm poor, or maybe I'm not the right one, or maybe my job doesn't do, you know, cartwheels and whatever, it's the hard stuff.

It's the dirty stuff.

It's the stuff outside and weather like this that nobody wants to do.

But yet we decided, and and I miss count Mr.

Pate, if you could get me the minutes of when that was decided, because I need to understand it.

I might have voted for it, but it don't ring a bell with me right now.

I need to understand the process of how we got to the fireman being first, and it's not personal for me.

It's business of the people and our employees, understanding that the changes that we make, we don't make them because somebody screams uncle or niece oil on a wheel.

We do it because it's the right thing to do, and we're doing it with everybody in mind.

So with that, I'll let our HR director take over.

I apologize.

You can tell I've been in the house for four or five weeks.

I haven't had nobody to talk to.

I'm like, I'm ready, let's go.

You sure?

I'm positive.

I'm positive.

All right, good afternoon.

Um Mayor Pro Tem Adams and Council.

I'm happy to be standing before you today to give you an update on the fire classification study.

So the overview, as the assistant city manager stated, we hired Pete P Mont Triad Regional Council.

I'm sorry, to do the study.

And they will be going through, actually, Matt Reese will be going through the analysis part of the study, but I just want to give you a brief overview of the localities that were included in the study.

And this was done through a heat map that PTRC did of where the census of most of the populations work around these particular areas.

So we had Apex, Asheville, Burlington, Carrie, Charlotte, Concord, Durham, Forsyth County, Gastonia, Greensboro, Greenville, High Point, Huntersville, Canapolis, Kennedy, Kernersville, Morrisville, Raleigh, Wake Forest, and Wilmington.

So those were the localities that participated in the study.

Which those are still being responded to.

So we don't necessarily have the benefit information today, but they will go through the information for comparisons of the positions.

And I do want to note and stress here that at implementation, adjusting the ranges versus the salaries will be handled differently or independently of the other.

And so with that, I will turn it over to Matt Reese with PTRC, and he will go through the analysis of the study.

Thank you, Kia.

Council, thank you for your time today.

Appreciate seeing uh you again.

Uh what you have here is this is your current pay plan for fire.

And the things to kind of point out to that, if you look at that top line, you'll see there are no degree associates and uh bachelors.

And what that's indicating is uh what are the different salary points for where someone would be based on educational attainment and military experience that they have.

Um part of what that system is is to recognize those things to help with uh recruitment, um, but it is a different structure than what we normally see.

That typically um let me see here.

Hello.

There we are.

Then do I need to control there?

We are now I'm in control.

I feel so much better now.

Um, so often those components that you see represented in your pay plan are typically presented at initial recruitment, that they're not maintained throughout your organizational structure.

So you can see there that whether we're talking about a recruit, whether we're talking about a firefighter, whether we're talking about an engineer, whether we're talking about a captain, each of those are built in to that scale.

And so that's a very different system than is typical in other areas and in the competitors that you have.

It's recognized, but it's not put into this schema of classification, or if you'll allow me the term, there are sub-classifications for each of those.

So it adds a little bit of a wrinkle of complexity, it adds some challenges for administration, and it's one of those things that we would give to you to consider uh making a change in.

One of the things that it builds into is that your ranges then um are wider because you're going all the way from no degree to the bachelor's degree, and roughly that range is about 65 percent.

We observed a market that has more of a range of 50 percent for men to max for those.

So again, that structure is just different than what uh the market typically is presenting, right?

And then overall, we want to emphasize as we get into some of this data, what you're gonna see is uh larger discrepancy, a larger variance between where the salary ranges are, what the structure is, the structure needing to be uh updated more so than where actual salaries are, not as much pressure on that, not off of market as much on that.

But let's take a closer look at how all these factors come together, right?

So if we're looking at firefighter, and this is uh representative of the class where you're gonna have your initial levels of employment, you're gonna recruit um often at the firefighter, the recruit range, and so this gives uh for that.

What you see currently is where you are with the 46,9 over to the 77 range, again, that's that 65 percent spread that we were talking about.

The observed market is the 50,006 to the 74,000, about a 47 percent range, right?

And where all of that was.

If we look then at applying that to where we are in the market, just to make that point clear, that you're lagging by about 7 percent on this key point of or key comparison of market.

So uh given that you're lagging behind, we want to come up with a recommendation for that.

And that recommendation, this is where really once we lock in on where we are with firefighter one, then a variety of other decisions cascade from that.

So if we start at that 51,000 range minimum point, and then we go up to a structure of 79,000 for a 55 percent spread.

You can see how that compares to your observed market and the actual range that you have now.

Um, that puts us roughly about 1 percent above that market uh for minimum and about 6 percent above where the maximum would be.

Again, we're trying to come up with a range that's pretty standard for that.

It matches what you have in the rest of your general pay plan.

Um so we're trying to look at some equity across the board on that.

Oftentimes what we're doing here is taking the data that is presented in the market, but then interpreting that back to a pay plan.

And pay plans surprisingly look very similar across North Carolina, where there is this 5% spread between grades and roughly a 50 to 55 uh percent spread in terms of min to max is usually about where that is gonna land.

So now we've established structure, right?

That's what we've been talking about up until this point.

But now let's take a look at actual, right?

So this is where we're gonna see that you were uh closer in terms of the actual than you are with the uh where you are closer, yeah, closer in terms of your actual than where you are with your market.

You're 7 percent, as we established in the previous slide, below your market with your range.

And then as you see in the far right hand column there at 517 to the observed market range of 54.5, that you're roughly five percent.

You're not quite as far off on your actuals as you are on the structure of that.

So gonna that's one of those things you're gonna want to hold on to as we talk about um moving forward on that.

So now we've had a pretty good look at firefighter.

Let's look at another uh benchmark class for us, fire engineer.

Again, this is the comparison of ranges for you.

Uh what you're gonna see there is uh your current range of 57 compared to 59 at the entry point and then 94 to the 91.

This one we're at about a 54 percent observed range for uh the market on it.

So again, with that structure in mind, let's look at where we are.

We're 4% below market on that one.

So then again, we're looking at market, but now we also want to look at where we are with our recommendation for that.

In this case, we want to put that one at a 61, almost 62,000, going up to the 96,000 maximum range, that 55 percent spread with that.

Um so the new ranges of minimum and maximum in this case are about 5 percent above where the market is for the engineer class.

And then again, we need to look at now in the second stage of where we are.

Now that we've established the structure, secondarily we're going to look at where the actual average is.

That becomes that metric of how competitive we are.

And we can see there that the observed market is 72.7 compared to uh the current Winston-Salem Fire Department average of 70,300.

