es a minor use permit approval. However, as previously mentioned, the transportation, because the transportation use permit is also required, the applicant is considering the permits in a single hearing. So it's now considered as a major use permit by this governing body. For UDO section 3.9.8, there are four general findings and 13 review factors. This must be addressed in order to grant this type of use permit. The findings and review factors are identified in the staff report labeled as attachment four and the applicant's responses to those findings and review factors in the application labeled as attachment 4A. Other document attachments are labeled to this request are also included in the overall hearing package as specified in the report. Planning staff will make recommendations for each use permit after the testimony is heard. Bill Judd with the city transportation department is available to answer any questions related to the transportation use permit and planning staff is also available for any questions on all items. And if there are no other questions for staff, then we'll turn the floor over to the applicant for their presentation and any questions from council. Thank you very much. Are there any questions to the city staff from the council or the other party at this point? I have a question. How far is this from the American tobacco trail? I honestly don't know that question, the answer to that question. We've not analyzed that. I think Bill might be trying to come to know. Bill Judge Transportation, I don't have the exact distance but I wouldn't want to say it's probably in the neighborhood of 1000 feet the American tobacco trail to the west. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Will the sidewalks go that far? They will not. The sidewalks will only go for the frontage of the school and then there is a Duke Energy parcel between school and the American tobacco trail. Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions for staff? Any questions at this point, let's see. Alrighty, being no other questions for staff, we will now hear from the applicant. Ms. Dagner. Thank you. Debra Stagner here for Durham Public Schools. I have with me this evening Zach Pierce, landscape architect with CLH Design who submitted the site plan for review for the new elementary school on Scott King Road. Also with me is Rhynell Stevenson, transportation engineer with Raimi Kampen Associates, Ken Lawrence, civil engineer with CLH Design, David Smith, NC certified real estate appraiser and Chad Volk who's the project manager and architect with Davis Kane Architects. We're very pleased to be here this evening to present the plan for a new elementary school in Southern Durham and to seek city council's approval. As indicated in the meeting agenda, we're asking council to adopt an order approving the transportation special use permit to adopt an order approving the major special use permit and to approve the major site plan for Durham Public Schools Elementary School C. I understand that the documents that are attached to the council's agenda have already been admitted and part of the record. I have seven additional exhibits if I may approach Mr. Baker. I would like to introduce those are the resumes of Mr. Pierce, Mr. Loring and Mr. Stevenson, all of whom will tender as experts in their respective fields. I would also ask that council accept the resume as evidence and include them in the record. I have Mr. Smith's report which includes his resume and Mr. Smith will also be tendered as an expert. So I ask that his report be admitted as well. In addition, I have the traffic impact analysis addendum and two demonstrative exhibits, all of which we would ask to have admitted as evidence and included in the record. Take any actions? It doesn't appear that there's any opposition to this, but if there is an objection from anyone to the admission of this evidence. Mr. Mayor and members of council, I have taken a brief look at this. This is as the attorneys has stated and would admit these into evidence. All right, I'll call these admitted into evidence then. Thank you. And I understand I did bring them electronically and I understand they've been loaded, but I'm not sure how that you can access them, but they are available electronically as well. So first I would call our first witness if I may, Mr. Zach Pierce. Good evening, this is Zach Pierce. Landscape architect with CLH design, 105 Hartness Drive in Holly Springs. Mr. Pierce, can you please describe your education, credentials and experience? Yes, I had to attend an accredited university and state for landscape architecture, it's a five year degree, and then have been with CLH design for over 11 years. So I've received my licensure through the state in North Carolina and have been licensed for over five years. I'd like to tender Mr. Pierce as an expert in the area of landscape architecture. That objection. Mr. Pierce, can you please give an overview of the proposed school design and plan and explain how this fits in harmony with the area? Yes, do the members of the council have this type plan? Have you, has everybody seen a copy of it? Okay, so we were very excited about presenting this land. I feel it's a great use for this area would fit in with the rural character of the environment and kind of in the surrounding areas.  So we are protecting some of the natural buffers of this. We are encouraged by, we are trying to fit within the context. Mr. Pierce, can you confirm that the project is in conformance with all special requirements? Yes. Can you confirm that the project will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public? Yes, that is correct. We are also designed the vehicular circulation and the pedestrian circulation with safety in mind with the pedestrians coming in and where they would cross any sort of vehicular traffic. We do have crosswalks and then we are conscious on where the play areas are around the school where they don't interact with any of the vehicular circulation areas. We are going to review the 13 review factors. Can you please confirm that the project adequately addresses the city's review factors starting with the adequate on-site circulation for pedestrians and vehicles? Yes, we had to have the site plan reviewed by a division of NCDOT that reviews school sites and the circulation we abide by the calculator that they determine the on-site stacking based on the enrollment of the school and to ensure that stacking does not occur on to Scott King Road. So we have provided adequate stacking and queuing for the parent queue lengths and have a dedicated clear route for them to take once you enter onto the school site to the front door to drop off their children. Does the site provide sufficient off-street parking and loading areas? Yes, the parking does meet the school system's needs and also meets the requirements of the UDO. Does the site design provide adequate service entrance and areas? It does, the service entrance is shared with buses and the loading dock and the service areas to the rear of the school which does not face Scott King Road. Does the site design meet the city's lighting requirements? Yes, the school system will lease their lights from Duke Energy and Duke Energy has provided a site lighting plan that has conformed to the UDO. Can you describe how the signage for the site is appropriate? As we have a monument sign that will designate a main entrance and then on-site wayfinding signage for parents, isers, and staff. Does the site have utilities available? My name is Kenneth Loring, I'm a civil engineer with CLH Deton. I graduated from UNC Greensboro and I'm also a licensed land surveyor. I've been licensed as an engineer since 1998 and the question regarding utilities. Yes, they're gonna connect to both public water and public sewer. We'd like to tender Mr. Loring as an expert in the area of civil engineering. It's accepted without objection. Does the site design adequately protect on-site stream buffers, wetlands, and tree cover? Yes, the on-site design does avoid the heavy amount of stream buffers and what wetlands are on either side as we are taking advantage of the developer by area that's centered to the site. Does the site design meet the city's screening, buffering, landscape, and open space requirements? Yes, we are providing the required screening along and street, tree, and around the landscaping in the parking and around the school and along with preserving the amount of open space. We exceed that by only developing a small portion of the site. We will have this issue addressed by Mr. Smith, but can you describe whether the project has any adverse impact on the adjacent properties? We feel it does not. It does complement the use of the surrounding residential area should serve the students of this part of Durham. Is the site compatible with nearby properties and impacted neighborhoods? Jumped ahead on that one. Yes, it does. We feel that the school would be able to accommodate the growth of the Durham County residents in this area. Finally, is the site design consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and applicable development tier guidelines on the surrounding district intent statements? Yes, we feel that it does abide by that rural character by having that ability to protect the wooded areas and the stream buffer and the wetlands and fit within the context of the rural character of the south part of Durham. And Mr. Pierce, in your professional opinion, does the site design meet the intent and requirements of the city's UDO? Yes. Any questions for Mr. Pierce? Any questions for Mr. Pierce? We're good, thank you. Mr. Lawring, if I could, just like to ask, can you please confirm the location of utilities and any opinion you have about whether this meets the UDO? The public water lines are in Scott King and the sewer as well. So we're gonna be connecting the sewer up on Scott King as well. And does this meet the site plan requirements for the UDO? Oh, yes, it does. Thank you. Next, Mr. Smith, David Smith. Mr. Smith, can you please describe your education, credentials and experience? My name is David Smith. I live at Three Morse Town Circle here in Durham. I'm a state certified general real estate appraiser. I also hold the MAI designation of the appraisal and I've been appraising properties in Durham County for almost 40 years. I would like to tender Mr. Smith and as an expert in the area of property valuation and appraisal. It's accepted without objection. Mr. Smith, can you briefly explain your analysis of the proposed elementary school and surrounding properties? What I did was I performed a impact analysis of the property directly across the street from this proposed school is a subdivision line park. So what I did was I found another subdivision across from an existing elementary school, Spring Valley. And I researched the selling prices of properties in that subdivision. And then there's another one, both of these subdivisions are in a bright loop in the park that was away from the school and found that there was no adverse impact or being across the street from a elementary school. And Mr. Smith's report has been introduced in evidence. Mr. Smith, can you confirm in your professional opinion that the proposed school will not substantially injure the value of properties in the general facility vicinity? Yes. