 Good evening, I want to call this meeting of the Durham city council order at 7pm on Tuesday, September the 8th, 2020. And I certainly want to welcome everyone here today who's either with us in this meeting digitally and in all of the possible forms in which that might be possible. And I will now ask if you would all please join me in a moment of silent meditation. Thank you. Councilmember Reese, would you lead us please in the pledge to the flag? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much Councilmember. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Schuyl. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Here. Councilmember Caballero. Here. Councilmember Freelon. Here. Councilmember Freeman. Present. Councilmember Middleton. I'm here. And Councilmember Reese. Here. Thank you. Thank you, Madam clerk. Before we have announcements, I'll just announce that how happy I am that we are joined tonight by our new council colleague Pierce Freelon. As we all know, we had a wonderful group of applicants for the vacant seat once held by the inimitable Bernetta Austin, who I visited with yesterday at a social distance to meet her new baby, Davis. And tonight, Pierce is, for the first time, taking this seat. And Pierce, I just want to say how pleased we are to have you as councilmember Freelon. And I know you're going to do a wonderful job. Thank you. We're just really delighted. And I think now I'll turn the floor over to you if you would have any remarks and then I'll ask any other council members if there any further announcements. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem colleagues. I just want to thank you for choosing me to serve. Durham is my home. I've been here for all 36 years of my life. And after the appointment, my wife and I were just talking and doing some thinking and reminiscing and research and actually found out that I've been in the ward for 22 years. So it's a real privilege to represent this part of Durham, where I've lived on and off for two decades. And I want to acknowledge that this is the ancestral land of the Okinichi Suponi people. And I want to, when I think about being a public servant, particularly over a territory within Durham, I must acknowledge that this land was violently colonized. It's a privilege of an elected official. It's our collective responsibility to critically interrogate those colonial histories and legacies as we kind of honor, protect and sustain this land. And shout out to Mama Omiside, Bernie Scott, and Elizabeth Pasquette of the Feminist Decolonial Politics Workshop, from whom I borrowed some of those words. I want to say that I'm coming with my ancestors today. I feel them on my shoulders. Brother Umar Mohamed, Baba Chuck Davis, Brother Yusuf Saleem, Dr. John Ho Franklin, and Atwater Polly Murray. I'm very much a product of Black Durham. And I had a conversation earlier today with former Mayor Pro Tem Korakul McFadden, and she was like, it's on you. You're the only local one on that council. And she's right. You know, the residents of Durham, you know, after Vernetta stepped away, didn't have a local representative, and I'm really proud to step up as a product of Durham Public Schools and someone who was born and raised in this community. And the last thing I want to say is just I want to say something about Black Durham, because I'm a product of Black Durham, and Black Durham is being gentrified, it's being displaced, it's invested from. We're experiencing violence on both sides, like being criminalized, but also having violence in our community. And a lot of that is the result of policy choices. So I just wanted to just shout out some of the neighborhoods, some of them in my ward, but some in other places of Durham. East End, West End, Bragg Town, I'm here for you, College View slash Heights, however you refer to it, Hick Town, the Bottoms, Fisher Heights, Haytie, Black Wall Street where I am right now, at Black Space. Of course the Mack, Oxford Manor, Corn Wallace, Hoover Road, Lyon Park, Wildtown, Cleveland Holloway, and all the neighborhoods that aren't even here anymore, St. Teresa, which I barely recognize, few gardens. You know, I'm here as a product of these communities and even going back to the descendants of enslaved Africans who built Durham coming in from the county in Stagbill. That's what's going to be on my mind and on my heart when I lift my hand up to say yay or nay on an issue. It's going to be my OGs, my elders, my ancestors, who I feel put me in this position for a particular purpose. So that's it. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm humbled by the awesome responsibility placed in my hands, all of you, and I appreciate the opportunity to serve the people of my city, so peace, love, respect, and let's do it. Thank you very much, Council Member for those eloquent words and we are happy to have you. Are there other announcements by members of the Council? Any other announcements by members of the Council? All right. Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, colleagues. Good evening, Councilor Freelon. That's a nice ring to it. The circle is now complete. Notwithstanding the wall behind me, I want to use the Star Wars reference. So we have a full compliment and I want to congratulate you on taking a seat. I want you to know that there are thousands praying for you and your family because they will bear a lot of the brunt of this journey as well. As you assume this position, you've spoken more eloquently than any of us can, but I would just say to you, my brother, that you don't always have to be right, but just be truthful and principled, and your steps will be guided. You've already called out some of the people that will guide your steps on behalf of Ward 2, and I know thousands of people beyond Ward 2. Congratulations. Welcome to the Council. I know the city will be better because of you. Finally, Mr. Mayor, I do want to also thank you during the process of filling the seat. You used your time to give voice to an ongoing crisis in our city, and that is a problem of gun violence. And I want to acknowledge families and victims of gun violence since the last time we met as the gunfire continues to go on in our city. It is a de facto. We are in a de facto, I believe, state of emergency, whether it's declared or not. And I want to thank you for giving voice to it. My voice can only go but so far, and I believe that mayoral leadership is needed with this issue. And the awesome gravitas and weight of your office that you bring to this, your ability to convene, your ability to focus public discussion and public discourse, I believe is what's needed. So I want to thank you for using your time during that process to give voice, as you always have, but to continue to give voice and the focus of the voice and attention of the city on this ongoing problem. And I look forward now with a full complement of fellow Council members to do all we can as a local government, as a municipality, to address this scourge that is not only on our nation, but that has visited our city all too often. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Pierce, congratulations. God bless you. Welcome. God bless Durham. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, Council Member. All right, any other announcements? Council Member Freeman. Thank you. I would like to thank you all and to also echo a bit of Council Member Middleton's comments and welcome and Council Member Freelon to the Council. And just wishing you the best of luck. I know that you'll do well. I also want to say that I uniquely understand what you say when you say it the way you say it, specific to our ancestors. It's important to always dial in and pay attention because you're not here just for you. You're here for all of us. And along those lines, I just wanted to take a step back and just note that we are still in our 2010 revisit of the census conversation of 2020 and noting that our response rates are really low. And my concerns, which I hope to also lift up in this, is that there are a lot of census tracks within Ward 1 that are under counted. And I'm not sure what the plan is, but I do want to make sure I put it on the radar of folks in the community to make sure that they're talking to their friends and families. And to know that your neighbors just keep having the conversations and making sure more people are talking about it so that we continue to push forward and to encourage folks to complete the census. Along those lines, I'm hoping that we'll continue to have or follow up with more information from the city and from the county on what our plans are to move forward. I feel like our rates are really low and with the recent push to try and close it early, I'm concerned that we're going to lose out on a lot of funding that is necessary for our city to run. And just noting how that impacts people in communities like Hoover Road or McDougal Terrace or Oxford Manor or Maureen Court or Maureen Road or many others. It's important to note that this time, it's not just about elections, it's also about the census and making sure that the funding is in place. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Council Member. You're exactly right about the census. It's very, very important. I know that there's a lot of good work by the city and county staff going on around it. I know that we're, they're now going to be people going door to door. With big bags, it's a census on them in a COVID safe manner, but we all need to get the message out. I just recorded a message a few days ago. And I know that as much as you all can push out on your social media and in all your circles. It will be very important to do so. So thank you. Any further announcements? All right. Then I will ask, are there any priority items by the City Manager? Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Certainly the City Administration wants to welcome Council Member Freelon to the group. And we look forward to getting to know you and work with you, albeit my time is short. But there's many others who are looking forward to the opportunity to brief you on their good work and to meet you and get to know you and work with you. So welcome. The City Manager's Office has three items this evening, all of which are just additional items to existing agenda items. Agenda item number one is the proposed Durham City Coronavirus Relief Fund Plan. Attachment number three has been updated. Agenda item number eight, Taser Replacement Program. Pursuant to Council's request, additional items, additional information has been provided for attachment seven, eight and nine. And then Agenda item number nine, the Eastern Water and Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase One, City Contract 16208 Amendment Number One. Again, pursuant to Council's request, some additional information has been added to attachment number seven, Mr. Mayor. That's all my priority items this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Manager. Madam Attorney, are there any priority items tonight? Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor Briton, members of City Council, and a hearty welcome to Councillor Freelon from the City Attorney's Office. We already had the pleasure of working with you once today, so good to see you again. The City Attorney's Office has no priority items this evening. Thank you, Madam Attorney. Madam Clerk. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council members and City Manager. I'd like to again welcome Council Member Freelon to our Council. It's been fun working with them so far. I do not have any priority items from the City Clerk's Office. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, it's now time for the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda can be approved by a single vote of the Council. It consists of items that the Council has previously worked on. The Consent Agenda can be pulled from the Consent Agenda by Council Member or Member of the Public, and if so, will be considered at the end of the meeting. I'll read the Consent Agenda. Item 1, Proposed Derm City Coronavirus Relief Fund CRF Plan. Item 2, 2021 City Council Meeting Schedule. Item 3, Increase in Civil Penalties for Parking Violations. Item 4, Contract with Kimley Horne and Associates, Ink for Parking Facilities Condition Assessment and Maintenance Plan. Item 5, Ordinance to Change Parking Fees. Item 6, Agreement with the Town of Hillsborough Respecting Mutual Aid for Drinking Water Supply. Item 7, Bid Report. Item 8, Taser Replacement Program. I want to say that we have about 20 comments that the Clerk mailed us public comments and I'm going to, as no member of the public can speak in this way to ask that this item be pulled. I'm going to, as I have in previous meetings, treat that as a request to pull this item in case there's any discussion. Item 9, Eastern Water and Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 1, City Contract Number 16208, Amendment Number 1. Item 13, Under General Business Agenda Public. I'm sorry, that's the Consent Agenda. And I will ask that we approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 8, which I have pulled at the request of residents. To move by Council Member Freeman, seconded by Council Member Reece that we approve the Consent Agenda. Madam Clerk, will you please take the vote? Mayor Stool. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Council Member Caballero. Aye. Council Member Freelon. Aye. Council Member Freeman. Aye. Council Member Middleton. Aye. Council Member Reese. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The ayes have it. The motion passes 7-0. Well now move, excuse me, to the General Business Agenda Public Hearings. The first item is the resolution approving the issuance by the Public Finance Authority of its Educational Facilities Revenue Bond Trinity School Series 2020. Are we hearing from someone in the administration on this item, Mr. Boyd? Good evening, David Boyd, Finance Director. This is a hearing to consider a resolution for the purposes of the Federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, TEFRA, as required by Section 147F of the Internal Revenue Code, regarding the issuance by the Public Finance Authority of its Educational Facilities Revenue Bond Series 2020, in an aggregate principal amount, not to exceed $6,750,000 on behalf of Trinity School of Durham and Chapel Hill Incorporated. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to refinance existing outstanding debt, to pay financing costs, and to make improvements and acquisitions of equipment at the school's campus located at 4011 Pickett Road in Durham. The purpose of this public hearing was published in the Durham Herald Sun, as required by applicable law. The city has no obligation to repay any of these bonds, nor will the issuance of these bonds have any financial impact on the city. The city council is being asked to approve this resolution only because of federal tax law, and the fact that the project being financed is located within the city of Durham Limits. As such, the staff has not reviewed the details of the project, nor evaluated its financial feasibility. Approval of this resolution by the city council is required for the school to take advantage of lower cost tax exempt financing. I, as well as representatives from the applicant's financing team in school, are here and available to answer any questions that you or council might have. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyd. Hi, my colleagues, you have heard the report from staff, and I'm now going to declare this public hearing open and we'll first ask if there are any questions for Mr. Boyd from members of the council. All right, seeing none. Is there anyone in the public who would like to be heard on this item? If you were attending this meeting virtually, and you would like to be heard, please raise your hand, your virtual hand. No one signed up for this ahead of time, but I just want to make sure, since this is a public hearing. I see no one among the attendees who appears to want to speak. And so, just being a public hearing and no one further wanting to speak, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. We are being asked to adopt a resolution approving the issuance by the Public Finance Authority of its Educational Facilities Revenue Bond Trinity School Series 2020 and amount not to exceed $6,750,000. Councilmember Middleton. Thank you, Mr. I do have some questions for the applicant. I'm sorry, I thought the applicants were maybe going to speak. No problem, go ahead. Okay, who would let me pull up my screen. I think Mr. Boyd could probably identify the appropriate person to answer. The Lawson and I believe I'm not entirely sure who's here from the school, but Mr. Lawson is here from the applicants attorney's office. Sure. Good evening, Councilor. Is there anybody here actually from the school? Hi, I'm Brandon Lawson. I'm here as an attorney representing the school and I have Brett Clark here as the finance director for the school as well. Good evening, both of you. Thank you. Just a few questions. What is the demographic breakdown of the student body at Trinity and of the faculty and staff? Sure, I will turn that question over to Brent to answer that we have the school. Trinity currently has 511 students enrolled in grades TK transitional kindergarten through 12 and we have approximately 17% of students who are not Caucasian. What's the breakdown of that 17%? I don't have that handy, I can look it up in the next few minutes. Okay, what is the tuition to attend Trinity? Tuition ranges from a little over $5,000 to a little over $23,000 depending upon the grade and the financial need of the families. What percentage of your student body receives financial aid from the school? 26%. Does the school provide transportation? We do not. Do you provide free and reduced lunches? We do not have food service programs. We do have vendors that provide lunch for the students. Do you have EC programs at your school? We do not. Does the school have a private police department or fire department to respond to emergencies there? Do you depend upon first responders when you call 911? We depend upon the Durham city police and fire department. We have very good relationships with the Durham city police. They help us with security throughout the year. We've been helping very much in the past three weeks with traffic as school has gotten started. This is a Christian school, correct? That is correct. All of our faculty and staff do sign an affirmation of faith. We are very excited about our faith. We welcome all families, all children. There's not a covenant, if you will, that any family, parents, nor children sign in order to participate at Trinity. Do the students receive religious instruction at Trinity? Yes, sir. It is a part of the curriculum. How would you characterize the brand of Christianity? Trinity is evangelical, orthodox, biblical teaching. How would you describe it? Trinity is evangelical, but we are pleased that over 85 congregations are represented among our faculty and staff and families. Could you give me just a couple of the points in the affirmation that faculty signed, the affirmation of faith? What are some of the things to highlight of that affirmation? Faculty commit to believing that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, that God is a God of truth and beauty and goodness. Okay. How long has Trinity been in existence? We celebrated our 25th anniversary last year, and we've been on our current campus just a little over 20 years. I think that's all the questions I have for the applicant. Mr. Mayor, I do have a couple of comments on when you bring it back before the council. Thank you both. Certainly. Thank you, Council Member. Are there any other questions or comments? Council Member Caballero. Yes, I was just curious. I know that we had a similar case about a year ago, and I was just wondering if private schools are not allowed to request financing from the state the same way charter schools are. And if that's the reason they are seeking the bar or the lender, I should say that they are seeking. That's correct. Private schools, Trinity is a private school, and they're using taxes and bonds and borrowing it through a conduit issuer and the lender for that to be approved. That's why they have to go and have their separate hearing here now. Yeah, I guess my question is that for charter schools, there is a state mechanism to do that. And I just don't know if that applies to private schools as well. Or do they always have to, are they just not allowed to borrow in the same manner? So charter schools, as you know, they're funded through the state. They receive ADM funding. There was a recent law that was just passed that allowed charter schools to when they have to borrow the taxes and basis and go and receive that allows them to go through the state's DPI, the Department of Public Instruction, that is specifically for charter schools, not private schools. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Are there questions and comments? Anyone else? All right, Council Member Middleton, you had some more comments, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to support this and vote for it because it's a pro forma vote. And that's what it should be, pro forma. I'm going to thank Council Capriero for bringing up the data point from Excelsior was a school last year, because these are the exact same set of facts. The fact of the matter is we would not have incurred any financial obligation whatsoever in the Excelsior vote, and we won't incur any financial exposure with this vote as well for this Christian school that does not provide transportation. That does not provide EC services, but it's a pro forma vote. I believe, Mr. Mayor, this is what happens when we politicize pro forma votes, and this is one of what I call the blind spots of our progressivism. Essentially, this is a private school who have some people that are spending $20,000 a year to go there. There's some wealthy people, and they're going to be able to go get more money by this vote. Conversely, Excelsior a school, which full disclosure, I helped to start, it's interesting, when they came to me, they said, we want you to help us start this school because we know you have a problem with charter schools. I said, I absolutely do. And I told them what my problems were. No free and reduced lunch, no uniform assistance, no EC services, no transportation, allows you to engage in brain drain and skim kids off. I said, you want my name on this, you have to do all of this day one. And I laughed, and I said, there's no way they're going to go for it. But I had a rare opportunity to put somebody else's money where my mouth was. And guess what? They came back and said, everything you just said, we're going to do day one. And I was stuck then. I didn't think they were going to do it, but they did. And to this day, they're doing it. And I listened to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues who are actually educators in the educational field, which we have is not within our purview as a council by the way, but I listened to them. And they said, here are the actual substantive things that charter schools do. I said bet, I'm going to challenge these folks to do those things since they're going to open anyway. And they did it. And we voted it down because we took a principled stand, not because of legal statutory differences between the ability to get funding, but because of a political stance on charter schools. And there were black kids who go to those schools, poor black kids who go to those schools who were riding buses, getting free and reduced lunch, wearing uniforms, whose school had to go out and find other means to add on to their school. But here, this private school with wealthy people in it won't have to go through all of that because we're not going to politicize this vote. And that's the danger. That's the blind spot of our progressivism. And what I would suggest, you know, schools aren't in our purview, but contracts are, and year after year, we give away millions of dollars to companies who come before us. We make them stand before this. We make them uncomfortable because they don't have enough black and Latinos. We shout out A&T and NCCU and then we give them the contract anyway. And they can't find one Negro to even answer a phone as a receptionist. You can't find a black person to answer the phone, but we keep giving them contract after contract after contract. So here's my challenge. I'd like three of my colleagues to join me and let's start methodically. If we're going to politicize pro forma votes, let's start methodically turning down contracts of folk who are coming with their hands out to the city, but can't find one black or brown person to work in their company. And if they're going to go to A&T, tell them to come back when they find somebody from A&T or Central, or one of these other HBCUs or a black person, at least to answer the phone. I'm going to vote for this because it's pro forma, but I want to go on record that this is precisely the quandary we fall in when we want to politicize pro forma votes without carrying it through to other issues consistently. This is what it looks like. The school should get this vote, and I didn't press any further, but I'm sure that if I had pressed a little further on that affirmation of faith, that affirmation statement, and that brand of Christianity, I'm sure I would have come up with something that would have made some of us uncomfortable, but we're going to vote for it anyway, because it's a pro forma vote. I just want to put that on record to me in context. And I hope that we will be this valiant as we work with Excelsior when it comes next time a company comes before us, asking for money, who can't find one black person to work for them, or one Latino person to work for them. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I yield back. I'll also offer the motion if you're ready for it. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Are there any other comments or questions? Council Member Freeman. Thank you. I didn't intend on making any comments, but I appreciate Council Member Middleton's challenge, and I'd offer to take you up on it. I think I've been one who's been very clear about my push in a similar aspect with my children at Voyager Academy. And so I will say that they are working on getting their transportation in place. They've gotten their free and reduced lunch, and they have EC supports in place. Now, that being said, I think it's different. It's just a different way you work towards things. And that difference has been a sticking point for many on Council in different areas. So I'd love to take you up on the challenge of not supporting contracts that don't come forward with at least one person of color on their record. I mean, that's the least that I can do. I think I've been very voiced about looking at workforce statistics and making sure that there are aspects in which we do have a way to reach into contracts or vendors with vendors and suppliers, both, so that we are not just puffing up our chest but actually saying what we're holding our values close to what we actually do. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Any more comments or questions? Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't want to discuss this issue more on this item because I don't feel that it's related necessarily, but I do want to follow up at some point around the questions around a question of whether we can reject contracts based on workforce statistics. It's my understanding that we have a lot that we have flexibility with regard to service contracts, but for the majority of our contracts for purposes for purchases of goods or for building that we do not have that flexibility based on North Carolina law and maybe our city attorney could provide us with a memo or some sort of legal information about that just to make sure that we have all of the information that we need. But it's my understanding that what is being suggested now is not easily permissible in North Carolina with the exception of service contracts with which we do have more flexibility and which we do not have that flexibility. And for those contracts we do exercise that flexibility, but that for the majority of our contracts, the workforce statistics are provided to us such that we may interrogate representatives about their practices, but that they are not actually really actionable. So I think it would be good to get something on that in writing, Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. I believe that the administration has actually been looking at this recently and may have some reporting for us and appreciate your desire to have the city attorney's office included. All right. Any other comments or questions by members of the council. Okay, I'll now accept a motion to adopt the resolution to prove the issues of the public finance authority with this revenue bond. Move to adopt. Second, moved by Council Member Middleton seconded by Council Member Freeman. Madam clerk will you please call the roll. Mayor Schuyl. Hi, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Hi, Council Member Caballero. Council Member Freelon. Hi, Council Member Freeman. Hi, Council Member Middleton. I vote yay. Council Member Reese. Hi. Thank you, Madam clerk. The eyes have it and the motion passes. Thank you to Mr Clark and Mr Lofton for being with us tonight. I'm sorry to interrupt Mr Mayor. I believe Council Member Caballero. Thank you. The motion pasted six past six to one. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Mayor, before we let the folks who spoke go, I just wanted to say welcome to Representative Lofton. I know he's doing his other job right now, but his other other job is serving Mecklenburg County and the North Carolina House of Representatives. It's good to see Representative Lofton. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, we'll now move to item 14 Consolidated Vatication, Leesville Road Assemblage, and we'll first hear the report from staff. Good evening. I'm Lea Struthers with the Planning Department. I would like to state for the record that all Planning Department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law and affidavits of all notices are on file with the Planning Department. I will now present Leesville Road Assemblage, Case Z19-00025, and BDG-19-00013. Request for utility extension agreements, voluntary annexation, and zoning map change have been received from Tim Cybers or Roth Associates for a total of 11 parcels generally located at 6-3-2-5 Leesville Road. Ten of the parcels are part of the zoning map change proposal, while the one parcel to the south of Leesville Road has been included to avoid creating a donut hole. Two utility extension agreements have been requested, one for the larger assemblage and one for address number 6408 Leesville Road. The annexation petition is for contiguous expansion of the corporate city limits. The applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the 10 parcel site from Rural Residential to Plan Development Residential 3.236, referred to as PDR 3.236, with a development plan which commits to a maximum of 344 units. No changes proposed to the future land use map designation of low density residential, which is consistent with the rezoning request. If approved, the annexation petition and associated applications would become effective on September 30, 2020. The applicant has provided additional and updated properties since the time of the staff report, and these properties have been vetted by staff and the outfit will provide these details during their presentation. City and county operational departments have reviewed this request, the budget and management services department determined that the proposed annexation will become revenue positive immediately following annexation. Additional information on the service and fiscal impact can be found in the staff report. The Durham Planning Commission at their March 10 2020 meeting recommended approval of the proposed zoning by a vote of 8 to 4. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. The emotions are required for this application. The first is to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into two utility extension agreements. And the second is to adopt a consistency statement. And the third is for the zoning ordinance. Thank you staff is available for any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. others colleagues you have heard the report from staff and now going to declare this public hearing open. And first ask if there are any questions for Mr others or members of the staff by members of the county. Any questions at this time. All right, then we will now move to hear from people who signed up for the public hearing. I see six people have signed up. I see the applicant to be represented in my Mr Tim Sivers. And I believe Todd Alsop is also here on behalf of the applicant as well as the traffic concert consultant. And I'm not sure about the other couple of people that signed up. So I want to just say to those who have signed up just to make sure you understand that we need to give equal time to proponents and opponents of this project. And so, let me just ask if Mr Steven. Sorry, I'm going to probably get this name right but nil. And Mr Jonathan Hayward. Are you opponents or proponents of this of this of this development if you are. If could you let us know could we could you put in the message in the chat whether or not your opponents or proponents. We'll just give everybody a minute here that would be for Mr nil or Mr canil. I'm going to put in the message and an opponent. Okay. And Jonathan Hayward is proponents. Sorry guys, Siri is not helping me. Mr Hayward can can you, you would you like to say something at this point are you a proponent or an opponent. Looks like you're proponent of the project for what you've written. All right. The only person that I see is here as an opponent is unless it changes made to traffic issues I see as Mr canil. So, Mr cybers, I'm going to ask you to go first and let us know which of the folks that are here with you will be speaking. I'm going to give you five minutes Mr cybers and then we'll see how it goes from there. Okay. Madam clerk, can you please make Mr Tim cybers available to be heard. This is Tim cybers. Good evening, sir. Good evening, Mr cybers. Yes, so Jonathan Hayward is with KB homes. I will be taking his few minutes of time. Bruce not is sitting here with me. Mr cybers up is also the developer and behind one is our traffic engineer who is available for questions as well about five to six minutes should be adequately time if available sir. That's fine. Mr cybers you may have five or six minutes. Thank you. Thank you. I did have a PowerPoint presentation if that can be brought up. Thank you very much. And Tim cybers with Horvath associate 16 consultant place Durham, North Carolina. I want to begin with also giving my congratulations to Councilman free law on his appointment. I do look forward to working with you in the future. Next slide please. The request in front of you this evening includes a change in the rezoning of 107.24 acres from our R to PDR 3.26 and an annexation of 113.7 acres. The project's located north side of Leesville Road, east of Delweb Arbor's Drive and west of Andrews Chapel Road, Leesville Road Baptist Church and large single family homes to the west, north and east. An existing single family developments to the south and southeast include Delweb Carolina Arbor's and Courtyards Andrews Chapel slightly further west is single family development of Fendall farms. Next slide please. The proposed density of 3.236 fits within the city's designation of a low density residential development for the project area and know there is no change to the future land use map. The project is compatible with existing land use patterns along Leesville Road. It's consistent with the goals intent and principles of the adopt the plans to also have adequate size and shape for the proposed density. Next slide please. The proposed density of 3.236 units per acre will provide a maximum of 344 units. The developers now in a contract with KB Homes to build a multi product town home development that will bring additional product types to the adjacent single family only developments. It's anticipated that these home prices will begin in the mid 200s. The proposed zoning use is compatible with the adjacent zoning designations along Leesville Road of 3.291 directly south 3.7 for Delweb Carolina Arbor's and 2.9 for Fendall farms to the west. Next slide please. The default plan illustrates commitments to right away dedication, landscape buffers, tree preservation area, a maximum of 344 units, open space as well as access points on Leesville Road and adjacent parcels for future connectivity. The blue arrows here identify potential vehicular and pedestrian stream crossings while the yellow arrows indicate the utility crossing. Red arrows indicate access points and the green areas indicate the preserved tree coverage areas and landscape buffers along the project boundary. There will also be additional tree coverage areas outside of the stream buffers. The orange lines highlight the limits of the power line easement in which will be designated as open space for the community and purple line along Leesville Road identifies the right away dedication. The image on the right identifies that the right and left turn lanes will be constructed at both entrances on Leesville Road as well as the bike lane. In addition to the road improvements constructed at Andrews Chapel Road along with a signal warrant analysis for that intersection. The default plan also meets all the Eastern Durham open space plans and policies as indicated in the staff report. Next slide please. The second application for this project includes a contiguous annexation of 113.7 acres. This encompasses the entire project area as well as the landscape nursery on the south side of Leesville Road. That parcel is included in the annexation to eliminate the creation of a donut hole within the city limits. Next slide please. This slide identifies a few of the key text commitments. 5,000 linear feet of nature trails, programmed open space, minimum of one traffic calming device, average block lengths not to exceed 600 feet. Additional asphalt for bike lanes, traffic improvements along Leesville Road as previously mentioned, as well as a one time contribution to the Durham public schools of $19,000. Next slide please. This slide identifies revisions and new commitments that have been reviewed and accepted by staff. As discussed during the Plenty Commission hearing and to clarify the intent of this subdivision to bring a different product type to multiple adjacent single family only developments. The proposed development will include townhouse residential units and permitted accessory uses. We have increased our tree preservation to 24% to include areas outside the stream buffers and we've increased our dedicated housing fund by 25% to $43,000. In a response to comments made at the Plenty Commission hearing, we're also committing to the following design elements. In order to promote variation in home appearance, no home can be constructed with the front exterior elevation or color palette that's identical to the home on either side of it. All town home buildings shall include a minimum of two front facing gable architectural features and transparent windows and or decorative hardware so included on all garage doors. Next slide please. This proposal is consistent with the goals and policies that comprehensive plan. It does provide the opportunity for additional housing choices for the area while supporting the growth of our city. The project has neighborhood support and I believe you have received emails in this manner. I do request that you follow Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of this project and vote in favor of this development that's consistent with the existing development patterns along Leesville Road. And will provide safe walkable streets with sidewalks, open spaces, protected natural areas and many other amenities. If there are any questions, the developers, traffic engineers and myself are available to answer them. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cybers. Mr. Cybers, just to be clear, all of the other people here who are proponents are part of your team. Is that correct? That is correct, sir. All right, thank you. And now we will hear from Mr. Nill or Mr. Canill. And Madam Clerk, if you could make Mr. Canill available to speak. I am. Thank you for having me. Sorry for my, my emoji there. I live in the couriers at Andrews Chapel. And of course, thank you again for showing the plot of the communities around us, Carolina Arbors, Fendall Farms, Andrews Chapel, et cetera. There's 1876 homes there. They're all active adults. One of the concerns that we have, and I've spoken to some other members of my community and Carolina Arbors, is not about the community being proposed itself, but about the fact that there is 1876 homes and now another 344 that we're talking about using literally a two-lane road taking you to 70. Major entrances are at all three communities. One of the things that concerns us is that at the corner of 70 Leesville, it's a two-lane road. And we have a fire station on Leesville, which is further toward 70 right now. We're concerned about that if there were ever any kind of, you know, serious situation that required emergency vehicles with the amount of vehicles that we have now, if there could be a problem adding more, there could be even a bigger problem. And what we'd recommend or we would request that the council take a look at is working with DOT to see if they can get that intersection widened at the bottom so that it could be, you know, lanes going left, lanes going right, both incoming and outgoing in order to help prevent that type of situation from happening. That's basically it. I'm actually a realtor, so I have no issue with more development and certainly not the type of development they're talking about. We don't have townhomes on that side, although I believe Fendall Farms is building townhomes, so that's going to be a competition for KB, I think. But again, the question is more related to the road and the interchange at 70 in Leesville. Thank you, Mr. Canill. I'm sorry, it's Nill. Mr. Nill, sorry, thank you. That's okay. You had me guessing there, and thank you for clearing that up, and we appreciate very much of being here. I'm going to ask Mr. Judge, who I believe is here, if he would like to comment on what Mr. Nill said. Also, Mr. Judge, I noticed that in the TIAs, or in the studies that we did locally, there's the intersection at Leesville Road and Olive Branch Road, already a level of service F, I believe. It's the one that looks like it's going to get substantially worse. I know it's way off site of this development, but I wonder if you would like to just comment on the traffic situation out there in response also to Mr. Nill's question. Yes, Bill Judge, City of Durham Transportation Department. So, as you indicated, a traffic impact analysis was prepared for this development. The intersection of Leesville and US 70 was not required to be included in that study. Primarily, we have to set limits on the study, and we have basically a amount of traffic when traffic is exceeding 10% of an intersection. That determines what intersections are included or not. There's already a lot of traffic at US 70 in Leesville, so it did not reach that threshold. But we are aware of those issues, and we have talked with NCDOT, the long-term NCDOT plans in this area, convert US 70 to a freeway. And Leesville Road, that intersection goes away, and there's a realignment of Leesville Road opposite Page Road Extension with a great separation and a bridge there. So that will be the sort of long-term investment. The state's been hesitant to invest too much money in widening the US 70 and Leesville intersection in lieu of the larger freeway project coming in the future. I do believe the Fendall Farms development may have a requirement to make some minor improvements at that intersection at some point in the future once they reach a certain density or threshold. But so yeah, unfortunately in the near term, there's not a lot of plans to make improvements at Leesville. There definitely are long-term plans for US 70 and Leesville to address that situation. The concern you indicated at Leesville Isle Branch, yeah, the problem there is that intersection is only about 300 and some feet from the Leesville Shady Grove intersection, which is projected to be signalized. And another developer is working on installing a signal at that location, and the spacing doesn't quite work out for Leesville and Isle Branch. So NCDOT did not require a signal there due to the spacing. Thank you very much, Mr. Judge. I appreciate that explanation. Colleagues, you have heard the testimony of the folks who have spoken on this so far. And before I turn to you all for more questions and comments, I want to ask if there's anyone here who is attending who would like to make themselves heard on this item. It's a public hearing item. And if you are in attendance and would like to speak, could you please raise your virtual hand for us? All right, I don't see anyone else. All right, council members, questions and comments now for the applicant or staff, council member Rees. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the developer for the presentation. I also wanted to thank the folks who live in and around this particular proposed annexation for reaching out to the city council over the last week or so to talk about their perspective on this. I think it's really important as we consider these types of projects to hear from the people who are going to be this project's new neighbors if it's approved. So I really appreciate them reaching out to us. I did have a question for Mr. Severs. In the presentation, you indicated that you were making a commitment about townhouses being built there, but I didn't see any number of percentage attached to that. Did I miss it or is it just not there? I'm sorry about the associates. So the commitment was that would this this would be a 100% townhome development. Oh, obviously I missed it. Okay, great. Thank you. So I didn't have any other questions, Mr. Mayor. I did have some comments, but if you want to let other folks ask questions first, if you just want me to chat for a bit. Council member, go ahead. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to put all my cards on the table. I have no idea how I'm going to vote on this tonight. That's a level of honesty you rarely hear from us at this stage in the proceedings. Having reviewed the many attachments to the agenda item I've met with these developers. I read a bunch of emails from folks who live near there. Heard from one of our planning commissioners late this afternoon about this project and a number of other folks as well. I think this particular annexation petition is maybe I think one of the. It's the best that I've seen recently we've seen a lot of these as my colleagues are aware recently these requests for annexation and associated rezoning. This may be the best that I've seen recently. I think the concerns that we hear about from these types of projects in this part of the city really fall into two big buckets. One is that at the when the projects come to the planning commission, the developers have not secured a builder yet. When the project is at the planning commission and the planning commission is reviewing the petition, there's no way for a developer to say, here's what this project will actually look like because they don't have a developer to tell them to kind of run the numbers on the mix of single family homes, townhouses, multifamily, whatever it's going to be. And kind of that inability to do that, but also to make the kind of design commitments that a number of our planning commissioners and me think are important in order to preserve to prevent the kind of monotonous design you see in so many of these types of projects around the country. And so that's kind of one bucket that it's caused in many cases that we've seen by not having a builder attached to the project. And so there being no way for the developer to make those commitments. The other bucket, and I think that first bucket is often put forward by a number of planning commissioners, but especially Commissioner Miller at the planning commission, who is a very persuasive and persistent advocate for that kind of those kinds of design commitments to prevent that monotonous design in these new neighborhoods. The other basket of concerns is about whether or not this type of development makes sense in this part of the county that would currently have to be significantly deforested each of these projects in order to build the project that's before us. And that basket has lots of stuff in it. It's do we really need to do we need to really need to clear cut another 100 plus acres of property in the county bring it into the city and pay to put houses on it. That are single family homes that can can't be reached by public transportation because there is none out there that further put strain on the roads around there as we've just heard in a way that the city who's considering annexation has no way to improve those roads because they don't belong to us. And so I think that basket of concerns is championed in many ways at the planning Commission by Commissioner Baker. And as I told the developer when I met with when I when I had the conversation with them a couple weeks ago, that conversation between Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Baker is really interesting because it speaks to who we're trying to be what the built environment of our city is going to look and whether or not this land ought to be part of the city and all of this is in the context of a decision that the Durham City Council made a little over five years ago. When all but one of us were doing other things with our time other than serving in the city council and that was approving the long term planning and construction of the southeast regional lift station in this part of the county. Make a long story short, that would make it possible for the kind of residential development that you're seeing come before the council. And that's the long term reason why we've seen such a number of these in recent months. So all of that is to say that I think the developer has done a fantastic job. Since the project was at the planning Commission to address the basket of concerns around design commitments, mix of housing, those types of things. The developer has gone back and done a ton of that stuff that, for example, Commissioner Miller identified as one of the things that was lacking in the proposal was at the planning Commission because since then they've secured a builder. And the builder has been able to tell us exactly what the housing is going to the housing mix is going to be there are going to be townhouses and has made a number of key design elements to prevent that monotony design. That can be so difficult in neighborhoods and we've seen it across the country. To the extent that the second basket can even be addressed from from a developer who is actually seeking to build a lot of houses on on property in this part of the county and trying to exit into the city. I think the decision to go to have an all townhouse community addresses a portion of that concern, which is that we need a lot more density and housing in order to accommodate housing growth, and to make it possible to build a transit into this part of the county, assuming it becomes part of the city, but it can't really address the concerns around traffic and not just traffic, but the inability of the city to fix that. And I have to say I have a lot of suspicion about whether or not ncdot is going to be in any position anytime soon to roll out a new project to improve the roads in this part of the county, even if it becomes part of the city, given their financial problems. So, and I think the the broader question that Commissioner Baker brings to us and brings to his remarks, which by the way aren't attached to the agenda but he emailed them to us late this afternoon is one about, you know, choices. What what do we want development to look like in the city of Durham. Do we want single family homes. As far as the I can see between here and Breyer Creek, or is there a way to try to induce something different something better something more in line with our sustainability goals in Durham. All of that is to say that this is very close to the line for me. And I really wanted to kind of talk about all these issues at the beginning of the conversation, so that I can sit back and do what I think works best for me which is listen to my colleagues, wrestle with these same issues and other ones I haven't even talked about, and see how you're thinking about it, so that I can figure out how the heck I'm going to vote so that's what I wanted to say about that Mr. Thank you. Thank you council member for those helpful comments. Excuse me colleagues. Who else would like to have questions or comments this time council member Freeman. I really appreciate council member Reese's appearance of rambling but actually the clear explanation of exactly what's at hand, and these types of cases, where we know that it's, it's a benefit to the community to create more housing, but where that happens if we if we continue to lead by development. We get this piecemeal approach that doesn't quite cover our needs as a as a city being that we have infrastructure issues in other areas that need to be approved or need to be covered. And needless to say, I definitely could see the tension and I, I can hear Tom Miller in my ear at the planning commission on the design side of this and I've always been more on the Nate Baker side of this and like, what do we really want to see in our community, as we speak on sustainability, and we continue to pass developments that don't quite get to that goal and acknowledging that it's not just building density but is building density where it's best leaf best suited and so in this area I can see that density would be helpful. And because of the area that Leedsville Road is leading into briary. However, the concerns I have around how state funding might be limited around the Department of Transportation who does the burden fall on. And I think it's important for those roads to be, you know, move from level f up. And so those folks who are most burdened are the folks that I'm hearing the most loud, the loudest in this because they are actually at the center of, of who's going to carry that. And I am, I'm torn as well but I'm more settled in, and that I cannot I can't put the burden on those residents to carry the weight of 344 townhouses at that. So in this case, 344 townhouses, because I thought I heard staff say 11 units which is why I pause for a second like maybe this is something different. The 344 units is a lot. And that's, and because it's such a car centered part of the city or county that we would be annexing into the city. We know that it's going to be car heavy. And so without transportation already there, the folks who are moving folks who are purchasing all of those all those pieces factor in. And I'm really mindful of the fact that the developer made the intention or the intent around proffering, you know, the street blocks and the linear like all of that and the dog parks and this and that. And at the, at the center of it is still sits heavily with me with who's going to cover the cost of increasing that level of the streets from an F to at least the sea. And how long it might take for that to happen and so I really have questions for staff around that because I don't know that there has been an analysis in that way for our costs and benefits. But I do think that that's a part of the conversation and I know I sat with the developer on a pre on another case and mentioned the same thing in that when we look at cost benefits all we look at is police fire. Transportation and we're not accounting for our infrastructure needs and that just in this past year we were looking to try and find ways to cover $25 million and roadpaping and just noted that $25 million becomes even more exacerbated as we add more roads into this. So yes, this is a state road, but if the state is not going to cover any repairs or they're not going to cover the widening if they're not going to cover the project, who gets who actually covers that costs and so I'm just have a lot of concerns around this case. Thank you. Thank you councilmember mayor pro tem and then councilmember caviaro. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank my colleagues for laying out some of the concerns I think that my. My only concern really with this case is a broader concern with the circles area I think that this proposal is good. I appreciate the changes that the developers made. I think it's a good idea to build in town homes in order to create more density in this area and avoid the lowest density single family development options. I though am I continue to have concerns which I communicated to our admin and two developers who have come to us recently with proposals in the area of the southeast regional with station that I feel that we don't have a plan for this part of the area that is going to lead to anything other than a mass of mostly single family but low density residential. And I know that we built the lift station there with the intention I assume that the city built the list station in there with the intention of spurring development in this area. And because of our existing zoning and our comprehensive plan that has been updated for a number of years, the land use from the area is low density residential. And so we're getting proposals for low density residential from developers who are who are bringing us proposals to do the exact thing that we said that we wanted in this area. But I don't think that it is what we want in the area I think that we want more diversity of uses and not just a, you know, hundreds and hundreds of acres of single family residential. And so I'm concerned that with the speed of the proposals that we're getting that we aren't that we haven't taken the time to figure out where the other uses in this area are going to be. And that if we just build residential we are creating a sustainability nightmare where people are going to have to get in a car and drive to downtown or drive to fire creek or drive to RTP that there won't be any opportunities for people to walk or bike to work or to the grocery store or to, you know, to just meet their basic needs active basic services as part of our community. So as a result of communicating this and other council members communicating this we're now getting a presentation from our planning staff about the Searles lift station the history there and hopefully some thoughts on a broader vision for what we want this area to look like. And that's happening at our work session on the 24th. I feel generally good about this project, but I think I would prefer to wait to vote on it until after that presentation to have a better sense from our planning staff about what the long term vision is for this area. And so that I can feel more comfortable that we're not creating that by that by moving development that kind of these sorts of proposals forward that we're not locking ourselves into into the kind of development that I think we are trying to avoid that we actually I want us to have a plan for commercial notes in that area I want us to have a plan for where we think we could put office building where we think we could put recreational open space. I and I feel like I don't have that sense and so I'm concerned about just rezoning tons and tons of land to be relatively residential without having that broader vision in place. I like this proposal. I want