SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council Members present were
Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie
McClintock, Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were
Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and
Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager
Ruffin Hall, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Police
Captain Gregg Jarvies, Finance Director Jim Baker, Housing Director Tina
Vaughn, Engineering Director George Small, Planning Director Roger Waldon,
Transportation Director Bob Godding, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Solid
Waste Director Gayle Wilson, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 — Ceremonies
1a. Proclamation for John Parker
Mayor Waldorf congratulated
John Parker on his 90th birthday and read a statement expressing the Town’s
gratitude and appreciation for his significant contributions to the
community. She explained that Mr.
Parker founded the Department of Regional Planning at UNC and guided its growth
to a world class program. Mayor Waldorf
said that he also established planning programs throughout the State, including
the Black-lead Soul City in Warrenton, NC.
She noted that Mr. Parker promoted civil rights and equitable community
development, and was recognized nationally as a pioneer in planning education
and institution building. Mayor Waldorf
proclaimed March 22, 1999, to be John A. Parker Day in Chapel Hill.
Pearson Stewart, a friend of
Mr. Parker, noted that MIT graduated only four students from its Department of City Planning in 1946 and that
three of them—Mr. Parker, Jim Webb, and himself—immediately came to Chapel
Hill. He said that he had always been
proud to be a member of the same class as John Parker.
1b. Recognition of Retiring Town
Employees
Mayor Waldorf asked all of
the retirees to come forward and recognized each of them. She noted that Henry Barbee’s (Public Works,
25 years) excellent driving record and work ethic remained an example for all
employees. She said that Laster Betts
(Public Works, 29 years) worked for many years during evening hours and developed
a reputation for superior customer service and dependability.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out
that Cary Fletcher (Fire Department, 30 years) held more than 22 training
certificates, six letters of appreciation, and two letters of
commendation. She explained that Howard
Hackney (Public Works, 28 years), whose care and concern for fellow employees
matched his sense of duty, once donated vacation hours to a fellow employee in
need and picked up 30 more tons of waste in his last year of employment than in
the previous year.
Mayor Waldorf stated that
Claude Neville (Fire Department, 26 years) had received the Triangle J Council
of Governments Award for Interagency Cooperation, as well as seven letters of
appreciation and three letters of commendation. She explained that he was known as “the Ambassador of Goodwill”
for the Fire Department. Mayor Waldorf
pointed out that George Yates (Solid Waste, 26 years) and Jacqueline Young
(Library, 5 years) were not able to attend the meeting. She wished all of the retirees a long and
happy retirement and expressed the Town’s gratitude and admiration for their
many years of service.
Mr. Barbee said that he had
enjoyed his 30 years of service and hoped to continue his involvement with the
Town.
Mr. Betts expressed
gratitude to his supervisor for his guidance.
Mr. Neville thanked the Town
for helping him and his family over the years and said that he would miss
working with the Fire Department.
(none)
3a. Petitions
by Citizens
(1)
Rabbi Edward Elkin,
Executive Director of the NC Hillel Foundation, which served Jewish students at UNC and throughout the State
Rabbi Elkin petitioned the Council to expedite the review of the Foundation’s plan to replace its headquarters on Cameron Avenue so it would not have to be in temporary quarters longer than necessary.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE
MANAGER FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING. THE
MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(2)
Rita Gray, Interfaith
Council (IFC)
Ms. Gray, speaking for the
Interfaith Council’s Board of Directors, staff, volunteers, and clients,
explained the IFC must move from its Wilson Street location. She stated that the IFC believed that the
agency and the community would be best served if the new facility were located
next to Community House, using the current parking lot and the Town-owned lot
currently reserved for the NC Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT)
Thoroughfare Plan.
Ms. Gray requested that the
Council take action to modify the Thoroughfare Plan to remove the Pittsboro
Street Extension from NCDOT’s plans.
She also asked that the Town enter into a 25-year lease for the property
located immediately to the west of the old municipal building as well as for
the old municipal building itself, where the current Community House is
located.
Ms. Gray stated that having
IFC facilities in one location would integrate IFC services, allow for
coordination of medical and social services, and improve supervision and
community involvement. She expressed
appreciation to the Town for its support over the years and encouraged
continuation of that public/private partnership.
Council Member Foy asked how
many stories high the new building would be.
Josh Gurlitz, of GGA Architects, replied that it would be the same as
the existing building—two stories—with parking underneath the structure.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED
TO REFER THE PETITION FOR A RESPONSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Council Member McClintock
noted that, while the area was a logical location for the building, the
proposal entailed a different arrangement between the Town and the IFC. She said that she would like to know what
the current yearly expenses were that the Town absorbed for maintenance and
utilities.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
if Ms. Gray was suggesting reissuing the existing lease on the Community
Shelter/Kitchen under the existing terms.
Ms. Gray replied that this would need to be discussed with her
Board. She pointed out that this
obviously would be a different arrangement than the Town and the IFC has had,
adding that the details of that would have to be worked out between them.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
Mr. Horton to work with the IFC to try and answer some of these financial
questions. He also asked Mr. Horton to
determine what the current market value of the existing building was and what
the revenues would be if the Town decided to rent it to a commercial group or
to sell it. Mayor pro tem Capowski
asked Ms. Gray not to take his questions as an indication of lack of support,
but merely as concern because the numbers were so large he felt the Council
needed to look at them.
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED TO
RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING AND FOR INFORMATION
REGARDING THE MARKET AND RENTAL VALUE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Brown
explained that the process for modifying the Thoroughfare Plan was that the
local government must indicate support for the removal of a street, then it
must go to the Municipal Planning Organization for support, and then to the
NCDOT.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ASK THE MANAGER TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION
AT THE NEXT MEETING SUPPORTING THE REMOVAL OF THE PITTSBORO STREET EXTENSION
FROM THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. THE MOTION
WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(3) Doug Stuber, a Glen Lennox
resident
Mr. Stuber told the Council
that many of his neighbors had found out upon renewal of their leases that they
would be receiving steep increases in rent.
He said that most states consider rental increases above the level of
inflation to be unlawful. Mr. Stuber
proposed that the Town pass an ordinance limiting rent increases to 3%, or the
current rate of inflation, whichever was lower. He said that in order for Chapel Hill to avoid urban sprawl it
needed to create rent controls for working people.
Council Member McClintock
said that she would like to know if this had been used effectively in other
university towns.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE REQUEST FOR A
RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE TO THE MANAGER.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(4)
Scott Madry, a Chapel Hill
resident
Mr. Madry noted the large
number of people who parked illegally along both sides of the 15/501 access
road in order to access Merritt’s Pasture.
He said this had been happening since articles about the pasture
recently appeared in local papers. Mr.
Madry stressed that this was an unsafe and potentially tragic situation.
Mayor Waldorf thanked Mr.
Madry for coming forward and explained that the Town was in the process of
trying to get legal access to that property.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
stated that he had recently received E-mails from other citizens about this
problem, which he described as “a tragedy waiting to happen.” He urged the Council to take action soon
rather than waiting for legal access.
Mr. Horton pointed out that
the Town was in the process of figuring out how heavy the “no parking” sign
posting would have to be in that area.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
reported that citizens were also asking whether Merritt’s Pasture was a
preservation area or a recreation area.
He stressed that this would eventually have to be defined.
Mayor Waldorf commented that
the Greenway’s Commission had defined it as a “passive recreation area.”
Council Member Foy pointed
out that there would be more pressures on this side of Town as Southern Village
developed. He said that the Town needed
to begin discussions about Southern Park, which would take pressure off small
areas such as Merritt’s Pasture.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION, INCLUDING
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI’S COMMENTS REGARDING USE AND SAFETY CONCERNS, TO THE
MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(5)
Libby Thomas, a Glen Lennox
resident
Ms. Thomas, who worked with
various groups concerned with pedestrian safety across Highway NC 54, asked the
Council to reconsider its request to the Meadowmont developer to construct new
lanes on NC 54. She argued that paving
greenways would add more congestion and pollution and would encourage drivers
to speed. Ms. Thomas asked the Council
to think again before reaching the decision to expand Raleigh Road. She noted that the Town was building
“pedestrian friendly” neighborhoods while neglecting to protect the ones that
already exist.
Ms. Thomas suggested
requiring the developer to build bike and pedestrian paths rather than highway
lanes. She proposed using electric
trolleys as an alternative mode of transportation, and suggested using high occupancy
vehicle lanes.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED TO
REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND TO ASK THE MANAGER IF, TO WHAT EXTENT,
THE TOWN COULD REVISE THE PLAN FOR NC 54, AND, IF SO, HOW. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Council Member Evans said
that the Manager should let citizens know that some of this was already being
done.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out to
Ms. Thomas that the Council agreed with the points she made and struggled with
these issues frequently, adding that she did not want Ms. Thomas to think that
the Council was unaware of these problems.
Council Member Bateman
informed Ms. Thomas that the transportation consultant would be speaking before
the Council on March 24th, at 5:30 p.m.
Council Member Brown said
that the Council would also meet with the University’s transportation
consultant and would then have a fuller understanding of their plans.
Council Member Evans noted
that NCDOT representatives would soon be meeting in Chapel Hill.
Mayor Waldorf said that a
technical committee made up of Town and NCDOT staff was working on precisely
these issues.
Council Member Brown pointed
out that the technical committee would bring information to the Council and the
Council would then hold public forums to discuss issues such as walkability,
bikeability and safety.
Council Member McClintock
added to the motion a request to know what stage NCDOT approvals for NC 54 had
reached.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE
MANAGER AND TO ASK THE MANAGER IF, TO WHAT EXTENT, THE TOWN COULD REVISE THE
PLAN FOR NC 54, AND, IF SO, HOW, AND WHAT THE STATUS OF NCDOT APPROVALS FOR NC
54 WAS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(6)
Dorothy Verkerk
Ms. Verkerk noted the
incongruity of having a group, sanctioned by the Council, work on pedestrian
safety issues while the Council had also asked the Meadowmont developer to
widen NC 54. She acknowledged that this
point had been made by Ms. Thomas. Ms.
