ice, really?  I would not go to a door by myself, not knowing what's on the other side of that door that somebody could kill me. Let's use common sense at what we're doing. So after y'all get off this meeting tonight, I really think y'all need to consider what would you do if you was in a situation I was in this weekend past? That's all I'm gonna say, because y'all know y'all will hear from me again.  Thank you, Ms. Burris. We appreciate you being here with us. All right, is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this public hearing? Okay, I'm seeing some hands being raised, good. I'll just take it from the top. Rue Davis is, Rue Davis available to be heard. You can unmute yourself and let us know that you're available to be heard. Can you be heard now? Yes, I'm here. Great, thanks for being here. You have two minutes. Thank you so much. I'm speaking tonight as a Durham resident to urge the city council to reallocate funds for 60 vacant police officer positions to instead hire unarmed skilled responders this budget cycle. I support this demand because since March, I've been a part of a phenomenally skilled team of organizers and volunteers with Durham for All and Durham Beyond Policing, making weekly phone calls to Durham residents of color. Collectively, we have had over 550 conversations of which 80% of people we talk to have expressed urgent support for this demand. When I asked the question on each call, when was the time you felt deeply safe and taken care of? I have never had a phone conversation in my experience where someone answered that question responding the police kept them safe because surveillance, punishment, criminalization and social control, all tactics the police execute are not methods to keep people safe. Instead, I've heard answers such as when surrounded with trusted people such as family and friends when having access to good and affordable healthcare, when being able to just freely be themself or when feeling connected to neighbors. When I ask a follow-up question, how do you think all communities can experience safety and care? I then have heard answers such as having more resources, all healthcare, especially mental healthcare is free and accessible, higher wages, having someone to call that is not the police when they need help in our experiencing emergency. And so from these conversations, it is certainly clear that we have a profound collective responsibility in Durham and across the country to reimagine safety beyond policing. With this budget vote, it's an incredible opportunity for the city council to commit to this shared responsibility with us to center care and the decisions we make for our city and reallocate those funds for 60 vacant officer positions to instead hire unarmed care workers. Thank you. Ms. Davis, thank you for being with us tonight. We very much appreciate it. Next, we'll hear from Brandon Williams. Mr. Williams, are you able to be heard? I really so. Thank you. We're glad to have you tonight and welcome. You also have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Yeah, just direct to me, I wanna echo comments tonight about including Waltown and other legacy black neighborhoods in Durham in the long-time homeowner grant program. And I wanna echo just the concerns about the current proposal to have that combined with the county program, whereas the city's program for the last several years had an AMI threshold of 80%. The 30% threshold is too low. So just wants to advocate to have that raised higher and to also think about the distinction between grants and deferred payments for many of the folks that this program would benefit, deferrals will not help if you are a fixed income person.  And I think the grants just allows for us really to wipe that slate clean. But also wanna make sure that that funding is there in consideration as we go into this budget year. Waltown as we suggested, you know, this small investment we really think, you know, for the amount of wealth that can be preserved, looking at the number of long-time homeowners we have, $100,000 in property tax assistance can help preserve 12.2 million in black owned wealth in our neighborhood alone. Many other neighborhoods duly deserving of the same kind of assistance and treatment. So thank you for the consideration tonight and look forward to hearing what happens further on this action. Mr. Williams, thank you very much. We're very glad to have you. Next we'll have Stella Adams. Madam Clerk, can you make Stella Adams available to be heard? Ms. Adams, are you available to be heard? Yes, I think so. Can you hear me, Mr. Mayor? Yes, we can. Thank you for being here. Welcome, and you also have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you so much, council members. Tonight, I am speaking as the housing chair for the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. You have heard from heritage communities across the city. You have heard from Southside, Merritt Moore, Braggtown, Waltown, and Historic Haytie about their needs from this council. I am here to ask you directly to put $1 million out of the CIP and the transit fund for improvements on Route 9, which serves the Braggtown community. I am going to ask you on behalf of the people of Waltown, with $100,000 in long-term homeowner's assistance grants that would allow them to preserve the $12.2 million that they have in equity and wealth in their neighborhoods and communities. I am going to ask you to expand that long-term homeowner assistance program throughout the city and to all of the heritage communities. I am going to ask you to put the dollars where they need to go. This is not, it is unfair and unequitable to tax these communities in a disproportionate manner where they are seeing valuation increases of 150 to 300 plus percent that are getting no benefits or services. They should not have to enter into a lottery in order to get service. They don't have to beg you, should not have to participate in surveys and enter a lottery to have the services. Thank you very much, Ms. Adams. We appreciate your being here with us and for making those important points. All right, we'll now hear from A.J. Williams. Madam Clark, can you make A.J. Williams available to be heard, please? I'm here. Thanks for being here and you also have two minutes. All right, thanks, Shaw. I'm not here for a political agenda. I'm here because my liberation is bound up with every single person here who considers themselves part of the Durham community.  By divesting from the Durham Police Department we're reducing the overall number of interactions between our folks and the police and in turn reducing the probability of our people being killed by police. And I've heard that to some of our elected officials that police killings aren't an issue in Durham. But let me be clear, policing in the prison industrial complex as an institution is a manifestation of structural racism that has plagued this nation since its inception. Prince Fanon said, each generation must out of relative obscurity discover this mission, fulfill it or betray it. And we can make bold choices today and secure the promise of moving towards a vision for our city that invests in more than just a little something in its people, but is willing to take the dare I say risk of trusting that communities can self-determine for ourselves and is willing to push back and divest from systems that have not served the needs of the people who have been subject to the conditions that we didn't create, were created by our oppressors.  Let's make the decision that fulfills our mission and our generation's mandate to transform the ways we address harm, the hill generational trauma, and show it for each other and keep each other safe. We've seen enough police shootings on social media over the last decade to know that police do not keep us safe. Let's not betray the people, let's make the investment in Durham communities and honor the tender transform demand by transferring 60 positions from the Durham Police Department to the Office of Safety and Wellness over a period of three years. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. We appreciate your being here. All right, we'll now hear from Stephen Abrams. Is Stephen Abrams available to be heard? Yes, I am. Thank you, Mayor, and to the council members. Thank you. We're happy to have you, Mr. Abrams. Welcome, and you have two minutes. Thank you very much. I just want to make it very short. I think many of the statements that I was going to make tonight have already been said. I believe totally in what the council in Middleton has already put forth as far as the going through, as far as research and the pilot programs. I can't believe anybody would invest money into something that they really haven't done the historical research on and to get the open hearings that's needed for the community to understand what's going on. Just to jump into something that you saw in some other state or some other city makes no sense whatsoever. So I totally agree with him. And with the former councilwoman Wagstaff, clearly what's going on in the city needs to be addressed. And I don't think you have the time in what I see and what's happening in the community to invest immediately in the community as far as their use is concerned, that has to be done along with it. It can't be done separately. You've got to find the funds to do both. You can't possibly just do one. So that's all I want to say. Most of my comments have already been said by others. So I want to thank you all for your time in this matter. Mr. Abrams, thank you very much for being with us. We very much appreciate it. All right, next up will be a Mab Segrist. Ms. Segrist, welcome. We're happy to have you. Can you be heard? Thank you, I think so. Yes, we hear you. Thank you. Welcome and you have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilpeople. My name is Mab Segrist. I live off Umsted Road in North Durham. I'm here to urge you to reallocate those 60 vacant police off of positions over three years to the Department of Community Safety and Wellness in order to hire unarmed skilled responders for 9-11 calls. These responders can both help deter violent interactions with armed responders and keep people in mental crisis in treatment and not in jail. The Department of Community Safety and Wellness is now in place to redirect these resources from sheriffs and police departments to underfunded resources for mentally ill people. According to a 2014 joint report between the National Sheriffs Association and the Treatment Advocacy Center, today jails and prisons have absorbed 90% of state psychiatric beds, a situation which these facilities are neither equipped or trained to do according to the National Sheriffs. The report calls the situation untenable and unfair to inmates and officials. The report lists these problems associated with incarcerating mentally ill persons.  Relegation and grossly disproportionate numbers to solitary confinement, which worsened symptoms of mental illness. Jail prison suicides and disproportionate numbers. Victimization of prisoners with mental illness and disproportionate numbers. As they go without treatment deterioration and psychic conditions of inmates with mental illness. The National Sheriffs Association report concludes, the ultimate solution to this problem is to maintain a functioning public mental health treatment system so that mentally ill persons do not end up in prisons and jails. And I agree with this report. The jail is under Durham County commissioners jurisdiction of course, but it's the city of Durham's police officers whose actions bring many of our residents to the county jail. I believe that the choice to deploy these 60 positions in the Durham police department, the unarmed skill responders begins to shift the conditions in our nation that our jails and prisons are all we provide for 90% of the people in psychic. Ms. Segros, thank you so much for being with us. I think we got to the end of your comments, but if you have further comments, we're always happy to read them. I and my colleagues read everything that we receive and we'd be happy to have it. Thank you for being here with us tonight. Next we'll hear from Manju Rajendran. Are you available to be heard? Hello. Hello, how are you? Welcome, we're glad to have you and you also have two minutes, thanks for being here. Thank you. My name is Manju Rajendran and I live in Durham. I urge you to support Durham for all and Durham Beyond Policings tend to transform campaign call to reallocate 60 vacant police officer positions to the Department of Community Safety and Wellness over the next three years to hire unarmed, skilled, compassionate responders.  