 I'm sorry, my computer's being slow about downloading these. There they are. There we go. Here's my headphone. All right. Well, I guess I'll say hi to everybody. This is a meeting of the City Council's legislative committee. It's Friday, November 13th at 3 p.m. I'm the chair of the committee, Charlie Reese. I'm also privileged to be a member of the Durham City Council. I have lots of my colleagues on the meeting with us. And one of the committee members is still not here. So I think we'll maybe vamp a little bit until he logs on. We just got off another Zoom, not terribly long ago, together. And so he may have tried to get something to eat in between. If members of the committee want to announce themselves, so Mayor Schull, let's go ahead and do that. Good afternoon, Councilmember Reese and everybody else. Glad to be here this afternoon. Yes, thank you. Greetings, Pierce Freelon here. I do have some food over to my right, which I will be munching on on silent throughout the meeting. Sounds good to me. I see two other of my councilor colleagues, Mayor Pro Tem Gillian Johnson and Councilmember Freeman and President, if you guys want to say how to the folks watching at home, this is the time to do that. Hey, thanks. Yeah, Gillian Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem. I am not on this committee, but I just love our legislative agenda. So I'm here to observe and weigh in if it is desired. Thanks. The good news is the legislative agenda loves you too. Councilmember Freeman, your wave was greeting enough. You can say hi. We're just waiting. Good afternoon, everyone. The Adriana Freeman, just visiting the legislative committee. I see Councilmember Cabillera is logged in. Aloha. So I thought, yes, go right ahead, Mr. Mayor. Oh, no, that's Karmisha. Hi, that's Karmisha. Wow, Karmisha. By the way, you are totally winning the Zoom background award today. That is an astonishing setup. Perfect. I love it when a plan comes together. So good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the legislative subcommittee. I'm Karmisha Wallace, Assistant to the City Manager. And I know who is Ms. Wanda Page, who is on this call. So I certainly want to recognize Ms. Page, who is here. I also want to recognize Krista Kukaro, who is providing support from the city attorney's office. And Krista and I have been in communication on these legislative proposals. And then, of course, our city clerk is here capturing the minutes of this very important discussion. Meanwhile, we do have some guests who are joining us in the Zoom meeting today. And one, being Senator Mike Woodard, who, of course, is a former Councilmember and is now one of our state senators. And so Senator Woodard was able to join in for the last subcommittee meeting. I would send another meeting with him. And he says, the good thing about the virtual environment, he gets to go to even more meetings now than what he did since COVID. I just wanted to acknowledge Senator Woodard, who's on with us today, along with some other guests. And I will point out that some of our other guests include Jacob Rogers, who's here on behalf of the Board of Adjustments. Jim Samara, who I know that most of you know, as well as Ryan Smith from the Office of Performance and Innovation. It is now 3.06. Mr. Mayor, do you have any advice for me about whether or not we should wait just a bit more for Council? I don't. I don't have any advice for you, Mr. Chair. I think he knows about the meeting. It is now 3.06. Go ahead. He knows about the meeting right. And I know you've talked to him about it before. You remind him, so no advice. Tell you what, let me do one more quick thing. Yeah, I appreciate all the support, Mr. Mayor. So, all right, so let's go ahead and get started then. We have three or four members. Councilmember Middleton will be with us shortly, I expect. And we also have every other member of the Council on to participate, so that's fantastic as well. It makes me feel special that they all want to be on when I'm chairing a meeting, because that's very thoughtful. Karmisha, I think that is the, that does it for the first item on our agenda. Why don't you go ahead and get started on the second item? Sure. So, you all should have received, let me rewind. This legislative subcommittee met two weeks ago on Friday, October 30th to discuss the proposals that were submitted by city staff, as well as by city council members. And at the conclusion of that meeting, the subcommittee wanted or asked that I get some feedback from the city's boards committees commissions to see if they had any legislative proposals that they would like for this subcommittee to consider for input into the legislative agenda. So after our last subcommittee meeting, I did reach out to every city board committee commission chair, as well as their staff liaison to let them know about the process and to ask for their feed, their input. I received one proposal from the board of adjustment. And I say from the board of adjustment, Jacob Rogers was the individual who submitted it on behalf of the board of adjustment. And so I've included that, afforded that to you in an email. And in essence, what the board of adjustment is looking to do is to amend state statute. Sorry, I think my camera may have gone off to amend the state statute. Okay. To accommodate for quasi judicial hearing. So this legislation that's currently at play is one that was created as a result of working, conducting public hearings in the virtual environment. And so the board of adjustment has experienced some challenges with the public hearing. And so I think in some instances where people have requested to continue quasi judicial hearings. And so what the board of adjustment is looking to do is to be allowed to continue the public hearing to a set period of time, I believe in that set period of time is 30 days. I think that the way that the statute is currently written. It just could continue indefinitely. So I think that the board of adjustment is looking to create some concern for the applicant as well as opponents. And again, this is specific to quasi judicial hearing. So I got that request fairly quickly after asking for it. So I do know that this is something that has been a concern while in the virtual environment. So if there are any questions for that, then we can certainly make Mr. Rogers available to speak or there are no questions. Do either of the my colleagues on the committee have any questions about that proposal? Pretty straightforward. Mr. Mayor, you got a thumbs up there. I really appreciate the board of adjustment for coming forward with that. Also appreciate Mr. Rogers being with us on the call, but I don't have any questions and neither does anybody else in the committee. My sense is I'm very happy to recommend that we move that forward on to our legislative agenda. Good. Thank you very much. And so moving on to the next series of items, these are requests that came from the deer program as would in partnership with the North Carolina Justice Center. And these items were submitted by Ryan Smith, who's on the call with us today as well. And so when we last met, there was some talk about some legislative proposals that we submitted in the past relative to driver's license expunctions and voluntary dismissals. And so there was the legislation passed. The name was second chance act. And while there were some advances made in that legislation, deer as well as NC justice center would like to further some of that work. And so the first item that they are recommending or asking is an amendment to state law to eliminate driver's license suspension for non-public safety related matters. So just the brief description that I've included here that a driver's license can be suspended indefinitely for failure to pay traffic tickets or for failure to appear in court for minor traffic violations. And so the recommendation is that driver's license not be suspended for non-payment of funds, particularly since the impact is primarily on people due to their inability to pay. And quite frankly, the group felt there was no correlation between that and road safety. So again, Ryan is on the call. Are there any questions? Not. Are these recommendations that we're going to hear from deer and the justice center through Ryan Smith. Are these envisioned as replacements for the previous items that were on our agenda? Yeah. There's there's a connection with what was on the previous item, but these items, these items were not addressed in the second chance act. So these are. Right. These are kind of the leftover pieces that didn't get, didn't