 Good evening. We'd like to call the Durham City Council meeting to order at 7.01 PM on Monday, October the 19th. And certainly I want to welcome all of you that are in attendance. If we just take a moment of solid meditation, please. Thank you. As Council Member Brown, if he would leave us in the pledge. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll please? Mayor Bell. Mayor Pro Tem Cole McFadden. Council Member Brown. Council Member Cattidy. Council Member Davis. Council Member Moffitt. And Council Member Shull. Good evening. We have two proclamations that we'd like to present this evening. The first one is for national led, pausing prevention week proclamation. Like to ask Mr. Minora Smith, the program directors, remember here? OK. And partnership effort for the advancement of children's health, better known as PEACH. Come on up and join us. Do it well, how you doing? The proclamation reads, whereas common renovation and repair activities, including sanding, cutting, drilling, and other renovation and demolition activities, can create lead-bearing dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint, whereas such lead-based dust and chips can be hazardous to human health, especially that of children, whereas the Center for Disease Control indicates that lead poisoning is considered the most preventable environmental disease among young children, yet approximately half a million young children have blood-led levels that fall into a dangerous category, whereas the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued the renovation, repair, and painting rule on April 22, 2008, which established training and certification requirements for contractors, maintenance workers, and property owners related to renovation, repair, and painting projects in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, whereas training and compliance with these EPA rules will help to protect human health, especially the children of Durham, whereas training and certification is available through a number of accredited providers within the Durham and Triangle vicinity, whereas information about local opportunities to obtain training and certification to satisfy the EPA rules is available at the Lead-Based Paint Management Program with the North Carolina Health Hazards Control website. Now, therefore, I, William V. Bilbell, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do it by proclaiming October 19th through the 25th of 2015 as National Lead Poison Prevention Week in Durham and hereby urge all the citizens to take special note of this observance by acknowledging the Hazards of Lead Paint. And with this in my hand, it's Corporate Silver City of Durham, North Carolina. This is the 19th day of October, 2015, and I'm going to present this to Ms. Smith for any comments, and she can introduce all this that I hear. Thank you, Mayor Bilbell. I'd like to recognize two of our board members, Ms. Effie Steele and Mr. Barrington Ross, who are standing with me. Also, I would like to give recognition to Mr. Eddie Davis and Mayor Pro Tem Korakol McFadden for assistance with developing a resolution for this event. And we've done that in relation to the Mayor's Poverty Reduction Initiative. During a survey that was done for the, oh, and I'm sorry, Patrick Baker is also, the city attorney is also a member of our board, and he almost got away with it. Trying to hide. We're doing this as a part of the Mayor's Poverty Reduction Initiative. During a survey that was done of residents in that area, a majority of the residents live in older housing. About 70% of the residents said that they need repairs on the interior and exterior of the property. And according to the RRP rule, the Renovate Repair and Paint Rule, if a contractor disturbs six square feet in any one room, disturbs six square feet of paint in any one room, they are required by law to use the RRP work practices. And Peach, the partnership effort for the advancement of children's health, is a program that was born out of Northeast Central Durham, where the Mayor's Poverty Reduction Initiative is targeting and our program teaches this class. We want to make sure that as some of the repairs are done, we want to spotlight and target and make sure that contractors within Durham are using lead safe work practices when they do any type of repairs at this third paint on older housing throughout the city, but right now specifically in Northeast Central Durham. So thank you. Next proclamation speaks to Conflict Resolution Day and I would ask Raquel Dominique and who's the Mediation Manager for the LB Swalding and Conflict Resolution Center and board members Bonnie Ashley and Barbara Thomas if you would join me. Whereas the need for people to work to resolve conflict without violence is an important factor in our community, whereas community mediation offers constructive processes for resolving differences in conflicts between individuals, groups and organizations, whereas community mediation is an alternative to avoid destructive confrontation and prolonged litigation or violence, whereas LB Swalding Conflict Resolution Center through its unique approach to community mediation has trained and supervised ordinary citizens to serve as mediators. They give other time and effort to help others resolve conflicts, whereas the best interest of our community is to support community mediation and its approach to conflict resolution, whereas LB Swalding Conflict Resolution Center has a long history of successfully mediating family, youth, truancy, misdemeanor and organizational disputes, whereas district court judges have embraced mediation as a practical alternative to trials and mediation and misdemeanor cases for citizens issued conflicts. Now, therefore, I will be billed by all Mayor of the city of Durham, North Carolina to be billed by reclaim October the 15th, 2015 as Conflict Resolution Day, and I would say October the 15th, we know this is October the 19th, but we accept that, as Conflict Resolution Day in Durham, and hereby urge all citizens to recognize LB Swalding Conflict Resolution Center as a valuable and accessible resource for the citizens of Durham, and what is my hand, Corporate City of Durham, North Carolina is this 19th day of October 2015, and I'm gonna present this to you and for any Congress that you might have, and I really wish we could reach a lot more people and help them resolve their conflicts in other ways. Thank you, and on behalf of Grace Marsh, our Executive Director, and the Eleanor B.S. Swalding Conflict Resolution Center and our members of the Board of Directors, Bonnie Ashley and Barbara Thomas, we thank you for this recognition and we assure you that this is, we will continue with our commitment to promote mediation in any other type of conflict resolution. Our commitment goes to families in Durham schools where we are, now we are doing peer mediation trainings, and actually we just have eight schools that just line up for trainings. We go to different schools with Truancy Court where we try to prevent delinquency by attending, just paying attention to students who are missing schools and creating a collaboration between the schools and the parents. So with this, we are just assuring you that we are committed to continue that work in the Duarhan community. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any comments by members of the council? Any item? Recognize Councilman Davis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to let the citizens of Durham know, we had a group of young people who came into Durham, North Carolina last weekend from the University of Tennessee. They were on fall break and they did several things. They did some volunteering at a local food bank and they spent several hours helping to clear brush and old leaves and limbs from the gear cemetery. And they spent a lot of time volunteering. And it's sort of a corny joke since they're from the University of Tennessee. But they were here in town and they did a good job and we were able to talk to them about the history of gear cemetery and to mention to them about the upcoming work that the gear cemetery, friends of the gear cemetery as well as other groups in Durham will be putting forth to honor the 150th anniversary of the 13th Amendment that will be coming up in December. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Recognize the Mayor Proctor. Thank you and good evening. I would just like to thank the city manager for his assistance. Last week, we had a meeting of officials from late view school and they were sharing the needs of those students and the manager as a matter of fact, is very cooperative in our trying to help redirect the lives of those kids. So I wanna thank you, Mr. Bonfield for that. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, we look city manager for any priority items. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. I have two priority items this evening which are supplemental items, agenda item number 26, preliminary economic development incentive agreement between the city of Durham and a proposed project Cavalier within the community redevelopment area within the city limits and agenda item number 27, preliminary economic development incentive agreement between the city of Durham and a proposed project Ironman within the community redevelopment area of the city limits. So thank you. Motion on the city manager's prior design. It's been proper to move the second, Madam Clerk, we open the vote and close the vote. It passes 7-0. Recognize the city attorney for any prior time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No priority items. Likewise, city clerk. No items, Mr. Mayor. We'll move with the agenda as printed and the consent agenda items items that can pass with a single motion if a council member or someone from the public chooses to remove an item. We discuss that later in the meeting. Item one on the consent agenda is the mayor's nominee for appointment to the housing appeals board. Item two is workforce development board appointment. Item three is the Durham Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, re-appointments. Item fourth request to carry over funds from 2000, physical year 2014, 15 to physical year 2015, 16, budget and other budget grant and capital project ordinances. Item five is an ordinance to revise the temporary street closing procedures for special events. Item six is a contract award to L-J Inc. for contract SR 62 easement maintenance tree removal. Item seven is contract with Fountain Works, LLC to provide professional services in support of the Jordan Lake Partnership. Item eight is a resolution authorizing city auction. Item nine is auctioneering services. Item 10 is proposed advanced acquisition for the future expansion of Lake Mickey, property of James, Franklin, Roberts and others. Item 11 is proposed acquisition of the former Duke Dot and Fitness Center property located at 808 West Trinity Avenue. I'm going to pull out item, we have persons that want to speak on item nine. Item 12 is lease of non-residential property and contract for service with Achievement Academy of Durham. Item 13 is a resolution authorizing the city manager and delegates to execute encroachment agreements with North Carolina Department of Transportation and railroad companies. Item 15 is report on child sex trafficking in Durham. Item 16 through 19 items that can be found on the general business agenda as public hearings. Item 25 is a resolution in support of resettlement of Syrian refugees in Durham. That concludes the consent agenda and take the motion with approval of the consent agenda with the exception of item 11. So second. The proper move is second madam clerk, we open the vote. Close the vote. It passes seven to zero. We'll move to the general business agenda of public hearings. Item 16 is conference plan amendment, Garrett Ridge, multi-family phase three, A150006. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Pat Young with the planning department. I can first certify for the record that the public hearing items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with the requirements of law and their affidavits to that effect on file with the planning department. As the mayor indicated, the case before you is A150006. It's a request to change the future land use map designation of 12.5 acres of property at 4806 and 5010 Garrett Road from there. It's current designation of medium density residential to medium high density residential. And if approved, this would allow consistency with the companion zoning map change case, which is the next case in your agenda, which would then in turn allow for development of apartments at a density of 15 units per acre. Based on conditions, warranting an amendment to the future land use map, pursuant to our review of the four criteria for plan amendments identified in the UDO, staff recommends approval of this item. At their meeting of August 11th, 2015, the planning commission recommended approval by a vote of 14 to zero. I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you. This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. First ask all the questions. My members of the council of staff. If not, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this item, this being a public hearing? Who does this state your name? Ron Horvath. Horvath Associates, I am here to answer questions on this matter with the zoning that comes up. Excuse me, zoning that comes up, I'll have a few more comments to make. Thank you. You're welcome. Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item? Either four or against. Let the director reflect and no one else has to speak. I'll declare the public hearing to be closed as a matter of fact before the council. It's been properly moved. Second Madam Clerk, we open the vote. Close the vote. It passes seven, is it wrong? Item 17 is a zoning map change to Garrett Ridge multifamily phase three, Z1500013. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Pat Young again with the planning department. This case is the companion to the previous conference of plan a minute case. You just approve Z1500013. It's a request to change the zoning map designation of 13.04 acres of property located at 4806 and 5010 Garrett Road from its current designation of residential suburban or RS 20 and residential suburban multifamily to with a development plan to residential suburban multifamily with a development plan. And if approved, this will allow for 36 additional apartment units to be added to the existing 137 units at the site for a total of 173 units. The development plan associated with this request does include a number of commitments above the UDO minimum standards. Many of these were incorporated into the previous zoning cases associated with this property in 2001, 2006 and earlier this year. And this includes provision of a mulch trail, vegetated berm with planning, is dedication of a bus shelter and site entrance improvements. A complete list of the commitments are included with the staff report associated with this item. Staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted policies and ordinances. And by a vote of 14 to zero, the planning commission recommended approval of this item at their August 11th meeting. I'll be happy to take any questions. Again, this is a public hearing and public hearing is open. When asked first are the questions by members of the council or the staff report. I recognize councilwoman Catati. Thank you. Excuse me, thank you, mayor. This could be a question for either staff or the applicant, but I live close by and have already been in one lane of traffic along Garrett Road. And so I'm curious about the sequencing given that there is so much land disturbance and activity out there now. In other words, what's currently allowed and how is that changing with this rezoning? So in terms of there's no committed phasing of the improvements, but if approved, this would allow an additional 36 units at the site. So what's out there now is essentially what's approved up to 137 units. Mr. Horvath, they want to speak to the developer's plans. Part of what you're dealing with on, sorry, Ron Horvath, Horvath Associates. Thank you, mayor. Members of council, good to see you this evening. Part of the construction you see out there is a widening of Garrett Road. We're actually gonna tie in and complete the road section all the way down past the existing church. That is in front of phase three. Phase three will not have a driveway access. So once that construction of the road widening is done, that should be it for single lane traffic. The rest of it will take place on site. Oh, there are other questions about it. Members of the council. Recognize the council, Ms. Schultz. Mr. Horvath, we often have developers in this situation who proffer $500 per student to the Durham Public Schools for the additional students they're being added. And I see you all are adding seven students here. And I was wondering if you all had considered such a proffer. Yes, sir, I have talked to my client and they have no problem with the proffering that with site plan approval prior to site plan approval being awarded, we will make a payment of $3,500, a voluntary payment, $3,500 to the Durham School System. Other questions? Again, is there anyone else that wants to speak on the site? I'd like to recollect that no one else has to speak. I'll try to put them here and be closed as a matter of fact for the council. We're about to move the second. Madam Clerk, will you open the volume? Close the volume. It passed the 70s. Thank you. Recognize Councilman Schuhl. It's been a property move in the second. Madam Clerk, will you open the volume? Close the volume. It passed the 70s. Thank you. Recognize Councilman Schuhl. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I realize that when the consent agenda passed that I did want to see if there was anyone here from either Adam Clarke of World Relief Durham or Ellen Andrews of Church World Service. And I meant to do that earlier. They are the people that I've been talking to people that are helping to resettle refugees in Durham. They've resettled several hundred refugees in the past few years from war-torn areas, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and other places. And they are the ones that would like to be helpful in resettling the Syrian refugees. And I apologize for not recognizing them earlier, but if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Mayor, maybe they could stand up and be recognized. Apologize for not doing that earlier, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. That's quite all right. Thank you. Moved to Item 18, Consolidated Anxation 4512 Denfield Street, BDG 150007. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of Council, Pat Young again with the Planning Department. This is the Consolidated Initial Zoning Utility Extension Agreement and Voluntary Anxation Item associated with 4512 Denfield Street, which is a 2.15 acre parcel owned by True Covenant Missionary Baptist Church. And its request is approved. The applicant attends to construct a place of worship at this location. Staff recommends an initial zoning of Industrial Light, or IL, which is in the Falls, Jordan, B, FJB watershed overlay. This designation is consistent with the future land use map, designation for the property, which is industrial, and the existing county zoning at this location. And if approved, would allow for construction of the desired place of worship following required administrative approvals. The Public Works Water Management Department reviewed utility impact analysis and utility extension agreement at this site and have determined that there is existing capacity in both terms of water and sanitary sewer for this proposed development and budget management services provided the required fiscal impact analysis for this item. They did determine that the proposed organization would ultimately be revenue negative, which is common for tax exempt uses, such as places of worship. Based on the information in the staff report, staff recommends approval, and I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you. This is the public hearing. The public hearing is open. We'll ask first of the questions by members of the council. We can ask Councilman Schuhl. I know I asked this last two weeks ago on another item, but is the, just explain to me one more time. The Planning Commission resolution occurs whenever there is a translation. Is that correct? That's exactly right. Yes, Mr. Schuhl. It's a direct translation from County zoning, which is the case here. Okay. That's what I thought. I just want to make sure. I will not ask it in another two weeks. I promise. Thank you. Any other questions by members of the council? If not, I have one, two, three, four. I have five persons that assigned to speak on this item. Let me ask, is it anyone else that wants to speak on this item other than the five that I have called? That being the case, you're going to call each by your name if you come to the podium to the right. And you actually have two minutes. All of these are proponents for the project. I don't know if there's anyone that is opposed to the project that wants to speak in the audience. If not, I recognize Pauline Obance. I know I screwed that up, but you're corrected. Diane King, Dr. Johnny Leake, Sonia McKenzie, and Sam Mevin. Come to the right. Hello, my name is Diane King. Good evening, Mayor Beall and council members. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the opposed annexation of the Denfield property. In this regard, True Covenant Baptist Church plans to compliment and to enhance contiguous properties. On the right, traveling north, there is a residence which was constructed in 1957 according to the Durham County records. This property has been well kept. On the left, traveling south, the property is currently owned and operated by a triangle auto. This property was formerly owned by Jake Sales Salvage. We at True Covenant Baptist Church plan to enhance the property by erecting a house of worship, which complements yet provides aesthetic appeal to Denfield Street and surrounding areas, placing certain shrubberies and other plants that not only add beauty, but also have better water erosion potential. Furthermore, we are convinced that the services and infrastructure of the city of Durham are adequate to serve the proposed annexation property. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Hello, honorable mayor, council. My name is Sonia McKenzie and I do thank you all for listening to our request and we thank you very much for your support. Welcome. Dr. Lee. Indeed. All right. Had to adjust this thing. Okay, we the members of the True Covenant Baptist Church as was previously mentioned, wish to erect a house of worship. We're already doing some things where we currently exist to help reduce some of the negative social outcomes that happen to take place in certain segments of the community. We want to further encourage people to reach certain levels of educational attainment, to enhance their marketable skills and to be an invaluable asset to the city of Durham. As was previously mentioned, we already have about 30 feet of the property that is within the city of Durham. However, the property is about 1100 feet long. And so in order to better enhance what we're trying to do and to bring beauty to the community, we ask for your assistance in this matter. Please also know that we have already done some things to affect the community aesthetics. We have removed quite a bit of debris that was left within the community. And we have some other projects that will be complimentary to the community, to the residents and to the entire city of Durham. Thank you for hearing us. Welcome. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. My name is Samuel Mebbin. Our own property next to 4512, 4516 Denfield Street runs parallel to 4512. I'm not opposed to true covenant building a church of worship. What my concern is, it is infested with mess. Tires, motor parts, bottles, and has been sold for over 50 years. There's running water that runs through 4512 that runs into a creek that runs behind 4512, 4516 other property that runs down to the Inno River that has been contaminated for over 50 years. My concern is who's going to clean up this water? And who's going to clean up this mess? 45, the true covenant Baptist church has only cleaned up the front part of the property. Who's going to clean up the back end of the property? And who's going to clean the water? Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. God bless you. Thank you. Ask a lot of questions. I don't know if we go get some answers tonight. Mr. Mayor, I don't have an answer this evening, but I did take a note, and we will have the code inspection officers from Neighborhood Improvement Services take a look at that situation as quickly as possible. Thank you. Pauline Abunz, is she present? O-B-U-N-C-E? She's not here. Well, I didn't make sure I called and named correct and spelled it correctly. Is anyone else who wants to speak on this item? Reverend Lick, you had a comment? Much of the information that Mr. Melvin yielded is incorrect. We have paid a substantial sum to already remove quite a bit of debris. True, the true part is, I can't tell you how long that has been there, but I can tell you that we have worked in collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Water Works Department, which is out of Raleigh, the Durham City Planning Department, and with a couple of vendors within the Durham County in order to already remove some of the debris. What we find when we start construction, who knows? But the thing of the matter is, like any construction project, we are willing to do everything that we can to remain in compliance and to work in a collaborative effort with those persons who are over us, such as I have mentioned previously. I thank you for hearing our request. You're welcome. Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item? This being a public hearing, let the director reflect and no one else has to speak. I'll declare the public hearing to be closed as a matter of fact before the council. Move the item. Second. It's been a problem to move them second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Can you close the vote? It passes seven to zero. So who's gonna do the assistant state? Second. It's been a problem to move them second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes seven to zero. Thank you. Let's move to item 19, West Village Complex parking lot, local historic landmark designation removal, LD150001. Good evening again, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Pat Young with the Planning Department. As the mayor indicated, this case is LD150001. Request by Brian Kane of FCP, West Village Phase One, to repeal the landmark designation for 1.196 acres. So it's a small portion of the overall West Village Complex designation. From that portion of the property, currently a parking lot and historically part of a railroad bed. The 2001 designation of the remainder of the parcel would remain. Based on the staff finding that there are no significant historical resources existing at this site, staff recommends approval. The Historic Preservation Commission at their August 4th meeting recommended approval of this item by a vote of six to zero. I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you. You've heard the staff reports. The public hearing recognized persons on the council who want to speak to this. This is Councilman Katati. Thank you, mayor. So my reading of this is that taking away landmark status means that the a certificate of appropriateness is no longer required for construction on the lot. Can you comment on the applicant's intentions and then also as you see it, the harm in keeping the designation and the harm in removing it? Thanks. So Councilman Katati, you are correct. If the designation is removed, there would no longer be requirements for certificate of appropriateness. This is kind of right outside the downtown historic district. The staff did look at this issue and what we believe is because of the fact that this is located in the downtown design district, support one sub tier specifically, that the development requirements, the form-based code associated with that district would provide sufficient protection to result in high quality design for that site. And again, as I indicated the, of course there's significant historic character with the West Village complex overall but this portion didn't appear to have any so we don't feel like there's any loss of historic character or resources. I'm sorry, one more piece of your question. There are not any pending applications for development on the site. There have been some preliminary conversations with the owner about potential redevelopment of the site. So I hear your reassurance on perhaps not particular harm in removing it but is there any harm in keeping it? In other words, how burdensome is the certificate of appropriateness in that, for example, then they do have to go before the, sorry, Historic Preservation Commission and then there's a little more, I think discussion about criteria and design and things like that. So can you comment on that? Sure, so of course you're correct that there would not