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Smith? Any questions for Mr. Smith? Thank you, thank you. And finally, we have Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Stevenson, can you please describe your education credentials and experience? I'm sure. Ronald Stevenson with Raimi Kemp and Associates 5808 fairing the place in Raleigh. I am a register professional engineer in the state of North Carolina, graduated from North Carolina State with a degree in civil engineering and been practicing traffic engineering and civil engineering related to transportation since 2001. And one. We'd like to tender Mr. Stevenson as an expert in the area of civil engineering, transportation, planning and traffic engineering. Accepted without objection. Mr. Stevenson, would you please give an overview of the analysis and planning for traffic impact that has been done for this site? Sure. As was mentioned earlier, there was a traffic impact analysis performed for the school to determine the traffic impacts that study is done in coordination with the city staff and NCDOT. There was an addendum completed that I think is part of the record. That is the most up-to-date traffic study that was done in May of 2016. And then we did a traffic management plan in March of 2017 that addresses the on-site circulation for the school. Mr. Stevenson, can you confirm that the traffic generated by this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area? Yes. Will the project result in substantial increase in traffic on local residential streets? I know that the school will add some traffic to the surrounding roads, and obviously particularly Scott King Road, but overall over an entire day, the school traffic is relatively minimal. Most of the traffic happens at a school within 30 minutes, maybe 45 minutes in the morning, and then 30, 45 minutes in the afternoon during pick-up time. Will the project require widening of local residential streets? There will be road improvements done as part of the project. There'll be essentially turn lanes that'll be done as Scott King Road at the site entrances and exit. Can you please confirm that the project adequately provides for safe and efficient vehicular circulation, parking, and loading, and pedestrian access? I'm sure, one of the things the school does, this design does, it has a separate entrance for the parents to come in, and that is an entrance only, and so the parents come in and circulate through one driveway, stack on site, and then there's a separate access for the buses and visitors to use. And the stacking on the site is over 2,000 feet, and that exceeds the requirements for stacking that is created or required based on the NCDOT's MSTA stacking data that they have for schools. As I mentioned, the stacking on site does circulate through the parking area for staff, but the staff does have another way out so that they can get out and not, there's another way into that staff parking lot so that the parent stacking through there does not prevent the staff from being able to access the parking lot, enter, exit. And the pedestrians, as you've also heard earlier, there's sidewalk provided along the frontage of Scott King Road, and then there are pedestrian paths through the site for pedestrians to navigate. And parking spaces? And then there are the parking spaces that are provided does meet the city's code. And can you review briefly the comments by the, about the TMP traffic management plan? Yeah, sure. So the TMP is provided to really document the traffic patterns that the school will use to operate for parents and for the buses and for staff. And that document is done to illustrate that, the traffic pattern, so that was done to show and document the patterns that I've described earlier where the parents are coming in, one access, a one driveway that shows the stacking area where they have to stack and how they drop off the drop off zones in front of the school and then how they exit and also illustrates where the buses will come in and access the site and also visitors and staff. Can you please confirm that the traffic generated by this project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment? Yes, the, as I mentioned earlier, there'll be turn lanes provided out on Scott King Road at the driveways to prevent or minimize any sort of idling of vehicles along Scott King Road. The other thing to point out about this is that these kids, the school's gonna serve kids in the surrounding community. And those kids are currently going to a school, other schools, and so this may actually shorten the trip, car trips for some of these students and parents. Can you confirm the adequate mitigation measures have been proposed as part of the development? Yes, as I mentioned, the turn lanes earlier will be provided. There also would like to point out that there are some other transportation improvements in the area that the 751 South Project is required to do. We did identify those in the traffic study. So there are some other improvements planned in addition to the turn lanes that would be done at the site driveways on Scott King Road. And in closing, in your professional opinion, does this site design satisfy the city's UDO traffic standards and requirements? I guess it does. Any questions for Mr. Stephens? Thank you, Ms. Sagner. Thank you. So in conclusion, we would like to ask the court, I'm sorry, ask the council to approve the Transportation Special Use Permit and Major Special Use Permit. The applicant has presented substantial competent and material evidence, which has been accepted into the record, both in documentary form and in form of expert testimony to support the approvals of these two special use permits. We have presented evidence on all of the factors and the criteria that are required to be found by the council, and there's been no opposition. So we would ask that, again, that substantial competent material evidence has been permitted and accepted into the record during public schools is entitled to approval of the Transportation Special Use Permit and Major Special Use Permit. Thank you. Thank you. Opponents, should I ask for them? No. Okay. Are there any opponents to this application that would like to speak? Any opponents? I see no one signed up. Okay. Alrighty. I'm now going to ask if the city staff has a recommendation concerning the use permit. Mr. Mayer and legal counsel, should these recommendations be stated separately for each motion, or should they be done just together? They should be done separately. Okay. Then staff would recommend approval of the Transportation Special Use Permit T160001, provided that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and information submitted to the council as part of the application. Thank you. Are we ready for a motion, Patrick, if there's no discussion? Any discussion? Alrighty. As opposed to our usual deliberations, the applicants simply have to show that they have met these criteria. And so any other comments, Patrick? Okay, great. Alrighty. Now I will accept a motion, I'll accept motion one to adopt an order approving a Transportation Special Use Permit for Durham Public Schools Elementary School C. So moved. Second. And moved and seconded. Madam clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Thank you. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. And staff does recommend approval of the major special use permit M180003, provided that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and information submitted to the council as part of the application. Thank you. Is there a motion? Second. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the separate order approving a major special use permit for Durham Public Schools Elementary School C. Madam clerk, please open the vote. Close the vote. Motion passes 7-0. Thanks. And then finally, we're being asked to approve a major site plan for Durham Public Schools Elementary School C. So moved, Mr. Mayor. It's been moved and seconded that we move, approve the major site plan. Mr. Mayor, do you need a recommendation first? I don't think we need a recommendation on that one because I think it's not a special use permit. Is that right? Okay, yeah. Thank you. That's member Austin. Yeah. So we now have a motion, a second on motion three. And I'll ask, thank you. So the clerk has the vote open. Please vote and then we'll close it. Madam clerk, please close the vote. Thank you. Again, the motion passes 7-0. Thank you very much. I believe we've done it. Thank you all for being here this hour. Hold on, Mr. Mayor. You're very lucky because I'm city attorney. Again, I was just thanking the city attorney. Thank you, city attorney. Well, I really lucky we're really mean earlier in the night. Okay, item 40, Christian Avenue Street closing. This is conducted public hearing to receive comments and consider the motion to close Christian Avenue. How are you? We'll now hear from staff. I'm well, good evening. I mean, good morning, city council. Morning. And attendees that are still here. I'm Grace Smith with the planning department and I'm here to represent this case on the half of the department. Shane Strickland on behalf of the CE Group Incorporated requests to permanently close a 331 linear foot portion of Christian Avenue. If closed, the right of way will be combined with the adjacent properties as shown on the plat in your packet. This closure was also committed to on our zoning case, D1700030, also known as Hillsborough Coal Mill. The request meets the applicable ordinance requirements and all comments raised by the review agencies have been addressed. Staff would recommend permanent closure of this 331 foot portion of Christian Avenue and we're available if you should have questions. Thank you, Ms. Smith. You've heard the report from staff. I'm now going to declare this public hearing open. I see that we have, well, first of all, are there any questions for staff or members of the council? If not, I see that we have one speaker who's signed up. Shane Strickland, Mr. Strickland, welcome. You have three minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Shane Strickland, 301 Glenwood Avenue, suite 220 Raleigh, North Carolina, 27603, I am the applicant. We propose to close the end of Christian Avenue as the majority of it is not being used as well as it possibly could be now. All I'd really add is staff has been very gracious throughout this process. It's been ongoing for our firm. We really appreciate all the help we've gotten from the city. Thank you, Mr. Strickland. Are there any questions for the applicant? Anyone else would like to be heard on this matter? If not, I'm going to declare this public hearing closed and it matters back before the council. We'll need a motion to adopt an order permanently closing this portion of Christian Avenue. Moved and seconded, we adopt the order. