SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk, Senior Long Range Development Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Ceremony
Mayor Foy recognized Black History Month, and urged those interested to visit Town Hall and view the art exhibit honoring African-American history in Chapel Hill. He indicated that the exhibit would be on display through the end of March.
Mayor Foy said that tonight’s meeting would begin with a song to commemorate Black History Month. He introduced Damien Council, Choir Director at St. John’s Holiness Church, who was born and raised in Chapel Hill and a 1995 graduate of Chapel Hill High School.
Mr. Council performed a song to commemorate Black History Month.
Item 2 – Public Hearings: None.
Item 3 – Petitions
3a. Petitions by Citizens on Items not on the Agenda:
3a(1). Karen Stegman regarding Safety Issues on South Estes Drive and US 15-501.
Ms. Stegman, speaking for residents of the South Estes Drive Public Housing community, petitioned the Council to take immediate action to remedy the dangerous conditions created by the lack of a green arrow signal for cars turning left from South Estes Drive onto Highway 15-501 North. She said that drivers travel at excessive speeds when turning left through this intersection, ignoring oncoming traffic as well as pedestrians leaving the South Estes community. Ms. Stegman said several residents had been in accidents as a result, some involving serious injury. She said there are 40 families with over 100 children living in this community, most of whom do not own cars, who must cross US 15-501 frequently to get to University Mall and other locations, as well as to access public transportation.
Ms. Stegman called the Council’s attention to the letter from the Chapel Hill Police Department provided with tonight’s materials that stated that between January 1, 2001 and today, 102 traffic accidents have occurred at or near this intersection. She said additionally there is poor lighting on the South Estes community side of the intersection, with one light at the entrance to the bike path, but none at the intersection. Ms. Stegman said the light at the bike path had been burned out for “quite a long time.” She asked the Council to address this concern as well.
Ms. Stegman requested that she and the South Estes Drive Public Housing community be kept apprised of any process or action related to this petition.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Foy thanked members of the South Estes Drive Public Housing community for bringing this issue to the Council’s attention, and indicated that the request was being referred to the Manager so that he might bring back recommendations or options on how the Council might proceed. He promised to keep in touch with members of the community on what might potentially be done to solve the issue.
Council Member Verkerk stated that she had noticed the large number of people attempting to cross the street at that intersection, and had personally witnessed a pedestrian being struck by a car. She asked that special attention be paid to solving the safety issue.
3a(2). Jim Alexander regarding Green Arrow Stop Light on South Estes Drive and US 15-501.
Mr. Alexander, a resident of Greenwood Road, stated he used this intersection “hundreds of times” a year. He then described the traffic patterns in this area. Mr. Alexander said he supported the previous petition to add a green arrow signal at this intersection.
THE COUNCIL BY CONSENSUS INCLUDED MR. ALEXANDER’S REMARKS WITH THE PREVIOUS PETITION.
3a(3). Deloris Bailey regarding Request for the Pine Knolls Community to be Considered for the Designation of Neighborhood Conservation District.
Ms. Bailey, speaking for concerned members of the Pine Knolls community, said that in light of the Greenwood neighborhood’s recent petition, they feel it is necessary to officially request that the Pine Knolls community be considered for a Neighborhood Conservation District designation. She said that the Pine Knolls community should be placed at the top of the list because their neighborhood is most similar to the Northside neighborhood in age, community make-up and potential threat from investors/developers. Ms. Bailey said they believe Pine Knolls is in the most immediate danger compared to other neighborhoods who have submitted this same request.
Ms. Bailey noted that student population was increasing, the existing population was aging, non-resident ownership was increasing, and property values are less here than in other areas at a time which makes available property attractive for purchase by investors. She said that as they are trying to hold on to their community and its values, they are looking into the restoration and expansion of a park near the Pine Knolls Community Center.
Ms. Bailey asked for the Town’s assistance in preserving the neighborhood by considering it for the next community designated as a Conservation District.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda.
Mayor Foy invited citizens to speak now on Item #11, Potential Legislative Initiatives for the 2005 Session of the General Assembly, rather than speaking later in the evening. He noted that comments made at this time would be considered when Item #11 was discussed by the Council.
3b(1). Ardis Watkins on behalf of Heather Watkins regarding Repeal of Collective Bargaining Act.
Ms. Watkins, speaking for Heather Watkins with the Service Employees International Union, said that the State statute banning collective bargaining by public employees had been on the books for some time, and it “was high time” it was repealed. She said that public employees should not be precluded from the right that is afforded to every other employee of this State, that being the right to engage in collective bargaining if they so choose. Ms. Watkins said that Chapel Hill had always been a leader in progressive thought and progressive action, and asked the Council to include this issue on its legislative agenda and urge our legislators to seriously consider repealing this statute.
3b(2). Dr. Hazen Ham regarding Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Dr. Ham, representing Call to Action for Orange and Durham Counties, said they wanted to request that the Council reconsider two issues proposed for the legislative agenda: the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposition to a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Dr. Ham said they are representative of the community, that they live, work and worship here. He said they do not feel that these two items represent this community. Dr. Ham “strongly urged” the Council to remove these two items from the Council’s legislative agenda.
3b(3). Dale Pratt-Wilson regarding Support of Keg Registration.
Ms. Pratt-Wilson, representing the Committee for Alcohol and Drug Free Teenagers in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, called the Council’s attention to the materials she had provided in the packet regarding keg registration. She asked for the Council’s support by including this issue on the Council’s legislative agenda. Ms. Pratt-Wilson provided statistics on the ills of alcohol and drug abuse among young people, including health and safety risks and other consequences.
3b(4). Ron Bogle regarding Support of Keg Registration.
Mr. Bogle, a retired superior court judge living in Chapel Hill, said in his 32 years of experience he had seen “profound societal changes” as a practicing attorney, federal prosecutor and as a judge. He said the most profound change was the consumption of alcohol by children. Mr. Bogle said the Council had heard the results of a recent survey that our children significantly exceeded the national averages in their consumption and abuse of drugs and alcohol.
Mr. Bogle urged the support of keg registration as a priority of the Council, noting that perhaps the most important aspect of that support would be the message it sends to the community that the Council joins with the American Medical Association, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, the National Academy of Science, law enforcement and agencies all across the nation that we support keg registration. As well, he said, it states that we are united in our opposition to underage drinking and that we are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent another child in our community from being lost or compromised.
3b(5). Lorin Mueller regarding Repeal of Collective Bargaining Act.
Mr. Mueller, representing the NC Coalition of Police, urged the Council to support the repeal of the Collective Bargaining Act. He pointed out that of the three original pieces of that statute, one had already been declared unconstitutional. Mr. Mueller asked for the Council’s support in repealing the remainder of that statute to afford public employees the same rights and opportunities that exist for private sector employees.
3b(6). Jay Anhorn regarding Support of Keg Registration.
Mr. Anhorn, an Assistant Dean of Students at UNC, spoke in favor a keg registration. He said he had just returned from a meeting of all 50 fraternities and sororities on campus and they were “somewhat shocked” when he informed them he was planning on attending tonight’s meeting. Mr. Anhorn said among the comments made were “that would hold us more accountable” and might deter them from purchasing kegs. He said those statements proved his point.
Mr. Anhorn said that the registration of vehicles was required for our protection and identification, not to be invasive of our privacy. He said the registration of kegs would afford the same benefit.
Mr. Anhorn said that kegs are referred to in the higher education community as “common source” containers. He said you cannot control who is using it, nor can you control how much someone is drinking from it. Mr. Anhorn said purchasing a keg was very different from buying a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine, and requiring registration of kegs would make the persons buying a keg more responsible and accountable for their actions. He said it would make them more conscious of who they were serving that alcohol to.
3c. Announcements by Council Members.
Council Member Kleinschmidt announced that a Speak Out would be held on Tuesday, March 2, at 6 p.m. at the Pit on the UNC campus in response to an incident on Franklin Street early on Friday morning, February 25. He said the Speak Out was to demonstrate opposition to hate crimes and anti-gay sentiments. Council Member Kleinschmidt urged attendees to wear white t-shirts as a show of solidarity.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said as an aside, when the Council discussed the legislative agenda later in the meeting, he encouraged the Council to support extension of the State’s hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation.
Council Member Greene announced that Durham and Orange Counties had kicked off their 10-year initiative on homelessness. She extended her thanks to Mayor Foy for the eloquent remarks he had made at the kick-off function. Council Member Greene noted she would be attending a meeting of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen the next day to ask for their support for this initiative.
Council Member Ward announced a free lecture/slide show sponsored by the UNC Sustainability Coalition on managing transportation issues in campus communities. He said the lecture features Spencer Havlick, a retired professor from the Environmental Design School of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who would speak on the comprehensive examination of techniques available to manage transport in campus communities, including alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. Council Member Ward said the date is Monday, March 7, from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Tate-Turner-Kuralt building on Pittsboro Street.
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
Mayor Foy stated that at the request of the Town Manager, he was asking the Council to remove item #4c, Stormwater Management Ordinance Revisions, and item #4i, Proposal to Adjust Leave Earning Rate for Town Department Heads, from the agenda for consideration at a later date. There was no objection from the Council.
Council Member Harrison pulled item #4b, Nominations to Various Advisory Boards and Commissions. He said that the number of applicants for the Rental Licensing Committee had caught his attention, and was “stunned” at the number of people in the apartment management industry who had applied, including an applicant identified as an entire apartment complex. Council Member Harrison said he would prefer to vote for “people.” He said there was apparently a recruiting effort among the apartment management industry in Raleigh, resulting in a number of applicants who were not residents of Chapel Hill.
Council Member Harrison said the Council had recently adopted a charge for this Committee which emphasized that it should represent a number of constituencies, not just ownership and management but also homeowners and renters. He said there are some landlords on the applicant list who are residents and who he believes understand our community. Council Member Harrison requested that nominations to the Rental Licensing Committee be held open and referred to the conveners of the Committee to redesign the charge so that some cap can be placed on non-residents as well as some criteria to make it more likely that homeowners and renters would be part of the Committee. He noted that right now it looks like a committee whose goal would be to eliminate the rental licensing ordinance, and he did not believe that was what the Council wanted to do.
Mayor Foy suggested that Resolution R-2 remain on the Consent Agenda, but amended to remove the Rental Licensing Committee.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she supported that, adding that she would like to ask Delores Bailey, a Northside neighborhood advocate, to help the Council stimulate interest among residents to serve on this Committee. She stated that one of the reasons the Rental Licensing ordinance had been enacted was to assist in the protection of neighborhoods such as Northside.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1 AS AMENDED, WITH 4c AND 4i REMOVED AND THE RENTAL LICENSING COMMITTEE REMOVED FROM R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-02-28/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Minutes of December 6, 2004, and January 10, 13, 24, and 26, 2005. |
|
|
b. |
Nominations to various advisory boards and commissions (R-2). |
|
|
c. |
Removed. |
|
|
d. |
Request from EmPOWERMENT to Amend Performance Agreement Regarding Operation of Midway Business Center (R-3). |
|
|
e. |
Proposed Improvements to Gimghoul/Country Club Intersection (R-4). |
|
|
f. |
Resolution Authorizing the Disposition of Surplus Personal or Real Property Through Electronic Auction (R-5). |
|
|
g. |
Response to Request from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust for Modification of Performance Agreement Regarding Vineyard Square (R-6). |
|
|
h. |
Franchise for TelCove Operations, Inc. (O-2). |
|
|
i. |
Removed. |
|
|
j. |
Assessing Barriers to Mobility in Northside Neighborshood. |
|
|
|
1. |
Referral of Report on Assessing Barriers to Mobility in Northside. |
|
|
2. |
Process to Review Assessing Barriers to Mobility in Northside Neighborhood Report (R-7). |
|
|
|
|
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2005-02-28/R-2)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
Library Board of Trustees
Floyd A. Fried
Barbara B. Moran
Parks and Recreation Commission
Neal Bench
Eugene Farrar
Stuart Solomon
Technology Committee
Allan Polak
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A MODIFICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE TOWN’S PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH EMPOWERMENT, INC. FOR THE MIDWAY BUSINESS CENTER (2005-02-28/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Town executed a Performance Agreement with EmPOWERment for use of Community Development funds to develop the midway business Center on North Graham Street for a small business incubator; and
WHEREAS, in letters dated January 28, 2005, and February 15, 2005, EmPOWERment requested that the Town modify its Performance Agreement with EmPOWERment to allow up to 25% of the space in the Midway Business Center to be rented to non-incubator tenants, and to release incubator tenants from the income restrictions for the Midway Business Center tenants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves an amendment to Section 3. Terms of the Performance Agreement to add:
“EmPOWERment may rent up to 925 square feet of the office space in the Midway Business Center to non-incubator tenants that currently live or work in Orange County. Non-incubator tenants shall not be subject to the household income requirement or the three-year maximum tenancy requirement”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EmPOWERment Inc. will continue to annually certify that 51% of the jobs created by the businesses located in the Midway business Center must benefit lower and moderate-income individuals (individuals earning less than 80% of the area median income by household size).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute an amendment to the Town’s Performance Agreement with EmPOWERment to reflect this change.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTER-SECTION OF GIMGHOUL ROAD/COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (2005-02-28/R-4)
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2003, the Town Council approved a Development Plan Modification for the University’s Main Campus, which included plans for a new chiller plant and parking deck near the Paul Greene Theater facility on Country Club Road; and
WHEREAS, a condition of approval of that Development Plan Modification reads as follows: “Subject to the determination of the Town Council, the University shall design and install a fully actuated traffic signal with pedestrian countdown heads at the intersection of Country Club Road and Gimghoul Road/Paul Green Theater Drive.”; and
WHEREAS, the University has prepared a proposal for improvements to this intersection that have been reviewed by residential neighbors and recommended by the Town Manager;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the proposal for improvements to the Gimghoul/Country Club intersection as described in the Town Manager’s memorandum of February 28, 2005.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF EXISTING PRIVATE OR PUBLIC ELECTRONIC AUCTION SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (160A-270) (2005-02-28/R-5)
WHEREAS, G.S. 160A-270 of N. C. General Statutes authorizes the Town to dispose of surplus personal or real property; and
WHEREAS, the Town desires to dispose of certain items of surplus personal or real property using electronic auction services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to use private or public electronic auction services to dispose of surplus personal or real property is hereby granted.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A MODIFICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE TOWN’S PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COMMUNITY HOUSING AND LAND TRUST FOR THE VINEYARD SQUARE DEVELOPMENT (2005-02-28/R-6)
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2004, the Town executed a Performance Agreement with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust for use of $100,000 of 2004-2005 Community Development funds to reduce the sales price of 10 three-bedroom townhome units from $115,000 to $105,000; and
WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 4, 2005, Orange Community Housing and Land Trust requested that the Town modify its Performance Agreement with the Land Trust to allow $20,000 of the Community Development funds be used to provide additional subsidy for three units in the Vineyard Square development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves a modification to the terms of the Town’s Performance Agreement with the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust for the Vineyard Square development to allow use $20,000 of the Land Trust’s 2004-2005 Community Development allocation to be distributed among the remaining unsold units for households earning less than 70% of the area median income. The Land Trust will determine the gap between the purchase price and what a family can afford using lender’s standard financial evaluation methodology, and provide a deferred second mortgage if needed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Community Development funds in excess of $10,000 will be provided to a Vineyard Square buyer earning less than 70% of the area median income in the form of a deferred second mortgage that will be due to Town if the property is resold to a household earning more than 70% of the median area income. Buyers are required to execute a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust to the Town for any additional subsidy in excess of $10,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute an amendment to the Town’s Performance Agreement with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust to reflect this change.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO TELCOVE OPERATIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE VOICE AND DATA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (2005-02-28/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby grants a franchise to TelCove Operations, Inc. to operate a telecommunications system in the Town subject to the following conditions:
Scope of Services
The company may provide the following services:
Telephone and Data Communications Services, pursuant to authority granted by the Federal Communications Commission.
