Meeting today.

I hope everybody is uh snowed out right now.

Uh thank again, I want to thank the staff and the employees of Winston Salem for everything that you all did the past couple of weeks or so.

Uh again, I've lived here all my life.

And I remember the snows of the 60s where it snowed every Wednesday, like two feet and whatever.

But I've never seen anything like this scenario this set up.

It was like a perfect storm.

It was ice, it was a little bit of rain, it was sleek, and then we got the snow.

And when we got the snow, everybody still thinks that we can get out and our employees can plow and put Brian down.

And if it's they don't, they do but don't want to hear about the chemical reaction.

They don't want to hear about that.

You can't plow ice effectively.

And then when the snow came and fell on top of the ice, you know, we were again in a place.

But again, I want the public and everyone to know that we thank you, thank you, thank you.

See, unlike everybody else, I was at the house.

I was good.

You know, I tell people the much groceries is everybody bought.

Nobody should have been wanting to come out the house.

But uh again, I'm just hoping that uh the next week we see some temps in the 50s and 60s, so we can go ahead and melt the snow because I'm a country girl, and I know my folk told us if snow lay around long enough, you're gonna see some more to go with it.

So uh I see the forecast as saying possibility uh next week, but uh we're gonna hope and pray that that we don't get it.

Again, thank you all so much.

Today we have our general and consent agenda.

We have one consent item, and we have uh five general agenda items.

Uh I would like to know are there any items besides the consent of one that you want to pull?

And if not, may I have a motion to approve that one item?

Move to approve.

Is it moved and properly seconded?

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

Aye.

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

Thank you very much.

And then passes.

Madam Clerk, would you please read the first item?

Item G1 update on neighborhood services, homeless initiatives.

Ms.

Floyd, our angel handling it.

I know you'll you you've had a busy past two and a half, three weeks, but again, thank you too.

Thank you.

So um, good evening, Sharika Floyd Neighborhood Services.

I am here to give you an update on the winter storm response that we have for neighborhood services for our unhoused population.

Um, so January 23rd, Friday, January 23rd to February 2, Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026.

We provided shelter services to 422 422 individuals.

Um, this was at locations, um, Samaritan Ministries, including their Project Cornerstone, Bethesda Center for the Homeless, Salvation Army's family shelter, and then in partnership with the dwelling, we opened the um winter shelters located at the locations to annex to St.

Timothy, New Story Church, another family shelter, the dwelling, and then a warming center.

Um, and that totaled 422 individuals, and then our domestic violence shelter ran at capacity at 95% as well, and those numbers aren't included here.

That was a total of three out of the four rooms that they have.

And then um, in addition to that, we would just like to thank the Bear team, Samaritan Ministries, Emergency Management, and the Winston.

Salem Police Department.

Samaritan Ministry served 1,222 meals during the storm period, an average of 305 per day.

They kept those services going for shelter breakfast, community lunch, and shelter dinner.

They also also want to thank this winter shelter staff who worked through the storm.

Um they worked three-day shifts and even walked, many of them walked to work.

Um, emergency management for meals and supplies that were provided to the local shelters during the storm.

And Winston Salem Police Department and Bear Team.

Um, Winston Salem, the police department assisted Samaritan Ministries with um delivering dinner when staff was unable to take it out the parking lot to get it, as well as bear team transporting families and individuals to emergency shelter during the storm when our um local emergency shelters vans were not able to make it.

Ms.

Floyd, the number that you've shown us 422.

Yes.

Does that look like the numbers that you've shown us over the past of how many people are homeless in the city or the area, or is this number slightly down, or is it higher?

So this number um shows a larger number of individuals participating in a winter shelter, especially during the winter period.

Um one thing we do know is we don't we expect that there may still have been some people who may have gotten motels because it was the um some of those days were in the beginning of the of the month, as well as some people were able to um maybe find families to stay with or even still stayed outside.

So these numbers um we do believe that it's an accurate number of the need.

Um and then it still doesn't encompass the um individuals who did not choose to stay in a shelter.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments?

This is just an update for information.

Everybody council member Clark.

How about the uh the family center that the uh salvation runs on Trace Street?

Yes, so the Salvation Army, they have 76 beds.

No, you're fine.

They have 76 beds.

There is a star beside that because the way that their beds are set up is that if they have such as a couple in the room, then they're not able to place another family into that room.

