[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6232936,"mediaKeyId","3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843","parentId",3425279,"title","Council approves two small annexations, delays others; church in north Raleigh annexed for sewer and safety access","audioSeconds",2682,"startMs",3404000,"endMs",6086000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843&start=3404&end=6086","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843/thumbnail_3404000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6232936/Raleigh/Wake-County/North-Carolina/Council-approves-two-small-annexations-delays-others-church-in-north-Raleigh-annexed-for-sewer-and-safety-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6232936-8640d6468af693a8a83c15527c69a1da/orig.mp4?Expires=1775337928&Signature=BRPMtZkCGjqUAnx79YRTIjuUDtqlBU7wxL5NCg3g38h7MA5sWPAdZpHvabJ73mbKeVDY3Itbu~MJNl-evRAdnJvzrKE49NsthMvgeVQOt23hK4h9xt-vij3hUp0ACkV~KWntPmxSQz-uq~VVnZzWxYevhFz3jpC4VLheFbiWxteMgvX5RvbkSMS1lq9D5ysEiEc2ZYruzZPwrZ3-sCQKsAOkPb5T~2CQjKPW8FYSMqSS17OdTvPjw4tac9gqHm85eAsP6R7aX7cNFIy2kGIdNFPJK4X8lrbvqKsHQpA9jPSl5gYsLxL3Udyu9GZ9Z2~Mf3quViQ33wKfCIc6y2sU2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-21T09:05:08Z","article","The Raleigh City Council on May 20 approved a pair of annexation petitions and continued others after staff presentations and public testimony.

Christopher Golden of Planning and Development described three annexation petitions on the agenda. The council approved petition AX‑3224 for 9404 Carlswood Court, a preexisting single‑family home in an unincorporated county island, and authorized annexation by motion. Planning staff had said the property would be brought into Council District E if annexed; the motion on the floor referenced District D. (Staff and council will record the final district in the ordinance and state filing.)

A second petition was for a contiguous annexation of a roughly 13‑acre site occupied by a long‑standing church that sought sewer service and said it had safety concerns related to emergency response times. Devoted City Church representatives Ryan Baylock and lead pastor Donnie Williams spoke in support of annexation, saying they were already on water but needed sewer to expand or replace septic and had experienced a long emergency response for a past alarm. The council voted to adopt that annexation ordinance effective immediately.

Another annexation at 6325 Rock Quarry Road, a 9.35‑acre parcel with a proposed self‑storage use, was opened but left pending; the council voted to keep that hearing open and return it in two weeks to allow staff to consult with the applicant about subdivision details and to give the public an opportunity to sign up for the continued hearing. Transportation and planning staff noted water and sewer are adjacent to the Rock Quarry site and that a narrow strip of land owned by an adjacent owner was not included in the petition.

Council also received presentations on additional annexation requests and related service‑consideration notes about emergency response times near several parcels. Where properties were nonprofit uses (for example, a church), staff told council the 10‑year fiscal analysis can show a net negative tax impact because nonprofits draw city services but are tax‑exempt.

Where council took action, it moved items through the advertised public‑hearing process, opened and closed hearings where no speakers had signed up, and recorded motions to approve. Other items were continued at staff or applicant requests to allow additional technical work or neighborhood outreach.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Raleigh City Council Afternoon Meeting - May 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council approved annexations for 9404 Carlswood Court and a contiguous church property seeking sewer access; it held other annexation requests and a commercial parcel for further review.","taxTitle","Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina","taxId",4736,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6232941,"Neighbors push back as council continues Edenburg Road rezoning that would allow a limited temporary model‑home office",1505,6429000,7934000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843&start=6429&end=7934","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843/thumbnail_6429000.jpg","/articles/6232941/Raleigh/Wake-County/North-Carolina/Neighbors-push-back-as-council-continues-Edenburg-Road-rezoning-that-would-allow-a-limited-temporary-modelhome-office","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6232941-3ba0161900d9b5957771874a84b4e855/orig.mp4?Expires=1775337928&Signature=FhrEWjP6MjB5gINCvW~YXgf9xuXTGgW6ngPXpkIZAcD6U70~lBEN4B5CkzkdsWb5cRdj8MxGQNKEC6QRgavgZSACS~NgaqbBGycQBil8~Z13JyI7U4C8YxgNvp9Q02KPfnqYkkYJtRz0kMzvriphiKJcksmh6dK6dg1OgYfhicpya8KefPI4XeOia0YUW8BVdNETaeQDUXDCoKtJ6Atc7l1rjPPZwPKI3tLnck6SUf9XajqdgThta3CszDx7xsG-wyVRgi9D1gwYKAQ85diA0tCc6EyqZ~~~40rXb6W1C5iN~TYX342MX3KA1Gej7jVpyhB8nIo1QSxRaHHD~ihjpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Raleigh City Council on May 20 continued the public hearing on a rezoning request at 105–109 Edenburg Road after residents and the developer discussed conditions that would allow a limited model‑home “design center” within a new single‑family building.

Planning staff explained the request would rezone three small parcels from R‑6 to OX‑3 (office, mixed use) conditional use, with multiple conditions restricting the permitted uses, limiting the size and hours of an office use inside 105 Edenburg Road and prohibiting outdoor signs. Hannah Rekau of Planning and Development said the package of conditions reduces the potential number of dwelling units compared with by‑right development in R‑6 but adds a narrowly constrained office use tied to a model home.

Charles Walker, representing the applicant, said the model home would function as a design center where buyers select finishes and noted the developer’s intent to limit off‑site impacts. “If this case is to move forward, [the applicant] would offer to change the time frame from 10 years to 8 years,” Walker told council during public comment.

