Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to City Hall.

It's great to see everyone here and to have you all who are listening in online.

Great to have you with us.

This meeting is called to order at 7 p.m.

And I'll ask that you join me in a moment of this moment of silence.

Thank you.

I'll pass it over to Councilmember Rist for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good evening.

If it is your practice, I invite you to rise and recite this Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.

Under God, indivisible, with liberty.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Good evening, Mayor Williams.

Here.

Mayor Potem Caballero.

Here.

Councilmember Baker.

Here.

Councilmember Burris present.

Councilmember Cook?

Here.

Councilmember Kopak.

Here.

And Councilmember Rist.

Here.

Thank you.

At this time, we will proceed into our ceremonial items.

And usually at this time, we have proclamations read.

Tonight is a little different.

We have a proclamation, but we also are going to have a unique oath of office for a Durham resident who's been appointed by Governor Josh Stein to the uh to the North Carolina Symphony Society Incorporated Board of Trustees.

So Ms.

Brown, Dr.

Brown.

Would you please join me?

And if you have any guests with you.

Okay.

You can join me right down here in front.

No, you can.

I think you that we can.

Okay.

Lift up your sound.

It's going to be this one.

All right.

Before I proceed into the readings of the uh, you can rest your hand.

I'm gonna brag on you for a moment.

Uh just wanted to uh take a moment to uh let you know as mayor, I'm extremely proud to have a Durham representative on this uh being administered to uh this morning to this board of trustees as a classical tubist myself and a former co-board member with you with the Durham Symphony.

Uh it is uh it's a great pleasure.

I uh Dr.

Brown, I've seen your work over the years.

I appreciate your commitment.

Uh most people know you probably do your affiliation with the arts.

However, uh, you have a very decorated uh list of credentials and your research and and all the other work that you do from RTI and uh and and all the sorts.

Uh so this is a great honor, and you make Durham look really good.

So just wanted to brag on you for a moment.

All right.

So at this time, I'll get to administer your oath.

It's exciting.

So I'll uh state this and uh have you state your name.

I state your name.

Dorothy Brown.

Do solemnly you'll repeat out the meeting, of course.

Do solemnly swear.

Do the solemnly swear.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

And I state your name.

I Dorothy Brown.

Do solemnly swear.

Solemnly swear.

That I will be faithful and bear truth allegiance.

That I will be unfaithful and bear true allegiance.

To the state of North Carolina.

To the state of North Carolina.

And to the constitutional powers.

And to the constitutional powers.

And authorities, which are.

And to the authorities, which are.

Or maybe.

Or maybe.

Established for the government thereof.

That may be established for the government thereof.

And I will endeavor to support.

And I will endeavor to support.

Maintain.

Maintain.

And defend the Constitution.

And defend the Constitution.

Of said state.

Of North Carolina.

Not inconsistent with.

Not inconsistent with.

The Constitution of the United States.

Not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.

And I state your name.

I Dorothy C.

Brown.

Do solemnly swear.

Do solemnly swear.

That I will well.

That I will well.

And truly execute.

And truly execute.

The duties of my office.

The duties of my office.

As a member of.

As a member of.

The North Carolina Symphony Society Incorporated Board of Trustees.

The North Carolina Symphony Society, Incorporated.

The Board of Trustees.

According to the best.

According to the best.

Of my skill and ability.

My skill and ability.

According to the law.

According to the law.

So help me God.

So help me God.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Dr.

Brown.

No, I was saying that's a lot for the North Carolina Symphony, and I'm very proud to serve on that board.

I don't know how many of you know about the symphony, but I think it's very important to have representation from Durham because we have a Durham Symphony, and I'm going to encourage them to work closely with our symphony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We uh have our next presentation will be a proclamation.

And if I may ask Mr.

Mayor to just give us a couple minutes.

Yep.

Um I think uh another one of our recipients uh is just gonna get situated.

So if we could be patient for one moment, I would appreciate it.

We're gonna go ahead and do uh we'll we're gonna go into announcements and then we'll come back to the final proclamation.

All right.

Councilmember Baker, why don't you get us started?

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you uh for being here on this uh chilly evening.

Uh just want to say thank you to um Chief Zaldos and uh several many of our firefighters at Station One uh for giving me uh a tour um last week.

Uh it was very informative.

And our emergency services workers are are critical to the functioning of our city, and they work hard every day and they show up in really tough positions and and oftentimes on the worst day of some of our residents of the worst day of their lives.

So um thank you too to them.

Um also uh happy Martin Luther King Jr.

day, um, such an important day.

Um I was able to march from North Carolina Mutual to First Presbyterian Church uh yesterday, and uh there were many beautiful messages.

I was particularly moved by uh many in the labor movement who uh showed up to lift up uh Dr.

King's analysis of the three evils of American society, which in his view were poverty, racism, and militarism, three evils that are front and center and in our faces every single day here in the U.S.

under our federal fascist government.

And on the one hand, things are worse on many fronts than they've been ever or in a very long time.

And on the other hand, these evils have been present with us all along, but hidden behind uh politeness uh for a very long time.

And um over the past four decades, for example, the gap, the wealth gap between black families and white families has not gotten better, has not stayed the same, but has actually gotten worse.

Um when Dr.

King uh at the time of his assassination, he had uh 33% uh favorability and 63% unfavorability.

He was hated, he was uh people were uncomfortable with him.

Today he has a 94% approval or favorability uh rating, only 4% of uh the population are unfavorable see him as unfavorable.

Um and that is through years and decades of frankly culture war to to lift him up and and his message.

But he was a radical and he criticized capitalism and the Vietnam War, which made even his own allies uh at times uncomfortable.

And I think that we have a lot of work to do to carry forward Dr.

King's uh legacy, uh his uh work on civil rights, his work on economic justice, but also I think that we need to look to present day examples of people amongst us who fight every day for humanity, but while doing so might make us feel uncomfortable.

Um then lastly, I just want to say that uh it's very cold today, it's cold all week.

We also have inclement weather that appears to be coming our way.

Uh and so I do want to make sure on our side that we are um sheltering our unhoused uh neighbors, um, providing ample communication to our residents uh about uh any potential uh service impacts that the weather might have.

And I want to say thank you to our city workers today and every day for always being there and showing up at difficult times.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Cook.

Are we skipping?

Nope.

Okay.

All right, we're just going in a weird order.

Okay.

Um good evening, everyone.

Thank you for being here.

Uh I'm just gonna read a short part of um the letter from Birmingham jail.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.

Just as the prophets of the 8th century BC left their villages and carried their thus sale, saith the Lord, far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Taurus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my hometown.

Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states.

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny.

We hear a lot about Martin Luther King on this weekend and other times.

I want to lift a voice out today to speak about injustices that we're facing both members of our community and also just because liberation is tied together.

And so when some are suffering, all are suffering.

Um want to again give support to the folks in Minneapolis and say that we are behind you.

We do not condone the federal government attacking citizens and criminalizing protected behavior and murdering people in broad daylight.

And that is not just us to Renee Good, although my heart goes out to her and her family, um, but to all of the folks who've been killed in ICE custody over the last year.

Um I also want to recognize that we have seen 12,000 or probably more people murdered in Iran for protesting a fascist government.

We have, again, people who are directly impacted by this in our community.

But it impacts all of us because this is a regime that has been held up by US aid.

And we need to be cognizant of how our actions in the Middle East track actions in South America and other places, and how our colonialist history and militarism is killing innocent people and keeping folks oppressed.

And all of that is linked to the decisions that we make here as well.

And want to recognize that when we talk about gentrification and displacement, that these two are governmental harms that we are conducting on our own people.

And so we really need to be cognizant about how all these things are interrelated.

I too was at the march with several of my colleagues and was really grateful for the organizers and especially folks who are doing the work organizing labor movements across the city and across the state.

My support for all of those efforts, and I'm here to do what I can to give voice to those folks and also support policy where I'm able.

So thank you all for being here, and I look forward to a good meeting.

Thank you for those remarks.

Councilmember Kobeck.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, everyone.

A pleasure to have all of you with us here this evening.

And I want to say what a privilege it is in just a few moments to be able to read a proclamation in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the anti-sweatshop ordinance.

It is still human trafficking month.

And so it's very appropriate that we will be doing that shortly.

We can all think back to where we were 25 years ago.

For me, it was engaging in anti-sweatshop campus advocacy and then serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, where children in my community were either kidnapped or out of desperation, uh, sometimes uh sent uh to work in fields and manufacturing facilities in another country away from their home.

And um and I I still recall um uh being with members of my community um when a truck was stopped carrying children away from their homes and seeing the fear in their faces as we brought them back to their families.

And so this is definitely personal and it ties into the economic justice themes uh of of this time uh with uh Martin Luther King Jr.

Holiday.

And so I want to thank the folks we'll be awarding and uh proclaiming this evening, uh, and for everyone else who takes action on on work around uh human trafficking and economic justice in our community and beyond.

Um I appreciated uh the opportunity this weekend uh to join in worship in community service in fellowship in multiple events uh across Durham.

It was a great opportunity to come together uh and have uh speakers and and activists uh reflect on the evils of racism, materialism, and militarism, which are ever present today, and who called on us to live out the legacy of Dr.

King and the civil rights movement year-round today.

Um highlights for me were also the march.

It was great to be there with members of my colleagues uh from NC Mutual to First Presbyterian, and also joining students at NCCU for service activities where we packed out diapers for diaper bank and uh meals for rise against hunger.

It was a really great uh celebratory and and really purposeful um day.

Um thanks to everyone who hosted this weekend um uh to bring folks together uh to help really call on us to continue the work uh for justice.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Rist.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, colleagues, Mr.

City Manager, staff, residents all here in the room and on those online, good to see you all.

Um yeah, it was a wonderful MLK day yesterday.

Great to see somebody out there on a beautiful lit yet cold day.

Um as well, join many of my colleagues on the march from the mutual building down to First Presbyterian.

You know, this is a march I've done my gosh, probably like 30 years since my kids were little.

So it's you know, every every King Day, like 10:30, we gather at the mutual building.

Um I want to give a shout out to Warren Herndon, Reverend Warren Herndon, uh, Reverend Reverend Pebbles Lindsey Lindsay Lucas and the rest of the steering committee for once again organizing the march and the rally afterwards and the and the service.

Also proud to be at first presed for that service.

It's my home church, and so it's always a great sort of annual event there.

Thanks to Reverend Mindy Douglas and Reverend Esther Hethcox for being there to host folks at the church.

So great service and great to be there and great to see so many of you all there as well.

Um there were so many things going on yesterday.

Also, there was uh Book Harvest, a great organization Durham, you all know, provides books for kids promoting early literacy.

They had their annual dream big book drive at the at the um uh with box boxyard at an RTP, great spot there for that.

Great spot there for that.

Tons of volunteers that came out to help book harvest.

Can't thank Book Harvest enough for the work they do for the expansion they're engaged in around the state.

It's a great model to promote early literacy.

So I also support book harvest as you as much as you can.

Um the last thing I'll say is there was a great uh great event last night.

Also, a couple of colleagues were there, including the the city attorney was there at the Carolina Theater to watch the premiere of a movie called Breaking the Booth, which is a story of youth protesters in Durham back in the late 50s who organized and essentially pressured the Carolina Theater, which was the last segregated building or less segregated business in Durham, owned by the city of Durham, pressured them into into integrating.

This is a great story.

Many people who still are in our community were part of those youth who were back then young people engaged in that struggle.

They're still alive, which is great.

And many of them were in the movie, so it's great to have those stories still told.

It's great to have the documentary there that we have while those folks are still alive.

An amazing story of early civil rights struggle that informed much of the later civil rights movement with the protest of using youth trained in churches.

So great story for Durham, something we can all be proud of.

Go see the documentary if you have a chance.

It's called Breaking May we get it right here.

Oops.

Yeah, it's called Breaking the Booth.

Um and then the last thing on a more somber note, I want to echo the colleague the comments of my colleague, Councilmember Cook.

Um, it is really concerning whenever federal troops are in on standby to move in and invade an American city.

And so anyone in America, wherever you live, should be concerned if there are federal troops anywhere prepared to move into American City to resist folks who are expressing their own constitutional rights to protest their government.

So we're concerned.

Our hearts go out to our friends and folks in in the Twin Cities who must be feeling a lot of a lot of anxiety.

And so uh we are hearts are with them.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Councilmember Burris.

Good evening, happy Tuesday to everyone.

Thank you all for joining us for our city council meeting.

So I'm going to start off a little bit in the inverse to start some birthday shouts out.

We'll shout out to a couple organizations.

So I want to wish a happy Founders Day to the women of Delta Signet Sorority Incorporated as well as Zata Five Beta Sorry Incorporated, but also to the magnificent women of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated, which I'm a member of also.

We celebrated our Founders Day last week, 118 years of service.

So I'm greatly appreciative for the opportunity.

Um by the time you get to the end, I'm going to repeat what a lot of folks have already said.

So I did have an opportunity to attend the rally yesterday.

I did not march, so I commend my colleagues for going out in the cold weather.

That was not my ministry yesterday morning.

So I appreciate you all for bearing the elements of going out for me that did join you all later.

Um there's a lot of great speakers, a lot of great calls to action during that event, but I was especially moved by Dr.

Will Guzman from NCCU, my Alabama, who's a assistant profession uh professor for international programs and community engagement.

Um I also thought about the letter from Birmingham Jill.

And so when I discussed it earlier, and it's a very powerful and rich text, but I thought about the role of the white moderate and Dr.

Keene uplifting the role of the white moderate and how what it does for justice.

And so I just want to think as we quote things from Dr.

Keene, just thinking about the world we in and how do we show or display his actions that a little better because I haven't quite seen that in Durham.

And so if we're going to address all the things that are going on across the country, we have to start here at home by having more compassion for our neighbors, by being present in our community and making sure that we're just not being performative.

So I'm on I'm not accusing anyone of doing that, but I think that when I reread the letter from Birmingham Jill, the piece around the white moderate and the clergy members is what really really stood out for me in terms of how our justice has not come.

And Martin Luther King's assassinate in 1968.

This same year my mother was born, and we have regressed in our society.

So elections have consequences.

We start early voting next month, February 12th, I believe.

So I would encourage you all to do your own research and make sure you vote for well-qualified candidates.

Um we cannot have a repeat, and this is our time to make sure that we still maintain our democracy.

So I want to upload that for everyone as well.

Also had the opportunity to attend the 15th annual um Dream Big Book Drive A community collaboration hosted by Book Harvest yesterday at Box Um Yard.

I got there just in time to hear our current congressional um representative Valerie Fushi speak, delivering a very powerful message as well as always.

And then also just looking forward to having a very productive meeting.

Hopefully, we'll go home before the sun comes up.

So I look forward to engaging everyone at night.

Thank you.

I feel like Jinxing.

Mayor Proton.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Good to be here with y'all.

Uh, thank you to all my colleagues for their excellent comments.

Um, it's always good to be out in community.

I was able to, I was out of town most of the weekend, but was able to hit up a few events yesterday, and I will say that the the film at Carolina Theater was uh incredible, and I hope um other Durham residents are able to see it.

It was a packed house, and so um uh it is the 100th anniversary year of the Carolina Theater, and so they will be having events throughout the year, and so I hope folks take advantage of it because they have pretty incredible programming planned.

Um that is all.

Oh, uh quickly, this is for residents.

Uh budget season has officially kicked off in the city of Durham.

Uh between now and our second meeting in June, we will be working diligently on the budget when we pass it.

Uh our council uh budget items that we want uh to see or were um our due date was last Friday.

Uh we will have two budget retreats in February, February 13th and February 20th, I believe.

Uh those budget retreats will be streamed, and they are also open to the public uh if you decide to attend in person.

Um the city has won awards for how open and transparent our budget process is, so I encourage all residents to pay attention.

Um that's the very beginning of the process uh and it's uh always the busiest time for both city staff and council as we get to to June.

So I'm going to preemptively thank all of our city staff who got probably lots of things on on Friday uh from council members with lots of our our big dreams.

I know it's February 13th.

13th and 27th.

27th, thank you.

February 13th and 27th.

All right.

Thank you, colleagues, for your remarks.

Um yesterday was quite the day.

I want to thank the Triangle uh MLK steering committee for their amazing and well attended um breakfast that started on time at 7 a.m.

7.15.

Gosh.

Um it was a long day.

Uh so kudos to them.

It was a great turnout.

Uh, thanks to WRL for, of course, again um airing it and to the Capital Broadcasting Group for sponsoring it.

Uh also shout out to um the Duke School uh for hosting the uh the community uh the Rotary event uh where the community comes together and pack mails.

Of course, our city attorney was quite busy yesterday because she was also there again this year, every year.

And the goal was 55,000 mills on a day of service, and and meeting that mark is always quite the celebratory moment.

Uh and kudos to uh Reverend Herndon.

Um I could not march.

I appreciate you all for marching.

I did have to leave.

Thank you, Councilmember Riz, for stepping in.

And uh I share remarks at the beginning of the march, but I have to depart.

Um thank you all for of course being there and and and representing the city.

Um left there, I was able to go home yesterday to my home county and and was their keynote speaker for the MLK program.

And um and and loved and came back to Durham uh from Halifax County and went to the Durham um Martin Luther King's steering committee event, which was also very well attended, thanks to Orange Grove Baptist Church for hosting it.

Uh and my message yesterday uh was actually quite similar to some of the remarks up here.

Um we talk about history, and we have a lot of quotes that we project uh from Dr.

Luke Dr.

Um Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Uh but there's a difference in his story and history.

His story was an architectural layout.

And we can choose to repeat it, or we can choose to learn from it.

But we do have to do more than just quote it.

And we have to we do have to understand that we we we have some of the same fights, but we have new fights as well.

And if I'm being very frank, as I was all day yesterday.

It's really hard to fight the evils of this federal government when we're constantly fighting at the local level as well.

So I hope that one thing we do learn is what community really means.

It means we're not always going to agree.

We're not always going to be on the same page.

But we can reach higher when we're lifting one another up rather than tearing one another down.

And there are people that we are constantly speaking over as if we're the clouds.

Meanwhile, they are struggling on a daily basis.

And we project subliminals and messages while we forget about those people.

So we have a lot of work to do.

And I hope that we don't keep overlooking that.

And yes, I I don't think we can reference this enough.

I'm getting all of the inbox messages.

Mayor, why don't you arrest ICE?

You know, getting all the inbox messages of, you know, uh get your city attorney to sue, you know, sue Trump.

Um, and I'm talking to mayors across the country.

You know, so I I something that we're working on right now is just, you know, we are a Fourth Amendment city.

Uh, we stepped up and did that before all the other cities did.

I'm proud of that.

And I am requesting that we expand on that to make sure that we have a website where you know your rights.

And so we're just making sure that we can have that available on whether it's going to be, you know, I I don't know if it's going to be on the city website just yet.

