SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 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, Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Assistant Transportation Director Kurt Neufang, Finance Director Kay Johnson, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Mayor Foy began the meeting by declaring “It’s a great day in Chapel Hill!” referring to the UNC Tar Heel’s 75-70 victory over Illinois for the 2005 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship.
Item 1 – Ceremonies
1a. Recognition of Chapel Hill-Carrboro Meals on Wheels.
Jeanie Arnell described the services offered by Meals on Wheels, noting their motto was “We serve more than food.” She stated they served people from all walks of life, any age and any income, as long as there was a genuine need.
Ms. Arnell highlighted the organizations that support Meals on Wheels, adding they had over 100 volunteers. She said funding comes from Triangle United Way, the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and other donations.
1b. Presentation of Franklin Street Streetscape by Stuart George.
Stuart George presented the Council with a streetscape scene of the 100 block of East Franklin Street, made up of over 30 photographs that had been placed together to create the entire block then dry mounted. Mayor Foy noted the beautiful “Carolina Blue” sky in the streetscape scene, and thanked Mr. George on behalf of the Council for his gift.
Item 2 – Public Hearings: None.
Item 3 – Petitions
3a. Petitions by Citizens.
3a(1). Leo Wagoner and Pearson Stewart, Carol Woods Retirement Community regarding Noise Abatement.
Leo Wagoner noted there were 25 persons from Carol Woods Retirement Community present tonight in support of this petition. He said that he and Pearson Stewart served as Co-Chairs of the Noise Abatement Committee representing 450 residents and 322 employees. Mr. Wagoner said they had been “bothered greatly” and were “vitally concerned” about the noise coming from I-40 that adjoined the Carol Woods property to the north for about 2500 feet. He said they had been told when I-40 was being constructed that Carol Woods would not be bothered by the noise, and it “was a complete falsehood.”
Mr. Wagoner offered a brief history of the construction history of I-40. He asked the Council to take the lead in working with the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to provide some relief from the noise. Mr. Wagoner also asked that their petition be referred to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). He said they wanted to be able to walk outside their homes in peace and quiet, and to sleep with their windows open.
Mayor Foy said the issue had already been brought to the attention to the MPO, and would ask the Manager to follow up on the status of that issue.
Pearson Stewart said the noise from I-40 was unpleasant, and at its peak it was uncomfortable. He said he felt sorry for the residents who lived the closest to that area. Mr. Stewart asked the Council to assist the MPO in getting the NCDOT to take the Carol Woods petition seriously, and to give real consideration to their request for noise abatement. He also asked that NCDOT be asked to provide noise abatement measures for all parts of its transportation improvement program.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council would receive and refer the petition to staff for guidance on what should be done next, but he believed it was incumbent upon the Council to assure the residents of Carol Woods that they take this seriously. He said the fact that the issue was referred to the staff was not an attempt to make the issue “go away.” Mayor Foy said there were many issues that they work with the NCDOT on, and not always successfully. He said there needed to be some consideration given of what to do, rather than just petitioning the MPO or petitioning NCDOT, so that we can receive some sort of action.
Mayor Foy said it would not happen overnight, but would require a sustained effort. He said when it was referred to staff, we should ask what we might pursue in a strategic way, anticipating that this would take time.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if we were referring the petition to get it considered as part of the potential widening of I-40, or were we interested in having the Manager evaluate and make suggestions on how some noise abatement might take place before any widening project. Mayor Foy said both, especially since the Town may never agree that widening is desirable. He stated that it sounded like the residents were saying the problem was already upon us, so we needed to pursue it.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted she and her husband had recently moved to Carol Woods, and stated that the noise in the area near I-40 was “really bad.” She said she had heard about the problem before, but when you experience it first hand it was “extraordinary.” Mayor pro tem Wiggins invited the public to drive through that area of Carol Woods with their windows down, so that they would have a better understanding of what the residents must live with.
Frances Williams read a letter written by a resident of Carol Woods, Seymour Freed, and gave a brief summary of his background. Mr. Williams noted that the letter was in support of Carol Woods’ request for I-40 noise abatement. [It is noted that the letter in its entirety was provided to the Council with the materials for tonight’s meeting, and is incorporated herein by reference.]
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE COUNCIL’S REPRESENTATIVES ON THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO IDENTIFY HOW BEST TO APPROACH THE MPO. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(2). Jeb Dube regarding Bike to Work Week.
Nick Lurie, speaking on behalf of Jeb Dube and representing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, requested that the Council support Bike to Work Week scheduled for May 16-20, with Bike to Work Day scheduled for Friday, May 20. He said they wanted to set up communication with the Chamber of Commerce so we could contact local businesses to install bike racks. Mr. Lurie said at Meadowmont there were almost no bike racks available which was “incredible” for such a new development, adding that unfortunately the guidelines were put in place after Meadowmont was developed.
Mr. Lurie said they believed the best way to achieve the addition of bike racks at businesses was to contact them individually and ask for voluntary compliance with the guidelines.
Council Member Harrison thanked the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board for its exhaustive study to determine where bike racks were not located.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(3). Stanley J. Robboy regarding Expedited Review of Chapel Hill Kehillah Concept Plan and Special Use Permit.
Stanley Robboy, Co-President of Chapel Hill Kehillah, noted Chapel Hill Kehillah had submitted a Concept Plan proposal for a Special Use Permit to allow it to lease parking spaces in its parking lot, noting these spaces were relatively unused during the week.
Mr. Robboy said the lease of these parking spaces would provide a much needed financial resource, and would constitute an efficient dual use of land. He requested that the Council grant expedited review of Chapel Hill Kehillah’s application.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(4). Don Reinfurt (to Michael Stout) regarding Safety and Traffic Flow at the Intersection of Ferrell Street and Tinkerbell Road in Colony Woods.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(5). Jan Sassaman and Randy Kabrick regarding Town Participation in a Solid Waste Advisory Board Work Group.
Jan Sassaman called the Council’s attention to the March 15 letter provided with tonight’s materials from himself and Randy Kabrick, the Town’s representatives to the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board. He invited a member of the Council or its delegate as well as a member of the staff to participate in a year long process to develop a revised Solid Waste Management Plan.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(6). Michael Maxwell regarding Expedited Review of Family House at UNC Hospitals Special Use Permit Application.
Michael Maxwell, President of the Board of Family House at UNC Hospitals, requested expedited review of the Special Use Permit application to build a 40-bedroom facility, a home away from home, for the families of adult critical care patients receiving treatment at UNC Hospitals. He said the facility would be adjacent to the existing Ronald McDonald House on Old Mason Farm Road. Mr. Maxwell stated that the University had donated approximately six acres of land for the facility. He noted that as of today they had raised a little over $1 million to fund the construction, and hopefully within the next week we will receive a $2 million challenge grant from a major North Carolina corporation.
Mr. Maxwell requested that the Council grant expedited review for this project.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had already reviewed the Concept Plan for this facility, so they were familiar with it.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(7). Jan Sassaman regarding Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO).
Jan Sassaman called the Council’s attention to his March 9 letter provided with tonight’s materials. He said in October 2002 Orange County adopted an ordinance which required the recycling of certain recyclable materials found in the local waste stream. Mr. Sassaman said that RRMO ordinance had since been adopted by the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough.
Mr. Sassaman said there had been communication between Orange County staff and Town staff to address questions, and his understanding was that as of May 2004 no progress had occurred. What the Solid Waste Advisory Board had requested him to do was contact the Town to request that the Council consider adoption of the RRMO, or alternatively to seek any additional information necessary from the County so that the ordinance could be considered in the near future. Mr. Sassaman noted that Chapel Hill’s adoption of the RRMO would greatly enhance its effectiveness and success of this waste reduction mechanism.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(8). Tim Dempsey regarding Recommendation on Neighborhood Protection District Designation for Pine Knolls.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(9). Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Corporation regarding Establishing an Ordinance Permitting the Sale and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages on Town Property During Specifically Designated Community Events.
Roger Perry, representing the Downtown Economic Development Corporation, petitioned the Council to investigate and consider an ordinance that would allow for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on Town property during specifically designated community events. He said he wanted to make it clear that the Corporation did not believe it was appropriate to offer alcoholic beverages at events involving families and children. Mr. Perry said they did believe they had the chance to “dramatically” increase the amount of participation and the diversity at downtown events as well as the number of downtown event if they had the opportunity to serve and sell alcoholic at some of these events.
Mr. Perry said the Corporation had been approached by major corporate sponsors who had offered their financial support in events downtown if the Corporation was successful in having such an ordinance put in place. He said that Anheuser Busch had specifically sought them out and offered “significant” corporate sponsorship for such events.
Mr. Perry stated the Corporation believed that such an ordinance might be an additional economic development tool for downtown Chapel Hill and benefit both adult citizens and local businesses. He urged the Council to consider such an ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(10). Hamlin Park Homeowners Association regarding Installation of Trash Receptacle at Bus Stop on Ephesus Church Road.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda.
3b(1). Jeff Fisher, Kevin Brice, and Wendy Jacobs regarding Protecting the Erwin Trace and Duke Property through Purchase.
Mayor Foy said he had been contacted today by representatives of various organizations who were interested in petitioning the Council regarding Erwin Trace, which was the parcel of property that the Council had already agreed to work on with the City of Durham, Durham County, and Orange County.
Jeff Fisher stated that when the Council had discussed Erwin Trace two weeks ago, they were at the beginning of a very large and ambitious fundraising effort to protect a “very precious” 113 acres on the border of Orange and Durham Counties. He said since that time, the project had gained a “tremendous amount” of momentum, and he wanted to present to the Council an update.
Mr. Fisher displayed a map of the area, noting that although the property was presumed to be open space, the portion in Durham County had been rezoned which altered that perception. He displayed a second map which represented the 15-mile New Hope Creek Corridor within the 113 acres. Mr. Fisher said the 75 acres of public use open space was less than two miles from Chapel Hill, with an additional 37 acres of conservation easement valued at over $1 million that Mr. and Mrs. Penny would donate.
Mr. Fisher stated that the sale of the Penny land was contingent upon “this deal” moving forward, noting that they had only four days to make that happen. He said they had raised a “tremendous” amount of money over the past four months. Mr. Fisher displayed a map and indicated the location of the Penny tract in relation to the other acreage.
Mr. Fisher said that since the Council had agreed to provide $100,000 two weeks ago, the Erwin Area Neighborhood Group had raised $141,000 and intended to raise $200,000. He said they had received a pledge of $125,000 from Orange County for purchase of the Duke-Crosland tract, and had also pleased $72,000 for another tract. Mr. Fisher said Orange County had also agreed to cover any shortfall on the property that was purchased from the Penny family. Mr. Fisher said the Penny tract was 62 acres, on which 25 acres would be dedicated as park space. He said the remaining acreage would be in a conservation easement.
Mr. Fisher said that just yesterday, Durham County had agreed to take the lead on this project, and had pledged up to $900,000, and the City of Durham had pledged $75,000. He said they were now at $1.425 million that was available for purchase of the Duke-Crosland tract, which meant that they were $75,000 short of what was needed.
Kevin Brice, Executive Director of the Triangle Land Conservancy, said that Mr. Fisher had updated the Council on what they were facing, and it was his job to now make a request of the Council. He said there had been an incredible amount of effort put forth to purchase this tract, noting that these efforts had raised money as well as awareness for the vital stream that runs between the two counties.
Mr. Brice said the Triangle Land Conservancy respectfully requested that the Council authorize the Manager to negotiate with Orange County for up to $50,000 for the purchase of land associated with the New Hope Preserve. He noted these funds would be in addition to the $100,000 already committed by the Town, and the Conservancy would add the remaining $25,000 to cover the shortfall of $75,000.
Mr. Brice thanked the Council for its consideration of this matter, and for its leadership and its commitment to conservation. He said this had been a collaborative process over the years and the Town had figured prominently in that.
Wendy Jacobs, Chair of the Erwin Area Neighborhood Group, said they had worked hard on this issue for over eight months. She said the support of the cities and counties and its elected officials and the support of environmental groups had been unprecedented. Ms. Jacobs said this was challenging because it was a complicated issue involving four different local governments and so many different pieces of land. She said that although they were elated that all the puzzle pieces were falling into place, we were at the “eleventh hour” and were $75,000 short. Ms. Jacobs said if they were not able to raise that amount within the next four days, all of the possibilities here would be lost.
Ms. Jacobs said they were coming to the Council because Chapel Hill had provided the initial leadership, stating they had “taken the first step” and “got the ball rolling.” She said the Council had provided the leadership by pledging the $100,000 in a unanimous vote, and it was greatly appreciated.