I'm an organizer with Durham Beyond Police and Coalition. Durham spends more on the police department than on any other city department and the police department has the most staff, 681 full-time staff. The average cost of each police officer position is over $91,000. Between 2019 and 2021, the police department increased by 50 positions costing an extra $4.6 million in public dollars. Between 2019, 2021, the police department budget increased by 3.2 million, a 5% increase. $32 of every $100 of the city's general budget fund is dedicated to policing and I share these facts lest we believe the hype that the police are struggling for funds. I mourn every gunshot and every act of harm that takes place in our city and county. Durham has been talking about crime prevention as long as I can remember, but we rarely talk about the fact that police officers and sheriff's deputies cannot prevent crime. Police investigate harm after it's taken place and they drive cycles of imprisonment that our nation urgently needs to break. What a victory to see a city budget proposed this year that builds up the infrastructure of true safety and wellness. I was excited to see investments in affordable housing, home ownership, green and equitable infrastructure, free bus fare, legal assistance for immigrants, language justice, refugee services and continuing the Durham Expansion and Restoration Deer Program. These are the kinds of investments that actually prevent crime by creating long-term stability and meeting resident needs. Durham Beyond Policing supports the city worker union call for 5% retroactive hazard premium pay. I hope you'll also meet our city workers request to fully fund the general employee step-pay plan rather than what's current. Ms. Regendron, thank you so much for being with us tonight. We appreciate your comments and are, again, happy to hear more if you want to send them to us. We're happy to get them, thank you so much. We will now hear from Robert Heights. Madam Clerk, can you make Robert Heights available to be heard please? Hello, am I coming through? Yes, you are. Thank you for being with us and you also have two minutes, welcome. Good evening. My name is Robert Heights. I would like to yield my two minutes to Herman Spurling who spoke earlier. Thank you. We don't yield, Mr. Heights. You're welcome to have your two minutes but we don't yield here at the Durham City Council. But you're welcome to your two minutes. Would you like to take them, Mr. Heights? Mr. Heights, would you like to take your two minutes? Okay, I guess not. Madam Clerk, we'll move to Paul Winecoupe. Mr. Winecoupe, can you be heard? Can you unmute yourself, there you go. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can.  Can you all hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Mr. Winecoupe. Welcome and you have two minutes. Great, yes. I'm here speaking in support of the Durham Beyond Policing and tend to transform campaign to reallocate the 60 vacancies in the Durham Police Department to the Department of Wellness and Safety. I think we've seen this past year a lot of movements pushing back against policing and it's been frustrating but also optimistic to see that some things are being made and we've had a number of city council meetings where we have a lot of people talking about how you wanna change things and ensure equity but it's time to put your money where your mouth is and really support this call to change the way that we address harm instead of investing in systems that we know don't help people. And it's really time to take up that call for equity and inclusion, support this movement to divest away from prisons and towards real communities of care whether it's home ownership or mental health, youth programs, it's time to make a change and I'm excited at the possibility of starting that change here today. Thanks, that's it. Thank you very much, Mr. Winecoupe. Madam Clerk, we'll next hear from Constance Wright. Ms. Wright, are you available to be heard? Yes, I am. Thank you for being here with us and you also have two minutes. All right, good evening. Bradtown alone has paid $64,102,917 in tax dollars and $64,102,917 has gone out of Bradtown over the past 10 years. That does not include water and sewer taxes and Bradtown has nothing to show for all the money that we have paid into the Durham City and County system. It's robbery. There's no good infrastructure, streets are carmeling, sidewalks in most areas of Bradtown are non-existence and the sidewalks that do exist are barely functional. Potholes and ditches are everywhere. Most bus stops are not comfortable or safe because of where they are situated. Bus Route 9, which includes 9, 9A and 9B has practically no amenities. I rode bus 9A and afterwards drove that route just to see what is there. It's hard to see when you're riding the bus what shelters or benches or whatever is there. So there are very few shelters and they are far apart. I counted only six ridiculously small benches on Route 9A. As I have stated many times, bus 9A, 9B and 9 go through the predominantly black, Hispanic and Latino communities. There are ditches, no sidewalks and many, many potholes. Although I do not want to see a tax increase and I'm struggling with the tax increase from the past two years. If one is granted, the increase should go to the communities like Bradtown, Merrickmore and Waltown and other underserved legacy communities. Our communities should be prioritized over communities that have consistently benefited from tax dollars and have been historically included in all previous budgets. Newcomers to Durham seem to benefit from our taxes more than the original and long-time residents of Durham. The city manager's budget also should help, as she stated, pay for new sidewalks bus stop. Ms. Wright, thank you very much for being with us tonight. We appreciate it. If you have further comments, we're glad to receive them by email. I know you've sent us many of these comments before and we appreciate you being with us. I want to emphasize we're listening to all comments. We appreciate that. We've got a huge number of comments tonight on a wide variety of subjects and we're very glad to get them and we'll consider them all as we move into the budget last few weeks of this budget process. The next person I see is simply Chavis. I'm not sure of that person's name. Can you identify yourself, please? Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, who is this? Mr. James Chavis? Yes, it is, sir. Mr. Chavis, good to hear from you. I haven't seen you in a long time. We're glad to have you with us. I'm welcome and you have two minutes, Mr. Chavis. Well, thank you. You know, my comment is, I do not want to hear y'all say when these doors really opened up, that it was a COVID problem, okay? Because as I see you all, you all are the problem and the problem is you are not listening to the people. Why would you want to get rid of something and you surely ain't got the right thing to put back in the place? Why you want to give away our taxpayer money to what uneducated people to get out into our community and do what with the money? We don't know today. So you were talking about a $1 million money that you already given out, but other people are saying what their community needs and y'all are not listening. So start y'all a bull and get on ball to find out what the people really need and do something because y'all are intelligent and you all got the sense. Take that politics of trying to get somebody to keep y'all in those seats and get out here and do the work and you shall stay in those seats. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chavis. Thank you so much for being with us. We're now here from Mr. Antonio Jones. Madam Clerk, can you make Mr. Jones available to be heard? Mr. Jones, can you be heard? Yes, can you guys hear me? Yes, thank you for being here.  Yes, my name is Antonio Jones. I am the Chair of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. Now I want to make just a few comments on this public budget. What is clear in my professional experience is that Durham has become a Petrie dish for social experiments, for people to vote for their future political aspirations at the expense of Durham residents. So for this budget, this budget speaks a lot. You have heard the voices of the community and we have to tell you a solution as for Durham, not for national politics. Our communities are hurting. The vast majority of people in the city council has yet to attend the funeral of anyone that's been shot and killed in Durham. Okay, we can call the roll if we need to. The vast majority of people in the city council have not visited communities that are directly impacted by the policies you continue to ignore. Okay, we literally have citizens dodging traffic to get on the bus. Let that sit with your spirit for a minute. Citizens are dodging traffic just to get on a bus. We have citizens that are dodging and ducking in tubs because they hear gunfire at night. While many of you have the luxury of deciding what brunch venue you're gonna go to tomorrow morning. This is a real for Durham right now. So this budget, what it says to me is that you are ignoring the pleas of the citizens. Average people in Durham, but yet you tend to want to follow groups of people. Many of them don't even live in Durham, but they're here for political agendas. So this is a moral document. This budget is a moral document. I think the citizens have clearly seen the direction this council is wanna go. So, and I'll say this in closing. Make sure that this budget speaks to Durham. Not the courts of Durham on what you sit, but the true core of Durham. And I'll leave it at that. Mr. Jones, thank you for being with us. We appreciate you very much. Colleagues, let me just ask now if there's anyone else who has not spoken yet who would like to speak on this item. If so, could you raise your virtual hand? I'm going down the list here. Madam Clerk, I don't see anyone else. I think we have gotten to the end of the list. All right. Okay, I'm now going to declare this public hearing closed. I want to appreciate everyone that's been here tonight. I'm gonna make just a couple of brief comments. And Colleagues, if any of you all want to as well, I'm gonna keep them brief because we've got, I believe three more public hearing items in a closed session tonight. I expect this is gonna be an extremely late night. I do want to address a couple of things very quickly. Raised early on by one of the speakers, why has it taken so long to issue the bonds? We are the housing bonds while we issue them now when the money is not needed later. So two different kind of questions leading in different directions. But let me just say that we were planning to, after the voters approved this in 2019 and the 2020 budget, we were planning to fund it as we told the voters that we would. We didn't do that because of COVID and we were very concerned about our budget at the time and we didn't want to raise taxes for any purpose. And so even though the voters had supported that, we waited until this year to put it in the budget and to meet the request of the voters. The funds by issuing all the, by increasing the tax all now for the affordable housing bonds, we can do it more cheaply than we could if we did it over a two year period. And also we are in that way prepared for all the large projects that are coming down the pike in the next couple of years. So that the timing is related to when the big affordable housing projects that are getting underway now under design are going to be realized. I wanted to mention there've been a lot of discussion about the transit fund expanding bus routes, bus stops and so forth. It's super important. We're doing a lot of that. A lot of it was made of the transit fund. I just want to emphasize that the transit fund as a county is run by the county. We have influence on it and we exert influence on it and we are being able to do a lot more things for our bus system that way. But I just want to say that for the transit fund the county is really critical. I also want to just address the situation with the youth works internship and appreciate all the discussion we've had of that for Mr. Hughes and others. The 500 young people that we'll be including in the program this year is an enormous increase over what we had last year. It's huge. I agree that we want to get to 1,000 youth in our program but we're not ready to put 1,000 youth into that program yet. I'm very grateful to our city manager for proposing this large increase and figure out a way to manage it and make it happen quickly this summer even coming out of COVID. So my gratitude and with agreement. Our goal is 1,000 and I believe that we will get there soon. All right, there are lots of other, a lot of other issues were raised that we're going to be discussing in our budget work session. But I did, while we had a couple of people on those questions, I do want to address them. The issues such as the long-term homeowner issue will be being discussed at our upcoming budget work session on Thursday and many of the other issues that were raised today. Okay. Other comments? Council member Cavalletto. Just real quick, I was curious if we were going to discuss the master aging plan at all since several residents on Thursday or not? We hadn't planned that. This is one of the first times the council's heard about the master aging plan in a long time, the manager and I discussed that. If you want to discuss it, though we certainly can put it on the list. I'm willing to follow up with the email and just curious about the county and any commitments that they have made or not. Yeah, thank you very much. And I have had a discussion with a couple of our county commissioners about that and I'm happy to share. I'll just say that I know the county is very interested in it, the county has been very involved in it and we haven't been. And I've urged the folks with the master aging plan to