All right, everybody, we will call the meeting to order.

Councilor Jonathan Lambert Melton will uh is absent and excused uh today, and we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I can lead us.

We uh did not have anything pulled from the consent agenda, and that also included the donation from the Raleigh Police Foundation who is sitting here in the in the front row, so we appreciate that donation.

Um is there a motion to move the consent?

Second.

All in favor of that motion aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that passes.

Thank you very much.

Uh report and recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Matthew Clem, Planning and Development here with Dwight Otwell, the Chair of the Raleigh Planning Commission.

So a look at our upcoming holidays uh for May and June.

We have Mother's Day this weekend.

So don't forget Mama.

Uh and then uh Juneteenth uh at the end of June, June 19th.

Um your scheduled public hearings uh for May uh nineteenth.

There are currently none scheduled for June 2nd.

Um we have the suggested public hearings here for the items I'll go over now.

Um first report of the planning commission is the uh text change.

This is a privately uh petition text change to the school lot area um minimum.

And uh planning commission has requested a sixty-day time extension to complete their review.

We have rezoning Z forty three twenty-five.

Uh this is a request to rezone three point seven nine acres from residential four to residential ten.

Uh Planning Commission recommends denial eight to one.

Uh we have suggested a public hearing date of June 2nd.

Uh Z forty four twenty-five, Jones Ridge Trail.

This is uh in the northeast of Raleigh on our boundary with uh town of Rollsville.

Uh your planning commission recommends approval eight to zero.

Uh we're suggesting a June 16th public hearing.

And then we have uh text change to zoning conditions uh for a property uh just across from Crabtree Valley Mall.

Uh 4.7 acres currently developed with uh uh commercial uses, retail uses on the site, Plan Commission recommends approval eight to zero uh with the suggested public hearing date of June two.

Um that's the report of the planning commission.

Uh myself and Chair Alwell are here to answer questions.

Questions for Mr.

Clem or Mr.

Otwell.

Okay, seeing none, is there a motion?

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right, so that passes.

Any uh you want to come up for your next item?

Yep.

This is uh special item for rezoning Z thirty-seven twenty-five.

So this was before you in April.

The applicants have requested uh another public hearing.

They made a revision to the rezoning petition that made it less restrictive.

Um when that occurs at the council table, a second public hearing is required to decide the case.

Um we have a suggested public hearing date of May 19th.

This is uh along Avant Ferry Road.

Uh on the south side, uh existing zoning conditions for the site um have not changed.

There are two new zoning conditions uh related to building height and unit count.

So the applicants have requested an additional story and height going from an RX4 to an RX5 zoning district.

Zoning condition number five limits building height in feet to the height for the four-story district.

So in their site plan preparations and deliberations, discovered that the topography of the site may put them in a position where a five-story building is needed to have that occupied basement level.

So the experience from the street side of the development would be a 68-foot tall building, which is the maximum building height for a four-story uh development in the residential mixed use zone.

And the residential units are limited to 478, which was our estimate for a four-story building.

So effectively the request is changing in that they have an additional story for development, but the resulting development should appear and act like a four-story development.

Questions?

Can we review uh thank you so much, but can we review how many cases we have on the 19th?

I know we're doing our budget presentation, and we added a lot through consent and this.

Um for my count, it was between like eight and nine.

So I was wondering if it were possible to move it to June 2nd instead of the 19th.

Is that applicant here?

Can we just hear from them on that?

Um we would request uh the 19th.

This is a case that faced um several unexpected delays due to weather during planning commission because of the snow and it's been delayed a lot, and we're it's a student housing project, so the permitting timeline is really really critical here because they need to open um in time for a school year to start.

So we haven't um didn't face any opposition at planning commission and no one signed up for uh uh the four-story request on the 21st.

So we we don't think it will take uh too terribly long and and would request that the 19th, if possible.

Thank you so much.

I'll just make that motion then to set the public hearing for May 19th.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that passes.

Thank you.

Report and recommendation of the city manager.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

We have three items today under my report.

The first of which is the neighborhood traffic management program.

He's gonna talk about their annual report, the work plan, and some program recommendations.

We have Will Shoemaker from Transportation here to present this item.

Yes, thank you.

Again, Will Shoemaker with uh transportation.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

So again, today we're gonna talk about the the project uh the program overview, uh, the year and report, uh looking at the work plan, what we did in the previous year, setting our work plan for the next year.

Um then as a second part, so this really is a two presentation in one.

So the first phase being the work plan, the second being uh looking at uh the future of the program, uh especially as it relates to how it interacts with the recently adopted safety action plan, the Vision Zero team.

So what is traffic calming?

The U.S.

Department of Transportation has a very technical definition.

Really, all that means is we're changing the street, really excuse me, encourage the the type of driver behavior to slow down speeds to make it safer.

And so what is Raleigh's uh reaction to that?

Well, we adopted the neighborhood traffic management program in 2009 to address these speed and safety concerns, and we gave the the program three tools being uh multi-way stop conversions for intersection safety, speed limit reductions to set more appropriate speed limits in residential settings, and then traffic calling projects whenever regulatory uh signage and markings are not getting us all the way to the desired behavior.

And the vision of this program is really to improve the safety, improve speed compliance, and enhance the quality of life along all of Raleigh's residential streets in our neighborhoods.

Um in the year end report in your backup, there's a much more detailed and full uh uh listing of these data points.

These are kind of the high end, so this has still been a very popular program where we've seen a 16 percent year-over-year increase in the number of requests.

Since the last time I was up before you uh we were able to complete 17 projects just uh in in March of this year, and we were actively preparing another 15 streets to go to bid um later this month, early next month.

So we're we're excited to keep this this project churn continuing so that we can continue addressing it and meeting the needs of of uh all of Raleigh's neighborhoods.

Since the last time I was here, we were able to complete and then uh pull out the the after data for for the streets listed here.

Um again, it's much more detailed in that backup memo where there's a lot more data points, but really wanted to pull out some of the the heavy hitters here, and you can see that there's been a positive shift in driver behavior, uh a reduction in speed along all of these streets.

Um one data point that is not here, but we we want to track um how we are doing as it compares to the speed limit, because every street has a unique problem and a unique speed compliance issue that we're trying to address.

And so over the history of the program, we're averaging that the typical driver speed is within about one mile an hour of the posted speed limit.

Uh so that's why you see varying numbers.

It really is we're tailoring each project to the needs of each street.

Um through all of your your talks with with Sean and the Vision Zero team, uh, you as a council have told us that school zones are very important.

We have taken that really to heart and we we factor in um and how we wait and prioritize projects.

So if if we get a school zone, it's it's very likely to receive a project with priority.

You can see here that we we've starred six of the streets that that we have here, all in school zones.

So again, that is very important to us.

We've heard that from you, we've heard that from the residents, so we're gonna continue to prioritize that, but just wanted to call that out uh on this slide.

So that was all the work that we've accomplished and the requests we've received over the past uh approximate year.

So now we're gonna look at the the resident engagement that we completed with last year.

So as I talk about the balloting thresholds here, this slide is just so that you can better picture.

So right now we have two levels of balloting, so it's an on-street ballot and then a greater neighborhood.

Um all the streets that touch the the street, all the properties that touch the street are are highlighted in blue.

Those are going to be the on-street properties.

All the streets highlighted in orange here are the neighborhood properties.

So those are the approximate two-block radius or those that only have ingress or egress off the street.

So that's kind of how the the balloting breakdowns, just so you can visualize it as we get to this next slide.

So we started with 20.

We had 15 that that met or or surpassed all balloting thresholds.

Um later on in this presentation, we're going to be asking you to authorize uh staff to begin construction activities for these 15.

Um I do want to call out Glenwood Forest.

Uh you can see under the street uh street approval, that's a not applicable, and that's based on how it's been developed.

So it's multifamily.

Uh all the property actually touching the street is just HOA open space.

There's no one that that lives there.

Uh so we looked at where the people live, they voted and surpassed that minimum threshold.

This has been consistent with other similar streets with similar land uses, so we felt comfortable putting it here.

Um that will be a secondary action that that you all will need to voice, but we were recommending that that you move that forward.

Um we started with 20, so that means that that five did not uh uh meet all policy thresholds.

So we wanted to report these out for your consideration if you want to discuss further.

Um looking at at the top four, uh, because those those have uh very close or or really high levels of support.

So Pasquatank, we just needed one more on-street participant to trigger the tiebreaker thing.

Um it could have been a yes or a no vote, so they were really one participant short uh of achieving that that administrative approval or administrative recommendation for approval.

Uh similarly, Northwood Drive, they were two yes participants on the neighborhood from triggering that, so again again, very, very close.

Um Laurel Hills Road, it was not as close from from a participation threshold, but this is the second time that we've offered this neighborhood in this street of project.

In both instances, on-street has has supported uh the project moving forward in the greater neighborhood is not.

So this is just uh another repeat of of that.

And then St.

James Church Road, um, extremely high support from from the on-street, but then extremely low support from the greater neighborhood.

So again, those are some that that you may want to discuss and consider.

And again, rainwater, uh, they voted it down pretty pretty resoundingly.

You know, do want to add that that just because they voted it down and all these streets voted against it and some of the thresholds, that does not mean the problem goes away.

Um again, Laurel Hills, this is the second offering.

We'll kind of touch on that in a little bit later.

So just because they've they've opted out of this does not mean that their street gets better.

And so that completes the work that we've already engaged with with the community over the last year.

So now this is uh looking for the next year projects that we want to begin uh uh engaging and designing and working with.

So these are the top 20 streets, the worst streets that we're currently aware of.

Uh so we want to uh seek authorization from from you all to begin that engagement design work.

Um and I did not specifically start them out, but but Anderson Drive is a school zone, Clarendon Crescent is a school zone, Hillburn is a school zone.

Snelling is school zone adjacent, harding is is school zone adjacent.

So again, there's a lot of school zones in here that we're trying to address and make safer for uh for everyone.

And so this is the the ending of that that first kind of phase of of this this presentation.

Uh so the the requested council action is is that you authorize the 14 projects that met all policy thresholds in the 2025 traffic calling project offering list.

And also staff recommends that you waive the adopted policy ballot thresholds for Glenwood Forests and authorize uh construction for that one additional project for 15 total.