be a requirement if this action is approved tonight, that there be an analysis of the impact on historic resources with redevelopment of this site. That is certainly obviously a consideration that you all would want to give consideration to. What I would say is, and I said a couple times this portion of the site has not been a historically significant portion of that development and we feel like the traditional standard downtown design district regulations will protect the public interest in this property but you are correct that the analysis of the impact of the plan development on how it's consistent with the adjacent historic resources would not occur if this is approved tonight. I recognize Councilman Schull. So they've been getting a sum of property tax break on this for the last 14 years or is that right? That's correct, Councilman Schull. My understanding of the statute, Carla Rosenberg of our staff who's our historic preservation expert can speak to this if I get it wrong but they'll have to repay the last three years which is pursuant to state statute of taxes that the abatement they received which totals over $13,000. I understand they'll have to repay the last three years. I read that in the letter from the state historic preservation but is that all we want them to repay? They've been getting 14 years of tax abatement and do we have any say in this matter? In other words, if we're going to remove this they've been getting a tax break on this for 14 years. Now they wanna remove this certificate of appropriateness requirement and be able to build on it freely as they wish having received a substantial tax break for long period of time. So what are our options and do you have any thoughts on that? Sure, Councilman Schull. I'll certainly defer to my colleagues or to the city attorney's office but I don't believe there's any legal mechanism to require repayment beyond the three year period. I think the statute's fairly clear that that's the maximum period which we can compel repayment. See, the force is rising there behind you and maybe they have something else to add. I don't know if that means I got it right or wrong, I'll let them. State statutes say that the maximum that you are able to recapture. Oh, I'm Carla Rosenberg with the, Carla Rosenberg with the planning department. State statutes dictate the three year is the maximum capture for the tax credit. I'm sorry, not tax credit, the tax abatement. This is a completely optional on our part, is it not the decision whether or not to remove this? Yeah, that is correct. And is there any reason that we can't as a requirement of this ask that the tax abatement be repaid in full for the full 14 years? As a condition of approval, I believe that you could. Oh, you can't. I believe that you can't per state statute. You can ask the question, but you can't require it. That's correct. I would like to ask for it. I wish we could condition the vote on it. I mean, they've been getting 14 years of tax abatement and I don't know why I'm looking at you, Carla. It's not your fault. But it does strike me that if we can't require it, we ought to at least ask them to repay the 14 years of tax abatement that they've received on the basis of having this designation which they're now asking us to remove in order for them to redevelop this profitably. And it just seems fair that they would repay the city for the benefits that they've received and now we're getting rid of in order to redevelop. So I don't know exactly how we'd go about asking that but I'd like to, I'd like us to. I want to make a comment on this and I have nothing invested in this but I think we ought to look at the history of why this was given in the first place for the whole project. But not for having that, we probably wouldn't gotten West Village done where it was done. But there was some point in time when the developers really wanted to build on this property and they met a lot of objections from, I'm not gonna say who, but I think we know who. And if they're allowed now to build on, which I think their intent is, then we're gonna have increased tax value that we're gonna come, which is gonna probably be a lot more than who had behind. So I don't wanna place it entirely on the developers to why they're asking for this removal and why they only paid three years back but this probably could have been developed many years ago, had some people not objected and I'm not gonna go through who'd objection with Steve. Steve Madeline with the Durham Planning Department, just wanna add one bit of clarification. Back in 2001, the practice had been to include all the property with the local landmark designation as the council was familiar. We no longer do that, we actually do a separate evaluation to determine whether the land is worthy of the landmark designation. I think this property was just caught up in that prior practice as the mayor rightfully pointed out should a development actually occur on this property, then I think you're gonna probably cover more tax from that development than you would leaving it in its current landmark designation. As councilwoman Cattati. Yeah, just for clarification, the certificate of appropriateness or the designation does not preclude development on it. That is correct, it does not preclude development on the site. Right, so really. But if I can elaborate, as the mayor was kind in that he didn't necessarily talk about this, this site was actually part of the West Village Redevelopment Project that came through about a year or two ago and was part of the project that went to the Historic Preservation Commission and there were some potential issues identified by the Historic Preservation Commission that were not inconsistent with the design district but did put some potential issues on the table that the developer was not able to overcome and move forward with that project. I think it is reasonable to assume that that same kind of environment would exist moving forward if this were to remain in the local historic landmark designation and I think what the developer is proposing is something very consistent with the property that is immediately adjacent to this that they did just complete construction on with the multifamily development. So recognize councilwoman Cattati. Is there anything that would preclude us from continuing this one cycle and to have a further discussion with the applicant? I mean it seems to me that there's nothing that's preventing us from a voluntary contribution. Steve Medlam with the Durham Planning Department there's nothing that precludes the council's ability to continue this item to a date specific if you so choose and if you want to direct staff to meet with the applicant and explore the issue that has been raised we would be happy to do so. Keep doing this piecemeal. But I understand the past concerns that were on this land but the Historic Preservation Commission did vote 6-0 to recommend that the council remove the landmarks. So presumably. They basically recognized as Mr. Young had indicated there really is no historic value to a parking lot which is what this is. And obviously there were no structures in play at this point. So they felt very comfortable reporting this request. Recognize council. Had you finished? Yeah. Recognize councilwoman Moffitt. So just for point of clarification I have a second