OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council Members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins. Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Engineering Director George Small, Housing Director Tina Vaughn and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 – Ceremonies (none)
Item 2 – Public Hearings (none)
Item 3 – Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions
by Citizens
(1) Ms. Jillayne Hollifield
Ms. Hollifield thanked Mayor pro tem Capowski for his interest in her petition. She referred to her letter of February 18th petitioning the Council to reconsider an ordinance requiring that all new electrical power supply must be buried on the homeowner’s property. She had been unaware of this ordinance and said that it would be a great expense to her. Ms. Hollifield said that hers was an older home, in an older neighborhood, and that she would be the only one in the neighborhood forced to bury the cable, which would also destroy two mature trees.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER MS. HOLLIFIELD’S PETITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(2) Mr. Donnie Cowart, owner of Cowart Electric
Mr. Cowart, the contractor who did the electrical work for Ms. Hollifield, also petitioned the Council to reconsider the ordinance. He felt that it was a good idea for new developments, but that it should not be required in older residential areas. Mr. Cowart said that very few contractors knew of the ordinance.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if Mr. Cowart had been told about the ordinance at the time he received the permit. Mr. Cowart said that he had not been told and that this seemed to him an ordinary job at the time.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Horton if contractors who were not aware of the Chapel Hill ordinance were so informed. Mr. Horton said that they were not.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked the staff to report on how difficult it would be to put together any unique assumptions or requirements that Chapel Hill had.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REFER MR. COWART’S PETITION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(3b) Announcements by Council Members
Mayor Waldorf said that Public Service Company would be landscaping and repainting the area where their public service facility was, across Estes Drive from the Chamber of Commerce.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCES
(99-3-1/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following minutes, resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Resolution amending a November 9th resolution revising penalty fees for violation of ban on corregated cardboard at the landfill (R-2). |
|
c. |
Resolution that supports allowing Orange County to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through its civil rights ordinance (R-4). |
This the 12th day of October, 1998.
A RESOLUTION MAKING TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS TO A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE LANDFILL PENALTY FEES FOR INCLUSION OF OVER 50% RECYCLABLE CORRUGATED CARDBOARD BY VOLUME IN NON-RESIDENTIAL WASTE LOADS (99-3-1/R-2)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill adopted a resolution on November 9, 1998, increasing the fees for excessive cardboard in loads delivered to the Orange Regional Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Council sees the need to clarify the language and categories of penalty fees to make them consistent with the original penalty fee structure adopted in November 1995;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the penalty fees for loads that include over 50% recyclable corrugated cardboard by volume will be:
An additional $200 penalty over the $10 per load tipping fee and above the current $25 per load penalty, if a non-residential load, dumped from a pickup truck, van or trailer (10 foot maximum) is determined by landfill staff to be more than 50% recyclable corrugated cardboard by volume.
An additional $400 penalty over the $38 per ton tipping fee and above the current $38 per ton penalty, if a non-residential load dumped from a single axle tandem, tri-axle, dump truck, flatbed, other open vehicle, packer truck, compactor or roll-off box is determined by the landfill staff to be more than 50% recyclable corrugated cardboard by volume.
For the purpose of this prohibition, non-residential waste includes but is not limited to, waste generated by the commercial, institutional, industrial, construction and multi-family sectors; waste collected from bulk containers, including dumpsters, compactors, roll-off containers and dumped at the landfill from bulk container collection vehicles; and all other waste generated by the non-residential sectors that is delivered to the landfill in any type of conveyance.
All provisions of the resolution of November 9, 1998, that are inconsistent with the above, are hereby repealed.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
A RESOLUTION THAT SUPPORTS ALLOWING ORANGE COUNTY TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION
ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION THROUGH ITS CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE
(99-3-1/R-4)
WHEREAS, local governments may request local authority from the General Assembly; and,
WHEREAS, Orange County may request local legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council supports allowing Orange County to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through its Civil Rights Ordinance.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Received.
Item 6 – Nominations and Appointments (none)
Item 7 – Consideration of Ordinance Restricting Traffic Flow on Carr Street to One-Way Westbound Movement only between N. Columbia Street and Pritchard Avenue
(Second Reading)
Ruby Sinreich said, regarding the traffic flow problem, she felt that the problem’s solution should be focused on the Fire Department.
Council Member Wiggins asked if there had been any consideration to make a “right-turn only” out of Carr Street. Mr. Small said that had been considered and that it could mitigate the problem at the Fire Station, but not the problem of poor sight distance to the left.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if there had been consideration to make two blocks of Carr Street one-way, instead of just one block. Mr. Small said that they did not consider it would be necessary, but the one-way could be extended to two blocks.
Council Member Brown asked if the report would come back in 90 days. Mr. Horton said that it would probably take until fall.
Mayor Waldorf said that the Council might need to modify the ordinance. Mr. Karpinos said that this being the second reading, the ordinance needed six Aye votes to pass if it was revised, and that the Council could put in any time period it wanted.
