MONDAY, MARCH 15, 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 Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mayor Waldorf asked for a motion to adopt Resolution 2 amending the Council Calendar, by changing the time of the March 30, 1999 public forum from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL’S MEETING CALENDAR (99-3-15/R-2)
WHEREAS, the Council previously scheduled a public forum and hearing on the budget for March 30th at 6:00 p.m. in error; and,
WHEREAS, the normal meeting time for public forums and hearings is 7:00 p.m.;
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby reschedules the starting time for the March 30, 1999 public forum and hearing on the budget from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chamber.
This the 15th day of March, 1999.
a. Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Application for West Rosemary Street/Sunset Drive Municipal Parking Lot
Mr. Horton said that he wished to add that a proposal from the owner’s standpoint was worthy of consideration.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director, said that he would be discussing the proposal from the regulations standpoint and would focus on the application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) itself. He said that the site in question was split by the jurisdictional boundaries of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, with the focus on the eastern half of the site, which is located within the Town of Chapel Hill’s corporate limits. Mr. Waldon said that the parcel of land was in a residential zone, and that the SUP was for modifications of the zoning use to allow a parking lot right on the edge of this residential zone. He said that the Towns were trying to encourage economic development and that the staff was recommending approval of a SUP for a public parking lot. Mr. Waldon said that the staff had suggested a curb realignment to allow continuous two lanes on Rosemary Street and that wiring be underground as conditions of approval. He said that the staff recommended adoption of Resolution A.
John Hawkins, Chair of the Planning Board, said that the Planning Board had recommended, by a vote of 7-1, approval with the conditions. He said that the Board was, however, concerned about the longevity, since the lease was only for three years for use as a parking lot. He said that the Board recommended deletion of the requirements regarding curb alignment and sidewalk reconstruction requested by the Town staff, but that the dissenting voter felt that those requirements should remain.
Council Member Evans asked if the lot going down Sunset Drive was a vacant lot. Mr. Waldon said that it was.
Council Member Evans asked if adoption of the resolution would clarify the issue of police enforcement on that lot. Mr. Horton said that it would not make it any better or worse, but that the Carrboro and Chapel Hill Police Departments worked together to enforce the laws relating to the lot.
Council Member Foy asked how much this project would cost. Mr. Horton said that there was no final cost estimate, but that the staff could get the data back to the Council before it authorized final action. He said that the lease was for three years, but that it had been leased for twenty years and he did not foresee any problems, noting that the owner did not want to bind himself.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Waldon to highlight the modifications of the SUP. Mr. Waldon, referring to Resolution A, said that there were six modifications: (1) off-street parking lot; (2) smaller buffer lines on the north side; (3) smaller buffer lines on the east side; (4) smaller buffer lines on Rosemary Street; (5) no buffer lines on the west side, since that was the middle of the parking lot; and (6) livability space. Mr. Horton added that it was specifically restricted to a municipal parking lot to improve facilities for public parking in the downtown area.
Council Member Brown said that she had heard from a citizen who was concerned about the safety in this area and she would like that to be specially noted.
Council Member Bateman said that the area was now being used as an informal, non-permitted parking area and this would make it a municipally sanctioned parking lot. Mr. Horton agreed and said that it had been informal for many years.
Council Member McClintock said that she supported the idea and asked if the Town could consider planting street trees along the buffer lines. Mr. Waldon said that smaller trees were in the landscaping plans.
Council Member McClintock asked if the Town could look into the planting of larger trees.
Council Member Wiggins said that she would like to see the planting of trees balanced with safety issues, since it would be a lot easier for people to hide in larger bushes or trees.
Mayor Waldorf observed that there would be the same number of parking spaces as there were now. Mr. Horton said that this was correct, but that it would be a positive thing for the businesses.
Mayor Waldorf asked, that since the Town would be spending this money, why there could not be trees and sidewalks. Mr. Horton said that the staff could look at shade trees placed in specific locations to accommodate the issues of safety.
Mayor Waldorf said that she felt that the area should look as nice as any other parts of Chapel Hill.
Council Member Foy asked if the site plan would be adopted with Carrboro. James Harris, Economic and Community Development Director for Carrboro, responded that the plan was developed with both Chapel Hill and Carrboro and had the support of the citizens in the neighborhood. He felt that there might be a sight problem caused by street trees, but that it could be looked at.
