 You're full of people around. I'll give you what I'll be doing. The document can. I'll be back. I can. It is now 7.02 p.m. and I will call the January 21st 2014 meeting of the City Council to order. Could we please have a moment of silent meditation. Thank you very much. Mr. Brown, would you come forward and lead us in the pledge of allegiance. That's a quick one. Thank you. We have the roll call please. Mayor for Tim Cole McFadden. Council Member Brown. Council Member Cattati. Council Member Davis. Council Member Moffitt. Council Member Shul. And Mayor Bell is requesting an excused absence. It is now 7.02 p.m. that we grant our wonderful Mayor an excused absence. Madam Court would you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes 6 to 0. Thank you. Now we have listed one ceremonial item. We were not sure how the weather would be tonight. So we have asked that Ms. Becton come the next council meeting when we will present the resolution memorializing Joseph William Anderson Becton Jr. who was at one juncture the Director of Human Relations for the City of Durham. So we are holding that. And while I am speaking of holding because of the weather conditions we are going to be holding speaking moments to a minimum tonight. Because of my concern for our staff and actually for myself because I live way out north and it is really snowing and sleeting out there. Unless there is some objection from my colleagues. Now. So I want to, three things I want to touch on very briefly. The first is that as the Mayor Pro Tem said the weather is turning bad. Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission is meeting upstairs and a lot of them ride their bikes even weather like this. So please be careful both for yourself and for others as you leave tonight. The second is that I want to commend the police response to the violence on Sunday night. Three times this has happened and so far in those three times we have had one reported minor injury which I think speaks well to their training and to their restraint. And finally I just want to just say that this past holiday was a great one. I enjoyed very much the Martin Luther King community of activities I did including a march that had several hundred people on it and was very peaceful in keeping with his push for nonviolence. So a number of my colleagues, Mr. Davis was there. Mayor Pro Tem was there. Mr. Schull was there. And it was a great event. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, sir. Mr. Davis, you have one minute. I heard you say you would stick to it. I'll try real hard. Many of us know that we lost a giant in the civil rights community a couple of a few days ago with Franklin McCain's death. There was a very nice, I don't know if obituaries can be nice, but a good, a well written obituary that appeared in the New York Times. And that obituary made two references to Durham, North Carolina. I think you have it on the screen there. The first one comes in the first column and it talks about the fact that before Greensboro in 1960, there was a major sit-in in Durham, North Carolina in 1957. Many people around the world now know that Durham was ahead of Greensboro, although we're not even kind of race, but Durham was there in 1957. And many of us from Durham know that that reference was to the Royal Ice Cream Sit-in. I thought it would be wonderful since that reference appeared in the New York Times, which is an international paper, that we allow this audience as well as the council and the folks at home to recognize that one of those people who was in that sit-in is with us today and that is Virginia Williams. She was one of the Royal Seven. So I would like to ask her if she would just stand right now. Thank you, Jen, for all your work. Madam Forteam, there is another piece in that very same article. Over toward the right-hand side of that column, there is a reference to a famous documentary that has been aired by PBS and the person who was mainly responsible for that documentary and many other documentaries, including Durham, a self-portrait, is Dr. Steve Channing, and he too is in the audience. So I'd like to give recognition to him. So I just want to let us know that all of us recognize that there are outstanding, as you say all the time, great things going on in Durham and great people who are here as our residents. Thank you, Madam Forteam. Because only great things can happen if great things, great people make them happen. Thank you very much. No priority items this evening. Thank you, Madam Mayor Forteam. No priority items. No items. Mayor Forteam, I'm very sorry to do this, but I do want to take a moment. When we're talking about the weather, keep in mind we also have a lot of city employees out helping make the city safe tonight. And I just want to express my appreciation for all those people as well. Thank you, sir, for saying that there, I don't know what we would do about them. They do the work. Now we will move to the consent agenda. These are items that we voted on without controversy during our work session, but items can be pulled from the consent agenda by any council member or someone in the audience. So I will go to the consent agenda and read them, and I do know that one item has been pulled. That is item five. First item is item one, Approval of City Council Minutes. Item two, 2013, Municipal Primary and Municipal City Elections, Durham County Board of Elections. Item three, Workforce Investment Act, dislocated worker funds contract between the City of Durham and educational