But I've seen everybody come and these are in the order that, yeah, it's, I'm not, it's all, yeah, yeah, so we did it anyway, but I was also... Yeah, how you doing? Good evening. We'd like to call the Durham City Council meeting to order. Monday, August the 19th, and certainly want to welcome all of you that are here with us this evening. If we could just take a moment for silent meditation, please. Thank you. I would ask Councilman Clement if he would lead us in the pledge. Ask the clerk if she would call the roll, please. Mayor Bell. Present. Mayor Pro Tem Cole McFadden. Councilmember Brown has an excused absence. Councilmember Cattati. Councilmember Clement. Councilmember Moffitt. And Councilmember Shul. This evening I have the pleasure of recognizing some of our citizens for being involved in an area that really isn't one of the core services of city government. It's an area that we take very much pride in and consider a very high priority. And that is providing our young people in our community with job opportunities. And when I speak about young people, I'm talking about persons from the ages of 14 to 22 years of ages. Some, probably some of you know that over the years we've had a program called the Mayor's Summer Youth Work Program. And this is a program that over the years has attempted to provide gainful employment primarily during the summer for these young people. But it has been a program that the city has done by itself. We've had great partnerships with Durham County Government, Duke University Hospital, and others in the community, and the private sector. Some of you probably know also in the last two to three years both the Durham County Government, the Durham Public Schools, and the City Council has developed strategic plans. And these are plans which we're using to help guide us in terms of the priorities that the few governments set as we try to develop a vision for operation. And as we've developed these plans, we've tried to do it in sort of a collaborative fashion once they've been developed. And by that I mean both the Public Schools Administration, the County Administration, and the City Administration have come together to see where is there some intersection between these plans that we can work cooperatively together. And one of the areas has been in the whole issue of job placement internship for our young people. So during this past year, the program has sort of morphed away from the Mayor's summer youth work program into a more collaborative effort between the Public Schools, County Government, and City Council, City Government, until what we call the Durham Youth Work Internship Program. And what we've been able to do is to try to reach out not only to the bodies under which come out of jurisdiction, but to the private sector. And I would say as we've done this, I want to point out one particular city department that I'd like to commend while all the departments have participated in this program over the years. One this past year is the Durham Parks and Recreation. And during this past year, they've hired over 180-plus young people in this physical year to be a part of this program. This program has been, to me, not just a program for providing jobs and work opportunities for young people. It's also been an opportunity to introduce many of them to what I call world of work. And I'm sure that probably many of you who have grown up and eventually gotten into the job fair, job economy, like me, if I'd had this opportunity, I think I might have been a bit more prepared when I finally got into the world of work. And we've had probably over 14 to 1600 young people over the years that have applied for job positions. Unfortunately, we have not been able to place all those young people because we just haven't had jobs available. But what I've said to them, the ones that I've had an opportunity to speak to, that even if you don't get a job, if you come to the workshops, come to the job fairs, you gain something just by going through the experience of filling out applications, talking to potential employees to find out what they're looking for. And hopefully it'll stead you better as you move forward. But this year, what we'd like to do is to recognize in particular some of the companies that have participated in this program and have provided the types of services, job services that we've been looking for. And again, this has moved from just a summer program into a year-round internship program. So it's not just for the some of these young people who are working. Some will be employed gainfully throughout the year. What I'd like to do, if you don't mind, is ask at least two of my colleagues who have been involved in the workforce development program to join me, Councilwoman Diane Cattati and Councilman Steve Shul. As we present these certificates to some of the companies that are here tonight. This isn't all the companies, but I know I signed more certificates than we have people here. But this is sort of a small token from the City Council, from the Durham Public Schools and from Durham County Government to show our appreciation for what you've done and hopefully what you will continue to do as we try to find opportunities for young people in our community. So as I call your name, if you don't mind, if you could come up and receive a certificate and stay there and we'd like to take a group photo at the appropriate time. Representing Gail's hair salon, Tommy and Gail McNeil. Representing Kimberly Horn and Associates Earl Llewellyn. Representing Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, Kara Taff. Representing the Durham Bulls Baseball Club, Therese Starking and Mike Brawling. Representing Durham Technical Community College, Catherine McKinley. Representing Census, Stephen Williams, who chairs the Durham Workforce Board and Randolph Wheatley. Representing E-Cycling, I have to admit I was wondering for a long time what was happening over at the former Chrysler site but now I know, representing E-Cycling is Larry Hurst. Representing Regency Cleaners, Ms. Rita Foley. Representing Hay Tire Heritage Center, Executive Director Angela Lee. Representing Wal-Mart, Richardo Robinson. And finally, but not least, representing Duke Medicine, Priscilla Ramsour. Now I want to make sure I haven't missed anyone. These are the list of names. I know I signed more certificates, so is there anyone else here whose name I did not call that I should have called as a part of this group? Don't feel embarrassed because we don't want to forget you. If that's the case, then again we appreciate what you're doing. I guess they wanted to take sort of a group photo. We have one other presentation that we would like to make. It's sort of in conjunction with the workforce program in terms of jobs. It's one thing to have a job. It's one thing to get money once you're working. It's another thing to be able to handle your finances. And there's a program that's called Dollarwise Mayors for Financial Literacy. And this is the official Financial Education and Summer Youth Job Initiative of the United States Conference of Mayors and its Council on Metro Economies and the New American City. This program was conceived in 2004, and mayors in cities across America have made a commitment to increasing access to financial education for the citizens by participating in dollar-wise initiatives. Now this is the first year that the City of Durham has participated in the program through the Durham Youth Work Initiative interns program. We're very proud that one of our students has achieved excellence in going through the online program and that he was lucky enough to win a Kindle. Ronald Bithay, who is the son of Mr. Mrs. Ronald Bithay Sr., if you would join me please. Ronald worked this summer through the Durham Youth Work Internship Program for the City of Durham's Regulatory Compliance Laboratory Services. He is at school at the JD Clement Early College High School. And I again want to congratulate Ronald for one making the choice to become involved in the program itself and then taking the additional choice of enrolling himself in this online program. So I want to congratulate Ronald again and certainly want to congratulate his parents and present him with this Amazon Kindle for his work and leadership in this particular program. Yeah, please. I would like to thank the mayor and the council for that opportunity. One year we didn't get in, but we kept trying. And he is a good boy. So I am so glad he is getting recognized tonight. Thank you for doing this, Warren. Let me ask are there any comments by members of the City Council? Recognize Councilman Clement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to assure you that it's privilege for me to be here tonight. And thank you so much for your patience, perseverance. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague Mayor Pro Tem Cora-Cole McFadden. She was recognized the other night at a banquet underwritten by the General Committee on the Affairs of Black People. I want to congratulate you, Mayor Cora-Cole McFadden. I also want to commend Kenneth Spaulding, the gentleman sitting in the rear. He was also recognized for his stellar work in the Durham community by the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. We congratulate you, Ken. John Harding-Lewis, John Harding-Lucas. He's going to live forever. I'm glad. I'm going to be around this to make sure he does. But he was also recognized by the Durham Committee. And I want to commend these fine individuals, Dr. Lucas, Mayor Pro Tem Cora-Cole McFadden and Ken Spaulding for their stellar work to make Durham a great community to live and work. Congratulations to all of you. Maybe we can give these folks a big hand. Any other comments? If not, I would ask other prior items about the City Manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. No priority items. Likewise, City Attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No priority items. Likewise, the City Clerk. No items, Mr. Mayor. In that case, we'll proceed with the agenda as printed. As you know, the consent agenda items may be approved with a single vote. If either a council member or someone from the audience pulls a consent agenda item, we recognize them and recognize that item later in the program. And I'll, again, just read the heading of each consent agenda item. Item one is Human Relations Commission Appointment. Item two is Citizens Advisory Committee Appointment. Item three is Adopt Preliminary Assessment Roles and Set Public Hearings for Confirmation of Edcote Road, Artmore Drive, Valley Springs Road and Rivermart Road and Valley Springs Road, Rose Road and Forestdale Road. Item four is Street Acceptances. Item five is Amendment to Interlocal Agreement with Durham County for Joint Disparity Study. Item six is Resolution Authorizing the issuance of Limited Obligation Bond Series 2013A and 2013B. Item eight is License Agreement with Carolina Arborist by Dell Webb, Homeland's Association. Item nine is Parks and Recreation Master Plan. I recognize Councilman Schulte has commented on that. Do you want to do it now? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted, we're going to pass this on consent and that's great, but I didn't want it to go by without just commenting for people who are in the public and who may be watching us who might not understand the tremendous amount of work that goes into, went into this report. Rhonda Parker and Beth Timpsner here from Department of Parks and Rec and the department did this strategic plan. It's 170-some pages in-house. It's a strategic plan that we did without hiring a consultant. They did it on their own time in addition to their usual work running the Department of Parks and Rec. And it's an extensive plan for how to improve Parks and Rec and all the kinds of associated things here in Durham, trails and parks and everything else that we value so much. And it isn't just a facilities plan. We've had some good articles in the paper concerning the maintenance aspect of this, but it also includes many of the other aspects of running Parks and Rec besides maintenance. For example, staffing. For example, how we compare to our peer cities. For example, what facilities that the citizens want and that we need. Ways in which we are above or below other cities that are our peer cities. It talks about the programs that we want. Nothing to do with facilities in some cases. Often just the programs that we want and need that our citizens want here in Durham. So I just wanted to say that, Mr. Mayor, because I didn't want to go by without being noted that this is a really excellent and thorough piece of work and that we can get a lot out of it. And then I wanted to say the final thing is it really included a lot of public input. There was a master plan steering committee, members of the committee, and then a lot of outreach into the community to try to get these opinions. So I just wanted to let people know that, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate your let me make those comments. Well, thank you, Steve. And I certainly would concur. And I think all of council moves were concerned. I think it was an excellent report, especially considering the fact that it was all done internal about its staff and as you indicated, received a considerable amount of public input in its development. And we look forward to hearing from the administration on more details as we try to implement that. Items 10 through 12 items that can be found on the general business agenda is public hearing. That concludes the consent agenda. I didn't take the motion for approval. Consent agenda. It's been properly moved in second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes 6 to 0. We'll move to the general business agenda for public hearings. And item 10 is assessment improvements. Item 10 is mini assessment roll for Water Main on Dorfield Road. Good evening, Mayor Bell. Members of council on Nathan McHenry Public Works Engineering Services. Item 10 is a mini assessment roll for the confirmation of the Water Main assessment on Donfield Road. The assessment roll was originally confirmed at the May 6, 2013 council meeting with the exception of the property at 1205 Donfield Road. The property owner objected to the assessment at that time and the assessment was pulled from the roll for further review. Staff has reviewed the item and determined there are no grounds for the current council approved relief criteria that would qualify this property for relief from this assessment. As a result, staff recommends that the assessment against 1205 Donfield Road be confirmed in the original amount of $2,012.50. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I would ask first are the comments by members of the council on the staff report on this public hearing item. Likewise, I would ask is that anyone in the public that wants to speak on this item. Let the record reflect that no one in the public asked to speak on this item. I would try to put me in and close as a matter of fact for the council. It's been properly moved in second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes 6-0. I've indicated to the council at work session that this next assessment item 12, Economic Development and Historic. I'm sorry. Mini assessment roll for Sewer Main on East Cornwallis Road. I'm going to be asked to be excused from participating in this item because it impacts the company that I work for, UDS CDC, so I would ask the mayor of Pro Tem if she would carry this item. This is item 11. Item 11 is mini assessment roll for Sewer Main on East Cornwallis Road. Is there a report from staff on this? Again, item 11 is a mini assessment roll for the confirmation of the Sewer Main assessment on East Cornwallis Road. The assessment roll was originally confirmed at the November 5, 2012 council meeting with the exception of the property of 4601 Industry Lane and the properties of 1602 and 1604 East Cornwallis Road. The property owners objected to the assessment at that time and those assessments were pulled from the roll for further review. Staff has reviewed the items and determined that there are no grounds under the current council approved relief criteria that would qualify these properties for relief from these assessments. As a result, staff recommends that these assessments against 4601 Industry Lane, 1602 and 1604 East Cornwallis Road be confirmed in their original amounts. You've heard the report from staff. Are there any questions from council members? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Are there persons who desire to speak? Is that? Are there persons who desire to speak on this item? We recognize you, Mr. Sturge. You have three minutes, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Good evening to the members of the council. My name is Ed Stewart. I serve as president of UDI Community Development Corporation. And I come before you to request that you waive this charge, this assessment against UDI because of the following reasons. First, let me speak to the faculty of failure to receive a public notice. That notice was never received by UDI to attend the public meeting. And the reason being is that UDI had closed this postal box and was receiving mail at his office. Notices were sent as good business practice that we have were sent to all of my business associates. And consequently, as evidence of this, we did receive tax notices from the city and the county, but we did not receive this notice about the public hearing. So, of course, we missed that. When approached by Mr. Lecky, Mr. Lecky is the supervisor of engineering for the City of Durham. When approached by him, regarding a land swap to accommodate a necessary easement for the extension of a sewer outfall in response to a request by the Durham County Heft Department because of a failed septic system on Cornwallis Road, I ask him, if we agreed to the swap, would there be a cost to UDI? I was told no. Another question. In the meantime, the swap, I was asked, excuse me, I also referred to the question of, would there be certain values accruing to the city? And of course, that answer was also no. In the meantime, the swap referred to as a sewer improvement and I referred to that simply because of a comment, because of an email that I received from Mr. Marvin Williams, who is with the city. Those comments are to follow up on a conversion for this afternoon about assessments that UDI would be responsible for due to the sewer improvements on East Cornwallis Road. I would like to offer the following information on November 5th, the city council confirmed the assessment against certain properties along East Cornwallis Road for a sewer main improvement. That has been recently completed. One of the properties that would be assessed for this improvement, 4.0601, industry lane is property owned by UDI. That couldn't be, is that it? That's your three minutes, is that it? Do you have something that we can, something for our record that we can just look at too? But is there a response from... As far as the notice is being sent to the post office box, that is correct. The original notice to advise with the public hearing for the ordering of the project was sent October 25th, 2010. The project was subsequently ordered on November 15th of that year and a notice was sent out on November 23rd, 2010 advising the property owners of the ordering of the project. None of these notices were returned to us by the post office. We determine addresses by going into the Land Records Database. This is our normal procedure for determining any address and that is the address of record for UDI. It is checking the tax bills. It is still that because we want to make sure folks get the information. The only letter that came back was the letter that was sent for the original assessment hearing. That did get returned to us and we notified Mr. Stewart via email, talked to him on the phone. A lot of conversations have gone back and forth since then. So we feel that we've done what we need to do as far as the notification. As far as the land swap issue, I'm going to defer to Jeff Lecky. Yes, I'm Jeff Lecky with engineering. There was a discussion regarding a land