Council Member Brown asked if the planning had been coordinated. Mr. Harris said it had.
Council Member Wiggins asked why the development plans had cost $10,000. Mr. Harris said that it was very expensive to develop plans.
Council Member Foy asked if the parking would be free. Mr. Harris said that all parking in Carrboro was free. He added that the Towns did not have control over the parking presently, but would if the lot became municipal.
Council Member Evans said that she was in favor of street trees.
Council Member McClintock said that she would like to have another meeting to discuss sidewalks.
Council Member Bateman asked if there would be any way to recoup the Town’s investment if, after three years, it was turned into something else. Mr. Horton said that there would be public improvement, lasting over a long period. He said that the lot was private property and that the owner had no interest in any option to pay Chapel Hill.
Council Member Brown pointed out that on page 5 of the memo, the last sentence gave the Town leeway in the broader sense of the use of the land. Mr. Horton said that the Town would be in control of the portion in Chapel Hill. Mr. Harris said that Carrboro had several leased parking lots and they just kept rolling over the leases when they expired. He did not think that leasing would be a problem.
Council Member Wiggins said that she was speaking on behalf of Ms. Jones, who urged the Council not to make the lot too pleasant, as that might attract even more people to congregate there.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY BE DEFINED AT 1,000 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
b. Report on Potential Sources of Funding Town’s Cost for Development of the West Rosemary Street/Sunset Drive Municipal Parking Lot
Mr. Horton said that this would be a community development/economic development project and that most of it could be paid through the Community Development Block Grant Funds. He said that a small portion, which Chapel Hill would have to pay for annual property taxes, could be paid out of the General Fund.
Council Member Brown pointed out that the taxpayers would be paying something, so this was not actually “free parking.”
Council Member Foy asked what the annual lease rent was. Mr. Harris said that it was just the property tax, which was $1,800 for both lots.
Regarding a New Zoning District
Mayor pro tem Capowski reminded the Council that this was not an application for any particular property, but just a probable zoning to be considered.
Mr. Waldon discussed the background of this type of affordable housing, a development that had been discussed by developer Sally Brown before she left the area. He said that the Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) had since adopted the idea. Mr. Waldon said the new district proposal would be called Residential-Special Standards (R-SS) zoning. He said that an ordinance would be needed to create such a district and that the Council could create a parallel Conditional Use Zoning district. Mr. Waldon said that the proposal would include a Special Use Permit (SUP) and ongoing affordability process, which would be at the discretion of the Council to permit or not.
Gay Eddy, a member of the Planning Board, said that the Board had voted 6-1 to support the new zoning category. She said that at a Public Hearing the biggest concern voiced by those attending was affordable housing.
Scott Radway said that this zoning would be a major step forward for creating affordable housing. He advised the Council to put restrictions into the zoning ordinance that would limit it to ownership and tie it to affordability and resale ability. Mr. Radway said that the staff should make sure that the ordinance would work the way the Council wanted it to work. He illustrated how requirements for a recreation area would work in ratio to the size of the plot, and advised the Council to get real clarification on how much affect the required recreation area would have on smaller sites.
John McCormick said that he had worked on “cottage projects” and was concerned about carrying on Sally Brown’s proposal for single family affordable housing. He said that requiring the recreation area might add $3,000-4,000 to each unit on a three-acre parcel. Mr. McCormick recommended that the Council allow flexibility and determine what was appropriate for each proposal. He also said that bufferyards should be clarified as to the perimeter of the area, rather than for each separate unit.
Pam Gibbard, a resident of Scarlette Drive, wanted to know if the Council would be voting on the ordinance this evening. Mayor Waldorf explained that this was just a Public Hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance. Ms. Gibbard said that she did not think increasing density would add to the ambiance of Chapel Hill, and that she spoke for a lot of people who thought it was a bad idea.
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of OCHC, introduced several of its board members, who had come in support of the ordinance. He said that in order to have affordability, higher density was necessary. Mr. Dowling said that the higher the density, the lower the costs per unit.
Ruby Sinreich said that she supported the ordinance and that it would give the Town a tool for affordable housing.