data systems incorporated. Item four, Workforce Investment Act contract between the City of Durham and educational data systems of Dearborn, Michigan. Item five, Ordinance to Change Parking Fees, and that item has been pulled, and we will hear that at the end of the GBA public hearings. Those are all of the consent agenda items, and I will entertain a motion to accept them. Oh, you second. It's been moved in proper second. Madam Clerk, would you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes six as a rule. Going back to our public hearings, the first item is item six. Public hearing on proposed contract between Argos, therapeutics, Inc., and the City of Durham regarding incentives for capital investment within the city limits. I will open the public hearing and ask if there are any questions or comments from City Council members. Yes, sir. Oh, well, Kevin, we're going to limit you to five minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, members of City Council, staff, and residents and businesses of Durham. I'm Kevin Dick with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and I'm here this evening to present a proposed economic development incentive agreement between the City of Durham and Argos Therapeutics, Inc. Given the weather, I will be brief in my comments, and I won't even go through the entire PowerPoint presentation, but merely mention some of the highlights of this project. Before I do that, I do want to bring your attention to an item that was at your seats that reflects some slight changes to the item that were made after the work session, in response to some of the questions that arose, and basically what those changes were, were a few. Number one, the net tax revenues that were reported at the work session over a 10-year period were 1.77 million. Those are now 1.69 million. Also, the number of jobs to be created, as the proposed expansion has sort of evolved over the last few months, this number of net jobs actually is going up or slated to go up in the three-year period after a possible council approval from 118 jobs to 178, and so that is actually a positive change related to the project. This economic development incentive agreement would be for capital investment. The proposed payout would be $600,000 over a seven-year period, the dollars would come from incremental tax revenue, so there would be no money paid out until the building, which is slated to be off Alexander Drive and southeast Durham, is complete, and until all of the slated jobs are, well, until the building is complete, and then the payouts would be over time commensurate with the job creation that is also supposed to be over that time period, and so that the city is not at any risk because there are these condition precedents. A few other condition precedents include the fact that the company would enter into a workforce development plan that would basically provide a framework by which they would recruit possible applicants from the Durham Career Center. This would not necessarily be their only source of recruitment, but it would be a source of recruitment. Another stipulation is that they would enter into a Durham-based business plan so that their general contractor or the developer involved would at least make a good-faith effort to try to recruit local Durham firms. Argos is a very civically-minded company. Currently, they employ 90 workers, 25 to 30% of those are Durham residents. They recruit talent from local universities in the community college system. They do have employees currently from NCCU's Bright Program. They are very community-focused, as I said. They conduct an annual food drive for Durham and Eastern North Carolina food banks. And to give a little bit of information about the type of work Argos does, they are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of treatments for cancer and other infectious diseases. Again, as I stated in summary, $600,000 payout over seven years. The city would still net over $1 million in tax revenues over a 10-year period. And this economic development incentive agreement would allow the city to retain a company that is focused in several of the key industries which we covet, including biopharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and research and development. The jobs to be created are a wide variety. They include administrative jobs, research and development, manufacturing and quality assurance, as well as sales, marketing, and licensing. So there's a wide variety of Durham residents that could be recruited to fill these jobs. With that, I'll close my presentation. I would add that there are representatives from Argos here tonight that may wish to address the council if that's the council's pleasure. And I'm happy to take questions. Other questions from any of my colleagues? Thank you. I just wanted to say that it's great to hear that job total going up. And I was really just want to congratulate our staff for the fact that we have the... that the county is putting in as much as we are. I think this is progress. And I appreciate the county doing that. I appreciate our staff, Kevin, you all for making this happen. Thank you very much. And also, thank you for providing those answers to the work session questions. Incentive of the city by four times what we intend to put in over four times. Thank you for your work on this, Kevin. Someone from the chamber also signed up. Ted, you have two minutes. I will go under two minutes, I swear. Good evening. Well, I'm Ted Conner with the Durham Chamber