swap. The only idea behind that, of course, was they had some land. We needed some land, just a land swap. I was very clear that I had no authority to waive any fees. When did this occur, sir? About a year and a half ago. Could I respond to this cost, the issue about this cost and the accruements that might, in a statement that I received from Mr. Williams in reference, and I speak now about the accruement, what advice might accrue to the city. I read this statement, the decision was made to design and construct the land through the UDI easement to allow for only one sewer main in this area to serve the entire basin. That all will ultimately request or either require sewer services from the city. The installation of one sewer line also assisted with minimizing buffer intrusions, sewer outfall maintenance needs, and sewer line in reference to the construction of, in reference for the constructed sewer line and the alternative original assessments. In other words, it is saying these are certain benefits that will accrue to the city if not immediately, certainly in the long range. So in my mind, when I say there are some assessments that will accrue, there are some benefits that will accrue to the city. In my mind, this statement clearly speaks opposite to what was told me. Again, the sewer main was built at the request of the Durham County Health Department because of the failing septic system. When we design a sewer, we endeavor to cover properties within that basin. It was determined there were only a few lots left to serve by extending the sewer, whether we had gone down the original easement that was on UDI property, or did the land swap through the secondary easement. The assessment still would have remained. It's just that we took the sewer across the front of the property rather than going down through the middle. So I'm not really sure how to respond other than that. Tom, just a moment, sir. Could one of you gentlemen also clarify the question about the benefit to the properties in question? And do they in fact have sewer service now? Yes, sir. All the properties in that area, the UDI property, the properties across the street and four properties just to the east of the UDI property now have the benefit of sewer service. It is a benefit to the properties that has increased their value. It also takes a failed septic system out of the system. This property at 1507 East Cornwallis was discharging raw sewage. Again, the building of the main and the subsequent outpoll alleviate that. Previously, those properties did not have access to the sewer system. The UDI property did through an outfall to the rear, but the other properties within this assessment did not. So again, let me clarify. So the UDI property already had sewer service? There was a sewer outfall to the rear of the property that was in existence. Yes, sir. However, when we build a sewer main under an ordered project, it is practiced to assess these properties. Right, but just again clarify the benefit question. I think there's still some uncertainty about that. If they already had sewer, how are they benefiting from this construction? Again, they, you know, it's, you could say that they had the sewer there previously and that they were already benefiting from it. You guys want to give your two bits here? The answer to the question is Robert Joiner had a development review for public works engineering. The existing property did already have access to sewer. Therefore, extending sewer across a property does not necessarily acquire any additional benefit to that property. So is that the property that we're talking about that will be assessed because of that benefit? Yes, sir. And that's consistent with city policy? It has been consistent with city policy and how these projects have been assessed in the past. Yes, sir. It makes no sense to me, but Don, you have it. I wanted to start, I've been kind of holding back, but I don't have a, I would like more information than we have in front of us. I would like a map. I'd like to know what we're talking about with a land swap. I'd like to know if he would have been assessed on the land that he swapped to the city, if he was assessed on the land that he received from the city, if that, if they're comparable. And what I would suggest, given that we don't have this information in front of us, and particularly given what we just heard from Mr. Joyner, that there was no actual, if I understood you correctly, they were already on the sanitary sewer. There is sewer available? It's all the way to the microphone. Sanitary sewer would be available for them to tie into. I believe this property is not using that sanitary sewer at this time. But they already had that availability is what I heard you say. They had the ability to access that sewer. That is correct. Right, okay. So no further benefit accruing from the newly installed line? Benefit for a sanitary sewer line across the property is a difficult question to answer. If all of the property were to be developed and it could all pass down to that central source, that would be one thing. However, extending the outfall, depending on how the property is developed in the future, it would actually provide a benefit to the owner of that property because it would provide perhaps better access to any proposed building in the future. It would be a shorter run of sewer for them to tie onto it, et cetera. It's dependent, particularly from the layout of the plan, to be quite honest. May I speak to that? Just a moment. I have a comment from Mr. Shull and then Ms. Cattati. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Can we send this back? I don't think that I'm going to be able to figure this out myself tonight by hearing these things. And it would be good for me anyway if we could send this back a little bit more information and I know I feel much higher comfort level. Mr. Cattati. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Two points. One is I'm hearing that they're not actually connected, so I think I need some clarity about whether they're eligible for relief until tap on, so to speak. And then the second point is I concur that I'm not prepared to take action on this item, but if there is no objection and no one else speaking, I would suggest, and I believe the attorney has confirmed privately that we can take action on Clause B, so I'd like to actually continue to vote on 11B and send 11C back. Does the clerk understand that? Okay, all right. I'm sorry. Would the motion be to continue 11C for two weeks so that we don't have to re-advertise? Then we can see that the, or do you need four weeks, Mr. Manager? The four weeks, would we? Okay. Excuse me. I don't have an agenda. I get an understanding of what is 11B and what is 11C and what we're doing. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, would you open the vote? Close the vote. The motion passes six to zero. I'm sorry. Five to zero, Mayor Bill abstaining. Thank you, ma'am. Members of the council. We move to item 12, Economic Development, Historic Property, Preservation Agreement of Corncote Hospitality Enterprises Company for Capital Investments in Historic Property, Preservation of 1108 West Main Street. Good evening, Mayor Bell. Members of council, city staff, Durham residents and businesses. I'm Kevin Dick. I'm with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. And I'm pleased this evening to have the opportunity to present a recommended Economic Development incentive agreement between the City of Durham and Concord Hospitality Group. The proposed project would be located at 11108 West Main Street at the western edge of downtown. A few points about Concord Hospitality Enterprises. They have been in business for 25 years. Currently, they provide management services for over 90 hotels and 12,600 guest rooms and suites throughout the United States and Canada. They have been a contributor to significant local civic causes, including the Durham Rescue Mission and the Oakwood Park renovation that we hope to soon be underway. Just a bit about the location where the project is being proposed. It is, as I said, at the western edge of downtown. The slide before you is an aerial view. This is another aerial view. And you'll note that toward the middle of this picture is actually the proposed preservation of McPherson Eye and Ear Hospital. So the middle part of the building or the middle part of the front facade actually is the old McPherson Eye and Ear Hospital. And ear and nose and throat and so forth and so on hospital. And basically the preservation of this part of the building is a very significant part of the historical preservation benefits of this project. This is a view of what the proposed hotel is due to look like from the western side. And this is a frontal view. I want to talk briefly for why an incentive is being proposed. Firstly, the incentive offered by the city would help offset a financial gap caused by increased construction costs associated with historical rehabilitation. The project would not be completed without the proposed incentive. The property would likely be sold and it would likely also continue to deteriorate in the interim and likely cost more to rehabilitate in the future. How the project benefits Durham, we'd be gaining 143 rooms advancing toward the adopted goal of 700 rooms in our downtown. This residence in would be an upscale select service property. As I said, it incorporates the historical design into the hotel structure consistent with the image and historical characteristics of the Trinity Park neighborhood. And as I said, it preserves the historic hospital building. Another advantage is that the Bull City connector stops directly in front of the hotel and is a short drive from our convention center. So we may reap benefits in terms of space in the convention center being booked for meetings by travelers to this hotel. In terms of job creation and business development, 31 full-time jobs with benefits are anticipated with approximately 50% paying above the livable wage including positions as well as 14 part-time positions. We have facilitated