Uh we're kind of looking at that, looking at the legalities of it.

Uh, we are careful not to make the targets on the backs of almost vulnerable community bigger, but at the same time, we want to make sure the information is available to people.

So uh we're just kind of swimming through those channels to see what that looks like.

And um, but what I can say is yes, there are American communities under attack by American resources.

And that is problematic.

And it's not okay.

People are dying at the hands that are supposed to protect them.

We've seen this story before.

And one thing we can say about this story that we've read before is we've beat it before.

So, as my colleague said, November is coming.

But March will be here first.

Go vote.

All right.

Let's get to the proclamation.

And Councilmember uh Kovac, if you will, um use this podium over here.

To your to the uh presenting podium.

Thank you for being here.

Good evening.

Um, before I begin, I'm just gonna hold up this lovely photo of the organizers, activists who came together 25 years ago to fight for this anti-sweatshop ordinance.

Uh, really a leader not just in Durham but in cities across the country.

Uh and so such a lovely photo and um you know pleasure to have this commemorate the event and and have uh it uh go home with you uh to grace wherever you would like it to grace.

Um and I want to thank uh Ms.

Hart Rader and Ms.

El Amin who traveled from Georgia, uh, if I have that correct to be here.

Columbus, Georgia.

From Columbus, Georgia.

Thank you, ma'am, for traveling this way to be here with us this evening.

Uh and so, proclamation, whereas Durham is a city that believes in the dignity and worth of each individual, regardless of color or creed, and whereas the Durham City Council and Mayor 25 years ago unanimously passed.

She do you want to come up here with me?

Thank you.

Want to come over here?

Love to have you up here.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, whereas the Durham City Council and Mayor 25 years ago unanimously passed the Durham Anti-Sweatshop Procurement Ordinance, which prohibits purchase by the city of Durham of items made in sweatshops anywhere in the world.

And whereas the NC legislature passed a bill sponsored by North Carolina Senator Paul Lubke, allowing municipalities to not purchase items made in sweatshops, despite those items being the lowest cost available.

Now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim January 20th, 2026 as anti-sweatshop procurement ordinance day in the City of Durham, and hereby urge residents to take note of this observance.

Witness my hand in the corporate seal of the City of Durham, North Carolina this 20th day of January 2026.

Leonardo Williams, Mayor.

Well, get right up here.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor, for the proclamation.

I live in Columbus, Georgia, and I've been singing the praises of Durham for 15 years.

And people should note that when the ordinance was passed 25 years ago, many calls came in from around the country because the actual ordinance reads like a polemic against child labor.

And we must thank Jeannie Lucas and Paul Lupke, because the state of North Carolina requires that you take the lowest bidder.

And Jeannie Lucas said in the Senate when she was fighting for Durham to have the right to not buy sweat goods.

She said people were shaking their Bibles at each other.

And she said the vote went down 47 to 1.

There was one hold down.

But everybody else said, let Durham do what Durham does.

Because Durham is an international city.

And the only other time Durham had requested an exception was in 1980, when Durham said it would not do business with South Africa for the purpose of ending a party.

So we're in good company.

Anti-sweat, no a party.

And it was a proud moment that night.

And you can see from the picture, which I will give to Lana, because I do have the original.

And Lana owns a picture now.

But it was a great night.

It was a great night.

11 to 0.

Thank you.

I'm so happy to be here.

Thank you.

We're glad you're here.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember, I'll come join you for a picture.

Sorry, please.

Mayor's number two.

Oh, the mayor's coming.

Oh, great.

This is gonna be great.

I'm gonna show it at the City Council next Tuesday in Columbus City Council meets.

And I'll be telling all about this.

Tell my good buddy mayor.

I say hello there.

Oh, you know, Skip.

I'll be sure to tell him.

Oh, thank you.

One more.

Which one were we looking?

Where are we looking?

Oh, I'm sorry.

You go first.

Oh, I'm looking for everyone.

One more.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Oh.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Oh, good.

And I appreciate being on the list.

Y'all doing great things.

I love that.

Oh, I love what you're doing, Mr.

Mayor.

Especially that 2.4 million giving people a choice to vote on.

I'm still on the list.

You treat me like I still live here.

And I really appreciate that.

I am always.

I come back so often.

If you ever question what Bull City Pride was, now you know.

All right.

Now pass it over to Mr.

Manager for your priority items.

Thank you, Mayor.

Madam Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Council.

The City Manager's office just has a few priority items this evening.

First, for agenda items number 12 and 19, there was additional information requested from council at the work session that has been provided in your packet.

And for agenda item number 14, that's the interlocal agreement reauthorizing the Durham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

So those are the priority items this evening, other than I did want to announce briefly and thank Councilmember Baker for previewing the uh this weekend's uh potential winter storm.

We'll be tracking that this week, and we'll have some brief updates at the beginning of Thursday's council work session just to let you know our preparations for that.

Thank you.

And thank you for the additional beds for the resources that we have available now.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh by my uh kudos to the community safety staff who have been working throughout the day uh in advance of this winter weather.

Uh heard some excellent recommendations today to help maximize available resources, working with all of our partners throughout Durham to make sure that uh unhoused individuals in Durham have safe shelter options going into the storm and always.

Um my kudos to that to them, and thank you, Councilmember Baker again for raising that issue as well.

Madam Attorney.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Pur Tem, and members of the Council.

It's good to be with you.

The City Attorney's Office has no priority items this evening.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Mayor Pertem, and members of council.

The City Clerk's office has one priority item.

That's item three, Affordable Housing Implementation Committee appointment.

And this item was referred back to staff during the last City Council work session.

All right, thank you.

At this time I'll read the consent agenda.

Item number one.

Just give me one moment.

Second.

All right, just remind me.

All right, thank you.

All right, items number um consent agenda.

Item number one, Mayor's Hispanic Latino Committee appointment.

Item number two, participatory budgeting steering committee appointment.

Number three, affordable housing implementation committee has been referred back to staff.

Um item number four has been pulled by the public.

Uh interlocal agreement with Durham Technical Community College for Street and Right of Way Upgrades.

Item number five, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, continuum of care, CLC planning grant, grant project ordinance.

Number six, contract for third party administration of workers' compensation and liability claims.

Number seven, cooperative group purchase contract has been pulled by the public.

Full-size rear loaders.

Number nine, cooperative group purchase contract, police vehicles.

Number 10, fire and emergency medical services station 19 project guaranteed maximum price amendment to the construction manager at risk contract.

Number 11, HUD Grant Project Resolution, GPR for CPF and Grant Project Ordnance, GPO amendments for home and CDG, CDBG.

Number 12, First Amendment to ARPA coronavirus state local fiscal recovery funds, sub award agreement between City of Durham and Hayeti Promise Community Development Corporation, St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation Incorporated has been pulled by the public.

Number 13, amendment to contract number 20910 with Haytai Promise CDC, St.

Joseph's and number 21481 for Haytai Street Corridor.

Hey, for Fedville Street Corridor, Neighborhood Stabilization Partnership Implementation has also been pulled by the public.

Number 14, interlocal agreement, reauthorizing the drone bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission.

That's been pulled by the public.

TIP BL 0028 with Mead and Hunt Incorporated.

Number 16, Durham County Open Space Davis Conservation Easement Watershed Project Authorization to Fund.

Number 17, Contract Amendment Number 1 to the Professional Engineering Services Contract with CDM Smith Incorporated for the High Pressure Zone Improvements, Phase 1, Project Contract Number 17539.

Number 18, contract amendment number two to the professional engineering services contract with CDM Smith Incorporated for the sewer system evaluation survey services project contract number 15785.

Number 20, uh, which is a a um public hearing, consolidated annexation Brittmore, number 21, zoning map change injuries chapel apartment appointments, and number 22, consolidated annexation Trenton Road Assemblage.

21.

Okay, that's public hearing.

Yep.

All right.

That's a total plan items.

All right, that is our consent agenda with uh items 4, 7, 12, 13, 14 being pulled.

Um approve the consent agenda with without pulled items.

So much.

Second.

It's been moved and probably seconded.

Clerk, please open the vote.

One more.

There we go.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, starting from the top.

Um Victoria Peterson.

Victoria Peterson.

Okay.

All right.

Well, all right.

We will uh I don't have the speaker here who pulled that, so uh counsel I'll entertain a motion to resolve that the city manager be authorized to enter into an agreement with Durham Tech, Durham Technical Community College to provide funding in the amount not to exceed $2 million, enabling Durham Tech, Durham Technical Community College to execute physical improvements to the 1600 block of Lawson Street, east and west between Bacon and South Brakes Avenue, and other right-of-way improvements in association with the construction of a new health sciences building on the Durham Technical Community College campus.

So moved.

Second.

Move and probably second it.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Awesome.

Looking forward to those updates.

The next item was number seven, cooperative group purchase contract patrol vehicle upfitting.

This is uh pulled by the public.

Uh Lindsay.

Is it a Lindsay?

Oh, there we go.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Take your time.

But you have three minutes when you start.

Hello.

Welcome.

Uh my name is Lindsay.

I am speaking in opposition to agenda item number seven.

Uh this purchase is just another example of public safety spending that does nothing to target the actual root causes of crime.

The agenda includes nearly 2.6 million dollars in police vehicle spending that frankly I find difficult to believe is necessary.

Installing camera and computer mounts should be bottom priority for spending when we have people hungry and freezing standing outside this building right now, being served food out of our pockets, paid for out of our pockets.

And much like the Peregrine and Insight LPR contracts associated with the real-time crime center, the spending on these vehicles foretells future unnecessary spending on the laptops, the software on these laptops, the cameras, the motion detection systems that will further contribute to unconstitutional surveillance in this city.

Last year we saw an expansion of an already multi-million dollar contract with Axon Enterprises for additional data storage for Durham Police Department, especially body cam footage.

Then at the real-time crime center listening sessions, the police chief claimed that they needed additional software to analyze all the video that they were collecting.

I wonder at what point will the Durham Police Department have all the technology that they require to reduce crime.

Maybe instead we should invest in what we know works.

I suggest taking this money and investing it into heart, which is a crucial program that I have personally seen be a game changer for my unhoused neighbors, providing them with resources like new like a new wheelchair and with housing and with access to social workers.

I think we should expand heart to be available 24-7 and stop spending millions and millions of dollars on technology that the police department does not seem to be using to reduce crime.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues at this time.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to execute a contract with Dana Safety Supply of Greensboro, North Carolina for the upfitting of 40 patrol vehicles for the total amount of $610,317 and 20 cents.

So moved.

Spin moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Madam Clerk, please open and vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion uh passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item.

Yep.

All right, next item.

Uhendment to ARPA coronavirus, state local fiscal recovery fund sub award agreement between City of Durham and Hayes High Promise Community Development Corporation, St.

Joseph Historic Foundation Incorporated.

This item has been pulled by the public.

The first speaker I have is Jen Wickman, followed by Angel Deset Isette Dozier.

And Anita Scott Neville's gentleman.

And CJ Broderick.

Oh boy.

Welcome, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, and thank you for asking me to speak tonight.

My name is Jen Wickman.

I prefer going by gentrifier.

And I am speaking on this issue.

I say yes, pass these two resolutions.

Let's move this money around.

This is what my fourth husband taught me.

The more you move money and make acronyms like CDC and ARPA funds, the easier it is to use those funds to pay for things without pesky community input or over sight.

We live in a capitalist system.

We are here to create abundance, not to listen to the impacted community or move at the speed of trust.

The point is, have you seen that land?

It is such a big beautiful blank slate.

Let's utilize it to build more condos and apartments at my favorite words with me, market rate.

And please.

Naming a whole neighborhood after a violent insurrection.

What's next?

Having a Nat Turner apartment building, a Denmark Vesi neighborhood.

Anyway, they can keep the name.

That can be a compromise.

We could name the new market condo rates, Hayti Heritage Square.

I saw the Hayti Plan from 2023 that was developed from and within community members, and I saw that it was unanimously approved by City Council at that time.

And I think it's really smart what y'all have been doing since then.

Moving that money around so nobody really knows what's happening, and just pluck out the good parts of the plan and maybe do some of those.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening, Mayor Williams and members of the Durham City Council.

My name is Anita Scott Neville.

I am a native of Durham and a member of one of the business families that uh thrived in the Heyday of the business district on Pettigrew Street before urban removal.

And currently I serve as the director of Hayti Reborn, which is a community advocacy council.

This evening, I come before you with a very simple plea.

Make it make sense.

Sometimes humorous, most of the time ironic presentation, but you can pick and choose from her presentation.

Some of it rings in in step with my plea that you make it make sense.

On June 13th, 2022, at the Monument of Faith Church during a special session of City Council, our then mayor Elaine O'Neill made a public vow to do something about Hayti and the community's efforts to restore the area.

Lots of advocacy and research preceded her vow, specifically in November 2022, the Urban Land Institute report was presented to the community and included a strong recommendation that Hayti needed to unify for community member-led self-governance.

In response, Mayor O'Neill worked with other community leaders and created Hay Thai One Voice.

Since then, the community has looked forward to receiving the benefits of the $10 million and its allocation for improvements along the Fedville Street corridor.

During the first year, when we all were learning, inquiries about the status of this spending for the fund were answered with frustration about the stringent ARPA guidelines for spending.

Most recently, however, I have received notification of some activity of the Hayti Promise CDC, specifically a cemetery project at Beechwood, which is a city-owned property.

While this property provides a final resting place for many African American citizens and historians of Durham, it is not clear what criteria Hayti Promise is using to identify and allocate funding in the spirit of why the fund was created.

Since the time that the CDC was formed under the auspices of the Hayti Heritage Center until now, we are asking that your recommendation to remove the Haytai Heritage Center as the fiscal authority and do what with the 10 million.

Please make it plain, please make it clear what this changes that are suggested in items 12 and 13, how they will benefit the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening.

I'm speaking about item 12.

Um because I want to take this back so that we can be really clear about what's happening.

This is an administrative cleanup.

When in fact, you all are looking at the final step of laundering a deeply compromised process.

The city is being asked tonight to remove St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation as fiscal sponsor in order to free up funds, but those funds were only entangled in the first place because of a series of actions that this body has not yet reckoned with.

First, Hayti Promise CDC was created improperly.

It was formed by Angela Lee without the knowledge or consent of the St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation Board.

That alone invalidates everything that followed.

Second, credit for this work was reassigned through collusion, not community process.

The plan originated from my work and presentations in late 2022 and early 2023.

After that, city officials and representatives from partner organizations began treating Hayti Promise CDC as the rightful owner of the project while discrediting and erasing the people who actually built it.

Third, the board was coerced into fiscal sponsorship.

When resistance surfaced, Keith Chadwell was brought into explaining why sponsorship was necessary.

That is not neutral assistance.

That is city power being used to steer a nonprofit board into a decision it did not freely make.

There is a recording of this meeting.

Now, almost three years later, the city is proposing to undo that sponsorship, not because the process was wrong, but to move the money again and deliver it to the same CDC that was illegitimately created and improperly credited.

That is not governance.

That is retroactive justification.

That's the shell game being played with community impact that has long been promised to the historical residents of the Hayti, South Side, Stokesdale, Tuscaloosa, St.

Teresa.

I can keep going on.

Neighborhoods.

Removing the fiscal sponsor without first addressing how we got here rewards deception, validates coercion, and exposes the city to significant legal risk.

This community was destroyed by intentional policy decisions, highways, displacement, urban renewal, and yet tonight the city is again positioning itself as the quiet manager of a CDC that claims to represent Hayti.

Thank you.

I am asking that you halt any decision making on Hayti Promise and removing St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation.

Thank you.

Until there's an independent investigation.

Thank you.

Ms.

You can remain at the mic because I have you next on the item.

I'm sorry, no, just one moment.

I have to do it.

Yeah.

I have to take action on that one first.

Mr.

Mayor, CJ Broderick has signed up for the question.

Oh, that's right, the last one.

My um my apologies.

Good evening, uh, members of the City Council.

I am CJ Broderick, uh, President CEO of the Greater Durham Black Chamber of Commerce.

Um, and we have about 330 or 40 members, and one of the best jobs I have to do is to advocate for those members.

So I get phone calls and emails all the time um asking me questions uh many times about um or in uh not just asking questions, but also asking me to to speak on behalf of our membership.

Uh this is one of those occasions.

Um after your last work session, uh which I watched, if I'm not in if I'm not in in in the council meeting or in the or in the chambers or in in the in in the other meeting room, I'm typically watching and listening.

Um and I watched the last uh work session meeting, uh, went back and watched it again.

And so I was assured, uh I I try to look at how this body acts, and I thought to myself, there's no way this is going to be on the an agenda today based on the conversations that happened that Thursday and the things that were asked for and so on and so forth.

And so uh I was surprised to see them on the agenda today.

Um the many questions that have been asked of me from my membership of over 300 members, um I I don't have the answers for.

I don't uh I've asked some of you, I don't think you have the answers for.

And uh it's for that reason um that I would ask you to hold any decision making on this item and push it to a later date until there's some more discussion and um and and and community um you know clarity around what's happening here.

Um this is particularly important because uh um you know, representing leading uh a black-led organization and and and engaging with government is is always complicated everywhere, but it's but it's it's certainly complicated here in Durham as well.

And one of the things that um that the community always thinks about is is are you know do you get listened to, do you get um do you do your colleagues or do your your your your council members take you all seriously as a community, right?

And I think that that is um that is at the heart of what I think is is is is here is uh will you all pause and listen and take the community seriously?

Um and I think this is also interesting.

Um I'll just make one more quick point and then I'll take my seat.

Um the way broadly speaking the city did this ARPA um allocation, if you will, broadly speaking, right?

I remember it because I was one of the judges on the round one, and initially there were going to be two rounds with this with this process, and and it switched from being two rounds to one round.

And and so I think there are uh there's space to um to hold for inquiry and and and community understanding before we move forward.

Uh with that I'll yield.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Colleagues, uh, due to the nature of uh where all of our agenda items are sensitive in their own right.

Um but I am going to ask staff to provide a clear explanation of where we are on this, how we got here, because I I know it's going to be reported on, and I don't want just dissent to be reported.

He's new to the community.

I'm new, y'all, so forgive me.

Uh good evening.

So uh, Mr.

Mayor, what what uh question would you like, Claire deal?

Uh I'm sure you've heard some of the community uh members who showed up here tonight, uh, their concerns.

But uh there are some pretty consistent concerns of we we're you know we are taking St.

Joseph off or whatever.

Yep.

I just want to just provide a clear explanation of how we got here.

Um because in fact, uh the city is not proposing to remove them.

They requested to remove themselves.

So I just want to be able to put some facts out there.

Uh and and of course you heard some of the concerns tonight.

I want to make sure that we can provide some sense of response to that.

Um Mr.

Gunn, please do introduce yourself.

Yep, absolutely.

