Durham's Drought Response and Data Center Pause
The Durham City Council hears how an unprecedented drought pushed the city into Stage 2 water restrictions, then approves a one-year moratorium on new data centers and crypto mining to protect resources while new rules are written. Council members also navigate a difficult budget season and a closely watched East Durham rezoning aimed at balancing reinvestment, jobs, and environmental justice. 53mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Video Notes
Welcome to the City Council Meeting for June 15, 2026.
Agenda: https://www.durhamnc.gov/AgendaCenter/City-Council-4
How to participate: https://www.durhamnc.gov/1345
Contact the City Council: https://www.durhamnc.gov/1323
NOTE: Comments left on this livestream will not be read or entered into the meeting record.
In This Video
-
-
-
-
-
Council Member Shanetta Burris reflected on lessons from the budget process, thanked staff for their institutional knowledge, called for transparency when using fund balance, emphasized avoiding property tax increases to protect residents on fixed incomes, and urged colleagues to consider intent versus impact by staying in relationship with affected communities when crafting policy.
-
Council Member Carl Rist highlighted Durham’s new $25.09 minimum livable wage as a point of pride, underscored that the budget included no new tax increase after recent hikes to fund bonds and salary adjustments, and expressed regret that only a 2% raise—rather than full pay-for-performance—could be offered to employees, tying that shortfall to revenue lost through corporate tax appeals.
-
Council Member Matt Kopac highlighted key budget investments—from parks, transit, and eviction diversion to a higher minimum livable wage and no property tax increase—while acknowledging painful cuts to positions, limited raises for workers, and frustration over a $9 million shortfall tied to occupancy tax decisions, pledging to seek greater transparency and accountability.
-
Council Member Chelsea Cook criticized budget and tax processes that they argued effectively subsidized commercial landlords at the expense of vulnerable residents, urged the council to confront these structural inequities, and pledged to pursue reforms despite acknowledging the difficulty of making major changes within the existing capitalist system.
-
Mayor Pro Tem Javiera Caballero described Durham’s democratized but challenging budget process, noting this was one of the hardest budgets since COVID, emphasized that passing a budget is demanding governance rather than campaigning, and urged residents to engage early—especially as difficult conversations about property taxes and related issues continued.
-
-
Council Member Baker voiced support for adopting the law enforcement technology resolution as a meaningful first step, noting it drew on models from other cities, incorporated feedback from groups like the ACLU, and would elevate some internal police policies into a public, council-controlled framework with tangible impacts.
-
Mayor Williams reflected on gun violence and the ongoing need for police, emphasized supporting local officers while not punishing them for misconduct elsewhere, and endorsed the law enforcement technology resolution as a compromise that strengthened oversight by requiring any future changes to be approved publicly by the council.
-
-
Planning staff member Aaron Cain presented a rezoning case for 24 parcels in the Garland District, explaining a proposal to change the land from Industrial Light to Commercial General and Commercial Infill, which would require updating the place type map to a mixed-use neighborhood designation to reflect a broader mix of nonresidential uses.
-
Applicant Dan Jewell, speaking for a group of property owners, described long-term reinvestment efforts in a historically significant but disinvested part of East Durham, highlighted restoration work on the former Garland Woodworking buildings, and requested rezoning several South Driver and Salem Street parcels from light industrial to commercial with support from participating neighbors.
-
Applicant Dan Jewell argued that outdated industrial zoning had become an obstacle to revitalizing this East Durham area by banning residential uses while still allowing heavy industrial activities like junkyards and freight warehousing, and urged the council to approve rezoning to support healthier, mixed-use reinvestment in the neighborhood.
-
Applicant John Warasila, a local architect and manager of Garland Ventures, described the East Durham rezoning as a continuation of decades of neighborhood revitalization work, emphasizing a locally based development team seeking to add modest two- to three-story housing along South Driver Street with surface and street parking rather than large, high-rise projects.
-
-
Mayor Pro Tem Javiera Caballero framed the East Durham rezoning as an environmental justice opportunity to replace harmful industrial uses with better development, voiced support for the application as beneficial to nearby small businesses, and Mayor Williams noted that residents and property owners in the area had specifically requested this change.
