City Council - workshop

the City Attorney's Office has two priority items for you today. First, a request to go into closed session to discuss potential litigation, as well as a personnel matter. I have the motion language. If Mr. Mayor, you'd like me to read that out loud.

Yes.

The motion is to hold a closed session pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143.318.11 for attorney-client consultation regarding two pending claims not yet filed and pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143.318.11 to consider an individual for appointment as interim clerk.

Thank you. I'm going to entertain that now, and then we'll move on into it at the post-op meeting. Colleagues, I'll entertain a motion to proceed in the closed session at the end of our public agenda today in pursuant to the language read by the city clerk.

So moved.

City attorney. City attorney, I'm sorry. So moved. Second. Moved and probably seconded. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Madam Clerk, are we recorded? Good. Thank you.

As to our second priority item, it's a point of personal privilege. The city attorney's pleased to introduce the newest member of our team, Ann Ross Pender. She can stand. She is our litigation paralegal. She joins our office with substantial law experience, supporting several numerous towns and public agencies through her work at Hartzog Law Group, where she assisted with public records requests, condemnations, and hearing prep. She brings bilingual capacities to our office as well. She has a dual bachelor's degree from NC State in English and Spanish. A few years ago, her path was leading her to the Peace Corps, but because of federal priority changes, this has brought her career to this path, which is grounded in public service and community engagement. And that's clearly reflected in her work with us and her numerous community involvement. So we're excited to welcome Ann Ross to the city of Durham and look forward to the talent, dedication, and energy she's going to bring to our office and the organization as a whole. Thanks, Ann Ross.

Such an underachiever. I mean, you know. No, it's great to have such talent in the city, and thanks for coming from private to public.

Good to be here.

All right. Madam Attorney, do you have the language for the other, for the, I'm sorry, for the closed session? Did you read all of the language? Okay, okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Madam Pro Tem, city council members and staff. The state clerk's office does not have any priority items today, but we do have the board report for you. For item one, racial equity commission, I'm happy to announce the at-large nomination is Chi Vo.

Oh, did you need mine? You have what you need, though, right?

Not for mayor's council for women.

Okay. Can you pass this down? Sorry.

It's for the human relations commission. Thank you. The nomination is Jamin Kim and Joy McHale. And for the Mayor's Council for Women appointment item three, we do not have consensus for the Fair Housing, Economic and Development.

Maybe this is it.

We still don't have consensus. We have two votes for Aletta Allade, three votes for Tamera Bailey, and two votes for Carmen Jarman.

Could you change mine to Tamera? Sure.

So the nomination for the Fair Housing Economic Development Sector for Mayor's Council for Women is Tamara Bailey. That's the end of my report. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, we have documents before us. Wait, is everyone in? Oh, it's from, okay.

They are from a couple of the public comment speakers. Oh, okay.

Got it, got it, got it.

Uh-oh.

All right, okay. All right, at this time, I am going to read the public, I'm gonna read the consent agenda, recognize pool of items, then I'll come back up and we're gonna adjust the agenda just a bit today. So I'll need everyone's grace and patience. Right. Item number one, Racial Equity Commission appointment. Number two, Human Relations Commission appointments. Number three, Mayor's Council for Women appointment. Number four, recognizing resolution recognizing Ashton Seniors in action and Willett Street United WSU and affirming the role of tenants union and advancing safe quality democratic housing. I am pulling that. Number five, easement and encroachment agreement for Maison Durham owner LLC. Number six, third loan modification agreement for Rockwood Cottages and Rockwood AH1, limited partnership. Number seven, street and infrastructure acceptance, Ruskins Avenue. Number eight, utility extension agreement with Binghamton. Bingham Project NC LLC and Atlantis Home Buyers LLC to serve 505 and 507 Bingham Street. Number nine, fiscal year 2026, 2027, Transit Capital Improvement Plan, CIP Budget Ordinance Amendment. Number nine, Reimagine Durham Freeway Study Final Report. I'm sorry, number 10, yeah, number 10, Reimagine Durham Freeway Study Report. No. pulled up. Yeah, let's let's pull that. Number 11 fiscal year 2027 Durham County transit work plan work program funding agreements. Number 12 award of a construction contract to see a loving company DBA pipeline utilities include incorporated for brown water treatment plant filter in effluent. I'm gonna bypass pipe improvements.

I'm gonna pull that whole council member cook.

13, 2026 Sewer Lining Program. 14, Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Contract with Timmons Group Incorporated for the Improvements for Access to Utility Easement and Facilities Project. Number 15, 2026 Short Session Legislative Update, which is a presentation. Number 16, Consolidated Annexation, 822 Doc Nichols Road. These are for the next meeting. Consolidated Annexation, Avalon Place, Phase 9. Number 18, Consolidated Annexation, Page Road Townhouses. Number 19, Consolidated Annexation, Oak Grove Landing. Of course, we have our violence reduction work group recommendations, which will be a presentation as well. That is the consent agenda with the exception of items four, six, 10, and 12.

Is that a resource, resource, resource?

Madam Clerk, do I have in-person speakers or? Are there any items pulled? Okay, so same ones. Item number 20 is the resident presentation. All right, so at this time, I'll go ahead and do, well, What are those again? Four, so that's the consent agenda with items four, with the exception of items four, six, 10, and 12. All right, I am gonna go ahead and do public comment, and then we will get to our first presentation. I'll start with my online speakers. Okay, there's just some person. Miss Jacqueline Wagstaff. Can you hear me? Okay. Welcome. You have three minutes. Okay.

Well, I'm going to beat this dead horse again today. Um, school is about to start on Monday at Fayetteville street elementary, and we have to do something. The community has been playing with this council. And I want to be able to get the same attention that was given to Oakwood Park with this encampment that is cropped up in the Fayetteville Street corridor right across from 50 feet away from an elementary school. And as I said before, it's not that I don't have empathy and there are things that we could be doing, but I want to see the same due diligence that was presented to the Oakwood Park residents. I would like to see some of that $2 million that they found, miraculously found, that's called flexible housing funds, to go towards rehousing these people on Fayetteville Street. It is a total mess. We have people that are dropping off house furniture for them. All of these things that are just causing serious problems. And with that school opening, and it's not just the encampment that you actually see on Faber Street. There is another portion of the encampment that sits across the street where we've had two deaths back near the playground of the elementary school. And we just had a murder in my community on Sunday. And I don't know if it was equated to what goes off on Fayetteville street, but we're only about a block away from that encampment. And this is just getting out of control. And I just believe that, and I don't understand that, that encampment in Oakwood seemed to get priority during the time that this council was out of session. And I'm assuming that it's just my opinion, but it appears that the city manager has become the eighth council member and he just does things whenever. I don't, I never remember a conversation going on with this council before you went on break that this was gonna occur. Not to mention that you had a lady that came down there that didn't look kind of like me that came down there two sessions. And the next thing we know that encampment was dispersed. So with the same due diligence that was used on Oakwood Park, I would like to see the same thing happen here on Fayetteville Street. Because we have an elementary school that is about to open on Monday. Parents who would walk their kids to that school back and forth to that school should not have to endure what we're seeing every day on that block. It is just outrageous. You need to do something about it and it needs to be done with the quickness. And I think $2 million is a small amount when you put these people in the hotel. and supposedly dignified housing and wraparound services. Let's see if we can't get these people some dignified housing and some wraparound services and get them into a hotel environment before Monday. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Wagstaff, for your concern. I do share it and I look forward to getting an update. I'll be speaking on the updates on homelessness each Monday meeting. I requested those updates to be provided to me and I did share on Monday and will be sharing more. All right, next speaker I have is Michael C. Harris. Can you hear me, Mr. Harris?

Mayor, I don't see Michael Harris in the queue.

Oh, you're in person, okay. All right, I'll be calling you in just a moment. Okay, next speaker I have, Adele Ortiz. Yeah. The following speakers are in person.

Good afternoon, I'm back again. My name is Ideal and I live in East Durham and for the viewers at home and those in the room, I now live next door to a business that insists on holding loud concerts with music louder than the city ordinance allows in excess of 100 decibels and with the bad traffic to match. I want to express some thoughts here today for the record and the public. First, a deep gratitude for the coordination that has happened so far in assisting things to start moving in the right direction. I want to appreciate that the planning staff doesn't normally have people who work weekend hours to review every newly approved site plan. And so I do understand that it can be hard sometimes to ascertain the truth of these things, especially if the activities are on the weekends. Now let's talk about the truth of what's unfolding at 311 South Plum Street, based on the activities of El Toro Loco, which I wanna call for the record since my name's gotta be on the record, their name should be on the record, right? It's owned by someone we now know as Tio Sabino. One can only consider that they have fraudulently applied for a flea market operation on land zoned for industrial light, while what they're really attempting to do is run an amphitheater. El Toro Loco LLC is owned by Sabino Hernandez de Clazzani of Oxford, North Carolina, who is also working with Luis Hernandez of Durham, and Tyler Nunez of Fuqua Verena. Those last two work together at a company called Speedy's Underground Services, and they have municipal contracts with different cities and towns. This team's experience tells me that They know better than what they're doing because they do this work for a living. And so I want to know whether what they told the planning department about their future plans included their lovely outdoor concerts. I'm wondering whether they've told their landowner who is their landlord. I wonder if their other clients know how negligent they are to Durham's municipal codes. I am disappointed for the potential vendors that should have been able to go and earn critical profits from their swap meet businesses, especially in this economy, and that is through no fault of their own. Really, it is the fault of Sabino, Lewis and Tyler for not providing the conditions necessary to a successful swap meet business by not following noise ordinances and not having a good way to manage traffic. The noise likely makes it very hard to conduct business when you can't hear your customers. and the customers can't hear you. So with so few vendors, the money is being made somewhere, and it is being made on ticketed platforms for concerts that they have promoted in the past and promote in the future. They are investing a lot of money in promotions on radio stations, through flyers, and other platforms to make sure that people know that this is where you can come for an outdoor concert. Another point to share is that it's terrifying to think that our law enforcement, when engaged in off-duty work, might actually do the bidding of their paying client rather than upholding the ordinances of Durham.

Thank you. Next person I have is Rachel Fryer.

Hello again. Good to see you all this morning. Good afternoon, Mayor Williams, Madam Mayor Pro Tem Caballero, council members and the city manager. My name is Rachel Fryer and I live right across the street from Ideal in Old East Durham. I want to thank council and the staff and planning DPD and the city manager's office for all of your help and attention to the El Toro Loco problem over the past few weeks. Many of you have reached out and met with us in person to see the problems for yourselves and we are so grateful for this assistance and attention. Thanks to the city and intervention, we have seen some improvements with El Toro Loco with efforts to address parking issues, site buffers, and some efforts to keep the amplified music below 60 decibels in response to DPD's rapid response to our noise complaints. However, El Toro Loco has begun advertising large-scale concerts with multiple live acts for both August 29th and September 27th on social media and on flyers being posted around East Durham. I have included copies of these flyers in the packets the clerk handed you. You should all have a folder, and if you look on the back, you can see the flyers here. As a result, we believe that El Toro Loco is a concert venue masquerading as a flea market. Our understanding from staff is that El Toro Loco may operate such a concert on an aisle zoned parcel only once every six months and that they must have a temporary use permit to do so. El Toro Loco did not have a TUP for its first large concert on August 1st when more than 1,000 people attended with amplified music in excess of 100 decibels measured from inside our homes for eight solid hours. And furthermore, it appears they have not applied for a TUP for the advertised large concerts on August 29th and September 27th. We respectfully ask that if El Toro Loco seeks a TUP for another large concert that the city deny this request. If they continue to operate unpermitted large concerts, we ask that the city intervene either in advance of the advertised concert or on the day of the concert to stop it from happening. We also request that someone from Code Enforcement be present on August 29th to shut down an unpermitted event if necessary. Please know we are very supportive of our law-abiding local businesses in East Durham. In fact, there is an exciting Old East Durham series of events coming up soon. Flyers are also in your packets and we invite you to come join the party. And I do want to say that the organizer of this event definitely filed the proper permits. I also want to offer special thanks to my young friends Caroline and Aubrey who assembled your packets during our play date yesterday. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker is Michael Harris.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmember. I'm back again. My biggest concern right now, again, I've just received another tax hike on my property. I think for those of whom are 70 and plus should also get the opportunity to be exempt, especially from companies that are coming here or getting exempt. Look at us. We're the ones who are paying most of the taxes, paying your salaries, paying the fire, the chief, the police, whatever salary. And for those that are 70 and plus, there should be some kind of exemption. At least maybe we don't mind paying 10% of what we have to have as far as protection, fire. But at the same time, we don't need to extend money that you guys are just going to spend for projects of some of your friends and things would like to happen here in Durham. My other thing that's a concern is the fact that since I live in the Oak Grove area and representing that particular area up there, Highway 98 has become sort of the new drag strip from the middle school all the way down to Oak Grove Elementary School and it's time especially to have some kind of law enforcement staked out up there for the traffic that are just speeding, especially Elk Grove, lakeside, Oak Grove linkside, where the light is there. They're going through the lights. So we need to have some kind of deterrent for the speeding that is happening from there all the way up through going up to the food line supermarket there. So we're paying a lot of taxes, but we're not getting any you know, conclusion of what our concerns are because there's a lot of elderly people, bikers, a lot of bikers who ride through there and up through 98. And we're not seeing any kind of reinforcement and safety that's going to be safe for the community in that area. So why are we paying this extra tax on our property? And most of us are not receiving. Everybody else is receiving some kind of benefit, but the persons that are paying the taxes, especially seniors, it reminds me of what happened to, when you look at certain cities around the country, how cities can go in and just, raise taxes on the community to eventually move people out because they can't afford it. So I think right now you guys need to consider this portion of my statement and sense that you need to kind of evaluate. I know that the state of North Carolina kind of presents this to you guys, but it's time for you guys to take a halt to this and look at us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Harris. All right, that's all of the public comments. And before we get to port items, I'm going to... I'm so sorry. I'm sorry about that. Yes, please come on up. Welcome, Councilmember.

Good afternoon. I'll make it very brief. I know you got a lot ahead of you, and I don't want to take up all your time. I want to thank Councilmember Cook and Baker for continuing the fight, and I want to hope that the newest Councilmembers are taking a page from their book before I get started. I just wanted to make sure I use my comments. Good afternoon. Jumping right in. I would like to propose a charter amendment to strengthen voter representation with the expansion of the Durham City Council from seven members to nine members by adding one at large seat and one board seat along with a push toward a true board representation. Durham currently operates under under a council manager form of government and with all the city council members elected at large serving as the city's legislative body and final authority on city matters. This proposal is intended to better reflect Durham's growth in population and improve voter engagement along with this growing city. which is through the latest estimates grown from approximately 270,000 residents to over 317,000 residents. Under the proposed change, the council would improve balance between citywide and neighborhood representation, giving residents a stronger voice in the city. Durham has left low wealth communities behind in our city's growth, and our local government can correct that with an adjustment to strengthen representation. People don't want the city to keep happening to them in their pockets. A true ward system that adds one ward seat and one at-large seat would strengthen that representation, improve responsiveness, and help ensure that more neighborhoods have a seat at the table. North Carolina allows citizens to initiate a referendum or proposed charter on a proposed charter amendments through a petition process. And that petition includes the required signatures and residence addresses of qualified municipal voters. I want to encourage Durham residents and voters to engage and municipal residents specifically to sign a petition to support this proposal coming before the public. A small working group has been in conversation, and before we start collecting signatures, we would like to hear from folks interested in being included in the conversation, and I want to let you know that you can reach me at info at DeidreAnnaFreeman.com, and I would love to have a conversation with each of you. I wanted to give that to you all at the same time and then also offer that same extended olive branch to the public to have the conversation. My phone number, 919-627-7044, is available, and looking forward to hearing from any of you that are interested. Thank you.

Let the record reflect that Council Member Freeman and I agreed on something. All right. Let's see, the next speaker I have, Jacob Peterson Shore, followed by Khadijah Jabarco.

Oh, I'm nervous, all right.

Good evening, or good afternoon. My name is Jacob Shore. I'm here this evening, this afternoon, with my wife, Jennifer Bonney. I reside here in Durham. I'm also a small business owner for Shore Dental Laboratory, sole proprietor. I'm standing here to bring to your attention an administrative loophole in housing and neighborhood services that strips Durham residents of their right and due process and creates a violation when there is none. On July 7th, our home was targeted by an anonymous Durham one-call ticket. City audit logs show the call was logged at 10.19 a.m. and marked as fail at the exact same minute. Inspector Dawn Hill Austin inspected the sidewalk, saw it was clear, but issued a citation anyways, citing code section 26-183 for grass over 10 inches in height. Yet she took zero measurements and her property doesn't even have grass. I submitted photos of her own photographic evidence lacking obstructive measurements. The city issued an official notice of violation threatening a $250 administrative fee and daily civil penalties. But when code supervisor Rob Bam inspected our property, he verbally acknowledged these were intentional, well-maintained flowers and closed the case. Yet on July 10th, the department issued a compliance certificate thanking us for bringing the violation into compliance, falsely logging us as code offenders. We formally appealed to clear this false record. Housing Code Administrator Clarence Harris emailed us on July 28th, stating that our appeal was denied because the case was closed. Under Section 26186, the department claims you can appeal in active notice. There was nothing you all could do because the case was closed. We did not get our 10-day grace period to appeal. I'm running out of time, so I'm skipping ahead. I'm not the only one. This is a systemic issue. I have two other Durham residents who have had this happen. One, she's given me permission, Carlene Jules, 1019 Lancaster Street. She had the same thing. I have a Durham request 262855, public record. What I'm asking tonight is that Today you all close that loophole. Direct the city manager to update our master file to complied, voided in error or unfound complaint. Order an immediate audit into enforcement standards and proof requirements at Housing and Neighborhood Services. Fix the appeal loophole under section 26186 so that closing a case file never again strips a Durham citizen of their right to due process. I'm a caregiver for my mom. I run a small business here in Durham, and this has eaten up a lot of my time, but it's something that needs to be dealt with and fixed. You all are in charge of that, and I'm asking you to kindly look into it. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Shore. The staff has recorded your concern and will follow up. Next speaker. OK, welcome.

Thank you. My name is Khadijah Jabarkel. It's not my first time meeting some of you guys. But if you guys don't know, I live in 3000 East Weaver Street. I live in Cornwallis. And this is not my first time asking for people to come out there and help most of the youth. Most of us have to live in rough conditions depending on where the area is in Cornwallis. Most of the time, though, whole area gets surrounded by gunshots, bullet holes, and most of the kids don't know how to control their emotions. Some of them are not allowed to even come outside or to Miss Tiffany's programs because of this. And I've been trying to get most of the kids to come outside to join Miss Tiffany because how are kids supposed to go to school when they're afraid to walk outside because of the gunshots and how are kids supposed to live regularly when all they can think about is one day they could be sitting down outside and all you hear shots going off and hopefully this never happens but someone could get hit and we had um someone uh once miss tiffany told me they're supposed to be funded going towards 30 year olds i was saying how when there's 13 year olds young kids my age that are constantly either in um jail or other children going to jot a young age because they have no body leading them in the in the right direction due to the bad stuff that happens in cornwallis community and it's not our first time we had a youth lead symposium happen and no um when all the when my school showed up the kids showed up everybody showed up and we spoke to them and i don't want to keep repeating myself to city leaders when there's no action um getting showed about how they're trying to help us but it seems that you guys are just listening to me listen to what i have to say at the time and then by tomorrow you guys forget about what i said By my house, a couple weeks ago, I had a murder happen by my house. A young man had got shot. And before he even, before they started shooting, my mom went out to throw out the trash. and she was stuck outside mid gunshots she wasn't able to enter back to the house until they stopped she was shaking and she was afraid that something was going to happen to her when she got back in by the time down we already heard yelling and screaming of the young man who got shot thank you thank you khadijah for being brave enough to come over here and talk about your lived experiences

Next I have Dr. Livingston, followed by James Chavis.

