City Council · Regular Meeting · March 19, 2026

Uh, good afternoon everyone. I'm going to go ahead and Well, I'm going to give us one minute, but Oh, we're now at one. Never mind. Um, the mayor is running a little late, so I'm going to go ahead and kick us off.

Uh, Madame Clerk, could you please call the role? >> Thank you, Madam Mayor Prom. Uh, the mayor's running a little bit late. Mayor Prom Cabayro >> here.

Council member Baker >> here. >> Council member Burrus >> here. Council member Cook >> here. >> Council member Kopac >> here.

>> Council member Rest >> here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And uh colleagues, does anyone have any announcements?

>> Uh council member Kobec. >> Yeah, thank you um madam prom. Just wanted to to give some thanks to the environmental affairs board which I'm liazison to for bringing forth the letter from the southeast directors of sustainability on the Duke Energy's carbon plan. Um and I'm pleased that the mayor will be signing on the letter on behalf of the council and the city. Um Duke Energy's plan if approved would

risk some of the goals we have as a city around a transition to renewable energy and carbon neutrality. And at a time where we're facing uh huge issues for our residents around uh energy costs, uh it's not a time to be walking away from renewable energy or from uh energy efficiency. We need more of both of those investments going into forward the future for our state. So I'm just glad that uh Durham will be joining on with others in support of that letter.

Thank you. I'm glad to be with everyone today. Thank you everyone for coming out. >> Thank you, Council Member Copek.

Anyone else? Council member Wrist. >> Thanks, Mayor Prom. Good or good evening.

Good afternoon, colleagues, Mr. Manager, folks in attendance, residents online. Just a couple things. It is March Madness.

Hope everybody got their brackets in. Um, we're hoping to finish our meeting relatively quickly today. I know that Duke is playing at 2:50 today. I know a lot of folks probably checking their phones. We should be done by the 650 start of of the Tar Hills against VCU. Um, also noting that, you know, Queens University from Charlotte is also in the tournament for the first time.

So, a lot of exciting news for North Carolina. Um, I want to thank the the German Chamber of Commerce for holding their annual meeting last Tuesday at the Carolina Theater, the Carolina Theater, which is celebrating its 100th um birthday this year. Um, congrats to um Jeff Durham and staff for that meeting, their leadership on so many things in Durham. I also want to thank um the outgoing chair um Dom Cole Johnson for her role as chairing it in the last year and welcome the incoming chair of the chamber, Robert Nelson from Janentech.

Um, and then the last thing is, you know, I'm so excited about the 2024 bond, which, as you all recall, um, was sort of funded $85 million for our parks. One of the big parks projects is the redevelopment of East End and Long Meadow Parks. Um, and so there's a public meeting tonight from 6:00 to 7:30 at Eastway Elementary for anyone interested in providing comment, hearing the update on that plan, and also providing some ideas about the future of the park. So, exciting stuff in Durham to see those bond funds being used. We've seen a lot of sidewalks being built, but now this is one of the big park projects that's coming online. I know where's Wade Walcott from uh DPR

and really his department's really excited about that. So, good stuff happening in Durham. So, again, if you're interested in input on Long Meadow and East End Parks session tonight at 6 o'clock at Eastway Elementary. Thank you all.

Thanks, Mayor Prom. >> Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments or announcements? Okay.

Uh thank you. I'm just going to briefly um good afternoon everyone. Uh I just wanted to talk about um yesterday uh a pretty um heartbreaking um investigative journal article came out about Cesar Chavez. Um and at least in Latino politics, it is reverberating uh very mightily across the country, especially since in many states uh Cesar Chavez day is March 31st.

Uh, I just want to lift up all of those survivors. I want to especially lift up the Los Werta who is uh an incredible human being and has uh suffered a lot in a lot of silence for many many decades. Um, I also want to

lift up how folks are centering survivors in this moment and all of the communities who are um re having conversations about renaming streets uh changing state holidays. uh and that is what needs to happen when heroes are obviously very complicated uh and have complicated legacies and have caused abuse in our communities. And I think it is a model exactly how we should be moving forward when we know that there are abusers uh at the highest levels of office currently in power, currently alive uh and we are not doing the same scrutiny. So, if the New York Times has the resources to spend five years in invest in investigating a man who's been dead for 30 years, they certainly have the resources to be investigating those in federal power currently.

Uh again, uh thinking about their survivors and the women who've carried uh really painful histories and legacies for many decades. Thank you. Um and then uh oddly, unless anybody

else has any uh announcements, we will be doing a proclamation today. Um, so I would like to invite and I'm I think I'm just going to read it from the DAS. Um, I don't think we're gonna do the and then can folks from uh the general services department uh come up. Actually, we'll just go.

>> Thank you, Director Propes or actually >> deputy city manager. Thank you. Yeah, Gina Propes and I'm so proud to introduce some of our members of our custodial team and especially Everett Deloney, our um our supervisor who's also very involved in many associations and has brought a great um leadership to our team and he's going to take it from here. >> Good afternoon.

>> Good afternoon, >> city council members um Bo and DCMS. uh like Jamie Deloney. Um I'm glad to be here to represent my team that's here. Y'all want to stand up for a minute? That's my custodial team, part of it. UH

and and thanks for uh proclaiming next week international cleaning week which is the ISSA which is the uh um it's the international sanitarian supply association and they all across the world they are in um US, Canada, Italy, Australia and South Korea um and they repres represent all of the clean industry throughout the the world. So, we're part of that organization. They uh allow us to get educational opportunities, professional development, just a lot of things that they do for the uh industry. So, thank you all again for allowing us to celebrate next week and celebrate my amazing staff.

So, thank you. >> Thank you. AND UM >> why don't you guys why don't you stay at the podium while she reads the the proclamation just so that we can honor you and and she'll read the the language from the proclamation. Thank you guys.

>> Okay. >> Thank you. And it would be amazing if

all of you came up to the podium. >> That'd be great. >> That'd be great. Whereas cleanliness is essential to public health, wellness and prosperity.

It enhances productivity, boosts customer satisfaction, preserves vital resources and supports sustainable efficient practices. And whereas in educational settings, improved air quality is linked to fewer illness related absences and higher academic performance. 4% and whereas cleanliness directly supports a healthy workforce by reducing absenteeism and presenteeism. In 2024

alone, the global economy lost an estimated 438 billion in productivity due to employees unable to perform at full capacity because of illness or injury. And whereas from manufacturers and distributors producing and delivering essential cleaning and hygiene products to frontline professionals maintaining healthy, safe environments in our schools, hospital, workplaces, and public spaces, these individuals and businesses play a vital role in protecting our communities every day. And whereas the residents of Durham, North Carolina, proudly recognize and celebrate the cleaning and facility solutions industry during this annual observance highlighting the importance of maintaining clean, safe, and sanitary environments at work, in schools, and at home. And now, therefore, I, Leonardo Williams, mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim March 20 March 22nd through 26, 2026 as cleaning week in the city of Durham, and encourage residents to support those in the field. witness my hand in the corporate seal of the city of Durham, North Carolina this 20th day of March 2026.

And if I can just take a quick minute just to recognize the staff that is here. Walter Tarantine, um, Yari Ibanz, Abby Fiser, Sherrod Gibbs, Lakesha Dyer, let's got Doris Nunez, and my other staff is not here. William Coington, Do Napper. Oh, and Monica.

Where's Monica? >> Oh, Monica Santos. Tony Cruz and Naisha LS. So I want to give them a hand again for what they do every day.

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And just really quickly, it's one thing that I'm very proud of.

Many cities outsource these things. Uh they outsource to third party contracted firms. We don't do that in the city of Durham. >> These are city workers, which means that they get city benefits and higher wages.

And it's a commitment that this council and previous councils have made to keep as many folks as possible >> as a city worker. Thank you. Makes a

huge difference. Thank you. >> Can I make a quick comment? >> Just as uh Thank you, Mayor Prom.

as they return to their seat. I just want to add the administration's thanks to the council for this uh uh proclamation, but also uh it is so uh infrequent that we get to uh pull these heroes uh in front of the council and give them the recognition they deserve. Uh I am not just deeply proud of the work they do in our facilities, but uh so many of the faces you just saw are really the heart and soul of our organization. They're the people who greet us in the morning.

Uh they come down our hallways, they cheer us up. Um, and they care so much about the service they provide. So, as they're here today, and I know as as they're leaving out to return to their duties, I just wanted to thank them on behalf of the 2600 employees of the city. Uh, you do tremendous service for us every day.

We are so grateful for what you do for us. >> Thank you. Um, next up, I have priority

items. Uh, Mr. Manager, Thank you, Mayor PM, members of council. I am delighted to tell you the city manager's office has no priority items.

>> That is delightful. Thank you. Uh, madame attorney. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor Pim.

The city attorney's office also has no priority items, but if I may have a point of per personal privilege. >> Absolutely. >> I'd like to make an introduction. So, we lost a member of our team back in August when one of our parallegals decided to go to law school.

Um, we inspired them so much. But I'm happy to report we have had a new parallegal join our team. Maryannne Frati, I think she's in this room. There she is.

She's waving. Um, Maryann joined us last Monday. She's coming to us from the private sector. Interestingly, she already has some local government experience, particularly in affordable housing.

So, we're excited about her helping us with real estate and affordable housing matters, and we're thrilled to have her with us. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, madame

clerk. >> Thank you, Madame Prom. I do have the board and committee report. Uh, the citizens advisory committee appointment.

The nominee is Daniel W. Cole. The Durham City County Environmental Affairs Board for the category of youth. The nominee is Lena G.

Tonkan. for Durham's open space and trails commission appointment category ward one Nicholas Monton the Durham historic preservation commission appointment in the category of alternate member at large is Priesty Willis and then for the final commission appointment relations commission we do not have consensus uh would you like me to go through what we have or >> how would you like to >> uh thank you go ahead and report it out. >> Okay. There are two um members who have chosen Jimn Keem, two members who have

chosen Shannon Salentine, one member who's chosen Diana Meof, and um one member each for Cindy Scarboro and Tracy M. Wright Gaskins. >> Okay. So, does somebody just need four or not even there?

>> We're not even there. >> Okay. So, let's just put it to GBA, our two colleagues, or is that okay, perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And then we're good on everyone else, though. >> Okay. Thank you.

>> Um, okay. Do we have anyone here on just Okay, we have two folks signed up for just general public comment. Um, could I please have Meredith Carter? >> Good afternoon. Thank you for being with us. You have three minutes.

>> Oh, okay. Good afternoon, council members. I am speaking to you today as a representative of Local 668, your professional firefighters of Durham. We recently had another breakin of personal vehicles at one of our fire stations.

This time, multiple vehicles at fire station 9 on Midland Terrace had their windows broken out. In the last year, we've had our personal vehicles broken into at stations 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 16. That's just in the past year. That means more than a third of our fire stations have experienced personal vehicle break-ins within the last year.

Our members cannot be distracted and worried about their personal property while we're at work. A broken vehicle window costs between $250 and $350 to replace, and our members are being forced to cover this cost on their own. We cannot continue to repeatedly pay out of pocket after our vehicles are damaged on city property or while our people staff fire trucks and respond to the city's emergencies. We recognize that the city and the fire department have taken some action to make our station

safer through increased law enforcement patrols, light duty employees being tasked with making rounds to check on parking lots and cameras at some stations. But the reality is our vehicles remain unprotected and vulnerable for the vast majority of our shifts. We need serious investment in the protection of our vehicles, such as secure fencing. Our members are not asking for video footage of a suspect breaking into our vehicle.

Our members are asking for the break-in to never happen in the first place. So, we are once again asking the city to provide secure fencing at every station to asssure our safety. In the event that a fence is truly not feasible due to the layout of a station, we're asking for some sort of mobile security system to be placed in our parking lots like what is used at some shopping centers as a legitimate deterrent. Finally, we're asking the city to stand behind its security measures and step up and pay for repairs that occur to members personal vehicles while they are parked on city property and on duty.

Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, next person I have uh signed up for just general public

comment is uh Victoria Peterson. Good afternoon. Thank you. You have three minutes.

>> One of the things that really is starting to concern me a little bit, I've been coming to the work session several as well as the city council and um I'm a little concerned about our council members coming into the meetings late. even for the mayor to come in late. You folks really need to get yourselves together. I'm not trying to spank you or beat up on you, but you signed up for this duty and you really need to be here.

Even when the city council meets on Mondays, you need to be here on time. Please, you're representing us and you need to hear what we have to say. Now, I want to say something and the mayor is

not even here to hear it. So, what I would like to sh ask, I've asked for an itemized budget from the city manager. I have not received it yet on the St. Joseph Historical Foundation.

Uh they were the fiscal they were the fiscal agent over the $10 million. I would like to get a report and I've asked have not received it yet of how the amount of monies that was spent when they were responsible for the $10 million. Also, I would like to share with you uh on Ridgeway Avenue, if you're on Ridgeway Avenue, you cross over Lynwood, you go straight down past McDouga Terrace, and those council members that are in that district. There's something going on with a set of properties over there.

They're just run down. Uh the address is 50 Ridgeway. My

under I'm hearing two two separate things. It could be public housing or either it could be private. Uh I think at one time it was called Liberty. All you folks are all new so you you may not know about this property but it's a lot of buildings that are just run down um mattress wood or out windows broken.

That's on the other side of Mcduga Terrace. I don't think it's part of McDucer. There's a possibility that it may be, but please, please, please, we we really need to and we have good employees. Uh I I'm starting to get the impression, city manager, that we may need to start hiring some new employees, some additional employees.

Uh the city's growing. We have a lot of property. We have a lot of commercial property. Some of the commercial properties are not being kept up. Uh we've had several

fires on Austin Avenue. The houses have have they're still there, burnt. Uh also on um on on Favville Street down by Stanford Warren Library. You've got several houses that have been on fire >> just being just left there and left alone.

So >> thank you, Miss Peterson. >> Please send somebody out to look into this. Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> Um, Madame Clerk, I think I have one more um general comment. Uh, Miss Wagstaff, is she online >> or public comment? Okay. >> Miss Wagstaff's not online.

>> Okay. And then Mr. Harmon, did you sign up? I don't have your name on my piece of paper.

>> Oh, okay. Just Thank you. Go ahead. Come on up, Mr.

Harmon. Thank you. Sorry about that. >> Thank you for your help. I'm gonna hopefully learn how to use the clicker while she's doing that. Uh Mayor Potam

and friends on council, my last run through of this it was like 3 minutes and 9 and a half seconds. So I'm going to like get through this. So uh I asked uh Mayor Prom if I could have more time and she said no. So I did what I needed to do.

U but I'm really glad to be here today. All right. >> Right here goes that way and this goes back. Okay, great.

Okay. Um, hello everyone. My name is uh Scott Harmon. I'm an architect and developer with Center Studio here in Durham.

Since 2004, our studio has created hundreds of homes for people who love Durham. Eight years ago, we attended a phase 1 training of the racial equity institute. Real estate is my love language. So, I chose this book, Roststein's The Color of Law, for my first deep study of systemic racism. What I learned is that all zoning in the United States from the very beginning intended to divide the people who love Durham by race and class so that my advantage as a white land owner could be preserved. That's why land use politics and power in this

country has always been and continues to be dominated by what wealthy white neighborhoods. When zoning's explicit racism was struck down by the Supreme Court, white folks figured out how to get the same result. By controlling the dimensions of our property, we could preserve our power, class, and race without having to use those words. The popular term today is neighborhood character.

Here is a map of Durham's neighborhood character. The pretty parts are separated from the ugly parts by four numbers: minimum lot size, setbacks, height, and density. These four numbers applied differently to each part of town, are the underlying math. the very laws of physics that define a century of land use politics in Durham.

When we talk about systemic racism, these formulas, these math, that's the system. We're so used to the physics of these laws that we don't question them. We just keep adjusting the four numbers without challenging the whole paradigm. Which is why this diagram of Durham's

neighborhood character is still pretty accurate. It's why we keep dividing the people who love Durham. The system gives us the same outcome over and over, even when the people who love Durham in their hearts want a very different outcome. The LDC is a remarkable commitment to housing justice, but the proposed infill standards are problematic.

Sorry. New housing is required to honor the setbacks and height of the existing housing in the same block. In other words, they perpetuate the physics of our old zoning laws. They preserve our neighborhood character map by allowing each neighborhood to have a different standard for new housing.

