Attachment 3

 

Excerpt of Minutes from the December 6, 2004

Regular Business Meeting of the Town Council

 

Item 9 – Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Task Force Recommendations

for Cemetery Improvements

 

Curtis Brooks, the Town’s Urban Forester and the Task Force’s staff liaison, gave a brief overview of the item before the Council.  He noted that one change from the previous recommendation was a reduced allocation of $35,000 from $40,000 for future archive and public information improvements, and an allocation of $5,000 for marker restoration work.  In addition, Mr. Brooks noted that the Task Force was also recommending that the Council allocate an additional $20,000 for stone gutter improvements along the western most cross path of the Cemetery.

 

Mr. Brooks noted that the Task Force had discussed the future oversight of the Cemetery by the Historic District Commission, and were recommending that the Council refer this issue to the Historic District Commission for further discussion of what role the Commission might play in the oversight of future Cemetery improvements.

 

Mr. Brooks stated that the Manager’s recommendation is that the Council adopt Resolution A specifying the uses of $150,000 in available funding to implement improvements to the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery as proposed by the Task Force, and enact a budget ordinance making available an additional $20,000 for stone gutter improvements.  He noted that the Manager also recommended adoption of Resolution B, directing the Town Manager to submit future Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Capital Improvements Project proposals to the Historic District Commission for their review and comment prior to implementation.

 

Mr. Brooks stated that if the Council wishes to refer the issue of a future role in oversight of Cemetery improvements to the Historic District Commission for their consideration, then adoption of Resolution C would do so.

 

Steve Moore, a Task Force member, noted he was the dissenting vote on the final recommendations on one important point.  He said that the question was whether the $52,000 earmarked for restoration be spent on one privately-owned and maintained area or whether it should be spread around, keeping in mind that some of the areas it may be spread around for are areas that have no one to speak for them.  Mr. Moore asked that the Council consider what is equitable in how we use the funds, however “glorious” it may be to use the funds on one aesthetically beautiful area,” adding there are other areas that are in equal need of attention, especially since this is one-time money.

 

Fred Battle gave a brief account of what the Cemetery meant to him, recounting family visits as well as his work with the Town’s Public Works Department in maintaining the Cemetery.  He noted that one of the improvements suggested was the stone gutter improvements, which is badly needed especially in Sections A and B, the site of the African-American slave section.

 Mr. Battle said other things identified that need attention are:

 

·        That the number of pine trees located in Sections A and B prevent sunlight from filtering through, which means that grass has little opportunity to grow.  He said he would like to have the same type of turf in Sections A and B as in other sections of the Cemetery.

·        That the markers that have been vandalized or that are lying on the ground need to be restored.  He stated that this ruins the beauty of the Cemetery, and believes that more than the $20,000 recommended is needed to make a difference.

·        That in Section 1 of the Cemetery, the walkway that leads to the White section contains graveled paths, which are difficult to maintain.  Mr. Battle recommended that these paths be bricked.

·        That the parking deck being constructed next to the Cemetery will have its exit located on the west end, which he believes will present problems to the African-American slave section. He recommended holding the $50,000 recommended for the restoration for the iron fences in abeyance until the parking deck is completed and it can be determined what its effect might be.

 

William Wyatt, a welder associated with Gang Steer, owner of The Last Unicorn in Chapel Hill, stated that his area of expertise was the restoration of antiques, cast iron, wrought iron and the like.  He said they were asked by Council Member Hill to look at the cast iron fences.  Mr. Wyatt said they had examined the areas of the cast iron fence that had been vandalized or damaged, and had determined that only five to ten percent of the fence had received damaged.

 

Mr. Wyatt said in their processing of cast iron antiques, that many times they will take two pieces and make one, and that is one of their recommendations to the Council.  He added that they had looked at the estimates the Task Force had obtained for the restoration or recasting, and had heard that the plan was to ship it to Georgia or Alabama for the work.  Mr. Wyatt said he had located a foundry in Charlotte who had given him a rough estimate of $10,000 to perform the restoration.  He said he thought the estimates that had been previously discussed were too high, and in fact were “out of the ballpark.”

