City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Pap whale. Hey, feel

free. Heat. Heat. He's like this. Fight. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. I just need to shadow the car on a lonely has it hard. The fear that ha me shadow no world I fantasy and I leave again you find me breathe shred in a world that lock me in shed a field that holds me Yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you all for being here. I am calling our work session to order. And the first item of business is to share that Mayor Cal is absent and excused. Today's meeting will be first a presentation from housing and community development and Wake County to discuss the Wake County continuum of care and then a presentation from our department of transportation about the Wake bus rapid transit northern corridor major investment study. So, first up, Emily Sutton.

Good afternoon, Emily Sutton, housing and community development director. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you Eileen Rosa, who is the continuum of care director for Wake County. And she's going to talk to you today about the continuum of care um system metrics as well as the um strategic plan.

Thank you, Emila. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for having me. Um this one let's see as Emila shared I do want to um share a few system updates for the continuum of care or the COC particularly related to federal funding and some of the updates that we've heard um on that front since I think that was a question and something that came up um from our joint city council and Wake County uh commissioner meeting earlier this year. I also wanted to follow up on that conversation with our uh federal fiscal year 25 system performance metrics. So we have some of those um completed. We'll provide an overview today, but we'll have more coming out as we have additional data um being published. And then finally want to end with the strategic initiative and exciting ne next steps on that front. So, first and foremost, wanted to share a bit more about the continuum of care. And for those who are not as familiar, the continuum of care is essentially um a program in which HUD, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, distributes um funds focused on homeless services and permanent housing down to communities. And so, we are structured in what's called a COC or a continuum of care. Our COC that encompasses Raleigh also encompasses the full geographic boundaries of Wake County. And so as the lead agency on behalf of that COC, we are responsible um to serve as the collaborative applicant for those federal funds. Um and we've been tracking that as as changes have happened under this administration. And so pleased to announce that on March 31st, HUD announced that they were going to issue the renewal funding for eligible projects um that expired in the first quarter of calendar year 26. So that's three housing projects for a total of about 3.3 million. And then just the next day, the first uh circuit court of appeals issued a judgment upholding the preliminary inj uh injunction um against HUD's previously um issued NOFO in December to basically

say they have to move forward with processing all renewals from FY25 given the delay and given that it was initially issued as a 2-year um notice of funding opportunity. And so just want, you know, as there was some hesitation and some uncertainty as we moved into um federal fiscal year 26 competition, wanted to confirm that we've heard um good news on this front that we are moving forward with renewals and are on standby to continue those projects. Um but we are expecting a new notice of funding opportunity to be issued um in June um or July uh at that point. And so our total current um uh receipt not not just as the COC department but for all of the COC and the individual projects is about 6.1 million but we expect to be eligible for up to seven um 7.5 or 7.8 million in the FY26 NOFO depending on the final uh budget and some of the final um calculations and how HUD makes those those determinations in the funding opportunity. So since this was the first update, I'll sort of pause and see if there are any uh particular questions on this front. Okay. All right. And so we'll dive into some data. So with the COC um system performance metrics, these are um these fall under our duty as the HMIS or homeless management information system lead agency. So we are responsible for compliance and completion of all of the um the federal uh reporting requirements as it relates to the COC. And so the SPMs are something that we do on an annual basis typically um submitted in uh February or in in January um from the previous federal fiscal year. So October 1, 2024 to September 30th, 2025. And so we just completed that FY25 HUD submission and they allow us to resubmit our FY24 um uh metrics. And so because the COC has been through a significant transition in terms of leadership and

the lead agency um that has impacted a lot of data quality. And so we have some some positives and some things that we want to share but also um point out uh for the community. And so um you'll see a couple of measures today. We've kind of combined them for brevity and and to see the correlation, but there are ultimately seven measures and a couple of submeasures that basically assess our performance as a continuum of care um in the work of preventing and ending homelessness. So, length of time homeless, returns to homelessness or recidivism, number of um people experiencing homelessness, employment and income growth, number of folks who are experiencing homelessness for the first time, and then how uh folks are able to maintain housing placement and prevent future homelessness. So, first and foremost, want to share um and again as a follow-up to the joint uh city council and Wake County Board of Commissioners meeting. Um we had some questions and discussion about like what is the best data to kind of point to in terms of the state of homelessness in our community and and there are several, but I I kind of pointed to a great annual metric um to look at is our system performance measures. And so we now have those in place. Um but to to draw the correlation we are also showing here the orange line at the bottom is our point in time count. So the distinction here being point in time count is a one night snapshot or inventory of um uh folks experiencing homelessness in our community as well as the the shelter and temporary housing programs that we have measured against folks who are coming into our system on an annual basis. So the the bar chart um is the number of uh un unduplicated persons served um and coming into our continuum of care and homeless services system. The light blue bar are folks who are experiencing homelessness for the first time this past year. And then again the orange line are folks who are on a one night um snapshot. So you can kind of see the scale versus, you know, who's actively in our system on a day-to-day time point uh point in time versus the number of folks who kind of come in and out of our system and system

of care throughout the year. And so what you can see is our inflow in terms of people experiencing homelessness for the f very first time actually decreased from last year. Um which shows good progress in terms of upstream prevention but also um uh rapid exit from our system. and we'll draw that that uh connection in the strategic initiative. Um even though our overall number of persons served increased slightly. And so this is the importance right of having um a flexible you know set of options to be able to offer folks as they're engaging with our system so that we avoid long-term homelessness. Just to move along here um and and some of these are out of order just so that you can have the context right. We did measure three and five first. This is measure one um as HUD defines it. So length of time homeless. Um the orange uh bar is average length of time homeless. So from the date that you first engage in the system regardless of any breaks in that homelessness um to the date that we have a confirmed exit. And so this is just cumulative um average length of time in homelessness. The blue bar is average length of time in shelter in a particular stay. And so, um, this is an area where we have a lot of data clean up to do, but gives you some context about how the nature of our system and the availability of shelter or the availability of street outreach engagement and housing focused engagement um can really drive the length of time that somebody experiences homelessness. And so, in the overall scope of resources available in our system, this is an important metric um to continue to measure. What is exciting though is the progress that we have as a community in terms of um permanent housing placement and retention. Um this is an area and again as I explained the COC transition um you'll see a version one 2024 and a version two 2024 that was our ability to kind of rerun the metrics and resubmit those as a community. Um and and so while the light the light blue bar um is seen declining, I think this is actually

the most accurate information that we have and has right-sized the information um that we have in the system. But but the key takeaway here is that our street outreach teams are able to have nearly a 50% exit to permanent housing rate just after directly engaging folks through their street outreach. meaning that they are not necessarily relying on shelter or relying on a on a separate sort of voucher program to be exited to permanent housing and retain that permanent housing. So, that's a that's a huge win. It means that our teams are working really effectively and have other tools in their toolbox to be able to support that exit and transition uh to permanent housing without the reliance on on some of the other uh resources. Now, we do have some exits um that are obviously to non-permanent destinations, but overall for folks who are already in PSH that were able to retain that at a 97% rate, right? So, uh anybody who's kind of on a voucher or in in permanent supportive housing um and and connected there, their rate of return is very very low. Their ability to retain that PSH is very high. And lastly, in terms of returns to homelessness, um again, this looks, you know, I just want to explain kind of where we are in terms of performance as a system because we have been right sizing um and kind of getting back to back to a baseline to understand our true starting point as a community. Um so if you'll see the returns to homelessness, this is the rate at which people come back to homelessness either through shelter or outreach um after a previously confirmed lease up or confirmed um entry into permanent housing. And so what this is saying is um in 2025 we saw the majority of returns happened after one year um after folks have been housed rather than immediately within 6 months of being housed or having some other type of resource to exit to. And so this is really important, right? because we're we're extending um that time and that impact um that folks are sort of cycling