It's like we've decided that these wealthier neighborhoods don't have to work as hard. A 100 years ago, our standards of density, setbacks, height, and minimum lot size made sure that Southeast Durham carried the burden of the housing we needed, but that our white neighborhoods didn't want. This problematic section of the LDC makes sure that Southeast Durham continues to

carry this burden. This is not right. It's not fair. We cannot have a conversation about neighborhood character without talking about the systems of power, class, and race that divide the people who love Durham.

Property rights are not a private entitlement. They are a community resource. Are we going to prioritize neighborhood character or Durham character? The people who love Durham share power, share privilege, share resources, and share wealth.

Durham Character intentionally moderates the needs of one neighborhood so that every neighborhood has an opportunity to thrive. >> Thank you, Mr. Harmon. >> Durham Character expects everyone to solve the housing crisis and end the bidding wars, the homelessness, the displacement, and the rampant inflation of housing costs.

>> And Mr. Harmon, if you could um I I'd said I'd suggested you uh email our your full remarks to us, that would be helpful. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you so much.

>> I appreciate it. Thank you for letting me come up here today. And then uh madame clerk, do we have Miss Wagstaff online before I'm Okay, perfect. Thank you.

>> I'm going to go ahead and kick us off. Um >> can I can I just ask one question? Um absolutely. >> Mr.

Manager, you sent us a memorandum about the the fire station issue and the breakins that are happening. >> Yes. >> Um I appreciate that. It looks like a lot of work has gone into that.

I was just curious if we've explored compensation for the breakins that have already occurred. >> So, I don't want to put director Flor on the spot, but our risk management department I my understanding at least in my history with the city is uh as uncomfortable as it is. We have had theft between employees of employees and of of employees private property. We've had damage to private property in the past.

We have not traditionally paid claims that they they have had to rely on their private insurance. It is certainly something that you know we we feel u disgusted by that is happening. Uh but we have in the past when employees have uh suffered theft on in the workplace or on the workplace that we have not play paid those claims in

the past. That has been our policy going forward and Tim if I misrepresented that please let me know. Thank you >> Mr. manager.

Yeah. And just on that point, I I I would be interested to discuss that further and also just recognize that this seems to be have been a a sustained pattern and I don't know if that's consistent in the past where if it's a one-off versus something we see continue to to happen and just recognizing the costs both to vehicle repairs and also to insurance premiums. Um and and so I guess for me the concern is that the repeat issue uh and that we do what we can to help address it. So thank you.

>> Thank you. I'll be happy to have a further conversation with our staff and evaluate them. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> Okay. Um I'm going to go ahead and get us going on our consent agenda. Colleagues, we are going to take up item number 15 after the presentation. Um that is what staff has suggested we do and I think that that is a good idea. So

um we will take that up after the presentation. Uh, so under administrative consent items under the city clerk's office, item number one, citizen advisory committee appointment. Item number two, Durham City County Environmental Affairs Board appointment. Item number three, Durham Open Spaces and Trails Commission appointment.

Item number four, Durham Historic Preservation Commission appointment. Item number five, Human Relations Commission appointment under departmental items, audit services department. Item number six, Department of Water Management Contract Management Performance Audit, January 2026. under budget and management services department.

Item number seven, interlocal agreement for the distribution of sales tax between the city of Durham and Durham County. Item number eight, FY2627, budget development guidelines under community partnerships and engagement department. Item number nine, mayor's Hispanic Latino Committee 2025 annual report under community safety department. Item number 10, second amendment to contract 19650 with Housing for New Hope, Inc. for the provision of

landlord engagement services. >> Number 10, I got it. Sorry. >> Okay.

Item number 10 is pulled under finance department. Item number 11, resolution authorizing this the virtual city auction. Item number 12, util utility revenue refunding bond series 2026. Item number 13, FY2026 capital improvement plan CIB CIP project closeout.

Item number uh under general services department item number 14 eminent domain action to obtain four parcels at 5151 17 and 519 East Trinity Avenue. >> Pull that one. >> Item number 14 is pulled. Item number 15, preservation North Carolina option, excuse me, we're going to take that.

I'm going to read it, but we'll take it up after the fact. Preservation North Carolina option to purchase home security life insurance building at 505 West Chapel Hill Street under transportation department. Item

number 16, construction of rectangular rapid flashing beacon RFBS at school and trail crossings. >> Pull that one. >> Number 16 is pulled. Item number 17, maintenance agreement with North Carolina Department of Transportation for the North Rox Street at Horton Road and Denfield Street project.

TIP number W-5705A I. Uh item number 18, maintenance agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the NC54 and Hopson Road project tip number HS-2405H. Item number 19, amended and restated reimbursement and lease agreement between North Carolina Department of Transportation and the city of Durham for the lease of the Durham Amtrak station underwater management department. Item number 20, purchase contract, Ferguson Enterprise LLC of Virginia water meter bulk order. And then under presentations, uh, city manager's office administrative updates to city agenda

formats. and under general services department item number 22 on redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street. And then uh for public hearings uh at our first April meeting um planning and development department uh number 23 zoning map change preserve at Infinity item number 24 zoning map change top golf Durham mixeduse phase 2 and then we heard our uh public comment items. Uh Mr.

manager. We have items 10, 14, and 16 pulled. Then we will do, I think, if folks are comfortable with it, the presentation item number 22 and then 21 and then item number 15. Thank you.

>> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you all so much.

pardon my tardiness to everyone including Miss Peterson. Uh we are not immune to emergencies. So I hope you have a little

more grace among myself as well as other council members when things come up in this part-time role. I hope you also join me in North Carolina in advocating for us to be more full-time public servants. Otherwise, reserve it. All right.

Item number 10. You know, we'd be listening in. Item number 10. Council member Cook.

>> Yeah. >> Um so just a couple of quick questions. Uh it seems like we I mean I remember that we extended this contract last year. Um I'm just curious.

It sounds like there's kind of different pots of money, but I'm wondering why we didn't anticipate the fact that this wasn't going to last us to the new fiscal year. Good afternoon, uh, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, city manager, city council Colin Davis, uh, contract manager in the community safety department. The

question, Council Member Cook, if I understand correctly, is why was additional money not added in the first amendment? >> Yeah. So, we amended it in July of 2025. So, I'm just confused why we didn't anticipate that it obviously we knew that we wouldn't have more funding until our next >> fiscal year.

So, why we had why didn't we anticipate this ending in in March? >> We anticipated at the time we were not sure when the funding that Housing for New Hope had currently in contract would run out. There was a lag in invoicing. They had an audit and staff short staffed.

So, we did not want to add more money to the contract at that time, but we did need to extend it uh to ensure that the money they had in the contract would be able to spent be spent on time. They did hire additional staff. They were also bringing on new staff at that time. And now they were fully staffed for this project. And when we were

looking at it, we did the calculations on the monthly spend rate and the incentive payments being made to landlords and realized that the money would not make it till the end of the fiscal year. We're in the process of writing a new RFP for this project and we anticipate the new contract beginning October 1st. We chose to add money and time in the second amendment to get us through September 30th, which would ensure we would have continuity of services after the end of the anticipated contract was anticipated to end June 30th of uh 2026. >> Thank you.

That's helpful. So, and then I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the different um sources for money because there was a part in there that was Sorry, I'm trying to find my notes. Number 10, uh part in there that was

about program income. So, I was just wondering if you could speak to what that program income is and the different sources of funding that have been used for it. >> Sure. re when this contract began, the contract began when, excuse me, under the community development department.

And at the time that contract began, the original contract was for a total value of $450,000. At the time, there was I don't recall the exact dollar amount of dedicated housing funds available. And to make up the difference, the director of the department at that time made the decision to use a pool of funds that was program income that had been generated from program income from a bond years years ago that had that was there. >> So that we had program income from a different program that supplemented our our dedicated housing funds at the onset of this. >> That sounds correct.

Yes, it there was two pots of money. We we had dedicated housing funds we could tap into and then there was this uh money that had come in from uh bond that was issued locally and money that was paid back to the city as interest or p repaid that was sitting in account is my understanding. I would have to >> and that program income funding we think was more at the onset and it sounds like now at least this additional funding is all coming from dedicated housing fund >> and most of the funding in the past in the past well at the last amendment I guess last year was also >> the the amendment last year we did not add any money we just we extended the contract for time we did not put more money because we were not sure what the burn rate would be and we didn't want to add money unless we had to put money into it. And then once invoices got caught up and we reconciled and started looking at projections, we determined that to continue operations at the rate

we are currently moving, we would run out of funding at the end of March. So that's where it became necessary to add money to get through that. >> Okay. Thank you.

So very helpful. And then one last question. So you talked a little bit about the expenditures. You talked about new staff hires um from Housing for New Hope.

Um what else is this money being used towards? >> Sure. Great question. So the money is predominantly used for obviously in the homeless system you have people experiencing homelessness and they need to get matched to housing.

We have people who own housing, landlords, property managers that need to be recruited and incentivized to rent to households that are often higher barrier. You know, low credit score, low income, multiple evictions, criminal histories, mental health, substance abuse, things that most property managers tend to run away from. So the landlord engagement contract provides staff to go out and talk to landlords

and property managers and encourage them to rent to them in order to sort of allay some of those fears. There are incentive payments. " And in exchange for that, we'll incentivize you by if you've never rented to us before, we'll incentivize you with a $2,500 payment or $1,500 payment. " Well, in that case, well, if you're going to continue, you know, bending your rules or changing the rules for taking lower barrier or higher barrier households, an incentive payment would come in of $1,000 to help sort of mitigate some of that risk uh to to incentivize landlords to rent to households that they typically would be less interested in renting to.

>> Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions. I don't know if Council Member Ris might have had some comments.

>> Yep. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for the questions from Council Member Cook.

Thanks, Mr. Davis, for the work you're doing. I just want to high level, lift this up. I mean, this is such important work to engage landlords in securing rental units for families leaving homeless.

It's super important work. So, I appreciate the conversation about contract, making sure there's sufficient funds there. I also want to thank Housing for New Hope for being our contractor on this work. I don't know if Director Pierce is here, but as I understand in the last year has engaged 37 new landlords to sort of in part of the process.

So, we need private landlords as you described to be willing to sort of change some of their provisions to allow folks to rent their units. And it's really important work. So, I just want to lift that up and thank you for your work and again thank Housing for New Hope. Thank you.

>> Thank you. >> All right. Next up, item number 14, Council Member Wrist. >> Good afternoon, Alicia Bass, General Services.

>> Good afternoon, Miss Bass. Thanks for being here. Um, I just have one question about this item. Um, I know that we we've got an important project here. We've got the Durham Rail Trail and

we're we're seeking to build a a really a sort of a trail head there at the at the intersection Trinity and >> Aenddale. >> Abdale. Yeah. Yeah.

I also know that we use imminent domain as a last resort, right? We don't like to do this unless So can is can you say anything more about the sort of the the negotiations kind of anything to describe how that went? Why we're going eminent domain? Why we couldn't get to an agreement?

>> No. So, we had some preliminary conversations at the beginning of 2024 and so then that that led us to get an appraisal and we shared that information with the property owner and they felt that um we just couldn't come to an agreement on price. Um we revisited that conversation with them um over the next year or so. we got an updated appraisal and so the the uh the biggest objection is the price and so we just couldn't um kind of close that gap.

We offered a 20% um premium above appraisal. Um but that is is really the sticking point. And so

we at this stage of uh the process, our trail is scheduled to start in winter of 20 construction is scheduled to start in winter 2027. And so it's important for us to bring this before you all at this point to make sure we stay on on schedule. >> Great. I appreciate that.

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next up, item number 16, Council Member Cook.

>> Thank you. Um, two very, I hope, quick questions. The first is that there are some um some school crossings that are listed. Is that an exhausted exhaustive list or do we set money aside for other potential areas as well? >> So, what's listed in the memo um is kind of some um examples of sites. Uh but if you go into the attachments, exhibit 6 has 13 plans and so you can see all 13

locations uh in the exhibit six. >> Okay. And that's the full list. Um can you talk to me about the why the two lower bids were not considered responsive?

>> Sure. So uh one of the bids uh came in very low. So when we uh evaluate bids it was uh we have to make sure that they are uh responsive and responsible that it's reasonable that the work could be performed uh for that uh for that dollar amount. uh and the review that we conducted found that it was not reasonable uh for that bid for the work to be performed for the amount.

I think that was the NPS bid. Um and then um we the the second bid that we got um did not meet our Eagle business opportunity um goals. So we had set I think an 11% uh participation goal for this through the UBC underutilized business compliance division. Uh and so that uh

proposal did not meet that those goals. So we looked to the next proposal. So the the recommended award uh has a 14% participation rate. So that exceeds the goal that was set for this project.

>> Great. Those were my questions. Thank you so much. All right.

Thank you. Sean Eaggan for the transportation department. >> Hey Javier, how did you >> go? Item 22 >> presentation.

>> Item 22 now. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right.

So yeah, we'll go ahead with item number 22. So, this is the update on redevelopment of 505 West Chapel Hill Street. And as as they're uh getting ready to start this presentation, I I want to

address something. You guys saw the signs on the on the window in there. So, I am a voting council member and it's really important that I too pay attention to our agenda. The reason why I'm being a hardliner on signing up before the meeting starts is because I I don't want to keep paper shuffling and trying to keep up with the ministering paper while not paying attention to the meeting.

I don't want the clerk to keep coming to me asking me can someone speak later on in the meeting. All right. So, I'm asking the public to sign up at the beginning of the meeting and once the meeting starts, we are in the business of the meeting. I do not want to be up here shuffling papers and trying to manage the movement of the agenda and also be a responsible council member.

So, I'm I received a few requests to speak later. I'm going to allow it today, but today is the last day. And I'm not being a you know what about it. I just want to make sure that we're all being responsible.

Okay, Madam Clerk, after we start, do not bring me any more forms. And I'm saying that publicly so everyone can hear me. All right, let's go. Okay.

>> Good afternoon. Stacy Poston, General Services Department. Happy to be here today with another update on pro progress progress for 505 West Chapel Hill Street. I want to um celebrate that we were here in December.

There were a couple of assignments that came to staff um and to um some of our resident experts at that time. And so we've been working on preservation North Carolina and we'll provide an update and provide uh allow them to come and talk to you about the progress that we've made with discussions on that. But we also have a working group that has been engaged with us um since December and has done a significant amount of work. And I I want to recognize them by name because you know they're volunteers and they've brought their expertise in the various

disciplines. And so before um I introduce Ky and get them started, I actually would like to call them by name and to ask them to stand up. So Ted Hillbrun, Rick Larson, Sherry Taylor, Ky who's already standing here beside me, Greg Warren, and Yolanda Winstead. And so these um five committee members have been helping staff think about how to approach this site and come to you today to present the findings of the work that they've done with staff um in consultation with HRNA adviserss who's also here today and a couple of departments the planning department and Sarah Young and Sarah Venius in the housing department.

Um they have also been great participants in supporting the work that we've done today. So with that I will pass it off to KDY and she's going to share the the findings of the presentation. Thank you so much. Um, good afternoon, Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, um, city manager, and all um, council members. I am Ketty Telmac. I represent Durham Can, but I'm part of the working group. And

so, first and foremost, I want to say uh, publicly, just as AC said, thank you. Thank you so much. There was a charge that was given, and we collectively came together to work around this charge. We couldn't have done it without the help of HRNA, without the help of our um staffing, and as well as I don't want to forget Perkins and Will, who really stepped up and gave us everything that we needed to kind of come together and summarize for you today and provide for you what you charged us to do and that's what we're coming today to talk about.

So, first of all, um you got the roster. Um the purpose is really about we came together because we heard from the city manager and we wanted to come and do some due diligence work um that reflected our conversations within the community and what possibility we could see there at 505. And so we met we came together and we met together for several weeks. Again, as she stressed, we were volunteers. And we just want to put that out first and foremost um that we

committed our expertise and our time to come here and to answer some of the questions that you may have but also first to present to you the hard work that was done um to collaborately to collaborate together for a solution for 505. We're going to come and undergo some there's going to be some undergirling of the assumptions two proposed scenarios with development subsidy gap analysis recommendations and then we're here to take on your questions. Um Stacey already told you who we were and how who we represented and so it's not there's expertise here that does this work. Um there's a reflection and um from listening to the community, this is 10 years in and so I just want to remind you all of that as you engage in your questions. Um it may have been a different reiteration of this council that once made that commitment, but we want you to know that this is 10 years of hard work that we've come together today to talk about.