 

Mr. Wyatt asked the Council to use his expertise to make two panels into one, then with the existing panels left or that you need, you can either leave openings or you can go to the Charlotte cast iron foundry for repairs.  He said that because a “negative dye” is necessary, which is already available, then only a “sand casting” is required.  Mr. Wyatt said the costs quoted in the report are not realistic in normal manufacturing circles.  He said the expertise for restoration is available locally and urged the Council to use it.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Mr. Wyatt if he had personally examined the cast iron fence.  Mr. Wyatt replied that he had.  Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what would happen to the fence if the Council did nothing, in other words, what is the life of the fence.  Mr. Wyatt said the fence did not deteriorate because of acid rain or rust, it deteriorated because of vandalism.  He said that must be addressed in order to preserve the life of the fence.  Mr. Wyatt noted that the gates are easily stolen because they are not welded, adding that these types of gates are “hot items in the industry.”  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that meant there was some security work that needed to be done.  Mr. Wyatt said that was correct, that for the gates you would simply weld a tab on the top of the gate to prevent its removal, but allowing the gate to operate.

 

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Wyatt did he see any sense of urgency as far as these gates deteriorating further, in other words, if we did nothing for five or ten years would they survive.  Mr. Wyatt said that they were painted, and if you used painting processes used today, they would last another hundred years.

 

Mayor Foy said it was his understanding from the Task Force’s report that there is some sort of certification process for authentic restoration.  If asked if the prices and the organizations he was quoting met these certification standards.  Mr. Wyatt replied that Southern Casting in Charlotte is certified for all cast iron work, including historic restoration.  He said that with historic restoration, you have to be able to reproduce the same item.

 

Yonni Chapman stated that when the Cemetery was created, the dominant forces in society were racist.  He said the Cemetery as a physical structure reflects those values today.  Mr. Chapman said when you walk through the Cemetery it is heartbreaking to see the wonderful tombstones on the “White side” and the unmarked graves on the “Black side.”

 

Mr. Chapman said he wanted to bring up the term “institutional racism.”  He said that people are hesitant to talk about racism, but he believes we must get more comfortable with talking about it.  He said that institutional racism means that the legacy of the past that was racist has not been undone.  So, Mr. Chapman continued, the Cemetery reflects the values of racism from the past.  He said obviously we can’t change the past or change the Cemetery in the sense that we’re not going to uproot graves, but what we can change is how we deal with the past and how we represent it.

 

Mr. Chapman asked what kind of respect do we give to an unmarked grave versus a prominent marble tombstone that tells a story.  He said that our values today suggest that we should give equal respect to both.  Mr. Chapman said the next question is how do we do that, and suggested that in terms of public funding it would not be “proper” to spend must of that funding on those “fancy structures” erected in the past, since that would be perpetuating the “racial order of things past.”  He stated that the public funding should be equitably distributed so that the “Black” side of the Cemetery received at least equal funds to the “White” side.

 

Mr. Chapman said when tours of the Cemetery are conducted, most of the focus is on the grave markers of prominent individuals on the “White” side of the Cemetery.  He suggested that besides equitable funding and not spending so much on the cast iron fences, that the Council focus funding on representing people more equitably.  Mr. Chapman said that could include tours that spend time on slavery and the history of the Black community in Chapel Hill.  He suggested there be markers placed in the Cemetery that told the story of those graves, possibly history that isn’t written elsewhere.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED R-12A.

 

Council Member Verkerk said that she and the other Task Force members had been given the task of going back and addressing the issues that had been raised during the public forum, and primarily among them was the issue of the gutters.  She said this had led to the Task Force’s recommendation that more funds be dedicated to the gutters.

 

Council Member Verkerk said they were also asked to address the markers, noting that some of those that were repaired have been broken again, partly because of vandalism and partly through natural erosion.  She said the Task Force had also noted that more oversight was needed, so they wanted to strengthen the hand of the position of the Historic District Commission.

 

Council Member Verkerk said the Task Force was given a task, and they had “stuck to their guns” on the issue of the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s cast iron fences, noting that they are the original structures, that they stand at the highest part, and it was the responsibility of the Town to maintain it.  She stated that all the walls around the Cemetery are almost finished, and for those who are concerned about equity, noted that the dry stuck walls around the African-American section of the Cemetery happen to be the most expensive to restore.  Council Member Verkerk said the University went to great lengths to obtain original stone.  She said that an unsightly fence had been removed, and a “rather beautiful” stone wall had been constructed to screen the trash disposal area, adding she wished it was not there.

