COUNCIL MINUTES

The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in a regular session at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present.

Mayor Nancy McFarlane, PresidingMayor Pro Tem John OdomCouncilor Mary-Ann BaldwinCouncilor Kay C. CrowderCouncilor Bonner Gaylord (via telephone/part of meeting)Councilor Wayne K. MaioranoCouncilor Russ StephensonCouncilor Eugene Weeks

Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order. Invocation was rendered by Reverend Dr. Lola Fuller, Shalom Christian Community Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilor Crowder.

The following items were discussed with action taken as shown.

RECOGNITION OF SPECIAL AWARDS

CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT – ANDRE JOHNSON – PRESENTED

Mayor McFarlane explained the Certificate of Appointment presentation and presented a Certificate to Andre Johnson who was recently appointed to the Appearance Commission.

PROCLAMATION – PUBLIC WORKS WEEK – PROCLAIMED

Mayor McFarlane read a proclamation proclaiming as Public Works Week in the City of Raleigh. The Proclamation was accepted by Richard Kelly who indicated he is pleased to have been able to serve as interim director of the Public Works Department. He talked about the various divisions and the work of the Public Works Department and expressed appreciation and respect for the other city departments they work so closely together with. He also expressed appreciation to the City Council, Administration and citizens of Raleigh and pointed out it is an honor and privilege for Public Works employees to do their part in making Raleigh such a great place.

AGENCY GRANTEE PRESENTATION – LEGAL AID OF NORTH CAROLINA – COMMENTS RECEIVED

Victor Boone, talked about the work and mission of Legal Aid of North Carolina. He expressed appreciation to the City Council for including their organization in the budget for $50,000 this

May 19, 2015Page 2

past year and hopefully that would continue next year. He talked about the various groups and individuals they serve pointing out they help as many people as they can but are unable to help everyone who gets in touch with them. He talked about educational efforts, number of clients served, credit harassment, family law, consumer law and other services they provide.

Mayor McFarlane and Councilor Weeks expressed appreciation for the work that Legal Aid of North Carolina has been doing in the area for a number of years stating they have done and are doing an outstanding job.

CONSENT AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED AS AMENDED

Mayor McFarlane presented the consent agenda indicating all items are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion. If a Councilor requests discussion on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. She explained the vote on the consent agenda will be a roll call vote. Mayor McFarlane stated there are two items to be added to the consent agenda pointing out Council members received the information in their agenda packet: Hillsborough Street Municipal Service District and to Contract Amendment #1/Tetra Tech Engineering. Mayor McFarlane stated she had received a request from Mr. Weeks to withdraw the Janitorial Services proposal from the Consent Agenda. Without objection, it was agreed the two items would be added and the one item withdrawn. Ms. Baldwin moved approval of the consent agenda as amended. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote (Gaylord absent and excused). The items on the consent agenda were as follows.

HOUSING PROGRAM – PARTICIPATION BY CITY EMPLOYEES – NOTED IN MINUTES

Pursuant to the City Charter which reads in part “… Nor shall any such official or employee be prohibited from participating in any rental or home ownership program sponsored or operated by the city, so long as the official or employee meets all criteria for the program … The award of any such housing assistance to an employee shall be noted in the minutes of the City Council.”

The following City employee complies with all criteria for participation in the Homeownership Program administered by the Housing and Neighborhoods Department: Andres R. Morales.

Recommendation: Direct the City Clerk to record in the minutes. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused).

ANNEXATION PETITION – WEST LAKE COUNTRY TRAIL/PINEBROOKS HILLS – REFERRED TO CITY CLERK TO CHECK SUFFICIENCY AND SCHEDULE HEARINGS

The agenda presented the following petitions for annexation.

May 19, 2015Page 3

Contiguous PetitionsArea Name Petitioner Acres Proposed

Use

Westlake Country Trail Peggy S. Adleberg 7.06 ResidentialPinebrooks Hills George Ray and Jean S Cheely 21.50 Residential

Recommendation: Acknowledge the annexation petitions and direct the City Clerk to check the sufficiency pursuant to State statutes and, if found sufficient, authorize advertisement for public hearing on June 16, 2015. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused).

SEWER EASEMENT RELEASE – 3007 CAMBRIDGE ROAD – APPROVED

A request has been received from John Bryant and Hope Holding Bryant, to release any and all interest in approximately 1850 square feet of sanitary sewer easement related to an existing terra cotta sewer line that is within a claimed but not recorded sanitary sewer easement. The existing line is being replaced on another portion of the Bryant’s property located at 3007 Cambridge Road as part of the Eton Road Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project. Staff has no objection to allowing a quitclaim deed for the former claimed sanitary sewer easement. The City Attorney’s office will draft the appropriate agreement to release any of the City’s interest. A report was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Approval of the request. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused).

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES – PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES – CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ACADEMY TOURS, LLC - APPROVED

A contract was executed in August, 2012 with Academy Tours, LLC, previously Evergreen Trails, Inc. dba Horizon Coach Lines, to provide transportation services for participant field trips. Terms of the contract provide for up to three annual extensions. This is the final extension of the original contract and the dates of service are from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 at a cost of $199,800.

Name of Project: Summer Camp and School TransportationManaging Division: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources - RecreationRequest Reason: Execute Final Year of Contract Extension ($199,800)Original Contract Total: $132,704Vendor: Academy Tours, LLCPrior Contract Activity: Original Contract approved August 15, 2012Amendment Number One: Contract Extension ($163,020)

May 19, 2015Page 4

Amendment Number Two: Insufficient staff drivers required more contract drivers ($25,740)

Amendment Number Three: Contract Extension ($197,340)Amendment Number Four: Insufficient staff drivers required more contract drivers

($38,896)Budget Transfer: $0Amount of this amendment: $199,800Reason for this amendment: Final contract extensionAnticipated future amendments: NoneBudget transfer required: NoneEncumbered with this Approval: $199,800

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment in an amount not to exceed $199,800. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused).

ENCROACHMENT – 313 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET – APPROVED CONDITIONALLY

A request has been received from Edison Land, LLC to install street trees and grates, U shape bike racks, canopy, and a metal awning in the right of way. A report was included with the agenda packet.

Recommendation: Approve the encroachment subject to completion of a liability agreement and documentation of proof of insurance by the applicant. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused).

CONDEMNATION – SANDY FORKS ROAD – RESOLUTION ADOPTED

In September 2012 Council approved funding for engineering design of improvements to Sandy Forks Road. Construction funding was included in the 2013 Transportation Bond referendum. Sandy Forks Road is classified as a two-lane divided avenue in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and carries an average of 9,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day.

The Sandy Forks Road Widening project will improve traffic capacity; alleviate congestion; improve pedestrian connectivity and safety; and provide a multi-modal solution between the residential and business districts at each end of the corridor. Public meetings were held December 5, 2013, April 10, 2014, and May 13, 2014 to present the project scope, impacts to property and to disseminate project information. The project was approved by City Council July 1, 2014. The contractor has prepared final project plans and is currently finalizing bid documents for advertising the project this summer. Efforts have been unsuccessful to obtain needed easements; therefore it is recommended that a resolution of condemnation be authorized for the following:

Sandy Forks Road Widening ProjectName: Sampson Bladen Oil, Company

May 19, 2015Page 5

Location: 6601 Falls of Neuse Road

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution of condemnation. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused). See Resolution 105.

TRAFFIC CALMING – KAPLAN DRIVE – PW 2014-11 – BID AWARDED TO BROWE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY – TRANSFER AUTHORIZED

Kaplan Drive is a neighborhood traffic calming project to install traffic calming devices along Kaplan Drive from Melbourne Drive to Kent Road. The project was approved by City Council June 5, 2012 and during the design process significant sidewalk installations were included to improve pedestrian access and walkability in the vicinity of the project.

Bids were opened Thursday, March 19, 2015; three bids were received. Browe Construction submitted the low bid in the amount of $670,608. Browe Construction has indicated they are Small Disadvantaged Minority and Women Owned Business (SDMWOB) contractor. The bid summary, letter from the Office of Economic Development, and back-up information are included with the agenda packet.

The engineer’s estimate for the project was $538,212, resulting in a low bid that is 24.6% higher than estimated. Public Works staff met with the contractor to obtain suggestions for possible cost savings; the contractor suggested a change to a special drainage structure specified in the design by substituting a generic field fabricated steel structure. The cost savings provided by this change is $17,500, reducing the contract price to $653,108.

Due to the amount of sidewalk work included with the design an analysis of cost drivers was conducted. The sidewalks portion of the project adds $250,000 to the project cost. To cover the cost of the contract, reserve funds have been identified in the Zone C funding reserve for transportation design and construction. Kaplan Drive is located within the boundaries of Zone C. A transfer in the amount of $250,876 is necessary to complete the project; accounting detail was included with the agenda packet.