Verkerk said that she appreciated the Council’s response and hoped they would
have the courage to back away from the plan to widen NC 54.
(7)
Michelle Cierek, a Bolin
Heights resident
Ms. Cierek, speaking on
behalf of the UNC Recreation Society, reported that this year’s March for Parks
money would be contributed to the Bolin Creek Greenway.
Mayor Waldorf thanked the
group for it efforts and stated that the event was one of the “bright spots of
spring” for the Council.
4j. Resolution Directing the Manager to Work with Orange County and State Agencies on Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Issues
Jim Protzman pointed out
that he had come to the Council for technical help with Eastwood Lake about two
years ago. He said that his
neighborhood’s concerns were subsequently eclipsed by those regarding Lake
Ellen. Mr. Protzman said that it would
now cost about $1 million to clean up Eastwood Lake, which had amassed about
10,000-15,000 new cubic yards of silt in the last two years due to the
disturbances of land at Northern Community Park and other projects. He asked the Council to amend or append the
Manager’s report to acknowledge that there was a problem at Eastwood Lake and
that the 320 houses in that neighborhood had come before the Council on several
occasions asking for help.
4g. Response to Transportation
Board Petition for Walk and Bikeway Improvements
Lauren Hentz, Transportation Board member, thanked the Council for acting on the Transportation Board’s petition, which he said has the goal of reducing the isolation of neighborhoods which were being turned into traffic islands. Mr. Hentz stated that he hoped the Council would adopt Resolution 6 but hoped they would take additional action as well. Mr. Hentz, stating that the purpose of the Transportation Board’s petition was to get the Town to make improvements now, noted that there were a number of relatively short-term projects which would have an enormous impact for people who walk and bicycle. He asked the Council to adopt Resolution 6, but also to take action on other items—such as enforcing the regulation to improve street markings within five days to two weeks, improve areas such as Merritt’s Pasture and NC 54, add one or two feet of asphalt to Estes Street Road to create a four foot shoulder for bicyclists and pedestrians to use in 1999, and improve sidewalks along South Columbia Street and Morgan Creek Road.
Council Member McClintock
asked for clarification of the “markings” issue. Mr. Hentz explained that there was a Town policy that bike lane
markings and crosslane markings, for example, must be replaced after one or two
weeks. He said that this was not
happening and requested that road markings be fixed quicker than one to two
weeks.
3b. Announcements by Council
Members
(1)
Forum on CP&L’s Shearon
Harris Nuclear Facility
Council Member Brown
announced that a forum would be held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, April
7th at 7:00 p.m. She said that the Orange County’s consultant,
Gordon Thompson, and Dave Lockbalm, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, would
discuss CP & L’s proposal to store high level radioactive waste from other
nuclear power plants at its Shearon Harris facility.
(2)
Schools and Land Use Task
Force Update
Council Member McClintock
noted that she had distributed a Schools and Land Use Task Force update to
Council Members. She said that this
Task Force had been working on the “principle of concurrency,” which was the
idea of locking planning approvals to adequate public facilities, which in this
case would be schools. Council Member
McClintock said that various County attorneys, including Mr. Karpinos, had been
meeting together and that Orange County Attorney Gledhill had told her that the
Town did not need enabling legislation to proceed if interlocal agreements were
adopted by the various governing boards.
She pointed out that this would have the benefit of preventing schools
from being overcrowded. Council Member
McClintock noted that the Task Force would be sending the concept to the
Council in April, and that she was providing an update now, which had not been
reviewed by attorneys, because she thought the idea was very exciting.
Mayor Waldorf asked if
Council Member McClintock would like this to be on the agenda for April 26th. Council Member McClintock replied that she
would.
Item 4 — Consent Agenda (cont.)
Mayor Waldorf noted that if
the Council approved everything in the consent agenda they would be adding five
additional meetings to their schedule for April and May. She asked Council
Members to look at the chart provided which listed the meetings, and stated
that she wanted the Council to add these meetings with full knowledge.
Council Member Evans removed
item 4k.
Council Member Capowski
removed item 4g.
Council Member McClintock
removed item 4j.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1, EXCLUDING ITEMS
G, J & K. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(99-3-22/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the
Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following
minutes, resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard
to the following:
|
a. |
Minutes from June 10, 1998, January 20, 25, 27,
February 5, 8, 15, and 26, 1999. |
|
b. |
Ordinance amending the budget to allocate $50,000
for maintenance and repair of the Rosemary Street Parking Deck (O-1). |
|
c. |
Resolution awarding a contract for the purchase of
a boom loader in the Public Works Department (R-2). |
|
d. |
Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to
negotiate and execute a lease agreement for the provision of a park/ride lot
in the NC 54 West corridor of Carrboro (R-3). |
|
e. |
Resolution authorizing a change order to allow
completion of renovations at the Craig Gomains public housing neighborhood
(R-4). |
|
f. |
Resolution reallocating Community Development
funds in response to Anita Council’s petition for restoration of a small
business loan authorization; and, for renovation of the Craig Gomains public
housing development (R-5). |
|
h. |
Deleted. |
|
i. |
Resolution amending the Council’s meeting schedule
to set date for work session with Community Design Commission (R-8). |
|
l. |
Joint State/Town Informational Workshop Regarding the Proposed Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project (R-8.2a). |
This
the 22nd day of March, 1999.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1998 (99-3-22/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel
Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations
and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1998” as duly
adopted on June 8, 1998 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
OFF-STREET PARKING
FUND 942,736 50,000 992,736
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
OFF-STREET
PARKING
FUND 942,736 50,000 992,736
This
the 22nd day of March, 1999.
A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING THE BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BOOM LOADER (99-3-22/R-2)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has advertised
notice of wavier of the formal bid process by legal notice in The Chapel
Hill News/Village Advocate Classifieds on March 10, 1997, in accordance
with G. S. 143-129-G for the purchase of a boom loader; and
WHEREAS, a formal bid competition was held by the
City of Kinston N.C. on December 14, 1998, in accordance with G. S. 143-129;
and
WHEREAS, the Cavalier Equipment Corporation offers the
Town the boom loader at the same price as offered to the City of Kinston;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Town implements the waiver of formal bid process
in accordance with G. S. 143-129-G and accepts the offer to sell of Cavalier
Equipment Corporation in the amount of $73,671.00
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
THE State of North Carolina,
representing the University of North Carolina, FOR THE PROVISION OF A PARK/RIDE LOT IN THE NC 54 WEST CORRIDOR OF
CARRBORO
(99-3-22/R-3)
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to maintain a balanced transportation system for the citizens of the service area; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has cooperated with
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro to
provide park/ride transit service to commuters in the NC 54 West corridor since
1977; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has been notified
by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that a 7.5 acre site on its
property is available for lease to the Town for the development of
approximately 300 park/ride spaces to serve commuters;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute a
lease agreement with the State of North Carolina, representing the University
of North Carolina, for the development of a park/ride lot in the NC 54 West corridor
of Carrboro with terms generally as stated in the lease agreement.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING A
CHANGE ORDER TO ALLOW THE COMPLETION OF THE RENOVATION OF THE CRAIG GOMAINS
PUBLIC HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD (99-3-22/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill intends to renovate
the entire 40-unit Craig Gomains public housing neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the initial bid included prices for the
entire project, though divided into base bid and alternates; but the budget
then did not allow acceptance of the bid for the entire project; and
WHEREAS, the current budget situation allows for
completion of the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to:
1.
execute
a change order for up to $270,000 to cover the installation of all windows and
doors in the remaining 10 units of Craig Gomains and to complete the renovation
of two buildings;
2.
execute
a change order after July 1 for $235,000 to complete the renovation of the
remaining four buildings at Craig Gomains; and
3.
execute
additional change orders that may be necessary up to the limit of the budget.
This
the 22nd day of March, 1999.
A RESOLUTION
REALLOCATING RESIDUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (99-3-22/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town has an ongoing interest in
community development activities in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a request for
restoration of a Community Development small business loan from Anita Council
for the Cookie Bear Company previously approved by the Council in 1995; and
WHEREAS, additional funds are needed to complete
renovation of the Craig Gomains public housing community; and
WHEREAS, there are residual funds from completed
Community Development activities that could be used for projects;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to reallocate
$45,000 of residual funds from completed Community Development activities as
follows:
1.
The
Cookie Bear Company - $15,000
2.
Renovation
of the Craig Gomains public housing community - $30,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes
the Manager to enter into a Performance Agreement with Anita Council for a
small business loan for the Cookie Bear Company.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
WHEREAS, a Council Member has petitioned the Council
to hold a work session with the Community Design Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the record indicates the Council desired to
evaluate the Community Design Commission after one year;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a work session with the
Community Design Commission for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 17, 1999.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
A RESOLUTION
AGREEING TO CO-SPONSOR AN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP REGARDING THE PROPOSED WEAVER
DAIRY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(99-3-22/R-8.2a)
WHEREAS, the Town has requested and the State has allocated funds for an improvement project on Weaver Dairy Road between N.C. 86 and Erwin Road; and
WHEREAS, the State has scheduled an informational workshop regarding said improvement project and has expressed its desire to have the Town co-sponsor the workshop; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to be closely involved in all decisions regarding the types and extent of improvements proposed for Weaver Dairy Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council herewith agrees to co-sponsor an informational workshop regarding the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to assist the State in preparing for the workshop to the extent possible with available resources.
This the 22nd day
of March, 1999.