Again, those other five, if you'd like to deliberate, we're happy to facilitate that conversation if you have any questions.

And then secondarily, we're asking that you uh approve the 20 projects from the 2026 traffic colony project priority list, so we can begin that neighborhood engagement design.

You want to um question on the uh council.

Um can you go to the um ones that failed the slide with the ones that failed?

I am curious.

Like I I know in the my time on council we've iterated this program, so we used to like ballot the neighborhood to ask if they wanted anything, then we ballot them again to say do you want this thing?

Now we just ask them, do you want this thing?

Do you do you have a sense like just anecdotally if these neighbors don't want anything at all, or they just didn't like the particular treatments that were uh ascribed to the broad broad brush.

Um, you know, for Pasquatank, we they were worried about that that they thought their street should get it first.

That was a common comment that they thought we were going to push traffic to an adjacent street.

Um we can get into that a little bit more in the second part, but but that is we we do a lot of evaluations and we do not find that to be the case.

Um it it really it's it's hard to say people vote how they they want to vote, and it really is because of of the budgets and the street conditions that we have.

We have a limited tool belt, and and so sometimes people may want more than we can offer, but but we always try to listen to to hear what what they want and adjust the projects to meet their needs within the existing street footprint that we have to work within.

Okay.

So just you as a footnote, you just said they may want more, but we can't do it because of budgets.

Do you find that that is that a theme that emerges if people want more traffic calming than is available?

They want different.

So you know, if if Laurel Hills is a two-lane road uh that is relatively narrow that does not have curb and gutter.

So we heard consistently we would rather have sidewalk.

So it's just they want different in a lot of instances.

Okay.

Helpful.

Question.

I guess I kind of had a similar question.

I mean, Mr.

May.

Well, I'm not sure I'm going to ask the question there, but you already asked it.

That's why I didn't have the mic pulled up.

But I guess the the question is, you know, folks don't want speed bumps or probably more particularly don't want roundabouts.

Like, are you able to negotiate some of that with folks?

Absolutely.

And so because this is an opt-in process, we we put forward uh a best practice design, receive feedback, and we consistently change devices, change locations.

You know, we we have that that line in the sand that if we continue to water it down, it's going to be ineffective, and that that we don't want to uh surpass because that would be a waste of resources that we we go expend resources and then ultimately they're still speeding because we didn't do it well enough.

Um but but absolutely there is is heavy involvement in in the type of device that that is used.

Yep.

So I had a question around St.

James Road, because it's the interesting road um because I think your neighborhood approval numbers are people who have to use St.

James but aren't on it.

So I was trying to get an idea of what's the thresh like that 26 percent is it 50 people who like how many people were surveyed and we can maybe get that information for you quickly.

Um it was it was low participation.

I don't have the exact numbers.

So uh there were uh a handful of people in the St.

James neighborhood.

And overall, this was a relatively low participation um uh area uh or street offering, but but definitely there was a contingent in the greater neighborhood that was very opposed.

Um and you know, anecdotally we heard people that called us afterwards that said I didn't participate but were excited about the project.

So I I just don't think people participated in it.

Uh and those that were really passionate passionate against it came out and did participate.

Okay.

Um helpful data.

I my question maybe before he comes up was just w how does absentee landlordism affect this?

Like, for example, on Rainwater Road, maybe it's because a lot of those have turned into rentals, and so the renters aren't voting, the owners don't know about it.

Like how much how do you accommodate that?

That's that's that's tough.

And so so Bass past council direction has has been to focus on on the properties.

We don't, you know, it doesn't matter if it's uh owner-occupied or renter occupied.

A lot of these projects affect the safety and quality of those living there.

So the direction of the this program or from past councils to this program has been to just interact with who's living there.

So we do direct mailers to every single property.

You know, if there's HOA, we send it to the property management firm as listed in the public record.

Uh we put yard signs, we do uh street markings.

So there is a really concerted effort to make it as visible as possible.

Uh but but we we try to engage directly with those that are living on the street.

Um and so that um for Laurel Hills, knowing that they this is the second time they've come, how many uh in the past projects have done that where they've come back a second time and then not made it pass?

Is that something that's prevalent?

I don't have the data.

I I mean uh it's it's streets reappear regularly on on our our um list.

I mean, as an example, Anderson Drive, this is the third time that we we're gonna be offering them a project.

Arnold Palmer Drive, this is the third time we were going to be offering them a project.

Hillburn Road is gonna be the second time we have offered them a project.

So again, just because projects get voted down does not mean that the problem goes away.

It just creates conflict in the neighborhood where the people that want a project have to continue going through the process, and the people that don't want the project feel like we are forcing them to go through the project over and over again.

And so it's trying to find that balance between uh moving forward safety projects, um, but then also getting really valuable input and feedback from the community.

Right.

And just clarification for those five one that you that you had, the PASCO tank, there's a possibility to include one more of those and if if we were head that direction, but we don't have the funding to do all five.

No, we we have the funding to do all five if if you should choose.

It's just again from a staff level, you set the thresholds, these do not, you know, if you you all uh have the authority to deliberate and move things forward if if you so choose.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Yep.

Sorry.

Two more for me.

Can you remind us?

So you know, everybody who's on this list already got their speed limit lowered.

The problem persisted.

And what is like they have an identified problem, right?

So everyone is on this list because people are speeding more than seven miles.

Seven, or there's a repeat speed related crash problem.

So there's either speeding or crashes on these streets.

Yep.

Got it.

So I think that's like really helpful to like solidify.

Is like we we we have now named that these streets have speeders and crashes, and so then that I don't I think it's important to kind of put a fine point on that.

Um then switching a little bit.

You kind of mentioned this, but can you um say more?

When people who maybe were not in the ballot radius or they miss submitting their ballot um and want to engage differently, like they call call your office or send an email, how are those uh expressions of opinion can't counted or they are they counted in this?

So I guess twofold.

We we want to get as much engagement as possible.

There's no geographic limit on who can tell us.

We're gonna uh receive that and interact with them, whether you're on the street um in the neighborhood, or you live a town over and you're just like opposed to it.

You know, that that doesn't matter to us.

We are going to engage with you if you come to us, whether it's a phone call, email, or through our portals.

Um from a balloting, we we do have policy prescriptions that define the on-street versus the greater neighborhood.

Uh so when people do decide to participate through a ballot, we do not include these in these numbers, uh, but we do record everyone and their address that that chooses to do that uh uh as part of the broader spreadsheet.

And then if that broader engagement changes the ballot outcomes either for the positive or the negative, we report that out.

Thank you.

I had one more question, which is just that school zone issue.

How does that factor in?

I mean, 13 miles per hour reduction through your projects in some of these school zones is I mean, that's that's a very significant.

And you think about children being exposed to that level of speeding.

And it just seems like the children's safety should come before neighborhood resistance.

So I mean, are any of the five that failed in school zones?

And how do we think about that?

So if we want to get to the second part of the presentation, there's definitely opportunity for you as a body to change some policy that that may uh may directly um address whose voice carries the most weight and how do we engage and how do we ask for projects to move forward?

Because that that's that's a huge question, and that that really dovetails very seamlessly into the recent vision zero talks.

Yeah.

Well, let's take care of these first.

Madam Mayor, I would be willing to make a motion to approve the 14 plus Glenn FARS and four of those five that fail because this Orange Street participation is so high, as well as approve the 20 projects for 202s.

So that's my motion.

Fantastic confirm the four that you're authorizing are rainwater was on the bottom of your own.

Correct.

I'm not including rainwater.

Yep.

Okay.

That's the motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that is unanimous.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

And now there's a lot of questions kind of leading us into this next part.

So I appreciate that setup.

So how does the NTMP, the neighborhood traffic management program, fit into uh Raleigh's Vision Zero Future?

Um we we really pride ourselves on a program that is continually trying to improve through through council direction through resident feedback.

We're always asking what's work what works and what doesn't have when we better meet the needs of the community.

Um and really through that that about two years of engagement through the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan uh that culminated in the adoption uh last meeting.

We wanted to filter this program through that lens to see how it's stacked up and and and if we should bring bring some policy considerations forward.

Um with any policy consideration, there's a lot of trade-offs.

So definitely if you want to get into the weeds uh in this, this might be a good topic for you to go to committee if you'd like to discuss further.

So the the core is is our why.

What why are we bringing this forward?

So it's really the three the three pillars that we want to look at are safety, community feedback, and community building.

Um safety.

This this uh is pulled from the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

So there's a direct correlation between speed and severity of crash and the risk of a fatality.

And so really focusing on making all of our streets, but in this program's uh lens, our neighborhood streets is as safe as we can and and by limiting speed and eliminating the ability for drivers to speed.

Um community feedback, again, dramatically important.

We have nearly two decades of NTMP data uh that that show those trends of of who likes it and who doesn't.

Uh but but two out of the top three things we heard from the the Vision Zero engagement were that speeding and distracted driving were were their most worried things.

So again, in a neighborhood setting, this program is Raleigh's direct answer to help address those commun uh concerns.

And then lastly, community building, because that's really what's important.

And so whenever you have a safe street, it really allows you to have the confidence to let your kids be confident to walk to school, walk to their neighbor's house.

Uh it gives you the confidence to feel like you can walk to your your mailbox or do do uh gardening in your front rock front yard and not get hit by a car.

That's that's a real comment that we've we've heard from people that that's a fear.

And by making the streets safer, you can move that activity from the backyard where you're using your house as a buffer between you uh and the street out into the front yard.

That and that that front yard interaction fosters that community and that that neighborly vibes that I hope Raleigh is trying to get that you can meet your neighbors and talk to them and really become more of a community and cohesive community.

And so that's the benefit that a lot of safe streets and traffic calming can give.

And so we wanted to again take that, look at the current NTMP policy, the trends that we're seeing, and the sentiments that we hear.

So as of right now, uh projects are opt-in for safety.

We go and say, hey, your street has an identified issue.

Do you do you want us to make your street safer?

Um of the common objections from the public is is that they're worried that projects will divert issues to an adjacent street, and then the neighborhood generally is worried about that.

And so we we do a lot of after studies, and we've found that that is as typically not the case.