So again, we're about 3% off.

So 4% off on our market, and then about 3% off on actual average for that, and adjusting that up to look at where the final structure is gonna be uh to be 5% above that.

So then that's our recommendation to get to that level.

Then when we look at fire captain, uh what we see here is the range that you currently have of 69.4 to the maximum of 115,000 is that 65 percent spread compared to the 51 for the observed market.

And then when we see this one, we're actually lagging by 6 percent on this one when we look at where that is.

So our recommendation there is to move slightly above in that 2 percent range above the market and where the new maximum would be 5 percent, establishing that consistent 55 percent spread for that.

Again, we're looking at trying to put this into a graded pay plan, looking at consistencies between where all of those are.

We'll see that total structure in a minute.

And then we look at the actual average for this class, you can see that's the 88 uh 89,000 compared to the 91,000 in the market, roughly 2 percent behind.

Again, the ranges are 6 percent uh lagging in the market, and then the salaries are lagging by the 2 percent that's there.

So now what we've covered at this point is we've covered your entry level where most of your recruitment is placed at the firefighter range.

We've looked at um one of your most competency levels of uh fire engineer uh where a full functioning uh professional firefighter aspires to be, and then this is your first level of supervision with captains.

We've captured all of those market elements for you uh so far.

But we want to look at one more, which is getting into the management range of um the fire series, and so this is for battalion chief.

Again, your current minimum you see there with the 65 percent spread, 76 to 126.

You see the observed market with 86 to 133 and the 55 percent spread there.

Our recommendation, or what we find there is that you're 11 percent.

This is the one that you are the most off of that market on of 11 percent.

And then you see what our recommendation is is to move that to 87, 135, the 55 percent spread where those new minimums are just one percent above uh where that market is, trying to tie into that as we can.

And then for average, this is where um then it's a little bit different here that your current averages are actually above where the market is on this one.

So we're 5 percent above on your current battalion chiefs over where the observed market was.

That's that 106 to 111 uh average in that far right hand column that you see.

So let me just give you a quick summary of where the market positions were, right?

If we go back to your firefighter, your engineer, your captain, your battalion chief, the current range minimums as that looks to the market is that 93, 96, 94, 89.

And then we're proposing to move the minimum is that far column, the 101, the 105, the 102, the 101 that's there.

And then you can see the averages of where we're moving from the 93 to the 101, from the 89 to the 101 on that chart.

When we look at all of that chart pulled together, that's this 9 percent that we're moving on that, resulting in those higher minimums than uh the market averages for that.

Again, this is market average for the range on it.

Then we'll look at where we are with the proposed maximums.

You can see there of where um the proposed maximum range is.

That's the proposed maximum range to the market on that.

And then we look at actual salaries as uh compared to that market, you can see where we are with that.

95, 97, 98, uh 105 uh number that is there.

Uh when we look at all of that together, um, hang on, when we look at all of that together, we're roughly about four percent above market on average for those.

Um, when we look now at putting it all together.

So we've been talking about different market positions and so forth.

This is the entirety of the full pay plan.

These are all the classes that were included in uh the study for this series.

And so we're all the way from your fire recruit all the way up to your deputy fire marshal, a couple of placeholder uh grades are in there for a calculation purposes.

But this is that structure we were talking about that's rather consistent among all local governments.

It's that 5% differential between, say, where a grade 101 is and where a 102, 103, et cetera.

And then there's the 55 percent spread that we're now establishing in the minimums to the maximums that you see.

And then with the exception of the battalion chief, those other positions are staying within their current grades, right?

That there is this grade increase where you've got to move up battalion chief to capture that 11 percent that we were off in market.

The other concept behind this, and looking at this structure, what this reflects is moving from that complicated structure of no degree associates and bachelors to this structure where you would have the minimums and the maximums.

Again, that educational incentive would be recognized, but it would be recognized at the initial point of higher, not embedded within the pay system going throughout that presents some complications as we go.

So then what I want to do now is turn things back over to staff, Keena, to talk about implementation.

All right.

So for implementation considerations, um, salaries would be adjusted to the new pay range minimums of what is adopted.

Um and salaries would have to stay within the minim max of those particular ranges, so we would not have someone over the max of a range.

Also, PTRC will be developing that hiring matrix where we take into account the education and military service at the front end as he just described for implementation cost considerations, of course, are the financial impacts, and then what is decided here will set precedent for any future um class and comp studies that's conducted by the city because we would have to incorporate this philosophy going forward.

And then next steps consist of PTRC will compile and analyze the benefit survey results, and then they will make recommendations to us with implementation strategies, and for the city of Winston, we would make the adjustments to those new salary ranges that would have to be adopted or amended by personnel resolution, and then the city management would evaluate the recommendations and implementation strategies going forward with this study.

So at this time, we would be happy to take any questions that you uh have a council member Hall and Councilmember Scipio.

Thank you, Chair Adams.

Thank you all for putting this presentation together and the time that you spent and to our friends at PTRC appreciate your time that you spent doing this.

Um actually one of the things that I was curious about was PTRC kind of helping to gather information and do the study versus some of the other firms that may have been used in the past.

Um I would just like to ask about, because this was a lot of information to take in about how you may handle compression in between the ranks during implementation, and if that was addressed during this, then I apologize because I may have missed that.

But um I I that's the only that's the only thing, at least right now that stood out to me that I wasn't necessarily clear about, and you all may still be trying to get to that, and that's okay.

It's totally okay if that is, but I was curious about that for whoever or P or the gentleman from PTRC if you have any recommendations or what you've seen or well um uh Matt and PTRC are going to come back in with some additional recommendations on and in terms of looking at where people fall out in the ranges there.

So, no, from a council standpoint, your you set the ranges for us to provide for employees, and then the the policies within that, then we implement those to make to get people where they need to be.

So we we're still looking at market data to determine what the percentage increases are typically given in the market for those various uh educational attainments or other skill base sets that we would want to have uh in firefighters.

And one other question, thank you.

One other question um, and this is for whoever would like to answer.

But does the city still provide an education uh reimbursement for folks who are continuing on with their education and and whether that's by way of reimbursement or any other way, but that is still looked at as an incentive, I would presume.

Do we still offer that and will we continue to offer that based off this?

Yes and yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Scipio.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, just a quick question.

Can you help me understand that 55 percent?

Why is that the goal we're trying to achieve?

And what does that mean?

55 percent of what come up, Matt.

Sure.

So quite simply, when we look at that, uh, we can go back to the full pay plan.

You got it.

Or I could go there.

So what we're establishing with that structure is five percent between each of those grades, between uh the 101, the 102, the 103, et cetera.