Mayor Waldorf said that she would vote for the ordinance this time and asked Mr. Horton if the 90-day time restriction would be too strict. Mr. Horton said that he would recommend not putting in the 90-day restriction, and let the staff come back after conducting the tests and then if the Council wished, it could repeal the ordinance. He said that October 1st would be a workable date.
Council Member Evans asked if the study would include conversations with the owner whose property’s topography was the reason for the problem of the inadequate sight distance. She reiterated her objection to one-way streets in the downtown.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1, AS AMENDED ON SECOND READING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, CAPOWSKI, MCCLINTOCK, PAVĂO, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOY AND EVANS VOTING NAY.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
(99-3-1/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
SECTION I
That Section 21-10 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “One-way streets” is amended by inserting the following:
(p) Traffic on Carr Street between N. Columbia Street to Pritchard Avenue shall move only
in a westerly direction.
SECTION II
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION III
All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 22nd day of February, 1999. (FIRST
READING)
This the 1st day of March, 1999. (SECOND
READING, AS AMENDED)
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, THAT THE MANAGER REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL BY OCTOBER 1ST, AND EXPAND THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION INCLUDING SHORT STREET, AND ASKING THAT SIGHT DISTANCE AS REPORTED BY A RESIDENT BE STUDIED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mr. Horton introduced the item as a re-discussion of some issues with some new elements.
Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal discussed the financing options submitted by the Landfill Owners’ Group Financing Committee to the Council. She said that the issue had two elements: process and substance. Ms. Loewenthal said, relative to process, that the Alternative Financing Committee formed by the Landfill Owners’ Group (LOG) had requested comments from the Council. She said that the staff believed that the Council should offer whatever comments it wanted to make, directly to the County Commissioners, which was the governing authority asked by the Council to assume management of solid waste management functions. Ms. Loewenthal said that copies of their comments could be provided to Carrboro and Hillsborough, and the LOG and the Alternative Financing Committee. She said that the second element, substance, looked at how the community should finance solid waste management in the future. Ms. Loewenthal said that the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which had been adopted included three means of achieving its goal: waste prevention, collection, and processing. She said that in order to implement the SWMP, $1.8 to $3.8 million over the revenue expected from tipping fees and recycling would be needed, adding that these numbers would be refined as the Plan was refined. Ms. Loewenthal said that the Committee working with the staff and a consultant concluded that there were four principal means of raising additional funding:
1. Revenues from increased tipping fees only.
2. Additional County-wide property tax revenues.
3. Service charge to be instituted against each community to be financed as they see fit.
4. Availability fees to be charged against service beneficiaries.
Ms. Loewenthal said that the staff believed that tipping fee revenues would be a limited source of funding; that a County-wide property tax would be consistent with unifying the solid waste activities under one government, although it would not generate revenue from tax-exempt properties; that service charges levied by individual jurisdictions could have a potentially destabilizing effect on an integrated system management; and that availability fees, which would be similar to a utility, could be comprised of universal services and specific service sector costs. She referred the Council to a graph on page 33 of the staff memo, which indicated the impact that each funding option would have on the average homeowner.
Ms. Loewenthal said that the staff assessment would be a combination of the availability fee and a tax rate increase as the most reasonable, or either one of the two. She said the staff suggested that the universal services portion of the funding requirements be funded through property taxes and the service sector costs be paid through the availability fee. Ms. Loewenthal said that the staff felt this dual funding approach would be most acceptable to lenders for debt repayment and would be capable of raising the necessary revenue.
Ms. Loewenthal said that the staff recommended that the Council consider the issues and instruct the Manager to prepare a resolution for consideration at the March 22nd or April 12th meeting, and that this resolution transmit the Council’s advice to the County Commissioners, the other governing bodies, the LOG and the Alternative Financing Committee.
Council Member Brown said that Ms. Loewenthal’s assessment of this complex issue was correct and she thanked the staff for its good work. She also wanted to add the names of Dan Zipple, a citizen and an economist, and Diana McDuffie, representing Carrboro, to the committee members listed.
Council Member Foy said that all three governments should agree to the Solid Waste Management Plan’s goals for reducing waste generation by 61% by the year 2006 and should agree to some kind of funding mechanism. He said that if the County did not build a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) there would be a difference of about one-half million dollars per year in costs by the year 2008 to try to achieve the waste reduction goals. Council Member Foy said that the costs should not get shifted back to the community. He said that the Council could not impose requirements on the County if they expected them to manage solid waste.
Council Member Brown said that the chart on page 4 of the handout showed one-half million dollars in savings with a MRF and asked the staff about the possibility and difficulty of reaching the 61% goal without a MRF. Ms. Loewenthal said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do. She said that with a MRF there were only two sections for recycling, which would be more convenient for residents. Mr. Horton said that he was more pessimistic about citizens having to go through the trouble to help to achieve the 61% goals, since the process would be cumbersome if they were asked to do more recycling without a MRF.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the graph on page 33 of the memo assumed 61% reduction with a MRF. Ms. Loewenthal said it did.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the curve was scaled down could the staff tell what would be saved at 50% instead of 61%. Ms. Loewenthal said not at the present time, that it was very technical and depended on the size of the MRF. She said that the consultant was working on this.