Joshua Gunn, director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Uh in October of this year, we were notified by the same an attorney representing the St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation that they would like to be removed as the fiscal agent for the Hayti Promise CDC.

Uh the Hayti Promise CDC board's attorney promptly responded to accept their uh desire to resign.

So this this agenda item is specifically related.

So very this this particular agenda item is a simple request from the Hayti from the St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation to be removed as a fiscal agent, uh which the Hay TI Promise CDC is asking to accept.

Thank you.

I'll hold there because we have another agenda item that is very similar.

Yeah, go on.

Councilmember.

Thank you, Mr.

Gunn.

So just a couple of follow-up questions for you in regards to um so are we like I just want to get clarity for the record.

You're saying that um this HATOP promise will no longer have a fiscal agent and that would come in-house to the city, or what will be the role of the city in this process?

Yeah, so uh this particular agenda item is so agenda twelve item twelve is simply to remove St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation uh with the following agenda item related to the city acting as that fiscal agent.

Uh essentially the CDC no longer requires a fiscal agent uh based on finance staff's assessment of the risk associated with this organization.

Uh it has the ability to keep its own books and manage its own finances, which is essentially what the fiscal agent does.

And so the CDC will continue to do what it's always done, which is keep its own books.

The city will continue to do what it's always done, which is have oversight over the invoices as they are paid.

So functionally, there is no change other than the fact that uh St.

Joseph's Six Distorted Foundation is long no longer the fiscal agent for the CDC.

So I have a follow-up question for you.

In St.

Joseph's Thomas serving as a fiscal agent, were they fairly consistent in their reporting?

Uh so I I don't have a lot of information on that.

Uh might lean on someone someone else from staff here uh around their role as fiscal agent.

Uh maybe Summer can lean on that or Tim.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of council, manager, Summer Alston, Office of Economic and Works Force Development.

Can you repeat the question if you would, please?

So um was the when St.

Joseph's was the fiscal agent, were they consistent in their reporting?

I do see some time wise.

Thank you all for submitting the contracts over to the clerk.

So I do see those intervals in for reporting to the city, where they feel they're consistent in their duties as a fiscal agent.

So if I understand the question right, HATIP Promise has been consistent in its reporting to the city as requested.

Is that what you're asking?

It's not what I'm asking.

Okay.

So we have had um St.

Joseph Historic as the fiscal agent, correct?

So they would be the one submitting the reimbursement to the city, or how that process worked out?

No, it was never structured that way, actually.

Okay.

So how was it structured?

It was structured the way that Director Gunn just described, which is HATI Promise has always kept its own books, a separate set of accounting.

What the role of the fiscal agent was was to ensure that they were staying compliant with the Federal grant guidelines.

Okay.

It was to help them as a matter of oversight if needed.

Because I'm confused based on our Friday conversation that you told me that you were submitting the request to the city because they had failed to operate in their capacity.

So has that changed from Friday to Monday?

The structure that has actually been in place since the beginning is that because there was enough level of complexity to the compliance items that whatever HATI Promise tasked that they wanted to accomplish, I would help them by coming to the ARPA team and to the attorneys and saying, can we compliantly do this?

How do you help them structure this so that when we go forward and they do it, there is not a backlash that it wasn't compliant.

And so that's the process that we started in the beginning, and I've been doing that on their behalf ever since, so that there would never be a point where the fiscal agent had to call them out for being noncompliant in terms of how the money was being spent.

And so that's what we talked about on Friday, that I've been helping with that compliance compliance piece throughout, so it wouldn't be retro.

They had the ability to find out in advance if they were on the right track.

Okay.

So that would be all the questions I have for item 12.

I do have some other questions around 13.

Yeah, go ahead, Councilmember Cook.

I just want to get some clarity, um, Mr.

Gunn, because I I heard you say that CDC no longer requires a fiscal agent, which is different from what we heard in the meeting on Thursday, where we were told that the city could now serve as the fiscal agent, but there was no conversation that no fiscal agent was needed.

I might look to Tim for this.

I have a response, but maybe I'll lean on finance for this.

Hello, Tim Floor, uh City Finance Director.

So it's not necessarily a requirement.

I mean, it was it was a requirement through a risk assessment that we did as a requirement for the Federal Government that we had to go through a risk assessment.

Since the CDC was a new organization, they scored low on the risk assessment, which is why we why we, the city, required them to have the fiscal agent.

It wasn't that it was a federal requirement.

It was because of the risk assessment is why we, as the city required them to have the fiscal agent.

Since that time, CDC has been we the bookkeeping, there's there's been very few invoices that we've that was received.

And so through the complexity of what we've been seeing, we uh in the city, me uh ultimately decided we did no longer needed to require um that fiscal agent because we had sufficient resources in the city to oversee uh any of those requirements.

So not functioning as a fiscal agent, the the simply continuing to have oversight, which the city's already done.

Yeah, I feel like I f for some reason I feel like it's like a bit circular where I and I can't quite like figure out where the edges are, which is that ARPA money required a fiscal agent.

Well, it didn't require it, but we just we determined that to distribute the ARPA money that there was a fiscal agent required because we did not have familiarity with this with this group.

We assigned a fiscal agent, which was St.

Joseph's, um at the time.

Um Summer is shaking her head, but you're nodding.

So I don't maybe I'm saying something incorrectly.

No, what part?

I I don't think we assigned the fiscal agent.

They they agreed to be the fiscal agent.

They agreed to be the fiscal agent.

Yeah.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Okay.

They agreed to be the fiscal agent at the time.

However, before they could do their stuff on the back end, the city was already kind of serving as the fiscal agent on the front end because we just heard comments from staff that there were checks being done on the receipts that were being submitted ahead of time so that on the back end that the fiscal agent wouldn't have to step in.

It it just is like so strange that we were already doing that work that we didn't have the capacity to do before, and that's why we asked them to have the fiscal agent.

But now we're saying that we can do that work anyway.

I'm confused.

So part of this is uh we were building the ARPA structure as we were going, because this was a whole new program.

And so as we were working through this process, the the U.S.

Treasury Department was also always revising their guidelines.

And so we were always trying to stay with or ahead of the guidelines.

And so part of those guidelines were to have that risk assessment because we needed sort of fiscal security to ensure that they were going to be compliant with all of the federal regulations that we have to be compliant with in order to do that.

So we were uh we were probably being overly cautious by in addition to what we were asking the organizations to do with their fiscal uh their specific fiscal agents, we were also probably doing a lot of that work on internally as well, which is again another reason why when the discussion came up and they asked to be removed as the fiscal agent, it was an easy decision for me because we already we we had that track record under our belt.

There were only a few organizations that we actually required it because CDC was a new organization and they had no track record of understanding and following federal guidelines.

That is why we we required a uh fiscal agent.

But to be clear, Tim, I do want to clarify we there were other organizations who received ARPA funds who we required to have a fiscal agent, all because they were new or inexperienced in in federal funds.

So this was not unique to Hayes Hate Promise CDC, and those agreements remained in place until such a time as there was they remain in place because we have not had a request to change them in this case.

That is correct.

The change is because the organization who served has requested to be removed.

It is not a city initiated process.

Correct.

We did not ask for that.

They asked for it, and this was our opportunity to say, okay.

Yes, I understand that.

I guess I'm also confused about how we are considering them to have demonstrated the ability to work without a fiscal agent if we were checking their stuff on the front end.

It sounds like we are now saying that we have the capability of serving for the fiscal agent, but the fiscal agent is really just a back-end situation of like if things have been reported inappropriately, comes back to the case.

Yeah, simple simply compliance.

If we were helping them do it the whole time.

I think it's just a compliance mechanism, right?

I don't think we're it's a judgment of doing it right or wrong.

It's being compliant.

And my understanding is that city staff was there to help, as Tim mentioned, as additional due diligence, right, to make sure that this organization was remaining compliant with the federal resources.

And they have continued to do that.

I think also understanding the nature of the work has changed, right?

I think in the beginning, we we uh the city did not quite know how many transactions would be needed to do the work, what the size of the transactions would be, what the scope, what the scale of the work would be.

We understood the scope of the work, which is detailed in their contract, but that has evolved significantly, and I think the finance team, not to speak for uh uh director Flora has recognized that it is much less of a staff lift than they initially thought, and that staff now has capacity to support the entity.

Uh this is simply a compliance question, not a strategy or uh question of right or wrong.

And in combined, I know we haven't gotten to the next item yet, but in combination with the next item, which we are now moving this out of ARPO to lessen the deadlines or to change the deadlines, then we also are not gonna have the same federal reporting requirements as before anyway.

Can you just talk about like how that interplays with this?

I mean, have we been holding them to those standards the entire time?

Do we have a plan to move them out of the ARPA funds?

Are we moving other people out?

Can you just help me understand how that all works together?

The answer to one part of that is yes, we have been holding them to the to the correct standards because we haven't made a change in the funding source.

Uh I I don't want to speak out of order because I think that's item 13.

So I'm looking at uh Mr.

Mayor in terms of do we need to speak to item 13 until we get there.

Okay.

But happy to speak to it when we get there for sure.

Okay.

Those are all my questions for the mayor.

Thank you.

I don't really have any questions.

I just want to provide a little bit of um additional information because I was on council at the time when we were doing so as the mayor when we did uh the public process, um, and this was part of that public process.

So the city has added capacity because the folks who were monitoring, many of the organizations have spent their money.

They're done, but we still have staff that are dedicated to ARPA.

So when we're talking about capacity, and this isn't maybe to your question, Councilmember Cook, this is more to the public and those folks watching.

We have added capacity because they're not as busy because a lot of the contracts are done.

People have spent their money.

There's no longer what is like 25 organizations initially that we gave funding to.

A lot of those dollars are done, a lot of those contracts are closed, a lot of the work has been completed, and so it has allowed city staff to keep providing that technical assistance for those folks who still have outstanding dollars.

So I think that's where the capacity comes from, at least that's my understanding.

Um at the time when St.

Joe's was chosen, it was also seen as a good convener of these funds.

And so that that is why the initially the decision was made who's gonna hold this money, who's going to be the convener in this space?

And it was decided that this was a very well-respected organization that had a lot of community trust.

And so it seemed like from a risk assessment, uh the right choice for the city to put the CDC and have them be the fiscal agent.

So I just want to provide a little bit of additional reasoning as to why, at least as it was explained to me as a council member at the time, why that decision was made.

And people at the time felt good about that decision.

I understand that people may not feel good about that now, but at the time it felt like the right decision based on the information that we had.

Thank you.

Well, this isn't really a statement, well, a question for you, Mr.

Gunn, so just apologize if you're up here.

It's more so that I at this moment don't feel as though I have sufficient information to make an informed decision.

I've had discrepancy at the discrepancy last week when I asked questions.

I've heard three different stories about certain items.

And so I feel as though to make sure we have community trust.

I'm not here to settle anyone's score, but I want to make sure I'm doing what I was elected to do and serve our constituents the best I can do.

And since there's been so many different stories about what we can and what we cannot do, I really am not comfortable moving forward.

I really thought this needs to go back to the staff until we can provide like clarity on what's actually happening, how we got here.

But also we were told in the work session week that the money was going to be take removed from the ARPAPI and it was going to go to like that health fund or another fund of money, then I asked about it on Friday, I was like, oh no, that's not true.

It's going to still remain here.

So those little things kind of give me a little reluctance in terms of moving forward.

I know folks are saying this is simply, you know, we're amending a contract.

I get that, but in policy, you do have an evaluation period.

And so it is our job to make sure we are evaluating how policies are implemented, and I have noticed several flaws, and I'm not putting blame on anyone, but I think there's a time we can actually be more efficient in this, and I have not seen that yet.

So I would hope my colleagues will support me, and I think that we need a little bit more information to um make a sound decision about what's happening.

I know some of us were not on council when this decision was made, but some of us were very active in the community, and we understand the breakdown.

And so, in order for us to be judicious and spend this money, because it's much needed.

I'm not saying that the HATA quarter does not need to, we need a lot more than 10 million dollars.

But we have to have community trust as well, and that is ensure by making sure that we all have alignment, and that has not been created over the past week.

If not, after every meeting I've had, I've left with more questions.

So those are my comments for Zena.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So one point of clarification for me.

We have item 12 and item 13.

Um can they exist separate from each other?

I guess perhaps it's a question to to staff.

Because it feels like we're making a sequential decision, considering one considering another.

Can we take one action without the other?

They're not necessarily intertwined, right?

And I think I appreciate you raising that as a point of clarity.

Item 12 is a very simple item.

It's simply asking if we can do what the St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation has asked us to do, which is amend the contract.

Item 13 talks about the funding source and some of those additional uh conversations.

Uh they are certainly separate issues that council has the discretion at deciding separately.

Okay.

So then on item 12, uh, and I appreciate the call uh from one of our our our speakers and community leaders to make it make sense.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable request, and is what I'm hearing from my my colleague uh um council uh member Burris as well.

Uh my question is I'm trying to understand the implications of voting uh yes on 12 or the implications of sending it back to staff.

Um so starting off, if we vote yes, um you know, can we can can we go through an accountability process where we get everybody on council uh uh including myself who's who's new on the same page about what's happening with uh HATI Promise CDC.

Let me respond and say yes, uh Councilmember, we are happy to, from an OEWD staff standpoint, provide as much detail and information uh at the city managers.

Uh if the city manager wishes we can do a full presentation on past, present, and future uh of our the city's role in helping the CDC.

I'm sure we could engage the CDC's board in that work as well.

We're we're happy to do that.

Uh I would suggest that item 12 or nor 13 prevents us from doing that at some point in the future either.

Uh but kicking it back to staff in my estimation would ask us to just uh I don't know what we do beyond uh hey TIT St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation is already asked to no longer be the fiscal agent.

If you kick that component of it back to staff, that leaves us in a place where uh I'm not quite sure what what other amendments we could make, but we can't force them to be the fiscal agent.

We could reconsider the process around uh there's uh lots of layers that can happen after that.

Uh but the simple ask here is if we can do it, they've asked us to do.

Uh and none of that, none of doing that precludes us from offering council as much insight and transparency as you asked for.

Just to do that real quick, uh, Councilmember, I've been requesting that we keep the items separate because a lot of what we're hearing is related to item 13.

A lot of concern.

Uh 12, and staff correct me if I'm wrong, this is simply to remove or to honor the request of who's currently serving as the fiscal agent.

Correct.

Correct.

If we do not vote on this, then what we're doing is forcing someone to stay as the fiscal agent, which we really can't do that.

So if I can can I continue?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So then if we vote yes on 12 to remove St.

Joseph's and have the city play this role, um so so I guess I'll just answer my own question.

So it sounds like we're in a position to get community input, including on providing direction on the future of funding and even changing direction if needed.

Like all of those things are possible uh if we vote yes on 12 and change this arrangement.

Yeah, I think we're absolutely open to a public process for that.

Sure.

I mean, that that I think was the spirit of this from the very beginning.

Okay.

So in terms of if we vote to send it back to staff, um, you know, what changes?

Like, can Hate Prime CDC fulfill their current commitments where money has been legally obligated if we send this back?

I'm gonna look to summer to respond to that.

Councilmember.

Some more Austin.

Repeat the question for me.

So so if we vote to send this back to staff instead of agreeing to this change.

Um, you know, for example, the arrangement you have with preserving home, uh where you've where you have obligated certain funds, where you've contracted to do certain activities.

Where HATA promises contracted.

Where HATI Promise CDC is exactly right.

So are you s are you limited in doing that if we vote to delay moving this item and we vote to send it back to staff?

Is that an interesting question?

And I'm going to ask both legal and finance to jump in when they see fit because it might be a bit out of my wheelhouse.

But I think the the basic answer is is that HATIP Promise can keep going doing what they've been doing unless and until the city makes a decision to terminate the agreement with them, which hopefully would be based on some quantifiable calls.

Okay.

But that doesn't have a factor for this item 12.

Like item 12 would not impede or change their ability to execute that work.

Technically, right this minute, I don't think so.

But what it would do is it would take a board of nine volunteers and put them in a very odd place in terms of the hours that they're dedicating to this work.

So that's if I can carry on.

I would advise the council that if if you took that action, that my interpretation to the board of CDC promises that the uh HATI promise CDC is that the council has questions about the current work program of the CDC, and that that would be it would be reasonable for them to interpret that as a chilling effect on activities that they're taking right now.

Um if if that is not the message council intends to send that I would ask council to articulate that tonight.

Otherwise the direction from the council not to proceed with the fiscal agent uh fiscal agent transition based on concerns that we've heard about how the CDC is spending funds or allocating funds, uh it would be reasonable for the CDC to hear that and interpret that.

So I think committed funds that the CDC has committed, uh it would be reasonable as those decisions have been made prior to tonight that staff work with the CDC to continue to honor those commitments.

Any new commitments I would recommend would be placed on hold based on what council is expressing, unless council wants to articulate that that is not their intention uh because we're our our job is to try and make sure that whatever you're deciding tonight is is conveyed appropriately to the folks who are doing it.

So I have heard questions around clarity on how decisions get made about how the funds have been spent if her director gun offer for us to bring that forward.

Should council pause tonight because you indicate you want that further clarity, I would interpret that as a level of concern being expressed about how those decisions are being made.

And my guidance to the CDC would be that they not move forward and that uh if they wish to discuss that with the council again, we do not speak for the CDC, we do not program the CDC's work, they're an independent board.

Uh our staff is a liaison to them to help facilitate that clo work closely with the work of economic development, but they are not uh they are not uh a creature of the city.

So uh you know ultimately I do not want to speak for what the CDC would decide to do, because again, they get to make those decisions, but I think speaking for the staff who would communicate this conversation to the CDC, it would be that council heard concerns about how the funds uh are being allocated or spent.

Uh they did not want to move forward on these items that would facilitate those funds continuing to be committed, and that the CDC has been asked to, through our staff, bring forward a presentation to council.

So that that is how I would direct staff in this case uh based on this conversation, unless council clarified that that is not their intent, in which case whatever you clarify for me is what we will convey to the CDC.

Okay, so just to clarify, my intent is not to hold St.

And I'm very clear on that.

My intent is not to hold St.

Joseph's historic to anything, right?

I simply have just try it, and to the city manager's point, we're simply requesting clarity.

And it has been hard to achieve that at this point.

And so I want to make sure we have concrete answers, which is why I'm asking to send this back to staff to make sure we are making an informed decision.

Is not it sounds like the relationship broke down a while ago, honestly.

So I we're not holding them something some compliance things or I don't want to get to all at the banter.

All I'm asking for is these two items to go back, and I'm not saying indefinitely.

I know there's a time constraint, but we are in January.

I don't foresee this take it until December to resolve.

I just want us to have a little bit more concrete information about what has happened, dynamic relationship and how we can move forward.

That's it.