First and foremost, Mayor, I wanted to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and speak in between class. But I wanted to come and really echo what the young lady was saying there at Cornwallis Projects, in that we've had a number of incidences there over the past two or three years wherein the students have had to come on campus and do their podcast. And this presents a unique problem for us because we have students working in internships in McDougal Terrace and Cornwallis projects. And having them work with children in summer programs, having them work with them in after school programs in places where there may be heightened violence is a problem for us. And so what we've had to do is to bring kids on campus. And so essentially what I want to ask the city to do is that this issue of youth violence is something that we've got to begin to address because it's also affecting our campus as well. Moreover, our students who are in counseling, social work, psychology, who work with youth in the community. I mean, I just left a conversation with a psychologist about this, that can we have our kids doing their internships from North Carolina Central in high crime areas? What's the cost? What's the risk? We want them trained. We want them to learn. We want them to be able to serve the city of Durham. But if, in fact, by them being on the internship or practicum, it puts their life in danger, it's something that we can't do. So we beg you, police, we beg you, city of Durham, that this youth violence issue is something that we have to address because there are a number of kids here who do their internships in these communities. Thank you.

Thank you for those remarks, Dr. Livingston. It's great to see you. And last speaker I have is Mr. Chavis. And we will be talking about the recommendations from the youth, the violent crime reduction summit which has a component on youth violence and hope you all will be able to stay around for that conversation. Mr. Chavis, it's great to see you. You have three minutes.

It's great to see each and every one of you all. but I just heard something the city already knew about that I was gonna ask. There was a job opportunity that was given to someone, and in giving her identification, her qualification, she stated she was bilingual. Now, ain't that the going thing here in Durham, North Carolina, and in the southern area? Our young black kids need to be taught how to be bilingual. The job market is not playing. And they don't need to be waiting until they get into ninth, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade, where it's so hard for them to become bilingual. They need to be started at the first grade, just like y'all do the Spanish kids to speak English. They need to be in the first grade teaching and learning. Because guess what? the bilingual Spanish kids go home and help their parents learn how to speak English. That helped them to be bilingual. Not only are y'all looking in the job market, well, look right here in Durham. What do preferred bilingual means? When you go and fill out an application and you cannot be accountable for that. That means you're going to be lacking of a job, right? And you've got this big team coming up talking about crime prevention. Well, how many of them looked into that? Huh? Not only that, you're talking about how our taxpayer pay others to come here and learn to be bilingual, and our children are not being able, especially the black kids. You heard that young lady says they have problems because the low wealth area are not being treated fair. So I'm asking you all, I'm going to pass this out. This got sent to me. needed in Texas, they're looking for teachers. How many are we in Durham, North Carolina, looking for bilingual teachers? How many of you all up here will help join the fight to make sure that our black kids start being taught, being bilingual from the first grade on up? We got some schools that are doing it, but don't have all. So please, let's start putting our money where our mouth is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chavis. All right, those are all of the speakers that I have for public comment, virtual and in person. The next items will be item number four, but before we get there, we're going to bring up the item number 20, violence reduction working group recommendations. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Crystal Harris. I am the director for Durham County's Community Intervention and Support Services Department. And I will be starting off this presentation. And then I'll hand it over to my counterpart, Mr. Ryan Smith. Before I get started, I do want to do a couple of quick acknowledgements. First, we want to acknowledge some of our working group members who are here in person, if they would just kind of stand up briefly. I know we have some that are also online, but just want to acknowledge those that came in person to support us in this presentation. I also want to acknowledge University of Pennsylvania's Crime and Justice Lab, Policy Lab, as well as the Violence Reduction Center of the University of Maryland, and finally Everytown for Gun Safety, who have all been partners in this work and this journey that we've come to so far. So just want to give some acknowledgment to them as well. So I will start our presentation. So the purpose of today's presentation is to bring forward to the council to present where we are, our phase, kind of a review of our phase one and to discuss our mission values and the five strategies that were developed from our Working group through the summit on saving lives also to hear questions and or feedback from the council on these recommendations as well as to receive endorsement of these recommendations and to provide any additional guidance to staff as we move forward in implementation So as we started this work to get us to this place, we hosted over 15 listening sessions that reached hundreds of Durham residents. These listening sessions were held, some were virtually, most were in person. We did some in specific communities. We worked with Office of Survivor Care. We had some listening sessions with some of our youth. So it was just a kind of a various sessions that we had with various groups. We also had a data analysis that was conducted by UPenn, the Crime and Justice Lab, and they examined all of the homicides from 2021 to 2025. In June, we had a three-day summit on saving lives that brought together, the morning of the first day brought together, community was able to come in to hear the problem analysis, and then the rest of the summit, we had our 26-member working group together, and we reviewed this data from the problem analysis, and we developed a consensus of the recommendations that we're bringing to you today. And then on the final day, as I stated, we came up with the five recommendations that we will discuss with you today. So what did our data show? Our data told us that we had 13 homicides per 100,000 residents, which was a 10 year average. 90% of those homicides were committed with firearms and 66% were dispute related rather than tied to another crime. It also showed us that the violence was very concentrated. 0.2% of our population, we're looking at 430 to 685 people in groups that were linked to about half of those homicides. 57% of the homicides involved individuals age 18 to 34, with the average age being 30. And then 14% involved juveniles under the age of 17. And of that, we had 12. We found that 12 had prior arrest on average among the victims and suspects, four of them being felonies.

Was that 12% or just 12?

12 prior arrests, not 12%. Oh, 12. Oh, come on. I got you. I got you. So as we're talking about our highest risk population, so who's at highest risk, as I stated, we were looking at ages 18 to 34 who were predominantly the victims and suspects were predominantly black males, which was 83%. As I mentioned, the average age was 30 for the victim and or suspect. About 67% of those homicide victims and suspects, 61% of those were non-fatal shooting victims and suspects that had prior criminal justice involvement. A notable portion of our homicides and shootings were group and or gang member involved. At least 52 percent of homicides and 32 percent of the non-fatal shootings involved group gang members as victim suspects or both. The blood encrypt sets were involved in 33 percent of all homicides and shootings and then 73 percent of all group member involved homicides and shootings. What we heard over the more than 15 community sessions that we led and outside of that we've heard for a long time is that Durham is very resource rich but execution poor. We continue to hear that from our residents as well as while we were working with the working group that Durham doesn't necessarily need another program. We actually need to have focus, coordination, and sustainability to what we already have. So what the community has requested from us, it was basically more focused on the few. We need to look at our highest risk individuals, those that are actually doing the shooting, and focus on those group of individuals and provide those services directly to that high population. We need to be able to reach people before crisis through credible messengers, pair the change with some real income. Rebuild what worked. We'd heard through some of the listening sessions we asked the question of what were some things that worked in Durham before that may have ended not only because of funding but just kind of it worked for a while and then it just went away. So we wanted to know those things as well. We actually during one of the sessions someone brought up What was working when Durham had the lowest amount of homicides or violence like what was going on at that time and kind of look at those services that were being provided So kind of look at what we have to be able to sustain and protect the programs that are that are currently working opposed to looking at new things Fix the places invest in lighting clean up open public spaces looking at housing and transportation where risk is the highest and There was an emphasis on fairness, language access, transparency, and community partnership. And so, that was the working group, the smaller working group, we were very intentional about wanting to make sure that the community was involved. So, all of the work that we did was wanting to be community-led, just like we wanted to be data-informed and data-led, we wanted the community to be a part of this process as well. And so the last one is build the engine. So we are standing up a centralized accountable coordinating mechanism so the city and county can point their assets in the right direction. As I mentioned, we had 26 members who made up of the working group throughout the summit on saving lives. And as we were looking at who we should bring to the table, we wanted to make sure that we were including residents, survivors of gun violence, those with lived experience. We had faith-based leaders, community organizations who either are already working with the highest risk population or who had the capacity or potential to have capacity to enhance their services to extend to the highest risk populations. We also had law enforcement, we had representation from our court systems, our health and hospital partners, and then also we had some representation from city, county, and state agencies as well. Here is a list of all of the 26 members that were on that working group. And as I stated, we have several of them here today. And I just want to thank them all for committing to three days. That's a lot to commit to being in one place for three days, listening to data. We had people come in to talk about the different strategies and then being able to come together on consensus of the recommendations and being in alignment with what we wanted to bring to you all. So these are the missions, values, and vision that the working group came up with. Our mission is to save lives in Durham by reducing homicides, non-fatal shootings, and hospitalizations due to shootings by 10% each year. The values, our work will be community engaged, partnership based, trauma informed, evidence informed, and data driven. Our vision is to engage those whose lives are most at risk, keeping them alive, safe, and free, and invest in the places where lives are most likely to be lost. The recommendations, so these are the five strategies that we agreed upon unanimously and I'm just going to go over the, I'm going to name them and then Ryan will take over and go into more detail of each strategy. One was to focus on support and accountability. Second was to strengthen street outreach. The third one was to pilot neighborhood partnerships. The fourth is to embed trauma-informed behavior change. And then the last one was to convene a youth summit. We recognize that the community does have a huge concern for our youth violence. And although our data show that there was only 14% of those homicides that were 17 and younger, We know that we still have to invest in our youth so they don't become a part of that 18 to 34 where we're having to make them part of the highest risk population. So we're not saying that we can't do both at the same time. We are encouraging there to be a concurrent focus on the highest risk as well as working with our youth so that we can do prevention work so that they don't have to get to the highest risk population. So the fifth recommendation did come out that we do want to have a youth summit so that we could do the work concurrently and not one or the other but both in. So I'll now hand it over to Brian Smith who will go through our strategies.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Members of Council, Manager Ferguson, Ryan Smith, Director of Community Safety. So I'm going to provide a deeper dive on each of these five strategies. That deeper dive is going to have two main components for each one. I'm going to provide a little more detail about what this means, what it looks like in practice, and then a little bit about what we know from the evidence, and then we'll go on from there. The first strategy I want to talk about that was recommended by the working group is focus deterrence. It has other names that it's also known by. Sometimes it's group violence intervention, sometimes group or gun violence reduction strategies, but it's all the same thing. Focus deterrence isn't a program that someone enrolls in. There's no roster, there's no intake office, there's no eligibility form. It is a coordinated operating routine run jointly by the city, by county, law enforcement, prosecutors, service providers, and community messengers, and it typically has five main parts. The first is we need to identify those people who today are at most acute risk of harm from shootings. This involves weekly shooting reviews that identify those individuals at highest acute risk right now. That's not a standing gang list that was built two years ago. This is about looking at a rolling assessment of who's actively involved or at risk of conflict right now. And that list is changing constantly. The second is once we know those folks, it's about direct communication. This involves face-to-face meetings and notifications with one message that is delivered. That message is delivered by people with the standing to deliver it. The shooting has to stop. We want you to be alive and free. Real support is available. And here is what will happen if your actions continue, which is accountability. That message comes, importantly, from law enforcement, from providers, and from community members in the same room at the same time. And that ability to offer that message across those three different partners in the same room at the same time is an important part of the intervention. The next part is really important, and that is that focus deterrence leads with support first. Support is not a brochure. Support means each person is matched to a provider that can offer the things that we know can make a difference. That can be life coaching, cognitive behavioral therapy, employment, or other types of support, including relocation if immediate risk is present. Support comes first in the sequence, and that's deliberate. After support is focused accountability. For the few who may persist in the behavior and in shootings, enforcement concentrates on that group. This is about precision and not about volume. This is not about mass arrest but about focused focused enforcement. The fifth piece is really important and we can't succeed without it. Real focus deterrence has to be managed well and relentlessly. That involves a dedicated team of city county law enforcement and community partners that meet weekly to assess violence dynamics to focus interventions and to ensure follow up reporting publicly on performance. We know a lot about focus deterrence. Of the strategies I'm gonna talk about today, this is the one that there has been the most evaluation comparable to any other strategy. The reviews of this find that there are meaningful reductions, and this is important, when cities perform it well. They also find that when we do this well, there's not displacement. I think an important thing that people might think about is if we do this in a particular area, will the violence just move to the next neighborhood? And when done well, it does not. Baltimore is an example. Baltimore launched focused deterrence in its western district in January of 2022. Within 18 months, shootings and homicides fell roughly one-third. Interestingly, carjackings also fell by about 40 percent. There's two other important findings that are worth underscoring. That is, there was no evidence that any of the violence was displaced to adjacent districts and that total arrests stayed flat. Arrests for serious violent crime rose, but overall arrests did not, which means the strategy redirected police attention towards serious violence rather than widening the net. Success in this depends on a bunch of things. I mentioned effectively managing it, but there are two other things that are important. You can't do this well without sustained police leadership commitment and without real provider capacity. What do I mean by capacity? I mean it's about providing real support and making sure that our providers and partners who are providing that support have the resources to do it in a meaningful and timely way. When either of those things is missing, this strategy fails. The good news is those things are within our control. I will name that Baltimore itself tried and failed at this twice, in late 1990s and 2014, but in 2022 they put the pieces together and made it work. The next strategy is about street outreach, something that we have some familiarity with here in Durham. Street outreach, as you know, means credible messengers hired for their standing in a specific neighborhood, often with lived experience of violence themselves. The work often involves five things at a high level, detecting conflicts before they escalate, mediating active disputes, responding after every shooting to interrupt retaliation because retaliation is how one shooting becomes four, connecting people to services and staying with them through the follow-through, which is often a place that programs fall short, and shifting norms about whether shooting is an acceptable answer to a dispute. As you heard from Director Harris, two-thirds of our homicides are dispute related and so being able to intervene in moments of disputes is really critical and this is a strategy that does that. I want to name one thing that we all know. Durham has done this before and that might be fresh on your minds. Bull City United was an example of street outreach and I want to be clear about one thing the working group is recommending. The working group behind me did not recommend that we bring back Bull City United. They recommended that we reinvest in community violence intervention in the form of street outreach and that we learn from lessons in the past. That learning means putting safeguards in place because street outreach, as we see in other communities, can work really well when done well, and it's a hard thing to do well. Let me talk a little about what some of those safeguards are. So in other communities that have been successful, these are some examples. So requiring certification before an organization can be contracted with. I would say the working group was probably not unanimous in thinking about does this live in government or the community. I would say there was a leaning toward bringing it back and having Street Outreach live in community partners. L.A. was an example. They had a 12-week academy for community partners so that they weren't giving contracts to folks just because they were willing to do it. They were giving contracts to folks because their team members and staff had been trained in an academy. The second safeguard is structured hiring, supervisor training, and career pathways rather than a year-to-year contract labor. Right now, in most places that are doing this, the job often pays poorly. It can end without warning, and it has no career ladder. And that's a management problem, and that management problem often results in poor outcomes and inconsistency. Those are things within our control. A third important safeguard is that we have to think very clearly about the connection between focus deterrence and street outreach and about the connection between outreach workers and law enforcement. In the places that do this well, outreach does not gather intelligence for prosecution. That line has to be bright, it has to be public, and we have to be. Yes, sir.

Are you on the next slide?

