Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the April twenty ninth meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council.

We are glad to have you join us.

Do you hear a strange noise?

I hear a strange noise.

It does sound the last time.

Everything's fine.

It's the it's the Yule log.

Oh, we go.

No, it's the laptop.

You all tried to blame Melissa.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh, we are glad to have you join us.

Um, we this evening we have five items on our agenda for discussion.

Um, the first is a public hearing on proposed town charter amendments for council size and the mayor's term.

Um that will be followed by an update on the twenty the twenty fifty-five Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Um, our third item is an update regarding planning for the Southern Air Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.

Ooh, I didn't get that mouthful out.

I really tried.

The Southern Extraterritorial Jurisdiction or ETJ.

Fourth will be to discuss an Awasa reimbursement policy.

And our final item is a discussion about the participation about participation in the national opioid settlement.

Um council members immediately following, we will have a closed session.

Um, okay.

Um joining us for this announcement tonight, we have Nate Holmes from Chapel Hill Transit, um, who is leading the town's transportation demand management program, and also in the audience are members of Shift Chapel Hill Carborough.

So would you all please join Councilmember Rivers up front for that announcement?

Uh huh.

Oh, the mask and the glasses.

The worst combination of the people.

Guided by our plans for a more connected and accessible community.

In celebration of the power enjoy a bike in our community, the town council is proud to proclaim my May twenty twenty twenty-six as bike month in Chapel Hill.

And we invite everyone to put on your helmet, please put on your helmet, and join us for bike and roll the school day on May 6th.

And bike to work week, May eleventh through May 17th.

And we encourage everyone to ride more and drive less this year and to wear a helmet.

Okay, let's go.

Oh, here.

Definitely.

Don't be leaving smart.

Oh.

Hold on one second.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, our second announcement is for Small Business Week, which will be shared by Councilmember Sharp.

For this one, we invite David Putnam from Economic Development, along with representatives of our local business community, Ole Maz Jewelers, Growler Girls, and Launch Inc.

If you can join Councilmember Sharp up front.

Sure, I have to hear.

Here in Chapel Hill, small businesses are a cornerstone of our local economy, creating jobs, driving growth, and enriching the character of our community.

Small businesses also serve as gathering places, foster innovation, and help create the unique, welcoming sense of community that defines Chapel Hill.

In celebration of their dedication and entrepreneurial spirit, we are pleased to proclaim May 3rd through 9th, 2026, the small business week, and to encourage everyone to shop small and support local businesses during that week and year round.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Paul.

Let's go.

Oh, they're gonna do it again.

If Keely asks we come out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Billy.

Yeah, come on down and have a beer.

I like a beer.

Absolutely.

Right now, Southern Village, right now.

What's on my favorite opposition?

Thank you so much to all of our local business representatives and those who joined us tonight.

Also, um there's something from the diaper bank, so I bet that's okay.

Um we are deeply grateful for the many ways that your businesses support um the identity of Chapel Hill, and we are proud to celebrate you tonight and encourage our residents and visitors to shop small during small business week end year-round.

And we've all been invited to go get a beer in Southern Village, so if I see y'all leaving, I'll understand why.

I would go with you if I could.

Um, finally, we have um period poverty awareness month.

And joining us this evening is Madison Lewis from the Diaper Bank of North Carolina.

Um, Miss Lewis, will you please uh join uh Councilmember Ryan up front?

Thank you.

This evening we want to take a moment to recognize an important issue that affects many people in our community and across the country.

Menstrual products are a basic necessity, yet too many individuals struggle to afford them each month.

The challenge known as period poverty can impact health, cause people to miss work or school, and make it harder to fully participate in daily life.

In Chapel Hill, we're fortunate to have organizations like Period Power, part of the diaper bank of North Carolina, working to make sure people have access to these essential supplies.

Their efforts along with community support are making a real difference.

Because of this, we proclaim May 11th through May 17th, 2026 as Period Poverty Awareness Week in Chapel Hill.

We encourage everyone who is able to support local efforts, whether through donations, product drives, or simply spreading awareness so that everyone in our community can live with dignity and stay healthy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Lewis, for joining us tonight.

And please pass along to your colleagues and volunteers and supporters how much we appreciate your tireless work in supporting residents of Chapel Hill and communities across our state.

You all make a tremendous difference and we appreciate you.

Okay, that brings us to announcements.

I do have three quick things to share.

First, we are closing out Poetry Month Strong with the town's fourth annual installment of the Poet is a Verb at the library tomorrow night, April 30th at 6 p.m.

Uh second is a note for pickleball players in the room that the courts at Ephesus Park will be closed for approximately three weeks for resurfacing.

So please plan to play at one of our other pickleball facilities during that time.

And third, the community survey is out.

If you are among the uh randomized group that received the survey this year, we want to hear from you and would greatly appreciate your participation.

Um council meets again next week, May 6th, 6 p.m.

here at town hall.

Uh during that meeting, the town manager will present his uh 2026-27 recommended budget.

Uh council members, does anyone else have anything to share?

Yes.

Uh yes, Councilmember Noller and then Councilmember McMahon.

Thanks.

Uh two quick notes.

Um the legislature is considering restoring funding for the workforce housing loan program.

That's an important gap financing program used to build affordable units across the state.

Uh if you would consider writing in support of that program, you can find information about it online, and it is um uh there may be a possibility of getting some money into it, so it's worth taking some time to do that.

Other thing is uh you may have seen Medicaid rebase was passed recently.

It included a number of pretty onerous um work requirement provisions, a reporting pipeline to uh make sure that anybody who is not currently a citizen is reported to ICE if they go to get health care, things like that.

Um there are several groups led by the Justice Center that are uh asking legislators to rework those provisions, and I think there's also a possibility that might happen.

So if you are uh in touch with any advocacy groups and think about sending your comments to your legislators, those are two things I think it might actually make a difference if you get people to send comments about that.

So if you know people elsewhere in North Carolina or you're willing to write to um in particular legislators in the majority party, please do.

Thank you.

Councilmember McMahon.

Thank you.

This is less of an announcement, more of a uh what would have been a petition but a request.

We saw the email come in from the planning commission chair and vice chair.

Um I'd like to request or somehow have the discussion that we could open town hall to the planning commission meeting uh one time a month as requested, and specifically to address the LUMA when it comes out, and if there's a way that the framework that we worked on in the work session, if the planning commission could have a chance to go through the LUMO with that document before we go through it in this setting, it would be very helpful to me, and I don't know about other council members if um that can be possible.

Um council?

Any I I would be supportive of that.

Councilmember Rivers.

Yeah, I'm also supportive of that.

I think they were also requesting training for future planning commission members, and I'm also supportive of that.

Okay.

Uh Mayor President Barry.

I guess I apologize.

Yeah, I'm talking slow.

Um I think in addition to having it here in town hall being valuable to us as a council member.

I think it also would be another chance for the public to hear in-depth conversation of Lumumo, which would be easier than on Zoom, I think.

Yep.

Great.

Uh yep.

Uh Mayor Pro Temberry and then Councilmember Sharp.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I am supportive of that.

I know that we did receive this afternoon communication from our town manager regarding uh the possibility of meeting once a month and then looking at funding for that for I believe uh fiscal year 27.

Is that correct?

Yeah, I haven't gotten that out to everybody, but um some we've had some conversation with various folks about this as it evolves this week.

Um, but I've had conversation with staff about umce a month in person.

Can we find that you know uh as a way to to move forward some of the issues around security and all that are kind of things we need to resolve, but also on funding, I think we do have a way to provide some level of of planning commission training within our existing resources, provided folks aren't uh um anticipating very significant training costs.

Uh I think we we have those resources available, but we'll we'll figure out how to get the planning commission back into the chamber once a month.

Uh we're working on that.

Thank you.

Great.

I just wanted to say that um I appreciate the interest that others share with us, as do I, and I also appreciate the staff's um efforts to help us understand what it would take to make it happen.

Councilmember Sharp.

Yeah, I just want to also echo support for um the planning commission reviewing the LUMO matrix prior to us, and just general support for the notion that we would get a recommendation from the planning commission of what they their take on pretty much anything planning related before it comes to us because that's part of the point of a planning commission.

Okay.

Um well, uh I am hearing strong support for those requests, and it sounds like some of them are already underway, and we appreciate that.

Uh Mr.

Forheath, so um, and thank you, Councilmember McMahon, for bringing that um to the board.

Okay.

Um anything else to share from counts.

Okay.

Um next up, we invite members of the public to comment on items that are not listed on the printed agenda.

Um for members of the public in attendance wishing to speak, you're welcome to sign up with the clerk who um is on the left side of the chamber toward the front of the room.

Um if you're here to speak on a specific item, there will be a presentation on the item, followed by council clarifying questions and then public comment.

Um do we have anybody signed up to speak?

Okay, well, we're gonna keep it rolling.

Um council, that is gonna bring us to our consent agenda.

Do I have a motion?

I move consent.

Uh motion by council member Ryan, seconded by council member Miller Fushi.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Um next up is item number seven, which is um the public hearing on proposed charter amendments on council size and mayoral term.

And our presenter is our town manager, Ted Forhees.

Um before we begin, I'd like to offer a bit of context so that everyone is on the same page as we begin this community conversation.

Um first off, this idea was raised in 2020 when a council member moved out of the country and a seat became vacant.

At that time, council chose to postpone the discussion so we could focus on the pandemic and ensure the full community could participate, which is why we are here tonight.

Um second, we want this process to be clear and transparent.

Um April 15th, the council passed a resolution to hold tonight's public hearing.

Umce then we've shared information through Chapel Hill's Our Town e-newsletter, a mayor's message.

I've been on the radio twice, we've posted on social media.

Um council members have also been talking with folks and sharing information.

Um so the town manager will explain options and next steps in his presentation.

Um and third, to set the stage in our April 15th discussion, uh, council members talked about the values we hold and the balance that we're trying to strike between representation, diversity, effectiveness, and manageability.

These are our interests, and they are grounded in a clear commitment to preserve representation and diversity.

And last, these are important questions about how we govern ourselves, and there are multiple ways to get there while staying true to our shared values.

I encourage all of us to approach this conversation with openness and good faith, listening carefully and sharing our views thoughtfully.

Um with that, I will turn things over to you, Mr.

Forhees.

Well, thank you, Mayor, members of council.

Great to be here as usual.

Um intent here uh this evening is to really talk about the process.

My intent here this evening is to really talk about the process.

The decision to implement any of these structural changes to the governing body is a political decision, and so the administration doesn't have a position on this, but we want to help you understand what it would take to make that change and uh help answer any questions about that process.

So my intent tonight is just to talk us through what that process would look like.

So our recommended action for you tonight is to open the public hearing that's required to receive input on the proposed amendments to the town charter.

This does not commit you to enacting any of it, but uh gets the ball rolling for the public uh to have uh an opportunity to uh provide feedback.

And the provisions we're considering tonight uh in this process are to extend the mayoral term from two to four years in each cycle and to reduce the council size from eight to six.

There's been some discussion about maybe moving to district representation.

Uh the concept there, maybe three districts and three at-large members.

That's not on the uh agenda for this particular process, uh, but if you were to move to the to the sixth number, uh there would be time to consider moving in that direction so that it would take place at during one of the transition elections uh to move to six.

I just thought I'd mention that.

Uh so a little bit of background.

Uh the mayor touched on this uh about the 2020 council seat vacancy.

Uh we understand that in 1975, a little bit before that, uh council amended the charter to increase the number of council seats from six to eight.

And you've probably read some uh communication from various members of the public who were here then uh speaking about the goals there, and those are matters you can take under consideration as you as you work on this.

Um the process is that there are two options.

Uh charters are a grant of authority from the General Assembly, and so given that you can go to the General Assembly and ask for these changes to be made.

Uh it would be a local bill.

Uh we don't recommend that because uh the General Assembly uh sometimes things can be unpredictable and sometimes you might get some things uh considered that you maybe aren't a big fan of.

So best to uh avoid that if you can.

Uh so that leaves you with the uh ordinance process.

So there are pieces of the charter that you are allowed to amend yourselves by statute that do not require general assembly action.

There are other things in there that you can't do unless you get general assembly action.

But this issue as to council size and mayoral terms is something that you can choose to change by ordinance.

Uh and when you make that decision, you have two options with respect to a referendum.

Uh you may choose to make it subject to a referendum, or you may choose to do it simply by a vote of the council.

If you choose to do it by vote of the council, the public may choose to file a petition to require a referendum.

So one triggers the other.

They would have a 30-day period to file a sufficient petition.

So where we are in the process right now is we are in well, we already have the first meeting where you adopted a resolution of intent to consider the charter amendment.

We're now here at the second meeting where you're opening a public hearing uh to consider the amendment.

Uh the next step would be to uh adopt uh the amendment or order the referendum.

Uh and then uh if the referendum is ordered by you, it's held at the regular election in November.

If the choice is to not hold a referendum, but a petition is filed that's sufficient, that would drive uh an order to have the referendum also in November.

So we're targeting November, that's why we're on this timeline.

The idea is to make sure that it happens during the general election and doesn't cause a special election, which is its own uh separate cost and administrative burden.

Uh should a referendum be your choice or should a referendum be driven by petition?

Uh we understand that that cost would be roughly 40,000 uh for um ballot uh production because it's a a longer question and and wouldn't really fit in the sort of standard uh ballot you'd see.

So let's move to the questions you need to consider.

If council decides to change the mayor's term from two to four years, how could we execute that change?

We would execute this change on a on the 2027 uh ballot by electing a mayor to a four-year term.

So very simply, this mayor serves till the end of the existing term, and then 2027 election would be for a four-year term.

So just to be sure people understand, this is not for me.

This is not extending my term.

No, it it is not.

It would be uh a new term beginning uh after that election.

Uh, whoever wins that election would would get a four-year term.

Thank you.

The next question: if council decides to reduce its membership size, how would we execute that change?

Um we have a recommendation that reduces your number to six with the 2027 election, and I'll I'll go through a graphic to talk about this.

Uh but then we need to uh transition through a couple of steps to get to a three-three staggered four-year uh to three-three staggered four-year terms by uh 2031.

So it's it's you you'd get to six right away, but to get to three and three takes a couple extra steps.

Uh so how does that how does that work?

Uh for the November 2027 election, uh right now, as it stands, there are there are four members that would be up for election.

We would um only have two members, two seats up for election at the 2027 uh vote.

Uh so that puts you uh immediately at six.

Uh then in 2029, there would be four members' seats up.

Uh for that election, we would have three of those candidates, the ones with the highest number of votes, uh sit for four-year terms.

But the fourth highest vote getter would sit for only a two-year term.

So that would line them up with the the previously elected folks for two-year terms, which then makes your stagger.

So uh by November 2031, you'd have three seats on the ballot, and 20 2033, another three seats on the ballot.

So that's how you you stagger it.

And we're happy to talk through that a little bit more because we we've used a lot of different graphics for that, and it always always confuses us.

This is an attempt at showing the graphic.

I don't know if um this helps.

Um I like to do it with fingers.

I've been told this is helpful that that you know it's you you got four and four, and we're trying to get to six.

So let's see, if you drop two immediately, you get to six, but now they're four-year terms and two-year terms.

So, how do we line it up?

Well, one of these people has to move over to this group.

That's why they they get elected for only a two-year term, like uh and and that that lines them up.

The other people are four.

Um I'm not sure if that helps.

It helped me, but uh the graphic um for official publication purposes is this one uh that shows you've got four up in 27, 4 up in 29.

The if you did the charter change, you'd only have two up in 27.

Uh in 29, you'd have three up for four-year terms, and one up for two-year term.

And that's how you'd line it up.

He's a good question.

There's a clear as much question.

Certainly.

Yeah, thanks.

Um just a question about the preferred recommendation here.

Um I did some research on how other communities have done this, and I'm curious why this is the recommendation rather than having four in 27 with the fourth place finisher getting two years and then three in 29, so you lose two seats in 29.

Uh uh, and then that way, instead of ever having a two-year, uh, a two-seat year, you have a four-seat and then a three-seat, and you're at six at that point.

Yeah, I I'm not sure that I could say that there's a uh compelling reason.

Uh I think it's a choice.

This is the recommendation.

Jim, do you have a uh an opinion to add in?

Well, I I looked at this question too.

Um, and this is the recommendation of the League of Municipalities when folks are trying to get it to a staggered number year.

Um basically it's the recommendation because others have done this successfully and folks have understood it.

Uh but there are other paths to get there.

So this was and I'm sorry, I don't want to get us totally off track, but this was the uh uh council member knowledge.

That's what I thought that was what I thought was gonna be the way, because that was I think and I think I tried to explain this to you at some point and didn't do it well.

Um but that was what I assumed would be the method, but can now I've gotten lost with like the finger puppets and the whole thing.

I know I'm sorry, but um can you can you explain that one maybe with finger puppets or not?

I'm I'm really reluctant to try to to do the finger puppets ever again.

I've been told.

Well now I've made it uncomfortable, I'm sorry.

Um next time there's four.

Would you like to I'll take a shot?

Yeah, I'm gonna do that.

Please please come back on.

The alternate method.

So in the alternate method, in 2027, four people run, and the person who finishes last gets two years.

In 27, only three seats are available.

