City Council · Regular Meeting · February 2, 2026

m. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you, Council Member Rist. You can lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For those who wish, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> Thank you. All right, we'll now go to Madame Clerk for the roll call and then I'll get things. >> Okay. Mayor Williams, >> I'm here. >> Mayor Prom Cabayro

>> here. >> Thank you. >> Council member Baker >> here. >> Council member Burris >> present.

>> Council member Cook >> here. >> Council member Kopac >> here. >> Council member Wrist >> here. >> Thank you.

>> Thank you. So, uh, before we get into, uh, the brief announcements, colleagues, uh, just a few housekeeping matters. Uh, obviously, this is all of our first time doing a Zoom except council member mayor prom um, Cabierro uh, doing a zoom for a city council, a formal city council meeting. Uh, and it's my first time chairing it.

So, I had to uh go back and do some homework watching Mayor Shaw and how you guys council mayor prom how you all did during the pandemic. So, it is a little different but not too much. I'm still going to follow the same order. Um, tech will be controlling our backend. DTN uh is here. Um, I the only difference

really is when it comes for us to vote, I will call each of you by name for you to affirm your vote, your preference, and the clerk will uh record that and then report it out. Uh, and it'll need to be uh, you know, uh, whatever your preference of the vote, a vocal, yay or nay. Hey, um, a or nay. And uh just so you all know the chat feature will be disabled. Um however colleagues if you're a panel uh panelist then you'll be able to communicate you can let me know. if you you know if you want to address a you have a comment you want to make uh just shoot me a message but more so I'll be trying to look and follow on the screen but of course with zoom it kind of move you around on the screen but we are we are in webinar format so uh there are a lot of people watching uh and we'll be uh elevated to panel when

it's time for them to speak and uh our our team will handle that on the back end but otherwise we'll uh go on with with the uh business per usual. Thank you, Amy. I just got your note. All right.

Um and we did remove all the ceremonial items from the agenda. Uh we'll be able to do those in person when we return. >> Thank you. All right.

Uh first up, I'll just follow on my screen here. Council member Copek. Um brief remarks to Madison. >> Sure.

Thank you. Um, I know we're keeping these announcements brief. I just want to send a thank you to Heart Nova Table Ministry for their work taking care of our unhoused neighbors during the recent storms. I had the opportunity to volunteer during the ice storm and see them in action and hear stories from our unhoused neighbors, including their gratitude that programs like this exist. Uh, thank you to all the frontline workers who were out plowing streets, helping neighbors address safety concerns, performing other critical services as they always do. Uh, and I appreciate all the energy

in the public square in response to the horrific attacks in Minneapolis. to send a message that we are here in solidarity and also here to show up for each other uh in Durham. So, I've been moved and motivated to be out there with you. Thank you.

>> Thank you. Um Council Member Bur. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Mayor Pro Tim.

Good to see you all virtually from the comfort of our own homes and the warmth of our own homes. Um happy Black History Month. Super excited to start off with that recognition. think about the shoulders of those who I stand on this community but also the ancestors who come from far and abroad.

Um associate myself with many of my colleague Mr. Kopac sorry Council Member Kopac statements expressing gratitude to our city workers while we were in the warmth of our own homes or some of us maybe figuring things out. They were out working hard clearing our roads and making sure that we all were safe. So that's not lost upon us. So definitely want to extend gratitude. But for all the folks who were actually out and about this weekend to make sure our neighbors who are unhoused or who need support were able to receive resources, we definitely extend our gratitude to

you and we appreciate you for all your hard work. So that was under two minutes, Mr. Mayor. Um, thank you.

I promise to be brief. So there we go. >> Thank you so much, Council Member. Council member Ris.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple things. Um, yes, I want to add to um my colleagues in recognizing Black History Month.

There are many activities going on as folks know. One of those activities is Transit Equity Day, which is this Wednesday, February the 4th. That's also Rosa Parks' birthday. m.

at Reese City organized by Bike Durham that involves installing a community built bench at a bus stop in Durham. So, check out Bike Durham if you're interested in that. Um, I also want to say real quick, it's also tax time as folks know. So, I want to say a word about tax time and tax justice in Durham. Annually in Durham, over 157,000 federal income tax forms are filed. Based on our most recent data that we have, about 13% of those filings or about 21,000 returns claim the earned income tax credit and about 10 thou I'm sorry, 10% of returns or about 16,000

returns in Durham claimed the refundable child tax credit. Together, these credits returned over $82 million in federal credits to working families in Durham, or roughly $2,200 per household. We also know that 20% of eligible taxpayers don't claim the EITC, and about 10% of taxpayers don't claim the child tax credit. I'll be talking about this more, but a new coalition called in Durham called the Durham Benefits Access Coalition has been ramping up efforts to make sure all eligible households in Durham file their taxes this year and claim the tax credits they're entitled to.

Along with these tax credits, the federal government is also funding $1,000 savings accounts for all newborns born since January 1, 2025. And those are also accessed by filing out a form or new tax return. So stay tuned for more information, but these are big tax savings and big tax based benefits that we want all residents of Durham to take advantage of. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. >> Thank you and thank you for those remarks. Um, as you know, we we have

some big announcements coming up really soon about that and some awards that we've uh won for that. So stay tuned as the council member stated. Council member Baker, >> thank you. I want to um say thank you to to my colleagues for your comments.

Associate myself with all of those comments. Uh happy Black History Month. Um, many thanks to our city workers, those who have been out uh again while while many of us have been in the comfort of our homes, people who've been out in the streets um making sure that things keep working in our city that that the city keeps working and um all of the work that's been done to help those who are most vulnerable in our community, our unhoused neighbors and and everyone else. So, thank you so so much to uh all of our city workers, our partners, people volunteering their time, everyone going that extra effort to make sure that um that things keep running while while uh while folks um are are able to stay home. Um and um

lastly, just thanks to everyone who's uh made this uh meeting happen um who who did this quick pivot uh to to Zoom. Um, this is my first time doing a council meeting on Zoom. Uh, I think uh the rest of our colleagues other than Council Member Cabayro. So, Mayor Prom Cabierro.

So, thanks to everyone for for making this happen and thanks to the public also for uh for uh uh coming out to to watch on on Zoom rather than being in the chambers. So much appreciated for that. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Cook.

>> Thank you. Yes, most of my comments have been stated already. I do want to say that I'm wearing a very puffy situation cuz my heat is having trouble keeping up with the temperature. Um, sorry about the dress, but it is what it is.

Um, I also just want to echo what everyone said. Happy Black History Month. Um, and also a big thanks to both city staff and our community partners who have just been working tirelessly. Um, I went to the housing services, wait, homelessness services

advisory, whatever hack that I sit on, I should know the name of. Um, and everyone was exhausted last Wednesday. We had only been halfway through the week. And, um, I just want to give a shout out to every single person who's been involved in any part of this weather related uh, getting folks who are generally unhoused into safe spaces.

Um, it's been a real hall. I know that it is like the lift has been really heavy and we've had some staff that have just been working around the clock hard taking people um to those shelters and then all of our community partners who've been willing to staff those shelters and then really every department in Durham that we've had to get involved because of various things happening or going wrong. So, I just want to echo everyone's thanks and also to our city workers who have been plowing our streets did a great job. And um our sanitation workers who had to keep up um or to to do extra work in order to get back on schedule after the

last storm and I'm sure we'll do so this week as well. So, incredible effort by everybody and we've learned so much in this process. I'm really excited to have that disaster preparedness moving forward. So, thank you everyone and I look forward to a good meeting.

>> Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tim. >> Thank you. Good evening everyone. I'll be very brief.

Good to be with you. I will only be with you all briefly this evening. Um, since we are virtually, I was able to join for part of it. Um, just want to extend and and a deep sense of gratitude to all our city workers.

Uh, I know how hard it is to uh get through these snowstorms, get through these weather events, and um also get these meetings on Zoom in such a quick fashion. That's all. Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

Uh, happy Black History Month, everybody. Um, is uh I'm looking forward to all of the events coming up this year. Uh, just got back from the US Conference of Mayors and spent a great deal of time with just mayors across the

country singing the same tune about what's happening in our communities. Um, standing alongside Mayor Fry of Minneapolis and uh, Brandon Johnson, Brandon Scott, just a lot of friends, a lot of my friends across the uh, country, I know that we're all on the same page. And what we're going through in Durham is no different than what others are going through across the country. It's given me hope.

The fire that I that I feel in and my other colleagues across the country. So, I look forward to uh, all of us continuing to work together uh, to uh, protect our community, keep us safe. Um, shout out to Eric Fuller. He works with the environmental street services team.

He took me out on the uh on the I don't know what you call this machine, but it does a lot at the same time. It has the plow. It has the treatment coming out of the back. It's all-wheel drive.

And it's a lot of moving parts all at once. And we went on um we did a shift. And man, it is I'm just really grateful for all of the work into keeping our streets uh as clear as possible. uh to our staff, our you know

just I want to say public works but environmental street team, street services team for just the skill set it takes with all of the heavy machinery for this weekend and last weekend and throughout the entire time our city and county staff, our nurses, our heart team, even when our heart team had to take over the entire center um when you know we're not staffed for 24 hours a day 247, excuse me, not even staffed for 247 yet they were working 24/7, tired, exhausted, you know, just just trying to keep from getting sick. Shout out to what makes Storm so great. I'm so grateful for our for our teams. Uh and um I I I was in DC a bit of last week and and just glad that I live in Durham and the way that our teams work.

They're really really good at what they do uh in the way we clean the streets. All right. Uh more to come. There are lots of announcements coming up as we get into February regarding awards that we've won

and I look forward to holding a press conference and I'll invite the public to those really really soon. All right. Um I will pass it over to uh Manager Ferguson for your priority items. >> Thank you, Mayor, Mayor Prom, members of council.

Great to see you this evening. First, I want to acknowledge and thank you for all the compliments that you've uh shared for our staff and I want to amplify them. I'm so proud uh to be associated with these employees who've been serving the public so faithfully over the last 10 days. Uh it it's a great thing for public safety when winter weather comes on a weekend because a lot of folks stay home.

Uh but not necessarily a great thing for public employees who spend their week working and then spend their weekend working too. So I want to thank them. Uh we've been working hard to support them make sure they have what they need to do their jobs. Uh want to also thank the the comments uh in particular around uh efforts to protect our unhoused neighbors. Uh extremely proud of the work that that's happened over the uh

last two weekends uh to really ramp up and and that's that was such a team effort uh but but great leadership from our staff. And then finally to amplify also your your compliments to the staff who have made tonight's Zoom meeting possible. It was a quick pivot. that is made possible by the governor's uh declaration of emergency that is in effect.

As long as that is in effect, North Carolina local governments are allowed to make this pivot and uh it allows us to move on with important business but not make people uh make the trip to city hall when conditions might not be appropriate. So, uh thank you to all those staff, to all those teams and to council members for your flexibility tonight and allowing this to move forward. Um, I do want to amplify the announcement we made earlier today, which is there will be a 2-hour delayed opening for city facilities tomorrow. m.

Uh, but then it will be business as usual. Uh, and we anticipate a quick return to normaly for the rest of the week based on the forecast. So, with that, let me read my priority items for the evening. First, uh, for agenda item number 10,

this is the contract with Paragrin Technologies, Inc. to procure an operations management platform for the Durham City Police Department. Uh I am requesting this item be referred back to staff. Uh and it is no longer being considered or put forward by the staff.

Uh and for agenda item number 19, this is a zoning map change. The Creek Side mixeduse development. Uh the applicant has advised that they wish to seek a continuence tonight. So, we are requesting that this item be heard first among the public hearing items uh so that that uh can be considered and moved forward uh before the rest of the public hearing items proceed.

Those are my items for this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, madame um attorney.

>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madame Mayor Pertim, and members members of the council. It's good to be with you. The city attorney's office does not have any priority items tonight. >> Madam clerk,

>> good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madame Mayor Prom, and city council members. The city clerk's office as well has no priority items this evening. >> Right.

Thank you. >> All right. At this time, I will resume with the consent agenda and let's see how I can do this. Um, >> I I do believe because my priority item recommended a change to tonight's agenda that it does require the council to to vote on my priority item as to whether or not to accept my recommendations.

>> Uh, you are correct. Um, excuse me. So, uh, just madam attorney, just am I I don't read that item. I'm just approving or calling for calling a question for,

uh, the manager's, uh, priority items. Correct. >> That's correct. You're just entertaining a motion to refer the item back to staff.

>> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to accept the manager's priority items. >> So move. >> Second.