And surprisingly, it doesn't have to be this way, but surprisingly, that is really consistent.

That if we looked at pay plans throughout the state of North Carolina, that 5% is very consistent.

It's also consistent for where other uh positions are within the city.

Your other pay plans look like that 5%.

Then the 55%, right?

So this is the structure of 5% differential per grade, and then the width from minimum to maximum on that from the 48, 571 to the 75 to 86 is 55 percent wide.

And then that also matches with what you're doing in your general pay plan.

So it's to look and trying to establish some of the same sort of overall structure matching with the appropriate market, but overall structure to be similar across those positions.

And across all of those different municipalities that you showed is 55 the spread for most of them.

Is that the average about the average?

There's some that are a lot less than that.

There are a few that are a little bit wider, especially when it comes to public safety positions.

There's a tendency in the last few years to really narrow that, right?

So you're gonna have some that are gonna have a 60 percent spread, but then you're gonna have others gonna have a 25 percent spread in that.

Thank you.

Yeah, and we and when the data is on there, so when you get those the spreadsheets, you'll see that the averages were actually lower than 55 for the comparison market.

So it tended to be more closer to 50 percent, but that's fairly close.

Councilmember Joiner.

Thank you, Mayor Burton.

I when we were talking about the different classifications, um, degree or non-degree, so the rate would be based at point of higher for a degree or non-degree, and they would stay on that road or that track for the the the length of time of employment, with the exception if they're promoted and it requires a degree, or during that time, if there's no degree required and someone obtains a degree, then there would be provisions allotted for that.

So if I came in as a firefighter recruit with the outer degree, and six years later I decided to go and get a degree, I would change tracks on my next promotion.

So I would I would be looked at a degree track of rate of increase on my next promotion.

We oh I thought you we will not have a separate degree track.

So let me back up a second here.

All right.

This is what the pay plan looks like now.

No degree, associate's degree, bachelor's degree, and then you will see that military is added in there.

So if they have one of those no degree associates or bachelors, then that's one rate.

If it if they have military, then it's another rate.

So what we're saying is the recommendation is to move away from this, because this is complicated to administer, and for the most part, localities are no longer doing it this way.

It would be as PTRC has recommended that it would be their pay plan would look like generally how we have it across the board, and then a matrix would be developed where if someone comes on board and they have they apply for one of these positions and they have a degree or military, et cetera, we would consider that on the front end, and that's how their pay would be set.

And then in your example, say it's uh fire fighter two, and they don't have a degree, and that you don't necessarily need one until you get to BC battalion chief, but they are promoted to fire engineer, and then between that time, rather, they get a uh a bachelor's degree, then we will account for that.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Sorry for the long explanation.

It's a clear one, so I appreciate it.

Any little comments or questions?

Um I look forward to whatever else is coming the next on this.

Again, making sure again that we are not just educating our employees, but the public as well, the the family members, the friends, those younger people or whatever that are contemplating coming to work for the city of Winston, uh, we may need to make sure that it's understandable.

And don't get me wrong, this is not easy to understand, but it's a necessity that we do that in order that uh we we all can walk away with knowing that we did the best that we could uh to ensure that we were on even ground, I guess.

Uh, I do want the city manager and staff to already, I'm sure they have started looking at how is this going to impact the budget?

Because we know that this past year there was a few folks that was ready to come down here with pitchforks after us.

But again, as long as we are explaining to people why we have to do these things, then it may not be all that palatable, but at least they'll have some understanding before we get to where we pull the lever.

Oh, yeah, we've been ready to increase your taxes again.

Oh, and this is why.

Why we can start to educate uh right now uh before the cycle starts.

Again, are there any more questions or comments from staff?

Councilman McClark.

I'd just like a part copy of this if you I would too.

Yeah, because it's not on the digital and like digital.

Digital.

I'm old fashioned, I'll fight it.

That will happen.

The city clerk has it now, and it's it'll it'll be posted with the information here, but she can get copies if you need them.

Thanks.

Anything else?

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

City clerk, please call the next item.

Item G2, resolution approving the 2026 Federal Action Plan for the City of Winston-Salem.

Dr.

Miller.

Good afternoon, Dr.

Shayley Miller here on behalf of Ingovern Intergovernmental Relations.

Thank you, MPT Adams Committee, and other council members.

So intergovernmental relations.

Is our goal main goal is to let our delegation understand the needs of our city and our community, as well as the effects of legislation.

We work with our lobbyists to promote uh grants, funding opportunities, such as the low-no five million dollars that we got notification of last month.

And as an aside, we also have been doing some other funding things, which I want to inform you about that we've been implementing a new grants management software, and we will be able to give some of our community partners access to be able to search for these roles to be search for grants as well.

So that's something else we're doing besides what you're seeing here today.

So the agendas on uh for the resolution today, the approval of them help us speak in a unified voice when engaging with our state and federal partners.

It articulates formally our policies, our priorities, and because legislation can move quickly, our agenda helps us respond in agreement with your with your agreement and our council.

So our process, as you can see there on the bottom, we started with meetings with department heads and with council.

Everyone was given an opportunity to bring what they're needing in terms of funding, policy issues, challenges that they're facing.

That was come through, and we reviewed it with city management.

It would come here now before you to be adopted by council, and then we will send it on to our lobbyists and elected officials as we continue to engage and follow-up.

On our federal legislative agenda or our action plan, most of our key items remain the same as last year.

We are in the middle of a term, so there's not a lot of uh change.

However, some of the programs that have previously received consistent support are experiencing some variability or are not guaranteed at the same levels.

Therefore, our goal is to stay informed and prepared, recognizing these shifts as they are occurring.

And I would also say that after the end of my speaking, Kyle Leppard is here from Strategics for any questions you have on what is going on on the Hill as well.

Now the state agenda is going to look quite different this year.

We have a new format for ease of viewing and because we created a general agenda, much like our federal action plan to provide our broad priorities and goals.

This is so that we can quickly respond as legislation emerges.

Um we faced a lot of challenges, especially in this last year, and we want to be able to respond as they're coming up in a manner that we can respond in a timely manner.

Um we have continued advocacy for those specific bills that were on the agenda last year.

One is simply renamed in accordance with some of our legislative feedback.

But you will see those same bills there this year as well.

So again, those examples of the big general pieces would be opposing un uh unfunded mandates and protecting our local government authority.

And with that, I will open up to questions.

And again, I do have our federal lobbyists here with me today.

I would like to hear from Kyle, please, Dr.

Miller.

He's become like a constant in the room for us.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and members of council.

Uh happy to be here today to present on our 2026 federal action plan.