So to the city manager's point, that's what we are I am requesting explicitly is a presentation on what has occurred thus far and make sure we have all consistent information about what has happened.

So I don't know whomever needs to take point on that, but that would be awesome to have.

I asked this question at the work session, but I'm gonna ask it again.

Um we are not in privity of contract with St.

Joseph's in any way, is that correct?

Help me.

We do not have a contract with St.

Joseph.

Y'all corrected my language so intensely that we did not even designate them.

This was entirely done by CDC, is that correct?

Yeah.

Um I'm still confused why this is an agenda item, I guess.

I'm confused by this whole thing.

But uh we don't have either the right to keep them in a contract nor the right to keep to withhold them or keep them from leaving the contract.

And if I recall correctly, the contract allowed them to freely come and go as long as they gave notice and they gave like ample notice, is my understanding.

Um we don't we're not even a party to them.

I don't know why.

What what does this so their name is on the contract?

And so agenda item number twelve is only a part of the agenda because it really it it's tangentially tied to agenda item 13.

And since we were making a funding change on 13, it was my decision after uh legal uh opinion with this that this did not the item 12 did not need to come to council, but since it was two items of one um sort of package, I asked that both items come forward.

So so part I I will take responsibility for that.

So technically, technically this item does not item 12 does not need to come to council, but because it was related to item 13, um, and it was that 10 million dollar packet, and we were trying to split the the the revenue, rev the revenue replacement piece that we we've talked about at the work session, I suspect we'll be talking about here on the next agenda item.

Um I asked that this item for an abundance of transparency um that it be brought to council.

Well, I think that yes, are you trying to answer this question?

I would love it.

Because I to me it seems like there's an action that we don't there's no action for us to take, and so I'm confused like how we take an action.

Right.

Yeah.

And I just wanted to address the a comment that you made a second ago, which is St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation is not a party, they are a party to the contract.

So that's the whole point of the we're in private of contract with the item.

Well, well, if you look at the contract that's in the agenda, that's the proposed amendment to the contract is to remove St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation as a party.

Okay, yeah.

This is a and this is an issue I think that we've come up with before where we like see amended contracts but not original contracts.

I have it up, and I guess that's part of what's confusing to me.

Right.

So it it shows the strike through.

So it's it's showing you the original language, at least I'm looking at it.

What page are you?

Number four.

Yeah, the original good.

Thank you, Councilmember Burrus.

So the original is is attachment four.

But if you look at attachment two, that's the proposed amended contract, and you'll see that St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation was a party.

It was a three-party contract, and they are looking to amend the contract to remove that party.

Um also uh senior assistant city attorney Carlos Hernandez is legal counsel on this issue.

He is on um the Zoom if you want to ask you know some in-depth legal questions about that.

Yeah.

I mean, I my under and I y'all have to forgive me because it's been a week, 10 days since I've read the contract, but my understanding was that they could withdraw at any time.

Is that is that true?

St.

Joseph's that they could withdraw under the under that contract.

Yes.

I'm gonna defer to Carlos because he he knows that contract.

I don't know.

No, uh then that we have a unilateral right to uh withdraw from the contract.

Um they're contractually bound to act as the fiscal agent uh until an amendment or release is is done by the city.

So they don't have the ability to unilaterally withdraw.

They have a separate agreement with High Promise CDC and their agreement between the two of them on how they will inter react interact with each other.

We're not privy to that contract, but they do have a contractual uh obligation with the city to act as uh fiscal agents.

So uh they don't have that unilateral right to just leave the contract.

So we can require performance, then potentially we are in private for that answers my question.

Thank you.

All right.

So any other questions.

I had a question for council member Burris.

Are you wanting I I appreciate the want for more information and I think that that's fine.

Uh and I'm not trying to tease the two items together, but it seems like number 12 is quite straightforward.

Yep and number 13, maybe that's where there's a little bit more consternation.

So I'm wondering if if if council is comfortable with moving forward on 12 and then referring that number 13 back, but I didn't know where you were with that.

Everyone has free will.

I know where I'm at on it, so I'm not because I did not receive what I needed to make an inform.

I get what they're saying, but it shouldn't have taken a week for us to kind of resolve this whole thing out, so I don't feel comfortable moving forward anything until I get more information.

So either comfortable with 12 or 13.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

I appreciate colleagues having wanting more information and and and I think the funding sources, the the murkier part at least for me.

I'm comfortable with moving forward on item 12.

Um and when we get to 13, we can have that discussion.

Yeah.

We are I I appreciate all my colleagues' comments, but this is why we have a vote.

We'll um we'll vote on it and and determine what happens.

And um, but I do I do think that you know some of the uh um points you made, Councilmember Burris are valid.

Um I I I do feel comfortable moving forward as well.

So I I'll go ahead and call for a vote on this one.

Um entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to execute a First Amendment to the ARPA subrecipient grant agreement with Haytai Promise Community Development Corporation to remove St.

Joseph's Hort Storage Foundation Incorporated as fiscal agent in an amount not to exceed three million two hundred and forty-five thousand dollars.

Could I so move?

Okay.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Discussion, yeah.

Um did you want to do the movement a second before?

It's been moved to probably second it.

Question.

I don't think it got seconded, but I'll second it.

Okay.

Um it if there was a conversation about sending it back to staff, that would not be a no vote on this.

So I'm wondering if we need a separate conversation about this agenda item because that was I think what council member Burris had asked for.

And I don't think that the the thing is that we want to say no necessarily, but that the request was for more time.

So I'm wondering what we're doing.

Well, no, it was it was stated that she didn't feel comfortable moving forward with it.

Right.

But it wasn't a request for a motion.

She okay.

Um Councilmember Burris, did you want to make a motion to um to have more time on this and send it back to staff?

The alternative, I think is right now that the motion before us is that we vote yes or no on the agenda item as it is on the on the agenda.

I'm fine.

For this item for item twelve, I'm fine with because it's simply the amendment for the contract.

And so with the fiscal sponsor, we can't hold them in relationships, so I'm fine with voting how I feel like voting on this case more so I don't need more time for that one.

All right.

And my apologies, Councilmember, I thought you were seconding.

Were you making a comment?

No, I think I I'm in the motion, I think.

Oh, okay.

Councilmember Cook seconded.

Okay.

It's been moving probably second it.

Madam Clark, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes six to one with councilmember Burris voting no.

Thank you.

Item 13.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, there we go.

Yeah, and the second, um, I'll entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to negotiate and make subresi subsequent modifications to the amended ARPA sub-recipient grant agreement with HATO Promise Community Development Corporation, so long as total grant funds do not exceed $3,245,000.

So move.

Second.

So we move the property seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes 6 to 1 with Councilmember Burris voting no.

Thank you.

Item 13.

Amendment to contract number 20910.

With HATI Promise CDC, St.

Joseph and Number 21481 for Fedville Street Corridor Neighborhood Stabilization Partnership Implementation.

All right.

I'll start with the speakers.

Followed by Victoria Peterson.

Angel Aset Dozier.

And Amanda Wallace.

Welcome.

Three minutes.

Yeah, thank you again for the opportunity.

I did not really get a chance to finish when I stood up earlier.

However, I do appreciate the comprehensive approach to items 12 and 13.

I appreciate that, like some of us out here, you believed and felt the need to look at both items together.

I hope that going forward, especially new council members, will be uh diligent.

Uh we talk about fidelity and transparency, those are words that are used a lot in here, and I hope that will be applied with the presentation that I hope will be prepared for you all to really understand and understand well enough so that you can share your understanding with the community so that we can begin to appreciate and look forward to another layer of promises for Hayti.

Thank you.

Welcome, Ms.

Peterson.

You have three minutes.

I'm Mrs.

Peterson Victoria Peterson.

I've been a political activist in Durham for quite a few years.

I'm very disappointed what the city council members have done here, and I'll just cut right to the chase.

This organization, and this is the paperwork from the city that stated the St.

Joseph Historical Foundation was a fiscal agent for ten million dollars, a physical agent that was supposed to be watching, guarding, and overseeing ten million dollars.

But tonight, all they've been talking about is three million and six million.

Somebody has been terribly dishonest of the people's money.

These are federal dollars that were supposed to come particularly in the African American community.

And I don't care if you are a white organization, a black organization, a red organization, a green organization.

You were responsible for these monies.

So here's my question to the city council.

And here it is.

I'm not lying.

Right here.

This is what the city put out.

Ten million dollars to help them to work with organizations on that court.

So here's my question to the city council members.

Where's the 10 million dollars?

What has happened to it?

What have they done with it?

Have they given money to organizations to help them in the community, Mr.

Mayor?

The city attorney.

Ms.

Cook, I like to say Miss Cook because she's also attorney also.

I'm not trying to beat up on her.

But she's an attorney.

What happened to the 10 million dollars and where is it?

And Mr.

City Manager, I ain't trying to embarrass you, but I am gonna have to.

I've asked you publicly several times for the interest that the city has generated off of about what I believe it was what?

About $50 million that we got from the federal government.

And the county got about 60 million.

Where's the interest?

And I've asked you, and you know what you told me?

You asked me to go ask somebody else.

You're the city manager.

I want it in writing.

I want to report on the interest that the city has generated.

I also want to report on the 10 million dollars, Mr.

Mayor.

I want to report on how these monies have been used.

And definitely about the 10 million dollars with St.

Joseph.

Please do not sign off any more for this organization and tell there's some countability, Mr.

Mayor.

And thank you very much for allowing 10 million.

Next, I have Angel Aset Dozier.

That has not been in count.

10 million.

Angel Isat Dozier.

Historic Pine Street.

I'm gonna finish what I was saying early about item 12, um, because it does connect.

And then I'm gonna answer some of these questions that the staff clearly cannot answer.

Um I am still asking for there to be a halt on items 12 and 13 until an independent review is completed.

Preserve all records related to the formation of HATIP Promise, the fiscal sponsorship vote, and all communications involving city officials.

Also include impacted community leadership, including myself, co-author Kendra Presley, Hayti Reborn, St.

Mark AME, the Greater Black Durham Business Chamber, and various Hayti community-centric people and working groups within the Hayti community, including New Visions of Africa with Brother Kasib.

Anything less places this council on record as approving a funding switch built on misrepresentation, removing the fiscal sponsor without investigating how the CDC was fraudulent fraudulently formed and how the board was coerced, it's not cleanup.

It's ratifying misconduct, and this council will own the consequences.

So, first of all, with regard to capacity.

So that's number one.

Capacity is a lie.

There was no capacity issue.

This was a clear shell game that took place in terms of crediting this to HATI Promise CDC.

Um the rules were changed as they went to your point, Mr.

Flora.

And you might remember also with regards to my own personal um ARPA funding and how I have been cheated out of that money that you sent me a letter, or you sent my attorney a letter with 12 typos in it and 12 budgetary mistakes.

So I have a hard time believing anything you say.

I'm confused as to why you're the CFO of the city of Durham.

Um with regard to St.

Joseph's Historic Foundation asking to be removed.

That this is true.

Um, in October of 2025, they asked to be removed as um agents because they did not want to be affiliated with a fraudulently created CDC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um as we are speakers, as you come to the mic, please make sure you address your comments to us as council members.

Thank you.

Next, Ms.

Wallace.

So my name is Amanda Wallace.

Um, and I was it was supposed to be two years before I could sit at this podium and have this conversation.

So glad to be back, and I'm addressing my comments to the commission.

I mean, to the city council.

And I'm here to speak against this hood wink and bamboozling that the city is currently trying to do by amending this contract.

I am so confused.

I am so confused at what this is.

And I'm even more confused by sitting in this meeting today.

There's so many unanswered questions.

Where what, like what has happened with the money so far?

It's been over a year, but we hear the city say, but now they feel more confident in them.

Well, how?

How did how did you gain that confidence?

What is actually happening?

If you look at the mission of HATIP Promise, it says that it's supposed to be a catalyst for building a vibrant future, and then it's a whole lot of other words, but it's to preserve Fayetteville Street Corridor.

Where's the catalyst?

What where is it?

Because what I'm seeing is more like fires outside from people unhoused.

What I'm seeing is buildings continuing to stay vacant.

Where is the catalyst?

And now we're talking about this 10 million dollars.

I mean, we keep saying 10 million dollars, but we still do not understand how much money is still sitting, where it is.

Again, it just seems like a bait and switch.

And like you're saying we they want to remove, like well, St.

Joseph's Foundation wants to remove themselves, but nobody's asked, like, why?

I mean, what we're hearing is that they didn't even know that it was happening in the beginning, but nobody's addressing that.

It's just like, oh no, this is a simple fix.

We just gotta switch it.

But it's not simple.

It's not simple when you're sitting on 10 million dollars when people need resources now.

There is no community trust.

No community trust.

I mean, there hasn't been community trust in a long time, especially again, if we think about HATA, we think about urban renewal or urban removal.

Like this is what's happening again.

Urban renewal was a was this a policy of the federal government that came down to the city.

The city is responsible for urban renewal.

And now here we are again.

Here we are again.

But again, this is why they want to ban people from the people's house because they don't want anybody to ask questions.

But with my 17 minute 17 seconds, I'm gonna say this again.

Matt Kopak, you bought your seat so that this could still keep being a 4-3 vote, so that when issues like this come up, you can sway it.

And you can sit with your white privilege.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, there you are.

Mr.

Broderick, welcome.

You have three minutes.

Yeah.

Again, uh, good evening, everyone.

CJ Broderick, uh, Presidency O'Grador Black Chamber of Commerce.

I just wanted to add to my comments from earlier.

Um, and um and just for the record, just take a moment to pause uh to for all of you.

I mean, I think I've met all of you senior meetings, and I have a pretty decent relationship with all of you.

Um I don't come to this council meeting often, I don't speak often.

Um, but when I do speak, I expect that you'll entertain that request and at least pause and consider it and hopefully take the time to uh to do what I'm asking you to do.

Um as one of a handful of um black organizational leaders in in in Durham.

Um I want to just share my experience with you, right?

Um, you know, Durham professes itself to be this progressive town that um that expouses all these values, but I think from my perspective, right, it's moments like this when people like me ask for something, whether it's um when it could be as simple as uh uh a pause on a decision, or it could be something more more elaborate around um funding, and it gets you know just rammed over.

And so I want to appreciate uh Councilman Burris for voting no on item 12.

Again, I'm I'm in the field uh uh uh a dozen questions in the next couple of days around um what happened, you know, and I'll obviously refer them um as best as I can to where the answers lie, but there's still a lot of misinformation in cloud around, you know, as as as Peterson said, you know, the $10 million, right?

Uh items 12 and 13 and join.

And so um, you know, I'm gonna again ask you all to um to listen, right?

And and and sometimes I know you're you're in a difficult position where you need to move and move swiftly, but when leaders that you're when when leaders that you see in the community doing community work come and ask you for something like this, you know, I would ask that you um try to appreciate their engagement and um and slow down a little bit.

I yield.

Thank you.

All right.

Councilmember.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yeah.

Um it seems to me there's two questions before us.

The staff have presented us with an agenda item about amending a contract and changing official fiscal agency status.

The staff did not come to us with a full-blown impact analysis of the investment we've made in Haight Promise CDC.

They've come to us with a contract amendment.

There's a second question about the amendment of the impact of the $10 million.

It's a fair question.

That's not what the staff prepared for us.

There were questions at the work session, the manager responded with a list of expenses from the HATA CDC was asked for.

I am I am sick and tired of the innuendo, the allegations that somehow staff have bamboozled or hoodwing people that my colleagues have stolen elections.

We're here to do the people's business.

This is not the people's business.

If there's a question about the impact of the grant that was given to Haytime Promise CDC, that agenda item can be properly brought before the council for a full discussion about the impact of the dollars we've given or the dollars we've we've allocated.

That's a separate agenda item.

That's fair to bring before the council.

What we have here is a simple about a contract and to sort of take that item and suggest somehow there's again staff have fraudulently misinformed people.

I'm sick and tired of that.

We have a contract before us.

I'll take a vote on that contract.

If there's a request for any kind of impact analysis, I'm here for that.

That's what we're about to do.

We have a right to oversee the spending we make as a cat as a city.

If there's questions about that, let's bring that agenda item before the council.

That's not what we're here.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

All right.

I'm going to pause us at nine to take a break and then we'll continue.

Oh, I'll be brief.

So Councilman Riss, to your point.

Um, imagine how people in a corridor feel.

If you're tired, imagine how tired they are.

So what we don't, and I'm not doing this for applause.

I'm just gonna ride down Fayetteville Street every day.

I'm a double graduate in CCU.

I have seen this every day, and we still have not received an investment.

So for us to ask for accountability in an area that's been disinvested for decades, like that you can't control how people respond.

You can't control people who invite how they respond to injustice.

So I want to just honor that.

And for this my item, I will say that I 100%, I got motion together now.

I do want to send this back because the extension is only until July 30th, 2027.

That's six months.

How are you going to spend this money with the net time frame or just give us some kind of signal or answer those clarifying questions for us to make an informed decision?

I see it on the first one, but before we move forward, I need to know because when I did ask for the detailed expenditures, I didn't get any dates.

I got a list of items.

I I want to know more about how staff has received reimbursements and what the cause for that was.

I want to I have other questions about that.

So I am asking for the city manager to work with staff to ensure that we have all the information we need about the 1.3 million dollars that have been expended, and looking at what you have 1,700 for wayfair, someone got a thousand dollars reimbursed to them or so, you have 300k to preservation Durham.

We just want to have context about how these funds are being utilized in an actual plan to move forward.

That's it.

And that's what I'm asking for explicitly today is to get those details to make sure that we know how this money is going to be utilized in the corridor because it takes money to make money.

10 million is not sufficient for the work that needs to happen in this corridor.

So we want to make sure that we have community buying involvement because we need to attract other resources to fully address the deficits that have happened because we have not thoroughly invested in this community.

So that is my statement.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

Um Mayor Prosper.

Thank you.

Councilmember Burroughs, could you state what questions you would like answered?

I'm I'm amenable to um I will I will say that you know it is always a very and this is not to throw anyone to anyone under the bus, but for me, the Fayetteville Street Corridor, I've gone to community meetings, I have participated in listening sessions.

I have uh been invited where I'm invited, and the biggest block for me is that there's not a unity of vision.

Different factions, and I'll say it within the Fayetteville Street Corridor, ask for different things.

And it is hard as a decision maker to respond.

We understand that the harm was caused.

This was supposed to be a down payment as $10 million.

It was never intended to fix the whole problem.

We knew it wouldn't.

But to Council Member Burris' point, the idea was this is a down payment so that there could be other investment from the city, from the state, from the federal government, etc.

But it gets really, really hard when there is not a consistent vision from the different groups in Fayetteville Street Corridor.

It happened with Fayette Place, which is now I think villages at Hayti.

It's happened with lots of community projects in that corridor.

And that is what the challenge is for me as a decision maker.