Mayor Foy asked exactly what was meant when it was stated that there was only four days left to complete the project. Ms. Jacobs that Friday, April 8, was the deadline for Duke University and the Durham County Commissioners to sign the contract. She added that the Orange County Commissioners needed to give a 48-hour notice for a Special Meeting, which meant it had to be done by tomorrow. Ms. Jacobs said this was what had prompted the “serious urgency.”
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked that someone reiterate the amounts of money pledged by Durham County, the City of Durham, and Orange County. Mr. Brice stated that Durham County had committed $900,000, Orange County had committed $125,000, the City of Durham had committed $75,000, and Triangle Land Conservancy in partnership with the Town was committing $25,000. Mr. Brice added that the Erwin Area Neighborhood Group had pledged $200,000.
Mayor Foy confirmed that those funds were to purchase the Crosland tract from Duke. Mr. Brice said that was correct. Mayor Foy said there was another eight acres in Duke Forest that Orange County would purchase. Mr. Brice responded yes, that Orange County had a contract to purchase the eight acres which was separate from this purchase. Mayor Foy said it was separate in terms of carrying out the purchase, but was contiguous to this property. Mr. Brice said that was correct, adding that in addition to that eight acres was the 25 acres of the Penny property that constituted the 75-acre New Preserve that they were referring to. He said that would be part of the greenway corridor and buffered by the 34-acre conservation easement that the Penny’s had pledged to donate.
Mayor Foy said that his understanding was that there would be 75 acres of public property, and 34 acres that would be in a conservation easement. He asked exactly what that meant. Mr. Brice responded that it would be privately owned by the Penny’s, but would be protected in perpetuity much the same way as Maple View Farm was protected. Mayor Foy said that meant you could not develop it but it was not public access. Mr. Brice replied that was correct.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that it had been mentioned there was a need for a special meeting of the Orange County Commissioners. Ms. Jacobs responded that the decision made by the Durham County Commissioners yesterday was contingent upon Orange County contributing $200,000. She said that Orange County had only contributed $125,000, because they had committed to fund the purchase of the eight-acre tract and had agreed to fund the cost of the Penny land. Ms. Jacobs said that Orange County’s position was that they were already committed to over $200,000 with all three parcels combined. She said that was why they had only committed to $125,000 for the Duke tract. Ms. Jacobs said what that had meant was that they needed to find another $75,000 by Friday, April 8.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said then, that the wording of the contract was driving this. Ms. Jacobs said that was correct, that what the Durham County Commissioners had voted on was that their contribution of $900,000 was contingent upon Orange County’s contribution of $200,000. But, she continued, for the reasons just stated Orange County would only agree to $125,000, leaving them with a $75,000 deficit. Ms. Jacobs reminded the Council that Triangle Land Conservancy had agreed to provide $25,000 contingent on another $50,000 commitment from the Town of Chapel Hill. Ms. Jacobs said in order for the Orange County Commissioners to meet the deadline and hold a special meeting on Friday morning, they must advertise that meeting no later than tomorrow, Wednesday, April 6.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it was their position that even though the Durham County Commissioners had stated that Orange County must contribute $200,000, that the Town of Chapel Hill could be somehow inserted in place of Orange County. Mr. Fisher stated that the value of the 8-acre tract that Orange County had agreed to purchase was $75,000, and what they had hoped was that by the Town and the Triangle Land Conservancy committing to the additional $75,000, that those funds would purchase the eight-acre tract thereby releasing Orange County from that commitment. He said that would allow Orange County to commit to the full $200,000 required by the Durham County Commissioners.
Mr. Fisher said Orange County would still be committed to a little more than the $200,000 in total, but it would put everything in alignment with the hard and fast resolution from Durham County. He said that unfortunately they were trapped between the Durham County resolution that could not be changed and no time left. Mr. Fisher said it was their belief that if the Town were to give the Manager authority to negotiate purchasing the eight-acre tract, then Orange County would shift their support to the other purchase and it would make no difference in the amount of money the County was contributing. But, he reiterated, in order for the Orange County Commissioners to do that they must hold a special meeting which must be advertised by tomorrow.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if Mr. Fisher’s information was different from what was reported in a newspaper article today, that said the Orange County Commissioners would not be in a position to call a special meeting. Mr. Fisher said that referred to the belief that the $75,000 shortfall, and the $200,000 required by the resolution adopted by the Durham County Commissioners, would not be successfully addressed. He added that the Orange County Commissioners did not want to commit additional funds, but had not anticipated that the $75,000 would be found. Mr. Fisher said they had an indication through conversations with various Orange County Commissioners today that if Chapel Hill were to step forward and commit an additional $50,000, they would entertain calling that special meeting.
Jim Anderson said he was a citizen of Chapel Hill, but wanted to speak first as an employee of Crosland, Inc. He said this was a project he was in charge of, and wanted to clarify several points. Mr. Anderson said the land under the housing proposal was not on the New Hope Greenway plan, adding that the housing project was not part of the “missing link.” He said the land that was part of the New Hope Greenway proposal had been offered to Orange County at no charge, so that the 11 acres that showed up on the New Hope Master Plan had already been pledged to Orange County and accepted by them.
Mr. Anderson said the second issue was that Crosland, Inc. was a supporter of open space, noting their CEO was Chair of the Nature Conservancy. He said they had already preserved 21 acres of the 42 acres available to them on the Duke tract, which he said was “commendable” for a small neighborhood such as this. Mr. Anderson said they had taken 49 houses and placed them on 21 acres away from Erwin Road where they are almost unseen, and had protected the stream with a special bridge instead of a culvert so that no diversion of the stream took place.
Mr. Anderson said that Crosland, Inc. had also pledged $50,000 toward the completion of the New Hope Greenway. He said they would hope that if their project moved forward that the Penny family would still be allow their land to be purchased to complete the true missing link. Mr. Anderson said if that was not the case, then Crosland, Inc. would spend that $50,000 elsewhere, such as on a parking area or trails. He added they were committed to the completion of the New Hope Greenway.
Finally, Mr. Anderson said, the 25 acres of the Penny tract was being offered for $137,000, which was a great value. He said there was 21 acres of the Crosland, Inc. tract that was for sale for $1.5 million. Mr. Anderson said they believe if the Town spent the $1.5 million in other areas, the public would benefit by better and more open space. He said the 11 acres of land on their tract was free, and there was no reason for Orange County to pay for it or for Chapel Hill to pay for it. Mr. Anderson said it had already been dedicated.
Mr. Anderson said as a citizen, he asked if there were better places for the Town’s money to be spent given the budget constraints and the proposed tax increase facing them next year. He asked were there places in Chapel Hill, or at least adjacent to Chapel Hill, where these funds could be spent and provide the citizens better value for the money.
Council Member Harrison said he had made the motion two weeks ago to commit the $100,000 and asked if that motion should be revised to $150,000, or should a motion for $50,000 be made? There was general consensus that a new motion would be needed.
Council Member Harrison said he would like to make a motion to authorize the Manager to negotiate with other units for land near the New Hope Preserve, up to $50,000, and to work with Orange County for development and maintenance of the property after it was purchased.
Council Member Harrison said the primary reason he had made the original motion two weeks ago was to “get the ball rolling,” noting that in terms of the total complex of land the Town was looking to invest twice as much as the City of Durham. He said we had money available for open space, but the City of Durham had a policy not to purchase land as open space. Council Member Harrison said what the Council was doing was purchasing land for Durham and Orange County citizens, adding he thought it was worthwhile to take this additional step.
Council Member Harrison said had there not been so much momentum, even more than there was two weeks ago, he would feel like he had in January that the Council should proceed with caution. He said he had not been supportive in January but now things had come together, particularly with all the other pieces of land involved here, adding the puzzle was how all of the tracts fit together. Council Member Harrison said if they do not move on this, then the tract of land he had identified as significant 16 years ago for the Triangle Land Conservancy [the Penny tract], goes away. He said the Penny tract was of regional importance, and the additional $50,000 would make it possible to get there.
Council Member Strom asked the Manager where the funds would be generated. Mr. Horton said the funds would come from the Town’s bond funds for purchase of open space. He said there was competition for those funds, noting they had been negotiating with other property owners about parcels that had been identified by the Council over the years that were of interest. Mr. Horton said the Council would always be facing the question of whether this was the right use or if some other use was the right use, because there were limited dollars available.
Council Member Strom asked how much money was available in the bond fund. Mr. Horton responded that his recollection was approximately $530,000 was available at this time. He said the Council had at times in the past been willing to advance funds as a loan to the bond fund, so it would not be without precedent should the Council does that again. Council Member Strom said these funds were from bonds that had already been sold and would have no impact on the budget. Mr. Horton responded that was correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE WITH ORANGE COUNTY, DURHAM COUNTY AND/OR DURHAM CITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IN AND ADJACENT TO THE NEW HOPE PRESERVE, UP TO AN AMOUNT OF $50,000, AND THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MANAGER TO WORK WITH ORANGE COUNTY TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND IN THE NEW HOPE PRESERVE IN ORANGE COUNTY AFTER ACQUISITION.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if Council Member Strom would explain the wording pertaining to maintenance of the property. Council Member Strom indicated it was his understanding that there were some issues, given the wording Ms. Jacobs spoke about in the resolution adopted by the Durham County Commissioners, that there were some open issues regarding maintenance and development of the trails. He said he wanted to authorize the Manager to clarify and perhaps devise a plan that would allow us to discuss in the future, after acquisition, what the Town’s role might be regarding maintenance and development of the tract.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she would not support the motion, stating it was asking for too large of a portion of the Town’s open space funds. She said the amount that is being asked of Chapel Hill was disproportionate to what had been committed by the City of Durham. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed there were some “politics” taking place between Orange County and Durham County, and she did not believe that Chapel Hill should be used to “get around” whatever the unresolved issues were between those two.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed the Town had done a “great thing” when it had stepped up and offered $100,000 initially. She said if other governing bodies were as interested and committed to seeing this project through then these details would have been worked out, and we would not find ourselves in a position where Orange County was adding up its contribution in a way that Durham County did not respect and therefore would not release its commitment of $900,000 until Orange County put up $200,000.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was very uncomfortable with this. She said those Council member who were supporting the motion may know something that she does not know that makes them comfortable with it. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this had been “sprung on us” and was happening too fast. She added that she still did not understand all that had been said regarding this issue, and would vote against the motion.
Mayor Foy said he believed that Mayor pro tem Wiggins made a good point with regard to the Council hearing about this for the first time this evening. He said it may be in everyone’s best interest to hold this over for consideration at the Council’s work session scheduled for tomorrow. Mayor Foy asked the Manager and Attorney if that would be possible, and that the Manager bring back a recommendation for the Council to consider at that time. He said that would give the Council 24 hours to think this over before a decision was made. Mr. Karpinos said he believed the appropriate action would be that at the end of the meeting the Council recess this meeting rather than adjourn it, and reconvene it at 4 p.m. tomorrow. He said that would allow the Council an opportunity to reconsider this and to receive additional information.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any objections from the Council to the Attorney’s suggestion.
Council Member Harrison said he had said he supported this, but understood Mayor pro tem Wiggins’ comments. He said had he not known as much about this as he could stand, he might feel uninformed, adding he understood how others may feel that it was “sprung” on them.
Council Member Strom said he understood that an additional 24 hours would be helpful for the Council and the staff so they could digest what was being offered and what they were being asked to do. He said his concern was the timing issue with Durham County, and with Orange County’s ability to call a special meeting.
Mayor Foy said that Orange County should notice a meeting in any case, since the Council was considering this. He said he thought the Council should ask the Manager to try to sort out exactly what was happening here, and to give the Council his best advice about what the Town’s role might be and what Orange County was doing. Mayor Foy said he understood what Mayor pro tem Wiggins was saying. He stated he found it difficult given Chapel Hill’s size, resources, and lack of contiguousness to this parcel. Although, Mayor Foy said, that was counterbalanced to some degree by our leadership, regionally.
Mayor Foy commented that when he thinks about this, he thinks about his desire that Chatham County participate with us, which we have not been successful in doing. But, he said, we know that our southern park would be used by Chatham County residents. Now, he said, he believed it would be fair, and just, and honorable if Chatham County came forward and said they would participate in this effort. By the same token, Mayor Foy said, if we want to be real regional partners then maybe we have to be the leader. He added that we were not the leaders alone, noting that Durham County had worked hard on this and deserved a lot of credit.
Mayor Foy said the fact that Chapel Hill was not the largest group participating in this does not outweigh the fact that we can be regional leaders and step up. He said he understood the hesitancy, and was happy to let it rest until tomorrow’s meeting so that they could think about it and receive additional guidance from the Manager.
Council Member Ward said he could not help but feel that this was a game of “who was going to blink first.” He said would it be Chapel Hill, or one of the other partners involved in the negotiations and funding. Council Member Ward said it seemed that this was an effort, as it was described, to relieve Orange County of a $75,000 obligation so that it could put the full $200,000 towards satisfying Durham County. So, he said, it appeared that any partner could help relieve Orange County of the current commitment on the eight acres. Council Member Ward suggested that all of the partners involved could put forth a portion to make up the $50,000 amount.