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. Motion passes 6-1 with council member Freeman voting no. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Strickland. We'll now move to item 41 of public hearing and adoption of resolution to approve the issues of multifamily housing revenue bonds by the public financing authority for the financing of the Linhaven apartments or housing project. We'll now hear, this is also a public hearing matter and we'll first, we'll hear from staff. Who from staff is going to represent it? Mr. Young, do we have staff representing for item 41? I know it's late, but we still need you. I think it's their band names. I think that's the planning department. Oh, it's not the planning department, you're right. Linhaven. Keith, can you address that please? Mr. Mayor, members of council, Keith Chad, well deputy city manager, the item that's coming before you is a matter of a conduit debt in the matter of financing a project of the housing authority under the rules and regulations of the IRS. Bond council is present to explain the details of the transactions for you this evening. Thank you. Mr. Pristell, you're good right there. Thank you, nice to see you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Eric Pristell, this is not a Durham housing authority deal. It is actually a public finance authority deal out of Wisconsin. It is an affordable housing conduit transaction. The city will not be liable for any of the debt. The name of the development is Linhaven Apartments in Southern Durham off of 70 in Lynn Road. The project will continue to be affordable, I think until 2027, thank you, it's a little late. So the materials are before you. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. I think we should add that we've approved this once before. This is actually an extension of time. Is that not right? That's correct. You approved this transaction on last year according to the code, the tougher hearing expired. Therefore, we're asking for a re-approval. Thank you. You've heard the report from staff and thank you, Mr. Pristell. And I'm gonna declare this public hearing open. And first I'm going to ask, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and the matter's back before the council. We need a motion to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds by the public finance authority. I have a question. I'm sorry, Council Member Freeman. My apologies, go ahead. You mentioned there was a delay. Yes, the delay was for two reasons. Number one, we switched rating agencies. And the second one was because of hud approval. They needed to approve the transaction. Thank you, any more questions? If not, we have a motion that we have the motion to adopt the resolution approving the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds. Madam Clerk, I believe we have a motion, do we? I moved. Thank you, is there a second? Second, okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please open the vote. Please close the vote. The resolution passes 7-0. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pristel. Thank you for being here. This is the kind of project we need more of in Durham, so it's good to have it. Okay, now we'll move on to item 42, Economic Development Incentive Agreement with Mr. Kipchoge, sorry about the name. I hope we have it close. Ryan, and Mr. Dickey, nice to see you. Nice to see you. Mayor Shul, members of council, my name is Chris Dickey with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for use an item to consider approval over proposed agreement between the city of Durham and Kipchoge Ryan, Kipchoge Ryan has applied for a neighborhood revitalization grant with the Office of Economic Development in the amount of $130,000. Kip Ryan proposed to renovate an underutilized and blighted building at 1212 Fayetteville Street, which is located on a targeted commercial corridor at Haytide Derm. The plan is to redevelop a 3,700 square foot old dry cleaning building into an office-based building. The project won't complete, it will stimulate new business development, provide job opportunity for local residents, promote increased likelihood of walkability in this neighborhood. After staff reviewing analysis, we will recommend a grant center of an amount of $115,000. This project would be an asset in promoting the continued revitalization and vitality of the Fayetteville Street commercial corridor. The company will expend a minimum of $300,000 in hard costs and provide with the city with evidence of these capital expenditures. They will also adhere to a Durham-based business plan for construction-related trades as a contract deliverable. Thank you very much, Mr. Dickey. This is also a public hearing item. You have heard the report from staff, and I'm gonna declare this public hearing open, and I see that we have two people signed up to speak. First is Mr. Kip Ryan, and the second is Peter Skillern. Mr. Ryan, welcome, and you have three minutes. Thank you, sir. Honorable Mayor, Distinguished Council, and others, good morning. My name is Kip Cho-Gay. You pronounce it right. Kip Cho-Gay, Ryan. Thank you. I live at 2111 Duncan Street. I've got a long ties here in Durham. My grandmother was a, she worked at Central, and she's a graduate of Central. My mother got an advanced degree at Central, and I, too, am a North Carolina Central graduate and a Durham resident, so. Good family legacy there. Very proud, very proud. And I'm also excited about being a part of the revitalization of that Fable Street Corridor. This is the former Weaver Cleaners building and purchased the building in 2009, and I'll be brief, I've been working with Mr. Dickey and also with Mr. Skillern, and I am excited about trying to revitalize that building. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'll have some questions in a moment, but Mr. Skillern, you also have three minutes. Thank you, I'm Peter Skillern. I live at 2615 Indian Trail. I'm the Executive Director of Reinvestment Partners. I'm here in support of Mr. Ryan's application. We've worked with Mr. Ryan on this project and developing the pro forma and the site plan to be submitted. We came to this partnership because our organization owns 1208 Fayetteville Street, the neighboring building, and we've received an Economic Development and Grant from the city on approval. The permitting process took longer, much longer than we thought in part because we were trying to fit 2018 zoning requirements into 1918 building. And so that was only possible. The solution in being able to get the parking for our building was working partnership with KIPP. And I just really want to thank Mr. Ryan for saying yes. He's been working collaboratively and looking forward to what this is gonna mean for the community and the revitalization of both of these buildings. As you go down the Fayetteville Street, there's Stanford Warren Library on the right, there's the tattoo parlor on the left, there's the tattoo parlor on the right, 1208, the parking lot, and the weaver dry cleaners. And that's just kind of a critical piece right next to Stanford. So it's a great investment to kind of help revitalize the neighborhood. And I'm here in support of KIPP and to say thank you to him. Thank you, Mr. Skillern. All right, council members. First of all, is there anyone else who would like to speak on this public hearing item? This is a public hearing item. Is there anyone else in the audience here tonight who would like to speak on this public hearing item? If not, I'm gonna declare this public hearing closed and I'm gonna ask if there are questions or comments by members of the council. And I'll start off with one. And I'm not sure if this is best for you, Mr. Dickey, or for Mr. Ryan, their environmental, this site is being remediated as a dry cleaning site. And I wondered if there were any concerns about unforeseen environmental cost and risk here. Mr. Ryan, you have to have a question. Thank you. I am a part of the Dry Cleaner Solvent Cleanup Act program. I made sure I continued the legacy on purchase of the building. There has been significant amount of remediation, more than $700,000 worth, and I continue to be a part of the program. I got a clean bill of health from the EPA prior to purchasing the building. Okay, good. So, and the remediation that occurred, but I assume there's some sort of continuing remediation then. And how long does that continue? Do you have an idea? There is continued assessment. And I am working with Billy Meyer out of Raleigh. He works with the state. And so the remediation is ongoing, but I don't have an answer for how long it'll continue. It's continually monitored. It's continued to be monitored? Yes, sir. Okay. And the program that you talked about, the Solvent Program, does that provide monitoring assistance or financial support for remediation? How does that work? It actually provides up to, just to give it some context, dry cleaners were located around North Carolina who were, because of the laws as far as disposal of the solvents. So North Carolina put in place this program that helped many of these dry cleaners for up to a million dollars to provide up to a million dollars worth of remediation if necessary. So I have not, the building has not necessarily reached a cap yet. I see. And so, but it has performed is for remediation. And then there's ongoing monitoring. Got it. I continue to work. So there could be up to 300,000 more available from this state program for remediation. Okay. Yes, sir. I guess, what I'm asking, the reason I'm asking is with this city investment, I just wanna make sure that you all are aware of and doing everything you need to be doing for the remediation. But it sounds