This process is not something that's new to you all.

As Shailen mentioned, we're in a midterm election cycle, so we did take into a lot of account the shifting federal landscape when we made our 2025 update.

Obviously, the 2026 update continues to refine on some of those areas where we've encountered challenges or anticipating potential shifts in levels of funding or whether programs would be authorized on that front.

We do know the FY26 appropriations process.

You know, thankfully the federal government is back open and running at least through the end of January, but we're not out of the woods yet.

So we continue to monitor, track closely for developments on what may be coming down the line as it relates to federal funding.

Recently, Kyle, uh I noticed on the news while I'm convalescent.

I look at a lot of news now, a lot of documentaries and I saw whether the CLC, the continuum of care is now being looked at.

And in light of the fact that homelessness had unhoused or whatever you call it, people that don't have anywhere to stay, uh, is significantly has significantly increased over the past years, and it continues to increase.

And can you tell us anything about what you know about uh continual care being looked at?

That's the main money for funding those types of programs.

That's right.

You know, the continuum of care through the uh Department of Housing and Urban Development funds a consortium of partners that helps lead on homelessness and housing issues.

Recent change that has been announced by the Trump administration's HUD department is to uh limit the amount of funding through the COC grant program that can be spent on permanent housing projects.

That cap had not previously existed.

This isn't a proposed rulemaking process, so it's not all the way through there, but we are anticipating this coming down the line.

Uh additionally, there's another tweak that could catch some COC grant recipients in a gap funding situation.

Historically, HUD has funded COCs on a two-year grant period.

They're changing that to an annual basis, but if you had an FY26 grant that expires or FY25 expires start at FY26, and the notice of funding opportunities not anticipated to come out into March, dollars not awarded till mid-summer, there could be a January to June funding gap for certain agencies that receive those COC dollars.

Uh across the board, we know housing is one of those key challenges.

Our federal action plan for 2026 reflects some of those things that we're encountering, um strings attached to federal housing dollars that maybe didn't exist before directing local boards to pass certain policies to receive those dollars.

We're aware of that, we're tracking that and uh hopefully minimizing the impact.

Certainly, one of the things that we've been engaged on the advocacy front is preserving funding not only for the COC but for the community development block grant program and the homes investment partnership program, which are both called out uh by a line item in this year's action plan.

Thank you, Councilman McClark.

That's right.

If there's a continuing resolution, should they be at the same levels?

That's right.

Thank you, Councilman Clark.

Uh that's a good question.

Uh right now we're anticipating hopefully a package of appropriations bills that would include the transportation HUD bill as part of the next uh funding package.

We had three bills that passed when the federal government passed the continuing resolution that expended extended funding for the rest of the federal government until the end of January.

HUD would be included of that.

So they are running on FY24 appropriations, and in that FY24 appropriations is the same funding for CDBG and home.

So if they do end up doing a year-long continuing resolution, we're not there yet.

That would preserve funding for those programs.

Okay, so if we were to assume our budget, we will be this year when we've got last year that was not I I don't believe so.

And furthermore, the proposed package that's being discussed right now is the Senate's transportation HUD bill.

It includes, I think maybe a one percent reduction on CDBG and then stagnant funding for the homes investment partnerships.

I do think that's a reasonable expectation at this point.

Any other questions, comments?

Councilmember Jordan.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Kyle, good to see you, sir.

Great to see you.

So um I want to ask a question for the folks that are not in this room, and um just for basic clarification.

When we talk when uh council member uh Robert Clark asked about uh funding, he's talking about transportation, um roads and highways and that kind of thing.

And the assumption is that funding that we got in 2024 with the last time the federal budget was actually put in place, um would probably still be the same, unlike the CLC, a continuing continuance of care.

The funding that the federal government has been given help to local municipalities to help with homelessness unhoused um housing in general, that funding that we got in 24.

There is no assumption that we would get that same type of funding now for those particular department categories.

I I think Council Member Joiner would have to go back and look on that specifically for where that appropriation of COC dollars is.

My understanding is that despite the changing of the NOFO and the CAP, the actual total amount of funding going to COC remains relatively the same.

It's the cap on permanent housing spending that has has a lot of local governments concerned about the implications there.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

May I have a motion to accept the general agenda item two resolution move to approve second has been moved and properly seconded to approve item G2.

Are we voting electronically or voice?

Yeah, council member.

Voice since we have our okay.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Burke.

You're welcome.

City clerk next item, please.

Item G3 resolution adopting the city of Winston Salem legislative priorities for the 2026 legislative session.

Dr.

Shaylene Miller, please.

Again, I believe it's it was the same presentation.

This is just the state part of the federal ones, so we could um move forward with that unless you've got questions for on the state level.

Got it.

This is the state when can I get a motion to accept uh item G three, our state legislative agenda?

Move to accept or approve.

I second is the mood improperly seconded by Councilmember Mahal and Councilmember Jonah.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And G.

Council.

I also asked that you create this the federal plan and the state.

Okay.

That's cool.

Thank you.

Um City Clerk is approved.

May we move to item like this on the stone.

G4, please.

Item G4 resolution adopting civil service board appeal hearing rules.

Assistant city manager WOLDA, please.

And actually, Attorney French is going to present this one.

Attorney French.

Thank you, Mayor Pro TM Adams.

Good afternoon again, members of the committee.

Um, and thank you, um, ACM Voida.

Um, we won't, as they say on Sunday mornings, we won't be before you long.

Um, I wanted to indicate that there are a couple of things I wanted to highlight.

Um, we do have several different exhibits attached to this agenda item.

I'm going to skip down to the second exhibit B dated 12425 with legal revisions.

It has lots of colors on it, right?

Has three different colors has a yellow, your blue, and your purple.

Um, you have seen this version before.

This is the version with the legal revisions that we provided for you all during the last council meeting when we discussed this matter.

The only um revisions in purple were added because a question came up about whether or not um attending one meeting, let's say the meeting runs over more than one day.

We do not want to penalize the board member uh for the absence if they have an excuse absence.

We don't want to count it more than once.

So if they have missed a meeting that rolls over into a different day, the absence would only be counted one time against that member for purposes of counting attendance.

So we added that language just to make that clear um so that there would not be any question as to whether or not the board member would need to be penalized or excused or what have you.

Um and I'm I apologize.

That change was on page four of the document.

Okay, and I'm gonna fast forward now to page eight and nine.

Those are yes, additions, but they're literally just headings.

We wanted to try to make it just a little bit clearer about what each section was about and what it was pertaining to, and um it so that when we're looking for those references in the document, they're a little bit more clearly delineated and can be determined.