 

Council Member Verkerk noted the Task Force had the expertise of Paul Clapp, a historic preservationist, Catherine Frank who has served on the Historic District Commission, and Rebecca Clark, who although a lay person knows more about the Cemetery that anyone they know of.

 

Council Member Verkerk said the Task Force came back with a series of recommendations, with a vote of eleven to one.  She urged the Council to do what a lot of us had to do on a previous issue, stating that a committee had come forth with recommendations to the Council after meeting for two and a half days (referring to the Renaming of Airport Road Special Committee), that she did not try to second guess their recommendations or interject other issues into it, and because she had faith in that process she had agreed to the recommendations.  Council Member Verkerk said that committee had done an excellent job, and asked the Council to show the same faith in this Task Force and accept their recommendations.  She said that many of the Task Force members were upset, and that they cared about the Task Force, had invested a great deal of time to these issues, and were not trying to “pull something over on you.”  Council Member Verkerk said for the Council to ignore their recommendations would be “very offensive.”  She asked for a second to her motion.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she would have been happy to second the motion had Council Member Harrison not done so.  She offered a friendly amendment to Resolution 12a to add an additional $50,000 in funding for marker restoration to be held in abeyance until a plan is developed by the Historic District Commission, working with Town staff, that would make the markers in that portion of the Cemetery more secure.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said markers in that area of the Cemetery had been restored in the past, and unless we have a plan in place that can protect those markers, then in five to ten years they may need to be restored again.  She said we have the money, and all we need to do as a Council is to acknowledge that both of these priorities are important and fund them both, which would mean coming up with an additional $50,000 for marker restoration.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this is “particularly crucial and important” now because there is an agenda item coming up later tonight where we have added repeatedly to the budget, dealing with development of Parking Lots 2 and 5.  She said there is hardly ever discussion about this, about whether or not we can afford it, because it is assumed that it is important even though we are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said here, we are talking about $50,000.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked that her friendly amendment be accepted by the mover and seconder.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK AND COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO R-12a.

 

Council Member Greene said she appreciated the hard work of the Task Force, having served on such committees herself.  But, she added, it is the Council’s job to apply their individual understanding and reach the best decision possible, noting that the suggestion by Mayor pro tem Wiggins is worth thinking about.

 

Council Member Greene stated she wanted to be clear as to why she still questions the allocation of the $52,000, which is a large percentage of the total $150,000 funding.  She said it is not a matter of wanting to preserve some beautiful and important antique fencing, rather it is a matter of public money and the preservation in the context of public money.  Council Member Greene said it also had to do with getting some of the facts straight.  She said that the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s cast iron fences were two contributing structures to the listing on the National Registry of Historic Places.  Council Member Greene said they are valuable and important and deserve to be preserved, but to put it in perspective they were not two of four contributing structures as the report presented with the Council’s materials indicates on page 2.  Rather, she said, they were in fact only two of twenty one structures, as noted in the tabulation on page 19.

 

Council Member Greene said there is a significant portion of the National Registry report that the Council did not receive.  We have a narrative description, she noted, but not the sixteen-page statement of significance that outlines these twenty one contributing structures, and that is really the heart of the report.  Council Member Greene said she wanted to be clear that she is not denying that the fences are valuable, but wanted them put into perspective.  The Cemetery as a whole is one of the twenty one factors, she noted, and the stone wall around it is another separate factor.

 

Council Member Greene stated that the National Registry’s criteria are pretty broad – they include social and political history as well as architectural merit - and there are four possible ways to be registered and only one needed to qualify.  She noted that the Cemetery qualified under two, under Category “A”, which is “property associated with events that have made significant contributions to broad patterns in our history,” and under Category “C”, which is “property embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.”

 

Council Member Greene continued, saying the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s plot, not just their fences but their elaborate monuments as well, are their major contributing factor under Category C, for high artistic value.  A total of ten grave stones are associated with these plots, she said, and they are independently named as contributing structures.  Council Member Greene commented that there is a description in the narrative that states “they are a showcase for North Carolina’s premiere grave stone carvers during the Antebellum period.  In the 1830’s to 50’s families or members of both societies spared no expense in erecting grand monuments to the memory of their departed sons or colleagues.  These marble box tombs, tomb tables, head stones and obelisks represent the height of Antebellum funerary art fashion in North Carolina, and among that the fences,” which the report says were probably made at a foundry in the northeast, “were equally fashionable examples of funerary art.”