Council Member Ward said he felt pressured in a negative way, and at the same time was supportive of the actions the Council had taken to date. He stated this was a hard decision for him personally and it appeared that was true for other Council members as well, to commit more funds at the last moment for a project that he believed they were already funding at the appropriate level, given its impact on Chapel Hill. Council Member Ward said he believed the next 24 hours should be used by the Neighborhood Group and Triangle Land Conservancy, as well as Chapel Hill, Orange County and Durham County, to find a way to address the $75,000 shortfall.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated his agreement with Council Member Ward’s remarks. Regarding the second part of the motion, he said he did not believe we should commit to spending additional resources in the future in the management of the property given its location outside of our Town limits. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was not in favor of a long term management program for property that far out of Town. He said he wanted staff to have the benefit of that “contrary” position stated.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Manager advise the Council when this comes back as to whether or not if was legal or even possible for the Town to commit to managing that property, as the motion suggested.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed that the Mayor’s comments regarding the Town’s leadership role was important, adding he felt positive about the steps the Council had taken several weeks ago. But, he noted, Chapel Hill’s role at this stage was not as the “lead dog.” Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was resistant to going any further than they had already.
Council Member Harrison said he had a copy of the document adopted by Orange County at its meeting last week, and one of the bullet points they had was that they wanted the operation and maintenance of any trails or improvements to be constructed by Durham County to be the responsibility of Durham County. He said that apparently Durham County had an issue with that and wanted Orange County to share in that responsibility. Council Member Harrison said that by Council Member Strom’s motion, it appeared that he was suggesting that the responsibility be extended to Chapel Hill as well. He stated he believed that was worth discussing.
Council Member Strom agreed, stating he believed it was a “sticking point,” and added he did not want to commit any additional funds for that. He said the motion stated that he wanted the Manager to work with Orange County to develop a plan for the maintenance and development of the land in the New Hope Preserve that was in Orange County after acquisition. Council Member Strom said he believed it was a three-year purchase, with acquisition taking place in 2008. He said that allowed a “tremendous amount of time” to develop and implement a plan to could very well be all volunteer, such as Eagle Scouts, neighborhoods or others. But, he said, it had to be discussed because it was one of the issues that was out of alignment between the four partners. Council Member Strom said the Manager was skilled at bringing people “to the table” and having them make realistic commitments and understandings.
Mayor Foy suggested that further discussion be deferred until tomorrow’s meeting at 4 p.m., and that tonight’s meeting be recessed. He said at that time the Manager could give the Council his best advice and then the Council could make a decision.
The Council agreed by consensus to defer further discussion on this issue until tomorrow, and at the end of tonight’s meeting to recess it rather than adjourn it.
3c. Announcements
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted “we won,” referring to the UNC Tar Heel’s 75-70 victory over Illinois for the 2005 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship. He said it was “really, really great.”
Council Member Harrison said he had joined the celebration on Franklin Street last evening, and the first person he saw that he knew was Town Manager Cal Horton out on the street doing his job. He said he had visited the Command Post and it was manned by 12 to 15 “very calm” people, and he was impressed by how well the event had been managed. Council Member Harrison said he had gotten “Carolina Blue” paint on his shoes, and had walked the N.C. State University campus today with the blue paint plainly visible. Council Member Kleinschmidt responded, “That was good!”
Mayor Foy said the Manager had not yet presented the Council with a formal report on last night’s celebration, but given the fact that there were very few incidents speaks well to the job that the Manager and staff had performed.
Mr. Horton noted he was “very pleased” with the job done by the Police, Fire, and Public Works staff. He said we had received excellent support from our neighboring communities, particularly from UNC Police, Chatham County, Durham County, and several others. Mr. Horton said letters of thanks would be sent to all who had assisted the Town.
Mr. Horton noted that the Town had also received assistance from a good group of students who not only behaved responsibly and had a great celebration, but did it in a way that did not cause harm to others. He said there were a few injuries, adding that they had an increasing concern about fires and fire-related behavior. Mr. Horton said the Town and University staff had already begun to think about ways to encourage people to remember that it was not safe to jump through a fire, adding that there had been students who received second and third degree burns as a result of falling into a fire. He said they were not attempting to behave badly and were trying only to have a good time, but the result was a serious injury.
Mr. Horton said there was very little property damage, but there was a little blue paint around the Town. He said crews were gradually taking care of that. Mr. Horton said that Council Member Harrison was welcome to keep his on his shoes, but all the rest would be removed.
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
Council Member Strom pulled item #4c, Jordan Lake Non-Point Source Nutrient Management Strategy Update and Designation of Manager as Representative for Discussion. He said he did not want to discuss it tonight, but would like to have it included in a future agenda to that a more detailed discussion could take place.
Council Member Harrison said he believed the Council should consider the resolution with item #4c this evening, noting it was “basic,” and agreed that the topic itself deserved further discussion. Council Member Strom replied that he did not want to adopt the “basic” resolution until the Council had a chance to discuss the policy imbedded in it. He suggested that this be put on the April 25 meeting agenda. Council Member Harrison noted that would be “cutting it close,” as there was a public meeting on this issue scheduled for May 2 and the Council may want some staff to attend.
Mayor Foy asked the Manager was there any objection to placing the issue on the April 25 agenda. Mr. Horton replied he had no objection. Mayor Foy then determined that the issue would be rescheduled for April.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1 WITH ITEM #4c DELETED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-04-05/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. |
Acceptance of Federal Grant Funds for Police In-Car Cameras (O-1). |
|
b. |
Demolition of House Remains at 1613 US 15-501 South (O-2) (R-2). |
|
c. |
Removed. |
|
d. |
Extension of the Siena Hotel’s Lease of Town-Owned Parking Spaces (R-4). |
|
e. |
Request to Reschedule June 13 Council Meeting Date (R-5). |
|
f. |
Amendment to Project Ordinance for the Transitional Housing Program (O-3). |
|
g. |
Installment Financing Approval for Town Operations Center (R-6a, 6b). |
|
h. |
Resolution Calling a Public Hearing to Consider Modification to Sign Regulations and Government Land Regulations (R-7). |
|
i. |
Street Acceptance Regarding Dogwood Acres Drive (R-8). |
|
j. |
Acceptance of Right of First Refusal for American Legion Property (R-9). |
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-04-05/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004” as duly adopted on June 14, 2004 and the same is hereby amended as follows:
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PROCEED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 2 OF THE CHAPEL HILL CODE OF ORDINANCES AS THEY APPLY TO THE DILAPIDATED HOUSE AT 1613 US HIGHWAY 15-501 SOUTH, TAX MAP NUMBER 7.128.B.25 INCLUDING HAVING THE STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED AND A LIEN FOR THE COST OF DEMOLITION PLACED ON THE PROPERTY (2005-04-05/O-2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Council finds, based on the report of the Town Manager dated April 5, 2005, that the Chapel Hill Inspections Department has taken the procedural steps required by Chapter 9 of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances with respect to the residential structure at 1613 US Highway 15-501 South, Chapel Hill (TMBL # 7.128.B.25) prior to adoption this Ordinance.
B. The Council finds that the owner of this dwelling has been given a reasonable opportunity to bring the property into conformity with the Housing Code of the Town of Chapel Hill and has failed to do so.
C. The Council finds that the Inspections Department conducted a hearing on October 2, 2001 for the purposes of determining whether the property at 1613 US Highway 15-501 South is unfit for human habitation and dilapidated.
D. The Council finds that the Inspections Department, as a result of that hearing, determined that the property is dilapidated and unfit for human habitation and in violation of the Town of Chapel Hill Housing Code.
E. The Council finds that the owner has failed to comply with the Order issued by the Inspections Department on November 17, 2004, to have the structure demolished and removed and that the time period established to comply with that order or appeal that Order has expired.
Section 2. Order.
BE IT THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 9-25 \1_of the Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances, that the Chapel Hill Building Inspector shall have the remains of the dilapidated residential structure at 1613 US Highway 15-501 South demolished and a lien placed on the property for the cost of the demolition.
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Ordinance be recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County indexed in the name of the property owner in the Grantor index.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REALLOCATION OF EXISTING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DEMOLITION FUNDS (2005-04-05/R-2)
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill adopted an ordinance to allot $10,000 from the General Fund to the Inspections Department for the demolition of 603 Nunn Street; and
WHEREAS, as of December 17, 2004, the dilapidated residential house at 603 Nunn Street was removed at the cost of the property owner; and
WHEREAS, the property owner of 603 Nunn Street has paid in full all Inspections Department accrued costs for that Minimum Housing Violation file; and
WHEREAS, the $10,000 in unused funds for the demolition of 603 Nunn Street would be returned to the General Fund, and the same amount is requested from the General Fund for the demolition of 1613 US Highway 15-501 South;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the $10,000 allocated to the Inspections Department Demolition account on November 22, 2004, for the demolition and removal of the dilapidated structure at 603 Nunn Street be re-allocated for the demolition of and removal of the dilapidated structure at 1613 US Highway 15-501 South.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXTEND THE LEASE OF TOWN PARKING SPACES ON THE PRITCHARD PARK PROPERTY TO THE SIENA HOTEL (2005-04-05/R-4)
WHEREAS, on November 27, 2000, the Council authorized the Manager to lease parking spaces to the Siena Hotel; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2002, the Council reauthorized the lease of parking spaces to the Siena Hotel; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2005, the Council authorized the Manager to execute an agreement with the Siena Hotel that may result in the sale of 1.1 acres of Pritchard Park property to the Siena Hotel;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager execute an agreement for the lease of parking spaces on the Pritchard Park property to the Siena Hotel at the rate of $65 per parking space per month until March 5, 2006.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2005 (2005-04-05/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Council has expressed a desire to reschedule the June 13, 2005 business meeting to a more acceptable date;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends its Council Meeting Calendar for 2005 to reschedule the Monday, June 13, 2005, business meeting to Wednesday, June 15, 2005.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM PROJECT ORDINANCE (2005-04-05/O-3)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statues of North Carolina, the following project ordinance is hereby established.
SECTION I
The project authorized is the Transitional Housing Program for Public Housing Families as approved by the Council on April 23, 2001. Funds are from the 2004-2005 HOME Program.
SECTION II
The Town Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the project within the rules and regulations of the HOME Program, and the budget contained herein.
SECTION III
The following revenue is available to complete the project:
Current Budget Revised Budget
HOME Program $ 160,117 $ 285,117
County Housing Bond 75,000 75,000
Program Rental Income 12,874 17,968
Transfer from Housing Loan Trust Fund 17,500 17,500
Total $ 265,491 $ 395,585
SECTION IV
The following amounts are appropriated for the project:
Current Budget Revised Budget
Acquisition $ 252,617 $ 377,617
Program Participants Escrow Set Aside 2,891 3,910
Operations 9,983 14,058
Total $ 265,491 $ 395,585
SECTION V
The Finance Director of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to maintain within the Project Fund sufficient detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to Orange County as required by the HOME Program.
SECTION VI
Funds may be advanced from General Funds for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement request should be made to Orange County in an orderly and timely manner.
SECTION VII
The Town Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in Section IV and on the total revenues received.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINANCING THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER FOR UP TO $26,000,000 AND SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ITS APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S PROPOSED FINANCING (2005-04-05/R-6a)
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has previously determined to carry out a plan to finance the construction of a new Town Operations Center (the “Project”) through the use of an installment financing including certificates of participation. The financing contract was the subject of a public hearing held by the Town Council on March 21, 2005; and
WHEREAS, under the guidelines of the North Carolina Local Government Commission (the “LGC”), this governing body must make certain findings of fact to support the Town’s application for the LGC’s approval of the Town’s proposed financing arrangements for the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, as follows:
1. The Town Council determines to finance the Project by the use of installment financing including certificates of participation. The Town estimates that the total amount to be financed will be up to a maximum amount of $26,000,000, including amounts that may be needed to provide required reserves, to pay financing costs and to pay other necessary and related costs.
2. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to proceed with the proper steps toward completing the financing, including proceeding with an application to the LGC for its approval of such financing. The Town Council appoints the Finance Director as the Town’s authorized representative with respect to the LGC application process.
3. The Town requests that the LGC approve the Town’s application for such financing. The Town Council makes the following findings of fact in support of its application for approval and its determination to proceed with this financing:
(a) The proposed projects are necessary and appropriate for the Town under all the circumstances. The new facility will replace a facility currently being leased from the University of North Carolina, and the University has advised the Town that the lease will not be renewed when it expires. The Town has determined that providing a new facility for these functions is the Town’s most cost-effective option.