contact with between the NCCU hospitality program, the Durham Job Link Career Center, and we'll be scheduling meetings shortly with Concord Hospitality to ensure that Durham residents and graduates from those institutions have an opportunity to compete for jobs with the hotel and that is a part of the Durham Workforce Plan that is attached to the proposed agreement. We will also connect Concord with Durham-based businesses through our Durham-based business plan as part of that plan and as part of the database that is associated with the plan. We have Durham-based minority and women-owned businesses that are registered with the city's Office of Equal Opportunity and Equity Assurance. In addition, we have placed advertisements to become part of the Durham-based business database related to construction opportunities. We have placed advertisements in the Durham Herald Sun, the Durham News, the Carolina Times, the Triangle Tribune, Ladino-Tesilla, and Cape Passa so that we can expand the opportunities related to this hotel project and other construction projects that we may be associated with in the future. Finally, and in summary, why this is a good deal for Durham taxpayers. At a property tax at the prevailing city's property tax rate, we are expected to gain property taxes of over $640,000 in the eight-year life of this incentive agreement with the prevailing occupancy tax and sales tax rates. We also anticipate producing over $1.13 million over the eight years of the incentive agreement in revenues from those sources. The proposed incentives at just over $1.33 million would yield a net gain of over $446,000 over eight years. As I said earlier, this project cannot be done without the incentive. Therefore, the incentive is really an investment that garners the city, the projected returns that I listed earlier. And as also as I said earlier, this project would create hospitality positions and possible business opportunities for local Durham businesses. And finally, and this is not on the slide, but I did want to add that this project would rehabilitate a property that is more or less dilapidated and that is currently a gateway into downtown, into West Durham and into the Trinity Park neighborhood. So it actually aesthetically has a significant aesthetic effect on that area and the surrounding area. And so that concludes my presentation, but before the presentation is fully finished, I did want to acknowledge representatives from the Concord Hospitality Group and after council comments and questions from the public, they may want to address the council. Mike, you've heard the staff report. This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. We have persons that have sounded to speak, but I want to recognize the Mayor Pro Tem. I thought I saw her hearing. We'll have a question about something that you said. Well, something that's on the presentation. You stated that 50% of the 31 full-time positions pay above the living wage. How about the other 50%? Are they at livable wage? They are likely below livable wage because their service jobs related to a hotel and generally the market rate for those types of positions is not at livable wage. I'm really concerned about that because those are very important positions. People have to pay rent and buy food and insurance and all those things so they deserve a living wage no matter what the job is. So there's the stereotypic piece that tends to get in the way of that and I'm concerned about that. Let me make a comment on that because there are some other pieces in here that I think have been spoken to. For me, the reason it's critical that this whole issue of livable wage, minority participation in this project is the fact that we're putting city money into it. If you were coming before us just asking for a simple rezoning, we still might ask you those questions, but I think we have less leverage if we weren't putting anything into it. You're asking us to put a considerable amount of dollars into this project and as a result, I think it behooves us to have a comfortable feeling that you're not only going to try to do what you can do in terms of wages, but also the participation by minorities, women in this program and this project and I think I hope to hear a little bit when you make your presentation. I see that you have a plan here but I just want to hear from the developers to move forward. I would hope that would be a part of your comments as you respond to questions or you make a presentation. I'm going to ask the other persons that recognize Councilman Cotate and Councilman Clement. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a question about the jobs as well. I didn't see it in attachment A or B. Is it just an expected number of positions but no guarantee of actual number of positions? It's an anticipated number of positions at this point based upon the size of the hotel and the number of rooms. I recognize Councilman Clement. Just to clarify matters, I've always thought that the living wage concept permeated throughout the entire work structure of the Durham City government and that it was the understanding that any employee group that sought work with city government using, of course, public monies to facilitate this process that it was a matter of course it was a matter of course that the living wage approach that this Council has adopted and I'm being repetitive through all of our work relationships. Am I not saying that this doesn't prevail with respect to this particular contract? Well, it does not prevail with all of the positions that are anticipated. The past incentive projects that have been brought to Council, whenever it's been either a job creation incentive or the actual jobs were being incentivized, we do have as a stipulation in our policy that all jobs will be livable wage. That's not the case with this project and nor has it been the case with other hotel projects that the Council has voted to incentivize in the past. In other words, with hotels and hospitality and tourism, the market rates for positions in that industry do not always yield positions that pay above the prevailing during livable wage. In this case, as I said, over 50% would, but that has not been the case with other recent hotel projects we've incentivized. There's just one more comment, Mr. Mayor. I just don't recall that that exclusion existed for these type of workers. I thought all work being consummated with the city and the use of public monies was subject to livable wage and I thought that was the standing procedure. Apparently I was incorrect or y'all need to clarify that for me because I don't see how people who work with the city using public monies I don't see how they can survive if they didn't have livable wage. So I just don't recall that being an exclusion. There is an exclusion to that effect covering the employees that Mr. Dick mentioned. So be it. Is that the policy? Councilman Clement, I don't have the exact livable wage ordinance in front of me. Generally speaking, however, when the city enters into a contract with the city in which the city could do the contract with its own forces then yes, we would apply a livable wage. But if the city couldn't do the work with its own forces then the ordinance isn't applicable. That's right off the top of my head. And in this particular case, this is an incentive to a group and those questions will come up in terms of whether you want to give the incentive but it wouldn't fall under the exact terms of our ordinance. If I could just say as well, I think that I agree with Mr. Baker. We contract with many, many, many entities, Mr. Clement, that we don't enforce the livable wage because they're not providing a service the city would otherwise be providing in those situations where we do contract for services that the city would otherwise be providing that's where we impose the livable wage requirement. Mr. Page, do you have anything to add to that? Your understanding as well. Do you want to recognize... Yes. We recognize the Mayor Pro Tem and then Councilor Moffitt. Mr. Attorney, is it legal to ask them to pay employees a livable wage? Legal is sure. It's legal to ask that question but ultimately you're going to make a decision that on this incentive whether you want to give the incentive and the reason Mr. Dick that I'm asking this question this evening, I don't remember you sort of emphasizing that 50% of the jobs would be over a livable wage and that's what brought on the question of how about the other 50% Now, if our attitude is that service related jobs really don't deserve that consideration I'm truly concerned because as we talk about affordable housing in Durham, if people don't have affordable money they can't afford anything and so that's why I'm emphasizing the importance of our being sensitive to the needs of low paying jobs in this city because people need to be able to live they need to be able to pay house payments so rent and dollars don't stretch so I think we have a responsibility to at least pose the question to anybody now and in the future who is asking for money from the city that's just where I am in my walk, thank you sir As council member Moffitt Thank you Mr. Mayor Since I joined council in January I believe that we voted twice on incentives once for GE where the jobs were livable wage and once for Whitted School where I don't think we asked the question and recently there have been other hospitality projects like 21C the hotel on Chapel Hill Street and I'm not aware that the question was asked then I can say that I have looked at the city and city programs as a potential applicant prior to joining council and there are a number of different programs that the city has some based on job creation which require livable wage some based on being a catalyst of development in certain communities or redevelopment and correct me if I'm wrong please Mr. Dick but I'm not aware of those retail improvement grants a number of different kinds of grants that are available through your office which are not tied to livable wage now I'm not disagreeing that livable wage is very important but I am