Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the April 29 meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council. We are glad to have you join us. Do you hear a strange noise? I hear a strange noise. It

does sound.

Everything's fine.

It's it's the it's the Yule log.

Oh. It's Yule log. There

we go.

It is you. No. No. It's the laptop.

You all tried to blame Melissa. Okay. Thank you. We are glad to have you join us. This evening, have five items on our agenda for discussion. The first is a public hearing on proposed town charter amendments for council size and the mayor's term. That will be followed by an update on the 2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Our third item is an update regarding planning for the Southern Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Oh, I didn't get that mouthful out. I really tried.

The Southern Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, or ETJ. Fourth will be to discuss an AWACA reimbursement policy. And our final item is a discussion about participation in the National Opioid Settlement. Council members, immediately following, we will have a closed session. Okay.

To get us started this evening, we have three proclamations to announce. First is an announcement for bike month, which will be shared by council member Rivers. Joining us for this announcement tonight, we have Nate Holmes from Chapel Hill Transit, who is leading the town's transportation demand management program. And also in the audience are members of Shift Chapel Hill Carrboro. So would you all please join Councilmember Rivers up front for that announcement?

Todd's got his helmet.

Oh, the mask and the glasses, the worst combination.

Good evening, everyone. In Chapel Hill, we are proud of our active biking culture and excited to join people around the world in highlighting the many benefits of riding, better health, a stronger local economy, less traffic, and a cleaner environment. We're continuing to invest in safer, more connected bike lanes and green ways so everyone can ride comfortably and confidently, guided by our plans for a more connected and accessible community. In celebration of the power and joy of biking in our community, the town council is proud to proclaim my 05/20/2026 as bike month in Chapel Hill. We invite everyone to put on your helmet.

Please put on your helmet and join us for bike and roll the school day on May 6 and bike to work week, May 11 through May 17. And we encourage everyone to ride more and drive less this year and to wear a helmet. Oh,

no. Don't leave. There's a picture. Oh, you want everyone? Okay, let's go.

Alright. Next up, our second announcement is for small business week, which will be shared by council member Sharp. For this one, we invite David Putnam, from economic development, with representatives of our local business community, Olmaz Jewelers, Growlr Girls, and Launch Inc. If you can join council member Sharp up front.

Good evening, everyone. Since 1963, National Small Business Week has recognized the important contributions of entrepreneurs and small businesses across the country. And again this year, we are pleased to join in this effort. Here in Chapel Hill, small businesses are a cornerstone of our local economy, creating jobs, driving growth, and enriching the character of our community. Small businesses also serve as gathering places, foster innovation, and help create the unique welcoming sense of community that defines Chapel Hill. In celebration of their dedication and entrepreneurial spirit, we are pleased to proclaim May 2026 a small business week and to encourage everyone to shop small and support local businesses during that week and year round. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much to all of our local business representatives and those who joined us tonight. Also We have something

from the diaper bag, so I think that's Okay.

We are deeply grateful for the many ways that your businesses support the identity of Chapel Hill. And we are proud to celebrate you tonight and encourage our residents and visitors to shop small during small business week and year round. And we've all been invited to go get a beer in Southern Village. So if I see you all leaving, I'll understand why. I would go with you if I could. Okay, finally, we have Period Poverty Awareness Month. And joining us this evening is Madison Lewis from the Diaper Bank of North Carolina. Miss Lewis, will you please join Councilmember Ryan up front?

This evening, we want to take a moment to recognize an important issue that affects many people in our community and across the country. Menstrual products are a basic necessity, yet too many individuals struggle to afford them each month. The challenge, known as period poverty, can impact health, cause people to miss work or school, and make it harder to fully participate in daily life. In Chapel Hill, we're fortunate to have organizations like Period Power, part of the Diaper Bank of North Carolina, working to make sure people have access to these essential supplies. Their efforts, along with community support, are making a real difference.

Because of this, we proclaim May 11 through 05/17/2026 as period poverty awareness week in Chapel Hill. We encourage everyone who is able to support local efforts, whether through donations, product drives, or simply spreading awareness so that everyone in our community can live with dignity and stay healthy. Thank

you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lewis, for joining us tonight. And please pass along to your colleagues and volunteers and supporters how much we appreciate your tireless work in supporting residents of Chapel Hill and communities across our state. You all make a tremendous difference, and we appreciate you. Okay.

That brings us to announcements. I do have three quick things to share. First, we are closing out poetry month strong with the town's fourth annual installment of The Poet Is a Verb at the library tomorrow night, April 30 at 6PM. Second is a note for pickleball players in the room that the courts at Ephesus Park will be closed for approximately three weeks for resurfacing. So please plan to play at one of our other pickleball facilities during that time.

And third, the community survey is out. If you are among the randomized group that received the survey this year, we want to hear from you and would greatly appreciate your participation. And council meets again next week, May 6, 6PM here at Town Hall. During that meeting, the town manager will present his twenty twenty six-twenty seven recommended budget. Council members, does anyone else have anything to share? Yes, Council Member Nallert and then Council Member McMahon.

Thanks. Two quick notes. The legislature is considering restoring funding for the Workforce Housing Loan Program. That's an important financing program used to build affordable units across the state. If you would consider writing in support of that program, you can find information about it online.

And it is there may be a possibility of getting some money into it. So it's worth taking some time to do that. The other thing is you may have seen Medicaid rebase was passed recently. It included a number of pretty onerous work requirement provisions, reporting pipeline to make sure that anybody who is not currently a citizen is reported to ICE if go they to get health care, things like that. There are several groups led by the Justice Center that are asking legislators to rework those provisions.

And I think there's also a possibility that might happen. So if you are in touch with any advocacy groups and think about sending your comments to your legislators, those are two things I think it might actually make a difference if you get people to send comments about that. So if you know people elsewhere in North Carolina or you're willing to write to, in particular, legislators in the majority party, please do.

Thank you. Councilmember McMahon.

Thank you. This is less of an announcement and more of what would have been a petition but a request. We saw the email come in from the Planning Commission chair and vice chair. I'd like to request or somehow have the discussion that we could open town hall to the Planning Commission meeting one time a month as requested, and specifically to address the LUMA when it comes out, And if there's a way that the framework that we worked on in the work session, if the Planning Commission could have a chance to go through the LUMO with that document before we go through it in this setting, it would be very helpful to me, and I don't know about other council members, if that can be possible.

Council? I

would be supportive of that. Council member Rivers?

Yeah, I'm also supportive of that. I think they were also requesting training for future planning commission members and I'm also supportive of that.

Okay. Beer?

I apologize. GREGORY Yeah. Just talking slow. I think in addition to having it here in town hall being valuable to us as a council member, I think it'd also be another chance to the public to hear an in-depth conversation of Lumumo, which would be easier than on Zoom, I think.

MARY Yep, Mayor Pro Temburi and then Councilmember Sharp.

MARY Okay. Thank you. I am supportive of that. I know that we did receive this afternoon communication from our town manager regarding the possibility of meeting once a month and then looking at funding for that for, I believe, fiscal year twenty seven. Is that correct?

I haven't gotten that out to everybody. But we've had some conversation with various folks about this as it evolves this week. But I've had conversation with staff about once a month in person, can we find that as a way to move forward? Some of the issues around security and all that are kind of things we need to resolve. But also on funding, I think we do have a way to provide some level of planning commission training within our existing resources provided folks aren't anticipating very significant training costs.

I think we have those resources available. But we'll figure out how to get the Planning Commission back into the chamber once a month. We're working on that.

Thank you. Great.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the interest that others share with us, as do I. And I also appreciate the staff's efforts to help us understand what it would take to make it happen.

Councilwoman Bershaw? Yeah, I just want to

also echo support for the Planning Commission reviewing the Lumo matrix prior to us and just general support for the notion that we would get a recommendation from the planning commission of their take on pretty much anything planning related before it comes to us because that's part of the point of a planning commission.

Okay. Well, I am hearing strong support for those requests. And it sounds like some of them are already underway. And we appreciate that, Mr. Voorhees. And thank you, Council Member McMahon, for bringing that to the board. Okay. Anything else to share from count? Okay. Next up, we invite members of the public to comment on items that are not listed on the printed agenda.

For members of the public in attendance wishing to speak, you're welcome to sign up with the clerk, who is on the left side of the chamber toward the front of the room. If you're here to speak on a specific item, there will be a presentation on the item followed by counsel clarifying questions and then public comment. Do we have anybody sign

up We do not.

Okay. Well,

we're going to keep it rolling. Counsel, that is going to bring us to our consent agenda. Do I have a motion?

I move consent. Second.

Motion by council member Ryan, seconded by council member Miller Fucci. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed, please say nay. Motion is unanimous.

Next up is item number seven, which is the public hearing on proposed charter amendments on council size and mayoral term. And our presenter is our town manager, Ted Voorhees. Before we begin, I'd like to offer a bit of context so that everyone is on the same page as we begin this community conversation. First off, this idea was raised in twenty twenty twenty when a council member moved out of the country and a seat became vacant. At that time, council chose to postpone the discussion so we could focus on the pandemic and ensure the full community could participate, which is why we are here tonight.

Second, we want this process to be clear and transparent. On April 15, the council passed a resolution to hold tonight's public hearing. Since then, we've shared information through Chapel Hill's Our Town e newsletter, a mayor's message. I've been on the radio twice. We've posted on social media.

Council members have also been talking with folks information. So the town manager will explain options and next steps in his presentation. And third, to set the stage, in our April 15 discussion, council members talked about the values we hold and the balance that we're trying to strike. Between representation, diversity, effectiveness, and manageability, these are our interests. And they are grounded in a clear commitment to preserve representation and diversity.

And last, these are important questions about how we govern ourselves. And there are multiple ways to get there while staying true to our shared values. I encourage all of us to approach this conversation with openness and good faith, listening carefully and sharing our views thoughtfully. With that, I will turn things over to you, Mr. Forhees.

Well, thank you, mayor, members of council. Great to be here, as usual. My intent here this evening is to really talk about the process. The decision to implement any of these structural changes to the governing body is a political decision. And so the administration doesn't have a position on this.

But we want to help you understand what it would take to make that change and help answer any questions about that process. So my intent tonight is just to talk us through what that process would look like. So our recommended action for you tonight is to open the public hearing that's required to receive input on the proposed amendments to the town charter. This does not commit you to enacting any of it, but gets the ball rolling for the public to have an opportunity to provide feedback. And the provisions we're considering tonight in this process are to extend the mayoral term from two to four years in each cycle, and to reduce the council size from eight to six.

There's been some discussion about maybe moving to district representation. The concept there, maybe three districts and three at large members, that's not on the agenda for this particular process. But if you were to move to the six number, there would be time to consider moving in that direction so that it would take place during one of the transition elections to move to six. I just thought I'd mention that. So a little bit of background.

The mayor touched on this about the twenty twenty council seat vacancy. We understand that in 1975, a little bit before that, council amended the charter to increase the number of council seats from six to eight. And you've probably read some communication from various members of the public who were here then speaking about the goals there. And those are matters you can take under consideration as you work on this. The process is that there are two options.

Charters are a grant of authority from the General Assembly. And so given that, you can go to the General Assembly and ask for these changes to be made. It would be a local bill. We don't recommend that because sometimes things can be unpredictable. And sometimes you might get some things considered that you maybe aren't a big fan of.

So best to avoid that if you can. So that leaves you with the ordinance process. So there are pieces of the charter that you are allowed to amend yourselves by statute that do not require general assembly action. Action. There are other things in there that you can't do unless you get general assembly action.

But this issue as to council size and mayoral terms is something that you can choose to change by ordinance. And when you make that decision, you have two options with respect to a referendum. You may choose to make it subject to a referendum, or you may choose to do it simply by a vote of the council. If you choose to do it by vote of the council, the public may choose to file a petition to require a referendum. So one triggers the other.

They would have a thirty day period to file a sufficient petition. So where we are in the process right now is we are in well, we already had the first meeting where you adopted a resolution of intent to consider the charter amendment. We are now here at the second meeting where you're opening a public hearing to consider the amendment. The next step would be to adopt the amendment or order the referendum. And then if the referendum is ordered by you, it's held at the regular election in November.

If the choice is to not hold a referendum, but a petition is filed and it's sufficient, that would drive an order to have the referendum also in November. So we're targeting November. That's why we're on this timeline. The idea is to make sure that it happens during the general election and doesn't cause a special election, which is its own separate cost and administrative burden. Should a referendum be your choice, or should a referendum be driven by petition, we understand that that cost would be roughly $40,000 for ballot production, because it's a longer question and wouldn't really fit in the standard ballot you'd see.

So let's move to the questions you need to consider. If counsel decides to change the mayor's term from two to four years, how could we execute that change? We would execute this change on the 2027 ballot by electing a mayor to a four year term. So very simply, this mayor serves till the end of the existing term. And then 2027 election would be for a four year term.