Um on page 10, the highlight in blue you already had, and again the highlight in purple just highlights again another header.

And so I'm gonna close that unless you all have any questions about the purple highlights.

Okay.

If we can close that then and go back to our exhibit B, where it says um the second exhibit B dated 12425 legal revisions council version.

The reason I bring that to your attention is because we have now highlighted all edits in yellow for your consideration.

Okay, that includes everything that was in blue and everything that was in purple.

Okay, so it's all in one color now.

I just wanted to have a little fun with my color coding and make it interesting.

But now everything is highlighted in yellow for your convenience.

Um, this is the legal version that we are presenting to council um for committee today for your um um adoption in terms of the resolution.

You will still see in item exhibit A, the draft rules that was proposed initially by the Civil Service Board.

And again, our first exhibit B is the version that we are now asking you to consider um that is completely highlighted in yellow.

You still have your exhibit C, which is your original session law that we have provided with each um time we've mentioned this document for your reference as well as the technical corrections in exhibit D for your reference as well.

We have gone over these rules pretty much in grand detail for you, but I stand here to ask answer any additional questions that you might have today.

Any questions, comments?

Mayor Joins.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I just uh go ahead and question the attorney.

You did a great job pulling together.

Oh, your mic.

You've done a great job uh pulling together, uh making clear very complex issue, addressed a lot of issues that we've talked about at length here.

I think we've uh got a document that is uh believe and correct me if I'm wrong, uh city attorney is completely in accordance with the state statute, keeps us uh in in line with that, and it's one that uh is workable uh and I believe makes sense for the city of Winston Salem based on the city county uh city uh manager form of government.

So I think we ought to go ahead and get this done as quickly as possible and uh move forward.

Any other comments or questions?

Councilman McClark.

I I'll just say I I support your green light has to be on on the mics.

Oh, okay.

I thought that was Christmas.

Christmas colors decorations.

Uh I'm not allowed to vote today.

I will vote in this meeting, but but I certainly support the one with the corrections with the blues and the purples and the yellows.

Um if you this committee approves it, it will then go to the first council meeting, which is on January the 4th, I think.

Is that right?

5th.

Yeah.

Whenever.

So it will be ready to go.

So for if for the folks on this commission or committee, whatever it is, uh, you will have a final document as the year starts.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Council Mahal.

Thank you, Chair Adams.

I concur.

I I also want to give kudos and uh express gratitude to the city attorney and your team for all that you all did in working this document.

Um, and also want to um show gratitude to the civil service board that actually put things together and also contacted your office to get clarity on things every time that I reached out and had some questions.

I appreciate your office in responding and making sure that I understood um was what was what.

Um remember I was the vote no at the council meeting because I was so eager to try to get this passed.

Um this was something that I remember even in 2023 that I was watching before I even was elected to council.

So I know this has been going on for quite some time with the Civil Service Act, and then knowing that we have to get these rules in place is is going to be key.

So I support this, uh Chair Adams, and uh wanted to make sure that said that for the record.

Is that a motion?

Move to approve.

It is second.

It is moved and approved by council member Hall and Councilmember Jordan.

All of them in favor, let it be no by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And all those opposed.

I need a little more specificity if you don't mind, because we have several exhibits, so I need you to specify which we're approval for which document, please, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay, all we know is we've moved through this a hundred times.

Move to and even though I was at home watching and everything, I thought that you know, at the culmination of the mayor and council Clark, that this council has reviewed and you've reviewed with us, and we've asked questions and you've gotten many calls that we were ready for vote.

And I apologize, city attorney, you continue to do what you do.

Uh uh, Chair Adams.

If it is okay, then I would like to clarify my uh motion, and that would be to approve exhibit B CSB draft rules with legal revisions 12 for 25 council version.

And I second that.

Thank you.

It is the move and properly seconded as you have heard the approval of it's not like I was writing that down.

Is it exhibiting?

We got exhibit B of the council version or the legal version, which vote council version legal revision, council version.

Uh exhibit B of the council version and the legal ver revisions.

Is that correct?

Is that it?

All right.

All those uh approved, please say by voting aye.

Aye all of the polls, nay.

It's been moved, it's been approved.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We've been working on this, it seems like two years.

Has it been two years?

Forever.

And we need to send a thank you note to the General Assembly to let them know that we did this today.

Somebody.

Clerk, would you please call the next order of business?

Item G five, proposed amendments to plan residential development, buffer yard, and thoroughfare open space standards.

Mr.

Murphy.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tim, members of council, members of the committee.

Um this is uh a little less light than what you just considered.

What I'm seeking is some guidance.

Um the uh as you recall at your meeting earlier this month, you adopted a resolution uh aimed at removing barriers from housing.

And we have a request from um TreeBick, the trial real estate industry building council uh that is asking uh whether or not council would like to direct staff to examine the buffer yard standards uh and the thoroughfare open space standards and uh perhaps bring back uh a text amendment aimed at either reducing or eliminating some or all of those requirements.

Uh just a little bit of uh context, obviously a plan, and this is for planned residential developments, planned residential developments are a type of uh single family subdivision uh where uh you can have reduced lot sizes, but in exchange for that you have to have open space.

There's a lot of history to the buffer yard requirements.

There was a buffer yard requirement going back to the 80s, and then in the mid uh 2000s, we actually eliminated the buffer yard requirement uh about three years after that.

It was added back at the request of the neighborhood allows, and it has remained in there through various iterations over the last uh 15 years.

Staff is of the opinion that it's not necessarily a wise use of resources and land is a commodity and is a resource to tie that area up with a buffer yard when we're talking about um buffering single family residential from single family residential.

That is what Cree Bick is asked.

One of the things that Creebook is asking is for us to investigate removing that buffer yard.

And again, the other thing they are asking is whether or not uh there's any desire to modify the thoroughfare open space.

Staff's examination of that.

We feel it's a little more critical to have that because it's the backyards that back up to our thoroughfares, and we want we don't want to see the backyards of everyone's uh homes.

Not necessarily saying the way that we have it is the way it needs to be.

We could perhaps look at tweaking that.

Um but I think what we're looking for today is some direction from the committee so that if it is desired that we look at that, then we would go back and start that work and probably bring something to you later this spring into summer, depending on how much work it is, it may actually bleed into the fall of uh 26.

So with that, I'm ready to answer any questions.

I know there were some graphics that were included in your packet.

I did not prepare a presentation.

I felt like they were fairly self-explanatory, but if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer that.

We can pull up any graphics if we need to.

Uh Mr.

