Loading...
05082018am MINUTES CITY OF DUNN DUNN, NORTH CAROLINA The City Council of the City of Dunn held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 8, 2018, at 7:00 pm. in the Dunn Municipal Building. Present was Mayor Oscar N. Harris, Mayor Pro Tem Frank McLean, Council Members Buddy Maness, Dr. Gwen McNeill, Billy Tart, Chuck Turnage, and Billy Barfield. Also present was City Manager Steven Neuschafer, Finance Director Mark Stephens, Public Works Director Dean Gaster, Police Chief Chuck West, Recreation Director Brian McNeill, Human Resources Director Anne Thompson, Librarian Mike Williams, Attorney Tilghman Pope and Deputy Clerk Melissa Matti. INVOCATION Mayor Harris opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and asked Reverend Dr. Len Keever, Pastor of First Baptist Church of Dunn ^w. and vice-president of Duan United Ministerial Associations to give the invocation. Afterwards, the Pledge of Allegiance was repeated_ AGENDA ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVAL Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member McNeill to adopt the May 8, 2018 meeting agenda with changes, if any, as listed below. Agenda Items Added: • none Agenda Items Removed: • none Motion unanimously approved. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Hains presented the North Carolina Commissioner of the Year to Eric Sinclair, Sr. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Mayor Hams opened the floor for a thirty (30) minute public comment period. Hearing no comments, the public comment period was closed. PUBLICHF.ARING Demolition of Structure (Storage Building) 100211004 E. Edgerton Street PIN# 1516-95-5410.000 The public has been notified that oral and written comments will be heard and received concerning the demolition of the storage building located at 100211004 1- Edgerton Street The public was duly advertised on April 24, 2018 and May 3, 2018 Hearing no comments, Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. Conditional Use Permit CU -01-18 Cubera Solar, LLC (applicant) The Willoughby, LLC (owner) PIN#1517-65-0443.000 1000 Block of Meadowlark Road Mayor Harris stated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit [Zoning Ordinance Article IX Section 221461 (8) (k)] from Cubera Solar, LLC. The conditional use will allow the construction and operation of a solar farm on the existing 18.7 acre parcel. This Public Hearing is an opportunity for the Council to hear sworn testimony and receive specific evidence from the public to include any party for or against the request. During this deliberation for decision, questions may only be asked to clarify previous testimony. -- The public hearing was duly advertised on April 10, April 17 & April 24, 2018. Mayor Harris yielded to City Attomey Pope. City Attorney Pope introduced CU 01-18, a request by Cubera Solar, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction and operation of a solar farm on the existing 18.7 acre parcel along the 1000 block of Meadowlark Road. The property is cuaently zoned R-20, Single Family Dwelling District The hearing on this matter is judicial in nature and will be conducted in accordance with special due process safeguards. Attorney Pope asked that all persons who wish to testify in this case, approach the podium to be sworn or give their affirmation_ Swearing -In. City Attorney Pope administered oaths to: Mike Fox, Attorney forApplicant Steve Evans, Cypress Creek Renewables 390 Nick Kirkland, Licensed Appraiser Tommy Cleveland, Licensed Engineer and Expert in Solar Facilities Tom Willoughby, Jr., Property Owner City Manager, Steven Neuschafer William Glover Steven Glover Explanation of Proceeding Attorney Pope explained that testimony will first be given by City Steven Neuschafer, then from the applicant and their witnesses, and then from opponents to the request Parties may cross-examine witnesses after the witness testifies when questions are called for. If you want the Council to see written evidence, such as reports, maps, or exbibits, the witness who is familiar with the evidence should ask that it be introduced during or at the end of his or her testimony. Reports from persons who are not present to testify will not be accepted. Attorneys who speak should not give factual testimony but may summarize their cfiem's case. Before beginning your testimony, please clearly identify yourself for the record. City Attorney Pope opened the hearing on Case #CU -01-18 Conditional Use Permit Application and asked for testimony from City Manager Steven Neuschafer. Testimony from the Planner City Manager — Acting as the Planning Director Steven Neuschafer asked that the documents contained behind tab #9 in the City Council packet which includes the conditional use application, Planning Department staff report, statement of justification from the applicant, maps and all other material be entered as evidence. (A copy of these documents entered as evidence for Case #CU -01-18 Conditional Use Permit is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #1). City Manager - Planning Director Neuschafer stated that the property is an 18.7+/- acre site directly off Meadowlark Road located in the 1000 block area The property has approximately 900 linear feet of frontage on Meadowlark Road. It is located outside the city limits, but there is public water available to the site. It is currently zoned R-20, Single Family Dwelling District Lot acreage for residential housing is 20,000 square feet Mr. Neuschafer directed council to the site plan which shows the front side and rear set -backs that are required by the zoning ordinance for R-20 District The additional 100' residential property setback which are noted on the site plan are required by the conditional use portion of the ordinance specifically toward solar farm applications. For clarification, Manager Neuschafer stated that the front setback that is noted is the measurement from the public right of way. From the property line (survey line) back into the property. It's not from the center of the road or from the edge of the pavement, which was talked about during the Planning Board Meeting. The Planning Board did hold a public hearing as well. It was not judicial in nature but they did receive comments from the public and from the applicant The Planning Board voted to recommend this request during their meeting on April 24, 2018. At the end of the City Manager (Planner's) testimony, Attorney Pope asked if there were any questions of the City Manager (Planner) from the Council. Mr. Neuschafer was asked what is the right of way of that parcel of land. He responded that he does not have the exact right of way with the road because we measured from the property line I don't know how wide the right of way is. The site plan should be from the property lime into the property. Council Member Maness asked Mr. Neuschafer to explain the maintenance requirements law for that area and what is included with that as far as keeping it mowed, underbrush, overgrowth, etc., etc. as it pertains to backing up to the boarders of residential areas for the record. He responded directly verbatim from the Code of Ordinances. Setbacks for solar panels and any related equipment shall meet the principal building setbacks except where abutting residential property, which requires a one hundred (100) feet minimum setback Solar farms shall be frilly screened from adjoining properties and adjacent roads by an evergreen buffer capable of reaching a height of ten (10) feet within three (3) years of planting, with at least seventy- five (75) percent opacity at the time of planting. And lastly, the owner or future owner of a property onto which a solar farm is installed assumes all risk associated with diminished performance of said system caused by any present or future adjacent structure or landscaping that may interfere with the system's ability to produce power at its rated capacity, regardless of when that adjacent structure or landscaping is constructed or installed. Council Member Maness asked Mr. Neuschafer if in the event that something were to happen to the buffer area and the trees that were planted or whatever type of vegetation, who is responsible for maintaining and keeping that buffer up? He responded that the property owner and/or the operator of the lease on the property would be required to maintain the buffer. Maintaining the buffer is under a separate section of the ordinance. But that would be inspected and if there was a failure of the buffer then that would need to be replaced and it would be enforced per the zoning ordinance. As a follow-up question to Mr. Maness' question, Mayor Harris asked Mr. Neuschafer if the maintenance ordinance required to be incorporated or inserted as a reference into the contract He responded that as a point of verification in the conditions, you might want to ask the applicant to consider. The zoning ordinance does allow for inspection of