So just to be sure people understand, this is not for me. This is not extending my term.

No, it is not. It would be a new term beginning. After that election, whoever wins that election would get a four year term.

Thank you.

The next question, if council decides to reduce its membership size, how would we execute that change? We have a recommendation that reduces your number to six with the twenty twenty seven election. And I'll go through a graphic to talk about this. But then we need to transition through a couple of steps to get to a staggered four year terms by 2031. So you'd get to six right away, but to get to three and three takes a couple extra steps.

So how does that work? For the November twenty twenty seven election, right now, as it stands, there are four members that would be up for election. We would only have two members, two seats up for election at the 2027 vote. So that puts you immediately at six. Then in 2029, there would be four members seats up.

For that election, we would have three of those candidates, the ones with the highest number of votes, sit for four year terms. But the fourth highest vote getter would sit for only a two year term. So that would line them up with the previously elected folks for two year terms, which then makes your stagger. So by November 2031, you'd have three seats on the ballot. And 2033, another three seats on the ballot.

So that's how you stagger it. And we're happy to talk through that a little bit more, because we've used a lot of different graphics for that. And it always confuses us. This is an attempt at showing the graphic. I don't know if this helps. I like to do it with fingers. I've been told this is helpful, that you got four and four, and we're trying to get to six. So let's see, if you drop two immediately, you get to six. But now there are four year terms and two year terms. So how do we line it up?

Well, one of these people has to move over to this group. That's why they get elected for only a two year term. And that lines them up. The other people are four. I'm not sure if that helps. It helped me. But the graphic for official publication purposes is this one that shows you've got four up in 'twenty seven, four up in 'twenty nine. If you did the charter change, you'd only have two up in 'twenty seven. In 'twenty nine, you'd have three up for four year terms and one up for a two year term. And that's how you'd line it up.

Manager Forhe is at

Clear there's a as question.

Yeah, thanks. Just a question about the preferred recommendation here. I did some research on how other communities have done this. I'm curious why this is the recommendation rather than having four in '27 with the fourth place finisher getting two years and then three in 'twenty nine. So you lose two seats in 'twenty nine. And then that way, instead of ever having a two seat year, you have a four seat and then a three seat, and you're at six at that point.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I could say that there's a compelling reason. I think it's a choice. This is the recommendation. Jim, do you have an opinion to add in?

Well, I've looked at this question, too. And this is the recommendation of the League of Municipalities when folks are trying to get it to a staggered number a year. And basically, it's the recommendation because others have done this successfully and folks have understood it. But there are other paths to get there.

So this was and I'm sorry, I don't want to get us totally off track. But this was the council member knowledge. That's what I thought that was what I thought was going to be the way. And I think I tried to explain this to you at some point and didn't do it well. But that was what I assumed would be the method. But now I've gotten lost with the finger puppets and the whole I know, I'm sorry. But can you explain that one, maybe with finger puppets or not?

I'm really reluctant to try to do the finger puppets ever again.

I've been traumatized. Now I've made it uncomfortable. I'm sorry. Next time there's four.

Would you like to I'll take a shot.

Please, please.

So what

are we describing?

The alternate method. JULIE

alternate. So in the alternate method, in 2027, four people run, and the person who finishes last gets two years. In '27, only three seats are available. So that means the fourth place seat vanishes from 27. And there is not a 29 seat on the ballot. You lose two seats, one from twenty seven and one from 29. But you still have four people running 27. Just the last place finisher is only on for two years.

Yes. So just moves the

two year term up an election.

Yeah, it's a way of avoiding ever having a year where there's only two seats available.

Right, and it takes a little longer to get to six.

To get

faster to to six.

Yeah, it's faster.

Yeah. It should be.

Council members, will say that

Because that happens the first year.

With this public hearing, we don't have a draft ordinance. And so if there's a preferred path of this body to propose for an ordinance at a later date, Should you all choose to go that direction, we can structure the ordinance however the body prefers.

Yeah, we appreciate that. No, and I just wanted to make sure we had that one on the table and that I understood it because I had lost track of it. So thank you for bringing that up.

Actually, Councilmember Ryan, you're right. Other way is faster.

This proposal

gets us to six immediately, but there's a year where there's only two seats available. Right.

The other one, it takes two cycles to get to six.

You get to six in 29 instead of But 20

you don't have that imbalance the in the electoral groups.

Correct.

Can I Okay?

So that's the trade off there. Yeah. Can I Yeah?

I think we'll need to revisit this once we decide if we want to reduce the size of counsel. Yes. So I'd rather not try to sort this out in my mind until we discuss, do we want to even move forward with it?

Well, think we're trying to just understand what the options are. But yes, it will have to then there would have to be decision point there as well.

Right. I'm just saying that this is starting to get too cumbersome. And I'd rather park it.

I think the bottom line is, do you want to do this? And then there's a couple different ways to get there. The recommended recommended way here, we think, gets you to six a little faster. But you still have to make an adjustment to get to three and three. And so with that, I'll kind of get to this point. The fundamental questions do you want to make this change for the mayoral term? If so, do you want to make this change by ordinance or calling referendum? And then the council membership change do you want to make this change? And if so, do you want to make this change by ordinance or by referendum? And that's essentially the question before you.

It's a political question. Again, we invite you to open the public hearing, receive public input, and have discussion. And then we're on a bit of a tight timeline, but your acting attorney took a look at the schedule again. And we do have a couple of meetings that we can consider this at. But we can't go much past well, we can't go past June. So the recommended date for consideration is in May. But we could move into June a little bit.

And the June deadline is so that the public can request a referendum if we don't go the referendum route.

And then the petition, should it be successfully presented, will have time for the Orange County Office Of

Board Of Elections.

Yep, Board of Elections. Print the absentee ballots in time to get them out before the election. That's the thing we're trying avoid a problem with.

Okay. Council member sorry, Mayor Pro Tem Barry.

I also want to offer that there's another consideration. Should we decide to make changes and invite the public to weigh in on this through a referendum is to do it during the time that we do municipal elections matters. And so then it could be in the next year. And that would also provide additional input from the community. So I want to make sure that we also consider that.

Okay. Let me ask one question, and I'll Do come right you motion from us to open the public hearing?

That would be appropriate.

Okay. Our previous guidance was just by showing up. We were opening hearings, but we will do as you prefer.

So moved.

My comment may be something more appropriately placed later, like questions.

I have a question.

So I can ask my question later.

Okay. I have a motion from Council Member Ryan to open the public hearing and second from Council Member Rivers. Is that true? Oh, from McCullough? I don't know who made the second. Was it you? Yes.

Made a motion. We did it at the same time.

And then

I heard Rivers.

Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Berry. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed, please say nay. Motion is unanimous.

Okay. Now we have time for counsel clarifying questions. Questions. So So I I think think Council Council Member Member Sharp? Sharp. What

did I write down because I'm losing my words tonight? What makes the public petition sufficient to call the referendum? Like what percentage of people have to have signed the petition?

The statute requires either a percentage or a number. The lowest amount based on Chapel Hill is 5,000 voters signing a petition and submitting it to the board of elections within thirty days after notice of the proposed change. Were this body to adopt an ordinance with any of these changes, there would be a ten day period on which the town clerk has to publish the ordinance. And upon publication, it starts that clock. So it could be a forty day clock to get those signatures. But at the very least, it's 30.

Got it. And then my next question was following up on what council member excuse me, Mayor Pro Tem Berry said. If we were to decide to put this to a referendum like the council were decided to move it to a referendum rather than voting an ordinance, ordinance, is it legal to move it to the next election? Or does that referendum have to be on the 2026? Does it have to be this November, or can it be next year?

That is a good question. So I'm looking at statute one hundred sixty three thousand two and eighty seven. And it does require for you to adopt an ordinance. It should be set at a next certain election. Those elections are very limited.

And because the next election is the midterm election, the statute anticipates that you would be doing that. And so if the desire of the body were to do it at a later year, then my recommendation would be to not adopt an ordinance and then wait until the midterm election is complete and then adopt an ordinance. The other thing to keep in mind is that there's a statutory requirement that when you adopt an ordinance during a municipal election year, any of those changes will not impact the members of this body because there's a ninety day retroactive period for the current candidates. So were you to wait a year, it might be waiting more than a year really before the impacts are felt.

Got it.

Because then we would be changing it for the '27.

And '27 is a year we have an election.

Got it. Thank you. Councilmember Nallert.

Thank you. Do we know, ballpark, what it costs to have odd year municipal elections versus what kind of savings there would be if we were to do them on an even year? It's an adjacent question in that one of the grounds for the shrink proposed is that it might save some money. And I'm just curious how much money we might save if we switch to even your elections.

My understanding is that it's the same. I was speaking with Rachel Raper at the Orange County Board of Elections earlier today. And she was explaining to me that the only additional costs for beyond basic candidates on a ballot when you create items like municipal bonds or referendums on charter changes. Then you actually have to pay for the print and pay for the larger page. And so that's where those costs come in. But I know, for example, other municipalities have recently switched to different election cycles. And that's something that is possible, but not part of this public hearing because it wasn't in the notice.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Okay. How many speakers do we have?

We have eight. Yes. Eight.

Okay. This evening, we have eight speakers signed up to speak. So, each person will have three minutes to speak on this item. We ask that you speak into the microphone so that everyone, including our viewing audience, can hear and that you wrap up quickly when the timer goes off. We also request that there is no clapping or cheering or any sort of that's so that the council can really listen to the speaker. So if we can make sure that we're all focused on the speaker who is giving us their thoughts. So I will hand it off to Mayor Pro Tem Vary.

Okay. First speaker will be Danita Mason Hogans, followed by Mark Kleinschmidt.

Welcome. Thank you.

I'll be quick. My wonderful husband is taking me to see Fishbone tonight at the Cat's Cradle, you know, Black Rock Coalition. I first

Thank followed you for joining us before.

First, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. And I'll be quick, but I want to begin by saying that I truly believe that many of you care deeply about equity, housing, students, workers, the future of Chapel Hill. But this is not a question about liking or believing in an individual. This is a structural one. Tonight, I invite us to think carefully about representation and what it really means.

I do not believe that Chapel Hill suffers from too much representation. I believe Chapel Hill suffers from uneven representation. Reducing the size of council may sound administratively efficient, but it would also consolidate power. It would raise the threshold for those who can win and benefit incumbents, establish networks, better funded campaigns, and people who are already legible to Chapel Hill's dominant political culture. And that matters because Chapel Hill does not have term limits.

So if an elected official is doing good work, as many of you are, you already have the ability to keep running and benefit from incumbency. A few of you, for example, have served on Chapel Hill for more than one term, so continuity in leadership is already possible. And political sacrifice and hard work is certainly not new to marginalized communities. From my perspective, as a generational black Chapel Hillian, diversity cannot simply mean whether a black person, young person, student, or person of color can occasionally win a seat. The deeper question is whether government allows enough room for people with the lived, historical, and community rooted knowledge to shape policy before harm is done.

It is not enough to say that black candidates or candidates of colors have sometimes done well. Which candidates? Do they have generational ties to this community? Are they from communities that have been among Chapel Hill's most marginalized? When there's a large pool of candidates and only one or two candidates are from marginalized communities, those communities often have to consolidate their votes around very limited choices.

So a third or fourth place finish does not necessarily prove that Chapel Hill was broadly welcoming. It might prove that marginalized communities have fewer options to begin with. So we're talking about this town and a country where the consequences of uneven representation are not theoretical. Orange County has one of the greatest wealth gaps in North Carolina. Chapel Hill has the second largest achievement gap.

Generational black Chapel Hillians have experienced massive land loss, and many can no longer afford to live in the town that their ancestors helped to build because of housing policies they did not set. So I'm asking counsel not only to oppose shrinking representation, but to think more deeply about how we expand meaningful representation. This is about access to power. It's about who gets to shape policy. And in a town with this much history, displacement and unresolved inequity, we do not need fewer voices at the table. We need more. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, Mark Klein Schmidt followed by Betty Curry.

Mayor and counsel, thank you so much for having me. If you know me, know I'm a little shy and kind of nervous speaking in public. What she said is what I want to say. When I first heard of this proposal, the spirit of a colleague that I served with back about twenty years ago in this council, we're both council members, just went through me. And that was my good friend Bill Thorpe.

Bill was very active here in local government in the 1970s and helped create the charter change that created the council as we see it here today. And I remember having conversations with many conversations with Bill about that time and why it was necessary to expand the council. And he said, Mark, you know, the only way we could actually get black voices on the council was to be able to consolidate our votes. And whenever we made it four each cycle instead of just three each cycle, it meant we didn't have to get as many. Because whenever you to come in fourth, you don't need as high a percentage of the vote that you would need if you were coming in third.