It's very easy to say yes, even if it's, you know, the money is always going to be hard to come up with.

Like let's just be real.

But it's really hard to say yes when you have different asks from different small pockets within a section of town.

So I am happy to put pause on this.

I'm happy to get more clarity on it.

I'm happy to do more transparency around it, but at a certain point, a decision just has to be made so that we can move forward so that we can put the investment that we need in the community that rightfully deserves it.

And so that is my challenge.

So I guess for me, what would be really helpful is you've asked for dates on the expenditures.

What are the other specific questions?

And if you have a long list, I would encourage you to send it to all of your council members.

I didn't participate in the meeting that you had with staff so that it's clear what the ask is to staff, so that it's clear that community who's shown up here, those are the questions that were asked, those are the questions that were answered, and we can all move forward together, knowing that 10 million dollars, why not a lot?

It's still a lot of money, right?

It's not an insignificant amount of money.

Is it what's owed?

Absolutely not.

But it's not, you know.

We we as a city council made the decision to put half of the ARPA dollars back in community.

There are very few cities in the United States that made that decision with their ARPA dollars.

Most cities did not do that.

They took the money and they backfilled their own coffers.

And so, and that's the right decision to have made, but it made it a messy process, right?

It made it a harder process for staff.

It made it lots of different organizations got money.

And so I want folks to understand that the decision to put 22 million dollars back in the community in the response to the pandemic is not a decision that most communities made.

The county did it as well.

We were lifted up nationally for making that decision, and staff worked really, really hard to drive an equity-driven process.

At the time, it was Councilmember Williams and I, along with Councilmember Johnson, had to steer all the seven of us through a process that everyone could agree with.

It was a challenging thing to do, and I still stand by the work that we did, and I stand by staff and the challenging decisions we had to make.

But I really really want our community to get together and work together and not have the inner fighting that I've consistently seen in the Fayetteville Street Corridor.

So, Councilmember uh Burris might ask of you is if you could send your questions to staff.

I'm open to a delay uh as long as as we can get the thing moving.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'll recess for 10 minutes.

Twelve, we're done.

We're with them.

I came to the city to develop leadership and supervisory skills.

I stayed because of the city's culture and dedication to serving residents.

The city of Durham, where careers meet community.

To connect with a career that serves the bull city, visit Durham NC.gov slash careers.

Recording stopped.

I came to the city for the great insurance and retirement benefits.

But I say for stability and vacation time.

The city of Durham, where careers meet community.

To connect with a career that serves the Bull City, visit Durham essay.gov slash careers.

Visit Durham S that goes careers.gov slash Careers Durham para mehore as conditions of the other residents.

Oh wow.

Let's uh get back settled, please.

All right.

We are going to go ahead and uh continue.

All right, Mr.

Mayor, at this point, I am prepared.

We're ready to make a motion.

And I am committed to what my colleagues said, let me know if I'm out of order with this, but committed to sending over an exhaustive list of all the questions I have what we have collectively around this item to gain clarity.

So then probably second and uh do have some discussion.

Do you mind stating your email?

Uh I mean, I know it's public, but for residents to directly email you, so we can have all the questions received in the same oh, sure.

Why not?

Um, because I don't have an office assistant.

Um, so my email is first named Sheneta S H A N E T T A dot Burris at Derm D-U-R-H-A-M-C.gov.gov.

That's me.

So yes, look forward to your inquiries.

I am I am asking basically for Councilmember Cook uh Councilmember Burrers to uh take lead on uh accumulating these questions so that we could just have it all in one place.

Uh I do want to project that I'm going to support your motion.

Uh, but I do want to say um I I am I am a little frustrated.

Uh I'm frustrated because they are there are people who um there are a lot of people in this community.

And you know, I went to school in this neighborhood and see Central.

Um, been in Durham for a while.

Um been in Durham for a while, and I've seen parts of the city evolve.

I've seen parts of the city um just develop.

And somehow, some way this area is still the same.

And I there's a lot of confusion around this because it's government speak.

Uh some of the questions have been answered that need to be answered again.

There's uh some processes that are a little confusing, which is why I agree with Councilmember Burr on some things.

I I get it's very clear to me.

I I I understand it, but I'm you know, I'm one of seven up here.

Um but I also was in your same shoes before, where I just didn't understand anything.

And as a matter of fact, my very first council meeting after getting sworn in, um we had zoning cases that we didn't fully understand.

And uh Mayor O'Neill was the mayor at the time, and she did something unprecedented.

She postponed the entire meeting.

And I know that kind of rocks staff, but it it happened, you know.

She leaned back, she said, Leo, what you want to do?

I said, I don't understand anything.

And she postponed it, you know.

Um so I I'm going to support this, but I will say uh there's there are a lot of Hay Tis.

There's Haiti Reborn, there's Haiti Reborn Justice Movement, there's Haiti One Voice, there's Heta Promise, there's and there may be more, you know.

Um, and like Council um Mayor Pro Tim said, it is it is very hard to get a uh a common understanding because there are individuals in here tonight that are saying, you know, hey, this is we don't need to move forward.

Or there are some folks that are saying there's corruption or there is colluding, there's this and there's that.

I know the work that staff put in.

I know the work that we the previous council put in and and making sure that there was an investment back into this community.

Um I also know that uh and Madam Um Clerk, I should be bent on right now.

So but put it on just a minute.

Um but uh just you know we at some point we have to move forward.

And and there's a lot of there's a lot of you know theoretical approaches to what's happening.

You know, we talk about history, we talk about urban removal removal, urban renewal.

Um, but I can tell you one thing.

It was this council that put 10 million on there, more than anybody else has in the past.

And we can't even spend it.

I can tell you another thing.

There are people who are volunteering on the board to actually who actually are from this area, born and raised that can't really be here tonight because they don't have the luxury of being here.

So at some point we are gonna have to move forward.

There are there are some there's some points that were made by my colleague that I agree with because government speak is complicated.

And so I'm going to support that.

But when there can't, I mean, there's whenever there's an opportunity to invest in this community, we run into some type of blockade.

And I gotta be honest, it's usually the same voices.

And I'm willing to work with any dissenting voice, but I'm looking for those same voices that say no to everything to actually say what that hasn't been made clear to me.

So I'll come back over.

I think it's highly disrespectful to talk about folks not understanding as though it's an intelligence issue.

And I really think that's like just an of just a really inappropriate thing to say up here about a colleague, and I think it's really inappropriate to say it about our residents.

This isn't a question of people not being able to grasp the like intellectual issues that we're talking about.

Folks in the community have answers, there's contention that the entire plan was created in the community.

So this isn't a this isn't an issue of people not understanding.

It's an issue of people not trusting the process and not feeling like that it is transparent.

And this is not a not something saying that we've made necessarily poor decisions even with this arc of funding in the past.

Maybe we have, maybe we haven't.

I do think some of the things that we did with ARPA funding in general were really good.

But if we are not here committed to listen to a diversity of opinions and think about how we can build community trust and keep moving at a pace that is respectful and honors the commitment that the community has put into it, then like that's just poor governance on our part.

And so that is the request.

It's just to slow down and be more transparent.

And I really hear this narrative over and over again, and I've called some of you out about it privately, but I really want to say it on the record.

I think I've said it before, I'm gonna say it again.

This this conversation of oh Haiti is so divided and therefore we cannot get anything done.

Like what a wild way of putting off any responsibility that we hold as individuals or as people filling these seats that have been so harmful for so many years back onto the people who have been impacted and oppressed by our policy decisions.

I mean, that is an unbelievable shift in narrative.

And we have communities all over Durham that can't come to consensus on stuff.

We can't ever come to consensus on stuff.

It's like we just can't sit here and have this conversation as though that makes Hayti not worth investing in, or that they are the reason that we have been slow to address the wrongs that we've created.

It's really frustrating.

We need to be really honest about this conversation.

If we're gonna talk about Haiti in a way that's dismissive and demeaning, then I don't know why we wouldn't talk about any other neighborhood that has differing opinions in the same way.

So I just want to say that I'm also in support of handing this back to staff.

I'm looking forward to more clarity and hopefully moving on from this item.

Uh I'll and I'll just say this on the record.

Um, Councilmember Burris, I'm obviously not calling you dumb or any challenge of intellect.

I'm actually saying that there this is government speaking, it gets really complicated.

And I've been in a situation where I didn't fully understand something, or I didn't see a lot of clarity, and I wanted to push it back as well.

I don't go back and forth, Councilmember Cook.

Please.

Please don't do that.

I'm not calling anyone dumb.

I'm not challenging anyone's intellect.

And please don't cascade me.

Councilmember Wrist.

I was just gonna ask on the timeline.

That's all.

I just I'm trying to get us to a place so we can keep us moving.

Sorry, Councilmember, that's all.

So let's be clear.

There's no silver bullet here, right?

There's been decades of disinvestment in Hayti.

Take decades to address this, right?

This is a down you all before I can download.

My mic's going out, yeah.

So it's not just Council Mr.

Cobb.

If we want to do this, let's get a clear timeline.

One of the things we hear from citizens all the time is like, how come things take so long in government, right?

That's sort of the bottleneck stuff, right?

So what we're doing here, we're slowing things down.

And that may be what this council chooses to do.

We have to understand that by doing by doing this, we're slowing things down again, right?

That means that investment's not happening.

That might be the right choice, but we just gotta be clear, we're slowing things down.

So before we get to the motion to restate it, um, I just would like to ask that if you have any questions, please submit those by Friday at 5 p.m.

Eastern Standard Time so I can make sure it gets over to our city manager's office in a timely manner.

And I do want to mayor pro Tim's point just discuss a timeline as we could bring this back.

I have it on the agenda.

Um so I guess it's a question for the clerk.

Oh, staff, sorry.

It may be a challenge to answer tonight only because uh the the critical role that I believe the CDC board needs to really be the ones who come before the council.

They are again, I want to reiterate they're the ones who are uh administering the program.

Um so our staff will follow up with them immediately to express council's interest in bringing them forward.

Um if staff has a conjecture about what the timeline on bringing them forward might look like, I'm happy for staff to offer that.

But uh I would want to acknowledge that without the CDC board present this evening that that we may not be able to answer that tonight.

I'm happy to get that information as quickly as possible, send it out to council electronically if they prefer.

That that suffices.

Um so with that I'd like to make a motion that we refer this item back to staff for further consideration.

Second.

So move the properly second.

Madam Clark, please open the vote.

All right, please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

All right, thank you.

Colleagues, are you experiencing any type of uh restarts or reboots on your mic?

Not right now.

Okay.

And uh no, yours keep going out.

Councilmember Ruth we can um reboot it too, so maybe we maybe.

Okay.

All right.

The next one's 14.

All right.

Uh next item, interlocal agreement reauthorizing the Durham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council.

Do I have Richard Davis?

I'm sorry.

Oh, yeah.

We did your motion, so just to be clear, we voted to move it back so we don't have to adjust it.

Correct.

All right.

Uh do I have a Richard Davis?

No, I have him in person.

All right.

Uh colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to resolve that the city manager be authorized to negotiate and execute an interlocal cooperation agreement with Durham County to reauthorize the Durham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission.

So moved.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Oh who am I missing?

Six voice votes.

Let's do this.

Madam Clerk, I'm gonna call for a uh a hand vote.

Oh okay, never mind.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Next is uh okay, public hearings.

All right.

Twenty-two, twenty-one twenty.

All right.

So uh based on I'm not reported to order colleagues on these.

Uh we're gonna start with item number twenty-two.

Consolidated annexation strength road assemblage.

Ready for the staff report.

Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and honorable council members.

Good evening.

I am Peyton Burgess with the planning and development department, and I am happy to be here with you tonight.

A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Andy Porter of TMTLA for five parcels of land totaling 16.99 acres and located at 4503, 4509, 4517, 4607, and 4611 Trenton Road.

This annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits, but is contiguous to an existing satellite.

As part of this annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a change in the underlying zoning district of residential suburban 20.

A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing county zoning is translated to the identical city zoning district upon the annexation of the property into the city limits.

A translational zoning does not include a development plan, and any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow.

The properties are currently designated established residential on the place type map.

The proposed residential suburban 20 zoning is generally consistent with the designated use shown on the place type map.

If the proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type designation of established residential.

Thank you.

Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you.

You've heard the staff report.

Colleagues, are there any technical questions or comments to staff?

All right.

And this time I'll declare this public hearing open.

How much time do you think you need?

Three minutes.

Wait a minute, let's put five minutes on the clock, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of Council, Pam Porter with TMTLA Associates, Landscape Architecture and Land Planning Firm in Durham.

And with me tonight is Gary Wallace, who is with the home builder B.

Wallace Design and Construction.

Thank you, Peyton, for the overview.

Um just to quickly recap, the property uh, which is five existing parcels located along Trenton Road is approximately a total of 17 acres and includes three existing homes.

The adoptive place type map for this location is established residential.

All five lots are currently zoned RS20 and will will remain RS-20 if this annexation is approved.

No rezoning is proposed as part of this request.

If approved, the annexation would allow these lots to connect to city water and sewer.

The proposed development is fully consistent with the current zoning district.

The plan is to create an additional six single family lots going from five to eleven.

So there will ultimately be eight more homes, so for 11 total homes instead of the three existing.

This means that with the deed restriction in place, the total number of units that could be constructed is up to 14, but the current plan in place is for 11.

And just to note, city, the city does not regulate deed restrictions, but it is important to mention the total number of dwelling units that can be permitted here with the deed restriction.

It's much less than what could be developed under the RS-20 zoning district.

And B.

Wallace, uh design and construction is a woman-owned design build firm that will be building the homes similar to the seven homes on the end of uh Millhill Lane in the Trenton neighborhood.

And we received unanimous support from the planning commission at their November 12th meeting, and we hope to gain your support tonight as well.

And thank you for the consideration of our request.

And both myself and Gary are here for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any speakers signed up for this item.

So therefore I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council.

Are there any questions?

All right.

That then said I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing Trenton Road, Trenton Road assemblage into the city of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with MRED LLC.

So move second.

I moved to probably second it.

Uh Madam Court, please open the vote.

Please close to vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

All right.

And I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of the residential suburban 20 Falls Jordan District B watershed, protection overlay, major transportation corridor I-40 overlay county jurisdiction and establishing the same as residential suburban 20, Falls Jordan District B watershed protection overlay, major transportation corridor, I-40 overlay city jurisdiction.

So moved.

Second.

Please open the vote, Madam Clerk.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

And on Anna's in a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute Section 16D-605.

Move to adopt a consistency.

Second.

It's been moved and probably seconded.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Item number 21, zoning map change, Andrew's Chapel Apartments.

Ready for the staff report.

Sorry.

Mayor Williams, Mayor for Tim Caballero, and honorable council members.

Good evening.

I'm Peyton Burgess with the Planning and Development Department, and I'm happy to be here with you tonight.

A request for a zoning map change has been received from Patrick Biker of Morningstar Law Group for one parcel of land totaling 1.836 acres and located at 1029 Andrews Chapel Road.

The current zoning is residential suburban 20.

The applicant proposes to change this designation to Plan Development Residential 32.680.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to allow up to 60 multifamily dwelling units and at least 1,000 square feet of space to be used for office andor public and civic uses.

The properties are currently designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map.

The proposed PDR 32.680 zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type.

Thank you.

Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any uh questions for staff?

All right.

Councilmember Cook.

Um I have two questions.

The first, and this I'm sure you're gonna be able to answer this, but um is what is the benefit of limiting to write in and write out pathways?

I am going to defer to Parleen Thomas on that one.

Great.

Good evening, Erlen Thomas, planning and development department.

So that access point was restricted to write in, right out only due to his proximity to the roundabout, and we want to um limit conflicts being so close to the roundabout.

Can you just explain a little bit more why that does that?

The benefit of the right in right out and what it does to traffic.

So it restricts lefts out of the site and left into the site.

So you yeah, I just like how does it help the flow of traffic?

I mean, I understand I literally understand what right and left are, but I just I'm how does it help?

Can you just explain like how it affects if we don't have left turns, we still have people moving that direction?

What does it do to the traffic?

You do you don't have the conflicts of the flea free flow movement that's that's coming out of the roundabout?

You do you don't have the conflicts of the flea free flow movement that's that's coming out of the roundabout and then people waiting to turn left into or out?

It just sets up um conflict points and increases the risk of crashes.

Okay, thank you.

And then my next question is not yours, but are elevators not required in buildings that have multiple stories.

No, there would not be required in all buildings that have more than one story.

Is there a story requirement at which that elevator is takes place?

And can you tell me what it is?

I'm not sure if that requirement off the top of my head.

Okay.

At any point, if you all get it, I would love to know.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, how much time do you think you need?

Uh Mayor, I think I need about two and a half minutes, and my uh client and friend Jasmine Lubod needs about I'm sorry, five minutes total.

I would need two and a half.

All right, seven minutes, please.

Good evening.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You don't public hearing open, sir.

Great.

Mayor Williams, Mayor Proton Caballero, members of the city council.

I'm Patrick Biker.

I live at 2614 Stewart Drive.

I'm an attorney with Morningstraw Law Group, and I'm here tonight representing SemperServe LLC.

The members of SemperServe are a wonderful young married couple, Jasmine and EMAD Lubod.

This is their first real estate development project, and I have to say it is great to see young local talent jumping into the deep end to take on this type of real estate development.

Jasmine and Emod have put together a great local team with civil consultants as their engineers and gateway building company as their contractors.

They are both fine local Durham-based companies.

This section of the city of Durham is in Wake County.

And I personally worked on the initial annexation of the city into Wake County about 12 years ago.

We kicked off the development in this area with the Harris Teeter, Anchored Shopping Center at Glenwood Avenue and TW Alexander Drive.

As you can see from this slide, the parcel we are considering tonight is kind of an infill site since it's located very close to other multifamily developments.

In our recently adopted comprehensive plan, a key component is creating the 15-minute community.

To that end, I want to zoom out and show how this 1.8 acres relates to the other developments in the vicinity.

The Harris Teeter that I worked on about 10 years ago is less than a third of a mile away to the south, as you can see on this slide.

So along with a great grocery store, there are restaurants, other retail services, a Wake Med facility, and a bus stop for Go Durham Route Route 2.

They're all about a 15-minute walk from this site.

As Durham needs new housing supply, it is important to look at the existing zoning for Jasmine and Emod's property.

As you can see on this slide, it is RS 10.

The easy thing for my clients to do would have been just subdivide the 1.8 acres into about seven single family lots and use the buy right zoning and not have to go through any public hearings.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that EMOD already already has a very successful career as the owner and operator of the International Delights restaurant on 9th Street near Duke East Campus.

EMAD's father started international delights over 30 years ago.

And so EMOD is a second generation owner of this outstanding restaurant.

I also want to highlight that EMOD went to Riverside High School.

And that again reinforces how this is a Durham homegrown initiative.