Thank you. Sorry. That line has to be bright and public and we have to be consistent in following it or else this work doesn't function well. And why? Because street outreach depends upon trust and people aren't going to work with a street outreach worker if they think they're providing intelligence to law enforcement. But these things can be done well. Baltimore does group violence intervention and they do street outreach. These things are complementary. They are not an either or decision. They work well together. Another critical thing that we see in other communities that do street outreach well is we have to sustain the funding. And if we're going to be supporting local nonprofits in doing this, we have to make sure we're providing appropriate back office support, especially for smaller organizations. Detroit and L.A. are examples that have done this well. If you're a small nonprofit, running federal grant compliance is a really difficult thing, and setting that expectation without providing the right support sets people up for failure at the start. Let's talk about the evidence for street outreach. I'm going to say of the strategies we've talked about, the evidence is most uneven and mixed for street outreach. And a lot of that has to do with the quality in which the program is delivered. The pattern across the last two decades of research is pretty consistent. We see reductions where street outreach is done really well. When it's not done well, we see either no effect or in some rare cases, things are actually made worse. In Los Angeles, as a place where it's been well, homicides and outreach zones dropped 27% last year compared to 19% citywide. In Baltimore, Johns Hopkins studied 11 different sites over 19 years and found average reductions of 16 to 23%. They also found a site where things got worse. But the variation, this variation in program, it really often tracks program quality. And the mixed evidence is really an argument for safeguards and not an argument against street outreach. We just have to do it well. The third strategy I want to talk about, so the first two I've talked about are really people-focused, identifying the people who are at most acute risk of harm today and providing the right interventions. This next one is place-focused. It's identifying the places in our community, and we've already heard about that today, where violence and gun violence is hyper-concentrated and providing place-based interventions. The working group recommended this start as a pilot, identifying two or three places from the data that we have already conducted that where we see real concentrations of violence in our community. At each of those locations, we want to build standing partnerships at each site. which would look like residents who live in that community, other community leaders, faith and civic partners, city and county agencies, and law enforcement coming together around the same table in that community with residents helping set the priorities for the types of place-based interventions they want to see and investing in those things. The group was also clear that this type of, you know, we looked at research. Some of the research is very what I'd call environmental design focus, which is what happens when you invest in lining and mow yards, right? And there's actually a lot of evidence that shows that small things like that can make a small difference. But the working group was very clear that while they support those type of physical improvements, they really wanted this to be more holistic and to think also about programmatic or other types of social investments that could support this work and not just be limited on physical improvements. The evidence here is complicated. So we actually know a lot about and with a lot of confidence about what happens when we make physical improvements. There's been some really good research. Philadelphia has really helped lead the way in that. We'll take Philadelphia as just one example. So in Philadelphia, they actually took 541 vacant lots, and they randomly assigned those lots to receive three different types of things. Some lots, they spent a lot of money to do a kind of full greening of that property. Some lots, they mowed the yard and cleaned it up. And in some lots, they did nothing. Now, you might think those things have nothing to do with violence, but they were actually able to show that those types of physical improvements in Philadelphia led, in the places where these lots were near, a 29% reduction in homicides. And then citywide, greening cut shootings by 7%, and mowing yards, those vacant yards, by 9%. Actually, the cheaper intervention, just mowing yards, outperformed the more expensive greening. That's important to note. So what we know from research about these kind of things are these type of physical investments improvements, they matter, but the impact is small. And it's small in that a way that we shouldn't do it on its own. If our only strategy was play space and physical improvements, we'd really be missing the mark. It'd be insufficient. But layered on with other types of strategies that we've discussed, it can make a real difference. But I want to go back to the group. The group really stressed that this is not just about let's increase lighting, let's mow yards, let's address other types of physical issues, but let's also think about the types of programmatic and social investments that we need. Let's think about reinvesting in youth programming and summer programming and other types of things. within the areas where we have the highest concentration of violence. What we know from the research about that, honestly, is not much. We haven't had a lot of good studies that show that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It means that we should do it, we should evaluate it, and then we should scale what works. But we don't know a lot about that. We don't know a lot about the type of coordinating and partnership work that we need to do that work well in communities, but we know that's gonna be necessary. So again, this is about Focusing on specific places with real investments and improving physical properties and then thinking about the other types of programmatic things that we might do within those communities or services or resources that we could bring within these specific areas where we're seeing the highest concentrations of violence. All right, the fourth strategy is about cognitive behavioral therapy, sometimes called cognitive behavioral intervention. What we know is that many people who are at highest risk of shooting or being shot are not gonna walk into a clinic. And by saying that, I'm not trying to criticize or disparage clinical care, it's really important. But that's a design constraint. Any strategy that requires someone in an acute conflict to make an appointment and show up at an office has probably already failed. What we see in a place like Baltimore is working with a community partner named ROCA to bring cognitive behavioral interventions out into the street and meeting people where they're at. What does this type of intervention look like? There's some common features. So the first thing is that it is relentless in its outreach, and what do I mean? I mean that it might start with knocking on a door, getting turned away, but people keep coming back. There's this relentless outreach and hope. We know that many public programs record a no and close the file on that, and that doesn't happen if we're doing CBI well. This is often about non-clinical skills that are taught by youth workers on the street. That's really important. This is not about clinicians in an office. That type of intervention is important for lesser important reasons of cost and scale but for more important reasons because it increases the likelihood that someone receives this type of intervention because you're more likely to receive these types of techniques and skills from someone that you trust than from a clinician that you may not know and may not trust. The types of skills that are taught in these things are really concrete. They are often about noticing the thing that triggers you, learning real practical skills for how to pause and regulate and to think about the consequences, and building those skills over time can change behaviors and help people choose a different path in a moment of dispute. Again, two thirds of our homicides are dispute related and so interventions like this that are about helping people regulate and make different decisions in a moment through real practical skills can make a big difference. Let's talk about what some of that difference looks like. Before I do that, when I talk about one of the interesting things that came out of the working group wasn't just talking about CBI as a kind of like new model or program that we would do. It was talking about this as something that we would layer across the other three strategies. That is that we want, in focused deterrence, we want to be providing one of the interventions that we'll be providing is building up cognitive behavioral therapy and skills and access to that for folks that we're engaging. We want street outreach workers to have these types of skills and then to be teaching these types of skills as they're working with folks out in the community. We want to think about how we can bring this type of access to cognitive behavioral therapy into places where we see the highest concentration. So I think of this less as a standalone strategy and more as something that we want to layer on top of all of the work. The evidence for this. So the evidence for this is promising and also still emerging. We actually know a lot or know more about cognitive behavioral work when it involves people who have been formerly justice involved. We know less about applying this specifically to people who are at highest risk of gun violence, and I want to name that plainly. There are some early studies. These things are promising, but they're not conclusive yet. One of the programs that is closest to the population that we are talking about focusing on, which is adults ages 18 to 34, that program enrolled 2,456 high-risk adult men in Chicago. And for 18 months, those participants were offered employment plus cognitive behavioral therapy. They found that those program participants shooting and...

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a fire alarm. We do need to exit the building.

oh

Which way do we go now?

All right.

All right, folks, if we can go ahead and get back to session, please. Really appreciate everyone's cooperation. I will say that at the speed that you were leaving the building, you may have gotten burned up and we were on fire. There were casual conversations still going on. But I thank you for your patience. The building is not on fire and we are still in good shape. and we are going to get back to the presentation at hand.

You told me how to start over from scratch.

Thank you all for your cooperation. We are, it is 2.07, we're, can't see, 2.28, we're back in the session.

Should I wait for the other council members or?

Let's get started.

Okay. When last we were here, I was talking about the evidence in support of the fourth strategy, which is cognitive behavioral interventions. I was talking about work in a program in Chicago that worked with a couple thousand adult men and paired employment with cognitive behavioral therapy. The results from that were promising, but I think the last thing I may have said, and I'm sorry, I'm just getting up with my thoughts here, was they showed significant reductions in violence, but it's important to name that in that study, the researchers weren't able to say those findings were statistically significant and without being a completely policy nerd. What does that mean? They're promising, they're not conclusive, and we don't know for sure that it was the thing itself that did it. But the thing that they did see, and they did have conclusive evidence on, was when a person was referred to that program from a street outreach worker, they saw even larger reductions in violence, and those were statistically significant. So what does that mean? It means that this idea that we wanna pair these things, that we wanna pair cognitive behavioral therapy with street outreach is really grounded in fact, and that these things can really complement and strengthen one another. All right, we talked about, Director Harris already spoke a little bit about this. I wanna name that the working group wrestled a lot and talked a lot about the issues and concerns facing our youth. The group also took seriously the charge that we felt was given to us, which was to think about what are the things we can begin doing now this year to save lives and reduce the number of lives we lose to gun violence. And the data on that was pretty compelling, that the place to start and focus is adults ages 18 to 34. And so the group focused its time on that highest risk population because that's where we can have interventions that make a difference now. And prevention efforts are important, but those gains may be three, four, or five years down the road. The group also recognized that because we're talking about different populations, they recognize that different populations also require different interventions and may require different people be at the table. And instead of trying to do it all at once, and maybe not doing as well by the youth, they recommended that we have a separate process, that that process move forward with a sense of urgency and earnestness, so that we can give our youth the same type of focused attention that this group gave to 18 to 34 year olds. And that the one thing I would say about that, this is not a recommendation that I hope people will read as let's kick the can down the road and talk about it again in a year. The working group members, especially working group members who are working in this space, have already begun organizing to think about planning this. We're coordinating with city and county staff to make this thing something that happens sooner rather than later because it's really important, but it really needs and warrants its own dedicated process. All right, so the group, in addition to five strategies, recommended some things that the group feels are important to actually do these things well. I think one of the consistent themes in the research that I shared with you is every single strategy that I shared with you has worked someplace, but it has also failed other places. And that failure is often not about, it's not about the strategy, it's about how well we're implementing it. to be able to implement things well the group recommends five things at least five things first it's going to require some dedicated staffing the working group recommended at least two dedicated staff that would be that would be part of the managing structure that is these aren't we're not saying two staff to do service delivery We're saying to staff whose only job is to think about these strategies day in day out and to make sure that we're coordinating and managing this well because that's what's going to be required to do this work well. There's going to be many different parts and actors. We have multiple strategies and we need staff to sit either in the city or county who can be focused on that type of management work. It's really critical to success that the two people I would say is a floor. It's not a proposal yet. We're doing some work to shore up what is needed to do that. The second is a strong recommendation for some type of multidisciplinary advisory board that brings together the right city and county staff with service partners with folks from directly impacted communities to serve on an advisory board that are not waiting for an annual report but are providing accountability and helping support coordination in real time through regular meetings. The third, and this goes back to implementation, fidelity, and quality, is we need to invest in the right training and technical assistance, and we can't skip this process. Cities that skip this process, these strategies may sound simple, but they can be hard to do well. There are folks out there in this that can really support us in making sure we avoid some of the hard lessons that other communities have learned, that we learn from our own mistakes and we do this well. We owe it to this work. That's not overhead. That's making sure that we do this work with fidelity. If we do it well, we're more likely to be successful. And if we skip this step, we're more likely to fail. The fourth is resources. This is going to require some new resources. It's also, there are things that we can redirect that we're doing today that can support this work. Part of the work that we are doing now is assessing what capacity do we have, what things could we redirect that we're already doing, because some things we can do with existing resources, but some things are going to likely require new investment. An example is investing in our community violence intervention ecosystem. If we're talking about street outreach, That may require new investment, and we're working on those kind of things. We do not come today with a budget request yet for this work. We're actively doing that work. But this idea that we need to inventory what's existing, think about what can be redirected, and then identify the gap and new resources needed. And the fifth thing is we need to commit to some ongoing analysis. We just completed a really rigorous analysis of five years of homicide data. That data will go stale and the working group was also unified and saying that type of analysis needs to be something that we update periodically because the results in 20 violence is shifting dynamics. We need to know how it's changing and we need to be committed to doing that ongoing work to help inform this. What are we asking today from all of you? We're asking for direction from you so that we can advance this work and figure out what the next steps are. Specifically, we're asking for a formal discussion today for direction of city and county staff who are in the room, and for you to endorse the parts of this direction that you are ready for us to move forward with. With the staff, city and county staff are already working to lay the pillars of good implementation. So what does that mean between we've already been doing this and through October, we're working to identify some of the technical assistance partners we might need and where possible securing those or bringing forward the budget needs for that. We are completing a key capacity assessment. I'm gonna talk about that more in a minute, but it's critical to understanding what is our capacity to do these strategies today and what are the gaps so we can address them. We are identifying, we'll be working to identify some specific places to start the third strategy of a place-based intervention based on the analysis that was already done. I talked about the management structure. We need to figure out where this work lives, what is the management team that is ultimately accountable for it, where do they sit in either city or county, what other partners are involved in that work, what types of staffing do we need to hire, what is the cadence of performance report outs. That work is critical and we're doing that planning now. And then finally and critically, we need to tell you how much it's gonna cost to do this, which we cannot tell you today. We need to do some of those other things to understand what is the cost of doing this now and doing it well. Our goal is to be able to come back with an update in October. I touched on these things. I'm not gonna spend a lot more time here, but again, these are two big assessments that are underway. A key capacity assessment which looks at What are the things that we know have to be strong in order to succeed in this work? And you see them described at a high level here. We have to have the right type of governance in place and the right support of political, strong political support for it. We need to have the right data-driven analysis if we're going to focus on the right people and places. We need to have the ability to collaborate well, not only between agencies, but also with our community partners. Collaboration is gonna be critical. We need to be able to have, we need to have a consolidated and accountable management team you need to know who is responsible for all of this because right now this is this would be siloed across many different actors and someone needs to be accountable high enough position to direct this work be accountable and help help point everyone in the right direction and then critically we have to talk about the question of infrastructure that is some of this is going to involve law enforcement does law enforcement have what it needs today to do this work if not what additional capacity do they need And if we're talking about community violence intervention and things like street outreach, what additional capacity and infrastructure do we need to do that? That's all work that's happening between now and October to help advance our understanding of those things. And then I've talked a lot about partnership-based management, but it's what staff do we need? Where do they sit and which organization? How is that management process going to work? Who's involved? This is like weekly cadence of meetings. This is also regular performance report outs to the public, designing all of that, which is really critical. Those things are ongoing now that are going to lay the foundation for a strong implementation. All right, that wraps up where we're at today. My final remarks again, what are we here to do? This is a chance for you to formally receive the recommendations from the Violence Reduction Working Group. That's now happened. Our hope is for a discussion and direction from council on what questions you have for us and what things you are charging us to move forward with. And where possible, among the recommendations that have been presented, which of those are you prepared to formally endorse through a past resolution endorsing this general set of strategies to be advanced? I'm going to conclude with a note of thanks again to the working group members who are here. And for those who aren't here, I want to name some basic facts to you and remind you where this came from. Over three days, we had 26 leaders across Durham do the kind of thing that we want leaders to do, which is they put aside past differences. They came together with a diverse array of expertise that's really important in this and with a variety of different lived experiences relevant to this type of issue. Then they looked at the facts and they did the hard work to try to align on something that they felt could make a real difference. You know many of these leaders and one thing that I think you know about these leaders is they have no problem disagreeing with one another and they're not shy about it. And I say that to underscore the fact that what we're talking about today is a unanimous agreement across these 26 leaders and a belief that these strategies will do this thing, the mission, which is reduce homicides, non-fatal shootings, and hospitalizations based on homicides by 10% every year. 10% may sound like a small number, but compounded year over year, that is real change and real lives saved. The group behind me today believes that these strategies, and I stand with them, give us a good chance at achieving that goal and maybe doing better. But we stand unanimously in support of these recommendations and ready today to answer questions. I'll also note that to help answer questions today is not just me. We're joined by working group members from the police department, Deputy Chief Jackson, Assistant Chief Pyatt, Director Harris, Director Humphrey may be here also from Durham County. And we also have online some of our partners at University of Maryland and UPenn who have also been advisors in this process. But again, we had 26 local leaders who bring these recommendations to you today. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Director Smith. Job well done. Let me, I usually share my comments last. I will again today, but I want to start as well by saying I witnessed the work firsthand. I saw the commitment. I also felt the commitment from people who were not even in the room who wanted to be in the room. The people who called me yelling and screaming, I can't get in, they won't let me in. People really were hungry to help be a part of this work and I just want to thank you all personally and on behalf of the council for the work that you did and are doing. So I'll bring it to the council. I am going to start off to my left because council member Burris has to leave soon.

good afternoon and thank you all so much for the presentation and thank you all for the 26th mission working group director smith can you please come to the stand um so i will i'll say my remarks towards the end as i do have to leave in about 30 minutes but i just want to get because as a member of the public or just elected official it did feel like this working group was exclusive for a lot of people and that may not have included a lot of folks so i want to know um how were the members of our group selected like what was the outreach process for that and what was your like logic behind the people that you selected for the work group Sure, thank you for the question.

So first, this wasn't a decision made by me. It was made by a group of city and county staff that we charged with working and developing this process. The process was informed in terms of the number of people in the room by our partners at VRC who were helping to facilitate this process and recommended that there is a size at which we go beyond and it's harder to have a really productive meeting where we're working toward alignment. They also recommended the kind of, not people, but the kind of different expertise and lived experience that we wanted in the room. And we worked as a group to identify folks who were showing up at meetings, who were expressing leadership at being at that table. So it was not a decision I made, it was a decision that we jointly made that we also sought advice from city leadership, from the city manager's office, and from the mayor in some conversations about that. That's how the list was formed. I will say it is absolutely a fact that there are other people who have a lot of experience and expertise that would be great at that table. But the table, I think practically, had a size limit. in order to be productive. I think we had a really great variety of expertise, of people who are connected to this issue in really important and relevant ways who were at the table. That is not to say that everyone's there and everyone wasn't there. I also want to name that this work wasn't just about those three days. There was a lot of outreach over the previous six months that engaged with hundreds of other folks who also were those, what we learned from that was brought into the room and taken seriously by the group of of local leaders that we had around the table. So I'll end there, but I'll ask Director Harris if she has anything she'd like to add, if that's okay.

Just one quick note to add that this list actually changed over time. Our initial thought was before we actually got our problem analysis, we had a lot of youth organizations that we were planning to invite, but then we saw our problem analysis and we realized that our youth are only is 14% if we're trying to work with the highest risk population we kind of need to adjust and shift who we actually have the table who are working with this population as well which helped us to identify that we do that is a gap in services that we have but we also wanted to look at those who have been doing this work for a long time some of people that are trusted in their community who are advocates so the list kind of fluctuated up until probably the two weeks before the actual summit because we wanted to be intentional on who we brought to the table, but also understanding that as we move forward in implementation, we'll definitely bring, you know, others involved in the process when we get to implementation. Okay.

Let me move back for Vivian. Okay, so then my next question is, like, collectively, do you all think this working group is representative of the population that is most impacted by gun violence in Durham?

I believe so.

And what, like, what basis do you, like, what supports that notion?

First and foremost because of the folks that we're working with currently, if we're looking at that most of them are black males, we're looking at the individuals if we're looking just specifically to community organizations. The community organizations that we brought to the table, they do work with that population. We also brought in some partners from our Latinx community because we also know that they're impacted by gun violence as well. One of the programs I was representing, Project Build, even though I'm part of the working group, we actually already work with the population. We do 10 to 21. So I feel like those folks were represented well based on not only the data, but what we're seeing day to day in the services that we're already providing. Okay.

And then the next question is, did the working group, like you mentioned a lot about Baltimore as well as Chicago, did you have any site visits or did you go and meet with other partners in person to further discuss their work or evaluate the work?

So we have not done any site, let's say, the working group did not have any current site visits, but we did have learning sessions where we had people from Baltimore to come and talk. We had folks from Minneapolis to speak. These were virtual things, but we also had someone from Greensboro Office of Violence Prevention to actually come in person to kind of talk about what they have seen work, what's been working for them, what are some of the strategies that they had. So we had some learning sessions as well as listening sessions, but we have not had any site visits with the working group or the smaller group, the three of us.

And so from my understanding, I do feel there's a community urgency right now around the issue of youth violence. And so I'm just thinking, like, what is the actual timeline for that? And what will you all do to make sure you're being more inclusive? Because it does feel like the working group, and there's no disrespect to anyone that's part of the working group, my job is to make sure that we are addressing the issues and the urgency that we have. And I think 14% is still too much. So I really want to understand, like, how do you plan to mend with community who may have felt excluded and make this more inclusive so we can make sure we're getting everyone's voices heard?

So what I, from my viewpoint, because we do, I work a lot with community organizations, so we have a lot that we already have a list of that we know do the work. Even from when we had previous, like our My Brother's Keeper, we still have that list of individuals that we know we work with around youth as well. So it would be a matter of we could do a call out to those who are actually doing this work to ask who's doing this? Like what are our capacity? We actually did a similar work with Vera Institute where they looked at who's already doing this work in the area. So we can definitely use that list, but also reach out and say, are you doing the work of violence prevention? And then do you want to come to this table? and then have that conversation and have them work with us on this youth summit. So we have, again, some are already identified and those throughout the morning portion of the summit where it was public, a lot of people there identified themselves saying, I want to participate and work as well. So we captured those individuals too.

Okay, because I really want to make sure that in this journey that we, because I really couldn't understand why juvenile crime prevention council was not a part of the conversation and discussion when they actually have those meetings and they actually get data. So I want to make sure that we have those people who work with these populations present. And so I would hope that you all moving forward would be more inclusive and actually like the same way you're working group currently, we're able to agree, disagree, do the same work, but also prioritizing it in a way to where, for me, it's not about who to take credit for, it's about these babies not being dead on the streets. And that's where I'm at with the whole thing, is where I want to see actual work. And my final thing I'll leave with, since we're saying recommendations, what we want to see, my biggest concern, I get it, they talk about the CVI and how it'd be different. I've been in Durham for most of my life. My observation from Bull City United, I feel like we were, it feels that we put people in a lot of danger and a lot of harm, but not provide them with the support that they actually need to be successful in their role. And to some extent, you waste a lot of money. And so I want to make sure that we don't have infinite resources, but we are not basically subjecting people in our community to additional harm by not having those wraparound services. But also, when you go into traumatic environments every single day, you need therapy, you need support. And I couldn't imagine a scenario where we are basically duplicating what's been done in some ways before and then making the same mistakes we've made in the past. So I really want to see the prioritization of a youth summit that is led by the youth. I want to make sure that the youth are at the table talking about the issues they have and adults are standing by supporting them with that work and figuring out resources for that work. So that's my number one priority. But also ensuring that if we do go the CVI route, I understand the impact of the work, but we cannot leave people out here by themselves. We must provide support in doing the work. For me, this is not about a vanity project. We have a very real issue here in Durham that's happening among community violence in our streets and our children being impacted by that and it's not about just data points. Those are actual humans behind those data points and I encourage everyone to take that same sentiment as we go out because we're all tired and frustrated. I want to feel good about the work right now but right now I still have a little bit of uneasiness about the work. I know there's a lot of pieces we have to put together but please try really hard to make sure we do that.