the buffer just like inspection of the uses. It would be treated just like any another violation of the ordinance. Council Member Tart asked Mr. Neuschafer about the property behind the property in question. It has been zoned for future solar panels. Did we put some kind of protection in the event that was no longer used for this purpose, so they couldn't just walls away and leave it intact? Did we not put something to protect us from that? He responded that under the conditional use ordinance there is a section that deals specifically with that The planning director shall be provided copies of any lease agreement, solar access easement, and plan for removal of system/equipment So all those things are for the approval at the final stages. All the conditions would still have to be met by the applicant So, yes, they do have to show a plan for removal. Mayor Harris asked Mr. Neuschafer for confirmation that this is the second solar farm within adjoining properties. He responded that that was correct and directed them to the site map that read Elmore Farms, LLC. Council heard that case in October, 2016. Mayor Harris asked if there were any problems that the solar people have experienced by a concentration of solar farms. He responded that he might have to ask the applicant 391 Council Member Tumage asked Mr. Neuschafer about cost income analysis. If we do this, with this being in the ET7 what tax situation would they apply to the City? He replied that it would be of no benefit tax wise to the City. Council Member Barfield asked Mr. Neuschafer who was responsible for cutting the grass out there. He answered that it's considered farm land. Attorney Pope asked if there were additional questions from council ofMr. Neuschafer. None were heard. Attorney Pope asked if there were additional questionsfrom those sworn to testify ofMr. Neuschafer. None were heard Attorney Pope asked for testimony from the Applfcan0lroponents. Mr. Mike Pott -100 N. Bay St, Durham NC, Attorney spoke on behalf of the applicant Mr. Fox advised the council that they have several witnesses who have been sworn The witnesses are prepared to give a brief summary of testimony and are happy to go into much greater detail if there are any questions from council or anyone else here. The witnesses were introduced as follows Steve Evans, Cypress Creek Renewables which is the company that will develop this particular solar farm. Steve will talk about the company itself, this particular site and any questions or concerns that you might have about the site plans and setbacks or Cypress Creek themselves. Nick Kirkland, Licensed Appraiser. His company has prepared an appraisal study on this particular site, and he will be testifying to you about the results of that appraisal and he will be offering his opinion that his study indicated that the location of a solar as presented in this plan would not impair the property values of any adjoining or adjacent property owners and also that the solar farm would be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located Tommy Cleveland, Licensed Engineer and is an Expert in Solar Facilities. Tommy will offer his opinion as to the safety and operation of the solar farm such as explained here. He will give you his opinion that there are no safety issues or health issues related to the operation of the solar farm like the one that is proposed here. He can also answer any questions you may have about how the farm is set up or how it actually works. Tom Willoughby, Property Owner. We don't have a presentation for him. He wanted to be here. He is sworn in the event that you have questions about the particular property. Your ordinance is a very thorough ordinance. I commend you on the thoroughness of your solar ordinance. I get to see a lot of them, and yours has been well drafted and covers the important things that it needs to cover. For your consideration, just a reminder as your attorney will do the same as well. What you're looking at are several questions: (1) That the use request gets listed on all the conditional uses in the district in which the application is made. I would continue to get eyewitnesses to confirm that as your manager has presented how our application and your ordinance is and how serious it is when he said if we don't meet that then we don't get this. (2) That the requested use is essential to public convenience or welfare. Mr. Cleveland will speak to that as to the acquisition of solar energy and having to convert it into traditional energy sources that give it back to the public. (3) That the requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the surrounding adjoining districts nor be detrimental to the health, wellness and welfare. That will be covered by a combination of Mr. Cleveland talking about the health and welfare and then Mr. Kirkland who tell you about the character and the integrity of the surrounding adjoining property owners. (4) That the requested use will be conforming with the land development plan. The Staff Report talks about that and Mr. Kirkland will also talk about the harmony of the district to the area. (5) The facilities have each been provided that will all be covered on the site plan that you have been provided Mr. Evans can talk about that as well. He is facilities, water/sewer things like that would obviously go -- in connection to the utility lines, which Mr. Evans can talk about So, those are the things that you are required to look when you consider this. A report was distributed to council for their review and it was entered into evidence. Mr. Fox explained that Cypress Creek is "sort of the parent company. They are a solar energy company that develops facilities like this around the country and other places in North Carolina and other companies and each of their separate facilities has its own corporate organization, structure and so forth. Cubera Solar, LLC is the secondary entity, which is controlled by Cypress Creek for this particular solar farm. There are a Iot of reasons for that It takes a lot of approvals to get one of these solar farms going and this is just one of the steps. It's a critical step to get a land use approval from a local jurisdiction. But, there's a myriad of other approvals from utilities commission, Duke Energy in terms of connect, from all the normal things that you would have to have. You need to get a driveway permit, and you may have to have your electrical permit That's the relationship between these two entities. Mr. Willoughby is the landowner and he has a lease with the Solar, so that's the relationship between him and Cubera Solar. Mayor Harris asked Mr. Fox if they were all parties to the agreement that the council has before them tonight Mr. Fox responded to the application, Yes. Certainly, I think the application's done in the name of Cubera Solar. You have to have the agency of the authority and landowner to yield to pemvt special use on the property. Mr. Nick Kirkland, Licensed Appraiser spoke on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Kirkland has worked with Cypress Creek Renewables for several years now and while working there the main focus was researching solar farms not just in North Carolina, but in the central region of the United States. Over 200 of the 400 apps are from North Carolina specifically. And an overwhelming majority of these are located in agricultural and residential areas. Page 27 includes the 334 solar farms out of our database. We'll use a median percentage of the adjoining use, which means longer parcels that are affected by solar farms. Combined residential, agricultural, adjoining uses by acreage about 95% of what we had seen in our database. If we're gonna look at it by the number of parcels at it, approximately 2/3 of the lots are small lots that are adjacent to it Those are 94% of the adjoining uses_ So, it's our professional opinion that based on the latest use for a solar farm, this is typically the kind of area that it would be located in. We have over twenty different tax payer studies that we've done on completed solar farms. Nine (9) of which are included in this one. Each of those show no impact regarding property values. So, it's a professional opinion that solar farms as proposed at this location would have no impact on adjoining property values. Council Member Barfield asked Mr. Kirkland what his plans were for the grass cutting. Mr. Kirkland responded that that is a question Mr. Evans can address. He'll be the one with Cypress Creek that's in charge of maintaining all that Mr. Kirkland is our Appraiser and while he can give you an opinion as to the property value, he won't really have anything to do with the maintenance of the site. Attorney Pope asked the Council if they had questions ofMr. Kirkland. Mr. Kirkland was asked which municipalities were used to do the comparisons for the City of Dunn. He responded that generic study is for editing across North Carolina Also, there's a