Hey guys. Shea Bear 1000 here. Sorry about all the wind. I didn't think it was this windy so I left the other camera with the good mic on it in the truck. I want to share a couple things with you. Of course this caboose, you know, Nancy is for you. I don't know what year it is. Of course there's the airline for their breaks. I'm not allowed to get up on it. But if I remember right, I do remember that this there's a bike trail and walking trail that runs for many many miles through here and it's the rails to trails. That's when they they took the railroad line out and they put in this walking trail here. It's called the Green Monk. I believe this is one of the train cars that used to run on that line if I remember correctly. This is what they're doing to our park and I'll have to look through my stuff and see if I've got any pictures of this.  And I'm not sure what it's going to be, but I know we have a lot of we have like a lot of parties down here. We have the Cougar Festival. We have bands 4th of July and all this stuff. Now I'm guessing the way this building shaped right over here. I'm guessing this one to be maybe bathrooms. But there's the lake right over there called Anderson Lake. And just beyond that lake, it's the it be over that way is also a pond known as Cougar Pond. That's right. I'm staying Cougar guys. But it's a turtle. So we have that Cougar Festival every year. It's pretty cool. I'll throw a picture of me with the turtle that we took the year before last, I think.  A whole lot of work on this park. And monkey keeps saying it's sad because it's so beautiful. See they're putting more buildings up there. But there's also a big giant play area for the kids that they didn't really have before. They had a couple little things, a couple swings and stuff, but that was it. But I'll have to see if we got any pictures to see all the stuff for the kids. I'll have to see if we got any pictures of the park before. I think I've got some aerial views. Of it when I took the drone up. And I'll include that in this video. And right up there, see the walking trail is right here. Okay, that's where the walking trail goes through. But right up here it used to, it looks like it used to be a train station. I don't know if that's really the train station. If that was really the train station. Or if they just built that to look like it. So I'm not sure. Because if that was the train station you would think the tracks went through there. So I'm not positive. You know, I've only been here a couple years. So I don't know the story of this town. But this is the town we live in right now. See people ride their bikes and let me grab my pop. So like I said Nancy, I'm not sure you might know more. I think you know more or a lot more about trains than I do. So maybe you can kind of kind of maybe date this. If I would have brought my kit in. If I'd have brought my my big tripod I could have held you up there. You could have looked in the windows. But we've got, we've got this here. In this, the Whitley Coochie State Trail. One of Florida's largest rail trails. Runs right through here. Like I said, it's known as the Green Mile. It goes for many, many miles. And people use it every day all year. So here's something here. That's a newsletter. I thought this was pretty cool. I'd share it with you. Friendly tip of the month. Dog walkers, try this yoga move. Bend over and pick up your dog's poop. It's not exactly the downward dog position, but it'll make everyone else happy. I dug it. That's cool. Okay, I found a little bit of information. The trail stretches 46 miles. It's through three counties. Citrus County, Hernando, and Pasco counties. It's also, along the trail, there's also an equestrian trail that parallels portions of it. For those of you that don't know, you know, it's for horses. You can ride horses through many of these counties along this trail in certain, certain places. It says whistle markers, the Lake Henderson Trestle, and the Inverness Depot are reminders of railroad history. So that is the depot. I do believe that I showed you that was up that way. That I wasn't sure if that was a real depot. So apparently it is. So it makes me wonder why the depot would be so far away from, you know, they could have rerouted it a little bit. I'm not sure. But it's pretty cool. This, people bike this and walk this every day. So it does run 46 miles.  You know what I mean? It's 92 miles. If he took it, started one end and go to the other and then back again. So that's pretty cool. This is one of the historical markers right there in that picture. So we, we've walked a little bit of it, but not far just a few miles, but so anyway, there's what I found out. I think we may have a little time, but let's take a walk down here. I think they even rent bicycles. See the sign says we rent and I see a bunch of bicycles. Let's go check them out. Okay guys, I found out some more information. Went down there where they rent bicycles. They also sell them there. It's an actual bike shop. It's huge. Let's talk to a gentleman down there right over here, right over there, that huge building right there. That's going to be a farmer's market. And these are the restrooms down here. I was thinking of right down there. Okay, those are the restrooms. And I'm thinking what I was thinking was the restroom was actually pavilion. It was a pavilion over here over in there, which I was telling you about, but they are upgrading trying to make it pretty because this is, like I said, this is a famous trail through here and Inverness, Inverness is, you know, this is where we live and it's always been a beautiful town. It's historic. I'm not sure what that building, that little order one is going to be right there. Right there. But this big one is definitely, it's going to be a farmer's market. So that's pretty cool. I guess they're going to have a concession in there and stuff. So that's going to be awesome. So anyway, just want to let you know what I found out. That is the railroad depot there, the old railroad depot. Now I talked to the guy and he's not sure if they moved it to where it is now or if that's where it was and they moved the trail. I'm not sure about that, but this, but this is definitely the trail now. So and as you can see, that's a beautiful lake over there. And I don't know if you can see way on the other side. I might be able to, if I can hold you steady enough, see them cars going past on the other side. We travel that road every day. That's the road that monkey was on when the truck broke the ball joint. Only she was a few miles going that direction. So it is a beautiful lake. This is where we take the genu out a lot. We've had the genu out on this lake and actually brought it up here. There's a dock up here. And I guess they're going to put more docks in too for boaters and stuff because everybody likes to bring their boats out during 4th of July and during when they have their events and stuff. They like to boat up to it because the boat dock, I don't know if I can hold you still or not. You can't see it from here, but way, way out there where that water is around the other side to the right is the boat dock or the boat, you know, the boat slip. The boat ramp is where we put the boat in. And then you can go around and go under the bridge straight ahead where you've seen them cars. You can go under the bridge and then there's a couple big lakes way on the other side that we've boated to. We haven't been to it all. And then if you follow the lake around it goes way back over in here. We've been over in this direction before way back up in here. There's a bridge over in this, over in that area that you cross under. We've been out that far. So we've boated this lake, but we haven't seen it all. So we're going to see some more of it this summer, I'm sure. Now way up there, I don't know if you can see that. See that little building there? That's a bathroom. That's actually another little park that is connected kind of to this part. And it's connected.  