John Tyrrell, of OCHC and Habitat for Humanity, discussed the statistics from the Triangle Multiple Listing Service for Orange County, which covered the two Chapel Hill high school districts, and what the cost of an average home was in each. He offered a summation of what the average working person in the Town earned and could afford for buying a house.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Tyrrell why the banks’ figures and his for mortgage qualifications differed. Mr. Tyrrell said that the banks added other liabilities.
Joel Harper, Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said that the ordinance should be passed, that it was a good way to address affordable housing.
Pete Thorn, a contractor, said that, although he was in favor of affordable housing, high density was not needed. He said that in building affordable housing, his company did not use high density, adding that the solution was in financing. Mr. Thorn urged the Council not to pass the ordinance. He then read a letter from Grainger Barrett, expressing his opposition to the higher density zoning at the Scarlett Drive and Legion Road development, but supporting affordable housing.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Thorn what he meant by financing as being the solution. Mr. Thorn responded that the Candler Housing was possible through second mortgages, favorable to the owners.
Miles Pressler, of OCHC, said that, since the federal government had cut funding by 77% for affordable housing, the Town had to make density work, and urged the Council to support the ordinance.
Council Member McClintock asked the staff what the standard for affordability was, what kind of a SUP would be needed to spell out that the applicant agreed to some kind of affordability, and why not figure out what standard the Council wished to achieve and just use the standard SUP plus Conditional Use. She asked why bother creating another zone, adding that it would promote conflict. Council Member McClintock asked if the ordinance could be fine-tuned by the Council, which wanted to develop affordability, but wanted the developments to be compatible with the neighborhood and with livability. She asked that the Council be given the opportunity to look at the options.
Mayor Waldorf asked if it would work to have a “cottage zone” that did not set maximums and minimums.
Council Member McClintock felt that would be a good question.
Council Member Evans asked if the zoning would require a 10 foot buffer. Mr. Horton said it would.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked whether or not the zone could be a conditional zone, and if it could be applied like other zones. He asked if in a zone which would imply “use by right” could the Council say that there would only be one zone but not another. Mr. Waldon said that he would look into this question.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that that would be a powerful link for the Council to have control over a project. Mr. Horton said that the zone could not be created in the community without the authorization of the Council.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Waldon why the staff had compared the OCHC proposal to R-4, instead of the higher density zoning of R-5 and R-6. Mr. Waldon said that he would be glad to do the other comparisons, but the reason for R-4 was that the proposal was pretty close to R-5. He said that the OCHC proposal could not be done with the R-5 zoning because the existing land area for R-5 required five acres for multiple-family housing.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Waldon what the 10 foot buffer meant. Mr. Waldon said that the buffer was around the perimeter of the site.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the R-SS would require a buffer from an already developed R-2 or other residential zoning development. Mr. Waldon said that he would check that and report back to the Council.
Council Member Foy asked for an example of what .25 rather than .51 livability space ratio meant. Mr. Waldon said that the livability space was not the building or the parking area, but the green space, sidewalks, and the like. He said that the higher the density the higher the livability space and that in R-4 it was 50%.
Council Member Foy asked what livability ratio category would the Meadowmont development require. Mr. Waldon said that the SUP would be for different zonings.
Council Member Foy asked what the difference was for Meadowmont and the new zoning proposal. Mr. Waldon said that it was because of the size of the development, but he would like to look at the requirements of the Meadowmont development before answering.
Council Member Wiggins asked if she was interpreting the zoning proposal correctly to say that the zoning would have to be requested by an applicant and then approved by the Council. Mr. Horton said that she was correct.
Council Member Evans asked if the staff could report on the density of other projects in Chapel Hill so that the Council could see how they looked.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER TO THE STAFF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Brown announced an important conference in Raleigh on Wednesday, March 16, 1999, jointly sponsored by the N.C. Public Transportation Association and the N.C. Coalition for Public Transportation to hear from people involved in both groups and to hear Secretary of Transportation Tolson speak. She said that she hoped to have good attendance from the Council and the public.