Council Member Brown removed
item 5c. The remainder of the
Information Reports were received by consensus.
Mayor Waldorf stated that
the Council had received a letter from the Chair of the Board of Adjustment
requesting that they appoint Cathy W. Thomas, the sole applicant to the Board
this evening.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO NOMINATE AND APPOINT CATHY W. THOMAS TO
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE MOTION WAS
ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf praised the
Manager and staff for putting together the budget information in a clear and
digestible form.
Mr. Horton noted that the
Council would receive reports on each budget item as well as hearing from the
public at its March 30th meeting.
He pointed out that the Council had already received preliminary
reports. Mr. Horton predicted that
1999-2000 would be a very difficult year for the Council, explaining that there
would have to be an increase in the tax rate to continue the Town’s present
services with an adequate workforce. He
added that there would also be changes in stormwater management practices and
sewer assistance programs, and costly improvement of landscaping on NC 86.
Mr. Horton explained that
the staff had prepared a Capital Improvements Program for the Council’s
consideration, which included projects totaling about $700,000. He said that funding would come from the
General Fund and would be paid for by the issuance of bonds, or by agencies
such as the federal government.
Mr. Horton, regarding a
Community Development Plan, suggested using Comprehensive Grant funds for
public housing improvements and offered a proposed plan for use of HOME Funds,
which was a joint proposal with Carrboro and Orange County. He proposed to continue awarding grants from
the hotel/motel funds, noting that the Council could change that process in any
way they wished. Mr. Horton also
proposed continuing to offer the Downtown Tax District the services that it had
been provided in prior years. He
recommended that the Council wait to receive more detailed reports at the March
30th forum.
Council Member Evans asked
if it was possible for the staff to put together a list of projects where the
Town was absorbing the total cost in comparison to those where it was working
jointly with Carrboro and Orange County.
She noted that the Town had committed $20,000 for ten years for the
ArtsCenter and was also discussing creating parking lots in Carrboro. Mr. Horton replied that some of these
projects were partnership programs, such as the HOME Program, which would
always have some projects that were not inside Town limits.
Mr. Horton added that the
Community Development Program has had projects, such as parking lots, which
have occasionally extended into Carrboro.
He said that the park/ride lot was a partnership with the University and
Carrboro, as well as the federal and State governments. Mr. Horton pointed out that most projects on
the list would be partnership opportunities, rather than programs where the Town funded something in
another jurisdiction.
Council Member Evans
indicated satisfaction with Mr. Horton’s explanation, but stated that she would
like to have the list because others had requested this information.
Council Member Wiggins,
noting that the Town used much of its Community Development funds for
renovation of public housing, asked if there were other federal funds available
for that purpose. Mr. Horton replied
that the largest pool available was the Comprehensive Grant Program. He said that there might be some other
special purpose funds available that he was not aware of, and offered to check
again.
Council Member Wiggins also
asked Mr. Horton to follow up on why the Town used more of the Community
Development funds for administration than the County did. Mr. Horton replied that he would do so.
Council Member McClintock
asked about the $70,000 proposed to be used toward the Scarlette Drive Home
Ownership Program. She asked how
putting the Town’s money there would affect the Meadowmont affordable housing
project. Mr. Horton replied that any
funds allocated this year would not be available for future projects, such as
Meadowmont. He added that there was not
yet a good enough definition of the Meadowmont project for the staff to bring a
cost figure to the Council. Mr. Horton
agreed that any funds allocated to Scarlette Drive would reduce those available
for the Meadowmont project.
Council Member McClintock
noted that the developer had agreed to put land aside contingent upon the Town
providing money. She asked how long
that agreement would last. Mr. Horton
replied that the offer was for the length of the permit, which he thought was
about 10 years. Mayor Waldorf said that
she had inquired about this and had concluded that the Meadowmont project would
take so long the Town probably would be safe allocating the money next year and
maybe splitting the Meadowmont funding over the next two years.
Council Member Foy clarified
that the Manager’s memo was a compilation of what the Council already had heard
from the staff and from department heads.
He asked if the budget requests should be taken as the maximum or if
anything more would be coming forward that would add costs. Mr. Horton replied that he hoped not, but
pointed out that his experience had been that there would be additional
requests made at the public hearing on March 30th. He said that the memorandum reflected the
requests that he knew of now—with the exception of agency requests, which he
had not yet tried to catalog.
Council Member Foy stated
that agreeing to fund everything would mean about a 5.6 cent increase in the
tax rate. Mr. Horton replied that it
would be more than that because he had not finished evaluating the
additions.
Council Member Foy,
referring to page two of the memorandum, asked about the 2.9 cents and 2.7
cents, which together made up 5.6 cents.
Mr. Horton explained that 2.7 was for the $710,000 to fund the changes
in the pay plan and then the additional items would increase that to 2.9.
Council Member Foy asked why
the report listed about $987,000 to fund the pay consultants’ recommendations. Mr. Horton replied that $987,000 was for all
funds that had employees in them, not just the $710,000 General Fund.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the
Transportation Fund appeared to be in good shape and that the other funds,
which were enterprise funds, were balancing out. She noted that the only one of concern was the General Fund.
Council Member McClintock
asked what the total figure was for changes to the pay plan. Mr. Horton replied that it was 2.7 cents in
the General Fund, or a total of $710,000.
Council Member McClintock,
noting that the Council had agreed on this, inquired about the possibility of
phasing this in gradually rather than doing it all in one year. Mr. Horton replied that the plan already did
that, adding that it would cost an additional amount next year because there
were several more things to be done, such as reviewing all of the job
classifications and making sure that the Town was competitively placed in the
market. He noted that the Council had
adopted the principle of getting quality employees at the 75th
percentile. Mr. Horton added that the
Town would also have to review the work standards in the department to make
sure that they were reasonable and could be used fairly to differentiate the
various performance levels that the Council had authorized.
Council Member Wiggins
expressed appreciation to the staff for doing a good job of responding to some
of the concerns that Council Members had about the materials. She noted that she had no concerns, but
stated that this year’s presentation was an improvement because it was so well
organized and easy to follow.
Mr. Horton noted that he had
previously informed the Council that there would be sufficient funds for a
transfer station and a materials recovery facility if the Town instituted a
general property tax for “universal services” from which everyone would benefit
and an availability fee, which could be differentiated based on urban and rural
services. He reminded the Council that
they had asked the staff to prepare a resolution that would communicate that
concept to the County Commissioners.
Mr. Horton said that the Mayor met with representatives of Hillsborough,
Carrboro, and Orange County to develop the idea of using tax district financing
for the portion of the financing that would be handled by property tax. He said that two tax districts could be
created: an urban tax district in which urban residents were taxed for the
costs of
urban services only; and a rural tax district in which rural residents were
taxed for costs of rural services only.
Mr. Horton added that this financing could be further broken down so
that Chapel Hill would have its own district tax for the services it would consume. He said that this idea seemed promising
enough to report it to the Council tonight.
Council Member McClintock
asked Mr. Horton to explain the difference between availability fee and
property tax with regard to who would be paying. Mr. Horton replied that there were a number of tax-exempt
institutions, such as the University, churches, and other Sate buildings to
which a special district tax would not apply.
He said the availability fee would apply to those tax-exempt
institutions.
Council Member McClintock
asked if there had been any discussion of how the tax exempt properties could
pay an equitable share for what they would be using. Gayle Wilson said that the general consensus was that the Town
could not increase the availability fee for tax exempt properties in order to
make up what they would not be paying in property taxes. Council Member McClintock said that this
made the availability fee option look better to her.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
what an availability fee was and how to pay for it. Mr. Wilson explained that it was a way of financing that was
particularly suited to solid waste activities because it was primarily based on
a level of service being received, rather than on property value. He added that an availability fee could be
charged to users of existing services or of planned future services.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
if Pay-As-You-Throw was an availability fee.
Mr. Wilson answered no, that it was a user fee.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
if the property owner would pay an availability fee as well. Mr. Wilson replied that residential property
owners and business property owners—everyone who could benefit from the
service—would pay.
Mayor Waldorf mentioned the
importance of not confusing Pay-As-You-Throw with taxes and availability fees
that were required to run solid waste management services.
Council Member Brown
agreed.
Council Member Foy explained
that in Chatham County everyone’s property tax bill included a $45 availability
fee. He said that the concept was that
solid waste facilities were available and citizens could choose to use
them.
Council Member Brown asked
if an availability fee would be levied on the tax exempt properties. Mr. Wilson replied that a separate list
would have to be developed because much of the information on those properties
was unavailable to the County tax office.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
advised making solid waste management as much like a utility as possible so
that those who use services the most would be required to pay the most, and so
that people would be encouraged to use services less. He concluded that an availability fee would be better than a
property tax because non-profit organizations, such as the University, would
not be exempt.
Council Member Evans wondered
if the 61% waste reduction goal was financially realistic and asked if adoption
of Resolution 9a would lock the Town into it.
Mr. Wilson replied that the Council would only be committing to the
goals that had been reported to the State and approved by all jurisdictions in
the County. He added that 61% reduction
was the formal goal, but noted that the Council could revisit that.
Council Member Evans asked
if the County would be able to do that.
Mr. Wilson replied that Chapel Hill could set its own goals. Mr. Horton
pointed out that the Council already had adopted a resolution stating this
goal.
Council Member Brown
suggested that the staff clarify what the 61% per capita waste reduction goal
meant. She explained that the
University’s coal ash had raised the number to 61% and that this had become the
goal “on paper” because of the accounting required by the State. Council Member Brown asked the staff to
point out that the actual goal was 50%.
Mr. Wilson concurred that the County used 1988-89 as its base year in
its accounting to the State. He said
that the State chose to use 1992-93 as a base year and that coal ash that year
was 11% of the County’s total waste.