Council Member McClintock said that she thought that the goal of 61% was very ambitious, and that an expert on solid waste management at the EPA said that it was not realistic for a community to go above 35%. She asked the staff why it had suggested a combination of property taxes and availability taxes.
Council Member Foy said that the fee was for solid waste, not just for recycling. Ms. Loewenthal said that the property tax rate was the simplest, but did not include people who were not receiving services. She said that the availability fee reached everyone receiving services, so that a combination offered something of each.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the graph on page 33 was only for recyclables or garbage or if it included everything. Ms. Loewenthal said that the implementation of the SWMP included everything except garbage and included fees over and above what was received by tipping fees. She said that the graph was meant to show the impact of the different alternative fees on the average homeowner.
Council Member Foy said that the tipping fee was still the major source of the funds.
Council Member Evans listed the elements involved: (1) construction of a new MRF for Orange County; (2) expanded recycling; (3) waste reduction; and, (4) a new Construction and Demolition (C&D) facility which did not include garbage collection. She asked if the graph on page 11, in the section on “multi-family” meant for the entire multi-family complex. Council Member Evans asked if the staff had addressed using the MRFs in Durham and RDU. Ms. Loewenthal said that the Durham MRF was being built in East Durham by a contractor for solid waste and that it would be too far away to be cost-effective for Orange County. She said that, if the community did decide to build a MRF, should one of the options be for a private company to build a “Merchant MRF,” which could be built anywhere and serve other communities, and was cost-effective and met the specifics, this would be seriously considered.
Council Member Evans asked if the Greene Tract, which the LOG bought to meet the needs of a solid waste disposal system, was considered as an asset or an income. Ms. Loewenthal said that the future of the Greene Tract was uncertain and that the staff did not make any assumptions on what the future of the Greene Tract would be.
Council Member Evans said that she was concerned about the cost on the property taxes, since Chapel Hill has a high cost of living, and felt that the Town should use its assets to keep costs down. Mr. Horton said that the Council did partially address this in a resolution adopted earlier when it agreed to keep part of the Greene Tract for Solid Waste Management.
Council Member Evans said that the other issue should be that the Town should look at both percentages as well as how much it would cost.
Council Member Foy, referring to the graph on page 58, said that the staff had done an excellent job in managing the landfill, but that, since the Town was running out of landfill room, the public needed to be educated about the fact that it was no longer going to be subsidized for waste disposal.
Mayor Waldorf said that, several years before, the Council had talked about Special Obligation Bonds when the Town was thinking about building a landfill, which would have meant considerable financial investment.
Council Member Brown said that the LOG and staff had managed the funds so well that the Town would be able to pay for a new transfer station, and with the money now available would be able to build a new Construction and Demolition waste site. She said that otherwise the Town could have had to pay a tremendous amount to pay for the purchase and development of a new landfill. Council Member Brown felt that the staff had done a good job of using the land that the Town currently owned for these facilities.
Mayor pro tem Capowski, referring to the graph on page 33, asked what the staff would recommend as the best way to encourage people to throw out less garbage. Ms. Loewenthal said that “pay-as-you-throw” was effective in minimizing what was produced and was good for garbage, but that the Town did not want to minimize recyclables, but wanted to keep them out of the landfill. She said that this would be counter-productive and the best way to reduce garbage was to prevent waste. Ms. Loewenthal said that “pay-as-you-throw” was not an option for SWMP.
Council Member Brown said that the Financing Committee did look at that, but it did not work out to be an option.
Council Member McClintock suggested that the Council wait until the County looked at the options and then fold them all in at the same time. She felt that the Council did not need to take action at the present time.
Council Member Brown said that she thought that the Council needed to give some direction to the staff.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO INSTRUCT THE MANAGER TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE COUNCIL’S MARCH 22ND MEETING, SHOWING A COMBINATION OF AVAILABILITY FEES AND COUNTY-WIDE PROPERTY TAXES AS THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED FOR FINANCING, ANTICIPATING ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI AMENDED THE MOTION TO ADD THE WORD “COUNTY-WIDE” TO THE AVAILABILITY FEE AND TO INCLUDE NON-PROFIT GROUPS IN THE AVAILABILITY FEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Foy, referring to the graph on page 69, said that these fees must be policy makers’ decisions. Ms. Loewenthal said that the table numbers were not exact.
Item 9 – Review of Comments by Advisory Boards and Commissions Regarding Ethics Guidelines and Consideration of Policy Adoption
Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall reported on the advisory board and commission comments on the proposed ethics guidelines policy. He advised the Council of a correction to the report regarding the Planning Board’s vote. Mr. Hall noted that they voted to support the recommendation of the Community Design Commission. He said that the staff had three options for the Council to consider:
1. Option 1 – Resolution 6a is an ethics guidelines policy similar to the City of Greensboro, with two modifications, to allow a process to receive direction from the Town Attorney for questions of conflicts of interest, and more description on the procedure to be excused from voting. The strengths were its flexibility and simplicity.