Um our content is uh of course as Stacy said was at the December 4th, 2025 work session meeting where we came together and the charge was given to us and who came together. The summary of those key findings and recommendations are as follows. Before I turn this over, affordable housing on the northwest corner of the property is feasible. Oh, you can go to the next slide.

That's okay. Thanks. is clearly feasible. 80 Litec apartments can be built now when you notice that underlined now at 505, leaving a significant amount of the site available for future development, including a second LITC phase with approximately 55 units.

We identified two possible scenarios using 9% low-income housing tax credit. LITC funding. Affordable housing at 505 is a strong candidate for a LITC award. Estimated,

this is not final numbers, this is just the estimate best based on our expertise that was at the table. 4 to6 million in gap subsidy from city and other sources required for 80 units. And we want to stress here other sources, partners that are out there that want to help that have done it at other sites already. Pay attention to what's in the news.

By July 2026, city should select a qualified LITC developer with a proven track record in Durham developer to prepare a detailed plan for council approval and submit a LITC pre-application in January 2027. We've done the hard work based on the requests for the 80 units based on the promise that was made 10 years ago. We've done the work and our we hope that our findings today will help you to make a clear decision. And now I'll turn it over to Ted. Thank you.

>> Great. >> Okay. No. Awesome.

Hello everyone. Uh here to handle the portion of the presentation to talk about some of the assumptions that fed the analysis both in terms of how we've laid out the site and why. um first uh order of business making it clear that the entire project is intended to be at or below 60% AMI. The financing tool that would be used to enable the construction of this project would be the 9% low-inccome housing tax credit program with NCHFA.

Uh the rules that would govern this site would require and it uh dovetales with a DURM priority um to make sure that 25% of the units on site are available to folks at 30% AMI or below. So 75% of this project would be at 60% AMI. 25% would be at 30% AMI. Uh there was a significant recognition from this crew from the get-go that this was not the only priority that the city had for the site. And so our goal was to compress on a small enough footprint subject to

reasonable cost constraints uh to enable the most amount of future real estate to be developed. We also as we were working through our analyses uh made every effort to not touch the portion of the site where the Milton small building was to make sure that our recommendations weren't impacted by any decisions on that portion of the property. Um the parking uh footprint uh is an important consideration. More parking requires more land.

Um we believe NCHFA would grant a waiver given the ample public transportation that surrounds this site down to a ratio of one per. typically their projects require a greater parking ratio. Um the whole we started with an idea that a 9% application was the best way to put together a project that made sense and then that informed the decisions around design and programming. So with that if we could hop to our next slide. Uh we started with an assumption again that leaving the most amount of future developable real estate was critical here. um given the expectation that we

would not touch the footprint of the Milton small building, we started in the northwest corner of the site um and and then worked from there. And I'll tell you that you'll see two iterations today. The reality was I think we had four, five different scenarios that were studied, larger, smaller, different financing programs. So what you see in front of you is is not quite plucked out of thin air, um to put it mildly.

Um let's go to the next slide. So, both scenarios that we're going to show you are 80 unit low 9% low-inccome housing tax credit projects with the unit mix that we described. We prioritized uh some smaller bedroom sizes, ones and twos versus threes simply because uh the more large bedrooms we had, the more square footage was going to be required, the more parking spaces were going to be required, the harder this was going to be to keep the site plan and the footprint constrained. Um you'll see a list here of what's in the program. There's a plethora of amenities as required by the NCHFA uh QAP. Uh there

was also a consideration for some of the nuances of the DURM UDO and what would be required of the site from a site planning perspective. I will say uh to govern sort of the rest of this section of the presentation, we really came up with a set of assumptions that we thought were reasonable and actionable to inform analyses on price and gap funding. um any developer that the city would select if this is something that does move forward would then end up working with staff to program something that that is you know a truly refined plan. This is really intended to just be a governing set of assumptions to to guide the conversation.

Um the real difference between the two plans, one plan is surface parked, one plan is not. Surface parking is cheaper, it is more lane intensive. Um and that is really the the the trade-offs that our group grappled with. Uh this is just a 2D overhead to show you what the surface parked solution would be where parking extends all the way down Gregson Street on the east side to the bottom of the property.

And again an aerial just to give uh council a scale of the massing of both Milton Small, the um apartments on the west side of Gregson and sort of some of the massing of what we are contemplating here with the 80 units. Uh scenario two is from our perspective the preferred scenario. We'll talk about gap funding in more detail when we uh hand this pres presentation off to Greg Warren. Um but the preferred solution is five stories of stick frame apartments over a twotory concrete podium.

5 million an acre range. And so the cost of um encumbering expensive real estate with that grade parking made little to no sense relative to the premium associated with putting those spaces uh in a podium underneath the project. A question that was asked at the outset of this effort

um was whether or not there was an opportunity to sort of play musical chairs with the parking in the future, park at grade, and then come back and put those spaces in a garage. Uh the answer is not definitive. It would be a challenging approval from NCHFA. Uh it's not a no, but it would be um uh not something that I think we think the city should count on in its programming of the site up front.

Keep going. Same as option one, we have the 2D aerial overview and then the 3D uh massing rendering. In summary, uh and again, we'll get into the gap funding needs of both scenarios. Um, but these the the programming, the site planning, the study with Perkins and Will was intended to meet the requirements for what a competitive 9% low-inccome housing tax credit application would necessitate. Um, and guided by a decision to leave the most amount of remaining developable real

estate, uh, we believe option two would be the better of the two paths. And again to put a period on it, um we've laid this out here um with slightly more detail. Uh what I'd also had at the bottom, uh we also looked at the possibility of what a second phase 9% deal would be on the location where the parking field for option one um the atrade parking field was. So again, we recognize that there are a lot of voices, a lot of opinions, a lot of possibilities for what the development of site could look like.

And again, our goal was to maximize future flexibility by sitting on the smallest parcel. Couple renderings. We think that there's compelling opportunities to improve the streetscape along Chapel Hill uh with this project. So, a couple relevant images of other projects, one here in Durham and and one from outside the community. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

Greetings. I'm really happy to be up here today. Um, mayor, city manager, council members. Um, thank you.

Um, the, um, notes out here. Um, this has been a great process from my perspective. Um, I think that the teams worked really well. Uh we really appreciate the good work of general services and all the consultants.

Um, so let me just walk you through a financing and I don't want to get too dweebish on this because we can really get deep into it, but um, I I want you to know that this site will receive a perfect sight score under the current QAP and u, as you know that that and really it's going to receive a perfect score under the current QAPS which means it would have a very good chance of getting funding. Um, furthermore, I want you to understand that a 9% deal as opposed to 4% bond transactions offer the greatest amount of leverage. So therefore, you

can use the least amount of subsidy from the city available to make this project work. Um there um uh a couple other points I wanted to just mention to you is that this will city staff and and the committee believes that this will qualify as a redevelopment site for the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency. And under their rules, they commit to fund at least two redevelopment projects a year if they two redevelopment projects are submitted uh to um um that meet their standards. Um, as Ted mentioned, we believe that this would be a high visibility project.

Um, we're on the western side of downtown. We recognize that a lot of affordable has been uh placed in downtown and the eastern portion, but we still think that this site, given that the city owns it, can really be um a a very uh a great project. Um the um um as Ted mentioned

the estimate of subsidy is high level uh based on current financial conditions. Next slide. >> So um again how we got to our findings. 7 million per acre and that's what really drove portion part of our recommendation to focus on structured parking as opposed to surface parking because what that translates to is is almost um uh 37,000 per parking space of land value if we were to surface park that. So, if we can get rid of the surface parking and put that under the in the podium, which will cost more money, but we we're saving the city significant dollars by reducing the footprint. Um, as I mentioned and we noted, there's a potential for second phase and I'll show you that as well in subsequent slides.

So summary uh clearly feasible um we think that um affordable apartments will not prevent any future development on the site. Furthermore, what we really have tried to do is set aside the largest swath of land that's undeveloped still uh to the south of the property that uh would be available for immediate activation or um uh for uh further development down the road whenever the market conditions approve. Um it's an excellent site for affordable housing. It's competitive for LITC award and um we believe that the cost are um for this project would be similar to what's been funded in the past.

So I I want to underscore the importance and maybe the next slide will maybe do this a little bit better if you could go to that. I think we have a um I'm going to skip over I think the amenities. You can look at that in more detail, but let me just slip over to to the schedule. Yeah. So unfortunately LIITC deals take a long time to deliver and and um what we have

um shown here is a schedule whereby a LITC application will be submitted in pre-application would be submitted in January. In order to do that we really believe that the city needs to select a developer uh by July of this year. And how that the city goes about that we don't offer an opinion. And I think that you have many as a manager has indicated you have many different options for that.

Um but but we are concerned that if you did some sort of formal RFP or RFQ process that you wouldn't have sufficient time uh to really undertake that and still have a developer on board to submit have the sufficient time to submit an application in January. So that's why we're really pressing for the July time frame. Um and and but if you look at this schedule well okay so let's say we select a developer in July uh when will we produce these h this housing and you see it's going to take us till uh December 2029 for those units

to come on the ground. So it's a long time frame and that uh I think underscores our view that you ought to move forward now rather than later and waiting for other things to happen on that site. Next slide. Um, we've got, if you want to drill into these at your leisure, we'd invite you to or if you have questions, we go into that, but I'm not going to track through all of this.

Uh, but basically, we're we're showing uh the city commitment here. 2 million to roughly $6 million depending on whether it's surface, parked, or podium. Um and uh um you know the the gap funding is what it is. Um next slide.

This um shows you the grade change. Um that I think also argues for a podium. Uh the property is sloping down and therefore um uh it it there'd have to be a lot of cut and fill if it weren't a podium in order to uh

make this project work. So we can take advantage of the slope and the podiums could work much better on this site. Next slide. So here is the um perfect world in our mind.

Phase two would be another phase again on a podium that would include roughly 55 units. Um this obviously would be great but again it would be down the road. uh it it in fact it wouldn't even be eligible for the housing finance agency financing until probably the um first phase is uh at least well underway and maybe even under leasing. So I I just want to put that out there that this is a long-term view. Uh we understand that the city's views may um as to what h happens on the rest of the site or what happens to the Milton small building. uh a lot lot of moving parts still but um we think that um what we've come up with uh can work

in some I think that um we've tried to provide you with the most efficient use of land um we think that uh we can proceed independently of how whatever happens with Milton Small Building and yet give the city um almost 2 acres of land to the south that it can provide interim activation uh if if it wishes to go in that direction or uh as the market compare moves forward it can also um um be available for significant new mixed income development and mixed use development which I know you always wanted. I think that concludes our presentation right and um we'll be available for questions but uh we will sit down right now and >> take it on. Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation.

Thank you all so much for the presentation and uh for the uh for the work that you you did uh together. Uh I'm going to go ahead and call for uh people to speak here. Uh first up I have Anna Branley. After Anna will be Jane Williams.

>> Okay, welcome. You have three minutes. >> Good afternoon. >> Uh, is that is that green?

>> There you go. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Williams, Mayor Prom Cabierro, members of council. My name is Anna Brley.

I'm the chief operating officer of Downtown Durham Incorporated. Uh Nicole Thompson, our president and CEO, is unable to be here today, so I'm going to read uh remarks on her behalf. At the December 4th, 2025 Durham City

Council work session. I spoke on behalf of the of downtown Durham, Inc. to request that 505 West Chapel Hill Street be treated as a catalytic and transformative development. I encourage the council to consider the site as part of the broader downtown context and how redevelopment here should interact with, relate to, and help inspire growth throughout downtown.

We appreciate the efforts of the working group. And I again urge redevelopment of 505, a pivotal property in a key downtown location, be considered through the lens of the downtown Durham blueprint. We agree that affordability is important and both the city and county have demonstrated that it is a priority. In fact, there are more than 900 affordable housing units in and near downtown with an additional 550 units in the pipeline. We recognize the need to expand affordability and also believe further dividing the site without considering all the interconnected factors will make it difficult to realize its full

potential. While we recognize that this has been a lengthy process spanning 10 years, and we urge you to carefully reconsider the next steps, you are in a unique position to ensure that what happens at this important location continues to fuel downtown Durham's growth and vibrancy. This council has the opportunity to lead once again, as you and your predecessors have done many times before. This site serves as a gateway and is located near several other development opportunities.

Developing 505 in isolation would be a disservice to downtown. I would point to the city's role in the creation of the Durham Bull's Athletic Park, which catalyzed the redevelopment of the American Tobacco campus and surrounding properties. With 505 West Chapel Hill Street, the city is in a similar position. With an intentional and coordinated redevelopment effort, one that encourages collaboration across adjacent sites, the city can help lead downtown's next phase of growth. Both the city and county have officially adopted the downtown Durham blueprint.

We stand ready to assist in ensuring that proposals for this site align with and advance the blueprint's recommendations which are grounded in extensive public input, data analysis, market research, and long-term growth strategies. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, I have Jane Williams.

Welcome. You have three three minutes. >> Thank you, mayor, mayor prom, councilmen, me members, and city manager for your time and attention. My name is Jane Williams, and I represent the coalition for affordable housing and transit as well as a walk-in ministry of First Presbyterian Church.

The word for today is time. Time is of essence for building affordable housing at 505 West Chapel Hill Street. As you've heard from the working group, the first critical time

is July 2026. By then, a qualified LITC developer needs to be selected by the city. The second critical time is the fall of 2026 when the selected developer will provide the council with a detailed plan for the site. The third critical time is January of 2027 when a 9% LITC application for the affordable units will be submitted.

If steps one and two are not met, then we have another year before 9% LITC application can be made. The city has put a lot of money into affordable housing developments. Recently, I was assisting an individual whose income was less than 30% AMI who needed an ADA accessible apartment.

It was like finding a needle in a haystack. But I called a city employee who suggested that I contact Cedar Trace Apartments. It was nothing short of a miracle. I had no idea that the city had put money in this development and I think very few citizens would know that either.

505 gives the city an opportunity to have a signature development. It will be on city- owned land with city dollars at a reasonable level of subsidy and in downtown Durham. It will serve as an example of Durham taking care of all its citizens. Now is the time to step up.

Thank you. >> Thank you. Next I have Thank you. Uh, next I have uh Stella Adams.

>> Madam Cler, is that the person you were saying is online? Okay, Miss Adams, can you hear me? Miss Stella, do you see her? >> Mr.

Mayor, she's online, but she's not responding. >> All right, I'll come back. Uh, next is Ann Reebeck. Welcome.

>> Thank you. >> You have three minutes. >> There's so many great people in this room, right? Um since October of 2023 with the blog post called Vision for 505 West Chapel Hill, the People's Alliance has communicated support in statements and op-eds seven times. This is in addition to the many emails, texts, and a petition. And all of these were the articulation of support for the maximum number of affordable housing units to be built on

the site. Today, the PA fully supports the recommendations of the 505 work group. Our members are active in the electoral cycle. Many of you here spoke out on social media and at candidate forums about this site.

We see this as the moment to move forward with choosing a developer for these units so you can fulfill your campaign promises and we can get more affordable housing. So win-win. At a meeting in October of 2023, the PA statement statement included a city council meeting uh included a belief that affordable housing needs a win and we still believe that is true. Since that time, there have been wins in housing and they're happening. But this is a singular moment for you as leaders of our city to designate a central

location in Durham to house the folks traditionally left out of these new builds. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, >> Miss Stella, can you hear me?

>> Miss Stella. Miss Adams is no longer in the queue. >> All right. Thank you.

Um, next have mix Victoria Peterson. >> Wow. >> Welcome. You have three minutes.

>> I thought the present Well, I thought the presentation was very interesting. I would like to get a copy of it, but I have several questions and none of you were here. Um, at least I don't think there could have been one person that was on the council. What happened to the other group, um, Mr. Mayor, that that the city signed off on for them to

develop this property? There was another group. Now, I don't know if they received any monies. I don't remember, but I do know one of the persons that was involved.

So, I want to I want to reach out to him to find out what happened. Now, Mr. mayor and other city council members, we have a lot of folks that are living on the streets. I have a question about um affordable housing that that is just too broad.

I would like to see this property, whoever is going to develop it, that the rent starts at zero and you work your way up. And the rent should not go over $700 a month. And there's a reason why I'm saying that. Many of you were very young in my generation, and I think I mentioned this the other day. CA and the YMCA. Us single women

A. or the men that they would go to the YMCA. There was housing for us as single persons. You did not pay over a,000 and $2,000 for an apartment.