get passed. That's great. Okay. Thank you. And there are how many of these. Are coming in from deer and the justice center. I'd see one to like six of them. Yes. All right. Well, let's take them one at a time. Do any of my colleagues have questions for Ryan on the. On item number two. On this on the legislative proposals. Yeah. No, I think that seems pretty straightforward as well. And would make a huge difference to folks. So let's move that on to our legislative agenda. And move on to the next item. All right. And so the next item is to eliminate permanent suspensions for non DWI related convictions. And so again, this is an item that came through the same, same associations, but in 2015, there was state law that eliminated this, this proposal is looking to eliminate a permanent suspension for driving while license is revoked. So right now under the statute 20 dash 28.1 still allows permanent suspension for three or more moving violation convictions. So again, just folks felt like this was just another barrier that interferes with people's inability to, to, to go about their daily lives basically. So the only thing that this would change would be to remove that permanent suspicion suspension for three or more moving violations. All right, seems clearly stated. Do any of my council colleagues on the committee have any questions or concerns they want to raise about that. And Ryan is adding in the chat, those that do not involve DWIs. So I actually have a question for Ryan. Can we, can you make him available for us on this? Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Good afternoon. Other members of council. This is Ryan. Ryan, thank you for being on the call today and also for making these proposals. This is, these are pretty great. So I'm really happy to be here with you all. Have a great evening, everybody. Thank you. Absolutely. Can you tell me. With this. So is there a permanent revocation for. Things like. A conviction for vehicular homicide, for example, or some other. Some other. Moving violation that results in. The death of an individual. I'm not a lawyer as much as I feel like I've gotten a lot of training through my close work with deer over the last two and a half years. This is what I know, I want to clarify a couple points. So one of the requests of the deer team is while in 2015 the general assembly amended 20-28.1 to eliminate permanent suspensions for out driving while licensed revoked, they did not make that retroactive. So one of their request is let's also make that retroactive because it didn't clear out the backlog for individuals who had that issue. So that's one part of clarification that I wanted to add. And then the only I cannot speak to the specifics of your question but I would be happy to follow up and get a get a memo with any detailed questions from our colleagues at the Justice Center who I would feel more confident in them answering some of the logistics around or the details of that. So Ryan here's my here's my question is that there are and my connection is unstable so I apologize will struggle through the the what how it reads is eliminate permanent suspensions for non DWI related convictions. I just don't know if there are, aside from the three or more moving violations. Is there any other act or or status or or conviction that would trigger a permanent suspension that is not DWI related, aside from the three or more moving violations. I guess the other question is, does with this revision. Does it actually call for removing all permanent suspensions that are not DWI related, or is it just the three or more moving violation permanent suspension. Does that make sense. That makes sense and I can reach out and I would be able to get back to all answers I'm sure about early next week. Let's do that. Let me just say, I think it's a great idea to reduce the number of per the number of permanent suspensions. But for the reasons that are stated and that have been explained. I just also want to make sure that we don't end up accidentally endorsing ending permanent suspensions for things that maybe we think ought to be permanent. To the extent that a suspension is ever permanent because like it says, it's basically a three year elimination of the driving privilege and then some additional hearing so thank you Ryan I appreciate it. Yes sir, I'll get working on it. Anybody else on the committee have any questions or concerns. Yeah, I appreciate you bringing that up Charlie the thing that came up in my mind or Mr chair, the thing that came up in my mind was like a hit and run or something like that that may not be DWI related but might totally be something we want somebody to have their license suspended for but I don't even know if that would be considered, you know, a driving thing or if it's assault with the deadly weapon like I just don't know enough and would like more questions. Yeah, no, the reason I got into it is because I do have some experience with traffic convictions, not personally, but as a long ago as a I was a traffic or prosecutor. And I just don't. I think the law has changed a bit since I was doing that and also, I don't think as a prosecutor ever really got involved or whether or not a particular conviction or charge or offense would trigger any kind of suspension or permanent so I know it's a thing but I don't know what the thing is so I know Ryan's going to help us learn more about that. In the days to come, but you know as long as I can get some comfort around what if it's just the three non moving violation provision that's being removed. I'm very very comfortable with it. Yeah, but if it's anything non DWI related I think we'd want to have more conversation about right. Mr Mayor anything you want to say before we move on to number four. Then we're moving on to number four sounds like a wise course of action. Thank you. So the next item on the list is another gift from Ryan. Expand function relief to allow automated expansion of eligible convictions and again the second chance at became law in June of this year and so this is looking to expand expansion relief to allow for automatic expansion of charges that are dismissed, starting in December 2021. So basically, there's a gap between the amount of people who are eligible for convention expansion and those who actually have their conditions expunged. And I'm happy to add any clarifying points here and talking to our colleagues at the center today on this one. I think the clearest way I can describe it is we have automatic expansion under the second chance act for dismiss charges only, but the law allows for other some other types of convictions to be expunged but there is not automatic expansion. So we're trying to allow for those currently. And we know that in the absence of automatic expansion, we're going to have individuals who have charges on their record and convictions on the record that are eligible to be expunged under the law but they're not getting expunged because of lack of access to an attorney or other types of barriers and so we're trying to, if it's eligible under the law we'd like the system to take care of removing that from someone's record. That's the basic part part of this. I just have a quick question. Why, why 2021 December, is that like a clerical thing or just takes a while for them to be able to put the new procedure into practice. I think that's probably what the delay was. Yeah, usually, I mean, in my experience in conversations with AOC a lot of these things are just figuring out how to once the law is passed how to administer it and make sure that the automatic nature is happening. And that usually requires some work because our system, we have an outdated court record system, it is still largely paper based, and these, these technical things are tricky for the state to figure out how to do, which is one reason that we are working on what will be an expensive but necessary complete overhaul and upgrade of our court record system that will make more things possible in the future but I think that's the reason for why the, why the current law that passed allowed for automatic expansions for dismissals but only beginning in December of 2021 but I can see clarity on that and provide an answer to that question. Thank you. Yes, sir. Anybody else have any other questions about this particular item. No, I think it's, it's, this is a good effort to try to fill that gap and happy to move it on to the legislative agenda. Good. So the next item is a recommendation or request to repeal the North Carolina drug tax. So, apparently state law imposing the tax on quote unauthorized