 

Now, Council Member Greene noted, also discussed under this high artistic value category is the slave section, which is one of the small number of slave cemeteries in North Carolina whose markers are inscribed.  She said they are a significant survival when most known slave cemeteries have no visible markers or have uninscribed field stones.  So, she continued, the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s fences are a part, but only a part, of the qualification under Category C.

 

Council Member Greene said that under Category A, we come to social history, and the report says that “with the exception perhaps of two cemeteries in Raleigh, no cemetery has a comparable collection of imminent people as does the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery.  But in contrast to the Raleigh cemeteries, especially Oakwood, Chapel Hill’s is distinctive for being small and unpretentious.”

 

Council Member Greene noted that with this social history comes the category of ethnic heritage, which is what Mr. Chapman had addressed.  This is only the second cemetery in the State to be listed on the National Registry for its significance to Black ethnic heritage, she stated.  In addition, she noted that the report says, “…it may be unique in containing both graves of slaves and freed African-Americans.”

 

Council Member Greene commented that the Cemetery could have qualified for registration under Category C alone for its high funerary art, but it could have also qualified under Category A alone without the fences or the fancy monuments for its social and ethnic history.  If we decide to privilege the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s plots with the expenditure of this disproportionate amount of money, she said, we will be weighing in on this debate that she had alluded to at the last meeting, which she noted she wanted to explain so that it would be understood.

 

Council Member Greene explained that in the 1970’s in New York City there was a debate between Ada Louise Huxtable, who is an architect critic, and Herbert Gans, who is a sociologist, having to do with a landmark’s commission.  She stated that Gans charged that the commission favored the “stately mansions of the rich and buildings designed by famous architects, while neglecting the common buildings.”  Council Member Greene said that Huxtable insisted that, on her great buildings approach, “these buildings are a primary and irreplaceable part of our civilization.”  To which Gans said “fine, private citizens are of course able to save their own past, but when preservation becomes a public act, supported with public funds, it must attend to everyone’s past.”  Now, Council Member Greene said, in the years since, and Mr. Chapman alluded to this, the question is whose past gets remembered, and this has been asked many times.  Ordinary building types and ordinary grave stones have a story to tell precisely because they are ordinary, she stated.

 

Council Member Greene said this issue is important as we try to decide how to allocate these funds, which is much less than is needed.  She said she believed that public funds must attend to everyone’s past, and she urged the Council to rethink this issue.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to speak to any idea that to not buy wholly the recommendations of the Task Force is to somehow insult or condemn the work of the Task Force.  He said they had done a wonderful job that had allowed him to learn a great deal about the Cemetery.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said all the items listed in the recommendations are important, and had learned through the Task Force’s work why they are important.  He noted they should all be part of the ultimate action that the Council takes.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was a little disappointed in the Task Force when after the Council’s last meeting it became clear that there was some significant concern on the Council that over a third of the available funds were recommended to be spent on a single project, which he found to be “somewhat bothersome.”  He said there were suggestions from the Council which were ignored, and one he specifically remembered was the idea of perhaps issuing a challenge grant.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believes the fundraising potential for this project has been grossly understated.  He said this might have allowed us to do some other things, such as fix the gutters and prevent the erosion problems that were priorities in 1987.  So, he continued, he was somewhat disappointed that there was no adjustment to the Task Force’s report to reflect the discussion from the public forum.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he continued to believe that all of the recommendations are important, but does not believe this is the proper way to allocate the available funds.  He said this does not imply anything “bad” about the Task Force, its work, or the importance of the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s plots.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said when he criticizes the allocation structure, he is not criticizing anyone’s work or importance, and he still believes in the value of a challenge grant.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Council Member Greene for her comments, noting that as she listened to them, the more strongly she felt that we could do both.  She said she believed Council Member Greene’s comments underscored our need to “go back to the well” for what they believe is important.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Council, with an upcoming agenda item, was “going back to well” for $50,000 for another project, and her feeling is that if no one questions it there will be no opposition to it.  She stated her belief that the Council should allocate the $50,000 suggested in the Task Force’s report for marker restoration and include it in the budget, adding that we don’t have to pick and choose because we can do both.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said all it takes is will, and raising this to the same level of importance as the next agenda item.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that “where you put your money is where your priorities are,” adding she would “hate to see us” conduct a fundraiser for this.  She commented that “it sounds like we pay for what we want and beg for what we need.”  We should not fundraise for a project that we have funds for, she concluded.