And it allowed for these voices that were otherwise not heard to be present at the table. And it didn't just impact the ability of African Americans to get onto this council, but it opened the door for lots of diversity. Joe Herzenberg came in fourth in 1987, which allowed me to come in fourth in 2001, which allowed Lee Storo to come in fourth in 2009. And that's the only reason why Karen Stegman was able to come in second and then first. And it's not just about demographic diversity.

It's about political viewpoint diversity. I sat in that chair where Mayor Anderson is for six years, and I had some really conversations with my colleagues, some of them who saw the world completely different than me. But because they were there at the council and had a voice as powerful as mine, because even when I sat in the middle, I knew I was only one of nine, That political viewpoint became a part of the decision making process. And our decisions were better because they were there. I don't regret any meeting I was in in with anyone who didn't want me sitting in the middle.

It made those meetings better. So it's not just about demographics. It's about viewpoint and making sure that everybody gets to come to the table and contribute. You're also, with the mayor's idea of a four year term, you're creating two classes of council members. Think about what the voter turnout's going to be in the year that the mayor's not running.

And think about who gets elected to those seats. If those council members have mayoral aspirations, they can try every single time without putting their seat at risk. And they get elected with nobody voting because the leader of our community isn't on the ballot. That can't be the way that this council runs. We need the people of Chapel Hill to be able to turn out people whenever they don't want them there anymore.

I know that from experience. Think about it. If I had four years, this town would have suffered for another two years under the Kleinschmid rule. And I know a lot of people out here didn't want that. And they were able to change the politics of this town in one boom. And I think that makes for a better community and creates higher trust in the people who make the decisions. Thank you for letting me be here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Betty Curry followed by Nancy Oates.

All right. Okay. Good evening, mayor and council member. My name is Betty Curry. I'm a community advocate, a resident of Chapel Hill, and I now serve on the board of Empowerment Inc, an organization that works directly with historically marginalized communities, particularly black residents who have long fought for equity in this town.

Tonight, I speak not only for myself, but in an alignment with the concerns raised by our executive director, Delores Bailey, and many other community members who feel unheard in this moment. Let me be clear. The issue before us is not just the proposal. It is the process and the lack of transparency surrounding it. We are being asked to accept a major structural change, reducing council seats, extending mayor's terms.

These are not minor adjustments. These are decisions that shift power, assets, and representation in Chapel Hill. And yet, where was the community in this process? Where was the outreach to the black communities, Latino communities, low income resident renters? Very people most impacted by decisions made in this

room. Because

of where we stand, that engagement did not happen. History teaches us why this matters. In 1975, under the Howard League, the council expanded from six to eight seats. And that expansion came because communities like Northside and Pine Oles demanded representation. It was a response to exclusion. Not today. We are being asked to reduce that representation without demonstrating that those inequities have been resolved. They have not. Let's talk about the reality on the grounds. Black residents continue to be displaced from Chapel Hill.

Affordable housing remains out of reach for many families. Renters, especially those at lower income levels, have limited voices in decision making. And in our work at Empowerment, we see this every day. We see residents navigating strict housing regulations, limited economic mobility, systems that often feel like they are designed without them in line. So when representation is reduced, even by two seats, it is not neutral.

It has consequences. But equally concerning is how quickly this is moving. In 1974, this town created a charter committee that studied governance change for over a year, engaging public along the way. Today, this is moving forward in a matter of weeks. No broad community education, no meaningful engagement strategy, no deliberate inclusion of those most impacted.

This is not Chapel Hill we say we are. So today, I stand with Dolores Bailey and others and say, this is not being handled correctly. And respectfully, we are asking this council to pause this process and create a space for transparency, communication, community education, intentional engagement with historically exclusive voices because decisions of this magnitude requires more than efficiency. They require trust, inclusion, and accountability. And I will finally say this. When communities feel left out of decisions, they do not lose trust in the process. They lose trust in the leadership. And that is something far more difficult to repair. We are ready to engage. We are ready to organize.

And we are ready to stand together. But we need you to meet us there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nancy Oates, followed by Yvette Matthews.

I'm Nancy Oates, a former town council member. Jerry Cohen, who was the former special counsel and director of legislative drafting for the North Carolina General Assembly, wrote an article decades ago when he served on council, and he was a law student. And he argued, and I quote, a four year term for mayor has no redeeming social value. And he said he stands by that today. I won't repeat all of his well thought underscore that a four year term for mayor is a form of gerrymandering.

It nullifies an individual's vote, and it prevents the community from changing direction. Even if voters elect the four new council members, they couldn't make changes without the deciding fifth vote from a new mayor. And a couple of weeks ago, one of you said that a mayor needs four years to realize his or her vision. But Chapel Hill has a council manager form of government. And the council has the vision, not the mayor.

You have a retreat at the beginning of the year, and you set your goals and your priorities and your vision, and the manager implements them. And we've seen on the national level the consolidation of power when elected officials abdicate their responsibility to represent their constituents and instead kowtow to someone elected to a higher office. And we don't want to drag that down to the local level. Some of you were concerned that shrinking the size of council would hinder diversity. But what good is diversity if you don't use your voice?

The mayor's only one vote of nine. And the only superpower the mayor has is to work with the town manager to set the meeting agenda. Some of you said that a mayor needs four years to grow into leadership. And Mr. Cohen refutes that, as does the history of all of our mayors who all adapted to leadership very quickly, as any of you would if you decided to run for mayor.

The current two year term enables council members to run for mayor midterm without risking losing their seats. And then they bring their council experience to quickly adjust to the role of mayor. And what have you said that if voters chose a bad mayor, the counselor would just have to put up with it for four years. But this goes beyond you. It's about what's best for the town, for what's best for the people who live here and the people who work here.

And again, we've seen on the national level how long it could take to recover from bad leadership decisions. All of the arguments I've heard in favor of a four year term center on the benefit to the candidate. I'd urge you to ask yourselves, as you do with every decision you make, what's in the best interest of the people. This timing is poor. The public hearing is scheduled when a quarter of the eligible voters are either focused on her exams or have left town.

And you still have only concept of a plan. And your town attorney had resigned a few days ago. But fortunately, Ralph Carpinos, who was the Chapel Hill's town attorney for decades and is highly regarded nationally, advised you that if you decide to move forward with this, you should make it a referendum on the ballot in the next local election and let voters decide. And former mayor Kevin Foy also urged you to slow this down and involve the electorate. So I also would say flesh it out, put it on the ballot, and then let voters decide. Thank you.

Thank you. Yvette Matthews followed by Will Raymond.

I'm going say this. If I say what's up, you've to say it back, or I ain't going to feel welcome. So what's up? What's up? I've been in this community for over I'm from Detroit.

So when I came to this community years ago, and I started working at Community Empowerment Fund, CEO, I am the office and community organizer. And I saw a need by people, fixed income, low income, and no income people, to be supported in this space. The thing that I heard most about was housing, how we couldn't find jobs, what we really need to be secure and stable. And so I started this thing called meeting other minds. So what it is is that we came together.

The community sat around, talked about what they weren't getting. They told me all their stories. And I said, well, what y'all want me to do about it? Because I got a big mouth, I don't mind saying I got a big mouth. And so they said, well, we would like to talk to the mayor. We would like to talk to town council. And I'm like, Okay, let's do that. But nobody was comfortable coming here, y'all. I've got to admit, it's kind of stiff. You know what I'm saying? So I invited you to us. You came to us, into the population, into our area. Glad to see PM Everest here. Glad to see Camilla's here, my brother. But when I first engaged with you, it was only people who didn't look like me.

So if you guys are going to take town council and make it smaller, think that we're going to be the ones who look like me that you won't be looking at you know what I'm saying? It'll be y'all. You don't want me to say white people. I'm going say, Okay, it'll be mostly white people. That's how I feel.

And so I think it's unfair that you would take us out of the space that we should be in so we would have people to speak for us. Because that's what you've been doing over and over and over again. Ned just can't go talk about the methane, because I really don't care. If it's two year, I really don't. But I really do care about us being represented in a space where we don't usually be represented. And if you're going to talk to the community, then you all really need to come and talk to us. Because the only reason why I heard about this was because the lawyers told me about this. I didn't even know about this. And I'm part of the community and a community organizer. Why not know? How many other people do you think knew?

Check it out.

Ain't many of us here because we didn't know. So if you're going to reach out to people and you really want to be fair with folks and really want their opinion, then you need to really ask us. And we would actually tell you. And also think about this. When you do ask us, don't already have your mind made up about what you're to do. Because why should I come? Think about it.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Will Raymond followed by Dolores Bailey.

I find it kind of ironic that I'm here tonight after the Civil Rights Act got eviscerated today. It started in my lifetime. It looks like it ended in my lifetime. We've had a year of body blows to democracy. In our town, we've had ten years of steady dilution of civic engagement. We've neutered or gotten rid of most advisory boards. We don't have task force. We have sham engagement. And then we seem to be talking about the charter as it's something for you guys, the council. It's not for the council.

It's for the community. And there's a reason that we have eight people and a mayor. And these are very good reasons. A couple of tweets and a radio show or two is not public engagement. I'm like the other person. I just found out about this. And a lot of you guys know me from way back. I usually know what's going on. I was completely surprised. And I asked myself, what's the hurry? Why are we doing this now? So what did I do? I looked for the full agenda tonight. No letter from the lawyer, no history of this, no timeline, no presentation. We're starting this discussion in a hearing instead of having three or four community outreach, which we would have had in the past.

Why didn't we get the community on board and then have a hearing? We're putting this and timing it in May, which is a classic way to thumb rush stuff in this town. If this was a real thing, would be public initiated. There would have been a lot more outreach. Since we've pretty much neutered and diluted the opinion of the public, their ability to engage directly.

The diversity opinion lies with the council. And eight people, as we heard, maybe is too little. And the previous speakers put this way better than me. We forget the reason for two years for the mayor. During these mayoral elections, a lot of times we have the most vigorous debate possible. And we also have historical change. What's interesting is Mark, I helped him run-in 2001. Me, Mark, and Bill Thorpe ran as a block in 2005. But I was instrumental in kicking Mark to the curb because I had become disenchanted with his direction.

But know what? Getting rid

of Mark sent a message, a clear message, and the council followed. So finally, I just want to say, keep the current arrangement. If you're going to do this, add a recall provision that citizens can initiate. We don't have that. Have a real ethics charter for you guys that, again, the citizens can initiate. We don't have that. And finally, I agree with Howard Lee, term limits. The power of incumbency has been way too much in this town, and it's time that we do something about it. Referendum asking 5,000 votes, a lot of you guys got elected with less than 5,000 votes. That's just a nonstarter.

You need to call the referendum if you're going to do this. I hope you have reverse course. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Dolores Bailey followed by Michelle Laws.

Good afternoon. I'm Dolores Bailey. I've been before you many times. I've got lots written down. But I have to say one thing. I am so disturbed about the fact that I did not know about this in enough time. If any of you all have ever been to

the

NAACP when you were running for office, you came and asked for our support. Not one of you came to the NAACP and told me what was going on, told us what's going on. I have a right to be upset. I'm before you way more than this. I didn't have time to talk to my community. I didn't have time to talk to my tenants. I didn't have time to talk to anybody. Why is that unacceptable to me? Because I'm before you every single time there's a need for that community, for those communities. This is not done the way I know the town council of Chapel Hill can be.

They've said it before, but I have got to say it again. This is unacceptable. If this had been on the consent agenda, we would never have found out about it until 2027. I often tell my folk, if you are waiting in the community until you see a house coming up out of the ground, it's too late for you to complain. It's too late for you to add any kind of comment.

That's how I feel tonight. It's almost too late for me to say, no. Do not reduce the number of representatives. For the same reason everyone else has said, I am very concerned about the marginalized community members and being spoken for and being represented. And man, this smacks me in the face when nobody came to me and said, hey, Dolores, what do you think about this?

Nobody. It's not about Dolores, absolutely not. It's about being able to share with the rest of the community what's going on. They could say whatever they wanted, but they need the opportunity to be able to speak on this. I'm going leave that alone because the other issue that is just as important to me is the idea that we would change from two years to four years for the mayoral candidacy.

I want to be very clear and direct. This matters to me. I do not support extending the mayor's term from two years to four years. And I believe that doing so would weaken accountability and reduce meaningful public engagement in Chapel Hill. While some argue that two year terms force elected officials into constant campaigning, I see the opposite risk as more concerning.

A four year term creates longer periods for fewer opportunities for voters to respond to leadership decisions, especially in a town where policy debates, development pressures, priorities can shift rapidly. Chapel Hill is not a static environment, and our electoral structure should reflect that reality. It is also important to challenge the assumption that campaigning and governing are mutually exclusive. Effective leaders should already be actively engaged with the community, listening, communicating, and showing up. What some call campaigning is often simply the work is being visible, accountable and responsive.