of Commerce. My name is Ted Conner. I'm the Mayor Pro Tem Cora Cole McFadden and the members of the Durham City Council. I'd like to thank also Randall Goller with Argos Therapeutics who's joining us here tonight. Thank you for being here, Randall. I'd also like to recognize Beth Payne from Durham Technical Community College and Dr. Lee Ann Ye from North Carolina Central University's Bright Center. These two representatives be working with Argos to meet their workforce training and education needs. The great thing is this is primarily a very mixed-use project that's having a lot of R&D, but also this is primarily going to be an increase in their production capability, so it could be adding a lot of jobs for Durham residents. But I should also want to add that Argos Therapeutics is at the precipice of bringing innovative, personalized medical treatments to the market. This is a model that tailors medicines to human patients. In this case, Argos uses the patient's own cells and modifies them to create antigens to attack renal cell metastatic carcinoma or kidney cancer. So it's a whole different approach and it's taking place here in Durham, North Carolina, which is incredibly exciting. Other diseases that might be targeted by the company's methodology include other cancers, HIV and lupus. And the new building that is proposed can be expanded to accommodate other production lines to treat these other treatment options. So I think we'll hopefully see other expansions in the future, thus creating tremendous possibilities for Argos and for Durham, North Carolina. And simply said, Argos Therapeutics is a leader in developing personalized, patient medical treatments. The Durham Chamber and Durham is proud to have them stay here in Durham, which I hope. There's competition elsewhere from this country and outside our country for this company. We'd like to see them stay here with your support tonight. Thank you. I was brief as I was promised. As you said, that was right under two minutes. Now, with the individuals from Argos stand out, we would at least like to recognize your presence if you're here. And to thank you for loving Durham. May I pray to you? I just want to take a brief moment and just say that these are the kinds of jobs and the kinds of projects that we should be incentivizing. I think this is a really fine use of public capital. Thank you. It's not registered. I need to probably reset. It's not registered on Mayor Pro Temko McVadden. All in favor of letting me know about it. Sign on. Opposers have the same right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Did you get that recorded? Ms. Mayor Pro Temko, you turn your mic on. One, three. Thank you. I'm sorry. I got carried away, I guess. I need to go back through that. I'm fine. Okay. Pat? Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Temko and members of council. Pat Young with the Planning Department. First, can certify for the record that all public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with law and affidavits are on file with the Planning Department to that effect. The item before you request three separate actions, utility extension agreement, a zoning map change and an annexation. And these are associated with approximately 14.89 acres at the southeastern, excuse me, near the corner of Barbie Chapel Road and Farrington Mill Road, known as Montclair Phase II in southwest Durham. If all three items are approved, up to 24 single family housing units could be developed. If approved, the utility extension agreement would allow the applicant to serve the development with city water and sewer service. The public works department has conducted an analysis and found no adverse impacts to the utility system and no offsite improvements being required. An annexation petition, if approved, would bring the property into Durham City Limits. Fiscal impact analysis was conducted by the Budget Management Services Department and projected estimated revenues would exceed estimated expenditures very shortly after annexation. And finally, the initial zoning is being requested to plan Development Residential 2.00 and RR, or Rural Residential, for the subject property, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan that was noted before that would allow up to 24 single family housing units. Please note, and let the record reflect, there is a typographical error in Attachment 12, which is the proposed annexation ordinance. The correct effective date of pass should be March 31, 2014 rather than March 31, 2013. Staff recommends Council approve the extension agreement, voluntary annexation and initial zoning for Montclair II. The Planning Commission recommended approval to zero at its meeting of November 12, 2013. I'll be happy to take any questions. Are there any questions before I open the public hearing? If not, I will open the public hearing. I have two individuals who have signed up to speak. One proponent, Jared Eatons, and an opponent, Michael Henning. I will give each of you three minutes. Is that sufficient, sir? Yes, ma'am. Thanks. Good evening, Jared Eatons with Eatons Land Corp. I'm here representing my clients, David Weekly Holmes. I appreciate Pat's summary of the project. I'm only going to touch on a couple of items in my three minutes here. This is Phase 2 for Montclair. As you may recall, City Council approved Phase 1 of this project in February of last year, which included 53 single family homes. Since that time, Phase 1 has been approved. Site plan approved and construction will