start educating us about it if they want to get our funding. And so I think tonight was kind of the first public for either. Thank you. But certainly can discuss it further if that's the desire of the group. Council, Mayor Procep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also just had one clarifying point that I wanted to make. I think it wasn't clear from some of the emails and comments that we've gotten recently about the long-time homeowner grant program, whether it was continuing the current program. And so I just wanted to make sure folks know that that program is active and continuing. Applications are open. The application period ends at the end of the month on June 30th. So that program exists in addition to the county program that the city will also be participating in that spinning up this year. And I look forward to talking more on Thursday about expanding that program to additional neighborhoods. Thank you very much, Mayor Procep. Any other comments or questions, colleagues or rather, I guess, comments we're talking about here? Carol Silver-Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, colleagues. Let me thank all of our friends and neighbors who abided us tonight and came out tonight to give their comments. This is perhaps one of the most important conversations we have in the life of our city where we sit back and be quiet and listen to our neighbors and residents. So very briefly, I just want to make a couple of comments based upon some things I've heard tonight and some things I've seen in the chat as well. And I want to talk as a brother, as a neighbor, as a resident of Durham. I know I'm on the city council, but I want to channel just being a part of this community tonight. First thing I want to say is that every single person on this council said yes to our new community safety department and having on our mental health responders. Everybody said yes. So what exactly are we fighting about? What's the disagreement? We've said yes, everybody said yes, but there's almost kind of like a coming to America Prince Ikeem kind of thing. Must we jump up and down on our leg and bark like a dog too, in addition to saying yes? Can we not take yes for an answer? I want to make a confession. I've done the exercise where I close my eyes and think about what makes me safe. And I want to confess to you, every time I've done an exercise, I never thought about the police. That's true. Never once. But it occurred to me as a governing person that the list isn't really exhaustive because I also didn't think about smoke detectors. I didn't think about airbags or penicillin either. But those things are kind of important in their place. And governance can't be done by kind of imagining a list trying to come up with an exhaustive list before things happen. That's just not the way governance works. You have to govern for what's happening and govern also for contingencies and what might not happen. Most leaders have to think about what may happen, eventualities, as do parents raising kids. So I just want to say tonight that I've seen some folk raise the name of Adam Toledo in Chicago. And I just want to caution my brothers and sisters that me, all of us be very careful about invoking the names of victims to buttress and forward our particular addresses in an issue. I grew up in a neighborhood that was a crack capital of America that we went to sleep that night, loved to sleep by gunfire and nobody called the police because we had just become sensitized to it. I want to raise the name of people who bled out in the park because they were shot and nobody called the police. And I don't know their names, but I want to raise their names in spirit. Just a few months ago, I'd like to raise the name if I knew it of a person in Wilmington, North Carolina who has shot spotter, by the way, who had lifesaving aid given to him, not because people called 911, but because shot spotter sent responders there and they found somebody bleeding in Wilmington and they were able to save their life. I don't know their name, his name, but if I knew it, I would raise it. The Chicago Police Department would dispatch to the incident that led to Adam Toledo's tragic killing because gunfire actually did occur. I can't raise the names of the people that were in the car that were shot at because I don't know their names, but the system did what it was supposed to do. To conflate Adam Toledo's death to shot spotter is a very dangerous slippery slope. And I just want to caution all of us to practice some self-discipline when we're trying to score points, particularly when all of us agree on the end result. As a person that governs as an elected official, when we say police don't make us safe, from a governance point of view, I don't know what that means. I don't, listen, firefighters don't prevent fire. I don't think buying fire trucks stops fires. But we keep buying fire trucks and we keep hiring firefighters because part of our responsibility as a government is to respond to a multitude of contingencies, which includes the ability to send unarmed mental health responders, which I called for last year. The answer is yes, we support that, but there are other contingencies we also need to deal with as a government. So for me as a leader, when I operationalize a statement or try and operationalize a statement, police don't make us safe. What does that mean? Does that mean that if we got rid of all police tonight, that there would absolutely be no difference in the number of shootings we have, there'd be no difference in homing, we'd see no effects whatsoever because police don't make us safe. So just remove that factor and everything would remain static.  And I'm not the brightest bulb. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but from a governance point of view, I don't understand what that statement means, operationalize it. We're a government and we have to do things. We have to respond to a bunch of contingencies. You might be right that they don't keep us safe, but the question that becomes, so if we got rid of them, what would things look like? We wouldn't listen at all? I don't think that's the case. We have the opportunity to say yes to a whole bunch of people and rarely in politics and governance do you get an opportunity to please everybody. Respectfully, the only people I hear saying no to anything in this debate are not the people that are most impacted by gunfire. The people that are most impacted by gunfire say yes, we want unarmed mental health responders and also yes, we want folk to be able to respond if our city center gets stormed by white supremacists. The only folk I've heard saying no in this debate are certain people that are entrenched who seemingly won't take yes for an answer. I believe that our city manager has done an excellent job in presenting to us a balanced and reasonable approach where we as a growing metropolis, as a city that does not have the luxury of turning off all of the things that governments respond to. I believe that our city manager has put us in position to say yes to almost everyone in this. We need black and brown people and mentally challenged folk to stop having death encounters with police. I want the ability as an elected leader to send unarmed mental health responders in situations where we need them. But I also as a leader have to imagine if that situation escalates to something else as they often do. And then we have to call for help. We're now calling for help from a department that we've been downgrading but we're still asking them to respond. And as from a governance point, so I would just ask everybody to do the exercise. Don't just do the exercise of closing your eyes and asking what makes you safe. Do the exercise of putting yourself in a city council position. Put yourself in charge of 300,000 people and try and figure out how one decision in one area impacts not two or three, but 15 other areas and what the outcome will be. Because if Adam Toledo was killed by ShotSpotter, what do we say when the day comes and God forbid when the day comes when a mental health responder an unarmed mental health responder dies at a call? Do we then say scrap the whole program?  We're on the same side. We all want the same thing and we all want the same outcomes. It just seems like we're talking past each other on a lot of these issues. And I hope we get to a point where all of us realize that we're not trying to score political points. We're not trying to engage yourself in aggrandizement. We're not trying to put people down or look better than the other. We're trying to save our baby's lives. We're trying to save our brothers and sisters lives. That's all that matters. Not whose name on it. Now we're trying to save lives. And I hope that we can get past the point where we're talking past each other and talk to each other because we all want the same thing. I'll be Council Member Middleton now after the rest of the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate it. Thank you, Council Member. Colleagues, any more comments? Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Middleton. And I just wanted to just agree and note that I want to make sure that we're acknowledging as well that conversation around the long-term homeowner grants that could be available, which also could save or preserve residency for some folks here in our community. And then also just noting that, I think committing to the 1,000 summer jobs for next year is a really good focus point. It moves us towards more of what we know will have an impact in making sure that folks feel not just safe, but are also getting to a point where they're having shared economic prosperity. There's an on ramp so that there's a greater quality of life here. I think my predecessor in the seat is say great things happen in Durham all the time. And I would challenge her on it because there were so many things that weren't great. And so I'm acknowledging sitting in this seat today, just to hear a visually impaired person talk about how horribly our website was set up, it feels long. And so figuring out how to address some of the equity issues across the board is important to me. And I noted that around the visual, the aging, and the housing equity aspects. And I will be making sure to focus on that. I also noted, I think I live in the weeds of these conversations. And so the comments I make are regarding actual implementation and actual like governance as Council Member Middleton mentioned. And so I think for some folks who are at the like, high level understanding of it and some folks who are not, it really comes across very differently. I know for sure that we can't police ourselves out of all the gun violence, that is very clear. But I also know for sure that when you pick up the phone, the call 911, you want someone to show up. And so as folks fear, starts to envelop them with this conversation, as I said last year, we've got to be mindful that that doesn't decrease folks wanting to purchase guns and respond for themselves. And so I'm just trying to keep it all in the road on this conversation. And I really, really want us to be successful at finding ways to wind down how much we have to be dependent on police. But I'm at the same time, I'm very clear that if I need to pick up the phone and call a police officer because someone's coming into my house, I want someone to show up. Whether that's an investigation, whether that's not, whether it's an unarmed person, whatever that looks like, I want it to be effective. And so I'm just, I'm grateful to be in a city that so many folks are dialed into this conversation at such a level that they would spend countless hours. I can't say over and over again, I'm so greatly appreciative of so many folks who've really tried to pour in on these issues and come up with solutions. But I do want to note that there are some areas that just haven't quite gelled yet. And so I'll also note that the, I'm very proud of where we are at this point in our budget, acknowledging just how much is in there, but you can always be prouder. And so I'll be pushing in certain areas as I mentioned, but I do want to make sure I take the time to thank staff for getting us to this point. And as council member Middleton mentioned, our city manager, who is what like 90 days in to the official role, we're moving and the things are happening. And I would love to get to the point where I can say, great things are really happening here in Durham, but I'm really feeling uneasy about it right now. And thank you. Thank you council member. Any further comments? All right, colleagues, thank you all. Thanks for everyone who attended this public hearing. And now we'll move on to our next item. Our next item is item 40, plan amendment Camden Avenue tier change.  Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Cahill. Good evening, Mayor Scholl, Madam Mayor Pro Tem Johnson, honorable city council members, Alexander Cahill here with the planning department. First, I do want to state for the record tonight that all planning department hearing items have been advertised and noticed in accordance with state and local law. And that affidavits of these notices are on file in the planning department. The planning department did receive an application from Dan Joule of Coulter Joule Intems with a proposal to change the tier boundary designation of 11 parcels of land totaling around 38 acres. And this is located at or around Camden Avenue, Midland Terrace and Interstate 85. The present zoning on the parcels is industrial light and the parcels are also designated as industrial on the future land use map. The applicant is not proposing to change the zoning designation or the designation on the future land use map at this time. The current tier for the parcels is designated as the urban tier of the comprehensive plan. And the applicant is proposing to change the tier to the suburban tier of the comprehensive plan. These parcels were designated within the urban tier on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan when it was adopted in 2005. Staff has determined that this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the future land use map, if it is approved this evening and other adopted ordinances. Staff has determined that continuing this pattern of development is not detrimental to the immediate area and offers flexibility for renovations and improvements to existing industrial sites in this area. The planning commission by a vote of 12 to zero at their March 25th, 2021 meeting did recommend approval unanimously for this tier boundary change. There is only one motion this evening required to approve this case. And that is to amend the future land use map and the tier boundary maps of the Durham comprehensive plan by changing the tier boundary from industrial to urban to industrial suburban. Thank you very much. Staff is available for any questions as is the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Cahill. We appreciate it. Colleagues, you have now heard the report from staff on declare this public hearing open. And first, I wanna ask if there are any questions for staff by members of the council. All right, Madam Mayor Pertin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I remember reading this and I remember there being a good reason, but I don't remember what it is. Can somebody remind me why the applicant wants to make this change? Absolutely. So the applicant has a couple of different industrial users in the area and they're looking to expand their existing facilities. In order to do that, they need a different placement and setbacks for both their parking and the way they're gonna access in and out of the sites. In the current setup, the way the setbacks are set up is hard for them to meet those requirements for their industrial services. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Any further questions for staff? Councilor Middleton. Yes, Mr. Mayor, very quickly. I was just flipping through my notes. I wanna thank Madam Mayor Pro Tem for channeling my exact question. Thank you. Great. All right. I'm gonna now ask, is there anyone who would like to be heard on this item? I see Mr. Dan Joule has signed up. Mr. Joule, would you like to be heard? I would, Mr. Mayor. Good evening to you, Mayor Pro Tem and the Council. How are you this evening? Fine, thank you. We're doing fantastic. Very good. I can tell I've been sitting through the whole entertaining years. This is what we live for. That's right. I can tell, I can tell. So, Dan Joule with CJTPA here at 111 Osmain. Thank you, Alexander, for a good presentation. I'm gonna give a few remarks, but I would guarantee they are a third the length of what I gave to the Planning Commission. An excellent question, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Middleton. The reason we're asking for this change is that industrial uses are just not a good fit in the urban tier. As you know, the amount of our industrial land has been dwindling in Durham because there have been many requests to rezone to residential. We think it's important though that we maintain all of those industrial lands and make it possible for development, industrial development to happen because this is important. These projects create space for businesses and these are businesses that hire employees, particularly employees who don't need a college degree and in many cases don't need a high school degree and we need to help those folks in Durham. So why is being in the urban tier problematic? Well, it's because industrial facilities are designed with the car parking in the front and the trucks in the back and there's a very important reason for that. This separation is for safety. The tenants have customers, employees and visitors coming to their place of businesses and imagine a visitor or an uninitiated driver trying to vie for a position with an 18 wheeler backing up to a loading dock on the same side of the building. The urban tier requires that the buildings be built close to the street and it does not allow parking to be built between the street and the building and these requirements are contradictory to the separation that I talked about and as a side it puts tall, long buildings right up against the street. I was actually involved in the creation of the flume back in the early aughts and looking back, I don't know that there was a lot of thought about whether industrial zones were or were not captured in the urban tier. There wasn't much industrial type development going on in Durham back then and I don't think there were really any people on that comprehensive planning committee who really thought much about that. So we would simply like to correct that oversight as Mr. Cahill mentioned in the presentation our proposal is fully congruous with the existing development patterns in the neighborhood and the change to the tier line we are requesting will not affect any of the other UDO requirements other than requiring more open space. In March, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request and we respectfully request that you consider that strong statement of support and hopefully can also find in favor of this request. So thank you that ends my presentation. Thank you Mr. Joule, we appreciate it. Mr. Public Hearing item, is there anyone else here who would like to be heard on this item? If so, could you raise your virtual hand? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter is back before the council. This item requires a single motion and that motion is to amend the future land use and tier boundary maps to the Durham comprehensive plan by changing the tier boundary from urban to industrial suburban for the resident. Just a minute. Second. And moved by council member Middleton and seconded by council member Freeman. Are there anyone have any more discussion? Just council member Freelon. Just a quick comment. We do have Tom Miller Day coming up on the 4th of July and I just wanted to acknowledge that this is one of the many instances where his planning commission notes singularly by word count outweigh all his colleagues collectively and very helpful comments and shouts to Tom Miller. But I'm enthusiastically gonna be going with his endorsement on this one. That's it. Exactly, exactly what I was trying to capture today. And thank you for that. You're right. All right, although on the next one I'm finding myself not in total agreement. Okay, colleagues. We have a motion. Madam clerk, will you please call a roll? Mayor Schuyl. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Council member Cada Giro. Aye. Council member Freelon. Aye. Council member Freeman. Aye. Council member Middleton. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. I'm hearing some kind of echo. I don't know if anybody else is hearing it. Madam clerk, here's some kind of echo. I think it's off now. I think that a couple of us had our, one of my areas of expertise over the last 15 months has been figuring out these echoes. And I think it's because two or three of us had our, we were open at once, but I think we're good now. Yeah. All right, colleagues. We'll now move to item 41, zoning map change, Rollingdale 2. And we'll first hear the report from staff. Welcome, Mr. Kultra. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Schuyl. Madam Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and honorable council members. Dating culture with the planning department. The request for a zoning map change was received from Josh Swindell of Rollingdale Investment LLC, the applicant and Neil Gauch of Morningstall All Group acting as agent for the applicant to change the zoning designation of two parcels of land totaling 6.651 acres and located at 602 and 606 West NC 54 highway. The site is within the city's jurisdiction and presently zoned plan development residential 3.940 or PDR 3.940, which allows for a maximum of 25 residential townhouse units which was approved on August 6, 2018 through a development plan case Z1700040. The site is located within the suburban development tier and the Falls Jordan Watershed Protection District B or FJB and currently designated low density residential at four dwelling units and acre or less on the future land use map or flume. The applicant seeks to change the zoning designation to plan development residential 5.189 or PDR 5.189 for a maximum of 33 residential townhouse units and to change the future land use map to a low medium density residential at four to eight dwelling units and acre. At the planning commission's March 9th, 2021 meeting the motion for approval of this request was denied by vote of four to eight. There are two motions required for this application tonight. The first is to adopt an ordinance for the rezoning and amend the future land use map and the second is to adopt a consistency statement. Thank you very much and staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Kaltra. Colleagues, you've now heard the report from staff I'm going to declare this public hearing open and I'm going to first ask if there are any questions for staff by members of the council. All right, seeing none then we have several people who've signed up to speak on this item. We have Mr. Patrick Beiker, Landon Loveless Cam Morrison, Elizabeth McCain and Ralph Cook have all signed up to speak on this. And for those of you all who've stuck with us, thank you. We appreciate you. We know it's been a very long night. I'll ask now, it looks like Mr. Beiker and Landon Loveless are signed up as proponents. Ralph Cook is an opponent. Cam Morrison and Elizabeth McCain, if you all could put in the chat whether or not you are opponents or proponents because I have to figure this out to make sure we're doing the fair thing with our timing on the public hearing. So, Ms. McCain and Cam Morrison if you wouldn't mind putting in the chat whether you're proponents or opponents of this rezoning. And if you're not quite sure, you can put that too. Okay, I'm not sure that we have them here. We'll find out as we go then. All right, Mr. Beiker, you and Landon Loveless are listed as the proponents. Is Landon Loveless part of your team? Yes, Mr. Mayer, can you hear me all right? Yes, Mr. Beiker, how long will you need? Five minutes or less, sir. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Beiker, thank you. If I could ask Mr. Kulture to pull up a PowerPoint that I sent over earlier. If you could pull that up, Mr. Kulture, that'd be wonderful. Thank you, sir, appreciate that very much. Mr. Beiker, hang on one second. I saw Ms. McCain's in the chat, I just wanted to say. Ms. McCain, don't worry, that's fine and we're gonna get to you at the appropriate time. Sorry, Mr. Beiker, go ahead. Good evening, Mayor Schull, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and members of the City Council. I'm Patrick Beiker with Morningstar Law Group and I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here this evening representing Rollingdale Investment, LLC for this agenda item. With me this evening are Josh Swindell of Rollingdale and Landon Lovelace, our project engineer with Underfoot Engineering. The rezoning we are discussing tonight seeks to allow for up to 33 townhomes as opposed to the currently approved 25. Next slide, please. I'd like to address briefly traffic issues as discussed in the staff report for this agenda item. In regard to traffic on NC 54, that road has been a concern for the 30 years that I've been around here. In response to the concern raised at the Planning Commission by Mr. Michael Martin, who is a member of Triangle Grace Church, I wish to emphasize that this project will add a left turn lane at a cost of $365,000. You can note the location of Triangle Grace Church at the bottom of this slide on Tudor Place. That turn lane increases capacity significantly for this segment of NC 54 when there is no NC DOT funding available for any other improvements to this section of 54 in the near future. Of course, the main reason we are here this evening is to create a more affordable infill project on this 6.6 acre site. Next slide, please. While the proposed rezoning seeks eight additional townhomes, most of the other zoning commitments from three years ago will remain. I want to emphasize that the architectural commitments are for the most part unchanged from our previous development plan, with the only noteworthy change being to switch to the modern transitional style away from the craftsman style. While the undisturbed area along the southern boundary has changed from 40 feet to a variable width ranging from 20 to 40 feet, this is more than compensated for by increasing the previously required 50 foot buffer along the