And I totally agree with you on all that you just said and just wanted to also mention that we did have the Juvenile Crime Prevention represented. We had Director Rashana Humphrey who actually, she manages the JCPC as well as several JCPC organizations at the table. So they were represented, even though it may not have been the chair or vice chair, but we did have JCPC represented. And I also agree with you. When we're looking at outreach, I did compile a lessons learned from Bull City United, and I'd be happy to share that. with the council but part of that was as far as implementation we have to make sure we get everything structured and have people professional development is huge in that and making sure that they are tooled up before we even send them out on the street so I definitely agree with that okay my final note sorry I said I was done but I do want to see the JCCC chair as a part of this work moving forward around the youth and making sure we have all those things together so thank you so much for your time and I appreciate the work you're doing Councilmember Cook

Thank you. I actually have some questions as well. So the first question I guess I want to ask is more of an overall, this could be for either one of you, more of an overall question, which is that we've heard a couple of times that the recommendations that have been put in front of us are unanimous, but they are unanimous with or without prioritization. Is it unanimous all five of these at the same time? Because I feel the request is for us then to deliberate what things we feel comfortable with, but I don't hear a recommendation of prioritization. So I'm just making sure I'm not missing that.

The recommendations are not prioritized. It is recommended all of these advance. They will advance, they probably won't all launch at the same time. There will be some pacing but the recommendation they're brought forward as one set of recommendations that complement and work together without prioritization. I believe that's accurate.

Okay. I know that you said that there was some disagreement about where it would live, but if we were going to move forward, I think that we would probably need to know where a street outreach would live. So did we come to some conclusion about that?

Do you want to speak?

So, we did not come to a conclusion of where it would be. The majority, I would say the majority did feel that it should be, and I can speak for, let me speak for myself, I do agree with the majority that it should live in community, just based off experience of leading a outreach program previously. I do believe, like I said, I have a lesson to learn based on some of the risk factors as well as some of the resources. I feel like it's, it's better suited for community and having that being community organizations and not just one community organization, but community organizations that could potentially house the outreach program. So I don't believe it needs to be one particular organization, but multiple organizations.

Okay. So when we're talking about sort of forwarding, I mean, I know that the direct ask was made for us. and to endorse some of the parts. We're sort of thinking about endorsing some of these things like outreach as a general idea with lots more strategy and how it's being done to come be presented to us in the future or to be started. What sort of things, what are our next steps? Will we receive another update or will things move forward with best practices? What does it look like moving forward?

So what I would say is, depending on what strategies, if you all have an idea of what strategies you want, because for me, I don't feel like we need to have just one strategy. I feel like that's where we failed in the past. It should be layered. Not saying you have to do all four of the major main strategies that we have, but we feel like even our partners at UPenn and VRC, there should be at least two of them. to layer together and I would say if we are going to if we're not going to do all four if we're going to look at for me the the main two would be focus deterrence and street outreach I feel like the place-based some of that work is already being done in the community with some community organizations I feel like it just needs more coordination so I would say that depending on what strategies you decide to move forward with then we would then be able to give you kind of the What does that look like and the what the implementation would look like and what what resources would be needed for that?

Okay, but we're prepared like to do all of them if that was the will of the council Yeah, I mean I guess for me I'm just I mean hearing all of these at the same go I understand the the layering and I think that that's sort of the important pieces that we've seen in a lot of these strategies when they've been done as one offs, we've seen them fail. I mean, I think Council Member Burris talked about quite a lot of weaknesses with one specific program, but I know that we've seen these happen in other cities too, where it's just been sort of one thing that's failed. And so I think it's a difficult request to present all four and then be like, Do you endorse part of this? Right? And like, how could I know? Because I'm like, not an expert on this. But yeah, anyway, it's just, it's just something that I'm grappling with, I just wanted to bring up. And then, what can we talk about the standing partnership at sites? Is that? Do we think of that as being like, an actual physical standing partnership? Do we think of it as being like, community groups that are already working in those spaces? What does that? What does that look like?

I'm going to speak to that, but I want to go back to the thing that you were naming. One thing that we have discussed with the city manager is that the next touch point is that we come back to Joint City County in October with an update on how plans have developed. We don't want to spend time on plans that the majority of council has no interest in advancing, but we are intending to advance plans on all of these and come back with a more detailed plan with budgets, with those kind of things. You asked the work that we're doing now. I spoke about that a little bit. We are understanding what additional capacity we need to do each of these, understanding the budget costs involved. We'll be able to come back and answer more detailed implementation questions, which we can't answer all of the detailed implementation questions today. On the partnership, we have part of that work over the next couple of months is uh understanding like being able to answer in a more detailed way what that would look like to coordinate partners around specific sites so i don't think that we have a detailed answer for you but we know that the the spirit of what that work would be is identifying specific places and this not being just a government program but bringing partners together who are ready to invest in a focused way in these specific communities that are at highest risk. And the site based work is really a vehicle for coordinating that we've seen some examples of that in other communities of how they're bringing partners together, and both actionable and accountable ways of like coming together, what are we hearing from residents coming back and providing accountability on the types of things that we can do when we're hearing, but we have work to do to actually talk about that in more detail.

okay yeah the accountability piece feels pretty important to me i will say um which i'm going to skip to skip a couple questions go out of order because you just said something else that sort of tracked what i was going to ask so i heard you say that there's county staff that have been involved in the work um are similar questions going in front of the county commissioners what is the role of the county in this and and what can we expect in partnership

Yes, so we will be presenting to the Board of County Commissioners at the September 8th work session. And so they will be getting the same information that you are receiving today. They received the recommendations already, but they will be getting an actual presentation as we're doing today with you all as well. And they'll be asked for the same sort of guidance that we're requesting today.

Okay. Yes. And then maybe my last question for now. I saw on one of the earlier slides that there's public comment that you're taking on these recommendations specifically. I know you've done lots of outreach previously, but it's only open for five more days. And you've just said that you're going to present it to the county. in a couple of weeks and I'm wondering why it's that short time frame and then I'd also maybe like to know what you were going to be doing with that feedback and how it'll be incorporated okay so I'm not sure you look like I'm I'm yeah okay let me find what I'm talking about um just so you know colleagues uh as soon as Councilmember Cook finishes her questions I am going to go back to the speakers that I omitted to call on and then I'll come back to the council um yeah so i see on it's like the third slide it says june 29th was recommended oh sorry yes june 29th recommendations i'm i missed that says consensus recommendations delivered with a request for a public response by august 25th that's public response from all of you from you from us yes from us not public comment okay yes that sorry that makes way more sense okay okay thank you those are my questions for now all right i'm going to go to speakers and then i'll come back to the council

First speaker I have virtually is Dr. Wanda Boone.

Good evening, everyone. I'm so glad- Welcome, you have three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm glad to be here with you. And I am speaking in support of the strategies as mentioned and particularly focused on the Youth Summit, as you might imagine, along with several of us that are working together, inviting other groups to join in with that conversation, not limited to anyone, but opening up to everyone. And so the reason that I am so intent about this is because many of you know how long and how hard TRY as well as other organizations have worked in this area. But what is this about? Is it about Wanda Boone and TRY or is it about our next best hope for preventing, reducing violence in Durham. And I believe that, well, one of my favorite saying is holding young people solely responsible for underage drinking or gun violence or whatever you wanna say is like holding fish responsible for dying in a polluted stream. Meaning that it takes adults in all different aspects, whether it's in families or even just in our community, that we can make a difference. So I just wanted to say that and we are committed to supporting this effort and particularly interested in the Youth Summit. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Next, I have Kevin McIver in person.

Welcome, you have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Kevin McIver. I was the chairman for the JCPC and for months I did reach out to be a part of this working group. But all the way up until the day I got there, I was denied after the meeting was over and told that I could not be there. And what I have to hear as the recommendations is, I was a part of the Durham Strategy Committee back when we had a game reduction committee. We had this assessment done that was adopted by the county. Let me read off those five recommendations that was done back then so that you will know that you are redoing that same wheel once again. Recommendation number one, implement intensive place-based strategies to address underlying social conditions that increase the vulnerability of children and youth in the most violence-affected census tracts and gang involvement. Number two, implement comprehensive, intensive, and neighborhood-based services delivery specifically for gang-related individuals in the highest violence neighborhoods. I think we talked a lot about gangs being involved in this. So we're bringing that strategy back again also. Number three, because of the high level of gang exposure, involvement, youth risk exposure locally, Durham policymakers should expand available gang prevention and intervention programs, localize these services in the most violence gang-affected census tract, and prioritize these services for children and youth who are at the highest level of risk and involvement. Because what we did was we went through 12 different census tracts in Durham through this gang initiative back then in 2022. Recommendation number four, more regularly collect and report data that reflects the progress of the community's gang violence reduction effort. We talked about that in these recommendations about collecting data and going over and seeing how it works. Recommendation number five, institute standardized performance measures and track reductions in violence, improve existing criminogenic social conditions at census tract level and more regularly report the outcomes attained by gang prevention, Intervention and strategies to policymakers and the community census track. Those were the 5 that was recommended in 2022.

I was not entering into the room and I had this manual right here that was given out and all of these come with bullet points.

Bullet points with 246 pages of pretty much the same thing. We're about to go through again. They're going to present this to the county in September at their work session. But when I was asked and tried to be in that room, I was so. You're not needed. We don't need you. And I think some of you have seen that email that I sent out showing my denial into that room and being a part of that strategic committee. And I am at a point where I'm not understanding why we continue to roll around this hamster wheel, continue to do the same things over and over again. I work for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services at one of our state psychiatric hospitals. I deal with children and I work with adult patients. There was an idiom that was always placed out there that we use sometimes that, you know, there's no medical science behind it, but it says you can do the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results. It turns into what? Insanity. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McIver. I those are all the public speakers I have. Yeah. So I'll bring it back before the council. Yeah, pro tem. Go back.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the folks who are here, either online or in person. I really appreciate all the information. And I actually appreciate Mr. MacGyver's comments. I will note that that is a county proposal. That means that I was on city council. I would have never gotten that. And I think that that is an example of why we failed. Earlier in the presentation, it talks about resource rich but lack of coordination. That's why we failed. In the presentation, they talked about Baltimore having done it two times before they sought some real success. And I think that is one of the things that we don't do well in Durham. And I think we see it over and over again. It's not just with gun violence. It's with homelessness. It's with housing. I mean, that's why we're getting these updates. And I think it's critical that There are three governing boards in this city, in this county, that make decisions collectively. That is our school board partners, our county, and our city council. And if we don't have all of those players, all of those different electeds at the table, then it's just not gonna succeed. That's just a fundamental truth. Because each one of us has a different lens and a different priority. It's hard for residents to interact in that way, right? That's a structurally difficult thing, but that's also the system we have, and it's also how it's democratically chosen. I hope that we also present this to our school board members. I know that they have been a critical partner in this work, and so that this same proposal goes before them. I think that they'll be extremely valuable and a needed partner, especially when we think about the youth component of this. And I'm ready to adopt all five. I'm ready to hear the update in October. And the only thing that I have a couple of questions on is primarily around, I think it should be community-based potentially. What we learned from Heart and what we heard across the country is that the places that did it through nonprofits, they couldn't pay their people the level that government could. And that's actually one of our biggest successes in Heart was that it is embedded in government and they get city pay. And so if we're going to embed it in community organizations, we have to make sure that those folks aren't just getting nonprofit pay. I'm sorry, nonprofits just don't pay as well as government, and we burn out those folks. So I want us to be real clear on making that commitment if folks really want it embedded in community, that we're not burning out the folks who are doing really critical work and then aren't getting the benefits that they deserve. I will say we had to bring street outreach into heart, partly because Housing for New Hope, which is a critical partner to the city, but they didn't run a 24-hour hotline. They weren't in 911 radios. They couldn't get the street outreach the way it needed to into our homeless community, not because they're not an excellent partner, but because structurally it just didn't work. And so I don't want to make the same mistakes with this work. I want us to really think about the folks who are implementing, which at the end of the day are individuals, that we are supporting them and we are giving them their work with dignity. Then the other part is, and I'm going to call the county out on this, I don't want our county commissioners to adopt a plan and then not provide the money. which is what we're facing with homelessness. We have a very, very strong homeless strategic plan that we're hearing the county's gonna come in on their funding, but we had to adopt it and we had to vote on it and that is, you know, earlier we had a resident calling out around an encampment. I will say maybe if the county had put in their dollars, we would have the rapid rehousing dollars right now to deal with that encampment. There's real consequences when we don't fund the thing that we say we're committed to doing collaboratively. So I'm just stating that on the record right now so that folks are real clear where this council member sits on accountability. And I think that that's pretty much it. I'm glad. I really want to give both the mayor and Dr. Lee a lot of kudos for being leaders in this way and leaning into this work. They are black men. They are the ones who have to see the consequence personally in a way that I don't. It's really disheartening to see the level of gun violence in Durham. And I think that for those of us, I don't live in Cornwallis, but I've had plenty of shootings in my neighborhood. I've had homicides down the street. And I think many of us, if you live in the inner core of Durham, you've experienced that to some level. And it's not okay, and it's not how anyone should live. especially the folks who are really, really deeply impacted. So I'm ready to get started and I'm eager and just thankful that we're here and that we can get so much learning from other communities who are further along in this process.

Thank you. Councilmember Kopach.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I just want to thank Director Smith, Director Harris, all the staff who worked on this, the mayor and Dr. Lee, all the community participants who gave their time to this working group and the summit. And all the advocates now and over the years, I think you heard from a couple of folks, Dr. Boone, Mr. MacGyver, others have been working on this for a long, long time. And this is long-term work. And so I really appreciate the folks who've been doing this for a long time with their time and with their passion. I first heard about the possibility of this particular approach. We heard today, a couple years ago actually, in conversations I was having with Durham CAN and faith leaders and other community members who were aware of this work happening nationally and wanted to see Durham explore this and see if it made sense for us as an approach. And I know the conversations were probably happening a long time before that. You know, it is long-term work, but I'm so glad we have some specific recommendations to do work in the short term that we have a strong confidence can deliver some real results in reducing violent crime for our residents. And echoing my colleague, Councilmember Burris, just making sure we always remember, you know, behind this work, behind the statistics, the people and the real lives that are impacted. And that's why we're here. That's why we're doing this work. And so I'm really hopeful. and supportive of the recommendations to be able to deliver on a really human level for our residents who are facing the worst of the crime in our community. I have a few questions. So the first one is around resources. You talked about that as a critical accountability, you know, lever, right, for this work, making sure we're getting behind supporting the recommendations, you know, as they're being developed. So we passed the budget for this fiscal year without any additional resources for the plan. The plan came after the conclusion of that budget process. So I'm curious about the plan to explore that resourcing, whether it's waiting to the next fiscal year with an ask, Are there conversations with the new police chief? I mean, obviously she hasn't started yet, but is the plan to talk with her and other department leads about how we reprioritize existing safety resources to be able to support this? What are the current conversations happening around the resource plan?

Sure. First of all, this would be an excellent point for the city manager to speak on who is not here now. So let me just say a couple words on this, and then I'll ask if any of the deputy city managers or others want to weigh in. I do not think the expectation is that this work waits until next fiscal year. Part of what we're doing through the key capacity assessment and understanding is, What are the things we can do right now with existing resources which may be redirecting things in a different way? Some of this work we should be able to do without any additional funding. We may have to make different decisions about reallocating things. Some of this work is gonna require new funding and there are mechanisms for council and for the city manager's office to consider. There are things we may not do often, but there are mid-year adjustments. There are other ways in which we can think about finding the funding. I think the first step is for us to come back to our elected bodies and tell you, this is what we can do with what we have, and this is what the funding gaps are. And then it's a matter of our elected officials and city manager's office and city manager working to what are the options. So if council wants to do something this year and you all can figure out a way to find that funding, then we can do it. But we have to give you the answer first, which we haven't. Which is what can we do with the capacity we have and how much more is it going to cost to do all of it? We are actively working on that now with the goal of providing an update in October But I think that there are options available to City Council if there is a funding gap Things like mid-year budget adjustments and others that would be available for you all to consider

I hope I didn't misspeak. Okay. All right. Thank you. Specifically around the street outreach work, this feels perhaps one of the most sensitive recommendations. And I'm just curious, and maybe this is also to come in October, but just what you see some of the next steps are there in terms of those community conversations, reaching out, working with groups who have been engaged in this. You know, folks who probably have different approaches and philosophies to this work. What do you sort of see as the next steps to help move that item forward?

I'll start, and then I'm going to turn it over to Director Harris because she knows a lot more about this than me. So the first thing I would say is we have named a key piece of this strategy, which is we need technical assistance, right? And that's definitely true for street outreach. There are groups out there that know a lot and understand how to do this work well. And I think it's incumbent upon us to go find the folks who have real experience in providing the right kind of technical assistance so that we can do this well. So part of our immediate strategy is we're already looking to find out who's really great that can come in and help us figure out, learn from our mistakes, or just from the things that we learned from the previous iteration so that we don't repeat those errors and that we lay the right foundation, which we have named a number of things already that we've identified that we did not do last time that we want to do. more training, thinking about the right types of certification. There's a bunch of things that Director Harris has already identified, and I really commend her for being the type of leader who had a program, who recognized those things that weren't working well and has already prepared that type of analysis. That will be further supported by other additional outside technical assistance experts that we will need to do this well. And then it's a matter of thinking about if this is making a final decision, do we have the capacity and willing partners in the community who are prepared to do this? If so, it's designing an RFP that has the right types and contracts that set this work up for success. So, I mean, those are the kind of basic steps that I think that we are on and working toward that can lay the right foundation for this. I feel confident we can find technical assistance partners who have a strong track record of doing this well. that can help, and then I'll turn it over to Director Harris for anything she'd add.