This franchise does not authorize the company to provide cable television or video services, for which a separate franchise could be requested. This franchise does not authorize placement of public use telephones on Town property or public rights-of-way.
Relocation of Equipment
Any of the company's equipment which may be located in public rights-of-way or other Town property shall be subject upon 180 days' written notice by the Town to removal or relocation at the company's sole expense to other place(s) satisfactory to the Town Manager; provided that places satisfactory to the Town Manager are available within such period and will not result in a material adverse affect on the quality of the company's telephone and data communications service provided to the Town; otherwise, such time period shall be extended as reasonably necessary for the company to find an adequate relocation site, provided, however, that the Town Council approves a separate lease agreement.
Subject to the time frames referenced in the preceding paragraph, removal or relocation may also be required by the Town due to street or utility improvements in general, due to public health and safety problems upon a determination by the Town or for other just and reasonable cause as may be determined by the Town.
Upon the Town's determination of an emergency need to remove equipment, such removal shall occur within the time period determined reasonably necessary by the Town after consultation with the company. Emergency needs are not subject to the time limits stated above.
Disturbance of Property within a Right-of-Way; Inspections
Any disturbance of property within or affecting a public right-of-way, as may be necessary for the installation and/or connection of services by the franchisee, must receive prior approval of the Town Manager or Manager's designee and shall be subject to Chapter 17, Article IV of the Town Code of Ordinances. The franchisee shall notify the Town Manager’s office 24 hours in advance of the start of any construction that will damage any existing public street or significantly obstruct the flow of traffic.
Term of Franchise
The term of the franchise shall be 20 years from acceptance by the franchisee, with the possibility of renewal subject to filing of a renewal application at least one year before the franchise expiration.
If at any time during the initial term of this franchise, or any renewal period, the franchisee sells its assets, or otherwise ceases the provision of telecommunications/data service in the area of the Town of Chapel Hill, franchisee may terminate this franchise upon sixty (60) days prior written notice.
Letter of Credit, Fees and Taxes
The company shall maintain a letter of credit or performance bond in the amount of $50,000, or a guarantee of the company's general partner, acceptable to the Town Manager, with the required amount to be replenished as necessary to maintain the required balance at all times to ensure compliance with all applicable State or local laws, ordinances and regulations and directives of the Town, with terms of the franchise and to ensure payment of any applicable fees and taxes due to the Town. So long as the company is subject to and does pay the State franchise tax imposed pursuant to N.C.G.S. §105-120, the Town shall not, and does not currently, charge a license, privilege or franchise tax on the company, which is not authorized by law and applicable to other similar businesses. Should the Town seek to impose a fee or tax on the company in the future, the company shall have not less than 120 days’ notice prior to the effective date of such fee or tax, and shall have the right to terminate the franchise provided that it shall remove its equipment from the Town property or public right-of-way within 60 days of termination.
Insurance and Indemnification of the Town
The company shall maintain general liability insurance naming the Town as an additional insured party and in a form satisfactory to the Manager. General liability coverage shall be in the amount of at least $1,000,000.
The company shall be required, by acceptance of the terms and conditions of this franchise, to indemnify the Town from all damages that may arise in connection with the company's actions and omissions and to defend the Town at the company's sole expense against any claims in connection with the company's actions and omissions.
Compliance with All Applicable Laws, Ordinances and Regulations
The company shall comply with Town ordinances, construction codes, other policies adopted by the Council, administrative regulations issued pursuant to Council action or policy, with directives of the Town that may be issued under the franchise ordinance terms or general law, provided that such policies, directives, codes, and regulations are consistent with State and federal laws and regulations, and with all applicable State and federal laws and regulations, including any requirement for State right-of-way encroachment agreements, etc. Failure to comply shall be grounds for revoking the franchise.
Acceptance of Franchise Terms
The company shall, within 60 days of adoption of this franchise ordinance on second reading, accept all terms and conditions of the franchise ordinance.
Revocation Procedure
If the franchise is revoked by the Council for failure to comply with any term or condition of this franchise after any cure period, the company shall cease utilizing its facilities located on Town property or public rights-of-way within 120 days of receiving notice of revocation and remove its equipment from public rights-of-way within 180 days. Upon the company's failure to do so, the Town shall have the right to remove the equipment and to draw funds from the letter of credit or to call upon the guarantee to cover such costs.
Before a decision to revoke the franchise, the Council shall adopt a resolution of intent to revoke the franchise with a statement of the reasons for revocation and shall cause a copy of the resolution to be delivered or mailed by first class mail to the company. Company shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the intent to revoke to cure any breach listed in the intent to revoke, or if the cure cannot be reasonably effected within thirty (30) days such time as may be reasonably necessary to effect cure
Transfer Of Ownership
A change or changes in ownership of the franchisee cumulatively totaling a 25% or greater interest in the company shall be subject to review and reasonable approval by the Town Council within 120 days of receipt by the Town Manager of a request from the company for review of such a change(s) in ownership. In the event the Town Council reviews and, for good cause duly substantiated, objects to the change in ownership, it shall have the authority to revoke the franchise in accordance with the procedure set forth in the preceding paragraph.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
(First reading)
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TOWN ADVISORY BOARDS ON THE ASSESSING BARRIERS TO MOBIILITY IN THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT (2005-02-28/R-7)
WHEREAS, the objective of the Chapel Hill Active Living By Design program is to identify barriers to mobility and active living within the Chapel Hill community; and
WHEREAS, the Active Living By Design program has completed the Assessing Barriers to Mobility in the Northside Neighborhood Study; and
WHEREAS, the Active Living By Design Advisory Committee has submitted the Report to the Council and requested that Town Advisory Board be asked to review and comment on the Reports findings and recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council receives the Assessing Barriers to Mobility in the Northside Neighborhood Study and refers the Report to the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Housing and Community Development Advisory Board, Active Living By Design Advisory Board and Greenways Commission for review and comment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council sets a public forum on the Chapel Hill Priority List for June 20, 2005, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 306 N. Columbia Street.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER NOMINATIONS TO THE RENTAL LICENSING COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL LIAISONS STROM AND KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ALLOW THEM TO REDESIGN THE CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE A CAP ON NON-RESIDENTS AND CRITERIA TO MAKE IT MORE LIKELY THAT HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS WOULD BE A PART OF THE COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 5 – Information Reports: None.
Item 6 – Wilson Assemblage: Application for a Special Use Permit
Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that the Council had last considered this issue during a public hearing on February 14. He reported that the request was for a Special Use Permit for a mixed-use development on a 20-acre tract of land located generally northeast of the intersection of US 15-501 and Erwin Road. Mr. Waldon said he would focus on the four issues discussed on February 14 which the Council requested that the staff consider anew and report back with some options.
Mr. Waldon noted that the first issue was the completion of the superstreet and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. He reminded the Council that the recommendation was that no Certificates of Occupancy would be issued until the superstreet improvements at the intersection of US 15-501 and Europa Drive/Erwin Road were completed, or, until August 1, 2006, whichever is sooner. Mr. Waldon said there was some concern about delay in the superstreet construction, and in fact there had been a delay due to NDCOT rebidding of the project.
Mr. Waldon said in light of that information, and based on recent conversations with the applicant, the staff had brought forth three options for consideration, noting that the recommendation was for the second option:
Option 1: Modify the date from August 1, 2006 to October 21, 2006, to add additional months to allow for the NCDOT rebidding process.
Option 2: Modify Option 1 and permit Certificates of Occupancy for some residential units prior to October 31, 2006.
Mr. Waldon said that according to the applicant, in order to help the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency support the applicant’s proposal for 32 tax credit affordable units in Dobbins Hill, the applicant was requesting that the revised stipulation permit Certificates of Occupancy for some residential units in Dobbins Hill and Wilson Assemblage before October 31, 2006. Specifically, Mr. Waldon said, the applicant was asking that Certificates of Occupancy may be issued for all of the 32 affordable units in Dobbins Hill and 50 residential units in Wilson Assemblage prior to October 31, 2006.
Mr. Waldon noted that this option, Option #2, is the Manager’s recommendation.
Option 3: Withhold all Certificates of Occupancy until the superstreet is completed.
Mr. Waldon stated that the impact of this option would result in the delay and likely denial of the applicant’s Dobbins Hill tax credit proposal by the NC Housing Finance Agency.
Issue two, Mr. Waldon noted, was preservation of the 1930 farm house along Dobbins Drive. He said the Council had suggested three ways that might happen: incorporating the structure into the applicant’s proposed development plans; offering the structure to a preservation or housing organization; or, relocating the structure to the future Southern Community Park.
Mr. Waldon said the applicant had considered the first option and had chosen not to bring forth a proposal that would incorporate the farm house into the site plan. On the second option, to offer the structure to a preservation or housing organization, Mr. Waldon said they believed that was a good idea. He said they were recommending in the resolution of approval to include language that there had to be a 12-month waiting period from the time of approval to the time that the structure could be demolished to allow an organization or individual time to save the structure.
Mr. Waldon said they also understood from the applicant that the cost of demolishing and removing that structure would be about $8,000, and if they could be relieved of that cost by someone else coming in and taking it away, then the applicant would be willing to contribute $8,000 to the organization moving the structure. He said they had included language in the Manager’s recommended resolution to include both of these as conditions of approval.
Mr. Waldon said the third suggestion was relocation of the farm house to the Southern Community Park. He said that at this time they do not have sufficient information to make a recommendation on this. Mr. Waldon said they were suggesting that if there was a one-year waiting period and if the Council was interested in pursuing this option, then the Town could be one of the entities that might be looking at the house and examining its structural quality to determine if that was feasible.
Mr. Waldon reported that the third issue was a proposed two lane drive-through for the bank. He said they had looked again at the traffic impact analysis, and have revised their recommendation accordingly. Mr. Waldon said they now recommend that this could happen, in one of two ways:
Regarding the last issue, the McGregor Drive connection, Mr. Waldon said they had recommended on February 14 that there be full access between the proposed development and McGregor Drive. Based on comments by the Council and others, he said the revised recommendation was that the proposed resolution include a stipulation that limits the McGregor Drive connection to a 12-foot wide paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards including access for bicycle and pedestrians, and that the improved limited access be located within a dedicated 50-foot wide public right-of-way.
Council Member Strom said it was his understanding that the recommendation was to approve the Dobbins Hill affordable housing and the 50 residences in the Wilson Assemblage section, but there was no mention of any of the commercial square footage. Council Member Strom said he was assuming that the commercial square footage would have to wait until the superstreet was completed. Mr. Waldon responded he was correct in his understanding.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Waldon to explain to the public the different tools the Council had available to it in this situation where someone was coming in under the existing zoning and making a proposal versus a situation where someone was coming in and asking for a rezoning. He said he believed there was some frustration because the Council had not been able to alter what this proposal had turned out to be as much as some citizens had expected.
Mr. Waldon responded that one the differences was the affordable housing, and the other was the design. He said what was being proposed for the Wilson Assemblage does meet all of the quantitative dimensional kinds of standards required by the ordinance in terms of density or number of units, maximum floor area, parking and so on. Mr. Waldon said the Council has to make a finding in order to approve an SUP that the application meets all of the quantitative standards of the ordinance. He said that with the conditions of approval in addition to what is being proposed then the answer is yes, this application does meet those standards.
Mr. Waldon said then Council considerations turn to general health, public safety and welfare, and Comprehensive Plan issues. He said that was where there was a big difference with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, for instance the Comprehensive Plan calls for the provision of affordable housing as a component of each housing development proposal that comes forward. Mr. Waldon said that was a Comprehensive Plan finding, but it was not a regulation. So, he said, the Council had a clear expectation that affordable housing would be provided, but the link was not as strong with the Comprehensive Plan as it would be as ordinance language. Mr. Waldon stated that this applicant had chosen to try to address the Council’s concerns with the accompanying Dobbins Hill component.