2. Option 2 – Resolution 6b, with minor adjustments was derived from comments from the advisory boards and commissions. The modifications in the resolution, underlined and in bold text, were: (1) in reference to “conflict of interest” voting; (2) insertion of some of the City of Greensboro broad policy language into the application form; and, (3) to allow some contact between the advisory board members and the applicant as allowed by rules of procedure and then to report back to the Board. The strengths were specificity and descriptiveness.
3. Option 3 – A new Resolution.
Council Member Evans asked the Town Attorney what the difference was in Resolution 6a, between a “separate interest” and a “private interest.” Mr. Karpinos said a “private interest” would be a personal advantage, not monetary, something that was private, not public. He said a “separate interest” was separate and apart, not related to the role as a Council Member and acting on behalf of the public good and the responsibilities as a Council Member.
Council Member Wiggins added that if there was a question, the board member could get direction from the Town Attorney.
Karen Gilmore of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, urged the Council to adopt Resolution 6a to encourage the broadest participation.
Council Member McClintock suggested a third approach which would start with Resolution 6a, and add: (1) ask only the members of the boards that make quasi-judicial decisions, making sure that the language was understandable; (2) that members would abstain from voting or discussing any matter in which the board member had personal, employment or financial interest, that they agreed to seek no personal or financial bench by means of his or her appointment and would make full and timely disclosure of any personal, employment, or financial advantage to the board chair; (3) Council would modify the board application to reflect, in a paragraph that he or she would sign, a pledge to uphold these ethical standards; and (4) that the guidelines be written in a simple way, with examples. She felt that this clarity would be helpful to the individual.
Council Member Pavăo said that he had a problem with the whole idea of the ethical guidelines and asked why the Council was doing this. He asked if there had been a problem before or if they were anticipating a problem in the future. Council Member McClintock said that both were the case for a lot of board members.
Council Member Foy said that as the community got more complex he felt that it was not a bad idea to put something in place so it was clear.
Council Member Pavăo said that if the Council was trying for the Town to remain a “village,” this was just complicating it by making more rules and regulations.
Council Member Foy said that this just committed the ethical standards to paper and had no enforcement mechanisms and no penalties, but was just a statement of expectation.
Council Member Wiggins agreed with Council Member Foy, but said that she still was not quite sure of members on boards having to inventory and list their property. She said she would like the resolution to be a simple statement of the Council’s expectation, and leave it up to the citizens to decide when to seek advice and to recuse themselves, the same as the Council Members are supposed to do. Council Member Wiggins said that the Council Members should have even higher expectations of themselves.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 6a.
Council Member McClintock asked the Town Attorney if applying this to the Council would require enabling legislation. Mr. Karpinos responded that some of the provisions in the document would require enabling legislation.
Council Member Evans, referring to Resolution 6a, asked the Town Attorney if the second line in the document meant that if a citizen of a neighborhood was serving on a board when a particular issue came before it, could not speak to the Council as a private citizen expressing his views. Mr. Karpinos said that was correct, as it was worded, the board member could not speak to the Council on this matter, as a private citizen.
Council Member Bateman suggested deleting the words “and no member may discuss…” at the end of the sentence. She said that no one should have to relinquish their rights as a citizen when agreeing to public service.
Mayor Waldorf reminded the Council that members of advisory boards had spoken to the Council repeatedly on many issues.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN OFFERED AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 6a, CHANGING PARAGRAPH 1 TO READ: “MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SHALL NOT DISCUSS, ADVOCATE, OR VOTE ON ANY MATTER IN WHICH THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR AN INTEREST WHICH REASONABLY MIGHT APPEAR TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS IN DEALING WITH PUBLIC BUSINESS. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OCCURS IF A MEMBER HAS A SEPARATE, PRIVATE, OR MONETARY INTEREST, EITHER INDIRECT OR DIRECT, IN ANY ISSUE OR TRANSACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION. ANY MEMBER WHO VIOLATES THIS PROVISION MAY BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FROM THAT COMMISSION.” ALSO, IN THE WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION, REVERSE PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY AMENDED THE RESOLUTION TO ADD A PLEDGE LIKE THE ONE ON PAGE 13 AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION.
MAYOR WALDORF AMENDED THE RESOLUTION TO READ THAT “ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANTS WILL BE ASKED TO SIGN A PLEDGE REFLECTING THE ABOVE GUIDELINES.”
Council Member Evans asked the Town Attorney if he was comfortable with these changes. Mr. Karpinos said that he was.
Council Member Foy asked who voted on a motion to recuse. Mr. Karpinos said that the remaining members of the board vote.
