Requests for Interlocal Funds

The following was provided by the City Manager regarding various requests for interlocal funds. There is $46.6M available for funding medium sized projects. The requests total $73M. Here are the details.

Mayor and Council Members:

The Request for Proposals (RFP) process for the Hospitality Tax Medium Projects allocation has closed and Wake County staff has received proposals for six (6) projects, which are summarized in the table below.

The six proposals total almost $73 million in funding requests; there is $46.6 million in Medium Projects funding allocated for this category of projects. The next steps for the process will be for an evaluation team with representatives from the City, County and community to work through each of the proposals and receive presentations from each of the proposers. Once the evaluation team wraps up its work, the results will be presented to the Wake County and City of Raleigh elected boards for decisions on funding commitments this spring.  

As a reminder, the 21st amendment signed in August of 2019 allocated funding for 1. an indoor sports facility and 2. a medium projects fund for initiatives located within Wake County; these are in addition to the other obligations of the Interlocal Fund. The 21st amendment instructed staff to proceed with two (2) RFP processes to assist in the funding recommendations. The funding recommendation for the indoor sports facility is on the consent agenda for tomorrow’s City Council meeting. Should you have any questions, please reach out to Jim Greene, Assistant City Manager or Allison Bradsher, CFO.


Should Tax Dollars be Spent on This?

I received this email this morning from the Mayor regarding a request to fund a special hockey game. Should your tax dollars be spent on this? There is a significant economic impact. But ask, who will benefit from this economic impact? Is it equitable? Does it only benefit a few special interests? I appreciate your thoughts.

Please email me at


This is a huge win for the City of Raleigh. We have been trying to get this game here for years. The economic benefit is great BUT the international and national PR we can’t buy. Any questions, talk to me. This is a big opportunity.

MAB (Mary-Ann Baldwin)

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 14, 2020, at 9:45 PM, Buonpane, Louis <> wrote:

Mayor and Council Members:

Please note the exciting news from Assistant City Manager Jim Greene. Staff understands that a formal announcement will be provided to media outlets tomorrow.

From: Greene, Jim <>

Good evening Mayor and Council, and Happy Valentine’s Day.

 The Carolina Hurricanes have approached various community partners about an effort to raise funds to locate an NHL Stadium Series hockey game in Raleigh at Carter-Finley Stadium on the campus of North Carolina State University. The Stadium Series games are played outdoors in football stadiums. They are limited to a few games a year with only two scheduled to be played in 2021. These are marquee games with entire weekend events like concerts planned around the hockey game. The NHL focuses significant attention and marketing on these events, thus raising the profile of each game and showcasing the cities that host the games. The Stadium Series game in Raleigh is expected to occur in February 2021.

The economic impact of having a Stadium Series hockey game in Raleigh is expected to be significant. The NHL alone books about 4,700 hotel nights during the 10 day period before and after the game. Also, other games have seen approximately 40% of attendees travel to the game from outside the host city. The game at Carter-Finley Stadium and surrounding events are projected to have an economic impact of $15-$20 million.

The Hurricanes are seeking $1 million total from partners to offset the costs of hosting the game in Raleigh. They have requested $200,000 from Wake County, Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Centennial Authority and $250,000 from the State of North Carolina. 

The Carolina Hurricanes have reached out and requested a similar amount of $200,000 from the City of Raleigh to help fund the stadium hockey game weekend. City Council would need to approve any contribution from the City. Based on the significant tourism dollars, marketing for our community and the economic impact anticipated from this hockey game, staff recommends partnering with the Hurricanes and other organizations to bring this event to Raleigh. Staff is evaluating options for this payment and is confident the funds can be identified in the City’s budget. We expect to have additional information for Council and a recommendation at one of your March meetings.

Staff is sharing this information with you tonight as the Hurricanes and NHL are expected to announce the game tomorrow. Follow this link: to see information regarding the Stadium Series game taking place tomorrow, February 15 in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The Motions to Kill and Replace CACs with Something Less

Here is the motion that was made to dissolve the CACs. Another motion was made to add a second neighborhood meeting for rezoning cases. Nothing was added regarding everything else the CACs do.

Regarding the second neighborhood meeting, don’t expect much. Those second meetings will only happen for certain “large” and “impactful” zoning cases. Also, if neighbors and developers want more time to meet and discuss, there was a third motion to forbid it.

These motions were made by Saige Martin and seconded by Nicole Stewart and inspired by Mary-Ann Baldwin.

Voting in favor were Melton, Buffkin, Knight, Martin, Stewart, Baldwin

Voting against were Cox, Branch

2/4/2020 – Raleigh City Council Kills Citizen Advisory Councils

A meeting of the North Raleigh Citizens Advisory Council

Let the date, February 4, 2020 be forever in your memories. That is the date that Raleigh City Council voted to kill Raleigh’s Citizen Advisory Councils.