An alternate resolution to the bid amount exceeding the project budget would be for Council to reject all bids and direct staff to conduct a redesign of the project. One consideration would be the proximity of the project to an elementary school; timing of construction activity needs to occur during summer months when school is not in session.

Name of Project: Kaplan Drive Traffic Calming ProjectManaging Division: Public Works-Design and Construction DivisionApproval Request: Bid AwardReason for Council Review: Formal Bid AwardConstruction Bid Award: $653,108Vendor: Browe Construction Company Inc.Prior Contract Activity: N/AEncumbered with this approval: $653,108

May 19, 2015Page 6

Recommendation: Award the bid to Browe Construction Company, Inc. in an amount of $653,108 and authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract. Authorize a budget transfer in the amount of $250,876. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused). See Ordinance 437 TF 251.

TRAFFIC – SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION – FRANK STREET/UJAMAA DRIVE – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

It is recommended that the speed limit be reduced from 35 mph to 25 mph on Frank Street and Ujamaa Drive. Frank Street and Ujamaa Drive are both classified as Neighborhood Local and are constructed to typical residential street standards. This request meets the requirements of the adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. A signed petition has been received by staff representing at least 75% of the residents or property owners along each street in support of the speed reduction request.

Recommendation: Approve as recommended and authorize the appropriate changes in the traffic code as included in the agenda packet. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Crowder – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused). See Ordinance 438.

HILLSBOROUGH STREET MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR JUNE 16, 2015

During the March 3, 2015 meeting the City Council considered the expansion request of the Hillsborough Street municipal service district. As presented the request included all ancillary lots and properties in the Cameron Village area and Morgan Street. Councilor Baldwin reported the Law and Public Safety Committee recommended the inclusion of lots in the Cameron Village area but not the lots on Morgan Street. Staff was encouraged to work on developing a report and updating the boundary map for Council consideration. A Public hearing is required prior to authorization of the updated boundary.

Recommendation: Authorize a public hearing on June 16, 2015 to receive public comment on the new boundary for the Hillsborough Street Municipal Service district. Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Weeks – 8 ayes.

TECTRA TECH ENGINEERING AMENDMENT #1 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT – AMENDMENT #1 – APPROVED – FUNDS TRANSFERRED

This contract provides consultant support and facilitation to the City for developing and implementing policies and procedures that support e City use of Green Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development (LID). The main output of this contract to date has been the City’s GI/LID Work Plan (February 2015). A budget transfer in the amount of $368,000 is necessary to fund the project; accounting detail may be found below.

Name of Project: Low Impact Development

May 19, 2015Page 7

Managing Division: Public Works – StormwaterRequest reason: Amendment approval (change order > $150,000)Cause for Contract Amendment: Add ton contract scope of work for consultant’s

support and facilitation of work among City staffand community stakeholders as the City of Raleighimplements the GI/LID Work Plan. The scope ofwork includes seven work items identified in theGI/LID Work Plan and allowances for assistancewith public outreach and technical evaluations, ifneeded.

Vendor: Tetra Tech Engineering, P.C.Prior Contract Activity: Original Contract $200,000Currently encumbered: $200,000Amount of this Contract Amendment $368,000Encumbered with this Approval $568,000

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment and authorize the budget transfer in the amount of $268,000 according to details included with the memo.

Upheld on Consent Agenda Baldwin/Weeks – 7 ayes (Gaylord absent and excused). See Ordinance 437 TF 251.

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

JANITORIAL SERVICES – PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES – CONTRACT WITH IQ JOURNEYS, INC./DBA BLINK FACILITY SOLUTIONS – ONE MONTH EXTENSION APPROVED

The three-year contract for janitorial services of the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department facilities will expire July 31, 2015. A one month extension of the existing contract is being requested while the process of bidding, evaluating, and award of a new janitorial service contract takes place. It is estimated the process and award by Council will be complete by September 1, 2015.

Name of Project: PRCR Facilities Janitorial ServicesManaging Division: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources – RecreationApproval Requested: Contract AmendmentReason for City Council Review: Contract Amendment >$150,000 (City Council policy)Original Contract Total: $1,571,445Vendor: IQ Journeys, Inc. dba Blink Facility SolutionsPrior contract activity: Original contract approved by City Council July 17,

2012, three-year contract. $523,815 annually; $1,571,445 total

Amendment Number One: Add Method Road Community Center, Pioneer Building and Powell Drive ($72,360)

Amendment Number Two: Add Halifax Community Center ($36,180)

May 19, 2015Page 8

Amendment Number Three: Add Marsh Creek Maintenance Woodshop and Greenhouse ($2,968)

Amendment Number Four: Add Mordecai Visitor Center, Northeast Outreach Center ($2,700)

Amendment Number Five: Add Annie Louise Wilkerson ($2,250)Amendments One-Five: Totaled $116,458Amount of this amendment: $49,162 Amendment Number Six; new contract total

$1,737,062Reason for this amendment: Extension of current contractAnticipated future amendments: N/ABudget transfer required: None

Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to extend contract for one month in an amount not to exceed $49,162.

Mr. Weeks stated he asked that this be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda questioning if it is a local company with City Manager Hall pointing out it is a local company. Mr. Weeks moved approval as outlined. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative (Gaylord absent and excused). The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

REZONING Z-9-15 – SOUTH WEST STREET – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2015

This is a request to rezone property from Business, Residential-20 and Neighborhood Business (BUS, R-20, & NB) to Neighborhood Mixed Use-3 stories-Urban Limited-Conditional Use (NX-3-UL-CU).The Planning Commission finds that while the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable and in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission recommends approval. Staff recommends that a public hearing be held on June 2, 2015. A public hearing must occur no later than August 4, 2015.

Mr. Odom moved approval with the understanding the public hearing would be scheduled for June 2, 2015. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

REZONING Z-12-15 – BUFFALOE ROAD/NEW HOPE ROAD – PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 2015 – AFTERNOON SESSION

This is a request to rezone property from Residential-6 (R-6) to Neighborhood Mixed Use-3 stories-Conditional Use (NX-3-CU).

May 19, 2015Page 9

The Planning Commission finds the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the request. Staff recommends that a public hearing be held on June 2, 2015. A public hearing must occur no later than August 4, 2015.

Mr. Maiorano stated he would like to be excused from participation because of his firm’s involvement. Mr. Odom moved Mr. Maiorano be excused from participation and Z-12-15. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote and Mr. Maiorano left the table.

Brief discussion took place on the meeting date with Mr. Odom pointing out he understands one of the attorneys involved will be out of town on June 2 and would like to defer the hearing. After brief discussion on the time and Mr. Odom moved a public hearing be authorized on July 21, 2015 for Z-12-15. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Maiorano who was excused from participation in the matter and Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-0 vote.

REZONING Z-7-14 – LITCHFORD ROAD – PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZED FOR JUNE 2, 2015

This is a request to rezone property from Office and Institution-1 Conditional Use (O&I-1 CUD) to Neighborhood Mixed Use- 3 stories-Conditional Use (NX-3-CU).

The Planning Commission finds that while the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable and in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission recommends approval of the request. Staff recommends that a public hearing be held on June 2, 2015. A public hearing must occur no later than August 4, 2015.

Ms. Baldwin moved the public hearing on Z-7-14 be authorized for June 2, 2015. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

COUNCILOR GAYLORD – JOINED MEETING VIA TELEPHONE

Mr. Gaylord identified himself and joined the meeting via telephone.

SPECIAL ITEMS

BUFFALOE – NEW HOPE SMALL AREA PLAN – STAFF AUTHORIZED TO PROCESS AMENDMENT

The following item appeared on the May 5, 2015 Council meeting:

May 19, 2015Page 10

In response to a citizen petition from a group of Northeast CAC members, staff conducted a workshop in September 2014 with residents, property owners and other interested parties regarding future development of vacant property and possible infrastructure improvements at the intersection of Buffaloe and New Hope Roads. Staff produced a report on the workshop and invited public comment this past winter. The revised report identifies key policies and action items designed to support the community vision for the area and to guide future development. Due to strong community participation and the need for clear guidance for property owners and decision-makers, staff recommends that the report be adopted as a small area plan.

Recommendation: Adopt small area plan. Authorize staff to process an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate relevant policy guidance and action items.

Following the report from staff and comments by Michelle McIntosh of the community, at the request of Mr. Odom, it was directed that the item be placed on this agenda for consideration.

Mr. Odom stated he is in favor of the small area plan however he wants to make sure that things that are in place and moving forward such as the zoning case would not be affected by the proposed plan. Planner Bynum Walter indicated that is correct the Small Area Plan does not apply to the rezoning that is under consideration. She stated the action that would be taken today is the Council would be authorizing staff to make the comprehensive plan amendments. Mr. Odom moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.