Mr. Horton said that the request to seek authority from the General Assembly to adopt an impact tax in replacement of an impact fee on new development had not been on the agenda for the Public Hearing on legislative requests, so the Council needed to receive citizen’s comments and to consider it at the Public Hearing this evening. He said that the tax was basically on a per square foot basis for commercial development for closed areas, and per square foot of floor area for residential areas.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked whether it was based on the square feet of each dwelling or on the taxable value and why one or the other. Mr. Karpinos said it had been based on the Orange County tax, and that there might not be a determination of what the value was at the time of building.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked, if the concept was to tax newly constructed space within the city limits of Chapel Hill and to spend the money on municipal improvements within the city limits of Chapel Hill, if it would also include the taxation of planned extraterritorial jurisdiction. Mr. Karpinos said that the impact fee would apply outside the extraterritorial jurisdiction, but that the impact tax would not apply. He said that nexus refers to how the fee was applied rather than the amount of the fee.
Council Member Brown asked if any community had both, and was the Council requesting both by keeping the impact fee for contingency. Mr. Karpinos said that a bill could be drafted that way if the Council desired, but that the deadline for submittal of local bills to the Legislative Bill Drafting was March 24th.
Council Member Brown asked why, on page 5, Section 3, #1, the expenditure of funds was only on capital facilities. Mr. Karpinos said that the funds were to build facilities. Mr. Horton said that it would be appropriate to limit it to capital facilities, and other expenditures, such as personnel, could use other taxes. Mr. Karpinos said that this was a one-time tax. Mr. Horton said that this was based as a trade-off and raised by a member of the Legislative Delegation, as to how it would be presented.
Council Member McClintock questioned the inclusion of Section #7, and said that she would like to have the flexibility, and not write legislation so that to get the tax, the Town would have to give up the fees. She said that she would like to change #7 so that the Council would not tie its hands.
Council Member Wiggins said that this would be a new aspect for the Legislative Delegation, because the Council had not asked to have both the tax and the fees in their request.
Mayor Waldorf said that the Council could send the bill the way it wanted and the Legislature could send it back if not acceptable. Mr. Karpinos said that, as the bill was written, the Town could not have both the tax and the fees.
Mayor Waldorf reminded the Council that they had discussed both and that the Council had felt that the tax would be more equitable because it would be done on a sliding scale, and that they had talked to the Legislative Delegation with that in mind.
Council Member McClintock said that she was not as concerned since the Town could use the fees if it was not using the tax.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the bill, as written, would allow the Town to tax or collect fees from the extraterritorial jurisdictions, such as Southern Village. Mr. Karpinos said it could not. Mayor pro tem Capowski said he found that unsatisfactory.
Council Member Brown asked if the Council could still substitute other requirements, such as road improvements. Mr. Karpinos said that the Council could continue to do that.
Council Member Brown said that the Council could use substitute requirements in the extra-territorial jurisdictions.
Council Member Foy asked if Orange County and Carrboro had impact taxes. Mr. Karpinos said that a proposal for such a tax had been drawn up in the 1980s, but that the bill did not pass.
Mayor Waldorf summed up the options and asked the Council to decide which one they wanted.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED TO REFER THE ITEM TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.
Council Member Brown questioned removing Section 7 and Section 1b. Mr. Karpinos said that would leave the Council with the ability to impose both the impact tax and the impact fee.
Council Member Foy asked why the limit was for capital facilities in Section 3, part 1. Mr. Karpinos said that it had been drafted based on the original Orange County bill of several years ago.
Council Member Foy requested that it be omitted.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO AMEND THE BILL BY DELETING THE LAST SEVEN WORDS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IN SECTION 3, AND DELETING #1 IN SECTION 3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1, AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADDING AN ITEM TO THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL’S
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 1999 (99-3-15/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the
Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council adds the following item to
the list of legislative requests for the 1999 session of the General Assembly:
1.
Seek
authority from the General Assembly to adopt an impact tax.
This the 15th day
of March, 1999.
Item 4 - Review of Draft Bills Proposed for Submittal to 1999 General Assembly
Mr. Karpinos listed the four proposed new draft bills: (1) a bill on campaign financing matters; (2) a bill on burning in the Town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction; (3) a bill allowing the Town to regulate the timing of development in a watershed; and (4) a bill to allow election judges to work half-day shifts. He said that there should be an addition to the bill beginning on page 5, Sec. 1, #1. Sec. 2.6 Disclosure of Contributors to add “and Political Committee” after “other persons” in the first paragraph, second to last line. Mr. Karpinos said that the definitions were on pages 10-12 of the memorandum.
