[00:00:05]
UH, MR. SAMPSON, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT? I WILL FOLLOW THEM OUT TONIGHT.
LOOKING FOR YOU GUYS, FATHER, WE THANK FOR ALL DURING THIS CAME DOWN HERE TONIGHT, FARM ON A SPECIAL CASE FATHER.
WE NEED TO ALWAYS BE TOGETHER BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, WE WILL BE ABLE TO WORK THE PROBLEM OUT BECAUSE YOU TOLD US FATHER, WE NEED YOU.
BUT IT'S PROBABLY A SPECIAL BLESSING FOR THIS BOARD FATHERS.
AND THEY MAY MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION TONIGHT.
BUT FATHER LET THEM KNOW FATHER THAT KNOWS THAT DON'T NEED HELP.
UM, THEY'RE BLESSED BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT NEEDS HERE FALLING.
YOU BLESSING US THAT WE CAN PASS YOUR BLESSING ON TO SOMEONE ELSE.
WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE BLESSING THAT YOU GAVE EACH OF US.
BUT FATHER, SOMETIME WE MAY REALIZE FATHER THAT YOU WILL GOD INSIDE OF.
YOU MAY HAVE NONE OF THEM SOMETIME FOLLOW ME, LOOK DOWN ON OTHERS, FATHER, BUT FATHER HELP US THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO ONLY LOOK DOWN WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING DOWN TO PICK SOMEONE ELSE UP FOR ME AFTER THE BLESSED MAN IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY, FATHER BLESSED ALL OF THEM BECAUSE FATHER, WE KNOW THAT HOW TO TRY AND TIME, TIME TO REACH A DECISION THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SATISFY EVERYONE.
BUT FATHER, WE REALIZED THAT YOU CAN'T SATISFY EVERYONE.
FATHER BECAUSE OF THE OLD ONE SAID THE SENIOR WILL BE MADE AND SOME PEOPLE WILL BE UNHAPPY, BUT FATHER, YOU CAN FIX IT UP PROBABLY IN YOUR OWN WAY OR FATHER, DEAR, IF THEY COULD WORK OUT.
ALL RIGHT, WE ACTUALLY NEED ANOTHER BLESSING IN JESUS' NAME.
BLACK UM, UH, FIRST THING WE'LL HAVE IS OUR MONTHLY SILVER REPORT AND THEY'VE BEEN MEETING THE CITY ENGINEER, THE REPORT, UH, THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, THE AVERAGE, UH, FLOW TREATED WAS 2.7 MILLION GALLONS A DAY.
THE MAXIMUM DAY WAS 3.3 MILLION GALLONS.
WE TREATED A TOTAL OF 81.2 MILLION GALLONS.
OUR BMD EFFICIENCY WAS 92% SUSPENDED.
WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 3.1, FOUR INCHES OF RAIN AT THE POINT DURING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, UH, ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PLAN WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR NPDS PERMIT.
IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, WE HAD A, UM, AVERAGE DAILY FLOW OF 2.4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY.
UM, THE MAXIMUM WAS 2.8 MILLION GALLONS A DAY AND WE TREATED A TOTAL OF 75.8 IN GALLONS.
THE VOD EFFICIENCY WAS 90% AND THE SUSPENDED SOLACE EFFICIENCY WAS 87%.
WE ALSO TOOK A TOXICITY SAMPLE ON THE SECOND WEEK OF NOVEMBER.
WE FAILED AND WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A FOLLOW-UP SAMPLE AS REQUIRED BY THE PDS PERMIT, UM, YESTERDAY AND TODAY THAT SAMPLE WITH THE STATE LABORATORY.
AND WE ALSO HAVE FAILED OUR QUARTERLY PHOSPHOROUS.
WE HAD SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH PHOSPHORUS.
WE'RE NOT SURE IF THE TOXICITY, UH, IF SOMETHING CAME THROUGH THE PLANT THAT AFFECTED OUR FILTER, WE JUST CANNOT PUT A HANDLE ON WHAT AFFECTED THE REMOVAL OF THE PHOSPHORUS IN DECEMBER, ALTHOUGH THAT HAS, UH, COME BACK AND WE ARE WITHIN LIMITS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AND WE JUST DO NOT HAVE A REAL EXTROVERSION WHILE WE'RE FILLING THE PHOSPHORUS.
OTHER THAN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, WE JUST, ALL THE CHEMICALS, WE PUT THEM THIS, UH, WE'RE BACK AT NORMAL FEED, RIGHT? AND EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE WORKING FINE.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SEWER?
[00:05:01]
OH, WE STILL INVESTIGATING THE PHOSPHORUS INCIDENT OR WE JUST DECIDED WE CAN NEVER FIGURE OUT WHAT HAD, WELL, THERE WAS A LOT OF SPECULATION, UH, AT THE PLANT AND I NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE AND BE ABLE TO PINPOINT PRECISELY THAT WE HAVE A REAL REASON.WE DID JAR TEST AND DID OTHER LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS TO TRY TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, OF THE SO-CALLED CRISIS, TRYING TO GET PHOSPHORUS DOWN.
AND UM, NONE OF THE JAR TESTS THEY WERE, THEY WERE REACTING JUST AS THE PLANT IS REACTING.
SO UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO NOW.
THE TRICK AND THE FILTER IS REVIVED ITSELF.
SOMETHING DID HAPPEN THAT SECOND WEEK OF DECEMBER THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CAN PINPOINT ANY PROBLEM WITH THE WASTEWATER COMING INTO THE PLANT OR LEAVING THE PLANT AND JUST KNOW THAT THEY DO ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE FILTER.
AND AS A RESULT, THERE WAS SOME ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PHOSPHORUS ALSO, AND IT STARTS THE SECOND WEEK RIGHT THERE AT THE SAME TIME, THIS TOXICITY WAS TAKEN TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE REALLY, I DON'T THINK WE'LL EVER BE ABLE TO PINPOINT EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE REALLY INEXACT INEXACT SCIENTIST, SCIENCES, WHERE YOU'RE JUST WORKING WITH WHAT THAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE.
YOU ONLY HAVE A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO COLLECT IT AND THEN IT'S GONE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ONE QUESTION I HAD A CITIZEN ASKED ME ABOUT THE LINE GOING TO THE BURNER ACROSS THE HIGH RISE BRIDGE.
WHERE'S IT GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE OTHER SIDE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION? WILL IT BE UNDER 50 FEET EARTH OR WHERE'S IT GOING TO BE SICK? NO, WE WORK WITH DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION AND THE CONSULTANT ENGINEERS, RIVERS AND ASSOCIATES MET WITH THEM AND WE GOT A PRELIMINARY DESIGN ON ALL THE TAKEOFF RAMPS, BRIDGES AND EVERYTHING.
AND UH, WE DESIGNED THIS PIPELINE ALONG HOW ROAD WILL BE IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA TO BE AT THE TOE OF THE SLOPE WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.
SO WE SHOULD NOT BE UNDER A LOT OF DIRT.
IN FACT, THAT WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IS WE PLACE IT THERE AND THEN THEY COME IN AND FILL A LOT.
WE ACTUALLY PUT IT INTO A SLOPE AND, AND THE NORMAL PIPE THAT SHOULDN'T SHOULD EXIST WHEN THEY'RE THROUGH PROJECT ROUGHLY THREE, THREE AND A HALF FEET, YES, OR THREE, THREE AND A HALF EIGHT FIVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NEXT THING WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF AMENDING DESIGNING CLASSIFICATION FROM OUR AGE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C5 OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH TWO LOTS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PASTURE OR STREET.