I am the elected representative for District B. I represent the northeastern section of Raleigh, North Carolina on the City Council. I was re-elected in October of 2019 winning every precinct in the District.

I was not informed and I was intentionally kept in the dark.

You, the citizens of Raleigh, were not informed and intentionally kept int the dark.

Without announcement, without being on the agenda, without a single public meeting, without any public input, a motion was made by Saige Martin and Seconded by Nicole Stewart to end Raleigh’s Citizen Advisory Councils (CACs) by cutting off all city resources and ordering that the Planning Commission ignore any recommendations from the CACs.

I vigorously opposed this surprise move and voted against it with objection.

What this move does is to prevent City staff from meeting with any citizens. There will be no future meetings regarding rezonings, parks, sidewalks, traffic calming, road improvements, and a myriad other issues. Council strictly forbid staff from meeting with the public.

Going forward, I will hold my own public meetings. I will continue to request, as City Council Member, for staff attendance at those meetings. At one time, there was an active organization called the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners in the area (known as NORCHOA). Although NORCHOA has not been active in lieu of public CAC meetings, the organization still exists. I will be working with them to organize future public meetings.

More to come.

David Cox, Raleigh City Council.

Building a Better Democracy

I want to take a few minutes this morning to share something I found about At-Large voting. This is a FAQ about At-Large voting provided by the NAACP. I think it applies to everyone who is interested in ensuring that the City Council we elect is fair and representative of the people living in the community.

Please take a look at it. In Raleigh, more than one-third of a our City Council is elected At-Large. This includes the Mayor and two At-Large Council members. Are we getting the diversity we need on Council with the current system? Perhaps we should consider moving to all District Council members.

Taking Away Your Right to be Heard

At our last City Council meeting I voted against a decision to explore allowing developers to build, by right, cottage courts in R-2 and R-4 zoning districts (two and four homes per acre respectively). Currently, R-2 and R-4 zoning districts are limited to single family homes. If you bought a single family home in one of these neighborhoods, I bet you didn’t expect that someday someone could buy a few lots, tear down the existing homes and replace them with up to 30 or more “cottage homes” – at type of high density development where the housing units are arranged around a common courtyard with an optional “community center” for facilities like laundry, TV, or recreation.

There is nothing wrong with cottage courts. During our last term I voted in favor of adding cottage courts to R-6 and R-10 zoning districts. Those zoning districts are already high density and cottage courts are another housing option that would be appropriate in them.

Today if a developer wants to build cottage courts in R-2 and R-4 zoning districts, he can’t do so by right. But, he could petition the city to rezone the land to either R-6 or R-10. Doing so would involve a public process of presenting the proposal to citizens at meetings of a Citizens Advisory Council, presenting the proposal to the Planning Commission, and finally holding a public hearing before City Council. At each step in the process, YOU, get to have a say. You can support the proposal, fight against the proposal, or find common ground for a compromise including appropriate buffers, heights, parking, etc.

But, if this proposal to allow cottage courts “by right” is eventually enacted, then your right to be heard will go away. There will be no notification, no discussion at Citizens Advisory Council meetings, no discussion at the Planning Commission, and no hearing before Council. You will likely not know anything until the bulldozers show up one day to clear the neighborhood.

Think it can’t happen? The big business that is development wants the ability to pursue this type of development due to the increasing lack of land. Cottage courts are the beginning to be followed by duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes and larger, more dense housing in R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. And they want the ability to do it without meddlesome citizens getting in the way.

And at our last City Council meeting the vote was 7 to 1 to find ways to make it happen – to take away your right to be heard.

David Cox Raleigh City Council – An App for your Smartphone

Being informed and involved is the best way for our democracy to survive and to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

To help you stay informed and involved is why I created a smartphone app that I call “David Cox Raleigh City Council”. It is a technology that will help connect you and allow you to stay up to date with my blog posts and to send me a message when you need help or want to express an opinion. Rather than remembering the URL for my website or my email address, you can simply touch a button on your phone.

Versions of the smartphone app are available for Android and Apple and will run on your phone or tablet.

Click here for the Android version:

Click here for the Apple version:

Raleigh Mayor and City Council Move Towards Ending Single Family Zoning

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

This evening Mayor Baldwin and the majority of Raleigh City Council voted to explore allowing so-called “cottage courts” in R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Historically, these districts have been reserved for single family homes and neighborhoods with low population densities. R-2 districts allow at most two homes per acre while R-4 districts allow up to four homes per acre.

Cottage courts are high density housing where as many as 30 housing units are arranged around a common courtyard and optionally have a community building that houses facilities such as laundry and other amenities.

Currently, cottage courts are a proposal and we have a ways to go before City ordinances are formally changed to allow them. However, given that 7 City Council members voted to move in this direction, it seems clear that they will be adopted by the end of the year.