Mayor Foy thanked Council Member Strom for requesting this explanation, noting it helped put into perspective the long history of this project, adding that it was sometimes confusing to the public as to what the Council can do. He said that the Council had worked long and hard with this applicant to get to this point, and he believed the concern was that it was “really not perfect,” but it was as close as we were likely to get.
David Ravine, representing Crosland, Inc., congratulated Mr. Waldon on his summary of the issues, and noted he would like to cover some additional details of the four issues Mr. Waldon had highlighted.
Beginning with the superstreet issue, Mr. Ravine said the reason they were asking that some of the buildings be moved forward from the November 2006 date noted by Mr. Waldon was due to the tax credits. He said they had submitted the application in January, a site score would come out in March, the tax credits would be awarded in August, and then the State expects you to begin the project immediately. Mr. Ravine said the State expected that we would spend at least 10% of the project budget on the tax credits by the end of 2005, and they wanted to be completed by the end of 2006.
Mr. Ravine said that NCDOT was rebidding the superstreet project and expected to award a contract in March or April, and may move the end date back to June or July of 2006. He said he believed the staff had added an additional cushion to that by moving the date to November of 2006, and they are comfortable with that. Mr. Ravine said the Council may not be aware that when the superstreet project begins, the contractor takes ownership of the right-of-way and will not allow them to work within that right-of-way until the superstreet is completed. So, he said, they have no ability to start the majority of their project until the superstreet is finished.
Mr. Ravine said they have requested the tax credit and would still hold to the “no sooner than August 2006” date as reported to the Council on February 14. The reason they are asking that some of the market rate buildings be done is twofold, he stated. First, Mr. Ravine said, a great deal of work must be done on the Wilson Assemblage site before they can start the Dobbins Hill project. He pointed out the area on the map. Specifically, Mr. Ravine said, they need to build a new stormwater detention facility on the Wilson tract and fill in the existing facility on the Dobbins tract before they can begin the first building. He said that in order to access that building they have to have the public street in place to access the parking lot and building.
Mr. Ravine said they want the market rate buildings to be there so they can complete that area as they are building the infrastructure, and they need some of the market rate buildings there to subsidize the infrastructure. He said their plan was to start the infrastructure on the Wilson Assemblage in the spring, jump over and complete Dobbins in late summer or early fall, then come back in late winter or early spring 2007 and complete the remainder of Wilson.
Mr. Ravine said the Council was most likely unaware that the cost of building the tax credit units was roughly $10,000 more than what they would be allocated from the State. He said the $300,000 plus subsidy from the market rate in addition to the infrastructure was substantial, so they were trying to offset some of that construction cost by having a fraction of the Wilson Assemblage move forward with the tax credit units. Mr. Ravine said the other issue they had brought forward on February 14 was that because this project had been delayed, they were requesting that the completion date be moved from 2008 to 2009.
Regarding the bank building, Mr. Ravine provided a brief history of discussions with neighbors and advisory boards regarding the original Concept Plan, noting concern regarding the entry just south of McGregor Drive. He said the Council and the Community Design Commission suggested that they go back and look at a possible extension of the right-of-way that was reserved during the building of Dobbins Hill I, and find a way out to Sage Drive. Mr. Ravine said they had discussed with the owners of the two-acre tract the possibility of extending the right-of-way through their property.
Mr. Ravine said that staff had recommended that a better connection would be to align with the Lowe’s driveway across the street and allow for a full movement signalized intersection. So, he said, they had gone back to the owners of the two-acre tract, who had asked why wasn’t the Lowe’s entrance aligned originally with the right-of-way, and why wasn’t the right-of-way on Dobbins aligned with McGregor. Mr. Ravine said the owners’ question was why it had to be corrected at this particular time on their property. But, he said, he believed the owners would be willing to work with them on a revised configuration of the right-of-way, although it would reduce somewhat their buildable land. Mr. Ravine said the owners acknowledged that having less land would be a negative, but an important positive was that they would be located on the corner of a major intersection. He said the owners did request that they be allowed to market to a bank with two drive-through windows. Mr. Ravine said that was where they had ended up on February 14.
Mr. Ravine said that the staff had found a “break even” point in traffic and said that if the bank were limited to 3,500 square feet and the specialty retail was reduced from 18,750 square feet to 10,000 square feet it would essentially be “a wash.” He said the landowner had agreed to that as of this week, adding that this was an attempt to make the landowners’ project more marketable in the future should a bank not be realistic. Mr. Ravine said they had hoped that the word “or” would be included in the stipulation so that the landowners would have options should a bank not come to fruition.
Mr. Ravine said that they had several recommendations on how to address the issue of the 1930 farm house located on the site:
Mr. Ravine said that they had already been approached by a private individual about moving the house to a site three quarters of a mile away, and gave a brief description of some of the problems associated with its relocation. He said there had been a suggestion that the farm house be used as a clubhouse, but noted that the building codes for that type of use are restrictive. Mr. Ravine said that a house of this age that was built to be a residence would be severely compromised if an attempt was made to alter its use to a clubhouse. He noted that it had been concluded it would not be appropriate to use it as a clubhouse.
Mr. Ravine said another suggestion was that the stone in the foundation of the farm house be used in the new clubhouse, which he said was a “terrific idea.” But, he said, many times when homes are moved the masonry was removed with it and reconstructed at the new site. Mr. Ravine commented that if possible, they would like to remove the stone from the house and reuse in, noting it would be a way to preserve the history of the house.
Mr. Ravine said that although attention was on this particular farm house, it was their goal to move all of the houses on the site. He said they had moved homes many times, some of which were in much worse condition, and had rarely found it necessary to demolish one. Mr. Ravine said it was their hope that this farm house as well as all the other homes would be moved to another location.
Regarding McGregor Drive, Mr. Ravine said they had decided not to make the connection previously proposed into the development. He then presented a brief summary of the project:
Mr. Ravine said their goals had been to go beyond what is acceptable and believed they had succeeded, noting they had addressed many of the concerns of the neighbors as well as the Council and staff.
Dr. Harvey Krasny stated that if approved, the density of this project would “hasten the demise” of the superstreet function and potentially force another one to be built at Sage Road. He said the Town would be “shooting itself in the foot” to place a complex such as this next to the worst intersection in Town, possibly in the State. Dr. Krasny displayed a slide provided by NCDOT that predicted the expected level of service after the superstreet was built, and said that the superstreet was only a “temporary fix.” He quoted a recent newspaper article that said that once the superstreet was built, air quality would suffer due to extended idle times in the intersection. Dr. Krasny said putting more traffic in this area would cause the superstreet to fail sooner rather than later.
Dr. Krasny displayed a slide that depicted what he termed as the promises of Crosland, Inc. to the neighbors of this development in March and November 2003. Now, he said, changes have been made that increase the number of residences, the office and retail square footage, the number of vehicles, and the number of rental units. And, Dr. Krasny said, Crosland now proposes a drive-through window for a bank and that no restrictive covenants be placed on the development. He said this was a safety and health issue for the residents, and implored the Council, “don’t do this to us.”
Beatrice Brown, a resident of Dobbins Hill apartments, said she opposed the project for several reasons. One, she said, was because of the impact on parking, noting that many times she must park several buildings away from her residence because of the overcrowded conditions. Ms. Brown said that constructing two more buildings with only 54 additional spaces would not help the overcrowding.
Ms. Brown noted that she would like to eventually own a home in Chapel Hill, but the developer had shifted some of the units that were marked for lower income families back to rental units. In addition, she noted that one of the buildings was scheduled to be built at the end of the cul-de-sac on the site of the existing playground, and asked where the children would play once it was built. Ms. Brown said this was a safety issue as well, since the cul-de-sac would be opened up and traffic would be allowed to flow through. She said that would increase the risk to children and other pedestrians on the site.
Council Member Verkerk said this was a unique proposal because we are discussing Wilson Assemblage, but we are not talking about Dobbins Hill because it was a separate issue although related. She said she shared Ms. Brown’s concern about opening up the cul-de-sac where children play, and this would become a through way.
Council Member Verkerk said when they talk about affordable housing they are sometimes talking about rental and sometimes homeownership. She said she was disappointed that the Council was promised inclusionary housing and now it was being sifted to rental housing.
Council Member Verkerk said another issue she was concerned about was the traffic impact on this intersection. She noted she had stated before that they get “nickled and dimed” when small development proposals are made that have “no traffic impact,” then another and another. Council Member Verkerk said the Council needed to find a way to look at the total amount of development being done so that true traffic impacts could be analyzed. She said it was the Council’s responsibility to not look at these as separate items, but as a whole. Council Member Verkerk said when you add the Marriott Hotel and the Wilson Assemblage, as well as the addition to Dobbins Hill, then we need to stop and look at the whole picture before going forward. She said it would be very difficult to imagine that these would not impact traffic.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said you don’t have to look at the whole picture, since this one development causes an impact by itself. He said the Council needs to think about the impact of this project on the community and focus on that. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he found the differences in the 2003 proposal and the current proposal “bothersome,” and suggested that a stipulation be included that would remove the drive-through for the bank.
Regarding the bank, Mayor Foy asked Mr. Waldon if there was an actual stipulation in the proposed resolution that confines it to a bank. Mr. Waldon responded that stipulation #2 on page eight spells out the maximum floor area for residential uses, for office-type uses, general business uses, and for a bank. So, he said, what they have included in the resolution was accommodating the drive-through window and reallocating the floor area such that the traffic impacts of this development with the drive-through window would be the same as what was proposed without the drive-through window. Mr. Waldon said if the Council decided to remove the drive-through window it was the Manager’s recommendation that the floor area allocation be revised to what was proposed in the February 14 draft resolution.
Mayor Foy said his specific question was did the language limit the use to a bank with a drive-through, and the developer could not, for instance, put in a fast food restaurant. Mr. Waldon said the drive-through was for use by a bank only, not for a fast food restaurant.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when you compare the traffic impact to the floor area ratio, it seemed to be different from the type of traffic that a drive-through window brings. Mr. Waldon said that a drive-through window would generate more trips than the same amount of square footage that was devoted to some other type of use. He said that in order to keep the shift generation even from the first scenario to the second was that the second scenario showed the drive-through window present but the amount of commercial retail area was reduced and shifted to office area, so the trips generated was the same as the first scenario.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when he said they are “different in kind,” he thinks about the issue with Caribou Coffee Shop and the issue with allowing the drive-through to remain. He said we were able to include a stipulation in that Special Use Permit to forbid a drive-through, in part because the Council recognized that drive-through traffic was different in that it produces more trip generation and traffic back-ups. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if that kind of thing was factored into the impact. Mr. Horton said he believed it would be appropriate for the Town’s Traffic Engineer, Kumar Neppalli, to respond to that question.
Mr. Neppalli said the original proposal the Council had reviewed last year showed a trip generation of 2,700, not including drive-through windows. When we received the current proposal that included two drive-through lanes for a bank, he said, we concluded that the number of trips was estimated to increase by 700, increasing the number of daily trips to 3,400. Mr. Neppalli said they immediately concluded that they could not make a determination that an increase of 700 trips would make an impact on the surrounding area. So, he continued, the developer suggested that the floor area proposed be modified so that the number of trips remained at 2,700. Mr. Neppalli said as a result, staff developed the floor area figures that are shown in the proposed resolution to keep the trip generation to 2,700.
Mr. Neppalli reminded the Council that this does not include the impact of the Dobbins Hill development, which is expected to generate around 200 daily trips. He added that each drive through-window of a bank generates on average 450 trips per day, so two drive-through windows of a bank generate approximately 900 trips daily. Mr. Neppalli said by revising the floor area allowances, the estimated trips were brought back to 2,700, and that is the current recommendation as reflected in the proposed resolution.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said, then, that the effects of a drive-through have been factored into the proposal. Mr. Neppalli said only if it was a bank
Council Member Strom said when NCDOT made a presentation to the Council regarding the superstreet, he had asked them whether they were considering land uses through the corridor that were not built out yet but could be built out, and he recalled they had responded that they had accounted for future office construction and had looked at the zoning as well as other things. He said NCDOT had indicated at that time that their trip generation figures took into account this implied future growth. He asked Mr. Neppalli if his memory was correct, or were these trips we are considering adding above and beyond that implied growth in the superstreet plans. Mr. Neppalli responded that the superstreet project did take into consideration a growth factor of 5 percent to 7 percent per year associated with developable land in the area, using the existing zoning.
Council Member Strom said, then, that the figures were based on the existing zoning with a growth factor of 5 percent to 7 percent per year. Mr. Neppalli responded that was correct. Council Member Strom said that would mean that these numbers were factored in with the superstreet analysis. Mr. Neppalli responded that was his understanding.
Council Member Harrison said his understanding from Mr. Jim Dunlop at NCDOT was that this was called a superstreet because it was just the first part, since we do expect that there may be another section built from Sage Road to I-40. He said where there are superstreets elsewhere in the United States, the best known one being west of Detroit and that a series of these intersection reconstructions were probably needed here as well. He said that the growth numbers associated with US 15-501 would justify having another section of superstreet built later. Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Neppalli if that was his understanding as well, that even though it was not proposed that it was assumed it was a possibility. Mr. Neppalli responded that was his understanding.
Council Member Harrison asked at what point around the project, for instance the new entrance from Dobbins Drive and the new entrance from Sage Road, did Mr. Neppalli believe the biggest growth in traffic would be experienced on the roadway itself. Mr. Neppalli said it was his understanding that the new entrance off of Sage Road would generate the most impact. Council Member Harrison asked if that was because that was where the office/retail space was located. Mr. Neppalli said that was correct, but the superstreet would also be a contributor because it would not allow a left turn from Erwin Road to US 15-501 but would require a U-turn, putting more pressure on the Sage Road entrance.