(b) The proposed installment financing is preferable to a bond issue for the same purpose. Using an installment financing for this Project allows the Town to address a series of needs as part of a flexible, long-term plan balanced between general obligation bonds (which the Town’s voters have recently approved for other purposes) and installment financings. The size of this project and its nature as a single building makes installment financing using certificates of participation a logical option.
(c) The estimated sums to fall due under the proposed financing contract are adequate and not excessive for the proposed purpose. The Town has, and will continue, to closely monitor construction budgets against available funds. The Town will closely review proposed financing rates against market rates with guidance from the LGC.
(d) As confirmed to the Town Council at this meeting by the Finance Director, \1_the Town’s debt management procedures and policies are sound and in compliance with law, and (ii) the Town is not in default under any of its debt service obligations.
(e) The Town Attorney is of the opinion that the Project is authorized by law and is a purpose for which public funds of the Town may be expended pursuant to the Constitution and laws of North Carolina.
4. The Town Council approves the selection of Legg Mason Wood Walker and Wachovia Bank, N.A. to provide investment banking and underwriting services to the Town in connection with this transaction.
5. All Town officers and employees are authorized and directed to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the furtherance of the purposes of this resolution. All such prior actions of Town officers and employees are ratified, approved and confirmed. All other resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this resolution are repealed, to the extent of the conflict. This resolution takes effect immediately.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FINAL APPROVAL OF TERMS AND DOCUMENTS FOR INSTALLMENT FINANCING OF THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER (2005-04-05/R-6b)
WHEREAS,the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has previously determined to carry out a plan to finance the construction of a new Town Operations Center (the “Project”) through the use of an installment financing including certificates of participation; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Finance Director has presented to this meeting the draft documents listed as Attachment 3 (March 17, 2005 Draft – Installment Financing Contract, Attachment 4 (March 17, 2005 Draft – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement) and Attachment 5 (March 17, 2005 Draft – Trust Agreement). Attachment 6 is a draft dated March 12, 2005, of an official statement providing for the disclosure of information to prospective investors in the Town’s financing obligations. All of these items relate to the Town's carrying out the financing plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, as follows:
1. Determination To Proceed with Project -- The Town Council confirms its decision to carry out the financing plan for the Project.
2. Approval of Documents; Direction To Execute Documents -- The Town Council approves the forms of the Documents submitted to this meeting. The Town Council authorizes and directs the Town’s Mayor and the Town Manager, or either of them, to execute and deliver those Documents to which the Town is a party. The Documents in their respective final forms must be in substantially the forms presented, with such changes as the Mayor or the Town Manager may approve. The execution and delivery of any Document by an authorized Town officer will be conclusive evidence of such officer’s approval of any such changes. The Documents in final form, however, must provide for the amount financed by the Town not to exceed $26,000,000 and for a financing term not to extend beyond December 31, 2025.
3. Approval of Official Statement – The Town Council approves the draft official statement submitted to this meeting as the form of the preliminary official statement pursuant to which the Certificates (as defined in Exhibit A) will be offered for sale. The preliminary official statement as distributed to prospective investors must be in substantially the form presented, with such changes as the Finance Director may approve.
The Town Council directs the Finance Director, after the sale of the Certificates, to complete and otherwise prepare the preliminary official statement as an official statement in final form. The Town Council authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute and deliver the final official statement in such form as he may approve upon the Finance Director’s recommendation.
The Town Council authorizes and approves the use of the preliminary official statement and final official statement by Legg Mason Wood Walker and Wachovia Bank, N.A. in connection with the sale of the Certificates.
The Town Council acknowledges that it is the Town’s responsibility to ensure that the Official Statement, in its final form, is correct and complete in all material respects. By the adoption of this resolution, the Town Council members acknowledge their responsibility for causing the Town to fulfill its responsibilities for the Official Statement.
4. Finance Director To Complete Closing – The Finance Director and all other Town officers and employees are authorized and directed to take all proper steps to complete the closing of the financing contemplated by this resolution.
The Finance Director is authorized and directed to hold any documents authorized or permitted by this resolution, once executed, in escrow on the Town’s behalf until the conditions for their delivery have been completed to the Finance Director’s satisfaction, and thereupon to release the executed documents for delivery to the appropriate persons or organizations.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this authorization and direction is specifically extended to authorize the Finance Director to approve changes to any documents or closing certifications previously signed by Town officers or employees, provided that the Documents will be in substantially the form approved by this resolution and that any such changes will not substantially alter the intent of such certificates from that expressed in the forms of such certificates as executed by such officers or employees. The Finance Director’s authorization of the release of any such document for delivery will constitute conclusive evidence of such director’s approval of any such changes.
5. Miscellaneous Provisions – All Town officers and employees are authorized and directed to take all such further action as they may consider necessary or desirable in furtherance of the purposes of this resolution. All such prior actions of Town officers and employees are ratified, approved and confirmed. In the Mayor’s absence, the Mayor Pro Tem or the Town Manager may assume any responsibility or carry out any function assigned to the Mayor in this resolution. All other Council proceedings, or parts thereof, in conflict with this resolution are repealed, to the extent of the conflict. This resolution takes effect immediately.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS AND TO THE PUBLIC LAND APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (2005-04-05/R-7)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls Public Hearings for 7:00 pm on Monday, May 16, 2005, in the Chapel Hill Town Hall, to consider amending Sections 5.14.8(4)H and 1.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance and refers the proposed amendments to the Town Manager and the Planning Board for an opportunity to comment and recommendation.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DELETION FROM STATE-MAINTAINED SYSTEM OF A STREET LYING WITHIN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, AND FORMERLY MAINTAINED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (2005-04-05/R-8)
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, has maintained a certain street lying within the Town of Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill will now assume maintenance responsibility for this street;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town hereby agrees to provide all necessary maintenance on the 0.23 miles of the street in question, as set forth on the tabulation below; and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, effective June 17, 2005, will discontinue all maintenance on said street as of this date.
Listing of street to be accepted for maintenance purposes by the Town of Chapel Hill effective June 17, 2005:
ORANGE COUNTY
SR NO NAME FROM TO LENGTH
1962 Dogwood Acres Drive US 15-501 a point 0.23 0.23 miles
miles west at
the Town’s limit
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION PLEADING NOT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1714 LEGION ROAD AS A POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITE (2005-04-05/R-9)
WHEREAS, American Legion Post 6 owns property located at 1714 Legion Road in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, a proposal has been suggested to designate this property as a potential school site on Chapel Hill’s Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the American Legion has offered to provide the Town of Chapel Hill a right of first refusal on the property, should the Legion decide to sell it, in return for a pledge from the Town Council to not designate this property as a potential school site, as expressed in a letter dated March 25, 2005;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that in recognition of the substantial community contribution that has resulted from the American Legion’s investment in this property and the Legion’s generous policy of community use over many years, and in consideration of the Legion’s offer to provide the Town with a right of first refusal for this property should the Legion decide to sell it, this Town Council pledges its intention to not designate the property as a potential school site on the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council states its appreciation for the activities of the Legion.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
Item 5 – Information Items
Council Member Ward said he wanted to discuss item #5a, which was the response to a petition regarding safety issues at South Estes Drive and Fordham Boulevard. He said he appreciated the progress and response that the staff had made to date.
Council Member Ward asked if it had already been included but not stated, or wanted to suggest that it be done, that general configuration of that intersection be studied. He said that South Estes Drive comes out of the neighborhood to Fordham Boulevard and flares out, which made it a broad intersection. Council Member Ward said he believed the lanes were broader than necessary given the number of cars sitting at Estes facing west. He asked if there was a way to change that curb cut to make it more pedestrian friendly and to shorten the distance that people have to walk as they walk across both Fordham Boulevard and across Estes Drive.
Mr. Horton noted that the staff was not aware that this item would be discussed this evening, so Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli was not present to respond. He said he would take this request as a Council petition for further research.
Item 6 – Southern Community Park Special Use Application:
Request to Continue Hearing to April 11, 2005
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-9.1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOULSY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING (2005-04-05/R-9.1)
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2005, the Town Council held a Public Hearing on the Southern Community Park Special Use Permit application; and
WHEREAS, in response to comments from the Town Council and Advisory Board the Town as applicant is proposing to modify the site plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Southern Community Park Special Use Permit Public Hearing shall be recessed to April 11, 2005.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
Item 7 – Consideration of Resolution Renaming Martin Luther King, Jr. Street
MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COUNCIL NAMING COMMITTEE TO RENAME MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. STREET “JACKIE ROBINSON STREET,” THANKING THE RESIDENTS OF THE COLONY WOODS WEST NEIGHBORHOOD AND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. STREET FOR THEIR STREET NAME SUGGESTIONS, AND DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS (2005-04-05/R-10)
WHEREAS, on Dec. 6, 2004, the Council voted to rename Airport Road in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
WHEREAS, the renaming of an existing Martin Luther King, Jr. Street is necessary to avoid duplication; and
WHEREAS, the Council Naming Committee was charged with making recommendations to the Council on the renaming of the existing Martin Luther King, Jr. Street;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the recommendation of the Council Naming Committee to Rename Martin Luther King, Jr. Street as “Jackie Robinson Street.” The Council also extends its thanks to the residents of the Colony Woods West neighborhood and Martin Luther King, Jr. Street for their participation in the renaming process and for their anticipated effort to transition to a new address.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council also directs the Manager to conduct the following activities:
1. Assist individuals affected by the renaming with transition information and guidance that will help them make the necessary changes to their addresses.
2. Change the housing numbers on Martin Luther King, Jr. Street to bring these into conformity with countywide 911 emergency protocols.
3. Implement the street name change with the fabrication and installation of new street signs by May 8, 2005.
4. Seek to involve residents of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street in the naming celebration of the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
Item 8 – Triangle Transit Authority Annual Report
John Claflin, General Manager of the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), presented the Council with TTA’s annual update. He said they had experienced a great year, and he wanted to talk about some of the events that had occurred during the year. Mr. Claflin noted that the materials he had distributed to the Council were produced in 2004 and contained information regarding the beginning of the regional rail system and the connection between Durham, through the Research Triangle Park, through Cary and to Raleigh. He said he wanted to make sure that the Town knew that TTA was committed to future spurs, one of which they hoped would be connected to Chapel Hill, although there was no opportunity at this time for that. But, Mr. Claflin said, they had been focused over the past year to make that happen.
Mr. Claflin provided the following information:
TTA Organization
® Jurisdiction includes Durham, Orange and Wake Counties
® 13 member Board of Trustees
Regional Funding Source
® $5 vehicle registration fee
o subsidizes bus, vanpool
o approximately $5 million per year
® 5% rental car tax
o subsidizes regional rail project
o approximately $7 million per year
Regional Programs
® Bus, shuttle and paratransit service
® Commuter resources: vanpool, carpool and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
® Long range transportation planning
® Regional rail transit system (2008)
For performance indicators, Mr. Claflin noted the following:
Bus/Shuttle Service
® 711,117 annual boardings – up 6.5% as compared to 2003
® 8 average passengers per hour – up 17% over 2003
® 2,680 average weekday boardings
® New regional pass program for regular riders
® Pass program at UNC and NC State
® Working with State government for pass program
Vanpools
® 320,694 riders – up 5% as compared to 2003
® Currently running 58 vanpools
Paratransit
® Ridership up more than 692% over 2003
Regarding the Composite Master Transit Plan, Mr. Claflin offered the following update:
Objectives
® To document and prioritize major investments in region-wide transit projects
® Serves as regional master plan for transit development, land use policies, and programs to support transit
® Used to advocate for funding to support major transit investments
Process
® Outgrowth of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Planning (LRTP) process
® Input from decision makers, community, and stakeholders
® Identifies financing and costs, project schedules, and responsible agencies
Mr. Claflin offered the following scope changes to TTA’s Regional Rail Project:
Project Re-scoped
® From 16 stations (35 miles) to 12 stations (28 miles)
Primary Factors
® Rental Car Tax revenue source has remained flat and in some years declined
® Changes in IRS code removes option to defer depreciation and net approximately $28 million in revenue
® Increasing costs for steel, cement and other materials has affected construction costs, causing an increase in the budget
Mr. Claflin displayed a map of the Regional Rail Project, stating that the project consisted of 12 stations, 28.1 route miles, 27 bridges, and 33 grade crossings. He noted that the rail line would begin at 9th Street in Durham and end at the Government Center in Raleigh, noting they had not eliminated anything in between.