like you're involved in the program. And I guess, Chris, I would just ask you, does it, do you have a high comfort level with that? Yes, we have a comfort level with that. Okay. And then you mentioned sunrise as a possible tenant for the building. Yes, sir. We're speaking to a sunrise recovery center as well as a project access has expressed interest in being tenants. Okay. And we're talking to non-profit organizations. All right. For some reason, Mr. Schill and I was thinking that sunrise was a potential tenant for your building in that quarter. Am I wrong? You have an excellent memory, Mayor Schill. Come on up to them. You have an excellent memory, Mayor Schill. Sunrise did express intent to rent our building. Ours is about 1,800 square feet over a two-story and they've decided that being in an open space as the Kipps building can offer is a better format for them. Got it. And then we're going to work and recruit with Kipp project access is interest as well. So they would put their staff potentially in our building and then put their medical equipment facility in the middle next to where sunrise would go and the dry cleaner building. Right. Thank you. All right. Those are my questions. Any other questions? Council member Freeman. I just wanted to ask, noting those three or two entities, is it? Are there signed agreements already in place? We have letters of interest from sunrise and we do not have a letter of interest yet from project access, but we're in the development process with them. Thank you. That would be all. Thank you. Any more questions? Council member Middleton. I'll yield to the mayor, Pro Tem. I think she went up. She's a good mess. Your hand went up first. I'll yield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just wondering if you could describe for us some of the community benefits of your project. Why do you think that this project will benefit the community such that we should invest public money? Well, like Mr. Schiller explained, its location, its vicinity, particularly how far it is from Dawkins Street and some of the homeless issues that are going on there, that area definitely needs some development. And with the Weaver Cleaners building being centrally located to the Dawkins Street as well as what was formerly the Fable Street Projects, we think that investing in this particular project is going to be a springboard for some development that'll move right down Fable Street toward North County Central. Thank you. Do you have plans or thoughts around your hiring for the construction for around issues like wages, whether you'll be hiring people who live here in Durham, whether the jobs will be available to people who might be formerly incarcerated or have a criminal record? You bring up a very good point. Right now we are in our embryonic stages, so I do not have concrete plans, but it is my intent to use, as far as construction, a local firm. In particular, I have a particular interest in construction project management. So my oversight would be involved, but as far as jobs, that is our intent at this time. Are you open to hiring people who might have a criminal record or formerly incarcerated people? Yes. Thank you. And the Durham-Biss Business Plan, you have a Durham-Biss Business Plan associated with this, Chris? That's special. All right. And the way that would work is we would monitor that and we would come up with an agreement right now where estimating the minimal expenditures of capital expenditures being about $300,000, so approximately between $150,000 of looking to a goal of $150,000 for Durham-Biss Business Activity. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Middleton, did you? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. And congratulations. And I'm pleased and excited that you're waiting into this area. I don't have many conversations about the state of our city without somehow the revitalization of the Fayetteville Street corridor coming up, so I wanna thank you. I hope that will approve this incentive and I hope this is only the beginning of us putting some serious money into that corridor. I did wanna ask, are you leveraging groups like the chamber, the black chamber to help maybe put some your tenant finding efforts on steroid? Are you plugging into? I have attended several meetings and so yes, I'm excited about that link. All right, well, thank you. Best wishes. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Just a quick question. I don't know if you recognize that there's additional cost in making sure that you do hire folks who do have formerly incarcerated records and I wanna make sure that if there is cost that that is also factored in to the incentive. So I'm wondering if that, the 115, is there a reason why it was cut from 130? Well, the reason why in sitting down and it's been a very extensive process in working with Mr. Ryan and one of the things I've identified in working with businesses throughout the years is in what happens is that we get to a point in understanding construction management, which is why Peter Schiller and Mr. Ryan is working so well. So Peter's coming along to help provide technical assistance with that. And what was requested in the budget, I felt like $115,000 was adequate to move the project forward, where there would be a split between the city as well as Mr. Ryan in carrying that cost so the city would not be carrying the whole burden of the technical assistance that would be applied to this project. And with that added addition of cost around having formerly incarcerated folks on the construction site, is that also factored into your number? Well, I didn't take that into consideration. Council has the, he did apply for $130,000. That's obviously of the council. I'm just giving you what the Office of Economic Development felt like was the adequate amount to support this project. I could just make a proposal. And I think around from what I understood in the conversations I've had with contractors, it's around a $5,000 additional cost. Would you be amenable to include in that for? Again, I would stand by my recommendation as the Office of Economic Development, but council does have the authority to do whatever it wants to do. I just want to make sure that the project is successful. I believe based upon the recommendation that we've put forward that the project would be successful, successfully supported at $115,000 at this particular time and moment based upon the information that was submitted to our office. All right, thank you very much. We have held the public hearing. Public hearing is closed and now we need a motion to authorize the city manager to execute an economic development incentive agreement. So moved. Moved and seconded. We authorized the city manager to execute the agreement with Mr. Ryan. Madam clerk, can you please open the vote? Please close the vote. And the motion passes 7-0. Thank you so much. Mr. Ryan, thank you. Good luck to you. We're excited about this project. And thank you, Chris. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Peter, we really do. Good luck. I'm excited about it. Yeah, let us know. We can come out and cut a ribbon. Okay. All right, we're now going to move to items. We have two more items. Items, if I'm correct, we have item seven and item 12. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. Item seven, which is the cooperative agreement with Go Triangle for Durham, our light rail transit DLRT review. We have, this was pulled by the city attorney for discussion of some language. And I'll turn it over to him. I know that council member Freeman also has some questions. And I believe some of the rest of us may as well. So Mr. Attorney. Mr. Mayor and members of council, I did present to you a memo at the beginning yesterday of this item, some changes that we made to this in consultation with folks from Go Triangle to more accurately describe where we stand in relation to the final design of the light rail corridor. So we have basically replaced article three paragraph F, which appears on page 11 of your, of what's on your iPads with the language that I've included in the memo. Again, the more accurately stated status of that arrangement. If you're in agreement with those edits, then we would propose a revised motion language, which would read as follows, to ratify by resolution that the cooperative agreement will go triangle with the revised article three paragraph F language proposed in the city attorney's memorandum dated December 3rd, 2018 and presented to council at a regular meeting on December 3rd, 2018 and to authorize manager to execute the cooperative agreement with this revision on behalf of the city. You can do that all in one motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney. Before we discuss other matters, I'm gonna ask if we first discuss the city attorneys matter, are any questions for the city attorney? Were any other items discussed from work session? Not on. Regarding anything that I asked about. I'm not familiar with. We're gonna first take up this particular aspect of it and then we'll take up your question. Council member Freeman, we're all, I know Trials expecting that discussion, but let's just first focus on this one aspect of it. I guess it's, we need to, the reason for this language is to give some more flexibility of, or to better express the situation on Blackwell Street. Correct. And so I wanna thank you, Mr. Attorney and Don O'Toole, thank you and go Triangle staff. I think we have a little bit better language. Council member Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Prior to this, did the existing language require approval by the Go Triangle Board of Trustees? Or would that have been in the ordinary course of what would have happened anyway? We're just clarifying that. Mr. Tomic. Is everyone else saying good morning? The approval policy that the Go Triangle Board of Trustees adopted governing changes to the project only reserved their expectation of approving for certain items. And this would not have typically risen to that level. The staff always has the option to bring things, but this makes it clear that this would come to the Go Triangle Board of Trustees for a decision. That's very, very helpful, thank you. Thank you. All right, if there are no questions on that, we have some questions from Council Member Freeman about some other items, and then we will take all this up with a single motion as recommended by the city attorney. Is that what you would recommend? Okay, great. Council Member Freeman, your questions on this item. I think at work session, I mentioned how this community engagement priority needed to be