Council Member Verkerk said regarding the Dobbins Hill project, are additional parking spaces proposed for the two new units. Mr. Waldon responded that was correct. Council Member Verkerk asked how many spaces were proposed. Mr. Waldon responded he did not have that in front of him, but he believed it was around 54 additional spaces. Mr. Ravine said 54 additional spaces was the correct number for the 32 proposed units. He noted that they would have a “cross easement agreement” utilizing the parking associated with the commercial space that is not generally used at night, making it available for use by residents during the evening hours.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said her questions concern the relationship of the Dobbins Hill affordable housing component to the Wilson Assemblage project. She said if we act on the Special Use Permit tonight and run into difficulties in April with the hearings for the Dobbins Hill project, deciding there are some major issues that cannot be resolved to the Council’s satisfaction and have questions about proceeding, we would have already approved the Wilson Assemblage. Mr. Horton said that would be correct, noting the Council would have already established conditions on the Wilson Assemblage, including conditions that establish a relationship with Dobbins Hill.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked the Manager to explain exactly what the relationship was between the Wilson Assemblage and the Dobbins Hill projects. She specifically asked what conditions are established that would not allow Wilson Assemblage to proceed if the Council had substantial problems with Dobbins Hill that would cause it not to be approved. Mr. Horton responded that specifically, the conditions say that “a Zoning Compliance Permit for Wilson Assemblage shall not be issued until such time that a Zoning Compliance Permit for Dobbins Hill has been issued.” He said if the Council decided not to issue the Dobbins Hill permit, it would be impossible for the Wilson Assemblage to receive a Zoning Compliance Permit, making it impossible for them to meet that condition. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that means the Council does not have to act on the two projects at the same time. Mr. Horton said that was correct.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Ravine to display the site plan that included the bank area and the Sage Road intersection that included Dobbins Hill. He said on February 14 it was his understanding that there was a pedestrian connectivity that would go from the intersection and move directly west. Council Member Ward said he did not see that connectivity on the plans presented tonight. Mr. Ravine responded that the connectivity was still there, and apologized for not highlighting it earlier. Council Member Ward said he thought it would be helpful if as you traveled north from the clubhouse and crossed the parking area that there be a raised table or something that would make it pedestrian friendly, in a similar fashion as he saw illustrated in the plan where people would cross the parking area farther north. He said on an earlier illustration there appeared to be a highlighted pedestrian sensitivity to that connectivity across the parking area. Mr. Ravine responded that sensitivity was present in every area where there was a sidewalk that crossed a road. He said a raised table would be present to slow traffic and designate a pedestrian crossing.
Council Member Ward asked if there was expandability of the parking that was in the power easement for Dobbins Hill that might respond to the concern of parking adequacy. He asked if it was possible to mark the parking spaces, so that if you lived in unit 21 there would be a corresponding parking space marked 21. Mr. Ravine said they had not considered assigned spaces because particular people have different parking needs. For instance, he said, a two-person household with two cars may move out and a person with one car may move in, so the parking is constantly reshuffling. Mr. Ravine said they could increase parking, but did not want to assign spaces. He added that the tot lot referred to earlier by a speaker was being relocated. Mr. Ravine said it was possible that they would not use the cul-de-sac connection, and the area may be used for mass transit.
Council Member Ward asked the applicant to consider assigning one parking space per unit so there was at least a guarantee of one nearby space available. Mr. Ravine said if you assigned one per unit, with the rest designated as “floating” spaces, he believed that would work. Council Member Ward said he would move that such a stipulation be included in the Dobbins Hill discussion.
Council Member Greene said she shared many of the concerns voiced tonight, particularly the drive-through traffic for a bank. She said one thing not discussed was the Planned Development Mixed Unit requirements for the Special Use Permit. Council Member Greene said she was having trouble seeing this as a mixed use development, noting that the previous response from the staff was that although one of the requirements was energy conservation, there was no evidence presented of how the applicant would conserve energy. She asked someone to speak to that, and also to address how this was a mixed use development rather than a development where people would live and get in their cars to go someplace else to work.
Mr. Ravine said with respect to energy conservation, that was something they hope to address with the Zoning Compliance Permit. He said that all of their building construction techniques are done in such a way as to maximize energy conservation. Mr. Ravine said along with energy conservation, they wanted to investigate a way to utilize rain barrels as a way to deal with landscaping and irrigation criteria. So, he said, the way these types of things are constructed would be shown during the Zoning Compliance Permit period, to show typical construction types that conserve energy. Mr. Ravine said that was a Town goal, but was also a good marketing tool for these units.
With respect to the mixed use question, Mr. Ravine said they had located the office/retail portion of the project overlooking the future location of the superstreet. He said they had not internalized it because they had made a commitment to the Erwin Village neighborhood to keep the nearby area residential. Mr. Ravine added that when you look at the zoning that has traditionally been applied to this area, the commercial zoning has been regulated to the major thoroughfares. He said they hoped that some of the people who chose to live there would work there as well, but realistically people would be commuting into the office area. Mr. Ravine said he believed that if they had proposed internalizing the office/retail area, they would have met with resistance from the neighbors. Council Member Greene said she believed at a later time the Council might want to think about whether this zoning was giving them what they want and if it was working in the right way.
Council Member Greene thanked the applicant for contacting Preservation North Carolina about preserving the farm house. She said in stipulation #3 in the proposed resolution, it says that the applicant would commit to working with Preservation North Carolina or another organization or individual to relocate the house, and asked does that really need to read “and/or.” Council Member Greene said that Preservation North Carolina would advertise the house through their on-line network and in their publications, but would the applicant be simultaneously looking for other buyers. Mr. Horton said the way the language was written, the applicant could do those simultaneously. Mr. Ravine responded that their goal would be to work with all interested entities and to be in communication with the Town Manager in terms of viable options. He said he could not guarantee but would hope that this house would be moved, adding that once Preservation North Carolina had seen the house their interest had peaked.
Mayor Foy said he believed two major themes have emerged from the Council’s discussion. First, he said, was the interplay between Wilson Assemblage and Dobbins Hill and the affordable housing aspect of that. Mayor Foy said he believed the concern was that there was not housing for sale, but only for rental. Mr. Ravine said he was confused about where that initiative had come from, reminding the Council that in his presentation he said it was the applicant’s intention to make the units for sale. He said that Dobbins Hill was tied to this project, adding they would not move forward with Wilson Assemblage without the tax credits being awarded for Dobbins Hill.
Mr. Ravine said in order to meet the guidelines to get Dobbins Hill built, they have to build a portion of the Wilson Assemblage, and what they had talked about was potentially renting that portion of Wilson Assemblage in the interim to help offset some of the infrastructure costs that must be in place before they begin construction of Dobbins Hill. He said he believed that was where the confusion had come in, that they had said if they build these units prior to a pre-sale campaign, then they may rent them. Mr. Ravine said this project was most definitely set up to be for sale. Mayor Foy said he understood there were 32 units for Dobbins Hill available to people earning 50 percent of the median income. Mr. Ravine said that was correct, and those units were rental units. Mayor Foy asked how may rental units and how many for sale units would there be at Dobbins Hill. Mr. Ravine responded that the 32 units at Dobbins Hill would be adding on to the existing 50 units, all of which was targeted to those earning 50 percent of the median income. He said that was the tax credit program. Mayor Foy asked what Mr. Ravine was referring to that would be for sale. Mr. Ravine responded the Wilson Assemblage. Mayor Foy said that none of that would be affordable housing. Mr. Ravine replied they believe that the units being offered in the $100,000 range are affordable, adding that it was possible that people living in Dobbins Hill might eventually move over into Wilson Assemblage.
Mr. Ravine said that at a prior Council meeting, a Council member had stated that even though the units may start out to be affordable, housing appreciates and very soon the units could become unaffordable. He said they could not control that market aspect of it, but that was why they had projected that the Dobbins Hill units would be State regulated, meaning they would always stay at the 50 percent of median income level.
Mayor Foy asked if they would be willing to take some of the Wilson Assemblage units, for instance 10 units, make them affordable at some price point, and put them in the Land Trust to control future affordability. Mr. Ravine said he was not prepared to address that now. He said the difficulty they were experiencing was the subsidy they have to provide to get Dobbins Hill built, and the infrastructure was putting a tight grip on their finances. He said he could not immediately commit to limiting a certain amount of units, and they had already applied for tax credits on 32 units. Mr. Ravine said it was conceivable that they may have been able to say they would do less in Dobbins Hill in order to provide units in Wilson Assemblage. He said that unfortunately the real cost of building the Dobbins Hill units was requiring that the Wilson Assemblage subsidize it by over $300,000.
Mayor Foy said that Mr. Ravine had said that some of the units would be at price points that were likely to be affordable, and if we assume that is correct then it was not beyond the realm of possibility that they would be affordable when they were built. He said if we were looking to preserve their long term affordability, he would like to find a way to work them into the Land Trust so that we do preserve their affordability. Mr. Ravine pointed out that they could have offered some affordable units at Wilson Assemblage, but they had felt the better way to go would be to offer the units at Dobbins Hill, noting it was a well-used project with a traditionally long wait list. Mr. Ravine said they had believed that a way to further the Town’s goal of affordable housing was to add this as part of the Wilson Assemblage. He said the fact they have a wait list at Dobbins Hill speaks to a specific need for more units.
Regarding the drive-through, Mayor Foy asked if the applicant would accept configuration A without the drive-through. He said the applicant had indicated that if the drive-through was not permitted, then they would like to go back to the higher square footage proposed earlier. Mayor Foy asked if the applicant would accept as a condition that no drive-through would be permitted in exchange for the higher square footage. He added that he did not necessarily advocate that, but was only offering it as an option to be considered. Mr. Ravine said unfortunately the way they were able to obtain the easement to build the street configuration out to the traffic light was that the landowner wanted the ability to potentially “go after” a bank. He said if the Council decided not to allow a drive-through, then unfortunately the landowner would not accommodate the connection in front of Lowe’s. Mr. Ravine said the landowner did accommodate the connection that continued the right-of-way directly over to Sage Road and did not ask for the drive-through. He said the landowner did not have a bank “lined up” but wanted to give themselves that option and to protect future marketability of the site. Mr. Ravine said with the “straight across” configuration the idea of a bank evaporated.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Mr. Ravine had said that the units would sell for $100,000 to $250,000. He said for someone in the 50 percent median income bracket, $120,000 is too expensive, so the idea that someone living in Dobbins Hill could “pop over” and live in Wilson Assemblage does not seem possible. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked exactly what did Mr. Ravine mean when he said “units in the $100,000 range.” Mr. Ravine responded that they had different configurations, noting they had one bedroom, two bedroom, and two bedroom-den units that would vary in price according to size. He said he thought that if you looked throughout Chapel Hill, you would find there was a disconnect between what people can afford to rent and what was available for sale. Mr. Ravine said the reality was that to develop in Chapel Hill, to pay OWASA fees and get through the process, inevitably that increased the cost of what they can deliver.
In answer to Council Member Kleinschmidt’s specific question, Mr. Ravine said that one-bedroom units would sell in the low $100,000 range, and as you get up to the two bedroom-den units you were looking at the upper $100,000 range. Council Member Kleinschmidt said his point was it was “ridiculous” to think that someone could move from the 50 percent income bracket to the 130 percent bracket in one move.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the applicant understood that if the right-of-way was continued straight across, that it would create traffic problems on Sage Road. He said that was why they had wanted the road to come down and connect at Lowe’s. Council Member Kleinschmidt said what the applicant was proposing with the drive-through would cause another whole set of traffic problems, substituting one kind for the other, but still having a negative impact on Sage Road. Mr. Ravine asked if he was referring to the fact that they were bringing the connection over to Sage Road. Council Member Kleinschmidt responded that by coming straight across it would create a perceived traffic problem at Sage Road, but by bringing the connection down that problem would be alleviated because then a traffic light would be added. He said that with the addition of drive through-lanes, a whole new problem was created.
Mr. Ravine stated that if they did do the connection coming straight across, it would be limited to a right in, right out. Mr. Horton said he wanted to make sure the applicant understood that they would not recommend the connection going straight across. Mr. Ravine responded yes, adding added it was their hope that by reducing other aspects of the project, that it would compensate for the presence of a drive-through at that site. Mr. Ravine said it was impossible to predict what might eventually be built on that site.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she had not yet formed an opinion, but the questions and concerns expressed tonight have not helped her to get closer to an opinion about the project. She said she usually had a level of comfort at this point in a project, but she had not heard enough from the applicant tonight to make her feel certain about her position. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she had a lot of “discomfort” about this project, and she is waiting for the applicant to offer something that can help. Mr. Ravine responded he was not sure what he could say at this point to alleviate the concerns. He said that it was a complicated corner located on a complicated lot, and it faced a lot of site restrictions. Mr. Ravine said they were attempting to pull together a workable development, and believed pushing back its construction until after the superstreet was completed would certainly help. He said that the sidewalks, public street, and affordable housing are a big plus, and had worked hard to satisfy the Erwin Village neighbors and the Town staff.
Mr. Ravine said if the Council believed that developing this land in another manner or developing it piecemeal would be a better way to go, it was certainly their right. He added that he understood why the questions were being raised, and noted that it had been over three years since they had first started on the project and had come forward with plan after plan to address one concern after another. Mr. Ravine said the task had been “daunting,” but they had come a very long way and made tremendous progress.
Council Member Greene said it appeared that one major issue the applicant had was that the lot located on Erwin Road was not under their control. She said that because of the problems highlighted, that the road should stay on the south side to align with Sage Road, and that the connection proposed straight across on the north side should be discarded.