substances. No one is in possession of a minimum amount of that control substance or an authorized substance, then they are obligated to pay taxes on that substance within 48 hours of when they first came into their possession. And so, there's a request to do away with that drug tax. Wow. Yeah. That seems like a good idea. Anybody else how much revenue the state collects from such a tax, but the taxes in place. Okay, I think it's safe to say that we're going to be on board with that. And let's let's put that on the agenda on the legislative agenda and move on to the next thing. So the next two items are related. But there's a distinction so they are related because the intent of both items is to ban the box so to speak. And so the first item is banning the box relative to public housing. So right now, people who apply for public housing have to or are expected to indicate on their application if and when they have a criminal record, which of course creates a ripple effect for them. I think in most cases they're not permitted to to lease public housing if they have a criminal record which obviously public housing is based on income. So if the income doesn't meet the market rate, then that creates a host of challenges and ripple effects for them. So as many of you know the city of Durham has banned the box on its employment application and so this is an effort to seek something similar for public housing specifically. Ryan, are you still available for us. Yes, sir. Is the is the band the box move for public housing. Is that an issue for the federal government. Is that a HUD regulation of some kind. So I asked that question of our attorneys are one of the attorneys I was speaking to at the Justice Center she believed that it could be handled at the state level but I could go back and ask for clarification. I'd be happy to put that back to you all. It wouldn't surprise me that if is if other states had done this than the answers pretty clear. I'm I would be very excited to put it on the legislative agenda and if our delegation comes back and says yeah we, we got our legislative staff looking at this and they think it's a federal issue then we can certainly issue a strongly worded letter to our congressional delegation, asking them to support this change in federal law but I think I think I'm perfectly comfortable putting it on our agenda. If my colleagues have any thoughts. I think it's good to put on the agenda I also thought it was a federal regulation though so we'll find out. We will we will indeed exactly right. Councilor. Just wrong but. Okay, on to the next information. Alrighty, so again that the last item from dear into Justice Center again is a request to ban the box and this is relative to a fair chance housing, I'm sorry, hiring sorry about that. I'll tell people to apply for four positions without having to divulge that they have a criminal record, at least in the initial stages of the process and again. This is an effort that the city of Durham has already implemented some years ago and so just looking to make that broader at the state level. Why I got a fantastic idea. Alex, what do you think. Okay, let's move that on to our legislative agenda with a big hearty yeehaw and are the is that the so that that's item number seven. Are these all of the specific written proposals that we receive from our boards committees and commissions. So the only proposal written proposals that that we receive from the boards committees commission. Great. So that there are some items that were shared today. Right so I guess it was late last week early this week we received an email from the environmental affairs board. We obtained three or four bulleted or numbered items that appeared upon reflection to be better suited for our advocacy agenda. Just because they didn't appear to advocate any specific legislation, but were more geared toward the city should support these efforts. So that that kind of agenda. And so that was the reason why I had recommended earlier today that we do that. Let me see if I can find that. That email where did that go. There we go. And so those items. And I'll just. We're number one closely follow and support legislation that considers changes to the current regulated monopoly structure for energy utilities. I think. And I think all of these things are going to be items that flow directly out of the recent agreement the city entered into with Duke energy. And I think that there are some of the things that we definitely wanted to get done to help the city meet our sustainability goals in the in the decades to come. Number two, support any legislation that expands access to low cost financing for renewable energy or energy efficiency. And number three, support increase of appropriation funding for the state's energy and technology centers. I don't know if my colleagues had any thoughts about which part of the agenda they might want to go on. Councilman Middleton, how's it going, representing Brooklyn as always. Good to see you. Well, thank you sorry guys I'm multitasking in between assignments so forgive me I'm dialed into. Did you did you change clothes since our last zoom. Wow. Okay. And shower to so I didn't know there was a wardrobe change I would have I would have done that myself now I'm embarrassed. So, I can't think we were just going over the email that we got from a Casey Collins from the Environmental Affairs Board, and those three numbered items that they wanted to add to our agenda. And was, I guess we were trying to decide or about to talk about whether or not they were better suited for the legislative agenda the advocacy agenda and I had made a suggestion by email earlier today. But I'm not strongly wedded to it. I didn't know if anybody else had thoughts. I think that's fine. I think that you're right it's not as it's not specific legislation that's been asked for. I do think they're important things and I think they are as opposed to some of the other things that we've got on our agenda. Council member Reese as we discussed. Maybe it was. There's some some of these things I think could be could get minority, I mean, majority party support Republican support, as opposed to some of the other things on our agenda that might not. So I do think it will be good to talk to our delegation about it but I think you're right it going on the advocacy agenda makes perfect sense. Okay. Great. I guess, Kermisha the next item I wanted to do is, or is it already on the agenda kind of the follow up from some of the open items at our last meeting. And I'm having a hard time pulling up the actual agenda now hold on where to go. There it is. So I guess that's maybe the next item on the agenda is to kind of walk back through that list. And there were I had we had some a few questions and request for additional information I know we had. And then there were I think three items that council member Freeman had put on that we wanted some more information. And she is on the call with us today to help us with that. So why don't we go ahead and just go down that list. If that's all right with you, Kermisha. I think that's a good way to proceed. And so I think what I have the first item that we had a question on for her council member Freeman are you want to make sure she's still on that she said she was going to. So the first item was develop trust fund for disaster recovery and flood mitigation. And so council member Freeman, can you hear us. I can. I can multitask as well. Okay, so council member Freeman, will you walk us through this particular request that you made to add this to I think I believe it's the advocacy agenda. Hold on one second I know I sent a shared an email, just with a lot of details I wanted to make sure. But mainly this was a request coming out of the work that the Pew Institute and the very we're doing and acknowledging that there was some disparity and correlations around where flooding was occurring and trying to figure out how to support prevention and mitigation for flooding in areas across the country. There were some policy additions that were made, and they shared which areas they were made in. And I noticed that there was one in Braver, North Carolina, that was, was almost, it sounded exactly like how I sound at planning commissions, and I couldn't help but acknowledge that there, there was a huge, if there is space for that, and, and Transylvania County conversations I think it might be, might be a time wise decision to move it forward from Durham as well, and make sure that the Durham delegation is a part of setting up a mitigation fund, because acknowledging