Mr. Claflin gave the rail project status as follows:
Final Design
® 90% complete plans for all nine sections submitted for review to TTA and stakeholders
® Station site plan submittal process underway
Rail Operations Maintenance Facility (ROMF)
® Design-Build method of procurement
® One responsive price proposal received. Negotiations (within State bidding laws) underway
Rail Car Procurement
® TTA Board award to UTS at November 17, 2004 Board meeting
® Negotiating purchase of 14 married pairs in initial order with options to purchase two additional pairs
Construction
® ROMF – contingent upon FTA Letter of No Prejudice date
® Rail project – as soon as fall 2005
Art in Transit
® Selection of artists scheduled for spring 2005
Revenue Operations
® Scheduled opening in late 2008
Mr. Claflin noted the following Status of Agreements:
Railroads Agreements
® NCRR and CSX agreements – completed
® Norfolk Southern operating and maintenance and Construction Agreements forecast completion in April 2005
Master Utility Agreement
® Final draft to be submitted to NCRR in April 2005
Status of Interlocal Agreements
® Final draft agreement released to stakeholders for review
® Meetings with local governments ongoing
Council Member Strom said people in our community look at these freight railroad corridors and think that a commuter rail system should be installed there. He said after serving on the TTA Board for several years and hearing Mr. Claflin talk about the railroad agreements, it was his understanding that when TTA picked the corridor the assumption was that using an existing freight corridor would be inexpensive, fast, and simple and we could use the existing track.
Council Member Strom said in the future this Council may be dealing with certain transportation and land use issues with some assumptions that using existing rail corridors would be inexpensive, fast and simple. He asked Mr. Claflin to talk about the challenges above and beyond taking two years to negotiate a simple agreement, dealing with the federal government, sitings, extra rails, right-of-ways, and property that TTA had experienced. Council Member Strom said it may be a useful lesson for the Council and staff and the community to hear.
Mr. Claflin said he could speak from his experience with TTA, as well as from his 15 years in Portland, Oregon and 11 years in Denver, Colorado. He said in all cases he had dealt with railroads. Mr. Claflin said that using an existing rail corridor was by far the most inexpensive way to go, noting that when building a new system through residential or business areas the relocation costs and impact to the community are quite negative.
Mr. Claflin said one important thing that all cities and counties should be looking at was every time you see an abandoned railway, buy it. He said it would be the best investment they make. Mr. Claflin said those corridors were there for a reason, mainly they were proven transportation corridors, adding they “connect things.” He said that there had been speculation as to why TTA chose the corridor for its rail system from 9th Street in Durham to the Government Center in Raleigh. Mr. Claflin said if you look along that alignment at the RTP, at the growth in Cary, at the State Fair Grounds, at the NC State campus, at downtown Raleigh, then go north along the CSX rail line, those are all areas that work well as origins and destinations. So, he said, buying railroad corridors was good business, but you cannot expect that it would happen easily.
Mr. Claflin said that by using existing rail corridors, the negative impact was minimal since those areas were already accustomed to the presence of rail. He noted that having to go to the expense of purchasing large amounts of property through residential or business areas was removed, and that mitigation of any negative factors was easier.
Mr. Claflin said there were many rail lines in Denver, and that city had bought up quite a few of them as they became available, some as much as twenty years ago. He said that when they began to build their rail system, they had already purchased three-fourths of the alignment they needed.
Mr. Claflin continued his presentation, noting the status of FTA New Starts and Model Issues, and Report to Congress for FY 2006:
§ Recent New Starts submission: Sent to FTA in August 2004
§ Cost effectiveness
o Ratio between ridership and project cost must be feasible
o A factor of the competitive process for federal funding
§ Project budget = $631 million (in 2004 dollars; estimated at $691 million due to inflation, including financing costs)
§ Opening year (2008) ridership = 4.1 million
§ TTA and FTA working together to resolve regional transportation modeling issues
§ TTA working with FTA and consultants to evaluate model elements
§ Due to deadlines, FTA will assign a “not rated” rating in the February report to Congress (“not rated” preferable to “not recommended”)
§ FTA will evaluate other project elements and provide updated rating to Congress upon resolution of modeling issues
§ Impact on project schedule undetermined
§ Strong Congressional support - $20 million in the federal FY 2005 budget; federal appropriations to date – approximately $85 million
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Claflin what happens to the $20 million in the 2005 budget, specifically, what would TTA use it for. Mr. Claflin said mainly for design costs and buying up of property, noting they had already obtained 91% of the property needed. He said they were expecting to receive another $20 to $30 million in the next budget year.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said from the presentation it was noted that TTA had dropped back to construction of just four stations. He said that we had been eager for Phase II to come, but asked if Chapel Hill was now in Phase III. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if Phase II was now Duke University and the north Raleigh area. Mr. Claflin said that Phase II, as he understood it, was the build-out of this spine, which was the next spur. He said the next spur of that alignment would be Chapel Hill, if the region approved it and there was a funding source for it. Mr. Claflin said the construction phase for the other stations was still there, as they were before, and they expected to construct those.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked would they be funded, and would they require another funding source. Mr. Claflin said construction of those stations would require a new funding source. Council Member Kleinschmidt said, then, the new funding sources would go towards completing those stations rather than bringing the spur out. Mr. Claflin said the new funding source would build out those stations, which were already committed to, already approved by the federal government, and we had already expended money both in the acquisition of property and the rail alignment. He added that the TTA Board had recommended that those stations be built out before any spur connection was started. Mr. Claflin noted that the spur would have to be built in any case for the connection to US 15-501 to Chapel Hill.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Mr. Claflin to explain his reference to the connection to US 15-501. Mr. Claflin said that you were not across Highway 147, and part of that would have to be built in order to connect that alignment someplace. He said he doubted that connection would be at 147 and 9th Street in Durham. So, Mr. Claflin said, you would still have to have some connection and going across that freeway would be part of that alignment going into Chapel Hill. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that assumed a US 15-501 corridor. Mr. Claflin said that was correct, which he understood was the MPO’s preferred alignment.
Council Member Strom said the 2030 Transportation Plan had the US 15-501 corridor as Phase II. He said that was the assumption they were working towards. Council Member Strom said that as far as a future funding source, there was some conversation on the TTA Board that the Board had not precluded combining a funding source for completing these final four stations as well as Phase II funding at the same time. He said it would have a more regional appeal to the counties as well as to the Legislature if everyone received some funding at that time. Council Member Strom said the funding source, the vehicle registration tax and the rental car tax, had not lived up to their expectations and had now fallen dramatically short. He asked Mr. Claflin to comment on what Charlotte’s revenue source had been and what the growth had been.
Mr. Claflin said that Charlotte’s source of revenue was a half-cent sales tax, which generated about $55 million each year. He said their ambitions were much greater than ours, and they were funding several alignments. Mr. Claflin said it had been felt that the rental car tax and the vehicle registration tax would generate enough funds, but as the system grows those funds fall short. But, in Charlotte’s case, as it grows the half-cent sales tax generates more and more funds.
In comparison, Mr. Claflin said, Denver had a funding source of a six-tenths-cent sales tax, and it only recently was increased to one cent to build out their rail project. He said that obviously a sales tax was a much better form of revenue; however, it most cases it was difficult to get politicians to support a sales tax because we were already taxed fairly high in North Carolina.
Mr. Claflin said it was still not decided what revenue source would be recommended, but a variety of opportunities were being studied. He said that the Regional Transportation Alliance were looking at alternatives to promote both highway funding as well as transit funding, and a new revenue source to support both.
Council Member Ward noted that Mr. Claflin had stated that gas prices were spurring ridership. He asked how did the gas costs they were incurring compare to the increase in ridership. Council Member Ward said he was curious if they balanced each other out. Mr. Claflin responded that they were doing better financially with the increased ridership, although it was a dilemma for them. He stated that their prices for diesel fuel had recently gone from 90 cents to $1.61 per gallon without taxes, an increase of over 70 cents in less than a year.
Mr. Claflin said TTA had been discussing a fare increase when diesel was at about $1.10 per gallon, and had developed what they thought was a healthy fare increase. In retrospect, he said, with diesel prices continuing to climb that rate increase should have been more.
Council Member Ward asked what conversations had TTA had about using bio-diesel as its fuel of choice. Mr. Claflin said many discussions had taken place, and in fact with future procurements they would be able to purchase vehicles that could use bio-diesel fuel.
Council Member Ward asked was there a way to transfer ridership to numbers of vehicles off the road. Mr. Claflin said yes, that they serve about one million riders per year, which equates to one million trips that were not taken in private vehicles on the road. He said it was important to remember that a “trip” with TTA was different than a local trip, because their buses travel as far south as Garner, and from Chapel Hill to Raleigh. Mr. Claflin said their average trip length was close to 10 miles, with the high trip length closer to 20 to 30 miles. He said when looked at in that perspective, it was really vehicle miles traveled, not the number of trips. Mr. Claflin said that the one million riders annually means that 10 million miles were traveled on TTA buses rather than in individual vehicles.
Item 9 – Chapel Hill 2007-2013 Transportation Priority List
Transportation Planner David Bonk said that tonight was a follow-up the public forum held on March 21 to gather comments from the public on the development of the project priority list to be used by both the Transportation Advisory Committee and the NC Department of Transportation in the development of the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program.
Mr. Bonk said that at the forum there were several comments from the public and from Council members. He said they had attempted to address those questions in the materials submitted to the Council under the heading “Key Issues” beginning on page 1. Mr. Bonk said they had also addressed recommendations and comments made by various advisory boards as it related to the development of the 2007 Priority List.
Mr. Bonk said the Manager’s recommendation was that the 2007 Priority List differ from the 2006 Priority List in the following ways:
· Remove three projects that had been funded through the Surface Transportation Program:
o Morgan Creek Greenway (#7)
o Dry Creek Greenway (#18)
o Upper Booker Creek Greenway (#19)
By removing those three projects, reorder the remaining projects in the same orientation they had been in before,
Regarding Estes Drive (#3), recommend that the project be removed until there is clarification on the possible alignment of the road as part of any development of the Horace Williams property.
Mr. Bonk noted that the State had initiated a minor improvement project along Estes Drive using Moving Ahead money where they would be adding 3-foot shoulders on either side of Estes Drive from Airport Road to Seawell School Road. He said that project would be underway something this spring or early summer. Mr. Bonk continued with the Manager’s recommendations:
· Propose adding the following projects to the 2007-2013 Chapel Hill Priority List as priorities numbers 21, 22, and 23:
o Airport Road Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
o Fordham Boulevard Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
o NC 54 Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Mayor Foy noted that Airport Road was a Council priority because of the work already done on trying to make it more pedestrian friendly. He suggested it would make more sense to more that up on the priority list, stating that we had funds and had a plan. Mr. Bonk responded if the Council believed that was a project that should be recognized as a significant priority for the Town, then putting it somewhere higher on the priority list would be appropriate. Mayor Foy said he believed that they should do, that, although he did not know exactly where on the list it should go. He said the Council had put time, money, and effort into that project, and it should be moved forward on the list.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Bonk to refresh the Council’s recollection of where we were on other projects, such as Columbia Street, and why that was not on the list. Mr. Bonk replied that it had been the practice that when staff brought these priority lists to the Council that they remove projects that had been funded to the degree that Weaver Dairy Road was funded in the TIP as had South Columbia Street. Mr. Bonk said those projects were no longer listed on the priority list, but there was certainly recognition that the Council continued to support those projects.
Mr. Bonk noted just last week at a joint meeting of the TAC and the Capital Area MPO that they had received an update from the State, stating that the State had released a draft version of its 2006 final TIP which indicated the status of some of the projects in Chapel Hill, including South Columbia Street and Weaver Dairy Road along with a host of other projects in the region. He stated that those projects would slip back a few years in terms of implementation, but they are still in the project for funding.
Council Member Strom said when a project was funded and then slips, what does that mean to us in terms of how are dollars within the division are flowing to us. Mr. Bonk responded that it became a “double counting” of sorts if it occurred within the first two years of the TIP. He said if a project was shown to be funded in those first two years, then it would count against the equity formula for the entire period. Mr. Bonk said if that project in subsequent TIP's was then shown again it got counted against that future TIP but was not being done in the period it was counted in originally. So, he said, if a project was $1 million in an original TIP, then $1 million in the two years hence, that was $2 million that did not necessarily represent new money, it was simply a transfer or a carrying over, but it was counted against the total that the region would hope to get in that second period.
Council Member Strom asked for Weaver Dairy Road and South Columbia Street, how many times have we spent that money at this point? Mr. Bonk replied that for Weaver Dairy Road, that project was so far out on the schedule that we were not yet at the point of double-counting. For South Columbia Street, he said, by moving the project from 2005 to 2006 and now to 2007 that money was being double-counting in a couple of different cases. Council Member Strom asked did that mean it was being counted twice or four times? Mr. Bonk responded twice, at least.
Council Member Strom asked if we had any recourse or relief available, and asked if DOT would pay for our traffic signal system upgrade as a consolation prize for allowing our #1 priority project to slip. Mr. Bonk replied they had been in negotiations with the State to explore various ways of getting the signal upgrade funding in the TIP. He said they had not yet seen the final TIP draft, noting it was due to come out at the end of the week, but it did not include any new funding for the signal upgrade.
