[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6525053,"mediaKeyId","3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191","parentId",3795560,"title","Durham council hears $1.5 million loan request to shore up Durham Housing Authority operations","audioSeconds",2064,"startMs",1746000,"endMs",3810000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191&start=1746&end=3810","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191/thumbnail_1746000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6525053/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Durham-council-hears-15-million-loan-request-to-shore-up-Durham-Housing-Authority-operations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525053-b7672c55d36360c1514fbbe35283d8fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178339&Signature=UHo-Ik5dzjUR8E83HcsxoTSVCBS2Jn1mogqEHZmL4BsPs0oRo56NmoKtYBBm0dtcLtp-mYRcya-T3njC0HPznz2iimZJa546V5Lp~nIhOfk6uTA0gaRCxuof~ePkZo1Cl1ZwzNamavjVAb0l7FZiw6tcwk4Lvfpd5hx9L1WACgmy2a1CCXqUVPG0Vdr~KxeVWk30kPAIZLhbR6qohMfO9~NbTLfaaEEf976I-6yjbEcDB8mvoBWVJZ1Z5Qn8-YNW0vyP~1X9Jd9PVy5afwrml0AO6Wv14fiYIvcweqq5hv24II3A1MEa~k2YssqgW9u4aKbtOzP2eSrRfswWqkl~4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Durham","date","2025-06-05T22:38:31Z","article","The Durham City Council heard an update and request on June 5 from Durham Housing Authority (DHA) and city staff asking the city manager to issue a conditional binding commitment of loan assistance of up to $1,500,000 to DHA to help stabilize the authority’s operations.

Why it matters: DHA runs roughly 4,000 units serving about 10,000 Durham residents and is operating under a HUD recovery agreement. Councilors and staff said the authority is short on operating revenue, has high tenant accounts receivable and needs money now to prevent further operational decline or federal intervention.

City and DHA officials summarized the request and the problems it is intended to address. DHA Chief Operating Officer Ashanti Brown and the authority’s attorney Jason Brenner joined city staff to answer questions. Council Member Wrist (city liaison to DHA) reviewed the scale: DHA houses about one in 25 Durham residents, average public-housing household income is low (she cited about $13,000), occupancy was reported at about 92% and some waiting lists are very long (for example, a 182‑unit project was said to have a waiting list of approximately 5,000). Brown said DHA’s tenant accounts receivable (TARs) stood at about $3.1 million overall, of which roughly $1.4 million is owed on public‑housing units.

Staff and DHA officials described what they said are drivers of the gap: rent-collection challenges that they traced in part to policies during the pandemic (tenant rent collection was described as about 65% at certain DHA properties), reduced reserves after the McDougall Terrace emergency and other expenses. The council heard that DHA filed 86 nonpayment cases since July 2024 and that 13 had resulted in evictions; staff stressed that each eviction is consequential. Council member comments repeatedly framed DHA as an essential housing provider while also pressing for stronger oversight and clearer performance obligations.

What supporters said: Several council members urged support for a loan to avoid the federal government stepping in. Supporters framed the request as a time-limited loan (not a grant), said the funds would help hire maintenance staff and increase occupancy and that additional conditions and performance requirements would be built into the agreement.

What critics and skeptics said: Council members who said they planned to back the request nonetheless pressed DHA and staff for detailed guardrails: monthly in‑person financial meetings, required financial reporting, explicit performance milestones, and stronger lease‑enforcement and resident‑outreach practices. Several council members described long‑standing property maintenance and management problems that have undercut tenant trust and rent collection and said the city should attach enforceable conditions to any city dollars.

Staff response and next steps: Deputy City Manager Winbush and city legal and finance staff said the proposed loan would be structured with performance provisions and reporting requirements. City staff said they would negotiate the specific terms and include monthly financial reports and deadlines tied to the HUD recovery agreement. No formal vote to approve funding appeared in the work-session transcript; staff and the council concluded that further negotiating language would be added to the proposed agreement and return for future approval.