>> All right. It was moved by council member wrist and seconded by mayor pro Tim Cavierro. All right, madam clerk, you got that? >> Yes, Mr.

Mayor. >> All right. Um, >> vote. >> Is there is there a question for me Cook?

>> Thank you. Um, I just want to address briefly because there's been some um, folks in the community that have been asking about why uh, this was done this way. And so I just want to state that I feel totally confident in um, in this choice by the manager to move this back. I think that this was um, a great idea to ensure that our meeting stays focused tonight. um because the staff heard an overwhelming uh consensus on council,

not consensus, but um an overwhelming majority on council that did not want to move forward with this contract. Um I feel okay also about not having discussion on it, even though I do understand that some people would have wished to have been heard only because we had this at a work session and did have an opportunity for public comment previously. Um, I had also reserved my comments uh to be here tonight. So, I totally understand the frustration that folks are having.

Um, but I do think that this has been the majority of the communication that we've gotten aligns with this decision. So, just wanted to say that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Council Member Wrist.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, if I could as well. Yeah. Yeah.

Thanks, Council Member Cook for your comments there. Yeah, we did receive a number of comments from from residents and and uh had a number of communications back and forth. Just want to assure folks that we read all those messages or at least I read them carefully and responded to many. So we really appreciate appreciate the input on that and also appreciate the wisdom of the manager and referring this back to staff.

>> Thank you all. Yes, we received all of the messages uh in you know in email in person. Uh I appreciate the great diversity around us. uh whenever there is not clarity uh whether you know no matter how we got to the point of not having clarity or not I can appreciate staff listening uh to uh the sentiments of the council on making a move such as this and colleagues I appreciate you all for obliging on this as well um it's been moved and properly seconded I do have to do voice votes so I'll just go on my screen council member Rrist >> I >> council member Kobac I >> council member Burris.

>> Hi, >> Council Member Baker. No, your manager. Council member Baker. >> Hi, >> Council Member Cook. >> I mayor Pro Tim Cabierro. >> I >> and I myself, Madam Clerk.

>> The vote passes unanimously, seven to zero. >> Thank you so much. All right. At this time, I will read the consent agenda.

All right. Durham Performing Arts Center oversight committee appointments. Number two, that's number one. Number two, mayor's council for women appointment.

Number three, approval of city council minutes. Number four, contract ST342, street repairs and repaving 2026 to 20 in 2024 bond referendum. Number five, contract ST343 pavement preservation 2026. Number six, contract amendment number one for ST 334 C utility locate services 2025.

Number seven, contract ST 342C pavement management CI services 2026. Okay. Uh number eight, resolution

accepting the North Carolina Land and Water Fond Grant to construct the South Ele storm water project. Number nine, second amendment to interlocal cooperation agreement with the housing authority of city of the city of Durham to procure and install security equipment. Number nine, um that was number nine. Number 11, purchase contract with Palmetto Bus Sales LLC for five replacement light transit vehicles for go access.

Glad to see that. Okay. Um, number 10 has been referred back. 0, a privately initiated unified development ordinance, UDO text amendment.

Number 15, TC2500002, RV parking amendment. Number 16, consolidated annexation 938 Mclam Drive. Number 17, consolidated annexation Curly Gardens. Okay. Number 18,

consolidated annexation 3600 Pine View Circle. Number 19, zon map change creek side mixeduse which we'll hear first of those presentations. All right. Uh before I entertain a motion uh madame clerk a couple of things.

Uh I'm going because I am voting I am going to pass the uh the calling of the vote to you to let you do what you normally do what you're accustomed to doing. Um, and also if you can remind me of which items were pulled. >> Okay, first off, the items pulled are 1, 2, 5, and nine from the consent agenda. >> Those items have speakers, correct? And then we have our uh our public uh hearings. >> Yes, these are from the consent agenda.

>> Okay, sounds good. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exceptions of with the exception of items 1, two, five, and nine. >> Some move. >> So moved.

>> Second. >> All right. It's been moved and promptly seconded. And a clerk, please call the vote.

>> Mayor Williams, >> I. Mayor Prom Cababayro, she with us. >> Okay, she's off. And just also another housekeeping thing, uh, council members, if you go off camera, like when I ran and got water, if you took a vote when I ran to get some water, um, my vote doesn't count.

So, if you go off screen, you have to be on, we all have to be on screen in order to participate. Uh and also council member Caviierro unlike in person uh she's no longer with us. Her vote does not um her vote is not considered uh a yes vote for the remainder of the meeting. Is that right, Madam Click? >> That's correct. >> Okay,

>> moving on. Um Council Member Baker. >> Uh we've got a couple hands up. Let's finish the vote and then um well, let me ask you this colleagues.

Are your comments in discussion to the uh consent agenda? >> No, I was just asking can you pin us so we can all just be top on display because everyone's moving. So that's my only request to keep it easier to see our actual colleagues on council. Can you pin us?

>> I just pinned you and that messed my screen up. Um I don't think >> we got we got the agenda coordinator is working on that. We just got a message. >> Mr.

Mayor, I'll start the roll call vote again. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Williams, >> I promis stepped away. Council member Baker, >> I council member Burris.

>> I member Cook >> I. >> Council member Kopac >> I. >> Council member Rrist

>> I. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.

Uh, council member Cook. >> Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. So if it is it different than the normal rules.

So if we step away, we do not have our vote does not count as an I because >> I know council or Javier Cabiero got an excused absence. So she >> I know her vote doesn't count as an I, but for us if we step away and miss, >> would it would it automatically count as an I? >> I don't think it counts. >> That's correct.

Um, hello Council Member Cook. So, the remote meetings statute is slightly different than your usual voting statute, which is that 16875. The remote meetings law requires that you be simultaneously connected and communicating with the body on the remote feed during the voting process. Um, so unless you are I mean if you step away to get water

theoretically yes there could be a situation where it counts as an I but because there's another provision in that statute that also demands the roll call vote during a remote meeting. I think what we should observe is that you all will be pulled in roll call for your vote. >> It's a little it's a little complicated. The subject is not perfectly written but >> got I'm following.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks so much. Mayor Williams, >> you're muted.

>> Mayor, you're you're muted. >> Sorry. Manager Ferguson. Um, when you regarding your priority items, that was when we get to the public hearing.

Correct. Public hearings. That

number 19 go. >> Okay. >> Correct. Yes.

When we get to public hearings, we're requesting number 19 be the first one heard. Thank you. >> All right. Madame clerk, I'm going to ask that you help me out.

One more thing. It's just too many screens to look at. If you can uh identify the speakers, I know you sent it via email and I'll try to split my screen, but it's uh it's going to be a lot. >> Mr.

Mayor, Jacob Cardinus is the speaker to item number one. >> Okay, Jacob, can you hear us? Okay, here we go. Jacob, can you unmute yourself?

Cardinz. >> Oh, he's listed as a resource person. Okay. >> But he's also listed as an opponent.

>> All right, let's let's clarify. Are they resource or opponent? Um, are they >> Mr. needs to clarify?

>> All right, Mr. Gardinius, can you uh unmute yourself? All right, I will come back to item number one. I won't call for a question on it just yet.

Item number two, who do we have there? >> Longren, >> can you hear us? >> Hi. Can you hear me?

>> Yes. Uh, just real quick before you start, uh, Miss Lungren, did you unmute yourself or, uh, did you have to receive permission to unmute? >> Um, I received permission. It came up on my screen.

>> Okay. Thanks for pointing that out, Council Member Cook. Um,

so we'll we'll see if we can do the same for Mr. Jacob. All right. Uh, feel free to go ahead and uh get us get us started.

Um, you have three minutes. >> Oh. Um, this might be um a little bit of a misconfusion. I wasn't um I'm just here to kind of take notes on what's going on in the city um for a news article.

So it wouldn't let me actually register for the Zoom unless I put myself down as a speaker. >> No worries. >> So I have nothing to say but >> engage. All right.

Good. >> All right. So uh colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to uh appoint Tamara G to the mayor's council for women representing at large with the term to expire June 30, 2028. So moved.

>> There we go. >> I moved and probably seconded. Madam clerk, please please call the vote. >> Mayor Williams

>> here. I mean, I'm sorry. I >> ready. >> Um I Yes.

Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Council member Baker >> I.

>> Council member Burus. >> I council member Cook. >> I member Kopac. >> Hi.

>> Council member Wrist. >> Hi. >> Thank you. All right.

Next. Um, how many speakers do we have for number five? Medical, >> just one. >> Okay.

Could you identify the person? >> Samria McKenzie. >> Hi, Miss McKenzie. Can you hear us?

>> Hi, guys. I can hear you. >> Oh, there you are. Welcome.

You have three minutes. Can you speak up a little bit for me? >> Yeah, I can. Um, you can also try to adjust my volume, but that that might not go so well. So, I'll just kind of springing here. I hope you guys can hear

me. I signed up to speak for both agendas four and five because they are both um infrastructure uh contracts. Uh, and so I think uh what I have to say is pretty relevant for both. And thank you for your time.

Uh, I'm Sarah McKenzie, a longtime resident and plan. I live in Pay Village and I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to the city investing in infrastructure. I'm hoping to encourage transparency, equity, and accountability, especially in historically underserved neighborhoods like Hotel. 7 million contract to Slurry Papers Incorporated. The maps and document the maps and um documents provided on today's agenda clearly show which neighborhoods and streets will be paid along with a 365 timeline for project completion and a full itemized breakdown of project costs even down to the materials required which is awesome.

What I don't see is that same level of detail, transparency, and accountability for all infrastructure projects, especially those for Hayai and other lowincome uh areas. Work in my neighborhood specifically and along the Bay Girl Street corridor appears to be handled differently, voted into existing corridor projects or community-led initiatives rather than treated as a direct city responsibility. And the result of this work uh is often poorly scoped, inconsistently executed, and sometimes left unfinished. And they sold that streets throughout my neighborhood like mine were dug up just uh this past fall, repaired incorrectly, torn up again, and uh abandoned. Massie Avenue has been left bare for months, and um we really don't have a concrete or clear timeline for completion. Meanwhile, in more gentrified areas of Ward One, full neighborhood asphalt and sidewalk repairs happen without residents even needing to request.

And as I look at the streets and areas listed for items four and five, I see more neighborhoods with vastly higher medium incomes and gentrification than neighborhoods like mine. Since Durham is issuing bonds to fund these projects, which means higher property taxes that hate Thai residents also pay, including myself. And since our taxes are rising at the same rate as residents in already gentrified neighborhoods, then I believe our streets should be treated fairly, consistently, and not like an afterthought. And so I will conclude with some questions that I hope the council can um address either tonight or at some point.

And I'm happy to send them through email. One, where is this itemized breakdown for Hai village? If it exists, where can residents find it? And if not, it um where you know why are other neighborhoods receiving mapped capital grade investments like you know these very detailed um plans which again was amazing to see. I'd also like to

understand how we are vetting our contractors which contractors were hired for hat. >> Mr. Mayor, it's the time is up. >> Thank you, Miss McKenzie.

Madam clerk, is there a timer option that we have that can be on screen? >> No, I'm I'm using my cell phone. >> Okay. >> All right.

Um, that was the only speaker, correct? >> Correct. 60. >> So moved.

>> Second. >> Moved and properly seconded. Madam Clerk, please call the vote.

>> Mayor Williams, >> yes. Council member Baker. >> Hi. >> Council member Burris.

>> Hi. >> Council member Cook. >> Hi. >> Council member Kopac.

>> I. Council >> member Rrist. >> I. >> The motion passes six to zero.

>> Thank you. Next item number nine. Have two speakers. Okay.

Two two speakers and two resource people. All right. Angel is doer. >> Good evening.

Um, >> welcome council. Can you all hear me? >> Yes. Welcome.

You have three minutes. >> Okay. Uh, good evening. So I am speaking in opposition to um

item number nine. Um what I understand about this project, I remember it pretty clearly. Um community members organized and engaged around this and the request um that came directly from residents was for more and more and better lighting, not cameras. And somehow it looks like this is like security equipment that includes cameras here.

So, lighting was definitely identified as a tool that would improve safety, visibility, and quality of life, but cameras in security equipment um wasn't. Um it was not the community asked. Um I've since spoken to some residents about this um and they reiterated that more and better lighting is what they've been asking for, not cameras, not surveillance equipment. And I do find it um concerning um that this item is it's

nearly about it's nearly three years later and it makes it difficult for there to be an audit by participatory budgeting. Um and to it makes it difficult to verify that this outcome reflects what the residents have asked for. So, I'm just wanting to say that um I live adjacent to this community and um surveillance infrastructure disproportionately impacts black and low-income communities and expand systems of monitoring without preventing harm. Cameras document incidents after the fact.