Council Member Greene said regarding the sale of the homes, if you sell homes for $120,000 and get whatever you get out of it, what detriment was it to the applicant if it was sold through the auspices of the Land Trust so that it remained affordable. She asked how that impacted the applicant. Mr. Ravine said he did not believe it would, but it would affect the marketability of the site by adding complexity to it. He said one of the complexities would be dealing with the Orange County housing and how the perpetuity was included which would add complications to the financing of the project. Mr. Ravine said the idea was not a bad one, but they had already begun to move in another direction, that being tax credits on the Dobbins Hill units. He said this was an attached community that was subsidizing an opportunity to add another phase to Dobbins Hill. Mr. Ravine said that project was serving a great need and unfortunately was the only tax credit project in Chapel Hill, which he hoped would allow them to score well with the State. He added they would not be able to add those units without the Wilson property.
Council Member Ward said there was concern about the proximity of one of the stormwater ponds close to the school bus site, and asked about the security issues related to that. Mr. Ravine said they would certainly buffer that area, with a real goal of providing a bus stop perhaps in Dobbins Hill so that people would not have to walk out to Dobbins Drive to catch a bus. He said they believe it to be a much better solution to have a pedestrian connection internal to the site.
Council Member Ward asked what kind of discussion had the applicant had with Town staff regarding a potential bus route, adding that having a bus come through Dobbins Hill did not sound appropriate to him. Mr. Ravine said it makes sense to have a bus stop built on the public street and provide sidewalks to connect to it. He said it would allow a bus to enter the public street and come back out at a lighted intersection.
Council Member Ward said he was intrigued by the applicant’s interest in saving some of the other houses on the site. He asked that the applicant consider offering organizations or individuals the same incentive of $8,000 for relocating those homes as he had for the 1930 farm house, that is, that the cost the applicant would have incurred to move the homes themselves be transferred to the organizations or individuals who agree to relocate them to another site. Mr. Ravine said that was a fair request, and feels confident that all of the houses would be relocated. He said the houses are all currently being lived in and maintained.
Council Member Ward asked would Mr. Ravine agree to a fee of $8,000 per home to be moved. Mr. Ravine said the $8,000 figure was a “greatly inflated” price for demolishing the home, because they had really wanted to provide incentive for someone to move it. Generally, he said, the cost of moving a home is several thousand dollars depending on the type of house, any environmental concerns, and type of structure. Mr. Ravine said that any money they would save on the demolition could certainly help move those houses, but it would only be “icing on the cake.” He said he felt strongly that the houses would be relocated, based on the level of interest they had already seen. Council Member Ward asked if he would be willing to offer the $8,000 per house. Mr. Ravine responded it was a little more than they would want, but they would be willing to agree to a stipulation that would offer up to $8,000 per house to an organization or individual to move a house.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO APRIL 5.
Mr. Ravine said that many of the contracts are starting to expire on various parcels, and he would prefer to come back on March 7. He added he was not sure he had heard enough tonight to come back with an improved plan.
Mayor Foy said he interpreted the two main issues were that the Council would be more comfortable with the Lowe’s alignment but without the drive-through, and with some of these units being reserved for some kind of long term affordability. Mayor Foy said he believed that was worth discussing. Mr. Ravine said he felt a general discomfort from the Council regarding the development of this site, and did not want to proceed if there was not a solution in sight. He asked that the Council vote one way or another.
Mayor Foy said that was an option, but in that case he would suggest that the Council vote, if it would like, on a Special Use Permit with those two stipulations included. Then, he said, the applicant would have those stipulations in the Permit and could either work them out or not work them out. Mayor Foy said the applicant would at least know whether the Council would approve the Permit.
Mr. Horton said he had spoken to Drew Howell about the two-acre parcel on Friday, and explained the options that we would be recommending to the Council. He said his clear impression was different from what had been presented this evening. Mr. Horton said his impression was that Mr. Howell had some willingness to accept something without a drive-through. Mr. Ravine said that unfortunately, that meant going back to the straight across alignment that no one was comfortable with. Mr. Horton responded that Mr. Howell did not express that in any way during their conversation. He said based on that conversation, there was some doubt regarding this. Mr. Ravine said they would certainly explore that. He said if there is discontent among the Council, he requested that in fairness to the landowners that we not continue to tie up their property and allow them to explore other options. Mr. Ravine said he certainly did not want to abandon the project, but did not want to force something onto the Council.
Mayor Foy said the Council would consider a vote this evening if that was his request.
Council Member Ward said there appears to be a different understanding between the importance and the inflexibility or flexibility regarding the drive-through, which was a major issue here. He said it seemed that it might be something that could be solved in a week’s time if this was continued until next week. Council Member Ward said he did not know if the affordability issue could be solved that quickly, but those two specific issues at hand give the applicant, the staff, and the landowner a week to see what can be done. Mr. Ravine said he was hopeful that the landowners would give them another week to address these issues.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if March 7 would work for the staff. Mr. Horton said they could make that work if the two issues were the only issues that needed to be addressed. Mayor Foy asked the Council if there were any other key concerns. There was no response.
Mr. Horton said that in order to be ready for the March 7 meeting, information would have to be prepared and posted on the web by Friday, leaving the staff four days to prepare.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM AMENDED HIS MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO MARCH 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7 – Reports Regarding the Town Operations Center
7a. Presentation of Public Arts Projects.
Janet Kagan, representing the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, said that Larry Kirkland, the artist selected for the Town Operations Center Percent for Art Project, would make a presentation to update the Council on the art projects at the Public Works and Transit facilities.
Ms. Kagan stated that last spring the Public Arts Commission issued a national call for artists to design artworks for these two sites. She said that Mr. Kirkland was selected from among 157 candidates, and gave a brief description of his background. Ms. Kagan described Mr. Kirkland’s four trips to Chapel Hill to meet with various staff, technical consultants, the architect, and the Public Art Oversight Committee. Ms. Kagan said that tonight they would share with the Council Mr. Kirkland’s design proposals for the Town Operations Center Percent for Art Project.
Mr. Kirkland stated that throughout this design process, he had been attentive to the three goals identified by the Council for the Town Operations Center: environmental sensitivity, sustainability, and fiscal prudence. He said he had also attempted to design art that was functional for the public and for employees.
Mr. Kirkland said his goal as an artist was to create art that was integrated into the site, functional for visitors, and developed from the goals and aspirations of the community. He said they also had the opportunity to site these works to take advantage of future sustainability and the greenway trails.
Mr. Kirkland displayed a map, indicating that at the Transit site the artwork would be located at the entrance to the building. Mr. Kirkland described the artwork as a functional bench of carved white marble and granite, long like a bus, with seating opportunities that shift from one side to the other along its 45 foot length. He said that the black granite end elements were inspired by the enormous tires on the buses. Mr. Kirkland noted that the bench is rounded with the back carved to resemble the “rolling hills of the Piedmont.” He described the different aspects of the bench, noting that engraved onto the surface of the bench are images taken from his visits to Chapel Hill and his discussions with Transit employees, including the Presbyterian Church steeple, the classic columns of the UNC campus, bicycles, birds and animals, and other images.
For the Public Works site, Mr. Kirkland said that because the area bordered I-40, they had talked extensively about creating an artwork that would function as a sound barrier to the noise coming from the roadway. He displayed a site map of the area, describing the location of the artwork in the plaza area adjacent to the administration building. Mr. Kirkland said his goal was to create an outdoor room that helped to mitigate noise, and to that end had created artwork that was a 38-foot long, eight-foot high stone wall that formed a semi-circle that enclosed the plaza area. He noted that they had consulted an acoustical engineer who had confirmed that the form and shape of the wall would dampen the sound coming from I-40.
Mr. Kirkland stated he had spent time talking with employees about their work and how they perform it, including landscapers, truck drivers, mechanics, technicians, electricians, and other staff. From those discussions, he concluded that the artwork should honor their labor and value their efforts. Mr. Kirkland said he also believed that the artwork should inform citizens about the work performed with their tax dollars.
Mr. Kirkland said he had identified key objects and images that help symbolize their work, such as safety cones. He said he had collected old gloves and old boots, right off the hands and feet of Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, as well as a growing number of objects that would become a part of the artwork. Mr. Kirkland displayed a conceptual elevation of the artwork, noting that ledges of stone would protrude from the wall. On these ledges, he said, would be the objects he had collected from employees cast in bronze. Mr. Kirkland stated that by taking these objects that were used daily and casting them in metal, it was his hope that they would be symbols of the work and dedication these employees have to keep the community beautiful and functioning.
Mr. Kirkland said the stone wall would be located at the far end of the plaza to serve as an important connection among the department, the wooded landscape and planned greenways, and creating an outdoor room. He said the objects on the wall could include shovels and rakes, wrenches and saws, bolts and switches, truck and car parts, models of vehicles and school buildings, or a section of a tree trunk. Mr. Kirkland said the specific objects had not yet been determined, but would be in the next several months.
Mr. Kirkland noted that Judson Daniel was a respected local stonemason, who had built many beautiful stone walls in the area and on the UNC campus. He said that with Mr. Daniel’s guidance, a sample wall had been created to examine the exact design of the wall, mortar width and depth, size and shape of the stone, and color placement. Mr. Kirkland said as an artist, he believed he was also a storyteller. He stated he wanted his artwork to tell the story of these employees and their hard work to keep our Town going.
Council Member Harrison asked about the sample of stone that was provided to the Council. Mr. Kirkland said that sample was for the Transit bench, adding that the bronze toad that was on display was merely a sample of what the bronze would look like on the Public Works wall.
Council Member Ward thanked Mr. Kirkland for the respect he had shown for the Transportation and Public Works employees. Regarding sustainability, he asked if Mr. Kirkland had been able to identify local materials that might be used for the artwork, such as stone or casting materials, to “close that circle of reuse” as he constructs these art objects. Mr. Kirkland responded that construction of the wall would use local labor, and Judson Daniel was a regional stonemason. He said that the stone would be purchased through Scott Stone, a regional supplier, with the stone coming from three different quarries. Mr. Kirkland said he wanted to use a light, brighter stone because the location of the wall would be in the shade, and that the local stone tends to be “quite dark.” Mr. Kirkland noted that bronze, granite, marble and stone had been used for centuries in buildings, and these artworks would last for generations. He noted that the castings in bronze would be done using 90 percent recycled materials, and he would use his own bronze foundry.
Mayor Foy said on the proposed schedule, where are we now? Mr. Kirkland said we were at month zero, since they were anticipating the beginning of the building of the Town Operations Center, and once that was under contract he would begin his work. He said he was at the end of the design phase and was waiting to begin fabrication.
Council Member Strom noted he was “flattered” that Mr. Kirkland had agreed to come and work in Chapel Hill on this project. He stated that his in-laws who lived near New Carrollton Station in Washington, D.C. and he admired Mr. Kirkland’s project located there, adding he had long admired his work. Council Member Strom said we were fortunate that Mr. Kirkland had agreed to accept this commission. Mr. Kirkland said it had been “terrific” to work with the Town staff, and that everyone had been open and welcoming. He said it had been a treat to work with the Transit and Public Works employees who work hard to keep Chapel Hill going. Mr. Kirkland said it was an unusual group for an artist to work with to create a piece of artwork for, very different than the IRS which was the New Carrollton Station project.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Mr. Kirkland and the Committee for the two designs, stating it helped to achieve the goal of having artwork there that would bring other members of the community out to the TOC site. She said the site was some distance from town and she believed the artwork would bring people from surrounding areas out to the TOC to view the artwork.
Council Member Greene offered her thanks to Mr. Kirkland as well. She said there was a recent article in the New York Times titled “Infrastructure Beautiful,” about how architecture was being used to make public works and similar type facilities come alive and be beautiful. Council Member Greene said we were on the “cutting edge” and she thinks it’s a great place to be.
7b. Building Elevations.
Mr. Heflin said tonight the Council in its role as owner would be presented the final building elevations. He said this was the result of a lot of long, hard work by the designers, Town staff and other interested parties. He said the elevations were approved with minor conditions by the Community Design Commission earlier this month. Mr. Heflin said that Ken Redfoot of Corley Redfoot Zack, the design consultants for the TOC, would make the presentation.
Mr. Redfoot noted his presentation would include specific building elevations and exterior building materials. He said the buildings were responsive to the Town’s goals of environmental sensitivity, sustainability, and fiscal prudence. Mr. Redfoot said the buildings were a direct reflection of a “space” program that had been carefully scrutinized to minimize cost while promoting the project’s operational needs and core values. He said the project would contain natural daylighting, rainwater collection systems, photovoltaic systems, solar water heating, and geothermal mechanical systems.
Mr. Redfoot said they had presented the building elevations to staff at Public Works, Housing, Transportation, and Administration, and had recently appeared before the Community Design Commission where they received approval for elevation and materials. He displayed a site plan for the TOC site, describing the location of entrances to the site and particular buildings and support structures, as well as the location of the Resource Conservation District (RCD). Mr. Redfoot said he would first discuss the three main Public Works buildings, Administration, Field Operations, and Fleet Maintenance, and then the support buildings.
Mr. Redfoot displayed an elevation map of the Administration building, and pointed out the front entrance. He said they were utilizing brick as one of the predominate materials, along with metal panels. Mr. Redfoot said the brick was traditional red brick of North Carolina, and all of the metal panels used for walls and the roof would be light in color to provide a highly reflective surface to bounce heat off in the summer to keep the building cooler and to provide reflectivity to allow light to go into the areas with daylighting windows.
Mr. Redfoot said the main entrances would have porches to provide shade and protection from rain. He said a key component they were using was rainwater collection, and at different locations throughout the site there were five above-ground rainwater collection tanks. Mr. Redfoot said these tanks tie into underground tanks which would provide about 93,000 gallons of stored rainwater that would be used for toilet flushing and supplemental water for vehicle washing.