included to show that we were intentionally focused on race equity and especially around environmental justice. As noted with the previous romp case, had the type of community engagement been incorporated at the beginning, we wouldn't have faced this type of opposition. And I feel strongly about it being included in the cooperative agreement. So can we hear from Go Triangle staff? We certainly are open to that kind of community engagement and intend to do more of that community engagement. I think through the long conversations with the city staff and vetting the language in here, our preference would be to handle that as one of the future agreements that are referenced in here or future coordination activities, but that the Council take the draft up as it's written tonight. We're also, this references a number of committees that we would have together with the city at a staff level. And we are open to covering the communications under any one of those committees or as an ongoing topic with the Executive Management Committee that we hold every two weeks. Where exactly are you referring to it references? So on, this is article five, the Executive Leadership Coordinating Committee is identified there in A and that is city manager level with Jeff Bann, our CEO or me, his designee and other related staff both on both sides. The others would be related to E or F, the Workforce Development, the Transnuring Development or G, not G, not Construction Inspections. Or we could create another committee and I think that this contemplates that other committees could be contemplated under the terms of this agreement. But there isn't anything that says other, it's all labeled, it's all identified specifically, so Construction, Transit, Workforce, Transit Operations, Fire and Life Safety, Design and Executive Leadership. You notice how they're all laid out so that those coordinating committees will occur and even the extra additional section where we're having a conversation about creating a reconfiguration of roadways and downtown corridor that's spelled out as an additional committee that'll likely be formed to address the Blackwell discrepancy or design. Thank you, and so the other places where this has been contemplated in conversation, Article Four, Section A, Future Coordination, and at the bottom of that, it spells out that public engagement and communication would be those types of committees that have not yet been formed but would be formed so that we're working together with city staff on the strategies to achieve the aims that I think are described here. If I could ask a really direct question. In the past, how have you worked with minority and women in business to achieve your goals? Because I think that specifically is where I'm concerned that this is not spelled out enough for me to feel comfortable with this type of agreement. With any contract that we undertake that uses federal funds, we have established Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal that gets set with that contract that is tied to an assessment of the availability of the firms that can do that work and are certified as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. That's, I know that the city uses some different terminology in their contracting. The DBE terminology is associated with federal transportation contracting. And over the past five years, we've had roughly 10% DBE participation in our procurement opportunities. On the contracts that we have now for this light rail, the both the engineering consultant and the construction management consultants, we have a goal of 14% on the engineering consultant and 15% on the construction management consultant. And that has been actualized in as for the light rail project to date over $17 million of contracts awarded to DBE firms. And of those, roughly five million has been awarded to African-American-owned businesses. So in making those decisions around the goals, who is responsible? Like who exactly directs that goal? So the... What I'm hearing is you're saying it's specific to each project or separate. It's not something you have standardly set. So what we have set, we have an annual DBE goal that our board of trustees sets. It's recommended to the board of trustees they have to adopt it. That's part of the federal requirements for transit agencies. And then on, and that's based upon a forecast of what projects do we have coming up? Do we expect that coming up in the year and what types of services we need? And then for a specific contract or procurement, then we look at the specifics of that set of goal and that gets committed through the contract with the consultant or with the contractor. So can I make a suggestion, Mr. Talmage? Under future coordination, such future committees may cover the following topics, safety and security, workforce development, trans-oriented development, affordable housing, operations and management. Would it be, what about adding minority and women participation? Or contracting? Business and participation. I'm not sure the exact wording, but I think that might go a long way to assuage council member Freeman and I know that we all share her concern. As do we, I'm gonna just look at my attorney, my legal assistance here. Yep. So in concept, we don't have any concerns about that. What we'd like to do because Disadvantaged Business Enterprise is the measurement that we have to use and the terminology we have to use that would use consistent language with the required. So in other words, it would say, such future committees may cover the following topics, safety and security, workforce development, the affordable housing, operations and management, public engagement, communication and disadvantaged business enterprises. Additionally, just to make note, recognizing that this is a new area that we're in, but just in the same sense as Mayor Pro Tem Jill and Jocelyn mentioned in the previous case where public funds are being spent, it's important to make sure that we're focused on hiring minorities and then also returning citizens on returning incarcerated individuals. The fact that at 115,000 we're asking the question and at $2.5 billion it's not is a problem and just recognizing like this is something that we've got to really kick into high gear if we're gonna have impact as a whole as a council and as a go triangle as a partner in this conversation in Durham. So let me just respond to that, we talk about this all time as a go triangle board. This is not something that is, this is a very, very constant topic of discussion for this project and all our others. So your point is very well taken, it's super important, but it is something that we do. This is, the go triangle board is the board as opposed to city council has oversight of this project and we spend a lot of energy and time on it, so. I think it's important to note, like Mayor Schuyl is a member of that board and he is the go to for the information, but this conversation, I mean, it's been kind of like pulling teeth to get additional information and I'm kind of like fed up with it, that's all. What is the information that you need? Is it employment statistics or contracting statistics? Yes, I did ask for employment statistics and contracting statistics as well as the board, I mean the makeup of the board, how many people of color are on that board, how many are not, like all of that is all information that. Well, that should be very easily accessible and I'm sure that you all can provide that. We can provide that and I have some information about our staff, the racial composition of our staff. Now if you'd like me to share that, otherwise we can send that in writing tomorrow. That would be great if you could.  Thank you, Mr. Talmage. Any more questions? Thank you. Welcome. And I think we should say those are very substantial figures in terms of minority and women employment and I wanna just commend the agency for giving that attention to that. Okay, I'm going to ask that we accept that we make a motion to approve the cooperative agreement. Let me just get to my language here. I'm gonna ask the city attorney if he will provide his language for this and it'll be with the addition of the phrase, utilization of disadvantaged business enterprises in the... Future coordination. In the, for future coordination, yeah. And on top of that, to ratify by resolution, the cooperative agreement will go triangle with the revised article three paragraph F language proposed in my memo that I provided to you tonight and will authorize the city manager to execute the cooperative agreement with this revision on behalf of the city. Thank you. Can I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Madam clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. Thank you. Alrighty, we're now moving to the last item in what is by far the longest city council meeting I've ever been at. Item 12, contract for all street parking access and review control system parks for the city's parking facilities. And I think we have some language changes there. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, may I have a council on item 12 due to some concerns regarding privacy and the use of some of this information that the contractor could pick up. We are proposing to add certain language to section 12 E of the agreement. And the specific language that we're adding after addresses comma and driver's license is the phrase is vehicle license numbers, vehicle identification, or registration information. So that is information that the contractor would be prohibited from using. Just adding those three categories, vehicle license numbers, vehicle identification or registration information. Thank you very much. Alrighty, are there any comments about the item, including the language that has been suggested by the city attorney? Yes, just noting like I'm really thankful for that. It's important to note that in light of what we've just seen, things can be, things are gonna continue to shift. It's important to make sure we're taking care of our residents in the community. Thank you. Any more comments? Alrighty, that language, the addition of that language, I'm gonna ask for a motion to authorize the city manager to execute the contract with Carolina Tom and Equipment Inc. So moved. Second. Madam clerk, will you please open the vote? Please close the vote. And the motion passes seven, zero. I believe that is all the business to come before this body, Mr. Manager, is that correct? Yes, sir. Our longest meeting by about 20 minutes, Mr. Mayor. I'm gonna declare this meeting adjourned at 111 AM. It's 2008, the longest meeting. Second August was June 5th, 2000.