Um, can't guarantee 100 percent, but but after you know, project or project, we're not seeing that as a common thing or really thing that we're we're overly um expecting on on any street.

Emergency response impacts is another thing that we commonly hear.

And so we work very closely with our contacts and partners in the fire department to to minimize those impacts.

Uh as pictured here is a speed cushion.

So this device does really great job to effectively eliminate any delay because of the wider wheelbase.

They can straddle these, but they're wide enough that that it still has the same or similar impact to normal everyday vehicles or SUVs.

So we're always working to innovate to find the best solution to minimize um emergency response times and impacts to our internal partners for for vital services while also still providing really impactful projects.

Another thing we hear is that that they're worried that the property values are gonna decrease.

We we've done a lot of of research and found there's no real correlation positive or negative that that traffic calming does does have an impact on your property values.

We've actually read some studies that that people put a price tag and are willing to buy more on quiet streets or cul-de-sacs.

So people are willing to put a price to on on safer streets.

And so through this program, it's not an apples to apples, we're not gonna make these streets cul-de-sacs, but we can really minimize the negative externalities of speeding and vehicles on your street through through slowing down drivers to make all houses more valuable and not monetarily but valuable in that that they're creating value and that there's a safe street and you can have these communities, and then you're not worried about uh you know two blocks over having an extremely unsafe condition.

And then lastly, we hear that that it's it's an it's an inconvenience.

Looking at at how much time you're actually interacting with this, so if you're going out a handful of times a day, we're talking, you know, maybe 10 to 20 seconds per trip, it's a cumulative five minutes out of your 24 hours that that we're talking about impacting you.

And we're not even really impacting it that much, we're just requiring you to go the speed limit through this.

So like that's that's the trade-off is is for about five minutes cumulative of a minor annoyance, and I live in this world and I agree that it can be annoying uh to when you're running late and you go over some speed humps and it makes you slow down.

But that that's that's good.

Um is that worth the trade-offs for for having permanently safe streets.

And then we wanted to also see the trends on on how people vote.

And so here we wanted to really kind of humanize uh the different zones that we look at.

So in that top left corner, we've zoomed in to uh a neighborhood street.

So that's the street that we're offering traffic calming.

So it's it's it's really close.

You don't have to squint, you can see the activity.

You zoom out a little bit more.

That's that's about 200 feet.

And we chose that because that's the regulatory loud for how far away you're supposed to be able to hear a car horn.

So these people can hear the traffic, but maybe can't see it, but you're close enough that you're really interacting with it.

Follow the arrow, you're zooming out a little bit more.

You're starting to have to squint to see where that street is that we're we're offering traffic calming.

So that's about the the two block radius around that.

So again, it's getting further away.

This project is becoming less about the place that you live and more about the area that you get through to get to your place.

And then lastly, that that is the people that could live half a mile away, a mile away, but their only egress is ingress and egress is through the street.

So again, it's becoming less and a less of a place and more of a pass through.

And so how do these groups vote?

Well, if you're on the street, you got a nearly 89% uh success rate from a sample of the projects.

You know, we zoom out a little bit more, that 200 foot, you can hear it, you probably interact with that street, you've got friends, you're walking there, it's still high 83%.

A little bit further, that greater neighborhood, again, we're we're we're dropping down, but it's still a 76% approval rating.

But then when you look at that extended properties, we're we're at about 56%.

So that's where it really drops off the support.

And if you remember back, four out of the five that failed, very heavy on street uh levels of support, very or varying levels of low levels of support from the greater neighborhood.

And so historically, projects have failed, you know, rainwater failed, but that you know, uh from a 90 to 95 percent of the time projects fail because the greater neighborhood and really the extended neighborhood votes against the project.

And so the the core of this policy descrip uh question is who whose voice is the one that we need to wait uh to determine whether the street that you're passing through is safe.

Is it the people living there or the people that are are far away and passing through?

I might have missed this, but how is it weighted if the front-facing driveway or property touching is the most directly affected, and then it starts to diminish as you get to the extended properties.

Are those policies weighted or are they all weighted equally?

So we have a two-tier balloting system right now.

So right now it's on-street, and so they have to see a minimum of a 60% approval rating to move it forward, but then also an equal weight.

So all of the I guess the from here over, all of those are grouped in in a second one as the greater neighborhood.

Uh they have to see a greater than 50% uh approval rating uh for for the project to move forward.

And so again, it it's it's those extended properties that that typically drag the overall support down.

And so looking at how can policy be changed.

Uh we have three considerations for for you today.

So option one would be no change.

Um so the program as a whole is working.

We we have uh multiple engagement touch points.

There's the the neighbor and ballot, we always uh culminate this process with a council review, um, and then we move to construction.

This is about a three-year from first engagement to construction process um um with a lot of that being from the ambiguity.

We don't know which 20 streets are gonna move forward, so we do a lot of preliminary work, but we don't wait to really advance designs until we get your your blessing and your approval.

The option two would be to create a two-tiered approval process where we would set uh what we feel like are are the the worst streets and a level that it is an automatic project that they go through and we remove the ballot step.

Um but then also streets that qualify but don't quite meet that, that secondary threshold would still go through the whole balloting process.

And we've recommended that if you choose this that it would be uh uh greater than or equal to eight miles an hour over the 85th percentile speed of the speed limit or greater than or equal to four uh speed related crashes in the previous three years.

Um again, not a lot changes from the overall process because we're still likely going to be balloting some of those streets.

We're not really going to advance design, so we're still looking at about a three-year uh from beginning to end process.

And then the the option three would be an automatic project where where you as a council set what projects, what thresholds meet uh the traffic calming warrants.

So the only difference here is is we're removing the balloting step.

Instead of having an opt-in project, this is an automatic project if if warrants are met.

Um really we're we'd be leaning into the data and we're we're reframing the question from you know, do you want your street to be safer to what tools do you want to use to make your street safer?

Um kind of akin to how we do with with resurfacing.

We go and say your street needs to be resurfaced.

Here's the tools that we can do with with stormwater if your streets are flooding, here are the tools that we can do to make your street safer.

So we're trying to shift or or with this this option, it would be shifting towards more of a um how do you want this this safety improvement to happen?

Um there's also a lot of opportunities for for uh faster deliveries.

So with more certainty, we can advance the designs along the way instead of waiting until the very end.

So there's opportunity to shrink that beginning engagement to construction timeline.

Also, past councils have directed us to evaluate and look at how can we force multiply and partner with with other city programs as well as private development uh by going to an automatic project.

It really it simplifies the ability to write right uh traffic calming into zoning conditions and work with private development to do off-site improvements.

And then lastly, you know, going to lean on street resurfacing.

There's a lot of times that whenever just serendipitously we have a project and a restreet resurfacing we combined, and that's a great partnership.

But a lot of times they come to us and say we're going to resurface this street, and we have a couple streets on our list, but they're far down, they're not a priority.

There's no way for us to elevate to take advantage of that.

So if we can better partner with other uh uh programs within the city, again, specifically uh street resurfacing, we can get economies of scale because they're dealing in so much more quantities, so we're gonna get better unit prices.

Uh we're not going to double up on mobilization, so we'll be able to stretch um our limited funding to do more streets and do more streets faster.

And so again, looking at the summary, this is just so that you can see them all on one page, um, and and really wanting to hammer home.

Uh kind of I alluded to this or I spoke to this earlier uh on the 20 streets that that you all approved to start working with Anderson Drive, this is a third project offering, Arnold Palmer Drive, this is the third project offering, Hillburn Drive, this is the second.

So we are continuing to revisit streets over and over again.

Uh and and so it is is frustrating to the residents, but then it's also this means that there are three streets that have been offered projects multiple times, meaning that they're kicking other streets that have never gotten an offering to future project lists, and there's that ripple effect over and over again.

Um this is the point that we we want to help facilitate that that conversation with you all to see if this is a policy or or if there are policy changes that you want to consider.

Uh staff would recommend that you go to option three, the automatic project, uh, but but absolutely want to answer any questions that you have or or have a deeper discussion if that's that's what you so wish.

Okay.

That was a lot.

Uh do we have questions?

Okay, counselor Pratt.

Yeah.

Um just to open it up.

I do think it would be really helpful to hear this in committee and just go a little bit deeper on like uh how like how much quicker can we speed this up?

And um just do you you shared some data with us about like the first step, the speed limit reductions and how successful those are.

But it might be helpful to like really draw that out.

So just to like kind of open the conversation, I would love to send this to committee, and then we can certainly throw out our questions now and maybe you can just collect them for for presentation then if everyone's good with that.

Well, we can we can we can solicit the responses, but I'll uh turn over to Council Ford.

Yeah, the only thing I will say is um I'm a little bit hesitant about having a blanket policy from the standpoint of getting feedback from folks who are frustrated about the placement of roundabouts in different parts of the city.

Um and then we got an issue that we're dealing with over with a bit more hills, and there was some community engagement because I was at a few of the meetings, but I think what folks envisioned and what actually was put out on the ground was very different.

And so for me, it would be hard for me to say yes, just go do blanket stuff when the feedback that we're getting is not necessarily positive all the time with that.

So, and I would like to um I'm fine with the going in committee and and I would like for us to figure out the things that you mentioned in the automate automation of the process.

Part of that is in option two as well as a hybrid.

And so I would like to see you know, for me, I'm I kind of I share I'm leaning towards option two, because you still have that community feedback and input and understanding what are some things like if we have an area that we know is higher to speed, high no crashes, then the data speaks for itself.

The numbers are high.

I can see some of those moving, but if we have those that are iffy, they're close, but they're not there yet.

Um and what type of street it is we're putting it on, um, it matters.

Um I'm I see the difference of traffic calming um near school.

Um the biggest concern I do have with that is the enforcement of it, especially stop signs.

Um folks like the roll stop or not stop at three-way stops.

Um and RPD can't be any always there.

So another part I would like to put on this are what technologies that we can use to also help with some of the enforcement of our traffic calming that we're putting in.

I know stop signs are not necessarily a traffic calming tool, but they do help.

Absolutely.

I would just say for uh I support um having it in committee.

I would I would like to see a little more quantification of if we had moved to an option three or an option two, right?

How many more projects would have we have gotten done?

What would the unit cost be?