For the Field Operations Building, Mr. Redfoot said it was important for its display of some of the sustainable strategies, noting the location of photovoltaic panels which would produce energy that would be “kicked back” into the electric grid. He pointed out the location of the flat plate solar collectors that would be used to supplement the domestic hot water system. Mr. Redfoot pointed out the windows that would provide direct daylighting into the shop area and beyond.
Mr. Redfoot noted the location of a rainwater collection system on the east elevation. He said they would take the rainwater coming off the roof and send it through a gutter and downspout system, which would conduct the water to the above-ground tanks that would then go into the underground tanks. He said that the same brick and metal panels would be used for the Field Operations Building.
Moving to the large Fleet Maintenance Building located in the center of the Public Works service yard, Mr. Redfoot said the same theme was used for rainwater collection and windows for daylighting. He said he had neglected to point out that all of the buildings would be numbered high above the entrances so that visitors could be directed to building 1, 2, or 3.
For the Transportation buildings, Mr. Redfoot pointed out the main entrance to the building that would house the administration, operations, and the maintenance divisions, and noted the location of the artwork. He said this building would use the same durable brick and metal panels, and instead of being numbered the building would have the letter “T” posted above the entrance. Mr. Redfoot pointed out that the first and second floor windows would be light shelves that would reflect natural light back into the building.
Mr. Redfoot said all of the support buildings would use the same materials but were much simpler in character because they are around the perimeter of the site and were used as walls to separate the public area of the site. For the fuel building, he said brick would be used up to about 14 feet, and then metal panels above that, with four fuel bays. Mr. Redfoot said the wash building would have a double bay wash facility. He then described the surplus storage building and the materials bins for sand and salt. Mr. Redfoot pointed some features of buildings on both the Public Works and Transportation sites.
Mr. Redfoot stated that one of the things they would do to achieve another level of the high performance guidelines was to utilize some of the existing pole barns, which are storage buildings that are currently located on the Public Works and Transportation sites. He said they would dismantle them, move them to the new TOC site, and reconstruct them on certain portions of both the Public Works and Transportation sites.
Council Member Hill asked what specifically would be the color of the metal panels. Mr. Redfoot displayed a sample of the brick and the metal panels that would be used in the construction of the facilities. Council Member Hill asked about the roof, and Mr. Redfoot responded that the same metal panels would be used for the roof. He stated that the brick was iron-spotted red brick widely available from several vendors, and would allow them to maintain a civic and North Carolina presence and also utilize a predominant local material.
Mr. Redfoot displayed a sample of the standing seam metal roof material, noting it was a durable long lasting product with a pre-finished coating. He also displayed a sample of the wall material, a corrugated metal with a 3-inch rib, used predominately in a vertical application but also used horizontally in some cases. Mr. Redfoot said this material would be pre-finished in the same color as the roof, which is a Cambridge white.
7c. Status of Work and Options for Council Consideration.
Mr. Horton said they had provided the Council with a briefing on the status of work during one of the Budget Review Committee meetings, and would touch on each of those points tonight.
Mr. Heflin said that in January the Council asked the staff to consider possible benefits and costs related to delaying some or all of the TOC project. He said their report tonight considered two scenarios that would delay some or all of the project, and also summarized the costs and revenues associated with the project as it is currently designed.
Mr. Heflin said the current cost and potential sources of revenue are summarized in the chart on page 5 of the memorandum. He said the total budgeted cost of the project of $44 million includes just under $25 million for the Public Works portion and just under $19 million for the Transportation portion. Mr. Heflin said they had also identified funding sources for the two portions of the project. He said the $19 million for the Transportation portion was from a combination of State and federal grants, with a local match through the Transit Reserve Fund. For the Public Works and Housing portion, funding would come predominately through Certificates of Participation financing with part of the Housing portion repaid to the Town over time.
Mr. Heflin said they had looked at two possible scenarios for delaying the project. First, he said, they had looked at delaying the Public Works and Housing portion only, and continuing with the Transit portion. He said the cost aspects of that were summarized on page 9. Mr. Heflin said there were costs already incurred, mainly related to design and land purchase, and some to the work already in progress on the site. He said they believed there were additional costs they would have to incur in order to stabilize the site, and also costs related to continuing with the Transit portion. Mr. Heflin said those would include moving some of the features that were designed to be included in the Public Works portion over to the Transit site, and also those off-site improvements related to utility and road improvements that would be required not only to function on the Transit portion but also as a condition of our Special Use Permit. He said those costs add up to about $4.8 million.
Mr. Heflin said if you subtract the savings that we would realize from deferring the debt service associated with the Public Works portion financing, which is about $1.75 million, we would have a net cost of a little over $3 million, or at the current projected tax rate it would be about 5.7 cents on the tax rate or the equivalent thereof. He said there are some benefits to delaying, predominately savings in debt service. Mr. Heflin said if we were not to build the Public Works and Housing portion at all we would save debt service for the full twenty-year period.
Mr. Heflin said the other main benefit that we would see would be in operational efficiency, given that the current location for Public Works was more centrally located than the Millhouse Road site would be. In addition to the costs he had already noted, Mr. Heflin said we believed there would be other cost issues for the Council to consider. Among them, he said, was the uncertainty regarding construction costs and interest rates, and the fact that we believe that over time the value of the project would erode due to inflation.
Mr. Heflin said there were issues related to the neighbors and their uncertainties about the site, as well as issues related to limitations with the site which had been enumerated in the past and would not be gone into here, except to say that they had outgrown the present site and needed to move.
Mr. Heflin said the second scenario they had considered was to delay the entire project. He said the dollars here are different because they would have to repay funds already spent on the Transit portion to our grantors in addition to costs already noted. Mr. Heflin said there are some differences, such as the off-site improvements, that would not be required. He said the total cost, both those incurred and those needed to stabilize the site, would approach $6 million. Mr. Heflin said the first year savings would be in debt service of $1.75 million, leaving a net cost in the next year of $4.2 million, or an equivalent of about 7.8 cents on the tax rate.
Mr. Heflin said the benefits of not proceeding with the entire project are similar to those mentioned for not proceeding with the Public Works and Housing portions, namely the debt service savings and operational efficiencies. He said the additional costs beyond the dollar outlay are also similar, although more so because they are two departments. Mr. Heflin said the growth rate in Transit is greater than the growth rate in Public Works, so the pressure on the current Transit site exceed those on the current Public Works site.
Mr. Heflin said that was a review of the main issues, adding that the dollar issues are summarized in the chart on page 12 of the memorandum.
Council Member Strom said in the chart on page 9 that described the cost savings for delaying the Public Works/Housing portion of the project, would Certificates of Participation be available if we choose to go that way rather than coming out of pocket for this cash in the next tax year. Mr. Heflin responded no, they would not. He said they do not believe they could borrow these costs because there would be nothing against which to secure the loan. Mr. Heflin said these costs are cash requirements rather than something that could be funded through other means.
Council Member Hill said the costs incurred are obligated at $2.7 million. He said if we did delay, was that money already spent. Mr. Horton responded it would be an amount of cash that would actually reduce the fund balance.
Council Member Hill said the thing he was struggling with was if there was some way to finance that $4.8 million, then that would radically change the scenario. He said if we were only delaying a year or two, are we absolutely sure that the costs could only be amortized over one year. Finance Director Kay Johnson responded said she had spoken to the Local Government Commission which regulates the borrowings that the Town can make, and they have said we may not borrow against a project that we do not intend to complete now. She said that the answer is no, we cannot borrow these funds.
Mayor Foy said the answer would be no unless we intend to complete it in the following year. He commented that if we said the schedule was to complete part of the project in this period of time and other work in another period of time, and they fall in different tax years, the project would still be on schedule but would be stretched out. Ms. Johnson said her understanding of what the Local Government Commission had told her was that if we have a plan for a building, and we borrow against that building with the site work included, then we may borrow against it. But, she said, if we do some initial work and we don’t intend to go immediately forward with the construction of the building, then borrowing is not an option for us for those initial costs.
Mr. Horton said that was his understanding as well, and he believed the effect, again, would be a reduction in the fund balance. He said if that occurred, we would jeopardize our ability to borrow in the future, because our cash would be so low we would not be seen as being prudent.
Council Member Hill said that essentially what they were talking about in the private sector would be the difference between short-term and long-term borrowing, and in the government sector it’s a harsher penalty for the same thing. He said that many times in the private sector, short-term costs are called long-term costs. Council Member Hill asked was there some way for us to accomplish that, for instance identifying these costs as Transit costs. Mr. Horton responded that we were not able to do that because the Local Government Commission would not allow it, and the entities from which we are receiving the Transit grants would not agree to it.
Mayor Foy said he believed the Council fully supported going forward with this project. But, he said, we do have a Budget Advisory Committee that would not be finished until April. So, Mayor Foy said, his preference was that we don’t stall the project, but he did not want to foreclose the Budget Advisory Committee from being able to say that we should do one thing or another. Is there a way to accomplish that, he asked, understanding that we may enter into a contract that does foreclose other possibilities. Mayor Foy said that given the fact that we continue to ask the Budget Advisory Committee to work with us, he did not want to tell them that this was off the table for discussion. Mr. Horton responded that we could move forward to the point of seeking bids, but we should not seek bids unless the Council was prepared to move forward. He asked Mr. Heflin when we would be ready to seek bids.
Mr. Heflin stated the next round of bids would be for off-site improvements, and those would be bid in the next three weeks. He said the largest part of the project would be bid in April, and these dates are critical if we are to meet our goal of being able to complete the project by the end of the calendar year 2006 to meet the terms of the present lease that ends at that time.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they had heard a presentation from the Budget Advisory Committee last week. She asked Mayor Foy if he was saying they had not signed off on it at that time. Mayor Foy said no, he believed they did sign off on it. But, he said, he believed the Council doesn’t see a different option. Mayor Foy said tonight Council Member Hill was asking questions and he wanted people to feel free to continue to ask questions. He said that as we go through the budget process, we see that this project is a big portion of the tax increase we are facing, and he does not want to close the door if there are adjustments that can be made. Mayor Foy said if can’t make adjustments he was not suggesting that we stop, he was only suggesting that we remain open to other possibilities and consider other options, if there were any, that would not derail the project.
Mayor Foy said he wanted the Manager to inform the Council if they needed to take action tonight or otherwise it would derail the project, stating he was ready to go forward. But, he said, the Budget Review Committee had received this information last week, and it takes some time to process that information. Mayor Foy said he was simply suggesting that we allow the Committee and others to bring forward suggestions and options without feeling that the Council had already taken action that was irreversible.
Mr. Heflin said it was a large, complex operation to get the project out to bid and arrange the financing. He said they were spending a lot of effort on it, and it was not something that could be left until the last minute and then put in place. Mr. Heflin said that bid preparation on a project of this size was a large preparation for the firms that would be interested, and he believed we would not help ourselves if we were to go out to bid without a firm commitment from the Council that the project was likely to be constructed. He said that the Council does have the right to reject bids if they don’t fit the plan in some way, but in the current market he would be reluctant to ask firms to put together these large, complicated and expensive bids without a commitment that we intend to build the project.
Mr. Horton said he would not allow Mr. Heflin to do the work to put the bids together if the Council was not certain it wished to proceed. If we went out to bid and the Council then decided not to build based on the bids, he said, that would be understandable. Mr. Horton said he did not believe we would be able to get serious bids if the Council was uncertain as to whether or not it wished to proceed based on the ability to finance it. He said it would be important for the Council to proceed with some level of certainty, and he believed that meant the critical date would be the time that we are scheduled to release the bids. He asked Mr. Heflin when that date was.
Mr. Heflin said we are scheduled to advertise for bids in early April. Mr. Horton said that would be close to the time that the Mayor was discussing, because the Budget Review Committee was intending to make its report to the Council on April 11. Mr. Horton asked Ms. Johnson what was the schedule for arranging the financing. Ms. Johnson said the specific schedule for financing was that we would need to go forward and have a bid in place prior to taking that bid proposal to the Local Government Commission, which meets the first week of May. She said if we do not have a bid in place, the Commission would not allow us to move forward with financing. Mr. Horton said based on that, the critical time to go to bid would be the first week in April. He said if the Council wished to hold open some flexibility, we would be able to move to the point of advertising and receiving bids, then no further work should be done unless the Council was fully prepared to proceed.
Council Member Hill said the Budget Review Committee would meet the next two Thursdays, so there would be some additional opportunity to discuss this. He agreed that if we want the Committee to do what they are charged with, then we need to leave the door open for further discussion.
Mayor Foy asked the Manager if this item could come back to the Council at the April 5 meeting. Mr. Horton responded he thought that would be acceptable since he did not believe we would be ready to go out to bid any sooner. Mr. Heflin said the off-site bids needed to go out sooner than that. Mr. Horton agreed, saying that if we were going to proceed with Transit, then the off-site bids needed to go forward.
Mayor Foy said they were planning to move forward with the project, and if April 5 was the “drop dead” date then he would prefer that the Council take action at that time. Mr. Horton responded that in order to proceed with Transit then the off-site bids would have to go forward. He reminded the Council of the large amount of grant funds that had been received for the Transit portion of the project. Mr. Heflin added that the off-site bids would go out the third week of March.
Council Member Strom said he understood what the Mayor was trying to accomplish, but if we were going to approve $3 million in off-site bids, then this project was going to cost a lot more money during the next tax year not to build the Town Operations Center than it would cost to build it. He said we had been working on this project for about three years, and he did not see any other options. Council Member Strom said he believed that the Budget Review Committee should focus its energies on other issues and that the Council should go ahead and approve the project. He added that the staff deserved the Council’s support so that they can be confident as these bids go forward that we were moving ahead.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-9a.