As far as what recourse the Council had, Mr. Bonk noted that when the TIP was formally released this week, the TAC would be releasing it for public comment and we would be bringing it to you probably at the last meeting in April. He said at that time, you could encourage the TAC both as a Council and through your representatives to the TAC to begin a negotiating process with the State to discover what flexibility there might be to either restore projects to the schedule or to get new projects in, such as the traffic signal system. Mr. Bonk said it was important to note that the TIP had to have approval by both the TAC and the Board of Transportation. He said if one or the other failed to approve it, then there was no TIP.
Mr. Horton said he believed it was time to start “pushing hard” not only on the South Columbia Street project, but on the signal system as well. He said they had attended a meeting with the district engineer and staff from the Raleigh offices to express our need for a complete overall of our traffic signal system. Mr. Horton said it was one of the last copper wire systems installed, and we needed to switch to fiber optics. He said we needed to have better controllers that would receive and operate under better software, but as of now the State was offering no support for that.
Mr. Horton said he had explained to the district engineer and the staff from the Raleigh offices that one of the options we would have to consider if the State did not offer some funding was recommend that we return the system to the State for maintenance, because of the increasing concern about the liability for operation of the system. He said we did have some time before getting to that point, but that point was in sight. Mr. Horton said it was time to push hard.
Council Member Strom said they would be discussing this when the draft TIP was released, but they had also made some land use policy decisions based on the understanding that the South Columbia Street project would be proceeding on a timely basis. He said we had the support of UNC which we had been told was the only obstacle to beginning the actual right-of-way acquisition and construction of that project.
Council Member Strom said we don’t ask for a lot as far as roads are concerned, but that project was a significant priority and would have a positive impact on the way people move through the community. He said it was “really disappointing” that we were spending the money but receiving no benefit whatsoever, and in fact were incurring a liability.
Council Member Ward said he encouraged the Council to revise the proposed resolution to reinstate the Estes Drive project, formerly number three on the list. He said he could not believe that we would remove that item based on an artist’s rendering of Carolina North. Council Member Ward said that over the last 30 years we have had at least three or four renditions of Carolina North or the Horace Williams property, and they had all been different. He said he could not believe that the Council would take that project off the table after it had reached the sixth highest priority in District Seven, and up until this evening it had been highest priority for road improvement in Chapel Hill, just because “a University consultant had put a line on a piece of paper.” Council Member Ward said that road was a major east-west corridor connecting two towns and beyond, that he had seen mothers with strollers walking on that road to access bus stops.
Council Member Ward asked for the Council’s support in modifying the resolution to put the Estes Drive project back in as the number three priority rather than number six.
Mayor Foy said in response to Council Member Ward’s concern, he believed that the project had not been moved down on the priority list only because of the artist’s rendition. He said that the Council had not yet approved anything for Carolina North, and we do not know if that road would move or stay the same. Mayor Foy said it was recognition that given that there was uncertainty, how much energy should Chapel Hill put into it when we have projects like South Columbia Street were there is only an “invisible object” in the way.
Mayor Foy said we had “banged our heads” up against South Columbia Street for years without progress, and he believed this was a recognition that NCDOT would not budge on what the Town wanted to do on Estes Drive while the University was saying they may want to realign it. He said that was just recognition of the reality, stating it was a matter of where we put our resources in fighting for projects.
Council Member Ward said his perspective was different. He said he saw a problem and an unsafe condition out there, and did not believe it should be taken it off the table until the University figured out what it wanted to do. Council Member Ward said if it was a priority, and if it was an unsafe condition which he believed it was, we need to make that evident in our priority list. He added he did not know that the University had veto power over the Town’s transportation plan. Council Member Ward said if that was the case, he wanted to hear the Mayor, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the DOT, or the University say so.
Mayor Foy said he did not believe anyone would say so, and the reality was that the DOT knew what was happening.
Council Member Ward said he would suspect we could find other things on our priority list that the University might have a vested interest in, and you could apply the same rules and say “let’s take it off the table until we figure out what the University was really going to want” along Homestead Road or Seawell School Road. He added that all of these were adjacent or interior to the greater Carolina North/Horace Williams property, and asked why we don’t treat them the same way and take them off the table for the next five, 10, or 15 years until we find out what the University wanted to do.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not think that was responsive to why the project came off the list, noting it made no sense that we would rely on the proposal for Horace Williams. He said he did not believe this effort compared to the South Columbia Street project, unless he was misunderstanding something. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was not on the list because it was being funded. Mr. Bonk responded that was correct, that it was not on the list because it was already funded in the TIP.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said then theoretically the South Columbia Street project was in process. Mr. Bonk replied that was correct. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the energy they were giving to the Estes Drive project was different that the already funded South Columbia Street project, so it was not something that should be compared. He said we don’t fight for the improvements to Estes Drive at the cost of loosing South Columbia Street, adding that made no sense.
Mayor Foy said he did not agree, stating the fact was we did not have South Columbia Street, it had been out number one priority for a number of years, and Mr. Bonk was being “kind” by saying it was funded. He said in fact it was not funded, but was in the “out years” where theoretically there was funding. Mayor Foy said we are trying to get it built, and there was a limit to how many times you could “butt your head up against” the DOT. He said it did not seem to him it was worth spending a lot of time when the University was publicly saying they were going to change Estes.
Mayor Foy said that did not mean that the Council would agree to it, but it sure did not mean that the DOT would say they were going to invest several million dollars in improving that road when we might come to the conclusion later on if the University wanted to change it that it was a good configuration. He said he believed the practical reality was that Estes would not be changed until the Town and the University agreed.
Mayor Foy said his point was that the Town and the University had agreed on South Columbia Street, and it was not yet funded because of some problem we do not know about. And, he added, he did not think was should “bang our heads against the wall” on the Estes project.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what wall we were banging against here. He said by removing it from the list all we were allowing DOT to say was, that back in 2005 you took it off the list, now it’s 2015 and there is still no Carolina North because the General Assembly never allowed the airport to close, there has never been a realignment and we still do not have the improvements to Estes, because back in 2005 Chapel Hill took it off the table. He said that scenario did not argue for taking it off the list, and asked why not leave it on as a stated priority.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said in his judgment the South Columbia Street project had become a “different kind of animal.” He said these other things were not funded in any way, either in this cycle or in future cycles, noting they were different from South Columbia. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe this energy should be viewed the same as the energy we used to push for South Columbia.
Council Member Verkerk asked Mr. Bonk if he had stated that DOT was installing three-foot asphalt shoulders. Mr. Bonk said that was correct. Council Member Verkerk asked when that would happen. Mr. Bonk replied that it was scheduled for this summer. He said that during a previous meeting with a DOT official along with Town representatives, it was stated that because of the uncertainty of the University’s plans that they would not recommend funding for that, but would allocate money from the Moving Ahead fund to do some three-foot should widenings in that corridor to deal with what had already been expressed as a real problem.
Council Member Verkerk said many of the people she heard from about the safety on Estes Drive were bicyclists, and having three-foot asphalt shoulders put in this summer was “much better” than a bicycle lane, maybe, ten or fifteen years in the future.
Council Member Harrison agreed that it was a “meritorious” project.
Mayor Foy said the Moving Ahead money was already allocated. He contended that Airport Road should move up on the list because it was a potential reality. Mayor Foy said why we would occupy a priority space with something that was not going to happen made no sense.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would not argue with that, but he had heard the Mayor describe things at the bottom of the list as things that were not going to happen, yet they stayed on the list.
Mayor Foy said it was fine to keep it on the list, but that we should recognize the reality, and being he did not believe Estes Drive was going to happen. He said he had no objection to putting it on the bottom of the list, but it should not be a priority item. Mayor Foy said we could always change the priorities, but at this point it was not a priority.
Council Member Ward said in terms of his understanding of the quality of service that road was able to perform, it was a high priority to do something about it. He asked Mr. Bonk how the three feet of asphalt on each side on Estes compared to what was done on Homestead Road. Mr. Bonk replied that on Homestead Road only two feet of asphalt shoulder was added. Council Member Ward asked if the travel lane widths on Estes Drive would remain the same after the three feet of asphalt shoulder was added. Mr. Bonk responded he would have to check, but his understanding was that the travel lane widths in that area of Estes Drive had always been substandard in that it was 10 foot rather than 12 foot travel lanes. He said he believed the widening involved expanding the lanes to 12 feet, then the addition of three feet outside the striped line. Council Member Ward said that would mean more than six feet added. Mr. Bonk responded ultimately that was correct, but he would confirm that with the State.
Council Member Ward said if we were taking up that expansion with wider travel lanes, then he did not believe we were giving our pedestrians and bicyclists much at all. He said he wanted to reiterate this was a priority for our community and it needed to be expressed as such on this list.
Council Member Strom said he believed the Mayor had done a good job with dealing with DOT on the Town’s behalf, and that it was important that we do recognize reality. He said as difficult as it was to get any of our funded projects built, he believed that we should keep Estes improvements on the bottom of the list. Council Member Strom said as Council Member Kleinschmidt said, dropping it off the list may send the message that we were not interested in it. He said he was willing to support the Mayor’s recommendation that we stop pushing on that.
Council Member Strom said with the improvements made possible with Moving Ahead funds that many of the safety concerns would be addressed. He added he had never been fond of the suggestion to make Estes Drive a three-lane road, noting it seemed counter to the Council’s philosophy of shifting focus to Chapel Hill transit.
Council Member Ward stated that Estes Drive Extension was the highest ranked in terms of the point system, and for it to be placed on the bottom of the list made he wonder what we had a ranking system for. He suggested that maybe we needed to add to the bottom a note that points would be subtracted if the University was not in favor of it, or points added if the University was in favor of it. Council Member Ward asked what purpose a ranking system served if the highest ranked project was not the first priority on our priority list. He said he believed we were “playing games.”
Mayor Foy said he did not believe it was only the University, stating that, for instance, we had an undeveloped 1,000-acre parcel in Chapel Hill and a developer owned all of it, and the developer placed plans before the Council that had different road configurations. He said then the Council could insist that DOT had to deal with the road. Then, Mayor Foy continued, later on we might want to change it but did not know at that point because we had not figured it all out yet, but we had said to DOT that they had to spend $7 million to deal with it. Mayor Foy said DOT would say no, and his point was that it was not just the University, that it was reality.
Mayor Foy said he understood Council Member Ward’s point, noting the road did need to be improved, and what constituted an improvement was a good question. He said the fact was that the Council should not be spending a lot of its time on it. Mayor Foy added that no town in the State would get different treatment under similar circumstances.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was the same reality that was there when it was originally put on the list. He said what was being said was not anything new, noting that this property had been owned by the same property owner well before there was a priority list. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it had earned the points to quality for a high priority, and there was not a change in circumstance.
Council Member Verkerk said there would a change in circumstance. She said that once the three-foot asphalt shoulders were added she believed it would receive a different ranking from various boards.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said perhaps, but he believed Council Member Verkerk was overstating the power of having it on the list. He noted that they knew the items on the bottom of the list would never happen.
Mayor Foy said we could change priorities, but what we were talking about was what our priorities would be, assuming that we get the signal system funded and some other things. He said the fact of where something was on the list or whether it was on the list did matter.
Council Member Greene said the difficulty here was that they had no way of evaluating the likelihood of Carolina North. She said she strongly agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that it should not come off the list, but was wrestling with where it should be placed. Council Member Greene said she wondered what it really meant to have it on the list, asking how much energy its placement on the list would have.
Mayor Foy said that Weaver Dairy Road reached the top of the TIP, and that was when the Council, in his opinion, finally focused on it. He said for whatever reason it had finally been funded, so these lists were important. Mayor Foy said one of our biggest arguments for fighting for funding for South Columbia Street was that it had been at the top of our priority list. He said that was what we had invested time and energy in.
Mayor Foy said it was the same for the traffic signal system, noting we were beginning to put pressure on DOT and using whatever leverage we had to get the system funded. He said the Weaver Dairy Road project was a good example, noting that we had pushed it up the list and never stopped it.
Council Member Greene said then we should put it on the list as a low priority this year if we think rationally that the Carolina North plan was more likely than not to happen in the next five years. She said then next year if we have a different understanding, then we could act accordingly.
Mayor Foy agreed, stating it was a good idea not to take it off. But, he stated, it should not occupy a place higher on the list.
Council Member Ward asked what the significance was of any item below number six. He said his point was that if it was not number one, two or three, then we were not counting on it happening this year. Mr. Bonk responded that prior to the release of the 2006 TIP, it was problematic as to whether it was the first six or first five projects, but with this TIP it was the first one or two given the budgetary situation. He said as you look at the priority list, transit capital are things that are funded outside of the TIP process because of our ability to get federal or other funds earmarked, although having it as a first priority helped us in that case.