This facility should be developed for single persons to get a lot of our young men, particularly our African-American men, that during the winter time in this community, they are living on the streets. That building also has another history of a lot of black men going in and out of that building. That used to be the old police station. Am I correct, Mr.

Mayor? That used to be the old police station that a lot of our African-American men have a personal a personal relationship with. Now, I see somebody threw the name the some kind of life insurance company. That might have been true years ago, but that was a

police station. So, I would like that whole property to be developed for persons who may only be making $14 an hour or $25 an hour or persons who are making less even than that, but they need a place to stay. And that would be an ideal place if we could just take our time and develop it for them. I don't know what the definition of affordable housing is.

I don't know. We're 30% here and 40. No, let's put it in writing. >> Thank you.

>> Let it be a contract so that we can follow behind it. Mr. Mayor and other city council members, >> thank you so much. >> Thank you.

>> All right. Those are all of my speaker. Uh >> Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to bother.

Um Stella Adams is back online. >> Miss Adams, can you hear me? >> Miss Adams, can you hear me? Is she Is it unmuted?

>> Yes. Can you hear me, Mr. Mayor?

>> Yes, I can now. Um, will you have three minutes? >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, sir.

Um, good afternoon everybody, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim. Um, my name is Stella Adams and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People and in coalition with our CAT and community partners. We are united around one clear priority, delivering meaningful, lasting, affordable housing on this publicly lo owned land.

We want to be very clear about our position. 80 affordable units is the minimum and as the mayor pro Tim knows past councils made that commitment and the working group scenario 2 honors it. It produces 80 units now with the capacity

to add another 55 units in a second phase. That's a floor, not a ceiling. Durham's housing crisis has only deepened since those commitments were made. And we urge you to aim higher, not lower, as you consider the future of this site.

This is about the people who keep the city running every day. These units would allow our public servants, teachers, firefighters, sanitation workers, 911 operators, bus drivers, and so many other blue and pink collar employees to actually live in the city they serve. These are the workers who show up every day for Durham. And they deserve the chance to build stable lives here, not

be push, excuse me, not be pushed farther and farther away by the rising rents. We also need to think beyond phase one. The council must plan for phase two by eararking the land. Now, setting aside the half acre in the southwest corner for future affordable housing is essential if we want to meet the longterm needs of durm's working families, seniors, and residents who are being priced out of their n neighborhoods.

If we don't reserve this land now in scenario two, we lose the opportunity forever. This is publiclyowned land. It is one of the few remaining places where the city can shape the market rather than be shaped by it. And with January 27th lit pre-application deadline approaching, we cannot afford to delay. Every month we

wait is another month. Families remain on weight list. Thank you. >> Another month our essential workers struggle to stay in the city.

Thank you, Miss Stella. >> We are asking you to stay true to the commitment to deliver at least 80 affordable units and reserve the land now. Thank you. >> Thank you.

>> Right. Those are all of the speakers I have registered. Uh so I'll bring it to council. Any comments?

jump. >> Go ahead. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Um, yeah. So, first of all, I don't know if staff's gonna come up. First of all, I just want to appreciate the work of the volunteers u and the staff that were involved in this. Um, you spent time, you gave us great expertise. We appreciate the passion, really remarkable work, and I want to thank you for that. I also know that we um we said we said we wanted to

do this in a timely way. We I think we met back in December or whatever. We said 3 months and you all delivered within 3 months and you showed that yes, we can put affordable housing there. It's feasible.

Um, and that even you can also park it without encumbering the whole site with parking. So, I really appreciate that. Um, I also want to note that the requirement for parking is not a city of Durham requirement, right? That comes from the North County Housing Finance Agency.

We eliminated parking minimums a couple years ago when I came on council. It's a big battle over SCAD over those zoning code reforms. I just want to make clear that we eliminated parking minimums for the reason we're talking about here. We don't want to we don't want to take high value land in the middle of the city and encumber encumber it with parking.

So I think that's a really important thing there and again you showed we can do that um without committing the rest of the site to service parking. I have a couple questions maybe for maybe Sarah Venus if you wouldn't mind coming up. Um obviously this is a big decision for the city. U we've been at this for about 10 years. Um and I have a couple questions about the financing and sort of opportunity costs. So, as I recall, and I know you weren't here when we went through previous rounds of this, but as

I recall with previous proposals, they were they were going to use a utilize a 4% LITC credit. So, this would would require and as as Mr. Warren said, would be a great case for a 9% credit. As I understand, we get one maybe two a year.

So, in terms of like those 9% credits, which are critical for projects around the city, including those with the housing authority, what's the opportunity cost of this project getting in the queue, and what does that mean for other projects that could potentially qualify for a 9%. >> Good question. Um, so that is correct. We could expect to see one 9% LITC deal annually, typically.

Um, historically over the last several years, Durham has gotten two to three 4%s a year. That is >> 4%, right? >> Yes, that is typically not a competitive process. It's becoming more competitive uh across the state.

Um typically 4%s require a higher level of subsidy. Um that I've looked at our data for projects that actually has not been the case for us. We've provided a pretty

comparable level of subsidy. However, uh for 9% projects, there is limited opportunities available because as you all know, you have to have a perfect site score. This site um as was shared by Greg Warren receives a perfect score based on the current criteria used by the housing finance agency. So I think wherever we see opportunities and there is a perfect score uh we want to take advantage of those opportunities because they are limited >> and again do are you have a sense of what else is in the pipeline for 9% credits like what else is and so what does that mean for those projects?

>> Yes. So we're not aware of any other 9% projects that plan to apply next year in the 2027 round. There are two applications that have currently been submitted. one by DHA and then one by another developer next year.

We're not aware of any others. >> So the one the DHA and the developer that would be like for this year, >> correct? For the 2026 cycle.

>> Okay. And then can you talk about the the co the rough cost for that second scenario is like between four and six million, right? So does the city have money now to support that or where how would we provide those funds if we were I know there's other partners that might come forward, but can you talk about the financing side of it? >> Sure.

So uh in the two scenarios uh the working group identified a need for four to six million in sub gap subsidy >> and again it could be the city or it could be >> another source correct. Yes. So the for a 2027 submission a funding commitment would need to be made by May of next year. 9 million available uh up to 4 million in dedicated housing fund and an estimated $975,000 in home funding, which would be eligible to support 9% projects or other affordable housing development and

preservation projects. >> And so, for the 4 million, where does that come from? Is that is that remaining from the forever home or where is that where those funds come from? That is assuming that the dedicated housing fund remains at its current level.

>> Okay. Gotcha. Um and then so so I think there was figures in there of like the cost for the subsidy per unit anywhere from like maybe 52,000 per unit under the scenario with parking service parking maybe 75,000 for the the scenario with the with the parking under the building. How does that compare with other comparable projects in Durham?

it it is within the range of what we would expect to see for 9% um deals. Um I looked at the data over the last five years um for projects in Durham and they range anywhere from 30,000 uh subsidy per unit up to 120,000. So we see a broad range. The average has been over the last five years about $55,000 per unit. So, we're in that range and and certainly with the the parking

that's going to be a little bit more expensive, right, with but I think that does make sense because we don't want to encumber the whole site with parking. Um okay. Um I still have also on this parking issue. I still I know we have questions about that we may take up in the next presentation about the um about the Milton Small Building, what their parking needs are.

I don't think we are quite clear about that, but that'll be I think that's the next presentation. We'll have to talk that through. I guess my last question was maybe for either for Mr. for Halbrun or for Mr.

Warren. I have a question about that site C that shows up on the visuals um as parking on the visuals. But as I take this one, >> yeah, that that's undefined. I mean that's >> that's my question. So it shows up when you know when you visually look at it, it's like it's not super overwhelming. you got is still a big parking lot there but the but as I understand that could that >> we could have called it open space

>> right so that could be that could be public open space it could be >> sure >> but again we expect that Milton small building will require some parking and so some of that probably would be dedicated to Milton Small but I guess you'll have to ask them about their parking >> outside yeah I understand that but so it's so we're but again just to be clear like that's not all the the affordable housing the 80 units in the potential 55 would have parking underneath and would not require any additional parking. Correct on Yeah, >> that could that could be green space, interim green space if you were so inclined to do that. >> Right. And we I think we talked about that a little bit when we talked about how do we activate this in the short term.

So >> yeah, >> appreciate that. >> Okay, >> those are my questions for now, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, >> thank you Mr.

Mayor. >> There we go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh first of all, I just want to reiterate the thanks first of all to the city manager and staff for hearing the council's request uh to take this time uh for this sprint and additional review of options around affordable housing.

And I want to give sincere gratitude to the working group for your expertise uh your labor your community love uh for the time you spent to HRNA as well for partnering uh to participate in this quick process and come back to us. Um otherwise we were at a place where you know we may have made decisions three months ago that could have foreclosed on the possibility of having affordable housing uh at this site and this work has now um reopened that uh uh option for us that possibility uh and I'm grateful for that. There's been a lot of twists and turns in this project uh over the last 10 years and there's a lot of reasons for that. Uh I think one barrier that that I can identify has been a desire to try and do uh everything all at once and that has contributed to a recipe for the site not being developed for the last 10 years. And so we have to keep that in mind when we make decisions about what we can do now, what we can phase in, what we can prepare for in the future. Um there is a risk we have seen borne out over the last 10 years of trying to do uh things that reflect every single value we have that we want

to put on one site uh as as a council and as as a city. Um, so we may not have every value reflected on this site, but we've been shown that there is a path uh to have affordable housing, to uh preserve the Milton Small Building, uh, uh, to be able to have future redevelopment options, um, you know, to really fully activate the space in a signature way uh, once marketing conditions allow. And so I see that as a real win-win-win uh, at this stage. Of course, there'll be a money question.

Uh, and I'm curious to dig in more about the the parking for Milton Small Building. What options might be there to make sure we can reserve a future space for uh a really signature uh development that would be signature. I think the affordable housing would be signature as well. Um, and so I want to chat about that.

I do have a few questions. The first um is for uh let's see here. It was um Miss Branley DDI. Yes. Thank you.

>> Yeah. Thank you so much for being here for your work on the blueprint and helping uh the city have a vision for the development of downtown uh which the council has has signed up for. Um, you mentioned uh the blueprint in your remarks and I'm just curious if if the position of DDI is that having affordable housing at this site or in downtown is inconsistent with what we've agreed to in the blueprint. Um, uh, or if that being part of the activation of the site can be part consistent with kind of what we've laid forth in in the blueprint.

affordability is definitely a large part of the blueprint for housing and everything else. Um, what what we're looking at with this site is where it's positioned in downtown as a prominent entry point to our city. and what

possibilities could unfold if we really look at the site in conjunction with the surrounding area. Um, affordable housing could very well be a part of it. Um the further dividing of the parcel makes those opportunities diminishes those opportunities. >> Okay, understood.

Thank you. I appreciate it. >> I if there's a representative from the 505 working group, uh perhaps this would make the most sense for Mr. Hillbrun, but others may decide that you're most appropriate for it.

I'd like to ask more about option one in the musical chairs. >> Thank you. Because I think part of what I'm looking for is that that optionality and you've provided ways to think about that, including scenario two with the structured parking that automatically reserves that site. Um I can't help but

find scenario one attractive in some ways because we know in the future any development that's done would likely include or have the option for structured parking. But can you talk more about your concerns about having it be surface parked in at the outset and then in the next phase moving to structured parking that could be shared in order to help minimize the investment that's required to get the same number of units. >> So to be clear structured parking excuse me shifting structure park >> oh apologies was not contemplated in option one. Option one was assumed to be at grade parking for the in perpetuity for the life of the development. Um when affordable housing development occurs and you take tax credits from NCHFA and effectively the federal government, you record a Laura against the property that preserves affordability and makes it challenging to make whole scale changes to the improvements that are already out there. NCHFA as well would want to make sure that if say parking was put in a

parking garage at some point in the future that those were at grade spaces and a closely approximate walk to the site and how does the lure get expanded to now cover those spaces and mixing that into a mixeduse mixed income sort of full scale development seems to be a level of complexity that would be difficult to solve for. um NCHFA uh as a practice does not like to answer theoretical questions when it is not explicit to the project that's in front of them. " We we would not get functional feedback. And so what we did not want to do was propose a solution that had a very real possibility of not actually being possible.

This is not to say that it is impossible. It's just to say that the hurdle would be quite high and it would be uh something that does not really ever happen in affordable housing development. And so if we went forward with scenario one, and granted I understand we're not making any decisions today, but if if that were a a course of action the council took um and we had the surface

lot and we got LITC funding for the development, um there's a risk that we would not be able to transition that lot into other uses in the future, which would then impede the redevelopment of the rest of the site. >> Correct. Again, not saying it's a certainty, but it would be quite challenged to amend Laura and reprogram it and fit structured parking at that point would be offsite relative to the original affordable housing development. So, um, again, want to stress high bar to clear would be very difficult to achieve, not impossible, but something that if a decision is conditioned upon the possibility of doing that would be a mistake.

>> Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, could we ask questions of Preservation North Carolina now or do we need to wait till the next agenda item and representatives of Preservation North Carolina here?

>> Okay. I think it's related. So, >> I think it's uh if it's going to be related to this project, I don't see anything wrong with that. So, please if

you will. >> So, you turn it off. There you go. Okay.

Sorry, I was trying to anticipate that Mike situation. >> Thank you so much for being here. I know you've been following this closely. Um, and thanks for your work with us so far to think about what the disposition of the Milton Small Building can be.

I'm just curious about the parking question, which seems to be the crux of a lot of this. >> Yeah, it's the popular topic for all of us. >> Yes. >> And it's good that we're all being proactive.

>> Yeah. >> And coordinating with that. >> So, just curious about the options there, too. Uh I think I'd seen in some documents that there are possibilities uh different development possibilities associated with different levels of parking provided. And so if we made a decision in the future that limited that parking does that, you know, erase the redevelopment option or does it just limit it to a certain set of uses uh for that building? So, uh, going back to a point that was made a little earlier,

while the anticipated zoning for this area does not require minimum parking, that doesn't remove the need for users of these structures within the development. Um, unnecessary. Uh, they'll they'll need to park somewhere. There's a range of parking needs that I think we could potentially anticipate.

For example, Perkins and Will pointed out if uh the building if the Milton small building is used for housing uh uh there are some scenarios that have shown 40 units for example. So there's 40 parking spaces right there. If it's a mixeduse or retail scenario, I think key hotel was used as an example, 100 spots. Um we have suggested in working and having these conversations with staff and others um some sort of ideally we'd like to see some sort of proactive

collaborative understanding or agreement with the city that um understanding we don't know what the proposed use is yet until a developer is put in place but if we can anticipate a scenario where some parking could be reserved um on certain areas of the site. So, for example, uh will some of these uh projected uh projects or developments, whether for housing or something else, have undesated uh parking slots, could some of those be set aside or reserved for the developer of the Milton Small Building or somewhere else uh have access to purchase or lease those, for example? Um, in a development scenario where the affordable housing task force uh pointed out uh floors of housing on top of say two stack podium of parking for example, would any of that be undesated and could it be reserved for lease or purchase by an adjacent? There could also be offsites. If it's a 100key hotel, maybe

you've got a certain number of hotel uh parking spaces there on site and then parking off site >> and cars get stored there. So, there are a lot of scenarios that I think we could all point to without reinventing the wheel, but anticipating that and having some sort of proactive understanding moving forward would be very helpful. Anything else is crystal ball gazing at this point. Thank you so much.

>> Sure. >> Yeah. In my last 20 seconds, I just would like to ask staff uh given the timeline that's proposed and ask you know council uh for your thoughts and support for it to um you know to to explore uh bringing in those financing partners we've worked with in the past and other on other projects in Durham about what it would take to make it uh make this happen with an affordable housing uh in this northwest corner as well as exploring some of the more uh parking options for future Milton Mall uh redevelopments. So, I'd like to give that direction, but I know that takes, you know, the will of the council to do that. So, thank you,

>> Council Member Cook. >> Thank you. Um, thank you to my colleagues and a huge thank you to staff and to all of the folks both in the working group and who supported y'all because I know that it's been um just a communitywide effort. So, thank you.

Thank you for all of that. Um I I'm sitting up here feeling really good in a way that I actually haven't felt about this project like literally since I've been on this council. Uh for the first time I'm looking at it and I'm like oh yeah we we actually can make moves. Like I see a future in which we do something which just feels so much better than all of the the things that have come before us.