I don't have much to add, but definitely When looking at street outreach, the previous iteration, there were 25 employees. Because we're looking at a very concentrated group of individuals, we don't need that many outreach workers. So we'll be looking at identifying probably about five to seven individuals that will be our street outreach workers that will be working with this concentrated population. And so the technical assistance partners would definitely help with recruitment of those individuals, helping identify what specific training is necessary, get those people trained, and then put them in the places where the highest risk individuals live. So that's where the focus would be. It would be very focused on who's the best suited to do this work, making sure they have the skill set, they have the self-care, they have the trauma-informed training, all of those things before we put them out. into the field and again, if we decide that they live in community, making sure that those community organizations also have the same training and support that they need to be able to manage those outreach workers.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Wrist, then I'll come back over.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, first of all, this is absolutely critical work. So I really want to thank the staff for working on this, the 26 members of the working team. Our residents, I know, as Council Member Kopech said, we've heard from folks like it can. Susan Dunlap, thanks for being here. We've heard about this violence reduction strategy a couple years ago. So I'm glad we're taking advantage of the best ideas out there. Because parents, mothers, residents are begging us, please, we've got to stop the violence. So this is really critical work. I really appreciate the work you've done. High level, this is great stuff. The report is well done. I guess my questions are similar to the ones my colleagues have had. So there's first question is like, how do we know we're gonna succeed here? And I think Director Smith, you're honest about this. Some of the data is like, some of the data is pretty clear, some of the data is less clear. And I think one thing you said over and over is like, when delivered well, right? And we hear that, as my colleague Mayor Pro Tem said, like this happens, housing, and everything we, solid waste, transportation, everything around the city is like, when we deliver things well, homeless services, right, when delivered well, we succeed. And so, for me, there's kind of two questions. It's like, how do we know we're gonna succeed at this? We've done this work, as Council Member Kotmek said, this is not new, some of this work. We've done this before. We've got other different multidisciplinary groups doing stuff like this. So how do we know we're gonna succeed this time? I know you talked about data, we need data. There's questions about who's gonna, what are the measures? Who's gonna collect it, how often? So for me, I like all the strategies. I know, as Council Member Cook said, it's a little bit clearer, I'm not quite clear what you're asking us here, but I like the overall direction. For me, the management structure has got to be clear. And I don't know if it's a collective impact model you're thinking about, but I think that's got to be clear who does what. Again, as Mayor Pro Tem said, we wrestle with the county all the time, right? So we've got to be clear what that looks like for me before investing big time in this.

That's great. I'm happy to answer that question.

That's my first question. Second question is timeline. So I think in some of the materials we saw, I mean, you said like you're still working on this stuff. You're going to come back to us in October with more recommendations. But I also see in some of the timeline in the memo we got with this item, there's conversation about like finalizing TA contracts in August and September. So I do have a question about like so when are we really going on this and when are we still like building? Because I want to make sure that we do build the foundations properly. Sure. And that relates to the financing, but also this question of like management structure. So say more about that.

Great. I think there were three points in there. I'm going to ask you to help me come back to anything that I missed because that was layered.

Mainly about management structure and timing.

So first let me talk about like what's different about this from how we've done it before. I want to talk about management structure. You are absolutely right that I think one of the keys to success and what we have learned from our partners and other communities that do this well is the management structure and coordinating is absolutely critical. We are working with, I think, one of the national leading experts that is not just like studying this. They have been on the ground doing this in communities to put the right management structure in place. When I say that we are actively working right now on the type of partnership-based management structure, working with many partners around a regular cadence of following the data, of working together, of identifying the actions, of reporting out what's working and what's not, that is very data-based. That is exactly what we are designing, and I'm gonna come back and answer a lot more details on you, but I will, I just wanna underscore for you that if you've identified that management is critical, I'm here to tell you absolutely it is, and I think that we have the right partners, and we come back and we're gonna give you more details. Something that we don't typically do, right, let's talk about the cadence of this. When we talk about shooting reviews, which is a critical part of focus deterrence, Shooting reviews have a weekly cadence of meetings where weekly law enforcement is helping identify, but we are working with partners in meetings every week to identify in real time who's at greatest risk of violence from disputes and those types of things. We are putting together weekly real-time intervention plans. That feedback loop is coming with regular data on performance at least monthly to leaders. some of that is public some of that is in meetings with the city manager or the mayor and others for regular monthly accountability we're not talking about something where we're going to go once these things launch that this work is going to happen and then there's going to be a quarterly report or an annual report there's going to be weekly meetings bringing partners together to manage this in real time driven by data that we can hold ourselves accountable to and why does data matter because exactly the point that Council member Copac and others said this is about real people's lives. I know I've talked about data, but that's not lost on me. This type of rigorous partnership-based management is critical. I think that I have confidence that we have the right partners to help us do that well in a way that, quite frankly, I haven't seen us do in this area, and it's gonna be critical. So we're gonna say a lot more about that. but I want to let you know that that is a clear focus and we already have. We don't need, we already have a shared contract that Everytown helped us pay for with the Crime and Justice Follies Lab at UPenn that is working with us on those type of management recommendations that we're gonna be able to bring back and talk about in more detail. Remind me, I'm sorry, the other parts. Timeline, timeline. I said, so between now and October, we are working hard, and we have been, to not launch this work, but to lay the foundations we need to be able to talk about it in more detail, to be able to answer critical questions around budget, to think about where this lives and how it's managed. Once we come back, that will be something reported back to you because you need to, if there's funding involved in other things, that needs to come to you. You need to approve those things, right? So there's going to be that touch point in October. Once we lay that foundation, the goal is to begin doing it as quickly as we can. But we don't want to skip these last critical steps of laying a strong foundation. You asked a question about technical assistance. We are actively working on identifying those folks. It's possible, especially if you were to endorse these strategies and those things come in at an area that is in the city manager's authorization, that we could get under contract and begin that TA work even before October if we know that these are strategies you support. If we don't know that, Then we're doing this work. Maybe we're coming back in October. We're waiting, and then we're working on a contract. But we're actively looking at TA and training partners that line up with these strategies, that have a documented track record of doing this well, that are aligned with the way that we want to see it done locally. So that work is happening now. The capacity assessment is happening now. Identifying the real budgetary needs. And where we don't need new budget, we can just make good use of the existing resources we have and deploy them in alignment with the strategy. That's all critical work that we're doing now that will lay the foundation. But to be clear, that's not if you endorse this today, that doesn't mean that next week you can expect there to be focused deterrence. You might be able to expect with our partners that we're beginning to do some of the shooting review part. But some of this work is going to take still a couple of months to shore up, to figure out. We have to build more detailed implementation plans. We're prepared and we're already doing the work to lay that foundation. Your endorsement of the direction gives us greater confidence that we should invest a lot of time in each of these strategies and not prioritize them differently. You asked what we're asking of council today. Here's the ask and you can decide what's possible or not. We are asking you to look at these recommendations and through a resolution basically endorse and give a green light that we want to advance these strategies. We're going to come back to you with more details on what this looks like and how much it costs and there will be votes on that, right, depending on it. But the ask is in as much as you support any of these resolutions, endorse that strategy if you want to line one out and say no not yet that's great but we have put together a resolution that basically summarizes the working group recommendations and is an opportunity for you to formally basically bless this direction and say pursue this earnestly come back with an action plan we're ready to do it you might have some final questions that will work out and that and those further conversations but it is giving an endorsement of this direction a very formal endorsement that also builds confidence that there's real momentum behind this so that's what we're asking today

appreciate that yeah i think the devil's in the details here and again this is like absolutely critical work timing is the essence so appreciate those responses and i look forward to yeah this this continuing this work hearing from you in october but also as as you can as you sort of can as you free up resources or can find ways to sort of find resources begin to build this foundation because i think the foundation is so critical um so thank you councilmember baker

I have just a couple of comments and a couple of questions. First of all, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the folks for all of the work that you've put into this obviously very, very important work. I also want to acknowledge Councilmember Bursch's comments about the importance of inclusion and trust building. So my first question is, are you, can you share just as an example, what are some of the opportunities for redirecting those existing resources? And I'm thinking kind of like the Office of Survivor Care, is that something you might consider folding into that category of redirecting existing resources?

Let's take that because that's in my department and I know more about it. So I can say yes, that's a great example, Councilmember Baker. So as an example of what that would look like, Office of Survivor Care is considering, so they've been having some conversations with DHA. We know that some DHA properties are also places where we see high concentrations of gun violence. in focusing some of the Office of Survivors Care work in those communities and specifically also developing a particular aspect of programming that could be focused in the areas that we prioritize initially. They're talking about, for example, when a shooting occurs, the Office of Survivor Care would organize community partners and canvass in those neighborhoods that we have lifted up as a high priority focus, recognizing that the trauma and harm that comes from gun violence may impact any number of folks living in that community, going door to door, offering resources there, making sure that people know that we are extending support and care, recognizing that. DHA has been very interested in that. I think that's just a small example of a program that exists that could be focused and aligned with this strategy once that strategy is endorsed. I think there are probably other things that could be considered. That's work that we're actively doing. I don't want to get out over my skis to suggest things before we have a chance. I appreciate that.

I just wanted to get an example there. We've talked a little bit about metrics, measurable outcomes. How do we build in place that accountability so that if We have a 10% reduction target, and we're not seeing that happen. We're investing resources. We're not seeing the outcomes. Things go wrong. We're not implementing it well. How do we make sure that we have the safeguards in place and we intervene and change direction?

Great question. I'm going to restate some things because I think they're still relevant. So I think part of this is we need to have the right management team. We need to have staff at a high enough level that are accountable to this entire thing, that are managing this. I think that's one thing that's critical. The other thing is I've mentioned this process is designed for high accountability. We're going to have measurable outcomes. We've already named at a highest level what the measurable outcomes are. You're going to know if we're hitting those or not. We're also going to have a regular cadence of accountability that is not a six-month report to council. We're going to have, one, weekly meetings with key folks that are implementing this work. Those meetings are going to circulate up to the manager and then can be other elected officials. We're talking about a public advisory board where we'll be regularly reporting out the metrics and what's working. I think this thing is designed with the right management structure the council member risk was talking about to be high on accountability high on identifying and being honest about what's working and what's not stopping the things that aren't working this process is very designed to do that

Thank you. And we know that down the line, we're gonna be receiving budget requests around this. I think this is a very high priority. We have young people who are dying in this city for primarily two reasons. They're being hit by bullets and they're being hit by cars. And we have a Vision Zero action plan. Now we have this plan. We need to implement both of them and invest the resources as necessary to make them both successful. We are also in tough budget times that are only going to get tougher. And so if we are serious about really tackling the issues of the day and the things that we need to get done in the city, we have to talk about revenue. We have to be very intentional about revenue and thinking about it. and working toward more revenue without putting more burden on our residents. And we can't talk about that without talking about the largest landowner in our city that doesn't pay property taxes. And we can't just approach them for this program or that program. We need assurances every single year that they can support the general fund in a democratic way, and I think that's important. So appreciate once again the work that's gone into this and look forward to more to come.

Thank you so much. Thank you all for your comments. Thanks to the public. I want to recenter us on this conversation. This is about us. It's not about Duke. It's not about anyone else. It's about us and our decisions that we make first, right? And this is a public health crisis as well. So we need to be very intentional about how we partner with our hospital, our medical partners. We need to be very intentional about how we partner with the county. The schools need to be at the table on this. The only issue I take with this whole presentation is breaking it down into options, asking us to piecemeal what part we want. It's all or nothing. The work has been done. These folks have put in the work. They spent three days, but hundreds of people spent months of engaging. This work is verified. It has been inclusive. It has been very inclusive. There are folks that should have been at the table that I, well, let me put it this way. There are folks that I wanted at the table that were not able to be at the table. You know, I had my perspective. I did not get my way on this, not all of it, but I'm happy with the turnout. You know, there are individuals that I've spoken to on a daily basis that do this work professionally. You heard Mr. McIver, who, for disclosure, I am one of his biggest supporters of the work he do. He does, and I wanted him at the table. He was not at the table. He held up this manual. the work that was done before by the county. The name of that manual is Michelle Young, a very close friend of mine and someone that I would often go to for this work. She wasn't at the table, she's not locally. So my point is, what mattered is we were able to get this process started and the table is so big and not everyone is gonna be able to be around it at the same time but the table is big enough for us to make sure that everyone gets a seat at some point in time. And so I'm going to endorse this work fully. My office is going to endorse this work fully. And once we have the recommendations, once we started getting the strategies hashed out and we started getting to the money part, then we'll know what strategic partnerships we need to build So you're not going to find me tearing anyone down. You're going to find me trying to find ways to find as many people as possible to the table. That's what leadership is. And it's going to be more than just one institution. I want NCCU at this table. I want Durham Tech at this table. They do a really good job at training when it comes to workforce development. Maybe they can be the mechanism that does that. You know, if we do nothing, then people are going to continue to have to go to the hospital. So when it comes to the medical side of this, Duke Health, I appreciate having a hospital that's like, look, we want to be a part. But they could just say, nope, let them keep coming. We're going to keep making the money. So it does require everyone, everyone to be at the table doing this, the police department, the sheriff. We need to go back and look at technologies, whether we like them or not. whatever technologies that can help us with this work. But one thing I would never do is I would never put my political ideology over the lives and the quality of life of individuals that are dealing with this crap on a daily basis. And so I'm looking in the eyes of the folks who did this work, and I'm talking to the people who have engaged over months and months and months, and I want to say thank you. And for the folks that have reached out to me and said, Mayor, I couldn't get in or I wasn't able to be a part, I hope that we still will be able to work together. The folks that, like Kevin and some other, Willie, all those guys that I know have real life hands on experience with this, that I've asked to come and just advise me personally. I hope that we can expand that table as well. That's what it's gonna take. But I can tell you one thing, we have prioritized just about every damn thing else. Finally, we're at this point where we can prioritize people's lives. We have done the studies. We've done the commissions. We've done all those things. There's no excuse now. The work has been done, and it wasn't an idea from up here. It was the work that was done out there. So nothing's perfect. I was one of the ones that was coming in like, wait a minute, where are the kids? Where's the... And I stood down. I said, OK, I'm going to give it a chance. I'm going to let you do what you got to do. Follow the data. But one of the recommendations came out that we should do a youth summit. And I'm glad to say that some of that work has already started. Some of that work has already started. I hope that there could be more collaboration in that work, but it's already started. So I endorse it. I look forward to making this my biggest budget request next year. Colleagues, thank you all so much. Do you all have what you need, Ryan?

I suppose this is going to come back for council for a vote on the next Monday around the endorsing. So if you all have what you need, I have what I need. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

All right, colleagues, I would say we need a break, but we had a break during the fire alarm. How about this? I want to keep the agenda going. Can we reduce it to five minutes rather than ten? All right, let's take a five-minute break and then we'll get back to it.

How are you?

All right, let's bring it back, please. Ryan, could you just reach out if he's still in the building? Before we move to the next, before we move to the pooled items, there was just a little confusion on the sign-ups, and there were two individuals that I, that I looked over that I didn't see. So I'm gonna call them up to provide commentary to this, to the item we just finished the presentation. So Ms. Tiffany Swoop and we'll check in on the other, we're checking on the other person. Yeah. Welcome, you have two minutes. Thank you. Three minutes.