thought I want to add to this but didn't I see recently this piece of property has changed hands? Or has this not changed hands? Not to my knowledge council member. All right. So let me just observe that if we do not remove the historic landmark designation and if they develop the property exactly the same way that they would if we do remove it they will pay 50% of the property taxes that they would pay if we remove it. So the question is what do we want in the future in the way of property taxes? And since they're willing to pay 100% of the property taxes I would certainly be willing to consider that carefully. I'm sorry. I've been looking to my left. I gotta get more conservative and look to my right. All right Dean Brown. I go back to the obvious that Dan pointed out too that the Historic Preservation Commission in August voted 6-0 to recommend to us as a city council that the landmark historic landmark status be removed. That sends a message to me in this discussion and that's why I support the measure. Recognize the council I'm sure. Yeah. So I'm not I'm in favor of removing the landmark status. I no problem and I understand. I think Don's got a great point. My only objection is I think we ought to be asking them to pay their back taxes that they the back taxes that they have not had to pay for 14 years. It seems fair to me and I understand we can't require it but I think we ought to request it. You know what I thought you were going to talk about? What I really thought you were going to talk about is asking them to put affordable housing in this piece but none of that went by the wayside but so I'm back to where we are. They come to us for housing. We will. They don't need to. I recognize. Oh you've got the phone. Well no we have a discussion. Recognize Councilman Davis and then the Mayor Pro Tem. Well thank you Mr. Mayor. I guess I don't want. I know you can ask people to pay. I guess I don't like the whole idea of this council being in a position where it could be interpreted that we were appearing to be saying that if you want this designation to be removed then we want you to pay more than what the law would allow. I don't want it to look like we are doing anything that could be perceived as questionable. So I understand the concept but I don't think it ought to be something that we should do. Recognize the Mayor Pro Tem. Have you finished Councilman Davis? I just, very simply I think is unfair and very harsh and as soon as we close the public hearing I would like to move the item as written. Any other comments before I close the public hearing? Hearing no other comments from the public, anybody else in the public? Nobody wanted to speak. I'll declare the public hearing to be closed as a matter of fact. Move the item. Second. It's been properly moved and second. Madam Clerk, we open the vote. We close the vote. It passes seven to zero. Thank you. Let's move to the next item which is supplemental item, item 26 preliminary economic development and a central agreement between the City of Durham and a proposed project, Cavalier, with the community development area within the city limits. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council, City staff. Kevin Dick with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. We provided a staff memo that defines the proposed project Cavalier and we are here to answer any questions if there aren't any. I recognize the Mayor Pro Tem. You guys are all wearing the ritual. Is this a convention? Is this a convention? Is this a convention? Is this a convention? Is this a convention? Back to the item. Can we stick with this tie discussion for a while, Mr. Mayor? Yes. Are there questions of the staff on this report? Here and on, I'm going to call for Councilman. I'm going to move the item. I want to make a comment that I've been mulling. Can someone second this? Second. This second, okay. Sorry, thank you. That I think that the incentives that we're offering for job are bargain and that if we have a way to offer, if we have a way of offering in the future, incentives based on employing people who live within the city limits, I would consider that be even more valuable and worth greater incentive money. But in this case, I think it's a bargain and I'm going to be voting for it. I can't hear further questions. Not called a question. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? And close the vote. It passes 70. Move item 27, preliminary economic development incentive agreement between the city of Durham and a proposed project Ironman within the community development area within the city limits. The staff is here to answer any questions that the council may have on this item as well. You've seen the report. You've heard the staff comments or the questions. Recognize the council on the title. Thank you, Mayor. Kevin on page two of the memo, the potential city of Durham incentives. I'll just read this because I'm here. Proposed offers up to $430 per job for 150 jobs. I'm okay with that. But the comment on additional city of Durham assistance may include expedited approval of permits. Can you comment on that? That is not something that would necessarily be in a contingency of the agreement. It is something that's possible if we have the staff resources to provide for expedited approval of permits just as we do with other projects that may involve some level of real estate development. And that would be the case in this particular instance. But it's not necessarily a contingency of the agreement. It's just something that could be an element of assistance. And at what level would that be determined? Based upon staff capacity, based upon in order to expedite approvals, based upon the worthiness of the permit applications and so forth. Councilmember Katalic, I jump in. That does require a petition to the manager's office at which time we review with staff the workloads and the conditions that accompany the request. And then I would have the authority to authorize an expedited review, but it's not automatic. Okay, well, I appreciate that assurance. I could explain my concerns a little or I could skip that because we don't necessarily know exactly who this firm is, but I have an inkling and we have other issues pending before the city that I have some concerns about. That's why I wanted to have a better understanding of exactly what was the intent there. And I guess just to continue additional city of Durham assistance may include on the job training funds and use of NCWORK's career center system for recruitment. Quite often we require them to use NCWORK's. Is there any reason why we wouldn't explicitly state that as part of the agreement? That will be stated explicitly, the use of NCWORK's. The on the job training grant funds would not necessarily be explicit because those have customer eligibility attached to them. Okay, perhaps you can split those two. We'll do that in the agreement. Great, thank you. Are there other questions? Not entertaining a motion on the item? Certainly. It's been properly moved. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes seven is zero. Thank you. We move back to item 11. Item that was pulled on the agenda. Proposed acquisition of former Duke diet and fitness center. We can do it one or two ways, Mr. Manager. We have persons that have sounded to speak or you can have staff to. I think staff can do just a very brief introduction of the agenda item, not a presentation. And then we'll be prepared to take public's comments. Good evening, Mayor Bell and council members. My name is Sandy Wilbur. I'm with the public works department, stormwater services. The item before you is for the option to purchase a piece of property so that for the use of a stormwater constructed wetland in order to treat stormwater from several large drainage areas that include downtown Durham. In order to help us comply with the Falls Lake stage one requirements for a nutrient reduction. Okay. Any questions from the staff? Recognize council member Codati. Thank you, Mayor. Sandy, can you just talk briefly about what, if this is approved tonight, what the next step would be in terms of planning and design for the property? Yes, the next step would be to put out an RFP for consulting services to help us with the design and public outreach process. Right now we have a feasibility study so we would get into more detailed design. There's also, there's a building on the property so there would be some demo and removal of soil associated with that but the consultants would get on board and then we would have a formal public outreach to try to determine any kind of amenities and things like that that we could incorporate into the projects. Any other questions? Recognize the Mayor Proctor. What is the timeline for this project? The timeline, let's see, I think I've got it here a little bit here. We, if the purchase goes through we would start up an RFP process that takes, you know, about somewhere around six months bring on the consultant, do a design and public input process. There would be a permitting process that would take about probably a year or so, a year or two and then construction itself would take probably one to two years. So it's definitely, and then, you know, then we would go to like as built and then into a maintenance phase. So it's quite a few years in the process. I know the Upper News River Space and Board of Directors is certainly waiting for some action on this. So I hope that we will not unnecessarily hold it up. Thank you. Any other comments? Recognize Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the messages we're getting from various neighborhood advocates is that they want to know we're talking a project here of over $8 million, correct? That's correct. What percentage, if any of that would be spent on some type of recreational purpose or walkways to give access to the community? I think at this point in the design process we haven't determined the amount that it would be. There's an existing trail that goes right along the property so there would be some improvements to that. And as far as the rest of the amenities, we have gotten a lot of input in the, we had about 12 or 13 meetings a couple of years ago. So I've gotten a lot of input on what kind of amenities people are looking at. And so we would continue that process to try to determine, you know, what sort of things that we could incorporate into the project. But I don't have any costs at this point. Would there be any way that monies could be used from your department for recreational community assets or would that have to come from parks and rec? I think that would probably depend on what sort of amenities they were. I mean, there's certainly certain educational kind of things that potentially could be put in there but I'd have to probably look into it. It probably depends on exactly what we're looking at as far as amenities. Let me rephrase the question one more time. Again, do you see anything, and perhaps your colleague there can help, that would prohibit your department from enhancing the site beyond the uses that you have deemed it necessary for? We would have the ability to enhance it in some ways, yes. In some ways. Great, thank you. Recognize the Councilman's Jewel. I appreciate Eugene's questions and there's a lot of interest in the neighborhood and in the city and this being more than just a large place to store our water and slow it down. And we need to be able to do that, I feel. And at the work session, Chris Drapps from Ellaby Creek talked to us about that a little bit, that if we just think of it as just as a water retention facility, we're not gonna be doing our community the favor that we need to be doing. And so I hope you all will be seriously pursuing what the possibilities are. And I know you've already gotten, as you said, two years ago, you had a lot of ideas and you're going out for another public input round, which I appreciate, but I just think we all ought to be as constructive as we can about making this more than simply a stormwater facility. And so I hope that you all will have enthusiasm for that. I know that you're in a situation where I know what your main job is and but I think that if you all are enthusiastic about the possibility that it'd be more then the community can pitch in and the other departments can be mobilized as necessary and we can make something really great happen. And that's what I'm really hopeful and really will be looking for is that something great happen in addition to it being a great stormwater facility, which I know is job one. So do you have any comments on that or thoughts? I think we can make it something that the city's proud of and I think working with the neighborhood and trying to see what their needs are and other citizens and trying to incorporate those kind of recreational and other types of amenities will definitely, it can make it sort of a destination of being able to look at something that cleans stormwater but it has some other educational and other properties that people can enjoy. So. Can I ask the mayor pro term? So you have worked into your timeline, the input from the neighborhood. That's okay. Yes. Well, I'm just very anxious because I sit on that board and they are very anxious. That's my only problem right now. So do what you have to do. I know it'll be a good project and serve the needs of all involved. Thank you. Any other council comments before we move to the audience? If not, I wanna recognize Peter Katz, Chris Drepps, Jack McLean, McLean, Peter, you signed up twice, right? So I signed up Friday and they asked me to sign up again as well. All right, thank you. Thank you. You have three minutes. Council members. My name is Peter Katz and I live at Fort 2 East Trinity Avenue in the Old North Term neighborhood. Before the Duke Dime Fitness Center came to the forefront, I spoke to you at the conclusion of the fight about O&D Park. One of the requests that I made to you was that you think about stormwater and your approach to that project with a view toward this one. My hope was that by taking a broader, more holistic approach towards both projects, we could have maximized the community resources created in total. Like a lot of people, I was disappointed when the city pulled funding for the original community center project at the Dime Fitness Center and I thought that if people knew the kinds of amenities that existed there, they would probably fight as hard as they did for the soccer field at O&D Park. That didn't happen and we spent almost a million dollars to build what's been called the hydrological equivalent of a parking lot there. We basically just fixed the straight pipe that goes under it and that's a block