AND REGARDING THAT, SOMETHING CAME TO MY ATTENTION THIS AFTERNOON REGARDING SOME LEGALITIES AND, UH, MR. WARD, YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.
MAY I REMEMBER THE BOARD I'M OF THE OPINION THAT PROPOSED REZONING, WE CONSTITUTED SPOT ZONING, WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE CLASSIFIED ILLEGAL BY COURTS OF THIS STATE.
DOES ANYBODY, AFTER ALL THE CONTROVERSY GOT THIS ISSUE? WE NOW HAVE THIS
WE'LL GET MY UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN ALL ALONG THAT WHAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED WAS THAT PROPERTY THAT FRONTED ON CYPRESS STREET ACROSS FROM THE OLD LIVES WELCOME TO SITE WAS TO BE USED TO LOCATE A HOMELESS SHELTER.
I'M SURE I HEARD, AT SOME POINT I WAS THINKING IT WAS ON THE CORNER AND MY THOUGHT ALL ALONG HAS BEEN THAT WHAT WAS PROPOSED, WHAT WOULD BE PROPOSED TO THE BOARD? WHAT IF IT WAS OWNING OF THE AREA SOUTH OF CYPRUS STREET WOULD BE CHANGED AND THAT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE SPOT, BUT IT WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, ACROSS THE STREET COST PASSENGERS TREATED AS WELL AND THE RAILROAD SITE.
AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN I GOT THE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL IN THE AGENDA PACKAGE AND REVIEWED IT LAST PART OF THE WEEK.
I SAW THAT IT WAS A REAL QUESTION.
I WILL SAY THIS, THERE ARE CASES, WELL, IT'S ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE COURTS OR THE STATE IS SAFE.
SO AS I EXPRESSED TO SOME OF OUR STAFF TONIGHT, WE WERE TALKING A LITTLE BIT TODAY THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
AND IF I WERE TO ASK, I WOULD SAY THAT MY OPINION AND
[00:10:01]
DID NOT DO WHICH BY THE ZONING, THE COURTS HAVE MADE EXCEPTIONS.THEY HAVE MOVED A LITTLE HERE AND MOVED A LITTLE THERE.
MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED ENOUGH AND SOME OF THE CITY LITIGATED TO KNOW THAT A LITTLE HERE AND A LITTLE THERE AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH THE COURT.
UH, BUT I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE DESPITE KNOWING IF CHILD, I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING, UH, BECAUSE IT IS SPOT ZONING AND THE WAY THAT IT HAS NOW FORMULATED, IF IT WERE FORMULATED DIFFERENTLY, IT COULD BE DONE WITHOUT BEING AS BOXING.
THERE'S JUST THIS PARTICULAR THING THAT IS THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION THAT IS SPOTS ON IT.
IT CAN BE CONFIGURED SO THAT IT IS NOT.
AND HOW WAS THAT IF YOU ADD ADDITIONAL PROPERTY INTO THE, SO IT'S TOO SMALL, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I'D SAY IT'S MORE OF A MATTER OF WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY OR HOW MANY PARCELS ARE INVOLVED IN, BUT WOULD THAT NOT CONSTITUTE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUESTION AND THEREFORE DIFFERENT HEARING? YEAH.
AND THAT'S THE HOUSE I WOULD SAY WOULD PROBABLY BE ALGAE OPINIONS.
WELL, IN MY OPINION, WITH JULIUS YOU'RE ON, ON THE BOARD.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS, THIS IS DEFINITELY COMING SOMEBODY AS SURPRISED.
UH, BUT, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DELAY THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE.
UH, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT WOULD CONSTITUTE SPOTS ON THE, HOW'S IT LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DELAYED A PUBLIC HEARING SECOND.
AND MY REASON IS THIS YEAR, THIS YEAR, I WANT TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO ACCOMMODATE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES OR SERVICES.
HOWEVER, UM, I DON'T WANT TO, UM, US TO ACT AND THEN SUBJECT OURSELVES TO, BECAUSE THERE'S A STRONG LIKELIHOOD THAT WE WILL NOT PREVAILED.
UH, MR. WARD HAS GIVEN US SEVERAL OPINIONS ON OTHER SUBJECTS MATTERS AND HE TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT EACH AND EVERY TIME.
AND, UM, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO INCUR LITIGATION.
AND I'M SURE THAT IF WE, UH, REZONE THIS POSTURE OF LAND, KNOWING THAT IT'S CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING, I THINK WE ARE INVITING A LAWSUIT.
AND I'M SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE, AS A GROUP CAN CHIP IN AND, AND THE PROSECUTOR LAWSON OF THIS NATURE.
SO WE NEED TO GO BACK WHERE ELSE SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
I MEAN, WELL, IF I'M NOT AT ALL, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CORRECT ME IF I WITHDRAW THAT MOTION AND I WOULD HATE TO DO THIS.
CAUSE I'M LIKE TO TURN IT RIGHT NOW.
I SUPPORT THE HOMELESS SHELTER, BUT I GUESS IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT EVEN HAVING HERE.
AND THEN I WOULD COME BACK AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DID NOT REQUEST.
THEY HAD A PROPERTY ZONE THAT WAY WE'LL GO BACK AND FORTH TO PLANNING ZONING BOARD AND THE HOMELESS SHELTER GROUP TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF HOW IT CAN BE ZONED TO, UH, ADHERE, TO NOT SPOT ZONING.
SO WHAT IS YOUR OPERATIONS? I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING.
I'LL LET THEM MAKE A MOTION THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED BECAUSE WE GOT TO CLOSE THAT.
I MEAN, CAUSE MY THING IS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF HERE WHERE WE CAN NOT DO THIS ANYWAY AND LIKE RECOMMENDATION SAYING, OKAY.
AND IT, PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THAT, LET, LET ME MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT FIRST OFF, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WOULD WANT US TO WISHES TO, UH, OR ANYTHING ELSE.
I PERSONALLY AM NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN ANYTHING THAT'S ILLEGAL FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
ONE OF THE REASONS BEING THAT I, AND YOU ALL HAVE HEARD ME SAY IT AS MANY TIMES, I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION, I BELIEVE IN THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND WHAT THE COUNTRY WAS ABOUT AND ALL THAT TYPE OF THING.
AND I BELIEVE THAT NOT ONLY IS IT IMMORAL, BUT IT'S, IT'S WRONG FOR PEOPLE TO WIELD POWER THAT THEY DON'T HAVE.
I, AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL.
IT'S JUST AS SIMPLE AS IT CAN BE.
SO WHAT ALDERMAN PARR, HAM AND UH, OTHERS ARE TRYING TO DO IS TO BACK UP REARRANGE THINGS IN A LEGAL MANNER AND THEN PROCEED WITH THE HEARING AND SO FORTH.
AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, NO PUN INTENDED, THE HEARING IS GOING TO HAVE TO INCLUDE MORE PROPERTY THAN JUST THAT ONE LITTLE SPOT.
SO THEREFORE WHAT A HEARING TONIGHT WOULD BE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S TOTALLY ILLEGAL.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING A HEARING ON SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NO BUSINESS HAVING A HEARING ABOUT.