RETAIL TASK FORCE – DIRECTION GIVEN

During the May 5, 2015 meeting, Council Member Baldwin discussed the development of a retail task force. Following discussion, the City Manager was directed to develop a proposal for a starting point.

The purpose of the retail task force would be to research all available retail opportunities and to consider physical and policy changes needed to address challenges currently impacting the consumer appeal of Downtown, ease of shopping, recruitment, commerce and the ability to attract retailers. In addition to City staff, the taskforce may consist of representatives from Shop Local Raleigh, the Downtown Raleigh Alliance, Hillsborough Street Community Services Corporation, Midtown Raleigh Alliance, Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and small business retail owners. The taskforce would convene meetings with small retail owners to determine expectations of the City; identify challenges and barriers to market entry; identify challenges and barriers for retail operations; and determine existing advantages for retail in Raleigh. Staff can then provide feedback from these meetings to the City Council.

City Manager Hall explained. Economic Development Director James Sauls indicated at the last Council meeting, Ms. Baldwin asked staff to put together information on a possible retail task force that would look at the issues throughout the City to look at the challenges and opportunities for prospective businesses throughout the City. Ms. Baldwin stated she thought the summary was excellent. Mr. Maiorano questioned if this may be too broad with Ms. Baldwin indicating

May 19, 2015Page 11

what is outlined is exactly what she wanted to see. She expressed concern that if it were too specific we may miss some opportunities to help. Ms. Baldwin moved approval. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

REZONING Z-27-14 – CITY WIDE REMAPPING OF UDO ZONING DISTRICTS – DIRECTION GIVEN

Mayor McFarlane indicated Council members received the following information as a result of the work session on May 18.

The City Council conducted a UDO zoning map work session on Monday, May 18 th. Staff presented comments received by Council members, which were discussed. The City Council reviewed changes to the Planning Commission recommended zoning map. These changes are listed below. A public hearing has been set for Tuesday, July 7 th. The attached table provides a full list of property-specific discussion items.

Recommendation: Approve the changes to the UDO zoning map.

Item Topic Address/Area PC Recommendation

Council Change

4.4 High Intensity Uses 307 & 311 Edenton St. NX-3-UL OX-3-UL4.5 High Intensity Uses 801 E. Martin St. NX-3-CU OX-3-CU

A.1 Staff Request 812 & 814 Oberlin Rd. OX & R-6 with NCOD OX

A.2 Staff Request 602 & 702 E. Hargett St.R-10 & NX-3 NX-3 & R-10B.1 Council Request 117 Woodburn Rd. RX-3 CU R-6 CUB.2 Council Request 8701 & 8801 Durant Rd.IH IX-3C Downtown Height West St; Capital & Peace5 stories 12 stories

D Downtown Height Capital & Halifax b/w Cedar & Peace

7 (S of Seaboard & southern most parcels W of tracks); 5 for remainder

7 (north of Peace & adjacent to Capital); 12 stories for remainder

E Downtown Height

Between Jones and Hillsborough between the railroad tracks and Glenwood

4 stories 7 stories

G Downtown Height 217 W. Jones St. 12 stories 7 storiesI Downtown Height Glenwood & Harrington

between Morgan & Hillsborough

20 stories 12 stories (W of West St); 20 for

May 19, 2015Page 12

remainder

J Downtown HeightGlenwood & Boylan between Morgan & Hillsborough

20 stories

12 stories (W of West St); 20 for remainder

L Downtown HeightPerson & Bloodworth between Hargett & Martin

12 stories 20 stories (W side of block); 12 for remainder

M Downtown Height Dawson & McDowell between Davie & Martin

5 stories (north side); 20 stories (south side)

20 stories; staff asked to show model at hearing

N Downtown Height

Areas southwest of railroad tracks and east of S. West Street and north of W. Cabarrus Street

7 stories

7 stories; add parcel with existing train station to 7 stories

O Downtown Height

Area bounded by S. West Street, W. Cabarrus Street, railroad tracks, S. Dawson Street, and W. South Street

7 stories 5 stories

U Downtown HeightWilmington & Blount between Cabarrus & Lenoir

12 stories

7 ( NE quadrant and S half of the block)

Mayor McFarlane questioned if there are additional comments:

Mr. Maiorano stated a subject that came up at the meeting yesterday, even though it was not on the list for discussion, relates to the Dupont Circle area which is on the west, southwest side of the railroad track and is designated as “N” on the map. He stated it is a piece of property that is currently shown as four stories; however, after spending more time looking at the issue he has questions as to why we did not propose the entire area for 7 stories at least for the purpose of sending it to public hearing. He stated there are a number of factors that bring him to make the statement including the proximity to Union Station, the topography of that particular location, which would not to overshadow or impose upon the adjacent neighborhood and it is in an area proposed for 7 stories. He stated he is not sure why it is proposed for 4 as he feels if it were remapped that way, it would end up looking strange and not be the best use of the property. He

May 19, 2015Page 13

stated he wanted to make sure every one understood why he was raising the question and with those comments he would move that the area being discussed be designated for 7 stories in the remapping proposal. Mr. Odom stated as he understands that would be 7 stories across that particular section and he feels we should have even taller buildings but at least 7 stories is better than 4. Mr. Maiorano’s motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative (Mr. Gaylord did not vote therefore his vote would count as an affirmative vote). The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

Mr. Stephenson stated he had two items relating to the remapping, one which has to do with the Glenwood Brooklyn area. He stated as far as the Glenwood/Brooklyn neighborhood is concerned, he thinks staff and the neighbors have come to a compromise approach to take to public hearing, that is, the Special R-30 parcels would be remapped as R-10, the regular R-30 parcels would be remapped to RX3 and the entire area generally bounded by the Glenwood/Brooklyn National Register Historic District Boundaries would be subject to Historic Overlay District Street Side. He feels that would preserve the protections and entitlements of the parcels within the boundary. Mayor McFarlane seconded the motion.

Ms. Baldwin questioned if the commercial property owners were consulted about this proposed compromise with it being pointed out by Planner Crane that staff is not aware of any commercial properties in the area pointing out when it goes to public hearing all the property owners will be notified. Mr. Crane pointed out what is suggested by Mr. Stephenson is really two separate processes. The first would be the remapping for Special R30 and R30 into R10 and RX3 so the base map would be in place. He stated the issue of officially initiating the historic overlay would be a separate item that staff would be happy to undertake, the overlay district is a totally separate process not connected to the remapping. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 8-0 vote.

Mr. Stephenson stated his second item related to 1500 and 1540 Dunn Road. He stated the Buffer Commercial parcels that were in the Z-1-14 case were not a part of staff’s recommendation because they were a part of a pending zoning case. He stated in light of that decision and the council’s decision on Z-1-14 he would recommend that the Council take an approach of remapping these two parcels, in accordance with a procedure that was proposed by Associate City Attorney Ira Botvinick which was to either leave the existing zoning in place or put in the most closely aligned zoning district which would be OX3 and encourage the applicant to bring forth a conditional use case to rezone these two parcels to NX3CU memorialize the Buffer/Commercial zoning conditions that would otherwise not be in place and these conditions would be to limit the property as buffer commercial, retaining the maximum of 3,000 square feet of retail and not permitting food sales, drive-thrus, drive-ins and so moved.

Discussion took place with various Council members indicating the suggestion is a lot to digest at the table with the Mayor pointing out it was her understanding it would be remapped to NX3 with conditions that carry over the conditions of the Buffer/Commercial. It was pointed out the existing conditions being brought forward may not be conditions that align with the base zoning that is in place now which limits retail, fuel sales, drive-ins, drive-thru, etc. Mr. Stephenson pointed out and what the conditions and the remapping proposals would carry forth was talked

May 19, 2015Page 14

about. Mr. Stephenson stated he does not fill the conditions under the remapping governs fuel sales, drive-ins, drive-thru which are existing conditions under the present zoning and if they are not brought forward, it will not maintain the characteristics of the current base zoning of buffer commercial.

How to proceed and the fact that the existing conditions were predicated on a particular project going in on the property and the feeling that the Council should stick with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to go to public hearing. The concern about putting conditions on before any one knows what is proposed for a location and concerns that may cause was talked about. The history of the zoning on this property, zoning cases and remapping on this property was talked about. Mr. Stephenson again talked about the base zoning on the property at this point and what it limits and allow. Concern about handling this case differently with various Council members indicating they are not against those conditions and may be in favor of them but at this point we are simply remapping and placing conditions such as suggested by Mr. Stephenson is not being done on any other piece of property in the City of Raleigh. The Mayor pointed out she had not heard a second to the motion. Therefore it would be going to public hearing with the existing remapping as proposed.

Ms. Baldwin questioned if a vote is needed on the collective issues discussed on the 18 or each individual recommendations with it being agreed to move forward as discussed with the change made today in the Dupont Circle area.