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, CAPOWSKI, EVANS, FOY, MCCLINTOCK, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO VOTING NAY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the following ethics guidelines policy for all standing advisory boards and commissions:
Members of advisory boards and commissions shall not discuss, advocate, or vote on any matter in which they have a conflict of interest or an interest which reasonably might appear to be in conflict with the concept of fairness in dealing with public business. A conflict of interest or a potential conflict occurs if a member has a separate, private, or monetary interest, either direct or indirect, in any issue or transaction under consideration. Any member who violates this provision may be subject to removal from the board or commission.
If the advisory board or commission member believes he/she has a conflict of interest then that member should ask the advisory board or commission to be recused from voting. The advisory board or commission should then vote on the question on whether or not to excuse the member making the request. In cases where the individual member or the advisory board or commission establishes a conflict of interest, then the advisory board or commission member shall remove themselves from the voting area.
Any advisory board or commission member may seek the counsel of the Town Attorney on questions regarding the interpretation of these ethics guidelines or other conflict of interest matters. The interpretation may include a recommendation on whether or not the advisory board or commission member should excuse himself/herself from voting. The advisory board or commission member may request the Town Attorney respond in writing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that advisory board and commission applicants shall agree to comply with the ethics guidelines as stated above.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Mr. Horton said that the Council would need to hold a public hearing on the impact tax and that the staff recommended scheduling the public hearing for March 15th.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 14 CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REGARDING AUTHORITY TO ADOPT AN IMPACT TAX. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
WHEREAS, it is the Council’s practice to hold a public hearing on potential legislative requests prior to submittal as local bills; and,
WHEREAS, the Council desires to consider proposed legislation that would establish authority to adopt an impact tax on new development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for March 15, 1999 on a proposal to seek authority from the General Assembly to adopt an impact tax on new development in replacement of the impact fee now authorized.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Council Members discussed authorizing the Mayor to submit the legislative program to the legislative delegation, and authorizing the Town Attorney to draft local bills based on the Council’s actions and discussions.
Council Member McClintock wanted to know the reason that the Chamber of Commerce had rejected the item regarding inclusionary zoning. Karen Gilmore of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce said that the Chamber would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked the item on the Horace Williams tract, and wanted to know whether it was still possible to submit a bill this year. Mr. Horton said probably not, that the Town had not heard back from the University regarding concerns on the zoning proposal, and that the Town could not proceed until this issue was resolved.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that then it would be 2001 before the Town could submit another legislative request, and wondered if it would be possible to submit the bill and also continue with the discussion.
Mayor Waldorf said that she had set up a time on the following Monday to discuss three issues with the University: (1) the entertainment tax, (2) the regulation of land use on large tracts, and (3) more information regarding alcoholic beverages regulations.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he did not think that the Council should wait for two years, and should submit the bill in this legislative session.
Council Member Brown and Mayor Waldorf asked how that was done. Mr. Horton said that they still had until March 22nd to submit the bill.
Mr. Karpinos addressed the item regarding poll workers. He said that he had contacted the Attorney for the State Board of Elections, who said that a bill for State-wide consideration would not be supported by the State Legislature, but they would not necessarily oppose a local bill. Mr. Karpinos suggested that he talk with the Orange County representatives before submitting a bill. He said that the general rule of the law was that the Chief Judge and two judges in each precinct were required to work all day, but that there was a provision in the law that authorized the Board of Elections to appoint assistants who might serve less than a full day.
Council Member Brown, referring to the impact fee, asked if there was any time when it would be better to have an impact fee rather than an impact tax. Mr. Horton said that he would think not.
Council Member Brown, referring to the inclusionary zoning issue, wondered if it would be helpful to ask the delegation to appoint a co-sponsor. Mr. Horton said that at the present time he was not aware of anyone who might introduce such legislation.
Mayor pro tem Capowski, referring to campaign contributions, asked how the actual wording of the bill would be chosen. Mr. Karpinos said that he had been working on the language, in reference to candidates from Chapel Hill, and could have it available by the March 15th Council Meeting for the Council’s approval, in time to be mailed on March 22nd.
Mayor pro tem Capowoski said that he would like a chance to comment on the details of the language. Mr. Karpinos said that he would have the language for the new bills, those never submitted before, ready by March 15th.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7, WITH THE REMOVAL OF B, AND CHANGING C TO B, AND, IN ITEM 10, TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY “…SUPPORT ANY LEGISLATION THAT MAY BE INTRODUCED…”.
MAYOR WALDORF AMENDED THE MOTION BY ADDING A PHRASE FOR ITEM 13, “…AND REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT THAT ARE AMENABLE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.”
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY AMENDED THE MOTION TO ADD TO ITEM 12, “SUPPORT FOR STATE ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND FOR LIBRARIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE, INCLUDING INCREASING THE EXCISE TAX ON REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL’S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 1999
(99-3-1/R-7)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of
Chapel Hill that the Council adopts the following legislative program for the
1999 session of the General Assembly:
A.
Items to be submitted as
local bills
Seek authority
to:
1.
Require
disclosure of names of all contributors to local election campaigns.
2.