Mr. Wilson stated that the Town therefore decided to add 11% to equalize
the effect of the coal being eliminated in order to not take unfair advantage
when the ash went away.
Council Member Brown
explained that, in essence, the Town was trying to achieve a 50% per capita
waste reduction goal even though it looked like 61% on paper. She asked Mr. Wilson if the bulk of that
expense was the cost of constructing the processing plant. Mr. Wilson replied that capital cost of the
facility was significant, but the greatest ongoing cost was in the increased
collection of recyclables and the cost of bringing recycling to the business
sector which currently had very limited recycling provided to them.
Council Member Brown asked
what savings would result from reductions in disposal. Mr. Wilson said that the reduction in
tipping fees would be about $350,000 per year for the three jurisdictions once
it was fully implemented. He added,
though, that those savings would not accrue to the Landfill Fund because it did
not pay the tipping fees; rather, the savings would go directly to the haulers
and waste collectors.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
TRANSMITTING THE COUNCIL’S COMMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN, HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD, AND THE
LANDFILL OWNERS GROUP REGARDING OPTIONS FOR FINANCING DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING
SERVICES (99-3-22/R-9a)
WHEREAS, reaching the 61-percent per capita waste
reduction goal will necessitate significant expenditures beyond what disposal
revenue will generate; and
WHEREAS, the Alternative Finance Committee of the
Landfill Owners Group submitted financing options to the Town, requesting
feedback; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to avoid financing options
which result in individuals being taxed twice; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that either an
availability fee or County property tax, by themselves, could provide the
necessary funding;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council believes that County property tax, an
availability fee, or a combination of an availability fee and County property
tax may be the most reasonable methods of financing additional revenue
requirements of the Integrated Solid Waste Management system.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out
that it had been unfair to question Mr. Wilson about what he thought the County
would do. She added that County
representatives at the meeting she attended expressed interest in finding ways
to have inter-community support.
Council Member Evans said
that she raised the question because she was looking for ways to reduce the tax
burden.
Council Member Brown offered
a substitute for Resolution 9b. She
suggested referring it to the Landfill Owners’ Group (LOG) Alternative Finance
Committee for a full examination and report, or at least some study of the pros
and cons before it was put forward in negotiations.
Mayor Waldorf, pointing out
that the staff’s resolution already asked for further exploration, asked if
Council Member Brown was attempting to get more specific about what that
means. Council Member Brown said that
she was.
Mayor Waldorf asked how long
this would take. Council Member Brown
replied that the Council could set a time frame. She said that she did not anticipate it holding up the process at
all, and offered to remove her request for a consultant.
Mr. Horton suggested
adopting Resolution 9b and then separately asking the Committee to study the
issue.
Mayor Waldorf, noting that
the staff was merely asking to look at the idea, suggested that the Council
should not adopt Resolution 9b if it did not want to go ahead with it.
Council Member Foy remarked
that there was no reason not to do it the way Council Member Brown had
recommended, adding that the Manager had made a good point about doing both.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
TRANSMITTING THE COUNCIL’S COMMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN, HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD, AND THE
LANDFILL OWNERS GROUP REGARDING THE NEED FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION OF TAX
DISTRICTS FOR FINANCING DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING SERVICES
(99-3-22/R-9b)
WHEREAS, reaching the 61-percent per capita waste
reduction goal will necessitate significant expenditures beyond what disposal
revenue will generate; and
WHEREAS, the Alternative Finance Committee of the
Landfill Owners Group submitted financing options to the Town, requesting
feedback; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to avoid financing options
which result in being taxed twice; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that either
availability fees or County property tax by themselves, could provide the necessary
funding; and
WHEREAS, the Council endorses further exploration of
the tax district concept of funding solid waste activities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses further exploration of two tax
districts, one including all municipal areas and the other the unincorporated
areas, as a potentially reasonable method of financing additional revenue
requirements of the Integrated Solid Waste Management system.
This the 22nd day
of March, 1999.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9b.1 TO REFER THE ISSUE TO
THE LANDFILL OWNERS’ GROUP ALTERNATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR A REPORT BACK TO
ALL GOVERNING BODIES BY MAY 1, 1999.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
REFERRING THE IDEA OF TAX DISTRICTS FOR FUNDING SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES TO THE
LANDFILL OWNERS GROUP ALTERNATIVE FINANCING COMMITTEE FOR FULL EXAMINATION AND
REPORT
(99-3-22/R-9b.1)
WHEREAS, reaching the 61-percent per capita waste reduction goal will necessitate expenditures beyond what disposal revenues will generate; and,
WHEREAS, the Alternative Finance Committee of the Landfill Owners Group (LOG) submitted financing options to the Town requesting feedback; and,
WHEREAS, the idea of tax districts was not a funding
mechanism considered or examined in any way by the Alternative Finance
Committee; and,
WHEREAS, the implications, as well as the pros and
cons of all funding mechanisms need to be thoroughly explored by the group most
familiar with the issue; and,
WHEREAS, the Alternative Finance Committee is most
familiar with these funding issues; and,
WHEREAS, the Alternative Finance Committee had the
benefit of a consultant knowledgeable about solid waste funding mechanisms;
and,
WHEREAS, the citizens of Orange County deserve to
have this issue fully explored by those most familiar with the issue, as well
as outside professionals knowledgeable about such issues; and,
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to avoid financing options
which result in being taxed twice; and,
WHEREAS, the Town endorses full exploration of the
implications and pros and cons of the tax district concept of funding solid
waste activities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that it refers the issue of separate tax districts for
examination as a possibility for funding solid waste activities to the LOG
Alternative Finance Committee with meetings scheduled as soon as possible to
address this issue for a report back to all the governing bodies by May 1,
1999.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
when, according to the current schedule, the County would take over solid
waste. Council Member Foy replied that
it would be October 1, 1999. Mr. Horton
said that date had been modified to “six months from the signing of an
agreement.” Mayor Waldorf added that the staff rightly made the point that once
the agreement was signed the transition ought to occur.
Council Member Brown asked
how property taxes fit into the notion of an Enterprise Fund. Mr. Horton explained that an Enterprise Fund
was an entity unto itself with a set of self-balancing books. He said that
revenues could come into it from a variety of sources, as with the
Transportation Fund. Mr. Horton
explained that the Council would enact a property tax and a portion of that
would go to the Enterprise Fund.
Council Member Brown asked
the Council not to endorse having the Landfill Owners’ Group (LOG) operate by
consensus, since it was not a decision-making body. She suggested having it continue to operate by majority
rule.
Mayor Waldorf asked if
Council Member Brown saw any practical differences that this might make in the
next couple of months. Council Member
Brown replied that she could not see any harm in her request, and could see
some potential help.
Mr. Horton explained that
some of the County representatives had expressed discomfort with the notion of
operating by majority rule because Carrboro and Chapel Hill could out-vote them
and create a policy with which they might disagree. He suggested not replacing the wording unless it was replaced
with “provided that all of the parties agree to any change in the rules.”
Council Member Brown
emphasized that she wanted the LOG to continue as they had for the last two
years.
Council Member Evans asked
if all partners had agreed to operate by majority rule. Council Member Brown answered that they had
agreed to that two years ago.
Council Member Foy noted
that this was something that the County put forward because they had been
worried that Chapel Hill/Carrboro would try and force them into doing something
that they did not want to do. He argued
that since Chapel Hill and Carrboro did not intend to do that, why not let them
operate by consensus if that was what they wanted. Council Member Foy pointed out that Chapel Hill and Carrboro
would have to do that anyway if they wanted the County to take over the
operation. He pointed out that changing
the language would give a strong hint that there was a reason for doing so,
when there was none.
Council Member Brown pointed
out that the LOG did not make policy and that the County did not have to abide
by anything that it recommended. She
stressed that her suggestion was not underhanded and argued that operating by
consensus would hinder the LOG in its last duties of getting the Council all
the information it needed to make decisions.
Mr. Horton, noting that he
has a lot of respect for Council Member Brown and the work that she had done in
this area, stressed his disagreement and emphasized that it would be best if
the LOG operated on the basis of consensus so that the County could take up the
leadership in this area.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED
RESOLTUION 9c, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED
TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY DELETING “OPERATING BY CONSENSUS.” THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said
that item five on page 12 was worded too strongly. He proposed inserting the word “also” in the third paragraph so
that it would read: “in addition we
believe that tax district would also
satisfy this principle.” There was
Council consensus.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 9c, AS AMENDED WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
TRANSMITTING THE COUNCIL’S COMMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN, HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD, AND THE
LANDFILL OWNERS’ GROUP REGARDING THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES SUBMITTED BY THE
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (99-3-22/R-9c)
WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro, Town of Chapel Hill,
Town of Hillsborough, and Orange County are working together to effect the
transfer of authority for solid waste management to Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Commissioners have
submitted for Council consideration, a statement of principles related to this
transfer and has requested written feedback from the Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses the following comments regarding
the Orange County statement of principles:
IF
1. Solid
waste continues to be managed as an enterprise fund;
Comment – Agree
2. The
Greene Tract remains a landfill asset (with acknowledgement that the current
Board of Commissioners has no inclination to bury mixed solid waste (MSW) or
construction and demolition (C&D) waste on this property);
Comment - We are unclear as to
whether the County has withdrawn their original request for 60 acres to become
an asset of the Landfill Fund and would recommend that the Council ask the
Commissioners to clarify their intent.
3. There
are no restrictions on acquisition of additional acreage at the current
landfill (with acknowledgement that the current Board of Commissioners has no
inclination to use the Blackwood and Nunn properties);
Comment – Agree
4. All
entities continue to work through the LOG until such time as the County assumes
overall responsibility for solid waste management to develop options for:
materials recovery, construction & demolition disposal, and a transfer
station (to include examination of reconfiguring property at the Eubanks Road
landfill to accommodate one or more of these facilities);
Comment– Agree
5. The
Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough bear the appropriately
proportional share of costs and remain committed partners to make an
enterprise operation economically viable, to include current and future
operations;
Comment –The underlined words appear
to be open to a variety of interpretations.