Mayor Waldorf questioned the use of the word “may” in the same section, third paragraph. She asked what it meant. Mr. Karpinos said that on page 13 of the memorandum was the statute for exemptions from reports of contributions.
Council Member Brown said that she thought it was important to have disclosure of all contributions and asked if the Council could remove the Section in the bill regarding exemptions, or if it must remain because of State law. Mr. Karpinos stated that under State law, the reporting requirement notes that a contributor of more than $100 must be disclosed. He noted that if a candidate is in the small budget category meeting the $3,000 standard, the candidate is not required to disclose the names of persons who contribute more than $100. Mr. Karpinos said there is nothing in State law that requires the disclosure of contributions of less than $100. He added that a candidate than spends less than $3,000 is not required to disclose any information. Mr. Karpinos said that with this bill, the Council would be imposing a requirement that candidates disclose contributions of all sizes, which is not in State law nor is the $3,000 exemption. He explained that if the bill were enacted by the Council, a person who has a budget of less than $3,000 might, by Council ordinance, be required to disclose the names of contributors of $100 or less, but that same person would not be required to disclose contributors of more than $100 because they are protected under State law.
Council Member Brown asked if an ordinance could be written so that all contributors, for any amount, would be disclosed. Mr. Karpinos said that the Council could say that current exemption in the State law of $3,000 would not apply and, in addition, that the Council could require disclosure. He said that he would draft a bill written to apply to Chapel Hill.
Council Member Brown said that she would like to add, on page 3, #11 in the Resolution Adopting the Chapel Hill Town Council’s Legislative Program for 1999, the word “public” before the word “transportation.”
Aaron Nelson, speaking for the University, said that he was present at the request of Mayor Waldorf to speak on the proposed entertainment tax and said that a letter from Jim Ramsey, outlining the position taken by the University, had been delivered to the Mayor’s office that day. He said that the University had two considerations: (1) that the Dean Smith Center was extremely important to UNC, and it was important that it remain viable and competitive, and that the revenue was needed to support the Center; and (2) that any money generated by an increase in ticket price would be needed to support the 28 varsity sports on campus.
Roland Giduz said that the revenue was needed for a transit service which would be used, also, by students and faculty. He said that a 3.2% increase in ticket price would not affect the sale of tickets.
Council Member Bateman agreed with Mr. Giduz, but said that she thought that the proposal would go nowhere without the support of the University, so she would not support sending the bill to the Legislature.
Council Member McClintock thanked Mr. Giduz, but she also felt that the bill would go nowhere without the support of the University, so she would not continue to pursue the proposed bill.
Mayor Waldorf said that she agreed with Council Members Bateman and McClintock.
Council Member Brown thought that the Council should at least continue to pursue the tax, in order to keep it in the public view.
Mayor Waldorf asked if any members of the Council would be interested in talking with members of the Chamber of Commerce regarding the inclusionary zoning proposal.
Council Member McClintock said that she thought it would be a good idea to try to communicate with the Chamber.
Council Member Brown felt that the Chamber of Commerce had made its position clear and the Town had it in its Development Ordinance.
Council Member Brown wanted to make an addition to the language in the Resolution Adopting the Chapel Hill Town Council’s Legislative Program for 1999. She asked that, under Section B, item #11, the word “public” be added before “transportation,” and after the word “funding” the words “for municipal bus systems” be added.
Council Member McClintock asked if the Council was going to address the sales tax matter. Mayor Waldorf said that they would, and asked if the Council was interested. She asked Council Member Evans to report on the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC).
Council Member Evans reported on the recommendations requiring enabling legislation on a local level: (1) local option sales tax; (2) local option gasoline tax; and (3) to develop strategy for funding Phase II of the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) plan and develop dedicated regional funding for mass transit.