Clarifying details from the meeting: DHA told the council it had spent roughly $10 million responding to the McDougall Terrace emergency and that the crisis exhausted about $6 million of its reserves; DHA said reserves are not available to cover current shortfalls. DHA staff said $500,000 remained from prior city-provided funds earmarked for specific repairs related to McDougall work and pandemic-related delays in completing upgrades. HUD shortfall funding of roughly $1.4 million was discussed as a specific grant/program DHA has used or sought to restore reserves; staff cautioned such HUD funding carries use restrictions.

Decision status: Council discussion was detailed and broadly supportive of providing help if the loan includes the performance, reporting and accountability provisions many councilors requested. The transcript does not record a final council vote on the loan authorization during the June 5 work session; staff said they would return with a negotiated agreement containing the performance/monitoring conditions discussed.

Why this matters to Durham residents: DHA provides subsidized housing to thousands of city residents and operates units that serve people with very low incomes. Council members repeatedly described the request as an attempt to shore up an agency that serves people with few alternative housing options while balancing the need for accountability and stewardship of public dollars.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Durham City Council Work Session June 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Durham City Council heard an update and request on June 5 from Durham Housing Authority (DHA) and city staff asking the city manager to issue a conditional binding commitment of loan assistance of up to $1,500,000 to DHA to help stabilize the authority’s operations.","taxTitle","Durham City, Durham County, North Carolina","taxId",5766,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6525049,"Council halts negotiations with developer on 505 West Chapel Hill; staff told to explore parceling, preservation and smaller-scale affordable options",5828,7920000,13748000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191&start=7920&end=13748","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191/thumbnail_7920000.jpg","/articles/6525049/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Council-halts-negotiations-with-developer-on-505-West-Chapel-Hill-staff-told-to-explore-parceling-preservation-and-smaller-scale-affordable-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525049-9791125adaf2bad6af1794caeac07a6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178339&Signature=goNpfLaR6UPrk14DmK8L7AvQPxDQ1UkRProrhtofyt9KujDYi5nJJd31pz~pTLlRWdhb~GFKHWLyMqYbBVlrCT~ULm2wUE2QXut1YmvVtvxVfNniP4xIgJqNyJZZbsf7RmZw7sehxBwR7pKpg3~gmcumEHt3oAgMh371rrv5R7yhWKF19NYDJnCq~XEaEYUrNW2-3q0bHfNOYdW1SyUTb4gv8ua~8a5W52emK-PArFYlsPHDxgnrEhAWrchgwgwQs3-ODrdBV8SWZKuir~6XhpJxr5waOAZCXtNOYOky6uTEodC8rPqDhbyGS2lqIcNUmS~IIVgLobZdzi1bGgU1RQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Durham City Council directed staff on June 5 to stop negotiating the most recent master development deal with the People’s Corporation for the 505 West Chapel Hill Street site and to return with narrower options that could include carving out and preserving the Milton Small (Home Security Life) building, pursuing a smaller-scale affordable housing development and interim site activation.

Why it matters: The four‑acre, city‑owned 505 site sits adjacent to Downtown Durham and had been the focus of repeated master-planning efforts. Advocates, developers and preservation groups have urged the city for years to use the site to deliver a mix of affordable housing, commercial space, and to preserve the architecturally significant Milton Small building. Staff said the most recent Peoples proposal would have required an estimated city subsidy that had grown to roughly $75–78 million and would have pushed subsidy per affordable unit far beyond typical market ranges.

What staff said: General Services staff and consultants told council that negotiations with the People’s Corporation produced a ground-lease structure and proposed an increased number of affordable units, but overall the developer’s subsidy request rose to a level that staff judged to be unaffordable and inconsistent with market conditions. Staff also cited deteriorating economic conditions, higher construction costs and higher interest rates that made the original high-rise steel construction concept much more costly than earlier estimates. Staff recommended not advancing that master-development deal at this time and proposed an interim approach.