back into homelessness and and uh retraumatization. The last piece I want to leave you with, and I know that this is kind of an overwhelming table. I apologize about that. Um but I think it's an important um visual uh representation, right, that we have some areas that even though the numbers are going up or down, um it really the performance is kind of noted here. So um in the far right column, those that are, um highlighted in green are areas where our performance has improved from FY24 to FY25. Um so this is just one year under under um the COC transition. The red areas are are areas where our performance decreased, but these aren't necessarily, you know, uh all-encompassing. They're not necessarily um you know, the end of the world in that in that sense because it's um really based on scale and about right sizing our system and the data quality that we have. But again, I think one of the key areas that we can um continue to improve on is how we're giving ourselves credit for the work that is being done. Right? So um the number of adults with increased total income, we think that's still an undercount. It's it's a a remarkable increase from FY24 to FY25, but we actually think we're doing better as a system than what what is even documented and being able to be be pulled here. Um and then of course seeing again the number of of people experiencing homelessness for the first time. um that part of our inflow uh decreasing over time is something we'll continue to look at because that's a strong measure of how um how we can kind of project moving forward, but also how some of our other upstream and more rapid exit programs are performing. Um so to round this out, this really matters because it is part of how HUD and um and the department make a decision about how to allocate um funds through the COC notice of funding opportunity. So, um, in the rescended FY25 NOFO that that, uh, was going through the lawsuit and that the the Court of Appeals ruled on, um, in that original NOFO, HUD had focused 40 out of

the max 130, uh, merit re review points on COC systemwide performance measures. So, our ability to say from year to year, our overall population has decreased or from year to year, our unsheltered population has decreased. um these are all related to points that are that are actually in the NOFO that allow us to be competitive um against communities ac across the nation in the NOFO process. And so just want to make sure that that's reflected that we're not just kind of looking at this data to um to look at it, right? That it it really is impactful from a funding side, but also from a system trends uh perspective and engaging with our community. So I'll pause there since that was a lot of of data. Council member Branch.

Um definitely thank you for the information. Um my question is more on the preventive side. Um what are some of the reasons in which you're finding people are becoming homeless?

Yeah. Um I think it's it's probably what you would think, right? I think the affordability crisis is is a big one, but there's also um a lot of decisions that people have to make on the day-to-day, right? How to prioritize rent versus daycare versus healthcare costs. Um and and I think we're seeing that influx of of really just hard decisions that folks have had to make. Um we're also seeing, you know, folks who have been kind of making it work through couch surfing or doubled up um that sometimes that results in just ultimately, you know, it's not a sustainable solution or or something may have happened and so we need to um engage them through our shelter system. And then uh lastly, I would really say, you know, it's it's we do kind of serve a regional need, right? that we are we are positioned in a way um where we you know folks know that services are concentrated in a certain area and and we have seen some of that um I won't say seen it increase because I can't speak to to some of the history but um we have seen that certainly as as part of our inflow into the system

and and on the back end of that the PE individuals that you are able to house what are some of the key skills or key things you you're doing so that they can stay housed

yep yeah I I think um uh well first and for first and foremost having a prevention program something that is able to provide eviction prevention assistance so rental assistance to get back into um back current you know any arars for those utility payments and things of that nature but for folks who are already touching our system it's really important that we have flexible funds that can rapidly um sort of housing problem solve right and creatively problem solve um to to support that rapid exit so that we avoid the long-term shelter. So that's flex funds like through the bridge to home uh program that the county has or or some of the other um uh the city diversion uh funds and program that we have right that we can kind of solve and say hey if you're stuck here because of a car repair let's solve that car repair and help you u move on to the next step so that we're not kind of keeping you stuck here for that reason.

Okay. And just so my last I'm sorry my last question so I'm hearing this correctly. Basically what I'm what I'm interpreting is that funds used to help people deal with income but there are no job training or skill gaps none of that is necessarily needed are mental health so I'm trying I'm trying to figure out holistically other than just putting money at it is there anything else needed

yeah that is absolutely collaboration and coordination that needs to happen in our system when we talk about the the crisis of homelessness though we have an immediate need to to address the housing crisis and make sure that folks are are supported in that sense so that they can focus on all of the other kind of supports there. But our our providers are certainly focused on connection to healthcare, connection to those other benefits and income income supporting. Yep. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Jones.

Thank you. Uh yes, thank you for the the all of this. I want to build on what councelor Branch was saying and help my understanding in that percentage that you saw that you showed that the increase of people returning to homelessness um after we've been if they've been given services, what is the reason for that return?

Yep, we're still looking into that. Um but again, because of the transition of the COC, some of the data is is a little um it's a little hard to to exactly pinpoint that because we have switched um systems as well. But um I think primarily it's because of the end of of some of the rapid rehousing assistance. It's also a reduction in some of the programming that we've had. So some of the end of COVID era funding and some of the the income changes and things like that have likely impacted it, but I can't say for certain um because we haven't we haven't been able to dig into that quite yet. So moving forward as we do track that stuff, are you guys putting those feelers out to make sure we have those metrics to track in the future even if we can't track them now? Yep. Okay.

Yep. This was the first year under CC. No, no, definitely just just questions. Um, and then the second one I have is in causing the longer stays in shelters, is it the same kind of information that we just reviewed or what is causing that longer stay because they can't get the if it's a car repair, is that that answer as to why the stays are longer? Yeah, I mean, there are there are a couple of reasons, right? If there aren't um other housing supports that are sort of on the back end and able to support that outflow, it it's like a funnel, right? If folks are coming in, we don't have a way to support them moving out, whether it's rapid exit or flexible funds or a permanent housing resource, then then they're going to be stuck there for for a bit. Got it. Thank you so much, Council Member Patton. Yeah.

Hi, thank you. This is a lot of data. Um, can you go to the slide measure three and five, the blue bars and the trend line? So the takeaway I'm getting is that sort of like the picture is mixed that homelessness is going like some of the lines are going up which we don't want and some of the lines are going down which we do want. We would rather all of all three of these measures go down and so some things are working and some things need more attention. Um is that that's like a fair That's right.

Okay. Um helpful. And then on the next slide, this one I want to make sure I'm un understanding what I should ought to be taking away from this one. So both lines are going up. Um the average length of time homeless almost two years uh or yeah almost two years and then length of time in a shelter two months. are like are we to take away that the time in between the two years and the two months these folks are doubled up couch surfing? Are they truly unsheltered or kind of like what's happening in the distance?

So think of the blue bar as just a continuous stay. So if they're gone for even one night and maybe outside or able to make it work with a friend or or able to pay for a hotel room for one night um that's a break in their stay and then they would be coming back and staying for maybe continuous nights. The orange bar is adding up all of those continuous pieces over time. Got it. So someone who who might be homeless for nearly two years could be staying for 2 months then somewhere else for a week and then back. Okay. Got it. That's helpful. Um and then I had some of the questions that were already asked. So I will pass the mic. Please uh continue.