begin in the next month or so on Phase 1. You may recall that Phase 1 also included a regional pump station that's actually sized to serve a much larger basin. This Montclair Phase 2 is located inside that drainage basin to the pump station. As Pat's said, we are requesting something that conforms to the comprehensive plan, and we had a neighborhood meeting back in November. We did not have any opposition at the Planning Commission meeting where we received unanimous approval. There are two specific items that I want to touch on. We realized, we saw from the staff report that the rezoning will result in additional three students to the Durham school system. My clients are willing to help offset some of this cost, so what we are offering tonight is some county schools that's $500 per additional student. That payment will be made prior to the first issuance of a CO for Phase 2 of the project. One other item I want to talk about, we were approached last week by Mr. Heining, one of our neighbors, about a request to construct a chain link fence along our common property line between our property and Mr. Heining's. My clients are really not interested in doing that. We don't think that a chain link fence would really do anything. I know Mr. Heining is trying to prevent people from trespassing on his property. Our issues with that is one, a fence won't work as you can climb over fences and you can walk around fences. And two, there is an item, there's a mechanism in place in Durham for trespassing and it's called law enforcement. If we fenced every property line in Durham where there was the potential for someone to cross over on doing adjacent property, then we would just have fences everywhere. What my client is offering up in lieu of a fence is a 25 foot undisturbed buffer along our common property line between our property and Mr. Heining. We feel that a 25 foot buffer would be more valuable to Mr. Heining as well as our residents. And the 10 foot buffer that the code currently requires so it's additional 15 feet. We're offering that up tonight. I believe Pat has the pin numbers for Mr. Heining's property so that we can write it up accordingly. But I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. You have three minutes, sir. Thank you. My name is Michael Heining. Together with my wife Debra, we live at 8118 Farrington Mill Road and we are developing a 12 plus acre family farm. We have a couple of ponds on it. We have over 50 fruit trees. We have blueberries, raspberries, bucklberries, you name it. And everything that goes along with the farm. And we share about a thousand linear feet of space of property line with the development. And what we're called is an attractive nuisance. And this is a safety concern. We supported phase one of this development. And we did it because of Barbie Chapel Church. That church was not able to grow. It needed land. And this phase one allowed that to happen so we were happy to do that. But phase two will double the number of homes. And I can put up a fast sign. I don't think that's going to keep the kids out. What we're worried about is an accident. Pulling some child out of the pond or fixing up a crack when they fall out of a fruit tree. And 25 feet is less the distance from here to that sign right there, that wall. That's not much. And we don't have to put the fence but if they don't I think twice the number of houses is twice the number of children and I think they're going to come across on that farm and I just don't want to take that chance. And so without the fence I'd recommend that you not approve this. Thank you. Are there others who wish to speak on this item? Madam Mayor Pertima, if I might quickly have, we did, we're able to evaluate the proposed proffers that were offered tonight by the applicant. We can't accept both with one minor modification. The timing mechanism on the payment to Durham Public Schools must be prior to the first final plat. Other than that, we can accept them as proposed by the applicant. So Mr. Edens you are prepared to comply with that. I need to hear you say something. Yeah. Come to the mic. Make sure we pick that up. Prior to the final plat is fine. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I want to raise the issue that Mayor Bail mentioned. Unfortunately, you know, you could not be here tonight and that's the use of vinyl siding. Oh, that's that's the next. I'm sorry. There are three. I'm sorry. Let's see if it's working. Okay. I want to thank Mr. Heine for coming out tonight and speaking on this. I I understand your concerns and your issues. I have a hard time. I'm still struggling with whether or not fencing a thousand feet there's the right thing to do. I know it is for you and I just wanted to appreciate you for coming out and speaking to us tonight. The motion to spin moved and properly second. Madam clerk would you open the vote? Close the vote. The next item is item eight comprehensive plan amendment Meadows south point two. Case a one three zero zero zero seven Patrick. Thank you again. Madam mayor pro tem and members of council pat young with the planning department. The applicant in this case is Meadows land investment LLC they're requesting to amend the future land use map for approximately 46.9 acres at the southeast corner of the county and C 54 and barby road. From its current designations of office and commercial to low medium density residential. Staff has determined this request meets the four criteria for plan amendments outlined in the UDO and staff recommends approval of this request. The planning commission recommended approval by vote of 13 to one at its November 12, 2013 meeting. I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions by my colleagues person who was signed up to speak speak and that is where's George. Mr. George. George you have unless there's a card I don't I don't I don't see that for number eight. George you have I don't think we have any opponents. So George I'll give you two minutes please. Well well you can you signed up for nine. Well eight must be still over there because I definitely don't have it. George please. Yeah he can speak. You can speak. Can I call you when George. Good evening Madam Mayor Pro Tem and council members my name is George Bryan and I reside at 6505 Hunters Lane in Durham. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Hunters Wood neighborhood. The neighborhood had requested from the beginning that the applicant place a residential land use designation on the property under consideration if he was going to propose a residential development. The applicant is requesting a low medium density land use designation. We thank the applicant for listening to us and we support his request. Thank you. Mr. Spaulding what can you add to that. You don't want to. Madam Mayor Pro Tem and and council members what I add to it is we thank the neighborhood and thank the council the commissioners and staff. Thank you sir. Are there other citizens who'd like to speak on this item. If not the matter is back before the council. It's been moved in probably second. I need to close the public hearing. Let me close the public hearing and the matter is back before the council. All move that. Okay. Madam clerk would you open the vote. Close the vote. Thank you. It passes 6 to 0. Thank you sir. The next item is item nine zoning map change meadows the south point to KC one three zero zero zero zero two zero. Thank you again. Miss me. Madam Mayor Pro Tem and members of council. The case before you minutes at south point to is a request to change the zoning designation of forty six point nine acres the same property that was considered in the previous item located in the southeast quadrant of Barbie Road in NC fifty four from its current designation of role residential or R. R. and office institutional to to to allow for a maximum density of excuse me a maximum residential development of one hundred and eighty five units of any type. And the applicant is requesting a P. D. R. zoning designation. This request is consistent with the future land use designation of the comprehensive plan. There are a number of text graphic and design commitments associated with this request. These are detailed in your staff report I will summarize several of them. Water aeration measures for storm water facilities are committed a hundred foot national natural buffer to adjacent properties dedication of additional right away along in C. fifty four installation of additional asphalt along in C. fifty four for a bicycle lane the commitment of a bus pullout and concrete pattern shelter and roadway improvements at the site entrances along in C. fifty four and Barbie Road. Our staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted policies and ordinances and the planning commission recommended approval at its number twelve two thousand thirteen meeting by vote of thirteen to one. I'll be happy to take any questions. Are there any questions from my colleagues. If not I will open the public hearing I have. Mr. Brian and. Mr. Spaulding attorney Spaulding in that order. Let George. So you can see what you said. Good evening again. I'm still George Brian and I still reside at six five oh five hundred lane in Durham. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Hunterswood neighborhood. The neighborhood have requested from the beginning that the applicant use a residential zoning if he was going to propose a residential development. The applicant is requesting a PDR four point seven one eight zoning. Again we thank the applicant for listening to us and we support his request. Overall we think that the applicant's present proposal is considerably improved over his previous proposal. Some highlights include lower density less traffic town homes rather than apartments owner occupied dwellings rather than rental. No storage units or other commercial component additional buffer on the perimeter and air rated stormwater ponds. As I indicated in an earlier message to you we do have a concern about a proposed driveway connection. Durham staff has insisted that the applicant provide a full access driveway on the barbie road. We believe that the driveway location together with the limited site distances on barbie road make the full access driveway on barbie road hazardous particularly for making left turns out of and into the proposed development. We further believe that the right in right out driveway access on the barbie road that was originally proposed by the applicant is a much safer alternative. It is our understanding that the initially proposed right in right out access on the barbie road was acceptable to NCDOT. We asked that council direct staff to reexamine the need for full access driveway on the barbie road. Furthermore if a full access driveway is the only alternative then we asked the warning signage be posted to help mitigate the hazard. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. You have the same amount. Thank you. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem and members of the council again. My name is Ken Spaulding. I represent the applicant. We would like to thank Mr. Brian and the many neighbors that have met with us over the many many months as it relates to this project and development. They have helped us to come forward with a much better plan as they pointed out. We do not have as much density. The apartments have been changed to town homes that the residents wanted. We did file the initial application without any entrance or exits on to barbie road. The planning staff directed and indicated that what we have in that present is what they have required us to do. And we followed that requirement. Again it was pointed out no public storage or gas station. The staff has recommended approval. The planning commission overwhelmingly recommended approval and we would respectfully request your approval as well. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Spaulding. By the way I just found your other contact. Out of courtesy. I don't want people to think you are not being honest. For Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Cotati. Actually my question is for staff. I wonder if members of the Durham DOT could address the concern on the right in right out intersection. Bill Judge for transportation. We are aware and NC DOT is aware of Mr. Brian's concern about site distance. We looked at it and we believe there is adequate site distance. Part of the concern has to do with the site obstruction or the vertical alignment is actually to the left as you would be exiting. So right in right out really would not address that because you would still mean to look to your left as you're exiting the site in order to have adequate site distance. So we believe there is adequate site distance but regardless prior to them getting final construction approval if this is approved they will have to demonstrate and document that that site distance including any improvements that NC DOT requires whether that's warning signs or any of those other measures. Are there any other questions. I had one other point and I was just trying to scroll through and find this piece but the mayor had expressed a concern about vinyl siding and was wondering if it was possible to have that siding option struck from the design elements. Can staff remind me exactly where that is. I thought it was in the table but. Yes. Councilman Catati the design elements that's currently proposed do allow explicitly allow vinyl as an allowable material we would accept. We can enforce a voluntarily offered proper to limit or restrict the materials. On behalf of the applicant they would go along with the removal of that from the design guidelines. Thank you. What will you have there. To remove the vinyl committed element or vinyl guideline aspect there siding suit. Okay. Our preference would be that vinyl be identified as a prohibited material rather than just removing it from list of potential materials because the way the list is written. It's perfectly fine just to strike the word vinyl from the committed element. Jim Anderson applicant two or four edge water circle Chapel Hill. I just wanted to make sure it was vinyl siding that was being struck and that vinyl windows for example would be appropriate still. Mrs. Spaulding were you going to speak George could you come up and speak to the conversation you have with the mayor. Yes man George stands the aisle with Stuart. I think his concern was the use of vinyl siding metal or vinyl siding as a material just the siding itself. And so what we're willing to do and we have I think it's vinyl I can't remember if it's vinyl and metal or just vinyl siding in our design commitments. So we would strike that or we would prohibit the use of vinyl siding in the project. So that would be stricken from our from our from our design commitments. Instead it would be hardy plank type siding. Right. It's a cementatious siding. Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure. Mr. Sure. Thank you Madam Mayor Pro Tem looks like you all are this project would add one student during public schools a small impact. I was wondering if you all had any thoughts about getting that. The impact would be one student and I've talked to develop about it and they would proper the five hundred dollar payment in lieu of in regard to the one student difference that they will make. Just one point of clarification that would have to be at the time of site plan approval. So at the time of site plan approval. Thank you. Are there any other questions or concerns that my colleagues might have. Well the matters back before you and I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion on this item. It's been moved in proper south second matter to open the vote close the vote. It passes six zero. The item that was pulled from the consent agenda. Was pulled by William Ariole and Kate Dobbs Ariole. I'll give each of you two minutes. No we're not yielding tonight. You can speak or he can. He has two minutes. I have I have a prepared statement that's a two page statement for you. I assure you that I can two minutes. That'll be fine. It is not. I don't know how much longer it is. I haven't timed it but I'm certain it's slightly over that. Our clerk will is timing it for you. So when the buzzer stops we will ask and you can pass those things to us just pass those to us and we can. She just give them to Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the council. I'm Coke Ariel. And that is my wife Kate with me. We live at three fifty one hello. We live at three fifty one