map on a another page that shows this county and adjoining 392 counties in a breakdown very similar to that one, so we just look at that That starts on page 28. This one shows that same type of information. Looking at that same median rate for this one use by Iikard. I'm going to take page 29 following the median across and that just goes to show that is in line with the capable areas that you find solar farms. Attorney Pope asked the Council if they had questions ofMr. Kirkland Attorney Pope asked those sworn if they had questions ofMr. Urlland Tommy Cleveland, Licensed Professional Engineer in North Carolina spoke on behalf of the applicant Mr. Cleveland advised the council that he has been working in the solar industry for over a dozen years. Almost all that time at NC State University. I have a contractor that does commissioning of solar projects for Duke Energy across North Carolina and South Carolina. I'm going to talk about two of the items that you're considering this evening. Solar farms provide us with electricity that's essential to modern society/modern life and they're doing that cause it's a renewable resource that's clean as opposed to the finite resources that are not as clean. Something cleaner, something political and something that has energy security benefits because of how it is produced that we can't lose the fuel supply to a solar project I want to again talk about it being detrimental. In fact it helps the welfare of the technology. The situation I looked closely when I was back at NC State, and wrote a paper on this before leaving there. But, more particularly that helped explain the benefits. And, it's my professional opinion that there are no negative health and safety impacts that occur in a project such as this. There are none shown from the project Standard stuff to help the public. One of the common concerns is that the amount of pollutants generated. It is my professional opinion that this project is conventional and it is not detrimental to the public health or safety. Attorney Pope asked the Council if they had questions ofMr. Cleveland. Mayor Barris stated that a question that he has heard and did not know was that there is some leakage from the equipment itself and it seeps into the ground and may contaminate the ground. Is there any truth to that? Mr. Cleveland responded that this is the primary conclusion that is out there in the public now. There is nothing liquid to leak from down there. They're almost entirely glass and aluminum components and there's a little bit of plastic, some silicone and little bits of metal mixed with copper, so there's nothing to leak from it They're very well sealed. Even in the event that they crack and you get rain water across the cracked panel that's the central nerve. It's still nothing to be concerned about Attorney Pope asked the Council if there were any other questions ofMr. Cleveland. Attorney Pope asked those sworn if they had questions ofMr. Cleveland Mr. Cleveland was asked what the impact was on wildlife. His property is just across the street from the proposed site and we just have concerns of there being any impact on wildlife at all. Mr. Cleveland responded, not really. There are physical factors you have from construction. You've got a fence around the perimeter so we're talking about the technology to grab the electricity and that's about all. There are rumors that birds that are searching for water will fly into them. I've done research on that, typed papers about that and haven't come across anything to validate the rumors. Attorney Pope asked those sworn if there were any other questions ofMr. Cleveland Council Member Barfield asked Mr. Cleveland where does this energy go to or does it just get distributed back Mr. Cleveland responded that it actually could immediately feed into the lines of the utility poles. It automatically follows the path of least resistance. So it'll go to the local houses and businesses near -by. It will be separate from the actual bluebill. It should be simpler, than it could be on paper, to better answer who the electricity is actually being sold to. The electrons themselves will go to local demands for electricity near the project This would not back feed very far in that direction, if at all. It would primarily serve the host for that property, and the substation downstream. There could be occasional times where it back feeds to the substation a small distance or those nearby. I wouldn't expect the electricity to leave the Dunn area and head back to the transmission lines. Council Member Tumage stated that the energy flow is transparent to us, the customer. What we could see as a reduction is Duke Energy so they're not having to produce as much to keep our levels the same and not having to spice at different times. Council Member Maness offered a simple explanation and asked for correction if he's wrong. We have installed a solar panel on our home that ties in with our meter base. It feeds our home first and anything that is produced we're not being charged for because it's going into our home. If we produce in excess, the meter will go backwards which will reduce our savings. It's going to be basically the same way here. The power is generated from the solar farm and is going through the transmission lines and it's just like power that Duke brought us when we overproduced or wherever it's being sent from to Dunn so it'll get used here. It has nothing to do about meters. It has nothing to do about charges because our energy use is merely based on what feeds into our home anyway. So, it's not going to have any impact whatsoever as far as the pace of meters. It can't. Attorney Pope asked if there were any other questions ofMr. Cleveland. Mr. Steve Evans, Zoning & Outreach Manager for Cypress Creek Renewables spoke on behalf of the applicant Mr. Evans advised the council that he actually goes around and sort of help sort out of some of these details and questions regarding solar facilities. Just a little background about Cypress Creek Renewables: We are one of the largest utility sales solar operators in the country. We are one of the very few solar utility companies that you will have before you that actually owns, operates, engineers and constructs our own power facilities. So, we are not a developer bringing insight to you and then basically hands it off to someone else who will come behind to do the construction and management of it We will actually be with the longstanding neighbors or operators of this facility thereby being the neighbors of you all here and this great community. We currently operate over and on our portfolio approximately 175 solar facilities. 134 of which are here in North Carolina We are located out of Durham, North Carolina in terms of our engineering, construction and operations team. We just approximately three weeks ago had the grand opening for our multi-million dollar operations center, which is tied into the national grid. It is one of the few facilities of its type, and the only one in terms of solar facilities where we are able to monitor individually each and every one of our solar facilities. We have a monitoring system to where we can tell you which facility is doing what in terms of efficiency. We can look at each stand of where these solar panels are located. If there I= is a solar panel on a particular road that is not operating at its full efficiency, or has been damaged we can immediately detect that, dispatch on that and have someone to make certain that it's managed and up and taken care of. With respect to questions, Mr. Barfield, regarding the vegetative maintenance, we do have a vegetative maintenance team. They go around and they make certain that these sites are looking as best as they can. We also do our very best to hire locally for landscape maintenance. It is a lot easier for us to have someone here in this community that can go out and look at this facility versus me having to dispatch teams to all our sites throughout North Carolina. So, we do our best to try and find a Iocal landscaping company that will go by routinely and make certain these sites are well kept and well maintained. And that's what we will look to do for this site as well, seeing as how we will have these two sites. Because the Meadowlark site, which has already been approved, is also under Cypress Creek as well- So, we will have a vested interest in both of these facilities and make certain that they are well kept My job ultimately is to review ordinances and make certain that we fall in compliance to the ordinances as they are committed Upon my review of yours, we do find that we are in compliance within the restraints of your ordinance. We addressed some concerns at the Planning Board Meeting that was held previously regarding setbacks. Your ordinance currently requires a thirty foot front setback for these facilities. At a request from one of the residents that was concerned about aesthetics