Ms. Crowder talked about the importance of moving this (Z-27) to public hearing but expressed concern about the heights along both sides of Fayetteville Street.

Mr. Stephenson talked about the heights and possible ways to address his concerns such as negotiating heights to get more public benefits, and concerns about granting away entitlements. Mr. Odom moved the item go to public hearing on July 7, 2015. His motion was seconded by mayor McFarlane and put to a vote which passed on an 8-0 vote.

PERSONNEL – EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTER DIRECTOR DOMINICK NUTTER AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DAMIEN GRAHAM – INTRODUCED

City Manager Hall introduced Dominick Nutter who was recently named Emergency Communication Center Director and Damien Graham, who was recently named Communications Director. City Manger Hall indicated Mr. Nutter assumed his duties on April 27, gave information on his background which includes being a 26 year veteran of the United Stated Army, holding various high level public safety management positions from director of Emergency Services and 911 Director for the Centralized Dispatch Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia, provost Marshall for US Headquarters in Bagram, Afghanistand during Operation and Enduring Freedom. He talked about Mr. Nutter’s proven track record, educational background, and stated as a tactical and strategic thinker, Mr. Nutter will be a valuable asset to the Raleigh/Wake Emergency Communications Center.

May 19, 2015Page 15

City Manager Hall indicated Damien Graham will take over as Communications Director on June 8, 2015. He talked about Mr. Graham’s 20 years of experience in strategic messaging, communications, public relations and coalition building explaining Mr. Graham’s work has been recognized nationally and it is felt he will bring new energy to enhance Raleigh’s brand. He talked about Mr. Graham’s past experience including the last nine years as Director of Marketing, Communications and Public Affairs for Go Triangle. He talked about Mr. Graham’s educational background and pointed out his proven track record in communications will be a great access to the City of Raleigh.

DIX – PARK – FINANCING – DIRECTION GIVEN

The Purchase Agreement between the City and the State of North Carolina, executed May 11, 2015, requires that the City obtain a funding source for the agreed upon sales price of $52 million by December 31, 2015 and to close the purchase within 60 days of obtaining the funding proceeds. In previous meetings of the Council, information has been shared on various debt options that are available for the purchase, including the issuance of 20-year term General Obligation Bonds (GO) or Limited Obligation Bonds (LOB). A third option has also been identified for a direct bank loan placement for a shorter term of 10 years.

The City’s general debt model is used to track all debt related resources and debt obligations for the general debt program. Due to positive interest rate experience, good refinancing savings and changes in cash flow requirements of certain projects, the model’s capacity now provides flexibility in considering a shorter funding option for the Dix Park purchase. As explained in the back-up memo from the Chief Financial Officer, the 10-year private placement loan offers the benefits of a quicker closing, an easier financing transaction and an overall lower cost due to both the expected low interest rate and the shorter term of the financing. As with all three of the debt options, the private placement loan would be reviewed and approved by the City Council, the State Local Government Commission and would include a public hearing at the appropriate time.

A decision on a desired funding option does not require an immediate decision on the resources needed to pay for the related debt costs. Further analysis of these options, including the use of debt model capacity, potential reallocation of other project budgets, or property tax increases will occur as part of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget process.

Recommendation: Direct Administration to pursue a 10-year direct bank loan/installment financing for funding the acquisition of the Dix Park property and to begin related approval actions. Authorize a public hearing for the June 2, 2015 City Council meeting.

Chief Financial Officer James pointed out Council members received the following information in their agenda packet.

The following provides a review of the debt issue options that would be appropriate for financing the $52 million cost of the Dix Park property as well as my recommendation on what I see as the most preferable alternative.

May 19, 2015Page 16

Options 1 and 2 shown below represent the two primary options that we have discussed with the City Council to date -- a General Obligation Issue that would entail a voter referendum in the fall; and a Limited Obligation Bond (LOB) Issue that could be done currently, Most recently, a third option- a private placement installment contract financed over a shorter financing period has also been identified as a viable option. The following is a description of each of these options:

A General Obligation (GO) bond issue pledges the full faith and credit of the City's taxing power and requires a public referendum, as well as the approvals of the City Council and the Local Government Commission. The term of borrowing is typically 20 years.

Generally, GO issues are used for projects that the government proposes to do but desires the general public's approval before it pursues and funds the project. These issues are often used for improvements or capital projects that may not allow for a direct collateralization of the assets, such as is the case for street improvements, housing projects, or parks and recreation projects. Contracts and agreements related to a GO project would normally ·come after the referendum is held and approval is obtained to proceed.

GO bonds are sold on behalf of the City by the State of N.C. Local Government Commission on a competitive basis and on a specific calendared date approved by the LGC. Council actions related to approval of a referendum for the Dix Park purchase would need to be initiated in June; the referendum would be held in October and, if approved, a bond issue would be done prior to December 31, 2015.

Interest rates on GO issues are typically the lowest of all alternatives but the time required to conduct a referendum and issue the GO bonds introduces interest rate risk and other costs to a financing. With a rate increase predicted by the Federal Reserve this calendar year, GO rates may likely increase between now and a potential sale date in December.

Option 2: limited Obligation Bonds (LOB's}

Limited Obligation Bonds, unlike GO bonds, use the property or facility being purchased/constructed as the collateral for a borrowing. The term of borrowing for general governmental LOB issues is typically 20 years - the same as a GO issue although other terms may be used.

Generally, Limited Obligation Bonds are ut111zed for major capital fac111tles and, for example, have been previously used in Raleigh to finance the Raleigh Convention Center and 'the recent Public Safety Center. LOB's are sold on a negotiated basis by an Underwriter who markets the issue to both retail and institutional purchasers of municipal debt.

May 19, 2015Page 17

Limited Obligation Bonds require a number of approvals by the City Council and the State Local Government Commission and also include a public hearing by the Council. For the Dix financing, approvals could begin immediately and would take between 60- 90 days to obtain funding proceeds.

Interest rates on LOB's are only minimally higher than GO rates and, given the interest rate risk for a year-end GO issue, it is reasonable to assume that the comparable rates would be very close for both Option 1 and Option 2.

Option 3: Private Placement Installment Financing Contract-10 Year Term

The municipal financing markets over the last few years have also been characterized by strong interest from private banks in offering local governments a direct placement loan/installment contract. The loans are often in the 10-year or under term and we have confirmed that there is current interest by multiple banks in offering that term of loan to the City for financing of the Dix Property.

The direct loan/installment financing would provide the City with the abl11ty to obtain funding proceeds by July and, because of the shorter amortization period, would provide the lowest overall cost for the financing to the City.

Private placement bank loans/installment financings require City Council approval, LGC approval and, in this case because it would fund a real estate purchase, a public hearing would be held. If pursuing this option, the City's Treasury Office, Financial Advisory firm and Bond Counsel would be actively involved in requesting and evaluating competitive bank proposals from interested banks.

Finance Department/Treasury Recommendation

Due to favorable interest rate experience and refunding savings that the City has realized, the City's General Debt Model can accommodate a shorter-term borrowing for the Dix land purchase. Due to that capacity and the following key factors, we recommend Option 3 -- the10-year private placement loan/installment financing -- as the most preferable alternative available to the City:

Option 3, due to the shorter payback term and the anticipated low interest rate, provides the overall best financing cost

The timeline for the bank placement process gives the quickest ability to close on the Dix property (See Appendix 1)

The direct bank placement provides an ease of transacting over other alternatives The City's effective commitment to purchase the land as evidenced by the

Agreement to Purchase is consistent with the pursuit of a borrowing of this nature

May 19, 2015Page 18

Based on this recommendation, an agenda item has been also prepared for inclusion in the Manager's Agenda section recommending Option 3, the Direct Bank Placement, along with a required public hearing at the June 2 Council Meeting.

I would also note that the direct bank placement option as described would involve funding only a partial debt payment for FY 16-17. Therefore, the selection of Option 3 does not require an immediate decision on the resources needed to pay for the related debt costs. Further analysis of these options, including the use of debt model capacity, potential reallocation of other project budgets, or property tax increases can occur as part of the Fiscal Year 17 budget process.

He highlighted the three options elaborating on Option 3 which is recommended for Council’s consideration.

Chief Financial Officer James provided Council members with a calendar of financing options pointing out Option 3 would be the fastest, good fit for this type real estate financing and the lowest cost to the public which is estimated to have a $9M to $12M savings over Options 1 or 2. He stated if the Council approved this option, staff would go out and get competitive bids from the banks, come back with a June 16 public hearing and at subsequent meetings with the series of activities, etc, with hopeful closing the end of July.

Ms. Baldwin pointed out she has been a strong proponent of a voter referendum; however, when she looks at a possible $12M savings for taxpayers, she struggles with the position. She pointed out the City Council has already signed the agreement to purchase the property and now we are talking about the payment and moved approval of Option 3. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder.