Consider this code, which sets up a structure to represent a book by its ISBN, title, and price. We're going to write a function that lowers the price of the book by a given percent, because structures are passed by value. The function will have to return a struct book. The name of the function will be discount, and the parameters will be the book we want to discount, and the percentage to take off the price. The body of the function sets the price of the book to be the current price times 1 minus the percent divided by 100. And then it returns the updated local copy to the caller. In the main function, we've set up a book called C-book, and we want to set it to the result of calling discount with the current value and 5% off. And then we'll print the new price by accessing the price member of C-book. Let's build this and run it, and it works great. This code isn't wrong, but if you're in a limited memory environment, again, our scarcity model, the idea that we have to copy the 100 character title from the argument into the parameter may bother you. This is a place where it might be useful to pass the address of the structure and update the structure in place. Let's make the change to the function call. Instead of returning a value, we'll pass the address of the structure we want to update. Our function now becomes a void function that does not need a return, and instead of a book structure, we have a pointer to a book, which we'll call P-book. The question now becomes, how do we access the price? You need to dereference the point rephrase. You need to dereference the pointer and here as well. But that won't quite do the trick. Because of the precedence of the operators, this would try to get the price member out of the pointer and then dereference it last. That won't work because the pointer isn't a structure. Instead, you need to use parentheses to make things happen in the correct order. The parentheses say dereference the pointer, which leads us to the book structure, and then it's okay to get the price member out of that structure. Let's build the program and run it, and it still works. Accessing a member of a dereference structure is a very common operation. So common, in fact, that there's a shortcut for it. Instead of needing the parentheses, we'll say P-book pointer to price, and we'll do that on the left-hand side also. Notice that we don't have the star operator there anymore. Rebuild, and again, it runs just as well. This is the notation you will almost always find when you read other C programmers' code, even when you're only accessing a structure rather than updating it. You'll more commonly see people pass the address of the structure. It saves both time and space. For example, this function to display a book structure takes a pointer to a book structure as its only parameter and prints the information about that book. And we'll use the arrow or pointer notation all the way through here, follow the P-book pointer and get the title member, follow the P-book pointer and get the ISBN, follow the pointer, and get the price member. Let's call that function with the address of the C-book that we constructed in main, build, and run. The arrow operator makes accessing a structure via its pointer as convenient as using the dot notation on the actual structure.


The low-pressure aria, low-depression, is a region on the topographic map where the atmospheric pressure is lower than that of surrounding locations. Low-pressure systems form under arias of wild divergence that occur in the upper levels of the troposphere. The formation process of the low-pressure aria is known as cyclogenesis. Within the field of meteorology, atmospheric divergence aloft occurs in two areas. The first area is on the east side of upper tropes, which form half of a rosby e-wave within the westerlies the through with large wavelength that extends through the troposphere. The second area of wind divergence aloft occurs ahead of embedded short-waint tropes, which are of smaller wavelength. Diverging winds aloft ahead of these tropes cause atmospheric lift within the troposphere below, which lowers surface pressures as upward motion partially counteracts the force of gravity. Thermal lows form due to localized heating caused by greater sunshine over deserts and other land masses. Since localized areas of warm air are less dense than their surroundings, this warmer air rises, which lowers atmospheric pressure near that portion of the Earth's surface. Large-scale thermal lows over continents help drive monsoon circulations. Low-pressure arias can also form due to organized thunderstorm activity over warm waters. When this occurs over the tropics in concert with the intertropical convergence zone, it is known as a monsoon through. Monsoon tropes reach their northerly extent in August and their southerly extent in February. When a convector low acquires a well-hot circulation in the tropics it is termed a tropical cyclone. Tropical cyclones can form during any month of the year globally, but can occur in either the northern or southern hemisphere during November. The atmospheric lift will also generally produce cloud cover through a diabetic cooling once the air becomes saturated as it rises. Although the low-pressure aria typically brings cloudy skies, which add to minimize diurnal temperature extremes. Since clouds reflect sunlight, incoming short-waint solar radiation decreases, which causes lower temperatures during the day. At night the absorptive effect of clouds on a going long-wave radiation, such as heat energy from the surface, allows for warmer diurnal low temperatures in all seasons. The stronger the area of low-pressure, the stronger the winds experienced in its vicinity. Globally, low-pressure systems are most frequently located over the Tibetan Plateau and in the Lee of the Rocky Mountains. In Europe, particularly in the British Isles and Netherlands recurring low-pressure weathered systems are typically known as depressions.


Good morning. What a good afternoon. Depending on where your minor body are, mine is currently on East Coast side. So today, my colleagues Natalie, Rick, and I are going to give you an update about our PresQT project. PresQT stands for Preservation Quality Tools, which is the planning grant funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. We're very grateful for the institution to give us an opportunity to work with many of our peers, as well as scientists, researchers, and software developers, both from commercial sectors and not-for-profit organizations, to really look at the gaps to manage the software and data preservation. So our vision, really seeing the software and data preservation as a part of the larger picture of research management lifecycle. So for that reason, we really do not desire to design a standalone tool, which is trying to force everyone to use a tool and adopt a tool. On the contrary, what we're really trying to do is to look at an open architecture that is interoperable and format agnostic, which can connect to the existing tools, or integrate existing features of the current tools, and design some new features that is currently missing from the current landscape. I think many of our peers probably can relate to our Notre Dame story from Richardson's side. And they really fell at this point in time. They're really facing a number of challenges. There are lack of storage capacity and data curation processes. And the institution really lacks standard metadata and indexing technologies, as well as tools that will support the whole research workflow. From the library side, we continue the analog publishing workflow, which we engage the software and data preservation at the end of the life cycle, which is a very expensive, labor-intensive process before we actually can share and preserve the data and the research. Of course, there's increasing expectations from the funders asking our researchers and scientists to share their research results. So this is more a visualization of the current maybe the philosophy. So we engage at the end of the life cycle and trying to do a very heavy lifting work, getting the data in the shade, so we can preserve and share them. And that's where we currently are trying to do, is really trying to ingest ourselves upstream in the life cycle and really make sure the quality of the data are insured. And so once we're moving down the stream, we'll be able to easily to preserve and share the data. I think at this point in time, also our peers may relate to, we put in many pieces of infrastructure in place to support research management. So many of us train librarians. We hire the e-research librarians, data management librarians. We create repositories, and we even create a data management team, so really facilitating and really moving upstream to helping our researchers. And in our name, we even create an instant of OSF institution, instant to support new users who adopt the OSF as their workflow management tool. But still, if we look at where we are, there are researchers who adopt other tools and the switching cost for them to switch into a different tool is still pretty high. And as current state and our name, our library and office research really struck a very good strategic relationship. For every new grant awardee, they shared their names with us. We actually can engage with them in the beginning of their research workflow. But there are still many of grants, many of them, more than the librarians we have to support the volume of work. So if I can summarize the current research management landscape, probably this picture really summarized that. And so when we contemplating the image, we thought maybe we should use a picture of the universe or at least a solar system. Sometimes we felt like we're the libraries, the office of research, the department of colleges or galaxy and the planets away. So we really think about manage the research. But in fact, we're living on the same planet and I think for most of the people we're supporting are living from the same geographical area. So this picture probably really summarized where we are. Although we're on the same campus, so for the islanders on each of the island, and we have different cultures, we speak different languages, we have very different processes and even the technology and tools were used are so different. So really with all these instructor pieces we put together, we still see the data not quite easily flow from the researchers hand to the curators and preservators. And it's very difficult. And going back to Jones keynote, so from the user center point of design, how we can support user in the current sort of landscape there. So we have to admit, you know, Rick, me and Melanie, we're not creators or makers of this landscape or the geographical features. You know, we can already change the current status quo. Maybe the provost and the present can do that. But as a member of the community, what we need to do is think about how to really working within this landscape and trying to adopt and create a tool that will help our researchers to let data flow and that our librarians do the job to preserve and managing the data and software. So I'll stop there and as we continue our presentation. Thank you, John. So Simon Rick Johnson also from Notre Dame. And so really in thinking about how we have been approaching this challenge, it