 

Council Member Hill stated that we are facing a difficult budget year, and he does not want to “squander” money.  He said he had visited the Cemetery and had talked with people who performed this type of work specifically, noting he had performed similar work for thirty years.  Council Member Hill said that spending $52,000 to repair just the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s fences is fiscally irresponsible.  He said we can do all of these things by allocating a smaller amount of money to repair the fences, specifically in the manner described earlier tonight by Mr. Wyatt, and repair the gutters, all with the $150,000 currently allocated.  Council Member Hill said we don’t have to “go back to the well” to get it all done.

 

Council Member Hill said he did not understand where the $52,000 figure came from, noting that the fences were not in that bad a shape, and it is a disproportionate amount of money to spend on this project.  He said he did not believe that the Council should do that.

 

Mayor Foy stated that Council Members Ward and Verkerk would be allowed to speak, then discussion should end and a vote taken.

 

Council Member Ward said he believed there was fundraising potential among the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society, and although he does not know at what level, he agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt that it is underestimated.  He said he could support Mayor pro tem Wiggins’ suggestion to include an additional $50,000, but could not support the Task Force’s recommendations without that additional funding.  Council Member Ward said the inequity in the percentage of funding “shouts of inappropriate allocation of public funds.”  He supports Mayor pro tem Wiggins’ suggestion, but stated that he believes that none of the funds should be spent until a firm plan is in place, adding there is a need for protection of all elements of the Cemetery.  Council Member Ward said additional information should be brought back to the Council so that after these renovations and repairs are made, the Council could have some level of confidence that they will have a long life in that condition.

 

Council Member Verkerk stated she wanted to address one issue, noting that the Task Force did have a member with a high degree of knowledge in historic preservation.  She said that when someone with that type of knowledge looks at a fence they know what they are looking at, and when they determine that there are only two companies in the nation qualified to perform the restoration, she does not believe they are trying to waste public dollars.  Council Member Verkerk said she believed they know what they are doing, and anyone who owns historic property knows that you can’t just do anything you want to them or bring in someone local to perform work.  She said you have to have it all carefully approved, or you destroy the historic value of the property.

 

Council Member Verkerk said she liked the idea of now spending $220,000, which meant that less than one-fourth of the funds would be spent on the Dialectic and Philanthropic Society’s fences, with about one-fourth spent on marker restoration.  She said citizens should understand that the University had already spent $360,000 repairing the stone walls and they have not yet finished, so that figure will rise.  Council Member Verkerk said she did not want the notion to exist that the Task Force was not giving attention to the African-American side of the Cemetery, noting that about a fourth of the funds would be spent on lighting that would direct people away and keep them on the outer path.  She said there was never any attempt to spend funds on the “rich” side of the Cemetery and ignore the African-American side. As a matter of fact, Council Member Verkerk said, the African-American area was the first area to receive significant improvements.

 

Council Member Strom said he believed the Council was making a critical error by continuing to “pile money” on a problem that we have yet to define, noting he agreed with Council Member Ward that even though we don’t have a plan, we have learned a lot about the Cemetery.  Council Member Strom said he was very interested in some of Mr. Chapman’s comments regarding finding ways to use the Cemetery to further other goals of the Town, such as downtown revitalization efforts that are important.  He said he had learned the incredible significant of the Cemetery and believed there is no sense of urgency, so the Council should take the time to think through this.

 

Council Member Strom said he is interested Resolution C, which would refer the issue of oversight to the Historic District Commission for their consideration.  But in hearing this conversation tonight, he said, “piling on the money” is a mistake.  Council Member Strom said we don’t have to do it tonight and we should be more deliberative.