Since this section of Southeast Durham has been entitled primarily for age-restricted single-family housing, it is in keeping with the future place type map to move forward with multifamily housing on this 1.8 acres.

And to its credit, our team has put together a development plan that is in compliance with 15 out of 18 applicable comprehensive plan policies.

That is a strong achievement.

In closing, it's my privilege to turn the microphone over to Jasmine Lubod.

Jasmine will share more of the team's background and her vision for creating new housing that is targeted at serving our nation's veterans since that type of housing is in very high demand, especially in central North Carolina.

After you hear from Jasmine, our team will be happy to answer any questions.

We respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Council members.

Thank you for allowing us to be here tonight.

My husband, EMAD, and I are incredibly grateful to be here.

Reaching this point represents nearly two years of hard work, collaboration, and determination to bring our vision to life.

Together, we bring different strengths and experiences, but share one purpose: building communities that thrive.

We see ourselves not just as developers, but as local partners invested in Durham's long-term success.

Our goal for this project is to create a house create housing that's more than just physical structures.

It's a place designed to foster stability, opportunity, and connection.

Every decision we've made from design to local partnerships has been guided by that commitment.

EMAD is a proud Durham native whose family has served the city for more than three decades through International Delights Restaurant.

A place that has always reflected the spirit of community and belonging.

My own journey began in the United States Marine Corps, where I learned the values of service, accountability, and perseverance.

Those same principles now shape my work in real estate, housing advocacy, and now multifamily development.

My own journey is just beginning.

And our work has always been rooted in Durham.

This is our home where we live, where we plan to raise our children, where we invest our time, our energy, and our resources.

Our hope is that this project can continues to contribute to the city's thoughtful growth while honoring the people in the neighborhoods that make Durham so special.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and then for allowing local families like ours the opportunity to contribute to Durham's growing success and well-being.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any more speakers, uh, so I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and back before the council.

Do any of my colleagues have any questions?

I'm gonna start with Councilmember Wrist and then just go down to down the line.

Go ahead, council member Tim.

Um this is a question for uh Mr.

Biker or the other developer of the one.

Um I seem to recall, and I like this.

This is a great infill project.

Um really appreciate bringing this forward.

Um there was a reference to sort of serving veterans in it.

I want to make sure I understand what what that looks like.

Yeah, I'm sure Jasmine may have something to add, but what was uh that was discussed at the planning commission, uh, council member, and the text commitment that grew out of that uh give and take with the planning commission was to uh have a text commitment regarding um office uh civic space within the building.

And our interaction with veterans is that they really need that type of uh uh private space with access to computer, printer, and then somebody like Jasmine who's a listening ear who understands what their needs are.

So that's the uh text commitment that was worked out with the planning commission, and that'll be implemented by Jasmine and her colleagues.

And so what is it?

So so what's the veterans component look like?

Beyond, I mean, are you sort of marketing this to veterans or how does that?

Yeah, so it's if you look at the bottom of this slide, you can see that there's a homes for heroes real estate specialists, and and she's also on the board of directors of empowerment.

So it it's it's and she's a housing liaison for the uh district military advisory board.

So it's really using her uh real life experience uh to assist her uh fellow veterans.

But again, so it's more of a from a marketing perspective.

There's no there's no special, I mean there's there'll be this this um the commercial space with some space for services to be determined, but it's not this is not a supportive housing model like that.

It's not like that.

Okay, so it's just offering that as a as a inducement to folks who may want to move there.

Yep, it's to help what what we've heard from veterans was what they really need is one uh a person who can give them individualized attention and then access to um computer, internet, and a printer.

Just nuts and bolts to get through the programs that are available to help our nation's veterans with their housing needs.

Well, that's great.

And then the next question is uh um certainly we need a range of housing options in Durham.

Veterans need a range of housing options, including affordable housing.

I know there's no commitment to affordable housing.

Can you say more about like the price point to make this to sort of think we're too early in the process to really know that, but obviously we're trying to value engineer it as carefully as we can.

The amazing thing about this project is not only did EMOD go to Riverside High School, our engineer went to Riverside High School.

And so we're we're so early in the process, it's very hard to speculate what that would be.

But obviously, Jasmine is incentivized to make it as affordable as possible using the programs that are there to help our veterans.

Gotcha, thanks.

Yes, sir.

Councilmember Cook.

Um Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Bryce.

I see asked a lot of the questions that I was gonna ask.

And um I think that this it was kind of similar to the commissioners, is how I feel, which is that like we believe that y'all are gonna do a good service in this space.

Um speaking to you, hi.

Um I believe they all are gonna do a good service in this space.

I just, for me, I'm not seeing how it like in how the um commitments sort of reflect that.

Um, and so I'm just I'm curious about the conversation that happened with staff about the civic use building, because I know that there was like quite a bit of conversation that was going on, and it seems to me very vague, the language that was agreed upon.

I was wondering if you could fill me in on how that conversation went.

I think it was an outgrowth of the discussion with the planning commission and working with uh the staff and identifying, again, in a building that hasn't been fully designed yet, what would be appropriate in terms of creating a space that would work uh so that veterans uh feel comfortable, uh, have access to the services they need and are able to uh access um the programs Jasmine may have, she would certainly know more about it than I do.

I think it was an outgrowth of the discussion with the planning commission and working with uh the staff and identifying again in a building that hasn't been fully designed yet, what would be appropriate in terms of creating a space that would work uh so that veterans uh feel comfortable, uh have access to the services they need and are able to uh access um the programs Jasmine may have she would certainly know more about it than I do, but uh there's definitely numerous programs available to help our nation's veterans.

But what is needed is to get back to not to repeat myself, but is getting back to somebody who specializes with that uh in that space, somebody like Jasmine.

And then providing the resources to our veterans so that they have free access without time constraints.

They can just sit there if it takes them an hour to fill out an application, that's great.

If it takes them four hours to fill an application, that's great.

That's why we're providing the space.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, I think when I read office and slash civil use, and and this was brought up by the planning commission, it's like yes, there's a leasing office at an apartment complex.

Um like how do we know that that's actually going to be like accessible and used by folks?

Um, because Jasmine is a developer of it, and you can go down there and see her anytime you want.

Yeah.

But I guess it doesn't carry over if they choose to sell or anything.

No, of course.

I mean there are no there are no guarantees.

I I appreciate that.

I mean, God forbid they have a health problem or something happens, that would be terrible.

Yes, I think.

But at this age, they're fully committed to the normally our commitments run with the land, right?

And so that's kind of like I think what people were getting at, which is that like it doesn't feel like this is gonna run with the land.

So it's just uh an interesting question.

I appreciate it.

Um is there are these gonna be for rent?

Yes.

And is there I know you said previously that you felt like it was too small, but have you all gone back to see if there's any uh um ability to do some of these units at affordable?

It's at this point in time we don't have any uh idea of how the financing is gonna work out for uh constructing um what is a tight site.

This is a pretty high density on a pretty small site.

And so that tends to drive up costs, and so it's very uh until we get through the architectural um process and obtain our financing, it's really impossible to state what uh exactly what monthly rents will be, except that our our team is obviously committed to value engineering the site so that it's as cost effective as possible.

Okay.

I know that we have the um the elevator commitment.

Are there any other ADA commitments that you all have been able to make in this department building?

I think that really was the one that we thought made the most sense.

Uh obviously it's more expensive than having a stairway, but obviously with our veterans, we have to have an elevator.

Um so uh I think that's where we are right now in terms of the process that we're going through in terms of the building hasn't been designed yet, but once it is, um, it'll have an elevator and it'll be um configured so that veterans have access to that civic and office space that I referred to earlier.

Okay.

And then um any commitments that y'all are able to make around green building.

Uh again, because of the cost factors involved, that's something that I'm sure Jasmine and Imag care about that deeply, but at this point in time, those programs carry a carry a decent price tag, and so it would be hard for us to commit with commit to that this time.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions.

Appreciate it.

Um Councilmember Kopak, or no, Councilmember Baker.

Yeah, uh, thank you for uh bringing this forward to us.

Um I think some of my questions have been asked as well.

Um so the non-residential, and I always like to see non-residential included in uh residential uh buildings.

I like to see uh vertical mixed use.

Um so is this just a leasing office?

Is that is that what's uh anticipated here?

And is that more than that, uh, Councilmember Baker?

It would be a space that would be available to veterans for counseling, advising, applic making their applications, and having access to uh the federal programs designed to help them.

So it's I would say in that regard it's a civic use.

Okay.

Okay.

It's just not uh it's just not part of the commitment.

It's just very broad as a commitment.

Right.

Well, I mean it it's it there could be other, for example, we have access to a lot of good food at international delights.

There could be an internal cafe for people.

We didn't want to restrict it.

Uh uh just because we want to create a welcoming space for veterans, and that that could be something that works, but it'll just be a a minimum of one thousand square feet, like on the first floor.

Correct.

For mountain residential.

It would just kind of be like a storefront.

Yeah, or it's being internal.

The building hasn't been designed yet, but it would be internal, obviously being internal, but it would be one of the main entrances, correct?

Okay.

Like accessible from the sidewalk.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um that's correct.

Okay.

I guess it doesn't have to be because it's not a commitment.

All right.

Well, um appreciate.

Yeah, I love international delights.

Uh, no ketchup allowed.

We appreciate that.

Yeah.

Can't beat the backlog.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kopak.

Most of my questions were covered.

I would just say that I appreciate the local developer connection.

Um so thank you for your service and for the work you're trying to do and the population you're trying to serve.

Um I also note that we're more accustomed to the commitments being um you know in the text commitments, so it can move with the land, so I'm kind of processing that.

Um, but I I do appreciate um some of the positive elements of this case.

Thank you.

Councilmember Burris, did you have any questions?

Okay.

Um Mr.

Mayor, do you want to take over you when we keep going?

Once you finish it out.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um there's no more questions.

So um, Madam Clerk, could you please?

Oh, actually, I need a motion for um to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of residential suburban dash 10 and establishing the same as planned development residential 32.680.

So moved.

Okay.

I have a motion of second.

Madam Clerk, please open the vote.

Please close the vote.

Almost and the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh could it please get a motion to adopt a consistent consistency statement as required by NCGS section 160D-605?

So moved.

Motion, could I get a second?

Second.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Could you please open the vote?

Please close the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh, our next item is item number 20, consolidated annexation Brittmore.

We have a variety of speakers.

Uh I will go to our online speakers first.

Staff reports.

Staff report, thank you.

I'm like, let's go.

It's 952.

Hello.

Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and Honorable Council members.

Good evening.

I am Peyton Burgess with the planning and development department, and I am still happy to be here with you tonight.

Um I would like to state for the record that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law, and affidavits of all notices are on file in the planning department for the cases you've heard tonight.

A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and zoning map change has been received from Tim Sivers of CUNADY for five parcels of land totaling 26.668 acres and located at 8118, 8120, 812, 8200, 8204, and 8210 Farrington Mill Road.

This annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits, but is contiguous to an existing satellite.

The current zoning is residential rural.

The applicant proposes to change this designation to Plan Development Residential 4.313 with a textual development plan to allow up to 115 townhouses and single single family homes.

The properties are currently designated mixed residential neighborhood on the place type map.

The proposed PDR for point three one three zoning is generally consistent with the designated use shown on the place type map.

If the proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type designation of mixed residential neighborhood.

Thank you.

Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you.

Um Council Colleagues, does anyone have any questions for staff?

Okay.

I'm going to go ahead and declare the public hearing open.

I'm going to go first to online speakers.

If oh, go ahead, Patrick.

I'm like Mayor Pro Tem, if I could have about uh 10 minutes, that'd be great.

Okay.

Um good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of the City Council.

I'm Patrick Piker.

I live at 2614 Stewart Drive.

I'm an attorney with Morningstar Law Group, and I'm here tonight representing Tri-Point Homes.

With us tonight are our team leader, Mandy Hoyle with Tri-Point, and Tim Sivers, the president of CUNADY, our land planning and engineering firm for this mixed residential neighborhood that we are calling Britmore.

At the outset, and as noted in your staff report, we are pleased that this rezoning complies with 23 out of 27 applicable policies in our comp plan.

This is a very strong degree of compliance in my experience.

I wish to emphasize our commitment that impervious surface will be limited to no more than 50 percent.

Accordingly, half of this site's acreage will be green space, tree cover, open space, and undisturbed.

That's a strong commitment since the UDO allows up to 70 percent impervious surface in this section of Durham.

I want to emphasize that there are no wetlands or stream buffers or other sensitive environmental features on the Britmore site.

Nevertheless, in response to a concern raised with the Planning Commission, our team committed to a 50-foot undisturbed area, with the exception of UDO required stub-outs along the western edge of Brittmore to serve as a wildlife corridor.

In regard to such environmental concerns, the Britmore proposal that follows our place type map is far better than the buyright development of 37 estate homes with a septic field with septic fields in the Jordan Lake protected area.

It is important for the council to know that there is an established market for multimillion dollar estate homes in this section of Durham, as evidenced by all the recent sales of single-family homes in the Down neighborhoods in the Downs neighborhood that are over $1 million, as reflected on the Zillow website.

In fact, some of the properties are selling higher, between $2.8 million and $3.75 million.

The lastly, the most recent home built in the Downs has an apprised value, appraised value in excess of $5 million, as you can see on the upper right corner of this slide.

Keep in mind these homes pay county taxes only.

I find it admirable that Tri-Point is not taking the by-right estate home route.

Instead, we are building a community, proposing to build a community that will provide much needed housing and a much needed diversity of housing by delivering single-family townhouses and affordable units, all while contributing a cumulative net gain of $2.5 million to city tax revenues over a 10-year period.

Younger Durhamites have been frozen out of home buying in this section of Durham, and I believe Britmore will be an opportunity many of our younger Durham residents will be excited about.

When we look at Britmore in relation to our adopted comprehensive plan, a key component and perhaps the dominant theme is densify inside the urban growth boundary.

If you look at the Montclair neighborhood in the upper right corner of this slide, that was approved about 10 years ago, and the PDR densities were two units per acre and 2.87 units per acre.

In addition, Montclair has only one housing type, single-family detached, and that is enshrined in Montclair's Declaration of Restrictive Covenants.

For Britmore, our PDR is 4.313 units per acre, and we are providing a combination of single-family homes and town homes to diversify the housing inventory in this section of Durham.

Next, I want to highlight the traffic information on page five of your staff report in regard to traffic.

This proposal increases traffic generation from this 27-acre site by 55 trips in the AM peak and 74 trips in the PM peak.

City of Durham Transportation staff has confirmed that Farrington Mill Road has sufficient capacity for this new development.

Furthermore, there are fewer trips on Farrington Mill Road today than were recorded by NCDOT both in 2017 and 2019.

It is important to note that the current traffic on Farrington Mill Road is almost entirely being generated by residents of Chatham County in neighborhoods like Governor's Club, Governor's Village, and Carolina Meadows.

Traffic also comes from the Amberley neighborhood in Northwest Cary that straddles the Wake Chatham County line.

From our community outreach, and given the background pass by traffic just mentioned, we understand there is concern from Montclair residents about the prospect of cut through traffic upon the completion of Shorecrest Road down to Farrington Mill Road.

Accordingly, we proposed a four-way stop sign condition in the middle of the Britmore development, but unfortunately, that proposal did not fly with the city's transportation staff.

TriPoint is happy to reinstate this four-way stop as a text commitment if it is requested by the council.

If this commitment were reinstated, any traffic trying to get from Farrington Mill Road to Barbie Chapel Road would need to go through five stop signs, as opposed to the existing one stop sign on Millchapel Road, if a commuter today from Chatham County was going to cut through Montclair to get to UNC.

To be a good neighbor, we are you we are offering a text commitment that all construction related traffic shall be required to enter Britmore off of Farrington Mill Road, well away from the Montclair neighborhood, which is something you can see on this slide.

When Montclair was approved, it was clear at that time that this acreage to the south would be developed at some point in the future.

Here on this slide is the stub out of Shore Crest Road in Montclair that was stubbed out to the Britmore site.

In fact, the Montclair Declaration of Restrictive Covenants states in Section 16.07 that areas adjacent to Montclair are subject to further development and expansion.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that there also is sewer infrastructure stubbed out here, as you can see where you see on this slide, and that sewer has capacity to serve the 27 acres we are discussing tonight.

And that sewer has capacity to serve the 27 acres we are discussing tonight.

Brittmore will be served by gravity sewer.

No lift stations will be required.

And the construction of the waterline extension that will create a water loop through Brittmore and then along Farrington Mill Road and then up Mill Chapel Road should improve water pressure in the Montclair neighborhood as a community benefit.

Just to show how the Brittmore development was anticipated.

This slide shows an aerial view of where the water where the road and sewer connection will tie into the existing City of Durham infrastructure.

Next, I wish to refer to a recent statewide study done by about North Carolina's housing shortage.

According to Bowen National Research, in a study commissioned by our state chamber of commerce, Durham needs 15,293 for sale homes to meet the demand for that type of housing over the 2024-2029 time frame.

I wish to direct your attention to the bottom center of the chart on this slide.

This 27-acre property in Southwest Durham, which has good access to all the jobs at UNC Hospital, which was designated mixed use mixed residential neighborhood on the future place type map, which has no sensitive environmental features on the site, has a road stub out with water and sewer infrastructure that was put in place about a decade ago, and sufficient road capacity adjacent to the site.

That exemplifies an ideal location for addressing that 15,000 unit for sale housing shortfall that we are looking at right now.

To wrap up, Brittmore contains both townhouses and single family homes, unlike most of the rezonings over the past 20 years.

Brittmore also contributes affordable housing to help address Durham's housing supply problem that I just referred to a moment ago.

And we are providing 10% of the single family homes to have a first floor bedroom.

This evening we extend that tax commitment to include a first floor kitchen as well in those homes, so there will be age and mobility inclusion in Britmore if we are fortunate enough to receive your approval.

Our team also has worked hard to focus on sustainability, and we are doing that through TriPoint's Living Smart program.

And we will commit on the record to include conduit for all single family homes so that every home buyer has the option to install rooftop solar panels and provide a circuit for EV charging in every garage, which is in furtherance of policy 59 in our comprehensive plan to encourage private investment in electric vehicle infrastructure.

In closing, this is a strong proposal that hits the mark on 23 out of 27 applicable comprehensive plan policies.

For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval.

Our team will be happy to answer any questions.

We very much appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

Sorry.

All right.

So uh we will go to our speakers.

And I'll start with my online speakers first.

All right.

Uh Patrick Mark, I'm sorry, Mark Patrick.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Williams, and Durham City Council members for the opportunity to raise a point of concern about their proposed Bridmore development.

My name is Mark Patrick, and I live in the Montclair neighborhood as planned to directly connect both road and sewer with the proposed Brittmore development.

Uh first slide, please.

I have two slides.

If that's possible.