However, we believe that all citizens of Orange County should share the
costs of the Solid Waste Management Plan in an equitable and fair manner, and
that this principle is consistent with the Commissioners’ statement. We believe several financing options would
be appropriate, including County property tax, an availability fee, or a
combination of both.
In addition, we believe use of tax districts would also
satisfy this principle. The tax
district financing option could consist of dividing the county into two tax
districts, one for incorporated areas and one for unincorporated area with the
tax rates in each reflecting the two different levels of urban and rural solid
waste management services.
We recommend that the concept of two tax districts be
explored further.
6. Reduction
of solid waste and the economic viability of solid waste facilities and
operations are made compatible;
Comment – Agree
7. All
parties approve an Interlocal Agreement after the current draft has been
revised to incorporate modifications (negotiated by representatives of each
governing board);
Comment – Agree
8. The
County retains the freedom to implement fees; and
Comment – Agree, as provided in the
Interlocal Agreement.
9. The
County is not expected to use general funds to underwrite overall solid waste
management activities;
Comment – Agree
1. The
County will assume solid waste management responsibility six months after
all parties have approved the Interlocal Agreement, to include current and
future operations;
Comment – Agree, although sooner
would be acceptable.
2. The
County will accept transfer of all Chapel Hill solid waste management
employees;
Comment - We agree. We believe it is important that the analysis
of employee compensation packages be completed and that the employees receive
substantially equivalent compensation packages upon transfer to the County.
3. The
Board of Commissioners shall approve the 1999-2000 solid waste management
operating budget in June, 1999;
Comment – The County Manager and I
have already begun discussions regarding the 1999-2000 Landfill Fund Budget
proposal. We agree that the Board of
County Commissioners should review and approve the budget and that the Council
will need to formally adopt the budget.
4. The
LOG shall continue to oversee solid waste management, operating by
consensus and making no major financial commitments, until it dissolves,
after adoption of the 1999-2000 budget and no later that August 1, 1999;
Comment – The LOG is not able to make
financial commitments; it is an advisory group of the owner governments. The Town of Chapel Hill operates the
enterprise as directed by the Town Council.
We agree that the LOG should not recommend any major financial
commitments while it continues to exist.
We also agree that the LOG should be dissolved no later than August 1,
1999.
5. Each
government shall appoint two representatives to a Solid Waste Management
Advisory Commission, pursuant to an adopted Interlocal Agreement, which shall
succeed the LOG and begin meeting upon dissolution of the LOG and no later
than August 1, 1999; a ninth seat on the Commission will be reserved for a
representative designated by the
University, provided that the University commits to participation in the solid
waste management system;
Comment – Agree.
6. Solid
waste collection/transportation decisions will remain the prerogative of each local government entity;
Comment – Agree
7. The
County will pursue a conceptual revenue structure that:
·
finances core operations (MRF, MSW and C&D
Landfills) through tipping fees
·
finances collection/transportation activities through
property taxes and collection charges
·
finances reduction/recycling through tipping fees to the
extent practical, with the balance from availability fees
Comment - Agree. We believe a county property tax or tax
district funding would be reasonable.
8. The
County will finance community benefits through the landfill enterprise to
the extent legally permissible (unless Carrboro and Chapel Hill agree to
earmark a portion of one-cent sales taxes for their share of community
benefits).
Comment - We believe that it may be
feasible to pay for community benefits with landfill funds if some nexus exists
between neighborhood drinking well contamination and landfill leakage. However, we note that considerable technical
evidence has been presented that there is no reason to believe that leakage
from the landfill has affected the neighborhood being considered for water
service.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends
the general order of solid waste management priorities should be:
·
finalize
the Interlocal Agreement transferring solid waste management to Orange County
by October 1, 1999;
·
create
an Advisory Board to replace the Landfill Owners Group by July 1, 1999;
·
acquire
a site and begin development of a new C&D landfill;
·
proceed
with the Materials Recovery Facility procurement and Key Issues Analysis;
·
finalize
Solid Waste Management Plan elements, reducing costs where possible; and
·
select
Solid Waste Management Plan financing mechanisms and implement in FY 2000-2001.
This
the 22nd day of March, 1999.
Item 7 — Submittal of Items Related to the Preparation of the 1999-2000
Budget (cont.)
Mayor Waldorf asked the
Council to vote on Resolution 8.4, which established a process and a schedule
for reviewing project proposals for the hotel/motel tax revenues.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED,
SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8.4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR REVIEWING PROJECT
PROPOSALS FOR USE OF HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUES
(99-3-22/R-8.4)
WHEREAS, the Council has
adopted criteria for considering project proposals for use of hotel/motel tax
revenues; and
WHEREAS, the Council will
approve a total amount to be allocated for these project proposals as part of
the budget process for FY 1999-00; and
WHEREAS, the Council has
followed a policy of allocating 15% of all hotel/motel tax revenues to the
Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau; and
WHEREAS, the Town staff will
evaluate project proposals, based on the attached resolution and the guidelines
that at least one grant should be made to a group that has not received this
funding previously, and make recommendations to the Council in June 1999;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council hereby authorizes the following schedule and process for the review and
allocation of funds from hotel/motel tax revenues:
March 26, 1999: Mail applications to
organizations that are on an ongoing mailing list.
March 28, 1999: Advertise in a local
newspaper that hotel/motel tax grant applications and criteria are available.
March 26 - May 10, 1999: Accept applications from
all interested individuals and organizations.
May 11 – May 28, 1999: Staff could evaluate all
grant proposals based upon Council approved criteria and develop
recommendations for allocating hotel/motel funding. Copies of all hotel/motel
tax proposals could be available for review by the Council on May 11, 1999.
June 14, 1999: Council scheduled to adopt
budget.
June 14, 1999: Council consideration of
hotel/motel grant applications and staff recommendations, assuming previous
adoption of the FY 1998-99 budget that would include the amount available for
hotel/motel grants.
June
28, 1999:
Upon Council approval, staff would begin to negotiate performance agreements
with all individuals and organizations selected to receive grants.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill directs that 15% of hotel/motel tax
receipts be allocated to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau, that
$20,000 of hotel/motel tax receipts be allocated to the ArtsCenter, and that
$3,500 be allocated to the Chapel Hill Arts Commission.
This the 22nd day
of March, 1999.
Mayor Waldorf asked the
Council to vote on Resolution 8.5, which called a public hearing on a potential
change to the Downtown Service District tax boundary.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI
MOVED, SECONDED MY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8.5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO THE
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT TAX BOUNDARY
(99-3-22/R-8.5)
BE IT RESOLVED by the
Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for
May 12, 1999, on the proposed use of Downtown Service District tax funds and on
a proposal to change the Downtown Service District Tax boundary.
This the 22nd day
of March, 1999.
David Bonk, Transportation
Planner, explained that this report summarized the results of the first round
of deficiency analysis prepared by the Urban Area staff. He stated that the assumptions that formed
the basis for the report included land use projections of 2025 land use patterns
for the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban area. Mr. Bonk explained that the analysis was run on a roadway and
transit network that assumed existing conditions and included projects which
had already begun, such as the widening of NC 86 in Chapel Hill.
Mr. Bonk referred Council
Members to a Table on page 14 in their packets which summarized regional
results using the deficiency analysis and compared those results to the base
year, 1995. He said that the results of
the analysis showed that in 2025 there would be a tremendous amount of traffic
growth in the region and along congested corridors in Chapel Hill. Mr. Bonk predicted that a fairly significant
increase in transit ridership would occur without any expansion of transit
service because of the growth within service areas that already exist.
Mr. Bonk drew the Council’s
attention to the alternative screening and ranking criteria that had been put
forward by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). He said that the Committee had opened a
public comment period that would extend to April 12th. Mr. Bonk said, at that time, the Committee
might revise the criteria based on the comments received, and would then begin
evaluating alternatives to find those that best solved the problems identified
in the capacity analysis. He explained
that these would include roadway, transit, bike and pedestrian alternatives.
Mr. Bonk explained that
Planning staff would evaluate these alternatives in the spring and early
summer. He said they would then bring
back the first set of alternatives that had gone through the screening process
and ask the TAC for endorsement of those.
Mr. Bonk added that there probably would be public comment at that time
and an opportunity for Council input.
He stated that the goal was to adopt a plan in the fall and reported
that the work was occurring on schedule.
Council Member Evans asked
why park/ride lots were not listed as an alternative. Mr. Bonk replied that expanding existing lots and adding more
lots was included under “expanded transit service.”
Council Member McClintock
asked about Table 1 in relation to the assumptions that Mr. Bonk had mentioned,
such as build-out being based on certain build-out figures and volumes being
based on 24 hours rather than peak hours.
She noted that Table 1 presented a “rosy picture” when compared to
looking at build-out with existing zoning.
Council Member McClintock also asked why the Town was not looking at
peak hour volumes. She asked Mr. Bonk
to comment on how future traffic would look if he were to change those
underlying assumptions. Mr. Bonk
replied that Planning staff planned to evaluate peak hour performance as part
of the overall analysis. He said that
they had concluded that 24 hours would be a good representative starting
place. Mr. Bonk noted that vehicle
miles traveled during the critical peak period was included in Table 1, and
showed almost a doubling of miles traveled.
Mr. Bonk pointed out that
developing land use projections was a long process, which was done in conjunction
with all of the local governments in the region using a set of criteria that
were agreed upon by regional planners.