So they were filled up with 50, they have 76 beds, but only 50 um were used and they were considered full because of the types of families that they were serving on that night.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Thank you so much for continuing the great work.

Thank you.

Clerk, would you call the next item, please?

Item G2.

Information regarding properties proposed for demolition in 2026.

Brian Clinton, is that how you pronounce your last name?

Cheney.

Cheney, I apologize.

My eyes all messed up from this head code going.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, Council and Committee.

This is an information session here with demolitions, and at the conclusion, I answer any questions you may have.

Excuse me.

Currently, we have 11 uh demo uh properties for do uh to be demolished uh within the next 60 to 90 days, weather permitting.

Uh 11 uh seven of them are in the northeast ward, two are in the east, and two are in the southeast.

These are the properties we the four properties we have scheduled for February.

We've pulled the um did the asbestos tested, and the contractor is in the process of removing the asbestos so we can actually get these done before the end of the month.

March we have two, and both of these properties are in the northeast ward.

Uh currently the vendor has already did the asbestos testing.

Next month they'll actually start the process of removing the uh species so we can get these demolished by the end of the month.

April, we have four properties, five.

We have five properties that we will start the asbestos testing in March, as well as uh removal and the actual demolition so that we can get these done by April.

That concludes my presentation and answer any questions you may have.

Mr.

Cheney, I know a lot of the residents and citizens, as well as members of the council, are again we are in the preservation.

I I made that clear years ago when we started on this housing journey that the first thing that you need to do is try to preserve what stock you have or the possibility of it.

Were any of these houses possibly uh able to be saved or rehabbed and sold to a nonprofit or an individual?

There's a couple that could have been, but the ownership entity didn't follow up with this, so we had to move along with the process.

Um it's a lengthy process, and then there's times where we do a lot for uh partnering with the owners to see if we can get some things done at the property so that we can preserve it.

We focus on that just as much as we focus on the demolition.

Uh, but none of these owners came forward and really tried to preserve any of these properties.

Thank you.

Any comments or questions from the committee?

Yes, Councilmember Hall.

Thank you, uh, Chair Adams.

I will um ask just for clarity for the February demolitions.

If we look at that slide, um, the next one.

We've got 1510 East 25th Street.

Um, and I I want to clear clarify, confirm, verify that this is uh East 25th Street and not East 23rd.

Uh, because on the left it mentions East 23rd, it might be a typo.

The the reason that I'm asking is because in March next month, we've got another one scheduled for East 23rd.

So I'm trying to see whether it's whether it's two just on East 23rd, trying to see what's going on East 23rd.

I'm sorry, it's actually 25th.

There's a typo there.

Okay, so March it is the property that will be on the 23rd.

Okay, so it looks like we just have one on the East 23rd and one on East 25th.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Any comments, questions?

Councilmember Jordan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um the amount of violations on all of these properties, some of them look in pretty bad shape.

Can you give me an estimate of how long these properties have been vacant?

It varies.

Um it varies.

We could start the process uh two years ago, but and with only five or six unfit violations.

Uh, due to the owner not making the improvements and doing it moving forward with it due to the age, uh weather conditions, it can deteriorate and gets real bad.

So it's sort of a juggling act force uh because there could be a fire unit, we can have a list of items ready to bring to council, then there's a fire unit and it changed the whole scope and how we move forward.

So some of these properties can they have four or five violations unfit that can, if you're a handyman or the right owners, that you can preserve these properties.

And we also have listed on our website what we call uh distressed properties with four or five violations that uh owners can get with the county and work out purchasing.

Thank you.

Councilmember Scipio.

Yeah.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Um Mr.

Chaney, is there um is there a budget that prohibits how many we can do each month?

A demolition budget, because and I say that because 801 gram is a burned out property that's been uh needing to come down for years, and I just didn't know whether it could be moved up, or is there some limitation that your department has that places some in an earlier demolition than a a later one?

There's always a budget, uh, but we follow the process.

So that means a process sometimes we can get earlier, get some earlier to uh committee, and then sometimes it takes a lot longer.

But the property you're referencing, we're gonna bring that uh we're gonna demolish that property in April.

Uh could it be sooner?

That's what I was wondering.

We can't make it any sooner than that, just due to the process.

Okay.

All right.

Because I know that person died, and I knew that property was in some kind of weird trust.

And that could be a challenge too, especially when you have to give servicing to all entities, and some of the heirs may die off, and then it goes to their their children, and it becomes a struggle.