looking I'm thinking that if we want to make sure that all of our applicants pay a living wage then that should be in the policy and should be clear from the beginning am I correct in that when I loosely describe some of these programs that they don't require living wage sir you're correct the programs that have been defined in the policy you alluded to which was approved by council in April 2011 do stipulate job creation incentives mandating that all of the positions have livable wage the capital investment projects such as this do not have that stipulation I definitely want to ensure council and the mayor pretend that our attitude because we actually operate a department that has a workforce development aren't to it as well and we work hard to try to place people in living wage jobs with benefits so it certainly is our attitude that we care deeply about that but we also are cognizant of job markets in various industries and there are certain positions such as retail hospitality and tourism that they don't pay they don't pay living wage I do think it's a very viable question to ask any incentive applicant but based upon our knowledge of the various industries like the Durham labor market and the triangle labor market and the wages that different types of positions tend to pay we think that it would be difficult to demand it in this particular case but certainly asking it I think is a very viable question Mr. Mayor I'll be very uncomfortable supporting this proposal stipulated in 12 of our agenda knowing that we have excluded consideration of livable wage as a as a concept to be incorporated in our contracts with individuals and vendors who do business with us is it too late to revisit this proposal to see whether a livable wage standard could be incorporated into this proposal is it too late for that consideration out of here to the staff or anybody who wants to answer Mr. Clinic I would say that until the council takes an action to affirm or deny the request I took that as a rhetorical question that you probably know the answer to that it's not too late I think that to some degree we have to get back with the operator I believe there will be significant challenges associated with that as Mr. Dick outlined I also think there's some consistency questions that are going to come into question but we'll be glad to provide some additional information if the representatives from the applicant want to comment certainly they're prerogative but we're not prepared to answer those questions to that level tonight well Mr. Madden in light of what the manager has said I wish we could refer this back to the source asking the consideration be given to a livable wage concept to be a part of this contractual agreement with the city I would be very uncomfortable to be part of a proposal that lacks that kind of consideration because each of us is aware that you just can't make it without a livable wage program being part of your business proposal so if it's not too late Mr. Mayor I wish we could defer action on this proposal asking it to be sent back to the originator to consider the feasibility of a living wage concept and it would be given two cycles to consider the feasibility of that approach and I saw a movie about as you know this is a public hearing and we do have persons that have signed up to speak to include the developer so I want to at least give those persons who have signed up to speak an opportunity to comment on this and at the appropriate time recognize the council in the motions they might want to make is there anyone else on the council that wants to speak on this item before we move to the public hearing to sign up to speak for this item I want to make sure that is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item that hasn't signed up could you give your card to the clerk please so I can at least know how much time we're going to allocate for this I have Julia Barberly Brown Linda Wilson Wendy Hillis Ken Spaulding and Miss Peterson give me that if anyone else wants to speak if not if you would come forth as I have called your name and let's give four minutes initially to the persons who want to speak on this item Julia Barberly Brown Linda Wilson Wendy Hillis Ken Spaulding and I'm just calling the names and I got the cards Thank you Mr. Mayor My name is Julia Barberly Brown and I'm here tonight as a resident of Trinity Park and as a member of the board of Trinity Park neighborhood association and past president and a member of the urban planning committee and we're here to express our support for this project and to encourage you to vote for it tonight we think that it's a good investment for the city of Durham as Mr. Dick has pointed out and as you may know the development of this site has been a work in progress for many years since McPherson hospital moved to another location we believe that the hotel will enhance the gateway to downtown Durham with a very attractive building it will provide jobs in an accessible location and boost business in the main street corridor and hopefully provide other job opportunities because of an increase in business in that area it will provide needed hotel rooms as well I appreciate very much on a personal level your concern about the living wage but I would urge you to consider that this project comes before you tonight when as council member Moffat has pointed out other projects have come to you in the past year and this criteria has not been applied to those other projects I would say that I myself worked as a chambermaid in Durham at the Holiday Inn I know that it's a very difficult position and one that is worthy of good wages I would hope that Concord who's been in this business for many years would be very respectful of all positions and honor their workers but I would urge us not tonight to apply a separate criteria I would like to add my personal connection with this address while the building no longer exists the parking area of McPherson Eye Hospital was the site of McAllister's boarding house where my parents had their honeymoon on December 3rd December 4th 1943 and so I've had a connection to Watt Street for many years my parents will celebrate their 70th anniversary 10 children later 26 grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren thank you Linda Wilson I didn't see her either Wendy Hillis Good evening mayor and members of council my name is Wendy Hillis and I am here on behalf of Preservation Durham where I serve as the executive director I want to echo what Julia just said about the benefits of this project I think it's a very important missing link right now when you enter downtown West unfortunately a blighted site in what otherwise is a very glorious drive into downtown and I think it's a very important project to have done we are convinced that this is our last chance to really save this important building that this project and having it happen in a timely manner is the only way to save it that should the building sit for longer periods of time it will be lost and that an important part of Durham's history would be lost and that's why I'm here with you I have been in contact with Peaches McPherson the widow of Dr. Samuel McPherson Jr on almost a weekly basis over the past six months as this has gone before county and now you and I wanted to just give you a little bit of history from her point of view as to why this building is important first of all it was constructed in 1926 by the architecture firm of Milburn and Heister and for those of you who don't know they were a Washington DC firm who built numerous buildings in downtown as well as on the Carolina campus very prolific but most importantly it represents a noteworthy chapter in the history of our community the hospital which treated diseases of the eyes ears nose and throat served patients not only from Durham but from the state of North Carolina Virginia and South Carolina in its prime over 50,000 patients were seen and over 20,000 operations were performed annually on the site that translates to millions of persons who were treated there annually hundreds of doctors nurses and other health care professionals were trained at McPherson hospital in conjunction with Duke and UNC innovative site saving care benefited our community and was a hallmark of this creative and progressive institution in addition the McPherson hospital foundation raised millions of dollars resulting in gifts and grants that underwrote research projects, mission trips training of professionals and substantial care for the uninsured and indigent until its doors closed no patient was turned away due to financial constraints so I hope that I have demonstrated why this is such an important cultural building important architecturally and culturally and I would ask that you give me some incentives to be improved to save this landmark thank you Ken Spaulding Good evening Mr. Mayor members of the city council my name is Ken Spaulding I represent the applicant Howard I want to thank you so much for those kind remarks that you gave to Cora Dr. Lucas and to me I want to ask the mayor if I could just say a word in response to some of the questions that were raised by the CEO Mr. LaPorte speak then I would like to be able to come back and give my presentation to try to help clarify and Howard to help give a comfort level to you and other members of the council as has been said and I think verified by Mr. Dick that there had not been this requirement of the other hotels and others in the same situation as this hotel and developer yet it was important to us and I had heard the expressions from some council members about the concern as it related to this and about jobs in Durham and the discussions had been held with this developer that maybe hadn't been held with others or not but we wanted it to be held and we participated in it and what we have tried to do is to go over and beyond what anybody else has done precedent-wise and we think we've done that and I think what you're going to hear from Mr. LaPorte you will hear one thing in particular about why we would like to continue to move forward tonight