intermittent stream to 100 feet on account of the impervious surface being over 24%. This 100 foot buffer plus the 10 foot no build zone is a significant improvement because it preserves more of the mature trees on site. Many of these mature trees are taller than our proposed maximum building height of 50 feet. We want to be upfront that the building set back along the southern property line went from 70 feet to 50 feet and the separation between buildings went from 30 feet to 20 feet. There is no additional disturbed area proposed nor are there any additional adverse stormwater impacts from adding these eight townhouses. Nevertheless, we took into account the concerns expressed by the Woodcroft neighbors at the planning commission, especially Jeff Brandeburg and Elizabeth McCain in regards to stormwater runoff. In response to Mr. Brandeburg's and Ms. McCain's concerns, we added a text commitment to utilize a double row of silt fencing during site construction. In addition, we will commit on the record this evening to constructing stormwater control measures that will treat up to the 100 year storm. Next slide please. I would like to highlight briefly the increased open space on the proposed development plan we are discussing tonight relative to what the council approved about three years ago. In regard to open space, the development plan before the council this evening increases open space from 1.03 acres to 2.08 acres. In addition, the development plan tonight increases the tree save area to 1.71 acres, almost a third of an acre above the 1.42 acres that the council approved of a prior development plan. In conclusion, the focus of this agenda item is to do what we can to increase the open space and to be a better neighbor, as well as to address Durham's profound need for housing, especially on infill sites that are close to the employment opportunities at RTP, South Point Mall and the other office parks in Southwest Durham. This is crucial since I recently heard from a good friend of mine who is an active realtor in Durham that we have less than 270 homes for sale in Durham right now. Accordingly, increasing the number of townhomes on this 6.6 acres from 25 to 33 actually does move the needle in regards to Durham's housing inventory. I think that reality was appreciated by the three newest members that the city council appointed to the planning commission, commissioners Kimberly Cameron, Dairy Cutwright and Tony Cease, all of whom recommended approval of this zoning map change. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval. We thank you for your time this evening and our team would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Biker, thank you very much. There's several other, hang on a second, let me get into my, okay, there's several other people who would like to speak on this item and I'm going to first call Mr. Ralph Cook, who is lists himself as an opponent. Mr. Cook, are you available to be heard? Mr. Cook, thank you for being with us. Would three minutes be enough time for you? I haven't time it, but it sounds about right. All right, we're glad to have you. Go ahead, Mr. Cook. I post this because it doesn't seem to me that it fits the overall nature of the area and the plan that Durham had and for it. The whole point of zoning is to say, okay, we're going to put this type of stuff here. And the developers come in saying, okay, we're going to change that so that we can put different stuff here. But I really don't see any sufficient reason for it. I'm afraid I'm a little suspicious about his desire to help Durham's housing situation with it. At the neighborhood meeting, he explained that the city requirement for cul-de-sac reduced a yield from 25 units to 20 units. And somehow that led to a request to increase zoning so that they can put 33. And that doesn't make any sense to me. If he can put 33 on it, he can put 25 on it and keep the zoning that he got a few years ago. That kind of explanation just doesn't give me any great confidence in the explanations that they're giving me. The previous plan buildings were more limited in height. The new plan calls for buildings that are going to be taller. And this is particularly significant to the people that live in Woodcroft because the site backs up to Woodcroft on a hill so that the buildings here are going to be sort of standing over the Woodcroft houses. The ground slopes down sharply at the back of the lot. And so they're going to be taller at the back than they are at the front. So taller buildings are just going to loom over Woodcroft houses. It wasn't what we talked about back when they made the request three years ago. I also wonder whether the impact of these units has been adequately investigated. I've read in the documents that they've given and I don't see much there to give me confidence either. The original plan somehow decided that out of 25 units that they would put that there would be some number of children, I think three or four, evidently these eight additional units will only have one child as an impact to the school. I don't have any idea where somebody came up with these numbers. Also according to the new plan, putting in these eight additional units will actually reduce the number of car trips on Highway 54. I'm waiting for someone to explain that one to me. We add more units and we get less traffic.  There are a lot of curb cuts, a lot of commercial developments as well as entrances to places.  And as soon as they hit a car that's slowing down to turn into this, well, we're gonna have more accidents. It's just gonna happen. Mr. Cook, are those the end of your comments? Have you completed your comments, Mr. Cook? I think so. All right. Mr. Cook, thank you very much for your comments. And now we'll hear from Mr. Jeff Brandenburg. Madam Clerk, can you make, I see Mr. Brandenburg is available to be heard. Mr. Brandenburg, will three minutes be enough for you, sir? Yes, that will be fine. All right. Thank you for being with us. Thank you for your time. As Ralph already said, we have several concerns about this development. We're aware that with this rezoning proposal, this continued inch further and further away from the original proposal that was received favorably a couple of years ago. Feels like someone is slowly turning up the heat on the pot, hoping that we will not get alarmed enough to jump. We naturally welcome changes to the plan that increase the depth of the wooded buffers around the proposed development. And we do understand that this land is going to be developed one way or another sooner or later. We're very, very concerned about the proposal to increase the number of units, decreasing the spacing between units, which was a center point of discussion the first time around. And also to raise the structures from two to three stories, which from our perspective behind the development will be raising them from three to four stories. That is close to double the height of most of the houses around here. And it is going to be situated on a hill, so it is going to completely visually dominate the surroundings. There are mature trees between us and the proposed development. Since those are mature trees in a mature forest, they do not have a lot of low branches. So the shielding that they will provide is going to be quite limited. The proposed evergreen buffers that are discussed for being planted particularly along the southern border have the opposite problem. They will not get that tall and will never reach up high enough to conceal these buildings which are perched high on the mountaintop. We also have heard mentioned several times of providing more affordable housing stock that's obviously required in Durham. And we question the idea that these $320,000, $330,000, $340,000 townhomes really constitute a breakthrough in affordable housing. It seems to me that the reason for this change is simply to change the profit that's available out of this development to increase the profit that's available. And it doesn't really seem like that should be the goal of zoning policy and zoning changes. I would strongly urge the council to reject this proposed rezoning and to avoid ratcheting up the heat further in this area. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Brandenburg. Madam clerk, can you make Cam Morrison available to be heard? Cam Morrison, are you available to be heard? Can you unmute yourself? Cam Morrison, can you hear me? If you can, can you please unmute yourself? And we'd love to hear from you. All right. Well, we'll move on then to Elizabeth McCain. Madam clerk, can you make Elizabeth McCain available to be heard? Hello. Hi, Ms. McCain. Thank you for being with us tonight and for hanging in with us so long. You said that you weren't sure, I believe, whether or not you were an opot or a proponent. So we're happy to hear any comments that you might have. Will three minutes be enough for you? Sure. Yeah, I'll make that work. Thank you. Guys, my husband and I moved back to Durham after the birth of our daughter to raise her near family. And we learned about this development. So I'd like to thank the city planners and the stormwater control measure staff who have been patient and informative and responsive and treating and teaching this newbie best practices in stormwater management. Others, I think others, and I think we might have lost a couple in a long way, we'll speak to the zoning and affordability and traffic. I'd like to speak to the environmental and human health impact of the development. As you all know, the post development is on a pretty steep elevation that leads to an intermittent creek where kids play and stomp around and that leads to the Falls Jordan River watershed. And that's kids here in the neighborhood as well as the park, the departments. And so my first, I have four environmental concerns in priority order. My first is the, and I'd like to thank the engineering team for also responding to some of the concerns raised at the planning committee meeting. I have some new things that I've been learning in the interim. My first and primary concern is putting in a wet pond. The reason for that is the pond captures nitrogen and phosphorus, which is with increased impervious surfaces, it puts residents at risk for algal blooms. So we know that where algal blooms are increasing worldwide and here locally, and we've seen this at nearby Jordan Lakes. So in one study done by NC State researcher, toxins were detected at 86% of the tested sites during 44% of sampling events. So really increasing in frequency worldwide as well as locally. But what's so bad about this algae? Well, folks have found that researchers in Italy has found that those living near water bodies in the past 30 years had a 30% greater odds of developing ALS. New Hampshire, in New Hampshire, they found those around water bodies with these algae had a 10 to 25, which times more likely chance of developing ALS. Researchers regarding Parkinson's have found that the polygrain algae affects the genes linked to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's researchers are exploring similar paths. So there's a link between these algae and neurodegenerative disorders. My second concern is the monitoring of ponds. So we currently monitor ponds that are not water, that are not like water source ponds once a year from my understanding. But the problem is that these algal blooms are increasing in frequency because temperatures are rising and they're seasonally affected when you have hotter temperatures. So once a year is insufficient to be able to detect for current, future, all ages of residence, the frequency of algal blooms. One of my concerns was addressed, which was the storm management. But the other concern that I have is the visibility into other storm water control measures as this intermittent creek is headed to the Falls River Jordan Basin. So what are we doing about peltrace, groundwater filtration, rainwater, plants leading to the pond or any retention cell? In summary, I wonder about the possibility of a bioretention cell instead of a wet pond or a bioretention pond in a combination with other storm water control measures. And I know I will speak to something that can worsen has raised to me, which is the concern about height. But overall, my concern is regarding the wet pond, the increased risk of algal blooms and the risk that poses to current and any future residents. Thanks so much for the time of this committee to listen as well as the staff to explain to me more about traditional storm water control measures. Thank you very much, Ms. McCann. We appreciate your comments. It looks like maybe Kim Morrison is ready to be heard. Kim Morrison, are you ready to be heard? Can you unmute yourself? Hello. We're glad to have you. Will three minutes be enough for your remarks? More than enough. This is actually Bernard Weissman, Kim Morrison's husband. I don't know if I'm still signed up or not.  