But we we have a paralegal, we work close with uh Camille and the city attorney office where we go into court records, DMV records, and oftentimes we are Googling and searching for obituaries.

So that could be the challenging piece too that slows up a process.

It's based on where it is in the process and the allowing the amount of time to pass before you get a response and then proceeding at that point in time.

Yes, okay.

It's a long process.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Councilman DeJorner.

Thank you.

The is there no other legal way to save transfer ownership to improve um these neighborhoods and these particular properties or like properties, or is this just the standard of how we do things?

Camille's a better response.

Attorney French.

Thank you, madam chair.

Good afternoon, uh, members of the council.

Um, so he is correct.

There is a process that we have to undertake.

Um a lot of the times when you're dealing with air property, as we call it, you're dealing with trying to find all of these different people that own these properties, and we have to give them notice, we have to give them an opportunity to repair.

And sometimes that just takes an inordinate amount of time.

You would not believe um how you have to take that time to track those folks down.

We um with private properties such as this, we can't just force our way in, right?

We can't just take that property and and kind of circumvent that process.

And so um, you know, we can't just like I think one of the things you mentioned was transferring ownership that would require um consent of the property owner.

And so again, you're kind of back to square one where you have to start there, get the notice out, make sure to give him an opportunity to repair and those sorts of things.

So it it sometimes can become a bit of a round robin.

Um just when you think you're at a point where you can move forward, then you find another obstacle that prevents you from moving the property as you as you as quickly as you might want to.

Um, but we we we do try to do everything that we can within the process um to move it forward as quickly as possible to um council member Scipio's point as well.

Um, again, we're happy to, if you need us to walk through that process at a later time, you know, kind of give you a high-level overview of what that looks like on either side, but um essentially we we do have to follow the rules that are that are given to us.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Um I know we have these houses that are coming up, but what does the queue look like so far as other houses that are coming to us?

Because a few years ago we had all we had hundreds, hundreds is am I right?

Councilmember Clark was on the committee then.

We had hundreds, and we literally had to have uh community, I mean general government or housing committee meeting two or three times a year just to get into that volume.

Uh it would be a packed house when we would do it because I think we let people know we're very serious now because some of these houses have been on the books for years, not two or three years, more like eight to ten years or more.

So I'm wondering what does the queue look like coming to us?

We we know that we have at least there's a minimum every month we're gonna bring to you right now is three through the end of this fiscal year, and we are still collecting data, so as many as we can, we're gonna bring to you.

We're just gonna make sure that we at least have a minimum of three that we bring to you monthly.

I don't know the absorbent the action.

Do you mean three houses or three different reports of three different houses that we're gonna bring to as consumers?

Per month.

Yes.

But do we have an estimate again of how many are in the queue?

How many?

Is it a hundred?

Is it two hundred?

Is it let me research that again?

Okay, I appreciate that.

Yeah, yeah, I appreciate that.

Councilmember Hall.

Um thank you, Chair Adams.

I do have uh one question.

You mentioned that some of these homes that we just saw that are on the list for demolition over this month and the next couple of months.

Some may have even had four to five violations that I think you mentioned maybe could have even been resolved by someone that had some sort of expertise in being a handyman or maybe working through the county to get some services.

Are we still talking about minimum housing code that we have here?

So some of these homes just not meeting minimum housing codes that are just deteriorating month after month after month and year after year after year of just not being attended to, that is now putting them on the list to where they're being up for demolition.

We start as minimum housing and it does over years, it could wear and tear, and then it becomes a major problem.

But we always start from a minimum housing code perspective.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments, city manager?

Just I wanted to just be uh clear with council a little bit, the make sure these are private properties.

And so you I guess I know uh council member uh join and I have a discussion about how do we save properties and part of the issue that the department is trying to do is to put pressure on the owners of these properties to repair them.

So I think what uh what Ryan was basically saying, there's some of these houses that we think could have been repaired, but it's up to the private property to take that decision and do that.

And if they don't, then you're having to take the action to protect the rest of the neighborhood.

And in that case, if the owners won't take care of it and it reaches a point of that does deteriorating the whole neighborhood, then you're taking the action to tear that down so it doesn't continue to distract from the neighborhood as a whole.

So I I will say that, and I could several of you have mentioned you want to preserve housing.

We want to preserve the housing too.