Lighting helps prevent them without criminalizing the people who live there. If the city is committed to honoring participatory budgeting and community voice, the path forward is clear. Fund what the residents ask for, and that's better lighting. More lighting. Better lighting and more lighting. Not cameras, not surveillance

equipment, but better lighting and more lighting. Better lighting and more lighting. Better lighting and more lighting. >> Thank you.

>> Thank you. >> Next I have Sean Buchanan. No, >> he's resource. >> He's a resource.

>> All right. Colleagues, I'll now entertain a motion to resolve that the city uh that the city manager is authorized to execute the second amendment to the interlocal cooperation agreement with the housing authority of the city of Durham to increase project funding by $20,000 for a total authorized amount not to exceed $130,000. >> So moved. Second.

All right. It's been moved and properly seconded. >> Mr. Mayor, I didn't hear the second.

>> I I did it. >> Oh, okay. The vote. Mayor Williams.

>> Yes. >> Council member Baker. >> I. >> Council member Burus.

>> Hi. >> Council member Cook. >> I. Council >> member Kopac.

>> Hi. >> Member Rrist. >> Hi. Thank you.

Six to zero. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, we will now go into our public hearings and uh we'll hear number 19 first.

All right, we are ready for the staff report. This is zoning map change creek side miss mixed use. I'm sorry. Um >> manager.

>> Yeah. Okay. Got it.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um members of council, Eron Kane with the planning department. I'll start off by saying that all planning department items for tonight's meeting have been advertised in accordance with state and local law and affidavit are on file to that effect.

5 acres and located between Miami Boulevard and Anger Avenue. The current zoning is residential suburban 20 and residential suburban multif family with a development plan. 346. The applicant is proposing to reszone the properties to allow up to 630 town houses, apartments, and two family dwellings with up to 9,000 square 500 square ft of non-residential uses, excluding drive-thru facilities and convenience stores with gasoline sales. The properties are currently designated

mixeduse neighborhood on the place type map. 346 zoning is generally consistent with the designated place type. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for questions, though I believe the applicant will be asking for a continuence.

>> All right. Thank you uh for that report, Madame Attorney. Do we open it up for a public hearing to request for the continuence or do I just address the request? Hi, Mr.

Mayor. >> Hi. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes.

>> Okay. I had to put my headphones on to hear. Um, yes. So, you want to open the public hearing if the applicant wants to

continue to a date certain. >> Oh, and then we leave it open. >> Correct. >> Okay.

Got it. All right. Are there any technical questions or comments to staff? All right.

At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open and I'll uh refer to the applicant. That's number 19. Is the applicant available? Uh Laura Hollowman or U Stevenson or Sidu?

>> I'm here. >> Oh, okay. There you go. >> If y'all can hear me.

>> Thank you. Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor and uh members of the city council. My name is Laura Holland with McAdams at uh 2905 Mian Parkway here in Durham. Uh

thank you to the city manager and uh staff for working with us um to um shuffle your order tonight so we can respectfully ask for a continuence. Um as luck would have it, it is not weather related. Uh we did have um as of about a week ago, we were informed that a a key person on our development team uh would not be able to attend uh this meeting. And so we would like to respectfully ask for a continuence uh to the to next month's uh council meeting if or excuse me, go ahead Aaron, you're shaking your head.

>> We had discussed uh having a continuous to the February 16th meeting just one cycle. >> Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry. So I'd like to respectfully ask a continuence to the February 16th meeting.

>> Okay. Um yes. All right. Uh colleagues, are you all okay with that?

Thumbs up. One, two, three, four. Okay. All right.

It's uh so we'll we'll leave this public hearing open until date February 16th. Is that is that right, Erin? >> That's correct. Yes.

>> All right. Madam clerk, I'm sending you a text message as well, just really quickly based on an email we just got. All right. Um, next item.

Item number 14. Okay. Uh, before we go to item number 14, are we able to unmute Jacob Cardinz? >> I will try, Mr.

Mayor. Okay, he's been unmuted. Okay, Jacob, can you hear us?

Jacob, can you hear us? All right, I'll give it one more chance and then I'll I'll uh we can just reach out. I want to honor the fact that they signed up, but uh we we will have to uh move forward uh eventually. All right.

Also, um All right. 0, a privately initiated unified development ordinance, UDO text amendment. >> Ready for the staff report. >> Good evening to the mayor, uh city council. My name is Robin Schultz with the planning and development department. Uh here to speak about TC25001, which is a privately initiated text amendment request to amend uh multiple sections of Unified Development Ordinance with the UDO in order to expand our existing university and college district frameworks and create a new zoning district or UC3 uh to facilitate the inclusion of uh large

scientific and technical research parks within that framework. Um, this was heard by the Durham Planning Commission October 14th, uh, 2025 and received a recommendation of approval. Um, it was also approved unanimously by the Durham Board, Durham County Board of Commissioners. Um, where it was associated with a zoning map change request for the parcels that were within uh the existing RTP boundaries.

Um, to be clear, uh, those boundaries are all outside of the city limits for this request. Um this amendment is really being brought to you all to make sure that the the UDO uh is cogent across both the city and the county. Um but it does not have uh measurable impacts for um city properties. Um that being said, staff is available for any questions. Uh and Travis Kraton from uh Research Triangle Park is also available uh should you all have any questions for the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you for that report. Any uh technical questions or comments for staff? All right. At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open and I'll uh refer to the applicant.

Okay. Travis, are you available? There you go. Can you hear us, Travis?

>> Yes. Good evening, uh, Mayor Williams and council members. Um, I don't have any prepared remarks. Just as Robin said, I'm here to answer any questions that you have um, regarding uh, this change to align uh, the uh, UDO uh, across the city and county.

So, happy to fill in any questions that you have. >> All right. A colleague, are there any questions? It's number 14. Screen.

All right. Well, um, that's the only speaker I have, which is the resource person. So, therefore, I declare the public hearing closed and back before the council, which I, this is where I ask you if you have any questions. Um, all right.

If there are no questions, then I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the UD the unified development ordinance incorporating revisions to article four zoning districts, article five, use res regulations, article six district intense intensity standards and article 7 design standards. >> So moved. >> Second. So moved and properly seconded.

Madam clerk, please call the vote. Mayor Williams. >> Hi. >> Council member Baker.

>> Hi. >> Council member Burus. >> Hi. Council >> member Cook.

>> I. Council >> member Kopac. >> I. Member Rrist.

>> I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And I'll entertain a motion

to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute section 160D-605. >> So moved. >> Second. Move the properly seconded.

Madam clerk, please call a vote. >> Mayor Williams, >> I. >> Member Baker, >> I. >> Member Burris, >> I.

>> Member Cook, >> I. >> Member Kobac >> I. >> Member wrist >> I. >> Motion passes 6.

Next we have item number 15, uh, TC25002, RV parking amendment. >> Good evening, mayor, members of council. My name is Scott Whiteitman. I'm from the planning and development department. 3 of the UDO in order

to allow flexibility for RV parking in residential zoning districts. 3 and residential zoning districts, recreational vehicles such as boats, campers, trailers, and utility trailers shall be stored off the street and shall be located to the rear of the primary structure. The intent of this regulation is to reduce visual clutter of large vehicles in residential areas and to prevent parked vehicles from blocking sidewalks or streets or sight distances. However, this provision can be severely limiting to many property owners since driveways do not typically extend behind the primary structure and many homes do not have sufficient space for RV storage in the rear yard.

As currently drafted, the new UDO would remove this regulation. In the meantime, numerous violations of this provision have been identified in the past several months. Rather than citing multiple property owners for a v violation that would no longer be applicable when the UDL becomes effective, estimated later this

3 that would allow RV parking on a driveway, any driveway, at least 25 ft from the public rideway. The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the text amendment at their December meeting and I'm happy to answer any questions from the council. Okay, thank you so much for that report. Any questions to staff?

>> Yes, Council Member Vers. >> Yes. Um, just as a followup, I just want to know if you could give a little bit more insight around enforcement. So you said long as it's 25 ft from the public right away.

Um so what is enforcement that look like or how we move forward with handling people who are in violation of such policy or is that just a metric we're throwing out there just going to like not going to be enforced? >> Yeah, we we did work with our zoning enforcement staff and they said this is it's a measurement they could do fairly easily when they're out in the field. Um

so we we would still enforce it. It is one that this is a a hard one to enforce since there are so many potential places where there could be a violation. Um and we we have about somewhere in the high 20s to almost 30 violations currently which is why we're bringing forward this this ordinance. So we do still intend to enforce it as it's written either as amended or as it's currently written.

Uh and we feel our staff is prepared and able to do that. Council member Cook. >> Thank you. I actually had a question about the 25 ft 2.

So, will that end up clearing out all or most of the current violations? >> It would clear out most if not all of the current violations. And we'll say for full disclosure to the city council, most of those are actually outside the city limits. So, your vote isn't necessarily going to affect those, but

um obviously there could be folks in very similar situations in the city as well. >> Yeah. I think I was just wondering about how we got to that 25 foot. Sounds like y'all had a conversation with enforcement, but is that how did we come up with that number?

>> Yeah, it was a number to ensure that the vehicles would be parked far enough away from the street so they wouldn't be blocking the sight, you know, sight distance or sight lines. Um, it wouldn't be right up on the sidewalk, but still would provide ample room for most properties where you can park an RV, where it would be somewhat out of the way, but still more reasonable than having to pave a spot behind your house in order to park it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, colleagues.

Bless everyone. All right. Uh at this time I'll declare the public hearing open and um I so this is staff so uh you all are

available for questions but I do have two speakers. First person Cat Moore. Cat, can you hear us? >> There you are.

>> Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, you have three minutes. Welcome.

>> Thank you. Good evening, members of the Durham City Council. My name is Cat Moore. I live in East Durham and am an RV owner.

I'm thankful that the city permits us to park our RVs on our property. It's one of the reasons my husband and I bought a house in the city. I would like to thank the city for considering additional text to allow flexibility with RV parking. I'm happy that it will allow many households to have increased freedom to place their RV where it makes the most sense on their lot. I'm here today to ask the council to consider a situation not included with the current wording of the text amendment addition corner lots. The proposed text amendment allows an option

of parking on a driveway as long as it's the RV is 25 ft from the right of way. This wording seems like it was formulated with a typical lot in mind which usually has one right ofway at the front of the property. We live on a corner lot where we have not one but two public ride ofways bordering our property, one at the front of the lot and one running down the side. We would also like to take advantage of this added flexibility of the text edition.

However, if the 25 ft distance requirement applies to both rideofways, we are unable to have this alternate option to park on a driveway, not necessarily completely to the rear of the house as the current ordinance restricts us. I support this text amendment and only ask that you consider if there could be wording added to allow lots like ours this option to park on a driveway set back from the front of the house and not necessarily completely to the rear of the primary structure. Again, I appreciate that this text

amendment is being considered and that the AR that the city supports RV owners. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. The next speaker I have is Evelyn Rosenrren Hov.

There you are. Welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you so much.

Um, good evening. My name is Evelyn. Um, apologies. I'm losing my voice to a cold.

Um, but still wanted to stand in support of this RV amendment. Um, and ensuring the language is changed. Um, so as not to be more restrictive of corner lots. Um, I'm standing in support of my neighbor Cat and her family. Um, I'm also here because my wife and I also have an RV that we would like to store on the side of our house. um it would fit behind a closed gate

um and would not obstruct the streets um at all. Um we have spent a lot of time camping in that RV. Um, our kids eight and four um love reading in their bunk beds in it um and playing on it and we would like to continue to be able to do that um but at the at our house um and to do things like do backyard campgrounds uh or back backyard camp outs. Um, so please make it easier, not harder, for families in Durham to store their RVs on their own property.

And I would ask you to pass this amendment with the updated language to be inclusive of corner lots as Cat has asked. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor and city council members for considering this amendment. >> Thank you so much. Those are all the speakers that I have.

So therefore, I will declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Are there any questions? Well, I'll just ask briefly. Um to staff, um is the request that they're making something that is it easy adjustment or is there a reason why it wasn't in there or is it something you guys need to go back and assess?

>> Mute. Mute it. Sorry about that. Having 2020 flashbacks.