Yeah. Um well thank you to you. I mean, you need to be clapping for yourselves because that is uh that's something I'm just thrilled to have this option in front of us. Um I have a list of questions and I'm actually going to go backwards. Um I um I'm not sure maybe I'm I might not

need you, but the on the preservation piece, I do want to talk about that agenda item just briefly. Um my assumption maybe this is a Stacy question. My assumption with the grant of the land was that there was in addition to the Milton small building itself that there was land surrounding the building too. And is that is that a correct memory or can you talk about what's included?

>> Sorry, one moment. Could you um the image on the screen can we get it back up on the >> You don't like my face up? >> No, no, no. I love it.

I was just I think it be easier with >> I'm just messing with you. Apologies to general services. So, um, for clarity, um, the Milton small building piece, I think, um, Kathleen from Preservation North Carolina explained it in a in a great way, which is there's going to be depending on the use, some necessary parking for financing that that people who are going to finance a

development deal will require. And I think there's some optionality here for leasing parking in a framework in a deal where that lease parking could move around on other parts of the site depending on how development pieces come along. When you start including, as Ted indicated, you know, 9% tax credits and NCHFA's rules about moving parking, that flexibility doesn't currently exist in a model that we've seen or can point to. So on the on the commercial side, I think there's more opportunity.

And so we've tried to frame the documents in a way that will allow us to react to a development proposal that is brought to the organization for consideration in our documents. >> Okay. Okay. But the land that is adjacent to the Milton small building that is part of the proposed um sale dollar sale of land is >> I thought that there was space there when we had talked about it previously

that we had thought about like oh if they need parking or other space uses on the site there is some extra land in addition to the Milton small building itself. Right. So, if you're looking at the Milton Small Building in the upper right hand corner, there is an entry an access point off of Duke Street. And so, I think um it's really important to to maintain an access point for that site, for that parcel if it was subdivided off.

>> There is also quite a bit of parking sort of close to the building and there's an an access ramp for the building itself that for service entry type activities. We have not defined yet the exact partial dimensions because we haven't done a survey and we're going to be in somewhat reacting to what the the proposal is that that we receive. And so there's an opportunity to determine where we want the sale line to be and where we might want some leased parking to be based on the development proposals we might receive. And so we've tried in conjunction with Aaron Miles from the

attorney's office to create some flexibility around that element. >> Okay. I think this is one of the challenges of trying to develop this site in pieces that before we had a developer kind of dealing with all this. Now we're trying to think about, okay, this piece comes first on this timeline.

This piece is on a different timeline. How do these work together? How do we maintain sort of site C for a future to be identified piece? If site D wasn't developed right now, potentially I could park Milton Small people who are valet parking a hotel on site D while that sits there till you know it's a second tax credit project if that's where the city determined that we wanted to go.

>> Is that >> Yes, that's helpful. And actually a perfect segue. Attorney Miles, would you mind coming up? Okay. Um I did have some questions about the fluidity in the contracts and um something as um as I was just hearing that there's there's need to continue like working together as we move through. One of the things that I had been thinking about previously about this contract with

preservation and C was about uses and I don't I think there's been some conversation that we don't want to necessarily restrict those uses uh which might make their job more difficult in preserving the building. Um but I do think that there is also some some want to have uh continuity across the site and um and so instead of like restricting uses on the upfront because I as a as a person sitting here now can't think of all the the uses we might exclude is there some way to have this sort of continued dialogue that is contracted out where wherein once they do work with developers and get uh potential projects that that comes back before the city and we get some sort of say in determining what happens on the site. >> So, right, excuse me, Aan Miles with the city attorney's office. Thank you. Um, so the way that the option is currently drafted and and and I say drafted because we're still in negotiation um with with uh Preservation NC and they've

been a great partner in negotiating with us um on what those uses might be and that that connects to the the price of of what that op that purchase price would be. Um so there there is ability to do that but the the way that options normally work is once we've executed an option and they have satisfied the the triggers that they've gone out to the they've gone out marketed the building they've come back to us they exercise that option then we kind of move forward with the sale. If we want to build in an ability for it to come back before you all or for staff to consider that we can do that. Um we have not at this time because that we've drafted the option um based off of the the traditional ways that options function.

Um but if that's the request at council, we can build that in. >> So it comes back to us once there's some sort of understanding about parking needs and and potentially like line around the building needs. Is that am I

understanding that correctly? So the way we've drafted now, it would not need to once you all have taken action on the the item >> when you take action on that item, it would not need to come back before you all. We would it would give the manager the opportunity to continue negotiate and subdivide the parcel and to provide what is needed for u moving forward with the option and then the potential sale on the back end. >> Okay.

Thank you. That's really interesting. So it's coming back anyway. it's coming back before the manager is what I'm hearing you say. Um, and I am wondering colleagues, something just to think about if like that is something that we would want to have some input in at that time if we're already having it come back because we're going to have to talk about parking and and potentially organization of where lines are drawn and and what is needed. Then that that insinuates to me that what would come back is a proposal where in preservation NC has already worked with someone developer who's like already coming back

with options for the site. Um and I I think it would be nice to have input just for the cohesiveness of this site. Um, so that's >> input on the the project that that goes in if there are like multiple things that preservation and C brings back before us and they're like, well, we could do a commercial space and we would need this much parking and this much whatever or we could do like a boutique hotel and this is what would be needed and they come back before us and and then that goes in front of the manager to sort of figure out what is needed from the rest of the site. if that could also come back before the council and we could have input on that decision um as just thinking about the cohesiveness of this site.

Um I'm feeling a little bit of like um Thank you, Attorney Miles. I'm feeling a little bit of trepidation about handing over this big chunk of this site. Um I'm hearing from No, it's on the It's on the agenda today. Yeah.

So, it's on the agenda today and so like what it looks like when it comes back to us or comes back before the city. I keep saying us. when

it comes back for the city, if it comes back just to the manager or if it comes back also to council, I think I would like to have some input. Um, and then with my last 30 seconds, I just have um one question for the manager, which is uh what decisions do we need to make today? I'm following up on council member Copak's concern about like that there is a close timeline and I think that I actually am ready to give some guidance but just curious what we would need in order to meet a July uh deadline to contract with a developer >> so you're off again >> off again sorry um Stacy President so um maybe I could just frame a little bit more about sort of our thinking and maybe preservation North Carolina but also to like to provide their thoughts as as we think about the duration that we've had for this project and to try to put ourselves in a position to have something that they can market successfully. The more restrictions we put on a framework, the more difficult it is going to be to get to the end zone. I think what we've also tried to

do is balance um and I think Aaron Miles has helped us do something smart in the option to purchase agreement that you know we have a development agreement that the manager would approve um prior to to execution. So it would allow us to create a framework where we have some some input, but it it is something that a developer would have some fidelity around to encourage them to spend money to actually design a project that might work at this site because the costs are significant. We we have some credibility issues in the marketplace because of the things that have occurred over an extended period of time and I think developers are are somewhat skitterish and they want to to have some assurance that what they are going to spend money on and and propose to us >> has has an end zone. >> And so I I would sort of start there with that piece. And I know you had a part two, but but I maybe I could get Kathleen from Preservation North Carolina to also offer her insights um on on that matter and and then I

could address your second question. >> And Kathleen uh Turner >> Turner, >> uh Pedmont Regional Director for Preservation North Carolina. And I don't know if I could uh add further on to what Stacy just said. I I think that's that's why we uh really were uh eager and earnest in wanting to work with you on a path forward to activate the Milton Small Building which is uh forward- facing on a major street in a major gateway and and here we are uh years later.

So removing as much uncertainty as possible in order to get um an experienced, qualified, preservation-minded uh developer in place is what we're attempting to do. We know we know the potential parking needs. you know, we've got the uh the um

minimum number of of parking spaces needed if if they're uh this many units or this many units. Um and we know that in order to secure financing, a developer will need to have access to parking to show um uh uh that the development will be successful. So um and and frankly you know the lines were drawn and um and our scenario that we presented to staff and you all was um while being mindful of a comprehensive development there. We're what we're proposing here is is not dissimilar to what a single umbrella developer would have done which is phase out the pieces. um we're just trying to uh remove any roadblocks um that you to a reasonable extent in

order to facil facilitate and clear a path forward to getting the building developed. Um so if there are specific questions I could address um on top of what Stacy said. >> Um I mean it it's helpful. I'm I just I see my time sticking away, but I just wanted to >> re I think >> Stacy was going to come address my other question, but maybe attorney Miles has >> Yeah, this won't be the last time we chatted this afternoon.

I'm certain of it. >> Hey, Ronald, city attorney's office. I wanted to add that one of the things that was included in the option um so that the city could be involved in the rehabilitation of the building was the requirement of a rehabilitation agreement which preservation NC normally puts on but in this case the city would have final sign off on that agreement. Um so if if it's your pleasure we can bring if if you vote on the option and move that forward then we could bring that document before you all for

consideration as a part of that. So that way the option piece and the sale piece is considered and the marketability of the site is un unhindered in that manner but we could bring back the rehabilitation portion before you all. >> I like that too. Yeah, thank you.

And then the timeline question. Thank you. >> Could you repeat the timeline question? >> Um yes.

So, we we're looking we are hearing about a potential to need to decide on a developer by July, which is uh not as far away as it might seem given the cold weather outside. Um, and so what what do you y'all need from us today or do you have a time frame that you need something by? I think I'll answer that broadly by saying the the you know this presentation was intended to respond to I think uh directive or or interest and concerns that we heard in the December work session and I think it's clear we

we've done that by presenting some options uh that that council has now seen. uh the committee that presented those options has given you a recommendation. I think we have stopped short of making that a staff recommendation as throughout this process we have not made staff recommendations on 505 but tried to provide analysis at this point. Should council be favorable to the recommendation that the advisory group has made today as much clarity as you gave us on how much of those details you would like and would like to see locked in.

uh the more clarity you give us, the more we will move forward in that direction. For instance, should you have preferences between the scenarios that you saw and we heard consensus on those preferences, should you have consensus on the timeline that you would like us to follow, all of those would be actionable things that we could move forward on. Uh and we would develop uh a follow-up plan based on how much consensus you provided. If you wanted more time to consider this, we can do

nothing. Uh so it really is at this point up to council to express a preference uh and based on what you do we can we can move quickly. Uh obviously the all the options you saw were were prepared in close consultation with staff. So anything that was presented to you today, I think one of the things we definitely wanted to do coming out of December is make sure that uh both staff uh uh experts in the field and advocates all sort of shared a a common set of facts and beliefs.

And so I think you saw that today, meaning if you saw something and we said it could be done on a certain timeline, then we are prepared to try and proceed on that timeline if that's council's direction. So I I don't want to to make it a binary choice, but for as much that for as much consensus as you can reach around as much of the details as you saw, we will proceed specific to that direction. >> Okay. Because I it sounds like the timeline that y'all have given us I mean

we would need to make a July is coming around the corner. So we would need to make a decision like soon if we were to make that timeline. >> Yes. If you wanted to make that timeline, you would need to make a decision soon.

And I think I think as I read the presentation, I welcome any of the staff or or committee to to comment on that. You know, there were some trade-offs about how we might you know, how we might normally select a development partner versus how we might select a development partner going forward in this, but I think again we have have laid out sort of that that option in those timeline as feasible. So, if council likes the notion of moving as quickly as possible, I think we're prepared to do that. >> Okay.

I I just want to voice my support that I am I am interested in scenario two. I am interested in moving as quickly as possible. I would like to make that um 9% LITC deadline of the of 2027. And if that means that we need to get a developer by July, I am I am 100% on board. So that is >> Thank you, Council Member Baker.

>> I've got a few questions. I have no idea who these should go toward. Um so uh it might be a few folks. Um my first question is around the 9% LITC.

Um, I know that some of these LTE projects there are restrictions on materials and design and I wonder uh if we think that we can get good design along West Chapel Hill Street um under 9% LITC. >> Great question. So the should have figured this out by now. Uh the agency sets design minimums, not design maximums.

So concerns about going above and beyond then just gets into you know the degree to which the project is gap funded. But the agency is not going to come to a developer and say you know this is too bold and forward facing. Uh

it's you know are you skinning the facade and quality materials right? if if that's if that's the discussion around sort of the visuals from the street. >> Yeah, I just note that um tax credit deals can be beautiful and u look from the exterior as market rate transactions. Um you know they're smaller inside.

Um maybe we don't have granite countertops, maybe we don't have 9 foot ceilings, but on the whole um and I just went to a dedication of a development done by my favorite litec developer, DHIC, uh in Raleigh, and that just had received a um Sir Walder Raleigh appearance award that's given by the appearance commission. Furthermore, um Willard Street received North Carolina Housing Finance Agency's highest award for design and and quality. So, I think that um if you like seeing Willard Street, if you like seeing what Renegade that Laurel Street Residential did, I think you you you'll

be well satisfied that uh an attractive product can be uh delivered with LITC. >> Um and can you and I'm not sure if you touched on this in your presentation, can you talk a little bit about the selection of the Northwest Quadrant versus any of the other portions of the site? >> Sure. Um our focus was first of all to uh well, a couple reasons that led us there.

First of all, um we wanted to fill in the block face and that would do so. Um we also noted that the prior developers that had submitted uh also proposed rental housing on that location in the site. So um I think that was one of the criterion. Furthermore, uh we wanted to leave as maximum amount of undeveloped space um to that's contiguous that can be developed. And if we had for example placed this in the southern uh eastern quadrant then that would have kind of broken up the space. It would make it more difficult to see other development occurring on that site.

>> Thank you. Yeah, I think um so I think the ideal situation would have been under any of the prior RFPs and a a full cohesive site plan and development and this is kind of the next best looking option um in my view is kind of break is breaking up the site into four different quadrants. Um that still means that there needs to be work done to make sure that all of the different quadrants are speaking to each other. Uh I do hear downtown Durham, Inc.

the blueprint which we adopted um which does envision this site for a mixeduse development. It is a gateway into downtown um from 147 and other parts of Durham and I I I hear that loud and clear. I also think that some of those um it would also have been sort of were it to be retail, it'd be kind of isolated retail. And I do think that some of the solutions that um that retail

presents such as activated first floors can be ameliated through decent um street level design. And so I do think that that is a really really important part of all of this is making sure that um we're making it comfortable for transit riders and pedestrians um who are going to be who would be uh walking along uh West Chapel Hill Street and and the other um adjacent streets. Um, so, so I think that I think that that's important, a cohesive block, four quadrants that are speaking to each other and, uh, high quality design along West Chapel Hill Street and also the corner. Um, and then that also includes the public realm.

So, making sure that we're coordinating with uh the planning department so that the public realm realm is also high quality. And and I think that that's something that we do need to improve upon in the downtown area is um wider sidewalks than what we have been seeing in new development. Uh

and making sure that all those pieces are working together. Um so I I agree with uh Council Member Cook and in kind of this is the best that I've felt so far um from the presentations that we've seen, from where we've been on this. I I was not on council in the in the previous two RFPs, but I was in this last RFP. I do think that this is the right way to to proceed.

Um I do think that scenario 2 is um the the better scenario that has been presented here today. Um and so that that is the direction that I would be comfortable with here today. Scenario two. >> Thank you.

Uh Council Member Baker, I'm sorry. Um Burrus. Sir, >> good afternoon. So, I want to associate myself with much what my colleagues have said, so I will not be before you long.

Um, I want to thank you all for your commitment to affordable housing and taking the time. I know you're all volunteers and have other things you like to do. So, I appreciate you for doing this deep dive. Um, I am in full

support of affordable housing. I believe the initial ask was to expedite putting affordable housing that site and I still have that same commitment today and I don't want to let perfect be the enemy of good. I feel strong as about option two. Again, this is next to a transit hub.

So, I think it makes the most amount of sense to have affordable housing there. And I I know it's a gateway, but I read that gateway be people in housing instead of unhoused people if we think about what we're seeing across our community right now. Um, so I would hope that we and I guess one thing I would suggest as I'm learning to be hyper specific. Do you want this um do you want to select a developer by July 1st, July 15th, July 31st?

Because you need to make sure that we have that on the record so we can hold everyone accountable in the situation. So, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate all of my colleagues comments and questions and I really appreciate the subcommittee group.