And I think a part of this, as the mayor pro Tim said, is putting the pressure out there so that the community knows that you're serious about having housing meet minimum standard codes, and hopefully that will encourage individuals to keep those houses up or to sell them to somebody else that will take care of doing that.

Thank you.

Uh this is also for information as well.

Council Mahal.

Thank you for obliging me.

Quick question.

What's the home is demolished?

The structure, the land still owned by the property owner, and they still have to pay taxes on said land and okay.

Thank you.

Unless they owe us money.

Okay, so a sanitation lien or some sort of lien for the cost of demolition demolition is then applied back to the property owners.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

City Clerk, please call the next item.

Item G3, ordinance amending chapter 46 of the city code relating to noise.

This is the one everybody been waiting on.

Mr.

Rao.

Good afternoon, Chair Adams, Mayor Joins, members of council.

Well cue up the PowerPoint here.

So this has been an item that we've brought to you and briefed you on a few times.

The approach that staff is proposing is that we look at the issue of noise in the community in two phases.

Like the amphitheater that is uh proposed.

You still waiting on your project.

Okay, well, I'm gonna just keep talking.

I'm just gonna keep talking.

So the goals we have it.

Good.

So the goals uh of the amendments, uh, there are several.

Number one, the standardized hours and sound levels.

One of the goals is to establish objective standards so that they can be enforced.

Um make the definitions easier to understand.

Thank you.

Uh make the definitions easier to understand.

So we do have a number of definitions now established in the in the proposed amendments.

Clarify the rules for when and how a citation may be issued, and then update the prohibitions and the exceptions uh to the standards that would be put in place.

So as part of the process of developing these amendments, we did look at uh a number of cities in North Carolina, and you can see them there.

Uh a lot of similarities, but some of them there were some some differences, and so you know, our our task was to try to find a policy mix that we thought would work for Winston-Salem.

So phase one, and that is the focus of the amendments that are under consideration uh with this item is as I mentioned, focuses on our public on focuses on public assembly facilities, and you can see there uh when we say stadium, whether we mean in terms of seating capacity or spectator capacity 5,000 plus, an arena 1,000 plus, and then the other outdoor sports or entertainment venues like the amphitheater 1,000 plus.

There's very technical language uh in the ordinance just uh talking about how sound is measured, the type of device that would be used to measure sound uh that would have to meet certain standards, the American National Standards Institute, how the m how the sound would be measured.

Um but what we're proposing is for amplified sound from these facilities that the maximum decimal threshold would be 85 DBA.

Uh the threshold would be in effect seven days a week from 7 a.m.

to midnight.

Uh so they wouldn't vary.

Other cities they vary it, but we we would have it consistent throughout the week.

Uh if there is a complaint, and this is a complaint kind of based uh ordinance, it would be measured at the boundary line of the complainant property closest to the source of the of the sound.

Um there would be both civil and criminal penalties for violation, a class three missed misdemeanor and a fine of up to five hundred dollars for noncompliance.

And then there would be accountability for noncompliance, meaning that the person responsible for the facility would be would be the one held in in violation and not necessarily the guest or the performer.

That's going to be kind of between the person responsible for the facility and who's possibly causing the the uh violating sound in the facility.

Secondly, we we this uh uh amendment does exempt motor sports events from the decimal threshold requirement.

Again, the focus is on amplified sound, uh, even though motorsports events are loud, that's not necessarily amplified.

And and we did include that with Bowman Gray specifically in mind.

Uh the city of Concord has a similar has similar language, obviously with Charlotte Motor Speedway and the various tracks there.

The or the amendments also expand the list of exempted activities.

So examples that would be lawfully permitted fireworks displays, those would be fireworks displays that are actually conducted from by professional.

Those would be fireworks displays that are actually conducted from by professional.

Also permitted parades and military ceremonies, events held at city and county recreation and parks facilities, railroad operations.

Saw that in a number of uh cities' ordinances, which we don't have currently in our ordinance, aircraft operations and then governmental vehicles carrying out official duties.

And then the last uh bullet there is just kind of a technical change where the current ordinance basically references the county ordinance and staff.

We felt like let's just bring that language in to our ordinance as for as language that we can now adjust if we felt like we needed to really tailor it to the needs of the of our commuting.

So that's phase one.

Um this would be a two-step process because we know that there have been concerns about noise in other parts of the city uh in commercial areas in the central business district and even in residential areas.