So that means the fourth place seat vanishes from 27, and there is not a 29 seat on the ballot.

So you lose two seats, one from 27 and one from 29, but you still have four people run in 27.

Yep.

Just the last place finisher only is on for two years.

Yes.

That's what it's just moves the two-year term up of an election.

Yeah, it's a way of avoiding ever having a year where there's only two seats available.

Right, and it and it takes a little longer to get to six.

It's faster.

It's faster.

Yeah, it's faster.

Yeah.

Um, I will say that.

So that happens the first year, but then with this public hearing, we don't have a draft ordinance, and so if there's a preferred path of this body to propose for an ordinance at a later date, should you all choose to go that direction, we can structure the ordinance however the body prefers.

We yeah, we appreciate that.

No, and I just wanted to make sure we had that one on the table and that I understood it because I had lost track of it.

So thank you for bringing that up.

Actually, Councilmember Ryan, you're right.

The other way is the ultimate way to do that.

This proposal gets us to six immediately, but there's a year where there's only two seats available.

So it's the other one, it takes two, it takes one cycles to get to six.

You get to six in twenty-nine instead of twenty-seven.

But you don't have that imbalance in the electoral order.

Correct.

So that's the trade-off there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think we'll need to revisit this once we decide if we want to reduce the size of council.

Yes.

So I'd rather not try to sort this out in my mind until we discuss do we want to even move forward with it?

Well, I think we're trying to just understand what the options are.

But yes, it will have to then there would have to be a decision point there as well.

Right.

I'm just saying that this is starting to get too cumbersome.

And I'd rather park it.

Yep.

I I think the bottom line is do you want to do this?

And then there's a couple different ways to get there.

Um the recommended way here we think gets you to six a little faster, but you still have to make an adjustment to get to three and three.

Um and so with that, I'll I'll kind of get to this point.

Uh the fundamental questions, do you want to make this change for the mayor oral term?

If so, do you want to make this change by ordinance or calling referendum?

And then the council membership change.

Do you want to make this change?

And if so, do you want to make this change by ordinance or by referendum?

And that's essentially uh the question before you.

It's a political question.

Uh again, we invite you to open the public hearing, receive public input, and have discussion.

Uh and then we're on a bit of a tight timeline, but uh your um uh acting attorney took a look at uh the schedule again, and we do have a couple of meetings that we can uh uh consider this at.

Um but we we can't go uh very much past uh uh well we can't go past June.

So the recommended uh date for consideration, you know, is is in May, uh, but we could we could move into June a little bit.

And the June deadline is so that the public can request a referendum if we don't go the referendum route.

And then the petition, should it be successfully um presented, will have time for the uh Orange County uh office of um Board of Elections.

Yep, Board of Elections print print the um absentee ballots in time uh to get them out before the election.

That's the thing we're trying to uh you know avoid a problem with.

Okay.

Um yes, council member sorry, Mayor Pro Timberry.

I also want to offer that there's another consideration.

Should we decide to um make changes and invite the public to weigh in on this through a referendum is to do it during the time that we do municipal elections matters?

And so um then it could be in the next year.

And that would also provide um additional input from the community.

So I I want to make sure that we also consider that.

Okay.

Um do you oh let me ask one question and I'll come right over.

Uh do you want a motion from us to open the public hearing?

That would be appropriate.

Okay.

Our previous guidance was just by showing up.

We were opening hearings, but we will do as you prefer.

Um my comment may be something more appropriately placed later.

We're like questions.

Okay.

I have a question.

So I can ask my question later.

Okay.

Um I have a motion from Councilmember Ryan to open the public hearing and a second from Councilmember Rivers.

Okay.

Is that true?

Oh, from McCullough.

I don't know who made the second.

Was it you?

Yes.

I made a motion.

We did it at the same time.

And then I heard Rivers.

Seconded by uh Mayor Pro Timberry.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Um we have time for council clarifying questions.

So I think Councilmember Sharp.

Um is when we What did I write down because I'm losing my words tonight?

Um uh what makes the public petition sufficient to call the referendum?

Like what percentage of people have to have signed the per the petition?

The statute requires either a percentage or a number.

Um the lowest amount based on Chapel Hill is 5,000 voters uh signing a petition and submitting it to the Board of Elections within 30 days after notice of the proposed change.

Um were this body to adopt an ordinance with any of these changes, um, there would be a 10-day period on which the town clerk has to publish the ordinance, and upon publication it starts that clock.

So it could be a 40-day clock to get those signatures, but at the very least it's 30.

Got it.

And then my next question was um following up on what council member excuse me, Mayor Pro Temberry said.

If we were to decide to put this to a referendum, like the council were decide to move it to a referendum rather than voting on it, voting on an ordinance.

Is it legal to move it to the next election?

Or does is do we have does that referendum have to be on the 2026?

Does it have to be this November or can it be next year?

That is a good question.

Um so I'm looking at uh statute 163-287.

Um, and it does require were you to adopt an ordinance.

Um, it should be set at a next certain election.

Those or those elections are very limited.

Um, and because the next election is the midterm election, the statute anticipates that you would be doing that.

And so if the desire of the body were to do it at a later year, uh then my recommendation would be to not adopt an ordinance uh and then wait until the midterm elections complete and then adopt an ordinance.

Um the other thing to keep in mind is that there's a statutory requirement that when you adopt an ordinance during a municipal election year, any of those changes will not impact the members of this body uh because there's a 90-day retroactive period for the current candidates.

So were you to wait a year, it might be waiting more than a year really before the impacts are felt.

Got it because then we wouldn't be changing it for the 27, yeah, and 27 is a year we have an election.

Yep, got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Nollard.

Thank you.

Um do we know ballpark what it costs to have uh odd year municipal elections versus what kind of savings there would be if we were to do them on an even year?

It's a it's an adjacent question, and that I one of the grounds for the shrink proposed is that it might save some money, and I'm just curious how much money we might save if we switched to even year elections.

My understanding is that it's the same.

I was speaking with uh Rachel Raver at the Orange County Board of Elections earlier today, and she was explaining to me that the only additional cost for beyond basic candidates on a ballot is when you create items like municipal bonds or referendums on charter changes, uh then you actually have to pay for the print and pay for the larger page.

And so that's where those costs come in.

Um but I know, for example, other municipalities have recently switched to um uh uh different election cycles.

Um, and that's something that is possible uh but not part of this public hearing because it wasn't in the notice.

Thank you.

Okay, any other clarifying questions?

Okay.

Um so how many speakers do we have?

We have eight.

One second.

Um this evening we have eight speakers signed up to speak, so each person will have three minutes to speak on this item.

Um we ask that you speak into the microphones so that everyone, including our viewing audience, can hear and that you wrap up quickly when the timer goes off.

Um we also request um that there is no clapping or cheering or any sort of that's so that um the council can really listen to um the speaker.

So um if uh we can um make sure that we're all focused on the speaker who is giving us their thoughts.

So um I will hand it off to Mayor Pro Temverry.

Okay.

First speaker will be Danita Mason Hoggins, followed by Mark Kleinschmidt.

Welcome.

Hey Bayer, thank you.

I'll be quick.

I um my wonderful husband has taken me to see Fishbone tonight at the uh Cat's Cradle.

You know, black right coalition.

But I first of all you for joining us beforehand.

First, I I want to thank you for allowing me to speak tonight, and I'll be quick.

But I want to begin by saying that I truly believe that many of you care deeply about equity, housing, students, workers, and the future of Chapel Hill.

But this is not a question about liking or believing in an individual.

This is a structural one.

Tonight, I invite us to think carefully about representation and what it really means.

I do not believe that Chapel Hill suffers from too much representation.

I believe Chapel Hill suffers from uneven representation.

Reducing the size of council may sound administratively efficient, but it would also consolidate power.

It would raise the threshold for those who can win and benefit incumbents, established networks, better funded campaigns, and people who are already eligible to Chapel Hill's dominant political culture.

And that matters because Chapel Hill does not have term limits.

So if an elected official is doing good work, as many of you are, you already have the ability to keep running and benefit from incumbency.

A few of you, for example, have served on Chapel Hill for more than one term.

So continuity and leadership is already possible.

And political sacrifice and hard work is certainly not new to marginalized communities.

From my perspective, as a generational black Chapel Hillian, diversity cannot simply mean whether a black person, young person, student, or person of color can occasionally win a seat.

The deeper question is whether government allows enough room for people with the lived historical and community-rooted knowledge to shape policy before harm is done.

It is not enough to say the black candidates or candidates of colors have sometimes done well.

Which candidates?

Do they have generational ties to this community?

Are they from communities that have been among Chapel Hill's most marginalized?

When there's a large pool of candidates and only one or two candidates are from marginalized communities, those communities often have to consolidate their votes around very limited choices.

So a third or fourth place finish does not necessarily prove that Chapel Hill is broadly welcoming.

It might prove that marginalized communities have fewer options to begin with.

So we're talking about this town and a country where the consequences of an even uneven respite representation are not theoretical.

Orange County has one of the greatest wealth gaps in North Carolina.

Chapel Hill has the second largest achievement gap.

Generational black Chapel Hillians have experienced massive land loss, and many can no longer afford to live in the town that their ancestors helped to build because of housing policies they did not set.

So I'm asking council not only to oppose shrinking representation, but to think more deeply about how we expand meaningful representation.

This is about access to power.

It's who about who gets to shape policy, and in a town with this much history, displacement, and unresolved inequity, we do not need fewer voices at the table.

We need more.

Thank y'all so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, Mark Klein Schmidt, followed by Betty Curry.

Mayor and Council, thank you so much for having me.

If you know me, you know I'm a little shy and kind of nervous.

Speaking in public, what she said is what I want to say.

Um I first heard of this proposal, the spirit of a colleague that I served with back about 20 years ago on this council, where both council members just went through me, and that was my good friend Bill Thorpe.

Bill was very active here in local government in the 1970s and helped create the charter change that created the council as we see it here today.

And I remember having conversations with many conversations with Bill about that time and why it was necessary to expand the council.

And he said, Mark, you know, the only way we could actually get black voices on the council was to be able to consolidate our votes.

And whenever you, whenever we made it for each cycle instead of just three each cycle, it meant we didn't have to get as many.

Because whenever you to come in fourth, you don't need a higher percentage of the vote that you would need if you were coming in third.

And it allowed for these voices that were otherwise not heard to be present at the table.

And it didn't just impact the ability of African Americans to get onto this council, but it opened the door for lots of diversity.

Joe Herzenberg came in fourth in 1987, which allowed me to come in fourth in 2001, which allowed Lee Storo to come in fourth in 2009.

And that's own that's the only reason why Karen Stegman was able to come in second and then first.

This is not, and it's not just about demographic diversity, it's about political viewpoint diversity.

You know, I sat in that chair there with where Mayor Anderson is for six years, and I had some really stirring conversations with my colleagues, some of them who saw the world completely different than me.

But because they were there at the council and had a voice as powerful as mine, because even when I sat in the middle, I knew I was only one of nine, that political viewpoint became a part of the decision making process, and our decisions were better because they were there.

It made those meetings better.

So it's not just about demographics, it's not, it's about this about viewpoint and making sure that everybody gets to come to the table and contribute.

You're also with the mayor's idea of a four four-year term, you're creating two classes of council members.

Think about what the voter turnout is going to be in the year that the mayor's not running.

And think about who gets elected to those seats.

If those people want mayoral, they if those people, those council members have mayoral aspirations, they can try every single time without putting their seat up at risk.

And they get elected with nobody voting because the leader of our community isn't on the ballot.

That can be the way that this council runs.

We need the people of Chapel Hill to be able to turn out people whenever they don't want them there anymore.

I know that from experience.

Think about it.

If I had four years, this town would have suffered for another two years under the Kleinschmidt rule.

And I know a lot of people some people out here didn't want that, and they were able to change the change the politics of this town in one boom.

And I think that makes for a better community and creates higher trust in the people who make a decisions.

Thank you for letting me be here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Betty Curry, followed by Nancy Oates.

All right.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Member.

My name is Betty Curry.

I'm a community advocate, uh, resident of Chapel Hill, and I now serve on the Board of Empowerment Inc., an organization that works directly with historically marginalized communities, particularly black residents who have long fought for equity in this town.

Tonight, I speak not only for myself, but in an alignment with the concerns raised by our executive director, Delores Bailey, and many other community members who feel unheard in this moment.

Let me be clear.

It is the process and the lack of transparency surrounding it.

We are being asked to accept a major structural change, reducing council feats, extending mayor's terms.

These are not minor adjustments.

These are decisions that shift power, assets, and representation in Chapel Hill.

And yet we was the and yet, where was the community in this process?

Where was the outreach to the black communities?

Latino community, low income resident renters, very people most impacted by decisions made in this room.

Because of where we stand, that engagement did not happen.

History teaches us why this matters.

In 1975, under the Howard Lee, the council expanded from six to eight seats, and that expansion came because communities like Northside and Pine Old demanded representation.

It was a response to exclusion, not today.

We are being asked to reduce that representation without demonstrating that those inequities have been resolved.

They have not.

Affordable housing remains out of reach for many families.

Renters, especially those at lower income levels, have limited voices in decision making.

And in our work at empowerment, we see this every day.

We see residents navigating strict housing regulations, limited economic mobility, systems that often feel like they are designed without them in mind.

So when representation is reduced, even by two seats, it is not neutral.

It has consequences.

But equally concerning is how quickly this is moving.

In 1974, this town created a charter committee that study governance change for over a year, engaging public alone the way.

Today, this moving forward in a matter of weeks.

No broad community education, no meaningful engagement strategy, no deliberate inclusion of those most impacted.

This is not Chapel Hill, we say we are.

So today I stand with Dolores Bailey and others in saying this is not being handled correctly and respectfully.

We are asking this council to pause this process and create a space for transparency, communication, community education, intentional engagement.

We're historically exclusive voices because decisions of this magnitude requires more than efficiency.

They require trust, inclusion, and accountability.

And I will finally say this.

When communities feel left out of decisions, they do not lose trust in the process.

They lose trust in the leadership.

And that is something far more difficult to repair.

We are ready to engage, we are ready to organize, and we are ready to stand together.

But we need you to meet us there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nancy Oates, followed by Eva Matthews.

I'm Nancy Oates, former uh town council member.

Jerry Cohen, who was the former special counsel and director of legislative drafting for the North Carolina General Assembly wrote an article decades ago when he was uh served on council and he was a law student, and he argued, and I quote, a four-year term for mayor has no redeeming social value.

And he said he stands by that today.

I won't repeat all of his well-thought-out arguments, but I will underscore that a four-year term for mayor is a form of gerrymandering.

It nullifies an individual's vote and it prevents the community from changing direction.

Even if voters elect the four new council members, they couldn't make changes without a fifth, the deciding fifth vote from a new mayor.

And a couple weeks ago, one of you said that a mayor needs four years to realize his or her vision, but Chapel Hill has a council manager form of government, and the council has the vision, not the mayor.

You have a retreat at the beginning of the year, and you set your goals and your priorities and your vision, and the manager implements them.

And we've seen on the national level the consolidation of power when elected officials uh abdicate their responsibility to represent their constituents and instead cowtow to someone elected to a higher office, and we don't want to drag that down to the local level.

Some of you are concerned that shrinking the size of council would hinder diversity, but what good is diversity if you don't use your voice?

The mayor's only one vote of nine, and the only superpower the mayor has is to work with the town manager to set the meeting agenda.

Some of you said that a mayor needs four years to grow into leadership, and Mr.

Cohen refutes that, as does the history of all of our mayors who all adopt adapted to leadership very quickly, as any of you would if you decided to run for mayor.

The current two-year term enables council members to run for mayor midterm without risking losing their seats, and then they bring their council experience to quickly adjust to the role of mayor.

And what have you said that if voters chose a bad mayor, the councillor would just have to put up with it for four years?

But this goes beyond you.

It's about what's best for the town, for what's best for the people who live here and the people who work here.

And again, we've seen on the national level how long it can take to recover from bad leadership decisions.

All of the arguments I've heard in favor of a four-year term center on the benefits of the candidate, I'd urge you to ask yourselves, as you do with every decision you make, what's um uh in the best interest of the people?

This timing is poor.

The uh public hearing is scheduled when a quarter of the eligible voters are either focused on our exams or have left town.

And uh you still have only a concept of a plan.

Um, and you and your town attorney had resigned a few days ago.

So, but fortunately, Ralph Carpinos, who was the Chapel Hills town attorney for decades and is highly regarded nationally, advised you that if you decide to move forward with this, you should make it a referendum on the ballot in the next local election and let leader voters decide.

And former uh mayor Kevin Foy also addressed the slow this, uh, urged you to slow this down and involve the electorate.

So I I also would say flesh it out, put it on the ballot, and then let voters decide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yvette Matthews, followed by Will Raymond.

I'm gonna just say this.

If I say what's up, you gotta say it back, or you ain't gonna I ain't gonna feel welcome.

So what's up?

What's up?

Okay.

Um, you know, I've been in this community um for over I'm I'm from Detroit, okay.

So when I came uh to this community years ago, um, and I started working at community empowerment but CEF, I am the um office and community organizer, and I saw a need for our people fixing come, low-income and no-income people to be supported in this space.