Limit
the amount that can be contributed by a person to a local election campaign.
3.
Regulate
the timing and/or number of private development projects under construction
within a watershed.
4.
Prohibit
outdoor burning in the Town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
5.
Adopt
an inclusionary zoning ordinance.
6.
Adopt
an adequate public facilities ordinance aimed at three concurrancies: 1) public
school capacity; 2) road capacity; and 3) utility capacity.
7. Adopt an impact tax on new development in replacement of the impact fee now authorized.
8.
Revise
rules requiring poll workers to work all day.
B. Council’s position on certain issues
9.
Support
for authority to enact additional regulations regarding alcoholic beverages
including, among others: regulation of opening and closing hours; regulation of
special promotions such as “happy hours”; and local law enforcement authority
to enforce alcohol regulations currently under the jurisdiction of State
agents.
10.
Support
for any legislation that may be introduced to sponsor the convening of a
Legislative Study Commission to develop a plan for the State to achieve its 40
% waste reduction goal.
11.
Support
for creation of new revenue sources for transportation funding, including local
options and those recommended by the Governor’s Transit 2001 Commission.
12.
Support
for State assistance for local government open space acquisition and for
libraries throughout the State, including increasing the excise tax on real
property transfers.
13.
Support
for the establishment of a Legislative Study Commission to identify potential
State-wide regulations that require counties and municipalities to implement
measures that include urban growth boundaries, open space and farmland
preservation, comprehensive plans and regulation for new developments and
re-developments that are amenable to public transportation.
14. Support for allowing Orange County to include in its Civil Rights Ordinance a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We recommend the Town support Orange County’s efforts.
15. Oppose House Bill 77 that would increase retirement benefits for law enforcement officers.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Mr. Horton said that the schedule for a public housing budget must follow the federal calendar, rather than a local one.
Tina Vaughn, Housing Director, summarized the budget for the Council. She said that the proposed budget for 1999-2000 totaled $1,405,619. Ms. Vaughn said that sources for revenues were dwelling rents, $439,437; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Contributions, $786,600; and other income, $45,123; appropriation from Fund Balance for expenditures, $134,459; for a total of $1,405,619. She said the expenditure money was needed for the purchase of capital items. Ms. Vaughn said that the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board had recommended approval of the proposed budget and that the staff recommended the adoption of Resolution 8.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8 APPROVING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Sonna Loewenthal, Construction Manager for the project, reviewed the Change Order requests. She said that Resolution 9a would authorize the Manager to execute a change order for the Northern Community Park which would allow for the addition of Bermuda grass sod as well as topsoil on the park’s two soccer fields. Ms. Loewenthal said that Resolution 9b would authorize the Manager to execute a change order of up to $86,652 to add topsoil and grass seed and sprigs, but not sod, to the two soccer fields. She said that the soil was poor on the soccer fields, with too much clay and rocks, which made them dangerous playing fields. Ms. Loewenthal said that the best alternative would be sod, for maintenance, as well as the fact that seed would have to be replanted after use in the fall, and the fields would have to be closed the following summer. She said that the Council had authorized a larger contingency line because significant change orders were expected, due to the extensive grading required to build the park. Ms. Loewenthal said that the projected costs would exceed the Council’s budget by $6,000, and that when the Council received bids for the skateboard facility and the batting cages, the budget would need to be reviewed to see if they should be accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications. She said that the grant application for the batting cages had been denied and that the Council had authorized the use of an unspecified amount of the 1996 Park and Recreation bond funds for the batting cage. Ms. Loewenthal said that these bond funds were also considered for use to partially fund the aquatic/community center at the Northern Community Park. She said that the staff recommended adoption of Resolution 9a.
Council Member McClintock said that she was concerned about the sod burning out in a hot summer and that $50,000 was a lot of money and asked if the sod was guaranteed. Ms. Loewenthal said that the Council had authorized an irrigation system, that the sod was not guaranteed, but the staff expected to have competent workmanship authorized.
Council Member Bateman asked Ms. Loewenthal to address the aquatic center. Ms. Loewenthal said that the staff was looking for architects to do the conceptual plan options, for which the Council had allocated up to $50,000.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the financial requests would be ready by the budget approval time. Ms. Loewenthal felt that would be unlikely.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the construction of the swimming pools would be delayed, if the sod or seed was approved. Ms. Loewenthal said that it would be up to the Council to decide what the expenditure of $48,000 would be used for—swimming pools, skateboard facility, batting cage, sodding, or anything else they might want to put into the park.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Council would have to make a choice. Ms. Loewenthal said that there would be funds remaining after the sodding to spend on the other choices.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9a, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CHANGE ORDER.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCLINTOCK MOVED THAT RESOLUTION 9b BE ADOPTED AS A SUBSTITUTE TO RESOLUTION 9a. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council Member Bateman said that the fields should be used continuously.