along this well -traveled road He asked if you would possibly look at moving the setbacks at first We were able to push it back an additional twenty feet so we now offer a fifty foot front setback along this site. We will also have two rows of vegetative buffering which will as staff reported earlier be evergreen. Something along the limes of Leland Cypress that has spread, that will provide for rear opaqueness, as we get into the perfect growth season. They willbe at the least ten feet capacity within the three year period. I believe that it is identified as. We are doing all that we can to make certain that we properly attest what the ordinance requires and meet those standards because as I mentioned earlier we will be the longstanding neighbor. We are not just here to facilitate the construction of this site and then move on to the next one. With regard to issues such as safety. We will meet with the local fire department to go through all the checks and balances as far as for fire safety, access to the site, emergency out off; things of that sort that are requirements for these facilities to operate within the permitted range of what they are supposed to be. I'm trying to think of particular things that I can address to you all in regard to this. At this point, I will be most happy to answer any questions that you may have. Maybe that's the best way to field some of the concerns. Attorney Pope asked the Council if they had questions ofMr. Evans. Council Member Maness thanked Mr. Evans for being here to explain this. He went on to say that Mr. Evans had mentioned having a landscape maintenance team. Mr. Evans responded yes, we do. Council Member Maness asked what the frequency of their visits will be. Or, if you contract them and hire locally, what is frequency that they will be out there on site reviewing and assessing the site situation to see if any maintenance is required Mr. Evans explained that ultimately during growing season we probably have rotation of our dedicated maintenance teams to come around and inspect site about once a month. Now, we will likely be looking to hire a local landscape team to go out and actually access the site. We have not identified who that will be because we will have these two facilities that they will need to keep an eye on and maintain For these facilities, these grass that is actually planted within the solar arrays themselves is a very slow low growing grass and of course the outer perimeter will be from the buffering of the evergreens. So, for any of the upkeep around the evergreens themselves, the grass in that area will also be a slow low growing grass. But we do understand that there are weeds that can get into that and they will come out and do that I don't have a specific frequency scheduled, but I will be more than happy to address if there is something that you all wanted to see in terms of frequency of vegetative inspections. Council Member Maness said, "So, a monthly inspection by your thinking is a minimum." Mr. Evans responded "Correct" So, during growing season that is where we are, at a monthly ride around to look at these sites, to see what these sites look like and then contact either a local landscape team or if it's a small enough job we could have our in-house guys here to do that. Council Member Maness asked what is included in the upkeep and maintenance that you refer to. I'm assuming grass mowing when needed, pre -emergent treatment to control noxious weeds or things of this nature, cleaning of any debris to include broken limbs or whatever if something should happen with the buffer. Replacing of any damaged trees or trees that may not survive planting. Is this part of the company policy, or is something that we need to ask to be added to be agreed to in the conditional use permit? Attorney Pope said that we can discuss that during the deliberation. But if it's not a condition on the granting of the permit, it's not enforceable. Mr. Evans said So, if that was the requirement of you all wanting to add that to the conditions, then that's fine. We would be agreeable to that as a condition. As I mentioned, I would like the option of also looking at the mobile companies to contract out the work Council Member Maness added that the only reason that he's adding this is that there's been a lot of concern in the public with regards to the upkeep and maintenance. What happens should you choose to get rid of this specific project? I know that's typically not what you do. You've got 175 facilities that are operating right NOV But, if we have it as a condition, is it only with the current applicant or also those in the future? Attorney Pope responded that it goes with the permit, therefore it goes with the land. Council Member Maness said so, you see why I'm trying to work it in that fashion, sir. I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, but I've also got to look after the best interests of the communities in the event that you're not there. Mr. Evans replied that generally where we can least see that the issuance of the conditional use permit in prudence complies with your landscape buffer, for example. So, if something were to happen with it, half of the trees were to die and we weren't in compliance with that, we would have to bring that back up or we would be in jeopardy of being in violation of our new permit which mean that you could shut us down. So, to us that's a serious consequence, which we take very seriously. Council Member Maness responded that he understands that, but what he's talking about goes beyond the ordinance requirements. So, that why there needs to be a proper conditional use assessments. Mr. Evans said that I totally understand, and like I said I will leave that to the leisure of the board in regards to the conditions. Attorney Pope asked if there were questions ofMr. Evans. Council Member Barfield asked Mr. Evans in the event that we approve tonight, when would you start? Mr. Evans responded I do not have an answer to that So, what happens in terms of the process of all this. We've done some environmental studies and we've done some survey work But the more intensive work, the surveying, environmental impact studies, wetland delineations, and all those types of things occur after we have secured site control from the conditional use aspect So, in that queuing of where things are, it could mean probably twelve months to fifteen months out It could be two years out, as with the case with Meadowlark When we got it approved, often times the frequency of where we are and with a lot of these firms that have to provide these services it's not always up to our time schedule. So, I don't have a definitive answer to that. Mr. Evans responded and too that's the point Just as if this farmland was taken out of rotation of being farmland. And they're starting to where they allow for growth of tree famming or just allow for overgrowth We don't maintain the early stage development of grass cutting, things of that sort because at that point in time all the way up until the point where we actually have the greenlight to operate or start the construction. These parcels are still able to be farmed and used as the use of the 394 current land holder as they deem appropriate and necessary. So, it is not until we actually start construction that we start that process of maintaining the property in the use of what it would be in for solar service. Attorney Pope advised Council Member Barfield that there may be another witness that can better address your questions. Mr. Willoughby, can you come forward and identify yourself and your address please, before you come to the mike. Tom Willoughby, Jr., Property Owner Mr. Willoughby advised the council that he was the land owner. He lives at 2107 Red Hill Church Road, Dunn. I think the difference, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, between this project and the first one is the land was sold. On this one, we're doing a lease. Until they exercise their options and they start paying the monthly lease, I'm going to keep farming. I mean the Jernigan's are going to farm, it's going to be active. It's not going to be they come to me and say stop farming and a year later I've lost a year's rent because theirs hasn't kicked in. So, it should be a shorter time period from when they stop farming and construction begins. Does that sound right? Mr. Evans said Correct We do not have to go through process of the closing of the land from a purchase, with this being a lease. Like I said, we still are in the que as far as the environmental work that has to be done as tbis is a slightly small parcel- So, it should not take as long and as was mentioned, the site would still be used in whatever the current facility until we got the greenlight to start building. Attorney Pope asked fthere were questions ofMr. Evans. Mayor Harris asked Mr. Evans if Cypress Creek was over Cubera and that Cubera would actually do the