also the TJ cog has been talking about it and another a number of other cogs have been talking about it across the state. And I know that there's a whole lot of conversation on the resiliency side, so that we can make sure that there's equity involved, and then just on the other side is the it's kind of the flood mitigation conversation but just figuring this is a good time to make sure that we're supportive of making that a priority. Do any of my colleagues on the committee have any questions, clarifying questions for Council Member Freeman after she has provided that as that explanation with this request. Seeing none, I will just say that I really appreciate you being here to help us understand it a little better. I think that is a fantastic idea. It was this make sure see if I can pull this back up where to go. Multiple screens. It's a problem. This was, let's see it. Right. So, even though there, there is no bill we have in mind this seems very kind of specific to me. And the I believe Council Member Freeman requested that this go on the legislative agenda. Is that is that correct instead of the advocacy agenda. Yes, and I can, I can work to try and make sure I hammer out any specific policy. I'm just not sure I haven't done this before where I actually write it so if I can get some support on that that would be helpful. And what we'll do is this is when we're going to talk about a lot of this stuff that the legislative well would have been the legislative breakfast. We'll put the breakfast part in quotes now because it's it'll be in the middle of the afternoon. Yeah, it'll be a late breakfast. And we can and I think at that time that's a great time for us to talk, or at least I guess begin the conversation with our delegation about that various that very issue. And I think putting it on the legislative agenda indicates that this is something we want our, our delegation to push forward and be involved in bill draft and bring. And I think the nature of this problem that Council Member Freeman, as you have said, we see this time again in our recentings at the Council, and you also saw them at the Planning Commission. And I think it belongs kind of in the front rank because I agree it is, it is a real problem that we're not, we're not doing enough about. So I'm perfectly comfortable moving that on the legislative agenda as you requested. And unless my colleagues have other thoughts, maybe we'll go on to the next item you brought up for me show what was that. Bondster aging infrastructure to address the age. Yes, okay. Go right ahead Council Member Freeman. And just noting on a federal level, there's been a lot of bipartisan push around infrastructure and supports of in place to make sure that folks can address their aging infrastructure so in many cases as bridges but in other cases it might be water mains. Just making sure that the state is prepared for the funding that will be available. It'd be good to get lined up with some legislation that identifies the areas we would like to see funding directed to and I know that Durham has a number of areas that could see some supports and so I just wanted to make sure that I put that in front of us as well. I think it'll be a great way to build back Durham. I'm bringing some slogans into the room I appreciate that. Yeah, that's very strong. By the way, I'm getting attacked by the sun for multiple directions now, and I may have to move here soon. But that's why I'm. Yeah, it's weird. Do any of my colleagues in the committee have any questions for Council Member Freeman about the proposal that she's got for legislative agenda. I don't really have questions so much except for, it seems to me like something that is more for the advocacy agenda. Rather than the legislative agenda, sort of for the same reasons we just did with the energy ones so that would be my thought. And I think, yeah, I think that that makes a lot of sense. It also will rely on certain other conditions, right, like the, I think, the availability of that low interest rate environment. And, and some work at the federal level. So I just think it maybe makes more sense on the advocacy agenda. The members of the committee have thoughts about this either way. Aside from me and the mayor who've already spoken. All right, well great well let's do that. And was there a third item from Council Member Freeman. A third item, advocate for additional expungement your restoration funding. I think Ryan covered it, much better than I could have in the conversation previously. But essentially that's where I was heading in and just trying to make sure that we're expanding our dear program like that's like statewide, because I know that there are folks who are experiencing their restoration issues in other areas of the surrounding Durham and it be a better push to just work at the state level. So Ryan's request were to change general statute. Say that again. Ryan's request were to amend state statute. So Ryan's request did not include any requests for funding. And so this one says restoration funding. So that's a piece that's different from Ryan. I think part of it here is is that I want to be clear if that's the ask are we asking the state to provide some financial resources. And if so, is it to a specific agency or is it specifically to city of Durham for our dear program and restoration work. If I could take just a little bit of a liberty and just noting that I think that in acknowledging that Durham was first in developing it, the funding should be direct to Durham to kind of show other communities how to do it. And I'm not sure if that's, if that's helpful or not but I'm not sure how that would piece out in an appropriations conversation, acknowledging that the budget is going to be kind of tight this year. Yeah. Okay, do any of my colleagues on the committee have any thoughts about particular request. I just say that I think that if what might be useful is to ask the justice center. If Ryan is going to talk to them anyway if there's any funding that they think would be important. And they may, they may think so. But I don't think we, you know, so that might be one way to go is to ask them if there's something they'd like to add in the funding realm. If I could also add Mr chair. Yes ma'am go right ahead. I think it's a it's also around the soft, there was conversation a little bit early about software and just the capabilities acknowledging that most of this is through paper. Those changes and having funding attached is also helpful and making sure that the restorations or expansions are happening in a very rapid pace or at the speed of what they've been declared or so I'm not sure how that works but the district attorney has mentioned a number of times that the clerk of courts I believe it is is the one that carries this out and so making sure that the funding is in place for the clerks to be able to process as quickly as they possibly can and that they have the software capabilities is is is a good way to I guess to kind of frame this. So I think the mayor I think has a really good idea here in that the justice center and the deer program here in Durham, have a much better sense, certainly than I do and I suspect that many of us do on this call, much better sense of what the needs are to make this program more robust. And I think maybe instead of us trying to figure it out ourselves on this call. The mayor had a great idea of asking them. Where are their funding needs that would help this program be more robust and how can we best advocate for those as a council at the general assembly. Does that sound fair to you Council Member Freeman. And then just noting mentioned in a chat that funding will run out in February. Great. Okay, that sounds great Ryan says he'll reach out. And we can. We can revisit that either in advance of the work session or at the work session. I think that's fine. Okay, well that was over the three things Council Member Freeman thank you again not only for proposing those changes to the legislative agenda but also for being with us this afternoon to help us understand them. That was fantastic really appreciate you taking the time. Thank you Mr chair and if I could I did I want to add an additional item. And I'm not sure if we discussed it because I missed parts of the meeting, but it wasn't sure if reparations support was was lined up in the conversation. But I wanted to be really clear and specific about how the reparations conversation should move forward at the state and federal level and making sure that our senate delegation for the US Senate are on board as well. So, the, this particular meeting I believe is for a state legislative delegation. Is that right karmisha that kind of how we're structured it right now. But I certainly think we are on record as a council as supporting reparations. And if, if we want to send that resolution that we passed along within the other information, along to our federal congressional delegation. I think that's entirely appropriate if there is a more robust engagement that you think the city ought to engage in that issue with our congressional delegation. We should definitely talk about that. But I think this particular setting is mostly intended for our delegation the general assembly. And I'm talking specifically about making sure that the general assembly's on board, pushing it forward. You said you wanted to engage with two senators that's the only reason I said that. No, no, no, you're you're spot on but the, in order to do that it's going to take our general assembly, moving forward the governor's already signed on, I believe, or at least acknowledge with an apology and conversation, and I would love to see the general assembly moving along as well. Council Member Freeland go ahead. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Council Member Freeman, I was on the, the call at the Unitarian Church that you hosted on Wednesday with Dr. Darity and Miss Mellon talking about reparations and there were some specific things that they call for in the that include things like an apology, you know, and then to I think perhaps one of Charlie's points. If we're using the rubric that was presented through that text. You know this would be a federal thing but there might be if there are specific things we want. Like for example, you mentioned that Governor Cooper has offered some acknowledgement if we want to bump that up from like a, like a from a fist pump to a formal acknowledgement and apology for the role the state of North Carolina has played. You know, I think that would be that would be helpful so that we can, you know, be kind of specific with our ask, as opposed to like a kind of a general or nebulous kind of like y'all down with reparations or not like, you know, had you, when you say reparations, is there a specific thing or do you think it is a general advocacy thing. I think that there are general advocacy pieces, but there are specifics like you just mentioned that could be moved forward, I would love to have more conversations about exactly the order in which that happened. But yes, a council member Freeman you submitted a request on that was before the subcommittee the last time we met to create a statewide reparations commission. The subcommittee agreed to have that place in the legislative agenda. So there is a reparations related item and the legislative agenda so the one that you emailed me about this morning. Sounds like is in a, in a, I don't know if it's in addition to or if it's a subset of finding out what the commit if there's a to be a commission then what the commission might recommend. Yes. Okay. So, council member Freeman, can you be a little bit more specific about what you want the city of Durham to ask our, our delegation in the general assembly to do. So in the general assembly, acknowledging that there are varying understandings of what reparations are and how it works or could work. I think that there's an education that needs to happen that's on the advocacy side, and then there's also the request, legislatively for the study commission, and then there's also the third level of what I'm asking for making sure that we're doing the acknowledgement setting up the kind of pathway through from the state to the federal government because if the general as just general legislature saying it and it's different than just the city of Durham, or saying, you know, we want to support moving forward with a reparation study or moving forward with the commission. It's very different than the city. And acknowledging where we are with ours with our US Senate and Congress. I think there's there's a way to pull it together around some specifics and just acknowledging history and where we are today and the disparities and so forth and so on as as a Dr. Darity and Kirsten Mulling have laid out. Yes, Pierce great. Yeah, I was just going to make a suggestion. I really like Karmisha's kind of suggestion that those could be kind of bullet points underneath the art, the very specific ask of creating the commission. And tell me what you think Council Member Freeman but you know you said education acknowledgement. Those things are kind of more general but if we could, we could, you know find a way to put those as bullet points under the ask which is to build the commission which could include some of those things that might be a way to summarize all of what Council Member Freeman is asking in the context of an ask that's already been approved by this board. How do you feel about that Council Member Freeman. I think that's great. I acknowledge that I've been getting more information about programming and obstacles that have been in the way and so I'm just trying to give us a little bit more meat to make sure that it passes or that it does move forward. Okay, Karmisha, do you think you can add a couple of some bullet points under there that encompass the specifics that Council Member Freeman wanted to address that agenda item. You're still muted Karmisha I'm sorry. I'm sorry about that. I can absolutely do that. And so just so that everyone is aware. The recommendations that she provided to me is to provide recommendations to the descendants of enslaved Africans in order to eliminate the racial wealth gap. Number two create a universal basic income. Number three provide guaranteed living wage jobs that are in the federal sector or federally funded. Number four increase the federal minimum wage to $15 or higher. Did I get that correct. And those were the items that were in our resolution specifically. And what I'm adding is the aspect of explaining the difference in what Asheville has been talking about his reparations and Evanston has been talking to Evanston Illinois has been talking about his reparations to what Dr. Darity and Kirsten Mulling have been saying and explaining how it has to be at the federal level and if there needs to be clarification. If we want to do programs at the state or local level. I hope that helps. I know it's completed. It's a lot. I'll be honest. I don't really understand where we are anymore. I understand there are issues that we want our federal agreements to take up. And that definitely needs to happen. And as I said if we need to do a more robust outreach to our federal delegation we can definitely talk about that and do that. But this agenda is for the state legislature and the things that Karmisha just read off the list I didn't think were really part of a state legislative agenda, but I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong. Councilmember Freeman. Yes, I do think that at the state level. There are other states that have increased their minimum wage from $725 to $15 and so just noting there are aspects of it that could be at the state level if we could get to that point. Well, we already have increasing the minimum wage on our legislative agenda. That's already part of our agenda. If you're asking me for an explanation of why it would include under the auspice of it being declaring the wealth like to decrease the wealth gap. I think that that's a complete and separate issue specific to black and black people who are descendants of slaves and there's there's a kind of a subtext or note that should be made that's different from just general raising the wealth gap or raising the minimum wage. Okay. Here's what here's what I'd like to ask you to do. I'd like you to work, Councilmember Freeman, I'd like you to work with Karmisha on the agenda item that this committee's already approved to set up a state commission on on reparations. If there is a way for you to describe the commission that you would like us to advocate for or ask our delegation advocate for that encompasses all of the concerns that you'd like to have raised. Then let's let's do that. Let's make that description more robust. And then we can take a look at it at the work session where we consider the legislative agenda. Does that make sense to you, Councilmember Freeman. Yes. I appreciate that. And hopefully, together, you can help me understand better a thing that I'm having a hard time getting my head around. So thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, Karmisha, were there some other items that we had questions