Um, yes. So, Miss Moore did speak at the planning commission, so we were aware of her concerns. Um, we were trying to craft kind of the the uh most minimal change possible in order to address the situation since we didn't do a full analysis of how this might affect every property. Uh that being said, it does the way the rules do make it really hard to park on an RV on a smaller urban lot, particularly one that's on the corner. So we could uh one

potential suggestion if the council wanted to um entertain it would be we could say that it must be parked at least 25 ft from the public right ofway that the driveway is accessed. That way it would um only apply to the street from where your your driveway curb cut is. And then that way it would not force property owners on corner lots to have the driveway be 25 ft from every street. Yeah.

Um this government speaks stuff sometimes can over complicate things if it's an easy fix and the staff are you okay with it? colleagues. Um I'm fine with it if you all are unless there's um reservations. Uh Mr.

Kobach, >> I think Council Member Ris went up before me. Oh, wait. After him. >> Okay.

>> Let me jump. Yes. Um you know, I I support that language. Scott, I guess my other question would be um remind me what the new UDL will say about RV

parking. Well, so our intent is to carry over um whatever is approved by through this amendment. Um we currently were not proposing to carry over the the existing language. It was not something that came up where people park our views.

It's not an issue that's come up a lot in our engagement on the UDO or the comprehensive plan. So >> we would then we would carry over the language that as amended to the new UDO. >> That's right. >> Okay, that's good.

I just Yeah. Thank you. Council member Kovac. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Uh, I guess I want to understand if what Mr. Weidman has just proposed would address the concerns of the residents who spoke this evening. That's not completely clear to me.

Um, is there a way we can verify that? >> Let's see. Uh, okay. Look.

>> Yeah. I'm not sure how we would do that in the virtual environment. We could do a >> real life. We could do a huddle.

>> Yeah. It'd be nice to know if it did align. Um, I think even if it doesn't, um, you know, I'm supportive of moving the original amendment forward because it seems like it handles the the majority of cases and it sounds like this is something that could be returned to and there's no reason it couldn't be addressed at a later date. uh if we want to refine this language um that's my thought unless you tell me that that is inefficient to do it that way and you rather do it whole cloth.

>> No, I think that's a pretty good solution. Council member Kobach, as as you're as we alluded to earlier, the the UDO the new UDO is uh due for adoption later this year. And so what we plan to carry forward whatever was approved for this, but it's also issued. It can also be changed to be more permissive um if you all or the county commissioners would like at that time too.

>> Coming right to you, Council Member Birds, if you would just let me uh ask a clarifying question on this point. So, the the request of the of the constituents, uh, Council Member Copek, are you saying what is proposed tonight, you're supportive of that and holding off on the additional language that was requested? >> Well, I'm not clear if what Mr. Whiteitman has proposed will address the specific case of the corner lots talking.

It seems like it gives even more flexibility for corner lots. But it isn't clear to me that that addresses the whole issue with the corner lot. Um, and absent that verification, you know, I'd recommend we go forward with the original language and then seek to clarify this in a way that satisfies the resident request if it also then meets the other factors that the planning department has to consider when it comes to safety and RV parking.

Okay. Uh let me go to council member Burris, but I want to come back to that just get some clarity on what we're asking to move forward with. >> Yeah. So, just to associate myself um with much what um council member Kopak has stated.

I am comfortable with moving forward with the amendment as it's written, but I feel as though I may have heard that you all may not have researched the component about the corner lot completely. So I would need more details to make an informed decision, but also to give other folks and communities who lives, we know our neighborhoods are changing drastically and so to give other folks who are maybe impacted by this decision time to speak in opposition they so desire. So I think that is where I'm unready at in this moment if we do decide to change language. I don't feel comfortable without giving other residents the opportunity to weigh in about what this the impact of this change could do cuz I just know that I've heard some complaints from people in neighborhoods, not around RVs, but like uh trapped trailer parking on corner lots and like just what it um does, especially in school environments or narrow streets. And so I want to make sure that we are being equitable in the outcome and

moving forward with this. >> Okay. It sounds like um so what I'll do is I'll entertain the motion as written and if there is if there's interest to add the other then um is Scoggins a staff person. Okay.

Um, was that a staff person that raised their hand or someone else? I'm not sure. My screen is moving around. >> Mr.

Mayor, I believe it was a staff person. >> Okay. >> I apologize. It was an error.

>> Oh, okay. Sounds good. All right. So, what I'll do if there is a request to change, then vote this down, I believe. But otherwise, we'll I'm going to call the question for what the motion actually is.

So, was there one voting on that the um the amended language prepared for us by staff in this? >> Yes, I move that we >> uh recommend and support >> one second. So this is um yeah. So I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance incorporating revisions to article 10 parking and loading.

>> So move second. >> Okay. It's been moved and properly seconded. Madam clerk, please call vote.

>> Mayor Williams. >> Yes. >> Council member Baker. >> Hi.

Council member Burris. >> Hi. >> Council member Cook. >> Hi.

>> Council member Kopac. >> I council >> member Rrist >> I. >> Motion passes six to zero. >> All right. And I'll entertain a motion to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute 160D-605.

>> So moved. >> Second. Moved and properly seconded. Matter of correct, please call the vote.

Mayor >> Williams. Mayor Williams. >> I member Baker. >> I member Burus.

>> Hi. >> Member Cook. >> Hi. >> Member Kopac.

>> I member Rist. >> Hi. >> Thank you. Passes 6.

>> You're muted. Mayor, >> just reading away on silent. All right. Number 16, Consolidated Annexation 938 McLam, ready for the staff report.

>> Thank you, Mayor Williams and honorable council members. Good evening. I am Payton Burgess with the Planning and Development Department, and I am happy to be here with you tonight. A request for a utility extension agreement, voluntary annexation, and initial zoning map change has been received from Juan Corno, an individual land owner for one

46 46 acres and located at 938 McLam. This annexation petition is for a contiguous expansion of the primary corporate limits. The current zoning is residential suburban 20 county jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to change this designation to residential suburban 20 city jurisdiction to connect to city water and sewer.

The property is currently designated established residential on the place type map. The proposed RS20 zoning is generally consistent with the designated use shown on the place type map. If the proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type designation of established residential. As part of this annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a change in the underlining zoning district.

A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing county zoning is translated to the identical city zoning district upon the annexation of the property into the city limits. A translational zoning does not include a development plan and any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

>> Thank you. Any technical questions? >> All right. Well, I'll declare the public hearing open.

And I have a resource person here, Juan Corno. Joan Joan Cornel. All right. Um, right.

One second here. Okay. That's just a resource person. I guess some comments are necessarily needed at this time.

So therefore, I would declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Council, are there any questions? All right. Therefore, I'll entertain a motion to conduct a public No, I'll

entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance annexing annexing 938 Mclam Drive into the city of Dur and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with JC Construction LLC. >> So moved. Second move is properly seconded. Madam clerk, please call the vote.

>> Mayor Williams. >> Yes. >> Council member Baker. >> Hi.

>> Council member Burris. >> Hi. >> Council member Cook. >> I.

>> Council member Kopac. >> I. >> Council member Wrist. >> Hi.

>> Motion passes six to zero. >> Thank you. And I'll also entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of the residential suburban 20 false Jordan district B wershed protection overlay county jurisdiction and establishing the same as residential suburban 20 false Jordan district wershed protection overlay city jurisdiction. >> So moved >> second move second. Madam cler please open the vote.

>> Mayor Williams. >> Sorry. Uh yes. Council member Baker >> I.

>> Council member Burus. >> Hi. >> Council member Cook >> I. >> Member Kopac >> I.

>> Member Rist. >> I. >> It passes six to zero. >> Thank you.

And I'll also entertain a motion lastly to adopt a consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute statute 160D-605. >> Move to adopt consistency. >> Second. >> Been moved and properly second.

Madam clerk, please open the vote. Mayor Williams. >> Yes. >> Thank you.

Council member Baker. >> Hi. Council >> member Burus. >> Hi.

>> Member Cook. >> Hi. >> Member Kopac. >> I.

>> Council member Wrist. >> Hi. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. Motion passes 6. >> Thank you so much.

All right, moving along. Item number 17, consolidated annexation, Curly Gardens, ready for the staff report. >> Good evening, Mayor Williams. Members of council, uh Erin Kane with you again for the second time tonight from the planning and development department.

678 678 acres and located at 5200 Curly Road. This annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits but is contiguous to a satellite portion of the city. The current zoning is residential suburban multif family county jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to annex the parcel and establish residential suburban multif family as the initial city zoning for the parcel to connect to city water. The properties are currently designated apartment and townhouse neighborhood on the place type map. The proposed RSM zoning is generally consistent with the designated

use shown on the place type map. If the proposed zoning is approved, there will be no change to the place type designation of apartment and townhouse neighborhood. As part of this annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a change in the underlying zoning district. that translational zoning does not include a development plan and any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow.

While the current use of the property is apartments, future development under the existing zoning of RSM allows for some agricultural activities, single family and multif family residential development. Limited commercial and civic uses are allowed. However, industrial development is prohibited. Thank you, staff.

And the applicant are available for any questions. >> Thank you. You've heard the staff report. Are there any technical questions or comments to staff?

All right. At this time, I'll declare a public hearing open. And we have the applicant.

>> Mr. Mr. Biker. >> Hello.

>> Hello. Yeah, welcome. How much time do you think you need? >> Uh, just um under five minutes, mayor.

And um my friend and client uh Leah Bergman would actually like to deliver the comments tonight. So, if uh uh our friends in the clerk's office could please unmute Leah Bergman. Uh she'll give our presentation and then both of us will be happy to answer any questions that the council may have. Uh we respectfully ask for your approval and we thank you for your time tonight.

So >> thank you. Madam clerk, could you please put seven minutes on the clock? >> Madam clerk, uh do you have that up for me? >> Mr. Mayor, the the clock is up.

>> Okay. Welcome. Um, Miss Bergman, can you um do you have access? >> I believe.

Can you hear me, Mayor Williams? >> Welcome. Yeah. Uh, welcome.

You can go ahead and get started. >> Wonderful. Thank you so much. Uh, first slide, please.

Good evening, Mayor Williams and members of city council. My name is Leah Bergman and it is my family and my family's legal entities that have brought forward this request for annexation tonight for the parcel located at 5200 Curly Road. The legal entities Southern Repair Service Incorporated and Leroy Bergman LLC acquired Curly Gardens Apartments last year in 2025. Curly Gardens Apartments are a 36 multi-family community. The units are twobedroom, one bath. We are very fortunate that we have a large

playground on site, a picnic grilling area as well as a laundry and a fitness room. The site is located across the street from Forest View Elementary School. Aaron, would Mr. Kane, would it be possible to go to the next slide, please?

Hopefully we can get you all a visual. Is anyone able to control the slides? >> I uh I should be able to control the slides but for some reason they are not advancing. Let me try.

There we go. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Curly Gardens is priced at an affordable rental price point with the twobedroom units currently renting around 1,300 per month. As many of you know, our legal entities own and operate market rate as well as affordable housing in Durham

County, Wake County, and Western North Carolina. Aaron, if you could advance to the next slide, please. Perfect. Thank you.

so much. The parcel we dis are discussing tonight is highlighted in green and has been served by city of Durham sewer for decades. The current water situation is that there is a community well for water. I do not view a well structure for 36 families when there is city water located 500 feet from the parcel as a sustainable and best option to serve Curly Gardens residents.

Now that we do have the aerial, I just want you all to familiarize yourselves a little bit. Straight across the street from the highlighted green is one of the parking communities for Forest View Elementary School. So that's slightly to the east and to the north is the Puit uh

rehab facility center and the connection that I'm asking to establish to is just the intersections of the roads right there of Curly and Mount Si Road. Back to my story on the well. If power goes out to the well or if a well pump fails, the residents are left without water and 36 families without water is not a desirable situation for a housing provider. Therefore, I am requesting tonight that you approve the annexation permit request that would permit my legal entities at our cost to run the city water line down to 5200 Curly Road. This request was me recommended for approval unanimously in late 2025 by the planning commission. Now, I would like to give you all some history of my family and Curly Road.

I myself grew up on Curly Road and members of my family live at Curly Road to this day. The parcel just slightly to the north and to the west is 5022 Curly Road. And I lived there for many years in my of my life, both in childhood and as an adult. When I returned to this community from New York, it is approximately 500 ft from the parcel we are discussing this evening.