[00:15:01]
AS WE IT'S AS INCONVENIENCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING.MR. WARD'S MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF BOARD.
LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE STORY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED.
OH, 40 SOME YEARS AGO, I ATTENDED A MEETING AND THIS COURTROOM FOR THE BOARD OF ALL OF THEM AT WHICH IT WAS PROPOSED TO REZONE A PIECE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF METCALF AND BROAD STREET.
I DIDN'T APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THOSE WHO WERE PROPOSING THE REZONING.
ALTHOUGH I REPRESENTED THE MAN WHO WAS REPRESENTED, POSING, THE REZONING, REPRESENTED THE ESTATE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, AFTER SOME TWO HOURS, SOME EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU NOW EXACTLY HOW LONG IT WAS A PUBLIC HEARING.
MY PREDECESSOR SAYS CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED THAT HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS SPOT THAT CLOSED THEM OUT.
RIGHT THEN AS A RESULT OF THAT, ALL THE BROAD STREET WOULD HAVE REZONED FOR BUSINESS.
AT ANOTHER MEETING, UH, SOME OF THE PROPERTY HE HASN'T BEEN PULLED AWAY.
THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS A LARGE ATTRACT AND PLAN THAT INCLUDED LAND ON NORTH SIDE, CYPRESS STREET, CYPRESS STREET.
SO WE'VE HAD A MOTION BEEN SECONDED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, DO WE NEED A ROLL? WE DON'T NEED A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING, SAY AYE.
NOW YOU GOT A SECOND MOTION HERE.
NO, IT MAKES A MOTION THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED SECOND.
DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A ROLL CALL ON THAT? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
SO THIS MEANS THAT THE ISSUE IS STILL OPEN BACK UP REALIGN THINGS AND WE'LL COME BACK AGAIN.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE OF THAT PARTICULAR.
WELL, NO, BUT IT'LL BE PART OF SOMETHING IT'LL BE INCLUDED IN, IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUESTIONS WILL STAY WILL BE BASICALLY THE SAME.
THE SIDES WILL STILL BE THE SAME.
THE ARGUMENTS REALLY HERE TO HOLD BUSINESS, HOPEFULLY, BUT THERE'LL BE SOME OTHER LAND I GUESS, INCLUDED IN IT ON THE NEXT GO AROUND.
BUT I HOPE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT AS MUCH AS AN INCONVENIENCE, IT IS FOR YOU TO COME AND THIS KIND OF THING TO HAPPEN SO FORTH.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE, BUT THE GUARD YOU LIBERTY.
WHEN DID I FIND OUT THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT, SO WHAT WAS IT THREE O'CLOCK OR SO I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW.
IT WAS FROM, UH, LET'S SEE, WHO WAS I TALKING TO? MIKE? AVERY.
I HAVEN'T TALKED TO SOME OF THEM SINCE THE LAST TIME WE MET INDIVIDUAL FAR, RIGHT.
YOU'VE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE PREPARATION WORK.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH NO, THE RE LET ME, LET ME SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU, SIR.
IT MIGHT'VE STOPPED WITH ME BECAUSE USUALLY WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT ON THIS BOARD THAT IF SOMETHING IS GOING ON IN YOUR WARD, YOU MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OR YOU MAKE THE DENIAL BECAUSE IT'S IN YOUR WARD.
THAT'S JUST A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT AMONGST US, BUT HAPPENED WHERE THE STAFF MADE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT WAS SPOT ZONING.
THAT ATTORNEY AGREED THAT IT WOULD NOT FLY.
SO IT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE STOP IT BEFORE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DRAW IT OUT AGAINST AND HEAR FOR AND AGAINST FOR SOMETHING THAT WE COULD NOT DO EITHER WAY.
OKAY, SIR, CAN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE? WE WANT TO GET TO A NAME.
WE RECORD, WE VOTED YOU GUYS IN THE OFFICE, MAJORITY OF
[00:20:01]
UNITED WAY.IF YOU GUYS DON'T TALK WITH SOMETHING LIKE SPOT ZONING, ALL, AND YOU KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE AGAINST PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN THE LIGHT, THAT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ON BECAUSE SHE KNEW A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE GOING TO GET INVOLVED.
I SEE A LOT OF EIGHT BUCKS INVOLVED HERE PERSONALLY.
WELL, YOU WERE SEEING THINGS AND NOW YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT OR WHATEVER, BUT ANYWAY, I FEEL LIKE IF PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND UH, I'LL LET THEM SPEAK AND YOU KNOW, AND THEN IT COMES TIME FOR ME TO TRY TO RUN THE MEETING AND MOVE ON WITH THINGS.
SO I HOPE EVERYBODY TRIES TO UNDERSTAND.
NO, THIS IS THE HEARING ABOUT, OKAY.
THE HEARING ABOUT THE, THE, THE HOMELESS SHELTER AND SO FORTH.
IT WAS DETERMINED THIS AFTERNOON IS THE FIRST TIME I PERSONALLY HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT THAT THIS PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION WAS SPOT ZONING.
SO THEREFORE, TO HAVE A HEARING ABOUT IT TONIGHT ON THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION WAS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE WE WERE HEARING ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WE CAN'T MAKE LEGALLY ANYWAY.
SO THEN IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THERE ARE WAYS OF MAKING THIS CONSIDERATION THEN ASKED TO INCLUDE MORE LAND OR WHATEVER, AND THEY GOING TO MAKE SURE THEY DO THAT CORRECTLY.
THEN WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL ALL SIT DOWN AND MAKE THE DISCUSSIONS AND DO IT IN LEGAL.
WE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS IT'S ON A LEGAL MANNER.
I HOPE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.
MA'AM, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO ASK, UH, MR. A FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS HAPPENED, THAT WE HAD COME THIS FALL AND NOT KNOW THAT THE PARCEL OF LAND, THIS ISSUE HAS ALL BECOME SO EMOTIONAL ABOUT VOLUNTEERS.
SOME OF THEM NEEDS TO COME UP HERE AND EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US THE OKAY.
REQUEST FOR THE REZONING WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND ITS DECEMBER MEETING.
UH, AT THAT DECEMBER MEETING, UH, THEY REVIEWED THEIR RESIGNING ANALYSIS THAT WAS PREPARED BY STAFF ON NOVEMBER THE 29TH, UH, THAT STATED IN STATS OPINION, UH, IT APPEARED TO BE ILLEGAL SPOTS ON ME BASED ON THAT AND THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN THAT IT NOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE APPEARANCE OF IT BEING A SPOT SEVEN, THAT MATERIAL WAS PLACED IN THE PACKETS FOR THE BOARD OF ALL OF THEM THAT WENT OUT LAST WEEK.
I JUST WANT IT TO BE EXPLAINED, WE'VE COME A WAYS WITH THIS AND IT DIDN'T JUST STOP.
AND EVERYBODY HAD THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND EMOTIONS.
AND THEN WHEN WE GET HERE HEARING IN THE TALLEST SPOT AND I JUST WANT IT TO GO, UM, DON WAS BRINGING OUT, SOMEONE HAD REQUESTED A CERTAIN POSSIBLE MAN WAS LARGE ENOUGH.
AND THEN THEY CHANGED THE MIND REQUESTING SOMETHING ELSE.
INITIALLY THERE WAS A LARGER AREA THAT INVOLVED MORE PARCELS INVOLVED ON SOME CITY PROPERTY AND INVOLVED A CHARGE.