on this one of the grave concerns we have expedited and pushed forward as quickly as we have has been that you all are very well aware of the Federal Reserve and what Benaki and others have said about possible raising of interest rates based on what's been going on as far as the economy and yes we are Durham yes we are North Carolina but we are impacted by what goes on nationally this is a very tight deal project that we have very tight and everything can be thrown out of whack if the interest rates go up and I need your verification of that if I'm not speaking the truth and so timing is truly of the essence in regard to this that's why we tried to deal with the situation of it having to go back for any discussions on this we wanted to deal with it proactively and we dealt with Kevin proactively to be able to try to enhance and increase and have as much livable wage participation as possible also as far as minority not just we are not just going to go on what the requirements are as far as minority participation but there is some language in that where we are going to try to do even better than which you all have been requiring because we had that separate discussion as well so I would like at this time Mr. LaPorte to come forward and then if I could resume my presentation I'd greatly appreciate it, thank you this is in response to questions that the council has raised is that correct? Honorable Mayor, members of the council I'm LaPorte I'm CEO of Concord Hospitality and we are the sponsors of the project that we hope that you can approve I thought at first I might give you a few facts the fact is that we're going to generate about 11 million dollars in salaries and wages through the construction of this hotel high paid jobs to many members in the community fact is that over 8 people full time will be salaried and of course are much above the living wage that was not said and should be said that living wage today in this area I believe is 11 dollars and 91 cents will actually be very close to that number but starting wages are in fact below that many of our folks that work with us for years quickly go beyond that through seniority and just getting raises over time another fact is that we as a rather large company with over 4,000 employees very focused on benefits for our folks and in fact we have a very competitive health and welfare benefits for awful time employees that otherwise these folks may not have another fact that is often overlooked but many people that work in hospitality are second wage earners within families many many of them I myself my wife was a teacher until very recently so that should not be overlooked often added on to another spouse or significant other salary that in fact would catapult that number 1191 much much greater than what it would seem just when you look at the number by itself so we will create great jobs great benefits to the community we're community focused we're minority focused and I think holistically we hope you can all see that the benefits in this way in many many ways counting what could be a few folks early on that would be in fact market forces have us pay less than 1191 at the beginning but in fact that likely to be a second income within a household thank you Mr. Mayor members of the council again my name is Karen Spaulding I represent the applicant we first want to thank the city manager Mr. Bonville the city manager Keith Caldwell and the director of the office of economic and workforce development Mr. Kevin Dick your staff has worked tirelessly throughout the weeks and weekends to work through a plan that totally benefits the Durham city taxpayers and provides a business opportunity that plans to invest approximately $29.5 million in our Durham community we also want to thank the Trinity Park community which has been so negatively impacted and affected by the present dilapidated ISOR that now exists at the gateway to our Durham downtown community we want to thank them for their patience and their perseverance in helping this project to protect and preserve the historic character of this area we also want to thank the county of Durham for assisting this effort with an all-out grant to help secure the success of this venture this opportunity will bring numerous construction and operational jobs to our city and will significantly enhance our Durham tax base we thank all of you for getting us here tonight Mr. Mayor and members of the council our taxpayers our community our residents the approval of this item will all benefit from your efforts and your vision for our community and the city of Durham thank you Welcome Mr. Mayor I myself having a visual problem I really understand what it means to make sure that persons get care but I have some questions that facility is in walking distance of Duke I would like to know and I have not heard anything about Duke being involved with this project when you leave that hospital you walk around the corner a block or two blocks you are on Duke's property tell me why Duke is not involved with this project and if they're not I'm involved why don't we ask Duke also to invest to put some dollars since this was a medical a medical facility ask them also to put some dollars into this project I have some concerns not just the livable wage when nowadays when you speak about minorities you're talking about a whole lot of folk and a lot of times when you go on these construction jobs they're not persons that look like me they are not African Americans they are other minorities that live in this community that come from other communities Texas, California we have a huge project going on right now in Durham with city dollars and you have very few very few African Americans on that project because I see it I've spoken to African American men in this community who cannot get work on that project that we are working on today in this community what needs to happen and I've said this in the past we need to get some kind of reports ongoing reports on these projects that the city is funding even if it's a small project if city dollars are being used we need to have reports to state how many of those jobs or Durham residents how many of those jobs or how many of those subcontractors or companies that live in Durham white and black you have white women that are in construction we need to make sure that if they live here in Durham that they are going to be able to bid and then afterwards three months out, six months out once those projects are underway and going somebody needs to come back and give the public not just a city council not just at work sessions not all of us can get to a work session to make sure that these companies are doing and they are delivering we never hear a report I have to basically call Mr. Bonfair I think he tries to do he tries to do his best to give us some kind of information when we ask from the public but I think sometimes it's good that the city council comes out and gives some reports on some of these huge projects that we're working on to make sure that our contractors our subcontractors in this community are being employed and I want to say that again that we're using the unemployment well what I'm hearing from some of our projects that these companies are bypassing the unemployment office they are not hiring persons from our local unemployment office well if there's no report folks out there in these communities going on these job sites like I've done in the past to see who is actually being hired in work we don't know what's going on and that is not happening so that's what I'm asking Mr. Mayor thank you Mr. Peterson that report to give just a minute please I'll leave it to the developer to talk about who his investment partners are but just for the record I was approved of this agreement there are quarter reports that are required to be made back to administration relative to subcontracting hiring etc so that is a part of the process I'm going to recognize Mr. Linda Wilson Linda you weren't here when I called persons who would sign up to speak persons who have four minutes to speak thank you I'm sorry I was late my name is Linda Wilson I live at 302 White Street about a block and a half from this project and I'm just here to say very briefly that the neighborhood has worked with the developers for quite a long time we of course went into this expecting that we would get the Taj Mahal we didn't quite get that but we're really happy with the project we feel as if this is a project that is appropriate to the neighborhood both in intent and use and space and looks we're really happy with the facade of the building and the way the older people will be maintained so we would ask that you all support this and help us help the contractor the developer sorry and thank him for all his many many many months of cooperation with us thank you welcome is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item this is a public hearing and want to make sure yes sir can you come up and state your name and address and later fill out a card for the record my name is Vince Taylor I live at Beachwood Drive I am also a small contractor in the seat of Durham so I have some personal interest particularly what the when we deal with the job market here in the seat of Durham what I would like to see is that I'm not doing it for my own personal reason I care about a sector of our community I am on a task of a school called CET I volunteer personally my time to teach making the skills whether it be carpentry, electrical or heating and air condition things of that nature these guys would be healthy equipment to go back into the community to perhaps be employed again but what I found out at the end of their completion of their graduation with their certificates they don't have the hope of going out there to get a job and I would like to see that when the companies come to Durham I would like to see that all of us to complete a project that these young men and women that have a glim of hope they volunteer to go to school to rehab themselves so they might have an opportunity so what the scars are in life they do it they volunteer