Um I know that was a lot of work on y'all's part. Um and um uh thank you for saying yes to being volunttoled basically. Um um I have some questions for staff. Um

and and I could be I guess this is for director Vinas probably to start with. Hi, good afternoon. Um, my understanding is that you have started RFP process when we are dealing with uh city housing dollars wherever they come from and that is a a change to how we've been doing things at least since I've been on council. And so I just wanted to have a little bit of understanding about how something like this would plug into that RFP process.

how does something like this maybe not follow some of the processes you're trying to implement in your department as a new uh director. So, first wanted to hear a little bit about that. >> Sure. Uh Sarah Vignettes, housing and neighborhood services director. Um so, we recently did a open uh application process as you said for our home and community development block grant funding. Um the city has done that periodically over the years, but it has

been many years. And something we did differently this year is we put all of the money out there. 5 million. So that's consistent with what we anticipate doing going forward.

Um we've gotten a lot of positive feedback from our partners to have an open predictable process um so that they know what to expect, they know when to apply for funding so they can align their projects. So um we do plan to do that going forward. So, we would next year I expect to put out our CDBG and home funding. Um, we would do that in timing that would allow for low-income housing tax credit projects to apply for that funding.

Um, so the timing could align. We had applicants of a low-income housing tax credit project for the 2026 cycle apply this year. um they would need a funding commitment letter from the city by May, which how we've outlined the process would allow

us to do. >> So if if we were to follow the process that you've set aside for next year, how does this is it seem to me that this what we're being asked to do today lines up with the process you're trying to implement, but maybe I'm mis misco compatible if we do do the same thing next year. >> But they're wanting something by July. And you're saying that you wouldn't release an RFP until January?

>> So, we need to do a have a development partner selected. They would not need a funding commitment from the city until May of 2027. >> So, they could still apply and if the project isn't to the standard of the RFP, it could not get funded. >> That's correct.

They could pursue GAP financing from other sources. >> Okay. So, I'm just going to name some of my concerns. Um I am concerned that this doesn't line up with DDI's plan that we adopted.

Like um there's a sea of residential on the other side close to 147. I worry that we're going to create the same issue on this side without the quality amenities that we need. Uh we

have talked a lot about keeping people downtown. Um having people have a a full life full of amenities with the goals of a 15-minute city. Um, I think when you put a lot of residential potentially right next to a road, people are just going to get in their cars and drive away. Um, and that does not necessarily help.

Um, at the end of the day, one of the things I do think about, which is revenue. Um, my understanding is we need 15,000 units of affordable housing. Um, this gets us a tiny amount uh at a at a very deep cost as far as what are the opportunity costs. um affordable housing projects don't re don't generate tax prop I mean property taxes in the same way.

Is that am I correct in that kind of understanding? >> Uh affordable housing developments are developed by for-profit and nonprofit developers. Nonprofits with the way that the general statute works have the

ability to seek uh real estate tax abatement. So the underwriting for the $4 to $6 million gap presumed that a nonprofit developer securing a real estate tax abatement would be developing the 505 affordable development. >> So then say that in regular people terms please. >> This project in its form how we contemplated it is not is not going to pay real estate taxes.

>> Okay. Thank you. I just I wanted to make sure I understood that. >> Uh I can ask that question.

Um, somebody was asking about a ground lease and since I've got the mic, I can ask about that. Was a ground lease, sorry, Mr. Baker. >> Uh, the project also or the underwriting also contemplated a long-term ground lease that the city secured its fee interest that it currently has, but at nominal ground rent because any extra real estate costs that are put into this proforma would widen a gap and trigger more gap funding.

City would put money out of one pocket into another effectively. >> Okay. So, we're not expecting a massive amount of of tax revenue generation

based on what we're seeing today. >> The priority was finding an affordable housing development that left the rest of the site for revenue generation, but >> that wasn't your homework. >> Thank you. I just I appreciate that.

Um, so I again applaud the efforts and I'm I'm not going to I've been on this council since 2018. We've been having rounds and rounds rounds of this. I'm not going to be um a council member who's going to get in the way of where where consensus is. Uh I will say that I do worry about some of the decisions we're making.

I also know we've failed to try and do a master plan of this site um partly because of of economic headwinds. Um um I I worry that um yeah, I guess we're going to have to just see how this goes. Um, I'm not going to be pressured into doing timelines that may not be to the best of our benefit. I want our housing department to be as high functioning as possible. Uh, so at least this council member wants to make sure that whatever

gets put forward is to the best benefit for the city and the outcome of the project, even if that's not what advocates are asking for. And so, and I get that that make me I I I get that that might make uh friends uh uncomfortable and and not happy, and that's okay. Uh I make decisions based on what is the best outcome for Durham residents broadly. Yes, we have affordable housing goals, but we always need to be committed to sometimes um we have competing interests and so I don't So, this is what I'm saying to staff.

Y'all are asking for direction. I'm uncomfortable moving forward with what we have. I do definitely want scenario two over over one. That makes the most sense to me, but I don't want it to do it at the cost of some of the work that we are trying to do in housing broadly. Uh secondly, I know that director Vinas, if I'm not mistaken, is in the middle of a updated housing plan, which is going to set up prioritization of recommendations that we have received from the housing task force and other

places. And so I want to understand if what the decision that we make with this one project puts us at headwinds with what our uh staff recommended housing goals broadly are going to be. Um and so that that is what I'm fighting right now. And it's hard because it is 80 units and and we and it is a a deep need that we are um I certainly have been committed to the entire time I've been on council.

Um, but I don't I need to have a deeper understanding or better understanding of where we are broadly. We are at a crossroads. We are at the end of one housing plan without the adoption of a new one. Uh, dollars are tight.

$6 million of gap funding that that's a lot. That's all of our housing fund for one year. Um, we don't know if other projects are going to need those dollars and that's my timer. Thank you.

>> Uh, Council Member Kopac then Baker. and I'll go. >> Yeah, thank you um Mayor Prom for those

comments. Um I think we do have to keep the big picture in mind. Um I think for me it was compelling to know that this isn't competing with other 9% projects at this point in time. Um and and which makes it even more compelling for me if I understood that correctly.

Um, I do think that as part of the decision to move forward, I would like to see more information on what the ultimate budgetary implications will be for it. Understanding who the other financing partners are that would come to the table in light of all the other budget decisions we're going to be making uh as a council um and you know in kind of a difficult budget time. So, I know that the city has done this before and so there's a there's a real roadmap for that. Um, but I guess as part of the direction, if this isn't obvious and implied, you know, to have staff work directly with, you know, uh, if I'm just, we named the last time, right, for a working group. So, you know, self-help and Duke and, you know, other partners that have come together

previously to put deals together. I think that would be really helpful to ultimately know what the gap financing would look like for the city um, in order to make this happen. Um and in addition to that, you know, I'm in support of the other um direction that's been given by my colleagues uh for this work leading up to a selection uh hopefully a selection of a developer partner by July. >> Yeah, I I appreciate council member um Cabo's uh comments around particularly around um DDI's plans which call for mixed use on the site.

I you know when you look at West Chapel Hill Street in this area, you've got 605 West End, which is the giant apartment building that's right right next door. It does not have good high quality urban design. It doesn't have any retail. So, we're not we're not creating this is not kind of breaking up a potential retail street along West Chapel Hill Street. So, I do get a little bit of comfort in that. And

on the other side, you've got NC Mutual, which does have um the coffee shop in the first floor, sits way back behind a sea of parking on on both sides there. So, so and then of course um you know 505 the uh the Milton Small Building also sits a little bit back from the street, but it's not a perfect area here for like generating a retail street. And so this does leave the door open for continuing to contemplate what the back end of the site looks like. Now I think probably retail is street level retail not super feasible unless it is in a very visible part part of the site but there could be other kinds of commercial.

I mean office I don't know what else it doesn't completely close the door on something on the back end of the site. So I I definitely hear that. I'm I'm just raising I think you brought up some really good points and I just want to like talk through them a little bit. Um

and if we did kind of move forward with a building that was all residential that did have that good um quality design fronting onto West Chapel Hill Street and on the corner with South Gregson Street. I think that maybe we're finding a happy medium there between um the plan and I know that we're not going to make everybody happy with that kind of thing. Um I did have one other question. uh your comments made me think of this um 9% tax credit project.

I'm just assuming that it's either difficult or impossible to put in first floor retail. Is that is that the case? And I think that's probably one of Yeah, it's difficult but not impossible. Um again, Willard Street would that we developed, DHIC developed with um uh self-help um we condominiumized that development actually just to kind of make it more complicated and whereby self-help had the first floor and if you

notice we have first start dental there on that floor which is a nonprofit coming out of I think the UNCC school of uh dentistry that is serving very low-income folks. So there is a way to it gets complicated quickly and you've got to kind of be able to find a little bit different financing source maybe to make that work but it's not impossible. >> Just trying to find some some potential middle ground here. Um because I do think that uh I I also want to keep to the vision of of um the the plan small area plan in downtown that we just adopted.

Um, but I don't think that this necessarily precludes and is completely inconsistent with that, even if it is not providing retail along West Chapel Hill Street. >> Council member Rrist, >> thanks for the mayor. Yeah. Um, I want to again appreciate all the residents who are here, but I also want to appreciate my colleagues in the council. I think I think a lot of you have voiced some of this. I think we all have some of the same sort of sort of feelings

here about what this could be, what what we're what we're being asked to do. Um, and I know we've been through this a number of times, right? And you all you all been through more than we have, right? Um, I'm really proud that when we took a crack at this a couple years ago, we said like, we want to make sure there's affordable housing.

We want to make sure the city continues to own the land. I think it's an important decision. um feels a little bit like a homeowner when you're sort of go out to look for a house and you have all these things you want in a house and then the reality of the market just kind of creeps up and you think you can't get everything you want. I think when we made the choice to move away from the master plan development, we and we all love the sort of concepts, right?

People's is a great concept. All the other ones we had were great concepts. Um but I think when we made the choice to go away from a master plan development, I think we accept that as as councelor Baker said, we're kind of we're kind of we're dividing up the site. We're sort of doing this in phases and so we now have what we have and I think we're not getting everything.

Um we never get everything we want. Um but I do I do ultimately feel like I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good here. And I think I'm excited by the fact that we are finally going to

renovate looks like the Milton Small Building and do that historic reser renovation. Um we're going to get affordable housing. It's not as much as we wanted initially, but it's going to be affordable units to address the goal we have there. Um, so I'm, you know, to give direction to the manager of you as as you've asked for.

I think scenario two, as we I think have all said, I think to me that's the most interesting piece because it does provide the structure parking doesn't commit the rest of the site to service parking. Um, I do I do want to move on this. I I think the residents are asking us on some of these major projects to move in a timely way to kind of get this get some stuff done. I do think it's important to move in a timely way on this.

So, I I appreciate the the comments from the residents about moving forward quickly. I want to do that as quickly as I can with some of the again some of the comments that Mayor Pertm raised about making sure we do this within the context of the plans we're developing with our new housing director. So, I'm I'm I'm happy to move forward with this. I'm excited where we are. It's not perfect, but I think we have a plan here and that there's the potential over years and through different phases to continue to improve this site. It may not be catalytic like

we first thought it would be as the folks from DDI have mentioned. It may not be that. Um, but I think it is a I think there's a lot here to like and so I'm happy to move forward. Thank you.

>> Thank you. I just have one real quick question with is there an option I mean I think we all agree with scenario too. I do the the kind of and it makes sense why it's up on the street like that, but I do wonder from the commercial real estate perspective that council member Baker raised. I know that the it was kind of that visual of like, well, if the back half is empty, it's easier for folks to imagine a thing.

But from a development standpoint, having that street activation is much more appealing. And so I am wondering if there's a way where we could like that we're not sold on the the corner that it's on now. like if it ends up being that it makes more sense to put it on the back that we are open to that because I think from that again from that commercial activation especially I mean I don't know what the Milton Smalls building is going to be but I I mean the the hundred door hotel always resonated with me

because I've stayed in plenty of those across the country there's lots of buildings that have been turned into hotels that don't have parking you just valet um and I can see that interaction more honestly than with the housing there but um I didn't know if with the with the group if it was just like no that's like a no-go. >> All right, thank you all so much. I'll drop some comments in here. Um I I have a few questions and my comments are going to be much much more simple and more targeted.

Um and I want to speak to the folks that are probably listening at home as well. um Director Vineas um or whoever it may be when we opened um when we cut the ribbon for the Vanguard downtown, one of the one of the toughest things about that site with DHA was all of the partners all of the partners that played a role in funding it. It was a headache. Is

there a way when it comes to working with the housing finance agency that we can just ensure that there's a an upfront convening of everyone who's going to play a part in this uh in the in the funding and support of making these projects a reality? Is there a way we can just pull all of that? And I'm I'm asking this because that's what the housing finance agency's uh representatives ask for as well rather than waiting and when we get to this point in the project we can then talk to those folks. I think it'll save a lot of time.

Uh, I don't know who that goes to. >> And this is a general question in funding period. Can we bring everyone up front, make this a project that we address? >> As someone who proposes projects to North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, I wish that was the case. So, the 9% program that we're contemplating using to finance this specific project is a very competitive process. This score site does have a perfect score and there are some things in terms of deeming this an area of redevelopment that the city can do to enhance its competitiveness,

but North Carolina Housing Finance Agency is loathed to prioritize different 9% apps over each other. They want a fair process that no one can bar them after the fact when they allocate awards. And so certainly the local partners, right? We talk about institutions outside the city that can participate in gap funding.

I think to council member Kopac's point, the self-help at Duke, right? those folks you can convene. Getting NCHFA at the table and getting their level of commitment to funding this in a first round of applications is just not a reality with how they conduct their business. >> Interesting.

They asked for it. Okay. Um the other is um the topography in this site like have we entertained going down further underground to establish more parking rather than just surface or is surface a requirement of the housing finance agency? >> No requirements from the agency on where it is parked. They have requirements on the number of parking spaces. I'd say in orders of magnitude you've got surface parking then in

in terms of expense you have structure parking and then the most expensive by far orders of magnitude is subgrade parking right so where this is located on the site how the grades play into what frankly the the real question is if the direction is move forward with the 80 units the real question is what is the cheapest way of getting this parked where it's not at grade outside of the footprint of the building and is that sitting in the southwest corner corner is that sitting in the northwest corner? I think that's a question that further follow-up and engineering could answer. >> Thank you. And I know we're talk we've we've now subdivided sub subdivided the site.

Um I'm going to say the unpopular part out loud because I'm thinking about the budget that we have right now. I'm thinking about the $14 million gap and other things. And I'm thinking about the fact that our sales tax revenue is plateaued and trending downward. I feel as though when we at least when I joined council I I think I joined in the middle of this scenario they had already been talking about it but there were five priorities and I know we just addressed now that we've subdivided it

we we can't really expect that in in this conversation to address all five of those things but I feel like the only thing we're talking about is affordable housing you know and I think in order to truly support affordable housing are we giving are we doing ourselves a disservice if we are only addressing one of the five priorities. My question is, is this the best place? And I I'm intrigued by Council Member Baker's uh line of questioning around what the site could actually be. Um and in West Chap Hill Street, I I think, you know, and I'm inspired by you, Council Member Baker, that we can make it what we want to make it.

Uh I'm seeing that the other side of Chap the other side of 147 on Chapel Hill Street is coming to life. It's a lot of retail there. And then the other side and then the go triangle surface lot over there that we're hopefully going to do something with. There's a big surface lot behind the church that I hope we can do more with. Um I'm thinking about this beyond just the corner of the site and I know

that we've subdivided it but I don't want to imprison ourselves to just that. Um, I I guess for me, I'm trying to have a comparison of looking at this site in this corner only or what could be here to generate more. 1 million. " You know, it doesn't mean it's cheaper.

It just simply means that we're going to pay for it in another way. We're going to subsidize it. Is there a way that we can get more than 80 units? >> Certainly, it's going to cost more real estate or more gap funding, right? We picked uh a fivestory structure on top of two levels of subgrade parking

because anything above five stories of residential puts you into a different building type where you're framing with steel as opposed to wood, right? And so there's this yin-yang of we wish we could build significantly more affordable housing, but the the financing tool that the 9% tax credit program creates is really intended for these I'd say relatively smaller projects. Right? The city has gap funded 200 200 plus unit projects.

That is not what the 9% program is for. And so I'd say the guiding light in all this has been try to keep cost reasonable, try to keep footprints small, try to keep the program that we're creating something that's competitive within the 9% program. Um, as it relates to location within the site, our working group was predominantly filled with two different types of folks. We had neighbors who were activists and had worked a long time on the project. And then we had folks who build affordable housing by trade. Um, as someone in the latter of those two groups, the pragmatic pragmatic part of me says that there can be flexibility, I think, with how you lay this out across the rest of the

site. I would not want to put words in the mouths of some of my peers who have sort of more lived experience in the neighborhood and sort of I think might have strong thoughts about the spot within the property. But again from just a litec developer who wants to make sources meet uses and get projects to get built where you sit within the site does not impact that. >> Yeah, I think that's very helpful and I I do remember I someone mentioned campaign earlier.