Extending terms risk reducing that urgency. A few more minutes. At that same time, agree that serving a municipality office requires significant time and intellectual investment. The volume and complexity of issues facing Chapel Hill from housing affordability to land use infrastructure are substantial. However, the solution is not to reduce electoral accountability in the name of convenience.

Public office should remain accessible to working people. And if the structure is already demanding, we should look at ways to better support officials, not insulating them from voters for longer periods. In short, two year terms strike an important balance. They ensure regular accountability, keep leadership closely connected to the community, and maintain a more accessible pathway to participation in local government. Extending a mayor's term would move us in the wrong direction. I respectfully submit this to you.

Thank you. And we will finish with Michelle Laws.

Madam Mayor, members of the council, good evening. I come here tonight a bit heavy laden, especially with the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, which has officially gutted and rendered null the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In fact, it was at the passage of that Voting Rights Act that we, people who look like me, my ancestors, members of the legacy community here, we began to see a turn in the tides of change towards democracy as not just an ideal or dream, but a reality. It was significant because following its passage, protections were put in place for historically disenfranchised people and communities to fully engage building and protected by fighting in every single war, including the American Revolutionary War, which we will celebrate two fifty years in July. It is important for us to understand that some of us have only really experienced democracy and our full participation and engagement or the ability to fully participate and engage in electoral politics for sixty one years.

If this were a different place in time, I might feel very differently about this issue. However, Chapel Hill still has a long way to go to realize the ideals and the dream that many of my ancestors and members of my community would like to see. For example, as already mentioned, Chapel Hill High Schools still has a shameful distinction that it has had for decades that some try to mask and many ignore altogether the distinction of having the highest second highest achievement gap by race and ethnicity in our state despite it being one of the highest wealth districts in the state. Affordable housing remains a crisis. It's beyond crisis.

Public housing conditions are bordering on dilapidation. We also have people who are simply trying to survive with poor wages. Gentrification run amok with corporate landlords who could care less about the diversity and the legacy and the history of communities, especially the historic black communities. So we have too many issues of grave concern and importance that require many good minds, not less, working to address them. I'm also in fear that as we talk about and as there there is lots of movement to prevent kings, people from just coming into office and taking, pretty much heisting from American people, heisting our power, political power.

I don't wanna see anybody's terms extended. In fact, what I'd like to see are term limits. So I'm deeply concerned and troubled tonight. Had a lot to say, but coming here was so distracted with the Supreme Court ruling. But this was the perfect time, perfect timing. Now is not the time to disrupt the the configuration of the current council or to extend the term of our mayor. We've got too much work to do, and you all have too much work that you have to do to better engage communities like mine.

Thank you. All right, counsel. Back to you. Councilmember Nauert.

I want to say thanks to everybody who's come out tonight. I've opposed the reduction in the council the whole time. Extending the mayor's term does seem to me to have some material benefits. But what I'm hearing tonight has made me rethink that. And I oppose that, too.

Mayor Pro Tembury.

Thank you. I want to say I apologize because I did not. I did not reach out to anybody about this matter. Thank you for calling us on it. I only talked with people who called me or reached out. I was responsive. I was reactive. I was not proactive in this. I do not support taking action so that it can be voted on by us to make that determination, nor do I support it being on this year's ballot. That is way too soon.

I already believe that we had not done our due diligence in engaging this community. And if we do not pride ourselves on one thing, other things, it is we are working on community engagement. Every meeting our staff comes before us to tell us how they are trying to meet our objectives, our goals of community engagement. If we are not behind that with this important matter, I don't understand. I have tried to remain open about the benefits of each of those moves, of shrinking.

It could be better financially. It could be better for the person who is in the mayor's seat. We're not talking about the current mayor. And I said to someone recently, you know, it is not appealing to me, not very appealing to me to want to run for mayor knowing that I'll have to run every two years. It's also not appealing to me to want to run for state house because I'll have to run every two years.

If that is what an individual is called to do, then they will commit to doing what they must do every two years. Thank you to the gentleman, Mark, who pointed out if we have one group of council members who will run with the mayor, it is so clear that the other group will not get the same attention as the group with. And so for those reasons and I'm sure there are many others that I'm not bringing up right now I did write down. One, I don't support either measure. But two, I certainly don't support us making a change without the community's deep, meaningful engagement.

And we cannot do that this year in time for our November election. Thank you.

Council Member McCullough followed by Council Member Ryan.

I have to admit that coming into this, I was trying to be very logical about how it might be more efficient and how we have been able to get representation on this board versus how do we make sure we maximize representation. And I have to say that the kind of feedback that we've gotten, not just tonight but in emails, surprises me in how united different people how there is a very diverse group of people, residents, that oppose this. And I find that striking, and I also find it compelling. I do think that representation is one of the most important things that we need to foster. And I agree that I don't think that this should be done, certainly not this year and certainly not without intensive discussion and engagement, if at all.

So thank you. Councilmember

Ryan?

Thank you. Thanks for everybody who came out to join the conversation. We'll get to that bit in a minute. I'm Okay with considering this change. Other towns around us who are similar, like Durham, like Carborough, like Asheville, they all have smaller boards. Most places in North Carolina have smaller boards, and they've all managed to achieve very diverse representation. That's something that our voters value, something they've in elections time after time after time. So I think it's a question that's worth asking. I think the bigger question, though, is how to expand meaningful representation. And that was raised by several of our speakers here.

Over the past two years, we've eroded some of the more important avenues for nurturing future council members, for people who aren't connected or aren't in the know or don't have friends. Opportunities to work on town issues on committees, on work groups, on advisory boards. All of those have much lower barriers to entry than trying to get onto council. So I think all of those ways are powerful ways for people to get involved, and I think we have to do a better job of making sure that we are paying attention to those avenues and aren't just being very efficient in our government structure and the way we operate, but that we're really being more inclusive. So I'd like us, when this issue passes, I would like us really to take up that other issue and figure out if we're really supporting that kind of pipeline that's making sure that we're getting all of those voices into the seats of power in Chapel Hill.

So I hope that everyone has heard the distress about the community not being involved and not being notified. I apologize for this happening the way it did. We will do better. This communication was not Okay. And I don't think anybody was trying to pull a fast one.

I think it was just, again, things getting very overly streamlined, overly technical, and I think we will do better in the future. I will certainly push to make sure that we do. This makes me think that if we want to proceed, I would not be okay with counsel just voting it in. I would be okay with it going to the voters as a referendum item in the fall. I think that would give plenty of time for discussion and for community education and community input. So I would be okay with that. Thank you.

Councilmember McMahon.

Thank you all for coming out. I was originally interested in talking this through because I'm new. And I have wondered how we can be more effective in achieving the goals and the outcomes that we have. People ask me, what do you want to get accomplished? And I feel like there are a lot of things that we have agreed upon doing and that we're doing well.

We have an issue of getting them across the finish line in a way that delivers good results for people. I had no idea that this was going to affect representation. I looked at our seats as that large. My mistake, my failure as a new council member to only look at one side of this. If I would have known that this was impacting representation from our longtime community members and our historians, I would have felt differently about this.

And I am sorry that I did not reach out, Michelle Spaley. When I ran for office and everything that I've done in this community, I really want to be committed to reaching out. There's nothing again, Paris, we talk a lot about intention versus outcomes. I never want an outcome where I'm doing this to reduce representation or not to listen to people or not engage with the community. I do want to have broader conversations about how we get better at working with the manager and with the community to really push forward on a lot of things we want to do.

The spirit of wanting to see that happen is still there. I want everyone in this room to continue to do that. But I only know what I know, and I don't know what I don't know. And I saw this public hearing as a place to hear from people. And it wasn't good enough, and it's not good enough. So I can't support these measures at this time. But I am committed to figuring out what's holding us back. And if there's some way that we operate that's holding us back, I want to get at that. And so I'm looking for help on figuring that out. So thank you all.

I'm emotionally touched. And this has been a tremendous experience for me. And I appreciate each of you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Elizabeth? Councilmember Sharp?

I first want to say that I'm definitely sensitive and empathetic to the fact that the national context in which we're having this conversation can't help but color the discourse. But I do urge you to recognize

that

there is a difference between what has happened with the Voting Rights Act today and our interest in reducing the council size. The Sheffield Hill Town Council is not our current federal government. I also want to emphasize that I think that we often, in these conversations, start to see things in absolute terms. And reducing a council from eight members to six members is not absolute. It is a difference of degrees important degrees, but it's a difference of degrees.

I've very much listened to everything you all have had to say about the worsening effects of inequality in our town, I think particularly in recent decades. I think since 1975, we've made some strides in terms of representation and positive social change. And I think we've backslid. That has happened in the context of an eight person council. I don't think that we have diversity on our board right now.

We do not have ideological diversity or political diversity. There is not a single conservative member of this board. That said, I think that the degrees of nuance in our differences of opinions are killing our ability to affect change on the values that we broadly agree. I think we are failing to act. And that is in part because of the size of our board.

I agree that we probably ought to take it to a referendum at this point. I think that us just passing it is really, we will lose your trust. And I appreciate that. I think that we really need to think hard about who gets elected and how and why in this town and think about it much more in-depth than the color of the skin or the religion or sexual orientation of the people who get elected. I think there are very strong commonalities between people who get elected that really reduce the diversity of ideology and opinion on this board.

And we really ought to address those in this process. And in that sense, waiting till November for a referendum, I think, is also beneficial. I will say I think that putting on a referendum this November is not too soon. I think very many of us had not decided to run by this time in the election year in which we ran. And so I think that it's plenty of time to mount a campaign for or against this change.

I've gotten in touch with the Board of Elections. I'm hoping to get more thorough information so that we can make a very informed choice. It will only give us historical data, and we will have to cross reference it ourselves with demographic data, because that's not something a box you have to check when you're running for office. But I think it's really important that we see that data before we make this choice and that you all see that data before you make this choice. The very sort of slapdash data we've seen so far actually concludes that reducing the size of the board in 1975 would not have adversely affect black representation on the board.

And that was brought forth by Councilmember Knowlert, who opposes the change. So I think we need a lot more data before we can make this change. And I hope that's something that we can both share amongst ourselves and with you all between now and November. I think that one of the most detrimental things that I have seen in my time on this board to our ability to make sound, clear decisions with the public interest at the heart of our choices is personal political ambition. And for that reason, for the four year mayoral term, I really think that the more often you have to run, the more often you are thinking about your own political future.

And I really have genuinely seen that be a negative effect. That said, I hadn't taken into account the different complexities of who's running when and on what year. And so I think that's something to think about. And I appreciate you bringing that forward. I think that's it. I'm in favor of it for now. I'm open. I hope that everyone else stays open. I think a lot of times people say they are. And were we to come to you and ask your opinion, we wouldn't be coming to you with open minds. And so I hope that you all will keep open minds as much as you expect us to. So yeah, I look forward to discussion.

Councilmember Rivers followed by Councilmember Nallert.

Yeah. First, thank you for the comments. And this communication process has not been good. I do want to speak about the mayor's term. I've heard the comments, and think those are also good points.

But I think a lot of the things that we're seeing in our community, the displacement of black people, the acceleration of gentrification, that's being accelerated by the presence of the university. And I worry about how do we communicate with the university. I think a lot of that is governed by how state law ties us in. The university can do things without consulting us at all, which unfortunately makes it comes down to relationships. So I think it's important that we have relationships that stand more than two years in terms of dealing with the university and other outside pressures for the town.

But I also hear that people are concerned that there will be a reduction in democracy. But I'm really concerned about how do we try to get some type of equal footing with the juggernaut in town.

Councilmember Nallert and Mayor Pro Temperi,

you have something else?

Yeah. I just need to add a little context to Councilmember Sharp's comment about what I think the effect of this on the representation of black people would be. What she's referring to is a memo I received from a researcher that was looking at what percentage of the time black people who were elected to the council finished in the top two or the bottom two. And the answer is that it is 50% of the time. That is not the same thing as believing that this change would not negatively affect the representation of black people.

And that is not a position that I hold. I was just trying to share a memo I received from a researcher indicating that statistically there are other groups that would not have a fifty-fifty split in their election. So there are young people would not finish in the top 250% of the time if we reduce the seats. People who are neither black nor white would not finish in the top 250% of the time. People who are LGBTQ would not finish in the top 250% of the time based on historical data. So I want to clarify that it is not my official position that this change would not negatively impact the representation of black people at Chaplain.

I was only speaking about the data that you represented. You're certainly welcome to believe whatever you want, regardless of the data.

Mayor Pro Tem Barry.

Thank you. I also want to point out that we are in midterms, federal midterms. There is, as we all know, a lot at stake. Today was a great example of that. And I am talking about the federal level.