Um the thing that I heard most about was housing, how we couldn't find jobs, what we really need to be secure and stable.

And so I started this thing called meeting other minds.

So what it is is that we came together, the community sat around, talked about what they wasn't getting, they told me all their stories.

And I said, Well, what what y'all want me to do about it?

Because I got a big mouth and I don't mind saying I got a big mouth.

And so they said, Well, we would like to talk to the mayor, we would like to talk to town council, and I'm like, okay, let's do that.

But nobody was comfortable coming here, y'all gotta admit it's kind of stiff, you know what I'm saying.

So I invited you to us.

You came to us and to the um the population into our area.

Glad to see PMF is here, glad to see Kamila's here, my brother, okay.

But when I first engaged with you, it was only people who didn't look like me.

Okay.

So if you guys are going to take town council and uh make it smaller, I think that we're gonna be the ones who look like me.

That won't be, you won't be looking at.

You know what I'm saying?

It'll be y'all.

You know, when we say white people, I'm gonna say, okay, it'll be white, mostly white people.

That's how I feel.

And so I think it's unfair that you would take us out of the space that we should be in so we would have people to speak for us because that's what you've been doing over and over and over again.

Uh mayor just ain't gonna talk about the mayor thing, because I don't really don't care.

You know, if it's two year poor, I really don't.

But I really do care about us being represented in a space where we don't usually be represented.

And if you're gonna talk to the community, then y'all really need to come and talk to us because I the only reason why I heard about this was because the Lord's told me about this.

I didn't even know about this.

And I'm part of the community and a community organizer.

Why not know?

How many other people do you think knew?

Check it out.

Ain't many of us here, because we didn't know.

So if you're gonna reach out to people and you really want to be fair with folks, you really want their opinion, then you need to really ask us.

And we would actually tell you.

And also think about this.

When you do ask us, don't already have your mind made up about what you're gonna do.

Because why should I come?

Think about it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

Will Raymond, followed by Dolores Bailey.

I find it kind of ironic that I'm here tonight after the Civil Rights Act got a viscerated today.

It started in my lifetime.

It looks like it ended in my lifetime.

We've had a year of body blows to democracy in our town.

We've had 10 years of steady dilution of civic engagement.

We've neutered or gotten rid of most advisory boards.

We don't have task force.

We have sham engagement.

And then we seem to be talking about the charters.

Is it something for you guys, the council?

It's not for the council, it's for the community.

And there's a reason that we have eight people and a mayor.

And there are very good reasons.

A couple tweets and a radio show or two is not public engagement.

I'm like the other person.

I just found out about this, and a lot of you guys know me from way back.

I usually know what's going on.

I was completely surprised.

And I asked myself, what's the hurry?

Why are we doing this now?

So what did I do?

I looked for the full agenda tonight.

No letter from the lawyer, no history of this, no timeline, no presentation.

We're starting this discussion in a hearing instead of having three or four community outreach, which we would have had in the past.

Why didn't we get the community on board and then have a hearing?

We're putting this and timing it in May, which is a classic way to bum rush stuff in this town.

If this was a real thing, it'd be public initiated.

There would have been a lot more outreach.

Since we've pretty much neutered and diluted the opinion of the public, their ability to engage directly, the diversity of opinion lies with the council.

And eight people, as we heard, maybe is too little.

And the previous speakers put this away better than me.

We forget the reason for two years for the mayor.

During these mayoral elections, a lot of times we have the most vigorous debate possible.

And we also have historical change.

What's interesting is Mark, I helped him run in 2001.

Me, Mark, and Bill Thorpe ran as a block in 2005.

But I was instrumental in kicking Mark to the curve because I had become a disenchanted with his direction.

But know what?

Getting rid of Mark sent a message.

A clear message, and the council followed.

So finally, I just want to say keep the current arrangement.

Add, if you're gonna do this, add a recall provision that citizens can initiate.

We don't have that.

Have a real ethics charter for you guys that again, the citizens can initiate.

We don't have that.

And finally, I agree with Howard Lee, term limits.

The power of incumbency has been way too much in this town, and it's time that we do something about it.

Referendum, asking 5,000 votes.

A lot of you guys got elected with less than 5,000 votes.

That's just a non-starter.

You need to call it for a referendum if you're gonna do this.

I hope you have reverse course.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, Dolores Bailey, followed by Michelle Laws.

Good afternoon.

I'm Dolores Bailey.

I've been before you many times.

I've got lots written down, but I have to say one thing.

I am so disturbed about the fact that I did not know about this in enough time.

If any of you all have ever been to the NAACP, when you were running for office, you came and asked for our support.

Not one of you came to the NAACP and told me what was going on, told us what's going on.

I have a right to be upset.

I'm before you way more than this.

I didn't have time to talk in my community.

I didn't have the time to talk to my tenants, I didn't have time to talk to anybody.

Why is that unacceptable to me?

Because I'm before you every single time there's a need for that community, for those communities.

This is not done the way I know the town council of Chapel Hill can be.

They've said it before, but I have got to say it again.

This is unacceptable.

If this had been on the consent agenda, we would never have found out about it until 2027.

I often tell my folk, if you are waiting in the community until you see a house coming up out of the ground, it's too late for you to complain.

It's too late for you to add any kind of comment.

That's how I feel tonight.

It's almost too late for me to say, no, do not reduce the number of representatives.

I am very concerned about the marginalized community members and being spoken for and being represented.

And man, this smacks me in the face when nobody came to me and said, Hey Dolores, what do you think about this?

Nobody is not about Dolores.

Absolutely not.

It's about being able to share with the rest of the community what's going on.

They could say whatever they wanted.

But they need the opportunity to be able to speak on this.

I'm gonna leave that alone.

Because the other issue that is just as important to me is the idea that we would change from two years to four years for the mayoral candidacy.

I want to be very clear and direct.

This matters to me.

I do not support extending the mayor's term from two years to four years, and I believe that doing so would weaken accountability and reduce meaningful public engagement in Chapel Hill.

While some argue that two-year terms force elected officials into constant campaigning, I see the opposite risk as more concerning.

A four-year term creates longer periods for fewer opportunities for voters to respond to leadership decisions, especially in a town where policy debates, development pressures, and community priorities can shift rapidly.

Chapel Hill is not a static environment, and our electoral structure should reflect that reality.

It is also important to challenge the assumption that campaigning and governing are mutually exclusive.

Effective leaders should already be actively engaged with the community, listening, communicating, and showing up.

What some call campaigning is often simply the work is being visible, accountable and responsive.

Extending terms risk reducing that urgency.

A few more minutes.

At that same time, agree that sir, I agree that serving in municipality offices requires significant time and intellectual investment.

The volume and complexity of issues facing Chapel Hill from housing affordability to land use infrastructure are substantial.

However, the solution is not to reduce electoral accountability in the name of convenience.

Public office should remain accessible to working people, and if the structure is already demanding, we should look at ways to better support officials, not insulating them from voters for longer periods.

In short, two-year terms strike an important balance.

They ensure regular accountability, keep leadership closely connected to the community, and maintain a more accessible pathway to participation in local government.

Extending a mayor's term would move us in the wrong direction.

I respectfully submit this to you.

Thank you.

And we will finish with Michelle Lawz.

Madam Mayor, members of the council, good evening.

Especially with the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, which has officially gutted and rendered null the voting rights act of 1965.

In fact, it was at the passage of that voting rights act that we people who look like me, my ancestors, members of the legacy community here, we began to see a turn in the tides of change towards democracy and as not just an ideal or dream, but a reality.

It was significant because following its passage, protections were put in place for historically disenfranchised people and communities to fully engage in the country that they led in building and protected by fighting in every single war, including the American Revolutionary War, which we will celebrate 250 years in July.

It is important for us to understand that some of us have only really experienced democracy and our full participation and engagement or the ability to fully participate and engage in electoral politics for 61 years.

If this were a different place in time, I might feel very differently about this issue.

However, Chapel Hill still has a long way to go to realize the ideals and the dream that many of my ancestors and members of my community would like to see.

For example, as already mentioned, Chapel Hill High Schools still has a shameful distinction that it has had for decades, that some try to mask and many ignore altogether the distinction of having the highest second highest achievement gap by race and ethnicity in our state, despite it being one of the highest wealth districts in the state.

Affordable housing remains a crisis.

It's beyond crisis.

Public housing conditions are bordering on dilapidation.

We also have people who are simply trying to survive with poor wages.

Gentrification run among with corporate landlords who could care less about the diversity and the legacy and the history of communities, especially the historic black communities.

So we have too many issues of grave concern and importance that require many good minds, not less working to address them.

People from just coming into office and taking pretty much heisting from American people, heisting our power, political power.

So I'm deeply concerned and troubled tonight.

Had a lot to say, but coming here was so distracted with the Supreme Court ruling, but this was the perfect time.

Perfect timing.

Now is not the time to disrupt the uh configuration of the current council or to extend the term of our mayor.

We've got too much work to do, and you all have too much work that you have to do to better engage communities like mine.

Thank you.

All right, council.

Uh back to you.

Councilmember Nollert.

I want to say thanks to everybody who's come out tonight.

Um I've opposed the reduction in the council the whole time.

Uh extending the mayor's term does seem to me some material benefits, but um what I'm hearing tonight has made me rethink that, and I I oppose that too.

Councilmember, sorry, Mayor Pro Tembury.

Thank you.

I want to say I apologize because I did not.

I did not reach out to anybody about this matter.

Thank you for calling us on it.

I only talked with people who called me or reached out.

I was responsive, I was reactive, I was not proactive in this.

To make that determination, nor do I support it being on this year's ballot.

That is way too soon.

I already believe that we had not done our due diligence in engaging this community.

And if we do not pride ourselves on one thing, um other things, it is we are working on community engagement.

Every meeting, our staff comes before us to tell us how they are trying to meet our objectives, our goals of community engagement.

And if we are not behind that with this important matter, I don't understand.

I have tried to remain open about the benefits of each of those moves of shrinking.

The it could be better financially, it could be better for the person who is in the mayor's seat.

We're not talking about the current mayor.

And I said to someone recently, you know, it is not appealing to me.

Not very appealing to me to want to run for mayor, knowing that I'll have to run every two years.

But if that is what an individual is called to do, then they will commit to doing what they must do every two years.

Thank you to the gentleman, Mark, who pointed out.

If we have one group of council members who will run with the mayor, it is so clear that the other group will not get the same attention as the group with.

Right.

And so for those reasons, and I'm sure there are many others that I'm not bringing up right now.

I did write down.

But two, I certainly don't support us making a change without the community's deep meaningful engagement.

And we cannot do that this year in time for our November election.

Thank you.

Councilmember McCullough, followed by Councilmember Ryan.

I have to admit that coming into this, I was trying to be very logical about, you know, how it might be more efficient and how we have been able to get representation on this board, versus, you know, how do we make sure we maximize representation?

And I have to say that the kind of feedback that we've gotten, not just tonight, but in emails, surprises me in how united different people.

How there's a very diverse group of people, residents that oppose this.

And I find that I find that striking, and I also find it compelling.

I do think that representation is one of the most important things that we that we need to foster.

And I agree that I don't think that this should be done.

Certainly not this year, and certainly not without intensive discussion and engagement, if at all.

So thank you.

Councilmember Ryan.

Thank you.

Thanks for everybody who came out to join the conversation.

We'll get to that bit in a minute.

I'm okay with considering this change.

Other towns around us who are similar, like Durham, like Harborough, like Asheville, they all have smaller boards.

Most places in North Carolina have smaller boards, and they've all managed to achieve very diverse representation.

That's something that our voters value, something that they've demonstrated in elections time after time after time.

So I think it's a question that's worth asking.

I think the bigger question, though, is how to expand meaningful representation.

And that was raised by several of our speakers here.

Over the past two years, we've eroded some of the more important avenues for nurturing future council members for people who aren't connected or aren't in the know or don't have friends.

Opportunities to work on town issues on committees, on work groups, on advisory boards.

All of those have much lower barriers to entry than trying to get onto council.

So I think all of those ways are powerful ways for people to get involved, and I think we have to do a better job of making sure that we are paying attention to those avenues and aren't just being very efficient in our government structure and the way we operate, but that we're really being more inclusive.

So I'd like us when this issue passes, I would like us really to take up that other issue and figure out if we're really supporting that kind of pipeline that's making sure that we're getting all of those voices into the seats of power in Chapel Hill.

So I hope that everyone has heard the distress about the community not being involved and not being notified.

This makes me think that if we want to proceed, I would not be okay with council just voting it in.

Um I would be okay with it going to the voters as a referendum item in the fall.

I think that would give plenty of time for discussion and for community education and community input.

So I would be okay with that.

Thank you.

Councilmember McMahon.

Uh-oh.

Thank you all for coming out.

Uh I was originally interested in talking this through because I'm new.

And I have wondered how we can be more effective in achieving the goals and the outcomes that we have.

People ask me, what do you want to get accomplished?

And I feel like there are a lot of things that we are have agreed upon doing and that we're doing well.

We have an issue of getting them across the finish line in a way that delivers good results for people.

I had no idea that this was going to affect representation.

I looked at our seats as at large.

My mistake, my failure as a new council member to only look at one side of this.

If I would have known that this was impacting representation from our uh longtime community members and our historians, I would have felt differently about this.

Um I am sorry that I did not reach out.

Michelle Ms Bailey.

Uh you know, when I ran for office and everything that I've done in this community, I'm I really want to be committed to reaching out.

There's nothing again, Paris, we talk a lot about intention versus outcomes.

I never want an outcome where uh I'm doing this to reduce representation or not to listen to people or not engage with the community.

Um I do I do want to have broader conversations about how we get better at working with the manager and with the community to really push forward on a lot of the things we want to do.

The spirit of wanting to see that happen is still there.

I want everyone in this room to continue to do that.

Um, I only know what I know and I don't know what I don't know, and I saw this public hearing as a place to hear from people.

And um it wasn't good enough, and it's not good enough.

So I can't support these measures at this time, um, but I am committed to figuring out what's holding us back.

And if there's some way that we operate that's holding us back, I want to get at that.

And so I'm looking for help on figuring that out.

So um thank you all.

Um I'm emotionally touched, and you know uh this has been a tremendous experience for me, and I I appreciate each of you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Elizabeth.

Councilmember Sharp.

Uh I first want to say that I'm definitely sensitive and empathetic to the fact that the national context in which we're having this conversation can't help but color the discourse.

Um but I do urge you to recognize that there is a difference between what has happened with the voting rights act today and our interest in reducing the council size.

Um the Shapel Hill Town Council is not our current federal government.

Um I also want to emphasize that I think that we often in these conversations start start to see things in absolute terms.

Um and reducing a council from eight members to six members is not absolute.

It is a it is a difference of degrees, important degrees, but it's a difference of degrees.

Um I've very much listened to everything you all have had to say about the worsening um effects of inequality in our town.

I think particularly in recent decades.

You know, I think since 1975, we've made some strides in terms of representation and positive social change, and I think we've backslid.

Um that has happened in the context of an eight-person council.

I don't think that we have diversity on our board right now.

We do not have ideological diversity or political diversity.

There's not a single conservative member of this board.

Um that said, I think that the degrees of nuance and our different differences of opinions are killing our in our ability to affect change on the values that we broadly agree.

Um I I think we are failing to act, and that that is in part because of the size of our board.

Um I agree that we probably ought to take it to a referendum at this point.

I think that us just passing it is really well, we will lose your trust, and I appreciate that.

Um I think that we really need to think hard about who gets elected and how and why in this town and think about it much more in depth than the color of the skin or the um or like religion or sexual orientation of the people who get elected.

I think there are very strong commonalities between people who get elected that um really reduce the diversity of ideology and opinion on this board.

And we really ought to address those in this process, and in that sense, waiting till November for a referendum, I think is is also beneficial.

I will say I think that putting on a referendum this November is not too soon.

I think very many of us had not decided to run by this time in the election year in which we ran, and so I think that it's plenty of time to mount a campaign for or against this change.

Um I've gotten in touch with the Board of Elections.

I'm hoping to get more thorough um information so that we can make a very informed choice.

It will only give us historical data, and we will have to cross reference it ourselves with um demographic data, because that's not something a box you have to check when you're running for office.

Um but I think it's really important that we see that data before we make this choice and that you all see that data before you make that choice.

The very um sort of slapdash data we've seen so far actually concludes that reducing the size of the board in 1975 would not have adversely affect black representation on the board.

Um that was brought forth by Councilmember Nolert, who opposes the change.

Um I think we need a lot more data before we can make this change.

And and I hope that's something that we can both share amongst ourselves and with you all between now and November.

Um I think that one of the most detrimental things that I have seen in my time on this board to our ability to make sound clear decisions with the public interest at the heart of our choices is personal political ambition.

And for that reason, I'm for the four-year mayoral term.

I really think that the more often you have to run, the the more often you are thinking about your own political future.

And I I really have genuinely seen that be a negative effect.

Um that said, I hadn't taken into account the the different complexities of who's running when and on what year.

And so I think that's something to think about, and I appreciate you bringing that forward.

Um I think that's it.

I'm in favor of it for now.

I'm open.

I hope that everyone else stays open.