Neighbors expressed several concerns at the hearing: the loss of potential housing because the conditional zoning would prohibit townhomes and other higher‑density options the UDO and future land‑use maps encourage for Glenwood Avenue corridors; stormwater impacts; on‑street parking and traffic on the narrow block of Edenburg Road; and the precedent of allowing a commercial‑style use in an established single‑family neighborhood.

One nearby resident, Shepherd Fountain, said the neighborhood had an established residential character and urged protections including a green buffer and restrictions on conversions that would change the street’s character.

Planning Commission recommended approval on a split vote (reported as 4–3). Several council members asked staff about tightening the conditions to explicitly limit any office activity to design‑center functions by appointment only and to shorten the temporary office term; staff confirmed that more restrictive conditions could be accepted and would require updated, signed conditions ahead of the next council consideration.

Council voted to keep the hearing open and continue the item to the June 3 evening meeting to give staff, the applicant and neighbors time to refine conditions and to allow residents to sign up for the continued hearing.

","Council continued a split‑vote rezoning on Edenburg Road after residents raised concerns about removing housing potential and permitting a temporary office/model home; applicant offered to shorten the temporary office allowance to eight years.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6232945,"Raleigh manager proposes $1.78 billion FY2026 budget with no property tax increase; highlights pay raises and capital plans",1952,2422000,4374000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843&start=2422&end=4374","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3425279-e58fcb80fc0ce733f3d80a770a585843/thumbnail_2422000.jpg","/articles/6232945/Raleigh/Wake-County/North-Carolina/Raleigh-manager-proposes-178-billion-FY2026-budget-with-no-property-tax-increase-highlights-pay-raises-and-capital-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6232945-ba78e4caa53ce08bd1779f3d7a2415a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775337928&Signature=brwIUhnwdkeQK4jbHerTazfbCFDY0vQpGcAGWlOCjmR1Sqr0SSqfWCoeJ2Amr6~v07xuKw93dJ-CaJxuwhFiO6erGJRFouG3imNZl23V93tZmG5iQUSBZ5ezFjpZRns0L86bWZ~1nUoxFjm94-cmyVTbhKFo0HIDYPdffRoLp8AjUlUcVb-RqEbrHD-n7cJOHl46ueBj~RdrwASFQfcNqS86nKAMBgPpTkwnvb2Z8D2riOh4H5CVhKeG~ac4pumGxuB--VYkrOzbN2uwpg8mReHIcVYXCJSTm3SzLcm-CHV49Dmxi5Us7WMhJth7OKzUmasIYBdCUQk3l23QjmOVTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The city manager presented the proposed fiscal year 2026 operating budget and five‑year capital improvement plan to the Raleigh City Council on May 20, saying the plan balances at $1,780,000,000 and requires no property tax increase.

The budget “represents the operational cost for the city of Raleigh for the period of 07/01/2025 to 06/30/2026,” the city manager said during opening remarks. The proposal dedicates $657,100,000 to the general fund and includes a planned full implementation of a recently completed classification and compensation study.

Budget director Sadia Sitar, Budget and Management Services director, told the council the study will be fully funded in the budget and implemented in September 2025 at a total cost of $35,800,000 across all funds. Sitar said the proposed pay adjustments include a 9% increase for exempt employees, an 11% increase for public safety and nonexempt employees, and a 5% increase for temporary and part‑time employees. She added that some employees who fall below new minimum ranges will receive larger increases to meet the new minimums.

Sitar outlined other highlights in the manager’s package: an emphasis on investments in public safety and Dix Park, additional programming and maintenance funding for Gibson Play Plaza, and about $25,000,000 allocated to affordable housing initiatives (a combination of remaining 2020 housing bond funds and the penny for housing), including $3,000,000 for homelessness prevention. She said the FY2026 capital budget totals roughly $6,616,900,000 and the five‑year capital improvement program is approximately $2,470,000,000.

To create a predictable pipeline for major capital projects, the proposal sets aside an $18,000,000 advanced planning fund (described in the presentation as generated by a steady‑state accounting change), intended to support preliminary design for projects such as fire‑station priorities and a southeast remote operations center before full debt issuance replenishes the fund.

Council members asked for clarifications about the budget’s real‑world impacts. Councilor Patton asked for the property tax impact on a median‑valued home; councilors and staff noted that the median tax bill cited from last year was $13.90 but that reassessments may have changed the figure. Sitar said enterprise fees for water, stormwater and solid waste will increase; a median household could see a $4.33 annual increase in utility fees in the proposed budget.

On affordable housing, staff said demand exceeded available funds by many projects. Melissa Sutton, director of Housing and Neighborhoods, said the office received “double digits” more eligible applications than it could fund this cycle and that staff will begin discussing bond strategy this summer to identify future funding options.

Finance director Allison Bradshaw confirmed the city intends to maintain the policy target for fund balance and noted the city’s AAA bond rating as evidence of overall fiscal strength. The city manager and staff emphasized that the package was constructed without a property tax increase despite revised downward revenue projections for sales and property tax growth.

The council set a public hearing on the proposed budget for June 3 at 7 p.m.; budget work sessions will begin Monday, June 2 at 4 p.m. and continue each Monday in June as the council reviews the proposal and budget notes submitted by council members.

The manager’s written message and the full proposed budget are available online at budget.raleighnc.gov for residents who want the complete document or to use the public budget dashboard.

","City Manager presented a $1.78 billion all‑funds budget for FY2026 that holds the property tax rate steady, implements a citywide compensation study, and funds capital investments including Dix Park and an advanced planning fund.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves two small annexations, delays others; church in north Raleigh annexed for sewer and safety access

Neighbors push back as council continues Edenburg Road rezoning that would allow a limited temporary model‑home office

Raleigh manager proposes $1.78 billion FY2026 budget with no property tax increase; highlights pay raises and capital plans