construction and operation of the solar farming. But, it would be Cypress Creek's responsibility to make sure that they did it in the proper manner. Mr. Evans is the parent company for Cubera, LLC. So, what happens as Mr. Fox mentioned earlier, each of these facilities operate as their own entity. It helps with the liability issue. It also helps with the financing structure in our lease. So, that's why Mr. Phillips has his own operating LLC, but Cypress Creek Renewables is shill the engineering company, the constructor, the operator, and the managing owner of these facilities throughout their duration and time. Mayor Harris went Rather to ask if he would be correct to say that the situation would prevent filing bankruptcy if they happen to be covered in the lease, as to what happens in that case. Mr. Evans responded No, it wouldn't be covered in the lease. These facilities are like a mortgage, in a sense. For each LLC, we have investors that invest in the operation of these facilities. And these investors are major banks and insurance companies and major Wall Street investors. So, they invest their funds in the operation of the site itself the electricity, the equipment is all collateralized through that investment And so, these facilities are many millions of dollars to get up and running. If for some reason Cypress Creek went bankrupt, then the investors of the LLC would then jump in just as they would if someone was buying a mortgage and take over the operation of this facility. Keep in mind that these facilities are highly valuable because they are still generating electricity. So, they are still paying out regardless of Cypress is in charge of it or someone else is in charge of it So, they will take over the operation and they can continue to operate it or they can sell that operation to Duke Energy who would then take over an operating facility that they have limited investment in and continue making money off of that These are pretty secure investment structures, so even if something were to happen to Cypress Creek the operation and the facilitation of this site would go on as they had done originally with or without Cypress Creek So, that's the best way I know to explain. Mayor Harris asked whether Cypress Creek would be the managing member. Mr. Evans confirmed that they would be the managing member. As a point of clarification, it was pointed out that each one of these sites has to have individual and separate approval in terms of utilities. So, that's really a primary reason as well as to why there's separate approvals. It's unlikely to say that Cypress Creek had blanket approval to bring in 72 solar farms. I can look at each individual one and say that's one of the primary reasons why they're structured like that. Attorney Pope asked if there were any questions ofMr. Evans Attorney Pope asked those sworn f they had questions ofMr. Evans Since Mr. Willoughby provided testimony, Attorney Pope asked if there were any questions ofMr. Willoughby Attorney Pope asked those sworn if they had questions ofMr. Willoughby City Attorney asked if the applicant had arty further witnesses. Mr. Fox responded that that's all the witnesses we have. We would ask that you would take this into evidence and we appreciate your time and consideration in this. I believe that we've met the criteria your organization requires and we ask you approve the request Council Member Maness said Thank you, sir. City Attorney Pope said that we will now hear from people opposing the request. If there are attorneys or other representatives who will give a general summary of the position, we'd like to get to you fust. If not, anyone that wishes to testify in opposition to the request may come forward at this time. Steve Butler, resident of Dunn testified regarding the request Steve explained that on April 24, 2018 I came to the planning board meeting concerning property use. At that time, I had the opportunity to voice my opinions. I neither endorse it nor condemn it I looked at it as the lesser of the two evils down the road. I'm mainly trying to be as it is now. Most of what I wanted to say has been touched on. From what I understand, your plan is to place cypress in the front chain fence on the north side and the east side of the facility. This faces Meadowlark Road, in this way you create a buffer. This kind of grass is going to be out approximately six times a year. This is a power generating plant in the middle of a residential area on road frontage. All of the main structures in this section of road have manicured yards, single family dwellings and the middle school. Any of these could allow their yards with fronts to go for two months between cuttings and I feel certain it would be addressed by the City of Dunn After all, this facility is a blend of properties in which it is being inserted- And as a note, North Carolina national grass included weeds. Without heavily burdening the applicant, maybe some sort of shrubbery more typical of residential communities might be substituted, possibly with professional landscaping and maintenance_ This facility should blend with its neighboring properties, not stand out At the Planning Board I raised the issue of a thirty-foot setback on the front When asked what else I would like to see, I responded, I hope to see a hundred feet but we can't be picky. Thank you Mr. Evans and Cypress Creek for the setback Mr. Evans has informed me of this yesterday. This particular request isn't just for eye appeal, but also for a safety factor. This stretch of road is known for a good place road test vehicles. I drive on this road and currently live there. I can attest that there have been several speed related accidents on this very road- To oadTo me, it was only practical to increase the setbacks. This is a community that I'm proud to be a part of and wanted to make the City of Dunn equally proud Council members, the decision you make tonight will only take a few minutes. For residents of this street, it will be a decision they will have to live with for the remainder of their lives. I hope the decision you make will be one that will allow the mutual pride to be shared with the team. Thank you. M11 Attorney Pope asked if there were any questions ofMr. Butler Council Member McNeill asked Mr. Butler, are you saying you're neither for it nor against it? Mr. Butler responded, I said I'm not totally against it, and I'm not for it I am neutral. I am open but I think there should be contingencies set on it if it's approved. It should be landscaped the same as the residential places around it It shouldn't look like an industrial site or a commercial site. You have all these nice landscaped yards and all of the sudden, there's a place with a gravel driveway, stuff growing out the front of a chain link fence with barb wire and signs on it Then you have well -manicured yards and the school is well maintained. Anybody in the future coming and looking or lives so long in Dunn is going to have to drive by this. Fortunately, I've been studying and I'd been willing to work with the City on this and do something, but you've got to do it beforehand Listen, once you pass it, it's over with your hands are off of it Attorney Pope asked if anyone else had any questions ofMr. Butler Council Member Turnage told City Manager Neuschafer that he had a quick question for him on code enforcement in the ETJ. Mr. Neuschafer responded that with the zoning, that's where we have most of the feasibility of it It's not necessarily through the city code which generally governs the overgrowth and weedy lots and things like that It's in the second section of the City Ordinance. Mr. Tumage said but, that's not covered in the ETT. Mr. Neuschafer responded, that's right, only in the city limits. Council Member Maness said that he was glad that you asked because I wanted to bring important clarification out for the general public and the viewing public. Those properties out there that are outside the city limits are not subject to our city ordinances. I want you to understand that too Mr. Barfield. I believe we can't control the height of grass, we can't control weedy lots. That's all in the county and that's subject to the county requirements, not the City's. So, there's nothing we can do currently. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands that If they're outside the city limits, we don't have any control on height restrictions, for weedy lots or anything else. The school's not in the city limits. The houses across the street, one or two houses are outside the city limits, all the rest are inside the city limits that are across the road and down the street from it Council Member Maness said but this track of land is out the city limits and is subject to the county. Attorney Pope asked those sworn to provide testimony or any of the attorneys ifthey had questions ofMr. Glover. Michael Glover, owner of property to the east of the proposed site along Meadowlark Road. It's still a commercial operation. One that is designed to make money. Solar farms have been looked upon as an alternative energy source and gives that warm and fuzzy feeling that they're going to be used to save the planet what I trouble getting my head around is why would the City of Dunn submit a plan such as this solar farm in the ETJ. None of its benefits are replete from the City or from the citizens. Harnett County will get the taxes on the property as it falls outside the city limits. Dunn grants approval for one solar in the ETT allowing another phenomenal decrease in benefits for our community for the next thirty years. what's logical, there is a reason for them doing this. My family's home is located directly across from the proposed site. Right where my grandfather's home and farmland is. I was raised here and am currently staying with one of my mother's sister at the age of 93. My family has been there for fifty years. They haven't paid taxes to the City of Dunn in decades. Now, Dunn is considering bringing a commercial facility like this across the street from us, and yet will not be subject to the same taxes or regulations to abide by. This is not fair. I find that many of my neighbors do not like the fact of a street side solar farm. Especially considering it will be inserted slowing into our neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood and it is not the perfect place for a solar farm by any means. There are no benefits or need for this facility. You come home and when you get the time you walk out of your house you're looking at a chain link fence with trees standing there and barbed wire across the top and a few bushes. I put in serious question as to how that will be maintained. It is beautiful and there is no need for a buffer. And there is a need to question how it would be maintained. The flashing lights with the signs with the chain link fence with the upkeep of the questionable greenery that been spoken of The question in regard to other than the fact that it's going to be used to block it I don't have the confidence that this will be maintained properly and I do have serious questions about the property value. It seems to have great data backing that up, all but I'm not convinced. Aesthetically in the growing season it will not be home that I grew up in. The solar farms that I've ever seen, I can't imagine that this would at all positively (maybe negatively) impact that property. Than you for hearing my comments tonight Attorney Pope asked council f they had questions ofMr. Glover Council Member Maness said that he would like to know which property he says he owns. Mr. Glover responded that there's a R-20 zone location. You'll see a pond there. It's the R-20 property across the street from that. Council Member Maness asked Mr. Neuschafer if he could identify it on the map that's before us. I'm Iooking for your name and I don't quite frankly see it Mr. Glover responded that it's the Jackie Glover property. Council Member Maness asked do you own it or does your mother own it. Mr. GIover replied "my mother". Council Member Maness said so your mother's the Iand owner. Mr. Glover said she is. Attorney Pope asked council if there were any other questions ofMr. Glover Attorney Pope asked those sworn, or the attorneys ifthey had questions ofMr. Glover Mr. Fox addressed the council and said he didn't have questions for Mr. Glover, he would just ask that the objections is testimony for otherpeople. He referenced having talked to neighbors and how they felt. I askfor confirmation of all that. Attorney Pope said objection is noted. Attorney Pope asked if there were any other questions ofMr. Glover. Shank you, sir. Attorney Pope entertained fiovther questions from the City Council members for the applicant, proponents, opponents at this time. He explained that once the public hearing is closed, the only questions that the Council may pose to the applicant proponents or opponents shall be for clarification. No new evidence can be introduced after closing the public hearing. Any conditions that the Council wishes to consider to place upon the use of the land by the applicant, must ask the applicant if he/she will voluntarily place the condition upon his/herproperty at this time. 396 Attorney Pope asked council if there were any other questions for any of the parties that have previously testified. Mayor Harris said that some of the questions that were asked and received answers to, I think there was one that you said that we needed to ask now for the record personnel if we had certain conditions that we need to add. Attorney Pope said that if the council desires to place conditions on the granting of the conditional use permit that are over and above what our code requires, you must ask the applicant now if they will agree to those conditions. But, you are not required until later in the agenda whether or not you actually want to put them on that permit One in particular that has come out through testimony that appears voluntary on behalf of the applicant which is a fifty (50) foot front setback That's not part of your ordinance. So, if you want to make that a condition, you need to have to ask now and you have to sign that they will agree to that and then you may consider that as one of your conditions. Mayor Harris asked should we ask the question now as to whether or not they would be willing for it to be rezoned into the city. In the condition that you wish the applicant to consider and the property owner would also have to consent to that one. In that case the question that they would voluntarily agree to annexation within the city limits and that would also cover the semantics of incorporating in our ordinance. Attorney Pope said that Mr. Willoughby and somebody on behalf of the applicant will need to respond to that Mr. Fox said if we could, could we have just a second to confer with Mr. Willoughby, since it's not just unilaterally our decision on the question. Council Member Maness said if you're going to do that, perhaps we'd better get all of our conditions together prior to you doing that "conferring". Mr. Evans understood where I was going then and said that But I want to at this point incorporate that as a condition to the conditional use for the maintenance agreement However you agree with being annexed into the city, I want to add the maintenance agreement as a condition to the conditional use that you agreed to. So, that way we can, once and for all put to bed about who's going to be responsible for maintainin the area, keeping the grass mowed, taking care of the buffer area, etc. etc. etc., frequency, and the responsibility of same. That way it becomes part of the conditional use and it transfers in the event anything happens, correct? Attorney Pope responded yes, but if you're going to ask that that be a condition, you're going to have to specify what the condition is, whether its grass has to be cut within a certain frequency or is it merely an inspection requirement You're going to have to be more particular other than just saying that it will be regularly maintained. Council Member Maness responded that he will yield to the recommendation from our City Manager, who has also served in the planning department as to helping me craft that verbiage. Manger Neuschafer said one suggestion for you is maybe consider that this falls under the same rules as properties that are inside the city limits. Council Member Maness said this is a residential property so, my concern there is that we have different treatments for commercial properties than we do residential properties. Manager Neuschafer clarified only properties that are over a certain size. Council Member Maness said I just want to make sure. Manager Neuschafer that would be nice if you're looking for another standard within the code that would be measureable, you could look at asking them to consider putting themselves trader the same as a residential lot in the city limits. Council Member McLean asked but if they agree to a voluntary annexation into the city, then all this would apply to them at that particular point It would automatically. Council Member Maness said as a condition to the conditional use assessments, I would like to see, to keep it maintained to the same standards as are required by the current city ordinances for lots under an acre. Mr. Evans responded that I guess I will need to see what that is considering that this is much larger than an acre lot I don't know what that is. Manager Neuschafer responded not to be over twelve inches in height Mr. Evans said twelve inches in height, oh I want to make sure I get all the conditions and we can confer with everything and that way we can answer at one time in regard to the conditions. Attorney Pope said so far what I've heard is 50 foot front setback, also I believe there was an agreement for two rows of trees at the buffer, which is over and above what the code requires. That