And so staff will be working on another round of amendments to this ordinance, Chapter 46, to bring back to potentially established specific decibel standards for various types of areas within the city.

Uh again, you know, measurement would probably take place at the boundary line of the complainant property, so it would be a complaint-based ordinance.

So it's not that we're going to deploy police officers throughout the city with sound meters, you know, just checking necessarily.

Um the measurements would take place in the minimum in a minimum interval of one minute.

That's that's you know, something that that we've learned is that you want to really measure it, the average sound over the course of at least a one-minute interval as opposed to the spikes that could take place in the course of a of a sound producing event.

So that would be phase two.

That would be something that we would bring back to you all in the coming weeks.

Thank you, Mr.

Rao.

Um well, who's gonna do the compliance piece?

Who's gonna measure?

Who's when if I'm a citizen and I live downtown near the amphitheater or whatever, and it's loud, who's going to come and measure, and who am I going to call?

Surely not Ghostbusters, but who am I going to call?

It would it would be the police department.

Um that's also something that we've seen in other cities where they would be responsible for that.

Uh, we've had conversations, we being staff, conversations about investing in sound meters to where that they could uh respond to complaints.

The current the current code, I mean, if there was a if there was a uh complaint, it's very subjective.

You know, an officer would go to the magistrate, and there would have to be some kind of determination whether you know a sound or noise was uh in violation of the ordinance.

So this you know provides the 85 decibel threshold so that it can be measured, measured at the complainant property line, but it would be the police department.

So the cities that you are we are benchmarking or looking at what process they have in place they have meters or their process that people residents call the police and the police come out and do a measurement, or is this just you know, I want everybody to understand.

I just don't want us again to create an ordinance that has no meat on it, because citizens nowadays they are very much aware of everything.

And if we create this and it has no compliance process of who's responsible, who's showing up, who's gonna have the meter, you know, then they're not going to be happy.

So generally looking at the other city's ordinances, it it has been law enforcement as enforced it because part of the penalty is both a civil and criminal component.

So the civil could be a fine up to $500, but the criminal could be piece could be that it's a a class three misdemeanor.

So police would have to you know make that charge if it was going if it was going to be a criminal you know, charge for it.

Uh but it's generally police.

Now, Ashwell Ashwell actually has dedicated staff that is a noise compliance work group, uh, but we're not suggesting creating anything like that.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh to get to uh Chairperson's uh comments about giving the police some tools right now.

Our police get called all the time for uh noise violations that get out there and they can't really do any of that.

It is loud to Mayor Pro Tim, it might not be loud to Councilmember Clark.

So this would give an objective measure.

The police will have the meters and be able to do that.

And the other thing I like about this been is the fact that you did do some testing early on, particularly the amphitheater, Mr.

Dames back there.

Uh as I understand it, Councilmember Hall, when they did the measurements of the uh at Crystal Towers on the inside, it was like 65 decibels in a truck went by or car went by, and it was like 75 or 85.

So seems to me that the 75 decib, 85 decibels is a very reasonable level uh for our residents around the amphitheater and other performing places like that that can be protected there.

I'm speaking for you, Councilmember Hall, but it sounds like you were there when it when he made that.

So it sounds like it's just a good strategy here what you've come up with, Ms.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Councilman Sipio and Councilman Mahal.

Uh yes, thank you.

It seems to me, I don't know about the 85 decibels, but if that's the target, but it would seem that that 85 at the source is one level.

So that's where you're measuring it.

But as you get farther away, it should be uh less of that.

So does every stadium will it have a boundary area for the arenas that we're targeting?

So the 85 decibels would be the threshold if there's a complaint, and there has to be a measurement taken at the complainant property, not at the source of the sound, not at the venue itself.

Because the venue itself could be louder than 85 decibels.

But if if there's a complaint, then we would measure the sound level at the property line of that complainant property.

And that could be next door, like in the case of Crystal Towers, or it could be you know a mile away, but that's where the measurement would be taken to see if that venue is in compliance with the uh with the ordinance with the 85 decibels.

So the 85 decibel point, my understanding is that's the threshold at which after prolonged exposure, there could be hearing damage.

So couldn't we determine that for every venue that we have that exists now, what the boundary would be, the perimeter would be so that at the far east end we know that it can't be higher than that, just to eliminate people just coming out complaining about the noise.

I think it would require you know a study and you know some expense to do that.