I think a lot of times people say they are, and were we to come to you and ask your opinion, we wouldn't be coming to you with open minds.

And so I hope that you all will keep open minds as much as you expect us to.

Um so yeah, I look forward to the to the discussion.

Uh councilmember Rivers, followed by Councilmember Nollart.

Yeah.

Um first, thank you for the comments.

And this communication process has not been good.

Um I do want to speak about the mayor's term.

I've heard the comments, and I think those are also good points.

But I think a lot of the things that we're seeing in our community, the displacement of black people, the acceleration of gentrification.

That's being accelerated by the presence of the university.

And I worry about how do we communicate with the university.

I think a lot of that is governed by how state law ties us in.

The university can do things without consulting us at all, which unfortunately makes it comes down to relationships.

So I think it's important that we have relationships that stand more than two years in terms of dealing with the university and other outside pressures for the town.

But I also hear that people are concerned that there would be a reduction in democracy, but I'm really concerned about how do we try to get some type of equal foot in with the juggernaut in town.

Councilmember Nollert and Mayor Pretinberry, you have something else?

Yeah, I I just need to add a little context to Councilmember Sharp's comment about uh what I think the effect of this on the representation of black people would be.

What she's referring to is a memo I received from a researcher that was looking at uh what percentage of the time black people who are elected to the council finished in the top two or the bottom two.

And the answer is that it is 50% of the time.

That is not the same thing as believing that this change would not negatively affect the representation of black people, and that is not a position that I hold.

I was just trying to share a memo I received from a researcher indicating that statistically the there are other groups that would not have a 50-50 split in their election.

So there are um young people would not finish in the top two 50% of the time if we reduce the seats.

Um people who are neither black nor white would not finish in the top two 50% of the time.

People who are LGBTQ would not finish in the top two, 50% of the time based on historical data.

So I want to clarify that it is it is not my official position that this change would not uh negatively impact the representation of black people at Chat Block.

I was only speaking about the data that you represented.

You're certainly welcome to believe whatever you want regardless of the data.

Yeah.

Um Mayor Pro Temberry.

Thank you.

I also want to point out that we are in midterms, federal midterms.

There is, as we all know, a lot at stake today was a great example of that.

And I am talking about the federal level to consider asking our voters to add this to what they are already deliberating and what they are already fighting for.

There are many in this community who are going to other communities to make sure that the vote gets out this election.

So the opportunity to meaningful meaningfully engage with our citizens by the time it is for the vote this year, that is not sufficient time, in my opinion.

If we really say, if we say, I'll take out those the French say you dilute if you add those adjectives and adverbs.

If we believe that we must engage with the public before we make a significant change, a change to our charter, then we must all agree to do that by November is insufficient by this November.

If we really want the community's engagement, if we want the community's engagement, we must be prepared to answer questions between now and the next municipal election, which is when our community is focused on those elections, and why I do not support going to even year.

There is too much noise, and this noise is important.

I do not want us to take our our eyes off of that prize.

Councilmember Miller Fried.

I believe good evening, everyone.

Thank you all for coming out.

I believe I made my position clear in opposition to this tonight.

Um a week or so ago.

And um while I don't intend to conflate what just happened with the vote in rights act of 1965.

Um I am gonna invoke it because it it bears so much weight when I think about the Chapel Hill 9 on the streets of Franklin Street, who were fighting to end segregation, who the same people who were flight fighting, riding, fighting, marching, shedding blood, being bitten by dogs.

That happened in our local communities.

So uh yes, um that holds weight and it speaks to um what we are being asked to consider tonight in terms of shrinking our town council um.

We do have diversity on this board, and it's precisely that diversity that causes a lot of the tension that we see.

Um I am a Muslim woman, the only one sitting up here.

And I just spent a week long training with folks who in their local communities have had to fight off ice on their streets simply because of their faith tradition.

I bring that lived experience with me.

And so when ICE was running rampant in North Carolina, that wasn't peripheral for me.

Um I had to think about carrying my passport with me.

Efficiency is not our North Star, equity and inclusivity is.

And so I am absolutely against reducing the size of this council.

And I want to thank council member Mayor Pro Tim Barry for reminding us that even our state House representatives have to run every two years.

And they do it because they have a calling for the position.

Thank you all for coming out tonight.

And I did reach out to you.

So thank you for showing up.

It's my turn.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, Councilmember Rivers.

Why not have two year terms for council members?

I mean, I mean, if we think two if we think four years is too long for the mayor.

Why not two years for council members?

And we have and we have it staggered.

I'm just trying to I'm trying to think through this, like how it would work.

I think it's harder to stagger because you then you wouldn't be able to do it on off years for everybody.

Just start over thinking every year we would have a municipal election.

I don't think right now we have a council of equals.

We have a council of certain people who have more security.

And if you're on that off election, you could run against the mayor and still keep that seat.

So like that issue those concern about having some people that can always run against the mayor.

That exists right now.

So you'd have everybody run every two years.

So let's stick with this one.

Okay.

Is able to share her position.

Thank you.

I do want to apologize for you all not hearing what you needed to hear in advance and not being asked directly to engage.

And I do think that's really, really important.

And I think we need to do better on how we on how we reach out directly on things that are that are important.

And there are more issues than just this.

And I really do want to work hard on how we are engaging folks and how we're hearing from folks and going to at times that we need to.

And so I hope that you will accept that apology and that you will understand that there is no ill intent, but that doesn't mean that the um that the impact wasn't there.

And I have I've really appreciated hearing from you all tonight.

Um this is part of the process, and so thank you all for showing up and for being willing to come, particularly on a day that I think is beyond words.

Um I understand, I don't think I actually truly believe that you all don't believe we are anything like the federal government.

I know that you all don't think that um and it is of course on people's minds as they walk in the store.

Um I hope that nobody thinks that we are like the federal government.

We try really hard not to be.

Um I also want to say that this has never been um about consolidating power or boxing anyone out.

Um I can tell you, I also want to be honest with you all since you've been honest with me, and I want to tell you my perspective on this topic, just having sat in this seat, that seat, a couple other seats, and now this one is that I do think there are reasons that we should be considering about why this board is larger than average, and as a starting point and not an ending point, I think it is important for us to look at what has happened over time, and has this change from 1975, which by the way, I think we should applaud and thank our predecessors for doing something proactive to help make a change that was needed.

Um I really do want us to look at is it still working as intended?

And the reason I say that is because I always want us to be looking for better ways to do things, and to me, a strong board is a diverse board, those are not two separate concepts.

So the entry point is would this change potentially based on election results have an impact that we could anticipate that would reduce diversity on the board.

That's the entry point.

That doesn't mean that that's the only piece of information, but I think that data is important.

Um I will also say that it is not easy to um to get things done in this town, and I really care about that.

And I know you know what I'm talking about.

Um, and that is not for a lack of trying from us or our staff.

That is not intentional, but it's not easy, and I don't always think that more is better.

Um sometimes for the deep discussions that we want to have, for the work we want to push forward, sometimes we are not achieving the outcomes that are about the issues that I think we all care about, that are about housing, that are about getting more people back in our community that can't afford to live here, that grew up here.

I mean, these are all the things that are happening in real time, and I don't need to tell you all that because you work on it every day.

Um but these are the things that we're balancing about how easy is it for people from underrepresented communities to come and talk to us.

That's a lot, and um, how easy is it for us to make progress on the things that we've already decided we know are important, we are resolute.

It is not a matter of wanting to push people out so that we move backwards or make Chapel Hill great again.

That is not where we're trying to go.

And so I really want to be clear that I think it is important, I do think it is important that we be doing a better job in having these conversations with you all and with others.

Um I really want us to stay open-minded because having sat in a lot of these seats over the years, there are reasons that smaller boards are the predominant size in North Carolina and across the country.

And there are things that we need to weigh.

There are things that um that really are important that I think we're not doing as well on, and sometimes the pipeline of who is willing to run, who has support to run, is way more important than how many seats there are.

And those are the things that I think actually in 2026 are the ways that we can see the type of diversity that we always want on this board.

But I think talking about those things and looking at the totality of what does it mean to actually be a board that is accessible to people, I don't think that I personally do not believe that that is dictated by board size.

I think that's about how do we make sure that people are supported in running, in getting training, in getting to serve on board on other boards, on um attending our people's academy, on you know, I mean, I think there are a lot of things that we need to think about in terms of pipeline too.

And so I think this is the thing that we have as of now talked about in a vacuum, and we haven't talked about what does it look like to actually get to what we want, which is more inclusion and more people being at the table, and also more people having an easier time talking to us, and that we're actually achieving the results that we need to achieve for this community more quickly, because I don't feel like we have the time to keep going slow on some of the things that I think are really critical to all of us, and that we share.

So I I do happen to have a different perspective on this one thing, and I want to be honest with y'all about that.

And I also think we share all the same desires and values about outcomes, and we share the desire to talk to each other more, um, and to make sure that we're not doing anything that would hurt the values that we share as a community and that we have shared for 50 years.

So with that I do think these are important reforms to um consider.

Um the mayor's term in particular, I can just tell you, and I of course made sure it wasn't about giving me any more time.

Um I think you want a mayor who has more time to learn the job to make the relationships to figure out how to move things forward, how to work with our staff, how to do these things that are more complicated, and I think two years is a very short amount of time.

And we are, along with being a mom and having a job, running a lot, um, means that it is not actually as accessible to the number of people I want it to be accessible to.

I want the people that come after me to have an easier time than I did doing this, and that's because it's better for the community, not because it's personal to me.

Um, and I hope you all know that none of this has been suggested as a way to make it easier for anybody on this board.

It's about the outcomes for the community, and it's about making our community better.

So I am not hearing support at this time, despite my own interest um in these topics.

Um unless I um hear a motion, um I'm going to assume that we are closing the public hearing.

Um Madam Mayor, uh, where it sits right now is that it if there were to be an ordinance, there would be 60 days from today to draft an ordinance.

No ordinance has been drafted.

If there's no indication or instruction from this body, we will not do that, and it will not be on a future agenda at a regular meeting.

Thank you.

Council.

Um we do as close the hearing.

Yes.

I move that we close the hearing.

Move by uh Mayor Pro Temberry, seconded by Councilmember Miller Fushi.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Um council, thank you for coming with an open mind.

Thank you for bringing your thoughts, and I do hope that we can continue to engage in all sorts of issues in ways where we are making people feel more included and where they are more included.

So for just for clarification, this proposal is now dead.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, this all this was was the hearing to decide if we wanted to direct staff to do something further.

Um I'd like to say thank you again.

Thank you again to everyone who came out and shared, and also to everyone who has written to us and called.

Thank you.

Right, council.

And micro personal.

Okay, you know.

Triple MTL.

Um right.

Next is item number eight, which is the 2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update update.

And I believe we have Bergen Waterson and Colleen McGook.

Is that right?

Close.

Oh.

Okay.

What tell me tell me how to do it right?

Mick U.

Oh, McQue.

Okay.

Oh.

I'm not sure that I have it even spelled that way, but that is great.

Thank you for correcting me.

And you are joining us from the Triangle West TPO.

That's right.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Colleen McGee.

I'm the planning manager for the Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization.

And I'm joined tonight by our executive director, Doug Placzynski.

So we are here to talk with you about our region's long-range transportation plan, destination 2055.

So can I just advance the slides?

We actually don't see it here for some reason, so I think we need some tech support.

Uh oh, it's God now.

And we can just look there if we need to, but this monitor is not currently.

Okay.

I'll wait a minute.

You can do the hand puppet thing.

Yeah, hand puppets have been really fun tonight.

I know.

We have a few board members and former board members on this board that I want to recognize tonight.

So new board members as well.

Um I'm hoping to provide a little bit of education to those that okay, we're good.

Great.

And then if I just use my mouse.

Oh it's a PP.

Okay.

I've got it.

Great.

Um are familiar with Triangle West.

We are a metropolitan planning organization.

We're a federally funded government agency focused on transportation planning and policymaking.

Um as I mentioned, several of you are board members or former board members.

Um we work on this long-range plan with our sister organization to the east, um, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Um they cover Wake County and that metropolitan statistical area that um covers that eastern side of the triangle.

And here's our region.

Uh this is this is our entire planning area.

Triangle West is outlined in green on this map, and um Capital Area MPO is that larger yellow area.

And I'm gonna go quickly through these slides because I was told I only have 10 minutes to talk about this two-year planning process.

And I know you've already been here for a few hours tonight.

Um of the first things we do when we start developing the long range plan is um we beg we begin and look at population and job growth projections.

So you'll see here on the map, population growth and job growth from 2020 to 2055.

And I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone here that we are gonna grow quite a bit.

Um we're gonna grow significantly as a region.

Anticipated to add about 1.5 million people or yes, 1.5 million residents by 2055, uh growing the population from 2 million to 3.4 million.

And those people are gonna need to move around.

So the the triangle region long range plan um covers 30 years, and um this is all types of transportation projects, everything from sidewalk and bike pad projects to highway projects, passenger rail and freight rail projects, um, aviation projects, all of that is included in this plan.

This is a um fiscally feasible plan, and so that means we are constrained by resources.

Um, all of these projects that are in this plan are um we're able to fund them with the resources that we project will be available over the next 30 years.

Skipped one.

All right.

So it takes two years to develop the MTP.

Um we started with a big picture visioning goals and objectives process in January of 2024.

Um there is public engagement involved in each of these four steps of the planning process.

And then our board advised by the public selects a preferred option for what they what they hope for the long range plan.

And then we adopted our plan in February of this year.

These are the goals of the MTP.

So everything from protecting the natural and human environment and minimizing climate change, connecting people and places, managing congestion, improving our infrastructure condition, ensuring equity and participation, safety, and economic vitality.

And those goals and vision really guide the planning process.

Alright.

But we during our planning process, we spend a spent almost a year kind of working through this process.

We looked at three different options for what the plan could look like.

Plans and trends on there.

You see it kind of the price tag with each one.

That was assuming kind of business as usual.

We're investing mostly in highway projects, a little bit less in transit and bicycle and pedestrian type projects.

And assuming that there's not going to be any changes to the way our projects are funded, both federally and at the state level.

Shared leadership assumes a little bit more, less funding for highways and more for the transit stuff that we care about.

And then the all together scenario, which is ended up being our preferred scenario, is has the biggest price tag because it includes a lot of funding for bus, rapid transportation, bike and ped, and it also assumes increased population density in certain parts of the MPO area.

So with this one, I mentioned it's an ambitious alternative.

There is some additional flexibility in funding that we're assuming here.

And I'm going to talk about that a little bit more on the next slide.

But you see that the price tag is the highest, and then here's some of the key projects on the right hand side and the key transit investments, which I'm going to go through a little bit more in a little bit more detail.

About 25%, a little bit more than that is just for maintenance of our existing roadways.

And when I'm talking about complete streets, I'm talking about more than just roadway expansion.

We're looking at how can we make sure that there's bicycle facilities on the side of the roadway, is there going to be more transit facilities and those kinds of things.

Right now, we're assuming that the way funding passes through the state will continue for the first 10 years of our plan.

And then it opens up in the second and third decade of the plan, where we'll have more flexibility for funding bicycle and pedestrian projects and transit projects.

Would you mention my most hated part of the FTI law?

So I I think that is the limitation where 90% of the funding has to go towards highway projects, and only 10% can go towards other modes of transportation.

And even within that, it tends to be more like six percent to other modes.

Our board took the position that we're that will change, and in the second and third decade of the plan, we'll have more availability.

You'll see that in some of these slides.

So starting with transit, you'll see in the third decade of our plan, we are funding transit a lot.

And I'm gonna go through these pretty quickly, but you'll see in in each of these for each mode, there's less funding available in the first decade, and then that increases over time.

Some of the key projects that I know are of interest to you all.

Um we're looking at inner city passenger rail stations, so one in Hillsborough, and then one in Research Triangle Park, um, bus rapid transit or fast buses, uh, the north-south bus rapid transit line coming online here by 2035, and then some uh a rapid bus connection between Durham and Orange through Carborough, and then um a rapid bus connection between Chapel Hill and Research Triangle Park and down into Raleigh.

Um these are the transit revenue assumptions, so sales tax, growth, there'll be a growth rate, vehicle registration growth rate, and um assuming federal grants.

And here's a a map of what the inner city rail will look like.

There um you see the the station in Hillsboro, um station in research triangle park on here, and you can kind of see faintly, but you'll see in more detail in the next slide where our rapid bus system is connecting in.

So the lines on here, north-south bus rapid transit is actually um the blue line on the map, but we really have like a nice triangle of connectivity across the region with connected with this quick 15 minute or less service.

Um and investing in transit actually means we're gonna double the number of people who are taking the bus by 2055.

So we'll have a 5%, we call it the mode share, um, which is a big increase.

So investing in transit means more people are gonna take the bus.

Talking about bicycle and pedestrian projects, you see that the first decade a little bit less, but that number really increases um the majority of the funding is gonna be spent in that second decade, and then still a good amount in the third.

And when we're planning for bicycle and pedestrian projects in a long range plan, we know that community priorities can shift over time.

So we don't have specific projects identified, but I wanted to show the plans we're pulling from.

So we have we're pulling from your locally adopted bike pad plans, and those are the projects that we'll be funding over the course of these 30 years.