And it also brings you up there by that road I showed you when I zoomed in when you seen the cars going past. So that's looking like maybe another restroom. So I guess it's going to be beautiful guys. And there's the caboose where we started. Right there. Center screen, whole screen actually. Just beyond that round looking thing right there. Come on focus. There's where the dock used to be. Guys, I'm sorry about the noise, but the guys have to make a living right? So this is going to be pretty cool. This is the concept plan. So it's going to look something like this. Right down here is going to be the terrace walls, which that's these walls that you see right here and that them gentlemen are working on right over there. Okay, so they're going to have the terrace walls and it's going to have 46 parking spaces. So there's going to be restrooms here. I'm looking at this through the fence. This is kind of cool. They're going to have bike parking and they're going to have a trellis entry feature. And this is cool. They're going to have a floating covered stage. So that's probably where they're going to put the music. Where they're going to have the music set up at. So they're going to have an honor garden. So and then of course the playground, which I showed you is right here. Center screen. That's going to be the playground. So this is going to be cool. Now here's it like an overall picture. So this is going to be some boat docks they're going to have here, which this is that park that I zoomed in that is way down there that I told just kind of part of this part. But I don't see any docks that's going to be right here. So that's going to make it difficult if they're not going to have any docks here for people to come to the music unless they get off their boat park way down there and then walk up this direction. So I'm not sure we'll have to see when it's finished. So I just kind of wanted to give you kind of an overview of what what's going on here. So pretty cool. Selfie time. There's the information I found. So thanks for bearing with me. I'll get more information as time goes on. And I'll include that in further updates. So like I said, I think I have some drone footage of I was over there by the shoreline. I'll throw that in this clip. So if I haven't already. All right, guys, I'm going to wait on monkey and we'll chat at you soon. Shea Bear the myth of mental legend. I'm gone again for now. Bye bye guys. Take care now.


How do I get a job teaching English and Hungary? Hungary is a teaching destination that is rapidly growing in popularity due to a strong demand for English language proficiency, a low cost of living, and the friendly local population who are both welcoming and laid back in their approach to life. The country's location right in the heart of Central Europe is also a draw as it allows easy access to dozens of other countries across this fascinating region. What are the requirements for teaching English and Hungary? As the demand for teachers is very high, it is possible to get a job without any qualifications or experience. However, the more you can offer employers, the better chance you have of getting the most sought after jobs that pay the best salaries. A TEFL Tezal certificate is generally expected by most decent employers, particularly one that included practical teaching experience. If you are a native English speaker, you will also have a good advantage, as will those with a degree and or previous classroom experience. If you choose to follow the CETP program, you will need to be a native English speaker with a degree. Who are the main employers of English teachers in Hungary? There is a wide variety of potential employers to look out for in Hungary, including state-run primary and secondary schools, private language schools, universities, and individual businesses. There are also good opportunities to work in private tutoring on either a full or part-time basis. Many teachers take advantage of this demand to add to their main income outside of normal working hours. The Central European Teaching Program, CETP, is another great option for anyone looking to live and work in Hungary. The program places teachers in schools across the country where they act as conversational teachers working alongside the existing staff. There is an initial placement fee for this program, but teachers still get paid a local salary and receive free housing for the duration of the contract. One attraction of this option is that it can all be arranged in advance before leaving your home country. It also provides you with a great deal of classroom and life experience that will look great on future job applications. What are the visa requirements for teaching English in Hungary? As Hungary is an EU member, teachers with an EU passport do not need a visa to live and work in the country, but the employer will still need to organize a labor permit. All other nationalities require a work permit and a residence permit. The process for this has improved significantly in recent times, and the employer should sort out most of the paperwork for you. If you are going through the CETP system, you will need to provide a notarized copy of your degree, a general health certificate from your doctor, stating you have no communicable diseases and a negative TB test result. What is the best way to apply for English teaching jobs in Hungary? Unless you are involved in a CETP program, you will most likely need to be in the country ready to interview for jobs prior to the new school year that starts around the 1st of September. Many schools also take on new teachers at the start of January. Employers typically prefer to interview in person and a trial lesson is commonly expected. Positions organized via the CETP system are arranged in advance, so you will not need to interview with the school on arrival. Teaching contracts generally run until the end of the school year in June. Where are the best places to find English teaching jobs in Hungary? The magnificent capital city of Budapest is home to the majority of teaching jobs in Hungary, as it has by far the largest population in the country. The city is a major travel hub for exploring the rest of the country and the wider region during your stay. It is also where the best salaries are found, although the cost of living is higher than in many other parts of the country. It is worth noting that the CETP program usually looks to place its teachers in smaller cities outside of the capital. Other popular destinations include the cultural capital of Debrazin and the historic city of Miss Kolk.


w. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Let me comment. You know, this is so to me so analogous to what we're talking about here earlier, with trying to help the homeless from Southside. And this gentleman said it, I mean, it was in the back of my mind before he said it was in back of my mind when I saw your proposal. It's about fairness. It's about fairness. It's not about treating people equal, it's about fairness. And I looked at your proposal, Don, and no matter how you came out with $300 and $1,500, the bottom line is you're willing to take the city from 50% to 70% of the cost. I didn't get to rationale for it, but that's what you're willing to do. Yeah, I think city ought to eat the whole bill. I mean, that's that's really what I feel about it. I think they ought to eat the whole bill. I think it's I'm not I'm I'm not asking for that. I'm not I'm not asking for that. But we're talking about fairness. Okay. And we're talking about what's what's equal and what's not equal. And we had the same discussion earlier when we did Southside. And you weren't willing to spend $450,000 as a staffer proposed over four years for that development, because you wanted to look at something else is going to be cheaper. But now you've decided that you don't want to you think the city shouldn't do 50%. They ought to do 70%. You haven't given me a rationale why. And you've made the numbers work out. But you haven't told me why you want it. Why don't you take it 80%. Why don't you take it 90%. There's no rationale in here for what what you did other than the fact that you felt that the city ought to pay more. And so why should the city pay more because was the city wrong? And we've heard some indications here that city was culpable in this and I'm not taking anything away from our staff. I think they've done an excellent job of bringing us to where they are. But we're the final operator on this issue. They've given us their best recommendation. They've done it thoroughly. They've studied it. But now we're talking about what what do we want to do? I think we ought to pay the whole thing. And I think we do it because it's fair. And because of the city's role and where what got us to where we are. You did the numbers. These people spent about three plus million dollars in property taxes. I'm not questioning that. You showed how you did it. They spent about and the question is what do they get for it? And you know we provided the services.  They got something. I'm not saying they didn't get anything. But the fact is they spent that amount of money on taxes on streets that were unreasonable to be in the neighborhood. So my sense is if you're going to go seven percent seven percent go a hundred percent and you know leave it there. So that's that's where I am on this and I appreciate the numbers that you've done. As I said, I don't see the rationale for why you went from 50 to 70. But you got a good number. You got a good number. It's $300 for the people who have the the storm water piece and it's $1500 for a lot for people who have the paving and storm water piece. That's that's what you got. But I'm saying you know I could have said do 80% do 90% or do 100% something. I recognize whoever wants to speak Councilman Johnson and Councilman Shul and the Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Reese. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I was wondering if someone could illuminate for us why the 50-50 split was chosen in the first place and if there are circumstances that have changed to this point that would give us a reason to go to a different split. Well there was detailed conversation with staff and council back in 2015 a series of work sessions and city council meetings and for the streets in these two subdivisions it was agreed that there would be a 50-50 split. Now that that can be changed tonight if that's Council's decision. Sure I think it was the Council's decision at that point that that's what they viewed as fair. Okay so I guess I'm not clear from either the Mayor's proposal or Don's proposal why a 50-50 split now seems unfair. So if one of y'all could yep okay but I'm not asking you I'm asking them. Well I said my rationale for it but my rationale was that I was there when we did the 50-50. I understood that but I've given additional thought which I'm entitled to just like everybody else seems entitled to and I've come to say well why are we going 50 to 70 percent. Don has explained his rationale for it. My rationale is in terms of fairness in terms of what the people have been put through the time involved in it and what they've gotten in terms of what they've been paying in taxes. Don's proposal says the city puts in $450,000 more. I'm saying in my opinion we ought to really treat it fairly and pay the whole bill. That's that's it I mean no no other rationale behind it. Thank you Don I don't understand your rationale either. Right so I did want to just address that which is first of all the most significant change since 2015 is the make-up of the council. So the second thing though is that like as the Mayor said we all have an opportunity to continue to consider a situation position. So one of the reasons why why 70 the question was asked why 70% why not 100% and the answer was I remembered how difficult it was to get 250 50 in 2015 and I didn't think I could get it further than 70 percent. So I may be well wrong on that. The second answer was is that we have assessed I did think about the fact that we have assessed Dunwoody estates that there were people there who did have to pay to help repair their treats and that that while the dollar figures here are significantly more the percentages are significantly less. So I was trying to find the balance of what we've done with other people in the same situation with what I thought council would might be amenable to doing and to what I thought was reasonable and what I thought was reasonable and fair for the people in the community I don't know if that helps. Thanks. Councilor Schuylen. Councilor Reece and then the Mayor Pro Tem.  