I mean, if there's any estimates so that we could say, yeah, there's a trade-off, but you know.

Absolutely.

Um then also very specifically, I just was at the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Conference that's meeting here in the city uh this morning.

And there may be things like that where when you get resident feedback, less knowledge of green stormwater infrastructure.

I don't know how much we're incorporating that into options, but I would be interested in exploring that more and how that interfaces with this whole traffic calming project.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um Counselor Silver.

Just want to be clear about option three, because I am looking at two and three, and don't know if my neighbors are watching, but we have a street which I don't think needs traffic calming.

Uh but because we just had our speed lowered on one of the major streets, but in terms of our street, they're saying people are speeding, they're not.

If you go to the other option too, it says there are other factors and triggers that have to be considered.

If it does not meet those, then it would not go forward.

Because if people just said, you know, majority of people there just said, hey, I walk my dog, I just want the speed bump, and I'm saying I'm not sure this is a location.

Just want to make sure how that proceeds so that those that may agree.

The majority that may say they needed one in all actuality, because you kind of talked about why people kind of opt out or opt in.

So how does that work so as this goes a committee we understand what the role the public plays and what makes it even eligible to even be considered in the first place?

Yeah.

And just to I guess quickly, everything is still going to run through that.

Is there a quantifiable issue here, not just uh I think I have a problem?

So there's still going to be that, and there's still going to be that resident engagement through all three of these options.

The only thing that's getting removed in the option three would be the the balloting step.

Um and then it's again as the two-tier to just on the second one.

And I'll not mentioned here, but when we send it to committee, maybe we can talk through.

You know, I wonder too if there's um maybe a bigger bang for buck by doing like or or in tandem with perhaps, you know, I think about this as like a funnel.

And you're basically a lot of people are coming into the funnel getting their speed limits lowered, and that's like sufficient, and then they don't have to proceed through the funnel anymore.

And so I almost wonder if there's a bigger bang for buck by uh making that administrative approval.

Um just kind of like if people are speeding, you get the speed limit lowered, and that's that's just that.

And it would kind of what would the pros and cons be to that or uh bring that.

Okay.

So do we need a motion to send it to committee or move to uh send the topic of traffic calming policy updates to Transportation and Transit Committee?

Second.

And just confirming with staff, can this be heard on the May 28th, or do you need longer?

That's fine.

Okay.

All right.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

All right.

The second item this afternoon is the comprehensive plan update.

We have Sarah Shaughnessy from Planning and Development here to give us just a recap of reflecting Raleigh, which was the Civic Assembly assignment that happened over the last several months.

Thank you, Madam Manager and members of council.

Again, Sarah Shaughnessy with planning and development.

I am here to talk to you today about the outcomes of the Raleigh Civic Assembly, which was held as part of the Reflecting Raleigh process.

So I'll start with a reminder of where the Civic Assembly fits into our broader reflecting Raleigh framework and give a high-level reminder of the design.

I'm also joined by Lucia Phillips today, who was a participant in the assembly, and she'll share a little bit about her experience participating.

And then we'll dive a little bit more deeply into the remit and the specific recommendations that the assembly provided in response to that remit.

And for the sake of brevity, I've highlighted for you some of the comp plan implications that we've taken from the recommendations, but their full report of 29 recommendations was included in the agenda backup and is published online if you want to dig into those specifically.

So we wanted to start um by showing just a brief video of the reflecting Raleigh Civic Assembly process.

I am a North Carolina native as well as a Raleigh local for about the past six years in West Raleigh.

I was really motivated by uh civic duty, a love of government communication, um being part of the community as a whole.

Hi, I'm Jacob Hunt with Raleigh's planning department.

We're here today on the last day of the Reflecting Raleigh Civic Assembly.

Uh the Civic Assembly is a representative group of Raleigh residents that have come together to help us tackle topics that'll go into our next comprehensive plan.

The Civic Assembly is a great tool that brings together a wide selection of Raleigh residents that helps bring innovative and novel solutions to city problems.

The work of the Civic Assembly mattered to me personally when I first read that the city was sponsoring this program because our city needs more feedback from residents.

One of the best things that the assembly has done is they've taken a group of people that really represent Raleigh, different ages, different income levels, where we live.

We can all come together and decide what is best for all of us, regardless of our backgrounds.

It's really great.

And it's taught me a lot.

It's extremely important to me that we encourage the city to engage our community and engage the population.

So I really wanted to be involved in that and encourage that open line of communication.

The future of what Raleigh is going to look like for our children is important to me.

It was hard.

It was really fun.

I think it's really interesting to learn about city planning.

I want to live in a place that I can be proud of.

Thank you, City of Raleigh, for doing the Civic Assembly, and please do more.

It is a fabulous way to bring together citizens in the city and move forward.

Thank you all for being here.

And what the video does not show is um the numerous staff across the organization who helped us design and mail 10,000 letters who gave up a Saturday to facilitate a session or offer a presentation.

So thank you to all of those staff.

Um now um so just a brief reminder the reflecting Raleigh process is built around four main principles with the underlying objective of hearing from a broad and representative sample of the Raleigh resident uh public.

A civic assembly is is just one of those tools that we're using, and we completed that during phase two.

Um and then about short overview about the design.

Um so there are four key ingredients of an assembly.

One is a government commissioned assignment or remit, which you all approved in September.

Um the second is that the assembly is selected by a sortition process or a lottery process.

Um the third is that there are three main phases of learning, deliberation, and decision making.

And then the fourth and final, and the reason we're here today is the government receipt and acknowledgement of those recommendations.

Um won't go through this slide in detail, but um to select participants.

Uh we mailed or hand delivered 10,000 invitations and through an involved sortition process with the support of our consultants at the National Civic League, wound up with a a group of 40 people who broadly represented um the demographic composition of the city as a whole.

And those selected participated in six sessions, 40 total hours of learning and deliberation with support from our partners at the National Civic League and partners across the city.

And now I will turn it over to Lucia to just share a little bit about her experience.

Okay, perfect.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me today.

I'm excited to speak to you about my civic assembly experience and our group values and motivations behind the recommendations we've published.

Should I go forward?

After hours of learning about our city's buses and future growth plans, a core value quickly rose to the surface.

Our residents want to stay in Raleigh.

We all see the projected growth in our city, but this explosive growth brings to the top of everybody's mind the rise of cost of living, the rising cost of living.

And what does this mean for the neighborhoods that we've grown up in, and how does this change our children's futures?

It became clear that we wanted the residents who've created the history and charm of Raleigh to remain a part of our neighborhoods.

We want to our complete neighborhoods to be accessible to all of our residents and provide opportunities to live, work, and play.

Our group values Raleigh's residents, including the historically disenfranchised, the seen, the unseen, the majority and the minority, not to just be considered, but to be protected.

For those who may be historically priced out or marginalized, to be given the care and attention in the way that may not be intuitive.

While we are excited about the growth of our city, and yes, we have more room for hurricanes.

Our group time and time again focuses back to our current neighbors.

Historic homes and families that center our city on its character, charm, and southern hospitality.

We also wanted to highlight and refocus on our city's nickname, the City of Oaks.

We have miles of greenways that our residents use to better their health, commute to work, connect with others, and visit with local businesses.

As we continue to make space for growing complexes and create new roadways, we find our city and its residents continuously impacted by climate change.

And we want to emphasize the continued dedication to our environment.

Our recommendations consistently considered the potential negative impacts to our environment and how we can better leverage our unique green spaces that make Raleigh the city of Oaks.

Engaging and protecting our green spaces centers Raleigh's on what we're known for.

We want to keep the bees here, let celebrate backyard gardens, and let our light shine through.

And it oops, sorry.

In a time where it feels like we are constantly reminded about our differences that feel irreconcilable.

Our group worked in collaboration.

Of course, that's not the entire picture.

We had disagreements, we questioned intention.

We worked in collaboration, and we probed each other for more.

But we came to these conversations and recommendations through a collaborative and cooperative process that was, dare I say, even fun.

And in the future, when the city considers engaging the community for feedback, I hope that you consider this exercise was both thoughtful and meaningful to us.

I want to thank the Raleigh City of Council for providing us this meaningful experience, and we are eager to see how these recommendations are implemented in the comprehensive city plan.

So much, Lucia.

Thank you, and thanks everybody for participating.

It's great.

A little more data to put a fine point on some of the remarks that Lucia shared.

So at the first day of the assembly and at the last day of the assembly, members were invited to participate in a survey to sort of gauge public perception and public trust.

And so these are some of the results that showed a measurable increase in trust in the public process and willingness to engage in the future.

So this question was showed an increase in confidence that their recommendations on the current issue will be implemented.

This question showed a demonstrable increase in a feeling that the entities running the process, so staff and our National Civic League partners are accountable and trustworthy.

And then finally, an increasing sense that the city's engagement processes are collaborative, genuine, and worthwhile experiences.

So we were really happy to see that progression.

A few quotes that we wanted to share with you.

We asked why this work mattered to one assembly member in particular, again, highlighting some of what Lucia shared.

They live here, they have a family here, they have a home and they want it to be better.

And then we also asked what surprised them during the deliberation process.

And I think uh a common theme was um sort of the the willingness of people from different backgrounds to um listen to each other and find common ground.

So now that was reflections on the process.

We'll get into the remit and recommendations.

Um so on the left is the specific room remit that again you all approved um back in September.

Um Raleigh's current growth framework is um directs uh the majority of new growth and development to our designated growth centers and frequent transit corridors.

And as we um grow and as we move towards 2050, we understand that we're about to add a quarter of a million people.

So we wanted to understand if that was the right direction to continue to move in as a city guided by the comprehensive plan.

So some of the specific questions that the assembly wrestled with were what elements make up a complete neighborhood, should that change based on where it is in the city?

So should neighborhood composition change based on geography.

Uming that Raleigh is going to continue to grow, how should that new growth be distributed across the city?

Um and then finally, how much should existing neighborhoods be expected to change to accommodate more people.

Um again, the assembly um together produced a report that includes 29 specific recommendations.

Um those recommendations touch on the following seven themes.

And when staff received those recommendations, um, when we were thinking about how to implement those recommendations, we grouped them into three main categories.

Uh one, um many of the recommendations served as an endorsement of our current policy approach.