And as they get updated, we'll pull those in too.

Again, funding increases, second decade and third decade.

Quite a bit of funding going towards this.

And here is a list of some of those projects, which I have on a map on the following slide.

Um, US 70 West, we're looking at roadway widening, I-85 roadway widening, um, you know, so on and so forth.

There you'll also see this term on here, modernization.

Now that means improving the roadway, not necessarily widening, but maybe adding a bus facility or um complete streets type facilities.

And here's a map of um Chapel Hill and the projects that are passing through that we expect will come online during this planning process in your area, and in the interest of time.

Um I'm gonna end with key takeaways.

So the the big picture, it's important for projects to be in this long range plan.

This really sets the stage for all the future transportation investments that are gonna happen in our area.

Um if the projects are funded by in the MTP, they must be consistent with the goals and objectives.

And um having a project in the plan enables our agency to request that state and federal funding for this project.

So if it's not in the plan, um it's we can't make that request.

Very good.

And here's a QR code if you'd like to look at the plan in our map, all the great maps that go along with it.

Um, this will take you right to our website.

Thank you very much.

Happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Ryan.

Yeah, thank you for this.

And and thank you for doing this.

I can't even imagine trying to do a 2055 plan.

So we like to think far out.

Less.

Yes.

Um, so I I I support the vision, I think it's great, but I always get back down to practicalities.

So I know in our packet it says that there's no implication, there's no fiscal implication for the town of the plan, but that as these projects, if the projects are in the plan, you'll be seeking funding for them, then there are matching logics that will come up.

Do we have any idea what that liability would be for Chapel Hill?

That is a great question.

I would have to run some numbers to get back to you.

But essentially, with any of these federal transportation projects, it's an 80% federal funding with a 20% local match.

Um, if those numbers are somewhat accessible, it would be interesting.

As you talk about these projects, it would be really interesting to see what that potential liability might be.

Yes.

Um I know when the when the light rail came through, we weren't paying for most of it, but we were paying for a lot of it.

And I don't know our operational expenses included in any of this, or so this is just all construction and land acquisition and design and that kind of thing.

Right?

Like if we we build a station in Hillsborough, somebody will be paying to maintain that.

Yes.

And are those costs in here or are those?

They are assumed.

There are some maintenance costs assumed.

But they're assumed in there.

Okay, that's correct.

About 25% of this plan is maintenance.

Okay.

And the bike pad, I didn't see a lot of specific projects on there for the bike pad.

So is that just as the um right?

Right.

So I know you said we since it's pulling projects from your bike ped plan.

Um we're assuming a certain bucket of funding in each decade that is just going towards bicycle and pedestrian projects.

So we have like a dollar amount, but the projects aren't specifically identified.

That process, I could talk about that a little bit more.

But we annually do a call for projects where the town applies for funding, federal funding for projects.

So that's kind of how that would would happen.

Is annually as the town prioritizes projects, we would help get them funded.

And does it generally go by how the projects are scored, or is it sort of spread equally across the area that you cover?

It is it it goes by score, and we have scoring criteria for our call, which we'll be revisiting in the next couple of years.

Um, but we try to spread it fairly across our members.

I know we have one very large jurisdiction in our area, the city of Durham.

Um they are capped at 65% of the total funding.

Um, and so the rest of that is available for all our other agencies.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Councilmember Miller Fushi, followed by Mayor Pro Temperi.

Yeah, I would have to agree with my colleague uh council member Ryan about how like 2055.

I was like, whoa.

I was a bit dizzy by that.

Um I just have one question um regarding the oh I just moved away from the page and lost it.

Um I guess it's part of the guideway projects.

I'm just really interested in like um how um these many of these maps are like showing how we can get from here like to the airport, and I'm real specific about the airport.

I'm thinking about you know the university, just folks in the town, um if there's a stop along the way to the airport.

It's interesting that you bring that up because during our final round of public engagement, we heard I think three or four comments about how is Chapel Hill going to get to the airport on on the bus.

And so it's clearly something that resonates with others as well.

Um Doug, I think people are gonna be taking the um it's gonna be that.

Hold on.

I'm looking at the map, but I need to look at the project list.

It's the Chapel Hill RTP line combined with the I-40 line.

So that is not until that third decade of the plan, 2055.

Okay, I see.

But essentially, we're connecting in to Research Triangle Park, and uh on on I-40 is where the airport connection will be.

There's like another airport um station on I-40 that will take people right into the airport.

So the the rapid bus drops them off there and they'll connect in that way.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Other questions?

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

It's up good.

Um, nice to see you.

Good to see you.

So I have to laugh because one of my things that I hate are acronyms, and I see that you all explained what it was, but the STI just I know.

I had to sorry.

That's all good.

Um that's another, you know, like let's not do.

I know that's not you, but let's not do acronyms.

Okay.

Complete streets.

I was on the board, but I still need a refresher.

Complete streets and modernization.

Help us understand those.

Sure.

Um complete streets are we we use this term because a street is not complete if it doesn't serve all modes of travel and all the users of that street.

And so it depends on the context in the street.

A highway is technically a complete street for the highway because you wouldn't want people walking along the side of the highway.

Um, but you know, in the context of a local street, you want to make sure we have plenty of space for people who need to walk, bike, strollers, wheelchairs, all of those kinds of things.

So it it depends on the context, I guess, is my response.

But thank you.

And then modernization is similar.

Um, and but for a major roadway.

Um we it's it's tricky because North Carolina Department of Transportation has a different uh definition of modernization than we use for our long-range planning purposes.

Um theirs is simply to update the roadway, usually one that doesn't have shoulders, put curb and gutter with it, so it's modernizing it.

Um we're looking at it very differently.

So it's it's more than just a uh curb and gutter project, but it's not a road widening project.

So maybe we're we don't know exactly what it's gonna look like yet, but it might have bus rapid transit lanes on it.

Um it might have um you know improved bicycle facilities, that kind of thing.

So it's similar to a complete street.

So let me just make sure I'm following.

If it were not increasing the lanes, does that mean that that bus dedicated lane is taking over one of the existing lanes?

It might increase lanes but only a shared use lane.

So I I spoke incorrectly, but um we might be adding a lane on a modernization project, but it's not gonna be a a roadway or a vehicle only lane.

It would be a shared bus lane or a high occupancy vehicle lane.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Council, other questions?

Are there oh yep, Councilmember McMahon?

Just thank you for coming out.

I know it's late and and you know it may feel like you're just giving us a presentation, but it's really important you're here.

And thank you for thank you for being here.

You're welcome.

Thank you for inviting us to speak.

Do we have members of the public wishing to speak?

I'm gonna check again for me.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um council, final comments.

I know we are all very grateful.

Thank you for coming.

Who's my right here?

Let me just say, real quick.

Um, and I was really trying to wait until the comments section.

I it is far out, 2055, and I am so grateful that I got to serve as an alternate on that board to understand what you must do in order to make these plans and why it has to be so far out.

And back to um uh Ms.

Bailey's comment of you know, if you see it evolving, it's the ship has already okay, the bus is already pulled out.

Um for thinking so far ahead and helping us to keep up.

That's what I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I agree with council member McMahon.

Um it is really important that that you keep us informed and that we understand um what the long range plan is, and of course um we want to continue to support all the great work you're doing.

So thank you very much.

And of course, um to Bergen and your team, please, um, the small but mighty team of the OMG.

Um please let your team know as well that we're very thankful um and we are excited to get moving on our greenways, and even though we know the state is not always our best friend on greenways, um, we're gonna figure out ways to do it anyway.

So um thank you both.

And um we will look forward to hearing as we move towards 2055.

Um next um is item number nine, which is an update on planning for the southern extraterritorial enborsement, I think.

Oh, did I miss one?

Um we're gonna do the southern ETJ first and then the Owasa reimbursement policy.

Are you flipping them?

That's what I have.

I don't know.

And that's what the I mean it's it's you and then you, right?

So I'm not sure it matters that all that much.

Um so we are doing the update on the planning for the Southern extrator extra torritorial jurisdiction and then the OWASP OWASA reimbursement policy.

Okay.

Um Madam Mayor, members of council, uh Taz Lagu uh with the planning department.

Um it's really nice to be able to talk to you guys about something other than LUMO.

Um appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

Um as you all know, this item was rescheduled from a work session, so it is kind of more in the vein of a work session item, uh, more of a opportunity to inform you all, answer clarifying questions, anything of that sort.

Um, but we're not asking for any sort of action um from you tonight uh on this item.

So just quick overview of what we'll be touching on this uh this evening, um brief history of the Wasamba agreement at this point, um, the expansion of the Wasamba area was long enough ago that I think a majority of y'all weren't part of that process.

So just want to give a brief reminder of what that involved and then talk through kind of the development potentials for the area that was subject to the Wasamba expansion, um, and then discuss a um a sewer alignment study that was conducted in collaboration with Owasa um uh a few months ago.

So again, just kind of uh orienting ourselves geographically when we talk about um the Southern ETJ.

Um we're talking about a large portion of land, but um for the purposes of this night's conversation, um, we're actually focusing in on an even smaller part of the southern ETJ, um really just this portion uh south of South Creek, all the way down to the county line.

Um the the ETJ itself, though, when we talk about the Southern ETA more broadly, also includes you know these other parts of um the town's planning jurisdiction.

Um wanna just touch on kind of the the big picture uh takeaways from this uh this nice presentation before really jumping into the details.

Um first off, just kind of orienting ourselves to to what the Wasamba expansion was and wasn't.

It was really just an opportunity at a high level to open the door for local planning.

Um as I'll get into uh the Wasamba agreement involves a lot of different parties, and making any changes to those boundaries really involves much more than just uh the Chapel Hill community.

And so the Wasamba expansion really creates an opportunity for for this to move forward as a Chapel Hill kind of discussion.

Um another major takeaway from this evening is that I think as we have learned more about uh the land that was covered by the Wasamba expansion, um, it's become really clear that any new development down there is going to face a significant environmental and economic constraints, and we'll talk through um what those look like um this evening.

Um of the the key constraints uh in that area is gonna be the expansion of water and sewer service.

Uh we know that it's feasible, uh, but it's gonna be very expensive.

And then as a result of all of these factors um kind of piling on top of each other, um, what this means for the type of development that might occur in the expansion area, specifically around missing middle housing, um, is that the opportunities for that type of housing are gonna be pretty constrained.

Um so with that kind of big picture, um, I want to just jump into uh a little bit of detail on each of these items.

Um for those of you uh wonder about you know what does this lovely acronym Wasamba mean?

It's just the water and sewer management planning and boundary agreement.

Um generally speaking, it is the agreement that defines Owasa's service area.

Um it says where OWASA can expand water and sewer service, uh, but it doesn't actually outline where that service currently exists.

So the Southern Expansion Area is a perfect example.

It is now within the scope of where OWASA can extend service, but it's not currently served by water and sewer.

Um as I mentioned, there's a lot of different uh jurisdictions that are involved in any changes to the agreement, uh five in total, and so making changes involves uh a kind of a Herculean task of different boards, different commissions all moving in the same direction.

Um we were able to do that within the last couple of years uh in 2023, uh the Chamber of Commerce for Chapel Hill and Carrborough uh petitioned council to expand the Owassa uh service area into the Southern ATJ.

Um and all the jurisdictions that are party to the agreement agreed to do that uh over course of several months between 2023 and 2024.

And so the the result of that was to add 360 acres or about 139 parcels to the Wasamba area.

Uh looking at the map, uh, this is what that 360 acres looks like.

Um again, kind of just to orient yourselves.

Uh this is uh Southern Community Park to the north and the uh you know the Walmart uh that is regrettably uh as far as sales tax revenue goes outside of the county line, right?

It's in Chatham County, that's that's south of this area.

And just to orient you to two uh kind of key properties that we'll we'll come back to from time to time in this discussion.

Um we have the uh the town owned land to the the west of 15501, it's about 12 acres.

And then we have the proposed Flint Rock Knoll development project, which has come through as a concept plan uh now a couple of years ago, um, but it is so far the only kind of development proposal of any significant scale in the southern area.

Can you just remind me how was that single family?

It was townhomes.

Townhomes I believe the number was around 130, 140 townhomes, um over about 30, 36 acres.

Thanks.

Um so this is just kind of the lay of the land.

Um what I want to really get into next is talking about the development potential for that 360 acres.

Um we've got two goals with with talking through the development potential for this area.

Um one is to make sure that the council as a whole is aware of of a request that came in from the Oassa board um within the last couple of months, um, kind of regarding um baseline assumptions for what development in the Wasamba area could look like.

And then I think it's really important as we we talk about what potential next steps for this area might look like uh to just understand and to be kind of open about what the extent of potential developable land in the area might look like.

Um couple of kind of key points recently.

Um back in 2023, leading into the Wasamba expansion discussion, uh town staff estimated a kind of a gross density across the entire 360 acres of the potential Wasamba area of three to six units per acre.

Um and we did this to help uh inform some capacity analysis that Awasa was doing at the time, basically to make sure that if uh the Wasamba area was expanded, that existing infrastructure, you know, existing um sewage treatment, existing uh drinking water capacity would would be able to handle that.

So that's that was the purpose of that three to six unit uh per acre um estimate.

Um and it continues to be relevant as we we think about development moving forward.

Back in March, the Owasa board asked the town to clarify um the level of density it expects in the Wasamba expansion area, and they're really honed in on that that three to six units per acre number.

Um I think there was a little bit of skepticism that that number is uh too low.

Um it's it's very well understanded, it's very reasonable skepticism because three to six units per acre um sounds very low, especially for a town in a community that as we I think have really come to a lot of consensus on, needs to be focusing on density.

Um its face, three to six units per acre seems to miss the mark pretty significantly.

Um but uh I think town staff uh continue to find that those reasons those estimates are reasonable.

Um and a big part of what I want to do for you this evening is to give you comfort in in why we think those estimates are reasonable.

Um in doing that um and in related studies and kind of analysis of the area, it also just puts a finer point on this notion that you know we have these gross density estimates for the entire 360 acres.

Um, and really what that's likely to look like because of these economic and environmental constraints, is that that density is going to be clustered uh in kind of distinct pockets throughout that 360 acres.

Um that's why those those numbers seem deceptively low.

Uh but when you look to see when you look at how they might actually be kind of distributed in the Wasamba area, they start to look much more uh much more reasonable.

Um so again, just to kind of walk you through some of the thinking here, that three to six units per acre across the full 360 acres of the Wasamba area gives you a range of anywhere from 1,100 units on the low end to 2200 units on the high end for kind of comparison's sake.

Um Southern Village, Meadow Mont, each of those master planned communities are in the I want to say 1200 to 1500 units range.

Um all of South Creek, um, the the large multifamily and townhome development uh across the street from uh Southern Village is about 800 units.

Um 1,100 to 2200 units.

We're looking at potentially development to the magnitude of another Southern village, another Meadowmont, um, several South Creeks.

So I want to next just kind of talk through what it would look like for that development to be kind of distributed through the Wasamba area.

So again, kind of looking at again that 360 acres with those two kind of touchstone properties highlighted.

Starting big and then breaking that down into what that units per acre, that density number will look like.

But when you start backing things out of that number, you'll notice that these density numbers at the bottom are gonna keep going up and keep getting into that really reasonable range for the town.

I will note just with three to six units per acre at that starting point.

The proposed Flint Rock Knoll project that came in at around 130 units, 4.4 units per acre.

So an actual project that's been proposed in this area is actually right in the middle of the three to six unit per acre estimate.

So backing out a couple of things, right?

Roads and stream buffers already gets rid of over 100 acres of land.

So we know right off the bat that's hard infrastructure or environmental constraints.

This is land that that's clearly not getting developed.

We normally don't think about our perennial stream buffers.

So it's mapped here is 150 foot stream buffers.

Um there's some really significant environmental assets in the southern area, and so we really want to be thinking about stream buffers as as pretty close to inviolable if there's going to be development in this area.

And so that's why we've mapped and are thinking about kind of the full stream buffer down here.

Um those are hard constraints, right?

Um next, what I want to talk through is some of the economic constraints.

Um as we talk about economic constraints, unlike obviously roads and stream buffers, we're talking about like a spectrum of possibility.

Uh we're gonna be talking about um less likely to develop to more likely to develop.

Um, but we know we're not talking about this in a binary, right?

Of definitely will develop or definitely won't develop.

So the first really major chunk of land that is likely not gonna develop are two neighborhoods, um, one uh kind of centered around uh Shag Bark Drive and then the other on Sun Forest Way that are you know to I don't there's not like a delicate way to put it.

These are just really fancy homes, really expensive properties that are highly unlikely to develop any time in the foreseeable future.

Um it would be akin to looking at at the oaks and you know asking what's the development potential of the oaks or any of any of our other really kind of high value, um high property value neighborhoods in town.

Um so that that automatically takes a significant chunk of land out of the equation.

Um next, we start to move into this kind of it's really important to think about this as a spectrum.

Um these are what we would call kind of higher value buildings.

Um what we're looking at here and what we're comparing is tax assessed value.

Um as many of y'all know, tax assessed value for a property is made up of two components, uh building value or the improvements on the property, and then the land value.

Um all of these highlighted properties in darker brown represent properties where the tax-assessed building value is higher than the tax-assessed land value.