What advocates asked for: Housing advocates and faith and community groups pressed the council not to pause affordable housing activity. A coalition called for either moving forward with a cost-effective contract that would deliver 160–200 units affordable at 60% of AMI in perpetuity, or, if the council lost confidence in the current developer, pivoting immediately to a qualified affordable-housing developer. Preservation groups including Preservation North Carolina and Preservation Durham asked council to carve out the Milton Small building onto its own parcel and to negotiate directly with preservation nonprofits (citing North Carolina General Statute 160A‑266(b) as an available tool for direct negotiated sales of publicly owned historic property).

Council discussion and decision: Councilors and staff discussed the tradeoffs at length. Many council members said they did not believe the high‑subsidy proposal was feasible and expressed interest in a phased approach: parcel the Milton Small building so it can be preserved and developed separately, pursue a smaller‑scale affordable housing project on the remainder, and activate the site in the near term with public programming or temporary uses. Several council members explicitly said they have lost confidence in the latest People’s Corporation proposal; a show of hands and subsequent staff confirmation indicated majority support to end negotiations with People’s and to have staff return with options. Staff said they would present alternative paths and analysis — including whether parceling the historic building is feasible under the city’s zoning and subdivision rules and the state statute cited by preservation groups — and aim to return with proposals in the coming weeks (staff mentioned a target of August for further work and analysis).

Preservation and finance proposals discussed: Preservation advocates said an option would be for a nonprofit preservation organization (Preservation North Carolina proposed this in writing) to seek an option to purchase the Milton Small building and then convey to a preservation-minded developer with use restrictions and a rehabilitation agreement. Housing advocates urged rapid movement to secure low-cost financing (for example, 4% LIHTC) and to favor low-density stick-built affordable design as an alternative to a high-rise steel tower that required larger subsidies.

Why the council paused the master-development effort: Staff cited a widening subsidy request (staff described a move to roughly $75–78 million in city subsidy for the latest concept), shifting construction and financing markets, and the prospect that the subsidy-per-affordable-unit would have been far higher than typical local benchmarks (staff said typical market subsidy per affordable unit is in the $40,000–$50,000 range whereas the Peoples proposal approached about $150,000 per unit in staff analysis). Councilors also expressed concern about letting the site sit vacant but agreed that pursuing a cheaper, faster affordable-housing solution and parceling the historic building for preservation merited more study.

Next steps: Council directed staff to end talks with People’s Corporation, to explore parceling the Milton Small building and negotiating with preservation nonprofits, and to return with options for a phased approach that prioritizes affordable housing and site activation. Staff will return with analysis and options for council deliberation.","The Durham City Council directed staff on June 5 to stop negotiating the most recent master development deal with the People’s Corporation for the 505 West Chapel Hill Street site and to return with narrower options that could include carving out the Milton Small building for preservation and pursuing a smaller-scale affordable housing project.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6525039,"Votes at a glance: key actions recorded at Durham City Council work session, June 5, 2025",85,1417000,1502000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191&start=1417&end=1502","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191/thumbnail_1417000.jpg","/articles/6525039/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Votes-at-a-glance-key-actions-recorded-at-Durham-City-Council-work-session-June-5-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525039-892f31ee6181529c7c1baacc888fb9fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178339&Signature=G-djGUnxwUX3KgJJWBEO5q9DBCfWPHJmC4vaBFDTPMrQzu8qCCnGFLfREpK4FaYPZQ4hkS7JJ-a5SYxOileimeLLvRYP2stJXTSbPRbXkm2u883sxNSQhfyZOHek4quhSR7u2ShLIK7ilXWWwKisDjhBtj3dvtKOTZ7XicRM~SMcRj~rZ7cI2NQYq2ZcWtBPRDzNzgkyH-op66rVRJQOFhXMPcTLafFmeBK49eyl45qcsXQ4-seu~lSj~7e-MT5GQPZHaXif8uysfEK4Eua~CaLqjgJwM7~JbX5vkcMkMqOlvweddtPJBxRiWQj0qXzQhFgxWzyle6EV28nnAY3I1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","This “votes at a glance” roundup summarizes formal actions and recorded votes that appear in the June 5, 2025 Durham City Council work-session transcript. It focuses on items that were moved, seconded and put to a vote in the recorded meeting. For full context see the council packet and the meeting minutes.