What I'm saying is that the staff recommendation is here's what the total bill is going to be I mean John just gave you the numbers the total bill to repair a stormwater paving for those two developments is 2.159 plus million dollars that's the that's the path and the initial path we were on well the city will pick up half of that cost and the residents will pick up the other half and that's that's that's what I understood what I'm saying is that why not pick up the whole piece Don came up with 70% and he came he told you why at least he's being honest with you he wanted he wanted to do something better than 50 he didn't think he could get much more so he stopped at 70 and his numbers worked out to the 1500 dollars and 300 dollars I'm I'm saying so you're you're saying for you you want to do this for both Rose and the storm yeah I'm doing yeah the stormwater and the paving is you know it's 2.159 if you're talking about doing something I mean you know you we can always compromise we can say okay just do the paving and let the residents pick up stormwater but what we know is that everybody doesn't have that situation Ravenstone has 85 lots with unfinished stormwater only they've got the paving done but the other two so required the stormwater and paving I mean that's that's what the staff report says and again my my knock isn't on the staff did what in their best wisdom they did they brought it back to us at the time we were looking at it we said 50 50% and the staff has brought to us today how would look at 50 50 our colleague has looked at it and says well not 50 why not 70 and I get to 70 because I think that's about all this council might do because they had to change so I'm saying no for me I'd say go ahead and do 100% and the rationale is what I said earlier I think it's fair based on the circumstances and what was involved so Mr. Bear so I'd like to offer what I think the rationale for the 50 50 is and why we were at the 50 50 two years ago when we made the decision whatever exactly it was I was there now I know okay I'm not I know I know you were there okay you know we voted for yeah that's that's what I said and I meant we voted for it and I think the rationale is this so for so we'll just take Dunwoody because it's case Mr. Joyner cited but this was our basic philosophy which is that if you were and we adopted the council adopted guidelines like this I believe that we would pick up 10% Mr. Joyner of the cost and the residents would pick up 90 is that right yes sir that is correct at that time that philosophy was discussed that was at the beginning of the failed development program we were faced with 191 projects over 54 distinct subdivisions right so we decided that basically what happens is people are you're buying into a subdivision and you're taking a risk and you're taking a risk on that developer and that developer in these many of these cases I think we ended up would you say 54 of them or something like that those we had 54 developers who weren't able to complete their subdivisions and so our staff Mr. Joyner and others did a great job in trying to find other developers who would take over those subdivisions and develop them would would fix up their roads and would fix up the stormwater infrastructure and was successful in in almost all the cases um and so but what we had decided at that point was that the the reason that we had decided that we would decide the city would pay a little of it 10% and the homeowners would pay the other 90% because the city was not had not had no culpability in this case we decided the city does have some culpability because of this the situation that you all have pointed out about the bonds I do want to say that and and Mr. O'Toole can confirm this I believe but that would this bond language was not anything unusual it was not something that we the the city put particularly into this bond package it was in all bond packages that we had or it was an all bond language that we had and it was standard language it wasn't something that you know no one ever used or anything like that it was it was typical there was a judge that ruled against us and that and so we decided okay instead of charging 90% to the homeowners we would charge 50% to the homeowners and the city would assume 50% of the responsibility I think it's further complicated for me by the fact that I mean I I really appreciated hearing the stories of you know the individuals and the hardships that you all face and I get that and but you know it's complicated for me also by the fact that for people who've moved in recently of which I can't remember the number but it's a large number we a couple of years ago we looked at the percentage of people who moved in since this thing had started and it was a pretty high number and now there are more people who've moved in recently and it's hard for me to feel like we ought to be paying more than 50% the city ought to be paying more than 50% when so many people have moved in recently and at least in my mind ought to be able to you know arts should be at risk for this if you move into the neighborhood in the last couple of years and you know the situation with the stormwater and you know or and the and the and the roads it seems to clear to me that the city should not assume that risk and should not it doesn't seem fair to use the words that people have used that the city would would do that and so I you know it's I think it's you know so we have the taxpayers to think about as well we have you all to think about who are in the neighborhood but we also have this large group of you know we have all these taxpayers whose money we would have to use to fix this up and I think we ought to use part of it because I do think the city bears some culpability you know exactly is it 50 50 and it was at 60 40 you know we could argue about it but I don't think it's true that the that the that the city ought to pay 100% of it it would be generous but I don't think it's fair because I do think that the people in the neighborhood had a risk like we all do when we buy a piece of property and that especially for the people that have moved in recently which is a very large percentage of the neighborhood since this started I definitely think that there is even more responsibility for that risk so I do think there's a good rationale for the 50 50 and that's what that in my mind is what it is and that's you know I would like to say you know I understand the impulse to make you all hold but I also think it's not fair to the taxpayers of Durham we all take risks when we buy property and I think that that was the situation in this case the developer did not do what the developer should have done the city has some culpability for that and I think that because the city for the bonds and because the city has this culpability I think that the 50% is fair and then I think we're we're given we're stretching that you know we're trying to given this policy stretch this out over an eight-year payment to try to lighten the load and so that's where I recognize councilman Reese the mayor pro tem thank you mr mayor I wanted to put some numbers to what we've been talking about for the folks here in the audience because I did hear someone at the podium reference an incorrect assessment amount and I address this with a couple of folks by email over the last couple of weeks the assessment that the staff has recommended for stormwater for folks who live in Ravenstone is 