Okay. So I will move ahead with our strategic initiative. So, I feel like we we packed a lot in here, right? The transition of the COC, we have some updated federal um data from our from our most previous um uh uh federal fiscal year. Um but now we're in a space where as we're getting back to baseline as a COC and meeting our core services and our primary functions, we have to be able to turn the page to a strategic um to to a strategic vision really. and and and that's because I think building on um Commissioner or Council Member Patton's um comments, right, that that really we've been treading water. We've been seeing roughly the same um total um experience of homelessness yeartoyear. We've had some improvements in certain areas um but that we haven't been able to significantly reduce or make progress on our overall population. And so what we've needed to do is complete a needs assessment across our COC. So, not just the population experiencing homelessness, but our service inventory and modeling the different ways in which folks um utilize the system, the different resources that they gain access to and the performance of those those resources overall. Um really that modeling has led us to how we can understand, you know, the cost of what it would take to just continue to manage homelessness versus reduce homelessness long term and what does it mean to make that sustainable, right? um and how we can leverage opportunities um of existing programs and the existing infrastructure that we have and the local proofs of concept, right? And so the key pieces here are things like the city of Raleigh's unsheltered um pilot, right? Building on that existing infrastructure and the framework that has been transitioned to the COC, how we can scale that um and support that long-term uh to to end uh unsheltered homelessness. And then also things like the bridge to home program and landlord engagement units, housing navigation, all of those pieces work together to improve that funnel and and access to services so that folks are not stuck long term. And so it's really an opportunity to align Wake County

strategic plans, city of Raleigh strategic um goals and initiatives and have it have it be something that is really taken up by the COC because that is that is the position that we are poised um to be able to take this on given the core services. And so when we talk about the cost of homelessness, I think this is a slide that that um city council has is familiar with, but um in general, right, there have been some other large large city studies, I think specifically from Dallas, um estimating the cost of homelessness per person per year based on um the expense of shelter, the expense of emergency services and ambulance rides and things of that nature that it could range anywhere from 40,000 to almost $100,000 per person per year. whereas rental assistance plus supportive services um could cost closer to $24,000 per person per year. And so um not only is it what is cost-effective, but it's really what people want and it is the fastest way um to end the the uh homelessness experience. And so we are looking forward to leveraging um both the city of Raleigh and and county funds um to address unsheltered homelessness um prevention and diversion, but to also scale this long term and really create a public private partnership to end homelessness in Wake County um and see what that sustainability um what we're capable of in terms of that sustainability. And so where this takes us and I'm not sure um if if you've seen this before, but but really we want to point to where this has been successful, this this general approach. And I'll I'll remind you of those three components in just a minute. Um, but we've seen success in our in our peer and other large uh communities. So Tulsa has taken up um what's called Safe Move Tulsa um to address unsheltered homelessness and has really started to see success. They're a couple months ahead of us in terms of in terms of this approach, but are really seeing some quick lessons learned um in ending homelessness u by providing a direct to housing approach and supportive services directly to folks um who are living outside or in encampments. U the same is true for Milwaukee, Dallas, and and New

Orleans where they've led these initiatives and and have been able in some cases to effectively declare an end to street homelessness um downtown. And so it's really um something that has brought together business partners and the public and private um partnership um to make sure that we're we're focused on the folks who are who are most vulnerable and and need support um in their places to stay. So, just want to highlight those those peer and large city um examples. And in addition to I think the the local City of Raleigh pilot and the success that we've seen there and the the stories that we've seen there, um just wanted to highlight one of the one of the um many stories from from the Dallas team and and their ability to really pair the services with the engagement to end to end homelessness and and improve health um outcomes. And so um really having this direct to housing approach where we are addressing unsheltered homelessness with a housing option and supportive services means that folks are able to update their documents, access medications, um find transportation and and ultimately secure that housing for sustained um improved healthcare. So just want to highlight um the importance that you know I talk a lot about numbers and data um but really it's it's individuals and its stories and its households um behind this information that we need to keep um center uh center of mind. And so what we are proposing and I'll dig into a few details here but u what we are proposing is basically a phased approach um to addressing homelessness in the Wake County continuum of care. So phase one would be through calendar year 2027. We're calling this a two-year surge. So, remember I talked about um how we've essentially been managing homelessness. We've been treading water a bit, but we need a sort of surge investment to be able to make an impact and then sustain from there because there are certain resources that are actually right sized for our system. If we can get to a place of sustainability, we actually might have enough emergency shelter and drop-in shelter if we can address the unsheltered homelessness crisis. we

actually might have enough permanent supportive housing. Um, again, if we can support with other direct to housing and rapid rehousing initiatives. And so that's really the focus of the two-year surge. And then beyond that, depending on our success in the two-year surge, what you know, defining what that annual sustainability looks like and figuring out a fiscal structure for how to maintain that as a COC without overly relying on public uh dollars because we understand that there is a limit um to what the federal government um is able to contribute just not just through the COC program, but there there are budget changes and landscape changes that we need to be able to navigate. The three core components that we're focusing on in the initiative is direct to housing. So, we're talking about an assessment and prioritization of areas um where folks are are staying outside and are at risk of fatalities in in the weather, but also at risk of um you know, different healthc care um uh coorbidities and and things like that um based on sustained um presence outside. And so, we want to make sure that we have again a direct to housing approach um very similar to the to the success of the city's unsheltered pilot um and be able to offer those those housing solutions with supportive services. um for a sustained period of time so that folks can can work on those connections and and make that long-term um uh uh sufficiency. We then also want to, you know, going back to the flex funds and the rapid exit um solutions, how we can creatively problem solve um the housing crisis in a rapid way. And so making sure that we have funds to rapidly resolve housing before folks get stuck in shelter, but also being creative about the things that we're asking. Um this is something that has to be driven um uh primarily through private dollars because it's not something that uh government funds will typically cover from the state or from the federal government. And lastly, we have identified a strong need for integrated care multiddisciplinary teams that can handle and support complex care um or complex cases, right? where folks are maybe in multiple systems,

experiencing homelessness, coming out of um emergency rooms, um maybe back and forth with with the justice system, really kind of problem solving those deeper cases and exploring what options might be available, um to them in this coordinated approach. And so, um for phase one, which is the two-year surge, we are proposing a focus, um to house over 1,400 households, 400 through the direct to housing approach. So these would be primarily unsheltered um households or individuals in that direct to housing approach. So having rental assistance and supportive sale services available um to offer uh folks who are who are um resolving from unsheltered homelessness. And then 1,000 households um through the rapid resolution. So this is more the flex funds um uh you know move in assistance, things like that to just help lift um and and rapidly resolve and move out of shelter. Um and then the targeted complex care, it's going to be a mix of folks who are kind of in both categories, right? Folks who are both unsheltered and those who um might be, you know, chronically homeless and have been in shelter for a long time. Really kind of piecing out their needs um and figuring out what other type of housing solutions might be needed. Is it nursing home level of care? Is it something else that our healthcare partners have? Um you know, taking a bit more time to to really um invest in those folks and and see what they might need. So, as we price this out, surge um or the the two-year surge or phase one, we have been working to streamline and and define um the funding status that we need to accomplish this. Um we are working closely with a consultant and and um some of these other communities to understand how they've structured this, but really surge uh the two-year surge or phase one is estimated at a total of $22 million. um that is to cover unit acquisition uh teams, rapid exit specialists, so actual staff to be able to engage with clients and and

process um and and case manage um their their experiences. Um flex funds to support with things like move in costs, landlord incentives, holding fees, and things of that nature. The rapid exit, rental assistance, and stabilization case management. So all told, we are estimating that in order to serve those 1400 households that that would be about $22 million. What we are projecting so far in planned commitments um leveraging uh public funds both through the county and the city of Raleigh is about $12 million. And so our current projected gap um for this initiative is $10 million um for phase one. That is primarily um flex funds, but it is also rental assistance and stabilization case management. We generally have been using the rubric, right, that flex funds because it's not something that's typically covered um by public dollars. That that's something that we would want to um engage private um private dollars and and private um partners uh with to cover um and then finding ways that we can also um leverage other public dollars for rental assistance or to target it to this initiative. So it might be something that is not necessarily being added but but how we're kind of leveraging and gaining access and and um moving quickly to use those resources. So this is I think the the big um update and information that we um did not have at the time of the joint uh meeting and as we're moving forward right this is not set in stone. It's still very flexible at this point. Um but it it's it's the numbers that we're that we're currently working with. The last thing that I'll just sort of leave with is um that we are preparing for what is a formal launch in July. So, it's not saying that all of these funds have to be ready to go July 1, but it's saying that as we move forward in this initiative that we can start to scale these pieces, but we know ultimately we we'll need that that 22 million um to be able to serve folks um for up to a year and and for some of those um long-term

uh or integrated uh complex care needs, sometimes beyond that based on on their higher level of need. And so what we're working on now is a fiscal structure really how we can develop this public private partnership at the intersection of the COC um because these you know it's not something necessarily that the county can hold or that the city can hold alone that we need it to be a public private partnership that we're exploring uh fiscal structures to make that happen. We're also developing those communication tools and support activities. We're streamlining and actually defining what these program models are. It still might feel very abstract especially to folks who are not in the work dayto-day. um but that we also need to really be focused on the unsheltered homelessness um approach and be able to identify and prioritize um encampments and zones that are that are um maybe at risk or or where we have particular concerns for folks safety and health um in that way. And so um just excited to share these updates there will of course things are moving very quickly so there will of course be more updates to come in the future but that's what we have today.