To consider asking our voters to add this to what they are already deliberating and what they are already fighting for, there are many in this community who are going to other communities to make sure that the vote gets out this election. So the opportunity to meaningfully engage with our citizens by the time it is for the vote this year, that is not sufficient time in my opinion. If we really say, if we say, I'll take out those, the French say you dilute, if you add those adjectives and adverbs, if we believe that we must engage with the public before we make a significant change, a change to our charter, then we must all agree to do that by November is insufficient by this November. If we really want the community's engagement, we must be prepared to answer questions between now and the next municipal election, which is when our community is focused on those elections and why I do not support going to even year. There is too much noise, and this noise is important.

I do not want us to take our eyes off of that prize.

Councilmember Miller Fucci.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you all for coming out. I believe I made my position clear in opposition to this tonight a week or so ago. And while I don't intend to conflate what just happened with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I am going to invoke it because it bears so much weight when I think about the Chapel Hill nine on the streets of Franklin Street, who were fighting to end segregation, who the same people who were fighting, riding, fighting, marching, shedding blood, being bitten by dogs. That happened in our local communities.

So, that holds weight and it speaks to what we are being asked to consider tonight in terms of shrinking our town council. We do have diversity on this board And it's precisely that diversity that causes a lot of the tension that we see. I am a Muslim woman, the only one sitting up here. And I just spent a week long training with folks who in their local communities have had to fight off ice on their streets simply because of their faith tradition. I bring that lived experience with me.

And so when ICE was running rampant in North Carolina, that wasn't peripheral for me. I had to think about carrying my passport with me. Efficiency is not our North Star. Equity and inclusivity is. And so I am absolutely against reducing the size of this council.

And I want to thank council member Mayor Pro Tem Barry for reminding us that even our state house representatives have to run every two years. And they do it because they have a calling for the position. I'm not going to belabor my points. I think I've heard enough from the community who have spoken far more eloquently than I could have. Thank you all for coming out tonight. And I did reach out to you. So thank you for showing up.

It's my turn. Oh, sorry. Yes, Councilmember Rivers.

Why not have two year terms for Councilmembers? I if we think four years is too long for the mayor, why not two year for council members? And we have it staggered. I'm just think through this, like how it would work.

I think it's harder to stagger because then you wouldn't be able to do it on off years for everybody.

I don't think right now we have a council of equals. We have a council of certain people who have more security. And if you're on that off election, you could run against the mayor and still keep that seat. So that issue, the concern about having some people that could always run against the mayor, that exists right now.

So you'd have everybody run every two years?

I'm just trying to work through the hypothetical of it.

So let's stick with this one

and then

propose others. Because there are other variations we could offer. But I really would love for us to, after our mayor is able to share her position.

Thank you. I do want to apologize for you all not hearing what you needed to hear in advance and not being asked directly to engage. And I do think that's really, really important. And I think we need to do better on how we reach out directly on things that are important. And there are more issues than just this.

And I really do want to work hard on how we are engaging folks and how we're hearing from folks and going to at times that we need to. I will also, in full transparency, admit that being a working mom and doing this part time job makes that hard. And so I don't want you all to take it ever as a slight from me if you have not heard directly from me. It is imperfect. But it is never meant to be an intentional overlook or anything of the sort.

So please accept my apology. And also please understand that it is not because of a lack of desire to hear and talk to you all. I honestly wish I could do that way more than I can in so many different ways, not just on this topic. And I find myself running each day every day and shooting off texts and shooting off emails and trying to take care of my students and my kids. So it really is not due to a lack of interest.

I promise you that. But that does not negate the absolute necessity that you all hear an apology directly from me. And I think you've heard it from others as well. And so I hope that you will accept that apology and that you will understand that there is no ill intent, but that doesn't mean that the impact wasn't there. I want to share now, and I've really appreciated hearing from you all tonight.

This is part of the process. And so thank you all for showing up and for being willing to come, particularly on a day that I think is beyond words. And so I understand. I don't think I actually truly believe that you all don't believe we are anything like the federal government. I know that you all don't think that.

And it is, of course, on people's minds as they walk in this door. And I hope that nobody thinks that we are like the federal government. We try really hard not to be. And I also want to say that this has never been about consolidating power or boxing anyone out. I can tell you I also want to be honest with you all since you've been honest with me.

And I want to tell you my perspective on this topic just having sat in this seat, that seat, a couple other seats, and now this one, is that I do think there are reasons that we should be considering about why this board is larger than average. And as a starting point and not an ending point, I think it is important for us to look at what has happened over time. And has this changed from 1975, which, by the way, I think we should applaud and thank our predecessors for doing something proactive to help make a change that was needed. I really do want us to look at, is it still working as intended? And the reason I say that is because I always want us to be looking for better ways to do things.

And to me, a strong board is a diverse board. Those are not two separate concepts. So the entry point is, would this change potentially, based on election results, have an impact that we could anticipate that would reduce diversity on the board. That's the entry point. That doesn't mean that that's the only piece of information.

But I think that data is important. I will also say that it is not easy to get things done in this town, and I really care about that. And I know you know what I'm talking about. And that is not for a lack of trying from us or our staff. That is not intentional.

But it's not easy. And I don't always think that more is better. Sometimes for the deep discussions that we want to have, for the work we want to push forward, sometimes we are not achieving the outcomes that are about the issues that I think we all care about, that are about housing, that are about getting more people back in our community that can't afford to live here, that grew up here. I mean, these are all the things that are happening in real time. And I don't need to tell you all that because you work on it every day.

But these are the things that we're balancing about how easy is it for people from underrepresented communities to come and talk to us. That's a lot. And how easy is it for us to make progress on the things that we've already decided, we know are important, we are resolute. It is not a matter of wanting to push people out so that we move backwards or make Chapel Hill great again. That is not where we're trying to go.

And so I really want to be clear that I think it is important. I do think it is important that we be doing a better job in having these conversations with you all and with others. And I really want us to stay open minded because having sat in a lot of these seats over the years, there are reasons that smaller boards are the predominant size in North Carolina and across the country. And there are things that we need to weigh. There are things that really are important that I think we're not doing as well on.

And sometimes the pipeline of who is willing to run, who has support to run, is way more important than how many seats there are. And those are the things that I think actually in 2026 are the ways that we can see the type of diversity that we always want on this board. But I think talking about those things and looking at the totality of what does it mean to actually be a board that is accessible to people, I don't think that I personally do not believe that that is dictated by board size. I think that's about how do we make sure that people are supported in running, in getting training, in getting to serve on other boards, on attending our people's academy. I think there are a lot of things that we need to think about in terms of pipeline too.

And so I think this is the thing that we have, as of now, talked about in a vacuum. And we haven't talked about what does it look like to actually get to what we want, which is more inclusion and more people being at the table and also more people having an easier time talking to us and that we're actually achieving the results that we need to achieve for this community more quickly. Because I don't feel like we have the time to keep going slow on some of the things that I think are really critical to all of us and that we share. So I do happen to have a different perspective on this one thing. And I want to be honest with you all about that.

And I also think we share all the same desires and values about outcomes. And we share the desire to talk to each other more and to make sure that we're not doing anything that would hurt the values that we share as a community and that we have shared for fifty years. So with that, I do think these are important reforms to consider. The mayor's term in particular, I can just tell you, and I of course made sure it wasn't about giving me any more time. I think you want a mayor who has more time to learn the job, to make the relationships, to figure out how to move things forward, how to work with our staff, how to do these things that are more complicated.

And I think two years is a very short amount of time. And we are, along with being a mom and having a job, running a lot, means that it is not actually as accessible to the number of people I want it to be accessible to. I want the people that come after me to have an easier time than I did doing this. And that's because it's better for the community, not because it's personal to me. And I hope you all know that none of this has been suggested as a way to make it easier for anybody on this board.

It's about the outcomes for the community, and it's about making our community better. So I am not hearing support at this time despite my own interest in these topics. So unless I hear emotion, I'm going to assume that we are closing the public hearing.

Madam Mayor, where it sits right now is that if there were to be an ordinance, there would be sixty days from today to draft an ordinance. No ordinance has been drafted. If there is no indication or instruction from this body, we will not do that and it will not be on a future agenda at a regular meeting.

Thank you.

Council?

I

move that we close the hearing.

Move

by Mayor Pro Tem Berry, seconded by council member Miller Fucci. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed, please say nay. Motion is unanimous.

And counsel, thank you for coming with an open mind. Thank you for bringing your thoughts. And I do hope that we can continue to engage in all sorts of issues in ways where we are making people feel more included and where they are more included.

So just for clarification, this proposal is now dead?

Correct. All this was was the hearing to decide if we wanted to direct staff to do something further.

Mayor, I'd like to say thank you again. Thank you again to everyone who came out and shared, and also to everyone who has written to us and called. Thank you.

Right, counsel. You know. Trying. All right. Next is item number eight, which is the 2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan update. And I believe we have Bergen Waterson and Colleen McGook. Is that right? Close. Oh, tell me how to do it right. McHugh. Oh, McHugh. Oh. That I'm not sure that I have it even spelled that way, but that is great. Thank you for correcting me. No. And you are joining us from the Triangle West TPO.

That's right. Evening, mayor and council members. My name is Colleen McHugh. I'm the planning manager for the Triangle West Transportation Planning Organization. And I'm joined tonight by our executive director, Doug Placzynski. So we are here to talk with you about our region's long range transportation plan, Destination 2055. So can I just advance the slides?

We actually don't see it here for some reason, so I think we need some tech support.

Uh-oh, it's gone now.

And we can just look there if we need to, but this monitor is not currently open. I'll wait.

You can do the hand puppet thing.

Yeah, hand puppets have been really fun tonight. I know.

We have a few board members and former board members on this board that I want to recognize tonight. Some new board members as well. I'm hoping to provide a little bit of education to those. Okay. We're good? Great. And then if I just use my mouse. Am I advancing? Okay. I've got it.

Great. So many of you are familiar with Triangle West. We are a metropolitan planning organization. We're a federally funded government agency focused planning and policy making. As I mentioned, several of you are board members or former board members.

And we work on this long range plan with our sister organization to the east, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. They cover Wake County and that metropolitan statistical area that covers that Eastern side of the Triangle. And here is our region. This is this is our entire planning area. Triangle West is outlined in green on this map, and Capital Area NPO is that larger yellow area.

And I'm going to go quickly through these slides because I was told I only have ten minutes to talk And about this two year planning I know you've already been here for a few hours tonight. One of the first things we do when we start developing the long range plan is we begin and look at population and job growth projections. So you'll see here on the map population growth and job growth from 2020 to 2055. And I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone here

that we are going to grow quite a bit. We're going to grow significantly as a region, anticipated to add about

and 1,500,000

people yes, 1,500,000 residents

by 02/1955. Growing the population from 2,000,000 to 3,400,000. And those people are going to need to move around. So the Triangle Region Long Range Plan covers thirty years. And this is all types of transportation projects, everything from sidewalk and bike ped projects to highway projects, passenger rail and freight rail projects, aviation projects, all of that is included in this plan.

This is a fiscally feasible plan, and so that means we are constrained by resources. All of projects that are in this plan are we are able to fund them with the resources that we project will be available over the next thirty years. So it takes two years to develop the MTP. We started with a big picture visioning goals and objectives process in January 2024. There is public engagement involved in each of these four steps of the planning process.

So public engagement with the vision, we get into alternatives analysis where we're looking at different options for what the region will look like and what the funding availability should look like. And then our board, advised by the public, selects a preferred option for what they hope for the long range plan. And then we adopted our plan in February of this year. Here's the visioning. These are the goals of the MTP.

So everything from protecting the natural and human environment and minimizing climate change, connecting people and places, managing congestion, improving our infrastructure condition, ensuring equity and participation, safety and economic vitality. And those goals and vision really guide the planning process. All right. I'm gonna go quickly over this slide, but we, during our planning process, we spent almost a year kind of working through this process. We looked at three different options for what the plan could look like.

Plans and trends on there, you see kind of the price tag with each one. That was assuming kind of business as usual. We're investing mostly in highway projects, a little bit less in transit and bicycle and pedestrian type projects. And assuming that there's not going to be any changes to the way our projects are funded, both federally and at the state level. Shared leadership assumes a little bit more less funding for highways and more for transit stuff that we care about.

And then the altogether scenario, which has ended up being our preferred scenario, has the biggest price tag because it includes a lot of funding for transportation, bike and ped, and it also assumes increased population density in certain parts of the MPO area. So with this one, I mentioned it's an ambitious alternative. There is some additional flexibility in funding that we're assuming here. And I'm going to talk about that a little bit more on the next slide. But you see that the price tag is the highest and then here are some of the key projects on the right hand side and the key transit investments, which I'm going to go through a little bit more a little bit more detail.