Mr. Bonk said as the Manager had indicated, we were still in negotiations regarding the traffic signal system. With the Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road, he noted, we have begun a feasibility study and there was $1.2 million allocated by the MPO but we believe we would need more which was why it was still listed. Mr. Bonk said there was a feasibility study initiated for Seawell School Road, and although there was no funding as yet once we get the study done the State would be in a position to pursue that. So, he noted, three of the first four priorities either have some funding already or an expectation of funding in the future.
Council Member Ward asked about priority number five, Homestead Road. Mr. Bonk replied that it was on the list, but the funding for that project had been removed several years ago to fund the transit maintenance center.
Council Member Ward said he understood that the uncertainty about Carolina North made it unwise to demand that the improvements to Estes Drive be done soon, but he did not believe that the uncertainty should cause it to be removed from the list. He added that listing it below four on the list was acceptable to him since it would express in a mild way that it continued to be a priority but not something we would expect movement on in the next calendar year. Council Member Ward said we may know something more a year from now when we go through this process again, and we can upgrade it or deal with it otherwise at that time.
Council Member Harrison said he had been watching the Moving Ahead project because it was a way they had hoped to get bicycle facilities. He said this was the first one he had seen that would put a bicycle facility on a road, taking Estes Drive from 22 to 30 feet. Council Member Harrison said that proved the value of having a board member behind you.
Mayor Foy suggested modifying the resolution by placing the Estes Drive Extension project just after number six on the list, Estes Drive. There was no objection from the Council.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said on page 4 of the memorandum, there was a comment about the $250,000 the Town had received from the Direct Allocation Program for pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Airport Road. She said she assumed that staff was looking at that study to decide what to use the money for. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if staff had any idea if the $250,000 would fund what needed to be done on Airport Road, so that it could be left at the bottom of the priority list. Or, she continued, should it be moved up on the list so that additional funding could be sought. Mr. Bonk replied that it would not fund all of the recommended improvements in the study, and they were trying to focus on the area around Northfield Drive where a signal would be installed as part of a developer agreement. He said should, as the Mayor suggested, the Airport Road corridor be moved up, if it was a Council priority then it should be because the $250,000 would not fund all of the suggested improvements.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that if those funds would only fund a small part of the improvements, then the Airport Road project should be moved up. She said she believed it was the Council’s desire to have these improvements in place as soon as possible. Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that the safety threat is crucial every day.
Mayor Foy asked where it should be placed on the list. Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested it be placed between number two and three.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-11, AS AMENDED TO PLACE THE ESTES DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT AFTER THE ESTES DRIVE PROJECT, AND TO PLACE THE AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT AFTER NUMBER TWO.
Council Member Harrison said he agreed with Mayor pro tem Wiggins’ suggestion, since the Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road project was finally moving along after 14 years which was how long he had been waiting for it to rise from the bottom of the priority list. He said he was still waiting for a few others to move up.
Council Member Harrison said that one thing that is happening to cities and towns was that we were all beginning to develop bicycle and pedestrian plans, and we would begin to have a better feel for projects that we do now. He said that he believed that the list would be more meaningful next year. Council Member Harrison said he had requested a comparison of this list with the bicycle plan, and it confirmed what he thought. He said in some cases we had put in a pedestrian project which was not in the same place as a bicycle project, but at the least we were working on it.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2007-2013 CHAPEL HILL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST (2005-04-05/R-11)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has begun the process to develop the 2007-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee will develop a Regional Transportation Priority List for use in developing the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has requested local governments develop transportation priority lists for use in preparing the Regional Priority List; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received comments from the public on 2007-2013 transportation priorities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the following list as the 2007-2013 Transportation Priority List for submission to the Transportation Advisory Committee:
2007-2013 TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST
1. Transit Capital Projects: (FY 2007-2011).
2. Upgrade Chapel Hill Signal System:Improve Chapel Hill signal system.
3. Airport Road Corridor: I-40 to North Street- Bicycle and pedestrian improvements.*
4. Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road: US 15-501 to I-40-Construct five-foot bikelanes* and sidewalks.
5. Seawell School Road: Improvements from Homestead Road to Estes Drive Extension, including turn lanes, bicycle lanes*, sidewalks and transit accommodations.
6. Homestead Road: NC 86 to High School Road, provide bicycle lanes*, sidewalks and turn lanes.
7. Estes Drive: NC 86 to Curtis Road, widen existing roadway to include two 12-foot travel lanes, four-foot bicycle lanes* and sidewalks.
8. Estes Drive Extension: NC 86 to Greensboro Street (Carrboro), widen to three lanes with five foot bikelanes and sidewalks.
9. Community Center to Willow Drive: bicycle and pedestrian connection to Bolin Creek Greenway.
10. Franklin Street/Bolin Creek Greenway Pedestrian/Bicycle Access: Install pedestrian/bicycle access between Franklin Street and Bolin Creek Greenway.
11. Estes Drive: Curtis Road to Franklin Street, construct sidewalk along entire length and provide pedestrian signal at intersection with Chapel Hill Library Drive.
12. Bolin Creek Greenway: Construct a greenway from Airport Road to Umstead Park.
13. Barbee Chapel Road: NC 54 to Downing Creek Parkway, provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes*.
14. Southern Railroad Greenway: Construct a greenway along the Southern Railroad right of way from Estes Drive to the UNC Horace Williams property.
15. Pope Road - Ephesus Church Road: Construct five foot bicycle lanes*.
16. Piney Mountain Road: Improvements from NC 86 to Riggsbee Road, including turn lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes* and transit accommodations.
17. Mount Carmel Church Road: Improvements from US 15-501 South to Chatham County line, to be limited to include bicycle lanes*, sidewalks, transit and safety improvements.
18. Country Club Road: Construct a sidewalk on the east side from South Road to Raleigh Street.
19. Fordham Boulevard: Construct a sidewalk along the north side, Manning Drive to Carmichael Street.
20. Bolin Creek/Little Creek Greenway: Construct a greenway from Chapel Hill Community Center to Pinehurst Drive.
21. Old Mason Farm/Finley Golf Course Road: Construct bicycle lanes* and sidewalks.
22. Erwin Road: Construct bicycle lanes*, sidewalks and safety improvements, Sage Road to Durham County line.
23. Fordham Boulevard Corridor: US 15-501 South to Ephesus Church Road- bicycle and pedestrian Improvements.*
24. NC 54 Corridor: Fordham Boulevard to Barbee Chapel Road- bicycle and pedestrian Improvements.*
* Bicycle facilities will be determined consistent with the adopted 2004 Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Projects in bold type are new.
Projects shown in bold type are new.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
Mayor Foy noted that next week at the TAC meeting, we would be asked to approve the draft 2030 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan. He asked the Council to reaffirm or take some other action with regard to the Cameron Avenue corridor.
Mayor Foy said the Cameron Avenue corridor is thought of by our transportation planners as a “big blur on the map.” He said it did not mean it was going down Cameron Avenue, it did not mean it was going down Franklin Street, and it did not mean it would ever get built. Mayor Foy said in order for a corridor to actually be identified, it would take a lot of time, money, and people think about where it should go. He said that transportation planners so it does not matter, that it was just a line on a map.
Mayor Foy said the choice in the 2030 Plan was not Cameron Avenue or Franklin Street, and if such a choice was to made it would take quite a bit of study and money. He said the Council had stated they wanted it to be Franklin and wanted everyone to be on notice of that. Mayor Foy said Carrboro wanted it to be Cameron, saying Carrboro’s thinking was they would use the current railroad corridor which comes down to Cameron Avenue. So, he said, Carrboro was doing their planning for future buildings and other things right down that railway corridor.
Mayor Foy said at the TAC he believed there was a disconnect, noting on one hand it was just a line on a map, but on the other hand Carrboro was building around a specific corridor which did not line up. He said the Council had asked the Manager to try to resolve this, but the response was to do the study and decide which it would be. Mayor Foy said how many thousands of dollars was that, when we don’t even know if we want the corridor at all.
Mayor Foy asked the Council to either reaffirm its instructions to him on behalf of Chapel Hill, that we don’t want Carrboro to be under any illusions of where to build or how to plan that community because the tract would not be entering Chapel Hill on Cameron Avenue. He said no one could have it both ways, that if Carrboro would have to plan around a blur on the map, then we would plan around a blur on the map. Mayor Foy said he believed what they would end up doing at the TAC meeting was to say even if it was a blur on the map, we insist that it be put into the 2030 Plan that Chapel Hill wanted the corridor to be down Franklin Street if it did indeed ever go anywhere.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-11.1
Council Member Strom said in preparation for the TAC meeting, he wanted to ask staff to bring a resolution or some language forward for the TAC to consider and it needed to be in the TAC packet for that meeting. He noted we also needed to take the opportunity to explain how important this was to Chapel Hill before next Wednesday. Council Member Strom said it had been held up the last time because people did not feel it came up during real time during conversation at the last TAC meeting, noting that a week or four days was not enough time. Council Member Strom said that Council Member Harrison would be our voting member at that meeting and it was important for him to have clear direction and support from the Council.
Mayor Foy asked the Manager if that would be possible. Mr. Horton responded yes, that he would have something drafted tomorrow for his review.
Council Member Ward said it appeared that this was always referred to as the Cameron Avenue corridor, and he believed that along with the suggested changes that we remove that wording. He reiterated that it should be referred to as the Franklin Street corridor, not the Cameron Avenue corridor. Mayor Foy and other Council members agreed, noting that was an excellent point.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted he would like his “indignant” remarks from the January 10 Council meeting to be channeled to the members of the TAC.
Mayor Foy stated that the proposed resolution was on the floor, with the addition of an instruction to the Manager to provide some language to our voting member.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT CAMERON AVENUE NOT BE INCLUDED IN PLANS FOR A FUTURE FIXED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT CORRIDOR (2005-04-05/R-11.1)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization will be considering adoption of a 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, which includes a potential fixed guideway corridor between the University of North Carolina main campus and the Horace Williams Property; and
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council opposes the inclusion of Cameron Avenue as a component in a proposed future fixed guideway transit corridor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests that Cameron Avenue not be included as part of a corridor being designated as a future alignment for fixed guideway transit in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
Council Member Hill noted he had a general question regarding the Council’s discussion to have a transit plan formulated for Carolina North between the Town and the University. He stated that Carrboro appeared to have opinions of how transportation should flow from their community into ours. Council Member Hill wondered if that was a two-way street. He said for instance, Carrboro had at the end of Cameron Avenue on Brewer Lane had a concrete plant on the verge of development, and how that was developed needed to have our attention. Council Member Hill asked about the feasibility of the Town meeting with Carrboro officials and perhaps the University to look at all of those plans.
Council Member Hill commented that if we were not careful, we would end up with a suburban shopping center at the end of Cameron Avenue where the concrete plant was proposed. He said if some streets were planned, we could have a more urban and useful transportation system developed through that area, if it were thought out in advance and in conjunction between the two towns. Council Member Hill said if we do nothing, then it would be developed the way the developers wanted, whereas if we thought it out it would be beneficial to all.
Mayor Foy noted that was a good point. He asked the Manager where we were on the transit plan. Mr. Horton responded we had agreement through the efforts of the Transportation Board to host a session for the governmental bodies of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and with representatives from the University to hear a discussion led by John Bonsall, the consultant who prepared the initial proposal that had stimulated so much thinking on this topic. He noted the date had been set, but did not have that information with him. Mr. Horton stated that the meeting would be held at the Friday Center.
Mayor Foy said we envisioned that meeting as a way to formulate land use planning for the Town, and that would be an opportunity to talk about how that would effect land use plans for Carrboro, the University, and the Town.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated she believed it was leading us towards developing a transit plan, adding that meeting would help them gain some background.
Mayor Foy responded that was correct, but when we go forward as a group maybe we should be explicit about the land use planning implications of the transit study. He said that was how the Town had been viewing it, but he did not know if Carrboro had looked at it the same way. Mayor Foy said we should be explicit, or see if that was what Carrboro wanted to do.
Mr. Horton corrected his earlier statement, noting that the date for the meeting had not yet been established, but would be soon.
Item 10 – Proposal for Fee Assessment Study
Mr. Horton noted that Finance Director Kay Johnson had led this element of work. He stated at the last discussion the Council was meeting with the Budget Review Committee and had asked that the staff do two things. First, he said, we were asked to determine whether or not we would be able to bring the Council proposals for fee increases, mainly development fee increases, without this kind of study. Mr. Horton added the proposal needed to be one we could stand behind, would be reasonably assertive, and produce some significant additional income. He stated he believed they could do that, noting he had discussed this with staff in the Planning Department. Mr. Horton said the second thing they had been asked to do would be discussed by Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson said as an alternative to the full plan for revenue enhancement and a fee study, we considered the possibility of doing a cost allocation plan that would be acceptable in terms of the grant moneys that we receive. She noted that this was the lowest cost alternative on the proposal that was included in the plan that MAXIMUS, the Town’s budget consultant, had originally given to us.