IT WAS CHANGED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT RCS.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, UH, UH, THEY WANTED TO BE DISENGAGED FROM, UH, THE CITY'S PORTION OF IT.
UM, FOR WHATEVER REASONS THEY JUST WANTED THEIR PROPERTY CONSIDERED.
AND SO IT WAS RE FILED AS JUST THE TWO LAWS THEY'RE ON PASTOR STREET WHERE THEY'RE MADE AWARE OF, AND THAT THAT COULD NOT BE DONE, THAT IT WAS NO, NOT UNTIL THE ANALYSIS HAD BEEN MADE BECAUSE AS, UM, UH, ATTORNEY WARD STATED, UH, THIS, THE ISSUE OF SPOT ZONING, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR ILLEGAL IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE, THIS BOARD COULD MAKE THAT DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND
[00:25:01]
ENACT THAT SPOT ZONING, AND THEN YOU WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS LEGAL.AND SO, UH, I, ACCORDING TO MR. WARD AND WHAT THE STAFF SEES IS THAT CHANCES ARE, IF IT WERE CHALLENGED, THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL.
AND WITH THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT'S INVOLVED IN THIS, UH, PROJECT CHANCES OF A COURT CHALLENGE WOULD PROBABLY BE GREAT.
SO, UH, IT HAS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD WHEN EVEN WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL, IT STILL HAS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION.
AND UNTIL YOU MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION, IT'S NOT SETTLED.
I THINK I HAVE NO PROBLEM MYSELF.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM EXPLANATION.
AND I DON'T LIKE SITTING UP HERE LOOKING LIKE SOME DUMMY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
AND HE PUT THOUGH I HAVE IT IN MY PASSIONS AND I NOTICED THIS ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AND I FELT THAT I NEED AN EXPLANATION AS MALE, AS THOSE OTHER SUBJECTS BECOMES AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE.
WELL, YOU KNOW, WE ALL GOT TO GET IT UNTIL IT COMES TO THIS BOWL SPOT.
SOME LADY I CAN'T SEE REALLY THAT FAR, BUT SOMEBODY HAD A HAND UP OVER HERE.
I THINK
UH, WE, WHEN WE STARTED OUT, WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH THE PLANNING OFFICE, UM, HOW BEST DO WE DO THIS TO BUILD THE SHELTER WHERE WE WANTED IT ON THE FIRST TRY, AS MIKE EXPLAINED WAS A LARGER AREA THAT CAN VOTE NEW JOB DRIVE FROM THE RIVERSIDE.
AND SO AT WHICH POINT PLANNING STAFF SAID, WELL, LET'S TRY FOR A SMALLER AREA SPOTS OWNER.
UH, THEY SAID, AND I WAS AWARE THAT SPOT ZONING IS USUALLY ILLEGAL, HOWEVER, IN NORTH CAROLINA.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF, THERE IS A STATUTE THAT SAYS SPOT ZONING IS LEGAL.
IF IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY, IT WAS THE DECISION THEN RCS, UH,
AND ONE OF THOSE TASKS IS ACTIVE BENEFIT TO THE OWNER VERSUS THE LARGER COMMUNITY
THAT IS ONE OF THE THEM IS ONE.
OKAY, WELL THEN PERHAPS WE WERE LED DOWN THE PRIMROSE PATH.
WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT A SHELTER OR A REHABILITATION WOULD BE IN THE COMMUNITY INTEREST, WHICH IS WHY WE RESUMED THIS THING TO THIS POINT.
AND NOW WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE.
WELL, LET ME, LET ME SAY, UH, THAT AS FAR AS OUR BOARD IS CONCERNED, NOBODY'S REALLY BACK AT SQUARE ONE IN THE SENSE THAT WE STILL, THE WHOLE ISSUE, BOTH SIDES IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE AND WILL STAY, WILL BE CONSIDERED AND EVERYTHING ELSE, ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO THROUGH THE STAFF AND THE LEGAL ADVICE AND SO FORTH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT WHEN WE MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THAT EVERYBODY'S DONE EVERYTHING AND THE PROPER AND LEGAL AND CORRECT MANNER.
AND IF SOMEBODY IS JUMPED THE TRACKS OR MISLED SOMEBODY OR WHATEVER, ALONG THE WAY, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, BUT I MEAN, REALLY, REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR POINT OF VIEW AND RCS POLICE REPORTS.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT HER TO DO ANYTHING.
SO WE'D LIKE TO GET THIS RESOLVED.
AND SO WOULD WE, AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS, I'M GONNA MAKE SURE MYSELF THAT, THAT, UH, ALL THE DUCKS ARE ON THE ROAD.
THE NEXT TIME WE COME OUT OF HERE, YOU LEAVE THERE.
[00:30:52]
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.I MEAN, AND YOU DON'T COME BACK FROM THIS BOARD IN 20 MONTHS AFTER ALL THESE PEOPLE
THE MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE.
WE DIDN'T DENY THE REQUEST, RIGHT? BECAUSE LET ME TELL YOU, AND IF, AND IF ARS WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION, THAT IS THEIR PRIVILEGE.
THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED GOING OUT, ALSO DONE THAT IF THERE'S OTHER LAND INCLUDED IN THIS THING, THAT THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE EITHER FOR, OR AGAINST, OR MAYBE ALL OF THEM AGAINST ALL OF THEM FOR, IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
IT'LL BE SOME OF IT WILL BE THE SAME QUESTION, BUT SOME OF IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
SO I JUST DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE WE CAN DO THAT.
AND, UH, I'D LIKE EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT AS FAR AS I KNOW, NOBODY ON HIS BOARD, AT LEAST AS EXPRESSED TO ME ANY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND, UH, MYSELF, FOR AN EXAMPLE, I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING THAT I'VE HAD GOING ON RIGHT TODAY.
YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T EVEN TELL YOU, BUT THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU HOW, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT I, I TOLD THE MAN TODAY, I'VE TRIED TO SPEND MOST OF MY LIFE REACHING SOME KIND OF HAPPY CONSENSUS WITH FOLKS.
AND, UH, FIRST TIME I REALLY RUN INTO A SNAG IS WHEN I GOT IN THE POLITICAL REALM HERE HAS BEEN TWO YEARS.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING, SATISFIES EVERYBODY, BUT GOD KNOWS.
NUMBER ONE, I BELIEVE IN A HOMELESS SHELTER WITHOUT ANY QUESTION BECAUSE HOMELESS PEOPLE NEED, NEED A PLACE TO GO.
I ALSO BELIEVE IN THIS, THIS IS I'M JUST ME SPEAKING, THE SANCTITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE'S FEARS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
AND I BELIEVE IN THAT I WANT TO COME PREPARED WITH ALL OPTIONS.
AND I EVEN HAVE SOMEBODY LOOKING FOR AN EXAMPLE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER PLACE TO PUT A HOMELESS SHELTER, JUSTICE, SOMETHING ELSE TO PUT IN THE SCALES.
I'M HOPING THAT WE'RE ALL GOT EVERYBODY'S, UH, WELFARE AND, UH, BENEFIT AND OUR MINDS EACH OTHER'S MINDS, EVEN YES, THINKING OF US ON THE BOARD, MAYBE ONCE IN AWHILE AND IT ENDED TOGETHER WE CAN REACH SOME KIND OF HAPPY CONCLUSION ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
AND HONESTLY, ALL OF THIS THAT YOU'VE SEEN DEVELOPED AT NIGHT DEVELOPED EXACTLY THE WAY YOU SAW IT DEVELOP, THERE'S NOTHING STRANGE OR BEHIND THE SCENES OR WHATEVER GOING ON.