About 25%, a little bit more than that, is just for maintenance of our existing roadways. 23.5% is for public transportation projects. 12.5% for bicycle and pedestrian projects. And about a little less than 40% is going to go towards roadway, highway projects, and complete street projects. And when I'm talking about complete streets, I'm talking about more than just roadway expansion.

We're looking at how can we make sure that there's bicycle facilities on the side of the roadway, is there's to be more transit facilities, and those kinds of things. Of course it's important to mention we have some funding limitations at the state level right now. We're assuming that the way funding passes through the state will continue for the first ten years of our plan. And then it opens up in the second and third decade of the plan, where we'll have more flexibility for funding bicycle and pedestrian projects and transit projects.

Would you mention my most hated part of the STI law?

GREGORY So I think that is the limitation where 90% of the funding has to go towards highway projects, and only 10% can go towards other modes of transportation. And even within that, it tends to be more like 6% to other modes. We're hoping that that will change. Our board took the position that that will change. And in the second and third decade of the plan, we'll have more availability.

You'll see that in some of these slides. So starting with transit. You'll see in the third decade of our plan, we are funding transit a lot. And I'm going to go through these pretty quickly, but you'll see in each of these for each mode there's less funding available in the first decade, and then that increases over time. Some of the key projects that I know are of interest to you all, we're looking at intercity passenger rail stations, so one in Hillsborough and then one in Research Triangle Park.

Bus rapid transit or fast buses, the North South bus rapid transit line coming online here by 2035, and then a rapid bus connection between Durham and Orange through Carrboro, and then a rapid bus connection between Chapel Hill and Research Triangle Park and down into Raleigh. These are the transit revenue assumptions. So sales tax, there will be a growth rate, vehicle registration growth rate, and assuming federal grants. And here's a map of what the intercity rail will look like. There you see the station in Hillsborough, station in Research Triangle Park on here.

And you can kind of see faintly, but you'll see in more detail in the next slide where our rapid bus system is connecting in. So the lines on here, north south bus rapid transit is actually the blue line on the map, but we really have like a nice triangle of connectivity across the region with connected with this quick fifteen minute or less service. And investing in transit means we're going to double the number of people who are taking the bus by 2,055. So we'll have a 5%, we call it the mode share, which is a big increase. So investing in transit means more people are going to take the bus.

Talking about bicycle and pedestrian projects, you see that the first decade a little bit less, but that number really increases. The majority of the funding is going to be spent in that second decade and then still a good amount in the third. And when we're planning for bicycle and pedestrian projects in a long range plan, we know that community priorities can shift over time. So we don't have specific projects identified. But I wanted to show the plans we're pulling from.

So we're pulling from your locally adopted bike ped plans, and those are the projects that we'll be funding over the course of these thirty years. And as they get updated, we'll pull those in too. Roadway and complete streets projects, again, funding increases second decade and third decade. Quite a bit of funding going towards this. And here is a list of some of those projects which I have on a map on the following slide.

Many of these are, you know, US 70 West. We're looking at roadway widening. I-eighty 5 roadway widening, you know, so on and so forth. You'll also see this term on here modernization. That means improving the roadway, not necessarily widening, but maybe adding a bus facility or complete streets type facilities.

And here's a map of Chapel Hill and the projects that are passing through that we expect will come online during this planning process in your area. And in the interest of time, I'm gonna end with key takeaways. So the the big picture, it's important for projects to be in this long range plan. This really sets the stage for all the future transportation investments that are going to happen in our area. If the projects are funded by, in the MTP, they must be consistent with the goals and objectives.

And having a project in the plan enables our agency to request that state and federal funding for this project. So if it's not in the plan, we can't make that request. Very good. And here's a QR code if you'd like to look at the plan and map. All the great maps that go along with it, this will take you right to our website. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you. Councilmember Ryan?

Yeah, Thank you for this. And thank you for doing this. I can't even imagine trying to do a 2055 plan. We like to think far out. So I support the vision. I think it's great. Practicalities. So I know in our packet it says that there's no there's no fiscal implication for the town of the plan, but that as these projects if the projects are in the plan, you'll be seeking funding for them, then there are Do projects that will come we have any idea what that liability would be for Chapel Hill?

That is a great question. I would have to run some numbers to get back to you. But essentially with any of these federal transportation projects, it's an 80% federal funding with a 20% local match.

I mean, if those numbers are somewhat accessible, it would be as you talk about these projects, it would be really interesting to see what that potential liability might be. I know when the light rail came through, we weren't paying for most of it, but we were paying for a lot of it. And I don't know our operational expenses included in any of this, or this is just all construction and land acquisition and design and that kind of thing. Right? Like if we build a station in Hillsborough, somebody will be paying to maintain that. Yes. And are those costs in here or are those They

are assumed. There are some maintenance costs assumed.

They're assumed

in there.

Okay, that's great.

About 25% of this plan is maintenance.

Okay. And the bike ped, I didn't see a lot of specific projects on there

for the bike ped. So is that just as the

Right. Right. And you said we it's We're so pulling local projects

from your bike ped plan. We're assuming a certain bucket of funding in each decade that is just going towards bicycle and pedestrian projects. So we have like a dollar amount, but the projects aren't specifically identified. That process, I could talk about that a little bit more, but we annually do a call for projects where the town applies for funding, federal funding for projects. So that's kind of how that would happen annually. As the town prioritizes projects, we would help get them funded.

And does it generally go by how the projects are scored, or is it sort of spread equally across the area that you cover?

It goes by score, and we have scoring criteria for our call, which we'll be revisiting in the next couple of years. But we try to spread it fairly across our members. I know we have one very large jurisdiction in our area, the City Of Durham. They are capped at 65% of the total funding. And so the rest of that is available for all our other agencies.

Okay. Thank you. Sure.

Councilmember Miller Fucci followed by Mayor Pro Tembiri. Yeah, I

would have to agree with my colleague, Councilmember Ryan, how, like, thousand and fifty five, was like, woah. I was a bit dizzy by that.

I

just moved away from the page. Lost it. I guess it's part of the guideway projects. I'm just really interested in how many of these maps are showing how we can get from here to the airport. And I'm really specific about the airport. I'm thinking about the university, just folks in the town, if there's a stop along the way to the airport.

It's interesting that you bring that up because during our final round of public engagement, we heard, I think, three or four comments about how is Chapel Hill going to get to the airport on the bus. And so it's clearly something that resonates with others as well. Doug, I think people are going to be taking the dirt it's going to be that hold on. I'm looking at the map, but

I need to look

at the project list. It's the Chapel Hill RTP line combined with the I-forty line. So that is not until that third decade of the plan, 2055.

Okay. I see it down

But essentially, we're connecting in to Research Triangle Park and on I-forty is where the airport connection will be. There's like another airport station on I-forty that will take people right into the airport. Excellent. So the rapid bus drops them off there and they'll connect in that way.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Other questions?

Yeah. Oh, sorry. It's up there.

Hello again. Hello.

Nice to see you.

Good to see you. So I have to laugh because one of my things that I hate are acronyms. And I see that you all explained what it was, but the STI,

which is

I know. I'm sorry.

That's all good. So that's another, you know, like, let's not do know that's not you, but let's not do acronyms. Okay. Complete Streets. I was on the board, but I still need a refresher. Complete Streets and Modernization. Help us understand those.

Sure. Complete Streets are we use this term because a street is not complete if it doesn't serve all modes of travel and all the users of that street. And so it depends on the context in the street. A highway is technically a complete street for the highway because you wouldn't want people walking walking along the side of the highway. But, you know, in the context of a local street, you wanna make sure we have plenty of space for people who need to walk, bike, strollers, wheelchairs, all of those kinds of things. So it depends on the context, guess, is my response.

Thank you. And then modernization.

How Modernization does that is similar, but for a major roadway. And it's tricky because North Carolina Department of Transportation has a different definition of modernization than we use for our long range planning purposes. Theirs is simply to update the roadway, usually one that doesn't have shoulders, put curb and gutter with it. So it's modernizing it. We're looking at it very differently.

So it's more than just a curb and gutter project, but it's not a road widening project. So maybe we're we don't know exactly what it's gonna look like yet, but it might have bus rapid transit lanes on it. It might have, improved bicycle facilities, that kind of thing. So it's similar to a complete street.

So let me just make sure I'm following. If it were not increasing the lanes, does that mean that that bus dedicated lane is taking over one of the existing lanes?

It might increase lanes, but only a shared use lane. So I I spoke incorrectly. But Okay. We might be adding a lane on a modernization project, but it's not going to be a roadway or a vehicle only lane. It would be a shared bus lane or a high occupancy vehicle lane.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Sure.

Council, other questions? Are there oh, yep, Council Member McMahon.

Thank you for coming out. I know it's late. It may feel like you're just giving us a presentation. But it's really important you're here. And thank you for being here.

You're welcome. Thank you for inviting us to speak.

Do we have members of the public wishing to speak?

I'm going to check again. Thank you.

Counsel, final comments? I know we are all very grateful. Thank you for coming.

Where's my hand? He's right here. Let me just say real quick and I was really trying to wait until the comments section. It is far out, 2055. And I am so grateful that I got to serve as an alternate on that board to understand what you must do in order to make these plans and why it has to be so far out. And back to Ms. Bailey's comment of, you know, if you see it evolving, the ship has already, Okay, the bus has already pulled out. Thank you for thinking so far ahead and helping us to keep up. That's what I wanted to say. Thank you.

Okay. I agree with Councilmember McMahon. It is really important that you keep us informed and that we understand what the long range plan is. And of course, we want to continue to support all the great work you're doing. So thank you very much.

And of course, to Bergen and your team, please, the small but mighty team of the OMG, please let your team know as well that we're very thankful. And we are excited to get moving on our greenways. And even though we know the state is not always our best friend on greenways, we're going to figure out ways to do it anyway. So thank you both. And we will look forward to hearing as we move towards 2055. Okay. Next is item number nine, which is an update on planning for the southern extra territorial WILSON

reimbursement, I think. WILSON reimbursement. Oh, did I miss one?

We're going to do the Southern ETJ first and then the AWASA reimbursement policy.

Are you flipping them?

That's what I have. I don't know. Mean, it's you and then you, right? So I'm not sure it matters all that much. So we are doing the update on the planning for the southern extraterritorial jurisdiction and then the AWASPA reimbursement policy.

Madam Mayor, members of council, I'm Taz Lagu with the planning department. It's really nice to be able to talk to you guys about something other than Lumo. So appreciate you giving me the opportunity. As you all know, this item was rescheduled from a work session. So it is kind of more in the vein of a work session item, more of an opportunity to inform you all, answer clarifying questions, anything of that sort.

But we're not asking for any sort of action from you tonight on this item. So just quick overview of what we'll be touching on this evening. Brief history of the Wasamba agreement. At this point, the expansion of the Wasamba area was long enough ago that I think a majority of you all weren't part of that process. So just want to give a brief reminder of what that involved.

And then talk through kind of the development potentials for the area that was subject to the Wasamba expansion. And then discuss a sewer alignment study that was conducted in collaboration with Owassa a few months ago. So again just kind of orienting ourselves geographically when we talk about the Southern ETJ. We're talking about a large portion of land but for the purposes of this night's conversation we're actually focusing in on an even smaller part of the Southern ETJ. Really just this portion South of South Creek all the way down to the county line.

The ETJ itself though when we talk about the Southern ETJ more broadly also includes these other parts of the town's planning jurisdiction. Want to just touch on kind of the big picture takeaways from this nice presentation before really jumping into the details. First off just kind of orienting ourselves to what the Wasamba expansion was and wasn't. It was really just an opportunity at a high level to open the door for local planning. As I'll get into, the Wasamba agreement involves a lot of different parties and making any changes to those boundaries really involves much more than just the Chapel Hill community.

And so the Wissamba expansion really creates an opportunity for this to move forward as a Chapel Hill kind of discussion. Another major takeaway from this evening is that I think as we have learned more about the land that was covered by the Wasamba expansion, it's become really clear that any new development down there is going to face significant environmental and economic constraints. And we'll talk through what those look like this evening. One of the key constraints in that area is going to be the expansion of water and sewer service. We know that it's feasible, but it's going to be very expensive.

And then as a result of all of these factors kind of piling on top of each other, what this means for the type of development that might occur in the expansion area, specifically around missing middle housing, is that opportunities for that type of housing are going to be pretty constrained. So with that kind of big picture I want to just jump into a little bit of detail on each of these items. For those of you wonder about you know what does this lovely acronym, WASSAMBA, mean it's just the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement. And generally speaking it is the agreement that defines Owasa's service area. It says where Owasa can expand water and sewer service, but it doesn't actually outline where that service currently exists.