about from the last time we went through the agenda that were still open items or is that all we've got. So that was it. There were some follow up items that I was before. And, and part of that was just going back to the actual, the previous legislative agenda, doing a little bit more homework on which items were actually filed. So I'm pleased to say that last time we had, when I say last time, the last long session, we have four local bill requests to from the Transportation Department and to from the Department of Public Works. So all four of those have been filed by Senators Woodard and and McKessick. So that was one follow up item for me, but I also have done some follow up with transportation staff as well as public work staff to see if those two requests are still valid concerns for them. And so I've gotten confirmation from public work that they are still interested in their items relative to right away acquisition. And I'll be meeting with transportation staff early next week just to confirm their requests about electronic speed enforcement and speeding in school zones. I did have a note about law enforcement recordings. So I think is to cheer that was something that you it. I think that was on your list. I have a note there. But I think that was something that was in our legislative agenda from the last time. I think the concern was about allowing the council to be able to access the recordings without having to get to go before judge. Yes, that's right. I think the reason I have that note there because it's related to what was our support of the league's agenda relative to law enforcement reports. And so the league nor Metro mayors have adopted their legislative agenda. So I don't think that we were interested in pursuing our interest in obtaining law enforcement recordings was not contingent upon whether the league pursued it. I recall that conversation. Correct or we that's something that we were interested in doing anyway, meaning getting the law enforcement recordings without permission from a judge. So my recollection as well. Okay, good. At this point, there's no, no other items I was trying to capture a number here and Mr. Chi out and a few would be interested in hearing what we have at this. Can I just have one other thing I wanted to bring up commission before we move forward. There is an item on the legislative agenda that we that we approved as a committee last time, regarding the creating a requirement that the owners of a firearm report immediately the loss or theft of a firearm. And since we met, we received the mayor received and forwarded to the rest of us a number of emails from residents suggesting additional gun safety measures that we might advocate for with our delegation. As a result of those emails I spent some time talking to Durham representative Marshall more who I think it's fair to say is the champion of gun safety legislation in the General Assembly at least as far as our delegation is concerned. We drafted and filed two years ago, an omnibus gun bill gun safety legislation that had a bunch of provisions in it that that encompass a lot of the individual request that we received over the last week from Durham residents who wanted us to have a somewhat more robust ask of our legislators around gun safety. And so after talking to representative moray. I shared with the other members of the committee earlier today, the gun violence Safety Act House bill. 86, maybe did I get that right. Yes, House believe six that representative moray suggested to me yesterday that she was interested in reintroducing in the upcoming long session. That bill has a bunch of different moving parts, including 72 hour waiting period for firearm purchases, prohibiting assault weapon or long gun purchases by underage individuals and inhibits of bump stocks and trigger cranks requires safe storage of firearms requires a reporting of a lost or stolen firearms so it incorporated the ask that we made during the last long session requirement that firearm aren't that gun owners carry liability insurance repeal preemption of local regulation of firearms which is something that I know, many of us here in Durham have been eager to see. And allowing the destruction of seized firearms, which has become a growing issue here in Durham. Our police department ceases a lot of firearms, and are not able to destroy them because of state law. And so this has led to ever increasing storage requirements at the local level I think with just within the last year we had to expand our need to expand our our leasing of storage space for those weapons, where historically local governments in North Carolina were able to simply order them destroyed. And so I think that is a really good omnibus piece of legislation. I think it's something that the council should get behind and so my proposal to the group is that we substitute the existing item on our agenda that we approved last time. The requirement that firearm owners immediately report the loss or theft of a firearm with support for representative mores omnibus bill and that includes that provision. Now, I also talked to representative more about the likelihood of the passage of the omnibus bill in the upcoming long session. What she told me is she thinks it has about the same chance of success it had last time. But she also mentioned that a number of her Republican colleagues approached her at the end of the last long session and indicated there were certain pieces of the bill that they might be willing to support. And I think putting us on the side of the omnibus bill and the measures that it conclude includes also puts our support behind individual bills that might pull pieces of that out that might win bipartisan support any one of which would be important gun safety measures, both here in German around the state. So that's what I wanted to say about that. I think my colleagues had any thoughts, concerns, questions. I see three thumbs up for my colleagues and I really appreciate that as a Karmisha. If you would make that change in the legislative agenda. I'm sure I've represented more would be happy to know that we've got her back. There was one other thing I wanted to bring up now that I've talked a lot about that thing. I remember Freelon you had put in a request that the city include in its legislative agenda, the hands free in C bill that passed the House overwhelmingly in the long session, but got hung up in the Senate and was not approved. I believe you mentioned that was at the request of a constituent who reached out to you about that is that right. I talked as I recall our last meeting. I was directed by my colleagues on the committee to reach out to members of our delegation to find out kind of what happened with that bill. As you may recall I did some quick research during our meeting last time and discovered that we had members on both sides of that issue in the House vote. And so I spoke to a couple of legislators. What I learned is that there was some opposition in the House to that bill because there was no safety data presented that indicated that driving hands free. I guess talking on a phone with a with a headset, for example, is any safer than talking than talking on a cell phone regularly. I think that in the absence of that, I think we're just adding more items to the criminal code. And so there were, there was a minority of members of the House. I think the end of the vote on the last reading in the House ended up being something like 93 to 20 something in favor of the bill did move on to the Senate got held up for some procedural reasons that remained our conversation, but I believe it will be reintroduced again. So I wanted to give you that context by my count. The terms delegation, the ones that were present all voted for the bill except for representative more. And so with that background, I just thought I would give it back to you count council member Freeland to find out if this is still an item you want to have on our legislative agenda for our delegation going forward. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Thanks for the context. Absolutely. So I am fine with including it on the agenda. And I do acknowledge that that this does create another crime in North Carolina. Unfortunately, I don't know if it would be a misdemeanor or an infraction I don't know what that always makes me a little nervous. Just giving a law force officers another reason to pull someone over. But it is, I think it's probably makes us safer in terms of operating a motor vehicle. And so I tend to agree with you council member Freelon just wanted to make sure that we had a full conversation about the merits of it and permission if you'll go ahead and make sure that's on our legislative agenda to as long as I think that was where we left the conversation colleagues if, but if other people wanted to weigh in now this is probably the time to do that. I was going to mention thank you council member for bringing that up I did have some email communication with Senator Woodard about it and he indicated that he intends to introduce relevant legislation again this session so Thank you Carmisha I forgot to mention that yes I've Senator Woodard it was the Senate sponsor of that bill and doesn't tend to introduce it again this session council member Milton go right ahead. I saw your finger. Thank you Mr chairman good afternoon everybody can you guys hear me okay. Yes sir. Awesome. At our last meeting pivoting off of the hands free is this is it all right if I go on to my. Absolutely. Last last meeting I had brought up. I think towards the end. The possibility of us pursuing a legislatively some tweaks to our city charter. To bring it more well little background when we filled council person Austin seat. A large part of our population in the city had expressed concerned about being able to fill it via vote as opposed to selection process not understand that during our debates and discussion there were a couple of charters we referenced. I think one was Chapel Hill that because of the particular way our charters written that it one reading or a viable reading could be that we were compelled to do a selection process. I didn't necessarily agree with that reading because I don't know what would have happened if we didn't. But I think our chapel Hills Charter was brought up some other charters. Chapel Hill being one of them that if we had one that was written like that would have given us that flexibility. So I do what I didn't want to look at that possibility of seeing about tweaking our charter to give us the the flexibility. I was out facing any punitive action if we decided we wanted to fill a seat going forward for the election. And the second issue also was when we were discussing grants during covid for our small businesses. It was suggested or when I suggested was said that we were precluded from doing grants because of our charter but that but Raleigh had some type of language in their charter, which they were able to to appeal to which would allow them to do grants with taxpayer funding. So if indeed those those type of tweaks are available are out there and available to other cities than I'd like I'd like Durham to explore having our charter amended in a way that would give us that that type of flexibility as some of our neighboring cities as well. Thank you Mr. Councillor Middleton do any my committee colleagues have any questions or concerns they want to raise about that suggest those suggestions. I guess I had some thoughts about that. Chief among them that I am nervous about asking the the incoming General Assembly to monkey around with Durham's elections. I think other cities in North Carolina have had the experience of having the General Assembly change their their voting rules their voting districts in ways that the people that live in those cities did not want. And it's a ridiculous partisan issue. And had we had the election results over the last week or so been different. We might have a much better. A safer avenue to ask for that but given that the General Assembly can pass a local bill with a bare majority. And that that is not subject to gubernatorial veto, asking them to to make changes to our charter makes me nervous. And that's that's what I want to say about that. Sure, I think I appreciate that and everything about the General Assembly makes me nervous as well. I think I think it's a false comparison or false characterization suggestions messing with our elections. The if there's a vacancy and they they don't happen often but in the event of a vacancy. Giving us the I mean we already have the ability to make a selection and the election language is already in there. So it's we're not looking for any kind of newer revolutionary construct, at least in my reading so I don't I don't. I don't know I wouldn't characterize it as messing with our elections. Secondly, what I find curious is that we were we were willing to throw our weight behind changing the mayoral term from two years to four years and by comparison, there's only one mayor. And, and I'm not talking about this mayor shield I'm talking about the mayor the office of the mayor. One person finds it inconvenient to have to run every two years. So for one person, we're willing to muster all of our political capital and will to change the law for one person not to be inconvenienced to run every two years. But literally thousands of our people assets for the ability to vote and to fill one of the seats that they own. So it's a bit curious to me that we'd be willing to mess with the legislature or even, you know, approach the legislature about changing the term for one person, because of inconvenience because this is easier to do it every four as opposed to two. But we're not willing to do it for thousands of people who want to vote to fill their seat to me just seems curious to me and I'm not fearful of, and I don't think it's messing with our elections to look at it. But if I'm rally, if I'm correct and if the illusions I made I'm perfectly willing to have them fact check, but if rally has that provision, whatever land mines they had to navigate to get to that. I think it's worth doing and if Chapel Hill has a charter that allows them to do it, whatever linemen land mines they had to navigate to get to it. I'm willing to do that as well. But but your fears are noted I have, I have some very visceral concerns about this legislature as well. Thousands of our residents asking, you know, to be able to fill a season of counsel is far more compelling than one mayor, not Steve shul, the mayor, the institution office one mayor, not wanting to go through the, you know, the trouble of running every two years as opposed to four. I find the people more compelling. So, I appreciate the frank exchange of views we've had on this subject. Do any of my other colleagues on the committee have any other thoughts you'd like to share. So, I think we could take the temperature of our delegation on this. I'm also, I think that I mean, House member Milton raised two different things one is the, the election and the other is the grant, the ability to have grants, and I do think in my mind they raise sort of different levels of danger at the at the General Assembly I think if we could find a charter provision elsewhere about grants that we thought we could match up with, you know, that seems like a good idea. And I do worry about, and you know for the mayoral thing what we know is that for the mayor's mayoral term. We can do that without the GA. But this is a charter provision and so we can't do it without the General Assembly. And it gives me it concerns me the idea that we would go in and ask for a change like that but I think we could ask our, our, we can ask our delegation I think and you know we should talk about some at the work session to about. I need to give some more thought to the idea about what I think about, you know, what is the, what's the best thing about what's the best way to replace someone. And so I haven't really given that a lot of thought, even I'm sorry, because House Mayor Milton did talk about this last time I just didn't really think about it much not apologize. So I'd like to think about that more talk about the work session and maybe take the temperature right delegation. I think that I think that's a fair, I would just remind us that prior to realizing that we can do it without the General Assembly, we were more than willing to approach the general assembly to do it. I guess just for me, as this as we prosecute this discussion, I guess for me a question I would have is intellectually, what is the difference, or the difference in the level of danger between approaching them to allow us to change terms for a mayor, as opposed to allowing us to change the terms for filling the vacant seat, if there's danger, I guess for me moving forward we have to ask it now but I don't think I don't think there's any difference in that I agree with that. Thank you. Any other members of the committee want to share their thoughts about this item before we move on. Anybody any other, I come to remember Kavira you turned your camera on and know if you wanted to, it's because you want to be recognized