Mr. Maiorano stated it was with great honor that he joined the unanimous vote of the City Council to demonstrate its commitment to the purchase of the Dix property. He applauded the Mayor and others for their fortitude and vision in acquiring the property as he does strongly believe that the purchase of Dix is the right thing for our City and State long term. He pointed out while the savings of $9M to $12M is very impressive, he wants everyone to know that when he votes against the motion it is not against the purchase of the Dix property, he just believes the financing should be brought to the voters but he recognizes why that is not being done at this point.

Mr. Stephenson stated he concurs with Ms. Baldwin as he too has been a strong proponent for a voter referendum. He stated he understands Mr. Maiorano who is the relatively new guy on the Council but Mr. Maiorano hasn’t been through an election where people ran on a platform of bringing Dix into City ownership. He appreciates those concerns. He stated when you talk about a savings of $9M to $12M and pointed out most all of the Council members have had a referendum in past elections.

Mr. Odom pointed out he has made comments and votes about Dix for and against, for and against, for and against all for different reasons. He stated however, he is in favor of the City

May 19, 2015Page 19

owning the Dix property but he is also in favor of letting the people vote for this and has said that many times from the beginning. He stated one of the reasons through all of the discussions and trying to acquire the Dix property is so we will have a park for our grandchildren. He stated if we go with this ten year financing plan, he feels we will be letting them off the hook as the current citizens would have to pay for the entire thing. He stated another concern he has with the 10 year proposal is the impact we would be putting on our budget today. He stated even though we would be saving $9M to $12M he will assure all that our taxes will have to go up. He does not see how we could pay back the loan without a tax increase unless we stop doing other things. He stated the purpose of long-term financing is cash flow and in the 25 years he has been involved with the City, Raleigh has been fortunate as we have not had cash flow problems but he feels doing the financing this way will bring our cash flow to 0. He stated he likes saving $9M to $12M but he is concerned about what we might not do in the next 10 years. He indicated if someone could tell him how it will affect our budgets within the next 4 or 5 years he may feel better about it.

Mayor McFarlane stated one of the reasons the City of Raleigh has this option is our credit rating and that is in part due to CFO Perry James. He has done an incredible job through the years and she is comfortable that he would not be making this recommendation if he thought it would put the City in jeopardy of not being able to fulfill its strategic visions.

City Manager Hall pointed out this is a significant choice and one that from the discussions in the 17 months he has been here is representative of a very high priority for the Council of Raleigh. He stated in many ways the budget process is about prioritization and impacts. He stated staff does acknowledge that this particular choice will generate debt service that has to be paid. He pointed out however we are currently in a positive position as it relates to debt service and staff would like to spend more time talking about the trade offs that will be necessary so the Council will be aware of the trade off. He talked about the higher level of debt service of a 10 year financing plan as opposed to a 20 year plan pointing out that is partially where we are getting the interest rate savings. He pointed out we are currently in the position to have some flexibility on how we structure the debt service and future capital projects to manage that. He pointed out it may have an impact on property tax rates in the future and that is why staff wants to spend time talking about what those trade-offs may be.

Mr. Stephenson talked about Mr. Odom’s comments of letting our grandchildren off the hook. He stated he does not feel that will occur. We are talking about $50M to acquire the land and it will probably take that amount to or more to develop the land. The motion as stated was put to a roll call vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Odom and Mr. Maiorano who voted in the negative. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-2 vote (Gaylord voting by phone).

COUNCILOR GAYLORD – EXCUSE FROM MEETING

Mayor McFarlane excused Councilor Gaylord from the remainder of the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

May 19, 2015Page 20

BUDGET – FY15-16 – PRESENTED; REFERRED TO BUDGET WORK SESSIONS

City Manager Hall pointed out he is very pleased to present the proposed operating and capital budget which is an important part of the annual process in our city. Utilizing a slide presentation, he talked about the budget being for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 and is referred to the FY2016 budget. He stated the total proposed budget is $832.5M and explaining it is made up of a variety of different funds and enterprises with the powerpoint outlining the information. He stated as a matter of information one cent on the tax rate generates some $5.3M. He talked about the FY16 budget themes, which include service demands, outpacing revenue growth; smart strategies to align resources to highest priority needs; anticipating future opportunities and challenges based on the strategic plan. He talked about the strategic plan and expressed appreciation to the Council for the hard work in development of the plan. He stated his presentation would speak to Raleigh’s growth, general fund revenues and expenditures, enterprise activities, capital investments highlights, agency grants, tax and fee impacts, a decision package and the next steps.

City Manager Hall talked about Raleigh’s growth and some of the many accolades the City has received over the years, some as recently as earlier today. City Manager Hall talked about the proposed general fund revenues of $434.9M, the projected 1.5% growth in base property tax revenues for FY16 and the proposed $1.72 cent tax increase for support of the 2014 bond referendum which will generate some $8.8M. He talked about the improving economy which brings about strong sales tax increases, explaining the proposed budget has an estimated 4% growth over FY15 projected. He touched on the growth in franchise taxes, the projected $7.1M loss in business privilege license pointing out there is ongoing discussions and there is no revenue in the proposed budget from privilege license tax. He talked about the opportunities and challenges related to growth.

City Manager Hall highlighted the general fund expenditures which are proposed at $434.9M, allocation of existing resources to address the needs touching on evaluation of departmental resources to fund high priority needs, strengthened services and position reallocation. He touched on development growth pressures, development activities, explaining one of the ways the proposed budget responds to development activities is adding building inspections staff, expanding the City’s express review availability, enhancing legal and real estate resources and increased development revenues which will help off set the cost. He went through the proposed reorganization of city planning services including a new Development Services Department.

City Manager Hall talked about the pressures put on City resources by the growth in the area, pointing out the proposed budget adds 8 police officers and resources for crossing guards at each requesting elementary and middle schools, equipment for Fire Station 21 and replacement of the 911 system. He talked about new or expanded facilities that are coming online including the Central Communication Center (formerly Critical Public Safety Center); Central Operation Facility (formerly Downtown Remote Operations); Abbotts Creek Park, MLK Jr. Memorial Gardens and Phase I of the Horseshoe Farm Nature Preserve. The budget also addresses organizational excellence with City Manager Hall talking about the demands of competing for high quality talent and the investment in human capital competitive pay which will include an

May 19, 2015Page 21

average 2.9% pay increase for most employers and funds for a comprehensive employee, compensation and pay structure study. He talked about the continued rising health and dental cost, the increased premiums for family coverage, and changes in health coverage for family coverage, various levels of family coverage but there is no change in premiums for employee only, employee/child and employee/children. The proposed budget caps annual pharmacy out of pocket expense, will offer telemedicine service at reduced co-pay, an onsite clinic study and moving the calendar year plan in January 2017.

The proposal also includes consolidation of Public Utilities, Solid Waste and Stormwater Call Centers and performance measurement system implementation.

City Manager Hall talked about things coming up including work on economic development, affordable housing, transportation and parks. He talked about enterprise funds including public utilities, stormwater, solid waste, parking, transit convention and performing arts and highlighted improvements and/or increases or keeping fees or increases such as utility rates, solid waste fees, parking rate adjustments, parking study, participation in working transit service, studies relative to the Convention Center and Performing Arts Complex including adding shows, hotel study, continued renovations, etc.

City Manager Hall talked about improving and expanding infrastructure, including transportation parks bonds, capital maintenance on city plaza, etc. He talked about possible future capital consideration, arts appropriations, human service appropriations, community enhancement grants and other outside agency appropriations.

City Manager Hall stated the budget includes an alternative decision package which totals $5.1M of items not included in the proposed budget. He touched on what is included in the various areas of the alternative decision package particularly as it relates to development and growth pressures, some $600,000 of requests considered by the Council including bike share program and possible funding, economic development and leaf collection increases. Ms. Baldwin had questions on leaf collection, cost, etc. Mr. Maiorano asked for clarification on break down or source of funding of a bike share program.

City Manager talked about economic development tool kit for various projects and how having an account for various infrastructure project.

City Manager Hall pointed out the public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on June 2, and the Council has already set budget work sessions at 4:00 p.m. for each Monday in June beginning June 1. City Manager expressed to Council and the departments and employees who have worked so hard getting the budget proposal.

In response to questioning, City Manager Hall pointed out property reevaluations is done every 8 years and he thought Wake County’s is due next year. Ms. Baldwin asked about the break down for the bike share program and leaf collection cost, exactly what is involved to cover these in the alternate package would mean removing things from other line items.

May 19, 2015Page 22

Ms. Baldwin asked about how Council should submit questions with City Manager Hall suggesting that any requests for budget notes come from the Council as a group rather than individual Council members making requests and the rest of the Council may not be interested with discussion centering around fact that any new items would be spending money we do not have. The need to have detailed information in new requests was talked about. Ms. Baldwin stated she would like to hear more about the $2.5M for infrastructure fund that is, exactly what it is and what is being proposed.