Yep, go yep, go ahead.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um the first of uh two slides are images from previous public meetings.

You may recall we just saw uh similar images a few minutes ago regarding the uh this development showing the Britmore and Montclair Road and sewer connections through Shorecrest Road as uh shown there.

Um basically it's um this showing that top one top image is just the overview and then the image we see we saw this famous goes out of shore crest and how that sewer line is going to be uh would be connected uh going down further down shore crest.

The second slide, please.

I can't see the my screen, so I assume you can see it.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect.

Okay, four images here.

Uh the second slide simply shows several perspectives that unequivocally document the appreciable high and steep drop off, literally within a few feet of the end of the paved section of Shorecrest Road, under which the sewer connection from Britt Moore is proposed.

Recall then the first slide that picture that was shown in my slides as well as just a few minutes ago.

A few minutes ago, does not show that drop-off.

To this point, I've heard during this and several public meetings.

Concerning Montclair's sewer connection, uh quote quote, just we've heard a few minutes ago, will be served with gravity flow, unquote, with no other detail provided.

This thought has always puzzled me since my home has a line of sight right down Shorecrest Road, knowing that water and sewers do not run uphill on its own.

Council members, in closing, I hope that in consideration of the many speakers tonight and during the previous public meetings who have highlighted a broad range of negative impacts about the proposed Britt Moore development that you will vote no to Brittmore.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Christopher Peckham.

Christopher, can you hear me?

Hi, folks, in my audible.

Welcome.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, folks.

I'm Chris Peckham, President of the Montclair HOA, and my address is on file.

This evening we've heard from the developer about the reasons why we should accept their proposal to develop more housing units than currently zoned.

They say that it will help us with our housing shortage.

They say it will provide affordable and accessible housing.

They also have in their proposal that they will make an investment in Durham Schools.

This all sounds good until you dig in a little deeper.

Housing shortage.

There are three to four thousand housing units being sold or under construction within three miles of this area, and another three to four thousand under review.

So their development does not add to this substantially.

Affordable and accessible housing?

This development will only give us six more affordable homes and twelve more accessible homes, and they will be two and a half miles from the year's bus stop without adequate walking or biking paths to get there.

Investment in public schools.

Their development will give us approximately 20 new students, each of which is projected to cost us over $5,000 per year in operating costs.

They want to pay us $10,500, so they basically just want to cover two students for a year.

So what do we get from this development?

You'll hear much more about this from the other speakers that follow me, but let me offer this.

According to the city manager's cost-benefit analysis, we get a run rate of about 300K per year starting three to four years from now.

But this is only about four one-hundredths of one percent of the city's budget, far from the city's policy on annexation that requires a substantial benefit to the community.

Instead, the community gets 771 more vehicles on our roads daily, causing more backups and accidents at Farrington Mill and Barbie Chapel or its stagecoach.

Or maybe they're cutting through Britt Moore in Montclair to avoid these intersections.

Hopefully they avoid our residents as well.

They will definitely be advancing the decay on the roads and on an already crumbling bridge that you'll hear about.

We will also get additional impact to our natural areas, to our wildlife, and to our very own drinking water, and you'll hear more about that soon.

And finally, you're going to get the ire of a civic voting community because increasing housing density in this area is simply going to cause more harm than good.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Next, I have Jasmine Labad.

That was in the previous case.

Oh, sorry, you're in person now.

All right, in person.

So I will call up a series of names, five at a time.

First, Julie McJulie McClintock, followed by Eleanor Sanders, followed by Barry Sanders, Kate Haim, and Elizabeth Bibby Moore.

In that order, good evening, Mayor Williams and Council members.

I'm Julie McClintock, and my address is on file.

I oppose the rezoning along with my neighbors.

To begin, we don't have enough information about the project to determine whether the zoning change is really warranted.

This project relies on a textual development plan chosen by the applicant, which omits key details.

As a result, it's challenging for us who travel these roads daily to comment or guess the contents of the final plan.

We don't understand how a rural property with limited infrastructure and transit will function.

The planning commission also lacked confidence in this project and did not recommend it.

The development plan so far is a mixed residential project comprising unspecified types of homes and townhomes.

Do we know where they will be placed?

Do we know where the streams and buffers are located?

What is the actual traffic impact?

How much truly affordable housing is there?

What happens if the zoning is approved, and staff finds it impossible to fit 115 units on only 13 usable acres without infringing on stream buffers.

It will be too late for the city to revert the property to rural residential without the owner's approval, and that won't happen.

The future of this area's mobility is in your hands because you determine the increased traffic incrementally, project by project.

Road capacity is insufficient now to accommodate additional cars, and this is unlikely to change.

The Army Corps of Engineers will continue to limit transit improvements to protect its primary mission, and that is the Jordan Lake watershed and our drinking water supply.

We call upon you, the city, the Durham City Council, to provide a manageable framework for future growth and deny a zoning change for this property.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

Good evening, Councilmembers.

I'm Eleanor Saunders.

I'm moved every time I come here, so thank you for your work and thoughtfulness.

I live in Orange County right now, but I return a few times a week to my childhood home in the Downs neighborhood in Durham County.

To begin with, I'm a 38-year-old physician with privilege and without children, and I feel priced out of Durham where I grew up and went to Durham, Jordan High School.

But that doesn't mean that I support short-sighted development.

And my parents bought their one and a half story, 1600 square foot house for 150,000 in 1991.

So the multimillion dollar bias doesn't tell the whole story of houses in the downs or that I grew up around.

Um a lot of these were open lots.

So this map that I'm showing you comes from comes from the Durham GIS server.

It shows topo lines in orange and wetlands in this aqua color, so that's not all water, but that's wetlands.

The Britmore parcel is a red square being covered up by the teleprompter, but in the lower left.

So Interstate 40 is this yellow line from the upper left to the lower right, and Route 54.

Uh, you can see across east to west.

Um, but what I most want you to appreciate is how wet and and how low this far corner of the county is and how narrow the north-south ridges of higher ground are that support two-lane rural roads and dwellings.

All of us who have lived there or lived there feel our proximity to the water.

The Britmore parcel in red sits in a protective zone for Jordan Lake.

It adjoins the critical zone where dense development can't happen.

Drainage into Jordan is mostly via Little Creek to the east and a tiny bit via Morgan Creek to the west.

Both creeks are already overburdened, and the lake arms that they flow into already bear too high a nutrient load.

Generally, development pressure on Jordan on Durham Creeks draining into North Jordan Lake is intensifying.

Development in sensitive locations will degrade water quality.

Okay.

All new developments bring it new impervious surfaces, leaking vehicles, and landscaping fertilizers all contribute nutrient and toxin pollution to lake water that serves drinking and recreation uses.

And here are some of the eutrophic or nutrient overburdened conditions that presently occur throughout the shallow northern arms of the lake.

Although Britmore developers propose to limit impervious surfaces to 50 percent and to catch drainage in a pond, 13 acres of new cement and development in this appropriately rurally zoned place.

That's simply too much for the ecosystem to bear.

Thank you.

Council members, thank you for hearing us tonight.

I'm Barry Saunders from Kennebec Drive in Durham County.

This is zoomed in from the map Eleanor just showed you.

The Britmore parcel is in the Jordan Lake FJB protective zone and adjoins the critical zone.

Drainage into Jordan, as she said, is mostly via Little Creek to the east, a small bit via Morgan Creek to the west.

NCDEQ classifies both these creeks as protected water supply and sensitive to additional nutrient loads.

Yet they and the northern part of Juden Lake are increasingly impaired, thanks largely to Durham and Chapel Hill.

It seems likely the taxpayers will eventually wind up paying to remediate this someday, somehow.

The Durham Soils map above shows several intermittent streams on the Britmore parcel.

This is the UDO required reference.

The Britmore team has not submitted any on-site stream determinations that contravene these streams.

The aerial photo below, Brittmore in red, simply highlights the same stream location shown on the soils map.

These streams enter parcels of Army Corps Lake buffer outlined in purple, and they continue northward.

Intermittent streams require, will require 100-foot riparian buffers.

These are roughly marked here.

Look how buffers restrict what land can be graded and built.

One of the streams is already within 100 feet of the Montclair stub road at the Britmore northern boundary.

Hard to imagine how that road can connection.

We've seen images of it, can fail to violate a buffer.

That road is aptly named Shorecrest because it's perched 20 feet overlooking and intruding into a stream bed or the buffer of a stream bed.

Shore crest.

In view of the stream map map, which the developers have not referenced, in the convenient sparseness of their textual application, their own schematic of the development is misleading.

Streams will limit what developers can build.

Only a high proportion of townhomes could squeeze 115 units onto 13 acres.

Much better, far fewer units, much less roof and pavement to limit impacts of this development on sensitive ecosystems and water bodies down slope.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Council members.

My name is Kate Heim, and I am a toxicologist, and my address is 7624 Kennebec Drive in the Downs.

Many aspects of the Britmore application do not meet policies for or the objectives of the environment goal for harmonious and respectful development of the Durham County Comprehensive Plan.

This picture is of a pond that exists there now, approximately 2.5 acres, that according to the plan I'll show that was shared by the developer, will be filled in or it will not be feasible to develop it.

There is a report out here we referenced before the landscape analysis for wildlife habitat connectivity in Durham County, North Carolina, and it's the Durham County itself open space program.

Here I want to show that there are you can see the wildlife habitat areas throughout and how we're talking about right down in this corner.

There are many undisturbed areas for which building can be done, such as the two zoning requests previously put before.

These policies both come with a designation of D, which are the ones that have the greatest impact on development cases.

Here you can see that the high priority habitat that is designated in that open space program runs right through here.

This is the map of the Britmore area, the existing pond, and this corridor that comes through here to connect these high priority areas.

According to the plan that was put forth at that initial community meeting by Britton itself, not only would it not protect this, but it would build houses, put in a stormwater control measures, retention pond.

The tree preservation area is not even included in that high priority area, and the townhomes would go where the pond is, destroying what current habitat there is.

Sorry.

For example, the application says that it's not applicable.

There are no identified sensitive natural areas on this site.

My previous slide shows that there are.

No commitment exists to protect or connect these or even acknowledge them.

Therefore, I ask, please stick to the Durham Comprehensive Plan to build Durham responsibly.

We do not need this type of development in this area, but rather in places like the previous two zoning requests discussed this evening.

So please do not approve annexing Britmore.

Thank you for your attention.

And as Ms.

Vivius getting ready, the next five speakers will be James Cohen.

Linda Castal Costagliola.

All right.

Holtz Farley.

Joe Sagula.

Good evening, Council members, and I wish you kindness.

I sincerely do.

My name is Elizabeth Moore, and my address is on record.

I live across the street from this proposed development.

And I want to be clear that my concern is not with town homes or future residents.

It's about whether this level of density is appropriate for this for this location.

The Durham Comprehensive Plant emphasizes context sensitive development, appropriate transitions in density, directing higher density housing to areas with adequate infrastructure.

Okay.

Can you see that this is actually divided into four?

Whoops.

Okay.

This is Orange County.

This is Durham County, Wake County, and then down here, Chatham County.

Here is the boundaries of these counties, and this arrow points to the development that you're being asked to consider.

Do you see this Y shape up here of black, dark green material?

That's considered a wildlife corridor with tree cover and access to water.

See how it flows down here through Durham County, the southwest corner, right into.

I guess you can't see my little arrow there, down into Jordan Lake.

At any rate.

The Brute Murray Housing Proposal is misplaced at this location because of environmentally sensitive site for protecting Jordan Lake drinking water.

And a Durham County mature oak hickory forests serving as wildlife corridor adjacent to natural heritage area, Morgan Creek, and the Little Creek watershed.

It's inappropriate fit with surrounding area used for agriculture, recreation, wildlife, and smaller footprints, sinker fan small.

I need a new tongue.

Durham comprehensive plan policies number 83.

Leave wildlife corridors undisturbed.

Discourage development that destroys biodiversity.

Look at this site.

It will look like this.

These are the town homes three miles away.

Fifteen trial point townhomes are 20.

Oh.

I can close this.

You do do.

I don't want to pat my head and rub my tummy at the same time.

I'm John Cowan.

I'm the owner of Blue Sun Farm directly across the road from this development.

I have 112 acres there with uh horses, sheep, hay.

Um we uh we are critical the most highest level of critical Jordan Lake watershed.

I don't see how sixty feet away across a road, it can be just absolutely okay to do massive development.

Um the planning commission voted unanimously to remove this area from the growth boundary, and the city council overrode that.

Um the developers conveniently giving you maps that don't show the extent to which this area is thousands of acres of protected waterlands and wetlands and um critical and critical wow and critical uh natural habitat.

Uh there are two ponds there on opposite sides.

Our pond uh is a home to uh Hooded Merganzers, buffleheads, kingfishers.

We have Osprey, and we're looking around for bald eagle nests.

So that's right across the street from where they want to develop.

Um current plans for the Western Water Project Pipeline go directly through this area where they say they're gonna somehow uh alleviate the traffic.

They're gonna have hundreds of traffic events coming out directly across from my farm.

They want to divert the construction traffic to uh beside my farm, not the other direction.

There have been 40 publicized accidents at Farrington and uh 54.

That's been a tremendous problem.

The traffic there is horrendous all the time.

Um I've committed myself to run my horse, sheep, hay, and honey farm, and ensure our vital and growing rural community continues forward forever.

This is a community.

It's not empty space.

This is not an unused area.

Um, this area must be restricted to rural farming and single-family homes.

The vague proposal here addresses none of the very strong reasons not to develop and would be typical for a simple infill of an urban area.

This proposal is going from zero to 1,000, uh, destroying our natural resources forever.

I've committed my land to the volunteer agriculture district for 10 years, joining at least two other VAD properties nearby.

I have 17 employees who work for me.

They talk about uh jobs for young people.

I hire young people, I have seven homes on my land.

I provide more low-income housing on my farm than they propose already.

We raise honeybees and hay, and we produce sheep a source of meat to underserved ethnic communities.

We have a large equestrian resource center and are employing North Carolina State Agricultural Program graduates and students supporting and teaching the people who will grow your food tomorrow.

I'm getting public funding from Durham County Soil and Water, state funding for conservation and improved community water, but right across the road, the development impact of Jordan Lake would be devastating.

Uh it would be demanding a grave risk to the Army Corps to reduce flood control with the waterfowl impoundments.

Thank you.

Control L.

Okay, there it is.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, City Council members.

My name is Linda Costagliola, and my home address is on file.

The Triangle West Vision Zero Plan is a regional report endorsed by jurisdictions from Durham to Carborough, making the highlighting of the potential dangers of these local rural roads here even more significant.

The intersections that would be affected by Britt Moore are all classified as regional high-risk intersections for fatal or injury crashes.

I'm sure it wasn't anticipated when these rural roads were laid out that they would be used for such dense developments.

It's hard to see in the low resolution map, but Barbie Chapel Road, Farrington Road, and Stagecoach Road are shown to be in the top 15% of highest risk for crashes.

A development at the density of Britmore on these rural roads is quite literally an accident waiting to happen.

Farrington Mill Road is one of the top feed top five speed risk locations in Durham County and is the major road impacted by this development.

I direct you to the red circle, which indicates the likelihood of a fatal or injury crash in this area.

A disconnected walk bite skate path will be only along the frontage of the development on Farrington Mill Road.

The path would end pretty much directly across the street from Keply Road, making pedestrian skaters and cyclists suddenly without designated safe pathways right where the Downs community access is.

All it would take is one distracted or careless driver and one pedestrian or cyclist to go beyond the stretch of the path.

And well, you figure that one out.

Kepley Road is the primary access point for the Downs community.

No secondary or public access roads are available for this development.

Driving will be the only option for residents to get to work, school, shopping, recreation, et cetera, thus adding more vehicles on already crowded and dangerous rural roads.

Many of the suggested mitigation strategies cannot be implemented since the Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over much of the adjoining area and historically has not given access to expand or make changes.

There are no scheduled city of Durham or NC DOT roadway improvement projects in the area.

Thank you.

Hello, Mayor Williams and Council members.

My name is Holt Farley.

I live on Keply Road.

I'm here to address flaws in the Britmore transportation analysis.

I've sent each of you a detailed written review.

I'll briefly summarize the key points.

The traffic summary lists, this is in the proposal.

The traffic summary list, roadway capacity, latest traffic volume, and traffic added by the project.

No guidance is given to how to interpret these numbers.

A casual reader might simply add Brittmore traffic to the latest traffic and conclude that the road remains below capacity.

That conclusion would be wrong.

What is not shown in this traffic summary?

What is not shown is the traffic summary uses a Florida DOT manual to determine road capacity.

That manual includes a critical footnote, which in plain terms states that level of service D used here for this road type already represents a grid-locked level of service F, which is not an acceptable operation.

Also, the latest traffic volume is old 2023 data.

By Brittmore's completion in 2029, that latest traffic flow will be six years out of date.

Further, the analysis completely ignores ambient traffic growth and cumulative impacts of all the nearby concurrent projects.

Continuing this trend shows ambient growth alone will push the road into gridlock by 2028.

This projection does not include traffic from Britain or 15 other nearby housing projects, or the commuter traffic from huge new developments in Orange and Chatham counties.

In fact, the developers already pointed out there's a great deal of commuter traffic coming from the south, and it comes up Farrington Mill Road.

In summary, the transportation impact summary makes no effort to estimate realistic future conditions, ignores the cumulative impact of many other concurrent projects, and misrepresents the road capacity.

Ambient growth alone will soon gridlock Farrington Mill Road, creating serious traffic and safety hazards.

Coming up, the next speaker is Tom Galloway, Beth C.

Buchanan, Jackie Lambertson, Eddie Williamson, and Larry Titum.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, and Council members.

Appreciate your patience.

It's been quite a night already.

My name is Joe Segula.

I live on Keply Road in the Downs.

I'd like to follow up on what Mr.

Farley has addressed and explain how Farrington Mill Road fits into the larger road network and why traffic in this area cannot be realistically mitigated.

Farrington Mill Road, along with U.S.

15501 and Route 751 have become a major conduit into Durham from the southwest.

All Farrington Mill Road traffic is forced into just three roads west towards Chapel Hill on Barbie Chapel, north towards I-40 on Farrington Mill, on Farrington Road, and east towards South Point on Stagecoach Road.

There are no alternative through roads.

These three roads already function as busy commuter roads, especially when congestion builds on both 54 and I-40.

And continued residential development just keeps adding traffic to this already constrained network.

If you look at this map, it highlights the land managed by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, which provides critical flood control into Jordan Lake, which you've heard about already.

These three major intersections fed by Farrington Mill are confined by this land.

Congestion at these locations is often severe, and as you've heard, it backs up for more than a half a mile on a regular basis.

For more than 30 years, the Army Corps has refused to release land for road expansion.

As a result, multiple regional transportation studies working with the NCDOT have acknowledged that Army Corps approvals are not possible.