Key consent-vote approvals (consent agenda, as read aloud by the clerk):
- Consent agenda: Items 1–45 (selected items were later pulled for separate discussion as noted on the record). Outcome: adopted. (Transcript: mayor read out the consent agenda and council approved.)

Selected items (taken from the transcript and packet) that were moved and approved during the work session (clerk read descriptions in agenda order):
- Item 6: Fiscal Year 2025–26 budget and 2026–2031 CIP (presentation added). Recorded as on the consent agenda; item pulled for presentation (further budget deliberations to follow). Outcome: not finalized in the work session (presentation followed; budget adoption is a separately scheduled action).
- Item 7: Durham Housing Authority — request to authorize a conditional, binding loan commitment (request discussed at length; no final vote recorded in the transcript). Outcome: no formal vote recorded (staff to return with negotiated agreement).
- Item 43: Contract with Word Systems LLC for NICE system maintenance (on consent). Outcome: approved as part of the consent package.
- Item 44: Contract for print and mail services with Rev Spring Inc. (a supplemental item was added and council suspended rules to consider it). Council moved to authorize the city manager to execute a six‑month contract with an option to renew with Rev Spring Inc. The transcript records an affirmative vote. Outcome: authorized (transcript records motion, second and “Aye” votes; the precise contract dollar amounts were read into the record and are quoted there; staff to finalize documents).
- Council also authorized establishment of a contingency fund and manager authority to negotiate modifications to the Rev Spring contract (motions read into the record and approved; transcript contains specific numbers for those contingency and contract ceiling amounts as stated on the dais). Outcome: approved.

Procedural motions:
- Motion to suspend rules (to consider supplemental items) was moved, seconded and approved on the record.
- Motion to settle the meeting agenda: council moved and the mayor announced the agenda was settled for this session.

Notes, caveats and recommendations for readers:
- This summary reports outcomes recorded during the June 5 work session. Some agenda items (notably budget matters and several pulled items) require follow-up votes or separate council actions at a later public meeting and therefore are described here as “approved as part of consent” when that procedure was used to move multiple items in a single vote.
- Dollar amounts quoted in the live transcript were occasionally garbled in transcription; readers should consult the official agenda packet and the executed contracts posted to the city website for precise contract ceilings and contingency amounts.
- The council’s packet and finalized minutes will provide the formal roll-call tallies and complete legal identifiers for ordinances, contracts and resolutions.

Why this is useful: This roundup captures the discrete, recorded approvals that appeared in the June 5 work-session transcript so residents and reporters can identify which items were advanced in the meeting and which items were left for later formal action.","Council approved a broad consent agenda and several contract motions during the June 5 work session; staff also recorded a number of administrative motions and suspensions of rules. Below are the items recorded in the meeting record and their outcomes as shown in the transcript.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6525044,"Council agrees to raise part‑time pay‑for‑performance steps from 3% to 5% after review of DMLW options",3857,14375000,18232000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191&start=14375&end=18232","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3795560-0b7f79560cb03347887da4c2f10ae191/thumbnail_14375000.jpg","/articles/6525044/Durham-City/Durham-County/North-Carolina/Council-agrees-to-raise-parttime-payforperformance-steps-from-3-to-5-after-review-of-DMLW-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525044-f67516d7a34a7bb0cd7131b738b96d16/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178339&Signature=dIMBnFSsQKbARxeC6gihVdXGBJHkipzCuiIjJ1Kzc-YJ4MkkiUHluKa16ucFjK2QDtoDRu9lBxO~m0k13AiM8hzZApesl4tpNgHCqrQto1Owekc8EFsjO8pYxf6DFqT0gGdjJ7FhBH2Mnh28s7H0jA0HgQDj3CBTRM~zBHl52SXa3x0eOVBqFSUI~cjpiMqObhRfewGrPJ3x97gO8pzemNjfVQu4HxLZczuliWwkE2x99Y~ymDs54MmfigQ6nCIZxtR-aeKhy1-0LKXlrlNdMuzO8XzLcP5~YeEzscCnwd6HwdvGgdjVT90~YW8uqWznZ8baRwpK5gCX43b334ShGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Durham City Council reviewed a staff analysis of the part‑time pay plan and the city’s obligations under the Durham Minimum Livable Wage (DMLW) at its June 5 work session and directed staff to change the part‑time pay‑for‑performance step increment from 3% to 5% while asking for additional, longer-term analysis.