Thank you. But I'll save you some time speaking for both of us. We actually live next door to the previous speaker. Sorry, we have two computers open. We're hearing some feedback because you have the two computers open. Yeah, I'm trying to get rid of it. For all the reasons that the previous three speakers presented, we, I'm just worried this is their second bite at the apple. And if they find a year from now that they're not gonna be making enough money, they may come back and ask for more units with higher going to four stories. And I think you've already, we're kind enough several years to go to grant them an exemption to the plan. I think what they have now is sufficient. I don't see any benefit to the neighborhood of having an extra eight units. So I appreciate your time. I know it's late. And I hope you'll listen to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Weissman. This is a public hearing item. And before we have questions for the applicant, is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this item who's attending, who hasn't been heard from yet? I don't see anyone else.  I would say that the height of buildings and the algal blooms were two that were prominent in terms of what the residents had to say. Could you address those in any other, any, you have some time remaining. Is there anything else that you would like to address? Yes, Mayor Schruel, Patrick Biker again speaking for a Rollingdale. We do appreciate the concern about building heights. So on the record this evening, we would like to reduce the height of the proposed townhomes from 50 feet to 45 feet. I believe that will be below the tree line and the elevation differential between our proposed townhouse community and the homes in Woodcroft that have been there for, oh gosh, 35, 40 years. In regards to the stormwater issues, we have a very experienced team working on this. And again, we've committed to treat the 100 year storm onsite. And it's certainly my experience that the stormwater services division within our public works department, they run a tight ship. And we will, we're looking forward to designing this to control for a 100 year storm. And I think the other changes that Ms. McCain or were, that she was bringing up, really get into technical issues that are best left with the folks in our public works department, Shay Ballak, Ian Peterson, Jennifer Bunson, worked with all of them for many years and their first class public servants. I've enjoyed working with them and I'm confident that this will be a site that is done correctly and preserves everything that we need to have preserved on this site in addition to making sure that the post stormwater is basically identical to the pre-development stormwater conditions. Lastly, again, regards to the traffic that I do not wanna minimize that this turn lane will be added, will be a significant increase in capacity on NC 54. And that's reflected in your staff report, as well as the fact that there are apartments and townhomes only one or two-tenths of a mile away from this site. So it really does fit in with the area on Highway 54. We need housing on these infill sites close to the jobs at RTP and South Point and the other office parks in Southwest Durham. So we think it's a good set for the program and we'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Shul, I hope I addressed your concern. Thank you, Mr. Biker. Colleagues, any questions are at this point for the applicant or for anyone else, Council Member Middleton or for staff? Yeah, Council Member. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and thank you, Patrick and all who were speaking on this issue tonight. So a couple of questions. Obviously, it's no secret that we, this body rezoned this parcel with 2018, a few years ago. Could you just give us directly, Patrick, the rationale for coming back and asking for it to be rezoned? One characterization has been that it's purely profit-driven. What's if that's the case, that's fine, but would you just kind of give us a sense as to why we're revisiting this? Yeah, it was the $365,000 turn lane is a significant issue when we got to the site plan phase and we could only fit about 20 town homes on the site that you can do the math that equates to $18,000 per town homes for each townhouse, just to cover the cost of the turn lane. If we can increase the density to 33 town homes, that makes that cost of the turn lane be just slightly more than $10,000 per townhouse, which is a much more easier number to work in for the pricing of these town homes. There's been an awful lot of media coverage of lumber or plywood costs going increase significantly, what hasn't been covered so much is the cost of other infrastructure costs, especially resin and concrete, everything that goes into the sewer, sewer lines, the infrastructure for this site. And just to have that infrastructure burden be divided by 33 town homes as opposed to a number in the low 20s makes it a much more, I use the term affordable as a relative term, not as a UDO defined term. It is, I can't tell you exactly what the prices are gonna be, but I can tell you that the 33 town homes on an individual basis would be much cheaper than if we can only build 20-some town homes. So that's really what is driving it, is trying to build smaller town homes, increase the number from 25 to 33 on the zoning, and that enables us to handle the infrastructure burden that has to be handled even with only a dozen town homes. It would be the same infrastructure burden. Thank you for that clarification. And yeah, it's not a perfect science, I've obviously been nailing down with the price, but your working range is 315,000 to 350,000, is it not? Yeah, that's a good ballpark, but it's just, I go to, many of you know, I've been a member of the home builders for many years. The cost of lumber, plywood, building supplies, appliances is just off the chain right now. So we'd be hesitant to give you any projections on sales prices when these units are actually available for sale. But given that, it's not gonna be south of 315,000, right? 315,000. I think that's a fair statement. I can text my folks and see if that's the case, but obviously if there's only 20-some, if it's in the low 20s, the townhouses would be way more than that. So I think we'd be in the low 300s at 33 units. If we can only build 20-some units, the each townhouse will cost significantly more. Well, obviously this isn't an affordable housing project. Right, right, right. But I'm wondering how, could you tell us how the developer, given these price points and given that this is our second visit, at this in terms of a zoning request, how did they arrive at $25,000? Could you just tell me what the calculus was to arrive at that amount for the affordable housing? Oh yeah, that was last time. Council Member Middleton, it was simply based on $1,000 per unit. Okay. So was that 25,000 reflective of the new unit request or the old unit request? It stayed the same. It stayed the same if that's an issue. It's, you know. I just want to understand the calculus. Yeah, that's all it is. It remained unchanged from the previous application. You have any ideas to why? Can you speak to what the developer's mindset was on it? Just curious. It was something, to be honest with you, we didn't think about it because it was, the other issues related to infrastructure dominated the calculation of how this project could move forward. I mean, we can sort of, let me, if I could just confer my clients right quick. Sure. And with that, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to yield to my other colleagues if they have any questions, not a couple more, but I'll yield at that point at this point and throw back to you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. And I'll await that information, Patrick. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. That's a good question. Colleagues, other questions for either the residents, the applicants or staff? All right, we'll come in approach him. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a question, but I do have a comment, which is given the situation that we have with the housing shortage in Durham, there are now more, there are more realtors than homes for sale in the city, which I'm sure is a bizarre situation for people who work in that industry. I feel like if you can fit more homes on the same piece of property and even preserve more open space while doing it, that sounds good to me. And I want to generally encourage people to do that. Like my main question is why didn't you do this in the first place? If you can fit more homes on one piece of property and preserve more open space, I think that seems like generally something that is good for the city. And so I kind of just want to encourage people when they're thinking about designing projects like this to maximize the amount of housing on them in the first place because we need more housing in Durham, of course, and having, yeah, like this is the kind of, this is the kind of project where I think the more units, the better. And I would love to see more attention paid to, just creating, bringing us as many units as possible because I think we're, yeah, we're dealing with a really difficult situation right now with housing in general, of course, affordable housing is our primary goal but the more housing we build overall, I think we're also solving the broader problem of the housing shortage that we're facing, thanks. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. Colleagues, we are past the 11 o'clock hour, but I'm going to go ahead and try to finish this. I don't think we have long to go and then we'll take a five minute break, okay? I'm going to ask Mr. Ralph Cook again, if he would like to speak. Mr. Cook, do you have some additional comments? Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Sure. Mr. Riker said that the cost of the turn lane helped drive the extra units, but the turn lane was planned back when there were 25 units. So I don't understand why suddenly he wants eight more units to pay for a turn lane, they had planned to pay for the first place. Secondly, I really can't agree that the more units the better.  The planning commission did turn this down. There were a set of minutes that got out in the wild. I got a copy of them that was very confusing over whether the planning commission had turned them down. So I would like to reiterate the fact that the planning commission defeated the motion to recommend this eight to four. As far as storm water is concerned, I agree that gets to be a very technical issue. So I want to quote something about it. The quote is, with more than larger buildings on the property of flooding issue, it's a worry neighbors lose larger. The developer has promised to catch a 100 year flood. This is good, but the way it must be done must give the reviewer any reason. But it reads it to be worried. Ponds must be carved from the steep hillside retaining wall above it, cut into a gashed slope and a burn raised to hold the water. This construction would eliminate a good portion of the natural growth of trees on the developer side of the stream. If it works, that'll be good. But if it doesn't, it'll be difficult or impossible to correct. That was an evaluation by Tom Nutter. So I'll just give him a word on this subject. I'm not impressed with the cost issues. The price of housing is skyrocketed. They also talk about the cost of materials when they're talking about the price of the housing. So I really can't see that as a reason for the council to alter the zoning yet further. They altered it once three years ago and now they're being asked to alter it again. This is not in keeping with the rest of the area. This is moving it further away from what's in the area now. So I really recommend that the council deny this extension on the zoning change. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cook. Mr. Beiker, do you have an answer to Mr. Council Member Middleton's question? Couple things. Yeah, we apologize for the oversight and we're happy to increase our profit to the Affordable Housing Fund from 25 to 33,000 to reflect $1,000 per unit. I do have to emphasize that when we started planning this development, say, four years ago, we thought the turn lane in the infrastructure was gonna cost roughly a third less than it did and it turned out to cost. And that, again, is something with all the discussion about two by fours in plywood, that's been sort of lost, but that Mr. Cook's issue, the infrastructure costs have gone up as dramatically as the lumber cost. And that's why we're asking for this increase in the number of units because that infrastructure cost has to be divided among 33 units in order for them to be a town home to be able to be sold in the low 300 price point. So I know it's late, I know your folks need a break on the closed captioning. I hope that answers all your questions and we respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you, Council Member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Initially, I was thinking I would agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Pro Tem's assessment if this weren't close to the Jordan Lake watershed. I think just noting to Patrick Biker's point is interesting that we're talking about a piece of land that was mass graded and clear-cutted of all the trees that were on it and the lumber prices are the issue. I just wanna note that this site and the plan itself is inconsistent with the area that's clear. What strikes me even more is, and I'm just checking with staff, isn't this the case where we had a commissioner who voted on the item and then came before us to actually bring the item forward and as a representative, like as the attorney for the client? Good evening, Grace Smith here with the Planning Department. It could have been, my recollection is fuzzy. It's late at night and it's been a few years but I'm thinking you might be right, Council Member Freeman, I think you're correct. Just noted, it is late and I'm noting that this is the type of development that pushes folks away from the conversation and like North Durham and many other areas because this is how the deck is stacked against the residents in the neighborhood. They know what's in their neighborhood. They know where the water runs. They know where the flooding happens. They know how our stormwater requirements can underserve them and ways in which that other communities don't often get to speak on. And so I'm really leaning into what Ms. McCain laid out in acknowledging just how much of this is environmental and health and how we miss an opportunity three years ago and we'll likely miss it again because the focus is on affordable housing so to speak that won't be affordable to any of the residents we've been talking about this evening in our marginalized communities. But I was just noting specifically that this reminded me of a case that we had previously that it just ring a bell in case we saw it previously and I was just checking. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Colleagues, any further comments or questions? Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So thank you, Patrick, for clarifying getting that information on the amended proffer to the affordable housing fund. I'm gonna ask Mr. Cook if he's still on. The applicant, the developer has proposed reducing the height which will affect the sight line of the property. Does that in any way address any of your concerns? I don't know if we've captured that as that's an official proffer or that just being floated but Mr. Cook, does a lower height affecting sight line in any way address your concerns? Well, I suppose it addresses it but it does not in any way satisfy me because I don't have nearly enough to tail to know what that involves. I don't know how low 45 is. I don't know where that's gonna go on the property. He said something about below the tree line. I'm not sure what trees he's intending to leave where.  I don't know exactly what that will do. I think it requires for somebody to say yes, this will satisfy my concern about that would mean that we would have to know, okay, where are those buildings? Height from what? From the back of the slope or from the top of the hill where it is? Are there gonna be trees between those buildings and the Woodcroft houses? I just don't know enough about what it means for it to satisfy me. The planning commission turned this down. I'm really thinking we should go with that. Well, the planning commission is definitely an important touchstone in our deliberations but there have been times when our votes have been divergent. I didn't wanna ask you one other question. So from 25 to 33, is it your position that those, I don't know if you even supported it when it was 25, but could you just once again, just for the record, how in your assessment will those eight additional units substantively change the nature of this project and any impact if that makes sense? Once that I understand something about traffic, a left-turn lane is not gonna do anything for the people that get rear-ended when they've stopped to turn right at that intersection which I estimate will happen twice a month if they actually get this built at either 25 or 33. I think it's gonna happen either time. No, I didn't support the other change either. But the other thing that it seems to me that the additional eight units does is that it sets the tone for what's gonna happen around there. What's gonna happen to the next person?  What we're doing is setting what's going on for a larger piece of land than just the six and a half acres. That's what zoning is supposed to be for. And once he takes this infill and changes the nature of what's going on in that plot of land on Highway 54, then he has set the tone for what's going on. One of the changes that happened was, I read in documents that he put up in a neighborhood meeting, is that it turns out that the city will require him to put a cul-de-sac on the property instead of a T-road that I saw planned for. The T-road was gonna run right into the next person which they don't know yet, it belongs to the Barbies. That seemed to me to indicate clearly that they had plans to develop more property that was next to this year. If they hope to connect to other properties or they thought other people would develop properties that are next to this, I don't want all of them to be done at the higher density rate. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Mr. Mayor, I'll yield back. I do want to just say that I recall the incident that Council Member Freeman is alluding to, but I do just wanna say on the record as part of this body, I'm gonna be very careful. I don't think that ultimately any impropriety or malfeasance was attached to Mr. Goche. The issue was vetted and it was brought on record, but I just wanna be very careful and not suggest or have that out there floating like he was something, because I don't recall any sanction or any action being taken against him as well, but I just wanna say that that was vetted. And I don't recall that any malfeasance was officially a lay to it, not withstand of the optics of the whole matter. Just wanna put that out. I don't remember any malfeasance either, but it didn't work good. Optics, yeah, I hear you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member. All right, Council Member Freelon and then Council Member Caballero. Yes, just very quickly. I was curious if Mr. Biker could, I know we're dealing with estimates here, but I'm curious if it's only 20 some low 20s units, what the price point would be at that density. Or probably talking around 400, Council Member Freelon, because you're talking about, there's also the time value of money, but you've got to take all that infrastructure, water, sewer, road improvements, and divide that by a much smaller number, 20 in the low 20s. It would be well over 400, I would say. Okay, so we're looking at a scenario where we do 33 units at, you know, 315 to 350,000 versus 20 units at well over 400,000. Okay. Special Mayor Freelon. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Caballero. I'll pass. I'm looking at the time. It's okay. Okay. Any other questions, colleagues or comments? I see Ms. McCain has her hand up. Ms. McCain, you have a brief comment. We're happy to take it. All right, very brief. I would just like to say that I appreciate folks hearing me about stormwater management. And I think that there was one comment that suggested that it would be best leaving this to the stormwater management authorities. And I just wanted to let folks know that I am happy to run fast and learn to keep up. If residential input are there, I'm not the smartest, but I'm pretty diligent. And it impacts me and it impacts people that I care about to have good stormwater management. And it impacts current neighbors, but also future neighbors. So that's what I'm thinking about. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McCain. And thanks everyone for being here. Colleagues, I'm now going to declare this public hearing closed. I don't want to ask if there are any comments by members of the council. And then I will take a motion. Any comments, any final comments? Council member Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to note, as in the last case, I agreed with council member Freelon that commissioner Miller's advice is usually something that I take and just acknowledging in honor of Tom Miller Day. I'm going to be voting against this item. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Any other comments? Council member Caballero. I just had a quick question for staff and it's come up before, but I'm planning commissioner Mondolia's comments about him being a renter and how, because he's a renter, he didn't get a notice. And that conversation has happened before on there. So don't want to spend too much time on it this evening. But I would like to hear from planning staff at some point about how we deal with that because it is unfair and he's correct and we've had that conversation previously. Grace Smith with the planning department. We actually just brought an item forward to JCCPC last week that included some updates to article three that addresses that. We've been working on that for quite some time even prior to his comments and how we would actually be able to successfully pull that off and make that notice requirement and meet those notice requirements. If we make that an ordinance requirement. So we did bring something to JCCPC last week and you will see that in the near future. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Thank you, council member. Colleagues, I'll just comment that I don't want to say to the residents. I want to thank all the residents who are being here today. Really appreciate your input. You know, this is one of those situations where I understand that the people that live across the stream and across the buffer and near this would rather have this not be as dense. I understand that. And we always have to make the judgment about those kinds of considerations versus what we think is good for the city as a whole. In this case, I think that more housing is good for the city as a whole. And I don't think that there's any significant damage or any really, I think that in fact, I think that there's more open space, stronger buffer and more units, which I think is a good combination. I actually think that that open space and larger buffering is positive. And I've just said to Ms. McCain, thank you for your comments about the stormwater. I have never heard any, you know, anything before about a stormwater facility like this having any significant impact in terms of algal blooms ever. And I know that I feel a lot of confidence in our stormwater department, that were there any such thing that would cause significant health effects, they would be all over it. I'm very confident of that. Yeah, so I'm planning to vote for this. I agree that, yeah, this is not affordable housing. Let's don't pretend that it is, but it's housing. And, you know, as Mayor Pro Tem said, we just, we have an unbelievable housing, we have a shocking increase in housing prices in this town right now because of a lack of supply. And we have got to do everything we can to increase supply within the important environmental concerns that people have raised here. And I think this does meet that standard. I thought this, my, I agree with Tony Cease's comments Plain Commissioner Cease, I thought he had it right and appreciated that. Other comments before we take a motion, Council Member Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to associate myself with your comment. I plan on supporting this development for many of the reasons you said. I resonate with what the Mayor Pro Tem said as well. And I don't think she in any way was implying that we density to the point of absurdity, but within reason. And I think that's an important point to make. I do want to just make sure that staff codifies the proffers, the amended proffers from the developer with respect to the commitment to affordable housing fund and the height as well. But I plan on supporting this development. Thank you. Well, I think that's probably a question worth asking staff. Ms. Smith or Mr. Kultra, you all receive those proffers. You heard those proffers, have they been appropriately offered? Mayor Schuyl, yes. And in fact, I was going to reiterate the three proffers. Actually, the extra proffer was the commitment for the 100 years storm water SEM commitment. And the other was the reduced height to 45 feet, which was originally committed at 50 feet and the increase from $25,000 to $33,000 for the affordable housing fund. Thank you, Mr. Kultra. Colleagues, any further comments? All right. Thank you all. And I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just go ahead, go ahead, sure. 45, I didn't catch that. 45, 45, yeah. Because I knew that Councilman Middleton mentioned 35 feet earlier. Yeah, 45, I think you just misheard, yeah, 45. Okay, colleagues, to approve this, we would need a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the UDO by taking property out of the planned development of residential 3.940, Falls Jordan Lake Watershed Protection and establishing the same as planned development of residential 5.189, Falls Jordan Watershed Protection District B and amending the future land use map from the low-design residential to low-medium-density residential. I move is read. Moved by Councilmember Middleton, seconded by Councilmember Freelon. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Shull. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freelon. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye. I vote aye. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank you, colleagues. The motion passes five to one. Next motion would be to adopt a consistency statement. Move to adopt consistency. Second. Moved by Councilmember Middleton, seconded by Councilmember Freelon. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Shull. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Councilmember Caballero. Aye. Councilmember Freelon. Aye. Councilmember Freeman. Aye. Councilmember Middleton. Aye. I vote aye. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The ayes have it and the motion passes five to one. Mr. Biker, we're looking forward to you all doing a great job with this development and doing all the things that you have promised that you would. We wanna thank the neighbors for being here for your input. These things are often very tough calls and we so appreciate what you had to offer us tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Good night. Thank you. Colleagues, we're now gonna take a five minute break. We have one more item and then a closed session. So we got a long way to go tonight, but I think for our closed captures we'll take another five minute break. It's 11.26, we're back here at 11.31, up to 11.27. We're back here at 11.32 sharp. And please mute your microphones. All right, colleagues, it was 11.32. And we're back at it. We have one more public hearing item before we have a closed session. And I'm going to call on, I believe, Mr. Reginald Johnson for this item. There he is, Mr. Johnson, welcome. Well, thank you, Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, Reginald Johnson, Director of the Department of Community Development. And this is a public hearing on Second Substantial Amendment on COVID funding. And Matthew Snars will be reading the particulars into the record before you begin the public hearing. He's our Senior Planning and Performance Manager. And we also have Ms. Monica McGee, who will be providing the sign language interpretation. I would just take this opportunity though, it's late to share for many years, Will McConeus has played this role in this event, but she's retired now from the city of Durham. And so we are making transitions in that regard. And so I just wanted to share that with you. Mr. Snars, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Good evening, Mayor Schulte, Members of Council. This is my name is Matt Snars with the Community Development Department, Planning and Performance Manager. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive citizen comments on the proposed amendment to the FY 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan and the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan for Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security CARES Act funding. The CARES Act Public Law 116-136 was signed into law on March 27th, 2020 to provide additional funding for communities in their efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus pandemic. In total, the city of Durham expects to receive a total of $2,716,217 in Community Development Block Grant, CDBG-CB, $2,662,000 in Community Development Block Grant $668 of Emergency Solutions Grant, ESG-CB funds, and 70,340 in Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, HAPA-CB funding, which totals altogether $5,449,525. The additional supplemental funding through the CARES Act requires an amendment to the FY 2020-21 Annual Action Plan, the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan. Public hearing for the First Amendment was held on December 7th, 2020, and addressed a total of $1,875,324. Tonight's public hearing is for the Second Amendment and addresses the remaining balance, $3,573,901, which consists of $1,513,616 in CDBG-CB funds, $2,060,285 in ESG-CB funding. Additionally, the Second Amendment proposes a reallocation of 100,000 of CDBG-CB funds, which was approved for housing counseling on the December 7th, 2020 First Amendment to be added to the proposed micro-analyzed business activities as part of the Second Amendment. The proposed Second Amendment was made available for public review and comment from May 10th, 2021, and will be available for comment through June 10th, 2021 on the Community Development Department's website, and was also distributed via a general listserv. Citizen participation plan contained in the adopted 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan requires that a public hearing be conducted for formal amendments that add, delete, or substantially change the Consolidated Plan or annual action plan. Notice of this meeting was properly advertised on the K-POS and newspapers on May 10th, 2021, and posted on the Community Development Department's website, and was also distributed via a general listserv. Comments from this public hearing and a summary of written comments received from citizens concerning their proposed amendment will be included in the final document. No comments were received during the comment period to date. In closing, after this public hearing has closed, we ask that the city council vote to approve the draft second substantial amendment to the FY20-21 annual action plan and the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan for submission to HUD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schnars. We appreciate your being here. And Mr. Johnson, please pass on to our congratulations to Ms. Conyers. I didn't know she'd retired. Please give her, sir. Warm regards. She did a really good job for a really long time. Colleagues, you have now heard the report from staff and I'm gonna now declare this public hearing open. And I see that Ms. Dell Adams is here and has a comment. And Madam Clerk, can you make Ms. Adams available to be heard? Ms. Adams, welcome and you have three minutes. I just want to speak and say that I am opposed to moving money from housing and counseling resources to the micro enterprise fund. We have both rental and foreclosure crisis coming up and we need those housing counselors to have the resources that to assist people with their housing needs. The moratorium will end at the end of this month. And so we really need to take advantage of the CDBG of it related funds to provide counseling and legal services to folks who are going to face immediate evictions and closure. And so I again would caution that we not move money from housing counseling towards micro-interpress. Otherwise, thank you and good night, hopefully. Hopefully you're right, Ms. Adams, thank you. All right, any further comments? All right, I'm going to ask the question that Ms. Adams implied to staff, Mr. Schnarrs or Mr. Johnson, can you talk about why these funds, the funds had originally been approved, it had been programmed for housing counseling and now our program for the micro enterprise fund. Can you talk about why that change was made? Yes, I'll be glad to Mr. Mayor. So at the time, if you remember when we planned these funds, it was during last summer, it's actually a year ago, that when we first approved the emergency rental assistance funding and we had at the time thinking that there was going to be additional funding coming from folks that basically focus on home ownership. Well, it didn't quite materialize like we thought that it would. And one of the things we have to be concerned about is how we deploy the funds and whether we can deploy the funds. And so we thought that was probably in the best interest, well, in the best interest that we not to do it because we didn't have a companion funding to go along with it. And also the other piece is that when the federal government comes with additional funding, it sort of makes our funding go to the end of the line, which is what happened with the hope funding. If you remember that we initially put in funding for emergency rental assistance with the county that was last year, almost a year ago now. And then hope funding came in the midst of that and the funding that we approved first went to the end of the line as all the funding for the hope had to be spent first. So that's one of the things that we are also concerned about because this has to have a COVID tie and the longer we wait, the less tenuous it becomes. And so with these comments and the feedback that we had from the inner community engagement that the two areas that we have rate pretty strong. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you and I corresponded a little bit earlier in the week about the Micro Enterprise Fund. And could you talk a little bit more about that? That's an important component here. It's not one that we have previously been had programmed. And it's definitely in the direction of meeting some of our important goals. So if you could talk about that and particularly talk about their racial equity implications and I know this is not fully developed yet but anything that you could tell us would be helpful. Well, I'll begin and share a little bit of information about the Micro Enterprise. It is one of the eligible activities under the Community Development Block Grant program with Coronavirus. A Micro Enterprise is defined according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a commercial enterprise that has five or fewer employees, one of whom owns the enterprise. The other piece of that is that it's still the CDBG qualifications that it still has to be in the low moderate in the area apply. And the goal of the program is to strengthen and foster development, support and expansion of Micro Enterprise businesses within the city of Durham. So it is a targeted program that we're working with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development on and they're actually taking the lead. My colleague, Andre Pettigrew is on the call if they wanna get into more details but we're still working through the details of this but the main purpose is to be able to support businesses in these targeted areas low moderate income areas. I'm sorry, I do have one more question. Thank you about that. Not a really need a lot of detail and I'm not sure right now I could actually take a minute at this point anyway but the timetable when we set up, how long do we have to spend that money? So I'm going to defer to Mr. Snars on the actual time that we have to spend this money. You will. Okay. Yes, yes, Mr. Mayor. The answer to your question is we have six years from the time the grant agreements are signed. Okay. So the fact that we don't have a program up and running yet I was worried that there was a fast timeline but it's not and so we can spend a little time planning and getting it right. We can Mr. Mayor but also remember one of the requirements is with this funding there has to be a documented demonstrated COVID tie. Yeah. And so if it's 12 months from now and we're coming out of the pandemic, we pray that of course we will that tie becomes more tenuous. Got you. So, and that's part of the reason that you switch the money from the housing counseling you're saying as well. Okay. Those are my questions. Colleagues, any question, any further questions for Mr. Johnson or Mr. Shars? All right. Seeing none, I'm gonna declare this public hearing, I'm sorry, closed. We would need two motions to approve this. One is to approve the draft second amendment to the FY 2021 annual action plan. So move. Second. Moved by Council Member Freeman, seconded by Council Member Middleton. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mr. Shool. Aye. Mr. Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Council Member Caballero. Aye. Council Member Freelon. Aye. Council Member Freeman. Aye. Council Member Middleton. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion passes unanimously. And then second to authorize the city manager to execute all administrative requirements and attractional documents for the implementation of the amended annual action plan. So move. Second. Second. Moved by Council Member Freeman, seconded by Council Member Caballero. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mr. Shool. Aye. Mr. Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. It's Member Caballero. Aye. Member Freelon. Aye. It's Member Freeman. Aye. Mr. Middleton. Aye. Thank you. The ayes have it. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schnars. We appreciate your being here, Mr. Pettigrew. Thank you all. Thank you so much, Mayor and members of council. Colleagues, we now have a closed session.  Good evening again. So the motion, Mr. Mayor, is to hold a closed session pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11a3 for attorney-client consultation concerning the handling or settlement of litigation in the following cases. Daryl Howard versus City of Durham at Al and Deborah Friedman and Mark Rodin versus City of Durham at Al. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Attorney. Colleagues, would someone like to make that motion? I'll move. I'll move and state it. Moved by Council Member Freeman and seconded by Council Member Middleton that the motion that the city attorney read. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Mayor Schuyl. Aye. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Aye. Council Member Caballero. Aye. Council Member Freelon. Aye. Council Member Freeman. Aye. Council Member Middleton. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right, we'll now go into closed session. Madam Clerk, will you want to remind us what we need to do here? Mr. Mayor, I just removed the attendees and now we need to make sure that everyone in the closed session is here to attend it and then all the others are to depart. Council is to remain City Attorney Raeberg is to remain Assistant City Attorney Roseboro is to remain Finance Director Boyd.