287 dollars and 81 cents that count that comes out to a little less than 36 dollars a year over eight years is your interest that's just for stormwater so if you are a Ravenstone property owner who has completed streets and is is just needs the stormwater completion the proposal before us that the staff is recommended recommended is 287 dollars and 81 cents under councilmember Moffitt's alternative proposal Ravenstone homeowners who only need stormwater would pay 300 dollars so let's understand that his goal in this plan was not to ask Ravenstone residents to pay less of an assessment actually you would pay more under either under whether you have completed streets and only need stormwater whether you have a street assessment and stormwater the goal of councilmember Moffitt's plan was not to help Ravenstone residents pay less of an assessment because you will pay more under his plan it was to make Ravenstone and Stonehill residents equal in terms of the assessment they would pay and then to find an even number that seemed reasonable 300 streets only 1500 streets plus stormwater and then that gets you back to a 70 contribution from the city so understand that under the staff proposal for streets and stormwater if i've done my math right the staff has asked and this is 50 assessment the total cost for streets and stormwater is $1,214 for a little over $150 a year over eight years is zero interest councilmember Moffitt's plan would be $1,500 for a home with streets and stormwater to be done the reason i believe and staff can correct me if i'm wrong but the reason is it's going to be a lot more expensive to fix up Stonehill stormwater facilities they look horrible i was over there last week they're just big holes in the ground with trees in them and Ravenstone's stormwater facilities actually look like stormwater facilities they there's a they i mean it looks like what they're supposed to look like a a constructed wetland a detention pond and so that's the ultimate effect the real world effect for folks that live in Ravenstone is that councilmember Moffitt's plan would increase your assessment the benefit that i believe he's proposing is that it's fairer given that when these developments were created in the original property owners bought their lots they it was a random walk whether or not they would they would end up in Stonehill or Ravenstone and so today property owners whether you are that buyer or a new successor in interest that today's property owners should not be penalized for the original buyers even if that was them took a random walk uh and it can't shouldn't be penalized for which development they ended up is that fair councilmember moffitt well i agree with the second part but i'm not sure i agree with what you were saying about the i agreed that the stormwater assessments for Ravenstone the total assessment for the 85 lots that have stormwater only a Ravenstone would those lots would be assessed a little over $12 more but not i'm at the part about the paving i didn't follow that so but the second part about trying to even out the random walk yes i agree with that well this is the in fairness councilmember moffitt i asked you for these numbers over the weekend you said go find them yourself so that's what i did oh no i put them they're in the spreadsheet i sent you i told you which columns are not exactly so the the assessment per lot on streets for Ravenstone is $927 that right or wrong that's 50 percent of the what's what i found in the plan Ravenstone for this the proposed assessment for streets would be $1945.52 and that is a 50 percent that is 50 percent that is 50 percent okay yeah the uh and on a to give you just a quick list of the numbers the on the the total assessment per lot for streets for Ravenstone would be $3,891.03 for Stonehill States would be $2,998.47 that is the unadjusted total okay i uh i apologize councilmember moffitt i misread the what the spreadsheet what the that number actually said i didn't see that column um in any event uh so forget most of what i just said because that was wrong what i will say is that i applaud councilmember moffitt's attempt to come up with some reasonable basis uh to reach the goal that he's that he's approached um he obviously spent a lot of time putting uh putting this together um and i will consider the other arguments of my councilmember colleagues make before we vote thanks thank you councillor reese so councilmember protan um good evening i'm looking at a couple who is in bankruptcy there's a another couple who had to leave because the wife just finished treatment for cancer on all kinds of situations confront me and just because of my foundation spiritually i have to have mercy on on you and what you're going through so i i would agree with what the mayor said about 100 percent uh for you but to go back to the other um development also and and they'd have to have the same mercy but i'm in a state of mercy tonight and nobody can argue that that's me i'm in a state of mercy and i think you have some hardships that we need to be sensitive to um and i'd like to know from somebody in storm water what the budget is right now how much money do we have in storm water in the storm water count we have boo coos of money this i know that's the official accounting term boo coos yes that's in french paul we've got public works storm water services by the mayor protan but we'd be happy to get the fund balance and in the storm water budget but i don't at this point i'm not sure that that's the number that paul's gonna have on the back of his uh in the pocket okay you have it i doubted you and incorrectly can we have money i believe the question is do we have money to cover the cost for the completion of the storm water devices ravenstone and stonehill we do case dismissed thank you i'm glad you have a variety of opportunities we do need to be sensitive to the needs of people i know those of us around here you know we don't have to worry about the money except i'm uh i'm a little different from the rest but we do need to have mercy there are times for mercy and for me that's what i am that's who i am and that's what i'll be able to sleep tonight because i said that well again it i'm gonna sound like a broken record so i'm not going to say that again this council can move in any direction that it wants to that's the bottom line can move in any direction it wants to all right based on where i am i think 50 percent is unfair don has come up a rationale for 700 percent i'm talking about 100 percent we've heard that we've got money to cover the storm water piece in the budget uh to me don is willing to move 70 i'm at 100 i'd be willing to split the difference in terms of where we're i'm i'm serious it's that's what it's about how much money is the city willing to pay towards this project given the history of it and the rational how we got there and i'm not faulting the staff but the fact is the judge ruled against us i mean you can count it any way you want the judge ruled against us they didn't rule in