to rehab themselves and they come out of there and they don't have something that can give them some sort of hope then that diminishes and that's when we begin to have more crime in our neighborhood more deprivations of our neighborhood things of that nature there so I would like to plead to each and everyone here this afternoon to please take that into consideration particularly for this type of community and like I said I'm volunteering my time out getting paid for but I'm there to teach these young people skills and they are excited about it but at the end of their completion they seem as though the hope seems to be just dimming their eyes again and that is why I'm so proud to speak thank you all for your time welcome is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item that hasn't had an opportunity to speak if not let the record reflect that no one else has to speak I'm going to close the public hearing and the matters back before the council and I want to say just a few comments and it relates to my opening comments in terms of opportunities for businesses, local businesses and minority businesses to participate in contracts particularly construction I'm not talking about liberal way I'm talking about construction part where city dollars are invested and all of this is a separate project since it has been raised about what has been asked on other projects I can share a few that I didn't publicly ask the question of 21c but I did raise the question of opening reception over the hotel a couple of weeks ago with one of the developers I've had this private conversation with the city manager to let him know it was very important to me that when we speak about city dollars being invested in construction projects special to this type that there will be some assurances from the developers that we're going to have opportunities and there will be goals for some minority participation so while I didn't raise that specifically 21c on the project I made a very clear less concern of mine and I've shared it with the city manager and I would hope that we're going to have some follow through on that in terms of other projects we don't ask this question of every project that the administration brings to us for support some of them are very small but I think and maybe somebody needs to correct me I think it's a requirement especially when we're talking about 7500 et cetera thousand dollars that there be some kind of good faith effort that they require an opportunity to have minorities and local businesses participate in the projects especially when they're construction projects although it's not raised for me it's an understanding that that should be happening if that isn't happening then somebody needs to correct me on that but I just raised that point because the question's been raised about we didn't ask it for other projects and I want the public to know I've raised the question and maybe I should have done it more publicly but it's still a concern and that to me is a standard operating practice that I hope the city has when we invest in these type of projects having said that I want to hear other comments and I'm going to recognize the mayor pro tem, councilman clement and councilman shul and not only Ken and developer I certainly appreciate and the neighbors I certainly appreciate the work that went into this project and initially my support for the project was on a personal note too because it represents one of the last remnants of segregation in Durham and that building will no longer stand as it did years ago when I was a kid working there in the basement where black patients work so I support it just to get that piece out of Durham and I'm still going to support it whether you pay the livable wage or not since you did give an explanation there's a possibility within six months to a year everybody would make a livable wage is that close to the truth or? That is close. Our beginning wage the lowest wage will be $8 and some change to be exact but it's time through one success in the job we give raises I started in this business as a night auditor as a minimum page guy and worked hard and got to the next step I should add too that many people that seek jobs in a hotel seek jobs for a short time for as a part time or a full time worker for a period of time because they may be a student they may be getting on to something else in their life and it's not often thought as in fact we wish it were but often it's not thought by folks that come to work with us as a career job but it's get to the next step and in that regard we create great opportunities for folks to do that so really thank you for saying it got a look at all aspects of it for sure our maintenance folks in fact do make that range right Thank you for that explanation I also support it because we need the 143 rooms in the downtown I serve as a liaison on the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau Board but if we're going to end poverty in Durham we've got to take some steps affirmative steps to do that and hopefully in time we'll be able to do that Yes, Cora Were you recognizing me or not I used to be an attorney and I'm going to recognize Councilman Clement and Councilman Schuhl and then Councilman Marvin in that order if they have questions I'm really afraid to raise questions Councilman Clement Thank you Mr. Mayor I certainly support the concept I'm just uncomfortable with the way we're going to implement it through this discussion and I'm just not happy with what I see is the conclusion of this discussion I will put it on record that I will vote against this project simply because of its living wage proposition and I hope that that concern will be alleviated as time passes but I do support the concept that's been proposed by this particular item on the agenda but I want to record to reflect the fact that I will be voting no thank you Recognize Councilman Schuhl and Councilman Marvin Thank you Mr. Mayor I had a couple of other questions I wanted to ask I appreciate the discussion very much it's important that it is to all of us as well as the contracting but for Kevin I have a question about the when I look at this it looks to me just my rough math is the counties putting up they're putting up $400,000 we're putting up 1.3 something looks to me like they're getting about $7 in tax revenue according to this algorithm according to this model for every dollar they put in and it looks like we're getting maybe a buck 35 for every dollar we're putting in my math is rough but I think it's pretty close and can you explain to me the rationale what is the reason that the city has got a 1.3 something million dollar commitment to this county's got a $400,000 yet their take on the other end in terms of the taxes is so much greater is there a rationale or is it kind of forum shopping by the developer in terms of what they can get you know can you give me some sense of that well I think I can't necessarily explain that rationale in a juxtaposition between the city and county I can explain the rationale that goes into the recommendation we've had this evening and that is that we have documented evidence from the developer that the project will not be completed without an incentive that is at the amount we're proposing it is scheduled to produce a yield that I think is pretty favorable to the city over 8 years over $446,000 I think that the incentives that the city and county are giving are based upon different methodologies you know where we're doing ours is more of a tax increment finance model which basically states that we're paying a percentage of capital investment that is going to provide a yield for us over 8 years and that $446,000 yield we think is robust and that it would not happen where it not for the incentive so it meets from that rationale from the city's rationale I would say that we stand to to make it's a good deal for the taxpayers from that standpoint and it's also consistent with the but for language and concept and state statute so looks like maybe Mr. Spaulding had some comment on that as well about the city and county of course I'm not going to get in a fight between the city and the county but I heard the word forum shop and I want to make it very clear that we were not doing that I want to also make it not that you said we were but you were asking the question so I just want to answer that we were not but what we did do and I'm telling you it was hard as the Dickens to get the 400,000 we almost got absolutely nothing and the way that they were able to craft it and work to where they were able to do this which we're very fortunate that they did reverse the decision from the administration to not fund it at all but they were able to the attorney and the administration we were all able to look at it in another way and that was the emphasis on the preservation and they were able then to find a way under that legislation that would allow them to be able to do a grant not something extended over an eight year period or whatever and that was able to with that occurring I think within two years of operation that was able to save us help us to get to where we are tonight and I want to say that it was not we tried tried tried and we were very close to not getting anything but they did and the staff had recommended nothing so we're fortunate in having that 400,000 grant we are very appreciative of it and it helps to make it possible for this to be to be successful economically financially thank you sir thank you I appreciate that explanation and Kevin yours and Kevin thank you for letting me stop you on Main Street today and ask you other questions I apologize I probably shouldn't have done that you know my feeling about this is that we need we need something different going forward we have a policy that isn't rational in terms of the city and the county and our respective contributions to these incentive projects I understand that small inconsistencies in project to project will occur but the fact that the county is going to get on this $7 for every $1 they're putting in and we're going to get a buck $35 for every dollar