West Main Street in downtown Durham. I'd like again to speak for both myself and my wife and tell you that once again I'm asking you to grant us some relief to the residents of downtown Durham who accepted your proposition to park for free if we would come and build our buildings here. I do want to thank those of you who have listened to us and person and been sympathetic to our calls particularly Jean Brown and Don Moffat who have spent time with us. And I think Steve too for coming around and talking as I have stated previously the proposed new parking fees as well seem to turn your back on your previous agreement are in fact a hardship for a number of us. Purchasing a place to live is not a decision to be taken lightly nor need to financially earn emotionally nor is it easily reversed. We undertook to do so based in large part on our understanding the city would grant us free parking. For Kate and myself these fees are a hardship and we question now our ability to live downtown. Today in looking at chart it in looking to charge residents to park you seem to be guided by the thought that by not doing so the city will lose money. I would suggest to you that granting free parking to us has in fact increased the city's coffers on every hand. How many paying customers did the city have 10 or 20 years ago before it granted resident free parking. I can tell you it had far fewer than you have now. Granting free parking has not cost you money but has had the opposite effect of increasing the number of paying customers. How many of them would be here today if you had not first asked us to come and make them want to be here. How much money were you making from property taxes on downtown Durham that long ago. My property taxes have gone up 900 percent have not all property taxes gone up. What realtor wanted to handle property then sir your time is up. Madam I truly object you gave our opponents more than an hour in their in their proposal. We would seriously like to read this. What are you referring to. You're the only person who are here tonight. I believe it was the Kimley Horn proposal that we were found objection. Sir. I told you at the beginning you had two minutes and I would respectfully ask that you honor that and we do have the rest of your remarks here. Thank you. House members we have before us. Mr. Moffitt did you want to speak to this for a couple minutes. Thank you. I'll just take a moment and say that as I've said to each of you I do think that when we look at what has been shown as to be the cost of the downtown parking if we gave discounts it's actually an increase in income to the city over what we currently get. And when this when we're charging full rates we're going to be asking 130 people to pay an additional hundred thousand dollars a year towards to the city. And these are people who are already paying 12% higher property tax rate than we pay. And so I did think as I said in the work session I think a 10 year phase in period at half the market rate gives them a much more substantial opportunity to adjust and I think is reasonable and fair and I'll leave it at that. There are other comments by Council members. Mr. Schultz. Thank you Madam Mayor Pro Tem. Excuse me. To me that the difficulty here which I've discussed now several times with it we've all discussed with our city attorney. I know that for me I'm I am I would be very supportive of what Don has proposed or something like it for the people who I consider to be the what we've been calling the pioneers. So they're roughly twenty one of those I believe but it's my understanding that that is not a legal option that is available to us and I'm not so I am I don't think that the people that came down after linear started doing this in 08 are I don't I don't think that that benefit should be extended to them. So that is that's the problem that I'm having with this. And I wonder if our city attorney could speak to that and again and explain what the problem is. Thank you Councilman Schultz. The issue is making sure that every similarly situated individuals are treated the same. When we first started looking at this I made the suggestion that you not make any differentiation between current residents and future residents and based on conversations that we had at that particular work session we took a look at the local legislation that we have that's unique to Durham and I won't say anything changed other than you know as we were looking at the interpretation of it and how it could be read and whether it's defensible. We did come back to the administration and and make the recommendation that we could also support a distinction between current residents all current residents going and then going forward future residents if you wanted to make that distinction where we struggle with is an idea of in 2000 now 14 determining in 2007 or 2008 that that's going to be the bright line tests and residents that came here before then will be treated one way and residents who came here after then will be treated another way. You're talking about essentially retroactively defining what the program is. And I just think that that would be arbitrary and capricious and would not withstand any legal challenge. So whatever it is that you do a recommendation is that you treat everyone all residents who are currently here the same and not make any distinctions. You know looking back a few years. Madam Mayor Pro Tem I know that there's been an issue raised about the possibility of people in the the Corcoran Street lot using