Ms. Johnson said when we discussed the possibility of doing this as a stand-alone item we came back and discussed the fees, noting that $6,000 was the amount MAXIMUS had come to for this proposal. She stated that this would include a cost proposal where MAXIMUS would come in and look at the costs relative to governmental grants that would include the maximum fees we could assess the projects that we have that are grant-eligible. Ms. Johnson said the largest of these would be the Transportation Fund, since it was mostly federally grant funded.
Ms. Johnson said what we current use was a cost methodology that was acceptable to the federal government but was a minimal cost allocation of approximately 14%. She said it did not take a long time to prepare it, but it did not bring us the maximum revenues for allocation. Ms. Johnson said if we were to do the study, we believe we would be able to receive back in the indirect cost funding an amount greater than the cost of the study itself.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what would be the consequences of that in terms of our tax rate and our contributions from our partners. Ms. Johnson responded in terms of the tax rate, in the Transportation Fund the Town contributed approximately one-third of the local share with our partners contributing the remainder. She said any additional cost, if it were to increase, would be allocated among the partners whereby the Town would pick up one-third of the cost but the partners would pick up the greater portion.
Mr. Horton explained that meant that the Transit tax rate might increase slightly, but it would be offset by a reduction in the General Fund tax rate. He said if the study showed that the overhead rate should be increased, all of the partners would pay an additional amount. Mr. Horton said if the additional rate indicated our tax rate should be increased slightly, those funds would be going into the General Fund so they would generate a similar reduction in the General Fund. So, he concluded, it would be a net zero effect for the Town. Mr. Horton said it would not cost the Town any more, but it would cost the University and Carrboro a little more.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said we were working on trying to keep the tax rate down, so Mr. Horton was saying that this would have no effect on the tax rate. Mr. Horton said it would shift money from the Transportation Fund into the General Fund. He said it might cause a slight raise in the Transportation Fund tax rate, but it would cause a similar offset reduction in the tax rate in the General Fund.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said so it would be “a wash” for the Town. Mr. Horton said that was correct, but it would generate additional funding that we would benefit from. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that funding would be generated from our partners. Mr. Horton responded that was correct.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that basically, what we had done was figure out a way that the Town would not have to pay any more, but our two partners would have to make a larger contribution to the Transportation Fund. Mr. Horton said he believed we were subsidizing the two partners at this point, noting we were not charging them the full cost of the services that they receive. He said he believed the University would understand since they were accustomed to overhead rates much higher that what the Town would charge. Mayor pro tem said then we would be subsidizing them at a lesser rate. Mr. Horton responded yes.
Council Member Hill, referring to a memorandum distributed by Ms. Johnson this evening, said that the alternative proposal was to authorize MAXIMUS to perform the portion of the contract that calculates the full federal grant indirect cost allocation, known as the OMB Circular A-87 Cost Allocation Plan. He asked how that differed from the OMB Circular A-87 Cost Allocation Plan noted in the Fee Schedule at $2,610. Ms. Johnson said in terms of the work to be performed there was no difference. The reason the dollars are different, she said, was that MAXIMUS had spread their overhead costs across the Fee Study and the two much smaller proposals for Cost Allocation studies. Ms. Johnson said once the two smaller studies were eliminated, then the entire cost of overhead was added to the one study, hence the $6,000 cost.
Council Member Hill said he had been in business for a long time, and when he wrote proposals he did them in such a way that a price could not be picked out of the whole, and noted that the itemization was for information only. He stated that was not clear in MAXIMUS’ fee schedule. Council Member Hill said he feeling now was that for MAXIMUS to more than double their stated price was an insult, adding that their Fee Schedule did not state that the fees could not be separated from the whole. Council Member Hill said he believed they should perform the work for the stated $2,610.
Mr. Horton said he did not believe that MAXIMUS would perform the work for $2,610.
Council Member Hill asked to what did we expect to get from the $6,000 expenditure. Mr. Horton responded that we would not know until the study was done, but it would take only a “very small shift” in the percentage of overhead in order to produce a fairly significant change in the dollars. Council Member Hill said that at $6,000 it may be a “good deal,” and asked if other Council members saw that as a doubling of price. He said that was exactly what was happening, and he did not like it.
Ms. Johnson clarified that regarding the Cost Allocation study, the original proposal was in two prices, which was the base level for the A-87, then a second piece for a full Cost Allocation study. She noted that the two together come to approximately $10,000. Ms. Johnson said when she spoke to MAXIMUS, they had indicated that the cost would remain $10,000 but the base would need to be $6,000, and the marginal amount for the additional one would be $4,000. She said that was not the way it was presented in terms of the breakdown between the two cost allocations, but the total was the same.
Council Member Ward said he wanted to notify our transit partners that we were embarking on this study so they did not learn of it at its conclusion. He said we needed to do as good a job as possible in communicating this now.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Manager was right when he said that the University had a lot of experience in calculating what they called overhead receipts. She said that at the Budget Review Committee meeting, the Manager had noted the percentage we charge. Mr. Horton responded that we now charge 13.55%. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said then, that we need the study because the federal government does not question that percentage. Mr. Horton replied that was correct. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if we raised that percentage considerably, we would have to provide more detail as to why the overhead receipt is a lot more than that. Mr. Horton responded that was correct. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked at what level would the federal government question that percentage? Mr. Horton responded that the federal government would question anything above 13.5%, noting that was the threshold level beyond which you could not go without being questioned by the Federal Transit Administration. He said the FTA did allow a higher overhead charge but it had to be documented by a professional study that was rigorous and would stand up under testing and scrutiny.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that we wanted to see if we would be able to justify keeping a higher overhead. Mr. Horton said yes. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that MAXIMUS was scheduled to complete this study and make a recommendation before the Council considers adoption of the 2005-2006 budget, which was a short period of time. Mr. Horton said that was correct. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she did not know how much we would capture with this, but as a Council member, along with Council Member Verkerk, who attempted to work with our partners, she was not worried that an increase would affect the University but it appeared that any type of increase would cause Carrboro problems. She wondered if we could tell the partners that we were moving in the direction of attempting to calculate our expenses so that we could capture more of the overhead. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they would then know it was coming and prepare for the impact.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that by the time the Council was ready to act on it, Carrboro in particular would be far along in their budget process. She said if we “spring” additional costs on them at a late date it would not be received well. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she thought if we had alerted them sooner it would have been received better. She wondered if we could put the transportation part of this off for a year, or, if we take the transportation part out of this does it make sense to do it at all. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said we could wait and let this be a part of the overall fee study that we had talked about earlier.
Mr. Horton responded that it would be of no real benefit to do the study if transit was removed, noting that was the only portion of it that would generate anything other than an intra-fund transfer. He said if the Council felt it was not fair to introduce the change at this stage in the budget process, it would be better to give notice of consideration for the next year and do it at that time.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she knew that the partners anticipated increases that had to do with the population, head counts, pay increases and the like, but said that we should have alerted them to this kind of increase.
Mayor Foy asked how much would a 1% increase in overhead represent to Carrboro in dollars. He said if we go forward with the study, it would not obligate us to do anything now. Mayor Foy said if the study showed we could justify 30% when we receive only about 14%, it seemed that we could say that this year we would capture 18% but next year we would capture 25% and then the third year capture all 30%. Mr. Horton said the Council could do it in that manner.
Ms. Johnson said a 1% increase in overhead would cost Carrboro an additional $8,000. She said that if the study showed that the overhead percentage should be increased, the Council could decide to charge something under the amount calculated. Ms. Johnson said it was important to point out that this was a program that would have to be repeated, noting that once you have a study you would have to repeat in every two to three years to make sure that the numbers remain up to date.
Council Member Strom said that giving Carrboro notice that we were embarking on this study was important. But, he said, he did not believe that Chapel Hill should be subsidizing Carrboro’s contribution to Chapel Hill transit. Council Member Strom said that one of the benefits of the MAXIMUS study was that this had been highlighted and brought to the Council’s attention. He said as a Council member he was willing to go ahead and charge a fair allocation to Carrboro. Council Member said that what Carrboro pays for transit was “a heck of a good deal,” stating that they could not come close to operating transit for what they contribute to the transit budget. He said he was not comfortable subsidizing them, and it was wrong for the taxpayers in Chapel Hill for us to knowingly proceed with subsidy.
Mayor Foy said there was no harm to getting the information, and suggested that we inform Carrboro and the University what we were doing so they could plan accordingly. He said that while a case could be made that we should be paid for the work we were doing, that was also a case to be made about equity and how we treat our partners. Mayor Foy said we may have to balance that later once we receive the information.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she would be satisfied if the Manager would alert the partners as soon as possible. Mr. Horton said he would notify them tomorrow morning.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-12, AS AMENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH MAXIMUS FOR THE OMB CIRCULAR A-87 COST ALLOCATION PLAN ONLY, AT A COST OF $6,000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MAXIMUS FOR A STUDY OF REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AND FEES (2005-04-05/R-12)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to have appropriate fees for services; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that Town fees do not capture the full cost of services;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Town Manager to enter into the attached contract with MAXIMUS for a study of revenue enhancement and fees.
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ENACT ORDINANCE O-4, AS AMENDED TO CORRECT THE AMOUNT BUDGETED TO $6,000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2004-04-05/O-4)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004” as duly adopted on June 14, 2004 and the same is hereby amended as follows:
This the 5th day of April, 2005.
Item 11 – Appointments
11a. Transportation Board. The Council appointed Matt Hapgood to the Transportation Board.
|
|
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Transportation Board |
Foy |
Greene |
Harrison |
Hill |
Kleinschmidt |
Strom |
Verkerk |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Matt Hapgood |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Item 12 – Petitions
12a. Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy said he had inadvertently scheduled to be out of town next week and would not be present at the April 11 meeting. He said that the O/I-2 rezoning of the Horace Williams property was scheduled for discussion at that time. Mayor Foy said he would ask that the Council move ahead and take testimony on April 11 but to hold the hearing open until the April 25 meeting for two reasons: first, because he would like to be present to vote on it; and second, that he would like some more time to talk with University representatives on behalf of the Council to see if it was possible to get them to remove not only their protest petition but any objections to the rezoning.
Mayor Foy said what the Council was doing if it rezoned that property was a responsible thing to do and it was within the clear jurisdiction of the Council, and that the University may be persuaded that it was in everyone’s best interest to move forward in an orderly fashion without “butting heads.” He said he would like the opportunity to try to achieve that. Mayor Foy said if the Council agreed, he would like this to serve as a public notice that this was how we planned to proceed, and that no vote would be held on April 11.
There was no objection from the Council. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos noted that when the agenda item was prepared, the Council’s decision tonight would be noted in it.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked why don’t we just postpone that item. Mayor Foy said we had already advertised it, so he did not believe it could be postponed. But, he said, he did believe that the hearing could be recessed and then continued on April 25. Mr. Horton said that he believed we should do what had been done in the past, which was to include in the materials for the April 11 meeting that the Council intended to defer the item until April 25, and on April 11 the Council would open the hearing for the purpose of recessing it to April 25.
The Council agreed by consensus to open the hearing on April 11 for the purpose of recessing it to April 25.
12b. Council Member Harrison.
Council Member Harrison said he had emailed the Mayor and Council Member Ward regarding having Council Member Ward join him as a representative to the Old Durham/Chapel Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Study.
Council Member Ward agreed to serve, and asked what the time commitment and meeting commitment would entail. Council Member Harrison said there was still one citizen slot to be filled, so he did not know about the time commitment at this time.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER WARD AS THE SECOND COUNCIL APPOINTEE TO THE OLD DURHAM/CHAPEL HILL ROAD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN STUDY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Harrison said he had requested that the Town Clerk’s Office advertise the vacancy so that an appointment could be made on April. 25.
12c. Town Manager Horton.
Mr. Horton said that earlier this evening the Council had received from the Solid Waste Advisory Board a petition that requested that a Council member be appointed to serve with them, and that a staff person be appointed to work with them in conducting a reconsideration of the Solid Waste Management Plan. He said the Board had their first meeting on April 7 and it would be helpful if the Council made an appointment this evening, although it could be delayed if the Council chose.
Mayor Foy said he had not yet asked a Council member to serve, and did not believe an appointment could be made this evening. Mr. Horton said he would send a staff member to the April 7 meeting and have them inform the Board that the Council needed additional time to appoint a Council member.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL 4 P.M. ON APRIL 6, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was recessed at 10:30 p.m.