Members of my family and the legal entity that own 5200 Curly Road, Curly Gardens Apartments, continue to live on Curly Road to this day, including my mother, Ellie Bergman, who lives at 4829 Curly Road. My sister Rebecca Bergman Jones currently owns the parcel that we discussed that I grew up at as she did as well at 5022 Curly Road. And my brother Michael Bergman and his family own 5,000 Curly Road. Our family has

owned land and houses for over four decades in this community. I make these points so that you understand that we have a heavily vested interest in this area and have for a very long period of time. Many times you have developers before you who do not live local. We are the opposite and we will continue to and will have a vested interest in this community.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me and to respond to any concerns that my neighbors might have. As you all know, Patrick Biker from Morning Star is also here and he can assist with any questions regarding the formal legal requests that we have for annex section. Once again, we ask for your approval and thank you for your time tonight. >> Thank you so much. All right, let's

All right. Um, so Madam Clerk, the following names I'm going to need to uh bring up. Uh, Christina Langley, John Brown, Katherine Olive, Ken Pew, Henrietta Sarcino, and Laura Kopac. So, starting first with uh Christina Lingley.

>> Hi everyone. Um, good evening. Thank you for >> welcome. You have three minutes.

>> Okay. Um, hi. My name is Christina Falconee Lingley. I'm a lifelong and proud Durham resident that lives right down the road off of Curly Road as well.

Um, I'd like to point out that staff previously requested that the applicant provide documentation demonstrating both the current affordability of these units and how affordability would be maintained going forward. To date, that documentation has not been provided. The community benefit associated with these

Noah units already exists today. What is before you is not a proposal that creates new affordability protections or secures long-term affordability. Rather, the annexation petition and the consideration of extending service to a satellite site do not clearly demonstrate an added community benefit tied to these units. In fact, based on the available information, this action is more likely to undermine the existing Noah over time.

While the narrative presented focuses on maintaining affordability and frames the request as being only about water service for these 36 units, that framing does not align with the broader context. The financial realities of the property suggests that additional development into Orange County is to be pursued. Red red redevelopment under new UDO standards or increased rents would be the most likely mechanisms to recoup costs associated with annexation and infrastructure investment. Property owners are not

operating charitable enterprises and it would be unreasonable to assume that new costs will not be passed along. Whether or not annexation proceeds, rent increases are possible. But there are currently no enforcable assurances that link this annexation petition to the preservation of affordability or to any measurable community benefit. While up to 87 tenants could be displaced at any time under existing conditions, the ability to describe these units as Noah is likely to erode once the costs associated with utility expansion and ongoing service are passed through to tenants.

If basic questions lead to inconsistent explanations, it is fair for the community and this council to question how and why decisions are being framed. There is no failing infrastructure and there is no urgency to this approval. I am asking council to clearly articulate what evidence of community benefit supports approval of this request and how that benefit is distinguished from what already exists

today. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, I have John Brown.

>> Mr. Mayor, there's no John Brown in the queue. >> All right, Katherine Olive. >> Good evening.

I am here. >> Welcome. You have three minutes. >> Thank you very much.

Um I my name is Katherine Olive and I live at 5821 Mount Sinai Road about Durham about 1,000 ft from the Curley Gardens complex. So um tonight I'm going to ask you to defer action on the Curley Gardens annexation. And the reason is that the planning staff reports describe this project to supply city water to 36 units plus a laundry room. However, internal emails obtained through the public

records dated June 2025 proved that a larger 84 unit project is planned. In November, the owner's attorney, Mr. Patrick Biker, personally confirmed this larger buildout plan with me. But even earlier, an email thread from June between the owner Leah Bergman and the city and county staff confirmed that this has been a plan from the start. While the official annexation submission stays silent on the expansion issue, these emails confirm an 84 unit plan stretching into the Orange County rural buffer and all intended to be served by the city of Durham utilities. However, your own staff report includes language to extend the waterline to the boundaries to allow for future extension despite

repeated assertions that the this is limited to Durham County only and to 36 units with no additional units being added. While this allows for future extension, if the owner claims that there is no future project, which is what the forms say, the 6-in pipe diameter and the staff's own language prove this is a placeholder for a larger expansion. In other words, we've been gaslighted. Curly Gardens is rare, naturally according deeply affordable housing.

Annexation with the new proposed affordable covenants makes tenant displacement an absolute foreseeable outcome. I cannot see a community benefit and I fear for my neighbors. The policy 165 requires substantial benefit for annexation. If a regional project like this truly merits support, which I believe it does within your staff both in Orange County

and in Durham County, then it should be brought forward openly and not through some clever backroom peace meal strategy. No one would reasonably object to supplying reliable water to the existing units, but I respectfully ask you to defer this action until there is a full disclosure and transparent description of the entire 84 unit plan and how the city utilities will in fact go into Orange County and its full impact on residents and the public. >> Oh, that's some alarm. Um, sounds like a movie.

Thank you, Miss Olive. Okay, next I have Ken Pew. >> Welcome. >> Can you hear me?

>> Yes. Welcome. You have three minutes. >> Okay. I do have some uh Thank you. I

have some slides if they'll come up, please. >> Thank you. Good e uh good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members.

My name is Ken Pew. I am a Durham resident with my address on file and I'm a former registered professional engineer. Next, please. Here is a Curly Gardens engineering drawing.

The Durham Orange County line divides the right parcel while the left parcel is entirely within Orange County. The purple area highlights the service connection to the water main. Next, please. Looking more closely at that connection, the pipe serving the apartments is 3 in, while the private service connection under the road is shown as 6 in.

Next, please. At the planning commission meet hearing, Mr. Biker stated that I was referring to the sides of the public water line. He misunderstood me. Well, he is a lawyer.

However, his engineer stated at the neighborhood meeting that the service connection could be 4 in while public works said only a 3-in pipe is needed. Next, please. So, why waste money on a 6-in pipe if you only need a three? Well, a 6-in pipe carries four times the water of a 3-in pipe.

And the engineering drawing does show two parcels. Next, please. The laundry building is located primarily in Orange County where it is taxed. The Curly Gardens water connection extends that service to that Orange County building.

This pushes the urban growth bound outward, a policy the city council has unanimously opposed. This is a crack in the UGB. There is an alternative. Next, please. The C Next, please. The The council

could approve an annexation that excludes the laundry building. The facility could continue to operate using the existing well. The well would become for non-drinking water with fewer health requirements. This approach prevents the urban growth boundary from being compromised by a crack that could become a broken window.

Place the annexation boundary 30 ft to the east of the Durham County line. Staff says you can do this. If this change is made, I support this annexation. I urge you to continue your commitment to the UGB by requiring this simple change before you prove it.

I'm available for questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next, I have Henry Sparino.

>> Okay. Can you hear me now? >> I sure can. Welcome.

You have three minutes. >> Great. Thanks a lot. I feel like this is a huge bait and switch.

We have been baited into thinking and you have been baited into thinking and the planning department's been baited into thinking that Miss Bergman and her family are just going to improve the water situation at the Curly Road Apartments. I don't think she's had a health department inspector come out and tell her that water is bad. I don't I have seen no nobody no official person say the well is not working. Yes, it's true that when the electricity goes off, your well pump doesn't work.

We are on a well. Everybody out here in Arrowhead is on a well. We all are used to that. If she's worried about that, she can buy a generator.

But to say to have us think that this water situation all the way from the city at a huge cost is what she's really planning is I'm I'm sorry. I'm a little too skeptical of that. I've been around

too long. I do think that what we need I have some questions for her and here's one of them. So nobody's come out to check on the well to see that it's okay and we know it is or she would have had complaints by now. Um, who is going to pay for the increase in the water cost to those residents who are there now that are already on a budget that's straining them?

I'm sure who's going to pay for that extra water cost? Is it going to be Miss Bergman or the present renters? and Annie and also they she's already been to the Orange County Planning Department mentioning on their uh comprehens not comprehensive plan but their a plan that she wants to do the 48 additional unit. She's already been there to talk to Orange County. And the and the last thing I'll say is that when I looked up the Orange County requirements for affordable housing and the Durham County requirements for

affordable housing, they are almost exactly the same. They want it to be near where people work, which if you've got cars, that's fine, but a lot of people don't. They need to be near grocery food situation where you can eat. They need to be have transportation afforded.

So they would have to be able to take transportation and not use cars. And this does none of that. It has been here since 1966 for a reason. It works.

That little apartment complex, we've been here 42 years, has been there forever. And I just want you to rethink this and go back to the drawing board and really see who it's going to help besides the Bergman family. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next I have uh Malor Kopac. Hi.

There should be some slides. >> Okay. Can you hear me now? >> I sure can.

and welcome. You have three. >> Thank you. Matt Kopac, address on file.

Council recently rejected the Mariah Ridge annexation which sought to extend water beyond the UGB to enable rural development. The process was marked by shifting narratives, evasive answers, and engagement that lacked basic respect for the people who live there, something Mayor Williams specifically criticized. Unfortunately, we're seeing a similar pattern again just up the road. Residents were told this was request this request was to combat rising well maintenance costs that no development plans were presented for adjacent land that no new construction or expansion is planned and that there have been no conversations with Orange County. Next slide please. Public records obtained from the city confirmed that a TIA was conducted to support Thomas and Hutton concept plans proposing an expansion of 48 units into Orange County served by Durham

Utilities. My Orange County public records request remains unfulfilled for almost nine weeks now. It's concerning to see concept plans proposing development outside the UGB, to read emails with communication to Orange County, and to learn these plans reached the city manager's office, all while the public is told these plans didn't exist or no discussions had happened. Long-range land use planning that materially alters development patterns should not occur outside the public process.

Transparency should not be something the community has to extract through records requests. This proposal appears to take water across the UGB, providing city water to an Orange County building, perhaps a precedent setting first step towards broader utility enabled development beyond the UGB. This proposal would be considered differently if the records request didn't contradict what residents have been told at neighborhood meetings. The inconsistencies raise legitimate concerns about whether we have a full picture and accurate understanding of the planning vision for Curly Gardens and whether critical information has been withheld in ways that limit meaningful public engagement. When

residents are told there are no future plans, yet records show coordination and concept planning with county officials. It undermines public trust and impairs the community's ability to participate at the appropriate time. Without transparency, residents cannot reasonably anticipate or engage in future public processes such as amendments to the joint planning agreement or modifications to a consent judgment that could materially affect land use outcomes. If this annexation is a stepping stone towards future development into a neighboring jurisdiction, that context belongs in today's decision, not deferred until later, those growth objectives do not align with the adopted plans and modifications to a consent judgment do not resolve conflicts with the UGB.

It isn't a substitute for that kind of public engagement. Notably, the second modification to the consent judgment occurred without a public hearing and impacted property owners weren't notified of a change. There is information on the record from the applicant indicating that this annexation is part of a broader effort to change land use patterns beyond the UGB. Residents are advocating for good growth planning and full disclosure.

Decisions become arbitrary without a complete factual record and too often residents are forced to assemble the record themselves. Transparency should not begin only after a community speaks. It should be the starting point. Thank you.

>> Thank you. >> That is fun. >> That that is I know. >> Feel like I'm in the movies.

>> All right. Thank you so much. Those are all the speakers that I have signed up. Um, yeah, those are the speakers. And, um, do we have any applicants that would like to respond on Leah or Patrick? >> Good evening, Mayor, members of council.

Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Great. Yeah.

I uh we had a a very similar public hearing in front of the planning commission and that occurred on December the 9th. I want to also express that our team has been very transparent. Uh we met with the city administration starting on March 4 of 2025 regarding the laundry building and the uh need to run water to that. Uh the the buildings uh the water meter and the water feed are in Durham County. Uh but overall I want to stress that most of these speakers um perhaps all of them delivered similar comments to the planning commission and after hearing that discussion there was a deliberation by the planning commission and all 11 planning commissioners on December the 9th voted to recommend approval. Uh it's no secret that uh Leah Bergman and her team has

met with Orange County commissioners, met with the Orange County Planning Director to discuss um potential development. We have nothing to hide. Uh nothing was ever submitted. We had discussions with commissioners and the plan director and never nothing ever moved forward.

So what is before the council tonight is what the planning commission looked at and unanimously recommended approval for. Uh, Leah, do you have anything else you want to add to that? >> May I ask a follow-up question, Mr. Barker?

>> Yeah, of course. Yes. Yes. Council member, >> so can you just clarify that on May 13th, 2025, there was no site plan submitted to um Orange County in regards to this the future development of this property.

>> It was a concept plan. It was not a formal site plan. and it was simply something to uh explore the concept of developing multifamily in the adjacent property in Orange County. Um other than

that, it was um it was not a formal site plan submission. It was simply a discussion item. >> Okay. And do you all want to provide any like address outside of the Orange County Connection any address any of what the opponents have said in regards to like who's paying for it?