Um, a number of recommendations also served as an endorsement of our current budget priorities.

Um then the third bucket um highlighted some opportunities for adjustment or enhancement to our current approach.

And so again, focusing on the implications for the next comprehensive plan.

Um, the recommendations um that the Civic Assembly um produced that sort of indicate support for our existing policy.

Um, focus new development and designated growth centers and along frequent transit corridors, so an endorsement of our current um growth framework approach.

Um, that seems to be working, and their recommendations indicate that we should carry that forward into the next plan.

Um, encourage housing density and housing variety along transit corridors.

There was an acknowledgement that adding more supply would help resident and creative housing solutions might help residents stay in place and stabilize housing costs.

Um three uh was planning for multimodal connectivity in neighborhoods and around transit, so thinking about that first and last mile access to transit stops.

And then um four was acknowledge and celebrate existing community features and history.

So these areas are likely to grow, the whole city is likely to grow, but uh folks didn't want the neighborhoods to lose their sense of place.

Um then some opportunities to adjust and enhance.

Um, leverage greenways as part of the multimodal transportation network, two, co-locate and activate public spaces around transit stops.

Um three, plan for transit corridors to function as complete neighborhoods, so sort of a reinvention of the 15-minute city concept where somebody could take transit and be able to access, you know, from their house be able to access um the resources that they need.

And then finally, there was support um for neighborhood serving commercial um so that people may be able to walk to a coffee shop or um a small corner store in their neighborhood.

And then finally, some additional takeaways that apply to the comprehensive plan but are maybe broader, um, were an acknowledgement of a changing climate.

So um, you know, continued public investment in adapting to um impacts that we're likely to see in the future, um, and then continued investment in multimodal infrastructure, transit infrastructure as well as um bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

And then as you've heard today, um, this uh civic assembly um we found to be a very meaningful engagement process, and so um would love opportunities to use it in the future.

So again, um recommended action, receive and acknowledge these recommendations and then direct staff to carry forward some of these land use policies and explore ways to operationalize some of the additional recommendations.

Um I will leave this up for your consideration and happy to take any questions.

Yep, Counselor Silver.

Well, thank you, uh Sarah and the entire group of volunteers uh who actually spend time uh thinking about the city's future.

So thank you for spending your time uh really digging into this plan.

I am so delighted there's gonna be a next generation of planning.

Uh and although I was involved in 2030, I'm equally excited to pass baton to have a new generation focus on the future plan.

Uh the recommendations seem great and on target.

Uh just had one recommendation going forward for both of you and those citizens engaged.

One of earlier slides, you had the desire for the plan to be implemented.

And I just wanted to be clear that implementation involves policy actions.

And then for this council to make decisions as we contemplate zoning cases.

So just wanted to put that implementation in this proper context so that all of us understand both the citizens and all those involved, how a plan is implemented.

It's not just there's an action.

And my one recommendation as we go through this, particularly on the zoning, that's one way you implement a policy.

If there's a recommendation that we have to operationalize it by putting in a zoning code, we should now remove that policy out of the conference of plan because there becomes some confusion.

There's a transition in a conference of plan, but then there are transitions in the UDO.

And it creates a lot of confusion.

And so as we move forward to provide more clarity for the public about implementation.

But other than that, uh these are all great recommendations.

Very excited to both receive and acknowledge it and have this as part of our ongoing conversation.

So I just have to say well done, both the staff and for those volunteers for a very, very informative uh presentation.

And thank you so much for your comments.

Thank you.

Got a number of questions.

We'll start down with Mayor Pertem Harrison.

Yeah, I thank you all for this, and thank you for everyone who's been involved.

This is amazing.

Um couple questions on specific proposals and just our action today.

So I do see that some of them are not as supported as others by the Assembly.

So many of them are in the 90 percent plus range, so very much a consensus.

But I noted like proposal 26, 27, 28, there might be others.

Those are more like at the 50 percent level.

And so is what you're kind of asking us to do is to support every proposal, regardless of the percentage potentially.

So in their final report, they um the sort of consensus building process that the group went through was to propose recommendations and then they would do sequential voting.

Um so everything that's in the final report um at the top received 75 percent or greater support from membership.

They wanted to include for visibility the recommendations that received less than that.

Um and then staff went through and um some of these policies are um more operational.

So we pulled out the ones that are specific to the comprehensive plan and have an impact on policy or the broader vision.

So we've highlighted those for you here, um, but do want to lift up all of the recommendations for consideration, either in the plan or elsewhere, um, either through the budget process or other department initiatives.

So to clarify what we're potentially saying go forward with are only the 75 percent and higher proposals.

That's correct, yes.

Okay, there was one, I think that's 76 percent I had a question on.

Um, just so I understand it.

It's proposal seven, um, and that was related to improving safety across high volume bus routes.

So it was the last part that zoning decisions should be made with the area and existing citizens' best interests in mind.

And then that went on to say no high-rise condos, buildings in communities that are unrealistic for this type of infrastructure.

Um I just find it a little confusing.

I'm not sure what to take from that.

Yeah, so um and I think that sort of confusion highlights the tension that the assembly wrestled with, and I think a broader tension that we see in the community is the desire to um focus density and um support growth and also manage the impacts of growth.

And so this was them sort of wrestling with um, you know, we want to see density in these places, and we also want to make sure that we're supporting existing residents um and taking their needs and the current context in the neighborhood into consideration.

Okay.

Yeah, I think that trade-offs are really important or just to think through because like proposal 20, it also talks about higher density needed in neighborhoods that are likely to be gentrified.

And so my fear hearing that is that we upzone an area and we make it even easier for people to become displaced.

But again, a trade-off on increasing housing supply.

Counselor Jones and then Pat.

Thank you so much for this.

For the participants that uh joined Did you get a consensus or or any understanding of how many had been to a meeting before?

Was this their first time interacting with government?

Did you ask that?

For most of them, it was their first time.

I know I can see one member in the audience who participated in planning commission and who has been to or um sorry, planning academy and has been to other engagements before.

But I think for most people this was their first time.

That's so exciting.

And and again, echoing thank you for doing that.

I joined uh City government by taking a class that the city offers.

Um so you have so many opportunities to continue this outside of Civic Assembly.

There's Planning Academy, there's Raleigh Neighborhood College Citizens Leadership Academy, and then a lot of us offer opportunities every month for you guys to join and have conversations with us.

Um I do a book club where we talk about the UDO.

Maybe you can come and tell me more what you learned.

Um so please don't let this be your last uh time participating.

We'd love to engage you further.

So thank you so much.

Councilor Pott.

Yeah.

Also, my my thanks to you all for giving up your time and Saturdays and your sharing your resources with us.

Um a couple of questions I wanted to ask on this slide, Sarah.

Um, too, that I wonder if you could just draw out a little bit more what the community was saying.

So acknowledge and celebrate existing community features and history.

Was that uh like preserve the exact buildings that are there?

Was that signage?

Was that yeah?

There are two specific recommendations.

One dealt with signage and one dealt with sort of inclusive and culturally appropriate programming um in public places that serve the neighborhood.

Um I think again to that point of the community sort of wrestling with we we want to encourage density.

We believe that this is the right approach for the city, and also we want to um not displace the current residents and and value and celebrate the sort of existing um sense of the neighborhood.

Um so I think that's that's where that was coming from.

Kind of combines a couple of recommendations there.

Okay.

Cool.

And then the other one, um plan for transit corridors to act as function as complete neighborhoods.

So I'm assuming that kind of means like you should be able to ride the Route 15 and and like find medical and a barber and grocery and a school, like the things you mostly need.

And so I wonder like are there ways to turn that into policy and considering there's like private property, and we can't necessarily control if it turns out.

Yeah, so their recommendation was specific to our frequent transit network, which is um sort of foundational part of our existing urban form map.

And so I think moving forward, we will look at that urban form map and our future land use map and our potential zoning map to see if there are opportunities where we might consider a rezoning or designate another future land use where we envision um neighborhood serving commercial or more mixed use development so that people have an opportunity to access um more resources via the bus.

Okay, got it.

And then just one last one for me.

Um kind of building on Council Member Hirson's question.

So it sounds so the way this has been digested makes good sense to me.

A lot of the proposals made good sense, but they there were certainly a spectrum like some.

I was like, oh, I understand exactly what the policy language will look like.

And then others I I was like, I don't quite understand.

And you're saying some map to the comprehensive plan, others will be heard elsewhere, like through the budget process.

How do we get those ones back?

Like we would be happy to provide you sort of a more comprehensive analysis of sort of the you know recommendations and whether we think that it's you know more of a budget priority, more of a land use policy question and some opportunities for sorry, implementation.

Okay.

And so you'll pass this to like the budget department and they'll it'll be part of their reference materials when they prepare the not the one that we're about to see, but the next budget.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Silver.

Uh sir.

I'm gonna bring up the section on equity and gentrification.

It was proposal 19 and 20.

With the citizens, was there a conversation about the term gentrification?

Uh if you ask 20 people what it means, you get 20 different answers.

Uh and so I just want to make sure as we have the conversation about gentrification.

Is it revitalization with trade-offs?

Is it about displacement?

So that as we move forward with the plan, we truly understand what the equity and gentrification.

I know that's just a placeholder for those two proposals, but just want to know if there was a deeper conversation.

It was about displacement, gentrification for some is a positive word.

For other, it's a deadly word.

And so I'm just wondering, you know, how that conversation is going to evolve.

And council just asked about the creation of an anti-displacement policy.

I know the housing community development is exploring that.

So just want to know as we look forward.

We certainly don't want people to be displaced, but that word gentrification could be a trigger.

So just want to know what happened with the assembly and how did that piece of the conversation uh unfold.

Yeah, there were several conversations about gentrification and displacement, as you can imagine, and you know, 32 different definitions of that term.

So I think that is um I don't know that the group came to a full consensus on a definition, um, but that is certainly work for us as a comprehensive planning team moving forward and with our colleagues across the organization to define and dig into.

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Just a comment on that going forward, I guess in the final product, if we can have those definitions outlined within, I think it'd be extremely helpful.

Um so that way everyone is reading from the same sheet music.

Um so that would be my recommendation.