Good afternoon, everyone. I wrote notes and that's something I typically don't do, but I don't want to miss a beat today. Greetings to you, Mayor, Council. Thank you very much for keeping this issue a priority. First, I want to say I support this evidence-driven approach to violence reduction and the city's commitment to creating a trauma-informed, evidence-informed, healing centered response to the trauma that's impacting our communities. I especially appreciate the recognition that reducing violence requires more than enforcement. It requires collaboration through partnerships, services, support, healing, and community engagement. Thank you again, Mayor Williams, for keeping this a high priority. And I also just want to mention People don't know how Councilwoman Burris shows up at almost every homicide site and is there supporting the family off to the side. That needs to be acknowledged. She's carrying a heavy load that I think we all should share in this city. I want to speak specifically about recommendation number five, the youth summit. I absolutely agree that the voices and experiences of Durham's youth must be included in our violence reduction strategy. However, I want to make sure that we recognize that this work has already begun and Grace Inc. has already hosted a youth-led summit focused on gun violence and the issues our youth young people are experiencing in their communities. We also have participated in city-funded research to better understand the community. That work was pushed forward by Councilwoman Dr. Hosley Hyman. That project was a collaboration between the Office on Youth under Laura Khalil's guidance partnered with Youth Mentoring Collaboration, myself and Larry Thomas of TMLA, who was here earlier. We were a part of that team. For a year and a half, we spoke with partners in the community, we spoke with youth in the community, we spoke with providers in the community. Where is that report? Also, Grace Inc. has done further research with UNC Chapel Hill-Gillins Global School of Public Health. This is definitely a public health crisis that we're living through, in addition to our work being supported by North Carolina's Central Psychology Department. Under the leadership of the psychology chair, Dr. Livingston, who is a clinical community psychologist who has actually done work similar to this in Michigan over 25 years, which is the ADP version of our youth centered strategic plan that I presented to the council and mayor last year. Rather than convening another summit, I'm asking our young people to tell us again what they need. I would like to see us build upon the information and the youth voice we already have, identify any remaining gaps, and move forward towards implementation. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll now go to our pooled items. Item number four. All right, item . Item number four was pulled by Mayor Williams. Mayor Williams, will you please give us your comments? Oh, yeah. I was talking to myself there for a moment. The first person I have for this item is Elise Balan. Can you hear me? Oh, you, oh. Okay, well just come on up. I had you sign up, it's virtual, no worries. We're gonna figure this out.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, city council members, staff, and Durham community members. My name's Elise Ballin, I'm the chair of the Durham Workers' Rights Commission, and I'm here to voice the commission's wholehearted support for the resolution recognizing ASIA and WSU tenant unions. We believe that tenants, sorry, we believe that unions are the way forward to advance the rights, power, and dignity of the working class, and we believe that tenants unions are a vital part of building and exercising our power as workers, as housing security directly affects a worker's ability to negotiate, live, and thrive safely. When residents and workers are forced to live in unsafe conditions, as the ASIA and WSU communities have been, the imbalance of power against the working class is further exacerbated. Just as the elite ruling class understands that exhaustion and the at least you have a job messaging are profoundly effective to have us accept work that keeps survival and thriving just out of reach. Going home to an unsafe building with increasingly unattainable affordability reinforces the messaging to accept crumbs because the threat of losing even that is ever present. Parasitic landlords, like exploitative employers, benefit from the imbalance of power that unions seek to disrupt. This is Durham's opportunity to reject that residents should just be grateful to have the bare minimum roof above their heads. This is the council's opportunity to reject the cycle of abuses of power that beget further abuses of power. We believe that recognition of tenants' unions and supporting their formation and maintenance in every capacity the city has is essential to building the democratic and safe city that Durham strives to be. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next person I have. Oh, you signed up twice. Okay. Let's see what you did here. All right. The other folks are resource. So basically, I pulled this item because I really wanted to just Item was recommended to the council by Council Member Baker, and I appreciate the, I appreciate you bringing this to the council. I wanted to say that I also support the ability for residents, tenants, or anyone to be able to unionize, to be able to come together. I also wanted to recognize that that the folks that are named in the resolution, the housing units have their concerns and I have personally listened to them, the residents and their concerns. The developer named in the resolution, I have personally sat down and met with the developer and I have brought those two conversations together as well. And what I wanted to really focus on were the residents and their request. And I just wanted to state publicly that for whatever reasons, the residents wanted to meet with the developer and they said they couldn't. And the developer said they wanted to meet with the residents and they said they couldn't. And I wanted to rectify that. And now both have agreed to meet with one another. and the city's community engagement department has availed themselves to be a part of mediating that conversation. And I feel like now it's really truly centered on the residents and them getting what they want. The ability for folks to unionize as tenants or in whatever capacity, I do support. So in regards to the resolution, I support that idea. But I do not want to utilize this body as a way to go after any particular organization or any particular people or residents because it becomes less about the actual people. It becomes less about the actual people in general and more about that specific location. So I just wanted to state publicly, I support the idea and wouldn't be against that, but I do want to modify, I would recommend modifying the resolution to be about the idea of residents being able to do as such rather than just this specific one. And I'm not speaking that from my own opinion. I'm actually speaking that after having verified conversations with both parties. Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think that over the years we've had several, and I'm just going to say it. I mean, there are a lot of bad actors and there are a lot of bad landlords. I think we have an eviction diversion attorney. I've spent a significant amount of time in eviction court. There's some pretty crappy landlords out there in the city of Durham. I would support a resolution that is broad, not targeting an affordable housing provider that is a critical partner of the city of Durham that was actually coaxed into coming into the city of Durham and that many people are actually watching to see what we do because other affordable housing providers My mom, just full disclosure, not in Durham, but in the city of Tucson, lives in subsidized housing, senior housing. That is partly funded with their housing authority and another entity. And it's probably the most protected housing she's ever had since she's been a renter. We know what her rent's gonna be because we know what her Social Security payments are gonna be. We know they can't kick her out just for any BS reason. We know they can't jack up her rent. It is provided very very stabilizing housing for my mother psychologically and for her family she had been in substandard housing in the city of Tucson with the landlord who never fixed anything and continuously increased her rent even though her Social Security payments weren't going up That is what we know many of our seniors face until they are able to qualify and to get into this kind of housing. I understand there's been some very detailed emails that have come through from the landlord about the fixes that they've done. We've had similar issues at some of our other properties. Sometimes management companies change, sometimes residents change, and they're not following the rules, right? We've heard that in other places where people popping open doors and then folks who shouldn't be in the building or in the building. And you have to do some re-education with residents around safety. And so I think we should support a resolution that is broad around tenant union organizing broadly in the city of Durham and strip out any language that identifies any affordable housing provider or affordable housing I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot otherwise. So that's where I am as an individual council member. I think that, and this is just to speak to the activists and organizers. Look, I've been on this council for a long time. Every single council I've ever sat on has been super responsive to these kinds of things, but I'm also just getting tired of the activist class coming to Durham because they can get a thing to get some click bait to push a campaign in another community. We know where the problem and who has a lot of the issues in the state, and that is the General Assembly. And we know that is a harder fight, it's gonna take more discipline, and it's gonna take a lot more time than showing up to a council meeting in the city of Durham. And so I'm getting increasingly frustrated with these tactics. We are responsive to residents, we always have been, But I need our folks to really start to challenge power where the power really is. And in the state of North Carolina, where so much preemption lies with the General Assembly, that is where I really need folks to turn their energy towards. Happy to continue having conversations. I was supposed to meet with the tenants this morning. A few of them were sick. I will be happy to meet with them in the future. Everyone deserves dignified housing, but there are a lot of folks who do not send us detailed emails figuring out every single thing that they could improve with their property, and it's substandard housing, and that's where I feel like we need to put our attention. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I'm feeling the similar way. I'm happy to do a resolution that supports the right of tenants to join unions. That's pretty clear. I don't think anyone who's been watching this council for the last 10 years should have any questions about this council or previous council's support for folks organizing. That's pretty clear. three resolutions in the recent past about organizing. I'm happy to take some language or strip language out that refers to particular parties, because I think that would be not our role. I'm worried that we are wading into sort of essentially questions about strategy between two parties in a negotiation. That's not our role here. To me, to hear that landlords in this case identified as parasitic landlords, is a joke, okay? We have landlords in this community that we want to improve what they're doing. They're not great landlords. We have other partners who do affordable housing that we're so lucky to have here, and that includes Self Help and DHIC. To be honest, when we developed Willard Street, as I recall, Self Help actually encouraged DHIC to come to Durham to do their work with us. So we need to identify who are the bad actors and who are the mission-aligned partners that may have challenges and stuff, and they gotta manage their properties, and that's clear, but for us to wade into the middle of a dispute between two parties makes no sense, and that's not the tool that a resolution should be. A resolution is a policy document. I'm happy to pass a resolution, clarifying our clear support for tenants joining a union, but not waiting into the middle of a dispute between two parties. It makes no sense. Also, I'm really concerned about us wasting more time on these kind of resolutions and not spending time on other important things on our agenda, like the Durham freeway item coming up, like the legislative update, because the legislature is the biggest thorn in our side, right? We've got a closed session coming up. So I'd appreciate this council focusing on the work that we have before us and not getting dragged into sort of small items like this that I think are really not worthwhile. So happy to support a resolution that generally supports organizing, but let's not wait in the middle of a dispute between two parties. Thank you.

Thank you. And before I move to anyone else, I do want to state that I spoke to the landlord as well as the residents. And when I'm saying remove individual parties from the resolution, I mean that on both sides. Yeah, because the residents, they have very valid concerns. And we took those valid concerns to DHIC. They had support through the Tenants Union. They had support through their mayor, their elected officials. And those concerns are being addressed. And not only have they been committed to be addressed, they're actually going to be having a sit down. So what I'm really trying to do is depoliticize residents and their lived experience, and also not pretend that our very few supportive affordable housing developers are painted in the same bad light as slumlords. All right, anyone else?

Go ahead. So are folks suggesting sending me requested language modification?

If I can respond to that, typically yes, that's what we do at the work session. We talk about our concerns and we offer edits back and then the author can accept them or not and then that's what moves forward. But yes, that would be the opportunity for your colleagues to send back track edit changes.

Okay. I will certainly accept requested edits from colleagues. sooner rather than later, but over the next week and a half, absolutely. Do you wanna go and then? You go ahead. Yeah, so I don't think that residents organizing in these buildings that Ashton Seniors in Action, that Willard Street United, I don't think that's a waste of time. I don't think resolutions like this are a waste of time, and let me explain why. tenant unions and unions in general have such low density in the state of North Carolina and in the city of Durham and very little legal structures around tenant unions in particular that make it very difficult to organize. And so when there are these rare and unique and precedent-setting opportunities, we need to highlight them in order to lift up tenant organizing in general. It's not like building after building after building in Durham, North Carolina is unionizing. I agree, we shouldn't have to spend tons and tons of time discussing something like this, I think it should move through pretty quickly and easily without much challenge. I believe that we are standing on bedrock progressive principles and human rights principles of the right to organize. This is not an amendment to any contract. It's a statement of position. This is not taking sides. It's an expression of basic support that ordinary people should be able to sit at the table, that there are sides, not taking sides, acknowledging that there are sides. While this is in some ways a precedent setting, something like this is not unprecedented. We've made statements like this before. And in fact, not that long ago, we passed things like this. This is not an amendment to any contracts. It's a statement of position, as I mentioned. This is not a small group of disgruntled residents. This is a broad and wide-sweeping organization and organizing work that has been happening. Is there unanimous support? No. Is there unanimous support up here for a lot of the things that we do? No. But we should still lift ourselves up and acknowledge that we need to exist and be here and do the work. This is not about shaming DHIC. Not at all, actually. Nothing in here shames DHIC. The residents love their building. They love where they live. They celebrate it. So this is not at all about shaming DHIC. If I could pick a different place with a predatory landlord, I would. But the tenants organize. They want to do this. They want to be here. They are here. They're sitting here. I would actually, when I finish, I would like to hear from a couple of you, if you do wish to speak. And why this situation? Again, because the residents organize and because they are here. Workers should be able to unionize, tenants should be able to unionize. I hear my colleagues say, you know, it should be general, but again, this is a unique, potentially precedent setting opportunity and my hope is that this could be a celebration and in fact set a model, not the resolution itself, but that the relationship between the tenants and DHIC could set a model and I say that. because I want to encourage successful and good faith conversations between the tenants and DHIC. I think it's a really big opportunity and could potentially serve as a model for other buildings, whether it's buildings receiving public funding or not. I think it's a really big opportunity. I don't think this is a waste of time. I think it's important. Again, I'm happy to entertain language modifications and will gladly accept those between now and Monday night. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to all of my colleagues. I first want to give a thank you to the Ashton Seniors in Action for coming forward and for speaking with me and many of my colleagues. I want to start by honoring and acknowledging the situation that you have been facing. the real issues that you and the residents in Willard Street have faced, both with challenges with property management and also some of the harms and issues you faced with fellow residents that you've tried to get response and satisfaction on. And it sounds like it's been some really difficult and so I appreciate bringing those forward and definitely I think that's really critical and it's important we're talking about this. I also support and commend your work around democratic organizing to support yourselves and your fellow residents. So thank you for that. I also want to acknowledge the importance of mission-led housing developers and financiers like DHIC and Self-Help and others. You're important to Durham and we do need the work you're doing here. I'm glad to hear that a lot of the issues have been addressed. I do know that more work is to be done. And so I'm glad that there are some conversations happening, that their groups are talking to each other. I've also heard in talking with folks that there's some clear misunderstandings too, which is a benefit of having those conversations. Issues around the role of month-to-month leases, about no-fault evictions. And so I think it's important to get real clarity on those for everybody's benefit. to help everyone to be able to move forward. I appreciate the original resolution that brought forward and also the call to have a more general resolution, which I also support that highlights the importance of unions and tenant organizing. And I think not only elevates the work of the case in front of us, but also does provide that opportunity to highlight the importance of organizing writ large in this sort of circumstance. And actually, at the end of my remarks, it's actually not that complicated. I can actually suggest language here that I think would address it. I'm getting a no from the mayor pro tem, so I will maybe not do that. Okay, yeah, I just, okay, we can do it after, but I think it actually will be a pretty quick amendment process. I appreciate that folks come to us and I know that, I know personally as a council member and I know my fellow colleagues, we care deeply and want to be here and be of support. I do think that broad statements of principle have a role. I also do wanna be careful as a council of setting false expectations about what's possible by coming to the council. And I wanna be careful about, and I think the general resolution also helps that to not necessarily see us as kind of a mediating force or something like that when there's a private dispute between folks. But I understand the unique nature of this situation and why having a broader resolution makes sense. I think it's important now and in the future to look for those real, you know mechanisms of accountability that the city can influence and just be real clear about what we can do and and what we can't do but still on this issue as other issues that we do as council members and as a whole council to do what we can to help i think it'd be worth having a conversation in the future with our department of housing and neighborhood services Um, uh, you know, some of this, the, the challenges that I see. In in this situation seem to be at times systemic. Um, you know, when it comes to, uh, you know, kind of similarly structured and funded, uh, uh, housing developments, and as we're looking to push forward under the light tech projects. I'd like to explore if there are ways that we can proactively try and help avoid some of the challenges that have come up. Maybe the answer is there's not much we can do to influence, but I'm at least interested in having that conversation to see about what are the things that we can concretely do as a council to be of assistance in these sorts of circumstances. So thank you to all of my colleagues, and I support the recommendation to have the general resolution in support of the work that y'all have been doing and hopefully others will do in Durham around organizing.

Thank you. Council Member Cook.

Thank you. I have also sat down with everyone and these are our partners and I think that Something that's important is that this resolution actually is written in such a way that makes the light of it sound that self-help and DHIC have actually been working with the tenants, and I don't think there's anything in the language that says otherwise. So I actually asked them yesterday sort of what in the written language felt like an attack, and a lot of the conversation was around what the context is moving into this resolution. So I just want to talk a little bit about that because I do think that the context is important and I also think that the context can be shifted and changed. There's two sides to this story and what I hear from these folks is that they're actually relatively aligned around our want for more tenant organizing and for diverse groups and opinions at the table. I think that we all understand that folks have often by the time they get to places had bad experiences with housing. It is now if you are a low income renter, you are more likely to have unsafe housing than at any time previously in the history of our country. And so I think that everyone understands the risk. And they also understand that it's important to have a value statement that aligns with Durham's values of organizing and collective bargaining. I want this to be a celebration of the unions that have been formed. And I think what Councilmember Baker said is really important. We don't see a lot of these unions formed. And I do think that having them named is really important for that reason. We actually did a very similar resolution and we named the business not that long ago. And it wasn't related to us at all, right? But this business is related to us. We partner with this business. And so to me, it's an indication of who we want to partner with and what we want these partnerships to look like. And so I think that the naming feels important. Of course, I'm only one person, so I'm happy to read any suggestions and and see where it goes from there. But I do think that naming is important. This isn't something that we can we're not getting in the middle of anyone's This is a resolution. We're not going to impact leases. We're not going to impact disputes that are ongoing. We can't get in a legal setting with this. This is just a value statement. That's all it is. And so I guess the question to me is, like, do we want to support tenant unions and lift them up? Do we want to have collective bargaining? Do we want to say that we are folks who are looking in the future when we're developing these more as Councilmember Reston? I'm sorry. Bristow mentioned earlier in his comments and Councilmember Copac has just stated when we're looking towards these future developments that have affordable housing and specifically on some city owned land. What are we indicating that we want from our partners? And I think it's that we're looking for partners who are equally engaged with collective bargaining and the values of the city. So do we want to be pro tenant or do we not? Do we want to send that signal out or do we not? I do. And That to me feels like an easy vote. I think that this I think this is really straightforward honestly, and I Was hoping actually to hear from some of the folks today after a conversation that we had yesterday about it Because I think that GHIC and self-help should also be excited about this too. What a great message to say that we are, we do low income housing and also we support collective bargaining and we're excited to see that folks are organizing and we are excited to come to the table and listen and for then tenants to be able to say, oh, I want to move into these places. They're great buildings, they're right downtown and also I know that I'm going to have a voice and be listened to. I think it's super important if we really want to be a council that is actually pro tenant rights, we can say it all we want to, but we also have to demonstrate it as well.

Go ahead.

Thank you. This is actually for staff more than anything and partly because it's been coming up as we are moving residents into newer DHA supported or gap financed by the city. Some real strong education because I think that part of what's happening here, people have entered into these agreements with really bad housing experiences, right? And so there is a lot of fear about my rent's just gonna go up, they don't actually have to fix a thing, and that's not how these properties work because they actually have a lot more rights than your average renter in North Carolina. And so if we could do some real robust education with folks, As they move in, I think one of the questions around the leases that people didn't think that they had a choice if they wanted to go month to month or if they wanted a year long, that it wasn't prescriptive, that there was a lot of flexibility with that. And so that we can get to a space where folks aren't adversarial necessarily, even if they've come from having to be adversarial, and rightfully so, right? I think many of us remember, I mean, we've all had a bad landlord, right? We've all had landlords who didn't respond, didn't fix things, were predatory. And that's the experience that folks are walking into, especially if you're a senior, right? You've had probably a lot of bad landlords at that point. And I do think that that is incumbent on city staff, maybe working with engagement. Like when we have residents moving newly into these buildings, what are your protections under federal law? If the tenant union wants to really work on that, that education campaign is going to go a long way, I think, to help mitigate some of the fear that I understand why people feel that way. And I would, too, in that scenario. But I think we need to work towards calming and not towards, again, just agitating. Just because we're in a moment where everyone is agitated, and we have to do the work in this community to tone it down. because we have done this before. Durham is not New York, Durham is not Denver, Durham is not Seattle. We've got 15 years of really intense progressive work here. And so what are the lessons that we've learned and how do we do the work in a way that is affirming of folks and not adversarial, especially when they're new folks who have come here and maybe lived here for five years and they're taking their own fights from their own communities and it's just not how we do it here. So that's the other thing that I really would like for staff and others to work on.

Thank you. So I think part of this, why I gave some interest to this is one, it really is about managing expectations and partly how I'm here is, I have had, and not the residents for this particular site, but I've had residents in the past tell me, if you pass this resolution, then XYZ will happen. And I don't know who tells folks that if we pass a resolution, then it's gonna solve every problem. So part of it is managing expectations. I think everybody on this council supports tenants being able to unionize, I mean, if you can unionize, you should be able to do it. God, for God's sake, the state that we live in, where unionizing is attacked all the time, I think we're there. So if anyone is insinuating that there are some that support unionizing and some that don't, you're absolutely wrong. Anyone that has that perception, sorry to say, that is the wrong perception. What I don't personally want to get into is, all right, so today we have a resolution that names ASIA and Wilbert Street, and then tomorrow is what property? And then the property after that. I'd rather just have, as you all say, position statement for residents throughout the city, period. Now, I'm also, while we're talking about this, I'm not going to pretend that there hasn't been some politics in this. for the individuals that said, the mayor said he's a hard no on this resolution when you haven't even talked to me. And taking that to residents. Or when the landlords say, we wanna talk to the residents, but we can't talk to them unless we do X, Y, Z. or when the residents are saying the landlord won't talk to us. And it's mediation that's going on that's just totally inaccurate. And then when you talk to both sides, you bring both sides together and realize that, wait a minute, this sounds familiar. Back when Birchwood Avenue apartments were given 30 days to vacate after being there 40 or 50 years. I was on council at the time and I go there to help, although we had no jurisdiction and we can't talk to you. But there was a white board coming up with demands to bring the city council. My background is with the education union. And one thing I learned about it is we do have to function in good faith. And I think that the union folks here, Bull City Tennis United, North Carolina Tennis Union, are providing a level of support that many of our residents have never even received before. So I support that work. But I don't wanna project false expectations that we're gonna start doing a resolution for every property in the city when we can do a blanket position statement. And so I don't think that anyone, this is a celebration, I don't think anyone is disagreeing. But I didn't run for mayor to spend all of my time writing resolutions when we can actually put policies forth to actually do something about it. So whether we're leaning in on resolutions, whether I'm leaning in on proclamations, or we're actually gonna lean in together and actually do policy work. And part of that work is actually working directly with people. And so if we have residents that wanna unionize and they have demands, we can do all the fanfare you want, but if we can actually get it done immediately, because we are using our platforms to bring people together and they get their demands met, that is the celebration. But I think some folks want to make it about them rather than the actual residents. And that's when it gets a little frustrating. So I'll say to anyone out there, please don't use the mayor's name if you haven't spoken to me to intimidate residents or anyone else. But I think that we're at a point, at least, I hope, where the sentiments of this resolution will get passed. I'm just not interested in doing a resolution for every single property when we could do a blanket statement that brings this point to everyone and talks to the actual spirit of it. I know Councilmember Copac, we don't have time to do the work smithing now. Councilmember Baker, I will ask, because you're the one that brought this to us, I'll ask that once we send you modified language, I'm fine with the language as it's written. I just don't want to start getting into specific tenants or specific landlords. I'll ask that you read that out at the next meeting, and then we take a vote on it at that point in time. But that's... for some reason on this council, sometimes we tend to act like some before and some against, but I think we're actually all for the same damn thing. Pardon my language.

Mr. Mayor, are you saying just put on GBA?

Well, I think we have to because there's gonna be some wordsmithing to it. Okay. All right. Okay.

Thank you folks for coming.