AND TRULY IT IS, IT IS SO WE CAN TRULY DO THE RIGHT THING AND THE RIGHT THING, BEING DEFINED AS NOT ONLY WHAT'S RIGHT, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR DOING THE MOST GOOD TO THE MOST PEOPLE IN OUT OF THE WAY YOU WANT TO PUT IT, BUT ALSO WHAT IS LEGAL AND, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR, FOR US TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS ILLEGAL.
I MEAN, WE STOOD UP AND SWORE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
I INTEND TO DO THAT AND I WILL DO THAT.
SO LET'S UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THAT ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO HIS OWN REHAB, RIGHT? NO, IT'S ALL
AND DID IT STOP DOING SOMETHING ELSE IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE IT BECAUSE OF LEGAL REASONS.
BUT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO IT AGAIN, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE WHOLE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN AFTER
[00:35:01]
YOU HAVE VOTED IS YEAH.AND REMEMBER, EVEN IN ANY OTHER ISSUE, WHEN IT COMES TO REZONING, ONCE WE DENIED THE PERSON THAT'S DENIED, NOT JUST THIS ISSUE, BUT ANY ISSUE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD, THE PLAN IS ONLY WITH A NEW ISSUE FOR NEW RE ZONING ON SOMETHING ELSE.
SO EVEN IF WE HAD DENIED IT WITH ALL THE PUBLIC HEARING INSTILLED IN THAT THEY CAN STILL COME BACK WITH ANOTHER TYPE OF REQUEST.
SO, BUT THIS ISSUE IS DEAD THE WAY IT WAS THE WAY IT'S EXPRESSED, IT'S GONE THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN, OKAY, WE'LL GO HOME.
I, I BELIEVE THAT UNDER, I BELIEVE THAT UNDER OUR ORDINANCE OR UNDER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT LAND TO BE REZONED.
THEN IT WOULD BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AND THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION ON THE QUESTION AT THAT TIME, THAT WOULD BE THE PREROGATIVE OF WHOEVER'S MAKING HIS OWN AND REQUESTS.
THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE THE LAND IN ORDER TO REQUEST THE CHAIN.
UH, IT WAS JUST THAT IT WAS PROPOSED.
AND I KNOW IT WAS PROPOSED BEFORE I EVEN KNEW IT WAS PROPOSED.
I SAW IT AS IT CAME THROUGH THE NORMAL PLANNING PROCESS.
WELL, YOU COULDN'T BE DONE WITHOUT YOU KNOWING ABOUT IT, BUT YES, IT COULD BE DONE AGAIN.
YOU SAYING YOU DIDN'T KNOW WELL, I MEAN, YES, IT'S GOING TO, YOU'RE GOING TO BE, YOU BE NOTIFIED OF THE PROCESS, THAT BEING BOB, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE NOTIFIED BY RCS.
IF THEY PUT IN A REQUEST FOR REZONING EXCEPT THROUGH THE NORMAL CHANNELS THAT WOULD BE GONE THROUGH AS NOTIFYING PROPERTY OWNERS AND EVERYTHING.
WHAT THAT INITIAL REQUEST DID NOT GO BEYOND THE PLANNING STAGE AND THEN STOPPED SUBSEQUENT REQUEST BY RCS TO GO TO A SMALLER AREA WAS CONSIDERED INITIALLY FOR THE LARGER AREA, THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTIFICATIONS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE LARGER AREA, THAT
THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RESILIENCE.
ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ALERTED TO PLAY WORDS, REVIEW OF THAT REQUEST.
AND THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE ADJACENT WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED.
SO THIS IS BETTER, OF COURSE, LIVING IN RIVERSIDE WERE OUTSIDE OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA THAT WAS AFFECTED BY THE DISEASE.
AND IF IT HAD GONE TO THE STAGE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO MORE LONGER THAN THAT.
WE WOULD'VE HAD NOTIFICATION AND A PAPER REGARDING THE REZONING REQUEST.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ENTERPRISE ONCE A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS IN THE NEWSPAPER.
AND AT THAT STAGE TRUE, WE WOULD NOT NOTICE THAT IT WAS TURNED DOWN, GO TO PAUL,
NOW THIS TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY, THEY OWN PROPERTY, UH, THAT IS CONSIDERING THOSE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TONIGHT, AS WELL AS SOME AUTO LOTS THAT ATTORNEY MARTIN REFERENCED ON THE FIRST CYBER SECURITY TOOL.
THOSE PARCELS ARE NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH EACH OTHER, HOWEVER, RCS AND MR. COLBY CAN CLARIFY THAT WE'VE GRANTED THAT REQUEST FOR THE CYPRESS STREET REQUEST, BASICALLY BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM TOO SMALL TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SHELTER.
SO THERE COULD BE AREA THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION
[00:40:02]
THAT CAN BE RESOLVED IN THAT AREA.NOT CONSTITUTED SPOT ZONING WITHOUT
I MEAN, THERE ARE, WELL, I GUESS ALL LOTS LOCATED IN THAT AREA.
AND AS, AS THIS LOT OF LOSS, IF THEY ARE AMASSED TOGETHER AND BE THE SIZE OF MARGINS TO ALLOW THE SIZE SHELTER THAT THEY DESIRE, THEN YES.
THEY DESIRE THAT POCKET TO BE INCLUDED IN REQUEST.
AND THERE'S AN EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT-WIDE UH,
SO CONCEIVABLY IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA OR RCS, WHEN THEY DON'T REQUEST INCLUDE ALL THE PROPERTIES IN OUR AREA THAT WE'RE MEETING WITH THE I TOO.
AND ASK THAT, THAT PROPERTY, I, TO ASK YOU TO APPROVE IT, THAT IF IT WAS ACTUALLY, THEY COULD PUT THE SHELTER IN THAT AREA.
AND, UM, THE REASON THEY WOULD CHANGE WERE TO ACCOMMODATE THE RELOCATION OF THE HOMELESS SHELTER FROM DOWNTOWN TO OTHER AREAS AND HOW WE'VE GOTTEN TO THIS POINT OF THE LONG COMPLEX SITUATION THAT HAS DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF, UH, EIGHT MONTHS TO A YEAR.
SO IT'S WAS, IT WAS CHANGED, UH, IN 94, I BELIEVE THE END OF THE NIGHT FOR THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
UH, NO, SINCE THAT TIME WE CHANGED IT TO PERMIT HOMELESS SHELTERS IN THE C3.
I WENT IN AT TWO AND ONE TIME WE WERE PRETTY MUCH LIMITED.
UM, DURING THE LAST, DURING THE ORIGINAL LOCATION AT THE HOMELESS SHELTER DOWNTOWN, WE CRAFTED THE ORDINANCE TO PERMIT HOMELESS SHELTER, THAT AREA.
SO IT WAS IN THAT
[00:45:04]
WHEN PEOPLE ARE ASKING US QUESTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THESE VARIOUS THINGS.IN THE VERY BEGINNING, I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, VERY UNCOMFORTABLE LEARNING THINGS.
TONIGHT IS SUSPICION THAT SAYS THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE AT HOME THE SHELTERS IN 300 FEET.