would be the second condition The third would be whether or not a voluntary annexation into the city. A fourth would be that the maintenance requirement for the property would be to the standard of lots under one acre as provided in the Dunn City Code. Attorney Pope asked if there were any other conditions that the council would like to add to the applicant and the property owner to consider whether or not they would agree to those as part ofgranting the permit. Council Member Tumage asked why would we tag annexation. To me that's a separate issue than what we're dealing with here. That's between us and the property owner or the property owner and us, not the solar farm fellas. Attorney Pope responded that right now we're only asking the applicant and the property owner what conditions they would accept, and then later in the agenda when you deliberate you're going to try to switch it and the conditions you want to put in there, so you can discuss all your options. Attorney Pope asked if there were any other conditions that the anybody on the council would like to ask the applicant and the property owner to consider whether or not they would accept, ifyou choose to ask them all. Council Member Maness said If I'm right Mr. City Manager, back to when I requested and got some help trying to put together, I would like to incorporate what Mr. Evans said their corporate policy was concerning these properties as far as the monthly inspections. I mean if that's what you say that you do, but I don't guess it's necessarily required that you do. Mr. Evans responded Correct Can I offer something in counter to that just in the conversation? We would also, and I don't know if you did this as a condition for Meadowlark We would also be willing to do like $1,000 annual fee to the City of Dunn for your inspections department to do monitoring, if that would be the case. Then that way you know that it's handled in house. If we're in violation, then of course we would be responsible for bringing it to the standards that are required That also infuses funds back into the town regardless of what happens regarding the annexation, and you all would have control over knowing that these monitoring visits have occurred because it's being handled maybe by somebody that rides by routinely from the City of Dunn Council Member Maness responded that with all due respect Mr. Evans, we already have the authority to monitor the buffer area anyway, so we'd be able to see what was going on out there. Mr. Evans replied right, I think that you had mentioned earlier something about the ETJ and your enforcement within that ETJ as just a condition of if it was the leisure of the board. Attorney Pope advised that we will take a brief recess of this hearing for conditional use permit CU -01-18 for the applicant and the property owner to confer. Attorney Pope reconvened the hearing said that Mr Fox, has had the opportunity as Attorney for the applicant to consult with the applicant and the property owner concerning the potential conditions. Mr. Fox said Thank you, Mr. Pope, Mr. Mayor. Let's do the two straight forward and simple ones first The fifty foot setbacks and the two rows of trees as described. Yes, of course we accept that The landscaping and maintenance agreement Yes, we would consent to that, but we would like to ask for a modification of that in that what you ask for as a standard for 397 the residential lots, we would like that to only apply to the exterior. In other words, the portion of the property that is public facing. In other words what you can see on the buffer and what's on this side of the street In other words, if there's happens to be a weed 14 inches tall inside the solar farm, you can't see it from the street We would like to have the regular maintenance required on that because the higher scrutiny on the residential. Council Member Maness asked you said only the portion that faces the street Mr. Evans clarified that it was the exterior perimeter. What you would see looking at the required buffer from that portion out, that's the only modification- We think that meets the goal of what the neighbors have asked for. What they see and what your intent is, but it doesn't impose the requirement on us and it may not be as realistic to achieve. With the annexation, obviously with the condition legally annexation is a whole separate process that you and the town council have to have a hearing and upon a petition from a landowner then you have to decide upon the advice of your attorney whether the land meets the criteria that the state law says you can have annex. So, we're certainly going to submit that voluntary petition to the Town so that you can go through that process. We can't obviously guarantee that you would do that, but that's up to you. We're happy to submit the petition requesting that The only thing that we would ask on that would be the timing of that That we would submit that petition within thirty days of the actual construction to begin on the solar farm. Council Member Maness said the petition for voluntary annexation? Mr. Evans said Yes, the state legislature changed the annexation laws a few ago, fairly dramatically. Essentially they removed involuntary annexation in the state of North Carolina. So, almost all annexations have to be voluntary. The way that that's normally processed is, you have someone request to be annexed and that would be the petition I'm speaking of to be able to submit to. The state requires you to have a hearing and determine that it is appropriate to be annexed. Then of course you, or whoever is on the city council at that time would make that decision according to law. Mr. Willoughby said, "That's my concern." The economics don't really add up. We volunteer to be annexed farmland and stuff for a solar farm going if the numbers work out So, I'd kind of Iike to make sure I don't request an annexation now and have to pay taxes for two years before things are off the ground. Attorney Pope said do you think that the petition for a voluntary annexation which requires the city to go through a process and agree to annex them. There could be a reason why we would not want them to be annexed. Attorney Pope said that Mr. Fox on behalf of Art amey for applicant and after conversation with the property owner have confirmed that in the event that council wishes to post conditions on the granting of the permit, that they would accept the conditions offifty foot front setbacks, that the exterior of the buffer would be two rows of trees rather than the minimum required by city code, that the granting of the permit would be subject to the maintenance requirements for a less than one acre parcel as determined by the city code for the exterior perimeter of the solar farm and the property owner and applicant would agree to fele a petitionfar voluntary annexation within thirty days of the beginning ofconstruction. Attorney Pope asked if there are any other conditions Council Member Maness added a point of clarification on behalf of the applicant. Subject to voluntary application for annexation being accepted and approved, I don't want them to fall back under what the town's requirement would be for the interior. Attorney Pope said No. If you put the condition on the granting of the permit, they will have to comply with the terms of the permit, regardless of what city code says. City Manager Neuschafer said the beginning of construction, could that be the issuance of a building permit versus beginning construction. Does that mean site work beginning or actual physical construction beginning? Mr. Fox the fust site work beginning and that way it does provide that we've cleared all hurdles versus the actual pulling of the building permit There are still hurdles to go through before we can actually build a, solar farm even if this body approves it What we want to do is make sure that in the event we fail at this hurdle, Mr. Willoughby is not annexing farm land in if that's not what he wants to do. Attorney Pope asked if there are any other conditions that council would like to ask the applicant to consider whether or not they would be willing to accept as apart of granting of the permit. Attorney Pope asked if there are any other questions from the council for the applicant or any other opponens or proponent of the application With no further testimony, a motion was made by Council Member McNeill and seconded by Council Member Maness to close the public hearing for CU -01-18 at 8:52 p.m. Motion unanimously approved. Minutes — Council considered approval of the minutes of the April 10, 2018 City Council Meeting Temporary Blocking of Street —KeIlie's Krew Rum for a Cure Motion by Council Member Tumage and seconded by Council Member Maness to approve all consent items. Motion unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR DECISION Consideration of Ordinance to Demolish Storage Building 1002/1004 E. Edgerton St PIN# 