And we're and this and this is you know a citywide ordinance, so it's not just for the proposed amphitheater, it's for our own facilities, the fairgrounds, Bowman Gray for non-motorized activities, um, potentially you know, other venues that that for example, uh if uh you have a school football stadium, and then while the athletic events are exempt from the ordinance if they decide to do a non-school uh you know event there, then that would be something that potentially, if there was a complaint that we would have to measure for compliance.

So it would span the whole whole city.

So I to your answer to answer your question, I I I just figure out how we would do that.

I mean, just if is it a study that we would need to do of even privately owned um venues.

I'm I'm not sure.

Councilmember Hall.

Okay.

Okay.

You were trying to say something in committee.

I just uh that thank you, Councilmember Hall.

Just uh just to clarify, I I have uh worked at several jurisdictions that we've had these in place.

The issue is at a particular event, the sound is determined by that event and how they set up the system and how loud they're trying to be for the patrons that are there.

So you can't set a boundary on a proper line just non-discriminately because each event will have its own sound pattern.

Now, the thing some of the place like the amphitheater, they mix it so that the sound is coming into the arena and not coming outside just like we do with lights nowadays.

So they're so they with this numbers, they'll know what to tell their performers and the sound folks as to how they should do it.

They typically will do a practice ahead of time and can understand that their state's limits, but but it does vary by each event at a at a at any venues.

Council Mahal.

Thank you, Chair Adams.

Um ACM Rao, I have just uh I have a few things, but hopefully it won't take too too long.

Um first thing is first thing is um I already know that they there are some residents, I'm speaking in particular to the Northwest ward, who already have an apparatus to measure the decibels.

Um so I do know that so that may answer some people's questions about how people are doing that or how they can.

Um I've been sent some videos um and I mentioned this, I think maybe even to the city manager.

So I'm looking at you because I may need you to recap.

But there were some concerns about people playing loud music in trucks and just driving straight through you know city streets.

Oftentimes when that happens, you might be able to get a quick video on your cell phone, or if they stop at a red light and you can get a little longer coverage.

The issue is once that vehicle leaves, outside of maybe getting the make model and color, you may not be able to get the license plate or something like that, even if you do have something that um measures the decibels.

So I wanted to speak to that and what happens in those sorts of instances.

Obviously, if you were to by the time you were to call the um police department, that vehicle is, I don't know, maybe now in Greensboro or on another side of town, so I can see where that would be a little difficult for them to be able to police and enforce.

But I also wanted to talk about um the the loud mufflers, uh Mr.

City Manager of like what our capacity is or our ability to enforce something like that, and I feel like there was something that may have been taken out, the general statute that allowed us to be able to um maybe incorporate that into the noise ordinance because I have gotten at least a couple of emails about that.

And so um as we're talking about loud motorcycles and all these sorts of things, people just rearing it to the ground, you know, how is that being looked at, or if we had um thought about that when trying to craft this?

I'm going to pause so that you all can answer that piece, either either one.

So I can start and we can uh so first off, you know, this particular uh set of amendments is focused on mainly the large venues.

Phase two phase two phase one.

Phase one.

So phase two is when we're going to try to address these other issues that have come up.

Now having said that, the language that's in the county ordinance that we've brought over and explicitly put into our ordinance does have a prohibition about automobiles that are under repair and they're producing loud noises, which could potentially be a muffler.

Um that ordinance that that language is is something that we're going to look at, I think, as part of phase two, because it's more subjective, you know, what's loud essentially, you know, just to to uh to somebody, and so that's why in phase two we're going to look at you know, decibel thresholds, but and and to look at to your point, you know.

Well, but when we're talking about moving vehicles, how do how do you you know measure measure that in an in an instant?

And uh uh Ben's right, the the reality is what we're focused on right now is sound being produced by a at a fixed location.

That typically it's gonna be in this case arenas, but it could be uh your neighborhood um you know convenience store or uh you know restaurant that's has an outside band that's playing or some of those kind of things, that's what this is really aimed at at dealing with.

Uh moving vehicles is a whole different set of rules and regulations, and while we might try to uh again put that in there, so if you've got a a vehicle that stopped at a corner and is playing loud music, that we would be able to address that, assuming that they stay there until the police department arrives.

But the the remedy for that is to tell them to move on in in that case.

But with all those things like mufflers and playing loud music out of your vehicles falls under a different part of the ordinances typically, and I do believe we'll probably have to go back to the General Assembly to get different language to be able to do some of the things that I think some members of the community would like for us to do on prohibiting those noises.

