 Good evening. We'd like to call the Durham City Council meeting to order. And certainly want to welcome all of you there. President with us this evening on Monday, October 21st at 7 o'clock PM. If we just take a moment of silent meditation, please. Thank you. I would ask Mayor Pro Tem, if she would leave us in the pledge. Ask the clerk if she would call the roll, please. Mayor Bell. Present. Mayor Pro Tem Cole McFadden. Council Member Brown. Council Member Cattati. Council Member Moffitt. Here. And Council Member Shul. We have two recognitions that we'd like to make this evening. I'm going to ask Ms. Kelly Stack, if she's present, want to join me. This is a proclamation speaking to food day. And it speaks to the fact that the health and well-being of our citizens is a primary concern for the city of Durham. Where as food day seeks to bring together Americans from all walks of life, parents, teachers, and students, health professionals, community organizers, and local officials, chefs, school lunch providers, and eaters of all stripes, to push for healthy, affordable food produced in a sustainable and humane way. Where as reducing obesity and diet-related diseases by promoting safe and healthy diets is a critical factor in improving citizens' overall health. Where as obtaining fair pay and safe conditions for food and farm workers is beneficial for both the producer and consumer. So that the food we produce and consume is safe and fair for all. Where as curving junk food marketing aimed at children is vitally important in order to come back to rising obesity rates and raise a generation of healthy children. Where as food day is a national grassroots campaign that seeks to change the way Americans eat and think about food, thinking of it as an Earth Day for food issues. Now therefore, I, William V. Bilbell, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina do ever proclaim October 24th, 2013 as food day in the City of Durham in order to all citizens to participate in activities planned here forth and encourage them to make smarter food choices. With my hand, Corporal City of Durham, North Carolina, this is the 21st day of October, 2013. I'd like to present this to you for any comment. Thank you. I'd like to ask the city manager to join me in this. The ICMA, which is the International City County Managed Association, has recognized the City of Durham for superior performance, management efforts with a certificate of excellence. And Durham is among only 28 jurisdictions in the U.S. to receive the highest award. And I'm going to turn this over to city manager Tom Bonfield for comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In addition to being one of only 28 jurisdictions in the United States, we're the only jurisdiction in the state of North Carolina that received this award. So we're incredibly proud of that as well. This award basically is given to cities that promote the use of performance measures in their budgeting processes and strategic planning in any of the benchmarking work that we do in our surveys with residents or with our employees. And it is a tribute and an example of our commitment to transparency and accountability at the highest levels. We are very, very honored to receive this award and want to continue to make the commitment to all of our residents that we are about accountability and transparency in everything we do. Thank you. The city of Durham has also received, for the second time, a citizen-engaged community 2013-2015 designation from the Public Technology Institute. And in this case, Durham is one of only 13 cities nationally to be given this designation. And some of the 13 winning cities include Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and San Francisco. Thank you, Mayor, again. We're very pleased to receive this award. This award really recognizes the city's accomplishments in innovations in public engagement through the use of technology and various other methods to, again, to promote our performance metrics, the application of all of the dashboards and those kinds of things that we have developed, as well as the opportunities for citizens to be engaged in all of our public processes through the use of technology. Again, we're very pleased to receive this award. In both cases, I want to say that these awards are also exemplify the incredible, talented staff that we have with the city of Durham who work every day to make these things happen, not just when it comes time to apply for award or to receive a recognition. At this time, I'd like to ask Mr. Jay Rinestein, our strategic initiatives manager, who heads up many of these opportunities to please come forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Bonfield. Really appreciate it. Again, just special thanks to our city manager and his great leadership, to the ongoing support that we get from city council, to Bertha Johnson, our Budget Management Services Director, and to Jermaine Brewington, our Audit Services Director for their real focus on excellence in the organization, to the gold champions, to the vice chairs, and to 100-plus employees that work on the citywide strategic plan. So they deserve a lot of credit. Also wanted to thank Mary Beth Holman with the city manager's office, who has spent countless hours pulling together a lot of this data, contacting department directors for the ICMA application, and also to Marcel Bronner of Durham OneCall and her staff for also pulling a lot of the data together and analyzing the data for the Public Technology Institute Citizen Engaged Award. So again, special thanks to them as well. And some final thanks to several departments, technology solutions, inspections, Parks and Rec, Durham OneCall, and NIS for all developing apps or using technology that engages our residents. So they're doing some great work. Thank them. And finally, we're doing some great things in Durham. And again, we appreciate your support and we'll be in touch. Thanks. I just thought while we were giving recognition for the recent awards that have been received, there was another, I don't know if it's an award, a recognition that the city was accorded in the last week or so. Some of you may or may not have heard about it. We were looked at as 100 cities and across the United States judged on livability and Durham was ranked fourth among 100 cities coming behind Palo Alto, Berkeley, California, Denver, Colorado, and number four was Durham, North Carolina. And I think what's significant about that, it's not like the Old American City Award or some other awards. This is a recognition that we didn't apply for. It's not like we submitted an application to say judge us. This was judged by an independent group that looked across this country. As I said, they picked 100 cities and they looked at things like health and transportation, et cetera, et cetera. But the point is, they ranked, they looked at 100 cities in terms of livability and it hadn't anything to do with size. It was just a lot of core elements, but for Durham to be given that recognition, I think speaks a lot about the city of Durham and what the citizens do to make this a place where great things happen. So I just thought I'd mention that. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Recognize Councilor Brown. I may add, some of you do not know this, I have a identical twin brother who serves on the city council in Denver. And of course, he will never let me forget that Denver finished third and we finished fourth. But still, this is terrific. It was Boulder, it wasn't Denver. Boulder. Oh, it was Boulder, that was third. I thought you said Denver. Oh, then I'll take all of that back. I thought you said Denver, Bill. Yeah, great. Okay, well, my son lives in Boulder, so that. Here's my phone, call him up. All right, thank you. There are other comments by members of the council. Recognize Councilor Schuyl. Diane, does he have a hand? Mr. Mayor, thank you. I have once again foolishly challenged Durham employees to a five mile run, Mr. Mayor. I was hurt this year, so a lot of them beat me. But we had a great time and I have, as last year, a pleasure to read the names of the top finishers here at City Council. First of all, I wanna thank D Buyers for arranging all of this and it was a great event, the drizzle held off and we had a great time on the American Tobacco Trail. But the fastest runner was Anthony Wambui from Transportation, who ran 35 minutes and four seconds. Those are seven minute miles, folks, that's really fast. Second was Eric Halstead from Public Works right behind him and then Roger Vroom from the fire department, then Randy Stort from Neighborhood Improvement Service. We also had a couple people who had said that they were definitely gonna beat me this year and would have had I not been limping along, they would have beat me anyway. But one of them was Ted Jones and Keith Herman. Lloyd Schmidler was there. Beau Ferguson was there from the City Manager's Office and Beau, congratulations, you read strong. Tom Dawson, you didn't win, Beau, you didn't win. You didn't actually come close to winning, Beau. But it was great to have you out. Tom Dawson from Planning, Chris Januzzi from Fire Department was there with his 11-year-old daughter. Andrew Holland was there from the fleet and Joe Clark. Dan Love, Jay Ronstin, is Jay still here? Fast as grease lightening. Gerald Battle, Don O'Toole from the City Attorney's Office and Debbie Reddicker from Public Works and many of their family members and friends. So I just want to thank everybody for coming out. It was a lot of fun, especially to Dee for arranging it. The last thing, last year, I talked about a couple of fire department members who were running up the Empire State Building this year. They're going to Chicago with backpacks on their back to run up the tallest building there. But I thought that this year's outstanding physical achievement that I've heard of by Durham City employees so far is interestingly by Keith Herman who just went on a 500-mile bike ride. So if you see Keith around City Hall, give him your congratulations. Anyway, Mr. Mayor, it was fun and thank you very much. So you can thank all the employees that participated and beat Steve. Did the Mayor Pro Tem have some comments? So I just want to ask to be excused from this meeting after a consent agenda. Thank you. It's been a problem to move the second item. Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes six as he will. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. First, we'll have prior items about a city manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No priority items this evening. Likewise, the city attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No priority items. Likewise, City Clerk. No items, Mr. Mayor. We'll proceed with the agenda as printed. And I'll first be in the consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be approved by a single vote. If a council member of the audience chooses to remove a consent agenda item, we'll discuss that later in the agenda. And again, I'll just read the headings of each one of the consent agenda items. Item two is liability claims, settlement, authority, delegation. I will pull that item. Item three is a resolution requesting the release of certain DPAC premises and authorizing execution and delivery of a notice of extension to the DPAC data of trust to extend the lien to additional property. Item four is utility extension agreement with Helen M. Ellison to serve 7227 Fayetteville Road. Item five is memorandum of agreement between North Carolina flood plain mapping program, federal emergency managing agency, flood insurance rate map updates. Item six is watershed protection and community park development for Southview land purchase. Item 12 is designation of voting delegate National League of Cities, Congress of Cities and Exposition November the 13th through 16th, 2013, Seattle, Washington, and that concludes the consent agenda items, entertainer motion, with the exception of item two. It's been proper movement. Second, Madam Clerk, we open the vote. Close the vote. It passes six to see her. We move to the general business agenda public hearings. Item nine, Durham traffic separation study, known as TSS and have Mark Aronson, director of transportation for comments. Good evening, Mark Aronson from the director of the Department of Transportation. I just want to make a few introductory remarks before turning this over to Matt West to briefly go over the presentation. But this item is a public hearing on the draft traffic separation study. Which is a collaborative effort by the city of Durham, NCDOT, Triangle Transit and Norfolk Southern Railway. The study has been prepared over the past two years with extensive public engagement to evaluate and recommend safety and mobility improvements at 18 different rail crossings in Durham. Notice of tonight's hearing was advertised on multiple dates in the local print media was distributed via the city's pack list serves and was reported by the media in several news articles. The full report is available for public review on the city's website. Hard copies of the report are available for review in the city's transportation department in City Hall and at NCDOT division offices at 2612 North Duke Street. Again, this item is a public hearing with the recommendation that city council receive the comments and refer them back to the administration and study team for review response and consideration in the development of the final report recommendations. The final recommendations will be considered by council at a future meeting. The comment period on the study will remain open through November 18th. Comments submitted through last Wednesday have been provided as an attachment to the council members as attachment item 11. We request that these and all of the comments submitted by November 18th be included as part of the public record. If you recall at its October 10th work session city council received a presentation, detailed presentation of the traffic separation study. We have a shortened version of the presentation that we'll give to you tonight prior to actually opening up for the public hearing. But before turning it over to Matt West, I'd like to introduce just a few of the other study participants that have been involved in this study from NCDOT, TTA, and others. In addition to Matt West, from Kimley Horn's Teresa Gresham, from NCDOT rail division, Jamal Pullin, Nancy Horn, and Sandra Stepney are all in the audience from NCDOT division five, Joey Hopkins, and Patrick McDonough from TTA. With that introduction, I'd like to turn it over to Matt West to just briefly introduce the study. All right, thank you, Matt. Thank you, Mark. Good evening, everybody. Okay, as Mark mentioned, there are 18 at-grade crossings that were studied as part of this project. They began basically on the west side of the county up toward I-85, and as you see on the map there, kinda followed that rail corridor through the center of Durham, heading south and ending down at I-40, basically in that general vicinity. They were, in addition to the at-grade crossings, we actually found ourselves looking at two grade-separated crossings as well. Those were in the downtown area. One was Chapel Hill and the other was Rocksboro. In addition to that, we looked at one crossing that's not actually a crossing yet, it's Briggs Avenue. It's threatening to be a crossing, it's set up that way. We thought it made a lot of sense to go ahead and study that. How will that look if that does become a crossing in the future? So the study corridor basically ran from crossing streets. It ran from Neal Road all the way down to Cornwallis Road on the south side of Durham County. Now, when we initiated the project, we really wanted it to be easy for the public to get engaged. And one of the things we decided to do early in the process was to break the, because the corridor is so large, to break this into three separate corridors. So when we went to public meetings and public workshops, we were really focusing on the areas of Durham where folks lived and they could come in and we wanted to make all those crossings relevant to that meeting. So the next three slides are just exhibits to give you a visual of what those three sections were. The first section was on the west side of Durham. It ran from Neal Road all the way to Buchanan Boulevard. And you can see some of the intersections included LaSalle Street, Anderson Street, Swift Avenue. The second section was what we called the downtown section. And this one had the Chapel Hill Street crossing, Blackwell, Mangum. There's been a lot of discussion about those, the area surrounding Deepak. And we carried it to the east as far as Plum Street. And we stopped there. Now the third section, which covered the east side of Durham, began at Ellis Road West. And there's actually two Ellis Road crossings on the project that came up early in the process. People were talking about Ellis Road. We had to clarify is that west or east. But this section began at Ellis Road West and continued to the east and ended at Cornwallis which was pretty close to I-40. The types of things we looked at, we, three major categories. We looked at near-term improvements, mid-term improvements, and long-term improvements. And you can see on the slide, near-term was two to five, mid-term were five to seven, long-term were improvements that would happen seven years or out. And there's, I guess the construction cost of those improvements is somewhat correlated to the near-term, mid-term, and long-term. And what I mean by that is near-term improvements were pretty relatively simple improvements. Safety equipment, signs, pavement markings, median barriers, and as you move to mid-term we got into a little more expensive construction cost, gates, flashers, traffic signals, median barriers again. And then as we got to the long-term, the seven-year plus, that's where the bigger projects kind of fell in this study. And those were grade separations, crossing closures, pedestrian grade separations. The project had a very robust public involvement, public outreach effort, that I think everybody on the team is very proud of. And there were basically three major components that you see in the blue, the green, and the orange boxes that fed into the final report. The first was council work sessions, and stakeholder meetings, and public involvement. For public involvement we had two major public meetings where folks could come in, review