He said that those criteria were used in Chapel Hill and that each of
the Town’s traffic analysis zones was looked at for potential build-out based
on current zoning and currently allowed construction practices. Mr. Bonk pointed out that projections for
2025 development used criteria which the Council had reviewed and endorsed. He agreed that different scenarios could
occur and that planners would have to look at a mix of strategies, and that one
of those could be land use.
Council Member Brown asked
if it was true that these may not be under-projections. Mr. Waldon replied that the Comprehensive
Plan Work Group would discuss that at its next meeting because it had been
raised by Work Group members Alan Rimer and Kimberly Brewer. He added that the Work Group had gone back
and looked at the 2025 projections and had felt reassured that they were
good.
Mayor Waldorf requested adding
to Resolution 9.1 “the potential for transit use and transportation demand
management, especially at peak hours, should be fully explored and integrated
into this analysis.” She said she was
concerned about having an analysis that relied only on automobile trip numbers
and projections when people would not be driving their cars if they had a
faster and better way to get places.
Mayor Waldorf asked how the Council might insure that the potential for
transit use, especially at peak hours, was given a fair shot in this
analysis. Mr. Bonk replied that
Planning Staff recommended that additional alternatives should be
evaluated. He pointed out that
“expanded local transit” was at the top of that list and noted that the Council
could add “including expanded transportation demand management” to that. Mr. Horton recommended saying “the Council
wishes to emphasize the importance of fully exploring the utility of transit
and transportation demand management in every aspect of this work.”
Mayor Waldorf said that she
wanted transit to get “a fair shake.” She repeated her original wording and
noted that Mr. Bonk was arguing that five of the six alternatives listed cover
that adequately. Mr. Horton pointed out
that it could be given additional emphasis, though, if an additional statement
were put in at the end.
Mayor Waldorf also pointed
out that beginning a study with the statement that transportation was limited
meant ending the study with the statement that it could only carry so many
people because it was limited. She said
that it was not reasonable to look at it that way given the nature of the
demand that was being created. Mayor
Waldorf emphasized that people would choose an alternative if the alternative
could get them places faster and better than driving their car.
Council Member McClintock
stated that she would support the addition if the Council was specific about
what it was saying. She said she would
like to know what difference it would make if, for example, the Town built a
fixed guideway and had buses running every five minutes. Mr. Bonk assured the Council that Planning
Staff never intended that transit would be kept static through the whole
analysis. He said that aggressive
transit strategies would be tested as part of all scenarios.
Mayor Waldorf replied that
she merely wanted to underscore that.
Council Member Foy stated
that the Council should encourage transportation planners to factor in the
concept of induced traffic—i.e., more roads induce more traffic—and asked Mr.
Bonk to comment on the extent to which that played into these projections. Mr. Bonk replied that induced traffic was a
phenomenon that had only recently been quantified. He said that such a new concept was difficult to incorporate into
the current modeling process because the models did not allow towns to discount
for induced travel. Mr. Bonk added that
planners were aware of the phenomenon and stated that it affected the way they
looked at huge numbers.
Council Member Foy suggested
that the Council ask its planners to be aware that induced traffic might be a
factor.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council
Member Foy if he had a good way to say that, and Council Member Foy deferred to
Mr. Bonk. Mr. Bonk suggested that the
Council make it clear that the urban area planners should recognize the
existence of induced travel and account for it to the degree possible within
the analysis.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED
RESOLUTION 9.1, ADDING “THE URBAN AREA PLANNERS SHOULD RECONGIZE THE EXISTENCE
OF INDUCED TRAVEL AND ACCOUNT FOR IT TO THE DEGREE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE
ANALYSIS”.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
stated that the numbers in the report were “so bad” it really did not matter
whether there was a change in assumptions or not. He noted the high traffic congestion in many areas and said he
was frustrated over having to choose among several bad alternatives, such as
whether to have an eight lane clogged highway or a four lane clogged
highway.
Mr. Horton pointed out that
the Council had basically already said that it would rather have congestion at
the lower level, adding that would be consistent with the notion of induced
traffic that Council Member Foy had mentioned.
Council Member Bateman asked
to whom the plan would finally be sent for ranking. Mr. Bonk replied that the TAC would have to adopt it, the State
would provide comments, and the TAC would be the final authority. He added that it also would have to meet air
quality conformity guidelines in order to be approved.
Council Member McClintock
asked Mr. Bonk to explain what the air conformity rule was. He said that the Environmental Protection
Agency and the State Department of Air Quality cooperatively developed an air
quality budget for this urban area and that the transportation plan had to fall
under that budget in order to meet conformity.
Mr. Bonk explained that the balance of improvements that the Town made
compared to the projected traffic in the system must achieve a certain level of
air quality conformity. He added that
the federal government would not approve the plan if air quality exceeded those
standards.
Mayor Waldorf, noting that
Council Member Foy was not present, asked if other Council Members thought he
was agreeable to adding the wording that she had suggested.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 9.1, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE “THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT USE AND
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, ESPECIALLY AT PEAK HOURS, SHOULD BE FULLY
EXPLORED AND INTEGRATED INTO THIS ANALYSIS,” AND TO INCLUDE “THE URBAN AREA, AS
THEY COMPLETE THEIR ANALYSIS, SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF INDUCED TRAVEL
AND ACCOUNT FOR IT TO THE DEGREE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE ANALYSIS” WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 2025 REGIONAL TRANSPORTAITON PLAN DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES RANKING CRITERIA (99-3-22/R-9.1)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area
has begun the process of developing a 2025 Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Deficiency Analysis has been
completed; and
WHEREAS, a draft set of Alternative Screening and
Ranking Criteria has been developed; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has
opened a public comment period on the 2025 Deficiency Analysis and Alternative
Screening and Ranking Criteria;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses the following recommendations:
·
Future
analysis should include recent land use changes made by local governments
·
The
roadway network should be revised to include additional roadways
·
The
roadway capacities should be reviewed and revised where necessary to reflect
more realistic capacities.
·
Vehicle
Miles Traveled should be included in the System Performance Indicators
·
The
System Performance Indicators should include separate evaluations for Orange
County and Durham County
·
Peak
hour analysis should be added to the System Performance Indicators
·
The
Transportation Advisory Committee should review the Alternative Screening and
Ranking Criteria to ensure a balance between system efficiency and impacts on
the local communities.
·
Emphasis
on the potential for transit use, especially at peak hours, be fully explored
and integrated into the analysis.
·
The
impact of induced travel should be recognized in the regional planning process
and reflected in the ongoing analysis of alternatives for the 2025 Regional
Transportation Plan.
In addition, the following alternatives should be
evaluated:
·
Expanded
local transit
·
Fixed
guideway along US 15-501, NC54 and I-40
·
High
Occupancy Vehicle Lanes along I-40
·
Region-wide
Transportation Demand Management Strategies
·
Evaluation
of peak hour congestion in addition to daily congestion
·
Alternative
roadway corridors in Northern Chatham County
This the 22nd day
of March, 1999.
Item 10 — Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Lease-Purchase Contract for Replacement of Vehicles and Equipment
Jim Baker, Finance Director,
stated that the resolution would authorize the Manager to enter into a
lease/purchase contract for replacement vehicles with First Citizens Bank &
Trust Company. He said that the
ordinance would establish the Vehicle Replacement Fund in accordance with recommendations
made by the consultant last year. Mr.
Baker explained that the Town would change its policy of paying cash for
replacement vehicles and substitute a replacement plan that would enable the
Town to buy more vehicles each year and gradually build to a point where it
could replace all vehicles as needed.
Mr. Baker stated that, of
the bids received, First Citizens Bank had the lowest interest rate—3.93% for
the three-year term and 3.95% for the five-year term. He said that the annual cost would be about $360,000 for
lease/purchase in the first year, but explained that the amount needed this
year would be only $187,000 because half of the year was over. Mr. Baker noted that the current budget
included about $681,000 for the purchase of vehicles, and recommended keeping
the balance of that money in a replacement fund to be used in future years to
help reduce the increased cost of the plan.
Mr. Baker recommended that
the Council authorize the Manager to enter into the lease/purchase agreement
and that they adopt the attached budget amendment which would establish the
Vehicle Replacement Fund. He pointed
out that the Fund would reflect the actual purchase of vehicles from the
$1,535,000 that the Town would borrow from the bank.
Council Member McClintock
asked if the plan would save the Town money in the long run. Mr. Baker replied that it would not save
money. He explained that the plan was a
way to replace more capital equipment than the Town had been replacing on an
annual basis and to pay for that gradually.
Council Member McClintock stated
that it might actually cost money because the Town was increasing its rate of
replacement. Mr. Baker replied that the
Town would spend less cash for several years because the balance of the
allotted funds would go into the Vehicle Replacement Fund. He added, though, that it would be more
costly in the long term.
Mr. Horton said that the
plan would even out the expenditure, which had been predicted over time on a
chart previously shown to the Council.
He added that it also offered better and more efficient equipment which
would be less expensive to maintain.
Mr. Horton added that the Town had been under-funding equipment because
it had been extending the life of equipment beyond the time recommended by the manufacturers. He said that this program was partially in
response to the need to discontinue that practice.
Council Member Bateman asked
how Mr. Baker selected the four banks for bidding. Mr. Baker replied that they were on a standard list of banks
which in previous years had expressed interest in furnishing proposals for
these purposes. He added that they were
among the primary financial institutions in North Carolina who had
traditionally bid on the Town’s proposals.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE-PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR VEHICLE
REPLACEMENT PURCHASES FOR THE GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS (99-3-22/R-10)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill solicited and
received competitive proposals from financial institutions for the
lease-purchase of a variety of vehicles for various departments; and
WHEREAS, First Citizen’s Bank and Trust offers the
lowest fixed interest rates of 3.93% and 3.95% for the 3-year and 5-year terms
for this purchase;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into
a contract with First Citizen’s Bank on behalf of the Town for the
lease-purchase of vehicles at fixed interest rates of 3.93% and 3.95%.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforesaid contracts
by and between the Town of Chapel Hill, various State contract and other
vendors, and First Citizen’s Bank, together with the amounts to be paid thereunder,
be and the same are hereby designated as qualified tax-exempt obligations of
the Town of Chapel Hill for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council does not
reasonably expect that the Purchaser (and any subordinate entities) will issue
more than $10,000,000 in qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to such
Sections 265(b)(3)(ii) during the current calendar year.
