Durham City Council Meeting – March 5, 2024

The Durham City Council met on March 5, 2024, at 7:00 PM (adjourned at 11:20 PM) to consider ceremonial proclamations, a consent agenda, and several high-profile items, including a contract for gunshot detection technology (ShotSpotter) and three zoning/annexation cases. The meeting featured extensive public comment on the ShotSpotter item and detailed council debate on land-use and environmental issues.

Ceremonial Items and Announcements

• Councilmember Cook read a proclamation declaring March 2024 as American Red Cross Month in Durham, highlighting the March 9 Day of Service (smoke alarm installation) and March 27 Giving Day. A Red Cross representative noted that free smoke alarms saved a life in January 2024.
• Councilmember Caballero read a proclamation for Meet Out Day (March 20, 2024), encouraging plant-based diets for health, environmental, and social justice reasons. A speaker cited research linking animal agriculture to climate change and health benefits of plant-based eating.
• Councilmember Johnson (or Middleton) read a proclamation for Arab American Heritage Month (April 2024), recognizing contributions of Arab Americans.
• Councilmember Cook announced the Durham Bike Co-op’s 2023 metrics: recycled 12 tons of metal, accepted 1,302 bike donations, restored 365 bikes (265 youth bikes), and gave away 384 helmets, 172 lights, 127 vests, and 194 locks.
• Mayor Williams reminded residents to vote in the primary election on March 6, 2024, and to bring a photo ID. He also noted participation in a food security event with Duke Health, Governor Cooper, and others.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1–16, 18–27 (excluding item 17) were approved unanimously. Notable items included: Affordable Housing Implementation Committee appointment, interlocal agreement for sales tax distribution, contract amendments for immigration legal defense, ARPA Road to Wealth Building project, various procurement and service contracts, and zoning map changes for Old West Farms and Aura Green Hill (discussed later).

Public Comments & Testimony

Item 17 – ShotSpotter Contract (Sound Thinking, Inc.)

• Opponents (over 20 speakers, online and in-person): Argued the technology is ineffective, racially biased, and a waste of funds. Cited the Duke Wilson Center evaluation: only 9% of ShotSpotter-only alerts (752 of 825) were unconfirmed; no evidence of reduced gun violence or improved investigations; 1.2-minute response time reduction but 8 incidents missed. Speakers urged investment in the HART program, housing, mental health services, youth programs, and a $25/hour living wage. Many connected the issue to opposition to surveillance and over-policing of Black and Brown communities. Some referenced the company’s partnerships with Israeli defense firms and called for divestment.
• Proponents (2 speakers): One resident who works for the city and lives in the pilot area argued the technology is a useful tool as part of a multi-pronged approach, noting that gunfire is often not reported to 911. Another speaker, Councilmember (in discussion), argued that the technology saved at least one life and that the police chief and sheriff support it.

Item 25 – Olive Branch Reserve North Annexation and Rezoning

• Opponents (Preserve Rural Durham and residents): Raised environmental concerns about sediment pollution in Martin Branch/Lick Creek (turbidity 40 times state standard), lack of infrastructure (fire, EMS, schools, roads), and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Cited the planning commission’s 10-0 vote against the project. Pointed to 41 developments under construction in the watershed and a federal lawsuit across the street. Questioned the affordability of proffered units (3% at 80% AMI for 10 years, later increased to 6% at 80% and 100% AMI for 30 years).
• Applicant (Marie Farmer, Parker Poe): Defended the project, noting 22 of 25 applicable policies met, 40% impervious surface reduction, 24% tree coverage, 300-foot wildlife corridor, 100-foot stream buffer, and $23,000 school donation. Emphasized the need for rental housing in a market with few options.

Item 26 – Old West Farms Durham Rezoning

• Proponents (neighbors and applicant): Supported the adaptive reuse of the historic church building as a wedding venue/event space, citing successful negotiations with the developer, use restrictions (no nightclub, convenience store, etc.), and commitments to preserve the church for at least five years and increase native landscaping. One neighbor requested traffic calming at the intersection.