Yeah. Um Eileen, just real quick, um do we have some members of your board here? The COC board. Yes. Thank you so much for pointing that out. I do want to acknowledge um uh Meredith uh Yuckman from the Hope Center at Poland. She is our COC governance board chair and Eric Braun um who is our COC governance board vice chair. Thank you so much for coming. Yeah, thanks for being with us. Uh council member Silver. Yeah. Well, thank you Eileen for the presentation. Um I had a question about the public private partnership. I don't know if you have examples from Tulsa or Dallas or Milwaukee. What does that look like? What are the private partners involved in this? Can you just share so that as we look to Wake County, we know who are likely partners?

That's right. And some of them we probably can't say yet. Um but but just to draw on some of those examples, it every community does it a little bit differently. Um and so sometimes it depends on where the COC lead kind of sits. What we've learned locally though is that Charlotte Meckllinburgg has um uh a solution that's kind of um transitioning. They also have a structure of an endowment with the foundation of the Carolinas. And so thinking about different ways that we could structure it not just for the the initial initiative but but um as far as a sustainability strategy. And so um the two options that we're looking at now and I would say primarily we're looking at um how we can explore uh using a foundation as the fiscal um agent to kind of hold you know collect hold manage and distribute those funds quickly. Um and then uh we could also explore having a nonprofit um partner or or kind of establish that as just the fiscal um agent to hold that.

And when you go back to the slide with the 22 million, is that what is the time frame? Is that a fiscal year budget or it's over several fiscal years? In other words, you know, to service the 1400 you mentioned, is this an annual cost or it's just a fund until it's exhausted? I just didn't know the time frame for the 22 million. Yes, it is a little bit complicated because of how we've we've structured the phase, but it it's for the first phase. So through calendar year 2027, so it spans fiscal years, but if we're just looking Yes. Yep. Just phase one. Mhm. Okay. Council member Jones.

Thank you. In terms of we talked about in the earlier part that we this is a regional uh a regional aspect. So, I'm wondering, especially in the plan commitments, we're talking about the county and the city of Raleigh, what have you uh heard and talked to with the other municipalities in Wake County?

It is a work in progress. Um, but they know it's coming, right? We've engaged um the municipal managers and um we know that there have been some other partnerships that are popping up specifically with street outreach teams and some of the other municipalities. So, understanding um kind of uh what we have to offer them, right, in terms of coordination um to bring that in. But I think that also speaks to just general system improvements that we have to do as a COC. But but this is exactly um part of that public private partnership identifying what are some areas in which they can contribute um and engage in this process. So it's a work in progress because and correct me if I'm wrong. I would imagine that they're also experiencing homelessness issues in their own municipalities. It's not just Raleigh out of the entirety of Wake.

That's absolutely correct. And um especially with the unsheltered response strategy, we would look for opportunities to make sure that we're not only focusing on Raleigh where certainly there's some concentration because of how services are are centralized, but that we're also looking at the other municipalities and and and working with those teams. Awesome. I just have two quick other questions. Uh in terms of the nonprofits that are part of the COC, how does the COC manage those participating nonprofits? Like how do you know if they're do they report to you? What does that structure look like?

Yes, great question. So we have um a very broad membership. So we have over a hundred organizations and individuals that are members of the continuum of care. And so they can attend and and well all of our meetings are really public um and you're able to attend but um they're the ones kind of engaging and and being able to vote on policies and procedures that come through the COC and our general governance structure. Now, folks that are um direct grantees through COC funding um through the HUD uh program and through the state emergency solutions grant, they're required to be participants of of the COC and be invested and and participating in committees and things of that nature. Um but generally, it's yeah, it's it's that engaged membership, folks who are really focused on that same mission that they're taking part and ownership of those committee works and the and the different issue areas.

Awesome. And then lastly, you mentioned that we could be receiving updates in the future. Um, is there a cadence that you have in mind of how often the whether it's us or or the other municipalities would receive this report? Yeah. Um, I think that is still part of what what is being designed, but I'll be working closely with the housing department here at at city of Raleigh and other folks engaged in the initiative so we can we can certainly make that um available to everybody.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, council member Branch then Patton. Yeah, just a follow up on the, you know, getting the county holistically all involved. Do you, everybody has a story, so when you when you have your um contacts with individuals, um, do you track that story like where they've lived last 12 months or 6 months or 3 months? And if so, is that data um, you know, held and and available?

Great question. Um, we have not historically there there's a gap in that data because of the transition of the COC and the the database system that we've actually used, but we are reinstating the question about what's the last zip code that you stayed at or had a permanent residence with in some of those more detailed history questions. So, we'll have that moving forward. We don't have it um in in super, you know, trustworthy um recent data.

All right. And my last question was on your last um page you mentioned identifying and prioritizing encampments and zones. My question goes as far as how does people or the community report because right now what happens is someone calls us and we call our staff. Is there a interface for the community to possibly use to share information and contact you all directly? Yes, that's going to be part of this initiative is how to how to reach out, how can um you sort of flag sites that we can go out with the framework that came as a result of the pilot, right? A framework to kind of do a collaborative site assessment and be able to prioritize that way. Um it's part of the transition to the COC work and and the work within our street outreach committee. Um so that's again where some of the partnerships and nonprofits come in, right? our street outreach teams, h having them inform the process so that we can streamline referrals and understanding that sort of basic um outreach engagement and basic needs um is a little bit different than addressing sort of a full encampment and doing a large scale um housing direct to housing um effort.

Okay, thank you. Hi. Um thank you for all of this. Um I have a handful of questions. Um since we're on this slide, I can start with this one. If I left this meeting and I said it will cost $22 million to end homelessness in White County, is that a reasonable way to frame that? Not exactly. It's going to it's going to significantly reduce homelessness. It will effectively end unsheltered homelessness. Um but it will not fully end homelessness in Wake County. Got it. Helpful. Do you have a number in your head that I could say truthfully it will cost blank dollars to end homelessness?

I do, but I don't want to say it. We're working on those materials. We're going to find you. Yeah, sure. No problem. I will. You don't have to. Um, then backing up a little, the I I'm drawing on the idea that earlier in the presentation, you showed us that people are re-entering homelessness after periods of a year to 24 months and then also your surge is two years. Uh, I'm just curious like if will you have the information you need or will at the end of the two-year surge all those people drop back into homelessness or do you see what I'm saying?

Great question. Um, so right now our biggest resource gap in our system is rapid rehousing which is essentially temporary rental assistance for 12 to upwards of 18 to 24 months. Um, but we have to use a progressive engagement. Sorry I let it go inactive. We have to it does

um we have to make sure that we're leveraging a progressive engagement approach. So starting the most you know minimum intervention possible and understanding if that's successful great we can we can move on. If it's not not successful we need to establish those pathways to move folks on. And the reality is is that um again if we can um kickstart this initiative and be able to rightsize the number of folks who actually need the permanent housing resources that we would be able to create some flow based on the turnover that we have or the established vouchers and and investment in that specific um deeper uh intensive resource. Does that make sense? So, still having the funnel, but being able to progressively engage and understanding that the majority of folks do not need a permanent housing voucher or permanent housing um and rental assistance that way. Got it. Um and then my last one, um the cities you mentioned, I just want to that you held up as as shining examples. Just want to confirm my understanding these the models that are being used in these cities are substantially similar to the pilot that we've been doing. Yeah, specifically the unsheltered homelessness strategy.