When I moved to Raleigh 20 years ago I was attracted to city’s beautiful treed neighborhoods. Today, we see the first steps towards transforming Raleigh by allowing high density everywhere.

Being the only member of Council that actually lives in Raleigh’s northern suburbs, I stand in clear contrast to the position and philosophy of the Mayor and the majority of Council. For the record I was the lone vote against this proposal.

I think it is also important to note that cottage courts were approved by the previous council for R-6 and R-10 districts. Those districts have historically allowed higher densities. I voted in favor of cottage courts for R-6 and R-10 as did former council members Stef Mendell, Russ Stephenson, and Kay Crowder.

If a developer really wants to build higher density on land that is zoned R-2 or R-4, then let them ask for a rezoning! Granting cottage courts in R-2 and R-4 by right takes away YOUR RIGHT to be heard about proposed developments that affect you and your family!

It’s Sunday Morning: Thinking about Homelessness

Photo by Gary Knight

This morning I am reading an article entitled “Finland ends homelessness and provides shelter for all in need”.

How did they do this?

According to the article (published, Finland reversed the usual approach. Under the usual approach the expectation was to address psychological or drug addiction problems first, get a job, and then find a long-term place to live.

Under the new approach, Homeless people get a flat – without any preconditions. Social workers help them with applications for social benefits and are available for counselling in general. In such a new, secure situation, it is easier for those affected to find a job and take care of their physical and mental health.

The result is impressive: 4 out of 5 homeless people will be able to keep their flat for a long time and lead a more stable life.

An important aspect of Finland’s program is that the “homeless people turn into tenants with a tenancy agreement. They have to pay rent and operating costs. Social workers, who have offices in the residential buildings, help with financial issues such as applications for social benefits.”

The social workers are paid for by the government and are available for counselling in general. “In such a new, secure situation, it is easier for those affected to find a job and take care of their physical and mental health. The result is impressive: 4 out of 5 homeless people will be able to keep their flat for a long time with “Housing First” and lead a more stable life.”

Financially Finland now spends 15,000 euros less per year per homeless person than it did without this approach.

To read the entire article visit this webpage:


Earlier this year City Council considered a proposal to clarify how we specify heights for tall buildings. The UDO was crafted to specify maximum heights using two measures: the number of stories and the height in feet. The argument was that we should remove the cap in feet and simply cap buildings by the number of stories.

Council considered this proposed change by sending it first to the Growth and Natural Resources committee of which I was and continue to be a member. Our concern was that variability in floor height could result in vastly different building heights. For example, a three story structure could vary dramatically in height ranging from 10 feet per story to 15 feet per story (or more). The result could be a structure 30 feet in heigh or one that is 45 feet in height or greater. The heights would be even greater for four and five story buildings. Given that 3, 4, and 5 story buildings are the ones most likely to be constructed adjacent to or in residential areas, Council choose to keep the current caps in feet for those categories of buildings.

For 7 stories and greater, Council did decide to look further at removing the caps in feet. The argument was that those buildings are not likely to be located next to residential areas and the expense of building such tall buildings would provide a natural cap – nobody is going to build an unnecessarily tall 7 story or taller building due to the costs involved.

Thus, Council asked the Planning Commission to consider a text change to remove the cap in feet for buildings that are 7 stories and taller.

In November, the Planning Department reported back that the Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend adoption of the proposed text change. As a result Council set a date for the public hearing to be January 7, 2020 – next Tuesday.

Yesterday I reviewed the agenda for the January 7, 2020 City Council meeting. Yes, the public hearing for the text change is on the agenda. But, so too is this note:

On October 9, 2018, in addition to the changes outlined in the draft ordinance, the Planning Commission recommended that the maximum building height for 4 stories be increased from 62 feet to 68 feet and the maximum building height for 5 stories be increased from 75 feet to 80 feet.

This is the first time it has ever been reported to Council that the Planning Commission considered changing the heights of 3, 4, and 5 story buildings. And it is very concerning.

The Planning Commission was not charged with considering such a change. The proposed text change that they were to consider was removing the cap in feet for 7 stories and greater. How did it come to happen that the Planning Commission considered, much less voted on, changing the heights of 3, 4, and 5 story buildings? And, why was this not reported to Council in November? Indeed, the proposed text change does not, in fact, include changing the heights of 3, 4, and 5 story buildings.

So, why was this comment inserted into the agenda for this item? Who put this comment into the agenda? The public hearing on Tuesday was never advertised to the public that Council would be considering changing the heights of 3, 4, and 5 story buildings. Yet, there it is in black-and-white with no notice to the public. Is this a subtle attempt to influence the new Council to increase the heights for 3, 4, and 5 story buildings at the last minute? And, why did the Planning Commission even consider increasing the heights of 3, 4 and 5 story buildings in the first place? It wasn’t their charge.

Stay tuned to how this plays out on Tuesday.