Item 27 – Aura Green Hill Rezoning

• Proponents (neighborhood association representatives): Supported the project, noting it replaces underutilized motels, provides 39 affordable units (30% at 60% AMI, 30% at 80% AMI, 30% at 100% AMI for 30 years), a public park-like open space, and a $35,000 donation for traffic calming. The planning commission recommended approval 8-0.

Discussion Items

Item 17 – ShotSpotter Contract (Item 17)

• Councilmember Cook: Opposed, citing 91% unconfirmed alerts, lack of evidence of life-saving (only 2 gunshot wounds with ShotSpotter-only alerts), and community preference for prevention. Noted the qualitative study showed participants felt excluded from decision-making.
• Councilmember Rist: Opposed, stating the data is inconclusive; the one life potentially saved does not justify the cost ($658,500 over three years) and the risk of reinforcing a private profit-driven surveillance system.
• Councilmember Baker: Opposed, noting the Wilson Center study found no impact on arrests, evidence gathering, or witness interviews. Argued the community lacks trust in the technology, and that investment in affordable housing, transit, and sidewalks would better address safety.
• Councilmember Caballero: Supported, stating the tool improves efficiency for a police department that is 120 officers short. He questioned the narrative that ShotSpotter is surveillance and defended the police department’s professionalism. He noted that the resident survey’s top priority was more police protection.
• Mayor Pro Tem Middleton: Supported, emphasizing that the technology was never promised to reduce gun violence, only to reduce response times. He argued that the community’s input (including from NCCU and local residents) and the potential to save a life (one life saved in the pilot) justify the expenditure. He criticized the conflation of ShotSpotter with surveillance, noting that video cameras in public housing receive less scrutiny.
• Mayor Williams: Supported, reiterating the need for a multi-pronged approach and criticizing the “either-or” framing. He stated that the community he represents (Black and Brown residents) wants more police protection and that the council must be careful not to speak over them.

Item 25 – Olive Branch Reserve North Annexation and Rezoning

• Councilmember Cook: Opposed, citing environmental damage, traffic impacts, and lack of affordable housing (only 6% income-restricted units, not meeting the Comprehensive Plan’s definition of affordability). She noted the planning commission’s unanimous opposition.
• Councilmember Baker: Opposed, calling the project “car-centric sprawl” inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He argued that accepting partial compliance sets a precedent for weaker projects.
• Councilmember Caballero: Supported, noting the 88% consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, significant infrastructure improvements, and private-sector affordable housing commitments. He argued that rejecting the project would lead to more expensive single-family homes.
• Councilmember Rist: Supported, stating that the city cannot build housing itself, and incremental improvements (like the proffered units) are better than by-right development. He emphasized the need to balance development with community needs.
• Mayor Pro Tem Middleton: Supported, praising the developer’s engagement and the environmental commitments (improved sediment control rules). He rejected the “NIMBY” label and argued that a moratorium would send the wrong message.

Item 26 – Old West Farms Durham

• No significant discussion; council members expressed appreciation for the community engagement and the project’s compatibility. The motion passed unanimously.

Item 27 – Aura Green Hill

• No significant discussion; council members noted the project’s high quality and affordability. The motion passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Item 17 – ShotSpotter Contract: Rejected (4-2 against). Councilmembers Cook, Rist, Baker, and Caballero voted no; Mayor Williams and Mayor Pro Tem Middleton voted yes. The city will not enter a three-year, $658,500 contract with Sound Thinking (formerly ShotSpotter).
• Item 25 – Olive Branch Reserve North:
  • Annexation ordinance: Approved 4-2 (Baker and Cook no).
  • Rezoning to PDR 3.7: Approved 6-0.
  • Consistency statement: Approved 6-0.
• Item 26 – Old West Farms Durham: Rezoning to CG with TDP (prohibiting certain uses): Approved 6-0. Consistency statement approved 6-0.
• Item 27 – Aura Green Hill: Rezoning to PDR 34.923: Approved 6-0. Utility extension agreement: Approved 6-0. Consistency statement approved 6-0.

All consent agenda items (except item 17) were approved unanimously.