Budget Manager Munro pointed out Mr. Gaylord had sent a note to staff asking for a particular budget note and she suggested he bring it up at the table but since he is not at the meeting, she would put it out for Council consideration and it relates to review and request and authorizing community gardens on surplus public property with the Council agreeing to a budget note.

Mr. Stephenson asked about the Economic Development proposal pointing out there have been discussions and comprehensive planning such as how do we get ahead of the growth and what can we do to steer growth to those areas of stagnant development.

Mr. Weeks asked about the plan for outside agencies and the step down proposals. He stated he would like to see a budget note on the reallocation of those funds pointing out he is particularly interested in Southeast Raleigh Assembly. Council members stated as they understand the alternate decision package is basically what the City could have done if they had the privilege license revenue. Ms. Baldwin indicated she would like to review the outside agencies requests again. She would like to see what was requested and exactly what was proposed. Mr. Stephenson talked about new agency request and referred to the Nessie request and asked that staff go back to them and see if they could submit a new request.

The item was referred to budget work sessions.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD

PARK SPACE – PRIVATE USE – POLICY AND ORDINANCE ADOPTED

In 2013, increasing citizen concerns and complaints regarding private businesses operating in parks and on greenways prompted review by Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources (PRCR) staff. Commercial activities such as utilizing public park space for car washing and detailing, dog training, and fitness “boot camps” can create tensions or conflicts between park users and private commercial activity participants. Private commercial activities may damage or degrade park property. The City may be exposed to liability claims from injuries resulting from commercial activities occurring in a park. Commercial activities occurring in a park must be consistent with the purpose of a public park as well as ensuring that commercial activities do not violate the City Code.

In response the Board included policy development for private use of public park space as a part of the FY14 work plan. On April 16, 2015 the Board approved the proposed policy and

May 19, 2015Page 23

recommends it to City Council for consideration. A draft ordinance establishing PRCR authority to regulate commercial use in the park system accompanies the proposed policy.

Recommendation: Adopt the policy on private use of public park space and adopt the ordinance establishing authority to regulate commercial activity in the park system.

Vice-Chair Mike Sursky introduced the item and talked about the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board’s discussion on the item and recommendation for approval.

Scott Payne, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources of Assistant Director highlighted the following information:

In 2013 increasing citizen concerns and complaints regarding private businesses operating in parks and on greenways prompted review by Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (PRCR) staff. A snapshot of identified private commercial activities occurring on park property included: car washing/detailing; marathon training; on-leash dog training; fitness "boot camps;" off-leash dog training; extreme obstacle race training; stroller fitness; sport instruction, etc.

Commercial activities can create tensions or conflicts between park users and private commercial activity participants. Private commercial activities may damage or degrade park property. The City may be exposed to liability claims from injuries resulting from commercial activities occurring in a park. Commercial activities occurring in a park must be consistent with the purpose of a public park as well as commercial activities should not violate Raleigh City Code. The identified issues with private commercial use in Raleigh's park system mirrored issues faced by other jurisdictions nationally as reported in the March 1, 2013 publication of Parks and Recreation magazine, the official publication of the National Recreation and Park Association (attachment A).

PRCR evaluation of its authority to regulate private commercial activity on park property revealed gaps and inconsistencies. In response the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) included policy development for private use of public park space as a part of their FY 14 work plan. Goals of policy development included: educating users on City and park polices, rules and regulations; identify private commercial activities and groups for communication and coordination; provide high quality parks and facilities and experiences by identifying high impact uses of park spaces and protect City taxpayers’ interest regarding liability for non-City directed activities. City Council approved the annual work plan on September 3, 2013.

On March 3, 2014 the Parks Committee of the PRGAB began work on the private use of public park space question. From March through June 2014, staff and Parks Committee reviewed input on the issue from other City of Raleigh (COR) Departments (Risk Management, Finance, and Planning) as well as studied how peer agencies, on both national and local scale, were addressing these concerns. At both the national and local level, the preponderance of responses to commercial use of park space included

May 19, 2015Page 24

ordinance or policy action restricting or banning the activity without an approved permit. Nationally the majority of reviewed peers assessed a fee to conduct the activity and all required insurance coverage (attachment B).

Parks Committee and staff drafted a "straw man" policy on private use of public park space. The draft proposed banning any commercial activity without PRCR authorization. Definitions of commercial activity were a1ticulated in the policy. The draft also defined the process and requirements necessary to receive authorization from PRCR. Stakeholders, identified businesses currently utilizing park property, were invited to review and comment on the draft policy at a Parks Committee meeting held July 10, 2014.

Staff evaluated comments from stakeholders and modified the draft policy. This draft was shared with the City Attorney's office for review. Their review and edits provided clarity on definition of commercial activity and permit process. The assessment additionally determined the requirement of an ordinance to clearly establish PRCR authority (Attachment C) to regulate private use of public park space. Parks Committee approved the amended draft private use of public park policy on February 5, 2015 and sent to PRGAB as a whole for consideration on February 19, 2015. Stakeholders received the proposed policy and notification opportunity for public comment at the February PRGAB meeting. On April 16, 2015 PRGAB as a whole approved the proposed policy and recommends to City Council for consideration (Attachment D).

The proposed policy restricts commercial activity within the park system unless authorized by the PRCR Director. PRCR would designate the spaces available for commercial use. A permit process would be established for commercial use application to include: an annual $25 application fee; certificate of insurance naming "City of Raleigh" as an additional insured in accordance with the COR Risk Manager requirements; applicant and program participant signed releases of liability; etc. The proposed policy establishes guidelines, conditions and safeguards by which PRCR would grant commercial use license and conditions a permit holder must meet to retain their permit for the year. The proposed policy does not apply to special events permitted by the COR Special Events Office.

Upon City Council approval staff proposes initiating the permit process January 2016.

Mr. Payne talked about the background of why this became an issue, commercial activities, research, prier practices, explained the proposed policy permit application, etc.

Ms. Crowder questioned who in the department would authorize the permits or make exemptions with Mr. Payne pointing out it would be the department head or designee. He talked about work with the different groups, the types of conversations that have been held, etc. Ms. Baldwin questioned if what will be allowed is in writing or if the department has established criteria of what is allowed and what is not allowed with it being pointed out they worked with the City Attorney’s staff and the proposed ordinance allows flexibility to address any proposed activity.

May 19, 2015Page 25

The Attorney’s Office worked hard on the definition of commercial and recreational in nature and pointed out the definition in the policy matches the City Code. Discussion followed about something becoming a problem being removed from the list and something that becomes a trend could be added to the list. Mr. Maiorano moved approval of the ordinance and policy pointing out a lot of hard work went into this and he appreciates the work of the Board. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin.

Mr. Odom stated the policy sounds great but wanted to make sure there were no unintended consequences with it being pointed out again the City Attorney’s office worked very hard on defining commercial and making sure the definitions match and it would not infringe on leisure activities. The motion as stated was put to a roll call vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Ms. Crowder who voted in the negative (Gaylord absent and excused). The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-1 vote. See Ordinance 439.

REQUEST AND PETITIONS OF CITIZENS

PUBLIC NUISANCE APPEALS – FONVILLE ROAD AREA – APPEALS DENIED

City Manager Hall pointed out the first five items under Request and Petitions of Citizens relate to the same issue. He suggested that Ashley Glover of our Housing and Neighborhoods Division give an overview of the issue.

Ashley Glover indicated the first 4 speakers relate to appeals of a notice of violation. He stated the appeals were made to administration and denied. He presented slides showing toilets in the yards at 9728, 9701, 9713 and 9709 Fonville Road. These are a violation of Code Section 12-6002. He pointed out these properties are outside the city limits but within the ETJ. He gave a history of the cases which were initiated in March when the City received complaints relative to property owners who had placed decorated toilets in their front yards and staff sent notices requiring that they be removed. He read Section 12-6002 under which the notice of violations were issued and pointed out he received appeals relating to free speech or expression. He pointed out once the Council hears the appeals the Council can approve or deny the appeals. He stated staff recommends denial of the appeals as the toilets or household items in the front yard are a direct violation of City Code Section 12-6002. He suggested that the Council listen to all parties involved before making a decision. The first four items are from people making an appeal and the fifth is from a property owner in opposition to allowing the toilets in the yard.

Frank Powell, III, 9701 Fonville Road, pointed out the toilets in the front yard are basically an art project which started off as a joke. He pointed out some of the toilets are decorated quite creatively and the decorations change with the seasons. He stated they are regular toilets which have become yard art. It is also a green project as its keeping the used toilets out of the landfill. He talked about the many compliments they have received from people who stop, take pictures, etc. He talked about public nuisance laws going back to common law and read the definition of common law and the definition of public nuisance. He stated the art objections are not nuisances and talked about other household items such as bathtubs, beds, etc, that are decorations in people’s yards. He stated they had no idea it was against the law.