Okay, thank you.

And this is um just last two uh Mayor Pro Tim Adams.

One other thing to consider for phase two that's on here, so I'm just gonna mention it because it is in our packet.

Um we talked about um exceptions for events that are held at city or county recreation and parks facilities, and so I would just kind of make sure that we we may want to specify if it's a city sponsored event or something like that, versus if I decide that I want to rent out a shelter at one of the recreation and parks facilities, and I decide that I want to have some amplified sound with a DJ that you know is still loud enough for me to have a DJ and have a party, but that is not out of control and over the um 85 decibel standard um that we have in place, so that I know that's under phase two.

And then the other thing that I want to mention, um you mentioned I think possibly even we talked about Bowman Grade that I think would um fall under phase one that we're talking about today.

Did you say that you had gone to um Concord and actually gone to the motor speedway um or had talked to some officials with motor speedway in Concord?

No, I've not spoken to any officials with the City of Concord, but in reviewing their ordinance, they have language that specifically exempt motorsports activities from their uh threshold requirements.

So this would be in in line with alignment with one of the other Pierce Cities is doing.

That's that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Also, uh, just like uh the city manager and Mr.

Rowles stated, the general statutes from the state are very specific about mode of sports, uh, because as you all know, this is NASCAR's home, North Carolina.

So you might want to say they have a protected status, they are not about to do anything that jeopardizes Wilkesboro, Rockenham, Winston, Charlotte, any of that, any of that.

And like the manager said, if if the citizens or we decide that we want to go down that path, we might want to talk to our legislatures first before they go to Raleigh and drum that up, and it might not be a good light for us.

Um personally, I'm glad that we're doing this in phase one and phase two, uh, because we do have some loud, amplified issues in our city, but every city does now.

But I'm hoping that with staff and community in this council, we can work on it.

We got time, and we can do a lot of education to the community because community feels like some of them feel like they can play their music as loud as they want because they're taxpayers.

That's what they tell me.

And then you have the others that believe I pay taxes, and I should be able to enjoy my quality of life in my neighborhood without hearing my windows rattle, and my TV volume has to go up to 40 or 50 because you're making the decision that affects the whole street or the neighborhood.

And even our recreation centers, uh, there are folks that go there and they play, they bring in the loud amplified music, and it's very loud when you can be in a recreation center and you can hear the music a half a mile away.

You know, and I mean it's loud.

So I'm very uh very much excited about us working on this, but I'm also hoping that we will continue to educate the public, just like we did with the phase one, that we get their input uh going forward.

Are there any other questions or comments?

This is a uh ordinance change, so we will need a motion move to approve.

Second, it's been moved and promptly seconded.

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

Aye.

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

Thank you so much.

Uh City Clerk, please call the next item, please.

Item G4 ordinance amending section two-295, two, two ninety-six and two two ninety-nine of the city code regarding duties and membership of the urban food policy council.

Dr.

Miller.

Good afternoon.

Dr.

Shayley Miller on behalf of sustainability today.

Uh, this is a code update for the bylaws of the Urban Food Policy Council.

It is uh just deleting some defunct group that is no longer active, allowing us to fill a vacancy, and taking off some language for Liberty Street Food Market that's not longer active, and of course it's no longer the Dixie classic.

So taking off defunct language.

Any comments or questions?

I want to thank you for working on this.

Uh uh staff and I created this years ago uh because we knew that again, everybody was talking about food disparity, and the county had their piece, but the city didn't have a piece, and the largest disparity is in our cities, urban spaces and creating this uh commission or committee.

The idea was that I think all of the commissions that we have, and we got a lot of them in committees, that they should be working on creating policy and initiatives that the council can look at and review and possibly implement if they're good.

So I'm very excited about this change as well.

If there are no questions or comments, maybe if you'd like, I can introduce very quickly Hussein Mahmood as our new staff who will be running this uh council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I would need a motion.

This is an ordinance change as well.

Move to second.

It's been moved and probably seconded by Councilmember Burke and Hall.

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

Uh all those opposed, nay, like so.

Thank you very much.

City Clerk.

Item G five, request for a public hearing on proposed changes to UDO CC 32, regulations for mechanically stabilized slopes and retaining laws.

Public hearing for March 16th.

Mr.

Murphy.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, members of the committee and council.