Thank you all. That was it, yeah. The next one was item number six. Third loan modification agreement for Rockwood Cottages with Rockwood.

I have council members Baker, Copac, and Rist having all pulled it.

Oh, the council pulled number six, all right. All right, Baker, go ahead.

Thank you. The only question that I have for this is, and I support this wholeheartedly is for what period of time moving forward where at the end of the 30 years for what period of time moving forward? Will there be affordability?

Sure. So good afternoon. Richard Valzanas, senior project manager with Housing and Neighborhood Services. So there's an extended period of affordability until April of 2030. And so that was kind of the framework we worked around when we were negotiating. Was that 2030? Yes, 2030. So that was kind of the framework that we worked around when we were having that discussion with Woodland Associates. So the goal there was try to come up, could we modify the loan agreement and to make sure we didn't impact the existing residents at the site?

And then in 2030?

There's probably going to be some more conversation, right? And it probably would be to the extent of, can we get an extended period of affordability? But my guess, there'll be a funding request associated with that conversation.

Okay. Yeah, go ahead and come back. I don't know who was next.

I mean, I have a similar question. So I appreciate the spirit of this. I appreciate that we're trying to maintain affordability in this property. But I do have, it does feel like we're forgiving 40% of the loan in return for four more years of affordability. So, and I don't know if that's a high cost or a low cost. I guess my question would be, Is there a little more analysis here? What does that look like in terms of the cost per unit? Just to break this down a little bit, to get a sense of is this a no-brainer or is this a lot of money for four years of affordability?

I think it's a no brainer because I think the overall goal is to keep the residents in place. I mean, in speaking with Mr. Pew, who's the principal at Woodland, I mean, we've got two residents in there who are over 90 years old, we got six or over 80 years old. So I think, you know, the spirit of it is to try to keep our residents in place and, um, prevent Mr. Pugh from going out to the market and having to get a conventional loan to repay the city at $691,000. So it's, you know, we're looking at 280 divided by the 20 units. Can't do that math on top of my head, but over an extended period of time, I think that's a cost that we should be able to absorb. And again, it doesn't replace, it costs us X amount of dollars to replace a new unit. So we're continuing to keep these 20 units in the inventory for affordable housing.

So the amount to be forgiven is about $280,000.

Yes, over a four-year period, correct.

So divided by 20, it says like $14,000 per unit over the four years. Four years, yes, sir. And that seems like, given we were just having a conversation today with Director Venus about the delta needed to bring a market unit to affordability, which at the last presentation was around like $50,000, right? I think in 505 was like $75,000. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's correct. So this seems affordable. It does. I guess then my further question would be, so If it's only four years down the road, like, and it seems like the owner may have the same, four years from now, he's gonna have the same concerns, right? He's got a loan, he's gotta either refinance or do something, right? What are we doing between now and then?

I think we have conversations on, you know, what do we need to do beyond that four-year period of affordability? You know, what's it gonna take for Mr. Pugh, James Pugh is here with, what's it gonna take for Mr. Pugh to be able to keep the units affordable for an extended period of time? Right? Because at year 30, typically, these investors are going to recapitalize reinvest in their projects, and Mr. Q, most likely is going to come back to the city with a request for that, you know, I think that gives us four years to have discussions on that request and what that amount of that request would be. And we would do some more in depth analysis, as you suggested.

Yeah.

Thank you. You know, this is ironic. We're having this conversation after the last conversation that one of the partners in this city has actually bought rental properties and kept them affordable long term is self-help. They've done the same thing. And yet we're going to consider a resolution calling them some kind of a, what was the word, parasitic landlord? So like... No, one of the speakers here said that exactly, those exact words, right? So let's be clear, like, this is a model. This is one model partner. We're just on the previous item suggesting they're somehow not a good actor. So, like, crazy stuff. But, yeah, I get it. We need to work with the owner and figure out something because that four years will be soon. But at this price for another four years, I think it makes sense.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Most of my questions have either been answered by my colleagues or by staff in advance. I just wanna just highlight a bit more of this question of of maintaining affordability is such a critical part of our strategy, and I just appreciate the work the city is doing on this project that we're directly connected to. What's sort of the status of the city kind of tracking projects that are coming to maturity, sort of aware, and have the opportunity to act like we have in Carver Creek and other projects? And are we in upcoming projects sort of establishing like a right of first refusal or other ways to help give ourselves, you know, the opportunity to do as much as possible, like y'all are here to maintain affordability for a lot less than new units? Okay. Do you want?

Sure.

Sure.

Good afternoon. Sarah Venas, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director. So that is a part of our strategy is to track both NOAA properties as well as existing tax credit expirations. And we can support those projects as they near the end of that affordability by having proactive conversations with owners. Durham has a lot of LIHTC properties that have expired that were missed opportunities so that's something that we want to do better going forward and will be an increasing part of our strategy because it is more cost-effective to preserve existing affordable housing than it is to build new housing so that is something we're actively tracking and monitoring will be a part of our new housing plan And the other exciting thing on the horizon is that we're getting ready to relaunch our affordable housing loan funds, which will be a resource available to developers to extend the affordability period for existing LIHTC properties or to acquire NOAA properties and preserve them longer term as affordable housing through affordability restrictions. We are working with self-help and Duke University on that and are planning to launch the fund this fall. So that will be a resource available and as you all know, we had a $10 million affordable housing loan fund that was very quickly deployed when it was launched some years ago. So we're very excited to have that tool in place to help preserve projects like this one going forward.

That was my question. And just when the housing plan comes forward, and I'm so excited about that, except for the price tag. The also just whatever you're mapping as far as what that cost will be for us, because we're going to have to have that hard conversation. Absolutely. Yeah, we know lots of stuff is losing their stuff after 30 years or whatnot.

All right, thank you so much. Oh, I'm sorry, Baker.

Thank you so much. I don't have any more questions for you. I just wanted to briefly correct the record. There's nothing in the prior item that calls DHIC parasitic.

No, it was a speaker. Yeah, I know.

I just wanted to put that on the record. It wasn't just a speaker.

That's the person on a city-appointed board. Exactly. And Councilmember Baker is the appointee there from council, so it's not just a random resident. I'm sorry. Like, we do actually have to do, like...

Right, but I want to correct the record. It is not in the resolution language.

I understand that. I'm just also correcting the record.

Relationship matter.

All right, guys.

Let's... Sorry, Director Veniz, I'm sorry. I'm a little slow in jumping back in here. But on the affordable housing loan fund, I'm just curious when we'll get an update on that, sort of the size of it, how much contributions we brought in. Yeah, do you know when that's coming back to us?

We can work on assembling an update for you all. This has been something that we've been working on. I can work with the manager's office to prepare an update for you all.

Well, and it doesn't have to be a formal update. It's something I'm sure that Durham will disseminate and communicate that's happening.

Absolutely.

I'm just really interested. I know my colleagues are too. So yeah, even just informal would be great.

Yes, excellent.

Thank you.

And we also are working with our partners on a more public launch coming forward in the coming weeks. Thank you.

All right. Item 10 is next. And that is the beginning.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Council. I'm Sean Egan. I'm the Transportation Director. I'm joined by two Assistant Directors for Transportation, Evian Patterson and Bill Judge.

I was going to pull this as well. This is a really big deal and I just wanted to celebrate. I know folks have probably seen me on the news a lot lately talking about it. I wanted to celebrate the work that has gone into this. This vision plan is a combination of the public's work and I appreciate the consultants and their engagement. I appreciate your staff, you and your staff, and I appreciate the people who have actually contributed to it. I have my bias on the options, but I think that this is an opportunity. The way I've looked at it is the government made a decision back then, and the government today is going to make a decision, and I hope that we can right the past wrongs of what happened with our community being torn apart, and I do welcome people to just Google highway through black community, you will find it in several cities across the country. And you can also look at some of the work that they've done to repair it of work that they've done. And I hope that we can do the same from Dallas, Texas to Richmond, Virginia. But just wanted to open up with that. Councilmember wrist.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, no, I'm glad you pulled this. This is a big, big moment for Durham. You're right. This is a chance to right the wrongs that we all know about with the freeway, which is such a scar across our community. It's been there, and it will continue to be there. I guess, so yeah, thank you for the work. Thank you for the engagement with the community. Great process. I was glad to be a part of that early on as it was going on. I guess I have two questions. So one is, One is, so we've got these three different recommendations, and I know there are three different sort of like scenarios, right? And you're not recommending one or the other. You're just presenting these as scenarios, right? So I guess my question is, number one, like, so what's next? And I know we talked during our brief interlude there when we had the fire drill, that like part of this is we need to have this kind of plan in place. So in the future, if and when federal funds become available, we'll be able to be at the front of the line saying we've got a plan here. Until then, what are the next steps for Durham? And then I guess my second question is, given that these scenarios are sort of similar but also different in some ways, right? So at what point, if and when there's federal funding or other funding available, how do we then begin to, because free was a lot different than sort of a boulevard. So those are, how do we begin to make decisions about what direction we're really going? Because folks will have a lot of thoughts about that, I'm sure. Because I think it's easy now, they're great scenarios, but what does that process look like?

So thank you for the question. You know, what we're doing now, we're finishing up this study, but we're certainly not finished with this work. So we're continuing along a few different avenues. So one of them is working with the North Carolina Department of Transportation. And so we've submitted a request to the department for them to provide some information about all of the bridges and other elevated structures in the corridor area. What's the condition of them? What's the remaining useful life of them? Because that's gonna be a critical factor in the decision making about how to choose among the three options that are presented. the report what's the what is that condition what's the what's the timeline associated that what are the costs associated with either replacing or removing all of those bridges and elevated structures so we're working with ncdot on that they've agreed to to work with us to provide that information we're also working with a group called the Reconnecting Communities Institute. So we appreciate our partners at the Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization reached out to RCI and said that they thought that we would benefit from some of the technical assistance that RCI, which is working with, as the mayor said, there are cities all over the country that have done this or that are working through this. So RCI is working with our peers across the country and is available as a resource to us. So when we do get information like the condition information from NCDOT, we have the technical, we have some technical resources available to us to complete additional analysis and help us evaluate which of the three options that are presented would be the would be worthy of additional study or development into a design. So we're continuing that. There's not a federal funding source for this work for the major infrastructure improvements the way that there was when we started this study. So we're going to continue doing some of this due diligence work in the background, but The benefit that we have now is that we really do have a community-led vision for the corridor. We were able to put into practice the principles of the city's equitable community engagement blueprint. The report acknowledges the harm and division caused by the construction of the freeway and We worked to rebuild trust within the community listening learning documenting community priorities for the future of the corridor and so We have really built a strong foundation here there's some technical work that we can continue to do so that our When an opportunity does come around for partnership at the state and federal levels, we've got that strong foundation of the community led vision and then we'll have done additional technical work to help inform the decision making around options.

So I guess my final question is, under what scenario would it still remain a freeway, the modernized freeway? Because in some ways, the costs for all three are the same order of magnitude, right? So under what scenario would it remain, or at least be this modernized freeway? Because I imagine that's the option that's probably the least attractive to folks around this dais and the community, I'm guessing.

So I think if the information comes back that all of the bridges and elevated structures are in excellent condition and then can last for another 50 or 100 years and don't need major rehabilitation or replacement, then that's going to really swing some of the cost and benefit. What we have seen, though, with other cities and other projects is that it was that kind of lifecycle analysis. Are we going to replace this infrastructure for the next 50 years, 100 years? It's been here for 50 years. It's reaching the end of its life. That decision point and the cost of rebuilding a series of bridges and other structures in Rochester and New York, for example, the decision makers in Rochester, the local community, the state, and their federal partners, they came together and said that that wasn't, that cost to rebuild and replicate exactly what was in place, that wasn't what their community wanted. So that information that we're working with NCDOT to develop will be critical to inform that decision making.

Thanks, I look forward to more conversation about it. Yeah, but again, thanks. Big moment in Durham.

Yep, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, this is huge. Thank you, Director Egan, for bringing this forward. And thanks to past council staff and community for really advocating on this and putting us in the position now to receive this report today. A lot of this really is long term with important relay races that happen. I'm really glad that we're raising this. I mean, 147 remains as a very visible scar and rupture from urban removal, and so I'm excited that we're talking about reconnection. I mean, for me, the Boulevard and CAP ideas are the ones with the greatest appeal. I'm not sure how we would get to a place where we would just do the modernization if the orders of magnitude funding are the same. For me, it sort of seems like the difference between the 1st and the 2nd, it's like, how much throughput of traffic do we still need regionally? And if we still feel like we need it, then we cap and reclaim as much as we can. And if we don't need it, we Boulevard it. Um, but, you know, maybe maybe jumping ahead on it, but that's my initial analysis. I just love the options that. you know, allow us to reconnect places like Hayti and West End and College Heights and to have, you know, downtown urban space, potential for more affordable housing, more development to help us hopefully pay for it. I love the call-outs of potential for community equity stakes in the redevelopment. as well as the storytelling, which I think is gonna be really crucial about what happened in the past and why this is happening, and it's all in there, so thank you all so much. The price tag of $500 million definitely is a little daunting, and so I understand it's like being ready for the opportunity that this fits within NCDOT, priorities or you know winds change seas change maybe that will happen at the federal level again where there will be funding for these sorts of projects so i'm glad we'll be we'll be ready at that time there's certainly an argument for for why we want to be prepared on this um you know one thing just of caution and i think the report does does recognize this is that while 147 and these sorts of freeways across the country did a lot of harm um taking them down or redeveloping them in new ways doesn't necessarily fix that harm and also has the potential to create new harms. And so I appreciate how intentional the report was and I know we need to continue to be that way in our analysis of this to make sure that by trying to fix a thing that we don't create the new challenges because a lot has sort of grown up around it where you have people who are now established in their homes and the businesses and I just would want to be really careful if we move forward in the future that that is kept in mind and I do feel like it's reflected in the report. The last thing I'll say is that, you know, great to see all the many stakeholders that were engaged in this. particularly glad to see NCCU as a crucial stakeholder, and I see them as a really key stakeholder going forward, as well as many others that were included. So thank you, and I look forward to the work that's to come, the next recommendations, and hopefully changes at the state and federal level that allow us to really lean in on this. It would be just incredible.

Thank you. And I know I did receive some notes from community members and community organizations about their perspective on it. and there are folks that are gonna have their preferences. I love the idea of a freeway cap just because it gets to connect the community, it creates real estate out of the air, and it also gives us more autonomy rather than just having to deal with the state, but also a modernized system. you know freeway i just as long as we're not doing what i think it's howie 70 did to uh johnston county i forgot what highway it was but all of their businesses died because they built the bypass that was faster, so they can connect Interstate 40 to Smithfield. It just killed the entire industry out there, and I don't want that to happen to our downtown. I want people to slow down. If you wanna go around Durham, go around Durham, but if you wanna go through Durham, stop and spend some money.

Yeah, I'll associate myself with the comments that my colleagues have made. This feels very pie in the sky and abstract. Obviously, it's a beautiful plan. It feels like a dream. But the reality is, you never know what's going to happen. And it's good to have some of these well thought out plans in place for something if things change down the road. I worked in the city of El Paso. When? Yes, I like the optimism. I've worked in the city of El Paso and we had a plan to bring back the historic streetcar that went all over the city in downtown and even went over the bridge in Mexico and felt the same way, very pie in the sky. And then one day, Texas Department of Transportation funded it and it happened and got constructed. And so yeah, we don't know what's gonna happen. So I'm glad that we have this. It's a really exciting plan and thank you for paying to it.

All right. If I may just just want to express gratitude to our partners that triangle West Transportation Planning Organization and the North Carolina Department of Transportation for their support to provide funding for this study, collaboration and support throughout and their continued partnership as we work to advance this general generational project in the years ahead.

Thank you, director. Right next item is number 12.

That's me.

pulled by Council Member Cook.

Good afternoon. Laurie Montgomery, Senior Engineering Manager, Department of Water Management.

Thank you for staying this whole time. I very much appreciate it.

Happy to be here.

I don't have too many distinct questions, but I am curious about the high density polyethylene piping. Yes. And so I just had a few questions around it. I guess the way that I've asked these questions is maybe it doesn't make sense, so I'm going to go backwards. What were we looking for in the alternate bid Why did we choose to not go with that alternate bid? Also, I'm considering why that second bidder put $1 in the alternate bid, which I think means that they maybe don't have capacity to do that, but I was just hoping you could talk about the alternate bid and why we, at the end of the day, chose to stay on this, I think it was all steel piping. Correct, yes.

So either piping material would be appropriate and workable for this application. Steel is really going to be a little bit easier to install because of the way you can sort of weld up shorter fittings when you have very tight tolerances in a small space, which is the situation we have here. But the price of steel was fluctuating dramatically during design and development of these construction documents. So we didn't have high confidence in the price that was gonna come in, so we felt like it was a wise thing to do to give ourselves a couple of options. And since HDPE could have been a workable solution, we included that as a potential option. As to why the One bidder only chose $1. I can't answer that question. That was just part of the strategy of their bid. So although English Construction had the lowest total extended bid, the lowest base bid was still pipeline utilities at 10.37 million so that worked out well we didn't see any reason to pay any extra money for the hdpe since steel was slightly the preferred option and it came in as a reasonable good value for the project

okay and so now we feel like steel is not fluctuating or at least we're going to be able to lock a price in for this this this price is locked in okay and so included it because i know we are including the contingency fund but that is that's not going to account for any changes in material it would not change in any it would not change anything um about the cost of the project should steel continue to fluctuate this price is locked in for the steel product for this job that 10 contingency would just be to cover unknown things that could come up during the during the course of the project okay yeah i mean it's it's a massive project it's a big expenditure and so i guess when i when i see the multiple materials i'm always thinking about like is it just that one is cheaper for now but like maybe doesn't last as long or maybe is easier or harder to repair but it sounds like steel is actually the preferred material And in terms of both installment and longevity, or it's comparable at least? It's comparable.

It has a slight edge on HDPE, but had steel come in massively more expensive, we certainly could have made HDPE work for this project.

Okay, thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Item number 15 of the presentation.

All right, good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of the City Council. I am Carmisha Wallace, Assistant City Manager, and my colleagues, Aaron Miles from the City Attorney's Office, is approaching the podium, and we are joined today by John Easterling and Derek Applewhite of Checkmate. As many of you know, they are our state lobbyists that's been working very closely with us for the last, I think we're approaching a two-year mark now. So without further delay, I'm going to turn it over to John and Derek, and they're going to walk us through the legislative actions from the North Carolina General Assembly to include some of the priorities that have been identified by the City Council's Legislative Committee as well as City Council. So I'll turn it over to Checkmate.