So if there's any thoughts amongst that group, please pass it on to staff, because this is still in process as we move forward.

And I just want to thank everyone who did participate.

Thank you for being engaged, giving up your time, your Saturdays and things of that nature.

And I want to thank the staff for your work and continuing this process.

And hopefully this is just not the last time, but the beginning of us trying to use this type of engagement throughout as we move forward.

Not just in planning, but in maybe in some of our other departments as well with some of our very complex ideas and solutions.

Again, just thank you, and I look forward to supporting us moving this forward.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think that's all the questions.

Do we need to I move for approval?

Second.

All right.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And the next item is the long-related project update on the former DMV site.

So we have Ken Bowers from Planning and Development here to bring us up to speed on what's been happening at the site.

Thank you, Marshal.

Ken Bowers from Planning and Development.

Before I get started, I would just like to recognize that, although I'm the person at the podium, there were many hands involved in preparing this presentation, and my colleagues from engineering services and community engagement are attributed a lot of the content and are here to answer any questions that may come up that they can answer better than I.

So we're giving you an update today, not asking for a vote on anything.

Towards the end, we'll be presenting what we view as the next steps.

And it will be appropriate to receive any feedback on those.

The rest of it is an update on kind of some of the nuts and bolts, what's going on with the buildings on the site, what are some interim use we're going to be able to make of the site during the BRT construction, how we propose to activate the site until such time as it's ripe for development.

We're going to do a bit of a deep dive on the market study that we commissioned to examine the prospects for development on the site and then talk about an upcoming request for information that we'll be putting out.

So the last time we were here was a little shy of a year ago in June 17th, 2025.

And at that point, we talked about many of the same topics.

We talked about the demolition and abatement schedule for the buildings.

Community engagement gave an update on the conclusion of the project working group and community outreach process.

And then we gave uh uh update on what was forthcoming with the market study and the preliminary work staff had been had done to try to determine what might be viable on the site and to talk about how the RFP process might go out.

So today we're giving some updates.

We're about halfway through the demo process.

The original target was for it to be done in July.

Um now that we have gotten into the building, uh there's been some additional time added because some additional material was discovered between the building floors or the abatement.

Taking a little longer, not unexpected in a project such as this for a very old building.

Um but we're about 50 percent completion for both interior and exterior on the abatement, and we anticipate that the demo work will be wrapping up at the end of November.

Next topic is um the site is really well located to serve as a laydown area for the construction of the New Burn Avenue uh bus rapid transit uh facility.

So uh it provides a great location, kind of central along the corridor to uh store construction materials and move things in and out.

And uh staff and engineering services have identified a location along the Newburn and Tarborough Road frontages.

Why here?

This was um specifically to keep it away from uh the residential uh uses that surround the property.

So as you get further south along Tarborough, there's a number of single family houses, single family houses along State Street, so this keeps this um use away from uh those residential areas so it will be less disruptive.

That said, should there be a need for this to migrate from one part of the site to another during the construction phase of the BRT, that is possible since um a laydown area is constantly moving materials in and out that is possible if we decide that we need this for something else that can be accommodated with some notice.

Now, uh going to the site activation, we have sort of three categories of uh activations that we're looking at.

So there's there are quick wins.

Those are targeted to generate some early excitement and visibility on the site.

Recurring program um provides some consistent touch points that can be scheduled over time, and then some of the place-based activation uh might involve some physical improvements to some of the spaces on the property to make it more welcoming.

We want to do this as we move from the demo phase where obviously the site is off limits uh to when it's eventually developed, when it will be off limits again, but there'll be a period of time where we can pursue these activations.

We're not going to do this alone.

We're going to uh work with both internal and external partners.

Um we want to look specifically with partners that are rooted in the community in some way.

So internally, uh we have um facilities such as the city facilities, such as the Tarboro Road Community Center, the Teen Center that are there, and we'll be working with our um internal uh departments on activations.

External, we want to work with businesses and with nonprofits, so you got your food trucks, pop-up vendors, folks who um operate farmers markets, um, and we want to keep on have ongoing involvement with the project working group uh to brainstorm activations going forward.

What is the what is the timeline?

So we are looking at two events in uh 2026.

The first up is coming up pretty soon at the end of the month, May 30th, there's a community cookout um on the site.

As we go into 2027, we're looking at quarterly anchor events on the large site.

Um these first two community events, because of the demo going on are going on in the south part of the property, which is a little bit separated from the main block.

There's two parcels on State Street.

We'll get into that a little bit more detail at the end of this presentation.

And then uh beyond 2028, exploring some community-led programming on the property.

So, with that, now comes the big bucket of cold water, which is the market study findings.

Um I want to start by saying, you know, the goals that have been set for this is we want to deliver a project in a reasonable time frame that meets as many of the city and community goals as possible and maintaining trust throughout the process.

And what are these goals?

So we see sort of four broad goals that have been set by the community and by city council.

Um is this a major site, one of the largest redevelopment sites along the Newburn Avenue BRT.

We want to see transit supportive density.

We don't want to see uh we want to produce a lot of opportunity for um folk for um to create uh transit riders as part of the redevelopment of this.

We want to see significant affordable housing on the property.

We want to see community serving uses.

Some of those may be commercial, such as uh retail, food and beverage, some of them may be things like flexible community space for for uh gather neighborhood gatherings.

And then we're trying to minimize additional city subsidy.

Additional to what?

Well, there's the value of the land.

It's a big block of land.

The city was able to put a fair amount of financial resources towards purchasing it.

We were hoping that um the land would be the source of primarily the subsidy for those parts of the uses such as affordable housing, which require subsidy without requiring major draws on other city accounts.

So let's look at the project working group priorities.

And this is a refresher from last year because this has not really changed.

But again, at the top of the list is affordable housing.

Folks wanted to see retail for the community, they want to see community space.

There is a particular emphasis on incubator space and something related to healthy food, whether that was on-site dining or food stores, et cetera.

Then there were things such as cultural recognition, universal site design that would be um built into the design of the development program.

And these were considered must-haves.

And then the two like to have for sustainability and innovation, and if it were possible, child care on the site.

Now, other things on this list, affordable housing, there are well-established resources and programs and legal authority for the city to get involved in producing affordable housing.

We produce hundreds of affordable housing units with our programs every year, and we can bring those programs and that authority to bear on this site.

Some of these other things are determined as requiring some sort of participation and subsidy, but the nature of them is it's a lot less clear both from the authority and the programmatic support side, how the city can go about bringing these into uh reality, and they also require the existence of uh partners.

So the city is not going to own and operate a daycare, we would need a daycare operator to do that, and we would have to partner with them, for example.

And then there I think these three goals are things that could be incorporated into the criteria for the eventual development RFP and built into the project design and program because they're probably achievable with an enlightened approach to site design.

So how do we underwrite development here?

Well, going into this, our thought that in order to generate both value from the land that could cross-subsidized uses on the site as well as to meet the goal of transit supportive density, that the thing that would be the economic driver on the site would be would be uh fairly dense mid-rise apartments.

So typical midrise apartment building in Raleigh, like you've seen developed all over town, uh produces at least 90 units an acre, which is a pretty high density for a TOD location.

Umfortunately, where we are in the market today is there is a glut of multifamily supply and still relatively high construction pricing and high interest rates, such that projects such as say the Acorn or the Lincoln apartments, if we were to pursue those types of prototypes on this site, what the RCL co findings are market consultants said is that that would produce a negative land value.

That means that when you look at the all-in cost of producing the building versus its value once it's stabilized, that means that it is fully leased, that you would have to not only give the land away to the use, but provide additional subsidy for that development pencil.

What really produces land value in the current market is lower density products, primarily townhouses.

They could be for sale, they could be for rent, they could be traditional townhouses where you have uh uh single units divided by vertical party walls, or they could be like this two over two product that we have seen, such as the gray on uh South Person and Blood Streets or at Washington Terrace, which have uh stacked townhouses, uh four-story buildings.

All of those would be viable and could produce substantial substantial value.

Ground floor retail, um, there is a need for retail in this neighborhood, and the market study uh identified that as a need and something for which there's market support, but in terms of the rents that retail at this location could support, um, they would not fully underwrite new construction and require some sort of cross subsidy within the project to be viable.

And this is summarized in this matrix, very strong support for the lower density, strong demand for mid-rise multifamily, but uh but weak financial feasibility.

Same thing, neighborhood services, strong demand for neighborhood services for food and beverage, only moderate um financial feasibility.

So with that, we had um the architects on the project, LS3P, do some modeling that was then plugged in, some physical modeling as to what would fit on the site.

Um they came up with three scenarios which were then put into the financial model.

So this uh this option shows if we were able to get a 9 percent tax credit to underwrite the affordable component of the project, and I must say that 9 percent is very competitive, and we might go through several funding cycles and come up dry.

So it's a risky thing to it's a risky um basket to put your eggs in, uh, but it is out there.

Uh you could do a moderately sized 9 percent project of 60 affordable units, fill out the the southern half of the property with townhouses, and do 209 market rate apartments on the north side.

Um this would have a total of 300 uh parking spaces, and that mixed that mid-rise building would be a mixed-use building that could then provide up to 20,000 square feet of retail and community space.

The more sure bet for tax credit projects and what's the bread and butter of our affordable housing production is the 4 percent um tax credit program.

So uh to do 4 percent, you need a bigger building.

So we're projecting 110 units on the southern part of the property, again, filling out the balance of the southern half with townhouses and the same size uh market rate apartment building on the north side with the retail and a slightly larger number of parking spaces to accommodate the larger affordable building based on the assumption that the housing finance agency will want to see a certain amount of parking attached to that affordable housing building.

And then the third one uh takes a different approach to the city's participation, which is what if the city took the parking out of the performer for the developer and built the parking um uh as our as a form of providing some additional subsidy into the overall development program.

That allows for a larger overall development and we'll talk and with a larger overall parking allocation, and we'll talk about what the financial impacts of that are on the next slide.

So looking at the modeling, if we were able to do the 9 percent project, which again is a very risky um uh thing to pursue because of the competitiveness of it, that could come out and be financially viable across the whole project.

You see that there is $4.3 million of positive land value generated by the townhouses, which is more than enough to offset um what is produ what is uh the negative values generated by the apartment building and the affordable housing.