-
Mayor Williams voiced support for the East Durham rezoning, highlighted outside Just Cities fellowship resources targeting the neighborhood, and thanked local small businesses, residents, and property owners for taking risks to rebuild the community from the ground up rather than waiting for the city to do it for them.
-
-
Council Member Cook explained a planned no vote on the East Durham rezoning out of concern that the speakers did not fully represent the neighborhood and that the proposal lacked enforceable anti-displacement and environmental protections, while another speaker responded by emphasizing that the supporters who spoke were residents and business owners from the area.
-
A planning staff member presented a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to streamline how the city can enact development moratoria and align local standards with state law—needed to extend the data center moratorium—and the council unanimously adopted the ordinance revising Article 3.
-
-
Council Member Rist asked why the data center moratorium extension was set at 10 months, and planning staff and Attorney Rayburn explained that combined with the initial 60 days it created a one‑year moratorium consistent with other jurisdictions and stayed within a timeframe that avoids heightened legal scrutiny for potential regulatory takings.
-
-
Leslie St. Dre, speaking for Community Land and Power and the Stop Data Centers in Durham coalition, urged council to adopt a much longer moratorium on data centers, conduct environmental and displacement impact studies, set overall caps, and consider banning facilities due to their heavy water and energy use, especially during a drought.
-
-
A city attorney clarified that Durham lacked UDO standards for hyperscale data centers and needed time to research and draft regulations before permitting such uses, while cautioning council to carefully weigh whether a significantly longer moratorium than those in other North Carolina jurisdictions would be legally reasonable.
-
Council Member Burris asked whether Northampton County had faced any backlash for its 32‑month data center moratorium and, citing the proposed state Ratepayer Protection Act, questioned what Durham-specific safeguards might still be needed beyond state law and whether those could be developed within a 12‑month pause given state preemption limits.
-
Council Member Burris asked about legal consequences if Durham’s data center moratorium were deemed unreasonable, and a city attorney explained that affected parties could seek expedited judicial review in Superior Court, potentially obtaining an injunction that would end the moratorium early and eliminate the pause on new development even as staff continued policy work.
-
-
Mayor Williams supported the one-year data center moratorium while warning against Northern Virginia–style overexpansion, explaining a preference for strong, implementable ordinances over symbolic timelines and emphasizing the need to prevent large hyperscale facilities from buying up land in Durham.
-
-
-
Attorney Patrick Byker, representing Parmer Edge, supported the Ellis Road development tier change and rezoning by explaining a vision for a more RTP‑style campus with greater green space and setbacks under Suburban standards, and cited a 2020 industrial land use study ranking the site among Durham County’s top five for economic development.
-
Council Member Nate Baker agreed with Council Member Rist that suburban-style development was an inefficient use of land as Durham continued to build out, and urged careful planning to integrate a future BRT corridor along 147 to 885 with the adjacent job center so that transit opportunities were not missed.
-
-
Planning staff member Peyton Burgess outlined a rezoning request to change Ellis Road properties to Industrial Light with a text-only development plan—triggering a recommended place type shift to General Industrial—while attorney Patrick Barker, citing Parmer Edge’s RTP track record and removal of 26 otherwise‑allowed uses, highlighted an 8–1 Planning Commission endorsement and asked council to approve the zoning map change.
-
An applicant representative responded to questions about the Ellis Road project by explaining that possible Duke Energy substation plans and other design uncertainties made it impossible to commit to specific percentages for tree coverage, native plantings, green infrastructure, or green building features at this stage, though those concerns would be shared with site engineers.
-
Patrick Byker described plans for a biotech manufacturing campus with on-site amenities on Ellis Road, explained they could not yet commit to specific tree or green infrastructure targets due to design uncertainties and a potential Duke Energy substation, and the council unanimously approved the rezoning to Industrial Light with a development plan.
-
Assistant Director Alexis John opened a public hearing on proposed updates to Durham’s minimum housing code, explaining that the first major revisions since 2016 were crafted after reviewing other cities’ practices and national standards to better protect health and safety, clarify requirements, and modernize enforcement.
-
More from this government
Nearby governments