Is this going to be >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. address that.

>> Thank you, Council Member Burris. I I would love to and I apologize. I was muted earlier. Um I would like to make several points with regards to affordability.

The prior owners of Curly Gardens did not accept housing choice vouchers. We accept housing choice vouchers. We are the largest private housing uh provider in Durham County in Durham that takes housing choice vouchers. So, we have no problems with affordability. Um, I can tell you it is insanely expensive to maintain a community well. Um, and that is one of my reasons for asking to run the water

down there. testing on a community well is very expensive and it also does leave the community vulnerable to to water outages uh to power outages and and to not have their water. Um you know should we seek to change density or to do anything with regards to development other than requesting the annexation that as you all know would have to go through the process. That would go through community meetings.

That would go through planning meetings. And I have done this. Should I seek to do this, I can't tell you that I would or I would not. I very much have done many developments in Durham and in other communities.

And I always do it listening to the community members what level of affordability they want. Um, some people really want a lot of affordability, some people don't. I would not bring something to a planning commission or to a city council that had not been vetted and I would have tried

to have make it work for everybody involved. So again with regards to affordability, we accept vouchers. That's a change from the prior owner and we try and very much be positive cons positive members of the community. Okay, Alex, are there any other questions?

>> Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Bur. >> So, have can you tell us Miss back to you, Miss Beyer? And thank you so much um for engaging our questions. Um so, have there been any recent water outages in that area with the well? And like can you entail like has that been impacted by the recent storms and what that looked like for you all or the impact that it had on the residents that are currently um residing these dwellings? >> Thankfully it has not but it makes me very nervous.

>> All right. So, oh, Council Member Copek. >> Yes, thank you. Um, I was curious, this could be for staff or the applicant.

Um, to understand this question around pipe size and the size of the pipe and, you know, is that to serve the laundry? Um, you know, could you shine any light on that question from the resident um from Mr. you about the the purpose of the the pipe size. >> So the main water line running down Curly Road is an 8 in line.

The line is on the other side of Curly Road from this side from this site. So they have to go underneath Curly Road to connect to the site from the water man. Uh that is a 6-in pipe going under the road in consultation with our infrastructure review team. They do not allow 3-in

pipes to go underneath the road. It needs to be bigger than that. Um, so a 6-in pipe was used here. It would then connect to a 3-in pipe and it is three and 2in pipes uh serving the remainder of the the the entirety of the site with a 2-in pipe going to the laundry facility.

>> Okay. Uh, thank you for that. Um, you know, also just want to to, you know, understand concerns uh around the potential for future development. Um, you know, I definitely, you know, understand hear these concerns. I think part of it is, you know, a sense from residents that they're uh, you know, that a concept was submitted and that, you know, the there's been a lack of transparency at times about what has been discussed. Um, you know, I'd like to, you know, if this, um, you know, if this annexation happens, does that allow then this potentialment

to to happen? Um, you know, or what is the process that would have to be gone through in order to allow that to happen in the future? So, and I spoke with our with our infrastructure review folks about this to to get confirmation from the no buildings in Orange County could be served with utilities from Durham without first uh amending the consent uh amending the consent decree decree, which would mean a which would require a vote from the Durham City Council as as well as the town of Chapel Hill. It would then need concurrence from the judge to amend that consent decree. Then they would need to go through an annexation and reszoning process, not just a straight annexation because those are currently under uh Orange County jurisdiction and Orange County zoning.

So that would need to occur and that would happen through a public uh process like this one is having with public notice public and other public notice requirements. So there is not a way to serve it with Durham Utilities without going through those processes. Um if they were to request development using Orange County zoning and Orange County development review, they can do that and they would need to follow Orange County's requirements and Orange County's public notice and we would not be involved. >> Okay.

May I make a clarification though on that? Uh, sorry to interrupt you, uh, Councilman Kobach. >> Uh, Mr. Kane, am I correct though that if I I I would like I think Orange County water or orange water is like two miles away or it's very far away, uh, Congress, uh, Councilwoman Kopac. So, should I at any point in time or another

developer want to add buildings, you all will have the say in that. There is no Orange County utilities anywhere near this site. >> I cannot I cannot uh speak to exactly how far those utilities away those utilities are, but I feel confident that Durham utilities are much closer would be much less expensive to to extend. But again, there would be no way to extend Durham's utilities to serve the site without first an annexation agreement.

uh from the city of Durham which would need to be approved by the Durham City Council through this process. >> Thank you. And then my last question at this point um I say I have colleagues in the queue is um you know have we heard comments from any of the residents of this community? It's a lot of folks talking kind of on their behalf whether the owner of the property or neighbors. Um I'm just curious has anyone spoke with folks who who live in this community and gotten any input from

them? I have not been contacted by anybody who lives in in the community itself. >> Okay. >> I can't speak to others.

>> Thank you, >> Council Member Cook. >> Thank you. Um, I just want to piggyback on a couple of things, but the first question I wanted to ask is there was a comment made that we could do the annexation without the laundry facility staff. Could you just address whether that is the case?

>> I think theoretically that is possible. Whether the applicant would want to include that possibility is um is up to them, but I I I think that would in theory be possible. >> Would it be possible tonight or no? I we would need we would need to you

would need to in your motion have something um in the UEA in the utility extension agreement that uh prohibits the ext prohibits the extension of the utilities to that laundry facility. And there are variety of ways you could go about this. You could either say uh we do not do not extend the utilities to the laundry facility. You could say that uh no changes to the laundry facility.

In other words, the laundry facility could not be expanded uh without having to, you know, reapprove a utility extension agreement. There's a variety of ways you could go about doing that, but I believe in theory it could be done. Yes. >> Okay.

Thank you. Um and one more question while you're here, Erin. Um the first speaker tonight said that y'all had previously requested documentation about affordability moving forward and that that request was not answered. Is that the case or can you

talk about what happened there? >> Yeah, we've had oral confirmation as Miss Bergman has given you that uh they do accept housing choice vouchers and then we would consider that of course in support of uh affordable housing, but I'm not aware of any written documentation to that effect. May I make a clarific? >> Can I continue my question?

Thank you. Um, and so would it be enough to accept vouchers now or would there be need to be a commitment for continuating continuing accepting vouchers? What is the >> what is the >> sorry um >> yeah that there is uh there's no way to really do that through an annexation, right? They're not reszoning.

So there's no development plan. there's no existing development plan on the site. Uh as as was mentioned, the the buildings were built 60 years ago. Um so we don't really have a mechanism to profer that affordability in the future.

>> Okay. So the determination is just made on documentation that um vouchers one possible way for that determination would be that vouchers are currently accepted. Well, the the questions were asked previously by members of the community as to how uh we considered this this proposal for expedited review at the staff level. And we had um oral but not written confirmation that they accepted housing choice vouchers.

And looking at the rents charged, they certainly are in line with those that we would want to see in an affordable housing profer. So we provided a uh expedited review. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. So that was all information that they provided orally and we didn't get documentation of that and that's enough to to bypass the >> well time. We're not I wouldn't say

bypass um it simply in increases our review. It decreases our review times by a couple of weeks. >> Okay. Um Okay.

I have a couple of other questions, but I think um Miss Bergman, did you want to respond to the documentation part? I I believe Mr. Kane got to it. No one asked us.

It's not that someone has asked us to formally produce something and we withheld it. I was just going to make the same point that Mr. Kane did which is that the I believe the only question was around expedited review but I I'm I think you know I'm an open book as to whether it's affordable and what we do in the affordable community. I have not withheld any information from PL I wanted to make it clear that there was no withheld information from the planning department or to you all.

>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I and I just want to follow up on Commissioner Cop or Commissioner Council Member Copek's statements previously about the transparency issue. Can can y'all just help me understand this as a staff question again like what was requested of staff around the additional units and what information went out that was different than what has been now put out by email exchanges. So, my team and my staff has not had a conversation about additional units in Orange County. My understanding is that the applicant had meetings and contacted Orange County staff about potential um development over there, but there was no no application has been submitted to Durham for any development over on Orange in Orange County.

We had a presubmitt meeting with the applicant's representatives and informed them that um that would be on the other side of the UGB and all of the other issues with crossing the Orange County line and encouraged them to stay on the Durham County side of the line and they did so. >> Okay, those are all my questions for now. Thank you. >> Thank you.

Uh, council member Oh, Baker. >> Uh, I wasn't actually I was >> Oh, okay. I just Your hand went down. >> I just let it real quick.

So, yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Um, thank you, colleagues. I really appreciate the conversation here. Um, appreciate the discussions. I think transparency is really important.

We received a lot of emails from uh from constituents about this case. So, I think the conversation about, you know, what are the what are possible future plans here in the site? What about the laundry facility? Um, you know, uh, those kind of things are really good. I think it's worth saying

that that, you know, extending city water is always good. Having more reliable service in a city is always good. We're a growing city, so I like that piece. And I can also say, you know, um, I, you know, as again as our our council's representative to the to the housing authority, it is really difficult to get landlords to accept housing choice vouchers.

And I don't have any like written documentation, but I know by reputation that Leah and Bergman Rentals absolutely does accept housing choice vouchers, which is an important piece of providing um affordable um safe units for our residents. So, I appreciate that piece. I just have one question also that came up by email. This is a question for staff.

Erin, if you could um if you could respond to this. So there was a question about something about some some consider or some conversation about a conflict of interest involving a city appointee um that took place at the planning commission meeting. Can you clarify that issue? >> Sure.

Yes. Um one person made a claim for conflict of interest of one commissioner. Um

we in consultation with the chair and the vice chair of the planning commission, it was determined there was not a and with the commissioner themselves, uh it was determined that there was not a conflict of interest based on the information provided and that was the determination made. So that then that's and the and that you've run that by the city attorney that that item has been put to bed or is there any any >> uh we yeah we believe that's been been put to bed. Uh there was a yes we've run that by the city attorney and there is no conflict of interest. Um attorney Rayberg may be able to speak to that more.

>> We're not we don't consider there to be an actual conflict of interest in this case. Hey, Council Member Rrist, can you hear me? >> Yeah. Yeah, thank you.

>> Okay. Um, both Aaron Miles and I have looked at the um suggestions that there is a conflict of interest here and we do not agree that that's the case. Um, we

don't see a conflict of interest within the meaning of the applicable statutes. >> Okay. Thank you for covering me that. Um, that's all my questions right now, Mr.

Mayor. Thank you, Mr. B. Thank you all.

Um, lots of great questions and and comments. I um, I actually had several of those questions and and many of them have uh, have been answered. I do think that there are a lot of legitimate concerns around if we want to kind of take a higher level uh, approach here, growth management in general. Um, I think that there are a lot of legitimate anxieties around potential growth, uh, especially in um, this part of our collective community. Uh, the the community of Durham of Durham, Durham County and Orange County. Um, this is this is land and this is an a part of a part of the a re part of our region that that people really value the

the open space, the forest and all of the work that uh Chapel Hill, Carro, Orange County have done collectively to uh make sure that they are are growing inward and not outward. Um, and I know a lot of people have been watching decisions being made, you know, in the past in Southeast Durham, worried about something like that happening happening in other other areas. Um, so I think that that is um a very, you know, I understand that that concern and where people are coming from. I also um you know I don't know the ins and outs of all of the exchanges but I do understand the anxieties and and concerns around transparency as was mentioned uh by several of my colleagues.

Um you know being told one thing or understanding one thing and seeing something else um I think uh that that uh that that is not something that that we want to see. So I mean when I first saw this case it seemed cut and dry. Um, you know, I

think that there are some interesting issues that have been raised. One, uh, question that, uh, that came up from one of the speakers, um, that I'm just curious about, uh, not something that I've heard before. Um, one of the speakers suggested modifying the the boundary line so that it wraps around a building on the county line and said that said, um, that that staff had explored that. Can staff can you just speak to that?

Um has that come up in conversation? Um and is it uh something that that you have explored? >> Uh no it has not come up in conversation with the applicant. >> Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Um Okay. So again appreciate all the all the comments. Um, I do in general believe that there is a a community benefit um to and and good policy in

annexing one an existing building that is directly adjacent to municipal limits that's already being serviced by uh sewer. um understand that that the well has been has been working. Um and uh so I you know I think in general that it is good policy to annex an existing building that is on uh county land that is directly adjacent outside of municipal limits. I believe that it's good policy in general to to annex those those properties into uh municipal limits.