Good afternoon council It is good to be back for you all again Johnny's chilling partner checkmate government relations joined by my colleague government relations director Derek Applewhite It is always good to give this in a session Overview and kind of recap about what we see as wins or gains for the city of Durham and for the residents here but also those things that we envision to happen over the horizon, some things that we're looking forward to, some things that we're probably gonna have to combat against, but some things that we all ought to be aware of as we move forward. I will share this with you as we approach this legislative session, I believe Durham stands out amongst your other sister cities and municipalities. While we were able to represent municipal governments across North Carolina and played a really good defensive game, Durham was also able to play good offense. And we're able to secure a win for this city that we'll dive a little bit deeper into that we've worked on over the past two years. I know it's been a priority for Councilmember Riz. So we'll jump right into our legislative update. This is our team, just so you're familiar. Derek and I, you all are familiar with, but our team is growing. We just added a new individual who will also be helping us on the municipal side. So just want to make sure that you understand that though me and Derek are always here, you get all of us at Checkmate to continue to work on these issues for you. So short session by the numbers. Very, very short session. 45 legislative days, 540 plus bills foul, 54 session laws. There's been eight vetoes by the governor. Four have been overridden and four are awaiting override votes. And eight bills that are currently, as of today, still pending the governor's signature. Sure.

Talking a little bit about some of the policy and spending that happened in the General Assembly this year. I'm sure you're all aware that there was a state budget, a comprehensive state budget that was passed this year. $34 billion across the state after some prolonged negotiations that we've seen. Other conversation related to municipal government and how it would affect you here in Durham and the city and in the county. Property tax constitutional amendment will be on the ballot this fall. Voters will have the ability to answer the question of if they want the state government to address property tax. It is vague language and we'll talk about that shortly. Also to speak to some of the wins that you got here in the city with the speed limit changes. We'll talk about those as well. And then I know staff as well as our team have some updates on the land use and zoning side as well.

So some overviews from the state budget. As we talked about, cities had to play on defense. Powell Bill is one of the ways that we can continuously be in the defensive posture for our local government. So that remains stable. So we saw no attacks there. Economic development appropriations to be used only for the purposes expressly allowed by law. And so this involves the state auditor's office and about notification. Derek and I have had conversations with the state auditor his director of external affairs, David Fox, as well, just to make sure that we have clarity on that. And so we've made sure that we've briefed the legislative committee as well as staff. Just so you all know, there's been some changes. So reduction of funding to Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, all of that's been because of the hurricane out west. Hurricane Helene directs for studies into firework legalization. Firefighters Association has been 100% against this. This was a move that the legislature has been looking at for a number of years, and I'll say a particular number of legislators. And so the Firefighter Association of North Carolina has been against this legislation, but also the country celebrating its 250th anniversary. This was something that was of major interest, but this is one of those things that we'll continue to talk about as well. PFAS and wastewater and effects on firefighters. WHAT WE SAW IN THE LAST BUDGET WAS A SHIFT OF THE GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS FROM HIS OFFICE TO THE LEGISLATURE, AND SO THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES. SECRETARY OF STATE ELAINE MARSHALL, WHO IS STILL CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION, I THINK AT THE END OF THE YEAR? um her term will expire and that will go over to it's a general assembly general assembly appointment so there's been some changes um so some appointments now the auditor has um a seat on some a few more commissions as well as the state treasurer brad briner so things that we're constantly looking into i think 80 plus appointments have changed in this last budget that shift from the governor over to the legislature

And one thing we want to flag for council and staff is aware of this is there was a provision in the state budget related to snap benefits and the cost share between counties and with cities from the impact of the one big beautiful bill down to the state. They're trying to recover money. From snap benefits and if the state's error rate is above the 6% threshold established by the federal government There are funds that are required to be sent back to the feds as a solution for that the General Assembly has decided to Use the sales tax revenue from counties and cities across the state to help with that funding back to the feds So right now cities while you have no impact over snap benefits here in the city could have bit of your sales tax revenue pulled. At this point there are conversations amongst members of the General Assembly to rectify that problem and this would not go into effect until later next year so there's still time to address this issue.

So potentially to fund the whatever is needed to make sure there's no the air rates not above 6% they could take some more sales tax revenue to do that, sorry.

That's correct. You know, this stuff is so bad, it's making my council members choke. Exactly, I'm joking.

But also, I think you said something about cost sharing between counties and cities. Do you mean between state and county? Because we don't cost share on SNAP, right?

Right. So you're making a good point. The city does not administer SNAP benefits. The idea under the provision, I think when it was drawn up, was to where some counties have contributed to the area rate being greater than 6%, the idea was that the state would capture some sales tax revenue to make the state whole for the requirements of the feds. With that, the language is written in such a way that it would go after sales tax revenue for both cities and counties based on how they wrote the provision. I'm not sure at this point if it was done on purpose, but there are some work underway to address and rectify that issue.

We need the slides back. Vivian, are we able to get the presentation back up?

Just to add one thing while we're waiting, which is that another thing that happened in the state budget I talked about in an announcement I think meeting before last. Oh, it's up. But just that there's further erosion between the sort of independence of of attorneys in this state because we have had our board of who manages our IOLTA funding taken over and reevaluated and all of that money has been sort of had extra added restrictions. So we're just seeing some Some very intentional, I mean, some of these other things might not have been so intentional, but some very intentional erosion of autonomy between attorney representation, which is a very scary thing to think about, and something I think they're trying out in North Carolina to then see if they can adapt in other places.

So we've already spoke about property tax and the constitutional amendment. One of the things I will note is that the General Assembly already, as it stands now, is the most powerful legislative body in the country and already has the authority to enact this. Their move is to make this a constitutional amendment to enshrine it in the state constitution because one General Assembly cannot tie the hands of the other or the next. And so we do not know what the makeup of the next General Assembly will be. And so their focus is that we will probably... Can you restate that you said at the beginning?

What did you say about our General Assembly? It's the what?

It is the most powerful legislative body in the country.

Thank you.

And so one of the things I will add is that when the legislature does come back, they'll come back in November for a session already, and we'll talk about these things too, about what's on the horizon. They'll come back, they'll do a reg reform bill, they'll also do a tech corrects bill as well, and addressing the implementation of the constitutional amendments if they are passed as well. So these are things that we'll be continuously keeping the legislative committee and council informed and updated on as we move forward.

And I know staff will speak to a few of these provisions, and I think you'll have another slide coming up. So I won't go into so much detail, but know that there were a number of changes this year, as we've seen over the past several years, the General Assembly seeking to make changes to local authority, local decision-making related to development and land use. I'll allow staff to expand on a few of these, and you have the slides before you. But there are some pretty substantial changes that I think you all have to address as a council and related to the ordinance moving forward.

So pending veto overrides, so House Bill 437, which all these, the city has some level of interest in, 96, 171, which the House has overridden 171, the Senate has not, and SB 50. So what will happen when we return back to session after November, and this is the thing that's so telling about the November session, it will be the furthest point away from the next election that this General Assembly will have. And so depending on the outcome of the election will depend on the things that are taken up at the November session. And so all these things we expect to be, at least that we're being told right now, that they will be brought up for potential override votes. And so the House has done a number of these still waiting on the Senate, I believe for 171 and for a few others. And so those are things that we'll address when we return back for November session. Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.

Question, because I can see this going really, really, really bad. We have a homeless reduction plan, and we have that work underway. We're funding it. Does HB 437, does that require us, or it gives us the ability to? Because if it requires us, then residents are going to say, the law says, and you're not doing it, or the ability to allows us to continue our plan in which we're trying to do it in regards to like encampments.

So what this law specifically will do is it will require us to remove encampments or not allow them on public property. So they're providing funding for us to? They are not providing funding to allow us to do that type of policing. And then we could designate specific areas around the city that could be designated for public camping, but if they're not designated as such, this law would prevent the public camping from occurring.

So they're requiring without funding support and pretty much mandating us to create some type of encampment or holding place.

Correct. And if I can add, Mr. Mayor.

Or to incarcerate. And then if we incarcerate, it drives more business to the private person.

Gosh. All right. And not to add insult to injury, if we do not enforce, private citizens can bring civil actions against the city. And it's, yes. And there's mandatory attorney's fees for any land use decisions where the city is found liable.

I think staff covered it well, but I do think that that is going to be an important conversation if and when this bill is overridden later this year, and we will certainly let staff know as soon as the override vote happens when it happens. I believe the. I can double check the effective date too, because it may be have already passed. And there are a couple of other vetoed bills that were recently vetoed. They include House Bill 377-2026 court changes and House Bill 958 election law changes. I'm happy to elaborate if you all have specific questions.

I will say I stood with the governor on Monday, colleagues, to veto HB 958.

Could we get a list of that in our inbox with just a little, maybe you did put it in there and I just missed it.

We'd be more than happy to send you a little blurb about it.

yeah like all we're kind of where everything's landing mm-hmm and where to your point some things have extended beyond their timeline and then basically it means it's not going forward and the veto holds I guess is that what you mean by that or no

In the original language that passed the General Assembly, the effective date may have been, for example, June of this year. Okay. If they allow it to move forward, they pass it, it will be effective immediately. Okay. Now I understand.

But then to the – there's some things that have been recently vetoed and then just having a better understanding. I mean, I can get some of this stuff, but some of the other stuff is – kind of vague and we can absolutely pass that information thank you and then could you get us um because sb 153 was also overridden right doesn't really affect us well it kind of does um immigration bill that was overridden that would be great to get some information because that is highway patrol and then within the budget you know there's now flock cameras as part of that budget vote on all state owned roads or the ability to put flock cameras up so i think that there should be some understanding uh and and and follow up and we're going to need to have some conversations once we have our new police chief in place like what is what are the risks for residents um especially in durham where we've really worked hard to to not have that type of of tech up

So Mayor Portem, and I'll be more than happy to send this to you. And so we shared it with staff. I know this was flagged as a concern for us about the flock cameras on DOT roads. And so we reached out to the governor's office, got a response from State Department of Transportation about that existing contract and how long those cameras have been there and exactly what's been the use and the purpose of them. I'll be more than happy to share that with you as well after this meeting, give that to you as soon as possible.

Colleagues, we should just probably prepare. We have some big conversations to have. I'm going to use work sessions for us to be able to address some of these coming up. Because I think we're about to have something on our hands that I don't know if we have the capacity to even handle.

Well, I'll share this few points, then I'll let Derek take over. This was the fun part this year for us. We got into some really tough negotiations with the State Department of Transportation. Inside baseball, it seemed like we were gonna be in a position to almost stop their bill for moving forward if we did not address this for the city of Durham. And we're so appreciative to the local delegation, especially Representative Hawkins, who really championed this force and help push it through it. But it was a team effort. And so we're appreciative of all the delegation, your house and your Senate members and getting this done. Derek spearheaded this for the team, and I can tell you he did a heck of a good job for the city in negotiating with such a tough agency like DOT who usually gets their way. So, Derek, I'll let you talk about it.

Sure. And John reiterated, the delegation has been working on this and the city has been working on this at least since 2019, and I think it goes far beyond then. One thing I'll note that it does provide the city with two tools that is unique to Durham and Durham alone. The first being the ability to set city-wide speed limits at the minimum of 20 mile an hour, though you may not want to go that low, and to create a an ability for you to save money while also keeping your residents safe. So I think that's incredibly helpful, as well as a fast track review where it puts dot on a timeline to approve changes to the state road speed limits, where there is no framework like this for any other city. So I don't know whether it will be trying to be copied. But I do know that, and I hope staff on the transportation side see this as an opportunity to work closely with the division to advance the priorities, Division Zero priorities, as well as just keeping not only vehicles and pedestrians safe, but also those that use other modes of transportation in Durham. So happy to answer any questions, but this is a significant win for the city, and I hope that y'all can leverage that moving forward.

That's a big win.

I just want to thank Council Member Riz for taking lead on this. This was him being very dogged in his pushing of staff and of our lobbyists and again to the delegation. It has been at least since 2019, maybe even 2018, a legislative priority for the city of Durham. And so really glad to see it. So thank you.

Appreciate the shout out, but yeah, you're right. This has been a priority since 2019. The state delegation, you all, my colleagues have all supported this. I'm so glad this is over the finish line. Just for the record, to say again, so this is, we're the only city in North Carolina that has this ability, correct?

Particularly on the fast track review, yes. But also? Yeah, this is a new framework that DOT did not want to allow and were publicized. That is very true.

But also with the speed limit, though, because no one else has the ability to set that now. That's really great.

Good afternoon. Sarah Young with Planning and Development here for the fun part. So obviously in light of some of the changes that Derek alluded to, we need to make some updates to our unified development ordinance to ensure that we're in compliance with state law. So we have already started working on omnibus 20. It's hard to believe we've done 20. This will be our 20th omnibus, but you see the case number up there. We are planning to bring it to JCCPC in September. Planning Commission in October and then forward to the elected bodies for adoption by the end of the year. That omnibus will include several fixes to make sure that we're compliant with some of these new legislative moves first of all clarifying that appeals no longer have to go to a board of adjustment first that folks can appeal straight to superior court also basically mirroring the language from that legislative bit about interpretations to make sure that ours reads the same We are also going to remove glazing requirements where they are now prohibited. So as you know, in our design districts, we have standards for the minimum amount of glazing required at the ground floor. some cases upper stories as well so we need to make sure that those percentages are acceptable there are other some other minor needed clarifications that we'll make as part of omnibus 20 as well and then there's a few administrative changes so things that you all will not see that we thought were important just to let you know that working on them in order to comply with the new statute about fee methodologies and transparency we will our fees are posted online but we are going to kind of update and make a little more transparent, some information about the methodology. And then we are updating our internal procedures for staff in terms of permit choice, since now permit choice goes all the way back to legislative action. So someone can invoke permit choice at the rezoning stage. So that is what we are going to be working on.

Can you just clarify this? I noticed we got an email about this Board of Adjustment issue. So the issue is that if someone is unhappy with a decision on the council on a rezoning hearing or annexation or... No.

So it is for the essentially appeals of like administrative decisions go to Board of Adjustment first. By the council or by... By applicants.

But these are administrative decisions by... By staff. By staff.

Right.

So someone... Give an example, yeah.

Like a site plan approval. If someone wanted to appeal a site plan approval, they would have to go to appeal to Board of Adjustment. Or what we often see, more often, we rarely see site plan appeals, but we do see appeals of like notices of violation. So now instead of going to Board of Adjustment, or appeals of my interpretations, so someone could instead go straight to Superior Court instead of having to work through Board of Adjustment first. And should we not prevail, then automatically we have to pay attorney's fees. Yep.

Yeah, can we just, at the JCCPC, can we get the language from the legislature? Yeah.

Yeah, we'll have that.

Okay, thank you.

For the city attorney's office, are we going to track for this new law, like what the city is incurring in these fees if we don't prevail, and then publish it for residents so they can see how the state is wasting our money?

We can absolutely do that. Thank you. I second that, yeah.

Alright.

As we continue through the rest of the year, John alluded to it earlier, that we expect that there will be a lame duck November, December session following the election. As we progress through the next few months, y'all are well aware there's gonna be elections going on. Legislators will be spending more time on the campaign trail. We'll be a bit checked out. Though the opportunity for them to return still exists, we don't expect that they will until after the election. And we've mentioned during that November session, as we expect, that the constitutional amendment, particularly around property tax, will pass by voter approval. They will seek to implement that language that could include a levy limit or assessment caps or some combination of that, which will certainly have an impact on budgets next year. um beyond that there are going to be continued conversations around down zoning as well as existing bills that have yet to be dealt with veto overrides as well as reg reform that typically contains a number of land use items may come back in a new fashion later this year along with a budget technical correction so we will certainly keep staff and the legislative committee and the council as a whole updated But as we go through the fall, we will also be talking with staff to plan for what the long session looks like and what your legislative priorities will look like heading into 2027. So give some thought to what those may be. And we're certainly here to help as you all decide.

So I know we've been waiting for the down-sending repeal or some action on that, right? So given that you mentioned that, who is motivated to lead that? Because it seems like until now there's, I mean, I know the House did pass a bill, or maybe the Senate did, and then the House passed a companion that sort of became one of those kind of weird, what was it, wakeboarding thing or something.

That's right.

So is the Senate still potentially going to drive this? We're going to have new senators after the election. So where do you expect the impetus to come from to repeal down zoning?

I truly think it's going to come from cities, towns, and counties across the state. This has continued to be a problem since the language was passed into law. Um, there's continued efforts underway by not only folks like ourselves, uh, but also statewide associations like the league and the county commissioners association. Um, and it seems like the timing, uh, to strike will be later this year. Um, though there's a lot of time between now and then. Uh, so we will continue to be working on that and talking with legislators and staff about it as well.

Yeah, go ahead.

Can we also track what the sales tax thing and what it might cost us and work with the county around if we're having to if they're basically garnishing our wages? What what that I want residents to really be real clear because it's just like an opaque box over there like other Republicans are in charge it's like yeah and with that there is actual dollars and cents that you are paying. That they are not using wisely for folks who thinks that there's you know that supposedly small government and stewards of public money they are neither. And so, again, for that piece around educating our residents around what is it actually costing them with how business is being done or politics are being done in Raleigh.

Sure. And I will add that there has been language put together. Our team, along with folks at the League and the Department of Revenue, blessed the language. So we expect that perhaps there may be some movement in the November session to rectify that problem.

Yeah, like a little counter on the city website for every dollar or every little cent, you know, just like a visual, like this is what they're taking from you now, this is what you're taking from you now with no accountability of how they're spending it or what they're doing with it.

Yep, thank you for the presentation. I'm glad we had a bright spot, a huge bright spot amidst some dark news. But I'm just curious if there was any discussion around kind of energy affordability, energy access, any discussions around like the plug-in solar idea. I know you said that you'd heard some of that previously and you've seen it bubble up in other states. Were there any sort of quiet conversations? Were there any parties who expressed interest in those topics? that might be able to lead with Durham being more of a quiet party?

Sure, and I can't say that there was any outward conversation about it. There were bills filed earlier both this year and last year related to balcony solar, but there was no movement on those. Beyond that, I think a lot of focus has been placed on energy rates and affordability is certainly a concern from folks on both sides of the aisle heading into the November election. I think there's been news from the Attorney General over the past week. But related to specifically solar, there has been no movement. But we'll certainly keep you posted if we hear anything headed into November.

Yeah, thank you. Do you know who introduced that? I can just find online, too.

I can certainly track them down. I believe it was Representative Phil Rubin out of Raleigh was one of the primary sponsors, and he had a couple of co-sponsors as well. But I'll double-check that and provide it to you.

All right. Those are, well, let me just say I really appreciate you guys' communication, just your constant engagement. I appreciate getting calls from you. I appreciate you all always answering the phone from my colleagues when they're calling. And I know communication or frequency of it was a concern when we first signed up. We didn't know what it was going to be like. But I do appreciate you guys, like, just communicating. I mean, you call me more than I call you, just keeping me aware of things I should know and then just, you know, just being available to my colleagues and talking to staff twice a week. You know, you guys are, you're doing a great job to represent us. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, council.

I believe we can now settle the agenda before going to closed session.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We are ready to settle the agenda.

Yes, Madam Assistant Manager.

All right. On consent, we have items 1 through 3, 5 through 14, and number 20. On GBA is item number 4. On GBA public hearings is item 16 through 19.

All right. Those are the settled items. I'll entertain a motion to settle the agenda.

So moved.

Second. To move and properly second it. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. We will now proceed to closed session. Thank you all for attending. Who's still present?