our favor you know so we're culpable at least by the courts and that's generally where we go to try to get things resolved and so i i mean for for me i i think a reasonable compromise is if you don't if you don't do 100 you don't do 70 split the difference and let the staff figure out what the assessments would be for the property and the difference between 70 and 100 is 30 you split the difference that's 15 so it would be 85 percent covered by the city and the property owners are covered 15 percent and you let them work to work the numbers the way we can make a suggestion about a path forward here um the memo prepared by staff has certainly has a recommendation but it provides us with a menu of different options for us to go forward one of those options is alternative to city contribution and per lot assessment and the um they offer an option of 100 percent city contribution um it sounds to me like that is the path that you believes the proper choice and i do if given that um i would recommend um i would recommend that you move that option from the menu and see how many votes it gets because i don't know how many there are right now i you know and if that if that is is successful congratulations uh mercy is achieved if it's not successful then we could consider our next options is that well i i've told you what my my my options were i suggested 100 but i also said this council can do what it wants i have suggested that maybe the compromise might be a different split in the difference between don seven percent and my 100 percent which is 85 percent that we will cover you know i don't get everything i want don doesn't get everything once nobody gets 50 percent and the residents don't get everything they want so my recognize councilman martin thank you uh there's two two things um i actually have my spreadsheet here so i can tell you how we can get to 85 percent very close um but i wanted to ask you a question mr. Joyner um one of the things that my colleague councilmember shul um said was that in the beginning while i was on council in the beginning when all this was getting worked out was that there was a concern uh that there was um a large number of failed developments and that the city's liability was significant and that uh what the council did was adopt a policy limiting saying that that's that the city would only participate to 10 percent that's correct okay do you remember those dollar figures so that the beginning there was a lot of unknowns and i'm wondering if you had some sense of the scope and scale of those unknowns yes so there wasn't actually a dollar figure attached to that uh but there was actually uh so 191 projects 54 subdivisions that will total out to be roughly around 75 miles of streets that needed to be completed in the subdivisions 38 stormwater facilities total that were not completed okay and it represented almost 3000 homes okay and um so so no dollar figure attached to it would you agree that it was a significant number of dollars it was a significant amount so so so i would uh then i would just observe that we're now at the end of that process is that correct yes sir there are actually seven subdivisions left uh two of those have complete developer agreements they are under construction two of those represented here tonight as ravenstone and stone hill estates and there are three developments that currently do not have a deal on the table although we are working on those so it would be is it reasonable to expect that whatever that the ravenstone and stone hill those are the last of the projects in which some city and dollars or some um residential dollars are going to be required so the other three projects are um which is a 12 lot subdivision it needs completed streets again it's a small subdivision 12 lots and one completed stormwater facility which is a dry pond that's very small uh the second developments landings at south point that is a private development with private parking lots it has no public streets that would need completing and it has uh three stormwater facilities that are in various stages of completion right then the third development would be amberland valley townhomes uh and there is a parking lot a small portion of street that needs to be completed that is public and there are no stormwater facilities that need to be completed for that they were all completed as part of the development it's what i was trying to get to was we started out years ago concerned and after the great recession concerned that there would be a very large city liability that we were limiting our delight the city's portion of that liability and that today what i'm what i was thinking was we're now to a place when we know that the city's liability as a whole is less than what we we're trying to limit it to it is drastically reduced so because of the work of your department in getting these projects worked out so um so i can see a logic for saying we're there we're good we're in good shape we can be a little more generous than we set out to be when we were worried about a huge liability for the city's taxpayers um and uh comment that if we assess nothing for stormwater and we assess every uh property which requires street improvements a total of eight hundred dollars that will result in the city's portion being 84.9 percent of the total cost so that is a way to get to that number as well well again i i'm i'm about compromising trying to find a solution this fair i could i could support that and i think we've learned a lesson it's an expensive lesson it's at the cost of the property owners and it's also at our cost but we know how to write better bonds now i mean you i've heard you say that that you know we won't we don't make the same we won't make the same mistake we made before you didn't say that i heard that i heard i heard it very clearly that you had learned from this and you had written a better position to make sure you had better bonds written by the developers we have multiple measures in place not just the bonds um to try but it came as a result of this it came as a result of this that that's a lesson learned it but not for this we never would have learned that i don't watch and say wouldn't but for this we did do this you're in a better position recognize councilman shul thank you mr mayor so uh what are we talking about here we tell them let's see a hundred percent of the of the of the stormwater is and i'm sorry my seven hundred and thirty eight thousand three hundred and sixty five dollars last couple pages of my memo aren't coming in so what is that number seven hundred the stormwater alone total total cost is seven hundred and thirty eight thousand three hundred sixty five dollars okay robert or i guess whoever is knows about the streets what's the street number what would be a hundred percent of the street cost one million four and twenty thousand nine and forty hundred this is do you want the unrecovered cost no i want the one hundred percent one million four and twenty thousand nine hundred forty five dollars