This
the 22nd day of March, 1999.
COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE
2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY
(9-0).
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1998 (99-3-22/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel
Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations
and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1998” as duly
adopted on June 8, 1998, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
VEHICLES
REPLACEMENT FUND
Capital Equipment 0 1,535,000 1,535,000
Lease-Purchase
Payments 0 187,178 187,178
Reserved for Future
Lease-Payments 0 493,822 493,822
GENERAL FUND
Inspections 450,267 23,092 427,175
Engineering 778,511 4,296 782,807
Public Works 8,690,259 321,639 8,368,620
Police 7,425,031 143,175 7,281,856
Fire 3,084,728 13,952 3,070,776
Parks & Recreation 1,712,177 3,740 1,715,917
Non-Departmental
Transfer to
Vehicle
Replace Fund 0 493,822 493,822
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
VEHICLE
REPLACEMENT FUND
Loan Proceeds 0 1,535,000 1,535,000
General Fund Use
Charges 0 187,178 187,178
Transfer from General
Fund 0 493,822 493,822
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
Mr. Horton recommended that
the Council discuss this sometime other than late in the evening, and suggested
a date for the Council’s consideration.
He said that Mr. Heflin had a list of issues that he could go through
this evening or at a further discussion.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED
RESOLUTION 11. COUNCIL MEMBERS FOY AND
MCCLINTOCK SECONDED IT.
Council Member Brown
stressed that she hoped that the Council would move forward with a commitment
to implement this.
Council Member McClintock
concurred.
Council Member Foy asked if
it was realistic to think that the Council could implement anything in this
budget year. Mr. Horton replied that
would depend on the decisions that the Council made and how rapidly they made
them.
Council Member Evans noted
that she had been waiting for the report on how Athens, GA collected its trash
and recyclables for nine months. She
said that she hoped the scant information in the Council’s packet was not that
report. Mr. Heflin replied that a
separate report was being prepared for the Council’s consideration in the near
future.
Council Member Evans said
that she could not make the commitment to implement what Council Member Brown
had asked for.
Council Member Bateman
expressed support for Pay-As-You-Throw only if it was linked to curbside
garbage collection.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said
that he was willing to support curbside collection provided that it was coupled
with “Pay-As-You-Throw.”
Council Member Brown said
that she hoped the Council had been serious when it supported the Integrated
Solid Waste Management Plan, the variable rate system, and collection bans. She
said she hoped the Town would implement all of them, and added that if the
Council was not serious about it, the issue should be revisted.
Mayor Waldorf wondered if
the Town should commit to Pay-As-You-Throw before it knew for sure whether the
County was going to have a Materials Recovery Facility.
Council Member Foy replied
that the Town would be asking the County to achieve certain waste reduction
goals but would not be able to determine how the County would do that. He added that perhaps the best the Town
would be able to do was to have a component, such as “Pay-As-You-Throw,” for
its own waste reduction.
Council Member Evans
stressed that multi-family and commercial waste reduction should be dealt with
first, noting that Pay-As-You-Throw does not work for them. She objected to the Town putting emphasis on the single homeowner,
who she said already is doing a good job at recycling and waste reduction. Council Member Brown agreed, and suggested
that Council Member Evans bring that forward at the meeting.
Mayor Waldorf stated that
she was no longer interested in discussing Pay-As-You-Throw unless it was
linked to curbside collection. Mr.
Horton pointed out that curbside collection was part of the package.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOY AND MCCLINTOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11. THE
MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A WORK SESSION (99-3-22/R-11)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby schedules a work session at 5:30 p. m. on April 12, 1999 in the Town Hall Council Chamber to discuss “Pay As You Throw” waste collection.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
(1)
Mayor pro tem Capowski
Regarding Modification of Regulations of Cellular Phone Towers
Mayor pro tem Capowski,
noting that the Town did a good job of regulating stand-alone towers, argued
that the Town was not sophisticated enough in its approvals of accessory uses
of cellular phone antennas. He said
that the Council had agreed that the Town could grant a tower if it increased
the height of a pole by a certain fixed amount, but explained that this did not
address the issue of elevating a substantial mass. Mayor pro tem Capowski, using the Culbreth School ball field as
an example, pointed out that an antenna structure could dominate so that the
accessory use created much more of an impact than the original use.
Council Member McClintock
asked if Mayor pro tem Capowski was asking the Town to develop criteria for
what an acceptable cellular tower should look like. Mayor pro tem Capowski replied that he and Mr. Waldon were not
yet sure what would be the best way to handle this because the notion of what
constituted an elevated substantial mass could be subjective.
Council Member Wiggins asked
if Mayor pro tem Capowski would be interested in discussing how cellular towers
might be camouflaged. Mayor pro tem
Capowski replied that he had seen a couple of camouflaged towers and was not
impressed by them.
Council Member Wiggins
remarked that the pictures look good and that she was interested in learning
more about it.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
WIGGINS, TO REFER THE PETITION ON MODIFYING REGULATIONS OF CELLULAR
PHONE TOWERS TO THE MANAGER, THE ATTORNEY, THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, THE
PLANNING BOARD, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND THE DESIGN COMMITTEE FOR
REVIEW. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(2) By Council Member McClintock
Regarding Ethics Guidelines for the Council
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REQUEST THE TOWN ATTORNEY COMMENT ON HOW
THE COUNCIL COULD APPLY ETHICAL GUIDELINES TO ITSELF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(3) By Council Member Brown
Regarding Internet Tax
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REQUEST THE ATTORNEY TO CONTINUE TO
RESEARCH THE ISSUE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AND THAT THE ATTORNEY AND STAFF
BRING BACK A REPORT WITH AN ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER
IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES’ POSITION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE,
AS WELL AS LETTERS TO THE TOWN’S
CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS ASKING THEM TO HELP PROTECT
LOCAL RETAILERS FROM UNFAIR COMPETITION AND PRESERVE OUR LOCAL TAX BASE FROM
BEING ERODED BY ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(3)
By Council Member Bateman
Regarding Process for Removal of Consent Agenda Items
Council Member Bateman asked
the Council to adopt a policy, similar to one that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
School Board had, by which Council Members would ask themselves to notify the
Manager’s office by a specified time—i.e., three o’clock on the day of the
meeting—if they wanted to pull a particular consent agenda item. She explained that this would let the staff
know whether or not they needed to attend a meeting, and would benefit the
Council too because the staff would be more productive the next day.
Council Member Brown asked
Council Member Bateman how that would affect citizens who came to speak on
agenda items and wanted some discussion of those. Council Member Bateman replied that it would go on the next
meeting’s agenda.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out
that it would be a rare occurrence that a citizen would raise a question that
could not be answered by the Manager or Assistant Managers.
Mayor pro tem Capowski,
reminding the Council that he had pulled an agenda item tonight in response to
issues raised by a citizen, commented that he would not have pulled it if that
citizen had not requested it. He asked
how such situations would be handled.
Council Member Bateman replied that she did not have an answer for that.
Council Member McClintock
supported the idea, but, adding that the effect on citizens’ participation was
important, wondered if Council Member Bateman was advocating any change in the
order of when consent agenda items would be taken up.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out
that the Council tried not to put things on the consent agenda that would drew
a huge amount of public interest.
Council Member Foy stated
that it seemed reasonable to expect that the staff would come to a meeting if
notified by a certain time.
Mayor Waldorf asked the
Attorney if the Council needed to change the Council’s Procedures Manual in
order to do this. Mr. Karpinos replied
that the staff ought to be given the opportunity to bring back a resolution on
it.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND
ATTORNEY TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY WHEREBY THE COUNCIL
WOULD NOTIFY THE MANAGER’S OFFICE BY A SPECIFIC TIME IF THEY INTEND TO PULL A
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. THE MOTION WAS
ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(4)
By Mayor Waldorf Regarding
West Rosemary Street Parking
Mayor Waldorf explained that
various business owners and University officials had expressed interest in
using the University parking lot next to Breadmen’s for nighttime public
parking. She asked the Council to authorize
the Manager and the Mayor to see if they could work something out.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND MANAGER TO WORK
TOGETHER TO OBTAIN PUBLIC PARKING AT THE UNIVERSITY LOT ON WEST ROSEMARY
STREET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(5)
By Council Member McClintock
Regarding Meeting with the University Transportation Consultant
Council Members agreed to
meet with the transportation consultant at 5:30 p.m. on April 26th,
1999.
Council Member Brown noted
that the Council had also agreed to invite Rachel Willis, as the Town’s
representative, to answer questions.
Mayor Waldorf suggested
inviting Jim Ritchey as well.
THE MOTION TO MEET WITH THE
UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT AT 5:30 ON APRIL 26, 1999, WAS ADOPTED BY
CONSENSUS.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
suggested inviting an RDU staff member to come to one of the Council’s regular
meetings to inform the Council on the Airport’s plans were for a rail line.
Mayor Waldorf suggested
having the staff try to discover what the Airport’s position was in cooperation
with the Triangle Transit Authority and Mass Transit. She recommended also posing the question to Jim Ritchie. Mayor Waldorf asked the Manager if the
Council could have that information by April 26th. Mr. Horton agreed to do the research but
said that he could not promise it by April 26th.