really is with Prescuti looking at how we can connect the various areas of excellence, subject matter experts, different specialists across all different groups. And with that, we approached this effort with the planning grant with an assessment survey that had over 1,700 respondents from a variety of groups from researchers, librarians, software creators, et cetera. And in addition to that, we also, our effort included a couple workshops where we were really hands-on trying to bring in the existing tool makers of a lot of these services. Because as John said, a lot of this is not looking to create new services, but really to start to bridge those gaps more and more. And also as he said, there's a high switching cost for anyone that would be switching to new tools. So really again, how can we continue to bridge those? So within our effort here, we have completed our survey, we have completed the workshops, and we have our final report is mostly done. We haven't fully submitted it and posted it yet, but it is mostly done. And with that, we're in this phase now where we have a set of recommendations based on what was coming back from the survey. So then another aspect of this, thinking about our grant from the get-go, we really thought of our grant as something that really needs to be completely open. So this may be a radical concept for a grant funded project to be totally open, but really from the get-go, all from the beginning, all the way until now, all the materials have been freely available and they continue to be on the OSF here. And then one example of this is our needs assessment data that is available on the OSF site, and I'm gonna now turn over to Natalie to talk more about that. Hi everyone, I'm Natalie Myers. I'm a research librarian at University of Notre Dame. And you can see on the screen some information about the needs assessment data that I'll be presenting to you in the forthcoming slides. At the lower left of the screen, you can see that the questionnaire and the data are shared, but also for this project, we've shared the code with which we visualize the data. All that information is available on GitHub. You can access the information through our OSF project at osf.io slash xfws6 if you'd like to follow along. The other contributors who help put this data and code up include Don Brower in the Hesburgh Library, who helped visualize and share the survey results, and Brandon Greenewall in Notre Dame Center for Social Computing, who helped develop the survey instrument and administer the survey in Qualtrics. So the work you're seeing is not just a project of myself, John and Rick's, but of a larger team that has been behind the scenes, helping us share along the way. None of this happens in a vacuum when we set out to do stakeholder engagement for what tool gaps in data and software preservation quality might be. We grounded that work in a review of related surveys and case studies that you can see here on the screen. These resources informed our needs assessment instrument and they were presented and shared at our first workshop with our stakeholders. As I present our needs assessment results, they'll stand on their own, but where we have repeated or reworked questions from the science gateways, APS open data and state of open data surveys, I'll point that out. And we're also planning a virtual web panel for later this spring or early summer where stakeholders from those related efforts will help us discuss trends, commonalities and differences that have surfaced through these crossover questions that we've repeated from past surveys. So I encourage you to revisit the slides online and explore some of these other surveys that help us understand the landscape of data and software sharing and researcher attitudes toward those over time. On the screen you see a preview of our needs assessment results. This information is all live in github at ndlive.github.io slash presqtneeds slash you can go there now or visit it again later. When you're on that site, the information is interactive and you can cursor over it and it will show you more detail about the visualizations that you are encountering. The first question we asked researchers was how familiar they were with tools used to share published site and preserve their data in software. We surveyed at National Science Foundation funded principal investigators with over $5,000 in funding along with library publisher, developer and other stakeholders of the information systems that help scientists share their data and meet publisher mandates, meet funder mandates. One of the next questions we asked researchers to help us with was to find out what kind of data or software preservation tools the respondents would find most useful. We asked them to identify usefulness among different tool categories that you see here on the screen, including provenance tools, workflow tools, fixity tools, keyword assignment tools, profile-based recommenders, de-identification tools and tools that provide an assessment of a digital object's metadata completeness or preservation quality. So when you hear me talk about quality as we explore these survey results, that's our definition of tools that ensure data or software quality, tools that provide an assessment of that digital object's metadata completeness or the preservation quality of the object itself. The way the respondents answered these questions is here on the screen now and we can see the priorities that were expressed by the researchers in the order of provenance, workflow, fixity, data and software quality and keyword assignment as their top five priorities for tools that they would find useful. If we look in more detail and we compare software developer and non-developer expressions of interest and usefulness for these tools, what's most curious is that the interests mostly align regardless of role.  We didn't necessarily expect this degree of alignment but we can see that interests are fairly aligned. Here on the screen you can see all the responses shown at the top rule for each tool category, then the software developer's perspective in the second row and the non-developer's perspective on the bottom rule. Note that these are not either or roles. Researchers could co-identify as software developers in our needs assessment. Just under 40% identified themselves that way with software development. So when we look at non-developers, that's about 60% of our respondents. Those who develop, maintain or support software systems are a little more interested in provenance, quality, and fixity than the group as a whole. But otherwise interests are fairly well aligned. We next asked users if they had a data or software preservation quality tool need, the project could help them develop. This was a free text question and these responses are available in our dataset. I encourage you to visit them, use them for your own purposes. This was our field of dreams question. Instead of asking if we milled the next great thing, will you use it and taking our planning grant to evangelize a future product or tool, we instead took that planning grant opportunity to ask researchers to tell us what kind of needs they had that our project could help them develop or develop for them. Next we asked if there was a tool gap in their existing digital ecosystem or workflow. Those were also free text responses. And you can access these on GitHub or the projects OSF site. And I'll give you an overview now of the rest of the researcher questions, a high level overview, and then we'll look at some developer responses. I think these three questions are quite interesting. We asked in the past how often had respondents made their research data free to access reuse, repurpose, or redistribute. And nearly half said that they had done that. But then when we asked them, that was a repeat of the fig share or state of open data question. But then when we asked them a little bit differently, is any of your data or co-published or shared now on a repository or website, you'll notice that the answer shifts a little bit. Fewer have actually shared than those who say they've made their data free or redistributed it. And then finally when we asked them, if they anticipated sharing, you'll notice that the vast majority, nearly 80% anticipate that they'll probably have to share within the next five years. So we have a long way to go, about 40% gap to help researchers jump over the next five years, not just with our systems, but with the services we offer our researchers. We also asked in the past three years, had the researchers research group made publicly accessible any of the following items through their institute's website or third party repository. This is a repeat of the American Physical Society survey question for the open math and physical sciences workshop by NSF. And we'll compare the responses between those two groups in an upcoming panel. But what you can see here is that for our survey respondents, many had shared process data, figures, plots, table data, software, fewer had shared raw data and fewer had shared structured databases. But in general, these were the kinds of areas in which they were making things public. This becomes important when you start to think about how much storage you need to accommodate researchers sharing activities. And when we look at the American Physical Society audience, what we see our high energy physicists really making audience matter in terms of who's sharing and what they're sharing, their raw data sets are huge and they don't share those raw data sets as individual scientists. So they have a concern on their side more with sharing software and process data. Then we asked about whether researchers needed better tools to share, reuse, site, publish, or preserve their own or others data or software. And people were more interested in tools for data than they were in tools for software. But that aligns with the number of people in our respondent group who developed software in the first place. So I wouldn't make this guide me too far in deprecating the need for preservation systems that help preserve software. It just indicates how many respondents are writing software and think about that as something they have to preserve. We anticipated for keyword assignment more interest than respondents expressed. So most respondents felt that it was usually easy to assign keywords and that when asked to submit keywords for their own or others research that the terms available usually accurately describe the work at hand. We also asked researchers if they actively created or managed metadata to make sharing, finding, or documenting provenance of their own or others data or code easier. This question is interesting in the context of fair making data more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. What we see here is that about 40% of this group have never taken metadata into consideration and don't work with it. That means if we want to make data and software more fair in our information systems and our information ecosystems, we have to help researchers bridge this gap with the systems that we build and the way researchers use those systems and how we support them. We next asked whether employers required them to make any of their publication or data openly available and whether any of the organizations that funded their work required them to make any of