maps, talk with members of the team. We did individual community group briefings and key leader interviews. Stakeholder meetings, we had a large group of stakeholders. We had about, as you wanna say, about 50, 45, 50 to 60 folks on the stakeholder list. And the four meetings ran from November through May, 2013. All that information fed back to council work sessions, and the team got together, we discussed what we heard, it went back through stakeholders, back to public involvement, and into the final report. And what I really like about the way we handle this project, the three boxes didn't just feed into the final report. We vetted all this information. We were back and forth between stakeholders, public involvement. We took what we heard, we took it back to the public. So we really feel like at the end of the day, the final report is a great reflection of what we heard from the public on this project. To put it all into context, we wanted to come up with a project ranking system. I took the 18 crossings, and kinda answered the question, okay, how do we manage all this data? What's the priority? What do we do first? So, we came up with a ranking process that had three major factors that funneled into it. The first was data factors. These were factors that came from a federal railroad program called Grade Deck. And it basically took information like existing safety, gates, flashers, traffic counts, crash history. And it plugged it into a program, and it gave us results. And those results kinda represented the data factors. The second input was environmental factors. This was more related to, how does this affect neighborhoods? How does it affect properties, businesses, that type of thing? So we put ranking factors on those, and that fed into the final rankings. And then finally, we took all that information, we discussed it with stakeholders, and they discussed it with the individuals, I guess, in their interest groups. And they came back to us, and they were able to adjust and make recommendations based on what they heard as well. So it was that combination of those three factors that went into making the final ranking for the projects. And here's what we came up with. At the end of the day, with all that information, after two years of study, and just an amazing amount of public input and correspondence, we came up with a list of 12 long-term, grade separation recommendations. Some of these are road separations, and some of these are pedestrian separations, and you can see it there in the chart. But basically, number one, didn't surprise us too much, it was Blackwell-Mangham and Roxborough Street. And just to point out a few, Ellis Road West, we, going into this, we knew that was a dangerous intersection, so we were happy to see that one fall out based on the factors we put in as number two. So it seemed to make sense to us. And you can look at the list, and it goes all the way down to Neal Road, which was ranked number 12 at the bottom of the list of recommendations. So that's it, that is a presentation, sir. Thank you. You, let me ask, this is a public hearing, and I wanna know if any council persons may have comments before we enter into public hearing. If not, then, I'm gonna call the names of persons who have signed up to speak. I have 10 persons, and is it anyone out there that would like to speak, did not sign one of the yellow cards? Okay. In that case, as I call your name, if you proceed to the podium to my right, and I would ask that you hold your comments to three minutes each. And then, if we get further into the public hearing, we have to have more time, we can do that. The first is Terry Rekowick, Jeff Durham, Dan Jewel, Rarity Hester, Eric Height, Robin Heeks, Weeks, Doug Osborn, Lee Worsley, Gwen Silver, James Chavis. I said three minutes. Okay. Now, is it anyone else that wants to speak on this item? If not, then the last speaker will be James Chavis. Terry. Okay. I'm Terry Rekowick, and I live in Raleigh. I am a transportation engineer, and I've been involved in planning for passenger rail in the Triangle for over 14 years. And this is a related subject to the Durham Traffic Separation Study. I'm proposing a revision to the Durham Orange Light Rail Project so that it can be considered in the NEPA Alternative Study that's being done by Triangle Transit. A revised plan would change the middle portion of light rail track alignment, and this is what it would do. Increase safety for vehicles and pedestrians by eliminating as many as 18 railroad grade crossings. And you know, for example, the Durham Traffic Separation Study looks at how to improve 18 grade crossings. This proposed light rail plan would actually eliminate approximately 18 new railroad grade crossings, just through revising the middle portion of the light rail alignment. I mean, I could go on and maybe talk about 10 other benefits, but since it's not related to the Traffic Separation Study, I could just hand you the notes and the maps. If you don't mind. Okay, thank you very much. Sure. And follow if you that might be speaking if you have written comments. If you'd like to leave them after you've spoken with the clerk so they'd be a part of the record. We appreciate it. Next is Jeff Durham. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Jeff Durham. I'm with Downtown Durham, Inc. I'd like to say I appreciate, DDI appreciates being a part of the discussions from the very first stages. And I think at this point where we've come, it's worthy of congratulating everybody who has had an opportunity to come together and begin to identify solutions which will actually serve to connect our downtown and not in fact divide it. DDI fully supports the short term alternatives and the identification of funding to continue work on these relatively low cost upgrades which will improve the safety and the aesthetics of the crossings downtown. DDI appreciates the top priority that was assigned to Blackwell, Mangum and Roxborough crossings for further study of long-term alternatives. However, we would request an expansion of that list to include Dillard, Ramser and Duke because we think it's difficult to conceive long-term solutions which would not affect all of the crossings in the downtown. Although currently there's not much activity to Dillard crossing, the Downtown Master Plan does in fact contemplate the redevelopment of the two car dealerships on the south side of the crossing into large scale mixed use developments. With these parcels, if and when these parcels do get redeveloped, the Dillard crossing becomes a very important part in maintaining the connectivity on the eastern end of the downtown. For this reason, we don't support the alternative to close the Dillard crossing. DDI will continue to advocate for better connectivity between American tobacco and center city districts. We consider this to be a lynchpin stretch of properties to ensure the downtown's vitality and recommend a long-term solution which will incorporate a grade separation for the rail lines while providing new public spaces for new and possible development alternatives. It is for these reasons mentioned that DDI supports moving forward by adopting the rail separation study in order to be in the position to pursue further funding but without necessarily endorsing the specific proposed long-term alternatives. Thank you. Dan Jewel. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Dan Jewel. I'm a landscape architect in private practice here in downtown Durham. I've been working downtown since 1992. I've been coming to work almost every business day since then, and our office backs right up to the railroad tracks at the corner of Ramser and Corcoran Street. So I have more than a passing familiarity with the railroad, and in particular, the changes that have taken place on the south side of the tracks since the de-bap was opened in the mid-90s. One of the hats I wear is as a founder and board member of Durham area designers, or dad, as we are known around the community. For those of you who aren't familiar with us, we style ourselves as the people with the crayons. We facilitate and engage community conversations around urban design and progressive planning issues. In fact, we facilitated the public workshops for the downtown master plan update that Mr. Durham referenced a minute ago in 2007. And back in 98, we actually did a design charrette on the neighborhood in and around the Walker Warehouse, which I think greatly led to the choice of putting the Amtrak station there and co-locating Durham station across the street. We're passionate about the built urban form, and it's in how important it is to enrich our everyday lives and creating vibrant places where people want to live, work, and play. Our group has spent the last several months reviewing, dissecting, and discussing the traffic separation study. To that end, we have three speakers this evening, all who will follow me, to give you some thoughts on and to consider as you deliberate this study. Randy Hester, who for many years was a professor of landscape architecture at Berkeley, and if you were here back in the 1950s, you would see him as a young boy shopping on the streets of downtown Durham, decided to come back by a condo in the Crest condominiums and open a business