 

Council Member Strom said he wanted to revisit the reason this money exists, which is because of the chiller plant, adding we don’t know what its impact will be on the Cemetery.  He said it was a mistake to rush into this.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins reiterated her friendly amendment, noting that the additional funds would not be spent now.  She stated that the Council would soon consider agenda item #12, and for two years the Council had “thrown” large amounts of money at this project and no one had questioned it.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that this Council had no qualms about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a development project that still had numerous concerns, adding that there are many citizens who would not come forward and speak to these concerns because they feel this is a vindictive Council and that they will suffer consequences if they do come forward.  She said that referring to adding an additional $50,000 to the Cemetery project as “throwing money,” “fiscally irresponsible” or “tight budget” were strong phrases, noting those phrases were not used when they were talking about the development of Parking Lots 2 and 5.

 

Council Member Strom responded by saying he did not see any connection between these two issues.  Mayor Foy ended Council Member Strom’s comments by calling for a vote.

 

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED, AS AMENDED, BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, VERKERK, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM AND HILL VOTING NAY.

 

 

A RESOLUTION SPECIFYING THE USES OF $150,000 IN AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OLD CHAPEL HILL CEMETERY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE OLD CHAPEL HILL CEMETERY TASK FORCE (2004-12-06/R-12a)

 

WHEREAS, the Council established the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Task Force to develop recommendations for utilizing $150,000 in available funding for improvements to the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the recommendations of the Task Force for use of this available funding;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to allocate $150,000 in available funding for improvements to the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery as recommended by the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Task Force and as described in this report.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council allocates an additional $50,000 for marker restoration and holds the monies until a plan is developed.

 

This the 6th day of December, 2004.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO ADOPT R-12b.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, VERKERK, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM AND HILL VOTING NAY.

 

 

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO SUBMIT FUTURE OLD CHAPEL HILL CEMETERY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROPOSALS TO THE TOWN’S HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION (2004-12-06/R-12b)

 

WHEREAS, the Council established the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Task Force to develop recommendations for utilizing $150,000 in available funding for improvements to the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Task Force to involve the Town’s Historic District Commission in future Cemetery improvements; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the Manager’s recommendation to submit future Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Capital Improvement Project proposals to the Town’s Historic District Commission for their review and comment prior to implementation;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to submit future Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Capital Improvement Project proposals to the Town’s Historic District Commission for their review and comment prior to implementation.

 

This the 6th day of December, 2004.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO ADOPT R-12c.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, VERKERK, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM AND HILL VOTING NAY.

 

 

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO REFER THE ISSUE OF A POSSIBLE ROLE IN OVERSEEING FUTURE CEMETERY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWN’S HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION (2004-12-06/R-12c)

 

WHEREAS, the Council established the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Task Force to develop recommendations for utilizing $150,000 in available funding for improvements to the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Task Force to involve the Town’s Historic District Commission in future Cemetery improvements; and

 

WHEREAS, the Council has considered the Task Force’s recommendation for referring the issue of a possible role in overseeing future Cemetery improvements to the Town’s Historic District Commission for their consideration;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to refer the issue of a possible role in overseeing future Cemetery improvements to the Town’s Historic District Commission for their consideration.

 

This the 6th day of December, 2004.

 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO ADOPT O-5.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, VERKERK, WARD, WIGGINS, GREENE, STROM AND HILL VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING NAY.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2004-12-06/O-5)

 

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:

 

ARTICLE I

 

 

APPROPRIATIONS

Current

Budget

 

Increase

 

Decrease

Revised

Budget

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL FUND

 

 

 

 

    Transfer to Capital

    Improvements Fund

874,000

70,000

 

944,000

 

 

 

 

 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

PROGRAM FUND

1,821,779

70,000

 

1,891,779

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE II

 

 

 

 

 

 

REVENUES

Current

Budget

 

Increase

 

Decrease

Revised

Budget

 

 

 

 

 

GENERAL FUND

 

 

 

 

     (Appropriated Fund Balance)

2,477,667

20,000

 

2,547,667

 

 

 

 

 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

PROGRAM FUND

 

 

 

 

    Transfer from General Fund

874,000

70,000

 

944,000

 

 

 

 

 

This the 6th day of December, 2004.

 

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that for the record, he wanted to object to the taking of the vote on the Cemetery item.  He noted he did not believe the proper procedure was used.

 

Council Member Harrison noted that the hour was now 11:00 p.m., and asked if the Council needed to deal with that.  Mayor Foy responded that they had a meeting to finish.