their publications or data openly available. Again, audience is important here because we did survey NSF funded researchers. Most do have a mandate they're responding to. What you'll see on the bottom line is that a large proportion of our researchers felt that their funder required them to make their publications and data openly available and that indicates the proportion that we had response from the NSF audience. This question we asked is quite interesting in the context of CNI. We asked in the researcher's estimation which of the following currently have the infrastructure required to provide long-term public access to research data. And respondents first indicated third-party repositories, then their own institutions, and then journal publishers. This is a little contradictory to the 2017 CNI roundtable outputs and I was trying to think about why that might be. I invite you to explore the links at the bottom of this slide to read through that roundtable information or view that video because when we asked these researchers, these NSF funded researchers, similar kinds of questions, they point to third-party repositories and their own institutions first. We wondered why. I think that one of the reasons why might be the question researchers ask about where did my data go? And recently there was an article in F1000 by Rouhani Fareed and it was about whether badges for sharing data in code increased the amount of sharing. But what was interesting in the context of this article was that 49 out of 76 or 64% of the articles that provided links to data in code at biostatistics had broken links to that data. And for statistics in medicine, 21 out of 53 or 40% of the articles that had links to data in code had broken links. Researchers don't trust their publishers because their data isn't there when they go looking for it in some of these high-profile cases. These were Oxford journals and there was a note in the research about how when they had switched to a new publishing platform in January 2017, some of the supplemental material was lost in the transfer. These are the kind of things that make researchers pause when they're asked about who has the resources to preserve their data, not just share it, but preserve it. So we need to think about this answer in that context and think about institutional repositories in that context and why researchers might not feel that publisher solutions provide a trustworthy or dependable preservation service alongside sharing or publication service. I think what we can acknowledge here is that we need both publishing data citation, software citation, as well as preservation systems like institutional repositories and third-party repositories alongside publisher repositories. The results related to those broken links are important when we look at this question. Next, we asked about how important to researchers' work were web-based applications that provide access to the following specialized resources. This was a repeat question from an earlier Science Gateway study that was conducted in 2015. What we've found here is a little bit of movement as communities of practice build tools out in these areas, the areas that people are interested in now are changing and we'll explore that in our future web panel a little bit more. Finally, we asked researchers for others to reproduce their results. Would they need software coder scripts to reproduce it? What's interesting here is that less than 50% of people thought so. And then we asked, do you create and or use software codes or scripts in your research greater than 50% say yes? So there's a little bit of an inherent tension here in terms of what researchers really think needs to be shared for others to reproduce their findings. We had a second set of questions specifically for developers that followed on asking questions about whether researchers authored software coder scripts to analyze or produce their data, whether they hired people to do that and whether they revised commercial or freeware software to do that. We also asked about how they shared their code and whether they containerized code to make distribution easier and in their tasks of administering, maintaining and supporting tools where their focus areas were and how long they anticipated having to support that software and how long people would use it. The preponderance said from five to 10 years or less than five years. So people aren't thinking long term about how long their software will need to be accessed or used. That might make reproducibility and reusability of software more difficult as time moves forward. I'm going to turn things next over to Rick and he'll talk to you a little bit more about the end phase of our grant and our next phase. I encourage you to visit the needs assessment online to view more of the data. And during our question time, we can talk a little bit more about some of the researchers' questions. Thank you, Natalie. So in thinking about all of the results that we have gathered from our survey as well as the insights from tool makers and other experts that participate in our workshops, we've incorporated a lot of those insights into an initial design that we have detailed out for our final report that really integrates a lot of the key focus areas that emerged from a lot of the results where things like just generating checksums for fixity was deemed a high priority. Generating provenance metadata was another one. So in thinking about this, those seemingly by themselves may seem like fairly small operations, but as John said earlier, if you think back to that workflow diagram, if those things can happen very early in the process, then all of a sudden the level of trust and quality of preservation, et cetera, really goes up dramatically. So we're really looking to bring a lot of these tools closer to researchers and other practitioners themselves. So in looking at our overall timeline, we are in the midst of a planning grant that is concluding, but along with that, we have submitted an implementation proposal to the IMLS in the January 16th call. We're still waiting to hear back from that, but really regardless of that, all of the recommendations that we've made will be available in our final report and really available for anyone to come and adopt. So these findings do not hinge upon the success of that implementation proposal to the IMLS. So in thinking about this, we really have again thought about this as, we need this to be repository agnostic and you can really insert technology for repository as well. It's one that we cannot depend on assuming that researchers or librarians or anyone else are using any one particular tool. And we really need to approach it from a true interoperability standpoint and think about these services where within the thought of our implementation proposal, for example, we've thought about it as primarily building a bridge between existing services as well as creating new services for gaps that where there are tools that are deemed high priority but really are not especially mature in the space yet. So that's the bulk of what we had. I wanted to do some final things as well for, so John, Natalie and I are co-PI's in the campus. We also have another co-PI, Sandra Guessing, who's in our Center for Research Computing at Notre Dame. So she was not able to make it, but she's kind of here in spirit. She's a large contributor to a lot of the technology aspects and also looking forward to if the implementation grant is successful, another large bulk will be coming from our Research Computing Center on campus. So welcome any questions at this time.


Now, we are going to look at the drivers or the driving forces coming from the Mobile Broadband Internet Access site. For that, we'd have to first of all look at the current implementations of Mobile Broadband, their unique features, and then we are going to extract the drivers which have led to their participation and a contribution towards NGN. Mobile Broadband has been there at least in Pakistan since 2013. Mobile Broadband is either based on 3G or 4G or beyond. Let's start with 3G. 3G technologies which implement Mobile Broadband are the universal mobile telecommunication system, the high-speed packet access both HSPA and HSPA+. And then we also have the Mobile Ymax 1.0 that is limited mobility. Then in LTE 4G deployment, we see LTE advance to be implementing data over these 4G networks. And then Mobile Ymax version 2.0 that provides even better mobility as compared to the first version. So it means that these technologies are there which provide Mobile Broadband to the Internet users which carry their handsets. Now, what is so unique and what is so interesting about these Mobile Broadband Internet Access technologies? First of all, these are based on smartphones, tablets, and laptops. So there is a factor something, factor which I call as the most important factor which is being personal. As compared to having a single telephone for the entire household, here we have a mobile phone if not more for every household member. So first one is that since a phone is carried by the user, so it's always available. It means the Internet connectivity has to be there 24-7 for any kind of service that the user is interested in. The user or the mobile phone carrier has now more time to use it. The services which were initially being provided at the residential or the corporate level are now being considered to be provided with the context of the user. Location based services being certain services which are based on the location or proximity of the mobile phone carrier. And then another important feature or attribute for mobile based Internet mobile broadband Internet Access technologies is the notion of generalized mobility. It means that a user or a smartphone carrier can move at will from one region to the other, which could be maybe from few kilometers to hundreds of kilometers of distance. Or it could be from one city to the other or it could be within a city while driving a vehicle. Then it could be across different speeds, for instance pedestrian walking or someone travelling in a car on a motorway. It means now these are the factors which make mobile broadband Internet Access very interesting and very relevant. Because hopefully, inshallah, the mobile broadband based users are not going to give it up in near time. So what we conclude is that the drivers coming from mobile broadband access side is number one as the fixed broadband access, the move to IP. Here also we see that LTE, long term evolution and long term evolution advanced, the LTEA are based on IP. The current deployment, the newly emerging market of players, the telecom operators etc. are making sure that the smartphones are present and they are present big time. So we are seeing a very wide coverage and deployment of the mobile broadband access networks, Pakistan wide as well as globally. So now the effort now is to integrate these with the fixed networks. So it is in short called fixed to mobile convergence. After all, when both of these are moving to IP, so interoperability between a user that originates Internet connection from fixed network and it terminates on the mobile broadband access side and vice versa is going to be something very normal. So for that, the engines have to take care of that. So it is one of the driving forces behind the NGN architecture.