Council Member Foy said that with the sod, the fields could be used continuously, and that the Town needed to use the fields continuously, without a break.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, CAPOWSKI, EVANS, FOY, PAVĂO, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CHANGE ORDER OF UP TO
$134,678, FOR THE ADDITION OF TOPSOIL AND SOD FOR THE SOCCER FIELDS, FOR THE
NORTHERN COMMUNITY PARK PROJECT (99-3-1/R-9a)
WHEREAS, various site improvements are necessary to complete the Northern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, soil conditions on the park’s soccer fields necessitate remedial action; and
WHEREAS, change orders are pending that would allow completion of needed park elements including the addition of sod on the two soccer fields;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute a change order of up to $134,678 for the Clancy and Theys Construction Company, Inc.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Council Member Foy said he hoped that the staff was considering the Energy Ordinance when designing the aquatic center.
Council Member Brown asked if the proposals had been put out for the architects. Ms. Loewenthal said that they were in the preliminary stage.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10, INCREASING THE MANAGER’S AUTHORIZATION LIMIT FOR APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE NORTHERN COMMUNITY PARK PROJECT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE MANAGER’S AUTHORIZATION LIMIT FOR APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE NORTHERN COMMUNITY PARK PROJECT (99-3-1/R-10)
WHEREAS, additional change orders are likely during the remaining construction of the Northern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, speedy processing of change orders is essential to maintain the project schedule, contain costs, and minimize conflicts between the contractors and the Town;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to approve up to $62,400 in additional change orders for the Northern Community Park without additional Council approval.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Item 13 – Consideration of Request from Carrboro to Adopt Resolutions Related to Joint Planning Agreement
Housing Director Tina Vaughn introduced a resolution which would indicate the Town’s agreement to joint planning matters related to Carrboro’s Small Area Plan for the Northern Study Area. She said that the adjustments made would:
· Maintain Transition Areas I and II in the Joint Planning Agreement.
· Exempt conditional use rezonings in Transition Area II from the density limitation that prevents rezonings until 75% of Area I is developed.
· Continue to require approval of both Orange County and Carrboro for zoning matters in the Transition Areas.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 11 RELATING TO THE CARRBORO SMALL AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN STUDY AREA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CARRBORO SMALL AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN
STUDY AREA (99-3-1/R-11)
WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Chapel Hill, and Orange County entered into a Joint Planning Agreement, dated September 22, 1987, as amended April 2, 1990; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Planning Agreement, a Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted on October 13, 1986, by all parties to the Joint Planning Agreement, and has since been amended on several occasions; and
WHEREAS, a Small Area Plan that provides a framework for the future use of land within Carrboro's northern growth area was accepted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on August 19, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Small Area Plan was the product of a four-year planning process that involved numerous public officials, planners, and residents of the affected area, culminating in a two-day facilitated workshop sponsored by Carrboro, Orange County, and Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the geographic area covered by the Small Area Plan includes Carrboro's Transition Area as identified in the Joint Planning Agreement, which area is also covered by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the recommendations contained in the Small Area Plan requires certain amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Small Area Plan was considered by the Town of Carrboro, the Town of Chapel Hill, and Orange County at a Joint Public Hearing on April 8, 1998;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the amendment of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as follows:
Section 1. Section VII of the Plan ("Overview of Implementation Strategies") is amended on page 91 by adding under the heading "Coordination with other Plans" a second paragraph to read as follows:
"Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the 'Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area,' accepted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on August 19, 1997 and revised December 1998, is specifically incorporated by reference into this Plan and supersedes any provisions of this Plan that are inconsistent with the Small Area Plan with respect to the CJDA Transition Area."
Section 2. Section V of the Plan ("Joint Planning Operating Principles") is amended on page 59 by adding the following sentence immediately under subparagraph 5:
"This density limitation does not apply to Village Mixed Use districts or Office/Assembly districts as provided for in the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area."
Section 3. Section VI of the Plan ("Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area") is amended on page 71 by adding to the first paragraph, at the end of the first paragraph, under the heading "Transition Areas," the following:
"The density limitations detailed in this paragraph do not apply to Village Mixed Use districts or Office/Assembly districts as provided for in the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area."
Section 4. Section VI of the Plan ("Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area") is further amended on page 71 by adding to the second paragraph under the heading "Transition Areas" the following:
"The Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area supersedes the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in the Carrboro Transition Area to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan."
Section 5. The amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan shall become effective upon adoption by the governing bodies of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council approves the amendment of the Joint Planning Agreement as follows:
Section 1. Section 1.2H (Definitions) of the Agreement is amended by adding the following sentence immediately under subparagraph 5:
"This density limitation does not apply to Village Mixed Use districts or Office/Assembly districts as provided for in the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area."
Section 2. Subsection 2.6E of the Agreement is amended by rewriting the second sentence as follows:
"With respect to property that
is located within the CJDA Transition area, changes in zoning classifications,
including the creation of or changes to the 'floating' conditional use districts
designed to implement the recommendations of the 'Facilitated Small Area Plan
for Carrboro's Northern Study Area, (Village Mixed Use conditional use
districts or Office/Assembly conditional use districts) may not be made unless
and until an ordinance approving such zoning map amendment has been approved
both by Orange County and Carrboro following a joint public hearing by the two
governing bodies."