we're putting in no matter how you cut it it isn't it isn't right and we've had various projects come before us and we deal with them on project by project basis and we don't want to kill these projects and so we go with it but we need something more rational and I know we're beginning these conversations between the city and the county but we I feel strongly that we're getting the the raw end of the deal often and I know this is not certainly not your fault Kevin I know that your your office presents these things and the county administration and commissioners do what they want but I don't feel it's working out well for us in this in this in this relationship and I don't hear a rational argument for it that's the thing I never hear a rational argument for the argument for it always is that's all the county will put up you know it's what Mr. Spaulding just said you know that we were lucky to get the $400,000 it's all the county will put up well there needs to be some rational basis for these kinds of policies and decisions and I hope we're going to work towards one so my other question has to do with the Ms. Hill has raised the issue of McPherson hospital of course you all have raised it with us many times and of course personal history there if this project did not go forward at this point with this incentive what would be the what do we expect Kevin about the future of McPherson hospital do you have any anything to say about that our discussions with the developer have indicated that there's a strong possibility that the property would be sold if this particular project didn't go forward if that happens the future of the hospital the future of the building as it stands would probably include deterioration and we're not sure what the future would hold beyond that I guess I've you know in some I will count myself as a very reluctant supporter of this I'm going to vote for it unless I hear something different between now and the end of our discussion and I appreciate the work that's gone into it on the part of your staff I think that you know in terms of the living wage issue we need I don't think we should be inconsistently applying that standard I very much appreciate Howard's point of view with respect to his decision I think in the long run if we're going to be enforcing living wage ordinances on all of our contractors and so forth we are going to be having to subsidize them ourselves because we'll start getting bids that include that higher wage that'll be subsidized with taxpayer money I don't know that we're at that point yet and I do think that the city county issue is you know we have a lot of city county issues now we need to wrap this this is a big one and we need to wrap this into our discussions Mr. Manager and I hope we can I do think that there are some very good things about the project I do think that McPherson hospital is truly an important building and I do think that it is really an eyesore and I think that the argument could well be made well if we waited three more years we wouldn't be getting the income if we didn't do it three more years later somebody came in without an incentive and did this we wouldn't really be we'd have lost three years of the income that we will be getting for the city so I'm going to support it reluctantly and I appreciate your bringing it to us thank you councilor shu I recognize councilman moffitt okay so first Mr. shu I'm going to append to what you said since you left it off the county is getting actually about $6 for each dollar invested and the city is getting $0.35 for each dollar I was throwing in our original buck to each I was I was adding I was adding our base to the additional profit there I just wanted to add the word since so if somebody might not have picked up on that when you said we got $0.35 I might not realize it was $0.35 for each dollar invested I wanted to ask a question first of Ms. Willis Ms. Hillis sorry if you could come up on your way I just want to drill down a little bit on what Mr. shul was asking which is what kind of designations the structure that's there today what kind of designations it has what kind of protections those designations give any agreement with the city so the structure has absolutely no historic designations right now and no protections so if there are protections built into this agreement as I understand it I'll confirm that in a moment so without this agreement then what you're saying is that there are no protections there are none the property is not listed on the national register of historic places it is not listed as a local landmark although certainly it would probably be eligible and it's not in a local historic district thank you Councilman Moffitt the agreement will stipulate certain historical architectural elements be retained specifically I can recite but there are what my understanding of the agreement is it does provide four protections of the existing structure that's correct if you would I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name and I know we've had a discussion but Vince who's instructor at CET, raised the issue of hiring locally the agreement that's before the city tonight does provide some some stipulations about local hiring is that correct? Yes that the good faith effort be made by the and it's contractors and subcontractors to use the Durham job link as a source to recruit talent that would include the construction positions as well as the permanent positions as I mentioned earlier we've formed connections with North Carolina Central University and Durham Tech Durham Technical Community College to ensure those things and we also have a relationship with the Center for Employment and Training and we can certainly include the graduates that Mr. Taylor alluded to in any types of recruitment events provided that they register with the Durham job link they can be viable candidates for construction positions this may be stating the obvious but in the absence of any agreement with the city none of that would be incumbent on the developer of the property, is that correct? We would try to encourage it but it would not be incumbent, no so for me I fall on the same campus council member Shul in that it would be great if all the jobs were living wage and I think that if we want to revisit our incentives policy to see whether or not we want to make that a stipulation for future any future investments I think that is a conversation that would be good for us to have but tonight the proposal that is in front of us has to do with protecting McPherson hospital encouraging development in this pit that exists between downtown and Duke providing 31 hopefully 31 full time jobs projected half of those living wage are better and so I find myself in that position of being a reluctant supporter I'd be happy to continue the case for four weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to look more closely at the living wage issue but if we vote on it tonight I will be voting in favor of it thank you. Welcome, recognize council member Katani. Thank you mayor just chime in here that I share the concern on the livable wage and I raised it when it was approached with council so I am relatively disappointed that it hasn't been addressed more fully I do think and as I have said multiple times that we do need to relook at our incentive policy and where we provide city incentives and be very clear about what we're getting out of the project whether and what we want to support whether livable wage or affordable housing or transit or others and location in case though that it's important that the project move forward and my understanding is that won't happen without city incentives so I'll be reluctantly supporting the project as well but I will say that we're very enthusiastic about Concord coming here so the concerns that we're sharing are not I don't know how to say this exactly but we just want to be sure that you understand that we're raising concerns but we do welcome your participation in the community if this project moves forward thank you I would I guess have one of two comments and I appreciate the concerns that Councilman Schultz is raising about the county investment but I guess I would ask the developer I guess a couple of things if the county did not contribute $40,000 to this project would we be able to do the project and if your answer is yes then what it would mean to me is that the county would be getting even more dollars and haven't put anything into it if they could do it without the $40,000 then the county would reap all the benefits if they're saying they couldn't do it then we dissolve back into where we are now a project that's sitting there with all the ramifications of what we've heard so I agree we've got to hopefully see how we can do more in the city county participation I think being realistic we are where we are if they don't put anything into it if the developers can do the project without them then the county gets all the benefits without having invested anything in it if they can't do it without the county's project county's dollars then we're back to where we are now with all the ramifications of where we are having said that I'm going to ask anybody else who wants to speak if not I'm going to call the question on this before us the question is whether or not we support the project has been approved has been recommended along these guidelines we don't support the project we support it with whether people want to add to that no it's not a motion that's what I'm saying well let me say it the other way I would entertain a motion on the project I will move that we accept the recommendation of staff and approve the incentives for the Concord Hospitality project I've heard the motion is there a second to that that's been a motion and a second it's further questions on the motion here and I'm going to call the question Madam Clerk will you open the vote will you close the vote it's out drawn it says five to zero Councilmember Clement are you voting no yes councilmember Clement voting no five to one Thank you anything else to come before the Council tonight