the having the surface lot price instead of the deck deck price and I wondered if our staff could comment on that possibility. Mark Aaron's and transportation. The Corcoran Street deck actually operates as one facility. That's why we historically have never charged different rates for whether people park in the surface lot or the deck there's one rate that's chart that historically has been charged in that facility and people can choose whether they park in the surface lot or the deck. But the way the deck is configured or whether facility the parking facility is configured it operates as one. We don't really have a way to operationally distinguish between the how we handle the surface. So we've always treated it as one and charged it at the deck rate. Just went to comment on that briefly. The problem is of course is that many of the residents who live along main street don't want to park in the deck. They want to be able to see their cars at night because of the increased risk of breakings and theft. And so under our current setup they have to pay an increased price to park on the surface lot. And so what I had suggested previously was that for those for our residents who are want to park and have a stated desire to park in a surface lot that they pay a surface lot price. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. I'd like to ask that city attorney I'm a little just a little confused here. Two work sessions ago I raised the because I did not know this would actually become or end up becoming a legal issue. And so I suggested to their very fine and esteemed attorney do what attorneys are supposed to do and something like this and that's to find a loophole legally loophole. And so I guess option to mark what we're referring to here this evening is somewhat of a compromise that a monthly parking rate will be a half the market rate for the next three years. So the question though I would ask is why is this legal as opposed to last month when we discussed it. Mr. Attorney you seem to be a little dubious about doing anything legal. I'm not sure if you word about correctly. The the the the issue specifically was who is going to pay what and my initial reaction was every down whatever you define as downtown resident they should all pay the same whether they've been here since 1988 or they come here in 2016 they should all pay the same rate. Based on the comments that you had raised I took another look at the particularly the local legislation because that's real that is the thing that allows us to do something different. Otherwise we don't have the ability to to make you know changes to who is going to pay what based on where they live. But this particular legislation allows us to do that. And and our recommendation then is if you want to to have a quote unquote pioneer rate going forward or some sort of discount recognizing the the contributions that have been made then treat all current residents a certain way for this phase out plan and then future residents would come in and pay the market rate. So once this is passed people who were coming in in six months would pay a different rate than the people who have been there. So it's it's really just a a trying to make sure that I can make a straight argument that folks are similarly situated going forward and not to be in a situation where quite frankly if again in 2014 if you determine that January 1 2008 is the cut off date then the challenge would be what about January the second 2008 what's the why is it seems arbitrary and capricious to me. I couldn't make a an argument that I think would be a winning argument if we got challenged and I suspect that we would given the number of residents that have come in to downtown Durham since that time. Thank you. Are there other questions. If not I will entertain a motion to approve or not this item. Yes sir. I want to move to have the fee be half of the proposed fee for a period of five years. Half of the the regular fee I'm not sure the exact wording on that. Oh second. I'm sure can you repeat your motion please. I hope I can madam. Madam clerk. I would move that we I think a better way to say this and you all can help me that we would do option two but we would have this over a five year period. Maybe someone can help me prove that. I think that's through December 31st 2019. No I'm sorry through December 31st 2018. Then I'm assuming that they would go to the market rates whatever those rates would be. Yes January. That would be my attention. 2019. So we have a motion of second. Just for clarification is that an additional fifty thousand or additional hundred thousand. I'm still not clear on whether it's one year or two years. Sounds like we're adding the motion adds two years at a discounted rate and where the the cost difference between the discounted rate and the full rate is approximately fifty thousand per year so that would be one hundred thousand dollars. For two additional years. One hundred thousand an additional one hundred thousand dollars. Yes that my intention was the two years you know I think that these folks have. Especially those who have been down here a long time are taking a couple of different hits here. I would prefer that if we could separate them from our the rest of the folks who were. Who have moved in downtown but it doesn't seem that we can and so I think this is reasonable. Of a motion on the second madam clerk with your vote. It passes six to zero. Thank you very. There's no other business to come before this. Now declare it adjourned.