THEN OUR SHOULD NOTE THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD IS NOT THERE.
ALL OF THESE THINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING US AND I'M FEELING I'M GETTING INFORMATION THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO BEFORE NOW.
AND I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS
THAT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE OLD ORDINANCE WAS NOT A PART OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LAND RESOURCES.
SO BY VIRTUE OF YOU ADOPTING THE LARGER ORDINANCE THAT OLD PROVISION DIED,
LET ME CLARIFY ANOTHER POINT, UH, REGARDING THE AMENDMENT.
WHAT HAPPENED IS, UH, RCS APPROACHED THE CITY, UH, PLANNING STAFF SAYING WE AREN'T INTERESTED IN POSSIBLY RELOCATE OUR SHELTER.
WE'VE OUTGROWN OUR PRESENT FACILITY AND STAFF EVALUATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND LOOKING AT IT, WE REALIZED THAT UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE ORDINANCE, THERE WAS NO FLEXIBILITY.
THERE WAS NO WAY THAT A HOMELESS SHELTER COULD BE MOVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE TABLE.
PERMISSIBLE USES, THERE WAS NOT IN THE TABLE, A HOMELESS SHELTER USE CATEGORY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE BASICALLY PIT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, I GUESS, UH, IN THE, WHEN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE WAS CREATED IN 92, THE IDEA WAS A HOMELESS SHELTER IS LOCATED IN THIS AREA.
IT'S GOING TO STAY IN THIS LOCATION AND IT'S NEVER GOING TO MOVE WHETHER OR NOT.
THAT WAS AN INTENTIONAL THING.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT WAS THE RESULT OF WHAT HAPPENED.
SO IN STAFF'S EVALUATION ON THAT, WE SAID, WELL, A HOMELESS SHELTER APPEARS TO BE A LEGITIMATE USE.
THAT SHOULD BE IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
SO WE NEED TO INCLUDE IT IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE.
AT THAT TIME, UH, WE PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF PERMITS.
AND THAT IS WHAT BERNARD WAS ALERTING ALLUDING TO WAS WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WAS ADVERTISED, UH, THE APPROPRIATE TEXT AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION WAS GIVEN IN THE PAPER.
AND WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE LAND USE ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW PEOPLE WITH SHELTERS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF PERMITS THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE GOT TO THIS POINT THAT GAVE RCS THE ABILITY TO APPLY
[00:50:01]
FOR A REZONING, A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO PUT A HOMELESS SHELTER IN A GIVEN LOCATION.THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY BEFORE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED ANY YEAR PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT.
WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT? OKAY, SO THAT'S NOW, CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE MR. MAYOR? NO ONE KNOWS.
NOW WHAT I, WHAT WE HAVE DONE TONIGHT IS BEGIN WITH BEFORE ALL THIS BECAME A BIG HULLABALOO, CONFUSED.
EVERYONE IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE CONFUSED BECAUSE I'VE HEARD OF CHANGES THAT WERE MADE DURING THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD.
WHEN I WAS NOT ON THE BOARD, THAT I WAS NOT AWARE HADN'T BEEN MADE, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE WILL BRING, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT TONIGHT.
SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO, WE HAVE KILLED THIS ISSUE AS IT IS PRESENTED, IS TO HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, FIND OUT EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE AND MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT WE NEED TO IN THE LAWS AS THEY EXIST NOW, TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE AND WHERE WE WANTED IT TO BE.
AND WHERE I ASSUMED IT STILL WAS, WHICH WAS A DANGEROUS THING TO DO IS THE 500 FOOT REQUIREMENT, WHICH WAS PUT INTO PLACE WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD BEFORE.
SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IT'S DEAD.
NOW WE SCHEDULE THE WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOWL, WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO GO OVER EXACTLY WHAT REGULATIONS WE'RE DEALING WITH, WHAT CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE, AND THEN START FROM SQUARE ONE.
I WASN'T AWARE THAT THE CITY WAS INVOLVED IN IT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY RULINGS HERE TONIGHT.
OTHER THAN ONE THAT HAS BEEN MADE, WHICH IS IT'S DATED.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE.
AND SOME CHANGES ARE GOING TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.
UH, IF YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION, I PROBABLY CAN'T ANSWER IT.
SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S, WHAT I'M SAYING IS I WOULD SUGGEST WE JUST LET IT LIE UNTIL WE CAN GET TOGETHER IN A WORK SESSION, FIND OUT WHERE WE ARE, WHAT MEANS OF CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE.
AND THEN WE'RE STARTING OVER AT SQUARE ONE AND THE EXACT PRESCRIBED BYLAWS NOTIFICATIONS OFF ANYTHING WE PROPOSE IN THE FUTURE, WE'LL BE GIVEN EXACTLY AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE DIFFERENCE THAT WILL BE, YOU WILL FIND THEN, AND NOW IS THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE CONFUSION WE'RE RUNNING TO RIGHT NOW WILL BE SOLVED AT THAT TIME.
AND WE'LL BE DEALING WITH A MORE SIMPLIFIED, FACTUAL BIT OF INFORMATION AND NOT JUST, WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS CHANGED.
WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS CHANGED.
WE WILL BE DEALING WITH SOME NEW RULES WHEN WE MEET AGAIN, AND EVERYONE WILL KNOW WHAT THOSE RULES ARE RIGHT NOW.
I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT SOME OF THEM ARE.
WE'LL HAVE A CLEAN SLATE AND YOU WILL KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE.
[00:56:08]
WE'LL MOVE ON.I TRY TO BE JUDICIOUS WITH THIS THING AND I HAVE TO USE IT ONCE IN A WHILE.
NEXT THING WE'LL HAVE, I CAN GET YOUR ATTENTION AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF AMENDING ARTICLE 10, SECTION 15 DASH 5, 1 46 TABLE AND PERMISSIBLE USES OF THE NEW-BORN LAND USE ORDINANCE.
SO AS TO ALLOW WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT AND THE 85 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS WITH NO LESS THAN 20 AND NO MORE THAN 200 ANIMALS, WHO EXPLAINS THAT YOU I'LL TELL YOU IF IT WASN'T FOR THIS ZONE IN AND ALL THAT WE'D HAVE A FAIRLY EASY LIFE.
THE, UM, PROPOSAL CAME ABOUT, UM, LARGELY IN REACTION TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING MEETINGS, UH, ABOUT CONCERN ABOUT LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE IS AN EFFORT TO MITIGATE THOSE IMPACTS AND TO ALSO PUT A CAP ON THE SIZE OF LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS, UH, HERE TO, FOR THERE WAS NOT A CAMP IN THE 8, 5, 7 WITH ONLY LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS, AND THIS WOULD PLACE A CAP ON IT.
NOW, SOME OF YOU MAY BE AWARE THERE WAS A BILL PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT, UM, UM, PUT COUNTIES IN A POSITION OF NOT BEING ABLE TO REGULATE, UH, LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS WITHIN THEIR ZONING JURISDICTIONS.
UH, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS FOUR COUNTIES AND DOES NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPALITIES.
SO THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT A CAP OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE OF LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS, UH, WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION.
AND, UH, UH, THERE'S ONE OTHER ITEM ON TOP OF THIS, UH, AND THAT DEALS WITH THE GREENBRIAR, UM, SITUATION.
AND I CAN ADDRESS THAT AT THIS TIME OR AFTER THIS PARTICULAR ONE, UM, ANY ON THE WISHES OF THE BOARD AFTER THIS MOVIE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, OKAY.
YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR GREENBRIER.
WOULD YOU JUST SAY YOU MADE A MISTAKE, YOU COULD HAVE A THOUSAND, HE HAD A CATALOG 28 MANAGING, BUT THEN, THEN THIS CAME UP ABOUT IT.
THE WAY IT READS THIS IS ALLOWING US, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE LIMITING, IT SOUNDED REAL LOUD AS THE HOUSE 200 WHEN ACTUALLY IT'S LIMPING THAT.
WHY IS THAT A MAJOR CONSIDERATION,
[01:00:02]
WHICH IS, UM, AN ADMIN HUSBAND WILL, YOU KNOW, THAT ONLY SO MANY HAD A BLAST DOC CAN REASONABLY LIVE TOGETHER ON AN ACRE OF LAND.AND IF THE LAND WAS THERE FOR X, THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN NOW FOR IF THEY'RE JUST LIVING THEIR FEED AND HAY, AND THAT THEY'RE JUST THERE, BUT STILL, I THINK THIS, THIS, THIS, UH, PROPOSAL DOES NOT ADDRESS THE REASONABLE AMOUNT OF PLAN THAT, UH, SAY 2200 LAUGHS TO UP SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LIVE THE WAY IT READS THAT MAN HAS A PLAN.
IF YOU PUT TO HIM TWO LATER ON THAT ONE, THAT NOW WE'RE BEING THAT PROBLEM, THEY FORESEE THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE SMALL AVERAGES AND SELLING TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE LIKE, MAYBE YOU HAVE 120 ACRES, EACH ONE OF THEM, AND I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND I DON'T THINK, WELL, MAYBE Y'ALL ALL THE EXPERTS, BUT I'VE NOT, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BOOKS MA'AM THAT THAT MATTER IS TAKEN CARE OF IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING, UH, RECLASSIFICATION, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH MEANS THAT, UH, THE, UM, YOU, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND SHOW YOU A PLANS.
AND IF YOUR PLANS ON APPROPRIATE, IF THE PARTIAL OF LAND IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH, THEN HE WILL DENY YOU HAVE TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. GEORGE, BUT THERE, THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS BUILT IN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 28, THAT'S ABOUT TO DO SOME ANALYSIS OF A PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.
THAT'S ULTIMATELY, SO A FAT REALLY DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO HAVE ANY LIVESTOCK AT ALL WITHOUT THE MISSION OF ITS OWN.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
SO YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE DONE VOTE AND SAID, YOU'RE JUST NOT PLAYING AND YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THEIR GROUP, WHETHER YOU CAN HAVE YOUR LAST DECK ON THAT LAND.
IF IT'S 20, LESS THAN 20 AND THAT'S DETERMINATION, GEORGE WORDS, IT IS NOT A RIDE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE OWNER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
MR. GEORGE MAKES THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW WAS BEING UP TO MR. GEORGE.
I'M NOT HERE BECAUSE I WILL NOT ALLOW US TO ADD
UM, MS. UH, I DIDN'T GET THE SAME GESTATION THAT YOU'RE GETTING, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS.
AND THAT IS THE FACT IT'S NOT ABOUT LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS.
AND THAT WAS NO, EXCUSE ME, SLAUGHTERING US.
MANY PEOPLE IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE OF ALL THE TROUBLE HAD BEEN HAD THAT WE'VE HAD IN THIS AREA WITH HOG FARMS, JUST EQUATE LIVESTOCK WITH A FAB IS I UNDERSTAND THIS.
[01:05:01]
AM I CORRECT MR. SO THEN IT WOULD NOT ALLOW HOG FARMS UP.I MEAN LIKE, UH, PAM LAST AS, AS SMALLER, THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT LOCATION BECAUSE THE SAUDI DOES A SLOWER.
SO YOUR PALMS WOULD HAVE TO BE HOUSED SOMEWHERE ELSE TO BE KILLED.
AND SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THOSE GOALS IF THEY HAD STUFF ON YOUR DROP, EXCUSE ME.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD BE BETTER SERVED IF WE COULD HAVE RIGHT.
UM, ANGRY PEOPLE, PROBABLY STAFF WILL SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND EXPLAIN THE KIND OF THINGS THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IN PARTICULAR.
AND THEN THAT WAY YOU CAN GET A ONE-ON-ONE I'VE TALKED TO
I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, AND I'M NOT HERE FOR MASSIVE I'M FROM HERE TO SPEAK FOR ANYBODY THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A FAB CLASSIFICATION RIGHT NOW, MY PROPERTY IS NOT ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR REZONING AND THIS GREEN BAR, THIS IS WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THIS IS THAT PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE JUST PUT AN ETJ BEHIND GREEN, WHERE I WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO PROTECT THOSE FOLKS FROM HAVING SOME TYPE OF LIVESTOCK OPERATION STUCK DOWN ON TOP OF, OKAY.
I WOULD'VE DROPPED NOT, UH, I'M STAN LETTUCE, UH, 1325 PINE VALLEY DRIVE.
UH, THE GREENBRIER PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION, UH, HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE, EXCEPT THAT WE, UH, WANT TO BE PUTTING IT INTO THE RECORD THAT BY ITSELF, IT DOES NOT GIVE OUR RECENTLY APPROVED ETJ TERRITORY, UH, THE PROPER OR THE FULLEST ZONING PROTECTION.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO CONTINUE CONSIDERING THE EIGHT FIVE W THAT WAS APPROVED AT THE PRIOR, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.
I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT MR. MAYOR WILLIAMS. WE TALKED ABOUT A FIVE WITH A W TRYING TO JUST ALLOCATE THAT PLACE AS WOODLAND OR TIMBERLAND.
AND THAT WAS ONE THINGS WE CAME TO AGREEMENT WITH THAT WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NOW WE'VE GOT SOME PROTECTION HERE.
CAN WE MOVE ON AND TAKE ONE STEP FURTHER IN THIS OBVIOUS TIMBERLAND, THIS IS NOT FARMLAND.
IT'S TIMBERLAND CAN'T WE DO THAT NOT TONIGHT, BUT I MEAN, THAT CAN BE DONE.
WE MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GREEN BAR ASSOCIATION AND, UH, UH, WE CAN DO THAT.
WE ARE MOVING TOWARD HAVING THAT READY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE ANYWHERE YOU HAVE EVEN MORE BRIDGE, THEN THE S UM, BUT THIS WILL HELP THIS AREA IN SOME OTHER AREAS.
SO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS IN PLACE TO THEN NEXT MONTH WE'LL HAVE THE OTHER, WHICH GIVES FURTHER PROTECTION, BASICALLY CLUBS, WOODLAND.
DOES THAT HELP CLARIFY THE QUESTION WE HAVE FROM GREENBRIAR? OKAY.
ANYBODY ELSE OVER HERE AND BE CLOSED? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR, SAY, AYE.
I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE TO A MAN ARTICLE X, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, SECOND SEC.
ANY DISCUSSION THAT MAY CALL ROLL? YES, YES, YES.
NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO SATELLITE ANNEX 28.
USE ME 0.3, NINE ACRES ADJACENT TO, TO BURN.
AND BY THE POLLS TO THIS, I MOVED TO PUBLIC HEARING ME CLOSING.
I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE THAT HAD LIGHT HAND ANNEX ZACK.