away and upstream from the Dime Fitness Center. So let's not make that mistake again with respect to the community placemaking aspects of this project. In the last few years, our neighborhood has become a more desirable place but many of you may not realize that there are still several hundred low-income households living within a two-block radius of the Dime Fitness Center. I wish somebody would speak for them. They could have really used the community center with after-school programs, two indoor basketball courts in a beautiful gymnasium, a pool, office space, two kitchens and an activities room. We talk a lot about dealing with the root causes of crime and Durham and I think this could have gone a long way towards that. We may have given up on that vision but the history of this location still requires us to make this property into a true resource. And so does its future. With all the new construction, we know there will be hundreds more people living and working nearby and this site will be highly visible. What I want you to take away from this is that we can't afford to approach it simply as a stormwater project. Thank you. I'm done out of necessity and that means amenities, site design, additional uses have to be included in the scope and the budget and integrated into the design of the project very early on. It's such a high-profile site which will be looked to later as a model. We need to be focused on doing what's necessary to make this project into the paragon of what an urban wetland project can be. Thank you very much. And in particular Eugene and Diane, thank you for your service. You're welcome. Chris. Yep. Mayor Bell and Council. Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Baker, thank you for having us here, having me here. I'm Chris Drepps from the Ellery Creek Watershed Association. And I just, without belaboring this too long, I just wanna say again that the Ellery Creek Watershed Association supports the purchase of this property for use as a stormwater practice. We're really excited that you're making the move to do this. It's been many years in the making and we're behind you all the way on that. So I certainly don't wanna do anything that would belabor that move. At the same time as the owners of three and soon to be almost six acres, just to the north of the property. And as early proponents of the idea that I think brought the idea to the forefront of the public mind many years ago, we really wanna urge the city to partner with our organization and with the neighborhoods during the planning and design at an early stage to make this project not just a stormwater project. I mean, yes, it would be easy for me to stand up here and say, great, we're doing a lot of good for Ellery Creek. But what I know from running these kind of, doing this kind of work in the public is that most people aren't thinking about the water quality in Ellery Creek. What they're gonna be left with is what's standing there. And what I also know is that some places have done this. The hardest part of doing green infrastructure right, if you ask the folks in the city of Chicago, is getting the different departments in the city to talk to each other and work from an early stage. That's the challenge. It's not building the practice. And if we do this right, we're gonna have something to brag about. We're gonna have something to show off to the rest of the country. We're gonna have 16 or more protected natural acres at the edge of our downtown that will be Durham's Nature Park. And I want us to have that vision and use that vision. Yes, acquire the property quick. Yes, meet the Falls Lake Stage One rules. But let's slow down when it comes to thinking about what this project can be and let's do it right so that we can all look back and we as Ellery Creek Watershed Association can not be fielding calls from people about why we put that thing out there in their neighborhood or why we were proponents of that. But rather receiving calls about what a great project that was, can we do more of these kind of things? So thank you so much. And we would love to help in any way we can. You're welcome. Is Jackie McLeod? Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Jackie McLeod. I live in Old North Durham at 911 North Magnum Street. Last week, I sent an email to the members of the city council sharing my concerns about the purchase of the Duke Fitness Center by the city of Durham in order to turn it into a stormwater facility. I felt a lot of questions had not been answered after the last discussion in 2013. And now I felt, this is a foregone conclusion. I'm therefore really grateful to all of those members of the council who wrote back to me and just took the time out to do that, to educate me and also promised that the future planning process will bring in those surrounding neighborhoods. I understand that you will invest in detailed planning process that is transparent and participatory. I hear your assurance that this will not be a stormwater facility, but a recreational and educational asset too. After tonight and hearing everything you said, I feel much, much more hopeful about the future of this project. Durham's rise to a mecca for foodies, music, art and grit was no coincidence. There were visionaries at work and we can be adding another jewel to our crown. I look forward to us all creating something wonderful. Thank you. Welcome. I don't have any doubt that this item is going to pass. I'm voting for it and I suspect the comments I've heard here is going to be supported. I want to make a suggestion. We've talked a lot about parks and rec trails, et cetera. I've suggested that we really need to have a master plan that we can put before the council and ultimately possibly put before the people because this is about money and I just don't think that we're going to accomplish what needs to be done based on the way we're moving so far. I might be proven wrong, but I think this will be a perfect candidate to include as part of the recreational facilities upgrade. And I would hope that, Mr. Managers, as your staff brings this back to us, not this item, but your plan for parks and rec that you would include this and again, I don't know what the bill is going to be. I'm still with the opinion that to do it right and to do it long-term, to be visionary, to have something people can really touch and feel to me is going to take a bond referendum, but we've got time to put that in, but I would just ask that this be included as a part of the facility upgrades or amenities that you bring back for our consideration. We've got plenty of time. If I look at the timetable that's been talked about, we've got time to do this. And I think it's the perfect candidate for this to be one of the items that we consider for our growth in parks and recreation facilities. Having said that, I'm going to listen to further questions. I'm going to call the question. Move the item. It's been properly moved. Second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? You close the vote. It passes seven to zero. Thank you. Are there any other items to come before the council? Mr. Mayor. I recognize. So the joint city county committee, there was a meeting in the morning at nine at the county. Got it. Thanks for reminding us. Any other items to come before the council? If not, we're adjourned at 8, 15 p.m.