Mr. Horton commented that we had examined this issue very carefully, and he was convinced that the most prudent action for the Council was to proceed with both elements of the project.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO CONTINUE WITH THE WORK NECESSARY TO PREPARE AND ADVERTISE BIDS FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER PROJECT (2005-02-28/R-9a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has previously authorized work related to the design and construction of the Town Operations Center; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered costs and benefits of delaying parts or all of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has concluded that the costs of delaying the project exceed the possible benefits;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to continue working with the appropriate design consultants and others to produce plans and specifications for the project and to advertise and receive bids for future phases of work.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
Item 8 – Initial Response to Planning Board Petition regarding
Greenwood Road Neighborhood
Mr. Horton noted that this issue comes to the Council with some sense of urgency, and the staff had prepared a proposal for their consideration.
Mr. Waldon noted that on February 14 the Council received a petition from the Planning Board that asked the Council to consider initiating a Neighborhood Conservation District process for the Greenwood neighborhood. He said the Planning staff was working on a response that would consider all of the neighborhoods that are currently requesting such initiatives.
Mr. Waldon said there appeared to be some activity in the Greenwood Road neighborhood, and if the Council wished to respond quickly to that activity the suggestion was that the Council call a public hearing to consider a rezoning. He said that could be done quickly, and would be a first step that would then be followed by consideration of a Neighborhood Conservation District initiative in the future.
Mr. Waldon said if the Council chooses to do that, a resolution had been prepared that would call a public hearing for April 18 to consider a rezoning for the Greenwood Road neighborhood, and if they choose to call the public hearing we would at that time bring forward an analysis of the current configuration of lot sizes in the neighborhood and any non-conforming uses that might be created.
Alan McIntyre, a resident of Stagecoach Road, thanked the Council for taking steps to protect the Greenwood Road neighborhood. He said that several of the properties in the neighborhood were less than one acre, and he wanted to make sure that they were not overlooked.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING THE GREENWOOD ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD (2005-02-28/R-10)
WHEREAS, the Greenwood Neighborhood in Chapel Hill is designated on Chapel Hill’s Land Use Plan as a Residential Conservation Area; and
WHEREAS this designation acknowledges that the Greenwood neighborhood is facing growth challenges and pressures, and should be a candidate for Council attention in considering neighborhood conservation strategies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a Public Hearing for April 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 306 North Columbia Street, to consider a Zoning Atlas Amendment for the rezoning of an area, as shown on a map labeled as Attachment 4 of a memorandum to Town Council of February 28, 2005, from Residential-1 to Residential-Low Density-1 or to Residential-1A.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
Because of the late hour, Mayor Foy suggested that the Council delay consideration of Item 9 and Item 10 and consider Item 11 at this time, noting that members of the public were present who wished to speak on that item. The Council agreed by consensus.
Item 11 – Continued Discussion of Potential Legislative Initiatives for
the 2005 Session of the General Assembly
Mr. Horton stated that a presentation was not necessary, noting that the staff had taken all the issues previously discussed and put them before the Council for its consideration.
Mayor Foy noted that Council Member Greene had petitioned the Council to allow a presentation by a speaker on the Collective Bargaining rules. Council Member Greene said that was correct, stating that the Council had requested additional information on the suggestion to ask the Legislature to repeal law 95.98 which prohibits public employees from engaging in collective bargaining. She said the best source of information that she was aware of was Professor David Zonderman of NC State University, a history professor who specialized in labor issues. She said she had heard a presentation by Dr. Zonderman at the beginning of a hearing in December that she was a fact finder on, in which they heard from various workers talking about their situation. She thanked Dr. Zonderman for his willingness to come and speak to the Council.
Dr. Zonderman said his presentation would be an abbreviated version of a much larger presentation, which would give a brief history on the collective bargaining law and some potential impact of the law on public sector workers. He thanked UE Local 150 for their help in putting the presentation together. He also thanked Professor Jeffrey Lighter, a Professor of Sociology at NC State, who had performed the “number crunching” for the presentation.
Dr. Zonderman referred to the earlier presentation by artist Larry Kirkland and his goal of creating artwork that honored the workers, saying he could think of no better way to honor public sector workers than by giving them what many of us in this State feel was a fundamental human right, which was the right to not only organize, but to bargain through organized representatives. He said the suggested artwork was “wonderful,” but added there were even more “bread and butter” ways to honor public sector employees.
Dr. Zonderman noted his presentation would discuss the following:
Dr. Zonderman said much of the data he would present tonight came from State employees, about whom much more information was available than about local government workers. He said that the data would apply not only to State employees, but to local and county employees as well.
Dr. Zonderman displayed a graph which showed that more than half of State employees earned less than $30,000 per year, with a large percentage of those employees concentrated at the lower end of the income scale. He said that State employees in large numbers do many different kinds of jobs, including white and blue color, inside and outside, and at various skill levels.
Dr. Zonderman noted that these workers are spread out over various departments:
Dr. Zonderman noted that the areas of service in which most State and local government employees work were as follows:
Dr. Zonderman displayed a map of the United States that indicated the states that now have collective bargaining for public employees. He noted that the states colored in orange are the states that received a grade of “A,” meaning that they have comprehensive bargaining laws. Dr. Zonderman said these are the laws that allow state workers, and in many cases county and local government workers, full or nearly full collective bargaining rights.
Dr. Zonderman noted that there is a federal law called the Wagner law that sets up the basic parameters of collective bargaining. He said that law applies only to private sector employees, and it was deliberately designed that way. Dr. Zonderman said that all federal and public workers were left out of that law. He said that federal workers were included in public sector bargaining in 1962 under an Executive Order by President Kennedy. But, Dr. Zonderman said, all state, county and municipal workers are governed by state laws or by laws at the county or municipal level. Therefore, he concluded, each state must adopt its own legislation regarding collective bargaining.
Dr. Zonderman pointed out on the map those states depicted in red have what is called non-comprehensive collective bargaining laws, noting that most of those states allow collective bargaining by public safety, fire and police employees, but many other public employees are omitted. He said the states depicted in yellow have no collective bargaining laws. Dr. Zonderman said that North Carolina received a grade of “F” because not only do we allow no collective bargaining, but we also have the “infamous” law 95.98 which actually makes any kind of collectively bargained contract illegal. He said this sent a message to workers that they cannot bargain and if they try, any contract would be null and void.
Dr. Zonderman said that law had been on the books since 1959, and grew out of a rumored attempt by the Teamsters to organize the police in the City of Charlotte. He said that the Council may recall that Jimmy Hoffa was the president of the Teamsters at that time, and was caught up in a national scandal regarding potential corruption in his union. Dr. Zonderman said that the local Mecklenburg County State representatives responded by designing a law that banned unions for public safety workers and all collective bargaining. He said that the ban on unions was eventually thrown out by the NC Supreme Court, who noted that it was a violation of First Amendment rights of free association. But, Dr. Zonderman said, that the part that made collective bargaining contracts illegal was upheld in the 1960s by a separate court case involving teachers in Forsyth County who had challenged the law. He said that law was the most extreme law in the United States regulating collective bargaining rights for public employees.
Dr. Zonderman said that North Carolina was an “employment at will” state as well as a “right to work” state, which means that even in the private sector where a company becomes unionized people were not obligated to join a union. He said that meant you can have large numbers of workers in a given plant who receive the benefit of union contracts but are not paying union dues to get them. Dr. Zonderman said that was just one more reason why North Carolina is a difficult state to workers to organize.
Dr. Zonderman stated it was important to keep in mind that the law does not prohibit public sector workers from joining a union or other worker associations, noting it was their right under the US Constitution. But, he said, the lack of collective bargaining makes a union an “extremely” ineffective body, because it “hamstrings” many of the fundamental legal rights that unions hold in many other states.
Dr. Zonderman then presented data on the effects of public sector collective bargaining, as well as evidence from around the country of what we could expect if the law in North Carolina were to change and allow collective bargaining. He displayed a graph which showed a clear pattern that the majority of states with strong unions experience lower employee turnover.
Using recent State employee turnover figures, Dr. Zonderman said they were able to estimate that based on the current State turnover rate of 8.72 percent if North Carolina had stronger unions the turnover rate would drop to about 5 percent. He said he was sure the Council knew that many times lower turnover rates result in savings for public entities, such as savings in recruiting costs and training. Dr. Zonderman commented that experienced workers tend to be more efficient and proficient in their jobs.
Dr. Zonderman said that savings are somewhat offset by the fact that the stronger the unions in a state, the higher the average salaries. He said their data show that strong public sector unions make a $6,000 difference in the pay received by state workers, which was substantial. Dr. Zonderman said this was a fact that needs to be carefully considered, but said not to forget that there would be offsetting savings through lower turnover.
Dr. Zonderman said one additional issue worthy of note was that on average states with collective bargaining experience a substantial increase in retirement benefits, which again was related to the lower turnover. He said that was because workers believe that if staying on a job for twenty-five or thirty years would produce a better retirement income then they were more likely to stay. Along with that, Dr. Zonderman said, was that public sector unions were found to boost vacation, child care, and medical benefits.
Dr. Zonderman summarized his comments as follows:
Ashaki Binta stated she was the Coordinator for the International Worker Justice Campaign, a campaign of the NC Public Service Workers. She said they had been organizing over the last few months, and part of that process was convening citizen public hearings to hear from public sector workers about issues facing them on the job. Ms. Binta said they were also looking at what is facing public sector workers nationally, and attempting to determine why North Carolina has the worse record regarding this issue. She said they had determined that North Carolina was actually in violation of international labor standards.
Ms. Binta said that as a result of the public hearings, they had learned that workers in the public sector definitely need a collective voice and collective bargaining would allow them to have that voice on the job and allow them to enter into binding agreements. She said they had determined that public sector workers also have little substantive input on the terms and conditions of their work environment, which lead to abuses on the job. Ms. Binta said the questions of dignity and respect have been significant, as well as issues of policies which are put into effect but which can change with no notice, allowing workers to have no comfort in that what was the policy today may not be the policy tomorrow.
Ms. Binta said that Chapel Hill as a progressive community had the opportunity to take an important step in supporting legislation that would benefit many. She requested that the Council include on its legislative agenda a request to repeal law 95.98 and to replace it with a law that allowed collective bargaining by public sector workers. Ms. Binta said there were a number of cities around the State considering the same type of request on their legislative agendas.
Andy Hiscock said he was President of the Cary Professional Firefighters, a local affiliate of the International Association of Firefighters. He applauded the Council for considering this issue, and looked forward to the attempt to appeal this law. Mr. Hiscock said this was not just a Chapel Hill issue, but was a State-wide issue. He said repeal of this legislation would not cost Chapel Hill even one dollar, it would only give workers the opportunity to sit at the table and discuss issues and share ideas.
Bill Schuler, a representative of the NAACP, referred to workers at the University and at the Hospital, saying that this law was used to ignore health issues associated with exposure to chemicals on the job. He said repeal of this law was imperative, especially for lower income workers such as Hispanics employed by the Hospital and blacks employed in housekeeping jobs at the University.
Mayor Foy said the process would be that the Council would consider the 14 items on their potential legislative agenda, and decide which of those items would be brought forward to the Town’s legislative delegation. He said he could not remember if the Council had discussed options for transportation, but it was not part of the legislative agenda. Mayor Foy said he had talked with Carrboro Mayor Mike Nelson, noting that Carrboro was asking for an increase in the motor vehicle registration fee to help fund transportation in this area. He said Mayor Nelson had inquired if Chapel Hill would be willing to request an increase as well, the theory being that the more who requested it the more likely it would be to occur. Mayor Foy asked if it was too late to add that request to the agenda for consideration. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said he had expected that tonight the Council would give an indication of what topics they wanted to discuss with the legislative delegation, and after hearing from them that at the Council’s next meeting on March 7 they would formally adopt a program. He said at that point we would write a formal letter and send it to the delegation. Mr. Karpinos said the Council needed to adopt a formal program, but he believed that would happen on March 7 after the Council’s meeting with the delegation.
Mr. Horton noted that in tonight’s materials was a document from the NC League of Municipalities which stated, “The League would support local option revenue sources that shall be available to all municipalities, the proceeds of which may be used for any public purpose. In additional the League will support municipalities that seek additional local option revenue sources.” Mr. Horton said that the kind of action the Mayor was speaking of would not only fit in with Carrboro’s interests, but would be tied to broader State interests as well.
Mayor Foy said he would like to include consideration of revenue enhancements on the legislative agenda, to include an increase in motor vehicle registration fees as well as the half cent sales tax and the gasoline tax.
Council Member Harrison asked who had initiated this request. Mayor Foy responded he did not know if anyone had formally asked for them, but it was possible that one or more bills would be introduced in this legislative session asking for one or more of these.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when the Mayor said we should think about those, was he asking for their position, for instance, on the ˝-cent sales tax at this time. Mayor Foy responded no, he was asking that they place it on the agenda to bring up with the legislative delegation and hear their response to the likelihood of various forms of revenue enhancements that may or may not be available, and for what. He said for example, the way the half cent sales tax was currently conceived was that it would be approved by the County Commissioners, and they may not want to dedicate it to transportation. Mayor Foy said that was the type of thing he wanted to discuss with the delegation and hear their thoughts so the Council could decide whether to support it or not. He asked to add this as Item 15 to the legislative agenda.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked about repeal of law 95.98. Council Member Greene said that was Item 8 on the list, but she would like to modify it to read “Repeal of NC General Statute 95.98 and request to replace it with a law that establishes collective bargaining rights.”
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Council Member Greene for inviting Dr. Zonderman to speak to the Council, noting his remarks followed a conversation she had with Professor Dan Pollick, one of her mentors in the subject of labor law. She said his comments followed the comments made by all of the speakers, and noted that he had received the Martin Luther King annual award this past year for his position on issues like this. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said he had influenced her life, and it was reassuring to hear the speakers mirror his remarks. Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that the Council had received a compelling letter from the NC Council of Churches which was extremely well written, and she was thankful that the Council had that type of support on this issue.