Council Member Evans went on to read the other recommendations of the RTC:
1. Modify the State formula to accommodate growth areas.
2. Realignment of NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) divisions to match regional movement.
3. Return all money from the General Fund currently taken from the Highway Fund.
4. Raise government gas tax and provide more funds for all projects to return at least restored to the 1989 level.
5. Federal Special Project Grants should not reduce equity formula.
6. Create regional push for vanpooling telecommuting use.
7. Speak to the State Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation.
8. Restrict left turns on major corridors.
9. Investigate use of shoulders as through-lanes at peak hours on Interstate 40.
10. Seek legislation that would allow tolls as an essential part of a solution on high volume highways nominated by MPOs.
11. More equitable return on our federal gas tax money.
12. Support NCDOT feasibility study for multi-passenger lanes on Triangle freeway system.
13. Legislation authorizing private road corporations on State highway system.
14. Enabling legislation for local gas tax option of 5 cents allocated locally.
15. Support Phase I funding strategy for TTA.
16. Develop strategy for funding Phase II of TTA Transit Plan.
17. Develop dedicated funding for mass transit.
18. Support the Triangle Regional Council initiatives to establish a regional land-use strategy.
Council Member Evans read an introductory letter regarding the transportation needs of the region, which had accompanied the recommendation.
Council Member McClintock felt that there was a need to be aggressive in seeking public transit within the TTA structure, that it needed to be a Triangle-wide solution. She said that she could see a danger in pursuing the gasoline sales tax locally.
Mayor Waldorf said that was exactly what the Commission’s recommendations were saying. She said that the Town would have to take care of itself, since the State was not looking out for this area. Mayor Waldorf said that the area was facing a costly, long-term problem.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he would support a local gasoline tax and a sales tax, but not on food.
Council Member Brown said that the Council had to be clear on what it was talking about in discussing funding local transit uses.
Mayor Waldorf said that she would not limit the tax to be local.
Council Member Brown said she was talking about the 17 local municipal transportation systems, plus TTA. She said that regional transit systems would not work unless there was a good bus system within each of the local jurisdictions. Council Member Brown thought that the Council was talking about the need for more money for expansion of the local bus systems.
Council Member McClintock said that she was looking for a dedicated transit system that would be Triangle-wide, which would support Chapel Hill’s transit system just as the other transit systems had been supported by Chapel Hill.
Council Member Foy asked how much money a 1% sales tax would raise. Mayor Waldorf said in Orange County $8 million, and in Durham County, $26 million, which would be enough to make a difference.
Council Member Foy asked if the $75 million, which the TTA was looking for from Chapel Hill, would be part of a mix of local and region-wide transportation.
Mayor Waldorf said that since the State was not taking care of the region’s transportation system, the region had to take care of itself. She said that Charlotte had been authorized to levy a ˝ percent tax and that she would like to see if the region could be tacked on to the Mecklenburg County legislation for authorization to levy a ˝ percent tax.
Council Member Foy told Mayor Waldorf that if she wanted the authority to ask for a ˝ percent sales tax, then the answer was “Yes.”
Mayor Waldorf said that it might be easier to get tacked on to the Mecklenburg authorization, than to develop a plan and take it to the voters themselves.
Council Member McClintock said that it would take all the local governments working together.
Council Member Brown said that the proposal could read that the Council would support a local menu of options, including, but not limited to, a sales tax and gasoline tax for support of public transportation in Durham and Orange Counties.
Council Member McClintock said that if Durham County chose not to do it, she would like to see it kept alive.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 3, AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL’S LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM FOR 1999 (99-3-15/R-3)
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 concurrencies: 1) public
school capacity; 2) road capacity; and 3) utility capacity.
7. Adopt an impact tax on new development.
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 public transportation funding for
municipal bus systems, 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. Support working with Durham and Orange Counties for enabling legislation for a menu of options for taxes including, but not limited to, sales tax and gasoline tax for support of public transportation in Durham and Orange Counties.
16. Oppose House Bill 77 that would increase retirement benefits for law enforcement officers.
This the 15th day of March, 1999.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO MOVE THE MEETING INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Ray Gronberg, of the Chapel Hill Herald-Sun, asked the Council to delay the closed session. Mr. Karpinos said that the motion was in order.
The Public Hearing adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
The minutes of March 15, 1999 were adopted on the 12th day
of April, 1999.
__________________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC
Town Clerk