that's unrecovered that's after the bond money is applied that's correct okay so say that again uh so the total cost is roughly about one point eight five and after the record after the uh securities are applied to it it would be uh just over one point four one point four four four so one point four million in in street uh so tax money and seven hundred and sixty something in stormwater fee money so two point one to two point two million dollars shot two point two i believe we're talking about money that the city has to spend and that's why i said we spend one point four million dollars for pavement that city would have to spend and the barns will cover the other eight hundred whatever that number is so out of parking for the city is one point four million dollars plus a million dollars to cover the pavement out of parking expenses for the city to cover stormwater seven hundred and thirty eight plus thousand dollars the other numbers we're working with and dine can can you say again what what your proposal is well d just say what what's your proposal that's my original proposal no i'm not talking about the original i'm talking about the one where we came to 85 percent yeah it is to for the city to pay the entire cost of the uh stormwater facilities and to um assess the lots in Ravenstone and Stonehill states which need road improvements to assess them eight hundred dollars a piece but that's the proposal and i guess i will do it on my calculate but what is the total cost to the city with this proposal if we do that proposal the city's share would would be if if the costs come in of what they're estimated to be the costs would be one just over one point eight million dollars it's eight hundred dollars times two hundred twenty one lots plus 187 lots right so the um that's correct okay and if we look at that number so the the 800 times all of the lots which need road improvements that's 326 400 dollars uh if i may uh just add just one small item in there i'd like to remind everyone that the stormwater has not actually been bid yet so we are talking about dollars and the final numbers for the paving have not come in yet although that work has been bid and the project is almost complete we would expect those numbers relatively soon after we've got the final pay invoices in from the contractor so i just want to remind everyone about the final numbers i'm hearing you say that the paving costs you have a pretty good estimate on the stormwater you have a little less confidence in the estimates so far that work has not been bid right right it's estimated right so we want to put that in the form of a motion i wish i had a better reading on how much support it would get the point is that i mean i i guess i'm trying to go with charlotte was charlotte's one is to vote on her to see where the votes were i'm saying vote on the compromise to see where it is okay so um so the first thing we what the first goal of the staff tonight is to get us to order just move forward with the improvements to the stormwater facilities is that correct tonight it's really just to get a recommendation for staff so that they could move forward with an agenda item for council to order the work so okay it says city council direct public works to schedule notice public hearing cost to completely be paid to a combination of assessments so i'm going to recommend that we move forward from here with assessments that would be that we would um we would not assess any of the residents of raven stoner stonehall states for stormwater improvements then these are not final right we've already we're watching things change as we go but that at this moment we're saying we will not assess them for any stormwater improvements and that we would assess each of the homeowners which are on lots which require road improvements that those homes would be assessed eight hundred dollars a piece could we step back from that a little bit yes so if council elects tonight to 100 fund the stormwater completion then the work doesn't need to be ordered you're just telling public works go do the work with city money as far as the streets that work has been ordered and it was ordered with the idea that there would be a 5050 cost share you the council does not ultimately need to stick with that recommendation right so what would happen with that is the streets the street work is currently being done public works is going to put all of that cost information together if you move forward with a direction to cap street assessments at eight hundred dollars when public works brings forward the final assessment for the streets that could be the way the final assessment for streets reads but you're saying we don't need to we don't need to do that right now no i think it would be good if you gave a recommendation to public works move forward and fully fund the stormwater work and then when you're done with the streets and these two subdivisions bring forward a final assessment capped at eight hundred dollars per lot if that's if that's what council wants to direct staff to do okay can i ask a question recognize the mayor pro tem uh mr joinna how long they'll have how many years to pay that uh the current proposal is eight years at zero percent at zero percent interest is that is that correct yes sir yeah this work was ordered that was the proposal a 50 50 cost share paid over eight years zero percent interest when these assessments are finally ordered council would give the final order for how the assessment is being handled so if it's no more than eight hundred dollars per lot and then you could say payable over eight years zero percent interest if that's what council wants to do one hundred percent that's good do i have to make the motion oh i would move that we capped the lots at eight hundred dollars more capitated eight hundred dollars and usually rationale that don gave a few minutes ago for paving for paving for paving and storm waters for i mean that's right 100 percent so the motion is that we kept the paving fee to eight hundred dollars per lot and that the city be responsible for paying all of the storm water payments is that yes sir i'll second the motion okay sure and recognize this system just before adoption i i think staff is clear on what council's proposing i do want to offer clarifying comments to mr wibke's response about the ability of the storm water budget to absorb the costs he is correct there is fund balance that is able to absorb these costs but i don't want to leave council with the impression that that might not have some future impact on the storm water fund that fund is rebalanced each year to plan for the expenses that come from that from that fund capital projects and so the rates are set each year and recommended to council there is the ability to pay for it but i don't want to leave the impression that that would have no impact i'm sure council's aware of that but i just wanted to state that for clarity thank you and that impact would be that we would pay more to cover that everyone would pay more to