May 19, 2015Page 26

Judith Jackson, 9728 Fonville Road, stated no one knew it was against the law. They thought it was a cute project, many people walk the trails in their area neighborhood and stop by and take pictures. She talked about other art objects she has in her yard again stating no one knew they were a violation of the law.

Mike Lezlercq, 9713 Fonville Road, stated it started out as a joke. The previous speakers covered what he had to say but basically this is turning into a matter of free space and yard art.

Carman Saenz, 9709 Fonville Road, indicated she put her toilet in the yard as she thought it was cute. It was a way to recycle and reuse something rather than throwing it out and putting it in the landfill. She stated she apologizes if she has offended anyone but they really thought it was a nice decoration for their yards.

Manny Berenjian, 9708 Fonville Road, was at the meeting to object to the appeals. He stated he put up a fence in the yard pointing out one of the pictures shows a toilet at the edge of the fence facing his property. He stated he feels it is retaliation and it has nothing to do with yard art. He stated he had provided a letter and background information about the problems when he submitted his request. He stated he works at home and saw what was going on throughout the day. He pointed out if you want to have something close to the house and call it yard art that is one thing but it was placed so he could see it beyond the fence.

Sean Berenjian pointed out a person had a business and talked about things going on in the neighborhood and that is the reason he installed the fence so they didn’t have to look at it all day. A business owner placed the toilet at the end of the fence so he had to look at what was going on but they extended the fence, the other property owner moved the toilet to the end of the fence. He talked about being in the military and respect for the flag but putting the US Flag in a toilet is not good.

Mr. Odom stated as he understands the fence was installed so that Mr. Berenjian did not have to look at the business with Mr. Berenjian indicating that is correct and each time he extended the fence the toilets were moved.

Ms. Baldwin moved denial of the appeals. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks. Mayor McFarlane pointed out it is not a question of whether it is public art or not, but having the toilets in the front yard is a violation of the city ordinance. It is a household item in the yard. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Odom who voted in the negative and Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-1 vote.

FERTILE GROUND FOOD COOPERATIVE – INFORMATION RECEIVED

Zulayka Santiago, representative of Fertile Ground Food Cooperative, had requested permission to make a presentation about their plans for the area.

May 19, 2015Page 27

Erin Byrd, Board member, stated the group has approximately 127 members and owners. She stated Southeast Raleigh is in what is known as a food desert and this cooperative will help increase access to healthy food and collective ownership spirits. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Weeks for his encouragement in this project and talked about the area in general. She stated they are happy to see a grocery store open in their area but it is not community owned. She talked about their business plan, their hope to partnership with the City of Raleigh, the number of coops in the US and the revenue they generate. She explained members pay and work and at the end of the year they share in the dividends or profits. She explained their desire for a grocery store that will help provide economic opportunities and a gathering place in the area. She stated the Fertile Ground Food Cooperative is on its way to be a self sustaining model and talked about the focus and the benefit to the area.

Mayor McFarlane questioned if there is cooperation with the Interfaith Food Shuttle with Ms. Byrd pointing out a representative of Interfaith Food Shuttle is on the board and they are partnering together. Mr. Weeks expressed appreciation to the group for their work and vision and for coming before the Council and sharing and encouraged them to continue with various Council members commending them for their commitment to the community. Ms. Byrd pointed out they are the first coop grocery store in the City of Raleigh. The comments were received.

UNSAFE BUILDING – 1908 BATES STREET – REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME – 90 DAYS APPROVED

George Petty indicated the property at 1908 Bates Street is on the list to be demolished. He explained he had entered into an agreement with a homeowner to purchase the property by the end of the month but the financing fell through. He stated he now has a new agreement with a person who owns over a 100 properties in the city and they are hoping to close on May 21 st. He stated he needs an additional 90 days from the end of May to get the property back up to code.

Ashley Glover, Housing and Neighborhoods, indicated the Council did adopt an ordinance to repair or demolish. He stated he does have copies of the closing and purchasing agreements Mr. Petty is talking about. He stated he is not familiar with the prospective buyer but one of the City’s inspector stated they are familiar with the proposed buyer and they maintain the properties well, etc. Mr. Weeks moved approval of the 90 days. Mr. Odom asked to amend the motion to allow 90 days from May 30 with the stipulation that the mew owner close within the next 30 days. Mr. Weeks seconded that motion which was put to a vote and resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING

PUBLIC NUISANCE – HEARING TO CONSIDER CONFIRMING CHARGES – VARIOUS LOCATIONS – RESOLUTION ADOPTED

This was a hearing to consider adoption of a resolution to confirm as a lien against the property as listed below the charges for the abatement of public nuisances:

May 19, 2015Page 28

LOCATION AND DISTRICT

PROPERTY OWNER

TAX ID NUMBER

COST OF ABATEMENT

3110 Garner Road (D) Anil Anupchand and Nandita Dhulia

247268 $602

8433 Hobhouse Circle (A) Christopher J. Ricci 0246687 $2,6507831 Old Wake Forest Road (B)

Faison Triangle, LLC 0362114 $474

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to adopt the resolution to confirm the liens.

The Mayor opened the hearing on each item. No one asked to be heard thus the hearings were closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of a resolution confirming charges as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Resolution 106.

ANNEXATION PETITIONS – VARIOUS LOCATIONS – HEARINGS – ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

This was a hearing to consider the following petition annexations. Following the hearings, if the Council wishes to proceed with the annexations, it would be appropriate to adopted ordinances annexing properties immediately and adopt a resolution assigning the properties to the appropriate electoral districts. They Mayor opened the hearing on each location.

Bluff at Walnut Creek – Electoral District C

Attorney Tom Worth, on behalf of the applicant, was available to answer questions and asked the Council to consider moving forward with the annexation.

Massey Preserve, Phase III – Electoral District B – no asked to be heard.

Saintsing Properties – Council Electoral District E – no one asked to be heard.

Burnette Property City Council Electoral District B

Attorney Michael Birch stated he represents the property owner along with the Yadkin Bank property which is subject to rezoning later in the meeting and encouraged the Council to move forward. No one else asked to be heard thus the hearings were closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of ordinances annexing the properties effective immediately and adoption of a resolution placing the properties in the appropriate electoral districts. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Ordinances 440, 441, 442 and 443 and Resolution 107.

May 19, 2015Page 29

EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – 5025 TRYON ROAD – REQUEST FOR RELEASE – APPROVED

This was a hearing to consider a request from Matt Kirkpatrick for the City Council to release 10 acres of property located at 5025 Tryon Road from the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), which would allow the property to be developed under County regulations.

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to approve, deny or refer the request to committee.

The Mayor opened the hearing, Matt Kirkpatrick, applicant, was available to answer questions. Ms. Crowder pointed out when this item came before Council, Mr. Kirkpatrick was talking about NCDOT giving or requiring a different entrance to the property and questioned if that has been accomplished. The engineer for Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated they plan to cross the creek however if they are developed under county rules and regulations it would not cross the creek. No one else asked to be heard, thus the hearing was closed. Ms. Baldwin moved approval of the release of the property. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Crowder. Mr. Odom questioned if we should add wording about not crossing the creek with it being pointed out under the county’s jurisdiction it would cross a minor tributary but it has no FEMA flood plain involved. The motion as stated was put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Resolution 107-A.

ANNEXATION – YADKIN BANK PROPERTY – HEARING – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

This is a continuation of a hearing to consider the petitioned annexation of property known Yadkin Bank Property.

Following the hearing should Council wish to proceed, it would be appropriate to adopt an ordinance annexing the property effective immediately and to adopt a resolution placing the property in Electoral District B.

The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved adoption of an ordinance annexing the property effective immediately and a resolution placing the property in City Council Electoral District B. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Ordinance 444 and Resolution 107.

REZONING Z-41-14 – CANYON DRIVE – HEARING – APPROVED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

This was a hearing to consider a request from Yadkin Bank to rezone approximately 19.9 acres from Residential 30 (Wake County) to Residential 10 Conditional Use. The property is located on the future Canyon Drive near its intersection with Taylors Ridge Road.

May 19, 2015Page 30

Following the hearing, the Council may take action to approve, deny or refer the case to committee.

Planner Bynum Walker explained the request pointing out this property was annexed in a previous hearing, earlier on the agenda, presented information on the location, surrounding development, existing zoning, proposed zoning, area view of the site etc.

Mayor McFarlane indicated there were concerns on an earlier case about traffic, the creek, etc. Planner Bynum Walker indicated there were conditions negotiated which resulted in a solution that was accepted by all with the Mayor questioning if the rezoning considered those negotiations. Attorney Michael Birch talked about the neighborhood meeting for this site and the former Wake County Public School site, which was rezoning Z-29. He explained the 32 foot wide buffer between the site and the neighborhood that was discussed in the previous zoning case. The Mayor opened the hearing, no one else asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved approval of the rezoning as presented. His motion was seconded by Ms. Baldwin and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote. See Ordinance 445 ZC 710.