Absent 9 percent into the 4 percent, you can see that a very, very substantial city subsidy on top of essentially free land would be necessary to make that project viable.

And if you look at the third scenario where the city builds the parking deck, that is a expensive undertaking.

It is projected at 11.2 million dollars, but on balance, it tips in the the multifamily building and deposited territory, the amount of overall subsidy is a little bit less.

This last column says uh with and without project-based vouchers, that's what PBD stands for.

Um project-based vouchers are a way of improving the cash flow of an affordable project.

They would require that Raleigh Housing Authority agree to allocate uh project-based vouchers into this project.

So what are the implications?

Right now, the original ideas, all those four things we tried to achieve are not not market valuable, absent some pretty significant uh city investment in the property.

Um the caveat is is that that's true for many sites.

There are installed mid-rise buildings all over town that have gotten their approvals but are not breaking ground in the current uh market environment.

And we know that in the recent past, though, it was very profitable to build such buildings because they were being built all over town, and it is reasonable to think that there will come a day when a mid-rise apartment building is viable on this site, but we just don't know when that will be.

So, what can we do in the near term?

Well, we could pursue the 4 percent tax credit project on a portion of the site.

That's something that is less dependent on um knowing on the trajectory of market rents and private capital.

Uh we can also explore some alternative financing model to see if mixed income works on this property.

And we can issue an RFI to gather insights uh that could help us time and uh craft an effective RFP process when the time is right.

So we are proposing a combination of two and three.

The RFI is um something that we just did for More Square, it's out with a due date of um of May 15th, so that's a week from Friday.

And we would uh put out a similar document um but customize for the DMV site to gauge the level of interest that the private market has and potential partners have in the property and get some more information and input that could inform an eventual RFP process.

We also um have the two parcels I referenced that are south of uh Hargett Street, the State Street parcels.

We could look to fast track an RFP process for those.

Those may uh we know that the lower scale of residential development is viable in today's market.

Um this site, given its uh location adjacency to the neighborhood and smaller dimensions, would be very appropriate for a lower scale of development, so that would be something that could get development moving in the area while we wait for things to come together on the big site.

And then, of course, we already talked about the temporary ongoing activations.

So, you know, the RFI process is a very low risk, low commitment method of sounding the market.

It allows us to get some insight from potential partners.

Um we try to keep the uh the submittal requirements fairly lightweight and flexible so that people don't have to spend uh large amounts of time or money in order to respond to us.

I want to stress that we are not trying to question the findings of the market study.

Staff have reviewed uh the projected rents and costs that underlie the financial models and feels that they are reasonable given the data that support them.

Um but we do want to see uh what is that what else is out there and what folks think and what when they think the timing might be right for an eventual uh selection process.

With the State Street parcels, you know, as we said, provides an opportunity for some small-scale infill development.

One of the things that's been uh priority of the project working group and others is to provide an opportunity for emerging developers to bid on some of these projects, and we think the size of the site is a first step towards that.

Um you could design a process that was that where the intent of the process was to ensure that the small local and emerging developers could be effective competitors for the for the award.

And then I think the one thing that we would want to do is maybe a little more community engagement on this.

The State Street parcels were not a major focus of the project working group or community engagement to date.

You know, we have some ideas off the list uh of priorities what might go here, but maybe doing a little more engagement before an RFP goes out would be appropriate.

So with that, I am ready to receive any feedback or answer any questions you may have.

Questions for Mr.

Bowers?

Yeah.

Yes, first of all, thank you for the information.

Um I'm sure you knew I was going to have some questions.

Um the first question I want to ask is and is pertaining to the State Street parcel.

Have we had a conversation with Martin Street Baptist Church because this is in their back door?

Um if we have where where did those conversations go?

We have not had that conversation yet.

Okay.

So I think that conversation would be appropriate.

Yeah.

I I I highly recommend that we have that conversation with them because they may have some plans and there may be a partnership that may be there for that partial there on State Street.

And it may be something that could complement the overall project as well because they they have a lot of parking that is sitting there that I know is is being unused at this time because they used to rent that parking to the DMV site for their employees to park there, pay and park there.

So that would be the first step.

The other thing I would recommend, I'm fine with the RFI because I have you're not questioning the market study.

I'm not technical enough to question the market study, but I have questions about the market study.

And with that said, I think RFI will help us paint a another picture of what the community may see as possibilities and potential there.

So I from my standpoint, communicate with Martin Street Baptist Church.

Okay.

Counselor Silver.

Ken, thank you for the presentation.

So the public of those watching could understand it looks as if the market rate and the affordable housing were in two separate structures.

That's right.

Can you explain why?

And you could say maybe because it's who bills it, whether it's not stacked to achieve it it does change the type of construction, which of course would elevate the cost, but why it wouldn't be stacked for the potential of offering even more density on the site.

All right.

So I'll answer this question, and if any of our colleagues in housing want to add some additional color, they can come down to the mic.

But our assumption is that we would build the housing using tax credits and under the North Carolina's qualified allocation plan, which is how the housing finance agency qualifies your project to receive tax credits, it's extremely hard to use them in anything other than a standalone 100 percent affordable development.

So in other states, other communities, you will often see tax credits used in mixed income development.

But that is uh vanishingly rare in North Carolina, and all of our explorations as to whether that was a viable method going forward indicated that it was not.

So unfortunately, an affordable housing product sitting on its own parcel with its own dedicated parking is the easiest thing in North Carolina to use tax credits for.

Yeah, I actually don't have anything to add.

I thought I was just coming down in case something else came up.

But yeah, that exactly what Ken said is is right.

Okay.

Second question I noticed at the town uh home development, which you had at the portion of the site, um I'm assuming that's gonna also be part of the RFI, and I noticed that each scenario the locations are different because it seems that that would be the most likely development to go forward first, but depending on which scenario pursue, the location varies from option to option.

So is that going to be part when you put it out for the RFI and just wanted to have you weigh in on just location of the town homes?

We're gonna share these options, and obviously they're not binding, because there's lots of different ways you could you could lay out the site.

Since you asked the question, I'll just illustrate because of the need to have dedicated parking in this case uh for scenario two, this four-story wood frame building sits on top of a podium in the ground floor is parking.

Now this puts all the parking in a centralized facility, so the affordable component, which is now in the middle has to be relocated next to that.

Now, what based on there's a project that was uh a partnership um between uh developer Laurel Street and Durham County, where Durham County built a parking deck and uh made those spaces available for an adjacent uh tax credit project that Laurel Street built.

In order to do that and pass muster with the Housing Finance Agency, they had to both um condo out the spaces that were allocated to that affordable building and have them behind a separate gate key.

Um it can be done.

There are complications about it, but there is precedent for handling um parking.

Uh but we felt like the adjacency here of having those units be very close to that centralized parking facility would be the way to do that.

Um Councilor Patton and then uh fourth.

Hi again.

Can you go to the chart?

Um or this one?

This one or this one?

Sorry, no, the one with the values, the three scenarios and the values.

Oh, the that this one.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

So when I was reading the back of it, I like obviously the trade-offs here are like what is actually going to come out of the ground, how much subsidy is it going to take?

And like what can we do to cross-subsidize?

And so but I wasn't quite clear on this chart.

Are the numbers in red the amount of subsidy we would need to provide in order to produce that outcome?

Yeah.

Is that a way to interpret that?

That is how you interpret it.

And so that's called the residual value.

And in this case, like it was a negative number for the rentals.

Okay.

Which is very different from where land had been trading for mid-rise projects in the not too distant past.

So in the first scenario, no subsidy or very little subsidy needed.

And in the second two scenarios, lots of subsidy.

And scenario two, that's like a whole year of affordable housing money.

Yes.

Okay.

Got it.

Helpful.

And then a second question.

Forgive me if you said it and I just didn't catch it.

So if the affordable housing bond passes, that will introduce a new tool into our toolkit, which is the like the mixed income revolving loan model.

Does that have any relevance here?

And would utilization of that tool change any of these circumstances?

Yeah.

So it has relevance in the sense that it provides an option, not on this on this sheet that we can explore.

And we did ask RCLCO to do some preliminary analysis on it.

And the findings of that analysis are not definitive as to this will work here, but they were encouraging enough that it is probably worth exploring.

Obviously, a lot of things would have to fall into place of for that tool to be available here, including our partner, Raleigh Housing Authority agreeing that this is a good place to pursue a project.

But uh and of course the bond passing and everything else.

But yes, I think that is something that uh as we continue to do further work and refinement of figuring out how to make development work here, that is a possibility.

It addresses um uh councilmember Silver's uh question, because that would be a building where the affordable housing would be integrated into the same building with the market rate, um, would be sharing the same amenities, the same parking structure.

Um it has some advantages, but it but we need to make sure that it is a cost-effective way of doing it and a feasible way of doing it.

Um it may require because the site is so big, splitting it up into a couple phases so that you're not developing over 400 units and trying to rent them all at once.

Uh King, can you go back to the slide that had the Milo?

The Milo element.

Sorry.

Yes, this.

Okay.

So is that what you are contemplating in scenario like 3A to fit there?

Well, what we're really um contemplating is something more like the abode.

Um but again, there's lots of different things.

We could only model so many scenarios.

Uh the Milo is a surface part rental apartment project.

Um that would give you more.

What is telling here is that the rent that they are getting is very similar to the Lincoln, but they don't have a parking debt.

So you know, depending on the land cost, that's a building that is less expensive to build and and gets the same rent as the more expensive building.

So that's why it's that's why it's performing better in that analysis.

Okay.

But that would give you like more opportunities for density for affordable housing if you followed a model similar to that, correct?

Um the the it's a little denser, but if you look at the third line, the third row in this, the positive value is like 85,000, 8500 per unit, whereas that the the townhouses produce, even though they are lower density, produce a way higher land value per unit.

So our the RCLCO report thinks that a rental townhouse development could could spend almost $72,000 per buildable lot or for per buildable unit and the development and for sale could be 120.

So even though you have got a lower density, the value per unit is so much higher that if you're just concerned about maximizing the land value, you would go with the townhouse.

But but if we were more concerned about having more available units for folks who needed affordable housing, the Milo would probably be the better.