So the southern expansion area is a perfect example. It is now within the scope of where Owasa can extend service, but it's not currently served by water and sewer. As I mentioned, there's a lot of different jurisdictions that are involved in any changes to the agreement, five in total. And so making changes involves kind of a Herculean task of different boards, different commissions all moving in the same direction. But we were able to do that within the last couple of years.

In 2023, the Chamber of Commerce for Chapel Hill and Carrboro petitioned counsel to expand the Owassa service area into the Southern ATJ. And all the jurisdictions that are party to the agreement agreed to do that over the course of several months between 2023 and 2024. And so the result of that was to add three sixty acres or about 139 parcels to the Wissamba area. Looking at the map this is what that three sixty acres looks like. We're again kind of just to orient yourselves.

This is Southern Community Park to the north and Walmart that is regrettably as far as sales tax revenue goes outside of the county line right it's in Chatham County that's south of this area. So we're looking at again three sixty acres 139 properties. And just to orient you to two kind of key properties we'll come back to from time to time in this discussion. We have the town owned land to the west of 15501. It's about 12 acres.

And we have the proposed Flint Rock Knoll development project, which has come through as a concept plan now a couple of years ago. But it is so far the only kind of development proposal of any significant scale in the southern area.

Can you just remind me, was that single family?

It was townhomes. Townhomes. Thanks. I believe the number was around 130, 140 townhomes and over about 36 acres. So this is just kind of the lay of the land.

What I want to really get into next is talking about the development potential for that three sixty acres. We've got two goals with talking through the development potential for this area. One is to make sure that the council as a whole is aware of a request that came in from the Owasa board within the last couple of months regarding baseline assumptions for what development in the Wasamba area could look like. And then I think it's really important as we talk about what potential next steps for this area might look like to just understand and to be open about what the extent of potential developable land in the area might look like. So a couple of key points recently.

Back in 2023 leading into the Wasamba expansion discussion, town staff estimated a kind of a gross density across the entire three sixty acres of the potential Wasamba area of three to six units per acre. And we did this to help inform some capacity analysis that Owasa was doing at the time, basically to make sure that if the Wasamba area was expanded, that existing infrastructure, existing sewage treatment, existing drinking water capacity would be able to handle that. So that was the purpose of that three to six unit per acre estimate. And it continues to be relevant as we think about development moving forward. Back in March, the Owasa board asked the town to clarify the level of density it expects in the Wasamba expansion area.

They really honed in on that three to six units per acre number. I think there was a little bit of skepticism that that number is too low. And it's very well understand. It's very reasonable skepticism. Because three to six units per acre sounds very low, especially for a town and a community that, as we, I think, have really come to a lot of consensus on, needs to be focusing on density.

So on its face, three to six units per acre seems to miss the mark pretty significantly. But I think town staff continue to find that those estimates are reasonable. And a big part of what I want to do for you this evening is to give you comfort in why we think those estimates are reasonable. And so in doing that and in related studies and kind of analysis of the area, it also just puts a finer point on this notion that we have these gross density estimates for the entire three sixty acres. And really what that's likely to look like because of these economic and environmental constraints is that that density is going to be clustered in distinct pockets throughout that three sixty acres.

And so that's why those numbers seem deceptively low. But when you look at how they might actually be distributed in the Wasamba area, they start to look much more reasonable. So again, just to kind of walk you through some of the thinking here, that three to six units per acre across the full three sixty acres of the Wissamba area gives you a range of anywhere from 1,100 units on the low end to 2,200 units on the high end. For comparison's sake, Southern Village, Meadowmont, each of those master planned communities are in the, I want to say, 1,200 to 1,500 units range. All of South Creek, the large multifamily and townhome development across the street from Southern Village is about 800 units.

So 1,100 to 2,200 units, we're looking at potentially development to the magnitude of another Southern Village, another Meadowmont, several South Creeks. So I want to next just kind of talk through what it would look like for that development to be kind of distributed through the Wasamba area. So again, looking at that three sixty acres with those two touchstone properties highlighted, town owned property and then the Flint Rock Knoll development. And the way these slides are going to work is we're looking at that total acreage starting big and then breaking that down into what that units per acre, density number will look like. And as I mentioned, three to six units per acre sounds really low when you think about it across this entire area.

But it's low because we were thinking very broadly. We were just looking at gross density across a pretty expansive part of the town's jurisdiction. But when you start backing things out of that number, you'll notice that these density numbers at the bottom are going to keep going up and keep getting into that really reasonable range for the town. I will note just with three to six units per acre at that starting point, the proposed Flint Rock Knoll project that came in at around 130 units, 4.4 units per acre. So an actual project that's been proposed in this area is actually right in the middle of the three to six unit per acre estimate.

So backing out a couple of things. Roads and stream buffers already gets rid of over 100 acres of land. So we know right off the bat that's hard infrastructure or environmental constraints. This is land that's clearly not getting developed. We normally don't think about our perennial stream buffers.

So it's mapped here as 150 foot stream buffers. There's some really significant environmental assets in the southern area. And so we really want to be thinking about stream buffers as pretty close to inviolable if there's going to be development in this area. And so that's what we've mapped and are thinking about the full stream buffer down here. So those are hard constraints.

Next, what I want to talk through is some of the economic constraints. As we talk about economic constraints, unlike obviously roads and stream buffers, we're talking about a spectrum of possibility. We're going to be talking about less likely to develop to more likely to develop. But we know we're not talking about this in a binary of definitely will develop or definitely won't develop. So the first really major chunk of land that is likely not going to develop are two neighborhoods, one kind of centered around Shagbark Drive and then the other on Sun Forest Way.

There's not like a delicate way to put it. These are just really fancy homes. Really expensive properties that are highly unlikely to develop anytime in the foreseeable future. It would be akin to looking at The Oaks and asking what's the development potential of The Oaks or any our other really kind of high value, high property value neighborhoods in town. So that automatically takes a significant chunk of land out the equation.

Next, we start to move into this kind of it's really important to think about this as a spectrum. These are what we would call kind of higher value buildings. What we're looking at here and what we're comparing is tax assessed value. As many of you all know, assessed value for a property is made up of two components, building value or the improvements on the property and then the land value. All of these highlighted properties in darker brown represent properties where the tax assessed building value is higher than the tax assessed land value.

And that's just a pretty kind of rough and ready metric that folks in development community look at to whether a property is kind of worth pursuing. Obviously there's a lot of other considerations but this is a very kind of broad brush metric that folks look at. Obviously the more out of touch those numbers are, greater the proportion of building value to land value, the even more unlikely that a property is going to be to redevelop. But these are properties that just tip that scale of building value is over land value. Land value can change right?

Building value tends to go down over time if a property falls into disrepair. Obviously if the property is well kept and as we see across town, building values can increase. Land value never decreases though. Land value especially as new development in surrounding area starts to come online, land values can change. So of all the things we're talking about today, I think this category of properties is going be the most influx. But it's definitely not going to be kind of leaping off the page as a development opportunity.

When something happens, the value goes up. Can you repeat that last section because I want to make sure I understand the what influences the land or the building value to increase or decrease? So just say that again.

Yeah. So what I was mentioning was building values can go up or down over time depending on how well the building is kept up or not. Generally there's like an upward pressure on building value as properties in the area appreciate. What's different about land value is that land value is much less likely to ever go down. Something pretty significant would have to happen in an area for the land value to go down.

Yeah. So these properties again they represent kind of edge cases. Something that I think was asked prior to this meeting was we noticed that there are clusters. A lot of these properties that are on the margins, you'll see some clusters to the South, clusters near town owned land, clusters to the North. And so there are some additional considerations that we think about in kind of thinking about these as maybe less likely to redevelop.

By and large there is not a lot of common ownership among these parcels. You'll for the most part see that each one of these parcels is owned by somebody different. There are a couple of parcels or groups of parcels to the south and to north where you have a little bit of combined kind of common ownership. But by and large we're looking at a lot of distinct parcels with nearly just as many distinct owners. And that's a major challenge when we're thinking about potential assemblages of land.

Another dynamic in this area is a pretty high occupancy. Again we have pretty rough ways of thinking about owner occupancy. The easiest is just to look at the tax rolls and compare the mailing address of the owner to the property address. And by and large you'll see a lot of these properties down here are owner occupied. Again another kind of dynamic that makes them less likely to be sold off as a redevelopment opportunity.

And so again those are kind of the some of the thinking that we're looking at when we think about well is this more or less likely to redevelop. There's a couple of other properties down here. There's an Owasa owned property and then there's the Star Point refuel down at the corner of Smith Level And 15501. That just again it's either publicly owned land that's earmarked for infrastructure or something that's redeveloped relatively recently and is again unlikely to redevelop yet again in the future. And so what does that leave us with?

It leaves us with about 90 acres out of that three sixty that kind of checks the right boxes. But that's not even looking at topography, other environmental constraints. This is based just on the kind of high level metrics I've mentioned, maybe about 90 acres past that early filter. When we get to 90 acres or we get down to 90 acres, you'll notice these numbers down here that estimated density. We're looking at what 90 acres with 1,100 to 2,200 units could look like.

It's densities of 12 units per acre or 25 units per acre. It's pretty significant. We see projects in town at those densities and so it's not at all kind of out of line with the type of development that we might be seeing in town. And so what this exercise helps us kind of put a finer point on is a couple of kind of broad conclusions. One I mentioned the density estimates for the area are reasonable.

They sound low when you look at the entire Wasamba area very broadly but once you start to narrow it down they start to look much more in line with what we would expect for modern development. I mentioned already that we're likely to see distinct pockets of development in the Wasamba area, not diffuse low to medium density development. Now these distinct pockets of development, and this is something I'll get into more in just a minute, they're going to need to be dense enough to support pretty significant high upfront costs primarily related to extending water and sewer infrastructure. But we also need to think about kind of the long term financial viability and financial sustainability of the town and services that we provide, of Owassa and the services that they provide. And so there is kind of this notion of any development in this area when we're looking at expanding where we currently provide services, it needs to generate enough revenue for utility providers, for service providers, that that expansion of infrastructure is going to be sustainable over the long term.

I want to briefly touch on, I mentioned, sewer alignment study that we'd recently conducted in collaboration with Owasa. And it puts a finer point on some of these costs. I've mentioned really high infrastructure costs associated with building in the southern area. And this alignment study that we collaborated with Owassa on is where we're getting that kind of more granular understanding of what it's going to look like to develop down there. So we collaborated with Wassa over the last several months.

They released a study a few months ago and presented it to their board. And what it has made I think amply clear is that expanding sewer infrastructure is technically feasible which was not a foregone conclusion. It's possible that we expand the Wasamba expansion area only to then find that it's actually going to be technically infeasible to expand sewer service. So we have fortunately learned that it is feasible to expand sewer service into the Wasamba area in a pretty responsible way but it's going to be expensive. And so one of the things that the sewer alignment study looked at was where could we potentially expand sewer.

They looked at two different options. One was to expand sewer along 15,501. And then the other was to expand sewer service with two separate lines running relatively adjacent to Wilson Creek to the East of 15501 and Fan Branch to the West of 15501. Because of the environmental sensitivities in the area, because of the really kind of unique soil conditions in the area, these two sewer alignments that are proposed to be closer to the creek, they stay outside of the 150 foot RCD buffer kind of to the maximum extent possible. There are some perpendicular crossings, but there's little if any points in which the sewer is running kind of alongside the creek.

And that's kind of a key feature of what's being proposed in terms of sewer alignment in that area. Ultimately it is that kind of quote unquote creekside alignment that was kind of the preferred option. Some of the factors that play into that, the life cycle costs over a forty year period are 50% lower than the costs associated with running sewer lines along 15501. A big part of that just comes down to gravity. Running sewer along 15501 relies really heavily on forced mains and pump stations which are not just much more expensive to install on the front end but then come with really significant operational and maintenance costs over the life of the system.

And so creekside alignment is able to service the majority of the Wasamba area with just plain old gravity sewer. It also again avoids RCD buffers to a pretty significant extent. There is a clear downside to it in terms of the number of private easements that would be required as soon as we get away from established road right of ways. Anybody that's looking to expand water and sewer this area would be looking at a lot of easement acquisition. But ultimately even with those challenges the long term costs, reliability, sustainability, and resilience that's represented by the Creekside option made it kind of a clear better alternative.

So a couple of takeaways. Know that these high construction costs are going to be a major barrier for new development. I didn't put the numbers on the slide but we're looking at even this Creekside option, the option that's 50% lower. Estimates today put that at close to $20,000,000 to build out the system. And then twice that for the 15,501 alignment.

So really significant costs to expand infrastructure. That is the cost of not pursuing infill development. That's why we generally try to prioritize infill as much as possible in part because of these types of cost. So again high construction costs are going to be a barrier which means it's really unlikely when we're thinking about missing middle housing in the area. It's really unlikely that kind of individual missing middle development can bear the costs associated with expanding water and sewer infrastructure.