here in downtown because he was so excited about the changes that occurred. Eric Hyte is an architect in private practice who lives just a few blocks from the tracks in the old West Durham neighborhood, and Robin Heeks is another architect in private practice who lives in the Lakewood neighborhood. The engineering efforts and quantitative analysis that comprise the TSS are important, but it's only part of a now critical, comprehensive look that is needed to the impacts of the proposed grade separations and street closings. We need to study in much more detail the urban design impact such as aesthetics, the pedestrian experience, effects on local businesses, not just from a physical standpoint, but also potential damage to our new and expanding vibrant street experience. We need to study the economic impact and the social justice issues. Some of these changes will take place in neighborhoods that are just now recovering from years of being neglected and dumped on. We need to keep in mind that what we do today may be around for another 100 years and future generations will be judging the decisions that we make today. I'll turn it over to my next speaker, Mr. Hester. Thank you. Dad spent a considerable amount of time studying the central city part, the Mangum Blackwell Rocksboro. And I think that we should start by showing what we concluded from this. First of all, a few facts. You all know that we have invested between 50 and 100 million tax dollars to improve the main street and the downtown section here and at the other end, the American tobacco. And it is dependent, not just for car traffic, but for pedestrian traffic to be able to eat downtown and to go to the bulls. This plan, as proposed now, is far worse. than the existing situation. It will create, you see here in red, beginning halfway down from Main Street on Blackwell, a concrete channel that eventually will get to 12 feet tall by the time you get to Ramser. You will then, hopefully, without being able to see the traffic coming, cross Ramser and go into a box that is 10 feet below the present grade. The red that is shown in here is all retaining wall. It is twice as high as the Chapel Hill underpass. It then, you would cross Pettigrew and there will be a continuous wall, both on Pettigrew and almost all the way to Vivian. This will be a terrible pedestrian traffic. This is a pedestrian experience. It seems to us that the city, to dad, that the city council should reject this proposal and request alternatives. Alternatives that clearly enough articulate the pedestrian and car experience and the cost so they can be evaluated by civic criteria. Thank you all for having me. My name is Eric Hyte. I'm an architect. I live at 909 Vergy Street here in Durham and I also am a member of Dad. I'd like to reiterate the support for the short and medium term solutions that are presented in the study, but I'd also like to bring some more detailed specifics to your attention on the long term solutions that I think you might wanna be aware of. Just as one example, the Ellis Road West Crossing, which is the number two priority crossing in the report, only behind the Blackwell Mangum Crossing. This has a number of issues with it. The first issue is that in the report, there are four schemes presented. So it's really hard to evaluate because there's really no definitive scheme there, even though it's the number two priority. The second issue is the cost versus benefit there. Looking at table C7 which is the computerized generation of reduction in collisions, that table says that the grade separation will reduce collisions by 0.05 collisions per year. So as a layman, I'm wondering, why can't we achieve that through better marking, better signal control instead of having a grade separation? And if we are gonna pay for that, the report knows it's gonna cost $3.5 million, which when I read the paper, I read that the pedestrian bridge across the I-40 was $7.5 million. The main street bridge was $1.9 million and that was 30 feet of bridge. This thing is a 30-foot high ramp that has 1,000 feet of linear feet of ramp and between 200 and 400 feet of span. I don't think it's gonna be a $3 million project. So basically, the fourth issue is, it talks about the east end connector, how that may actually make all this work obsolete because once the east end connector goes through, it says you can close that crossing. So what I want to know is why wasn't that part of the comprehensive plan with this? Why wasn't all of this taken into account? And the last thing is the neighborhood impacts. There's four schemes. Two of them call for rerouting Andrew Avenue. None of them call for any less than seven buildings to be removed. One of them has like over 20 buildings removed and it just kind of notes in passing that the impacts on the community will be variable. So essentially, I just don't think really there was an accurate accounting of the cost of these things or a lot of the alternatives and I just think that we can do better. I think we need to go back to the drawing board on a lot of these and see if we can do better for Durham. Thanks. Robin Heeks. I am Robin and I live in Lakewood Park and I'm a registered architect. Like other people have said, we really want to applaud City Council and the Department of Transportation for the demonstrated commitment that this study shows for safe and efficient growth of alternative transportation in Durham. And we really do share your sense of optimism for what increased rail traffic promises in terms of Durham's culture, our economy and our environment. But we want to caution that we feel like the traffic separation study is weakest in clearly defining the problem that it seeks to solve. And without a clear definition of the problem, you run into the potential of creating more problems with your solution than you solve. While the studies preamble by way of example states that its objective is to, quote, consider pedestrian and traffic conditions along an entire corridor while maintaining public support, it then goes on to list a very narrow and very location specific set of design considerations with no real mention of the larger urban questions such as scale, aesthetics and the economic and social impacts that the study will have. Based on the study, we can assume that the main problems they're seeking to solve are congestion and safety. But even then the study seems to only propose two very narrow solutions, either moving trains or moving cars. And it neglects the many other factors that influence safety and congestion, such as streetscape design, wayfinding and just the perceptions of safety. The danger of defining the problem too narrowly is that the resulting isolated engineered solutions may create, as I mentioned, new problems, more problems than they solve. For instance, pedestrian inhospitable tunnels underpasses enclosures, which is really the baseline for all the new grade separations that are proposed in the study have the pedestrian going underneath a dark set of tracks. Also, as disguised, we're creating a new form of isolation that separates our city, where we've worked so hard to create connections and transparency. This will be a very physical, this series, this kind of line of separations in the downtown will be a very real wall. And there are scale issues where retaining walls and bridge structures as that illustration demonstrated dwarf, or in some cases require us to demolish streetscapes and homes. The other thing that I think is really important to keep in mind is sight lines, that there's an urban design issue where these new overpasses block the continuity in the unity that we've created between two sides of downtown. These problems can be avoided with bold solutions. And I'm gonna pause on the beep and hope that there might be time for me to continue my thoughts later. Thank you. Let's do this because I do wanna try to get through the persons that are signed up and if appropriate we can come back. But meanwhile, if you could prepare to leave your presentation with the clerk. I will, thank you. Sure. Doug Osborne. City Council, Mayor, my name's Doug Osborne. I am here for fairly selfish reasons. I own 305 South Dillard Street, which is the old Durham Fruit and Produce building, which is due north of the railroad there at Dillard Street. Of course, I oppose the Dillard Street crossing. I can stand out in front of my building. I look down and I can see stadium, the new courthouse and the Diamond View buildings from where I am. It's a logical progression once Rick Hendrick shuts down his auto place for those apartments we built there and have a further transition of redevelopment of East Durham going up Dillard Street across the road tracks where the new county building is and further east along down Main Street. I am, my partner's invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in that building, have worked with Durham planning. We did not have possession of the building two years ago, apparently when this process started, so I guess we weren't notified. But we put a lot of money into that building investment. It's now been approved for open shelf space for lease and for sale. I'm also an area realtor and something like this but really put a damper on the downtime redevelopment, particularly when emphasizing walking, the traffic, the development coming up from the ballpark in that area down there. I just, I don't really quite understand why the railroad should have presence over the redevelopment that we have going on in the city here. So I'd urge you to really reconsider closing down these intersections, including mine there at Dillard Street. Thank you for your time. Lee Worsley. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. My name's Lee Worsley. I'm the deputy county manager for Durham County government. I'd like to provide a few comments about the traffic separation study and the potential impacts on the county government operations. First, Durham County emergency medical services provides ambulance service throughout Durham County. While it appears that some of the grade separations would have a positive impact on response times for EMS, we're concerned about some of the closure of crossings and the potential on response times. It's not clear to us that the study analyzed impact of closures on EMS response, and we'd welcome the opportunity to meet with you and the members of the team to discuss the location of EMS stations, concentration of calls for service and how the closures will impact the delivery of EMS services. The impact of the potential closure of the Dillard Street crossing is a particular concern because of the impacts on county operations. The crossing is located adjacent to the county general services department which provides building and grounds maintenance and mail services for all county buildings. It's just south of the new human services building which is now fully occupied. Dillard Street's an important connection between the human services building, general services, our new courthouse, as well as other major county facilities located in close proximity to general services. Dillard Street between Main and Ramsore streets was closed in 2009 due to construction in the 400 and 500 blocks of Main Street and reopened just a few weeks ago. We're concerned that the 2010 traffic counts used in the study do not accurately reflect the volume of traffic using this crossing with the recent reopening of Dillard Street. While the county's supportive of crossing improvements that improve safety, we're also concerned about the impact on operations and service delivery. Appreciate your consideration of our concerns and welcome continued conversations. Thank you. You're welcome. Gwen Silver. Good evening, members of the council, administrators and the public. Gwen Silver, I'm speaking as a concerned citizen. Over the weekend I looked back over numerous documents that I've collected over the past 10 years and I realized many studies have been done on Northeast Central Durham. The NECD Strategic Revitalization Plan, Northeast Central Durham, Fairfield Street Quarter Economic Assessment Analysis and the RKG Neighborhood Assessment Plan that was adopted by the city in 2006 are just a few of those documents. The issue of rail and how to incorporate it into our community is addressed to some degree in all of these documents. The RKG study states that this goal is to improve the transportation system, rail, bus, et cetera, to better provide access to employment centers. It further states that the Pentagon Street Quarter has the potential to become a cluster of smaller user, heavy commercial, industrial users. Efforts should be focused on making this area of the employment center for Northeast Central Durham and the Fairfield Street Quarter residents that it once was. The proposed TTA station that was supposed to be on the west side of the node offers the possibility of a transient oriented development which will provide entrepreneurial and residential opportunities for local residents. This corridor will not be that cluster if the key streets are closed to vehicular traffic. I strongly urge the council to not consider closing several streets, Plum, Ranzier, and Blackwell as doing so will provide this already struggling community. Thank you very much. You're welcome. James Chavis. Good afternoon to all councilmen and the mayor. I started with this from the very beginning and the first thing they said that it was gonna try to close down our areas and two of us was there and we stated then why are the studies so quick without giving the people the right to make that decision? And I've been keeping up and going to the meetings and I still continue to ask them why our area? As you know, we use those streets from one area to the other. We do not have a heavy pedestrian area down there on the pedestrian street corner. We have cars crossing, not only that. Mayor Bill and city council, when y'all closed down Diller Street, did they put that in consideration? Now go back and look at it. Cars are going back through helping Rocksville Street to not be as congested as it was. We use those streets and we feel that you are blocking off our community from one side to the other because as you know, those rails, if it be blocked off, they have not told you from one end to the other how long it's gonna take and what kind of congestion it's gonna make. It's gonna be a long road congestion. Not only that, you take Andrew Avenue all the way down and come around across Austin Avenue to come back up on Main Street. They did not take that into consideration nor Main Street coming up to the railroad track right there. They did not take that into consideration to go across Austin Avenue Fever Street. They did not take that into consideration. We want you all to go back and ask them to postpone this and make a better suggestion because as we've been going to this meeting, they did not put in that report. You had people that are speaking against that. You had people giving true measurement. Even I brought signatures and gave them to them at the last meeting. Telling them that we do not want our street crossing just for pedestrian. We want our street crossing for pedestrians and cars to help stop the congestion. And as you know, finally, when it was time for us to try to push and get Austin Avenue, we the citizen got out there and push to help stop the congestion on Austin Avenue. And once again, we're again asking you all, help us not to allow them to do this. Thank you. You're welcome. Is it anyone else that wants to speak on this item that has not had an opportunity to speak? Ms. Eakes? Yeah, how long would it take to finish your comments? I appreciate it. So in our opinion, these problems can really be avoided if we take more time with studying possible design solutions and we can accommodate increased rail traffic in the downtown, but we can do it better and with more vision. And I think if you look specifically at the section of downtown where there's Gregson and Duke and Fayetteville and Blackwell and Mangum, six out of those seven crossings are proposed to be grade separated. That is a pattern that needs to be studied at the landscape scale. If these grade separations need to happen, which again, based on the study's definition the problem is not entirely convincing to us either, but if they need to happen, it needs to be studied on a landscape level because there are opportunities to do this in a much more integrated, bolder, bringing more value to the city type of way. Some things that we have talked about is the idea of an elevated viaduct that can be activated and built from beneath. Another is the possibility of a rail channel that keeps the grade plain, the domain of pedestrians, it keeps sight lines clear, parks, buildings can go over top of rail channels. There are visionary ways that these separations can be handled in a way that builds on the stuff that Durham is doing well already. So we would ask that we don't go for the expedient solution, trying to grab hold of funding opportunities or whatever might be driving the timeline that we're looking at here and that we instead take more time to find a good set of solutions that keeps our city integrated, that keeps all existing roads open. We don't want to create new isolation or new fragmentation. We would like to see all no road closures take place and we'd like to see the study look at more systematic solutions for connecting these grades. Thank you. Again, a public hearing this is, is there anyone else who wants to speak before I close the public hearing on this matter? Let the director reflect that no one else has to speak on this item. I would declare the public hearing to be closed as a matter of fact before the council for discussion and I would recognize Councilman Brown first. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I must say, I misunderstood you earlier this evening but I have heard the 11 people who spoke tonight and I want to thank all of you. All of you for coming out and expressing your concerns. Gosh, after hearing from staff when they talked about a two-year study and a robust involvement with the community, at least based upon what I've heard tonight, I don't know if we need to put a stop hold on the check to our consultants but something's amiss here. Something is not right. And I know that the gist of what was articulated and articulated in a very well-fashioned this evening was mostly against, at least as one council member, what I would like to see and hear is what indeed are the alternatives. Again, I appreciate all of you coming and especially for the Dan and one mother group, Robin. But Dan and Eric and Mr. Hester and Robin, I know you have spent a lot of time and energy on this and we would very much like to see what other plans and alternatives that you can present to us but I guess, Mr. Mayor, I'm troubled by this and I don't know if I'm in the minority or not but it seems like we need to do a better job and there's no need to rush the judgment on this. So it must have managed to maybe perhaps you know this better than certainly than I but what is driving the timeline here on this study and our response to it? I'd have to defer to Mr. Aronson on that answer, Mr. Brown. I think basically what's drawing the timeline is at least to bring this phase of the project to a conclusion. I think we'd be the first to admit there's a lot of details to be worked out with some of the grade separations and the scale issues, all of those are subject to much further design details so I think the intent was to at least complete this phase to go into further design issues with some of the grade separations so I think there's time, our recommendation at this point would be to take the comments that we've heard and consider those as we develop a final recommendation to bring back for your consideration. Let me make a few comments and I was gonna wait until everyone had an opportunity to speak. First of all, I don't think, at least I didn't think that this task force was gonna be able to present us with a solution that was acceptable to everyone. I mean, that never crossed my mind. I think what was driving this is that we have a downtown that is beginning to develop that we know is going to continue to develop. We have a downtown that is divided by a railroad corridor. We have a downtown that anticipates the possibility of something called light rail coming through it, commuter rail coming through it. We realize the traffic patterns that we have now are what they are. If we don't do anything, it's not gonna get any better and maybe that's what we want. Maybe we don't want it to get any better. Maybe we just wanna continue to design like we have now across the tracks, across the tracks and let the trains keep coming through and see how awful it gets to be when people try to cross it, when you've got a light rail system coming every so often or when you've got commuter rail coming every so often and you try and get it across. I didn't expect this to be a solution. What I was hoping is that we would create a straw man. And for some of you who may or may not know the term straw man, it's something that you put up that people can start doing exactly what you're doing now. Proposing to showing the pros and cons and hopefully being able to come up with a solution. So I didn't expect this to be the end all for this issue. I only felt it to be the beginning, but we had to start somewhere. I mean, it took us some time to get these parties even to get together to agree to do the study. And then it was a little bit about who's gonna pay what into the study to make it happen. So I didn't come here expecting that this solution was gonna be a solution to all the problems and this council will rise up and say, yeah, let's move forward. We haven't even talked about money. I mean, that hasn't even been discussed. How much does it cost and where do we get the money from to pay for it even if we wanted to do that? So I'm not disgusted with what's been presented. I'm not disheartened with what's been presented. I think it's a start. It's something that we can now start putting up and start saying, okay, how can we improve this? Obviously, we've got to agree on what is solution. What is the problem? What is the problem we're trying to solve? What is the problem we're trying to solve? I mean, I think the problem is we've got a downtown that's trying to develop. We have a railroad that runs back down the middle of it and railroads are gonna continue their traffic. We've got a light rail system hoping it's gonna come on board and how we mesh all these things together and still provide the type of growth and livability that we just got awarded earlier in this community. So I'm not disgusted by what we have. I'm not disappointed. I think it's a start. I think we should take it as a start and then see how we can improve upon it. I recognize Councilor Moffitt. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate everybody coming out tonight. For me, I think the concern that I have is that typically, transportation's responsibilities are to move vehicles, cars, and light rail. And I agree that when we have light rail and there are trains every six minutes, it's gonna be very different crossing the tracks. But I think that some of the concerns that I've heard tonight, which I'm glad to hear, have to do with the urban fabric, the character of the city in which we live and that the alternatives proposed so far don't seem to carefully take that into account. And I realize that these are just initial proposals. But I would feel a little more comfort if the alternatives were a little broader in terms of the kinds of approaches that they take. To that end, I do have a question, I think, probably best for you, which is simply one of the things that we heard tonight and I've heard before is the possibility of lowering the tracks through town or raising the tracks through town, rather than each crossing, raising or lowering the streets. Was that a consideration at all in separation study? We had one criteria that we used throughout the project and that was if the high-speed rail improvements by NCDOT had proposed a horizontal change in location of the rail line, we would look at a vertical realignment if that helped lessen the impacts of a particular crossing. Now, that held true everywhere except for downtown. When we were faced with the Rocksboro, the Blackwell, the Mangum and the Chapel Hill, we looked at changes in the vertical grade of the railroad there as well to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties but also to retain the Chapel Hill Bridge if we could at that elevation and to retain Rocksboro if we could or to determine if we had to remove those bridges. So to answer your question, yes, we did look at vertical changes outside the downtown area where the horizontal had been proposed to be changed by NCDOT but in the downtown we looked at vertical changes independent of horizontal change. I'm sorry, I'm a little confused when you're talking about vertical versus horizontal changes. Just to provide some clarity on that. Sure, absolutely. If looking on a plan, if the railroad was gonna move left or right, forget about up or down, I considered that a horizontal change. If it was gonna move left or right and we said to ourselves, well, we're gonna move it anyway. So let's look at moving it up and down as well. And when you say you looked at doing it vertically, do you mean as far enough vertically that it would be low enough, for example, or high enough that that would provide the grade separation required? Or are we talking a foot or two foot or 15 feet? Well, for instance, in the downtown area, we wanted to balance everything. We didn't wanna take the railroad down too far. We didn't wanna take the roadways down too far. So we looked at taking the railroad up a little bit, the roadways down a little bit. In the case of Blackwell and Mangum, I think it was about six feet down to maintain the elevations of the Chapel Hill Bridge. And unfortunately, the Roxborough Bridge would have to be replaced as well. It was a crossing by crossing analysis. Everyone was a little different, but it wasn't necessarily black or white where we looked at completely taking the road under, we looked at balancing, if that answers your question. Thank you. Recognize, Councilman Shul. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. West, can I ask you another question? How do you, how does your, how do the comments that you heard this evening comport with the study and your idea of what would happen next? I wasn't that surprised by the comments to be honest with you, and... Nothing should surprise you and Durham, Mr. West. I actually like a lot of the comments because people are thinking about it. And we've, in a traffic separation study, you can only take it so far. We stop well below a feasibility study where a feasibility study would begin. We basically ask the question, the simple question from an engineering perspective, is there a solution that allows this crossing to be grade separated? So we did some analysis, and we only took it far enough to answer the question yes or no. And in the case when the answer was yes, those came up as recommendations for closing. Now, is there, are there different options to grade separated crossing? Yeah, are there different aesthetic features you can include? Absolutely. Unfortunately, this study, the funding associated with it in the description of the study, doesn't allow us to go that far. And we've always said along the way that at the completion of this study, we are set up for a document that will allow us to position ourselves for federal funding, allow the city to position yourselves for other funding sources to go ahead and do a feasibility study and study these crossings in more detail. So I believe Ms. Eeks is your name, if I'm correct. And she described, I believe, the term was landscape level. I'm not sure if that's quite the phrase. I mean, is that when you say a feasibility study, is that what you're talking about as well? Absolutely. When you heard them describe these things and showed us the, I don't know that you could see it, but the chart of the, you know, the big canyon and so forth. Sure. Nobody wants that. And so, you know, how do you, does your report take us to a point where we would then study those things? Or is it, you know, described to me, your report's relationship to some of these more specific ideas? This report will take the city to a point that allows you to make a decision to spend money to further study a crossing. You won't be wasting your money. You'll know that there is an engineering solution to make the crossing grade separated. What it looks like, how wide the span is, are there pedestrian tunnels? We didn't go into any of that. So we stopped right at the point where we could answer the question, guys, yes, we can grade separate this. So let's take it the next step. We'll find some funding, bring somebody on board, and study the aesthetics, the landscape, and what does it look like and how does it affect the fabric of the community? And would you say, again, I know you've told this before in work session and tonight, I believe also, but how long before the third, the third level of suggest of recommendations would be funded? What's the timeframe in there? Well, we had a generic time from, I believe it was seven years out, but in terms of when they're funded, we don't know where the funding is coming from at this point. So that's just sort of a round number to give you. We know it's not gonna happen tomorrow because there's no money on the table. Could it be 25 years out? Sure, could it be seven? We don't know. So, okay, well, thank you. I did have a few comments also, Mr. Mayor. One is that I do feel that, from my understanding and having heard about the public input process, that you all did do a good job of that. And I also wanted to say that you made some very significant changes in the Western portion of this from the original ideas brought to city council. And I thought those changes were excellent. And that some of what you had originally been proposing for the grade separations are not in the study now. And I think that you're to be commended for that. And those members of the public who, and I know Eric Hyte was one of those who's here today and has spoken are to be commended, I think, for bringing those to your attention. I think that there's a couple of things. One is, I do want to go back to what I think is one of the central things that's driving this is freight, is rail freight. And Norfolk Southern's desire to have their tracks, have their trains go through here quickly. It's my understanding they want two tracks through Durham where they now have one. And that they are very desirous of these grade separations, which we've known for a long time. And I also think that we need to keep in mind that insofar as Norfolk Southern wants things, that our community also wants things. Our community would like to have a reasonable price for the Belt Line, for the Duke Belt Line. Our community would like to have these bike pad improvements that have been discussed a little bit tonight. And we would like, there's lots of interesting ideas on the table already. The possibility has been suggested for a sculpture trail down Ramser Street. I mean, there are all kinds of interesting things that could be done. And I just want to say from my point of view, as insofar as Norfolk Southern is involved in this, I think that if we want to give them what they want, and some of the things that they want are important for us as well, better freight traffic through Durham would be great. But we also need to have a discussion where the community is involved in that and we are getting some response from Norfolk Southern other than just a flat no on the things that are important to us. And then I also think that the TTA rail alignment is also part of that. Very important part of what our community will want. What should the TTA rail alignment be? And I know that Norfolk Southern has some strong opinions on that and about how farther the commuter and light rail will be from the Norfolk Southern tracks. We need to have a, our community's desires need to be considered just as strongly as Norfolk Southern's desires in this, as this goes through. And then the other thing I want to say was on the funding, it would be my hope that we actually, that there is now a new state highway funding system or transportation funding system. And one of the tiers is statewide tier and this tier is not scored with any local input. It's strictly scored on a numerical basis by the state having to do with certain kinds of factors that they consider. And one of the fact, one of the ways to get into that top tier of funding is if you, it funds freight. It won't fund freight rail. It won't fund commuter rail, light rail, anything like that. It won't fund bike pad, but it will fund freight. And so I think in line with what the mayor said earlier about all the various considerations that we have going here, I would like us to get into the, I would like us to get the central downtown portions of this into the state scoring system. And I would like us to, and we discussed this at work session with our staff, those of you all who are here tonight for the first time, the fact that we would like to do this without committing to street closings, which we do not want to commit to. And with the ability to do these kinds of detailed studies of these crossings that people have discussed tonight. But I do think if we can get into the scoring stream, we have a chance to get started on getting some of these things funded. And then we can make the discussion real. If we don't get into the state scoring system, what I fear is that we, and into the start of getting to the stream, what I fear is that over the long term, we'll never be able to solve any of these solutions. We are going to be left as the mayor said, right where we are now. And I don't think when we have a hundred trains coming through here every day instead of six, that we're going to be happy with that. So I think we should try to move the central downtown crossings into the state scoring system for the understanding that we're not committing to closing anything and that we are interested in these very specific looks at these individual crossings with our community's interest in mind as well as the railroads interest in mind. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. We're looking out. Councilman Catani. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say that I really appreciate all the careful study and the input and consideration. I think this is an important first step, and that is exactly what I consider it a first step, and that when it comes back to us maybe by December or whenever we think it might come back, that will move the process along and allow us to move forward for future feasibility studies, which at the work session we discuss would happen crossing by crossing. So I do think downtown is particularly important and that there's quite a lot to talk about, but I think the concerns that were raised here and in the past are all completely on the mark, safety, pedestrian accessibility, concerns about closures, social justice, a whole host of issues. So again, I consider this a first step and a good well done one, and that there's a lot more to come. I think when it comes back to us, we may look at it as an acceptance of the report as opposed to an endorsement of the particular recommendations. So we'll see what happens between now and December. So again, thanks for everyone for their work on it and the considerable input and keep the good ideas coming. Thanks. Are there a little comments, questions? Recognize, Councilman Brown. Yeah, I certainly appreciate and in many ways support what my colleagues have said including the Mayor and Steve and Diane. A lot of people do not remember this, and I don't, but I read about it, that it turned the century Durham, which was really built by the railroad and railroad crossings. And I think it was 108 trains daily to come through here. But I'm going to take my rose colored glasses off now. And I'm going to suggest something that some of you do not want to hear. And keeping aside the fact as a caveat that we're up here to plan for the future. And we intend to do that. But I must say, I was at the League of Municipalities meeting, the annual meeting in Hickory, North Carolina earlier this week and heard directly from the director of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. And he laid out some rather compelling facts. Number one, demographically, our population is increasing. And two, it is increasing at a rate that does not need up with our budget for what needed to be done in this state for a viable transportation system. In fact, the funds for transportation are less now than they were several years ago. Due to ironically, receiving less gasoline