4g. Response to Transportation
Board Petition for Walk and Bikeway Improvements
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked
if it was possible to make some of the small improvements that Lauren Hentz had
requested, such as widening a portion of Estes Drive. Mr. Horton replied that the Town had explored that and found that
it would cost more than $1 million. He
explained that it was a very expensive endeavor to add three feet of asphalt
for any considerable length.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(99-3-22/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill is continuing efforts to
address pedestrian and bicycling issues in the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Board submitted requests
to the Town Council regarding walks and bikeways improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered these
requests and a set of related comments by the Town Manager;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests follow-up to specific issues
raised in these requests as follows:
·
The
Council directs the Town Manager to transmit to the Town of Carrboro a request
to pursue pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the intersection of South
Greensboro Street and Merrit Mill Road.
·
The
Council requests the Joint Town/State Technical Committee for the Study of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements on State Roads in Chapel Hill to consider
sidewalk/bikeway improvements on Raleigh Road under the 15-501 Bypass.
·
The
Council directs the Town Manager to bring back a report regarding:
-
Bicycle
activated (manual or automatic) left turn signals for major intersections.
-
“No
Turn on Red” signs at the Franklin and Columbia Street intersection.
·
The
Council requests the new Walks and Bikeways Commission to consider the
following bike path projects:
-
Frank
Porter Graham School to Culbreth Road.
-
Highland
Woods to Glenwood School to Glenwood Shopping Center.
-
McCauley
St. to Merritt Mill Rd.
-
Powell
St. to Estes Dr. Ext.
-
Culbreth
Rd. to Merritt Pasture to Meadow Ln. to Morgan Creek Rd.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
4j. Resolution Directing the Manager to Work with Orange County and State Agencies on Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Issues
Council Member McClintock
suggested that the Council prioritize the list and set a deadline on things
that it considered most important. She
suggested, for example, asking the staff to first develop a policy on penalties
and reporting back to the Council in three months.
Mr. Horton replied that it
had been the staff’s intention to finish all the work as outlined by the end of
this calendar year. George Small
explained that one of the key functions of the person in the requested new
position would be to help develop such a schedule. Mr. Horton pointed out that this would primarily be ordinance
revisions and could be done even without that position. Mr. Small suggested
that the Council go ahead and identify the issues it wanted the staff to focus
on. He added that he could not say that
the staff could hit a 90-day deadline, but they would make an attempt to do so
and would report back to the Council if they could not.
Council Member Foy asked Mr.
Small if the Town required projects to submit an erosion control plan in
advance. Mr. Small replied that it did,
adding that the Engineering Department reviewed the plan but an Orange County
soil erosion officer approved it. Mr.
Small said that the Town must have an approved plan before it could issue an
engineering construction permit.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8.1.
Council Member McClintock
proposed adding an additional “be it further resolved...” requesting that the
Council ask the Manager to report back on the penalty issues by September and
the balance later in the year, maybe November.
Mayor Waldorf stated that
she did not philosophically agree that the penalties were the most important
issue.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
stated that the Council should not put a developer in a position where s/he
used a technique that had been approved and then penalize him if it did not
work.
Mayor Waldorf asked it this
was a friendly amendment. Council
Member Foy replied that it seemed unimportant to him which part came back in
September and which in November.
Council Member McClintock
stressed that her interest was in getting something accomplished, not
necessarily in prioritizing.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 8.1, INCLUDING THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ITEMS RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT
AND PENALTIES WOULD COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO WORK WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY EROSION CONTROL
OFFICE AND THE STATE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL COMMISSION TO REVISE AND IMPROVE THE
CHAPEL HILL SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE (99-3-22/R-8.1)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council is concerned about the adequacy of current regulations governing soil erosion and sedimentation control within the Town’s jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, these concerns have been confirmed by
complaints and requests for assistance from property owners downstream of land
disturbing activities; and
WHEREAS, the Council convened a work session with a
panel of experts to discuss soil erosion and sedimentation issues; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to revise and improve
the Town Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance based in part on
discussions at said work session; and
WHEREAS, consideration of the desired ordinance
revisions should include, but not be limited to, the following:
· Ways to hold individuals responsible for soil erosion and/or sedimentation related damages.
· Soil erosion and sedimentation bonds which could be applied to stream and pond restoration if damages occur.
·
More
rigorous and innovative structural controls to manage soil erosion and
sedimentation.
·
Phased
or staged construction within a given watershed to mitigate soil erosion and
sedimentation.
·
Pertinent
features of other local government soil erosion and sedimentation control
ordinances (including the City of Olympia, Washington).
·
Improved
soil erosion and sedimentation standards and lines of communication to all
parties, including contractors.
·
The rights of the Town
to require developers to restore damaged streams and ponds; and/or to sue developers
for soil erosion and sedimentation damages and apply awards to mitigation of
such damages.
·
The
appeal process for violations.
·
The
process for mitigating violations (Stop Work Order, etc.).
·
The
process for assessing fines for violations.
·
Delineation
of responsibility for soil erosion and sedimentation controls, and when such
responsibility ends (Developer vs. Builder vs. Homeowner).
·
Applicable
Federal/State requirements of the NPDES – Phase II regulations.
·
Soil
erosion and sedimentation management efforts in the Neuse River Basin and their
applicability to the Chapel Hill ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Town Manager to work with the Orange County Erosion Control Office and the State Sedimentation Control Commission to prepare proposed revisions and improvements in the Chapel Hill Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report on proposed ordinance revisions should include information on the associated administrative, fiscal and resource impacts, if any.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is directed to report back to the Council with proposed ordinance revisions by the end of calendar year 1999.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager report to the Council by September 1999, on enforcement/penalty items, and report on the remaining issues by the end of calendar year 1999.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
4k. Resolutions Scheduling Date for Work Session on Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and Ugrow—an Urban Growth Model
Council Member Evans
proposed delaying the Urban Growth Model meeting until the fall and perhaps
scheduling a joint meeting with Orange and Durham Counties and others as
well.
Council Member Brown argued
that when she proposed the petition the Council had agreed to go forward as it
was proposed. She said that the staff
had been working hard on getting this together and pointed out that it already
was a regional effort.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED
RESOLUTIONS 8.2 AND 8.3. COUNCIL MEMBER
FOY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mayor Waldorf said that she
thought it had been understood at the time that Council Member Brown offered
the petition that it was not a commitment to a meeting. Council Member Brown disagreed.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 8.2 WAS ADOPTED (5-4), WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, FOY, BROWN,
CAPOWSKI AND MCCLINTOCK VOTING AYE AND MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
WIGGINS, EVANS, AND PAVĂO VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE COUNCIL’S 1998-99 MEETING CALENDAR TO SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION ON
AN URBAN GROWTH MODEL-UGROW AND THE CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN (99-3-22/R-8.2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel
Hill that the Council hereby amends its 1998-99 meeting calendar to schedule a
meeting for presentations on An Urban Growth Model-Ugrow and the Climate
Protection Campaign on Monday, May 10th from 5:00–6:45 p.m. in the
Town Hall Council Chamber.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
8.3 WAS ADOPTED (5-4) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, FOY, BROWN, CAPOWSKI AND
MCCLINTOCK VOTING AYE AND MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, EVANS, AND
PAVĂO VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PAY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH PRESENTATIONS ON AN URBAN GROWTH MODEL-UGROW AND THE CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN (99-3-22/R-8.3)
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Manager to contact
the staff of the Sustainability and Global Change Program at Prescott College
to make a presentation on the Urban Growth Model-Ugrow; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Manager to invite
staff from The International Council for Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to
make a presentation on the Climate Protection Campaign; and
WHEREAS, a work session has been scheduled for May
10th from 5:00–6:45 p.m.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to pay for expenses
associated with the presentations.
This the 22nd day of March, 1999.
5c. Report on Use of Small Buses
in Boulder, Colorado
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED
TO ASK THE MANAGER TO BRING BACK A REPORT ON IMPLEMENTING SMALL BUSES IN CHAPEL
HILL. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK
SECONDED IT.
Council Member Foy said that
he wanted more than a report, and asked if the Town had planned to do
this. Mr. Horton explained that the
Town already was purchasing two buses and would get the work done between now
and publication of the fall schedule.
Council Member Foy said that he did not need to see a report and would
prefer to move ahead.
Council Member Brown explained that she had hoped to know how to add even more small buses to the system in future years. Mr. Horton, explaining that would be a different subject, suggested that the Council wait until it received the report from the committee that it appointed, which was scheduled to come before the end of this budget year.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said
that he had heard that small buses were not a good deal. Mr. Horton said that he thought that was
generally the case.
Mayor pro tem Capowski
proposed waiting to see how the two small buses worked before signing on to the
concept of a lot of small buses for Chapel Hill. Mr. Horton agreed, pointing out that the Town acquired these buses
as a result of a grant that the University obtained, noting that it was a rare
opportunity to experiment with no cost to the Town. He also said that he would not otherwise recommend small buses.
Council Member Foy stated
that he was interested in Boulder’s experience because of its ridership, not
particularly because they used small buses.
Bob Godding pointed out that the Boulder system’s frequent service was
what attracted riders. He said that the
cost of that route was about $1 million, four times the cost of Chapel
Hill’s. Mr. Godding emphasized that
service attracted ridership, not bus size.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN
WITHDREW HER MOTION.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, AS
AUTHORIZED BY NC GENERAL STATUTE SECTION 143-318.11 (a) (3), TO DISCUSS PENDING
LITIGATION INVOLVING THE TOWN AND THE DEVELOPERS OF MEADOWMONT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at
10:40 p.m.
The minutes of
March 22, 1999 were adopted on the 24th day of May, 1999.
__________________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC Town Clerk