Um I remember committing to trying to get the site done but I would not commit to a timeline because I don't want to be unrealistic with that. I know it's been a long time. It's been 10 years, but getting it right and taking a little longer for me is better than getting it wrong and it'd be wrong forever. Uh, but I know that compromise is part of this job. So, I'm willing to compromise and and and try and move forward. I just I don't want to imprison myself to uh or imprison ourselves as a representative of the larger idea uh and um in in just

a in just a timeline, you know, um based on what's in front of me. Uh option two obviously would be better. I I am going to be very aggressive on what else we can do on this site. I do think it's a missed opportunity.

I do I I think that we can get more units. I think if we, you know, we we find a way to have a serious anchor and and help subsidize what else goes there. Um I I do think that, you know, um we can subsidize more affordable units without it just coming from a b from the the base tax base, you know, just the property tax. Um, and oftentimes the same the same people us because I'm one of them that talks about wanting more affordable units is also saying I cannot afford more taxes.

I can't afford to pay more taxes. And so I just want to make sure that this conversation is happening holistically. Um, but you know, based on the options we have, I am I'm going to say it very publicly. I am very less concerned with the timeline than getting this right. I

want more units. I want more affordable units. I want more units in period. I want mixed use.

I want to be able to drive revenue and I want that revenue to be able to support uh the best site possible. Uh and I think I think we we owe that to ourselves. >> Yeah. Go ahead.

>> Real quickly, um there is a limit on the number of units one can build under the 9% program. So that's why you saw us divide up into that second phase more units uh that we didn't feel we could go any further than 80 units. Um otherwise you'd have to move to a 4% transaction. Uh and that's much less efficient.

>> Yeah. And I and I'll say it it's going to be expensive one way or the other. Um I know this this as I'm talking about finances now this is going to sound like whatever but uh you know at one point at at a certain point once you go over a certain amount of money it's all expensive you know and I just want to maximize as much as possible. the city is growing and in limiting ourselves. Uh

yeah, it's I'm I'm just not interested in it, but I understand where we are. >> Council member, >> yeah, we have not um we have not subdivided the property, right? Okay. >> No, well, not yet.

Not yet. >> Yeah. Um so, it's still flexible. >> The one the the Milton Mall Small we are part of.

>> That's we're deciding. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Right. >> Right. Right. I just wanted to make sure.

>> Yeah. Not yet. We we're imagining four different quadrants but it is not is not um subdivided but just two two points here. One is our conversation at this point is completely different from where it was before.

We are now thinking about this in different pieces and whereas before all the different pieces were together. So we were talking about market rate housing and market rate commercial that was going to subsidize the affordable housing and even things out. That was that was the that was the idea. Now we're talking about well if we build something that is serving a deep public good and a public need that is going to have to be uh you know sub u

subsidized but there are other parts of the site which we can still imagine what what those what those pieces are that could be part of a a long-term ground lease and or could not be and then could contribute to in in property taxes there there it leaves a it leaves other pieces of the of the site open. So I think I just want us to keep that in mind as we move forward is that the the way that we have the conversation about this entire thing is completely different from the way we were having the conversation before um where different parts of the site were going to be because it was master plan different parts of the site we're going to be subsidizing other parts. I also don't want to leave um the question that council member Cavier raised uh because she kind of posed a question which was um is there an openness to considering and I don't want to blow this whole thing up because I feel like we're narrowing in but the location of this being somewhere else on the site potentially not right up on West Chapel Hill Street would that would

we be open to it being for example um on the south southeast east quadrant. And I know I asked this question intentionally, you all mentioned that you were intentional about selecting the north west quadrant. Um, so I don't want to dismiss that, but I just I wanted to bring that up because I do think it is an important question. Could you come back and repeat the reasoning behind the northwest quadrant and the openness to um one of the other portions of the site?

Thank you. >> Was there a topography or something? >> Um Ky Telmac again. Um, so speaking from you have Duke Memorial Church cross street concerned about what the look is for them and the engaging the landscape what that might be for in

um making sure that we have open space making sure that we have um community when they come something that they they want to look at visibly. So there's no we're not tied or bound to it but I wanted to share the church's concerns on that. So, >> okay. >> Um, the pastor was here, but she had to leave.

So, I just >> That's helpful. >> Okay. >> Thank you. In in that case, I definitely I mean I I appreciate that, but any urban center has tall buildings up next to churches. It happens all the time. Um so um my um my request is that the whatever works the best as far as the pro-forma what we think especially if we're thinking about we understand we're subdividing it but if it makes more sense to and I do think that commercial on that back is not going to work then >> we want I want to be open to where it's going to be um and not be u prescriptive on it has to be that corner I think that is and I and I am going to be pretty firm on on that line because I feel like

I'm already saying yes to a thing that I'm a little bit like hesitant on. >> Kopac and Everest. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Um, well, this goes back to I think the HRNA presentation that we saw. And part of it, I think maybe my imagination is bounded by the potential designs that I've seen. And in those examples, we originally saw kind of short-term activation options around Milton Small that then u allowed us to entertain certain futures. and that had the really dense development in the southeast corner.

Um, uh, I also think that I'm keeping in mind, you know, what I've heard from, uh, you know, from from folks in the community about what they'd like to see there. Um, ultimately I'm not a real estate developer. um you know and there may be some important thinking to be done around what the best thing to activate on the site is but I just want whatever we choose to leave open the future of that you know mixeduse um kind of denser development in the future um

while having the affordable housing right like those are kind of my two priorities um I think the exact location of it is is not does not rank as highly as those for me >> yeah first Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. So, I think what you're saying is so you're also agreeing that that that let's let's this idea of like being somewhat flexible about where the affordable housing sits is actually a really important conversation.

I like the idea as council Baker said of thinking about a more um a more activated sort of potentially commercial presence there on Chapel Hill Street. That could be and it could be even higher. Again, I think we've got the uh the mutual building right next door which is also what eight nine stories. So, I think tall buildings on that street is not to me is not a that's part of what a city looks like. I also will note that I do think we're at a good place and in this question of subsidy is interesting. I think when we were looking at the people's proposal as I recall we were talking like what was the number there was like 40 50 there was a big number there right so yeah so we're we are much lower than that number um and so I think we're in a much better

place in that regard even though there's there's things we wanted to do but I think it did involve more subsidy right so I think we're in a much better place and I um yeah with this thought about how we sort of maybe move things around the the parcel that sounds right to me >> yep So, uh, same here. I am, uh, I I really want to activate Chapel Hill Street. And, and of course, as a business owner, putting me back in the cut, you know, where there's no foot traffic or it's hard for people to see me. Uh, personally, I've experienced that, which is why I've made some decisions in my own business.

Like, if people don't see you, they're not going to come shop, you know. So, I uh I I'm making some serious compromises here. um because we're we're no longer doing a mass development, which I thought was the best option. But since we have it in this approach, I I do think we need to um make sure that we could if we're going to have some retail there, it needs we need to best position them to be able to do business. Um cuz we again

I look at what DPAC offers the city, what South Point offers the city and I we are expanding in property tax which is potentially on the uh in serious jeopardy at the state legislature but we we we aren't we aren't Siri agrees we aren't we aren't fully doing our do our part doing our part here locally on the u sales tax revenue side. So that's my concern. Yeah. >> So on this point of location, who makes this decision and based on what criteria and is this would this possibly be an impediment to hitting the timing which I also think the the timing I think the timing is important.

>> I understood it to be the like the professionals the site engineers and others could would would put that forward, right? like not not necessarily us because I mean I don't think any of us are engineers or architects. Um we

have a planner but um that was my understanding based on the question that was asked of Mr. Baker. >> I I'll also add that um I'll I'll also add that you know we're 10 years in because we've been extremely well partly because we've been so prescriptive. I'm I'm just contributing to the conversation on location, but I you know, again, I always say I sell chicken for a living.

I don't build buildings, so I'm I'm not going to pretend to be the expert on this. " Um Mr. Manager, >> uh thank you. Um, I I would like to be clear that coming out of this conversation, there's a difference between council telling us you're open to any location, but please go build it on this time frame or build it on this time frame and

we have a preference for locations. So, I have heard different opinions on the locations. Uh, I have heard some reticence on the corner that was shown in the presentation. Uh, and then I have heard some who wanted who responded to what sounded like the recommendation that that be the corner staff is prepared to do either.

I would love to make sure council is as aligned as possible on that. And if that alignment is we don't care put it wherever you want. We can work with that. But if there is a preference on the location, I don't want that to be staff's position or staff's decision unless council is completely comfortable with that being staff's >> Let me help you out, Mr.

Manager. I'm going to start to my left. Council member Baker, uh, do you have a preference on location of the building and timeline? >> Uh, what aspect of the timeline? See,

we're not going to do that. >> But whether we choose to develop it by the summer by July, >> okay, July, southeast quadrant, >> July. And I would trust someone else to make the decision about where to put it that maximizes the benefit for the overall use of the site. >> So flexible.

>> July flexible. July southeast quadrant. >> I July flexible as long as it doesn't impact the timeline and it prioritizes the activation of the street. >> I'm actually flexible on both the timeline and the Right.

So, I'm not going to help you on that one. >> Well, I No, I'm I I am as well. I um I think you know that's it's going to be expensive no matter what. So, let's just get the best bang for our buck, but also let's get the best opportunity possible. So, I'm flexible on both. >> So, I'm going to state what I think I heard, and then y'all are going to tell

me if you disagree. >> And just to double check that the space does not impact the ranking for our 9%. Is that correct? The location will not impact.

Just want to make sure. >> I'd like to mic. >> Okay. At some point I will figure out how to turn this damn mic on.

Uh the one thing >> is regardless of where the location is on this parcel of >> Yes. But then also I'd say separate from that having a firm understanding if the southeast corner is where this project locates knowing where Milton Small stops is going to be critically important. >> What' you hear? What I heard is a majority at a minimum of four council members had a flexible approach to the location and at least four members expressed a preference for a July timeline. that would lead us to proceed as quickly as possible uh and make that July deadline for a project submission. And

that should the team that is moving in that direction assess that there is a um an opportunity to move that forward in a more advantageous way in a different location that council's open to that. Obviously, we would give you that information as to why we made that choice, but that's that's how I summarize council, unless you want to correct that. >> Sounds good. >> Sorry.

Can I also just and this is for staff as we're moving along. I'm really keen on we are standing up very important processes in our housing department and if this project starts to get outside of what we're trying to create there I council needs to know that. Okay. So again I don't want to jeopardize an 80 unit project at the risk of something that that is broader. So if we start to get outside and it's clear that there's consequences to moving so quickly, I want to understand

that clearly. Thank you. >> Thank you. So I uh again want Yes, >> this is just a question for the city manager.

Will the question of temporary site activation come back to us at some point in the future? Yeah, I I I think based on the direction you gave us in December, a lot of this conversation was um was driven by constraints that we saw in the in the higher unit numbers that we were looking at in December that limited the potential for interim site activation. So, I think we heard a strong interest in interim site activation uh when there was land to activate. Um I don't think right now I would describe it as a priority to get that figured out. I think you have told us today what your priority is. Uh and so I think we will definitely explore those options secondarily to implementing the direction that council gave us today.

>> Thanks for that question. Um I again want to thank the community members for the work that you all uh took time to do. You're not elected. You're not elected officials, but you took your hard your hard-earned time to uh to just try and provide something for the city at large.

Uh and and whenever community members step up to do that, I just really appreciate it. Um but also when you choose to do that, you engage into a political process where there is no perfect outcome. There is no perfect outcome, but there is an outcome. And this is the first time in 10 years we've been able to get some direction.

Uh so thank you all for that. Um and I what I heard on this council is you know for the most part we are all interested in pressing forward on getting something actionable. Um we're we're open to allowing some flexibility by the professionals to to make the best of this site. Um but we definitely all care about having uh some, you know,

affordable units on this site as well as some type of revenue generation and and making sure that it makes sense for uh for the site overall. Uh not everybody's going to get what they want. Uh but I do implore people to continue to be engaged in and um engaged in this process. So, at this time, I'm going to let us take a a few minutes break, uh, about 10 minutes, and we'll get back to it. >> Yeah, let's get back at uh right at right at four. Uh, well, 3:55.

All right, everyone. Uh, >> let's uh let's get back to it. >> We need to get we need to get out of here because Duke needs me right now. I need to get out and cheer like and uh besides you know Chelsea's over here celebrating and I can't take that.

So >> we are we are now on item number 21. Everyone's brackets are screwed. >> Do you want Let's do item 15 if that's okay. That's the other uh >> that's the other one.

Okay. >> 505. Sorry. >> Yeah, we have we have a guest. >> So, scratch that. Item number 15.

>> Mary Grace. I know how to turn this button on now. Stacy Poston, General Services. Um, happy to answer any questions you may have relative to item 15.

I don't think we have speakers. I think it's just >> um I'm just interested in that option that Attorney Miles talked about. Um and so I don't know if anyone else needed to hear that again, but that was that's my only thing. >> Abram mouse of the city attorney's office.

Um to recap what I suggested um in order to bring it back before you all um is to the rehabilitation agreement is a part of the option and it's something that preserv normally participates in from my understanding. So we could bring that um back before you all after a developer has been selected um for your consideration. >> Well, thank you. Yeah, I mean my I think that my interest previously was not to

necessarily like have a lot of restrictions put on it, but one of those things I'm going to compare it to residential lease because what do I do except read residential leases, but there's always like in a residential lease if you're like allowed to sublet by permission of the owner, but where like the assumption is that the owner is going to give permission unless it's like something that's really important like something of along those lines to not like restrict this, but just sort of make sure that it is like within the theme of the um of the site. So that's sort of my only my only concern is just making sure that when we hand over and and and I trust that um preservation NC is going to do a good job, but I also know that their priority is preserving the building and I just don't want a use that's like doesn't fit with our 505 master plan that we've subdivided already. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I wonder that point I wonder whether we could um if Miss Turner from Preservation NC could um speak to speak to that. So I want to

make sure I just want to hear from the other side to make sure we're clear all the implications of that. >> Absolutely. Um so >> yeah so the the the notion of having the the purchase purchase agreement is that >> come to the council for review. That's that's what my colleagues proposed.

Erin Miles has said we can do that. I want to just hear from you like >> walking through our typical scenario is um uh our option to purchase agreement is always subject to being able to exercise the option. Our purchase agreement with our buyer is subject to protective covenants which go in the deed in perpetuity and the project is also subject to a rehabilitation agreement between Preservation North Carolina and the developer. we've we would have already have gone and reviewed the development,

their financing, vetted it, and make sure that they are an experienced qualified developer that has the capacity to take on the project. I would recommend that and and with other uh local governments that we've worked with. Um we've usually come to council or county commission and let them know who our prospective buyer is that we're contemplating going under contract with. that way, you know, I mean, if it that way there's there's a say on the front end before hundreds of thousands of dollars of due diligence has been spent on the project. Um and and we can get a sense of whether there is just you know absolute nausea over the proposed um project or everybody is um um uh you know favorable to it or as favorable as possible as far as a development timeline is concerned. Sometimes those

things can be out of our control. However, after 45 years of working with local governments on um uh uh government surplus rehabilitation projects, um you know, we have put as many controls and covenants and agreements together in order to control what we can control um absent something like, you know, uh a pandemic or you know, the great recession or something like that which we have limited control over. Uh what I'm saying in a nutshell is, you know, on the front end, when we do have um let's just say we have two or three proposed projects and we think they're all great, it would behoove us to come before you and and and say and make the introductions and everybody be able to have a chance to weigh in. Um uh and that way everybody has everybody's holding hands going through the project after that. The timeline is

the timeline. Some deals will take uh two years to do from financing to project completion. Some will take a little bit more if they're phased and you'll see that because we require a scope of work and a timeline in their proposal when they submit it to us for consideration. >> Thank you.

I'm comfortable with that. I mean, I I'm I'm excited that we are I've been I've been one of the folks in the council that's been really eager to preserve the building. I think it's really exciting. I'm excited that we're moving forward with that.

So, want to thank you for your involvement in that. I look forward to that piece as part of this larger redevelopment of the site. My other question was around um was around the back to the parking thing. >> Yeah.