Uh pleasure to be before you for this text amendment.

This is a text amendment that's fairly simple in the ordinance.

Um, but there's some behind the scenes things that we'll be working on with the engineering to get some standards put in the infrastructure uh standard uh guidelines.

But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Dan Roberts, project planner on our staff who will actually give you the presentation.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Murphy.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, members of committee and council.

My name is Dan Roberts, and I'm a project planner, and I'm going to be introducing this amendment request, UDO CC 32.

The petitioner is planning and development services staff to modify Chapter 8 of the United Unified Development Ordinance to remove Section 8.4.6.b, title graded slopes, mechanically stabilized slopes and fields.

So a little bit of background the planning and development services staff receive a request from the assistant city manager for public works to review the current approval process for stabilized slopes, aka retaining walls.

Current regulations allow walls or wall sections of up to 10 feet in height to be approved by erosion control staff, and walls exceeding 10 feet in height are subject to an alternative compliance process.

So although the requirements for mechanically stabilized slopes are contained in the UDO, planning staff is not responsible for their review or approval.

In the city of Winston Salem, retaining walls are reviewed by engineering and erosion control staff.

And in unincorporated Fresht County, NCDC staff will review retaining walls that are adjacent to state right-of-ways.

And the erosion control staff will review those walls outside of the state right-of-way.

Most of Winston Salem's peer communities do not include height limits or other technical details related to retaining walls and stabilized slopes in their own development ordinance.

So SNAP believes that our standards for retaining walls should not include specific height limits, but should instead allow project engineers flexibility based on project specifics and public works staff will be developing new infrastructure development standard regulations for retaining walls based on this direction.

So it would be removed from the UDO placed into the IDS.

Um as I said, the uh based on these discussions, mechanically stabilized slopes would be moved from the UDO to the IDS, which already contains technical specifications for similar infrastructure, sidewalks, things of that nature.

Staff believes that the proposed changes would streamline the process in which design elements would be reviewed by an interdepartmental team of public work staff with engineering and technical expertise.

The City County Planning Board unanimously recommended approval at their January eight public meeting, and I'm happy to field any questions.

Um the retaining walls that we see going up near the new beltway and the new development of the neighborhood in the houses.

Are those retaining walls put there by DOT or are they put there by the developer?

Or do they can they both be I it really depends if it's in the state right away?

So the beltway specifically that would be through NC DOT because that is you know obviously their project, and then the developer, if it's a neighborhood or a new subdivision, then that would be the developer who is proposing and designing them with for review for the erosion control staff.

Okay.

Any questions, comments?

Councilmember Clark.

I would think state building codes would tell you how to build the wall.

Is that correct?

The codes are um the there are requirements for sort of minimum standards for the retaining wall.

And so anything that is up to 10 feet is already reviewed by our erosion control staff, depending on the right-of-way location.

It's just that anything exceeding that would be subject to the alternative compliance process.

I think um Mr.

King might be able to speak to that a little bit more detail.

Yeah, it's council reports, not so much how you build it as the height of it.

I think that is really the the concern here and this the differential between 10 feet and under and 10 feet and above, and currently the process, anything 10 feet and above comes to me, and I have to make a decision based off very few standards in a somewhat arbitrary fashion of whether to allow the wall or not.

And that's not a good place for us to be from just sort of an ordinance standpoint, and frankly, if you're on the other side of the fence, not really knowing where the goal posts are.

So I think what is proposed here is to take that standard out of the ordinance, place a standard in the infrastructure development guidelines that basically the height is really not at play anymore if an engineer designs it, seals the plan, it's constructed in the field.

An engineer goes out and certifies it was constructed per the plan and gives us a letter that says with their seal on it that says it's met those design standards, then we're good with it.

That's really the issue at hand.

Okay, yeah, and those standards are.

I mean, to me the question is is the wall strong enough to hold hold it back.

And to me, that's a technical engineering engineering, and that's gonna be doing it.

Yes, sir.

And that's what I'm hearing that is happening.

Thank you.

Any more comments or questions?

Uh we need a motion on this, or we just is this the information because they're gonna have a public hearing.

Okay, move move to approve.

Second.

It's been moved and probably seconded by councilmember Hall, Council Councilmember Joins.

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

Aye.

All of opposed like sign nay.

And the motion approved the passes.

Thank you so much.

I don't have anything.

I'm trying to get on to my be.

Thank you all so much for being here.