to be able to support it. I feel like I'd be more comfortable moving forward with it after I have more of a sense from our staff about where we're going in the area more broadly and and as we get more and more of these proposals for this area. I think this issue is going to it's going to cause more and more anxiety. And so I'd rather do it now and and look at these proposals again in a couple of weeks when we have had the opportunity to think more broadly about the whole that whole part of it folks are into it folks are willing and if the developers willing. I would be excited about the lay of two cycles for this. You're easily excited. You know me. Easily abused as well. Thank you Madam Mayor. Council member. Thank you Mayor. Good evening everyone. I am also leaning towards a delay. There have been other times I'm planning during these kinds of rezoning where I've asked for a delay and I feel like we've gotten better outcomes because we've had a little bit more time. The zoning cases we're seeing the impacts to our community are are really big. We know what can happen because we see Briar Creek right over Wake the Wake County line, which is actually what spurred a lot of the development. And I think that most of us on Council would say that's not what we want in Durham County right over the line. And so since staff is responding to our requests I've had conversations with planning I've had conversations about the Searles lift station to get some of the context and history there. And I'm excited to hear the presentation a few weeks and since it is so close if the developer is amenable. I would prefer a delay as well. Thank you Council Member. Council Member Middleton. Thank you Mr. Mayor and I want to thank my colleagues. Listening to them is always so helpful in discussions like this in these matters and I'm going to thank particularly Councilor Reese who always look forward to listening to a particular matters of this nature. This is one of the best presentations I've seen since I've been on Council voting on developments and rezoning. And I also want to say that we keep saying we need density, we need more housing, people are moving here. And I want to associate myself with everything my colleagues have said. I think each of my colleagues have pointed out a problem, a challenge with development in general. My challenge is that we're governing right now. And what we do as a Council not only echoes here in Durham, but it echoes around the country. It sends messages to folk who want to do business in Durham. It sends messages to other developers and other interests around the country about the context and tone and expectations, the values of our city. And I don't want to inadvertently have a chilling effect on doing business in Durham because we're kind of in search of what the master plan is and trying to govern at the same time. So I want to hear that presentation definitely on the lift station, but my suspicion is that that's not going to really help me in terms of design issues or what we want houses to look like or the balance between single family, multifamily or town homes. It's almost like a de facto moratorium, even if we don't call it one. I think lately we've kind of been tap dancing around the reality of a de facto moratorium until we come up with some definitive statement as to who we are, what we want the area to look like, and what our trajectory is. And if that's the case, I think as a governing body, we need to just say that because the danger for me is, and I think we saw this, you know, a couple of meetings ago. I don't want us as a government to look capricious or kind of picking winners and losers based upon how the meetings flowing that particular night, where we'll approve one development, you know, for whatever reason, and then another one similarly situated and they're all different, of course, there's not one to one hard correlation, but, you know, another one similarly situated and will approve that one. It didn't approve the other. I'm concerned about the message we're sending as a government and as a council, not just to residents in the city, but but to those who might be looking at Durham in the future. If we are going to to stop approving developments until we have some questions answered, then we should just say that. And we should do that as a government but my and again, I resonate with everything that's been said, everything every observation, every challenge from traffic patterns to design all of that. But at the end of the day, we have to, you know, make decisions that are that are respected around the country that are not predictable but at least discernible to some degree that that that that that give confidence to folk who want to do business and that this is not capricious this is not kind of arbitrary based upon what we're feeling that night. So, I'm on the merits of the presentation of this particular development. Again, it's one of the best ones I've seen so I'm inclined to support it, but I'm also moved by what each one of my colleagues have said but I think that if we if we are trending that way, then for the for the sake of the reputation of our city. For the sake of the reputation of this council and our government. We're going to have to answer the ultimate issue. We can't kind of, you know, dance around the edges on it we're going to have to answer fill in that blank and then govern accordingly, rather than kind of govern piecemeal and you know, in search of the larger answer. And that's my concern. And I again I resonate with everything that's been said but I'm inclined to support this development but if we put it off. To listen to the presentation on the lift station. I think many will see that as a de facto moratorium again not named but a de facto moratorium. And, and I think there are some. There's some there's some pitfalls in doing that without calling the thing the thing and coming to some type of coalescence around where we're going in terms of development in this area in particular and then govern accordingly. So thank you all for your comments. They've been most helpful but but that's where I am on this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you council member council member Freelon. Thank you Mayor shul and colleagues for your comments. I just listening to everyone and hearing that. I'm feeling that a delay would be cool. In fact, my grandmother said a delay is not a denial. And I personally I don't share the same reservations about how that would appear to people who want to do business and I think if people know we're being kind of careful and meticulous. I know that they can't just run up in here and and do whatever I like the idea of seeing the proposal in two weeks. I got the email, well several emails from folks in the Arbor's community were, you know, advocating for this development. I got a thoughtful email from Nate where he he proposed that we imagine and I'm just kind of reading from this comments public comment. Imagine the city where on properties of 107 acres. I mean this is, this is huge plot of land here. It's not just blocks, close knit streets, mixed income and diverse housing walkable transit oriented employment. I think those types of imaginings are worth a little more of our time, especially for me because I'm just getting these materials and I look back at the work sessions and tried to absorb as much information as I could prior to this meeting I wasn't able to meet with the developers beforehand but it was nice seeing the presentation it looked really solid. But I'm, I'm airing on the side of seeing what else is possible and if that takes a few extra weeks or you know dissuades, some folks who, who might see that as, you know, being nitpicky or slow. And I think that's an acceptable sacrifice to make in deference to a project that truly reflects as much of our, our values as, as we're capable of. So, you know, those are my thoughts and thank you for your time. Thank you council member. Right, I'll add some thoughts on my own, but Mr cybers while I had my thoughts you might. I know that you can read the tea leaves and I think you need to ask yourself whether or not you would be amenable to having this public hearing kept open until a date certain. And after I make my remarks I'll ask you what you would like to do about that. My colleagues I appreciate all the comments that I've heard. Let me just add a couple of my own. One is this. We make rules, and we hope that developers will and we set standards and we hope the developers will follow these rules and rise up to the standards that we have set. And I think that we, it's important that we are be able to say to developers if you do these things that we have said that if you do your development will be supported. Then we will support that development. These are legislative decisions. We don't even have to give any reason at all for our own vote on these things I understand that. But there is good faith here that I think is involved. We set out these, these, these standards. This developer came to the planning commission, not having met what I think are a couple of the crucial standards and then is. I just pointed out after the planning commission and after they did obtain a developer builder did make a lot of the changes that I think were satisfied. All pretty much of that I could see of the objectives that were raised planning commission. I am very concerned that there's one very important missing piece of the equation here which is that we've been turning down a lot of housing. We've been making housing endure more expensive. And I'm really worried about that. And I think that this effect is real. I know that this effect is real. I want to say on the a couple of different issues one just on the issue of the roads I there's some good information by Mr. Judge in the, in the chat that I think is helpful in terms of the US 70 intersection, but on the larger question. I've said this before and I'll say this again, if we want better transit. We have to provide better transit. And the way to get better transit and to be able to afford it make it make it cost effective is to have the, the population that will make that a reasonable expenditure on our part. And I am sure that transit is very rarely never maybe built where there aren't a whole lot of people that need it. And so I think that when we say that what we want is transit to an area before we're willing to see the housing, I think that we're not being realistic about what's going to happen. We can provide transit out there now, and more transit out in this direction. That's on us in the county with the county with a new candy transit plan. But I think we have to recognize that that's our responsibility. If we're serious about that, then let's get about raising the taxes, which is what it will mean, and spending the money to do that. On the issue on the on the larger issue of what will this part of the county look like. I'm also like you all looking forward to the presentation on the Searles project and on this area, and I'm anxious to hear this. And as I said at a recent meeting and couple of recent meetings. I really believe that we need more small area planning. And this is a great example of that. We need that kind of planning in this area. But it takes time. And I will just say that I'm not going to be voting against every good development project until all that time passes. I think that we have to be able to do both things we have to do the planning and we have to provide some housing for people in the city. So those are my thoughts. Mr. Cybers. Are you have you thought about the issue of having this public hearing held open I think you can see that several council members would be more inclined to be supportive where we to take some time and hear the Searles presentation. Are you available to be heard Mr. Cybers. Yes, we're looking forward to that presentation as well and we are we are willing to continue this if it can stay open to probably I guess it's either the 5th or the 19th but yes we're willing to work with you on that. Thank you Mr. Cybers. So let's talk from the administration when are we hearing the Searles proposal. On the 24th Mr. Mayor. On the 24th and so the council meeting following that would be October 5th. October 5th. Colleagues. Without objection I'm going to declare that this public hearing will remain open until and we will resume on October 5th Madam Madam Attorney did I did I do everything I needed to do there. Yes, I believe you did Mr. Mayor. All right. All right Mr. Cybers thank you to you and your team. And thank you to Mr. Mr. Neil who was also here tonight. We will hold this public hearing open until October 5th. Thank you all. Thank you colleagues. Thank you sir. And now we'll move on to the next public hearing item. Which is item 15 consolidated annexation 1101 Holla Branch Road. And first we'll hear the report from staff. Ms. Struthers are you up? Oh I see. I think I see Ms. Sonjak. Although she has a different name tonight. I do. Good evening. Good afternoon and good evening. Good evening. I'm going to announce my new well not really new but my married last name I was married in June. I'm Jamie Lawson with the planning department. We're happy for you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Request for utility extension agreement. Voluntary annexation. Future land use map amendment and zoning map change have been received from Tim Cybers of four bath associates for one parcel of land located at 1101 Holla Branch Road parcels total 178 acres. The annexation petition is for contiguous expansion of the corporate city limits. That's a BDG 190007. The zoning cases are Z 1900012 and a 190006 I believe. In addition, the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the site from rural residential to planned residential development 2.999. That's PDR 2.999 with a development plan committing to a maximum of 421 townhouse units and single family residential dwelling units. The applicant also proposes to change the future land use designation of the site from very low density residential to low density residential. There is no change to the recreation and open space designation. In addition to the annexation petitions and associated applications would become effective on September 30, 2020. Key commitments include restricting townhouse and single family detached residential units as the permitted building type, dedicating additional right of way for future bicycle lane, committing to no residential units within the 300 foot wildlife corridor area, providing a maximum of 21% tree coverage, providing various amenities at the time of site plan, committing to architectural design features to promote variation and distinction, reserving a 100 foot wide greenway trail easement, setting limitations on the block length, and providing contributions to the Durham public schools and the housing fund. The text commitment that was included on the development plan that talked about additional street trees was not approved by staff and should be removed from the development plan as a commitment. The city and county operational departments have not identified any significant negative impact. The budget and management services department determined that the proposed annexation will become revenue positive immediately following the annexation. Additional information on this can be found within the staff report. The Durham planning commission at their June 2, 2020 meeting recommended denial of the proposed zoning and future land use map amendment by a vote of four to nine so that should be a correction within the staff report. Staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other ethical policies and ordinances for mentions emotions are required for this application. The first would be to adopt an ordinance annexing the property and entering into utility extension agreement. The second would be to adopt a resolution amending the future land use map. The third would be for the consistency statement and then the fourth is for the zoning ordinance. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Miss Sonjak. I'm sorry. Thank you, Miss Lawson. And congratulations again. We're very happy for you. Colleagues, before we go into questions for staff, I'm going to try to save us all some time by calling on. I'm going to call on Miss Shwedler. Miss Shwedler, can we make Miss Shwedler available to be heard, Madam Clerk? Jamie Shwedler. I'm here, Mr. Mayor, if you can hear me. Yes, would you like to make your comments now? I would if I could save the council some time and considering what we've just heard on the prior case. Yes. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and members of council. I'm Jamie Shwedler with Parker Poe. We went through Fayetteville Street on behalf of the applicant. We appreciate hearing the dialogue tonight. In this case is something we were looking forward to presenting. It's in the Eastern area and we're looking forward to moving forward tonight because we filed this case in April of 2019, almost 18 months ago. And that was before the first annexation in this area was initially denied almost a year ago now. We appreciated the dialogue we've heard on the transportation and planning to serve this area including the impact of delay on development and its impact on housing supply and infrastructure costs. But to Mr. Reese's point, we believe this case meets many of the goals in the first bucket and in the second. But given the transportation and planning presentation that the staff has planned for the work session and touching on some of the elements in the second bucket. We'd also like to request to leave the public hearing open and continue to October 5th or even 19th to allow more time to discuss these issues, digest what planning and transportation have to say about the existing guidance that's already in your plan and how that impacts this case and the ability to move forward. And I just want to thank you for your time tonight, but request that if we are placed on the agenda in October, we really would like to be in a position to move forward then given how long this case has been pending and the existing guidance that we believe gives this council ample information to move forward in this area and would appreciate that consideration. Thank you, Ms. Schwedler. Would you prefer October 5th or October 19th? I believe I'd like to hear from council as to what they feel would be adequate time to digest that information. Well, we told Mr. Severs in the previous case that it would be October the 5th and I see Sarah Young has popped into our visual consciousness and might have some advice. Thank you, Mayor Schull. Good evening, everyone. I just wanted to let you know that we're trying to be respectful of these virtual meetings and how challenging they are with multiple public hearings. And so today was actually the agenda deadline to submit items for the meeting on the 5th. That has, I believe, three items already on it. So the addition of the fourth one that was just continued, my recommendation, if I could offer one, would be to do it on the 19th to try and balance things out for you all. Thank you very much, Ms. Young. Ms. Young, would you also like the previous one to be heard on the 19th or would you, are you okay with that on the plan? I think that'll be all right. If we can just split them up, I think that'll work. All right, Ms. Schweidler, then would you ask for the continuance to the 19th? Would that be acceptable to you? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Colleagues, I had previously, Ms. Schweidler had called me about this as you can tell previously and said that she was going to be asking for this continuance. So that's why I called on her first to go ahead and try to move us past any of the questions and so forth that we would go through until we have heard this information at her request and also clearly the will of the council. So without objection, I'm going to keep this public hearing open and continue it until October the 19th. Thank you, Ms. Schweidler. Thank you. All right, colleagues. We have one more, I believe item on our agenda. And that is moving back to item eight, which is the taser replacement program. You all have received some public comments sent to you by the clerk from members of the public. I see Chief Davis is here. Chief, would you like to address us on the taser replacement program? Yes, sir. Actually, I think everyone has probably received the memo giving details about the specifics on the taser replacement program. The Durham Police Department has had a taser program since 2008. And in previous years, the department did not elect to carry the maintenance and coverage for tasers and tasers were replaced as they became unusable or damaged or whatever. Now that we have gotten to a point where many of our tasers are unusable at least 212 of them are unusable and they don't currently have any kind of maintenance plan. We decided to do a replacement of the current program with a package that includes the maintenance and repair for a five year period for the purchase as opposed to going back into that same type of arrangement with our tasers. So that's basically what this request is for 250 tasers to include five year warranty with unlimited cartridge and unlimited maintenance, including the hosters for those tasers as well. Thank you very much, Chief. And we're glad to see you. Thank you, sir. Colleagues, you have heard the Chief's presentation. And I'll now ask if there are members of the council who have questions or comments they'd like to make at this time. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and thank you Chief for being here and for the extra information that you provided in our agenda packet with for responding to some of our questions about this contract. I had a couple of additional questions for you. Do all of our patrol officers carry a taser? Is it part of the standard equipment that they would have with them on patrol? No, it's not. Therm is a little bit unique in their program. The program here is for those officers that elect to use a taser to go through the certification process. So all officers don't have tasers. What percentage of tasers carry one? Oh, let me have to ask someone here. I think Sean. Sean, are you on the phone? Hi, Chief. Yes, I'm on the phone. Great. Thank you. So we have approximately 240 uniform patrol officers. I believe about 80% of them carry tasers. Captain David Anthony may be able to give a more accurate number than that, but I believe that's the approximate number. Thank you. Looking at the response that you gave us, they're very rarely used. It looks like in 2019 there are only 10 taser deployments among all of our officers. So I guess my question is, you know, like if they didn't have tasers, what other, like what are we anticipating would happen if officers didn't have to use a taser? What do y'all think? Like what other options could they use in that situation? Well, I could give you several different scenarios, Mayor Pro Tem. You know, tasers are sometimes deployed. Say for instance, it may not be the officer and the individual. It could be a domestic violence kind of situation or something and the officer is using a taser to try to get that person off of another individual. It can be a situation where the person has already demonstrated some violent tendencies or something and on someone else, and they may be in an open area where the officer realizes that this is a violent person or a history of violence and a taser is deployed as opposed to using, as opposed to physically getting into a confrontation sometimes with individuals. And the taser is really just to momentarily, and I know you probably read some of the standard operating procedure, the general order. It's supposed to momentarily incapacitate that person just in time, enough time for an officer to restrain the individual. So, and you're right, there had not been that many deployments, but they have been very unique situations where less than lethal force is appropriate. But it just sort of fits in that continuum, you know, where you don't want to use any type of force that will cause a permanent injury or anything like that. But the taser is more appropriate. So, and as you can see, I think you probably looked at the numbers, they sort of declined. And our use of forces have declined in general, and the, and also injuries, there were no injuries as a result of the use of tasers. I think what may have occurred to is that the policy changed recently as well in the last few years, so that tasers aren't deployed as often as they could have been deployed before. They're more restrictive guidelines as it relates to the use of tasers now. Thank you. We received a memo from the folks at Durham Beyond Police and with some data about using tasers, particularly challenging what I had always thought to be true, which was that tasers reduce the use of deadly force. But that they had found through their research. There's a particular researcher at Elon University that has done some research on this that they that they found the descendants that they showed us that tasers paradoxically increased use of force and also risk to had were correlated with a higher rate of injury to officers. Did y'all also receive this or the city manager did this with the company? I haven't seen that from them. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And different programs. They have different guidelines, you know, so and comparing other cities and what their guidelines are, I would imagine some may not be near as restrictive as ours are as it relates to, you know, the use of the taser. So I would be interested in reading the research that they provided to you. Great. Yeah, I'm sorry that that didn't get sent to y'all. We can make sure that it does. And I would be really interested in in your response. It was, I found it really interesting and definitely not like what I would have expected. Because I have always thought of tasers as something that would prevent an officer from using a more like a worse form of force that a chaser would could would actually be a way to prevent injury. But this research kind of points the out of the season. I'm not going to take up too much more time. I feel like I'm going to be delaying girl tonight. But I think that I personally would be interested in having a conversation with council and with our police department about the case or program. We've gotten a lot of community concern around the use of tasers, which is of course in broader context of concern about use of force and policing that's happening all over the country right now. Personally, I feel like if we're going to have our office experiences, there's no question to me that they need to be a place and that they need to be maintained and that we should have this sort of a contact. I think though the broader question that this that the community response is pointing to whether our officers having our office experiences is a good idea at all. I would appreciate the opportunity to dig into that more with my colleagues and also have the folks at the police department respond to some of the data that we've been given that point to tasers that should not be effective in the ways that we tend to think of data. Well, and I appreciate that too. And I think as we look at those numbers, I think it'd be important for us to look at the elements of the various cities that have provided that data to to see just just how their current procedures are compared to hours to hours. I believe that our numbers are extremely low as it relates to the deployment and I think it is because of the fact that we have more restrictions on our general order. So, and then to I'd be interested to know as well out of the deployments that we have had have officers been injured or have, you know, or have other injuries, you know, been the result of the use of deployment of tasers. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. Who else would like to make comments or echo question. Colleagues, Council Member Freelon. Yes. So, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson mentioned that there were 10 deployments where where was that info I didn't find. I didn't know where you were referencing that from that would use taser deployments last year. Yeah, it's in our agenda packet. There's in the there's a section if you click on number eight and we'll get all the documents inside number eight. It's number seven. Number seven. Council response. Council response. Yeah, on page two. Okay, cool. There's a chart there. You'll see. I see it. Stuff we requested after the last meeting. Okay, got it. Yeah, I watched the work session and saw that you'd requested this is the information that you requested. Got it. Okay. Well, I want to I want to take a look at this I want to echo Mayor Pro Tem's request for a delay. We've been just inundated with emails from residents and folks with the Durham beyond policing coalition and knowing that that you didn't get the study I think that would be a really important opportunity for us to have a broader dialogue with more context. I know one of the things that that that I was hearing from from folks in the community was that this came to council pretty quickly. And they kind of, you know, put their memo out at the end of last week and now we're here on Tuesday after a holiday weekend, making a really crucial decision, you know, $600,000 decision. And I would love a little extra time. You know, one of the things that they mentioned in the memo that I just want to echo is that. And you see this in the in the safety and wellness proposal that they that they put out last summer. Which was, which was like imagine what we could do with $600,000 you know imagine different types of programs that we could invest in, and particularly hearing that you know the deployment and the use is so low like in 2019 we did 10 deployments. And yet we're, you know, putting a half a million dollars plus on something that's used so infrequently. Now I agree with Mayor pro tem that, you know, we want to make sure that things don't short circuit and harm the person or the officer. You know, when I see that, that number of deployments just kind of I don't know I'm doing kind of math in my head around how many, how much money is that per deployment per year, you know, in terms of a cost benefit thing. In general, I think I really applaud the Durham beyond coalition, beyond policing coalition for kind of similar to my previous comment for encouraging us to, to tap into our radical imagination. When I made my opening remarks I mentioned, you know, brother, umar Mohammed, a former leader of a local chapter of all of us are none. I mean there's just so many great black and queer gender non conforming radical black feminist oriented organizations within the Durham beyond policing coalition. BIP 100 Southerners on New Ground, Spirit House harm free zone, they've been doing a lot of work to invoke a radical imagination and so I'm sitting with that wisdom and wondering what else is possible and would like some extra time to tap into that a little deeper with y'all to with the with the police department, the police department, being able to dig into the memo that they sent and respond to some of the the critiques that they let me. So that's it. Yeah, thank you for your time. Thank you council member. Other colleagues with questions or comments. Councilmember Middleton. Thank you Mr Mayor and thank you colleagues. I don't think I heard the mayor pro tem asked for a delay. I think I heard her say that she would probably be the no vote, and that she wanted to see more information. Or one of the police to take a look at the information that the scholarly research that had been done Elon if I did if I, if I'm mistaken that I apologize but I don't think I heard her. I think I believe just to make sure just so mayor pro tem you did ask for delay is that correct. Yeah, I would like to. Okay, I'm sorry thank you I thought you said you would be good no vote today thank you. For me, there's there's only really to pass forward. We either take tasers out of the toolkit wholesale period full stop, or, and I think the mayor and the mayor pro tem and tone this. If this is going to remain on the side of officers tonight who are patrolling tonight, we have a moral and fiduciary obligation to make sure that the equipment that we deploy is working full stop period. Many of us watching this broadcast tonight are our gun owners. We're not law enforcement officers but we own guns. And we haven't met our home. And the reason why we have the gun at our home is because in case the unimaginable visits us, most of us don't take our guns out and go looking for trouble. We have guns at home in case trouble visits our homes. I don't have a beanbag. I don't have a taser. I don't have a baseball bat and I have age out of hand to hand combat. If, if, if you show up at my house uninvited, there's only one option on my menu to respond to you. So the question for me as a decision maker is, I'm not going looking for trouble but the people who we pay to actually respond to the things that we hope never visit our home. But most of us only have one option if they do, how many tools do we want those people to have as a city and responding to those situations that we send them to and wish to respond. One of the things I imagine is for those 10 deployments of tasers, what if they didn't have a taser? Would those, would those have been 10 officer involved shootings? And how much of those numbers, how much, you know, what price do you put on that per shooting relative to this program? You know, I want to channel also, you know, Principal Joe Clark as interpreted by Morgan Freeman in Lean on Me. You know, be expeditious. Either we take this equipment out of the office of his hands, full stop, or we, we, we do what's necessary. What's, you know, listen, could you imagine an aircraft manufacturer or a coffee maker who makes coffee, manufacturer makes coffee pots willfully opining out loud that we're going to leave our aircraft flying and leave our coffee makers out there. We're not going to replace them or upgrade them or do any maintenance on them. It would be unconscionable. And to say it out loud as a government that we're not going to take these equipment off the street. But in the meantime, while they read what we know that they're reaching the end of their life cycle, we're not going to just simply do what needs to be done to deploy them. I mean, to maintain them to me is, is why would we do that? That that's just unconscionable to me. Be bold. If you're about that life, then be bout it. Then let's take tasers out of the toolbox. But this is a cut and dry issue for me. If they are remaining on the street tonight and tomorrow and the week after that, anything short of full cessation of the use of the equipment leaves us no option. But to maintain the equipment just like we do with fire engines and cars and computers that we use and cell phones and any other piece of equipment that the city deploys, we are obligated as a government to maintain it. And everything about violence resonates with me. But here's what also resonates with me. Clear cut decisions as leaders. Let's not play around with it because we could mess around and get somebody killed if we're not careful. Because I don't know what those 10 deployments involved. But if they had, I know next to that on that same belt where they had a taser, they also had a gun. And I am, I'm not a law enforcement professional, but I'm nervous about what would have happened if they didn't have what those 10 incidents would have been. Did they not, if they didn't have that, will we be talking about 10 shootings? One's too many for me. So however low the number is, you know, we need to put that in context. I trust his chief of police. I trust his command staff. This command staff. This isn't the Ferguson Police Department. This isn't the LAPD and 80s rampart division. This is a Durham Police Department. And just like our fire engine and anything else, if this equipment is nearing the end of its life, we are obligated as a government to maintain it. Or let's vote to take it off the streets. Period. Full stop. We're going to mess around and get somebody killed because I don't want officers making the decision between a taser that might work and a gun that does. Let's be clear in our leadership in our decision making, either take them off the streets or keep our equipment current. That's why I'm Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Caballero. Yeah, I just had a clarifying question for the chief really quick based off Council Members Middleton's comments. Hi, Chief. Just out of curiosity, I just want for the sake of the public, I'm assuming there's a little bit of leeway here with this contract. I don't think that these tasers that we have operable tonight, like Cinderella's shoes, you know, poof to severe at midnight. I'm assuming that they will work and that we could as a as a body vote to delay if we'd like and that a few week delay would not create a situation that sounds as dangerous as what Council Middleton is alluding to. Yeah, the actual rollout itself of the new taser program wouldn't take place until after these new tasers arrived anyway. So we make sure that the equipment that our officers are carrying is operable is just that these tasers that are currently like right now we have over 112 that are inoperable. So we gradually pulled them off of the streets, but Council Member Middleton brought out a good point that I was wanting to share too, and that, you know, our equipment is is no different than, you know, say for instance, Narcan. If we're carrying around Narcan, it's not that we hope that we're going to use the Narcan is that that one time that we need to have the Narcan that we can that is there, and we can use it. And that is the case for, you know, the nature of our work the one domestic violence that we show up to or that one incident that just is in the border or on the fence between moving up to the next level or I have something else on my tool belt that I can use to control this situation that according to our data in our police department did not resort in any injury to persons at all last year. And as I said, it had a lot to do with us changing some of the dynamics of our policies and our training for our officers. So just wanted to leave that with you. They're not going to show up tomorrow anyway. So I'd like to see. And as I said before, I'd like to read what has been presented. But I certainly don't ever compare apples to oranges, our department's policies and the use of our equipment is a whole lot different than other, you know, departments, some of them have a whole lot more leeway in the use of various types of equipment. So thank you for your questions. Mayor Schull, can I continue? Thank you. Just to follow up. So what I'm hearing, I think the thing is that the public doesn't necessarily know those updated policies. And so that's, I'm based on just the data you provided, I am seeing a positive trend. And I think that we're getting to the crux of the issue, which is, do they carry or not carry? And I feel that what I'm interested in is to let the public also understand the shifts that your department has done. And right now there's not, there are many, and I don't say this in a negative way, but there's ignorance around that. And so I think what a delay could do is let us have that conversation in the public at a work session so that everyone can feel more comfortable if we move forward with tasers, everyone has more knowledge or not. And so I think that I've heard two voices on council. I'm comfortable with a delay, especially if it's going to let residents have a fuller understanding of the policy reforms you have implemented. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I thank Councilor Caballero for her questions. I, you know, I am not in any way trying to paint a fearsome picture or fear monger for people in the city or paint a dark picture but anytime I think an officer pulls anything off their bell to taser a gun. That's a dangerous situation, a definition. And that's what we're talking about the instruments that they carry. You know, I, each of us have a platform that allows us to talk to the public all the time, whether we're in session or not. And, and we are free to respond and educate and engage the public that's part of our job actually, not just in meetings and work sessions but but all the time. And, and I chief while you're still I'll just ask you a question. Are there any is from your perspective chief, is there anything in the next couple of weeks, or any data points or any aha piece of fact toy that you will hear in the next couple of weeks that will make this request go away. Is there anything that that that you can foresee that might make this request on the part of the Department of Administration to upgrade this equipment, not be relevant, short of us saying you guys can't have tasers anymore. But if we're going to continue to use tasers. Is there anything chief that you can think of that that will make you pull this request. Not at all. And, and I, you know, I'm absolutely open to looking at, you know, the various reports, you know, as my objective to ensure that officers do have less lethal types of opportunities when they're engaging the public the work is dangerous. And, you know, it'd be nice if we could go and respond to calls that don't turn physical or don't turn dangerous. And I would rather have those tools in the continuum of force that give officers an alternative so that they can be safe and that they can keep our citizens safe as well. So, you know, I look forward to more conversations someone did send me one of my officers sent me the fact that we have about 198 tasers out on the street right now and out of those 198 72 about 36% of them are at the end of their usable life. They are past the point that they should have should be replaced. So getting back to the conversation of do we have tasers or not it's not that okay I'll buy 25 and then the rest of the department doesn't either we're going to have them or we're not going to have them. So that's the decision that would need to be made. Thank you chief and I appreciate that I wanted to just parse out the difference between the managerial departmental request and the political considerations in this because you know I just want to give voice to truth there are some constituencies who aren't going to their mind are not going to be changed on this. And I want to own that I just want to be clear that it doesn't matter what research or information comes forward there are some folks whose minds are going to be changed. And that's if that's our audience and that's who we're, you know, seeking to appease or educated whatever you want to call it. I have people that are supporters of mine that hate some of my decisions. But but I will never act like, you know, while I'm going to change my mind if I just see some more information when I know I'm not going to change my mind. And I just want to this is too important to critical an issue. This is this is literally a life and death situation, potentially for residents that are being responded to by officers and for the officers to muddle or muddy the waters. And you said you just said at the end chief, we either have tasers, or we pull them off the street. And if we're going to have them, then the notion that we are even telegraphing that we're going to delay maintenance and replacement for the sake of more information on equipment that's currently being deployed. To me, as an elected official I'm having a hard time intellectually reconciling that the equipment in. Are we going to fix it or replace it well let's get more information. They're on the street now. Either Joe Clark don't mess around with it do it jump or do what we need to do like we do for fire engines. And every other piece of equipment that's currently being deployed by employees of this city, from the lethal to the non lethal, whether it's a taser or a handheld device or stapling machine. Thank you Mr Mayor. Thank you council member other council members with questions or comments at this time. Council member Freeman. Thank you I appreciate the dialogue and the questions. I, I think I'm comfortable moving forward. I'm not going to be talking about the conversation at this moment, but acknowledging that there, the comments the conversations, the, I guess the background around this, and that these kinds of the context of where we are right now in the conversation we're having around policing in our city. And so I just want to be be honest and be mindful of the fact that this is specific to tasers and if this is a conversation about whether or not we're going to have them. I'm really concerned. I'm just trying to delay it for a week or two or what have you and so I'm kind of trying to figure out where this is going. In the long term conversation because I know that we're, we're heading towards this route of having this community health and