AND THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO OPPOSE IT.
SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
[01:10:01]
YES.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH CONSENT AGENDA, WHO'S PAYING FOR THE TREES, PROBABLY 17 SENSITIVE THE CITY.
THE STATE NEVER DOES SAY EXACTLY.
NUMBER SECURITY, MIKE, YOU HAVE THAT.
THE STATE WILL BE PAID BASICALLY BY THIS RESOLUTION.
THE STATE WILL INSTALL THE TREES FAULT, AND THEN WE MAINTAIN THE FUTURE OTHERWISE.
AND WE, WE REPLACED THEM WITH PEOPLE OFF THE HIGHWAY TO GET TO THAT.
I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT WHEN THEY SAY
AND IT WORRIES ME WHEN THEY STARTED TALKING ABOUT PUTTING SQUEEZED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TRUCKS, AND ONE THING, TREES AND THE SCARIEST DON'T SPEAK WILL SOON RUN OFF.
HOW FAR WILL THAT GO? UM,
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, NO APPOINTMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY MS. LEAVE? I'M ABOUT MAX.
I'VE GOT ONE AND THAT'S TO REAPPOINT ALEXANDRE HILL.
UH, WE MUST SEE WHERE IS IT TO THE, HOW MANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY? SHE'S DONE A REAL GOOD JOB AND WOULD BE REAPPOINTED, I THINK ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT.
SO SHE'S BACK ON, STILL ON RUSH.
ANYBODY ELSE? DO YOU HAVE ANY APPOINTMENTS? NO, BUT I LIKE YOUR LITTLE STICKERS.
WELL, I'LL ASK BECAUSE I HOPE MY PREDECESSORS HAD TO HAVE A LITTLE SIGN.
I'M REALLY SLIPPING, BUT ANYWAY, NEXT, ANYBODY GOT, I'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION AND MAGIC JOHNSON WOULD BE APPOINTED TO THE RECREATION BOARD.
JOHN'S ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, OPPOSED ANY MISCELLANEOUS AND WE CAN TRY THAT WHERE WE COULD PUT A SPEAKER OUT THERE WHERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE WE CAN TRY TO ARRANGE TO HAVE THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE DURING THOSE TIMES.
MAYBE WE COULD EVEN GET A TELEVISION.
WE HAD TO BE TALKING ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT ON SALES.
NOW, ONE THING THAT REGULARLY REGULAR TO US WAS THE LIGHTING ALONG THE HELLO EMPLOYER.
I MEAN, IS IT ON BROAD STREET, UPGRADE ABOUT LIGHTS AND WE OF, OR, AND WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
I KNOW THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
[01:15:03]
THIS IS A BUSINESS AREA WRONG, A QUEEN HAIRIT WON'T TAKE THEM ABOUT 10 MINUTES TO GO UP AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I DON'T THINK HOPEFULLY THE FEDS ARE CORRECT RONALD WOMAN'S.
WELL, ONCE WE FIND A PROBLEM THAT WE CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, WE NEED TO TALK TO, TO HELP US WITH THE PROBLEM LIKE MS. LEE SAID.
SO I THINK IF WE JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GET A REAL VIEW OF IT, ALL THE RANGE OF ANIMAL, GOOD DEAL.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, MAN? YEAH.
I RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY, A PROBLEM BY ALEX ALEXANDER, WHO IS PRESIDENT OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL.
THIS PILOT IS, AND HE IS REAPPOINTED TO THE BEADS, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
DCPS COMMITTEE, UH, SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR TWO YEARS.
NOW THIS IS ANOTHER TWO YEAR APPOINTMENT.
WHAT THIS COMMITTEE DOES IS ANALYZE ANY LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON THE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO ANY CHANGES WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MADE IN SUCH LEGISLATION.
WE CAN VOTE TO FIGHT IT, OR WE CAN VOTE TO TAKE NO POSITION.
IF THERE IS AN ITEM IN THAT AREA OF TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, OR PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH WE FEEL NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, WE CAN HAVE LEGISLATION DRAFTED BY THE LEGAL STAFF, AND IT WILL BE INTRODUCED BY LEGISLATORS WHO ARE FRIENDLY TO THE CITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA.
SO, AND THIS HAS A LOT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED WITH THE COMMITTEE OF THE PAST.
NOBODY REALIZES WHAT'S GOING ON A ONE OFF THE BEAM THAT THE CITIES NOW RECEIVED MORE BACK BACK WHEN THEY WANTED THE GAS TAX INCREASE.
THAT WAS THIS COMMITTEE THAT FOUGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH COMMITTEE, EACH COMMUNITY GOT A PROPORTIONATE SHARE INCREASE IN ITS POWER TO BILL FUNDS FROM THAT GAS INCREASE, WHICH MEANT, WHICH MEANT A LOT AND OTHER THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING AT THE STATE LEVEL, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, HE WAS MAKING ME AWARE OF IT AND BRINGING IT TO THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION.
MR. HART, UH, MR. MAYOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
THIS IS, UH, IT IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID ON A PROJECT, WHICH IS TO EXTEND WATER, UH, DOWN US 17, UH, BETWEEN, UH, DAN QUINN SCHOOL.
AND, UH, THE CITY LINE THAT WE HAVE AT THE STOPLIGHT, UH, OUT THERE NEAR RIVER BEND.
UH, THIS EXTENSION IS A SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT THAT WILL IMPROVE THE WATER SERVICE IN THAT AREA FOR EVERYONE.
UH, AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT WILL EXTEND WATER TO SOME PEOPLE WHO HAD PETITIONED US LONG AGO, UH, TO RECEIVE THIS SERVICE.
UH, I'LL READ THIS RESOLUTION, JUST SAYS THAT THE BID FROM DELMA OPINE INCORPORATED FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS ALONG US 17 IN THE SUM OF $88,260, WHICH IS THE LOW BID, UH, BEING IS HEREBY ACCEPTED IN SECTION TWO, THE MAYOR AND CLERK ARE AUTHORIZED TO, SO YOU A RESOLUTION TO BE ADOPTED SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, OH, THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS PART OF THE AREA THAT WE'VE BEEN HAGGLING OVER FOR THE LAST 17.
NOW WE FEEL WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS THING IN THE NEXT MONTH.
WHEN WE DO, WE HAVE TO LET THE BID.
NOW WE NEED TO, UH, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND AWARD THE BID AND HOLD UP THE CONSTRUCTION UNTIL YOU MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON THAT.
BUT WHY WOULDN'T WE DO THAT? THIS IS A STOCK.
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WILL STRENGTHEN THE OVERALL SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT WILL HELP THOSE PEOPLE.
IT WILL HELP ALL OF OUR LINES IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT WILL LOOP THOSE MINES AROUND PROVIDES THAT ARE WATER FLIP.
THIS IDEA WHAT'S BEEN ON THE DRAWING BOARD BEFORE WE STOPPED, STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT'S BEEN ON BOARD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
[01:20:01]
THANK YOU, RICHARD.BEFORE WE ADJOURN, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I HAVE TO DROP THE GAMBLE EVERY NOW AND THEN WHEN I THINK THINGS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND, I DON'T ENJOY DOING IT.
AND IT'S A PERSONAL DISAPPOINTMENT TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERY NOW AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TRY TO KEEP THINGS AS REASONABLE ALREADY.
YOU CAN, SO WE'LL STAND ADJOURN.