And that's just a pretty kind of rough and ready um metric that folks in the development community look at to whether a property is kind of worth pursuing.

Um obviously there's a lot of other considerations, um, but this is a very kind of broad brush metric that folks look at.

Um obviously the the more out of touch those rate those numbers are, the you know, the the greater the proportion of building value to land value, uh, the even more unlikely that a property is going to be to redevelop.

Um but these are properties that just tip that scale of building value is is over land value.

Um land value can change, right?

Building value tends to go down over time if a property falls into disrepair.

Obviously, if the property is well kept and as we see across town, land building values can't increase.

Land value never decreases though.

Land value, especially as new development and surrounding area starts to come online, land values can change.

So of all the things we're talking about today, I think this category of properties is going to be the most in flux.

But it's it's definitely not going to be kind of leaping off the page as a development opportunity.

When something happens, the value goes up.

Can you repeat that last section?

Because I want to make sure I understand the what influences the land or the building value to increase or decrease.

So just say that again.

Yeah, so what I was mentioning was building values can go up or down over time, depending on how well the building is kept up or not.

Generally, there's like an upward pressure on building value as properties in the area appreciate.

What's different about land value is that land value is much less likely to ever go down.

Something pretty significant would have to happen in an area for the land value to go down.

Yeah.

So these properties, again, they they represent kind of edge cases.

Something that I think was was asked prior to this meeting was well, you notice that there are clusters, right?

A lot of these properties that are kind of on the margins.

Um you'll see some clusters to the south, clusters near town owned land, clusters to the north.

Um so there are some additional considerations that we think about in kind of thinking about these as maybe less likely to redevelop.

Um by and large, um there is not a lot of common ownership among these parcels.

Um you'll for the most part see that each one of these parcels is owned by somebody different.

Um there are a couple of uh parcels or groups of parcels to the south and to the north, where you have a little bit of combined kind of common ownership.

Um, but by and large, we're looking at a lot of distinct parcels with nearly just as many distinct owners.

Um that's gonna that's a major challenge when we're we're thinking about potential assemblages of land.

Um another dynamic in this area is is a pretty high rate of owner occupancy.

Um again, we have pretty rough ways of thinking about owner occupancy.

Uh the easiest is just to look at the tax roles and compare the mailing address of the owner to the property address.

And by and large, you'll see a lot of these properties down here are owner occupied.

Um again, another kind of dynamic that makes them less likely uh to be sold off as a redevelopment opportunity.

Um so again, those are kind of the the some of the thinking that we're we're looking at when we think about well, is this is this more or less likely to redevelop.

There's a couple of other properties down here.

There's an Awasa-owned property, and then there's the Star Point refuel down at the corner of uh Smith level and 15501.

Um that just again, it's either publicly owned land that's earmarked for for infrastructure or something that's redeveloped relatively recently and is again unlikely to redevelop yet again in the future.

And so what does that leave us with?

It leaves us with about 90 acres out of that 360 that kind of checks the right boxes.

Uh but that's not even looking at topography, other environmental constraints.

This is based just on the kind of high-level metrics I've mentioned, um, maybe about 90 acres past that that early filter.

Uh when we get to 90 acres or we get down to 90 acres, um, you'll notice these numbers down here, that that estimated density when we're looking at what 90 acres with 1100 to 2200 units could look like.

It's densities of 12 units per acre or 25 units per acre, um, it's pretty significant.

Um we see projects in town at those densities, and so it's not um at all kind of um out of line with the type of development that we might be seeing in town.

And so what this exercise helps us kind of put a finer point on is a couple of kind of broad conclusions, right?

One, I mentioned the desk the density estimates for the area are reasonable, right?

They they sound low when you look at the entire Wasamba area very broadly, but once you start to narrow it down, um start to look much more in line with what we would expect for kind of modern development.

I mentioned already, right, that we're likely to see kind of distinct pockets of development in the Wasamba area, not kind of diffuse low to medium density development.

Now these distinct pockets of development, um, and this is something I'll get into more in just a minute, um, they're gonna need to be dense enough uh to support pretty significant high upfront costs uh primarily related to extending water and sewer infrastructure.

Uh but we also need to think about kind of the long-term financial viability and financial sustainability of the town and the services that we provide of Oassa and the services that they provide.

Um so there is kind of this notion of you know any development in this area when we're looking at expanding where we currently provide services, it needs to generate enough revenue for utility providers, for service providers that that expansion of infrastructure is going to be sustainable over the long term.

Um I want to briefly touch on uh I mentioned uh sewer alignment study um that we'd recently conducted with um in collaboration with with awasa.

Um and it puts a finer point on some of these these costs, right?

I've mentioned um really high infrastructure costs associated with with building in the southern area.

Um and this this alignment study that um we collaborated with Owasa on is where we're we're getting that kind of more granular understanding of what it's gonna look like to develop down there.

Um so we uh collaborated with with Awasa over the last um several months.

Um they released this idea a few months ago and uh presented it to their board, and what it has made, I think amply clear, right, is that expanding sewer infrastructure is is technically feasible, um, which was not a foregone conclusion, right?

Uh it is it's possible that uh you know we we expand the Wasamba expansion area, only to then find that it's actually going to be technically infeasible to expand sewer service.

So we have fortunately learned that it is it is feasible to expand uh sewer service into the Wasamba area in a in a pretty responsible way, but it's gonna be expensive.

Um so uh one of the things that the sewer alignment study looked at was where could we potentially expand sewer.

Um they looked at two different options.

One was to expand sewer um along 15501, um, and then the other was to expand sewer service with two separate lines uh running relatively adjacent to uh Wilson Creek to the east of 15501 and fan branch uh to the west of 15501.

Because of the environmental sensitivities in the area, because of the really kind of unique soil conditions in the area, um, these two um crossing or stream, these two um sewer alignments that are proposed to be closer to the creek.

Um they they stay outside of the 150 foot RCD buffer, kind of to the maximum extent possible.

Um there are some uh perpendicular crossings, but there's there's little if any points in which the sewer is running kind of alongside the creek.

Um, and that's kind of a key feature of of what's being uh proposed in terms of sewer alignment in that area.

Um ultimately it is that that kind of quote unquote creekside alignment that was kind of the preferred option.

Um some of the the factors that play into that, the life cycle costs over a 40-year period or 50% lower than the costs associated with uh running sewer lines along 15501.

A big part of that is just comes down to gravity.

Um running sewer along 15501 relies really heavily on forced mains and and pump stations, um, which are not just much more expensive to install on the front end, but then come with really significant um operational and maintenance costs over the life of the system.

And so um this creekside alignment is uh able to uh service the majority of the Wasamba area with just plain old gravity sewer.

Um it also again avoids R C D buffers to a pretty significant extent.

Um there is you know a clear downside to it in terms of the number of of private easements that would be required as soon as we get away from established road right-of-ways.

Um anybody that's looking to expand water and sewer in in this area uh would be looking at a lot of easement acquisition.

Um but ultimately, even with those challenges, uh the long-term costs, the the reliability, sustainability, um, and like resilience that's represented by the creekside option made it kind of a clear better alternative.

So a couple of takeaways, right?

Um we know that these high construction costs are gonna be a major barrier uh for new development.

Um I didn't put the the numbers on the the slide, but we're looking at even this this creekside option, the option that's 50% lower estimates today um put that at close to 20 million dollars to build out the system uh and then twice that for uh the the 15501 alignment.

So really significant costs to expand infrastructure.

Um that is the cost of not pursuing in-fill development, right?

That's that's why we generally try to prioritize infill as much as possible, in part because of these types of cost.

Um so again, high construction costs are gonna be a barrier, um, which means it's really unlikely when we're thinking about missing middle housing in the area.

It's really unlikely that kind of individual missing middle development uh can bear the cost associated with expanding uh water and sewer infrastructure.

Um what what could it look like to try to get missing middle housing in that area?

Um it's either going to take public investment or kind of these nodes of more dense development that can kind of bear these upfront investment costs that then allow missing middle or other smaller scale development to fill in the gaps.

Um but the the kind of vanguard of development is much more likely going to be whatever scale of project it takes to make uh those investments kind of pencil out up front.

Um so that's kind of the you know the major takeaways I wanted to share with you all this evening.

Um there is uh a second item about uh an Alasa reimbursement policy that's very much related to this.

Um I'm happy to just kind of if if it's germane, I can just briefly run through that and talk about it all together, or happy to just take questions on on this material first.

I think maybe taking a minute for some questions and then keep going.

Uh council member Miller for sheet?

Yeah, I just have a quick question.

Can you um right now just give me a better understanding of what is meant by poor soul?

Poor soil.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yes, sorry.

Um, but soil.

Um so it it means a couple of different things.

Um as far as where sewer lines should be placed.

Um I've walked some of the creeks in the area, and it is um it's an ecologically really interesting place.

Um the soil is it feels just walking around, it feels like no soil or land you've walked on.

It's spongy because it's extremely sandy.

Um there are sandy creek beds um that not just make those creeks ecologically very interesting, but they also make them very bad places to place um water and sewer infrastructure.

Um pretty much any significant rain event, um, those creeks will will meander really significantly or you know, they have the the ability to meander really significantly because of those sandy soils.

Um and so you can imagine you know putting uh uh a critical piece of infrastructure anywhere near those those creeks that uh do what creeks do uh they move, but they're they're particularly prone to moving down there.

Yeah.

Just uh go down the line, Councilmember Nollert, followed by Councilmember McCullough, followed by Councilmember Rivers.

So thanks for this presentation, Taz.

In terms of future planning, one thing I'm wondering about is it's clearly going to be, you know, if this is ever going to be highly dense, it's decades away that the whole thing is.

But at some point it's conceivable that it would be great to have uh greenway connections that run up to South Creek on one side and run up to Southern Village on the other side.

Is it worth some sort of planning process to indicate now that we would like to retain some type of potential plausible easement?

Is it is it at all possible that we would want to try to say like can we avoid developing on like a uh 10 foot stretch that would run up through here along some path that's like the only geographically viable path, or is that such a complicated and uh you know contingent proposition that it isn't worth the planning effort to describe where that would be because it seems like if we could sort of publish a document saying if there were to be one, we would want it to be here, developers can take that or leave it, but they can't do anything if we don't tell them where we might theoretically want one.

So fortunately the sewer alignments lend themselves to just that sort of path.

Um the easements start to look very different, right?

It's it's one thing to um ask a property owner to uh give up that that small part of the bundle of sticks to say, yeah, you can build uh a sewer line through their property.

It's another thing to say, well, along that line, you can also now expect people to be traversing through that.

So it is it it becomes a different matter when it comes to to easement acquisition.

Um, but those lines are gonna be the most natural place to put greenway alignments going forward.

Um and that was a discussion you know when we were working with Owasa to do the study.

Um our our OMG staff um had opportunities to check in with the Owasa folks and the consultants that did the work.

Um and so they it was part of the thinking.

Um but I think it is against it's it's so far out.

Um, and we have uh you know with the ED, there's such a clear kind of priority on uh studying uh greenways within the town limits right now.

Um we haven't put kind of a finer point on that for now.

Okay, thanks.

Um I was wondering if we had thought about or might we think about um evaluating what the possibilities would be along that 15501 stretch that is serviceable by gravity sewer.

That is, you know, those are the those are the sites that would be more accessible to transit.

Those are the sites, you know, where we would hopefully want that kind of density would be right there next to next to 15501.

Is there do we have a sense of that?

Yes.

Um so that was uh a really significant part of the the study that that Owasa commissioned.

Um I'll show you two maps.

Uh this is now the southern area uh rotated, uh which always like hurts my brain a little bit, but um we're now looking at at 15501 kind of across the screen.

Um again, just to orient you southern village, and then the the county line is down here now.

Um so this represents the the creekside alignment.

Um all of the green is the area that can be served by gravity sewer.

Um in comparison, this is alternative to the 15501 alignment.

Um the green is now what can be served by gravity sewer.

Um and you'll notice, I mean, there's just a lot less green.

Um there what's left is not large enough to kind of support even you know if we wanted to really pack in development in that area, um, it wouldn't be enough land.

Um what what ends up happening is that even though we we think about this option is as maybe the option that has fewer environmental impacts.

Um if we were to go with this option and let's say Flint Rock Knoll were were to develop.

Um I haven't highlighted it here, but it's it's roughly kind of this part of the of the site.

If development were to occur further back from 15501, you would still have to put in sewer lines to then get any of that that waste back up to 15 and 501.

Um generally what that looks like is within the development itself, you still put in sewer lines that run down to the lowest point of the development.

So it's still lines that are going to run down close to uh Wilson Creek.

You then put in a pump station at that lowest point of the development.

Um Pump Station you know is is pretty significant bit of infrastructure that that uses energy that um has to have um diesel or other fossil fuel-based backups in the case of power outages.

Um so that has to be placed near the creek to then have a force main that runs from that low point back up to wherever you can get the closest gravity fed line.

Um so that's where in some ways you you would almost think of the alternatives one and two from an environmental perspective, it's kind of a wash because the um even if there's there's less direct impact associated with installing the gravity sewer along 15501, you still see those impacts in just a different form associated with all of the the force mains that then have to be part of that.

All right, thank you.

Can I ask a quick piggyback question on that?

Because it just occurred to me very much tied into what Councilmember McCall was saying.

Reading through all this, it made a lot of sense to me.

Like, oh, we will have more gravity gravity lines in the second alignment.

But what you just said uh stupidly it had not yet occurred to me that then you have to pump everything back up.

So is that not the case?

In I mean, is that what you're saying?

By it's like we're kind of out of luck either way, because it's gonna go downhill one way, but we still have to get it back uphill the other way.

So in either alternative, the gravity only goes one direction.

Right.

And so the the difference is that in alternative two, we there we are pumping, or you would have to pump uh to fight gravity.

Um because again, everything in red here um would if you were to develop in in the red uh in either map, that's when you start to need pump stations, force mains, all of that.

Um so the the difference is that under alternative one, where things are flowing to the creek, um anything in green here, um you're just using gravity.

Um there's no pump stations, there's none of the environmental impacts or cost associated with with pump stations, their force mains, anything of that sort.

I guess that's my confusion.

Is why an alternative two, are you using gravity?

Can you use the gravity both directions?

I'm definitely missing something.

I think I see I think I yeah.

Yeah, I think yeah, okay.

So in this the infrastructure's in a different place here, it's near the road.

Yeah.

Therefore, you have to pump the change.

But it's just other line.

Yeah.

Can you speak into the mic just so that people all the masses of people?

I apologize.

Um the difference is that the actual infrastructure is changing location.

Yeah, it's not really depicted on here.

So the notion that it has to flow in a different direction, it doesn't.

It's still flowing in the same direction, but the infrastructure is in a different way.

It's a different place.

So it's heading to a different spot to get into the infrastructure.

I see what you're saying.

So it would go, it would just go straight down.

Okay, I get it.

And I I think I also understand what you're saying with like it.

Why is everything draining down and then getting pumped back?

That's just the most efficient way to do it.

You you could have a system where every individual building that's built in this red pumps directly to the street.

Um, but that ends up being a really inefficient system.

Uh so when you're looking at development at any scale, it ends up being these like tiny gravity-fed systems, little nodes or networks of smaller gravity-fed systems with your consolidating then what what gets pumped.

So that's why with Flint Rock Knoll, everything, it's just the most efficient to let everything flow downhill, collect it at one point and then pump it up rather than having each building kind of um yeah.

Uh councilmember Rivers.

Yeah, thanks for including the report.

And is this bottom line accurate?

And if it um the this anything happening here, option one, option two, is gonna require significant public investment.

And even with that significant public investment, the house would have to be market rate.

There's no chance to get house in that would not be market rate in this area due to the level of public investment required.

So we public investment isn't isn't a foregone conclusion.

Uh public investment is a significant tool that could expand infrastructure into this area.

Um but another way to do it would be private development that incrementally expands sewer.

Um that creates some really difficult market pressures, um, as you can imagine.

Um it's really difficult to make a project pencil out, and when you are looking at a really significant upfront cost, it just makes it that much harder, um, which could then very much cut into some of our affordable housing goals, right?

That if we're asking uh development on top of having to deal with some of these upfront um infrastructure costs to then also deal with the long-term losses that come with affordable housing, becomes really difficult.

Um the reimbursement policy that um Owasa is considering is is another tool that could help kind of break that log jam.

Um and so I can I can talk about that a little bit more in in a few minutes Councilmember Ryan.

First question.

How many times it takes how many times does it take for you to spell Wasamba?

Um it I no comment.

Uh there's been a lot of embarrassing attempts in the past.

Yeah.

Me too.

Um so for the higher value buildings.

If we pull sewer down, say we solve these problems, we pull sewer all the way down to the bottom.

Can we expect then that those will become then the land values will increase and maybe put those properties into play?

Uh yeah, I think it's it's it is the type of um major change in conditions that could start to see those properties change.

Um but that's again one of the factors, right?

There's there's that broad filter.

Um we'd also then have to think about, as I mentioned, a lot of owner-occupied properties down here.

Um this is a lot of people, these are a lot of people's homes.

Um where the fat where they have much more direct control over the future of the property, right?

Um so it would definitely, I think uh over time we would expect that land value to change.