I'm happy to know. Yeah I just wanted to comment I think that my memory was that we put it on the agenda as a same thing temperature check this is for the mayoral, noting that it was a risk at the time I remember having the same issue around do we really want to approach the general assembly with a charter change, and then discovered that we didn't have to and then I think it just remained on the agenda because we forgot to take it off. I have a different. I think well I'm Councillor Middleton. Yeah, let me let me talk to you. Yeah, I think the path forward that we have today is that we're going to revisit this these two issues that you've raised about changes to our city charter at the work session where we do the the next bit of work on our legislative agenda. And I think we'll have in preparation for the Council approving it at our first council meeting in December. And I think we'll have lots of opportunities between now and then to think about whether or not these are ideas we want to do just like everything else in the agenda quite frankly. And I don't. And so I think that is a good path forward. And, and I think that's. I asked the members of the committee do you think that's the, that's how we should handle it today. I see some nods. Yeah, I see some thumbs that's fantastic customer Middleton police. That that will be the case with everything. I mean we're going to be discussing everything at the, it's not just this particular issue we're going to be discussing legislative agenda period at a subsequent work session. Correct. This is this is using being carved out from the rest of the legislative agenda I mean with it. That's that's a normal course of events for the legislative agenda period. Is that council member Middleton at this point in the process the committee this committee has approved a certain number items to go on to the legislative agenda. The council before council have an opportunity to talk about it at our at the next work session. And then after that the council have the opportunity to pass whatever legislative agenda. The city council says at the work session they want approved. And, and, and, right. And I was explaining to you. And so the, the issue that you've raised has not been approved by this committee to go on our legislative agenda. And we were suggested that we talk about it at the work session where we approve the leg where we discussed the legislative agenda and it was the will of the council at that time to add it to the agenda then that's what we would do. Mr. Chairman, I was there know that I heard that, and I understand it. And I'm clear as to the delineation of the process and how we're going to proceed so you asked if it had been carved out from the less the legislative agenda and I was simply explaining, I was answering that question, I apologize. No worries. No worries. And the previous point I was making about the, there was a statement of characterization made about the previous conversation and how it proceeded. And I'm simply saying I have no recollection of any warnings being raised or concerned about the approaching general assembly about this issue this issue was worked by our mayor that issue being changing the term of the mayor was work before us we had a, you know, robust conversation we were all in agreement with it. I don't read and of course these these things are recorded there a minute so we can pull up the recording but I don't recall any concern being expressed about approaching the general assembly. I think we were we were more than willing to go for with it without any controversy so I just want to question that characterization of the conversation and would be more than willing to be checked again I have no problem being fact checked but that's not my recollection of the way the conversation went that we were more than willing to proceed with changing the mayoral term, even if it meant approaching the general assembly. And it was codified in our legislative agenda and then subsequent to that we found out that we might not have to go to the general assembly and then we pulled it off so that was my recollection that's all I wanted to put forward. Thank you. Absolutely. All right, Kermisha I think we have our marching orders in this particular request, I guess to request strictly speaking. The request. And so, just so that everyone else is aware, after the last committee meeting. I did have some follow up with the city attorney's office so we have begun discussions about the two specific to charter amendments, given that this was mentioned near the end of our meeting the last time. We will be prepared to have whatever discussion takes place at Thursday's work session about these two items as well as any other item that's on the proposed legislative agenda along with the advocacy items that have been discussed thus far. Fantastic. Carmisha, do we have anything else left to do with this particular agenda. So, oh, the mayor racist. Just on that last comment that Carmisha made. I think it will be useful if the attorneys could find elsewhere. You know, if they could show us some wording from some other charters relative to the grants. You know, there's something that we see that we could copy that we have comfort with, if we wanted to do that. So, Mr Mayor, we can certainly do that. Krista Kukaro and I discussed that probably about an hour or so before this meeting today. Okay, great. When we talk when we talk about the grants, it seems like we've been talking about the charter. And what Krista reminded me is that there's the charter, and then there's the North Carolina Constitution. So the charter cannot be looked at separate and apart from the state constitution. So that's the information that she and I will discuss and be prepared to respond to in Thursday's work session. Go ahead. What else to do. Alton, did you have something you wanted to add there? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'll yield if you were recognizing program. I'm sorry. Great, I was Carmisha. What else did we have to do with respect to this agenda. So there was one other item as we transition out of our last meeting with the mayor mentioned a desire to pursue alternative energy and power sources. I wanted to get clarity whether that was a just a broad term that we wanted our delegation to advocate in the event that something comes up, or if that was related to specifically anything that came forward from the EAB. So I thought that I should probably get some clarity on where that concept should land to pursue alternative energy and power sources. So that's a great question. Appreciate you reminding us of that. The recommendations from the Environmental Affairs Board include language that would promote the ability of residents and governments to use more forms of alternative energy. And I guess I'll ask members of the committee, do y'all have any particular, do you guys see any particular need to make any additional revisions to the agenda to accommodate the note that Carmisha has? I agree with you that the EAB, what they put forward was my sense when I read them. Anybody else have a thought I want to share about that? Okay. Anything else, Carmisha? Yeah, I appreciate that. Great, Councilor Middleton, I'm sorry I wanted to follow back up with you again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was, I wanted to ask that the mayor's request of the city attorney to lack of a better term scour other charters to look for particular or possible language regarding the grants. I'd ask that the same due diligence be done in terms of other charters with language that would allow the possibility of election flexibility in terms of filling vacant seats if they should come up. I mean, since their twin recommendations while they're doing the due diligence on grants that they would do due diligence on the other matter as well. We're getting a thumbs up from the city attorney's office that that will be done. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Colleagues, do we have any other business we need to get done at this meeting of the legislative committee? Seeing none, Carmisha, thank you again for your incredible work on this. I can't imagine everything that goes into preparing us to do this hour and a half of work. But I'm in awe, I'm grateful. Thank you very much. And thank you to my colleagues for such a great insight and suggestions. We're going to have a legislative agenda that we're all proud of. And with that, I will adjourn our committee. Thank you, everybody. And thanks for all the folks that are watching. Take care. Bye-bye. Thank you, Mr. Chair.