What staff presented: Human Resources and Budget staff presented counts and scenarios for “noncommensurate” part‑time positions (jobs that have no full‑time equivalent classification). As of a May 30 census used for the presentation, staff reported 267 noncommensurate part‑time positions; about 159 of those were currently paid below the then‑current DMLW of $19.58. Staff added that a proposed DMLW increase to $21.90 (an upcoming index change) would leave approximately 234 noncommensurate employees below the new threshold if no other changes were made.

Scenarios and costs presented: Staff illustrated tradeoffs among three representative approaches:
- Move affected individual employees to the new DMLW (a “step‑to‑floor” approach). Staff estimated that approach would cost roughly $550,000 in FY26 and about $800,000 in FY27 (cumulative about $1.35M) but would compress many part‑time steps and flatten pay differences within part‑time grades.
- Raise the underlying part‑time pay structure so every step increases proportionally (a “structure move”). Staff estimated that approach would cost about $1.8M in FY26 and another $1.0M in FY27 (cumulative roughly $2.8M) and would avoid the part‑time compression but could create bypassing issues (part‑time pay exceeding some full‑time equivalents) and require large full‑time pay adjustments to preserve internal equity.
- A middle option that lifts some grades and softens compression but does not guarantee DMLW for all in FY26; staff showed this still left a substantial number of employees below the DMLW and would produce intermediate costs.

Equity and operational tensions: Staff warned that some approaches would create “compression” — weakening pay differentials between entry roles and jobs with higher skills and responsibilities — and could cause bypassing where part‑time pay at a given level exceeds a related full‑time classification, undermining equity. Staff also noted demographic context: many part‑time jobs were not solely occupied by teenagers; a significant share of workers were adults who rely on the income. The presentation highlighted benefit‑cliff issues (raising hourly pay can affect employees’ eligibility for other income‑tested supports), which councilors asked staff to examine further.

Council decision: After discussion councilors signaled support for one near‑term, low‑cost change: increase the part‑time pay‑for‑performance step spread from 3% to 5% (applies across the part‑time pay plan’s step structure). Staff estimated that change would cost roughly $270,000 in the current budget cycle. Councilors asked staff to return with a longer‑term plan that explores phased approaches, restructuring where appropriate (for example creating more full‑time professional entry positions in places where that makes sense), analysis of benefits‑cliff effects and options that could substantially close the gap to DMLW in subsequent years.

Why it matters: Council framed the issue as one that balances (1) making progress toward living‑wage goals for lower‑paid workers; (2) preserving pay differentials and career ladders; and (3) the affordability of pay changes for the city budget. Councilors repeatedly asked staff to return with more refined, multi‑year options and to consider ways to convert some part‑time ladders to career‑track positions where appropriate.

Practical next steps: Staff will implement the 3%→5% step change as directed, estimate the FY26 budget impact for the finalized budget and bring back a multi-year plan examining phased options, benefit‑cliff effects and any classification changes recommended as part of a broader compensation strategy.","Council reviewed options and costs to bring noncommensurate part‑time staff to the Durham Minimum Livable Wage (DMLW). Staff offered scenarios showing wide cost and equity tradeoffs; council directed a modest, implementable change (raising part‑time step increases from 3% to 5%) and asked staff to return with further analysis and phased options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Durham council hears $1.5 million loan request to shore up Durham Housing Authority operations

Council halts negotiations with developer on 505 West Chapel Hill; staff told to explore parceling, preservation and smaller-scale affordable options

Votes at a glance: key actions recorded at Durham City Council work session, June 5, 2025

Council agrees to raise part‑time pay‑for‑performance steps from 3% to 5% after review of DMLW options