Um we would just have to see how it plays out.

Um oftentimes what we end up seeing, and well, you may notice any eagle-eyed among you, uh, the Flint Rock Knoll property does include one of these parcels that uh kind of tips the scale of uh building value exceeding land value.

Um so there are edge cases, right, where um maybe a property is critical enough to uh a larger development, right?

It's it's the linchpin that allows them to get access to to the street or something like that.

Um some of those properties, you know, can can get picked off, right?

If the price is right.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, we see that up on old Durham Chapel Hill.

Yeah.

Um so the Flint Rock Knoll, were they were they going to be septic or were are they relying on the sewer coming through?

Um they would at the scale of development, 139 something units, uh, it would have to be sewer.

Um another council member Miller Fishy asked about you know poor soils and um I I said it can mean a lot of different things.

In in this area, another thing that poor soils refers to is the fact that park.

Yeah, if any of you have tried to dig in your in your yard at any point, you get two inches down and then you hit clay and clay does not play well with with septic systems.

So they'd have so they'd have to go.

Because it seems like that is a missing middle community that's already been proposed, right?

So that makes me just wonder how we can't incent more of it.

And it's not that I'm against having pockets of higher density down here.

I think especially to help pull that sewer line down, and especially down near Walmart, you know, down where things we already have, um we already have a more congested, more you know, more a busier place.

Um but it seems to me like if Flint Rock Null can do it, then maybe maybe we can figure this out.

Yeah.

I think the the thing we just don't know yet is whether they can do it.

Um the the Owasa study um rough estimates of around five million dollars for for Flint Rock to expand water and sewer down to their site.

Um as I mentioned, they they came through as a concept plan a couple of years ago and we haven't heard from them since then.

Okay.

Um and last question you were talking about infrastructure costs for the town.

Is that primarily road maintenance?

One of the new I mean I know services are are different, the police and fire and all that, but but in terms of infrastructure, are there other things other than road maintenance?

No, roads are the main infrastructure that the town would be responsible for.

Okay.

Um obviously the uh water and sewer, once it's uh installed and dedicated by a private party, that then becomes part of OWASA's long-term maintenance obligation.

Um then we've got services to think about on top of all that.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

I remember we had an email.

So on the heels of what I heard from Councilmember Ryan about the cost, the infrastructure.

We had an email back in November of 2023 from former town attorney Ralph Carpanos, who asked us to consider uh the cost of having emergency services, being responsible for emergency services there.

Where is the nearest mutual aid um service provider for that area?

Is it I honestly don't know.

Uh yeah.

So I asked that because that means that we I don't there's a fire station on there is one down there, isn't it?

When you say mutual aid, so fire station fire station and other services police and yeah.

There's a there's a fire station on 15501 closer to Southern Village.

Um kind of as you're Oh station five, right?

I know ours.

I'm talking about Oh, a county or like a rural fire station.

I'm talking about Chatham's, you know, that's not ours.

Um that's in between because we're gonna be as we densify.

Is that a word?

As we make this more dense.

Densify is a word.

Excellent.

Just making sure.

Okay.

As we make this area more dense, then um the cost of serving um that area.

I want to make sure that we hold that up as well.

So I'm just injecting that now for us to consider.

He raised it uh at the end of 2023 before we voted, and I would want to raise it again.

Yeah.

Just for our consciousness.

Absolutely.

And that's where that that question of you know this this notion of what's the the long-term kind of financial um scorecard for any development down there.

Um is it self-sustaining, or does it then become a uh kind of burden that's borne by the rest of the community?

Point of information just on that topic that that is actually not in the city limits.

So that that remains an open question as to how much we would annex or how and all that.

Right, exactly.

So that's why I just want to lift it up again that we should, I believe that we should hold it um there for us not to forget.

And um and when we can't address it, let's do so.

Thank you.

Um I just get the quick map search.

Councilmember McCullough, if you want to go on your oh, sorry, I just did a quick map search, and the closest Orange County EMS or rescue squad is within the um Chapel Hill and Carberro town limits.

There's nothing down there.

So I have a not very exciting question, or maybe a little bit of a ridiculous question, but um when I was looking through the packet, um, and thank you for answering the questions about the various like little parcels and stuff.

Um the the expansion is what is a quarter mile on each side, is that right?

Give or take, yeah.

Um or that's what we agreed to with our partners as part of Wasamba.

Yeah, they they basically took I I think maybe uh half mile.

Um that was kind of the the rough starting point, and then adjusting it for for property lines, um, wanting to stay away from you'll notice, for example, like the Smith level properties are are all more or less kind of out of this, and then similarly for old Lister Road is is off to the the east over here, and so not wanting to capture for the most part properties up front on old Listra.

Um so trying to keep it as tight to 15501 as possible.

And so what we're looking at when we're looking at these maps is a quarter to a half mile on either side, give or take.

Okay, because I don't have a sense of direction or any sort of um and so and remind me again, we passed Wasamba based on those maps and not based on like an amount on either side, correct?

Like we passed a map.

Yes, yeah.

So these this boundary, what's what's colored in right now, um that is kind of the the official extent of the expansion.

Um any other kind of numerical thing was just a starting point.

Yeah, yeah, understood.

And so if there was something on here that we wanted to change for some reason, then we would have to go back to everybody, correct?

All five.

Yeah.

But I mean that they've shown a willingness to do it in the past.

Um, of course.

It it it takes some logistics.

And I'm not suggesting that.

I was just making sure I understood.

Um that is helpful.

Um are there any members of the public wishing to speak?

No.

I mean I'm saying that with confidence.

I don't see anybody running up to the clerk's table.

Um, so in that case, um council, if uh y'all are amendable, I think we should allow for the next presentation.

And then we can integrate those two ideas, hopefully, and then have a I think maybe a better question and comment period with those two things in mind.

Sounds good.

Okay.

And it's it's one slide, so um Oh, well, look at you both.

Yeah.

Um so uh OWASA is uh currently crafting uh a policy that would basically require reimbursements for parties that extend water and sewer infrastructure.

Um it's really a sea change relative to how sewer infrastructure is currently or the financing around water and sewer infrastructure currently works uh within OWASA's purview.

Um today, let's say Flint Rock Knoll, for example, uh paid to expand water and sewer infrastructure, which which currently ends at at South Creek.

Um if they were to pay to expand the water and sewer infrastructure down to their site.

Um any of what we would call future benefiting parties, so parties that are now between Flint Rock Knoll and South Creek, uh they might now have a brand new sewer line running in their backyard.

Um, current policies, they could tap into that new sewer line and only pay you know the the connection fees, the the tap fees, which are not insignificant, um, but those fees go to Owasa.

The original developer that paid to expand the water and sewer lines uh doesn't see any any sort of reimbursement.

And so what Awasa is is working on right now is a policy that would look at how that original party that makes that significant upfront investment uh could get reimbursed some amount over uh some period of time.

Um as you can imagine, uh it's the sort of policy that when you talk about it at a high level sounds like a complete home run, but but the devil is really in the details.

And so um just earlier today I was on a really great call with Owasa staff, um, town and Owasa staff are collaborating on how to make sure that the various interests that the council has shared with uh with staff are represented in that policy.

Um and there's really solid active collaboration going on and making sure that we are kind of as a as the town uh working with Owassa staff to represent uh our collective interests and find ways to kind of move the ball forward.

Um and so again, highly technical, but um there is an opportunity if if council chooses, and we really just wanted to kind of tee this up for for you all to kind of decide how you want to move forward.

Um there's an opportunity for for you all to weigh in um potentially at a at a much higher kind of policy level of yeah, this is something that that OASA should should move towards and support kind of collaboration among uh the various technical staff.

Um if you want to kind of go down that route, there is a resolution that that y'all could vote on that would um basically authorize the the mayor to to collect council comments and and share those with um the OWASA board.

Um so again, as I mentioned, double's in the details.

There is still a lot of technical work to be done.

Um, but town and awasa staff are are on it.

Councilmember Nollart.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I'm excited about this policy.

I have a couple questions, mostly um for edification, but some potentially for my opinion of it.

Um, mostly edification.

I the agreement stipulates developers should not have a lien on the water sewer system in order to be reimbursed.

Can you just clarify why that's important?

I actually don't know the the specifics there.

Um I would imagine that um it needs to be kind of free and clear, right?

That the system has to have been handed over fully without any sort of lingering uh encumbrances or any question about who owns the new infrastructure before we start looking at all right, let's let's start making that original developer whole.

Um so that that's kind of my somewhat educated guess that there.

And we're pretty confident that it's not uh mostly the reason I was asking is because so much construction is debt financed that and I assume until you've paid your debt there is a functionally a lien, but I'm not an attorney, and so this was just me going not knowing if this was a standard workable provision or if there was something unusual about this that was important for us to understand.

Um why are permitting costs eligible for reimbursement in this measure?

Is that because like permitting costs get bigger the larger the project you're doing, and so you want to be able to capture some of the sort of like you you you pay more for a longer pipe and permitting fees because it scales linear with the size of the pipe, or what's the reason?

Yeah.

I think the the universe of eligible costs is likely going to be a very ripe area for debate.

Um if you look at it from the perspective of we want to kind of craft a policy that gets as close as making as close as possible to making the original developer whole for the infrastructure investments.

Um you want to look at those reimbursable costs with as wide of a lens as possible.

Um I think that's the thinking there, right?

Things that activities, costs that are reasonably related to the infrastructure um investment um should kind of fall within that scope of of reimbursable costs.

And also I just wanted to add just because of where the questions are going, and I realize everyone's questions may not go there.

I just want to put the disclaimer that this is not staff's policy, that this is a request for you to support the effort that OWASA is doing for their policy.

So I also don't want to put the burden on TAS to speak for their policy and the and the ins and outs of it.

Staff are working to comment and provide comment on the town's behalf in relation to the policy, but some of these questions might be better served by us getting us getting you answers from Owatha.

So just want to throw that right there.

Thank you.

Um heard and understood.

Two two more questions that I I think it is worth asking now.

Um they're brief.

Um do you know why they've proposed reimbursement for initial demand rather than excess demand in the in the sample calculation?

I don't know.

Okay.

Okay.

And then the last one is do you know what the difference is between the reimbursement policy and the excess capacity policy?

Because they list both of those as attachments, but there's only a reimbursement policy included in the packet.

There's not an excess.

I don't, but we could get some clarification on that.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Miller Fushi, followed by uh Mayor Pro Timberry.

And I will just note um, I don't want to put you on the spot, but um a senior member of the OWASA staff is in the audience with us this evening.

So um if if you all think it's germane, just there is an opportunity to pose some questions to somebody that is more knowledgeable.

Um, but I don't want to kind of push us outside the the bounds of what we were anticipating for the conversation.

If she's willing to address some of these policy questions, I mean that that could be helpful.

Uh well, with that, gentlemen, uh and ladies and gentlemen, uh Monica Dotson, deputy executive director with OWASA.

Yeah, so I'll try to my best to answer all of your questions, like Taz said, still very much under development.

So remind me of your first question that you had.

Um the first question was about um why it stipulates developers should not have a lien.

I think we covered that one more recently.

I was curious um why they're reimbursed for initial demand rather than excess demand in the calculation.

So it seems like the initial demand serves like their own project and the excess is the amount they're paying for that doesn't serve them, but they're reimbursed for the ERU equivalent of the initial demand rather than the ERU equivalent of the excess demand.

I just didn't understand why.

Yeah.

The the intent is to um reimburse them only for them the um infrastructure outside of what was required for their development.

Um and so I'd have to look at the details of how we're calculating that.

But what we hope to work if if the policy is approved by our board, what we hope to work closely with the town to do is to understand what the potential development for the area is that the infrastructure goes in, and then use those the total cost of the infrastructure and the amount that could be developed to get to down to what would it cost, what would the reimbursable amount be per unit that goes in, and then of course subtract out what that uh development is for the or the units that go in for that initial development and then any other development that goes in, we would use that calculation to determine that.

Is that helpful?

Yes, it is.

Um and I think uh I think in the original calculation it was doing that one, yeah, it's it's doing the 150 for the maximum reimbursable amount, so it's doing the opposite of what you're describing in the current example.

But um we can check on that later.

Um and then the last question, and thanks for your indulgence was um if you could explain the difference between the details of the reimbursement policy and the excess capacity policy.

It looked like they were supposed to be two different attachments, but I I only saw the something labeled reimbursement policy and was interested in the case.

Yeah, so we have a current policy that addresses if we were asked a developer to put in a line larger than what is needed for their current development, that they could get reimbursed for just the excess capacity that we asked them to put in, and then the reimbursement mechanism would be similar to what we're proposing in this is that any future developer would reimburse that initial developer.

And so this policy is to address the the total infrastructure that goes in.

And so that's the difference between the two.

So when we develop this policy, we we took mechanism out of the excess capacity uh policy to address that.

So it may be poor wording on our side that we were at this time we're not revisiting the excess capacity policy that we currently have.

Thank you very much.

I think you were also asking about permitting fees.

Did you get your answer on that?

Uh I I think yeah, yeah, I did.

Okay.

Um Mayor Pro Tim.

Sorry.

I'm good.

It's okay.

Oh, you don't have a question anymore?

Oh, okay.

I just intuited, obviously.

I had a feeling.

Um Mayor Pro Temberry.

Thank you.

So I appreciate uh Mr.

Scott's um email that he sent in today, and I'm sure he's going to comment on it, but I get the opportunity to question about the reimbursement period.

And 10 years, I have to agree with Mr.

Scott that that is short.

And I have worked with an organization that was given you know the opportunity to be reimbursed for work done.

And sometimes, especially in this climate, but this was years ago, where we could not get that work done.

We could not afford it.

Um I worry about this 10-year constraint.

I am seriously concerned, given the economic conditions that we have today, and considering that they are probably going to get worse.

That um 10 years is much too short.

And I support the 20.

So I'm curious why you all did not.

Well, we so like I mentioned earlier, we used our current excess capacity um policy as kind of a baseline to develop this policy.

So that policy has a 10-year uh timeline on it.

It is feedback that we have heard consistently from the development community from others.

So it's certainly something that we will be uh asking our board to consider all that feedback and based in that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Um let's see.

I think that that is it for me.

I really I can wait until the comments.

Thank you.

Are there members of the public wishing to speak?

Yes.

Ian Scott.

Thank you, Mayor Council.

I won't belabor Ian Scott with the uh Chamber for Greater Chapel Hill Carbero asking you to please consider authorizing the mayor uh to collect town comments and express them uh hopefully in support of this reimbursement policy to the OWASA board.

I do think your voice really does matter here.

This is a very uh intergovernmental and public-private collaboration opportunity.

That collaboration has been working extremely well.

I think you've you've heard expert presentations already.

Uh this is clearly not a slam dunk, but we do think this can work to deliver more of the kinds of housing that is envisioned in the complete community strategy for this area, which was the intent all along.

Uh the proximity to transit, the proximity to the hospitals make this a good area.

It is obviously complicated, uh, but we don't think it will happen in anything other than large lot single family in this area at high price points without water and sewer, as you've already heard, and we we don't believe water and sewer is going to happen without some mechanism uh for sharing the burden of that initial investment among the properties that will ultimately be benefited by this.

We want to reiterate we don't believe any of this capital investment burden falls on OWASA or on the ratepayers.

In this case, it is development paying for development, and nothing in the policy as proposed would obligate any future property owner that is advantaged by this water and sewer to choose to connect.

But if they did choose to connect to water and sewer and develop their property, then they they would be paying a proportional part of that initial capital investment back.

I won't go into all the details.

I did send you all the memo that we've prepared with extensive feedback from a lot of different folks in the development community uh here locally.

Um happy to entertain any questions offline about any of those, but really do think your voice matters a ton in this.

This is a big step for the OWASA board.

It's I believe it would certainly help them to know your opinions as the land use regulator for this area.

They're just providing utility.

Thank you.

Encourage you to make comment on this.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember McCullough?

Um can I ask you a question, Ian?

Absolutely.

I was wondering how this kind of of reimbursement policy would affect the lending.

That is, how would the banks look at this as an opportunity to be able to lend perhaps more money, or is it too uncertain about reimbursement for it to make a difference?

We're not going to be able to do that.

I'm not sure this.

If you'll indulge me the answer, I'll I'll say I don't, I don't, I'm not 100% certain, Councilmember McCullough.

I really don't know.

Uh but I don't think the development, I think the margins here are such that put with the initial investment cost, it's unlikely that a developer is going to go forward without some opportunity to recapture a portion of that initial cost.

Right.

I guess I'm I guess what I'm wondering is how much more likely are we going to get development with this in place than without it.

I'm sorry, I can't handicap that for you.

And just a reminder, we usually don't ask members of the public to answer questions, but we can certainly ask our staff or um ask Mr.

Scott offline.

Um thank you, Mr.

Scott, for being willing to entertain the question.

Um Councilmember Rivers, followed by Councilmember Ryan.

This this is the TAS or to the OWASA executive.

And it's slightly a different I'm just maybe I should already know this, but I don't.

So like let's say if you're an individual property owner that wants to connect the water and sewer, there's no policy like this for you.

This is for like developers, right?

So like if I'm saying I'm in a community and I want to get water and sewer, that's kind of out of my own pocket, right?