All right. Um All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, great. Thank you so much, Eileen, for being with us. Appreciate your presentation. Thank you for having and all your great work. Thank you.

Okay, up next we have transportation. All right. Good afternoon, uh, council He Patel Transportation Transit. I will be providing an update on the Northern Corridor bus rapid transit uh, project and the major investment study that the city has been working on for the last couple years. We always like to start our bus rapid transit presentations with a general overview of the bus rapid transit features and the program. Uh, I won't spend too much time on that today since you have seen these slides before. Uh but most of the meat of the presentation is the uh technical evaluation and screening of the different northern corridor alignments that could provide connections for that northern BRT route and then the technical recommendations and what we anticipate to be the next steps for uh conclusion of this major investment study. So again, I'm not going to go through each and every one of the features, but bus rapid transit really stands apart from fixed route services with some key uh features including dedicated bus lanes, stations that have more information and passenger amenities for convenience, our 60oot articulated buses that you are now seeing on Capitol Boulevard uh route one uh providing more flexibility with capacity on the inside of the bus. uh abilities for the buses to talk to the traffic signals, uh request Q jump signal priority to again get through congested intersections faster, more service, longer service, uh offboard fair collection to try to get people on and off the bus faster. And then the unique branding component is a requirement of the Federal Transit Administration for these types of projects that request capital investment grant funding. Uh to really stand apart from the local fixed route service, you have to have a unique BRT brand to to operate these services. Uh if you're more of a visual person like I am uh and don't want to worry about the text that was on the previous slide, uh this is a rendering of Newurn Avenue and the BRT project for Newurn

Avenue at uh Raleigh Boulevard that really shows those dedicated bus lanes, how they're physically separated from the vehicular travel lanes, uh providing that speed and reliability. uh enhanced crossing, signalized crosswalks for pedestrians to access those larger stations, more amenities at the stations. Uh and then again, overall the the larger buses and vehicles that would be uh running that service. So from a program perspective, we have four bus rapid transit corridors that were identified in the wake transit plan. You see some dashed extensions there. The extension from Garner to Clayton Carried to RTP is currently a capital area metropond planning organization planning study uh that's going through some concept of operations uh that would then move into a design and engineering phase that may come to the city to to take on. Uh we do have the northern corridor that also has those two dash lines that we'll be talking about a lot more today. So from an overview perspective for the Northern Corridor, I think the one highlight that I want to make that I've heard from the community as well as others that is still some confusion around the project is there are two separate corridors, downtown Raleigh to Midtown Raleigh and downtown Raleigh to Triangle Town Center. We are not asking you to pick one over the other. We are uh implementing both corridors through the Wake Transit Plan. There is funding in the way transit plan and I'll get into that in a second. But we're we're implementing both of those corridors that the action in front of council later would be to actually select the route to connect from downtown to Midtown and select a route to connect from downtown to Triangle Town Center. Uh and I mentioned from a timeline perspective again there's there's some history here on the wake transit plan side. The initial major investment study that the capital area metropond planning organization did in 2018 terminated the northern corridor at Crabtree Boulevard coming out of downtown. So that was a really small corridor that initially was due to some financial constraints in the

10-year financial model at that time as well as uh not a lot of activity that had happened in the Midtown corridor as well as some Triangle Town Center considerations that have come to light since then. And so in 2021, uh, council staff directed Wake Transit Plan to really put this in their vision plan update to separate those corridors into two separate corridors and investigate, uh, a major investment study, which the city took on and then started to move forward with that. In 2025, the most recent vision plan update that the Wake Transit Plan did set aside funding, local funding, uh, to go towards both of these corridors to start design and implementation. In terms of the technical analysis completed, again, the city started this project in the fall or in the summer of 2022. Uh we started with a fatal flaw analysis, uh including an initial evaluation of of alignments. Uh we had two phases of community engagement, one in the fall of 2023, another one in the fall of 2025. We've completed a detailed screening of alignments. Uh we're currently working on the report finalization right now and we are here today again towards the end of this process to identify a preferred route alignment. So the fatal flaw analysis really just focus on rightaway constraints, intersection constraints where a bus might not be able to make those turning movements that it needs to, where we may not have enough roadway capacity to actually add dedicated bus infrastructure, Q jumps, uh even larger stations. And so we we started with a slew of roadway segments that could be considered and started to narrow those down from a uh evaluation perspective. And so for the initial evaluation, we had five corridors that would connect downtown Raleigh to Triangle to Midtown uh along Capitol, Atlantic, Six Forks, Wake Forest, and a combination of uh Six Fork or St. Albins's going east west. And then for Triangle Town Center,

again, we had five alignment alternatives here as well. Uh mostly Capitol, uh New Hope Church Road, uh as well as uh Lewisburg Road and uh portions of Atlantic for this connection as well. Um and I'll get to this in a second when we get to the evaluation itself, but I do want to highlight here, we have some additional fixed route services that we're adding to these corridors. So if an alignment was identified to be um not considered as a bus rapid transit alignment, it does not mean that it doesn't meet service requirements for fixed route services or some other types of transit service enhancements that could be made in the future. For the initial survey uh in fall of 2023, we were really focused on where people are trying to get to within the Midtown and Triangle Town Center corridors. There was an interactive mapping activity um as well as a general comment section of what people are trying to connect to. Uh but ultimately we also in that first phase of public engagement asked people what features really matter to you when you're looking at bus rapid transit style services. Uh and the top three are all related to speed and reliability. Um so as a transit user the most important thing to you is getting from point A to point B on time and being reliable with that service so you can actually count on that bus to make that trip. Um connectivity amenities. You know, some of those are convenience factors that are also important, but not as important as the first three if you're really trying to ride that service. And I do want to note the ranking was one being most important, five being the least important. So we in that initial evaluation looked at the existing activity centers, growth areas along the corridors, existing transit ridership and connectivity to uh cross town connections, other fixed route services that may be connecting into those roadway segments. Service reliability. So if a roadway segment had uh a railroad crossing that was not great separated, that could cause some delays for transit. overall traffic operations.

Again, the the higher the amount of uh daily traffic on a particular roadway, you're going to run into more challenges to try to provide uh on-time on performance of the transit system as well. Transit oriented development. Again, looking at some of the potential for development along these corridors, overall socioeconomic data for accessibility and considerations for the type of communities that are really relying on transit. So, uh, low-income, uh, communities that have or households that have zero vehicles, uh, that type of data, multimotal connections that included both the planned multimotal connections in the city of Raleigh transportation plan and the streets plan as well as ex existing multimotal connections and greenway connection connections within the roadway segments. And last, but not not the least, is population and employment. Again, more people that you can connect to, the more jobs you can connect to, you're likely to have more uh ridership potential for those corridors. So, for the initial screening uh on the Midtown corridor, we had two alignments that really jumped out. Uh alignment one being a direct route from Capitol Atlantic uh Six Forks and alignment five being uh Capital Wake Forest and St. Albins's. And uh some of the challenges with the other routes again alignment two going up Atlantic all the way to New Hope Church Road uh would be a little bit too long in circuitous uh capital to six forks requires a new roadway bridge uh that that's still under works in a as a project or concept. Um and then the capital Wake Forest Six Forest Road it that segment is really being covered by alignment five and one in some ways from an analysis perspective. And then for the Triangle Town Center corridor, we had Capitol Atlantic to New York Church, back onto Capitol or staying on Capitol all the way through to get to Triangle Town Center. And this one really is uh a mirror of our route one capital uh services that goes out to Triangle Town Center. So, this is a lot