Murphy, I think this again, some of the things that people would probably neighborhoods and whatever, again, like you said, if we can make sure that this is understood, uh, because I was on the council when we voted to put it back, you know.

So again, it goes back to how earnest are we about building houses.

You know, are we still sometimes so locked into our what's that word that the guy from Reynolds called us a bucolic that we can't let go of the past for the future, that we don't we we so locked in or stuck that we want it our way and no other way works unless it's what we remember when we were kids and all of the land and all of the buffers and the trees, you know, nobody is saying, I don't think that we want to cut out everything or remove everything.

But again, with so many young and old and others looking to acquire housing, we have got to be just more open-minded to how we make this happen.

And uh, I'd like to thank Trebic Tree Bick and the uh housing developers again.

We have to we have to collaborate.

We we cannot do this alone.

Uh this is the first time that housing developers have gotten in the game with municipal government and government, and I think that's a good thing.

So uh I would say that uh this is this is a proposed amendment.

This is not a resolution you bring.

Correct.

This is actually the we're bringing this to you.

This is something that was submitted into us.

Uh it's not currently on our work program.

We wanted to seek some guidance from council as to whether this is something that you would like staff to work on.

Uh we have limited staff resources, getting move into area plans.

We're getting ready to move into some other text amendments, but again, this kind of fits in with forward 2045 and a lot of the recommendations from that.

So if it's something that council would like for us to work on, we can certainly adjust some things again because it is in line aligned with some of the housing policies and some of the large goals of both your strategic plan and forward 2045.

I would have no issue with it.

Again, we can't be stuck in our own world and say no to everything that comes to us.

Uh, I would say again, because we're working on 2045 and some other initiatives, and that it does go with that.

I would say if it's okay with the city manager, that we move forward.

Again, we're we're constantly looking for partners to help us build houses.

The people with the expertise and with the resources are the developers, realtors, builders, contractors, no doubt.

So if we can find a win-win situation with everyone, and they're gonna be some people that are gonna be mad, we got that.

But again, it goes back to how do we explain this at least so we know that we did our best for them to understand.

Uh, I am all for it.

I think we should move forward with it, Mr.

City Manager.

You have any questions?

No, no, ma'am.

That's if we we're just looking for counsel to say if you're if you want us to move forward with this on the work plan, then they'll go back and they will have the involvement with the development community with the neighborhood groups and with the planning and planning commission before it comes back to you.

But this just gives a go forward to do this if y'all are comfortable.

Councilman Majorna.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

Um Mr.

Murphy, I I think that uh in complete agreement with um Mayor Pro Tim.

Murphy, I I think that uh in complete agreement with um Mayor Pro Tim, uh I I think that it would be challenging to just remove all buffer zones all across, especially uh as we go through for thoroughfares and so but um residential to residential, absolutely.

So I think that um we to minimize uh buffer zones uh overall would be what would best would I think for for my for my seat um to take a look at to just minimize buffer zones and reducing them or uh eliminating them in residential to residential or commercial to commercial.

Mr.

Murphy, you know how to do this.

Go bring us some choices.

The good, the bad, and the ugly.

That's right.

Okay.

Any additional questions?

No.

All right, thank you.

Thank you so much, you and your staff.

Thank you.

City clerk, please call the next item.

Item G6 information on zoning regulations for needle exchanges.

Mr.

King.

Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tem, Mayor and Council members.

Um this summer and end of the fall, I think all of you received quite a few emails from folks um with concerns or uh in support of the the needle exchange that is run by the Twin City Harm Reduction Collective.

I'll call them Twin City moving forward.

Um there's been a significant amount of time spent during that that period talking through issues, concerns, opportunities, and I think what's before you today is an item just to have a general discussion about where things stand, a little bit of a recap of the history of what's got us here, and just like Chris explained on the last item to seek any direction if there's concern from staff to move forward with some different rules.

So I'll I'll be brief on this, but in 2016, the General Assembly passed um legislation that allowed and legalized needle exchanges, and shortly thereafter, Twin City established a needle exchange um at Green Street United Methodist Church in the West Salem neighborhood.

After that was done, council at that time heard some concerns about issues related to the needle exchange.

And in this very room, the public safety committee in 2017 debated changes to those rules for a number of months.

At the conclusion of that discussion, the public safety committee um made the decision, or really didn't make a decision, it just sort of fizzled out, and there was no action to change the rules at that point.

Fast forward a few years, um, and I know Councilmember Larson when he was representing the South Ward heard concerns from neighbors about issues related to the needle exchange.

At that time, myself and deputy attorney Contos went down to meet with the um operator of the needle exchange and members of um and Pastor Sarah from the Green Street United Methodist Church just to talk about the concerns we heard and opportunities uh moving forward.

That was probably a year and a half ish or two years ago when that took place.

Since that time, um the the cadence of concerns in the neighborhood has has kind of increased really this past 12 months um to a steady beat that's gotten us, I think, to this point where um I think a determination was made to get something in here to talk about it and see if we want to make any changes moving forward.

So currently and when the needle exchange came into being in 2017, we don't have a an item in the permitted use table that that specifically defines needle exchanges.

So what we typically do when new uses come along is we classify them to the closest use or we fit them in where needed.

And in this case, since this was being run out of a church, staff was of the determination that this was very consistent with other social programs like clothing closets, food pantries, et cetera, that churches typically run, and we made the determination that it was an accessory use to a church, and that is how is it operated since then.

That's a basically an approval that's given at the staff level.

As a reminder, City Council sets all zoning rules for the city of Winston-Salem.

So you have the ability through amending the unified development ordinance to change the approval authority.

You can change the zoning districts where they're allowed.

Um you can add additional measures such as setbacks as you see fit, and you can also consider matters of amortization for existing uses.

So that is really just a summary of kind of where we've been and is an opportunity to bring this discussion to this committee.

And as Chris noted before, to seek any direction that the committee wants to give to staff on spending staff time to examine possible changes to the rules around needle exchanges moving forward.

And I'd be glad to answer any questions.

I am going to let the council member uh from the area speak first.

Councilmember Jordan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pratim.

Thank you.

Um Assistant Manager King.

On this matter, as Mr.

King has spoken, lots of lots of conversations, lots of digging into it has occurred.

The special permit, I want to ask a question first.

The zoning or permit permitting of it, going as close as you can to what other uses are in a church.

Do you need a special permit?

Does the agency need a special license or permit to uh operate a food pantry?

For churches, no.

That is another use that will be just considered accessory to a church.

Okay.

Does uh an agency need a special permit or license to run a um uh AA meetings?

N not from us, no.

Does the vendor of Twin City Harm Reduction need a special license and or permit to do the thing that they do outside of being in the church?

