Durham City Council Work Session - June 17, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Durham City Council Work Session - June 17, 2024
The Durham City Council held a work session on June 17, 2024, beginning at 4:15 PM, to discuss a wide range of items including the Durham Rail Trail Project, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) update, various contract approvals, and public comments on procedural issues and community investments. The council also heard presentations and debated affordable housing density, equitable engagement, and displacement concerns.
Consent Calendar
- The council unanimously approved priority items introduced by the city manager: Agenda items #28 (Rail Trail Design Update and contract amendment), #39 and #40 (FAA Airport Improvement Program grants), #41 (ARPA sub-recipient agreement for Fitz Powell Affordable Housing), and #42 (executive recruitment services list). No formal vote was taken on administrative consent items; many were pulled for discussion and will be addressed at the next regular meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Jacqueline Wagstaff (former council member) argued that her right to speak at the June 10 budget public hearing was violated because the council’s 2 p.m. virtual sign-up deadline is not codified in the 2012 City Council procedure rules. She requested clarification and adherence to written procedures.
- DeLorean Langley expressed frustration over the lack of funding for transformative programs for boys and young men of color, noting that a participant in his career pathway program received a full-time employment offer at Microsoft. He requested $25,000 from the city budget and criticized the city for funding rent and salaries for some organizations while not investing in his volunteer-led work.
- Dan and John Wassila (business/property stakeholders) urged the council to address solid waste collection and homeless encampment issues on Orange Street, citing a recent fire that could have been more severe due to nearby restaurant grease centers.
Discussion Items
- Rail Trail Project (Item #28): McAdams presented a concept video and cost breakdown: the base trail ($16.3M), enhancements ($2.5M), and gateway park ($8.2M) total $36.4M. The base trail is fully funded via a $9M RAISE grant and city CIP; enhancements and park require future CIP appropriations (FY25: $2.4M design; FY26: construction). Construction is slated for spring 2026, with trail opening fall 2027. Council discussed economic development, displacement risks, and the need for value capture policies. Councilmember Baker raised concerns about property value increases and potential displacement. Councilmember Freeman highlighted the need for small/minority-owned business support and stay-in-place programs. The timeline was questioned but defended as realistic.
- Unified Development Ordinance Update (Item #28, part 2): Consultant Colin Scarf presented code audit findings and options for restructuring districts. Key points: combining low-intensity residential zones (RU5, RS8, RS10) into one “Residential Neighborhood” district; eliminating density caps (units per acre) in favor of height limits; allowing more units per lot could reduce monthly rents (e.g., from $3,400 to $2,000 for a hypothetical project). The pro forma analysis showed that removing density caps and allowing 8-10 units per lot significantly lowers rent. Council debated survey demographics (82% white, majority high-income) and the need for equitable engagement to reach underrepresented groups. Councilmembers Cook, Freeman, and Caballero stressed that online surveys alone are inadequate and urged parallel in-person outreach. The next public draft is expected in early 2025, with adoption late next year.
- Contract Items Pulled: #10 (Homeless Services Advisory appointments) – council directed staff to contact applicants to clarify which vacancy they seek (faith community or formerly homeless) due to application form missing those categories. #16 (Budget/CIP) – council requested a detailed comparison of CIP asks vs. adopted ordinance, noting the bond referendum’s impact. #18 (Moss & Ross communications) – council questioned whether the $6,000/month contract for Forever Home Durham communications duplicates in-house capacity and whether it counts toward MWBE goals. #19 (Corporate Facts technical assistance) – council learned the contract was extended due to HUD’s advice on complex funding rules for Commerce Street project. #20 (Volunteers of America) – discussion clarified VOA’s role in coordinated entry alongside Durham DSS. #34 (polygraph pre-employment exams) – council confirmed polygraphs are used as a check, not sole determinant, and are common in larger police departments. #36 (Little River Dam) – staff explained minor seepage issues require a $40-45 million fix after Jordan Lake project (2031), but design amendment will allow rapid repair if degradation accelerates.