more straightforward in terms of which one really jumped out as an initial evaluation. Um, and this is where I was going to point out again there has always been interest in Lewisburg Road and connection to Wake Tech North Campus. We do have a cross town connection that goes from Wake Tech North to Triangle Town Center. Um, so by eliminating alignments four and five, again, we're not saying that there would never be any service transit service out that way. But for bus rapid transit style services and infrastructure that we'd want to invest in um because of the existing ridership on capital and the potential ridership uh those were the ones that jumped out on the initial screening. So moving forward into the detailed screening of analysis, we had those two alignments that were considered for Midtown and we introduced alignment six which is a hybrid of alignments one and five. And so if you'll follow uh as I drive through that corridor, that would be coming up Capitol, going on Atlantic, turning left to Six Forks, right to Wake Forest Road, coming up to St. Albins's and taking St. Albins into Midtown. Um and so that is again trying to look at an applesto apples comparisons of the different alignments between 15 and six versus um on the Triangle Town Center side, the two alignments that were identified for Capitol Boulevard or going up Atlantic and New Hope Church Road and coming back into Capitol. uh in the fall of 2025. We also had public engagement on those detail screening um alignment considerations. We had two open houses in October along with an online survey that was open for the month of October. Uh one of the things I want to highlight here is for the Midtown corridor there are three alignments that we had asked participants to choose from. Uh 50% of the support was towards the Midtown alignment six. Again, the in-person participation's a little low. So, results were from 24 participants there. And for the Triangle Town Center, 67 participants supported supported the

capital alignment directly from downtown all the way to Triangle Town Center. Some of the major comment uh open-ended themes that we heard during public engagement were related to people really trying to get to destinations along Atlantic Avenue, um wanting the buses to run later at night and connecting to some late night events. Uh and then some concerns related to Six Forks Road and the challenges you've heard on Six Forks Road with with uh um a different project. U just overall rightway constraints to really try to fit some dedicated bus lanes or or provide that type of uh service if that was an alignment that was considered. Um also uh during the public engagement, we asked people to prioritize what factors were important to them in deciding a final route. Again, you'll see uh maximizing the overall potential for ridership, transit ridership, uh minimizing bus travel time and maximizing amount of dedicated bus lanes. Those were some of those key important factors. Uh we did hear again more about Midtown over Triangle Town Center. That's part of the participation process. We do know from a a user perspective and the writer wrership data now shows that the Capitol Boulevard Triangle Town Center corridor has more transit uh dependent population as well as transit ridership overall on that corridor. Um, another question that was important was most respondents currently choose to drive in the northern Raleigh area and so that is something that again these types of services would potentially provide a mobility option that could be something that helps them uh make a different decision if they're looking to. Uh, and then in that realm, lighting, sidewalks, safer crosswalks are desired by most. Um, I think you've heard plenty of different presentations through the transportation department on the safe streets for all, active mobility plan, downtown mobility plan that really all highlights the the need for better pedestrian infrastructure so that that we can actually connect the users to to the

transit stations safely and then um get them to those locations. Uh, transit oriented development potential was also looked at in the detail screening as well. Again, we've seen quite significant growth uh in the Midtown area from a development perspective that's continuing to uh be a trend that moves forward. Uh we did see on the Capitol Boulevard side uh some concentrated areas around Mini City Triangle Town Center as potential opportunities for transit oriented development wrership. And so in this situation, um, we ran the wrership modeling data that you would use for a federal application for the bus rapid transit projects to really see which one of these corridors was likely to be competitive in the federal process. Uh, similar to what we've done on Newurn Avenue, Southern Corridor, and the Western Corridor. So for the Midtown corridor, the writership modeling, um, alignments five and six are very similar. Uh specifically if you look at the uh top stops that jumped out in the writership model, Wake Forest Road at St. Albins's, Wake Forest, Wake Town, and uh Six Fork Wake Forest are all on that roadway segment. Um Peace Street uh stop would be shared by all of those alignments. And then the Atlantic Whitaker Mill stop that jumps out is the only one that would be on alignment six that's not um well, it would be on alignment one as well. Um, and one of the reasons why this ridership data from a modeling perspective is shown with 2023 as the base data is that was the last time we did an origin destination survey on the transit system and that is what's used to model um this information. And then the wrership for 2045 matches what uh the triangle regional model does overall. And then we did not look um this is not showing those end points because the end points certainly have higher ridership because that's where ultimately people are trying to get to a downtown or

Midtown or or the other corridor as well. Uh for Triangle Town Center again uh alignment three which follows route one um jumps out from a wrership perspective with uh 6800 in 2045 modeling. Uh and the stops that are identified as top stops um include Buffalo Road and Westinghouse. Those were two that would not be on the other corridor. Um and then the other top stops would all be uh com comparative to so Cavalry Drive, Spring Forest Road, and New Hope Church Road would actually be on alignment two as well as alignment three. So final recommendations from a technical uh perspective uh for Midtown corridor the final recommendation was alignment six again based on the writership as well as uh the fact that it connects some of the designated growth areas that are in the city of Raleigh urban form map as well as this uh comprehensive plan from as a growth activity center. We do have some significant city of rideaway control within Atlantic Avenue and a couple other streets on this corridor to allow for a little bit more flexibility to how we uh divide that cross-section on on how we're able to add some additional dedicated infrastructure. Uh as well as the alignment six provides an opportunity to connect to the future uh S-line inner city rail project and and that uh location at Atlantic and Six Forks Road. And for the Triangle Town Center alignment three, which is what mirrors uh route one has outstanding ridership, uh we moved to 10-minute services on route one in October of 2025. That may be our first corridor that actually hits a million in ridership uh in the annual number. uh has the fastest travel time compared to uh the other alignment that was being considered for Triangle Town Center connects to the most amount of people in jobs. And based on all of the technical

evaluation completed, uh this alignment is likely to be the strongest federally competitive alignment uh for either of these corridors. And so that would be one of the things that we'd look at as a next step is advancing the project in the federal process uh to leverage some federal funding. I do want to also cover downtown routing. So currently the downtown routing for the major investment study assumed that the bus rapid transit corridor would would be using Dawson and McDow. um in working with some of the recent studies that have been done as well as just the nature of Dawson and McDow as autoor oriented corridors in and out of downtown uh with the amount of traffic uh coming in and out of that corridor there are some operational considerations that we're looking at and so we wanted to bring forward just an alternate route uh to be considered using P Salbury and Southbury and Wilmington that would be a more pedestrian focused corridor as well as it has more existing goralei routes that overlap that so that provide for more opportunities for transfers that don't necessarily have to happen in downtown if people were looking to do that. The next steps for the northern corridor are identifying the locally preferred alternative. So, initially an endorsement by city council, which we would then take to uh an adoption by capital area metropond planning organization into their metropolitan transportation plan uh sometime this spring or summer. Uh really that step is needed for us to move into the federal process. Uh the federal transit administration to accept a project and the project development uh pipeline really requires adoption in the MTP of the preferred alternative so that we can move through the next phase. And that next phase would be putting out a request for qualifications to select an engineering preliminary design and engineering firm to support the design of of both corridors. uh as well as start doing some environmental

documentation that would be required under that federal process as well. Uh at the April 9th uh 2026 meeting, Raleigh Transit Authority uh unanimously endorsed the Midtown corridor alignment six as well as the Triangle Town Center corridor alignment 3 as the locally preferred alternative for each of those corridors respectively. Um, and at a future council meeting, we would be bringing that uh action back as a formal endorsement by city council to then uh take to the capital area no mo. And so um I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have uh for me. Yeah, council member Silver.