They wouldn't need anything from us per se, but there may be some permitting required from the state.

Yes.

From what I understand that there are some permitting requirements that they are the only agency in Forsyth County that can do the thing that they do.

So unlike a food pantry or clothing closet that doesn't need any special classification to do to sit to give out blankets or to give out a uh a can of soup.

Um so there is a definitive difference in that.

The challenge that we've had in this case um to my colleagues um is that the neighborhood had a need um for such uh a thing.

Um but it was on a temporary basis that it would be in in that neighborhood to see how it would work and um how it could improve the space over the course of time by admission of most the number of people served went from 150 to 250 annually to its current uh but seem between two and three thousand annually.

So in a space in a in in a neighborhood that has had its own challenges of trying to improve itself and clean itself and upgrade itself.

Um this amount of traffic is counter to the things that the residents have tried to do over the years, inclusive of being supportive of this uh program, but the program apparently has outgrown the pathway that it's taken.

And unfortunately, we live in a society right now that there's a lot of challenges, and everything can't be everywhere just because it's a good thing to do.

So uh at this point I would uh ask my colleagues to allow staff to look at different ways that we can make the best situation out of a bad situation for everyone.

Uh it is um it is a is it is a program that is currently being um funded through the county, and there is uh there are other spaces that possibly under human um health services that it might be better suited for um for the residents.

Thank you, Councilmember Joanna.

Council Member Sibio.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, Mr.

King.

This program is not being run by the church.

It's just being it's run by an organization that is housed in the church.

Is that right?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

If you had said that if it were the state would have requirements for it to be zoned at some point differently, what would that be from the state's viewpoint for this to be somewhere?

What would that zoning look like or criteria or ordinance that they would be under?

I think it's a little hard to speculate where the state would come down on those.

Um I think what staff would probably do if council authorizes them to spend some time on this is like we do anything else, do some benchmarking to see how other folks um regulate these in the zoning ordinance, and then probably from that bring back some options for consideration.

But I don't know that the state has tip their hand.

Again, zoning is usually left to the local government, so that they didn't really give a lot of direction on that.

Yeah, I think we should uh look at that um because it's not necessarily it's not a church run, like a food pantry or closing closet.

It's another agency that's being housed at the church.

So I think we really need to get more information on that, and then how it would what does it really fall under?

Uh, because part of me says it seems like it's a public health issue, and it should go on to public health.

Uh and I think it's being funded by the opioid uh settlement dollars.

Um, and it just seems like it's a public health issue.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Councilor Mahal.

Thank you.

Um Chair Adams is for confirmation, trying to see what staff needs from us, ACM King.

Are you looking for a nod from us?

This is not just for information, but a nod for staff to move forward with additional research to bring back.

I think that's that is correct, just like what Chris brought to you.

So if uh the committee's good with authorizing the staff, we'll go back and begin some work and they'll start the process with a draft text amendment that goes through planning board and public hearings and comes back to this committee and and it works its way back through.

So yes.

That works.

Councilmember McClark.

Since this is funded by the county, I would recommend that we coordinate whatever we come up with the county because they they're paying for it.

And uh they have a health center, don't they, over on Highland Avenue?

400 years ago, I went there and got a workers' permit when I was 15.

I've been in it, but it's been a while.

But I would certainly get county input since they're picking up the tab.

Thank you, Councilmember Clark.

Mr.

King move forward.

Got it.

All right.

Would the clerk call the next I didn't know there were fans here?

Clerk, read the next item, please.

Absolutely.

Item G7 resolution authorizing the modification of the affordable housing development program and guidelines.

Mr.

Blair.

Hi.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, Mayor, members of council.

Um, over the last couple of months I've been looking at best practices, and boy, this is touchy.

I didn't even touch anything.

Um it does its own fine.

Okay.

Can I move the slides forward?

Modifications to the affordable housing manual.

Um I'm gonna try to keep this as quick as I can.

Um but it's not going the right direction.

There we go.

Highlighting changes.

So basically, multifamily rental and homeowner uh townhomes, condominium, subdivisions, projects that re will would require outreach to surrounding communities.

We've had some issues over the last couple of months where that has not necessarily been done, and it comes back to the project later on.

We want to try to basically make neighbors um aware of projects um before they get funded.

Uh number two is incorporating ordinance two-10, the housing justice act.

Basically, in the manual it had two-nine, the affordable housing act, and I thought there's two two ordinances, so I added the housing justice act in.

So in case people want to read that and understand that they could do a mixed income development with that.

Um, so that's why that's there now.

Um also increase the per unit investment from 35,000 to 40,000 and for a new rental development, negotiated and not to exceed 100,000 for city associated units.

This one I actually reached out to Greensboro and to Charlotte.

Um, those are the ones I have, uh I can text their people.

Um so I was told that basically the city council in Charlotte removed all caps in 2024 because costs just continue to rise on everything.

Um they just acknowledging that they do have more money than we do, obviously.

Um, and then um Greensboro doesn't have caps on multifamily, it just has caps on rehabilitation at 20,000, but that's also in combination with the PTRC's weatherization program and triple A program.

So it's about 35,000 a house.

Um so that's uh in the 35 to 40 is just a move up on like individual homes.

Um let's say uh single family homes are built, we could give 40,000 of assistance towards that project or that unit.

Um and then also just adding mention of smaller mixed income rental developments as an encouraged activity.

Um doesn't always have to be 150 units uh if we can get some affordable housing and spread it out around the town, around the city and make it more uh just encourage the the um more amenity rich areas possible.

Um so that's why that's set up there.

And then the scoring system.

So what I did with the scoring system is um basically move distances for groceries, parks, schools, and greenways to one point or to point five miles.

And this is based on the 15 minute city concept of where people will walk, generally a half mile is about 15 minutes.

Um everything else stayed the same.

But what happened there is instead of scores going from 42 to 50 a range of eight, they went from uh 32 to 47 through a 15-point change.

Um, so it it gives a little better idea as to where something is in relation to other amenities that that we find important.

Um then going forward, we'd like to do a January round three request for proposals, it's just under seven million dollars, um, basically state ARP, uh city uh revenue replacement and 2014-2018 bond funding.

Um also city lots and try to market those as well as we can to get them off the city books and get affordable housing on them.

And then um, and this is a Aaron suggested possibly a pre-review of applications before the deadline if people can get their applications in and neighborly before the deadline and request a review, we'll be happy to review and make sure it's complete.

So somebody doesn't kick out is it kicked out before they before because they forgot to upload a budget or something.

Um so that that's there too, and a new policy.