Um, there are also these other concerns that have been raised. I appreciate council member Copek kind of clarifying and getting getting some additional and Aaron Kaine uh responding to this question of is this opening floodgates and it you know what would have to happen next um for for additional uh development outside. All that being said, um

I do think that there are just some some potential additional questions uh that that uh we might need answered. And I also am very intrigued by Council Member Cook's um suggestion for modifying the language for limiting the utility extension agreement. Um I understand that's that's not something that we can, you know, do uh right away and we want to get the language right. So, I would I would uh consider making a motion.

I would consider moving ahead with um delaying this case um for couple cycles um if if my colleagues were were open to that. >> Mr. Kopac, we'll come back to the consideration. Mr.

Baker. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I guess my questions would be one like what is the the the the purpose of the laundry and the importance to the

applicant and to the tenants to having this pipe run out to the laundry. And then I have a second question which is trying to understand what the purpose of removing the laundry would be if extending the utilities to the laundry does not um seem in any way to open the doors for future development using those utilities um you know without one of the processes described. So, I guess it's sort of just trying to see clarity on those two sides of of it. And whether the applicant be be open to that?

>> I should Aaron speak first, should Mr. Kane speak first, or should I speak first? >> Uh, I'm comfortable either way. >> Why don't you go? I I'm my mind's a bit in the weeds right now about where so as you all know water

um my gut reaction is that would if the water if the laundry is still being serviced by the well then that means I and that building is being serviced by the well without speaking to an engineer but I'm just thinking that then I still have to maintain those pumps pumps test that water and incur the expense of running the city water line down. So I I actually believe that that could potentially increase the cost of the property. But again, I'm speaking those without speaking, you know, I have a degree in finance and accounting and not in civil engineering or engineering water services. My second thought is a a bit again on the weeds. um when you are on uh you when you are in the county but on sewer service the rates are significantly higher in if somebody know

or it's always been explained to me my sewer bill out there is quite high because I'm not on city water and if maybe somebody in planning or is more knowledgeable this than I am but I believe that is really that proposal would really be increasing the overall all expense. But I welcome comments and feedback to to my comments, but I can just tell you that the charges I'm not I'm looking for the right word right now. And if anybody has it, I'd love it. But if you're not on city water, the usage rate for the sewer is significantly higher >> is my second concern.

>> Yeah. My understanding, if I may, Council Member Copek, Patrick Ber here, that that has to pay the double rate. Um, Carly Gardens has to pay double the sewer rate uh for serving these 36 families. And so, upon annexation, uh, we would pay the same rate that everybody else is paying for water and

sewer rather than paying a double sewer rate. And I do want to emphasize that it was back on March the 4th that uh Lee and I met with the city administration specifically raised the location of the laundry building. And our understanding from um staff in public works, water management and planning is that uh it met the definition of uh um met all the policy guidelines of the city to provide uh water uh connection to the laundry building. uh because the water meter and the feed into the building are in Durham County and not in Orange County.

>> So we did that issue specifically. I appreciate the question. >> Okay. Yeah. So on the second question, unless staff has more on that first one. is just trying to understand, you know, perhaps to my colleagues, um, you know, perhaps to staff, what the positive benefit would be of removing the laundry from from the application for the

annexation request. >> Is that is that a question to staff? >> You know, I think it could be staff, but also to my colleagues who proposed it to to maybe understand their thinking around it. So, why don't I start with u you know uh council member Cook u who' first kind of reinforce that question from community and then staff if you have additional thoughts I'd appreciate it.

>> Yeah, I would love clarification from staff. My understanding the reason I asked it was that it seemed like it would kind of fix the issue of the potential to go over the urban growth boundary, not necessarily anything else. It sounded like that that was where folks were going with that, but maybe staff can help me understand or potentially we can call back off the person who stated that. >> I I don't want to speak for residents who who spoke. I don't want to I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. One of the concerns I have heard is that extension of the water line to the laundry facility because the laundry

building is partially in Orange County would open up the Orange County parcels to uh city water services and therefore facilitate development of those parcels. That is not a concern on staff's in staff's position. staff's position in consultation with the water management department is that a portion of the building and the intake and the meter would be in Durham County. Therefore, the building could be served.

However, no other building in Orange County could be served with water or sewer um without annexation into the city of Durham as well as a change in the um >> consent >> in the consent decree that you all would have to vote on as well. So they would be limited only to serving this one laundry facility. The law the building

couldn't be couldn't be expanded. It could it is what it is and it stays that way unless you all make a choice in the future to annex those parcels and change the consent decree. >> Thank you. That's helpful.

All right. Are there any uh Yeah, Mr. Baker. So, >> I just want to um reiterate a point because I do think this is a a big a big question.

Um any additional development outside of this existing uh building, it would have to go through a public pro numerous public processes. It would have to be seen, discussed, open to uh community input, voted on in order for anything else to happen. Any development that used Durham

Utilities would have to. In theory, they could develop something under Orange County regulations. >> Sure. >> Yeah.

and go through Orange County's processes and to build anything other than what they're allowed by right which I believe but please don't quote me on this I believe is 2acre lots single family residential 2acre lots I think is what they're allowed by right in the rural buffer right now um anything else would need in Orange County would need to go through an Orange County reszoning process >> and again Mr. can just confirm. So then if that if there were the desire to have Durham water on some expanded site, we would have to then annex that parcel, right? >> You would have to annex >> that involves the whole like consent decree and all that kind of stuff.

>> Yeah. >> Yes. They would need to amend the consent decree. You would need to vote to amend the consent decree. Town of Chapel Hill would be devote to him commend and then we could start >> or the applicant I should say the

applicant can start annexation proceedings and reszoning proceedings because you're changing it from Orange County zoning to city of Durham zoning and all of that would go through the public process like we're seeing here. >> Thank you. >> This is um not I know we're in a public hearing for this one but this will be the same process Erin as we did previous to Mariah Rich. Is that correct?

But it was like done way back in the day. >> Yes. It would follow the same process as Mariah Ridge. You all would need to take a public vote to change the consent decree.

So would Chapel Hill. They uh the judge would need to agree and then you would start a se then a separate process would start for annexation. >> So that's helpful. So I was on the planning commission side of that Mariah Bridge vote.

uh and then I know it went through another process in front of some of my colleagues here. It seemed that in that case there was the annexation that was pursued. >> Um and that was if I understand voted

voted down planning commission. >> Yes. And we would do the same thing. I'm sorry.

We would do the same thing in this case where we would highlight to you all that it is also outside the urban growth boundary >> and therefore policy to annex it. >> And then there was a consent degree process that was pursued that came before council at work session which then council was asked to vote on it then or what what was the process? >> We did we voted on it. We approved that.

Uh correct? We approved that but we declined the actual >> yes >> yes the the and I I don't know the dates it pre uh preceded my joining back with the department in December of 22 I believe so the consent decree was amended prior to starting annexation and resoning processes that was approved but the council did deny the annexation. >> Okay. Thank you for taking the time to give me some of that history. Um, so in this case, I I thought I heard you say

pretty clearly that there would be this consent degree process and then the council would also have to vote for annexation for something outside our urban growth boundary. U you know, to extend utilities to a new development unless there's this Orange County process. >> Correct. >> Okay.

Thank you. >> All right. So, at this time I will um excuse me at this time I will if there are no other comments I will declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. No, I'm sorry.

I think I Well, public hearing is closed. I can't remember if I did or not. Um, okay. And I'll go and call for a question. I, um, I'll entertain a motion to adopt an

ordinance annexing annexing Curly Gardens into the city of Durham and to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with Lee Ray Bergman LLC. So move. >> Second. >> Second.

>> Move and probably seconded. Seconded uh eventually. Uh madam clerk, please call the call the role. Call the vote.

>> Mayor Williams. >> I. >> Council member Baker. >> Nay.

>> Council member Burus. I >> council member Cook. >> I council member Kopac >> I. >> And council member Wrist

>> I. >> The motion passes 5 to one with council member Baker voting no. I used to the suspense and the voting affirmations. U also I'll entertain a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance by taking property out of res out of the residential suburban multif family county jurisdiction and establishing the same as residential suburban multif family city jurisdiction.

>> So move second. Move >> and properly second it. Madam clerk, please call the vote. Mayor Williams.

>> Hi. >> Council member Baker. >> Hi. >> Council member Burris.

>> I. >> Council member Cook. >> I. >> Council member Kopac.

>> I. >> And Council Member Wrist. >> I. >> Motion passes six to zero.

>> Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. And I'll uh entertain a

motion to adopt the consistency statement as required by North Carolina General Statute 6 section 160D-605. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved and properly seconded.

Madam clerk, please call the vote. >> Mayor Williams >> I. >> Council member Baker >> I. >> Council member Burris >> I.

>> Member Cook >> I. >> Member Kopac >> I. >> Council member Rrist >> I. Motion passes 6.

>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And um Okay.

I just wanted I thought I read the wrong motion, but I think we're good. All right. Last item. Um, last item, uh, consolidated annexation

3600 Pine View Circle staff report. >> Mayor Williams and honorable council members, good evening. I am Payton Burgess with the Planning and Development Department and I am happy to be here with you virtually tonight. 88 acres and located at 3600 Pine View Circle.

This annexation petition is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits. The current zoning is residential suburban 20 county jurisdiction. The applicant proposes to change this designation to residential suburban 20 city jurisdiction to connect to city water and sewer. The properties are currently designated recreation and open space on the place type map. The proposed RS20 zoning is generally inconsistent with the designated use shown on the place type map. If the properties if the proposed zoning is approved, staff would

recommend a change to the place type map to designate the property as established residential. As part of this annexation petition, the applicant is not seeking a change in the underlying zoning district. A direct translational zoning is one in which the existing county zoning is translated to the identical city zoning district upon the annexation of the property into city limits. A translational zoning does not include a development plan and any future development may proceed according to what the zoning would allow.

As a reminder, city council may elect to deny the voluntary annexation petition, but approve the utility extension agreement on the grounds that the proposed annexation is revenue negative and the parcel is not contiguous to the current city limits. Council has discretion to do this under city code 71299. Thank you. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

>> Thank you so much. Are there any technical questions for staff? Actually, I do I do have one. Go ahead, >> Miss Burgess. Could you you know, there was an issue on this case about the the

costbenefit analysis um turning negative, which which I guess violates one of our policies. I know it's a marginal number. Can you tell me I don't know if you did that that cost benefit or who does that analysis. I'm just curious why because we often do cases like this.

Um, so why in this case was the I think as I recall, let me get my notes here because I looked at the I looked at the the uh the analysis there and it seems like there was a um yeah, it seems like a solid waste charge that sort of drove things up higher than the expected revenue. So can you say why in this case why the solid waste seems so expensive and causing the deficit there? Um, I can't speak for that department, but just kind of in general looking at the map, um, since this isn't contiguous to the city limits, it could be that they have to go out of their way, um, and incur additional expenses that they wouldn't normally charge. That would be my guess. >> I mean, because because the city is right across the street, I think, across Pigot Road, so it's not it's not like the city's it's just it's just right

across the street. So that um, so obviously we're serving solid waste um, across the street. So, I don't know if there's anyone on on staff on the call that can answer that question. That'd be very helpful.

>> Yeah, I'm not sure if we have anybody from those services. >> We we don't have anybody from Yeah, we don't have anybody from environment and street services, but I would imagine that is the issue. Even though it's, as the crow flies, not that far, it would be a decent distance for them to drive their trucks to this area, to this neighborhood to just serve one or two houses. That would be required under annexation. Um, however, if uh you extended the utilities but did not annex the property, then those other services that the city usually provides would not need to be provided. Okay, that's that that's helpful now.

I'll I'll may return to that. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I'll declare the public hearing open.

Is there a representative for this case? >> All right, there we Yes, I'm I'm here. >> Welcome. Uh, how much time?

>> Probably five minutes. I think you everyone is tired. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Williams and Council.

>> Please uh place seven minutes on the clock. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> Um, good evening, Mayor Williams and council members. My name is Gurib Siddhu. My address is on file and I'm the applicant. I'd like to give a shout out to Miss Payton Burgess, Mr. Aaron Kane, and Mr. Andrew Lester for their excellence in everything they do for the

planning department and for the city of Durham. Um, my presentation is in two parts. Part one, I'm going to describe the property and the infrastructure. And part two, I'm going to address why we have petitioned for our property to be annexed.

So part one, the closest landmark to 3600 Pine View Circle is Mark Jacobson Toyota. Pickicket Road runs parallel to and north of 15501. 3600 Pine View Circle is corner lot on intersection of Picket Road and Pine View Circle. So that's a general geographic layout of where where this land is.