Well, thank you for the excuse me, thank you for the presentation and I'm very pleased you looked at uh some of the land use potential because as you know that was something I was very concerned about. didn't know we had to pick through the Midtown and the Capital Boulevard. I'm refreshed to see that it's both. Uh I totally agree with the Capitol Boulevard uh alignment. I have questions about the the Midtown. I know the right of way uh on Capitol Boulevard can certainly accommodate a dedicated one lane. Can you explain to me and there are a lot of turns getting to Midtown because one is unleashing development potential, another one is addressing uh congestion uh not as much because it's almost built out on the Midtown route. Uh all those routes are very narrow but for Atlantic Avenue uh so can you explain to me St. Albins's you know its character is changing. Uh, so can you explain to me how a dedicated bus lane on, like I said, the other ones I get, but it starts to get confusing to me uh once you get to some of those other streets. And I know you didn't provide cross-sections. So, is it going to be one dedicated bus lane with one travel lane? You said something about right of way. We know about six forks to acquire property is very very expensive and I'm just concerned about putting a preferred alternative that I won't say it's dead on arrival but is so cost constrained. Um I'm just concerned they're going to come back saying yes it's a great idea but we don't have the width we don't have the acquisition money. It seems the Capitol Boulevard one has a higher likelihood and I'm very pleased that it looks like the one FTA would support. So, I know it's a lot to say, but to me, I'm just very concerned about the Midtown alignment.

Yeah. So, that is a really good uh observation and question and comment uh as we investigate preliminary design and engineering on a preferred alignment for Midtown. It would require additional coordination with the state department of transportation uh on what can be done within those roadway segments that are within DOT control on the city of Raleigh controlled segments. We would also have that same conversation with council and others on what can be done from a typical cross-section perspective. And so one of the reasons why the Midtown corridor did did not jump out as a potential federally competitive pro project uh is because it can't really meet the 50% dedicated bus lane threshold. Um to the point that you made that there are not enough roadway segments or we can get dedicated bus lanes in that corridor. Um, so that would look a lot more like a bus rapid transit light style system, which would be we would still have BRT stations, we would still have transit signal priority, uh, but we would run in mixed traffic in a lot of the roadway segments, uh, and try to get speed and reliability through some of these other features. I

I guess my question is, I get Capital Boulevard makes perfect sense. Can we look at another mode? Does it have to be bus rapid transit going to Midtown is my question because the infrastructure is very different. It could have a different style of bus. I'm just trying to understand before we give the blessing to go ahead. I agree we need to connect downtown to Midtown. I'm just concerned about getting to the technical details of what that cross-section will look like, what the experience will be for the user. And I want to come back to Capitol Boulevard later on after my colleagues speak, but that's just my question. sending that message that we endorse it when we know there are going to be lots of issues. I just want to, you know, just have that conversation with my colleagues uh about my concerns upfront versus kind of putting that stake in the ground and then finding out raising false expectations or expectations that means like it was a great idea, but technically it'll be a challenge to actually implement.

I I have a I'll come back later.

Uh council member Patton. Sure. Hi. Um, God love you. Just every time you're like, it's it's both, Patton. It's not either or, it's both. I appreciate you saying it again. I'll appreciate it every time you say it until I ride on this bus. Um, anyway anyway, I also um, you know, as as you have heard me blather on about many times, I think the Capitol Boulevard alignment makes the most sense. It's the most direct. I'm a Route One writer myself and there are like I I think it's it's almost functioning as BRT de facto right now. I mean like right now you can't get out of the way of a route one if you're driving on Capital Boulevard and you're like bendy bus there, bendy bus there. Um so anyway, um I'm I'm this is all very aligned with what I think makes the most sense and matches what writers are already showing us they they would use. Um my question is with all that um preamble, we do have a set of folks who lobby us to consider how we might pursue these projects without federal funding because of the time constraints and the administrative burden and all the strings that come with federal funding. Um, seeing as the route one is like ticking several of the boxes of BRT, like can you speak to how how you all might have considered something like that? What are the challenges and opportunities of something like that?

Yeah, and I I'll start that with the initial 2018 or 2016 wake transit plan that started the bus rapid transit program. Uh that was an initial assumption that the Wake Transit Plan made that the bus rapid transit projects that met the 50% dedicated bus lane threshold would go through the federal uh transit administration's capital investment grant program in order to leverage the local dollars to do more. So, you know, trying to get federal funding for federally competitive projects um allows us to actually do more operations for other 15-minute services on the fixed route services that we are providing um in other parts of the the city as well as Wake County. So, that was one of the assumptions that we started out with there. Um I will say you know again kind of looking at um overall program of federal trans transit administration we have been successful in getting federal funding for the Newurn Avenue corridor and the southern corridor. The western corridor requested federal funding at about 150 million. Uh that has received a medium high rating which means it's eligible but the funds for that corridor have not yet been appropriated by Congress. So you know that is a process uh that does add a little bit of time. So, you know, I certainly think that there is a trade-off there from a local funding versus federal funding considerations.

Uh, Council Member Branch, then Lambert Milton.

Um, definitely thank you and and to Councilman Silver about the Midtown route. Everything you said are some things that were shared and brought up prior to and I think it's definitely worth, you know, us fine tune um tuning. But my question is um caveat off for council patent's question um a little bit time. If all things were to go as planned, which they will not, but if all things were to go as planned, what would be the time frame of looking to start construction on these projects so that we can try to at least give some idea of level setting expectations?

Yeah. Yes. So for capital, that's a really good question because the wake transit plan that's providing the local match so far has only provided costs uh funding for design and that will take a few years. The outy years in the way transit plan currently that program the local match towards the federal application uh that funding was identified in 2033 to 2035. And so that's currently the initial time frame of when we may start to see some money that would be used towards local match for a federal grant uh towards construction of a project like capital. Um the other quarters right now have more dollars programmed towards them because they're further ahead. Um so if we advance further in design and engineering for capital, you know, there is an opportunity to work through Wake Transit Plan to request more funds sooner. uh that would be a trade-off conversation again that we'd have to have through the TAC uh the transit planning advisory committee on the capital area no mo side. Um but that is something that we could consider but right now from an expectations perspective the wake transit plan had implementation of the northern corridor in the out years from 2033 to 2035.

All right. So, so that I'm hearing this correctly, in order to move this project up out of and not wait until 2033 and 2035, Campo will have to take other projects and delay those projects in order to move this one up. Yeah. And Campo and that's way transit plan as a whole. Yeah. Okay. All right. Cool. I just want to help level set expectations that, you know, we're not talking about if we approve this, this is going to happen in two years. We're we're unfortunately from hearing you, we're talking eight years from now before we start turning dirt. Uh yeah. Okay.

Well, a couple things to piggyback on that and not to be pessimistic, but um we are like 10 years delayed on the newborn. Maybe less than 10, but I feel like I've been talking about it the entire time I've been on this city council and the target opening date just keeps getting pushed, but we have contracts signed now and dirt is moving. So, it's hard to put um timeline on these projects. I also hope and expect that now that we've done the uh station area planning and we know what the stations are going to look like and we know how to put a BRT out for bid that these other alignments will snap into place a bit quicker than what was I guess the first in North Carolina on Newburn. That said, I want to throw my full support behind bus rapid transit being fully implemented on all of these routes. Um, all four corridors, particularly to Midtown. Um, I think that is critical even if we know that we will not have designated lanes. Um, BRT light to to Midtown is going to be 100% better than what we have now, which is very minimal and 100% better than any fixed route regular transit. Um, folks are craving rapid mass transit in this area. Even just the visual cues of these enhanced stations and the signal priority and the Q jumping and the frequency and the levels and hours of service is going to be light years ahead of any other transit service we can implement. I think um, alignment six makes perfect sense. It's potential to tie into the S-line. It gets close to Duke Raleigh Hospital. it hits the the major um employment centers and retail centers and areas that are starting to grow and and I think that makes the the most sense and so I'm fully in supportive of alignment 6. Obviously, Capitol Boulevard, that's the easy one because it's a direct straight route with a massive amount of right of way. Um that is a corridor I personally dislike driving. Everyone complains about Capitol Boulevard. Um, we also want to see some economic development happening on Capitol Boulevard because

it's just a lot of strip malls and asphalt right now. And I'm hopeful that when we make that targeted investment that we're going to see a lot more mixed use and dense development um follow. Uh, and so I think these two of all the BRT alignments that we have planned for, I think the northern route, both of them are probably going to be the highest impact to this city and the ones that folks are most craving for right now. And the second part is on the downtown. I think it would be fantastic if we could reroute how the bus rapid transit uh vehicles enter and exit. The alternative route um definitely looks a lot more pedestrian friendly. This little loop here by the Publix looks like maybe we could even have a stop down there on Peace Street, which would be a lot easier to accomplish if it than if it's coming down on Capitol. Um, so whatever we can do to make it easy and convenient for folks to walk to these stations and then to get basically across the city once it's all built out and into other cities, I would be in support of that.