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS – UNION STATION PROJECT – HEARING – APPROVED

This was a hearing to consider the adoption of a two thirds bond order for $5,050,000 Two-thirds Street Improvement General Obligation Bonds to fund street related improvements for the Union Station Project. If, after the public hearing, Council decides to move forward with the bond issue, the following actions must occur: a second reading and passage of the bond order authorizing $5,050,000 Street Improvement Bonds; and, directing the City Clerk to publish the bond orders once in the News and Observer.

Following the hearing, should Council wish to proceed, it would be appropriate to adopt the bond order and to authorize the related actions necessary.

Ms. Baldwin stated she had a standing excusal from this item therefore would not be participating. The Mayor opened the hearing. No one asked to be heard thus the hearing was closed. Mr. Odom moved approval of the recommendations as outlined. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and a roll call vote resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Ms. Baldwin who was excused from participation in the matter and Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused from the meeting. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 6-0 vote.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

NO REPORT

May 19, 2015Page 31

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

REZONING Z-34-14 – CREEDMOOR ROAD – APPROVED – ORDINANCE ADOPTED

Chairperson Stephenson reported the Comprehensive Planning Committee recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of Z-34-14 as outlined in CR #11624 with revised and new conditions agreed to during the Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting. A copy of the revised conditions was included in the agenda packet. On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Stephenson moved approval. His motion was seconded by Mr. Maiorano.

Mr. Stephenson pointed out there is additional right-of-way however the additional traffic lane probably would not be added for some time. In response to questioning from the Mayor, Mr. Stephenson talked about the fact that the sidewalk is already there and timing for tree planting and adding the travel lane and the difficulty getting the tree in the right location. He talked about the distance between the building and the curb and the fact that the sidewalk is already there. Whether the project includes additional trees was talked about.

Ted Van Dyk pointed out the project does add street trees; however the trees will be on the private property and not in the right-of-way. He stated the placement of the right-of-way will have to be discussed with NCDOT. He pointed out the building will be 33 feet from the curb now but when the additional travel lane is added it will be approximately 19 feet. The property line is some 27 feet back of the curb. The step back was talked about as well as the discussions that took place in the committee. The difficulty of putting the trees between the sidewalk and the curb and alternatives that would be available such as moving the sidewalk with Mr. Van Dyk talking about conditions that were added were discussed.

Todd Delt talked about the conversations that took place in the committee meeting. He stated the widening of the street would be required and it is reimbursable but it would not be allowed to use in fee in lieu of. He stated there is potential that a bike lane will be in the turn lane and talked about the traffic flow along Creedmoor but not Jeffreys Grove School Road. Mr. Van Dyk indicated there is no problem installing the trees we just need to know the location. Mayor McFarlane expressed concern pointing out this goes back to the urban versus suburban context. She stated in her opinion this development is inappropriate for this corridor and is out of character as it is too high and will be too close to the street. The motion as stated was put to vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mayor McFarlane who voted in the negative and Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on an 6-1 vote. See Ordinance 445 ZC 710

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

NO REPORT

May 19, 2015Page 32

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

NO REPORT

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING – MAY 26 – CANCELED

Mr. Weeks pointed out the Public Works Committee meeting scheduled for May 26 will be canceled.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE

NO REPORT

TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE – MEETING – MAY 26, 2015 CANCELLED

Mayor McFarlane pointed out since there are no items pending in the Technology and Communications Committee, the meeting scheduled for May 26 will be canceled.

REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

COUNCIL MEMBERS – VARIOUS – COMMENTS RECEIVED

Mr. Odom thanked staff and all involved in Artsplosure pointing out it was a great event for the City of Raleigh. Mr. Odom stated in addition a great event is coming up next weekend and that includes the Slide the City on Glenwood Avenue pointing out he opened the pool at Buffaloe Road Aquatic Center by going down the water slide so he will be Sliding the City on Glenwood Avenue. Mr. Odom also talked about the upcoming Balloon Fest at Spring Forest Park and Zebulon pointing out it is going to be a great event and he looks forward to the beautiful site of the glow at night.

ETHICS RESOLUTION – EVALUATION REQUESTED – REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY

Mr. Maiorano asked the City Manager and the City Attorney look at the ethics resolution for Council members and board members and evaluate whether it needs to be refreshed or strengthen. He stated he understands it dates back to 1988 and would like for the Manager and Attorney to look at the resolution, look at best practices, determine if our resolution is adequate or if it needs refreshing. He asked that it be brought back to Council with recommendations.

May 19, 2015Page 33

VIOLENT CRIMES AND DRUG PROBLEMS – KING CHARLES ROAD AREA – REPORT REQUESTED

Mr. Weeks pointed out in the past month, it seems that drug problems and violent crimes are increasing in the area around Enloe High School/King Charles Road area. He asked that the City Manage meet with the Police Chief to get information and provide a report or an assessment of the problem.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS – CAMERON VILLAGE AND HILLSBOROUGH STREET AREA – INFORMATION REQUESTED

Ms. Crowder referred to the Cameron Village Small Area Plan stating she would like information on the trip analysis, how it would be performed and how the City could use any data to help develop alternatives or access options. She stated in addition in the Hillsborough Street Vision Planning process, she would like information on the cost estimate for the trip analyst portion or the process itself. Administration was asked to provide information.

APPOINTMENTS

APPOINTMENTS – REPORT PRESENTED

The City Clerk reported the following results of the ballot vote.

Board of Adjustment – One Vacancy – No nominees

Fair Housing Hearing Board – Two Vacancies – Mr. Weeks nominated Ashleigh Parker Dunston

Historic Commentaries Advisory Board – One Vacancy – No Nominees

Raleigh Sister Cities – One Vacancy – No Nominees

NOMINATIONS

ARTS COMMISSION – R. GENE DAVIS – REAPPOINTED

The City Clerk reported the term of R. Gene Davis is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council suspend its rules, close nominations and reappoint Mr. Davis by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which passed unanimously (Gaylord absent and excused).

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – VACANCY ANNOUNCED

The City Clerk reported the term of Timothy Figgins on the Board of Adjustment is expiring. He is not eligible for reappointment because of length of service. No nominations were main.

May 19, 2015Page 34

RALEIGH TRANSIT AUTHORITY – RAY MAGSONOC – REAPPOINTED – VACANCY ANNOUNCED

The term of Les Seitz is expiring. He is not eligible for reappointment due to length of service. The term of Ray Magsonoc is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment.

Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council suspend its rules, close nominations and reappoint Mr. Magsonoc by acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted.

Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Maiorano nominated Yvonne Bailey. Mr. Stephenson nominated Dr. Ricky Scott.

The City Clerk reported Mr. Seitz is the present Chairperson. She stated when the membership is full again, Council will need to appoint the new chair.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION – DAVID WEBB - REAPPOINTED

The term of David Webb is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council suspend the rules and reappointment be acclamation. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and put to a vote which passed unanimously. (Gaylord absent and excused).

SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION – CLIFTON LAVENHOUSE – REAPPOINTED; NOMINATIONS MADE

The term of Clifton Lavenhouse is expiring. He is eligible for reappointment and would like to be considered for reappointment. Letters of resignation have been received from Chris Ball and Shannon Weatherly. Both are relocating outside the city. Ms. Baldwin moved that the Council suspend its rules, close nominations and reappoint Mr. Lavenhouse. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Stephenson and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The City Clerk reported she had received nominations from Mr. Weeks and Mr. Gaylord for Deborah J. Hendren.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

NO REPORT

May 19, 2015Page 35

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY CLERK

MINUTES – VARIOUS – APPROVED

Council members received in their agenda packets copies of Minutes of the May 5, 2015 regular Council Meeting and the May 4, 2015 Special UDO Remapping meeting. Mr. Odom moved approval as presented. His motion was seconded by Mr. Weeks and put to a vote which resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Mr. Gaylord who was absent and excused. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote.

CLOSED SESSION

CLOSED SESSION – HELD

Mayor McFarlane reported a motion is in order to enter closed session pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11(a)(5) for the purpose of instructing City staff concerning negotiations for acquiring property in the Union Station area. Mayor McFarlane moved approval of the motion as read. Her motion was seconded by Mr. Odom and put to a vote which passed unanimously (Gaylord absent and excused). The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-0 vote and the Council entered closed session at 4:00 p.m.

The Council reconvened in open session at 4:30 with Mayor McFarlane pointing out the Council had provided direction to staff.

Adjournment. There being no further business, Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m.

Gail G. SmithCity Clerk

jt/CC05-19-15