So thinking about potential core approvals will certainly not solve this problem.

To summarize, Brittmore traffic will only add significantly to an already overburdened and constrained road network.

And most importantly, emergency service vehicles, which we've heard about.

Access to this corridor, our homes will be significantly compromised.

And once again, I want to say, let's not forget Farrington Mill Road has been documented as one of the top five most dangerous roads in Durham.

And for those reasons, I ask you to vote no.

Thank you.

How do we get his off?

I don't know how to get mine on.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Tom Galloway, and my address is on file.

I want to show you two maps.

Map number one shows a three-mile radius around Brittmore.

Notice the major transportation corridors are on the perimeter, 501 to the west, 54 and I-40 to the north, and 751 to the east.

Our local roads, including Farrington Mill Road, are in the center.

The yellow dots show Britmore and Morgan Farm, which are 0.7 miles apart on Farrington Mill Road.

These roads have a finite traffic capacity and are already nearing that capacity.

This map also shows 18 housing developments with nearly 7,0400 units that have been advanced since October 22.

That map is down here.

I also give you a gave you a hand up.

Nearly all of these developments, if you notice, all of these developments are near the major highway corridors.

There are no developments on our local roads except proposed Brittmore and Morgan Farm.

Our local road infrastructure simply cannot absorb high density development.

Because our highways are already congested, commuters are increasingly diverting to our local roads.

Farrington Mill Road is the primary commuter bypass between Durham, Chatham, and Orange Counties.

Traffic on Farrington Mill increased 12.9% from August 24 to August of 25.

The projections you just heard reflect ambient growth only.

They exclude development traffic from all of these developments on this map.

Yet 3,300 of those units will come online in the next three years, worsening highway congestion and diverting more traffic to our local roads.

Because of this, Farrington Mill will reach LOSF by 2028.

We can't control commuter behavior, but you can control development growth.

I urge you to deny dense housing developments of any size on our local roads.

Our road infrastructure cannot absorb the additional traffic.

Please vote no on Bridmore.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, City Council members.

My name is Betsy Buchanan, and my husband and I moved into the Downs a little over 50 years ago.

I'm so glad you want to hear more about traffic.

For years, Farrington Mill was a peaceful country road.

Developments grew and traffic increased, and there are certain times of the day now when we can't even leave the downs.

Britt Moore's proposed access into Farrington Mills directly across from Keply Road is one of the most dangerous curves on the road.

To add another several hundred cars to that traffic line at that point is not thoughtful planning.

Since Chapel Hill was not able to build their bypass several years ago, Farrington Mill has become the backroads bypass, serving several areas like Pittsburgh, Kerry, and Apex.

When questioned about the 850 units being built between Highway 54 and Barbie's Chapel, a developer answered recently, well, when traffic backs up on 54, they'll just take Barbie Chapel.

And that illustrates the disconnect regarding ambient traffic because Farrington Mill tees in to Barbie Travel, and any cars traveling east on that road will affect us.

The Durham Planning Commission and your city council study each proposal individually, but all of these developments put together are creating a real strain on the roads in our area, not to mention the several other topics of concern.

I hope you've driven out Farrington Mill to see how unique this area is.

Traffic is one of the many reasons we hope you will not approve the zoning or development of this area.

Everyone who uses Farrington Mill will be affected by your decision.

We do not think this is a good plan for Durham.

Good evening.

I rented a log cabin at the end of Farrington Mill Road, which was the last mailbox on post office Route 1, Box 106.

Jordan Lake, the Governor's Club, and Four Lane Highway 15501 between Pittsburgh and Chapel Hill had not even been drapped yet.

There was no bridge connecting Durham County to Chatham County past my end of Farrington Mill Road, only a dirt road which was used by hunters.

I left the log cabin in 1979 and returned in 1999 to live in the downs on Kennebec Drive for 10 years.

In 2022, my husband and I moved into the retirement community adjacent to Farrington Road in Chatham County called Carolina Meadows, where over 700 senior citizens over 75 travel almost exclusively down Farrington Mill Road to shop and seek other services such as doctors' visits and pharmacies.

Driving Farrington Mill Road for over 40 years, I can attest that it has not greatly changed.

The road may be a bit wider, but the path and the ditches look the same.

The pressure on the road, however, has greatly increased as it has become the main artery for commuters from North Carolina 64 to I-40 West and Durham.

New construction on NC 64 between Raleigh and Jordan Lake continues to place an increasing burden on this narrow country road.

I call upon you to reject this zoning request on the grounds of maintaining reliable roads for the safety of the residents of the of all the common areas feeding the road and most especially for the senior citizens at senior residents at Carolina Meadows.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Eddie Williamson.

My wife and I moved into Montclair in March of 24.

We came back to this area because of grandkids.

I have coached college football for 40 years.

I coached at Carolina and I coached at Duke.

So I've lived in Durham before.

We moved into Montclair.

I have a grandson, my namesake, that goes to Jordan High School and was playing on the junior varsity football team.

It was important, and the reason I moved back to Durham to see my grandkids.

His first home game, 4.3 miles to Jordan High School.

I left 35 minutes before the game started.

Now they played at 6 o'clock, so that put me on the road at 5.30.

We got there in time to see the last two plays of the first quarter.

I went stagecoach road that trip.

The next trip, I went 54 to Jordan High School.

I got there by the middle of the first quarter, so I thought I'd made a little ground.

But from then on for the home games, I would drive up Farrington Road, try to get across at 54 and continue up Farrington Road till I got to Old Chapel Hill, turned there, and came down Garrett Road from the north side.

Just so I could see my grandson.

And I have come from tournaments in Greensboro and Burlington and Alamance County, and when I get back to 54, coming down 40 west to east.

We're not supposed to live that way.

And there's nowhere, nowhere that you can build more roads because of the Army Corps of Engineers.

I recruited Houston, Texas when I was in Texas at TCU.

I never left the high school without getting a drink of water and going to the restroom because there's a lot of traffic down there.

And I actually carried a cup for emergencies.

I am getting to the point I almost think I have to carry a cup here for emergencies.

The only problem is that my wife travels to all those games to see our grandson, and that won't work for her.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As he's uh getting prepared.

I'm sorry.

Um Larry, you're Larry.

Yep.

As Mr.

Tietam is getting prepared.

Final speaker, Scott Dickinson and that race, Kathy Rexrod, Rex Road, and Dana Young.

Okay.

My name is Larry Keatum.

My address is on file.

I'm just going to talk briefly about maybe 300 feet.

That's the Little Creek Bridge.

Little Creek Bridge was built in 1979, and it had to be Rick wrapped in 2006.

The manufacturer of RICRAP recommends that the bridge the Rick Rack gets inspected every six months.

I can't find any record where it's been inspected.

Last record of inspection of this bridge was in 2023 where it was structurally poor, structurally deficient, meets the minimum tolerable limits to be left in place unremited.

The banks of the bridge are beginning to slump to the side.

River control devices and embankment protection is widely widespread minor damage.

There are minor streambed movements that have not been accounted for.

The NCDOT is originally going to replace this bridge in 2025.

They pushed it back now to 2030.

Any construction vehicles that are coming across this bridge, we are frequently waiting for traffic to pass because we have tractor trailers coming down what ostensibly is a small community bridge.

The pictures that you're seeing are the underlying infrastructure, and as you can see by these two pictures, how the ground and the bridge itself are degrading.

The red lines around the road surface here, these are topographical, and as you can see, the closer lines are showing how steep the banks are.

There's no place to widen this bridge.

This is the underside of the bridge.

As you can see, it's separating.

At the east end of the bridge, there has developed a dip that has progressively gotten deeper.

Anyone who goes across it will tell you they get the bounce as they leave the bridge and hit the road surface.

For this, as added to the other traffic issues, I encourage you to vote no for this project.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh Mayor Williams, City Council members.

My name is Scott Dickerson.

I live off of Kapele Boat Road, very near this site.

Due to uh explosive growth of the over the past several years, Durham needs water.

In 2022 alone, the City of Durham fell short by over 1.1 million gallons of water each day, and now relies on the town of Kerry to fill that gap.

To provide water for the current and future development, the Western Intake Partnership, WIP will tap into the Jordan Lake water supply.

Durham is the lead partner in this program in this project, and a key part is the construction of a raw water transmission line from Jordan Lake up to Highway 751 for treatment and distribution.

Almost half of the 16 and a half mile transmission line will run along the already congested and dangerous roads in the Bretmoor area.

This pipeline will run directly along the frontage of the Brittmore site.

The construction of this force main will affect our already heavy traffic for roughly four years.

Keep in mind our roads are the bypass between 15 and 501 and Chapel in Chatham County and I-40 in Durham.

And they are also the shortest route between Kerry and Chapel Hill.

While Britt Moore may be in a future growth area, this area will now bear a four-year burden in order to deliver water for both the current and future growth in Durham.

We ask you not to add to our growing pains.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tam Caballero, and other esteemed council members.

My name is Annette Rice, and my address is obviously on file.

I'm here tonight to once again remind you that the Brit Moore site is in a future growth area.

But I'm sure that all of the things that my colleagues have shared with you tonight show you that this area isn't quite ripe for development of this sort.

There are necessary infrastructure projects that are going to affect this area for the next 10 years.

You can see the blue arrow pointing down to just how small this future growth area is within Durham County.

There's a timeline here of the approved infrastructure projects versus the proposed developments.

If you look here, you'll see that the proposed Brittmore neighborhood build begins in roughly 2026.

They're already surveying out there.

Goes from 2026 to 2030.

The water intake partnership line, the Western Intake Partnership Raw Water Main Construction is going to affect these roads from 19 from 27 until 31.

Remember, nearly half of the length of that raw water main conduit is going to affect us.

It's going to really affect our area.

When Larry spoke to you about the Little Creek Bridge replacement, that is going to take three years from start to finish.

We're looking at definitely 29 to 31.

An additional project that nobody has mentioned yet is the stagecoach sewer main relocation.

I'll show you that a little bit on the next slide, but this is something that is actually going to take the stagecoach sewer main, move it further out of this Army Corps of Engineers property, and that way it'll better serve the areas where future growth will happen and growth already is happening.

Additionally, we have the proposed Morgan Farm neighborhood build, which you'll hear later on this year.

Not shown on this chart is the Highway 54 widening project that's currently listed on the 2026 to 2035 STIP.

So we don't firmly have it scheduled, but it's three separate phases.

We'll all route additional traffic onto our area roads.

We are the default bypass.

So from roughly 29 to 30, we are going to be in a world of hurt, even without any additional growth.

Take a look at this map, and you can see that I'm not an artist, but hey, it at least conveys what I'm trying to say.

Each of these projects is going to affect us.

Please don't allow this to happen to us.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, Cavio, and Council members.

Thank you for your patience and your attention to listening to us.

I know it's really late.

Um, and we wouldn't be here still if we didn't feel really strongly about it, so we do appreciate you.

Um I also wanted to commend Durham County for the work it took to create the comprehensive plan.

That was a lot of community involvement.

That was um a lot of collaboration, and I just want to take a minute to read from the section on the guiding value of accountability.

There are three guiding values in there, one of them is accountability, as you know, but it says to be truly committed to an equitable community, we must be accountable to our community with a clear purpose toward equitable outcomes.

We must intentionally involve and empower residents in the planning and development processes and invite and encourage developers to work with us toward our community goals and objectives.

We must invest our resources in ways that will achieve the values our community members say are important, like equity, accessibility, and resident well-being.

No to all of these things.

It's helpful that the developers agreed at the last planning commission meeting to include first floor bedrooms and a full bath and 10% of the single family homes built.

But what about the remaining 90% of family single-family homes in all of the townhomes?

Will any of the affordable units have a single accessibility feature?

And finally, does Durham County value its employees being able to live in the county?

The developers offering 5% of units affordable to those making 80% of the area mean income.

The AMI is currently 85K, 80% is $68,000 a year.

A teacher with a bachelor's degree in Durham Public Schools won't reach this base salary until they've worked in in the school for 26 years.

Please consider voting against this development proposal.

It does not meet the values that you have decided are important to Durham County.

Over the past few years, and you can see from these graphs how um I'll get to this in a second.

Over the past few years, housing supply in our region has surged, yet high prices make ownership out of reach for many Durham residents.

New construction has largely targeted the high end of the market.

These households earn too much to qualify for subsidies, but far too little to afford today's market prices.

According to the Durham Housing Dashboard, by 2035, and this is where these graphs come in, 44% of Durham's new jobs will be moderate and low-wage positions.

Four of Durham's top five occupations fall squarely into this income range.

As housing prices have risen, Durham's workforce has become increasingly cost burdened, locked out of home ownership, or forced to live outside the county and commute in.

While this may be a future growth area, it should not be high density growth.

This council has previously acknowledged that growth in lower density areas like this one requires careful consideration.

The open space, forests, wildlife, and habitats already serve our community and Durham as a whole.

Future planning should respect that value, remain consistent with community character and address infrastructure and other concerns.

We respectfully ask that you keep zoning rural residential and deferred development until a future growth plan can determine what will best serve all stakeholders.

Thank you.gov slash careers.

All right, let's settle up.

Settle down.

All right.

We've heard all of our speakers, all of our speakers that have signed up for tonight.

Back to the applicant.

Thank you, Mayor Williams.

Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, members of Council.

Uh very briefly would like to just address a few points.

First thing I want to be sure that we're uh Demont is making sure that Mike is erected.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, sir.

Um first thing I want to be clear about, our access for Brittmore and Ferrington Mill Road will not be opposite Keply Drive.

It is going to be further south, and this was again worked on with uh NCDOT in the city of Durham.

Uh it will not be opposite Kepley Road, it will be further south so that it is uh a safer traffic movement.

And of course, there will be turn lanes built uh for access in and out of Montclair.

I'm sorry, in and out of Brittmore and in order to keep construction traffic away from Montclair and promote safe ingress and egress, but the access point will not be opposite Kepley Road.

Um I wanted to share, I hope you can see this slide here.

The the traffic issues uh obviously are a major concern.

And it's important to recognize that the traffic count on Farrington Mill Road is actually below where it was uh pre-pandemic.

I I bring that up because we had a a very important community engagement exercise in Durham, and that was our comprehensive plan and the adoption of our future place type map.

And that happened over the course of 2022, 2023, maybe even started a little before that.

And the contention that uh four point three one three dwelling units per acre, which is the density we're asking for, requesting with Britmore is quote, high density, as many people said.

I think that flies in the face of the place type map that was adopted after we had a two-year community engagement process.

Um, for the densities like the downs to be built at this location, uh, the place type map designation should be I believe it's rural and agricultural reserve.

And that's how the downs is designated on our future place type map.

The Britmore site is designated mixed residential neighborhood.

If you're gonna combine two housing types, uh it calls for, I think four point three one three units per acre to implement what our place type map calls for.

And so we had a robust community engagement uh process to adopt the comprehensive plan and the future place type map.

I do not recall these arguments being made to the county commissioners or the city council at that time for the Britmore site.

Um it's important to recognize that Farrington Road is the delineation between the critical area, one mile from the uh elevation of Jordan Lake, the pool, the normal pool level of Jordan Lake, to um Farrington Mill Road is approximately a mile.

I bring that up because the City of Durham and Durham County have the strictest watershed ordinance in the triangle.

If we were in Wake County, Chatham County, or Ch or Chapel Hill, Raleigh, Carrie, it would be a half-mile critical area.

But we and I supported that back in 1995.

County commissioners like Ellen Rekow and Mary Ann Black voted for it.

The development community supported it.

We've never asked for that critical area to be reduced.

And so the designation of the future place type map respects the input of everybody in Durham that participated in that, and we designated this site that we're discussing tonight as mixed residential neighborhood.

It is clearly different from the Downs, which is designated rural and agriculture preserve.

So the slide you saw showing numerous buffers is simply incorrect.

It's simply what?

I'm sorry?

It's simply what?

Incorrect.

There are no jurisdictional buffers on this 27-acre site.

And again, that was information provided to the planning department six or eight months ago.

Also want to emphasize that the farm pond that was referred to, that's simply an irrigation, man-made irrigation pond.

It has no jurisdictional classification.

It is not connected to any to any waterway to any water, you know, stream uh that would connect it to any other body of water.

Therefore, it's a man-made pond, it's entitled to be uh removed.

We would like to also address um the workforce housing issue.

Um that's obviously one of the toughest issues we face as a as a community.

And I'm I recall uh a statement made by former President Joe Biden at a speech he gave in Las Vegas, and I believe the quote was quote the bottom line for lowering housing prices for good is build, build, build.

And I believe President Biden was correct.

And so what we're looking at today is 37 estate homes on this on this 27 acres with with no buffers, no one no uh none of the sustainability um commitments, none of the affordability commitments.

There would be 37 estate homes that probably would sell for well into seven figures.

Instead, Tri-Point has done the right thing, followed our place type map, put forward a development plan that hits the mark on 23 out of 27 applicable policies, and uh uh we would welcome uh the opportunity to answer your questions and perhaps explore other commitments to even improve upon that strong degree of compliance.

Um so we welcome your questions, we appreciate your time tonight, and we respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Um Thank you.

Complicated case here.

Yes, sir.

So I've got a couple of questions, and then so um the first thing is that the the planning commission both is down 63.

I just want to understand it seems like there have been that I just want to make sure it's clear.

I'm glad you asked that.

Uh in addition to we clarified that uh uh accessibility would be uh an important feature of my uh of Britmore.

Uh and so we amplified the uh discussion we had with the Planning Commission to not only to have ground floor bedrooms, but also have ground floor kitchens.

Uh so therefore it can be age and mobility accessible uh for 10 percent of the units.

Um we also uh we've researched it, we can meet the 100-year storm uh detention on site.

Uh RSCM uh can meet the 100-year stormwater uh treat the 100-year storm.

And so um we wanted to also put forward if if uh uh is it's clear that this is a special site.

We we appreciate that.

Uh we can also go on the record tonight saying that uh we will exceed the tree save.

Uh that was of the three or four policies that we didn't meet, one of them was exceeding tree save.

Uh and so we can do that by having 20 percent tree coverage and uh and then another one percent of tree replacement.

So we will go above and beyond what the ordinance requires in terms of tree coverage for this uh for this neighborhood.

Obviously, that's an important, that's an important characteristic of Durham that we have a great tree canopy and we will want to expand that.

So we'd like to make that uh text commitment on the put that text commitment on the record as well.

So thank you for that.

We talked about affordable, which is as you've noted, Councilmember.

Let's um see if you're um again.

Okay, yeah.

Is it maybe if you can use Councilmember Cook.

Sorry about that.

So um so we talked a lot about affordability, and as you said, and clearly if if we do nothing here, there could be 37 homes on septic, which is not a great, it's not what we want for the future of Durham, right?

Um but there are concerns about price point and sort of affordability.

So we care a lot about affordability here.