See, council member forth and Patton. Uh, yeah, I would say um, thank you for the work and to council member Branch's point about how long it's going to take. Uh, I think the sooner the better. I was on a panel discussion today and guess what they asked me? When are we going to get light rail? And I'm like, what? What are you talking about? Right. So, certainly getting um these projects uh up and going and folks actually being able to see them um you know uh in action is actually going to help uh kind of switch some of these other conversations that people are still holding on to from the past. Council member Patton and then Silver and then Jones.

Y um I have a couple. The alternative route that you show for the downtown routing, that loop is already in place on the one and the two, right? that are that was a recent change that we made uh as of the March implementation. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, cool. And then pulling on the March implementation, we also recently added the route 14. That's correct. How much of the route 14 is is mimicking this Midtown? Like how much is it overlapping and get providing us some proof of concept? Maybe not with this one, but the or maybe. Yes. So, so route 14 mirrors uh segment two a lot more in the situation. And so it's not the downtown routing but as it comes up of capital and Atlantic going up Atlantic to New York have church.

Um so we will uh once some wrership numbers come in there get a better understanding of what the wrership potential there is as well. Okay. So uh do you have any like early indication? No. No. Okay. Got it. And then I was just curious on the modeling that you did for the Midtown there's not there's not currently a route that mimics this. And so I was just curious if you could talk a little more how do you model these numbers for a route that

Yeah. So the the Federal Transit Administration has a specific software called simplified trips on project software and they use this for every single bus rapid transit project that is submitted throughout nation. Uh the way they do this is they take the origin destinate origin destination data for your entire system along with the overall transit system and the regional model regional transportation model that the uh metropolitan planning organization would be using um to gauge project related trips. And so what they're doing is if you introduce this new project, how would the system behave diff differently? And so even though we don't have an existing route that mirrors these alignments, each one of those was ran separately as a project to see how the system would react to it. Um things that go into play there are again how uh access from a walking perspective is provided to some of those station areas that are identified. Um what other opportunities there are for people to transfer between the routes and facilities. I have a statement and then I have my last uh recommendation going forward. Uh I agree with council member Lambert Melton that we need that connection. I just want to make sure for full disclosure as people have seen all the BRT conversations on Newburn and what the alignment looks like. It'll be different on number six. And you had mentioned mixed traffic and we need to communicate that it's not you know some people say wait a minute you're going to close off one lane of traffic for dedicated and you just said it may be mixed. I think it's important uh that whether you have a estimated cross-section or where it may wake forest road most likely could be accommodated by St. Alman's probably not Atlantic still under construction again two lanes. So, I just think if you help the public understand it may not be the

traditional bus rapid transit on Newburn or going south, uh, I think that would be helpful. The last point, and I'm very glad you looked at the development potential because I'll be bringing this up during a comprehensive plan. I made no secret to my colleagues. We're expected to attract over 200,000 people by 2050. Capital Boulevard, don't know the numbers. If that BRT comes in, I agree there are a lot of al parcels along Capitol Boulevard. There are struggling shopping centers, town center. You could probably accommodate 15 to 20% of that growth along that corridor. Now, those struggling shopping centers now have apartments that can help support them where they can walk to shopping versus driving. Same thing that happened in the Village District. And we can repeat that again and again. And the good news is uh while there are businesses that may have to relocate, it will not displace any residents and that's been a big concern. So to me, I think it's ideal, not just a BRT, but a greenway. It's just a win-win across the board. As we have the comprehensive plan discussion, I want to make sure that land use and transportation marry up together because this is a perfect example and it may be the lifeline that Triangle Town Center needs to come to the table to realize they have to reim reimagine uh their current development scenario. So, uh I do support both alternatives with the caveat we just have to be so explicit on alternative 6 going to Midtown so people know what to expect.

And I just want to add a comment to that. Uh generally from a process side of things once we start start design and engineering that's when we'll start to put cross-sections out. So at the 10% sketch plan level we'll start to show what could be done what are the trade-offs if we really do that. At 30% design levels that starts to get more ingrained in terms of this is exactly what we want to do. These are the costs if we're doing it. So once an alignment is selected really right now what we're trying to identify is how do we get from downtown to Midtown what route to take. Um but certainly from an expectations perspective as we start design and engineering we'd be able to start to share a little bit more and we have done the background analysis on this on the detailed screening side of things. So in the final report we'll share that with council through a manager's update. you will see some cross-sections that were considered. Uh but like I said, it hasn't gone through the level of coordination needed through the state department of transportation as well as our um other partners on the wake transit plan side to really see what can be done for uh overall dedicated bus lanes.

Quick question. How many of the state facilities on alternative 6 capital is Atlantic and Wake Forest? Wake Forest and Six Forks. Okay. Because majority of Atlantic on six are uh would be city of Raleigh. Got it. Okay. Council member Jones,

thank you. Um, sometimes I feel left out of these conversations because we don't touch E, but we touch it here, and I'm super excited to be like, "Oh my god, there we are." And at first I was looking at at Route Five or option five. But I do think option six is a really great alternative um because right there you have all the um the car dealerships, you've got all of the u shopping centers, Costco or or um Trader Joe's and things like that. So I think it's a it's a great compromise for for that area. Um, in addition, when we reference that North Raleigh tends to drive everywhere, so that's going to be we're I'm going to focus on my district of us driving. What are you guys foreseeing as park and right options? Cuz truth be told, today I took the six for the first time and I drove to Crabtree Valley Mall and then took the six in. And I'm wondering how do we incorporate that as an option so that residents in my district can still partake and and really feel like they're they're included and what are your thoughts on that for those north Raleigh residents who are coming into town and could park and ride.

Yeah. So for for bus rapid transit traditionally at the termin you would have a park and ride uh solution offer. It's a triangle town center. Um again midtown is a shorter route maybe a little bit more challenging to really think about some kind of a park and ride facility. Uh we do have in the wake transit plan a transit center planned for the Midtown corridor or Midtown um area and so that's where the termini would be. Uh that would need to be designed and looked at strategically on the city of Raleigh system. Um we are looking at where parking rides would make sense for specific routes that provide direct connection to downtown. Um but that would be a separate planning study. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Council member Patton. I'm sorry. One more. Um the land use planning, the tod mapping, do when do we when in the process do we start that because uh as has been mentioned before, no one is precious about what's happening there on Capitol Boulevard. So I think it'll be easier than some of the others.

Yeah. So the way we've gone through the other corridors, uh certainly you need the LPA, the locally preferred alternative identified first along with some of the initial station locations so that our counterparts in planning and development know exactly where to draw the halfmile buffer around the stations to start looking at opportunities. And so once we have the preferred alternatives identified along with the modeling that we did based on where the stops were currently identified, we could start that process. Uh we can also look at uh funding opportunities for that as well. I know we were successful in the past for Newburn and for Western Corridor uh to get a specific grant to do station area planning on

Okay, great. Thank you so much, H. Um that does conclude our work session. We will reconvene tonight at 700 p.m. for public comment. This meeting is adjourned. Yeah. Heat.