safety, you know, commission in place to address issues around community health and safety. If we're trying to do it on a case by case basis it becomes piecemeal. I'm afraid that it doesn't quite fit for this situation because it is a maintenance of, of actual equipment that is on the street. And so I'm mindful of that. And also the context of setting up whether or not an officer has a tool and their toolkit to make sure that they're not in a confrontation with someone who is actively violent towards someone else. Those, those things are are are kind of like where I'm trying to figure out where where this conversation is going for more from here, but I'm open to more dialogue around what community policing and all the policing and all of those conversations and all the funding. Those conversations are fine but I don't think they fit for this in the Taser. And so I'm kind of, I'm not sure where we're going. But thank you. Thank you council member. Any more comments or questions by members of the council. Council member Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate my colleagues and sharing their thoughts and concerns about this agenda item. I, I interpret the Mayor Pro Tem's suggestion for a delay so that we could discuss the the use of tasers in Durham at a work session as an opportunity for us to have a public conversation on exactly the question that council member Middleton. Opposed is this going to be a tool that we continue to have off offered to officers if they want to use it and again that's as the chief said that's the current context. This is an issue to every officer automatically they choose to do it they choose to go through the certification necessary to carry it and they choose to request the equipment to take with them. I think, you know, the question that the folks in the community who have spoken out on this are raising is exactly that question. Is this a tool that we want our officers to have? And I think that is a legitimate question and I think the point in time when the administration comes forward with a contract to purchase additional tasers is exactly the time to have that conversation because there's no other time for us to have that conversation. We don't get to, you know, we don't necessarily get to make a lot of these kind of in the weeds decisions about use of force, not necessarily our role, but the fact that there has to be a contract to buy this equipment gives us a role very similar to what we saw about about two years ago with the purchase of the police warm body cameras. That the fact that that contract had to come through the city council gave us an opportunity to engage in the process to try to figure out how we could be transparent with the footage. As it turns out a little bit before we were set to approve what I think would have been a groundbreaking set of rules around that the North Carolina General Assembly and its infinite wisdom passed a law that created the current regime. But in any event, I think this is exactly the right time to to have that conversation. So I think, you know, for myself, I was perfectly comfortable going forward tonight but after hearing the conversation amongst my colleagues. I think there is enough of a question about whether or not this is something we want our officers to continue to be able to do to have that broader conversation at a work session later this month. And so that given that that's the request of Mayor Pro Tem made, I'd be supportive of that seat. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Council Member Milton. Thank you, Councilor East. And therein lies the rub that that is a patently different framing of of of what we were going to be discussing a couple weeks then at the beginning of this conversation because it's gone from just information and scholarly research about tasers and injuries, I think I'm paraphrasing. And now the ultimate question has been called this is really about whether or not we're going to deploy them or not to be or not to be. I've already asked the chief directly, is she is anything going to impact her request, she said no. So now this is no longer a conversation about information perhaps impacting. I don't even know what the information is supposed to impact or what the with the with the ultimate, you know, issue was, however many scholarly reports we look at the chiefs ask is not going to change. So here, and I want people watching the residents and citizens of this city to understand the issue on the table is whether or not the Durham Police Department will carry tasers or won't carry tasers. And that's all and that's the type of clarity that that I said that we should just be honest about it and open about what the discussion is. This ain't about more research. This isn't about information about injuries. This isn't about scholarly reports from one university. This is the ultimate issue of do we want the Durham Police Department to carry tasers or not. Thank you, Councilor East. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just real quick. I don't really understand the desire to minimize the impact that conversation amongst our number can have the ability to go look at reports and studies that have been done about how tasers are used, the risk that they actually posed to the human body when deployed. I want to learn more about that so that we can decide whether or not this is a tool that we want to police officers to use. So I don't think I'll let the Mayor Pro Tem speak for herself, but it was not my interpretation that she was seeking to change the chief's mind or the administration's mind. I think she was trying to make up her own mind and to have us have a conversation about what the city council's view on this is and whether or not this is something we want to be spending public dollars on. And so that's kind of how I interpreted it. And if I have a set of colleagues that wants to explore that conversation and wants to get more information about that for that purpose, I'm perfectly willing to do it. If I thought that the purpose of a delay was to try to change Chief Davis' mind about this, I wouldn't support it because I don't think that's going to happen. I think really the issue is, can we have a conversation together as a council about whether or not this investment in public dollars is in the best interest of our city? And I think that's the conversation that I think we're going to have. And I think for that purpose, the type of looking at additional studies of talking to the Chief about how they're actually used in our city as opposed to how they're used in other places is critically important to making that decision. So that's my take on it, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, if I might, since you spoke directly to me. I'm not seeking to minimize anything. I'm seeking to contextualize. And the Mayor Pro Tem certainly doesn't need a champion. I heard her say that if we're going to keep the equipment, then we need to repair it and we need to, I'm paraphrasing, repair it or she said that she did not say that the conversation we need to have or this is the appropriate time to talk about whether or not you said that, Councilor Easton. I was referring, I was addressing you, speaking to you. You will also recall that I bracketed the Chief out of the conversation because you're right, her mind's not going to be changed. So the conversation now was about not changing the Chief's mind. The conversation is about to have tasers or not to have tasers. And I'm pretty good at following the evolution of conversations. And I was there. I'm old enough to remember the beginning of this conversation. The impression that was given to me and to others watching this broadcast is that we're having a delay to consider more information. But what was hovering, the specter that was animating that was the real issue of to have tasers or not to have tasers. And the people of this city deserve to have that clearly articulated that that's what's at stake. It's not an academic pursuit. It's not just more information for the sake of having information. We're a deliberative body, and we make decisions. At the end of the day, we're going to vote on something. And I just want to be clear, if we're talking about having tasers or not having tasers, then we should just say that. It's not just about information. It's about an actual decision and being clear about what lies in the balance. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. Madam Mayor Pro Tem, you're muted. Sorry. So I think I should reiterate what I felt was my initial request, which was that we have a delay in order to have a conversation at a work session about whether we want officers to use tasers. And that part of that conversation would include the chief's feedback to the memo that was provided by our community members, indicating what I feel is some paradoxical information that the use of tasers doesn't actually make people safer and reduce use of force. So I felt anyway, if that wasn't clear from the beginning, I apologize. I do believe we should have a conversation at a work session about whether or not we want to continue to have Durham police officers carry tasers. And that was my, it was my intent to communicate that at the beginning of the conversation with the request to have a delay and then to have a meeting to discuss the issue further. I don't typically discuss issues in order to not make decisions about them. Like that is the point. So yes, I agree. We should have that conversation at our next work session, perhaps, and then bring this back to the council at our next meeting. So that's my proposal is that we have a conversation at our next work session delay this one cycle to our next council meeting and then at that at that work session will have a better sense of how the department and how we feel about the data that's been given to us regarding the use of tasers in other cities, also with the context that the chief wants to provide about our policies, and how they might not, how our policies might make our use of tasers different from that in other cities. And I want to consider all of that within the context of making a decision. Yes. Thank you. Let me just say that. Let me just remind us. It's clear to me that four people of the seven would like to delay this. And so that's what we'll be doing. But let me let me just make a couple comments. I just want to remind everybody, this has been to a work session. We came to a work session in our normal course of just like every other contract the controversy ones and the non controversy ones we didn't hear a thing from assault, we then got all these, you know, petition emails. And apparently we got a report from Derby police, which I didn't see because it was buried in those petition emails on several subjects that we've gotten this week. So I'll be looking forward to reading that but what I want to ask those of you all who want a delay and I don't, I will be very comfortable voting tonight. I very supportive of the tasers I believe that they are a useful tool. And I trust the chief on that 100%. But I am also I understand that people want to delay the majority of the council wants to delay. And so I'm good with that. But what I want to ask the people that want to delay is, because I want this to move forward after this delay is what do you want to see exactly. What is it that would, what is the information that you think is going to be really important. And our at the work session. I guess we would hear this on Thursday two days from now. What is it that you think would be important for us to review you think the Derby on policing report is one thing. What else is there that you think is going to make a difference to you when you're trying to make your mind up about this. So I'm interested in hearing that. Hang on one second. Let me ask the manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, at this point, I appreciate your comment because that's something that I, as I'm sitting here listening, feel like I don't have clarity about. I've heard about the Durham beyond policing report, but also had some other heard about some other thoughts about information that was being requested. So I would appreciate if whatever mechanism needs to happen. If if council members who have questions or would like more information could get those to me. Again, you know, you all I don't know that any of you have contacted me in the last week or 10 days about any concerns you have but apparently you you have them. If you could get those to me. I would ask that you refer this matter back to the administration to hear them in advance so that we could research them. I can meet with the chief. The police department has a chance to respond. But I'm not at all comfortable that that's going to be appropriate in two days or really even in two weeks. So I would ask that you refer this matter back to the administration and whatever timeframe the council members can provide me and the chief and my successor. And I would also like to take a moment to thank you for your time this September with those questions that you would like research to give us fair and adequate time to respond instead of reacting to an email that was received just a couple days ago. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Colleagues without objection, I'm going to ask that this be referred back to the administration at their managers request. I know that sometimes new information comes in as it did, but is that if there's anything else besides the Derby on policing report that you would like a response to it will be very important to make that available as soon as possible to the manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Freelon, I think, are you would you still like to speak Council Member Freelon at this point? No, okay, Council Member Reese. I just wanted to ask that when people when folks do that when they send that information or those requests to the manager that they copy the rest of us because I'd like to know kind of where the conversation is headed when it comes back to us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Freeman. And thank you. I also wanted to associate myself with the mayor's comments and that I also had not seen the report. And so this is coming out of left field a little bit trying to figure out where this is coming from, but I'm gathering it all as we go and I understand now based on Council Member Reese's comments, and I appreciate the clarity from Mayor Pro Tem, because it wasn't quite clear. So thank you. Thank you. All right, colleagues, we didn't do much tonight. Mr. Mayor, could you refer that back to administration officially please. Yes, sir, that is not referred back to administration. Thank you. All right. There being no other business to come before this council, and there was practically any practically wasn't any anyway. I'm going to declare this meeting adjourned at 921 p.m. and look forward to seeing you all at the work session. Thank you. Not everybody. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.