Uh Pine View Circle is a paved road with public access. City water and sewer runs all along Pine View Circle and along Picket Road. Utility poles exist on the north and south end of our property.

88 acre lot. This house was built in 2023. Our son lives in that house. UEA agreement is in place and it is recorded on the deed for 3600 Pine View Circle.

Uh it states that we have to bear all future expenses u when connecting to city water and sewer. 6 acres of land is left untouched. Wildlife continues to flourish. Since we built the house, um we mow uh and maintain the public area on the intersection of Pickicket Road and Pine View, which on paper belongs to the

county. And so the city mowers never got there to mow mow the lawn. So since we built it, we we maintain it. Now part two, um we have petitioned for annexation because we would like to build our house on the same lot next to our son.

Kind of a multi-generational living concept. In order to build the house, we need a second water meter. UEA is already in place. There is no financial cost to the city. 8 acres is annexed by the city. So you have to annex it then

subdivide it then issue the water meter or alternatively like um suggested by planning department. All we want is a water connection. You have you can choose not to annex it. We already use GFL for our uh waste collection and we'll continue to use them.

Uh, Miss Erlene Thomas has concluded that traffic impact analysis is not needed. There are six homes on this side of Pine View Circle. One additional house will not affect traffic. So, in closing, the end goal of this application is a new water connection.

UEA is in place. There is no financial cost to the city. I respectfully petition for your recommendation of approval and sincerely hope you will uphold planning commission's 9 is to2 approval on December 9th. Thanks for your

consideration. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Y >> thank you.

Uh are there any um well okay that's the only speaker I have for this item. So therefore, I'll declare the public hearing closed and back before the council. Colleagues, are there any questions? Yes, council member.

Thank you. Sorry, I couldn't find the button fast enough. Um I just I Mr. Sindu, could you just repeat what you said at the end?

What I think I heard you say was that it was okay if it was just water. Um, is that is that accurate? I mean, I understand that you're asking for the annexation as well. >> Uh, yes. So, the annexation I was asking is because currently

um the way the regulations are, we cannot get a water meter unless the council waves that requirement. uh when I met with um the department the utilities department I forget their exact term but the the the way the process is laid out the land has to be annexed then it can be subdivided and once it's subdivided you can each additional lot gets a new water meter alternatively the council can say has the option just like the planning department also suggested you have the option to say, "Okay, we don't want to annex, but we give you the water connection. " That's what you're asking for. >> Thank you. And um staff, can you just confirm that that the subdividing is still doable if just just the water connection just for my

peace of mind? >> Yes. Yes. Uh, as long as the UEA is approved, they could still do that.

>> Okay. Yeah. I the only thing that is really giving me pause here is and I'm going to echo what Council Member Ris said is that um with the with the negative costbenefit analysis, I mean I I would I wouldn't want it to be me to be at the end of my shift having driven a very very long route and then have to drive an extra 15 minutes to go all the way around and come in to pick up the waste of a of two houses. Um, and I just don't really without having somebody here that's able to speak to that.

I'm feeling uncomfortable about the annexation. I know usually we're kind of just like, well, we might as well do the annexation. Um, but in this case, it really doesn't seem like it is a benefit. Uh, it sounds like the applicant would be fine with just water. I think that that's probably what I'm

leaning towards right now. Um, and if I don't know, manager Ferguson, if you have anything or um, and I'm sorry I can't remember since the reorganization who's who's over uh, solid waste that's not called solid waste anymore. Um, if anybody could speak to that piece, that would be helpful for me. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member Cook, and I understand the question.

I uh so I would look to uh Marvin Williams and his staff who report to Deputy City Manager Propes for more context around the question. I've been looking at the maps as you guys have been discussing it to try and see if I can uh draw a conclusion and I would I would want to get more information from them before I could answer uh with with more certainty about about why that analysis was made. So regretfully I don't have that information today. Uh but we would be happy to get that information for council uh if uh if council uh would like to consider that for some future

part of the decision. >> Okay. Thank you. Future if there is something like that it would be it would be helpful to have somebody on.

Um for me without the information tonight I don't really feel like I need a continuence on this case but I think I would be leaning towards um solely extending the utilities and not doing the full annex. But I'll be interested to hear what my colleagues have to say. >> Thank you, Council Member Wrist. >> Thanks, Mr.

May. Yeah, I agree with Council Mook. I think this is a good case. This is an infill project.

I think it makes sense. I have no concerns about traffic. Um, but I do Yeah, that the cost benefit does sort of is something that sort of gives me pause. Um, not only does it is a couple hundred dollars negative in the first or the second year, but then in the out years, we're talking like as much as $29,000 a year, which I think that's probably a lot for the for the rest of the city to subsidize for one lot.

Having said that, Mr. Manager, I wonder if you could also respond to this question. I know that I I imagine when you do these costbenefit analyses, you have different departments inputting data. Um, and so like solid

waste shows increasing costs over time. Um, it does show that the property tax revenues stay flat for the next like whatever seven ten years. I appreciate that optimism there. Usually those taxes tend to go up over time.

So I don't know if it's different departments that are putting data in there because that's one thing that it feels like I I get that cost would go up for solid waste over time. But I also imagine that on some level property taxes are also going to over time go up as well. So, um it feels like maybe a little bit of a unfair comparison if the if the costs are going up, revenue is not going up at the same time in that analysis, but it seems like that may be a little bit um suspect in terms of or not suspect, but just maybe a little bit of assumption that's not quite fully formed there. >> So, uh I do know that uh it's actually uh our budget management services departments that collects that information from departments. I think different departments have used uh various analyses to try and present this information. Uh I would need to take your questions back to budget management services to to kind of vet with them how

some of those assumptions are made and we'd be happy to report out on it at a future meeting, but I don't believe they're available to to talk about that formula tonight. >> Yeah. So I feel like council cook I think in the in the absence of more information I'm happy to extend the water but I think maybe the annexation with this the full services maybe is not for me is not quite comfortable right now. >> Thank you.

>> Thank you council member Kobach. >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.

And I want to uh thank the applicant and also give thanks to my colleague Council Member Cook for um sort of highlighting that that option that possibility um and the applicant's flexibility to accept that as well to just extend the water without annexation. Um you know seems relatively straightforward. Uh, you know, I also though take note that this this property, this part of the city and county sort of um, you know, abuts uh, you know, a wildlife corridor and so I also appreciate, you know, not having the annexation because having it could place additional pressure in the future uh, into that area and so this sort of

alleviates that uh, that concern um, you know, by just extending the water. So I I appreciate that recommendation and that's what I would be in support of. in addition to the great comments around, you know, city services uh and uh and the routes that might have to be driven. >> I'll I'll be delighted if u if you would, you know, afford me a water connection.

I mean, that that that is the best outcome for me. >> Thank you, Council Member Baker. >> Yeah, just um appreciate uh the comments. um questions here. One question for staff that I have is um it looks like there is a city water line that runs um almost like a semicircle in this little neighborhood. Do other lots in this neighborhood have access to city water?

>> Yes, sir. Everyone is on >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Every everyone on the street has access to city water except for this lot.

>> Yes. Yes, I mean the house that we built in 2023 is also connected to city water and sewer. Uh but we need one more water meter in order to make a second house. We need a second water meter. >> Okay. I only raise that because um you know I do think that there are this is how obviously things come to us when there are case-byase basis this discretionary decisions we can say yes or no or yes but some other way um you know I don't think it's generally a good policy to extend water to parcels outside of city limits but in this case we are looking at a parcel that is on a street um that is already accessing city water, I believe.

I think staff would tell me if that were not the case. Um and so we're really just kind of filling in a little hole on uh kind of a for better, for worse, a policy that that was implemented the way that it was in this one little pocket of of Durham, which we've seen in other parts of Durham as well. But um I do I do generally think it is a good practice to not extend to significant areas water outside of city limits. Um we do it it happens.

We make case by case decisions here. Um but given the fact that we have water already being accessed by lots in this little neighborhood, I um leaning towards uh Council Member Cook's uh proposal. All right. So, uh, yeah, Council Member Bur, >> just um, can it seems like, well, I

won't say what it seems, but for those council member Cl, can you explicitly um, state which motions you want to move forward and which ones you do not? So, just have clarifying because it feels as though some know more than others, but just want to make sure we're all on the same page. I'm so glad you asked that because I literally just raised my hand to ask the exact same question. Um, so I was just working off of what um, Miss Bur, Miss Burgess said at the beginning, which was that we could choose to only extend water so we could do the utilities agreement and not fully annex.

But do I need to make that motion now or do I do that as a modification on the motion as it's written? This might be an attorney question or >> Adam Tony >> I want to get some input from staff because I don't remember how we've handled this before. There there are criteria obviously for the city to extend utilities to properties that are

not within the city limits and the first motion is to annex, right? And it's it's a double motion. So, I can't remember if we've actually had the council vote on that. If um Payton could if she knows weigh in because I can't remember how we've done it before.

>> Arizona Sarah Young. >> Good evening, council members and attorney Ray Berg. I think in the past in instances where this has happened instead of reading the standard three motions there has been a substitute or an alternative >> made that is simply to approve the utility extension agreement instead of the traditional three motions. >> Okay.

Yeah. So, Council Member Cook, it would just be a substitute motion on the first. >> Okay. Um >> and then do we continue with the other the other the other two? >> Yeah. No, no, you would not need the others because you would not have annexed >> and so you don't need um the annexation or the ordinance um establishing zoning

or the consistency statement. >> Gotcha. >> So just a utility extension. >> Correct.

Yeah. >> All right. Uh Council Member Baker. >> Yeah.

Thank you. Um is this Are there any concerns here? we're kind of making policy on the fly. Um, and I think it's based on an issue that is pretty clear.

Uh, are there any concerns from staff? Are is there a reason that this wasn't brought to us as kind of a a clear option in the first place? Um, just curious to get the staff's take on this. Um ultimately it is to the council's discretion whether or not you want to annex something. Um our you know kind of directive for when we get a case like this is to move forward with annexation. Um in this case with water being in the surrounding neighborhood and those being

you know county properties already and it not being contiguous to the city limits also considering it's surrounded by flood plane. Um I if this was annexed and and created that sort of uh you know satellite in in the city, I don't think that it would connect to city limits in the near future just because again the surrounding properties have water and it's surrounded by flood plane on the other side. >> So do you think it's a good idea to to go this way? Sorry, I see Sarah jumping on.

Sarah, would you like to answer this? >> Uh, sure. I was jumping on to clarify something else, but um I will say that the way that this portion of city code is written, it says that council may excuse the annexation, which forces an applicant to ask for the annexation first, which is why we have to package it this way. Um, I do think that that carveout exists for a good reason in city code. Um, and I think that this is

uh, in my professional opinion an acceptable place to use that exception. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, just to be clear what I'm asking for, we're asking for just the utility extension in the motion.

I wonder if the if the maybe the the attorney perhaps frame that for us to make sure we get it right. Right. So, it would just be a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility extension agreement with the city living trust trustee. >> That suffices.

All right. Well, >> and I'm sorry, the planning director. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. The planning director put that in the the chat. Thank you, Madam Planning Director. >> Thank you, madam attorney. There are no other comments or questions. I'll entertain a motion to authorize the city manager to enter into a utility

extension agreement with the Sidu Living Trust Trustee. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Been moved and properly seconded.

Madam clerk, please call for a vote. >> Mayor Williams, >> I. >> Um, Council Member Baker, >> I. >> Council member Burris, >> I.

member Cook. >> Hi, Council >> Member Kopac. >> I council member Ris. >> Hi.

>> That's six to zero. >> Thank you so much. I do appreciate it. >> And uh thank you for giving us water.

>> No. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> Uh I believe those that's all I have to do, right?

Uh couns. Yes, sir. That disposes of the item. >> All right. So, before we close out, guys, I do have one more item number one. I would like to entertain a motion to appoint Rems representing arts and

culture and James Bullock representing facility management to the Durham Performing Arts Center oversight committee with the terms to expire March 1st, 2029. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Been moved and properly seconded.

Madam clerk, please call the vote. >> Mayor Williams, >> yes. >> Member Baker, >> I. >> Member Burris, >> I.

>> Member Cook, >> hi. >> Member Kopac, >> hi. >> Member Wrist, >> hi. >> Thank you.

That passes 6. >> All right. Well, thank you all so much. Um, I think we will be relieving the state of emergency tomorrow.

Uh, hopefully. Uh but we should be back in person on Thursday. Thank you all for a great meeting. Now you can all have a break. every night. >> Thank you, buddy.