Mayor Foy called the Council’s attention to the request from the Police and Fire Chiefs as well as the Information Technology Director for support of funding for the proposed Voice Interoperability Project for Emergency Responders (VIPER) communications system. He asked if the Council objected to including that on the list. There was no objection.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to add to the list support for the addition of sexual orientation to the hate crimes statute. He said that bill was submitted in one form or another every year and had yet to make it out of committee to a floor vote. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that recent events in our community had underscored the importance of including sexual orientation to that statute. He said if you were going to have a hate crimes statute, and you were going to increase sentences for people who were motivated to commit biased crimes such as the assault that recently occurred on Franklin Street, then the law should certainly include one the largest groups of people who are targeted in biased crimes, that being people who are targeted based on their sexual orientation. Council Member Kleinschmidt reminded the public to come to the Pit tomorrow evening at 6 p.m. and take part in a community speak out to demonstrate opposition to hate crimes and anti-gay sentiments.
Mayor Foy said that adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes statute would be Item 17 on the list.
Council Member Harrison said that once again this year we have items that would take time to get in, but we believe we would get them in, with this year’s highlight being the collective bargaining issue. He said he had been a volunteer lobbyist in the General Assembly for some time, noting this would be his 22nd session, and things we wanted 20 years ago we are still asking for. Council Member Harrison said he believed you could work for 20 years to get a change to law 95.98, which his friends who are working on this say it’s going to take. He said we have to start somewhere, and that Chapel Hill with the “huge” concentration of public sector employees on a weekday in a square mile of the downtown, was the perfect place to start. Council Member Harrison said he was grateful that Council Member Greene had brought this issue forward, and he was willing to work for it.
Council Member Verkerk said she was not interested in supporting Item 2, State Registration of Beer Kegs, nor Item 14, Repeal of the Town’s Authority to Operate Automated Camera Equipment.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REMOVE ITEM 2, STATE REGISTRATION OF BEER KEGS, FROM THE TOWN’S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. THE MOTION FAILED THREE TO SIX, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK, KLEINSCHMIDT, AND HILL VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, WARD, STROM AND HARRISON VOTING NAY.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REMOVE ITEM 14, REPEAL OF THE TOWN’S AUTHORITY TO OPERATE AUTOMATED CAMERA EQUIPMENT, FROM THE TOWN’S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. THE MOTION FAILED THREE TO SIX, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS VERKERK, WARD, AND HARRISON VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR FOY, MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, WARD, STROM AND KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING NAY.
Mayor Foy stated that since both motions had failed, Items 2 and 14 would remain on the Council’s legislative agenda for discussion with the delegation.
Council Member Verkerk said that the list of items was quite long, and there was not a unanimous vote of support for these two items. She said she would not be able to attend the legislative breakfast, and would like for the delegation to know that these issues were on the list but did not receive unanimous support. Mayor Foy agreed to make that point.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented she had recently heard a news report that stated there was an effort underway to give all municipalities in North Carolina the right to install red light cameras. She said that even if we say we don’t want them in Chapel Hill, there may eventually be a law that would allow any municipality to install them.
Mayor Foy said that if the Council had no further comment, the list of items as amended tonight would go forward for discussion with the Town’s legislative delegation at the annual breakfast meeting on Friday.
Dr. Hazen Ham said he was the director of a representative organization named Call to Action, and with him tonight were representatives from 12 different area churches. He said they had requested that the Council remove Item 3, Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Item 4, Opposition to the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage as Only the Union of One Man and One Woman, from the legislative agenda. Dr. Ham said he believed they represented the general populace, and not a small minority. He said they were very much opposed to this community suggesting to our legislative body to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and to oppose the amendment to the Constitution. Dr. Ham said they firmly believe that marriage should be one man, one woman, and nothing else.
Mayor Foy said the process calls for the Council to discuss these issues with the legislative delegation, that the Council had listened to what Dr. Ham had said earlier, but there was not support on the Council to remove these issues from the legislative agenda for discussion. Mayor Foy said that did not mean that the Council had not heard Dr. Ham’s comments. He said the Council would continue to discuss these issues and would not take formal action until next Monday, at the March 7 Council meeting.
Mayor Foy said Dr. Ham was welcome to come to that meeting and speak to the Council again about why the Council held their positions. Dr. Ham indicated they would come back at the March 7 meeting. Mayor Foy suggested that if Dr. Ham and his supporters planned to attend that meeting, to contact his office and let him know and he would have the discussion moved to earlier in the meeting so that they would not have to stay so late.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that Dr. Ham submit a list of the congregations that he was representing, noting the Council would find that helpful.
Item 9 – Follow-Up on Potential Regulations of Landscape Equipment
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED R-11, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT R-11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF DRAFT REGULATIONS FOR FUTURE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND PROVIDING INSTRUCTIONS TO THE MANAGER REGARDING THE TOWN’S USE OF MOTORIZED LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT (2005-02-28/R-11)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has received a petition proposing the Town prohibit the operation of gasoline powered leaf blowers and has received and considered reports on the implications of such a measure; and
WHEREAS, the Council has conducted a public forum to receive citizen comment on possible regulation of the use of leaf blowers and other motorized landscape equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that further consideration of the regulation of the use of such equipment is appropriate in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager and Attorney to prepare for the Council’s consideration amendments and additions to the Town Code of Ordinances that would:
1. Regulate the time that leaf blowers and other motorized landscape equipment can be operated, with appropriate differences in permitted hours of operation based on the use of property and surrounding property. Tentative categories are as follows:
a. Residential property:
b. Commercial and institutional property:
c. Commercial and institutional property directly adjacent to residential property:
2. Establish a maximum decibel level at which leaf blowers and other motorized landscape equipment may be operated, said noise levels to be established with consideration for the maximum noise level now established as the lowest common industry standard for newly manufactured leaf blowers; and, set the location and/or distance at which such levels are to be measured.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs that the Manager develop a proposed policy, and evaluate budgetary implications of such a policy, that would provide for replacement of leaf blowers and other powered landscape equipment owned by the Town with new equipment having the lowest levels of emissions and noise generation levels available in the market, no later than when present equipment not meeting such standards is three years old or is in need of repairs estimated to exceed 25 percent of the equipment’s remaining value, whichever occurs first.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
Item 10 – Proposed Schedule for Developing a Transportation Priority List
Transportation Planner David Bonk stated that this issue was before the Council at this time due to the State’s desire to change the process for adopting a Transportation Improvement Plan. He said they had laid out a proposed schedule for the Council’s consideration, and that schedule would have the priority list that had been approved in the previous process be reviewed by advisory boards. Mr. Bonk said the schedule called for a public forum to be held on March 21, and then the Council would consider a Chapel Hill Priority List in April. Mr. Bonk said the second part of the process would call for Town advisory board and Council review of the draft Regional Priority List during May and June.
Council Member Harrison said he had discussed with Mr. Bonk and with Council Member Strom and Mayor Foy, that the May 11 date for the Transportation Advisory Committee should be changed because it conflicted with the NC League of Municipalities’ Town Hall Day, which a number of people wanted to attend. He asked Mayor Foy to bring this issue forward at the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting next week. Mayor Foy agreed to do so.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, ADOPTION OF R-12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TOWN ADVISORY BOARDS ON THE CHAPEL HILL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITY LIST (2005-032-28/R-12)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has begun the process for developing the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has requested local jurisdictions prepare transportation project priority lists; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has revised the transportation project ranking criteria used to prepare the Regional Transportation Priority List;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and Greenways Commission provide recommendations on projects to be included in the Chapel Hill 2007-2013 Transportation Project Priority List.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council sets a public forum on the Chapel Hill Priority List for March 21, 2005, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 306 N. Columbia Street.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
Item 12 – Appointments to the Policy Committee for Old Durham-
Chapel Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study
Council Member Harrison confirmed with Mr. Bonk that this would go before the Durham-Chapel Hill Work Group at its next meeting. He stated that he would like to be the Chapel Hill appointee from that Work Group, and another Council member could be the Council’s representative.
Mayor Foy suggested that Resolution R-13 be amended to include Council Member Harrison as a representative to the Policy Committee. Council Member Harrison noted there would be one additional slot for a Council member. Mayor Foy suggested that Council Member Harrison recruit someone to fill that slot.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF R-13, AS AMENDED, TO INCLUDE COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON AS A MEMBER OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR APPOINTING CHAPEL HILL REPRESENTATIVES TO THE OLD DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL ROAD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FEASIBILITY STUDY POLICY COMMITTEE (2005-02-28/R-13)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has agreed to participate in the development of the Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Feasibility Study; and
WHEREAS, the work program for the Study creates a Policy Committee to oversee the development of the Feasibility Study; and
WHEREAS, the proposed membership of the Policy Committee includes a representative of the Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and three (3) members of the public appointed by the Town Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee appoint a member to serve on the Policy Committee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council appoint a member of the Town Council, a member of the Transportation Board and a member of the general public to serve on the Policy Committee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk advertise for members of the general public to serve on the Policy Committee for Council consideration.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
Item 13 – Consideration of Draft of Council Goals for 2005
Mayor Foy stated that he had found the document to be very useful, noting the use of red ink to highlight the updated information. Mr. Horton responded that the Town Clerk’s Office had been quite helpful in that regard.
Council Member Strom said regarding item #41 under Third Priority, Town Fleet Efficiency, he thought that work was almost completed and we would be seeing it on an early 2005 agenda. Mr. Horton said the Council would be receiving a report in the next few weeks, but reminded the Council that this was a third priority.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, ADOPTION OF R-14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TOWN COUNCIL GOALS FOR 2005 (2005-02-28/R-14)
WHEREAS, the Town Council developed a list of proposed goals and priorities for 2005 at the Council’s January 13, 2005 Planning Session, using the Comprehensive Plan Action Plan as a basis; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to integrate the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan into its quarterly review of progress;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the 2005 Council Goals and Implementation Plan as described in Attachment 1 of this memorandum.
This the 28th day of February, 2005.
Mr. Horton commented that Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt had done yeoman’s work on this document, and deserved recognition for her efforts. He added that this was one of the most complex tasks that we had to do, and she had done an outstanding job. Mayor Foy added his thanks, noting that the document contained quite a bit of detail.
Item 14 – Council Consideration of List of Development Teams to Submit
Proposals for Parking Lots 2 and 5
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had discussed the information on prior occasions except for Council Member Hill, and asked if he had any additional questions. Council Member Hill responded no.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, ADOPTION OF R-15. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A “SHORT LIST" OF DEVELOPERS TO RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP TOWN PARKING LOT 5 AND WALLACE PARKING DECK SITES (2005-02-28/R-15)
WHEREAS, since November 2003, the Council and the Council Committee on Lots 2 and 5 have been working on a process to develop key Town-owned downtown sites including Town Parking Lots Number 2 and 5 and the Wallace Parking Deck; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2004, the Council approved issuance of the developer Request for Qualifications, which the Town’s consultant subsequently distributed to more than 300 firms from the area and across the country; and
WHEREAS, the Town accepted statements of qualifications from six firms that responded to the Request for Qualifications by the January 31, 2005 deadline; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2005, the Council Committee on Lots 2 and 5 discussed the consultant’s evaluation of the developers’ statements of qualifications and recommended inviting five firms to respond to a Request for Proposals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes issuance of a Request for Proposals to develop Town Parking Lot Number 5 and the Wallace Parking Deck sites to the following five firms:
· East-West Partners Management Company, Inc. of Chapel Hill and Stonebridge Associates of Bethesda, MD
· Grubb Properties of Charlotte, NC and LeylandAlliance, LLC of Tuxedo, NY
· Opus South Corporation of Alpharetta, GA
· The Pizzuti Companies of Columbus, OH
· Ram Development Company of Palm Beach Gardens, FL
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes allowing these developers the option of changing members of the proposed design team during the Request for Proposals stage, specifically: urban designers, architects, and LEEDS professionals.
This the 28th day of February, 2005
Item 15 – Appointments
15a. Library Board of Trustees.
The Council appointed Barbara Moran to the Library Board of Trustees.
MASTER BALLOT
February 28, 2005
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Library Board of Trustees |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Martha Conway |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Floyd Fried |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Barbara B. Moran |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Wilhelmina Steen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
15b. Observances Committee.
The Council appointed the following to the Observances Committee: Fred Battle, Jill Edens, Virginia Knapp, Creighton Irons, Rene Campbell, Justin Coleman, Jesse Gibson, Bishop Hatley, Mae McLendon, and Eleanor Murray.
MASTER BALLOT
February 28, 2005
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Observances Committee |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Vote for 1 NAACP Representative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Fred Battle |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote for 1 Airport Road Rep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jill Edens |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote for 1 Chamber of Commerce Rep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Virginia Knapp |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote for 1 University Representative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Creighton Irons (Also At-Large) |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
X |
5 |
||
|
Aidan J. Smith (Also At-Large) |
|
|
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
|
4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote for 1 Visitors Bureau Rep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
René Campbell |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vote for 5 At-Large Representatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin Coleman |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Jesse H. Gibson |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Bishop L. Gene Hatley |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Creighton Irons (Also University) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
1 |
||
|
Mae B. McLendon |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
||
|
Al McSurely |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eleanor Murray |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Aidan J. Smith (Also University) |
|
X |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
15c. Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Council appointed Eugene Farrar to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
MASTER BALLOT
February 28, 2005
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Parks and Recreation Commission |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Neal Bench |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eugene Farrar |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
Tony Smith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stuart Solomon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
15d. Technology Committee.
The Council appointed Jeremy Collins and Will Raymond to the Technology Committee.
MASTER BALLOT
February 28, 2005
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Technology Committee |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Jeremy Collins |
X |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
7 |
||
|
Matt Hapgood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Martha Hoylman |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
X |
X |
X |
4 |
||
|
David Lewis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Technology Committee |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Alan Polak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Raymond |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
7 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Other; please list: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||||||||
The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m.