- Youth Homelessness Grant: City received $1.66 million from a $2.5 million regional grant (with Central Pines) to address youth homelessness (18-24) across Durham, Wake, Orange, and Chatham counties. Funds will go to nonprofits, not the city. Council praised the partnership and urged coordination with schools, immigrant/refugee services, and LGBTQ+ organizations.
Key Outcomes
- Items referred for further action: Homeless Services Advisory appointments (#10) and Environmental Affairs Board appointment (#8) were moved to the General Business Agenda for the next meeting. The council will receive updated information on applicants’ categories before voting.
- Budget/CIP direction: Council requested an itemized list of changes from the spring budget retreat to the adopted CIP, including projects shifted to the upcoming bond referendum. City Manager stated staff will provide this.
- Rail Trail next steps: The base trail design contract amendment was approved; council encouraged staff to explore value capture mechanisms and communicate realistic project timelines to the public.
- UDO process: Council stressed that equitable engagement must run concurrently with online surveys, not sequentially. The next update on draft code is expected in late fall 2024.
- Other: Legal Aid of North Carolina funding was confirmed at $1 million for FY24-25 (with carryover), but base budget remains $650,000; council signaled interest in increasing it next year. Cultural Advisory Board and Step Up Durham also requested additional funding, to be considered at the June 24 budget hearing.
Meeting Transcript
Chair Mayor Williams. Mayor Williams is going to be about 15 minutes late. He said Mayor Pro Tem Middleton has received an excused absence. Councilmember Baker. Here. Councilmember Caballero. Here. Councilmember Cook. Here. Councilmember Freeman. Present. And Councilmember Rest. Here. Thank you. We'll begin with the announcements by council. And I'll start to my right. Councilmember. Thanks. Councilmember Capier. Councilmember Baker. Sure. I was just following up on some of the conversations that we've been having up here. Reached out to the county about their about the Wake County out of school time study that they're being that they're conducting between North Carolina State and the cooperative extension. And it sounds like the Durham Cooperative Extension is also similarly anticipating conducting an out-of-school time study. And so they'll probably be reaching out for potential partnership opportunities in the future. So I just wanted to share that and put that on your radar. That's all. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Cook. Just briefly, again, happy pride, everyone, and excited to go to the Pride Night at the Durham Bulls game this evening. I hope to see many of you there if the weather holds. That is all. Thank you. I would just add to the happy pride. And I'm glad we had a chance to raise the Juneteenth flag yesterday at the courthouse. And I want to thank the county for pulling that together with uh Phyllis Coley and Spectacular Magazine. And then I also just wanted to share just a couple of thoughts from Monday night's budget hearing, and just noting there were a few requests that were made. And I just want to see the kind of um where we are as a council around if if some of those items might be possible, if they could end up in the PB process. I think we've held off on asking for community projects. And I think now might be the time to try and push in that direction so that some of those projects that are not reoccurring that are just one time, if it might be possible to kind of push in so that I mean they're under two million. So I think that some of them might be able to fit in that process. And I think whomever is the PB liaison might be able to ask the question if that's so I wanted to remind the council that you know certainly the PB process is, you know, it is when there's a presentation made from the previous cycle and authority to kind of move forward with the new cycle. Um we have been focused those projects on capital improvements. There was only one cycle where it was service type um uh agreements and and the funding that we do set aside for it is in our CIP. So I did want to you know go on the record to say that as it stands right now, you know, there could have been some of those asks that were CIP type asks on public property, but um it if you will recall the previous cycle, all of the um projects that were voted on were public improvements. And that's a great point. I think with all the CIP projects we have had in the past, and then also with the CIP projects that will probably move into the bond um if it passes through. Um I think it would give us some space and it's an opportunity. I just offer it as a suggestion.
openpublica.com