>> Um and so I'm looking at the um I think it's the um this is the is this the option to purchase? Is that one of the attachments we had? >> The option to purchase letter, right? And so in that letter the third page it says under under parking. So in the short term the city would grant temporary use of existing service parking for equipment storage and general parking use.

>> Right. >> In the longer term the city commits a maximum number of parking for the uh HSLI building um on future developed areas on the rest of the site that the HL HSLI developer can purchase or lease. >> Correct. >> So what does that mean?

the maximum parking is because I think I >> we land on a number. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that and that's a negotiation between between the city and the developer or because I think as we said before like I I understand we have now gotten rid of parking minimums but there may be a need for parking depending on what the use is.

So I get that >> there will be a need for parking and any any lender is going to require that the project have access to parking in order to service the project. So we sort of have that catch 22. Um, I I think, you know, from from our perspective and experience, we've seen a developer is going to have to have that long-term relationship with the city and come to the city for certain uh development agreements. Um, and so in in to a

certain extent, we are we are being called to anticipate what the maximum might be and be mindful of that. But then again, we may not need much at all depending on the use. So, uh, with the anticipated development and infill and the the remainder of the site, uh, the developer of the Milton Small Building is not going to be the only one needing parking. You know, the rest of the site is too.

Uh, whether we have minimums or not in the UDO. So, uh, getting ahead of that and the city being prepared to, uh, work with the developers on agreements and whatever that looks like. uh will benefit the entire site, not just that little corner. >> And again, that that could so that maximum parking could be there on the site.

It could be leasing parking from surrounding parcels, right? Church, right? Yeah. Yeah. As long as it's designated. And that's why we put in the language um up to and um uh available but not obligated to because if if we

say maximum we think the development if it's 100key hotel is going to need 120 parking spaces or 110 what if it has a restaurant on the first floor activating that lobby space. We know there was the SNW cafeteria there decades ago. um you're going to need some sort of on-site parking to a certain extent. If we've got a plan B of offs off off-site parking, I think that would satisfy uh to a certain degree the financing, a developer's need to move forward and from a practical standpoint a community uh usability uh sense.

>> So again, what does that process look like? So you get so you're going to you're identifying a developer. They're gonna at some point in this whole process they sign a agreement with you. You purchase the land from the city, convey that to the developer.

Like when does the whole >> We own it for like 30 seconds in the transaction. Yeah. And so we're basically facilitating uh the negotiated sale to

a developer who's going to meet the the requirements which is a preservation agreement. >> So then this conversation about parking when how does that when and how does that happen? Is that after this whole process, once they've acquired the site? >> I think once we've once we've identified a developer, I think that would be the time when we actually have something tangible to work with.

Right now, we don't. We know at a minimum we may need 40, we may need a hundred. Um, they could be on-site, they could be offsite. If we've got um you know the I if we have a preliminary idea of where these uses would be then when we have that conversation with the developer it can be more detailed and we can get more into the weeds and have activate that plan >> and that's like a negotiation between developer city >> I think it would have to be >> yeah I guess for me that just the language about like maximum number like I don't know what that number could that be 200 100 spaces like is there some

what are we >> if it was office um for example I don't know um I wouldn't think so not with a 75,000 square foot building five floors um but if you're talking about um uh other areas of the development where you could go 30 or 40 stories um you know you're you're going to have some stacked podium parking and would the city be a partner ner to that or uh would there be the ability of uh the operators or owners of the other components of the site to be able to lease or purchase some of the undesated parking for another area. These are all ideas we're throwing out for consideration. Um, I I think that uh we will need to have that answer as we market the property of the city is willing to have a conversation to work out an agreement for parking and some sort of plan that

works. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome.

You're welcome, sir. >> Quick question. Uh there's uh and this may be for staff actually. Actually, there's the parking that we are leasing across from this site.

I think right now we're leasing it from Go Triangle. I don't know who would answer this question. It's where our Go Durham bus drivers park. >> Okay, so Stacy Poston um so the the parking space across from Durham Station where the bus drivers park um that is owned by the city.

I think the parcel that we've been describing that is diagonally caddy corner to 505 West Chapel Hill Street is not actually owned by the city of Durham. It was purchased as a part of light rail. >> Okay. >> Go triangle.

>> Go triangle. And do we know the status? I mean, I know it sit on the board, but does go triangle want to keep that? >> Um, we've So, it was used for parking by

Durm County when they were constructing some of the stuff and they displaced their employees. So, they used it for temporary parking. We've had conversations with um in the last 30 days and they are open to having conversations about what uses might be needed. Um but I believe they have some plans of their own that they're thinking about that as sort of a long-term need.

>> We have a new CEO at Go Triangle. The last CEO was trying to get rid of it. I'll take that back to our board there and and see what the plans are because that could be pivotal to supporting this site. Um it's never at capacity ever.

>> Thank you. I think um Aaron Miles would like to add a comment on the transportation. >> Sure. >> Um Aaron M attorney's office and I just wanted to address one of the questions that council member Rrist asked um related to the option and the parking piece. Part of the reason the option is drafted the way it is related to the parking was to allow for maximum flexibility with the rest of the development of the site. Um so we so the

city would not be hindering that portion of the site by obligating parking to serve the own small building. It left the flexibility to look at places offsite for parking to serve to serve that potential development. >> Yeah. Go ahead.

So, if I was to summarize where I think we're at at this point, um I think Erin and I would like to confer with Kim and Gina and provide some supplemental motions for consideration based on what we've heard here today before the Monday night meeting that are more in alignment with what we're hearing from council. >> I had one more question about parking. >> Okay. Um, this may be related to the last item, but the house the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, the 9% the uh the 9% LITC uh lowinccome housing tax credit that is um

that's a policy set by the financing agency, >> right? >> So, every year the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency issues a QAP. I don't see Sarah here anymore. And in that they indicate what the standards are for any given year.

2 spaces per per unit. It is something that you can negotiate and so developers typically will have conversations as a part of their application and say I might have meet met the standard here. Would you have a little flexibility here? So it's something that I believe that Willard Street was negotiated down.

Um, and so I believe that the committee looked at one as a floor and understanding that that would be something that would need to be negotiated. >> And and that's why I was asking like why would it be standard if you're literally on top of a bus station, you know, and >> right there's precedent for negotiating down. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah. So when when when I'm thinking about this um this case, I'm thinking about um what is the the public good?

what is the public benefit that's coming out of um sell selling potentially selling this um for for $1 and um historic preservation is um something that's really important to me. I see us getting kind of the architectural value of it, both the primarily on the outs of the building, the historical value and the stories around especially anti-mutual life. Um, and sustainability, you know, you're not demolishing a building and taking all of that and throwing it in the trash and then rebuilding something entirely new. Um, and I I see a lot of value to all of that, but I just I want to take that step back to think about uh making sure that we are truly making a decision that is it is a public cost essentially because we could demolish the building and sell the land or whatever, build whatever we want to um for for a public benefit. And here I see the public benefit being architectural value, the historical value and sustainability.

And I've raised all that just to say I I think it's important as we're moving forward. Um and I understand now at this point that this won't be the last decision-making point for us, right? We'll see it again. That um that we get the the best bang for our buck in terms of public good and public value and and um I don't know what all of those potential public goods are, but I just want to encourage us to as we proceed make sure that we are getting the best the best deal here.

And um if there's a lot of value to the interior design, can we make sure that there's that the interiors first floor, whatever is publicly accessible to the residents of Durham? Um what else can we build into the covenants to the deeds? Uh that's that's all. I just think that that's important.

One other question that's kind of tangential to this and related to the whole 505. Um, manager Ferguson, do we have do we have an urban designer on staff? Do we have like a that skill set um within the

city of Durham? >> We have one on council. >> I'm not an urban center. >> Urban planner.

>> There we go. Uh, >> good afternoon. Sarah Young, uh, the city's first urban designer, still here 26 years later. Um, so definitely got one.

Um, we have several other staff that are urban designers that are trained as urban designers that work in the community planning team as well. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure that we're, you know, we're city of 300 plus thousand. I want to make sure that we're tapping into that skill set.

Um, when it comes to challenging because so many problems can be solved with really good design. Um, sometimes problems seem impossible and you get a good designer and you can solve the problem. And um so I just again as we look at 505 holistically and how these piece all the pieces fit together, I want to make sure that the design is good that it that it's a the best possible use of space

and highest and best use of of the the property and any other city-owned property or or otherwise within the city. Um and yeah, so we I mean we have design districts, but you know, in a lot of the new new developments downtown, we are seeing sidewalks that resulting sidewalks that are not wide enough. Um we are seeing street trees that are not located on the right part of the street or first floor that first floor designs that are that are not very good. And so even within our design districts, um we we have trash cans.

They're spilling out into the sidewalk and even like I've seen people on wheelchairs have to go out on the street and brand new developments in downtown Durham. And so I just want to make sure that we are really thinking about high quality um design for pedestrians and transit riders. That's all on the financial piece of this. I'm wondering if Miss Poston you could come and talk a bit more about the financial

transaction between the city preservation North Carolina preservation North Carolina the developer and then whether all we ultimately get is a dollar or if in the subsequent transaction there's additional investment that comes back into the city or potentially a subsidy and support for this overall 505 activation. How does that all work? miles >> a mile city attorney's office. I will take a portion of your question related to the the sale of the parcel.

Um so the option itself is a dollar. That's a consideration specific to the option and the option only. The sale of the land. We plan on um I believe we're going to do an appraisal because the use is what drives the sale for the city. There are statutes that say if it's a public purpose, affordable housing, library, things along those lines, then we have statutes that allow us to reduce reduce the cost of of the real estate. If it's a commercial use or an economic use, even it's a public benefit, we're

required to sell that for fair market value. Um, so that portion of the transaction is still under negotiation, which is why the option before you is a draft. um because we still need to work out that uh the financial piece of the the sale itself. For the rest of the question, I will phone a friend and give it back to Stacy.

>> Council member Kobach, tell me what other questions you have around that. >> Oh, I think that answers it. Just that when that that transaction is ultimately, you know, completed there there will be financial benefit coming back to the city. And so we think about this site as a puzzle.

Different parts of it play different purposes. Now it's no longer master plan, but we're sort of trying to master plan by phasing. And so, you know, it seems like the primary purpose of this part of the site, one is is the reuse, the sustainability, right, of of of reusing a a beautiful building. Uh there is the, you know, the the history, right, the

the design potential, all that like that has value and public good. Um, I would I like the idea of weighing in and seeing the rehab agreement. I also just want to make sure that you sort of caution against that we don't put too many incumbrances on it that we make it difficult to ultimately um, you know, complete the transaction and achieve the primary objective of this portion which is the reuse uh, and perhaps the financial piece of it to help support the city and the overall activation of the site. Um, so yes, thank you.

>> Well, to the mayor's point, too, this is the one part of the the parcel that now will generate property tax revenue, right, once it's sold. So, it will generate I mean, the other parts of the the property may generate ground leases, but this will generate property tax revenue >> going forward. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Maybe in the perfect world, we sell it for commercial use and it cost the same amount as it would for the 80 units of affordable housing, uh, affordable

units. So I Abram Allen City attorney's office. >> I'm trying I'm trying here. >> I I just wanted to to address the the statement that it depends on the use is whether or not it would be generating any type of revenue or property taxes.

>> That's that's why I when I say I'm going to go aggressively on the other parts of the site, that is exactly why. I hope that um we'll we'll fall eventually on and and here's why I'm I'm okay with compromising on this because Durham is one city that does it so well. Reuse or rehab rather. I mean, American Tobacco is like the crown jewel in America of uh reuse of of historic spaces. And um I I mean just on face value financially, yes, tear it down and build something else there and make let it make a bunch of money, but that also doesn't fall in alignment with Durham's value and and what our culture has been. So I'm I'm definitely okay with it, but I do hope

" And uh and it you know it generates the same amount of money that uh we sell it that it costs to build its neighbor which is um on the same site and I know Preservation North Carolina is going to make that happen for us. All right, any other comments? All right, good deal. That was number 15.

All right, and now 21. Thank you all so much. I have a policy headache. Policy ache.

>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Duke is coming back, y'all. Right.

Um, >> Mary Grace, I'm trying to get the council on the same page here. I'm hearing some Carolina stuff up here. So, uh, let's just get started. >> Good afternoon, uh, Mayor, Mayor Prom, and council members.

Um I'm here for a very brief presentation um about some agenda format updates. Um I wanted to um say upfront I know there's been a lot of conversations from council retreats and others about some potential improvements for agenda. These really the goal of them are um to these are really based off of some feedback I've heard through emails from council members or at meetings and also residents at meetings and they're really some lowhanging fruit um items that we can implement right away with council's um feedback and approval around administrative updates to improve really transparency, clarity, and accessibility. All of that to say that, you know, these aren't the only

improvements we're continuously looking at, but these are some lowhanging fruit that we can go for. Um, so the three updates are creation of a no action matters, which is anformational section, um, in the city council regular business meeting agenda, an update to citizens matters timing and placement in the work session agenda, and then, um, a change of title of citizens matters. and I'll go through each of these right now. There we go.

So, um the new no action matters um section is really to address our what we call disposed items. So, those are items that either you have acted on because of suspending the rules during work session or um they don't require any action from council from work sessions. Um so, or they've been referred back. So, and citizens matters as well. So, these items um while

creating this section would allow residents to see more easily, typically, as you all know, we don't have those placed um in the final agenda. They're just disposed of. Um, so these would actually be in the agenda after the um adjournment section so folks can see what was discussed, whether action was taken by council and why the item's not on the current agenda. So less confusion about like, hey, I saw they skipped number 12 or 13 or it was on work session and not on city council meeting.

This will show what why that has taken place. Also, yes. >> To clarify, so that it would appear like after the adjourn on the on the on the city council meeting agenda. Exactly.

Almost appear almost like an appendix or whatever. Yes. With the numbers that the numbers would still be the same numbers from the work session, it would just sort of appear there like they didn't they didn't go away. >> Exactly. Yep. And um also this would allow for if there's response memos or other attachments that you all have

requested and questions you've asked which departments have answered it would allow us to easily attach those so that residents can see those responses as well. So that's the first update. And then just to show you an example again, this would be after the adjournment section. We'd have an explainer about the section so folks know what it is.

And then we'd have explainers also within um under the items saying what happened during work session. Update number two um is to move citizens matters earlier in the agenda. Right now it appears at the end. Um, however, it however, um, it actually happens earlier.

So, that's a little confusing. m. because we do have council announcements, roll call, other things. So, some residents have come up and said we we're expecting to talk at 1 PM because it says it in the agenda. So,

just deleting that. So, we're getting rid of some um inaccurate expectations. Um also, uh moving it up before the uh before the agenda is read out. So, it is that comment period where they're discussing items in the work session that are not currently on the agenda.

And then update the final update is um also another simple lowhanging fruit but renaming the citizens matter section to public comment period. This would um allow it to align more uh that's how we refer to it in city council rules of procedure. That's also how it's referred to in the NC uh general statutes. And you know I think personally that it provides some clearer language as to what it is than citizens matters. So, it's a little more um clear and uh again transparent for residents as to what it is. And

>> we're done. >> Um so, any questions, comments, feedback for the first update, is there a way to make the explainer that will appear on the actual agenda a little bit more robust? Just thinking about like people may possibly ask the why. So not providing an exhaustive list but just like as we are making this adjustment like to kind of let people know like these this is why these items are not they may have been resolved or just provide a little bit more examples of that in that um explainer.

>> Okay. So are you referring to kind of some somewhat of this list maybe in that explainer? Okay. Yeah, we can definitely do that.

>> Any other >> any other questions? Thank you uh for being responsive to uh this and there are some they're small fixes but it make a pretty significant impact especially the citizens comment one that that is confusing to be heard at one even when I'm reading I'm like well it's past one o'clock I'll get to it. Uh but thank you.

All right well I believe that's our agenda. Mr. manager. >> You're moving just a hair too fast for me, mayor.

All right, so hang on. >> Screen. >> Mayor, I'm prepared to settle the agenda. The what I have for you for the next council meeting is on consent items 1 through 4 and 6 through 20 on GBA item 5 and on GBA public hearing items 23 and 24.

>> All right, I'll entertain a motion to receive those items. >> Second. >> It's been moved and properly second. All in favor?

>> I All oppose. All right, thank you all so much. Enjoy your weekend. I'll see you in April. >> We're adjourned. Yep.