So and then also um the affordable housing coalition meetings to evaluate and uh propose projects, um, trying to make those meetings more public and also get the developers as well as neighborhoods involved in those meetings uh so we know exactly what the support or lack of support a project has.

Um and then lastly, uh we will start providing an update on previously funded projects, and I will be using a template that Chantel uh prepared and actually used in September, which is fantastic, and I think it'll look a lot a lot better than this one.

So are there any questions about the changes or modifications?

I would like to see uh more details.

I know you've explained it, but you know, such as uh the remaining state ARPA money.

You know, I am one of those people that I know we had it, where was it?

And if it's time restricted, how much time?

You know, those are the things I think this council would like to know.

Uh again, the pre-review review of applications for completeness check.

That needs to always be done, you know, and checked again because we do get emails I know I do from people that didn't make the cut the last couple of times, and they talked about how they got kicked out of the process because the process really didn't explain it like that.

So I would appreciate it if somebody would go back and make sure that whatever is on that website.

I've looked at that website, and I'm not really that happy with it.

I'm not either.

I don't know how anybody finds anything and get anything done.

And that they can understand it.

So I'm asking you, your staff, uh, ACM, right, Lanier, and all of you.

I need you to go back and look at that website and and shed tail.

Look at the website.

Does it make sense?

And you may have to pull some people in the room to say developers want to be housing owner.

Does this make sense?

Is it understandable?

Because right now it doesn't.

I'd also like you to make sure again, because it was asked for we don't none of us like to be blindsided.

So when a file the affordable housing coalition is in practice, they should see or hear from the neighborhoods before they get to a committee meeting.

That is the intention.

And that and I would we applaud that.

We applaud that.

Uh updates on the previously funded projects.

We've been asking for that on the regular.

All it needs to be, like I told them is red, yellow, green, and tell us what they are, and you just move across it.

If it's a development that we've already voted on, and they haven't even turned dirt yet, and it's been two, three years, they shouldn't even be in the mix right now unless something happened on our part that prevented them from moving forward with their project.

But if people are coming to us, and this is no shade on anybody, my my peers know we don't have no money.

What money we have, we have to make sure that we are doing what's best for the citizens of Western Salem and whatever our missions and goals are in our strategic vision.

So if you guys could tie all that up in a nice package or present for Christmas and New Year's, we would be very, very happy.

Would this committee agree with me?

Would y'all agree?

Okay.

Councilmember Clark.

Along the same lines.

Oh.

Okay.

We get an update from the city attorney, I think quarterly, and it lists page after page of lawsuits, EOC complaints, whatever.

And on the right side, if it's an update, it's in dark ink.

If it's not, it's in the previous words are there just to it would be nice if we had an ongoing log, and I think this is what Ms.

Abs referring to, of where we are on all the projects we approved over the last couple years.

For example, in Miss Burke's area, we had Habitat was going to build some houses and Dr.

What's his name?

Umrefor was gonna build some houses, and this, and then we uh we finished the Brown elementary school project that can be listed as complete, but tell me how many units we have, etc.

But an ongoing evergreen document, and all you got to do is update it each month for the ones that are active.

Uh I have been told of the for example the first round we had, we've had two rounds of this, that there were three uh projects that required uh North Carolina Housing Foundation tax credits.

Uh and I heard maybe one guided or none guide would be nice to kind of know where where that is.

And I keep asking for this, I don't get it.

Once you do it, all you gotta do is update it.

I don't think it's that complicated once you get the first round done.

Can I mention that we just had a senior admin assistant starting today?

And I have staff actually working on what we're talking about starting today, and they have a list to work with and are trying to put together something that we can use as a management tool, but also as well as a reporting tool.

And you don't need to print it, put it in the email.

No, no, we'll print it.

I'll print it.

Thank you.

Just as like city manager doesn't know it needs to be shown at the fourth city council meeting once a month or at committee meeting.

But the publicans can see that we have to retract these partners of right now.

They don't see that.

There are over 40 on that list.

And what we don't know, we get lost, we don't like that.

Absolutely.

Speaking on behalf of my committee and my colleagues, we look forward to these additions and changes.

Uh it would be great, like I said, we need to send us as you can.

So we can also provide that as to what we we need to see.

Councilmember Hall and Council Member Syria.

Thank you, uh Chair Adams, and thank you, Mr.

Blair.

Thank you for uh the presentation that you gave.

I appreciate you also uh making sure that you did mention looping in um the neighborhoods and neighborhood associations.

I will ask, and um it used to be that the community assistance liaison office had a list.

Um and they do okay, good.

And so, and then even at that, making sure that that list is updated because that several months throughout the years, different neighborhoods decide to form neighborhood associations.

So even making sure that that list is updated and making sure that you have a contact to get that out.

I think we'll also improve with the outreach that you're trying to do to make sure that neighborhood associations are looped in.

Um, but appreciate what you did um put together with this presentation and going forward and certainly look forward to hearing any additional updates that you have that mimic what uh Chair Adams said about uh additional information and more finite clarity.

Absolutely, thank you.

Thank you, Adam Chair.

Um, this is not for you, um Mr.

Blair, it's for the city manager.

Um we really need to have that status report on all of our Opera funded projects.

It's not just the housing ones, but for all of them, and I know the deadline is uh approaching for when those funds need to be exhausted.

So if we can put together that total project completion status report for just those APRA funded dollars, I think it would be very, very beneficial so we don't have any surprises at the last minute.

Mr.

Tesha's working on that already.

Councilmember Joyce.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you for recognizing the need for clarity and for updating.

To the scoring system that you talked about being modified, it when in that modification, if it can be very clear, so if as someone is applying to really understand what the scoring is, what they need to put in their package, what they need, and sometimes it seems that the scoring is somewhat subjective at this point.

Are you talking about the site scoring or the scoring of applications?

Of application.

You don't know what you don't know, and you don't know to answer, ask a question that you didn't know you had a question for.

So if in the scoring you're looking to see how much detail someone talks about describing the in-depthness of their project square foot, uh how many outlets or whatever it is, then it should be clearly put in the application that that's what they're looking for, and that's what you're being scored on, as opposed to after you get it and you get a small paragraph, which is clear of what it is, but it's not quite what I was looking for.

Um it's it's not I I don't I don't find that very fair, and I I think that it it oftentimes takes the the small developer who could be the most qualified for a particular project, but because they're the smaller developer that doesn't have as many projects under belt that they don't have that um high score, but they have all the skill set to do.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh can I have a motion, please on G7?

Make a motion to approve G7.

Second.

It is the mood and probably seconded by Councilmember Jonah and Hall that we accept uh the resolution.

All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, let it be known by saying nay.

And the motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.