1517-95-5410.000 Chief Building Inspector Steven King has conducted an inspection at 1002/1004 E. Edgerton St and based upon his observations, the storage building failed to comply with the minimum standards of fitness established by the Minimum Housing Code of the City of Dunn. The Building Inspector also found the storage building dangerous or prejudicial to the public health or public safety and is a nuisance in violation of G.S. §160A-193. The owner of the property has failed to comply with the Building Inspector's order and according to N.C.G.S. § 160A-443, the City Council has the power to proceed with the demolition of this property. After lengthy discussion regarding the storage building in question, Mayor Harris suggested deferring action on this matter and placing it on the calendar for June, 2018. It was noted that this case started on January 19, 2018 where it was inspected and condemned. Notice was sent and nobody came to the hearing. In February, 2018 an Order after Hearing was mailed to Spoyle Properties, LLC giving them sixty days to repair or demolish it and a letter went out on how to appeal it There was no appeal filed within that sixty day time period and there no work done within that sixty day time period. M Chief Building Inspector Steven King advised council that it looks very similar today. It was condemned because the roof leaks, rotten OSB on the outside, and there is a man living in it being charged rent It is not a legal residence_ It was noted that we have a minimum housing code, and there are standards for anybody's housing whether they choose to live in it or not We do have the authority to regulate that and that's what we're doing. We don't allow people to live in conditions like this, it's not safe. It's unsafe for human habitation. It's not designed to be a living quarters. Mayor Harris deferred action for thirty -days. Conditional Use Permit, CU -01-18 Cubera Solar, LLC (applicant) The Willoughby, LLC (owner) 1000 Block of Meadowlark Road PIN# 1517-65-0443.000 Motion by Council Member Turnage and seconded by Council Member Maness to approve CU -01-18 based on the application and the evidence presented by the experts, the owner and the concerned public and if the findings that we have listed here and to the agreed upon conditions: 1. Fifty (50) foot front setbacks. 2. The exterior of the buffer would be two (2) rows of trees rather than the minimum required by city code. 3. The granting of the permit would be subject to the maintenance requirements for a less than one acre parcel as determined by city code for the exterior perimeter of the solar farn. 4. The property owner and applicant would agree to file a petition for a voluntary annexation within thirty (30) days of the beginning of construction. Yeas Nays Maness McNeill McLean Tart Tumage Barfield Motion carried 5-1 to approve_ Authorization and Execution of 2018 Community Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant Program The Parks and Recreation Department has been awarded a 2018 Community Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality. This grant will provide both marketing materials and recycling receptacles for the parks and facilities. Parks and Recreation Director Brian McNeill requested the authorization to move forward and act upon the giant once the contract is submitted, which should be received later in May. Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member Barfield to authorize the execution of the grant contract by the City Manager and City Attorney. Motion unanimously approved. (A copy of the contract is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #2). Impact Fee Study At the recent budget retreat, conversation was held concerning HB -436 that determines how much municipalities can charge on water/sewer impact fees. With the new law, a System Development Fee Analysis must be performed_ City Staff contacted two (2) firms and only one (1) responded. Envrolink has presented a proposal with a cost of $20,000. Without the System Development Fee Analysis, the City will no longer be able to charge impact fees. There was discussion on the pros and cons of spending $20,000 for the analysis versus the impact fees that have actually been received City Manager Neuschafer advised the council that the fees have already been struck from the proposed fee schedule for the next year, so once July hits there will no longer be the fee. Mayor Harris deferred this matter to bring back after researching what happened in Angier. Budget Amendment — BA414 CALEA Accreditation At the recent budget retreat, Police Chief Chuck West discussed the process by which the Dunn Police Department can be nationally accredited. The process starts with an Enrollment Fee ($11,450) to the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Police Chief Chuck West advised that we have already been working on policy reviews and evidence areas, which were the main focus of the accreditation lecture that we received That we were storing our evidence and propagating policy procedures in place to maintain integrity, accountability and transparency and follow a standard group of policy and procedures that are nationally recognized. The approval of this budget amendment would mean we could go ahead and enroll and immediately start working on it Our goal is to have it completed in less than twenty-four months to reach the first stage of accreditation. 399 Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member Barfield to approve Budget Amendment #14 for CALEA Enrollment Fee. Motion unanimously approved. (A copy of Budget Amendments (BA#74) is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #3). AND/OR DECISION Set Date for Budget Work Session The Council is being asked to set a Budget Work Session for Tuesday, May 15, 2018. Suggested time to begin the meeting is 9:00 a.m. Motion by Council Member McLean and seconded by Council Member McNeill to set a Special Call MeetingBudget Work Session date for Tuesday, May 15, 2018 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Motion unanimously approved. Financial Report Finance Director Stephens provided the following financial report for the period ending March 31, 2018: • The City as of March 31, 2018 had $4,722,220 in cash in the General Fund and $2,769,399 in the Water and Sewer Fund. In March 2017 the City had $4,274,086 in the General Fund and $2,692,285 in the Water and Sewer Fund. • Property Tax collections through March were $3,771,250 or 9826% of budget Last year property tax collections through March were $3,775,349 or 98.83% ofbudget • Sales Tax Revenue is $1,428,364 or 74.20% of budget Benchmark for the month 66.67% of budget • Utilities Sales Tax is $540,123 or 72.68% of budget Benchmark for this month is 75.00% of budget. • Building Permit Fees were $67,440 or 103.75% of budget Benchmark for this month is 75.00% of budget • Water and Sewer Revenues were $3,370,855 or 71.10% of budget Benchmark for this month is 75.00% of budget • Expenditures were 70.94% of budget in the general fiord and 71.22% of budget in the water and sewer fiord. The benchmark for this period is 75.00% of budget. Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member Barfield to accept the Financial Report Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Tax Report Planning & Inspections Report Public Works Report Recreation Report Library Report Police Report Motion by Council Member McNeill and seconded by Council Member McLean to accept the Administrative Reports. Motion unanimously approved. City Manager's Report City Manager Neuschafer advised council that we have engaged Mr. Dervin R. Spell to be our next Planning & Inspections Director. He will start the 1601 of May. He comes to us from the Town of Selma with over ten years of planning experience, a Masters in Planning. He is a Certified PIanner and Certified Flood Plain Manager as well, so he's very well qualified. Clinton Avenue sewer repairs are proceeding. The pipes are connected and we're backfilling now. We're hoping that they'll be paving Friday. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following announcements and/or comments were made. Mayor Harris: ➢ Dunn Community Clean Up Day will be held on Saturday, May 12, 2018. Volunteers are asked to meet at the Dunn Area Chamber of Commerce office located at the General William C. Lee Airborne Museum at 9:00 a.m ➢ Boogie on Broad will be held on Thursday, May 17, 2018 from 6-9 p.m. in Downtown Dunn. City offices will be closed on Monday, May 28, 2018 in observance of Memorial Day. ➢ The next regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 12, 2018 @ 7:00 pm. Motion by Council Member McNeill and seconded by Council Member Maness to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 pm. Motion unanimously approved. Attest MA_j.y-,Q• D -i AXC.� Melissa R. Matti, CMC Deputy City Clerk `stn n rnq,1 G1TY OF�Gy =. ::GpRP07{yT� Z SEAL �''�.rH CARfl�:�`'• '�nnrrn�� ior Iit. c