So what could it look like to try to get missing middle housing in that area? It's either going to take public investment or kind of these nodes of more dense development that can kind of bear these upfront investment costs that then allow missing middle or other smaller scale development to fill in the gaps. But the kind of vanguard of development is much more likely going to be whatever scale of project it takes to make those investments kind of pencil out upfront. So that's kind of the major takeaways I wanted to share with you all this evening. There is a second item about a loss of reimbursement policy that's very much related to this.

I'm happy to just kind of if it's germane I can just briefly run through that and talk about it altogether or happy to just take questions on this material first.

I think maybe taking a minute for some questions and then keep going. Councilmember Miller Foshee?

Yeah, I just have a quick question. Can you just give me a better understanding of what is meant by poor soul, poor soil.

Yeah. Sorry.

Soul it but

means a couple of different things. As far as where sewer lines should be placed, I've walked some of the creeks in the area and it is an ecologically really interesting place. The soil is, it feels, just walking around it feels like no soil or land you've walked on. It's spongy because it's extremely sandy. There are sandy creek beds that not just make those creeks ecologically very interesting, but they also make them very bad places to place water and sewer infrastructure.

After pretty much any significant rain event, those creeks will meander really significant or they have the ability to meander really significantly because of those sandy soils. And so you can imagine putting a critical piece of infrastructure anywhere near those creeks that do what creeks do. They move but they're particularly prone to moving down there.

Just go down the line. Councilmember Nauert followed by Councilmember McCullough followed by Councilmember Rivers.

Yeah thanks for this presentation Taz. In terms of future planning, one thing I'm wondering about is it's clearly going to be if this is ever going to be highly dense, it's decades away that the whole thing is. But at some point, it's conceivable that it would be great to have greenway connections that run up to South Creek on one side and run up to Southern Village on the other side. Is it worth some sort of planning process to indicate now that we would like to retain some type of potential plausible easement, at is all possible that we would want to try to say, like, can we avoid developing on like a 10 foot stretch that would run up through here along some path that's like the only geographically viable path? Or is that such a complicated and contingent proposition that it isn't worth the planning effort to describe where that would be?

Because it seems like if we could sort of publish a document saying, if there were to be one we would want it to be here developers can take that or leave it but they can't do anything if we don't tell them where we might theoretically want one.

So fortunately the sewer alignments lend themselves to just that sort of path. The easements start to look very different. It's one thing to ask a property owner to give up that small part of the bundle of sticks to say yeah you can build a sewer line through their property. It's another thing to say well along that line you can also now expect people to be traversing through that. So it becomes a different matter when it comes to easement acquisition.

But those lines are going to be the most natural place to put greenway alignments going forward. And that was a discussion when we were working with the Wassa to do the study. Our OMG staff had opportunities to check-in with the Wassa folks and the consultants that did the work. And so it was part of the thinking. But I think it is against it's so far out.

And we have the ED there's such a clear kind of priority on studying greenways within the town limits right now. We haven't put kind of a finer point on that for now. Okay. Thanks.

I was wondering if we had thought about or might we think about evaluating what the possibilities would be along that 15.501 stretch that is serviceable by gravity sewer. Those are the sites that would be more accessible to transit. Those are the sites where we would hopefully want that kind of density would be right there next to 15501. Do we have a sense of that?

Yes. So that was a really significant part of the study that Owasa commissioned. I'll show you two maps. This is now the southern area rotated, which always like hurts my brain a little bit. We're now looking at 15501 kind of across the screen.

Again just to orient you Southern Village and then the county line is down here now. So this represents the Creekside alignment. All of the green is the area that can be served by gravity sewer. In comparison, this is alternative to the 15501 alignment. The green is now what can be served by gravity sewer.

And you'll notice there's just a lot less green. What's left is not large enough to support even if we wanted to really pack in development in that area, it wouldn't be enough land. And what ends up happening is that even though we think about this option as maybe the option that has fewer environmental impacts, If we were to go with this option and let's say Flint Rock Knoll were to develop I haven't highlighted it here, but it's roughly kind of this part of the site If development were to occur further back from 15600, you would still have to put in sewer lines to then get any of that waste back up to 15600. Generally what that looks like is within the development itself you still put in sewer lines that run down to the lowest point of the development. So it's still lines that are going to run down close to Wilson Creek.

You then put in a pump station at that lowest point of the development. Pump station is pretty significant bit of infrastructure that uses energy that has to have diesel or other fossil fuel based backups in the case of power outages. So that has to be placed near the creek to then have a force main that runs from that low point back up to wherever you can get the closest gravity fed line. So that's where in some ways you would almost think of the alternatives one and two from an environmental perspective. It's kind of a wash because even if there's less direct impact associated with installing the gravity sewer along 15501, you still see those impacts in just a different form associated with all of the force mains that then have to be part of that.

All right. Thank you. Can I ask

a quick piggyback question on that? Because it just occurred

to me very much tied into what Councilwoman McCull was saying. Reading through all this, it made a lot of sense to me, like, oh, we will have more gravity lines in the second alignment. But what you just said, stupidly, it had not yet occurred to me that then you have to pump everything back up. So is that not the case? Mean, is that what you're saying by it's like, we're kind of out of luck either way because it's going go downhill one way, we still have to get it back uphill the other way. So in either alternative, the gravity only goes one direction.

GREGORY Right. And so the difference is that in alternative two, we are pumping, or you would have to pump to fight gravity. Because again, everything in red here, if you were to develop in the red in either map, that's when you start to need pump stations, force mains, all of that. So the difference is that under alternative one where things are flowing to the creek, anything in green here, you're just using gravity. There's no pump stations.

There's none of the environmental impacts or cost associated with pump stations. There are force mains, anything of that sort.

I guess that's my confusion is why an alternative to are you using gravity? How can you use gravity both directions?

I'm definitely Yeah, missing I

think I see. I think I yeah.

Okay.

You speak into the mic just so that people, all the masses of people watching.

I apologize. The difference is that the actual infrastructure is changing location. And that's not really depicted on here. The notion that it has to flow in a different direction, it doesn't. It's still flowing in the same direction, but the infrastructure is in a different So it's heading to a different spot to get into the infrastructure.

I see what you're saying. GREGORY

I get

DELL: Why is everything draining down and then getting pumped back? That's just the most efficient way to do it. You could have a system where every individual building that's built in this red pumps directly to the street. But that ends up being a really inefficient system. So when you're looking at development at any scale, it ends up being these tiny gravity fed systems, little nodes or networks of smaller gravity fed systems.

You're consolidating then what gets pumped. So that's why with Flint Rock Knoll, it's just the most efficient to let everything flow downhill, collect it at one point, and then pump it up rather than having each building kind of

Councilmember Okay. Rivers.

Yeah, thanks for including the report. And is this bottom line accurate? And if it, anything happening here, option one, option two, is going require significant public investment. And even with that significant public investment, the house would have to be market rate. There's no chance to get a house in that would not be market rate in this area due to the level of public investment required?

So public investment isn't a foregone conclusion. Public investment is a significant tool that could expand infrastructure into this area. But another way to do it would be private development that incrementally expands sewer. That creates some really difficult market pressures. As you can imagine, it's really difficult to make a project pencil out.

And when you are looking at a really significant upfront cost, it just makes it that much harder, which could then very much cut into some of our affordable housing goals. That if we're asking development on top of having to deal with some

of these

upfront infrastructure costs to then also deal with the long term losses that come with affordable housing becomes really difficult. The reimbursement policy that Owasa is considering is another tool that could help kind of break that logjam. And so I can talk about that a little bit more in a few minutes.

Councilmember Ray.

How

many times does it take for you to spell Wasamba?

Comment. There's been a lot of embarrassing attempts in the past.

Me too. So for the higher value buildings, if we pull sewer down, say we solve these problems and we pull sewer all the way down to the bottom, can we expect then that those will become that the land values will increase and maybe put those properties into play?

Yeah. I think it is the type of major change in conditions that could start to see those properties change. But that's, again, one of the factors. There's that broad filter. We'd also then have to think about, as I mentioned, a lot of owner occupied properties down here.

These are a lot of people's homes where they have much more direct control over the future of the property. It would definitely, I think, over time, we would expect that land value to change. We would just have to see how it plays out. Oftentimes what we end up seeing and what you may notice, any eagle eyed among you, the Flint Rock Knoll property does include one of these parcels that kind of tips the scale of building value exceeding land value. So there are edge cases where maybe a property is critical enough to a larger development.

It's the linchpin that allows them to get access to the street or something like that. Some of those properties can get picked off if the price is right.

Yeah. I mean, see that up on Old Durham, Chapel Hill. So the Flint Rock Knoll, were they going to be septic? Or are they relying on the sewer coming through?

They would, at the scale of development, 139 something units, it would have to be sewer. Another council member Miller Fisher asked about poor soils. And I said it can mean a lot of different things in this area. Another thing that poor soils refers to is the fact that

It's a park.

Yeah. If any of you have tried to dig in your yard at any point, you get two inches down and then you hit clay. And clay does not play well with septic systems. Right.

They'd have to go. Because it seems like that is a missing middle community that's already been proposed. So that makes me just wonder how we can't incent more of it. And it's not that I'm against having pockets of higher density down here. I think especially to help pull that sewer line down, and especially down near Walmart, down where things we already have a more congested, more busier place. But it seems to me like if Flint Rock Knoll can do it, then maybe we can figure this out.

I think the thing we just don't know yet is whether they can do it. Owasa study, rough estimates of around $5,000,000 for expand water and sewer down to their site. And as I mentioned, came through as a concept plan a couple of years ago, and we haven't heard from them since then.

Okay. And last question. You were talking about infrastructure costs for the town. Is that primarily road maintenance? Of the new I mean, I know services are different, police and fire and all that. But in terms of infrastructure, are there other things other than road maintenance?

No. Roads are the main infrastructure that the town would be responsible for. Obviously, the water and sewer, once it's installed and dedicated by a private party, that then becomes part of the Wassa's long term maintenance obligation. And then we've got services to think about on top of all that.

Thank you.

Mayor Pro Temburi?

Yes. I remember we had an email. On the heels of what I heard from Councilmember Ryan about the cost, the infrastructure, we had an email back in November 2023 from former town attorney Ralph Carpinos who asked us to consider the cost of having emergency services, being responsible for emergency services there. Where is the nearest mutual aid service provider for that area? Is it?

I honestly don't know. Okay. Yeah.

So I ask that because that means that we, I don't

There's a fire station

on There is one down there,

isn't there?

When you say mutual aid, you said

Fire fire station station and other services, There's like police and

a fire station on 15501 closer to Southern Village. As you're

Oh, Station 5. Right. I know ours. I'm talking about

Oh, a county or like a rural fire station.

I'm talking about Chatham's. That's not ours. That's in between. Because we're going to be as we densify is that a word? As we make this more dense.

Densify is a word.

It is

excellent. Just making sure. Okay.

As we

make this area more dense, then the cost of serving that area, I want to make sure that we hold that up as well. So I'm just injecting that now for us to consider. He raised it at the end of twenty twenty three before we voted, and I want to raise it again just for our consciousness.

Absolutely. And that's where that question of this notion of what's the long term kind of financial scorecard for any development down there? Is it self sustaining? Or does it then become a burden that's borne by the rest of the community?

A point of information just on that topic. That is actually not in the city limits. That remains an open question as to how much we would annex or how and all that.

Right, exactly. So that's why I just want to lift it up again that we should I believe that we should hold it there for us not to forget. And when we can't address it, let's do so. Thank you.

Councilmember McCullough, if want go on your

Oh, sorry. I just did a quick map search. And the closest Orange County EMS or Rescue Squad is within the Chapel Hill and Carrboro town limits. There's nothing down there.

I have a not very exciting ridiculous question. But when I was looking through the packet, and thank you for answering the questions about the various like little parcels and stuff, the expansion is a quarter mile on each side. Is that right?

Give or take, yeah.

Or that's what we agreed to with our partners as part of Wissamba?

Yeah, they basically took, I think it may be half mile. That was kind of the rough starting point. And then adjusting it for property lines, wanting to stay away from you'll notice, for example, like the Smith level properties are all more or less kind of out of this. And then similarly for Old Lystra Road is off to the east over here. And so not wanting to capture for the most part properties up front on Old Lystra. So trying to keep it as tight to 15000 05/2001 as possible.

And so what we're looking at when we're looking at these maps is a quarter to a half mile on either side give or take? Because I don't have a sense of direction or any sort of And remind me again, we passed Wassamba based on those maps and not based on like an amount on either side, correct? Like we passed a map.

Yes, yes. So this boundary, what's colored in right now, that is kind of the official extent of the expansion. Any other kind of numerical thing was just a starting point.

Yeah, understood. And so if there was something on here that we wanted to change for some reason, then we would have to go back to everybody,