Section 3. Revisions shall be made to Map #1 and Map #7 in the "Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area" to show the Transition Area I and Transition Area II.
Section 4. The amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement shall become effective upon adoption by the governing bodies of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
Mayor Waldorf said that she and Council Member Brown had a successful meeting in Raleigh with the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) officials.
Council Member Brown said that she felt that the resolution would bring citizens in and allow for a lot of discussion.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 13, APPROVING A PROCESS TO ADDRESS SAFETY, WALKABILITY AND BIKEABLIITY ON NCDOT MAINTAINED STREETS WITHIN CHAPEL HILL.
Council Member Evans asked if the Council could add a few more items to the list.
Council Member Brown said the language in the resolution left open the opportunity for additions.
Mayor pro tem Capowski thanked Mayor Waldorf, Council Member Brown, Mr. Horton and Mr. Small for their work on this matter, and asked Mr. Horton what the paragraph on page 4 of the Attachment 1 meant, concerning removing a portion of Franklin Street and a portion of Columbia Street from the State roadway system and relinquish control of these roadway segments to the Town to manage and modify as it saw fit. Mr. Horton responded that the Town would evaluate it. He said that it was not practical to take over maintenance of Airport Road and Franklin Street, that Airport Road resurfacing would eat up five years of the Town’s resurfacing budget.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROCESS TO ADDRESS
SAFETY, WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITY ON NCDOT MAINTAINED STREETS WITHIN CHAPEL
HILL (99-3-1/R-13)
WHEREAS, Town representatives met with NCDOT officials on January 28, 1999, to address the issues of concern on the Town Council and among the citizenry of Chapel Hill about NCDOT streets as related to safety for pedestrians and bikers; and
WHEREAS, general consensus was reached among those officials as to a process to address these issues;
BE
IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following
process is authorized to address safety, walkability and bikeability on NCDOT
maintained streets in Chapel Hill:
1. Convene Technical Committee and develop mission statement, goals and objectives. (To be completed within 2 to 3 weeks.)
2. Present draft mission statement, goals and objectives to Deputy Secretary King after preliminary work by technical group.
3. Present mission statement, goals and objectives to Chapel Hill Town Council as a regular agenda item by the end of February.
NOTE: Regarding numbers 2 and 3, work would include but not be limited to review of the following issues:
· Highway 54 from Fordham Boulevard to Friday Center Lane;
· Raleigh Road and Country Club;
· Irwin Road from 15/501 to Chapel Hill Town limits;
· Franklin Street from Estes Drive to 15/501;
· Weaver Dairy Road;
· safety, walkability, and bikeability on NC Department of Transportation-maintained streets with Chapel Hill as well as proposed solutions to address these issues;
· a crosswalk at mid-block on West Franklin Street;
· an all traffic stop-light at Franklin Street and Columbia Street;
· the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at and maintenance of Columbia Street between Mason Farm Road and Town Hall; and
· a traffic signal at NC 86 and Stateside Drive.
4. Technical committee develops options for ways to implement the mission statement, goals and objectives. (Work to take place during March and April.)
5. Hold public forum to get Council and citizens’ comments on draft recommendations from technical committee.
6. Technical committee incorporates Council and citizens’ comments into draft recommendations and approval from Deputy Secretary King. (Late May.)
7. Public hearing on final recommendations to Town Council in June with Council approval and approval by Deputy Secretary King.
8. Fund, schedule, and construct improvements as quickly as possible.
This the 1st day of March, 1999.
15a. Petitions by Council Members
(1) Council Member Brown
Council Member Brown amended her petition to read, instead of “at the next regular business meeting” to “at the next regular business meeting that George Alexiou and Rachael Willis could attend.” She petitioned the Council to add to the agenda an item to discuss the University’s and Triangle Transit Authority’s proposals regarding future mass transit possibilities.
Council Member Evans asked if this had been discussed with the University yet.
Mayor Waldorf said that she felt that the Council needed to decide what it was thinking and to be gathering information.
Council Member Brown felt that the Council should get in at the conceptual time to get more information and pros and cons.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI, TO ADOPT THIS PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
(2)
Council Member
McClintock
Council Member McClintock petitioned for an update from the Airport Advisory Board on the Airport issues they were working on.
THE PETITION WAS REFERRED BY CONSENSUS TO COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS AND FRED BROWN, WITH THE REQUEST THAT THEY GIVE A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL AFTER THE ADVISORY BOARD’S APRIL 14TH MEETING.
Council Member Wiggins said that they would report on the issues that had been dealt with by that time.
(3) Council Member McClintock
Council Member McClintock petitioned for an evaluation of the Community Design Commission with a brief work session with the Council, when their one-year evaluation was due.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK’S PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
The minutes of March 1, 1999 were adopted on the 12th day of
April, 1999.
__________________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC
Town Clerk