That's correct.

Yeah.

So the individual connection fees are not covered by this.

Um but it's looking at a different thing, right?

When when an individual ties in with what's called a a lateral connection.

Umbody else can tie into that.

Um that has to be kind of one user, one connection.

So there isn't a potential benefit to somebody else, like there would be when you expand um sewer and water mains.

Yeah, I'm thinking about like if we have issues with like historic equity issues in terms of connecting to water and sewer.

And you know, possibilities for this type of policy for not for everybody who wants to connect, but for communities that have had these issues in the past.

Yeah, and we were dealing with that certainly I think the most uh visible area of of the town's jurisdiction is the Rogers Road uh neighborhood and community that um there are uh you know programs and plays to try to support um those sorts of private connections.

Um yeah, it it is it is definitely top of mind with with any of these uh discussions.

Okay.

Um council member Ryan, followed by Mayor Pur Tembe.

I won't be quick.

So do you um the estimates?

I don't know if you guys did were you guys seeking comment on whether they seem reasonable.

If you tell me they're reasonable, they look reasonable.

Um the reimbursement policy, I would support it, especially as it supports our complete community goals.

I think it's a really nice idea, and thanks to Awasa for thinking about that and helping to make this possible.

Um I again I I hear you on what the how the money works and how we're what it's gonna take to get development down here.

I just want to make sure we're being creative.

Um we've done such a good job in things like affordable housing and really working all the angles that we can.

I don't know whether there are county economic development grants that might help pull sewer down through here for these smaller developments if there is state soil and water money, if there are state economic development grants.

But I think that if we got a little bit creative, there might be a chance for us to get to help build the town affordable housing down here, which would be great, but then also to kind of see more of that missing middle vision that we were that we started this all based around.

So I'm hoping that we can look into that and see if we can't figure out a way to help help that meet some of these really enormous costs.

Thank you.

Um Mayor Pro Tim Barry.

Thank you.

When this came before us to vote, um there was one household that was on Smith Level Road, and I remember Miss Johnson was still with us.

This may have been her last um thing that she presented, and I and she said, Well, we can work it out.

I don't want to lose sight of that that household that is on Smith Level Road.

Um their neighbor, which I think may be the gas station, and then the other neighbor on the other side of them have access to, and they really implored me to share their desire to be able to tap into it.

So I don't want to forget that.

There is that request.

And then there's also a um So how do we do that?

That's my question is how do we how do we look and make sure that we try?

Um and that it then there's the issue of cost.

There is another household on the other side, outside of our jurisdiction, but she's down.

I have spoken with the county manager and Owasa about um support for folks who are low income.

This person is retired.

She is suffering from um effects from her well there uh in the sewer, and she would love to get on.

And it is extremely expensive.

I do know, just so that you're aware um Councilmember Rivers, that the county as of a year, a year and a half ago, maybe when I talked with them, they do have a low loan, uh a low interest loan, but that's the best that they offer.

And so I am concerned about that.

Um I offer that up.

I'm not even sure what I'm asking, other than how can we support these folks who will be it'll bypass them.

And how do we not leave them behind?

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Miller Fishy.

Yeah, I want to thank both of my colleagues for um elevating um excuse me, um, households who will be cost burdened, um, but very much potentially in need of being able to connect with water.

I know out in that area as well, like there's a lot of clay, which um creates a lot of challenges for folks to have um clean, healthy um water.

And that should be paramount in our um discussions around who can tap in on when it comes to single like households or whatever.

Um I think developers coming into a community and laying down that infrastructure is absolutely great.

Um but I hope in our society we can really start um centering people's needs and like the fundamentals of being able to have access to to clean waters is really really important.

And so um would like to you know hopefully see OWASA as they're you know putting these policies together that they are putting at that at the forefront, really looking at historically who has not been able to tap in to um and have access to clean water, um, but also community members that have been able to um sustain themselves to some degree, but um over time like their wells are failing because of the conditions of the soil, the poor soil.

Um I hope that there will be pathways to to address those things as well.

So thank you to my colleagues for elevating that.

Um council member McCullough.

Actually, I'll wait until comments.

We are there.

Okay.

Alrighty then.

Um basically I I I apologize for accidentally asking during public comment.

Um, but it's something that I would love to know what the what the staff thinks is as we start to marry the two topics right now.

Um I would like to know how how likely it is to in the discussions that we have had with developers, whether we have a sense of how this will improve our opportunities to be able to get development in the um extended Wasamba area.

I don't I don't expect an answer right now.

Yeah, I was gonna say it's a it's a generalization.

It it definitely will help move the needle.

Anything we could do to help reduce costs, of course, it's going to encourage it, but there are still other obstacles at play there.

Right.

I guess since this is a comment um and you're collecting comments, um, that I think it's a a great idea if it moves us in the right direction and it creates any additional opportunity for us to be able to get um water and sewer and and extend uh the housing that we need to expand supply.

I think it's a a good idea and and uh takes us farther in the direction I think of fairness as well.

Uh Mayor Partimberry.

Thank you.

I also think this is a good idea uh and I want to I hope that we can support this.

Um I was looking at Mr.

Scott's email once again, and I hope that the OWASA board will take into consideration those items that were lifted up.

Um but especially the timing.

That the 10 years is just far too few, and it needs to be 20 uh given where we are realistically.

And I really appreciate you all working on this together.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nollart.

Yeah, I want to echo the appreciation.

I think 20 years is a reasonable amount of time uh to consider for projects like these and um uh share the interest in prioritizing equity and thinking about tap on.

I think I hope our staff will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think to to your earlier comment, Councilmember Rivers, uh uh the analogy is slightly different in that developers also, as far as I understand it, cannot be reimbursed for tap-on fees.

This is a totally different type of pipe and structure and situation.

So that even though that is the case, I still think we should think about how to apply equity for tap-on for low-income um residents where possible um uh yes, council member McMahon.

I'm ready to move the resolution authorizing the mayor.

I was actually gonna if I could.

I didn't know if it was well, I know, but I've no, it's fine.

If you guys want to make a motion, I can make comments before I move the vote.

Um we know you're eager.

Okay.

Um move by uh councilmember McMahon.

Um seconded by council member Nollert.

Um my I guess my question and comment is number one, thank you all very much.

Um thank you to Awasa for moving this forward.

Thank you for working together.

Um I um and I am, of course, if the board wants to do so, happy to collect comments.

That's no problem.

I guess my um my thought is that um some of these things feel appropriate for the AWASA board to consider.

I I would very much like to pass along our kind of high-level interest, including of course um equity concerns, clean water concerns to, you know, and more generally, I think our interest in that workforce middle income affordable housing options and expanding um you know, being in line with our complete community goals, which I think we've tried to do time and time again.

Um I think we have passed that along.

I mean, the reason we passed a um Wasamba in the first place was with missing middle middle income housing in mind.

Um I um I I don't I personally don't feel prepared to comment beyond really high-level issues that in a way that I think the Awasa board is prepared to do so and will be digging into it.

So um I would just urge us to think about are there things that we really need to say as individual council members collecting comments that we can't just say about our vision and goals already um or that we couldn't convey in this at this time um and then allow the Awasa board to do the work of evaluating what the best way is to meet those goals.

Um I do not feel prepared at all to talk about 20 years versus 30 years versus 10 years.

I mean, I just I don't I don't know that we're best suited to do that, but um so that's just for council to consider.

Um my other I I think I would really really um like to reiterate council member Ryan's thoughts about and maybe this is a question, um how do we get to our goal?

Um I and I wish that we had had a valuation before we passed Wasamba, only not because I wouldn't have voted for it, but because it would have been really helpful to understand what was possible as we communicated with ourselves but also the public about what we were doing and why.

Um and so at this point, um, I guess that's just a future process hope, but I think right now what I would like to understand is what are the ways we can get to our goal.

Um, and I have no problem with some nodes or allowing for something way denser down by Walmart that'll pull everything down, you know, like whatever the creative ideas are, but I guess I'm much more excited and interested about how we can get to our vision than just kind of saying, oh well, it's not really possible, and maybe a reimbursement policy will get us like a little bit.

Um yeah, and I think we will continue to think about that.

Um to that point of um would we I don't at all mean to say that any of this discussion is to suggest that the original decision to expand the Wasamba area was um ill-conceived or or anything of that sort, right?

Um it really goes to that to that top line issue of the Wasamba expansion allowed Chapel Hill to plan, right, rather than going through a lot of steps, going through a lot of process, and then kind of putting ourselves before the other jurisdictions for for permission.

Um the the actions in 2023 and 2024.

Um it just got the other voices out of that particular decision.

Um and we're now doing that work, right?

Of figuring out what is most appropriate.

Um, how do those goals align with with complete community?

Um couple of things to be mindful of, right?

Complete community does tell us where we want to grow um infill sites are or top of the list, right?

It's large and small infill and then areas with transit and greenways.

Um right now the Wasamba area does not meet any of those boxes.

Um and so that that vision may need to be kind of a a longer term vision until complete community kind of incrementally moves out that way.

Um same with missing middle, right?

Um missing middle housing is a there's a dynamic there that's about the the building form.

The other is about the context in which those buildings are are built, right?

In walkable communities.

And that's also something that that takes time.

So the the missing middle interest, I think really is that is a long game because of the context that needs to exist for missing middle to really be missing middle housing.

Well, I guess I would say this that that makes a lot of sense and I appreciate that.

And also when we passed this, we were we said we were doing it for this reason that there were folks with in the development community who said yes, we can get you townhomes and cottage courts and triplexes and quads if you allow for this expansion.

And um, and I think that is such a huge missing need in our community.

It's not about not liking some other typology, it's that we know that there's a real reason why we need that typology, and this was the place where we I think were hopeful that we could get it, and that was the premise.

And so I think it's it goes a little bit beyond just kind of the broad strokes of complete community.

It was that we did this with a purpose.

Um it sounds like we have like this piece of a reimbursement policy that could combined with other things maybe get us there.

Um, and certainly um again, I think it doesn't all have to be that typology, but um I guess I would just hope that we are continuing to in this now planning process work towards what will it take um to get that and um and obviously if it's just a reality check at the end of the day of like there is just no there is no water and soil money or there's no economic development grant or whatever it is, like I definitely want to know that, and it's not that this wasn't worth anything.

I just don't want to give up on what we were trying to do.

I was just gonna add, um, I realize we are a little bit conflating these two issues, but just to note like this is the this reimbursement policy is not part of the Wassamba conversation.

These are two separate issues that just happen to be on the same agenda, and Ted is just the the star that gets to bring them both to you.

So I don't want you to feel like we came to tell you that this plan isn't gonna work, but we'll get you this reimbursement policy in lieu of that, like that's not what this was, and I I didn't want that to kind of be the the tenor of the conversation.

The Wassamba results are the results, and they've been out for a while, and now a Wasa is looking to do a reimbursement policy, although it applies to this area, it's not only for this area, and so I I didn't want that to seem as though those two were solutions that you were getting delivered for that area.

So just put that clarification out there.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

I believe we have a motion on the floor.

If possible, please.

Well, I think you've already commented that.

I know.

No, but I think that it's still worth I know you all are ready to go.

But I do want to.

No, I'm just the looks that I get and also the rush to move the motion in to move forward with comments.

And I'm tired like everyone else.

I do, because you just said I don't know if we are if you are prepared to say 10 or 20.

I do want to emphasize that I think we should support closed editor 20.

If we're trying to help um entice developers to um help us get going there, I think we need to give that type of support, that type of encouragement.

And um there's another factor that we also need to consider, and that is transit as we dense as we densify down there, that will be a stronger case for us to be able to extend public transit, which will alleviate the traffic that is bound to come regardless of whether or not we develop there.

That is another um added benefit.

And I just real quickly, I think that you've heard from several people that you know the that that um seeing this new and this new part of town developing was really an opportunity for us to get missing middle, it's gonna be really hard for us to get anywhere else except in you know, little tiny pockets of things like this is this was one area, and maybe it won't be possible, but I'd really like to try.

And the idea that we're gonna approve a bunch of big apartment complexes because that's what's gonna come through, and then maybe in 30 years, oh, we don't have any land left, and it didn't work out, and I'd really like to be as intentional about this area, recognizing reality as we are with our affordable housing.

And we've really done some amazing things there.

So and I know you guys do good work.

So you know, I just challenge you to see if we can't really within what's reasonable and possible make really pay off on the vision that we had here.

So can I ask about the motion on the floor?

Are you um is your motion to um collect comments for the mayor to collect comments and send them?

Is it to transmit comments this evening on a high can you give me a little clarification on your motion?

Uh I there's a resolution here.

I was just um moving the resolution.

I don't know if I don't have a clarification.

I can withdraw it if someone has a do you need help knowing what comments?

I don't know if you feel like this meeting has been enough comments.

Well, that's the question.

Uh I think so.

Um I would be okay.

And so if there's a and I'll ask staff, do you feel like and I'm sure we can very quickly summarize if there are comments we would like to convey.

And I don't want to say that we cannot do a different process and have me collect comments from council members if that is the will of the board.

Madam Mayor, I would I would suggest that we start by transmitting minutes and if council members review the minutes and say that that isn't an adequate depiction of all the positions that need to be conveyed, they could send additional comments to you to be conveyed, but the the minutes would capture our positions.

I'm sure I think that's right.

Um I I think the amendment accepted.

I would also offer potenti you know, if you'll uh allow me um to try to summarize what I think our big points are just to make sure that we are in agreement on them.

Because I think the minutes also sometimes don't actually uh there are tacit uh consent versus actually saying yes, I agree.

Um what I heard is that we um that we certainly want our complete community goals recognized, that we want um proactive planning.

I heard general um agreement that uh reimbursement policy is an excellent idea that we support it.

Um I heard some of us saying that we still want to try to accomplish our middle income missing middle, you know, kind of um typogies.

I don't know I didn't hear from the whole board on that, so I said that, but I I would like to know if that is still the interest of the board.

Okay, I'm seeing yes.

So we still do want as part of OWASA's deliberations for them to keep that in mind, though we know that that is not in their power to just make it happen, but that it's part of this reimbursement policy.

Um I also heard an interest in um equity concerns around access for um individuals who are already down in that area or in any in any area of expansion and hopefully having them think about um ways that we can expand access to um underserved neighborhoods or folks with water quality issues.

Um I lost my train of thought.

Um but that generally there's support and that I also did not hear I heard some interest in the 20-year versus 10.

Yeah, I'm interested in that as well.

So 20?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, that's yeah.

Okay.

So a recomm uh a preference for a 20-year reimbursement timeline.

Are there other issues that I have not adequately summarized?

Council member Rivers followed by Mayor Pro Temberry.

Yeah, I think that's a pretty good summary in terms of the equity issues.

The get to our equity equity concerns.

Yeah, I think that's certainly supported.

Um anything, um yeah, sorry.

So I think in your summary, you you conflated the two.

And so I want to make sure I want to check in with staff that you are getting what you need for each of these, what you need to transmit to them.

Are you getting that?

There are two separate issues, but one was just an update to you.

So the the information about Wasamba and about the development ability there is just an update to council.

That was originally going to be part of your earlier work session.

The only thing you're being asked to do tonight is whether or not you'd like to support and convey comments about the related to the policy.

Right.

And so I'm not sure if all of those comments pertain to the reimbursement policy.

Well, I think what we're hoping is that they're evaluating the policy based on the goals we've set out.

And certainly I don't I don't imagine that they can solve all of those things.

But I think conveying our interests and then letting them deliberate and decide which are relevant and what they can do and what they can't do, I think is okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Um is that acceptable as can as comments conveyed and big picture themes that we want to pass along?

Okay.

Um I have a motion on the floor.

Any of the council member McMahon, seconded by council member Nollert.

Um all those in favor to pass our comments on as uh just stated to um Owasa.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Whoo.

Okay.

Um with that.

Um I believe the regular portion.

Nope.

I lied.

Oh, I was so close.

Um item number 11 is to is to participate in the national opioid settlement with six remnant defendants.

Um council members, this is a straightforward item with no presentation.

I move that we approve.

Well, hold on.

Just for the record.

Um I was I got West.

I got like mentioned.

I got McMahon's.

The uh the state of North Carolina continues to participate in the national opid litigation while Chapel Hill has already participated in previous settlements as part of this litigation.

A new round of settlement has been negotiated with six additional defendants.

Um in order to participate in the settlement, council must adopt the resolution to authorize the town manager to execute a participation and release form on behalf of the town.

So moved.

Additional information is available in the agenda packet for anyone wishing to know, including those in the public, which is why I'm saying this.

Uh council, I need a motion to R for Second Moved by Councilmember Barry, seconded by council.

Sorry, Mayor Pro Tambere, seconded by Councilmember Miller Fushi.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Um this is the end of our regular meeting.

Um Mayor Pro Temberry, if you'll read us into closed session.

I'd like to make a motion to go into closed session under general statutes.

GS 143-318.11A4 and 143-318.11a6.

A moved by council uh Mayor Pro Temberry, seconded by Councilmember Miller Fushi.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please say nay.

Motion is unanimous.

Um and our what am I supposed to say?

I'm not supposed to say we're adjourned.

We're moving the closed session.

Uh we're recessing the closed session.

Thank you.