taxes. Because, thank goodness, our cars are now more fuel efficient. So we are at a real dilemma here, folks, as he pointed out. And as some of you know, we've had some dispute with the current makeup of the General Assembly and not just the makeup, but more importantly the actions that they have taken. And even though the transportation secretary laid this out, I doubt that there will be any votes to sustain an increase in what we need to have, and that's the gasoline tax. If we're going to maintain what we have, much less add to it. Secondly, I came away with a feeling, and I hope, I hope I'm wrong because I've supported, be it light rail or commuter rail, whatever you want to call it for years. I came away with a feeling, when you look at the aggregate budget for transportation in this state, that these proposed rail systems are basically a footnote to the overall budget. I don't look for the necessary funds that really are needed to put this on the map for perhaps many years to come. Because, I mean, is anyone here who thinks we're going to get the necessary funds from the federal government? And so we're not going to get them from the state. So what happens to a dream deferred? But that's the harsh reality, I think, of what we're looking at now. Because we have, as the mayor pointed out, we really have not discussed the budget implications of all of this. We really haven't talked about what's a fair approach to Norfolk Southern payment versus the taxpayers of the city of Durham. We haven't even gotten to that point yet. But we need to do this. It is definitely a first step and some of my colleagues have proposed to, certainly I'm not going to support James and Wynn, any closing of any of these sites that you mentioned. But I think we need to approach this in closing with a very realistic look at what's, coming down the pike. And what's coming down the pike is less funds to even maintain what we have now. And I would suggest that above all, bit in city government or county government and certainly at the state level, we first and foremost must support what's already in existence. To do less than that is a disservice, I think, to our community and to our state. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Welcome. Recognize the Councilman Shul. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one more thing. Just trying to build a little on what Eugene was saying. I think one of the reasons to try to get this, parts of this now moving towards statewide scoring is that it's just because of what Eugene is saying about the lack of money for light rail and commuter rail. There is no, in the statewide, the biggest tier of money in the three, there are three tiers now in transportation funding in the state under the governor's plan. And the largest of those tiers is the statewide funding. That's about 40% of the money. There's no, as I said, local input into that, but that's where the most money is and it does fund freight, but it doesn't fund light rail or commuter rail. So if a very significant and expensive part of light rail and commuter rail, which I want and our community wants and is voted to support with the sales tax and so forth, is right through downtown Durham, how can we help get some of that funded? One of the ways to get that quarter funded is to get state funding for the freight, which is the same quarter. So I think if we're trying to think long term about how to fund our rail system, and I agree with Gene, we're in a bind, one of the possible ways is to get this quarter funded through the state tier of funding, which will fund freight rail. So I think that if we can get into that scoring stream with the idea that we will be looking at all of these individually, that we're not committed to closing anything, which I agree, I certainly, we're a long way from that if we ever do it. I think would be a good idea and I think we'll advance our community's goals in terms of the light rail and the commuter rail. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, let me suggest that as we move this along, initially we were talking about possibly something coming back to the council in the December timeframe, I don't know if that's reasonable or not, but if in case that does come back, I'd like a little bit more recommendations relative to these short term projects who are part of the proposal. And again, this is just a start. As I said, for me as a straw man that we now have something to really speak relevant to. And I just want to approach it at that point. So if there's no further discussion, I entertain the motion to move it back to the staff as it already is, recommendation that they come back to us as soon as possible. If you can do it in December, that's fine, but I would like some more recommendations relative to these short term recommendations that are part of the program. It's been properly moving. Second Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes five to zero. Thank you. Thank all of you for being here. We have one other item that we need to deal with and that's the consent agenda item two. It's a liability claim, settlement, authority and delegation. Ms. Dorothy Croom asked this item to be pulled. Is Ms. Croom available? Is Ms. Croom in audience? She's coming around. Oh, okay. Good afternoon. Good night. I mean, good evening. My name is Dorothy Croom and I'm glad, I mean Durham was number four and they award maybe next year they'll end up in first place. The reason I'm here tonight is because of, excuse me, I'm sorry. The reason I'm here tonight is because of our case before the DRB and Board of Adjustment. We have not been given the opportunity to present our case and I am really concerned about that going forward. We started this journey back in September of 2011. We went in front of the Development Review Board in 2012. Our issues were safety, decreased property value, concealed tower, environment, impact, perceived health risks in which the government is doing a study on the cause of pushback from the public, breast cancer in men and women, leukemia, fibromyalgia, miscarriages, and a host of other diseases. And October. Ms. Croom, could I interrupt just for a second? Yes. This item speaks to liability claims, settlement, authority, delegation. That's what item two is. You're right, I know that but I just wanna bring it up, bring this up so that we will not be in this predicament in the future. On this particular item? Yes. Okay, I'm missing your point. I think the council might be missing it also. Okay, well I'm just telling you our journey. So in October of 2012, we went in front of the Board of Adjustment with our concerns and then they kicked it back to the DRB. In February, our attorneys said that they wanted the definition of concealed. May 2013, we went back in front of the Board of Adjustment with the definition of concealed. And because of the Board of Adjustment decision, our next step is the Superior Court. In the meantime, when I asked for planning for a copy of the CD from the Board of Adjustment here in May 2013, I was told that part of our case was missing. And last Friday, when we went in front of the Durham Review Board, we, our attorney told us the items we could discuss safety, property value, concealment, and that the Board of Adjustment told us to start over. In the meantime, when we get there, the agenda is changed. And they told us the only thing we could talk about was the application of Pete Moreno. And based on research, Pete Moreno and his investors would make millions of dollars a year. And the church was only make $16,800 a year. I mean, what I'm trying to say is that we have had to run around for the past two years. We have yet to present our case to the DRB, which is questionable, and our entire case is in front of the Board of Adjustment. In the meantime, we have not discussed safety, high pressure gas line, property value decreasing, the 120-foot cell tower, which is not concealed, the environment, and other concerns. So, to me, I feel like this is the biggest form of bullying by planning towards citizens. All we're asking is the opportunity to present our case in front of the Board of Adjustment and the Development Review Board so that we will not be here. Ms. Proms. Yes. This item, I think that I'm used to is relative cell towels and et cetera, but this is not what this item is. Oh yeah, I know that. I know that. But I just want to come down here and, you know. Okay. Well, let us move on this item. Okay, all right. It's not relative to that. Any further questions on this particular item? Recognize Councilor Mott. I was just gonna say to that end, I want to appreciate, I know that Donna Dorothy and Dolly's issues with cell towers are frustrating to them, but that said, I will move to approve the resolution as recommended by its staff. It's been probably moving seconds for the discussion. Hearing none, call the question. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes five to zero. I need to remind the council that we have a special meeting Thursday, the 24th at 10.30 a.m. discussion on the downtown vision for the city. We'll be meeting in the city council committee room, second floor. Any other items to come before the council? If not, the meeting is adjourned at 8.33 p.m.