The thing about uh surface park multifamily is I think that the densest ones in Raleigh are about 30 units an acre.

That's that's the that's about as good as you can get with surface parking in terms of the overall density.

If you did affordable housing without the parking podium, but surface part, you know, that would that would take up a very that would take up a significant share of the whole site to do to do 110 units.

Yeah, uh council.

One thing I do want to highlight to all of no bring back up to all of council as well, too, as we have our conversation is the community wants housing.

They want some affordable housing, but they also want some type of uses retail, uh, some type of commerce as well, so that they can, you know, do things within their own community without necessarily having to leave.

Um if they need a a great lawyer that the lawyer has an office within the community or are a doctor and things of that nature.

So those will be other things that I think we have to think about and balance when we lost over 300 plus jobs off this corridor when DMV moved.

Um just want to highlight that.

It's a balancing app between affordable housing, probably some market in order to balance, but also some sense of retail um in this community as well, knowing that there's uh also another property um I just say east of west of this that may also be retail centric.

How do these the part how do these developments balance each other and complement each other as well?

Um so hopefully I have there will be more information on that other property and what is happening there, because I think the development that happens there will also greatly impact what happens here.

Because they're literally in walking distance.

I guess my observation, I appreciate all of this work.

And Raleigh Housing Authority vouchers, and still have to put in potentially six to eleven million dollars.

Yeah.

It it is daunting.

Yeah.

And again, that's a snapshot of where the market is today.

And we we do expect that to improve.

You know.

Um, the question is what is the timing?

Yeah.

How long does that take?

So just the other the assumptions, you you talked a lot about how hard it is to get a 9 percent lie tech and how competitive.

I mean, what is the probability, because your your assumptions were 4 percent, right?

It depends on who else is applying in any given year.

So I think, you know, while this site can I probably have a perfect site score.

Um, you know, the tiebreakers and the qualified allocation plan this year are cost per unit being the lowest and the number of units being the highest.

So it really depends on what the tiebreakers are in the year, who else has applied.

Um but you know, like you said, it is it it is more of a risk.

All right.

Um thank you.

Any other questions or we're just receiving this as an update, correct?

Do you need a directly?

Yeah.

Receive as information.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ken.

And two quick announcements.

Um just was made aware of the fact that the employee recognition event that was scheduled for this Thursday is being rescheduled for May 21st.

So I know some council members have a tendency to come, but it is going to rain and it looks like the probability right in the middle of the event is great.

And we're going to be outside, so we um HR wanted to reschedule that for May 21st.

And um again, remind everybody that we are in the middle right now of City Vision as the host community, folks are here from all over the state starting today, and they'll be here through Thursday.

We have a community block party tomorrow.

So we're hoping that everybody enjoys the pit barbecue and all that.

The dairy chocolate that we have on the street, as well as the hospitality that we here in Raleigh um are affording all of our neighbors from across North Carolina, and lastly, go canes.

What a great game last night.

It was thank you.

Next, we've got uh the different committees.

There are no items pending, so then a report of Mayor and City Council and Councillor Ford start with you.

No report.

We do now have an item and transportation committee.

And so we will meet on that topic on May 28th from 3 to 5 in council chambers.

And then just one item for me.

With Mother's Day approaching this weekend, it feels like a poignant moment to highlight just how unaffordable child care can be for most families.

Child care costs can often exceed the cost of a mortgage payment.

And roughly 80% of families are paying more for child care than the 7% of annual income that's considered the marker for when child care is one that you can afford.

And I can certainly say for my own part that child care costs played a role in my my own family planning.

So while the city of Raleigh is not the primary arbiter of child care provision, licensing, and all the rest.

So I'd like to ask staff to bring an agenda item with options for consideration of a text change to the UDO that would serve to facilitate a child care for more children.

So moved.

All right.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Just want to say happy Mother's Day to all the mothers and all those who have served like mothers.

So with that, I have no other report.

Thank you.

No report for me.

I just have a few things.

I want to take a moment before I have something to motion for, but explain why I'm bringing it forward.

So we have raised concerns about employee morale and workforce retention multiple times over the last few years.

So this is not a new conversation.

But what is new is that I am now formalizing a directive because I believe that we we can't wait any longer.

We've made real progress on our vacancy rate.

We brought it the overall city vacancies down from 15 percent to 9 percent.

And I really want to acknowledge that work because that did not happen by accident.

But recent information about vacancies in key departments tells me that the progress we've made is fragile and that we do not yet fully understand what's driving people out the door or keeping them from walking in.

So I'm I'm using what we're seeing across the organization as a prompt for a larger question, one that applies everywhere.

Do our employees feel valued, supported, and heard?

High turnover has real costs in recruitment, in training, and institutional knowledge that walks out the door, and low morale has real consequences for the quality of services our residents receive every single day.

So I just really want to get this right, and I feel that that starts with a survey that it's comprehensive, anonymous, and administered across all departments and employee classifications.

Um that means that also means that when the results come back, I'd like to see them maybe.

I'm just trying to idea in stages, maybe just a preliminary briefing on you know what was found, and then maybe a full report broken down by department in the future.

So with that, I uh I want to move that staff develop and administer a comprehensive anonymous employee satisfaction survey citywide with a preliminary briefing and then uh a full report broken down by department.

Um I don't know about dates, but just seeing what that what that would fit with within our uh staffing.

Very good point.

In fact, I'm there with the HR director this morning.

We already scoped out what that survey will look like.

We're gonna get through the budget first, and then we will implement that study, and we'll bring it back to you guys in two or three sessions of four by four conversations once we have a projected um project timeline.

Awesome.

So we're on it.

Oh, you're already on it.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Then I don't need to make motion.

You already know.

No, we gotta retract that motion and just say thank you.

Um the other two things I have are just my normal decoding democracy book club will meet on Saturday, May 9th from 9.30 to 1130 at New World Cafe on Durley Road.

We are finally finishing the first chapter, and we will briefly be overviewing chapter two.

And then lastly, our monthly District D community dinner will be held on Wednesday, May 13th from 6 to 8 p.m.

at La Casina Italian restaurant.

Our partners over at Swing will be there to do a presentation to the community about what is expected and hoped for in the future.

So please join us.

Thank you.

Just briefly, um, first of all, happy Mother's Day and to all those who stand in for Mothers.

Um, and as well as um I'll be meeting with some of the residents over in Lions Park, Lions Way on Monday to discuss some of their concerns as well that they're having recently.

And I just want to thank everyone for who went on the chamber trip.

I think I learned a lot of how the private sector has invested in the community to help push services and things forward.

So just want to thank everyone.

Yes, happy Mother's Day and to all parents who raise children and help our children grow in the city.

It is huge.

Um to look at economic incentive deals that could be possible when we do have companies that are coming to Raleigh, whether they can provide on-site child care.

There are a lot of challenges with doing so, but that could help to soften the market to allow for more supply.

I would also advocate that we look to uh increasing the eligibility for who can get subsidies, lower income families who could get a state subsidy for child care.

Um there's very few families that qualify, and many need this.

Um so this is just definitely on my mind.

I do know how much it costs, and I'm about to incur that monthly cost uh in June uh every month for quite a while.

Um so I also want to uh invite anyone who would like to come to the District D uh neighborhood alliance meeting that will be on Saturday, May 16th at 9 30 a.m.

at the Crowder Center.

And finally, happy bike month.

So for anyone who's getting out on a bicycle these days, I'm not, but someday, hopefully soon.

I don't believe it.

Yeah, I'm not supposed to.

Um but uh I did want to mention, unfortunately, I I did hear of an incident of a cyclist being hit on Hillsborough Street.

I do hope that they are okay.

Um I just want to uh also ask in our city manager's uh update and a future report for any plans for Hillsborough Street improvements for multimodal pedestrian bicycle safety.

It's one of the best corridors in the city for connecting, you know, uh a lot of young people, especially who are out there on bikes, but still it's not a place where many people feel safe because they can be unfortunately doored or you know, there's so many things going on, especially close to NC State, and I'm just like to see any improvements that we can make in the near term would be huge.

So thank you.

Okay.

Uh next we have appointments.

Yes.

All right.

First, we have Arts Commission, two regular vacancies.

Jay Campbell received one vote.

Um we had two nominations here.

First, Councilmember Jones nominated Austin Fovort and Councilmember Harrison nominated Nardra Johnson.

So those three names will come back on your next ballot for consideration for those two vacancies.

Next is bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission, one regular vacancy.

We do have uh one nomination by councilmember Harrison for Elijah Geist, that will be coming back on your next ballot.

Environmental advisory board, one regular vacancy.

Councilmember Jones nominated O'Kee Louie Okpoli, and Councilmember Harrison nominated Margot Shrift.

So those names will be coming back on your next ballot.

Next, Planning Commission, one regular vacancy.

Devon Murray received three votes.

Uh Councilmember Silver nominated Sanford Baird and uh Councilmember Harrison nominated Anna Willis.

So those three names will be coming back on your next ballot.

And lastly, under uh appointments, substance use advisory commission, one regular vacancy.

Councilmember Jones nominated Jean Hammer.

So that will be coming back on your next ballot.

Jumping down to appointments, uh police advisory board, we do have um a couple removal requests.

The chair of the police advisory board submitted letters to remove an at-large member and an alternate member letters from the chairperson, which included attendance information were included in the agenda materials.

Should the council uh choose to uphold these removal requests, you could elevate one of your existing alternates.

She was recently appointed to not much attendance to report there, and that would create an additional alternate vacancy.

Move to accept the removal request by the chair and elevate the alternate member.

All in favor of that motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right, that passes.

All right.

So those vacancies will be coming back.

And then lastly, Stormwater Management and Advisory Commission, one regular vacancy.

We do have a resignation from Marinel Ubaldo.

Um this member did not fill any qualifications that are not um otherwise filled by another member based off the desired qualifications matrix that council has previously adopted.

So that will be coming back.

I'd like to add um Dr.

Zainab Ali Dinah to the um list and her application is on file in Granicus.

Sure.

Thanks.

All opposed, nay.

That passes.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

All opposed, nay, and we will go into closed session.

Bill Maddox had said she had not signed up, but we're just gonna say you could just recognize it.

So let me just wait so she doesn't feel like she came all the way here, and then here she is.