cover future costs yes okay uh we've got a motion on the second we have a question by councilman shill i just have a comment mr mayor um i uh just want to say that i'm going to vote against this i i appreciate the impulse behind it but i i really feel pretty strongly that this is a shared responsibility i don't think it's true that the city is 85 percent should be paying 85 percent and takes should take 85 percent of the responsibility i especially feel true that's true of the you know scores dozens you know i don't know i can't remember that i wish you would you know be nice to have this number in front of us as we did the last time we deliberated uh that new people moving into the neighborhood since this has happened i can't imagine why it is our responsibility especially for them to be paying 100 of the the fee so i understand the impulse but i feel pretty strongly that our taxpayers and rate payers are should not be paying 100 of this i think that the 50 split uh seems fair i understand that i understand that generous impulse behind the 85 but just wanted to state how i'd be voting i can recognize councilman johnson thank you mr mayor um so i agree with councilmember schull that i'll also be voting against this and i think i just wanted to say i feel like this is an example of privatizing a benefit while socializing a cost instead of the homeowners covering 50 of the cost we're shifting that cost onto the taxpayers of Durham at large i'm willing to do that when there's when there's a clear public purpose and a couple of my colleagues have brought up the housing stabilization grants that we voted for earlier today in that case i believe that there's a clear public purpose in neighborhood stabilization um in a situation where people have been subject to these very severe waves of price appreciation and that we are and that we are trying to um that we are trying to keep neighborhoods stable right in a in a very different way than just paying for for incomplete infrastructure in a particular community i feel like like councilman schull's rationale for a 50-50 split is the most reasonable argument that i've heard up here tonight the city is responsible and the homeowners are responsible i don't understand why you think you're not responsible at all i mean i think i think the i understand i understand everyone's upset i wasn't here in 2015 so i don't have the context for this issue that other folks that other members of council have but i but i don't think that we came to that 50-50 was a bad decision i honestly don't know why we're going back and saying something else i'm i can count to four so i'm aware that this is going to pass tonight but i do want to say i do not think it's fair for taxpayers of Durham to be asked to pay for a benefit that will primarily accrue to a few individuals at an 85 percent level i think it is completely reasonable for the city and for y'all to share the responsibility and i understand why you wouldn't want to pay anything if i was in your position i wouldn't want to pay anything either but my but what we're trying to do is make public policy no no no we're talking about going back and changing your assessments completely quieted down please councilman going back and having councilman just a minute please just a minute respect our comments please and i'll be able to say that if we go back and both cap the street assessments right that's the maximum that you'll pay is eight hundred dollars so so is i mean so no you're not already paying the street assessments right like that we're going back and undoing what council did before and replacing it with another with another option again that's what's going to happen but to me it feels like we're taking taxpayer money and giving it to a small group of people and that everyone will pay for that everyone in the city will pay for them so i would be comfortable with them paying for for half of the responsibility but i'm not comfortable with them paying for 85 percent of it further comments if not i'm going to call the question is everybody clean on the motion yes madam clerk will you open the vote please open the vote close the vote it passes four to three with council member johnson voting no council member reese voting no and council member hua voting no all right let's move to any other items that come before the council tonight 33 oh yes thank you this was brief i'm sorry this is on um the reason i pulled this item is that i got an anonymous letter so i didn't have a way to address it but to ask staff to answer just see if they could answer the questions this includes sidewalk repairs downtown and the question is i'm sorry i didn't send this to you earlier i just opened it up i think i got it today all the sidewalk on north and east side of city hall is being replaced so i don't know if that's true but that's what the letter says even though some of the sidewalk appears to be very new what makes this project a high priority for limited sidewalk repair dollars good evening tasha johnson public works assistant director so that particular location had several service requests and it had been identified through um citizen concerns over the last couple years and so as we develop the project we look to identify locations that had a backlog of service requests as well as a high pedestrian use okay the next question they asked would be is would this sidewalk be removed and replaced if the city does the two-way loop project i don't think so i don't think the two-way loop project should have very much construction associated with it but i'll have to look to transportation to confirm that okay transportation yeah the concept behind most of the loop project would be to maintain the curb lines in the existing locations so it should have minimal impact on the sidewalk thank you the next question they asked was are there greater sidewalk repair needs elsewhere in the city's neighborhoods and even downtown in places like church street so we have uh quite a bit of sidewalk repair need throughout the city um their locations throughout the whole city that we could look to um for future projects and what we are trying to do is uh spread them across a geographic area across the city as well as identify locations that have have high pedestrian activity great thank you very much we do have another number of other sidewalk repair projects in the hopper for repairs all around the city so this work is in addition to several other projects thank you i want to appreciate you for staying so late for answering the questions and mr mayor if no one has any other comments i'll move the item second it's been proper to move the second madam clerk will you open the vote all right open the vote it passes seven is zero uh i need to ask for an excuse absence from work session thursday second it's been proper to move the second madam clerk will you open the vote open the vote close the vote it passes seven is zero thank you any other items come no sir if not councils during 10 35 p.m thank you thank you mr mayor thank you